02/27/2015 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR4 | |
| HB115 | |
| HJR6 | |
| HJR7 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 115 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 27, 2015
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative David Talerico, Co-Chair
Representative Mike Hawker, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Geran Tarr
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Benjamin Nageak, Co-Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Urging the United States Congress to provide a means for
consistently and equitably sharing with all oil and gas
producing states adjacent to federal outer continental shelf
areas a portion of revenue generated from oil and gas
development on the outer continental shelf to ensure that those
states develop necessary infrastructure to support outer
continental shelf development and preserve environmental
integrity.
- MOVED HJR 4 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 115
"An Act relating to the transfer of public land from the federal
government to the state and to the disposal of that land; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 115(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6
Supporting the introduction and enactment of federal legislation
acknowledging that the federal government is financially
responsible under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act for
the remediation of contaminated land subject to conveyance under
the Act; urging the United States Department of the Interior to
implement the six recommendations to identify and clean up the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act lands in its 1998 report to
the United States Congress; and urging the President of the
United States and the United States Congress to remediate and
make free from pollutants lands in the state conveyed under the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
- MOVED HJR 6 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7(FSH)
Opposing the proposed designation of an Aleutian Islands
National Marine Sanctuary.
- MOVED CSHJR 7(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 4
SHORT TITLE: OFFSHORE OIL & GAS REVENUE SHARING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SADDLER
01/21/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/15 (H) RES
02/27/15 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 115
SHORT TITLE: AK SOVEREIGNTY;US TRANSFER LAND TO ALASKA
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CHENAULT
02/18/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/15 (H) RES, FIN
02/27/15 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HJR 6
SHORT TITLE: FEDERAL CONTAMINATION OF ANCSA LANDS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MILLETT
01/21/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/15 (H) RES
02/27/15 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HJR 7
SHORT TITLE: OPPOSE ALEUTIAN NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EDGMON
01/21/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/15 (H) FSH, RES
02/05/15 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 120
02/05/15 (H) Moved CSHJR 7(FSH) Out of Committee
02/05/15 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/06/15 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 7DP
02/06/15 (H) DP: HERRON, FOSTER, MILLETT, JOHNSON,
ORTIZ, KREISS-TOMKINS, STUTES
02/27/15 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE DAN SADDLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the sponsor, introduced HJR 4.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the sponsor, introduced HB 115.
TOM WRIGHT, Staff
Representative Mike Chenault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Chenault,
sponsor, answered questions regarding HB 115.
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 115, answered
questions.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARISSE MILLETT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the sponsor, introduced HJR 6.
KRISTIN RYAN, Director
Division of Spill Prevention & Response
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HJR 6, answered
questions.
NICHOLA RUEDY, Acting Executive Director
Alaska Native Village CEO Association (ANVCA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 6.
JULIANNA SHANE, Director
Tanadgusix (TDX) Corporation
St. Paul Island, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding HJR 6.
JIM ARNESEN, Corporate Lands & Regulatory Manager
Eklutna Incorporated
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 6.
TIM CLARK, Staff
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HJR 7(FSH) on behalf of
Representative Edgmon, sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:24 PM
CO-CHAIR DAVID TALERICO called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Olson,
Seaton, Josephson, Tarr, Hawker, and Talerico were present at
the call to order. Representative Herron arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HJR 4-OFFSHORE OIL & GAS REVENUE SHARING
1:04:59 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO announced that the first order of business is
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Urging the United States Congress
to provide a means for consistently and equitably sharing with
all oil and gas producing states adjacent to federal outer
continental shelf areas a portion of revenue generated from oil
and gas development on the outer continental shelf to ensure
that those states develop necessary infrastructure to support
outer continental shelf development and preserve environmental
integrity.
1:05:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAN SADDLER, Alaska State Legislature, as the
sponsor, introduced HJR 4. He said HJR 4 calls on the federal
government to enact a fair and sensible system of federal
revenue sharing from the outer continental shelf (OCS). Oil and
gas development in federal areas can be a boon for the federal
government in terms of jobs, revenue, and a secure source of
domestic energy, but it also creates costly impacts on the
states bordering that development. The government recognizes
these strains and in some states it shares the proceeds to help
the states offset the costs of the improvements and services
necessary for safe, responsible development. In onshore areas
the federal government shares 50 percent of the revenue with the
state in which that production occurs. In states within three
miles of near shore, the federal government shares 27 percent of
the revenue. In four states bordering the Gulf of Mexico the
federal government shares 37.5 percent. However, under current
federal law, the State of Alaska would receive 0 percent share
of any federal revenues from oil produced in the Chukchi and
Beaufort seas or other OCS areas. Industry, the federal
government, and the State of Alaska know that the federal waters
off the North Slope hold tremendous amounts of oil. Recent
environmental impact statements for Shell Oil's efforts in that
region indicate that over three billion barrels of oil are
likely to be produced. But just as onshore development in the
North Slope required investments in infrastructure, development
of Alaska's offshore resources of oil and gas will also require
investments. Investments will need to be made in infrastructure
like roads, ports, airports, utilities, and housing, as well as
in services including public safety, search and rescue, oil
spill response, and environmental monitoring and mitigation.
