Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/19/2004 03:37 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 19, 2004
3:37 p.m.
TAPE(S) 04-41
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Scott Ogan, Chair
Senator Thomas Wagoner, Vice Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Ralph Seekins
Senator Ben Stevens
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 35(L&C)
Relating to bovine spongiform encephalopathy, commonly known as
mad cow disease, and country-of-origin labeling for meat
products.
MOVED CSHJR 35(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 132
"An Act removing the Old Minto townsite from the Minto Flats
State Game Refuge; and authorizing the Department of Natural
Resources to convey certain land at the historic Old Minto site
to the Minto Village Council."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 35
SHORT TITLE: MAD COW DISEASE/COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KERTTULA
02/05/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/05/04 (H) L&C, RES
02/16/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/16/04 (H) Moved CSHJR 35(L&C) Out of Committee
02/16/04 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/18/04 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 5DP 1NR
02/18/04 (H) DP: CRAWFORD, LYNN, GATTO, DAHLSTROM,
02/18/04 (H) GUTTENBERG; NR: ANDERSON
02/25/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/25/04 (H) Moved CSHJR 35(L&C) Out of Committee
02/25/04 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/26/04 (H) RES RPT CS(L&C) NT 6DP 1NR 2AM
02/26/04 (H) DP: KERTTULA, GUTTENBERG, LYNN, HEINZE,
02/26/04 (H) DAHLSTROM, MASEK; NR: WOLF; AM: GATTO,
02/26/04 (H) STEPOVICH
03/18/04 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/18/04 (H) VERSION: CSHJR 35(L&C)
03/19/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/19/04 (S) L&C, RES
03/30/04 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/30/04 (S) Moved CSHJR 35(L&C) Out of Committee
03/30/04 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/31/04 (S) L&C RPT 2DP 2NR
03/31/04 (S) NR: BUNDE, STEVENS G; DP: DAVIS,
03/31/04 (S) FRENCH
04/19/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 132
SHORT TITLE: MINTO FLATS GAME REFUGE & TOWNSITE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) LINCOLN
03/10/03 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/03 (S) CRA, RES
04/07/04 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
04/07/04 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/14/04 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
04/14/04 (S) Moved CSSB 132(CRA) Out of Committee
04/14/04 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
04/15/04 (S) CRA RPT CS 4DP NEW TITLE
04/15/04 (S) DP: STEDMAN, LINCOLN, WAGONER, ELTON
04/19/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Beth Kerttula
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 35.
Ms. Aurora Hauke
Staff to Representative Kerttula
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HJR 35 for sponsor.
Chief Andy Jimmie
Village of Minto AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 132.
Mr. Wyn Menefee, Chief of Operations
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Ave.
Juneau, AK 99801-1724
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 132.
Mr. Joe Joiner
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Ave.
Juneau, AK 99801-1724
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 132.
Mr. Matt Robus, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5226
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 132.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-41, SIDE A
CSHJR(L&C) 35-MAD COW DISEASE/COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELS
CHAIR SCOTT OGAN called the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:37 p.m. All members were present. The
first order of business to come before the committee was CSHJR
35 (L&C).
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA, sponsor of HJR 35, said that her
staff person would present the bill.
MS. AURORA HAUKE, staff to Representative Kerttula, said that
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is commonly known as mad
cow disease and can be contracted by humans who eat tainted
meat. The disease is invariably fatal and there is no known
cure, but it can be prevented and this resolution supports the
USDA's efforts to prevent the spread of mad cow disease and
encourages earlier implementation of country-of-origin labeling
for beef so consumers can make informed decisions in the
marketplace.
SENATOR FRED DYSON asked what the rationale is for the present
implementation date of 2006.
MS. HAUKE replied that retailers had some concern that it might
be costly to label their products.
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS asked which countries have diagnosed
bovine spongiform encephalopathy in their animals.
MS. HAUKE replied the U.K., Canada, Italy, France and the U.S.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked how labeling beef with the country of
origin would assist in protecting public health.
MS. HAUKE replied that 42 other countries have country-of-origin
labeling, which is used as a tool for customers to decide which
country they are going to buy meat from in case of a recall
announcement.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA added that some countries use bar codes
so that one could know exactly where a cow came from. If a
recall were needed, it could happen quicker.
SENATOR DYSON asked when in the slaughter-packaging process does
the label get attached.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied that she couldn't remember if it
happens when it's packaged by the farmer or at the point of
sale.
MS. HAUKE added that a lot of companies are already labeling
beef and more companies are labeling food. It happens at the
slaughterhouse but, if not there, at the retailer.
SENATOR DYSON said there is some evidence that the last three
infestations in the Northwest had to do with feed. He asked if
the labeling they are trying to encourage is going to take place
on animal feed.
MS. HAUKE replied no. Congress has legislation to label animal
feed and pet food products, but it is not currently labeled.