The $2.75 billion generated since 2006 by the Chukchi and
Beaufort seas federal OCS lease sales would have brought $1
billion to the State of Alaska had the same revenue sharing
provisions applied to Alaska as apply in the Gulf of Mexico.
Now is a good time to have this kind of resolution passed and to
see Alaska's best chance of OCS revenue sharing in Congress.
Alaska's senior U.S. senator, Lisa Murkowski, is now the chair
of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Senator Murkowski sponsored legislation last year to offer a
37.5 percent share of OCS revenue, but it didn't get through and
it's anticipated the senator will try again. He said HJR 4 will
send a strong message from the State of Alaska to the U.S.
Congress to support legislation to enact a fair and sensible
system of federal revenue sharing.
1:08:14 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO opened public testimony and closed it after
ascertaining no one wished to testify.
1:08:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he has supported this in the past.
Fair and equitable distribution needs to be there, so he
appreciates the sponsor bringing this resolution forward.
1:09:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER moved to report HJR 4 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HJR 4 was reported from the
House Resources Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:09 p.m. to 1:11 p.m.
HB 115-AK SOVEREIGNTY;US TRANSFER LAND TO ALASKA
1:11:58 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 115, "An Act relating to the transfer of public
land from the federal government to the state and to the
disposal of that land; and providing for an effective date."
1:12:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), labeled 29-LS0587\E, Bullard, 2/26/15, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version E was
before the committee.
1:12:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, Alaska State Legislature, as the
sponsor, introduced HB 115. He read from the following written
sponsor statement [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 115 enacts the Transfer of Public Lands
Act. The bill requires the United States to transfer
title to public lands to Alaska on or before January
1, 2017. This bill would also provide that if the
state transfers title to public lands to which it
received title from the federal government under the
Transfer of Public Lands Act, the state shall retain
50 [percent] of the net proceeds received by the state
and pay 50 [percent] of the net proceeds the state
receives to the federal government.
Although there are a number of state and federal
constitutional issues regarding the provisions
contained within the bill, this bill was introduced
since the 25 year deadline from the time Alaska was
admitted into the Union as provided within the
Statehood Act. PL 85-508 is long past. I believe
there is a breach of contract as well as a breach of
good faith since the state is still entitled to and
awaiting the transfer of the remaining 5.5 million
acres. Thus far the state has received patent to
about 99.5 million acres.
The state has 10.9 million acres of selections from
which to receive its 5.5 million acres of entitlement
as well as 10.2 million acres of top-filings that may
eventually become selections should applicable
withdrawals be lifted. These withdrawals come in
numerous varieties of federal action and processes.
Two common executive branch actions that created
withdrawals are Public Land Orders (PLOs issued by the
Department of the Interior and Executive Orders issued
by the President.
At this time according to the Department of Natural
Resources, there are approximately 222 million acres
within Alaska under federal ownership.
This bill is modeled after a Utah house bill, [House
Bill] 148.
1:16:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that according to a legal memo there
are several constitutional problems. He inquired whether some
of those are cured by the proposed committee substitute.
TOM WRIGHT, Staff, Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska State
Legislature, replied not so much according to the legal memo.
He said he doesn't think there is anything in the legal memo
that the sponsor could fix in this bill, but a lot of the
adaptations within the proposed CS were recommendations by the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The sponsor hasn't tried
to hide the constitutional issues and that is why the legal memo
was distributed.
1:17:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired whether anyone from the federal
government is available to answer questions.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO responded there is not.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR understood that the process is being worked
through but that the surveying process for the selected land
takes a lengthy amount of time and could be the reason for some
delays. She asked whether the sponsor has any information in
this regard and whether there is anything else outside of the
bill that the state can do to speed up the process.
MR. WRIGHT deferred to DNR for an answer.
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), concurred that the
surveying and transfer of the lands does take some time, but the
key issue for DNR is that so much of the potential federal lands
the state would like to choose from are locked up in these
federal withdrawals and Public Land Orders (PLOs). To speed up
the process the state needs the federal government to lift those
withdrawals so there is a bigger pool of lands for the state to
choose from.
1:20:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON observed that page 2, [line 2], of the
CS references the Ninth Amendment [to the Constitution of the
United States]. He inquired why this is included given it is a
Bill of Rights amendment related to personal liberties. He
understood the Ninth Amendment essentially says something like
"the previous eight amendments may not constitute all the
liberties of the American people."
MR. WRIGHT answered the Ninth and Tenth amendments are closely
aligned. The Ninth Amendment goes to the enumeration in the
constitution of certain rights that shall not be construed to
deny or discourage others retained by the people. The Tenth
Amendment deals with more of state rights. The sponsor thought
both were inclusive into the state sovereignty issue and didn't
want to miss anything.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON recalled that the first draft of HB 115
excluded national parks, but Version E doesn't do that. He
asked whether the Utah measure excluded national parks like
Zion, Bryce Canyon, Arches and other famous national parks that
he has yet to see.
MR. WRIGHT replied the Utah bill did exclude the national parks.
He said there are some national park lands that DNR would like
to have access to, according to the information he received.
However, he said, the sponsor is having second thoughts on the
national park inclusion, especially with these times of
budgetary deficits about whether the sponsor would want to take
those over. Thus, the sponsor is further exploring national
parks, but that is as far as the sponsor is willing to go at
this point in time.
1:22:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER understood the language in the legislation
doesn't mandate that the State of Alaska accept such things as
national parks, it allows the state and the agency to make
decisions whether it's in the best interest to accept land that
is made available to the state.
MR. WRIGHT responded correct.
1:23:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON drew attention to Version E, Section 4,
page 2, lines 26-27, which states: "LIFTING OF PUBLIC LAND
ORDERS; PERIOD FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION AND RESOURCE EVALUATION."
He inquired whether that is the federal government withdrawing
its claim for subsurface resources within the areas the federal
government is going to continue to own or is just exploration
ability so the state can evaluate the land and say which the
state would want to choose.
MR. WRIGHT answered it is to allow DNR to do evaluations as to
what mineral resources may be there and what might be available
for development. He deferred to DNR to answer further.
MR. FOGELS replied that those withdrawals and Public Land Orders
keep the state's selections from attaching. If they are lifted
and then the state's selections attach, the state can get
conveyance to the lands in fee simple subsurface and surface.
1:24:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR requested examples of these areas where
there is a Public Land Order that the state would want withdrawn
so that that land would become available for state selection.
MR. FOGELS responded one example is PLO 5150, which withdrew a
corridor along the original Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS)
right-of-way. He said it is a very big corridor that does not
need to be withdrawn from selections since the pipeline has been
constructed. Recently, as part of DNR's strategic and critical
minerals initiative, some work was done in that area and some
information was found that leads the department to believe there
is potential for rare earth elements along that corridor. So,
that is clearly a place that DNR would like to see the PLO
lifted so the state's selections can attach and the state could
get ownership of that land.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked what the process would be without this
legislation for communicating with the federal government about
a situation like the aforementioned.
MR. FOGELS answered that DNR's process, which it has been
undertaking, is to communicate with the Secretary of Interior
and asking the Secretary to lift these Public Land Orders. At
an Alaska regional level DNR works with the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) as BLM does its resource management plans, and
in those plans DNR will ask BLM to recommend lifting those
withdrawals as part of the BLM plan. But ultimately the
Secretary of Interior must put pen to paper to lift those
withdrawals.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired whether there is a process outside
of BLM's land use plans in which DNR can ask for a withdrawal
and, if so, whether that process requires the federal government
to respond to the state within a certain amount of time and
issue a decision within a certain amount of time.
MR. FOGELS replied DNR is not aware of any formal process with
any kind of structure to it, so it would be simply a matter of
writing letters. He said DNR has asked and has not gotten
anywhere.
1:28:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER observed the fiscal note currently in the
committee packet goes to the original bill and is not relevant
to Version E. He inquired whether Mr. Fogels can assure him
that a forthcoming fiscal note for Version E will also be an
indeterminate note.
MR. FOGELS responded he does not see any change in DNR's fiscal
note with Version E.
MR. WRIGHT added, "except for the analysis."
MR. FOGELS stated that except for the analysis the fiscal note
would be indeterminate.
1:29:12 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO opened public testimony on the bill. No one
in the committee room or on line wished to testify.
1:29:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR commented that it would be helpful to have a
federal government representative respond to questions at the
next hearing on the bill.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO understood Representative Tarr's concern, but
said he hopes to move the bill today. He said he has dealt with
this from a municipal level before and has typically found the
federal government to be nonresponsive.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON thanked the sponsor for considering the
national park issue, saying that that would be beneficial to the
bill because it would take off the table something that could be
very controversial and draw a number of people to oppose the
bill. He encouraged the sponsor to make the bill cleaner. He
added that when the federal government isn't listening, action
needs to be taken to hopefully stimulate some listening.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO confirmed the bill has another committee of
referral.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said that in his recent four years of
experience on Arctic policy, federal employees will talk as long
as it is not being recorded in a committee hearing. He said he
therefore thinks it unlikely that the committee would get their
comments on the record.
1:31:55 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO closed public testimony.
1:32:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said this bill speaks to some real and
perceived frustration. But, he added, he thinks he wouldn't
recognize his home state anymore if the bill were to pass. He
related that the legal opinion he has says Article XII, Section
12, makes this unconstitutional and describes why.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed her disappointment that in under
10 minutes the committee is going to work on and move a bill
that is substantial in nature and that has far reaching impacts.
She offered her hope that the committee can be more thoughtful
in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said he doesn't feel at all uncomfortable
about moving this bill forward as it sends a message to the
federal government that he is comfortable with. It is a
statement from the House Resources Standing Committee that it
believes that Alaska's statehood entitlement needs to be
fulfilled and fulfilled in a timely basis.
1:33:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER moved to report the proposed committee
substitute for HB 115, Version 29-LS0587\E, Bullard, 2/26/16,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
forthcoming indeterminate fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected, saying she thinks more time should
be given to deliberating the bill and hearing from additional
people. She pointed out that typically when the legislature
wants to communicate with the federal government it is done by
resolution rather than statute. So, if that is truly the intent
of this legislation, the committee should be considering a
resolution, not a far-reaching statutory change.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON also objected, stating he doesn't think
this needs more attention and he doesn't need to hear from the
federal government. He said he doesn't think there would be any
point in having Yosemite, Yellowstone, the Great Smoky
Mountains, all of it, and it is for those reasons he will be not
recommending the bill's passage.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER noted that the bill places provisions into
uncodified law, so it doesn't carry the full weight and
authority of a statute. As uncodified law it is an even
stronger statement than a simple resolution.
1:35:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, in response to Co-Chair Talerico,
maintained her objection by nodding yes.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Herron, Hawker,
Olson, Seaton, and Talerico voted in favor of the proposed CS
for HB 115. Representatives Tarr and Josephson voted against
it. Therefore, CSHB 115(RES) was reported out of the House
Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:36 p.m. to 1:39 p.m.
HJR 6-FEDERAL CONTAMINATION OF ANCSA LANDS
1:39:34 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6, Supporting the introduction and
enactment of federal legislation acknowledging that the federal
government is financially responsible under the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act for the remediation of contaminated land
subject to conveyance under the Act; urging the United States
Department of the Interior to implement the six recommendations
to identify and clean up the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
lands in its 1998 report to the United States Congress; and
urging the President of the United States and the United States
Congress to remediate and make free from pollutants lands in the
state conveyed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
1:39:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHARISSE MILLETT, Alaska State Legislature,
sponsor, introduced HJR 6, noting it is not new and is something
the legislature has passed every session. She said the
resolution has to do with the 1971 Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA), which was to finish the land claims with
the tribal communities in Alaska. However, the tribes did not
anticipate that these transferred lands would be contaminated
and the tribes would be unable to fulfill their agreement with
the federal government on what those lands would be used for,
which would be revenues for each one of the corporations.
Contaminated land doesn't generate revenue, it costs revenue.
This is being seen more and more. Places like Unalakleet and
Tyonek have had severe problems with contaminated lands that
were conveyed to them. Many corporations are currently in the
process of having lands conveyed and have stopped conveyance due
to finding out that the lands have all sorts of waste from every
agency within the federal government. A 1998 Government
Accountability Office report for the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) talked about over 600 contaminated land sites. It offered
six recommendations for the BLM, Department of Interior, and the
ANCSA corporations to work together to find some solutions. Not
one of those six recommendations has been acted upon.
Representative Millett said she has been to Washington, DC,
several times on this issue. It is a huge problem for the
Native corporations; they have been unable to fulfill their
promise to their shareholders because their lands are
contaminated and it is costing millions of dollars. The
resolution speaks to that, to the 1998 report, to where the
lands are, to how many sites are contaminated, and encourages
the BLM and the Department of Interior to take this seriously
and move forward. While they have taken full ownership of the
contamination, it is the remediation part that they need to
fulfill their promise to.
1:42:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether Representative Millett has
met with Interior Secretary Sally Jewell on this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT replied she has not met with Secretary
Jewell on this issue, but has met on this issue with her
undersecretary, the Alaska BLM, and with Alaska's BLM
representative in Washington, DC, but, it has not risen to that
level with Secretary Jewell. She reported that the ANCSA
corporations have also not met personally with Secretary Jewell
on this issue, but have met with her undersecretary and a few
other people. She believed this issue has come up in
conversations with U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski on the record in
one of the energy committees two weeks ago. Secretary Jewell
knows this is an issue and that the federal government has taken
responsibility for it. The problem being run into with the
legacy wells is that both the State of Alaska and the federal
government are in deficit spending, so it another opportunity
for the federal government to plead poverty. The ANCSA
corporations have offered to go back and renegotiate some of the
conveyances and trade land for clean land, which has been met
with some skepticism within the BLM. Solutions are being worked
on, but it is an arduous process that is going to take a long
time and she doesn't want to stop the pressure for Alaska's
first people who should have the opportunity to prosper from the
land that they were promised.
1:44:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related that both he and Representative
Millett had the opportunity to meet with Secretary Jewell and
the Northwest [Arctic] Leadership Team (NWALT). He requested
Representative Millett to share what Secretary Jewell said about
travesty wells.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT replied she and Secretary Jewell had a
lengthy discussion about travesty wells, the federal
government's response to travesty wells, and the opportunity for
working together on travesty wells. Secretary Jewell seemed
under the impression that the $50 million received by Alaska in
the "Helium bill" was enough to clean up approximately 87
travesty wells, some of which are buried under lakes or under
landslides. There was a spirited discussion that $50 million
was a good start, she said, but is not anywhere near the cost of
the remediation of the wells. Secretary Jewell also pointed out
that as part of mitigation efforts in leases for oil and gas
companies on federal lands on the North Slope, the producers
will now have incorporated into their lease agreement and their
plan of production that the mitigation cost will be absorbed by
the producers. Representative Millett said she found this to be
very hypocritical because it will add an incredible cost to the
production of oil and gas from federal lands. It is known that
the oil producers partnering with the State of Alaska did not
create the problem on the land. She further reported that
Secretary Jewell seemed to think there was some value with the
legacy wells that were drilled from 1941-1988. Representative
Millett said she is unsure what type of well data is had on
those wells. When the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission (AOGCC) looked at a list of the most dangerous wells
to the least dangerous wells, it had a very difficult time
getting information from the BLM on those wells and there are
still some wells on which AOGCC has no data. She said she
therefore found it unusual that Secretary Jewell would say that
there was a benefit cost savings for the oil producers to have
the information on legacy wells when a lot of that well data is
missing and is from 1941. Some of those wells are uncased
surfaced wells that went down 100 feet and some went down 1,000
feet. Some were very lightly drilled permafrost testing wells.
Secretary Jewell has a different view than Alaskans who think
that someone making a mess should take the responsibility of
cleaning up that mess.
1:48:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked Representative Millett to relate why
Secretary Jewell is so rigid on legacy wells.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT responded she pointed out to Secretary
Jewell the hypocrisy of the federal government and the mission
of the Department of Interior, which is to be the caretaker of
the land. However, Secretary Jewell wouldn't take the
opportunity to be the advocate for cleaning up the legacy wells.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON stated he and his colleagues did not hear
an apology from Secretary Jewell.
1:50:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked how many of the 650 sites were
contaminated before about 1965.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT answered she is unsure as it has been
difficult to inventory the actual contamination dates and the
agency that did the contamination. Alaska has been a test site
for nuclear tests, oil and gas drilling, permafrost, pipeline
stabilization, and for every scientist who wanted to try
something detrimental to the environment. While there is some
inventory, it was long before 1971 and the ANCSA settlement.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired whether Ms. Kristin Ryan of
DEC knows the chronology of these sites and whether they predate
approximately 1965.
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Spill Prevention & Response,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), replied she
doesn't know; the information on a lot of these sites is patchy.
Of the over 2,000 contaminated sites that the division is aware
of, over half are on federal land. Monitoring the cleanup of
contamination of federal lands is a huge portion of DEC's work.
Many of those sites are not in active remediation, DEC is aware
that they are there and is working with the appropriate federal
agency to start remediation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the other 1,350
contaminated sites predate the mid-1960s.
MS. RYAN responded she does not know.
1:53:47 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO opened public testimony on HJR 6.
1:54:20 PM
NICHOLA RUEDY, Acting Executive Director, Alaska Native Village
CEO Association (ANVCA), stated ANVCA is a nonprofit
organization with the mission to advocate for policies which
will benefit and protect the interests of Alaska Native village
corporations with local, state, and federal government. Of the
more than 200 Alaska village corporations, more than 80 belong
to ANVCA. The millions of acres conveyed by the federal
government to Native corporations included land with various
types of hazardous waste and toxic materials that pose
significant health risks to humans, animals, and the
environment, such as arsenic, asbestos, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), mining waste chemicals, and petroleum. During
the 1990s the Alaska Native community raised concerns that the
department was conveying contaminated lands to Alaska Native
corporations. In 1995 Congress directed the Secretary of
Interior to prepare a report of the extent of the contamination
on lands conveyed pursuant to ANCSA. In December 1998 the
department submitted a report to Congress entitled "Hazardous
Substance Contamination of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
Lands in Alaska." In that report the department acknowledged
conveying more than 650 contaminated sites to Alaska Native
corporations. The report identified numerous types of hazardous
wastes, including known carcinogens, on conveyed lands.
Recognizing the unjustness of conveying the contaminated lands,
the department recommended an approach to identify contaminated
sites and the cleanup needs on ANCSA lands, including six
recommendations. Research indicates the department has made no
effort to implement any of those six recommendations. Through
correspondence on July 31, 2013, the department's office in
Alaska acknowledged that "the department has had no further
involvement after the report was submitted." In a September 18,
2013, letter to Secretary Jewell the Alaska Delegation stated
that after 15 years the department has had sufficient time to
act on its six recommendations and said it is imperative that
progress be made now to clean these lands so they can fulfill
the goal of the aboriginal lands claims settlement. On July 10,
2014, Secretary Jewell responded to the Alaska Delegation that
the department is committed to determining which sites are
identified in the 1998 report conveyed under ANCSA in order to
continue follow-up on the six recommendations. There has yet to
be any major cleanup. The ANVCA stands behind HJR 6, which
supports enactment of federal legislation acknowledging that the
federal government is financially responsible under ANCSA for
the remediation of contaminated land.
1:58:14 PM
JULIANNA SHANE, Director, Tanadgusix (TDX) Corporation, related
that in the 1870s the federal government started commercial seal
harvest. In 1984 the federal government finally phased out of
the Pribilof Islands. The TDX Corporation then went after
cleaning the contaminated sites that were located on the island.
It took $76 million and 11 years to clean up the property before
the corporation allowed conveyance to it. But it is possible
and TDX trained its people to do it. The property conveyance
will hopefully be finished within the year. She said she is
here to say that it can be done by the local corporations, the
village corporations, to train their own people. This is
something the elders fought for and the rest of the people have
continued the fight. The cleaning funds were received through a
special act, so it can be done. To hear it is being said that
certain areas cannot be cleaned or different lands should be
selected does bring an issue to those leaders who are charged
for the health and welfare of their people. If it is within the
vicinity of a village these items and areas need to be cleaned
and not buried.
2:00:50 PM
JIM ARNESEN, Corporate Lands & Regulatory Manager, Eklutna
Incorporated, shared that Eklutna Incorporated has received a
number of contaminated properties through the ANCSA provisions.
One of the more prominent contaminated areas is in the heart of
the Native village of Eklutna. This was the former U.S. Army
site of Camp Mohawk and the BIA Eklutna boarding school. Over
the last few years the Native village of Eklutna has obtained
Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation (NALEM) program
funds, which are available for tribes. Some investigation and
remediation has been done with those funds, but more remediation
is needed. Eklutna Incorporated worked with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers through the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS)
program to investigate and attempt petroleum product remediation
in the former Camp Mohawk area within the existing gravel pit at
Eklutna. Contaminated gravel that smells like diesel is not
saleable. That effort is continuing and Eklutna is awaiting
further results from testing done this last year and further
remediation activity in that area is expected.
2:02:29 PM
MR. ARNESEN said another contaminated site inherited by Eklutna
Incorporated is the original Matanuska town site. The area was
used by a former polluter from Anchorage who is now deceased.
The polluter had placed a large number of contaminated materials
of various kinds and quantities all around the properties and
migration of the liquids is believed to have occurred. The old
Donnelly Homestead was also inherited through ANCSA and Eklutna
Incorporated spent substantial funds about 15 years ago to clean
up the surface. The cleanup operation consisted mostly of
surface debris from Donnelly who operated an illegal junkyard on
the property; the property is impaired and may require more
remediation in the future. Eklutna Incorporated has property
next to the Birchwood Recreation and Shooting Park where over
the years trespass shooters have polluted the property with
lead. Eklutna Incorporated is in the process of determining the
levels of contamination which will guide the remediation effort.
More recently Eklutna Incorporated discovered potential
contamination believed to be emanating from the old Peters Creek
landfill, which has been closed for some time. Eklutna
Incorporated is in the process of determining the extent of
potential contamination and type of remediation needed there
under testing protocol. Eklutna Incorporated has received other
properties that have been used by various governmental units and
as the corporation goes to develop its properties it has run
into contamination and/or bury pits where debris of one kind or
another have been disposed of. The cost of remediating these
impaired properties has been a financial burden upon Eklutna
Incorporated and has at times prevented, stopped, or delayed a
project. Eklutna Incorporated believes that contamination
issues on its lands due to past use by former governmental units
have not been addressed fully or satisfactorily. Impacted lands
are a burden and a big hurdle for many economic development
opportunities upon Native lands. Eklutna Incorporated supports
HJR 6, which asks the U.S. Congress to pass legislation to hold
the federal government responsible for remediation of
contaminated lands received under ANCSA. Eklutna Incorporated
believes the federal government has a financial and moral
obligation to remediate the contaminated sites and reimburse
funds spent by Native corporations on the contaminated sites.
2:05:12 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO closed public testimony on HJR 6.
2:05:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON related that in a subcommittee meeting
with the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), there
was some recognition by DEC officials that many of these sites
date to World War II and the Cold War when everyone was in a
hurry to win what they were striving for. It is interesting
that a lot of the national environmental laws came into effect
in the mid-1960s. The one that some people find most
troublesome is the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
where federal agencies cannot start any project without doing at
least an environmental assessment and perhaps an environmental
impact statement (EIS). Many of these acts were signed by
President Richard Nixon. He said he only notes this because he
commends Representative Millett for her actions, but it is an
interesting thought that these statutes have made things better.
What hasn't gotten better, and he shares Representative
Millett's concern, is the delay in all of this. It is
unconscionable, he said, and something needs to be done.
2:06:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON appreciated the sponsor bringing forth
this resolution, saying this needs to be looked at throughout
the lands of Alaska and the responsible party should be the one
in charge of ensuring that remediation takes place.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO concurred.
2:07:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER moved to report HJR 6 out of committee
with individual recommendations [and the accompanying zero
fiscal note]. There being no objection, HJR 6 was reported from
the House Resources Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:07 p.m. to 2:11 p.m.
HJR 7-OPPOSE ALEUTIAN NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
2:11:29 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO announced that the final order of business is
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7, Opposing the proposed designation
of an Aleutian Islands National Marine Sanctuary. [Before the
committee was CSHJR 7(FSH).]
2:11:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER moved to adopt CSHJR 7(FSH) as the working
document. There being no objection, CSHJR 7(FSH) was before the
committee.
2:12:13 PM
TIM CLARK, Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon, Alaska State
Legislature, explained the resolution declares the legislature's
opposition to a nomination made by the Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a group based in
Washington, DC, although the group does have some membership in
Alaska. The nomination was to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for the creation of what would
be called the Aleutian Islands National Marine Sanctuary. Since
introduction of the original resolution PEER has received a
rejection from NOAA. However, because NOAA also invited PEER to
revise and perhaps resubmit its nomination, Representative
Edgmon, in consultation with many of the communities that are
upset about this issue, decided to go forward with the
resolution. He said CSHJR 7(FSH) includes acknowledgment of
this recent development.
MR. CLARK noted that many of the communities located within the
proposed sanctuary boundary are in large part upset that they
were never consulted by any of the groups that brought forth the
nomination to NOAA. The communities are perhaps more upset by
the contents of the nomination itself, which would have put an
area of 554,000 square nautical miles into a sanctuary. That
area is nearly equal to the entire land mass of the state of
Alaska. It would have locked in all current restrictions on
fishing and other commerce in that whole vast area. Also, it
would have sought significant new restrictions that likely would
obstruct present and future economic activity. Those additional
restrictions are enumerated pretty specifically in PEER's
nomination document.
2:15:28 PM
MR. CLARK continued, stating the nomination also disregards an
extraordinary amount of conscientious and effective
environmental stewardship that already exists in the region.
More than 227,000 square nautical miles of the Aleutians are
already designated critical habitat conservation area. The
Aleutians are subject to the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council's Aleutian Islands Fishery Ecosystem Plan which brings
heightened scientific scrutiny to assess the health of the
ecosystem to ensure fisheries sustainability and the well-being
of the communities there. Also, the fisheries and ecosystems
are rigorously managed under the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G), the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and
Alaska's Board of Fisheries, as well as research and management
through the National Marines Fisheries Service. For shipping
there is an ongoing Aleutian Islands Risk Assessment, which
includes development of the Optimal Response System for towing,
salvage, and [spill] response capabilities. Offshore oil and
gas development risk is very low following President Obama's
December [2014] withdrawal of more than 32 million acres in the
North Aleutian Basin from exploration leasing.
MR. CLARK reiterated that there was almost no local consultation
to Representative Edgmon's knowledge. He said there is no local
support for the proposed marine sanctuary that Representative
Edgmon is aware of from having talked with many people
throughout his district. On the contrary, Representative Edgmon
has received either resolutions or official letters [of
opposition] from the Aleutians East Borough Assembly, the
federally recognized [Agdaagux Tribe] of King Cove, the Akutan
Traditional Council, the City of Sand Point, and the City of
Adak, among others. The City of Unalaska recently voted to
oppose this and any such similar nomination.
2:18:42 PM
MR. CLARK, in response to Co-Chair Talerico, reviewed the
sectional analysis regarding the changes between HJR 7 and CSHJR
7(FSH). He said the substantive revisions include inserting an
additional "whereas" clause on page 3, lines 3-7, which notes
NOAA's response to PEER, as well as addition of the phrase "or
any similar nomination" in the "resolve on page 3, line 10, in
order to address the possibility of the submission of a revised
nomination by PEER or other entities.
2:19:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER remarked that basically the legislature is
sending a very strongly worded letter from the State of Alaska
expressing its opinion to decision makers in Washington, DC. He
observed that the distribution list for the resolution includes
the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, the Under Secretary of Commerce
for NOAA, along with Alaska's congressional delegation. He
asked whether the sponsor thinks this is a wide enough
distribution.
MR. CLARK replied that the nominating process in the marine
sanctuary program exists in NOAA and the distribution is
addressed specifically to the people overseeing the nominations
program. He said the sponsor would welcome suggestions from the
committee if there are any.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER suggested the sponsor may want to consider
whether the net is cast wide enough.
MR. CLARK thanked Representative Hawker.
2:21:32 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO opened public testimony on HJR 7 and closed it
after ascertaining that no one wished to testify.
2:22:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON brought attention to the map delineating
the boundary of the proposed marine sanctuary. He said it is
incredulous that the group did not consult any local people, the
indigenous people, or the State of Alaska. He noted the
proposed boundary completely surrounds Nunivak Island, Kuskokwim
Bay, and Bristol Bay, and therefore it is not only the Aleutian
Islands. Given that the federal government is to consult with
the State of Alaska and Alaska's indigenous groups in its Arctic
strategies, he commended the U.S. Department of Commerce for
doing this correctly. It is important for the state to always
insist on being consulted when decisions are being made so far
away from Alaska, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he echoes Representative Herron's
comments. Drawing attention to the U.S. Department of
Commerce's letter of January 23, 2015, he noted it came 31 days
after the submittal. In its letter, he observed, the department
highlights the lack of local participation as well as no
clarification of support from the federal and state agencies
listed as potential management partners. He commended the U.S.
Department of Commerce.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that management of the [Alaska
Maritime National Wildlife Refuge] would overlay into the
proposed sanctuary designation. He said he hasn't heard from
anyone that the refuge designation is problematic in any way and
he thinks there has been broad general support for the refuge.
The visitor center for the refuge is located in Homer and gives
a picture of those kinds of ecosystems. He suggested that the
sponsor may want to include that overlapping responsibility as
the resolution moves along.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO related that he had a discussion with the
sponsor this afternoon and the sponsor is quite passionate about
this. He offered his appreciation to the sponsor for contacting
him to explain this issue.
2:26:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER moved to report CSHJR 7(FSH) out of
committee with individual recommendations [and the accompanying
fiscal zero fiscal note]. There being no objection, CSHJR
7(FSH) was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:27 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
2:29:57 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.