However, use of prions that cause the disease has been banned in
the feed since 1997.
SENATOR DYSON remarked that the infestation happened despite
that. He asked how labeling anticipated dealing with herds from
Montana, Idaho, North Dakota and Western Washington that go to
Canada to feed lots and mix with the herds there.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she didn't know.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS informed them that that's the reason for the
delayed implementation - because of the problem of identifying
the sourcing of the product versus the labeling. The language
says labeling goes on at the point of processing. The same thing
is happening with implementation of seafood labeling.
SENATOR DYSON speculated that the reason for the delay might be
to get the present crisis behind us.
SENATOR STEVENS agreed that that is part of the delay, but there
is also inefficiency in the tracking of the sourcing of the
products.
SENATOR GEORGIANNA LINCOLN said that she didn't think any of
this discussion would change the resolve factors.
SENATOR DYSON said the date causes him concern, "But they're not
going to do what we say anyways."
SENATOR STEVENS responded that the delegation was opposed to the
extension of the implementation date for all products that come
into the country and they were successful in keeping it for
seafood. A lot of effort is focused on accelerating the
implementation dates back to their original schedule. The
reality is that labeling is going to cost packaging plants and
they don't want the bill to pass.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA acknowledged that Senator Stevens'
office in Washington D.C. had sent her that explanation as well.
CHAIR OGAN asked if the delegation supports accelerating the
implementation.
SENATOR KIM ELTON moved to pass CSHJR 35(L&C) from committee
with the attached zero fiscal note. There were no objections and
it was so ordered.
4:52 - 4:54 - at ease
SB 132-MINTO FLATS GAME REFUGE & TOWNSITE
CHAIR SCOTT OGAN announced CSSB 132(CRA) to be up for
consideration.
SENATOR GEORGIANNA LINCOLN, sponsor, thanked the committee for
hearing this bill. It transfers ownership of a little under 32
acres of state land, formerly held by the Village of Minto, from
their old town site to the Native Village of Minto. The changes
from the original bill added legislative findings on page 1 and
state statute verbatim for clarity.
She indicated that the old Minto is 60 miles from Fairbanks, but
it is only accessible by river or snow machine. Because of
flooding and erosion, the old Minto was moved to a site called
New Minto, about 40 miles north of the old site in 1971. Old
Minto was founded in 1915 by Chief Charlie and is still used
today by villagers for traditional purposes - the cemetery,
church and buildings are still there. A portion of the land at
the old site has been under charitable lease to the Interior
Athabascan Culture Heritage Education Institute for a youth
encampment until 2052. The Old Minto Alcohol Recovery Camp is
there as well. "Whole families move to this site in support of
sobriety."
SENATOR LINCOLN said she could have had 40 people testify for
the bill, but felt that Chief Andy Jimmy would be able to answer
questions in a shorter amount of time. She noted a new fiscal
note had been prepared reflecting that the legislature directs
DNR to "convey" a parcel instead of "selling" it.
SENATOR DYSON said he had documents that say the site has been
used for hundreds or thousands of years and asked why she said
it was founded in 1915.
SENATOR LINCOLN answered that both of those statements are
probably true, because the people who used the area long ago
didn't have a permanent settlement and migrated through
following the fish and game. The permanent settlement came in
1915.
CHAIR OGAN asked why the land wasn't selected under the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
SENATOR LINCOLN replied when the village was moved from the old
site in 1971, it reverted back to the federal government. The
federal government reserved the rights when it conveyed the land
to the state.
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS asked if the entity she wants to transfer
title to, the Village of Minto, is a corporation.
SENATOR LINCOLN replied that it's not a corporation, but a non-
profit village incorporated under state law.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if it is different from an ANCSA village
corporation.
SENATOR LINCOLN replied:
Absolutely.... as all of the villages are. The village
corporation [ANSCA] is owned by shareholders who may
or may not ... reside within that community. They
could reside worldwide. It's a for-profit corporation.
The Native Village of Minto, which this is being
transferred to, is the non-profit village, which is
recognized under state law. So, the Native Village of
Minto is only those residents that reside within that
community. And it's a non-profit.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if this village corporation has title to
land in other places.
SENATOR LINCOLN replied no.
SENATOR WAGONER read a letter from the Tanana Chief's Conference
about having a family recovery camp there, but he thought the
old Minto site is not inhabited. He asked how many people live
in the old Minto.
SENATOR LINCOLN guessed about 200 to 300 people. Different
groups of troubled youth come in - the same with the alcohol
recovery camp. There are no permanent residents. People still go
from the new Minto site to old Minto. "There's a lot of movement
back and forth between these two sites."
SENATOR WAGONER asked if the family and alcohol treatment
programs are temporary and not year-round. "What kind of
facilities do they have?"
SENATOR LINCOLN said the alcohol recovery and youth camps might
run 12 months out of the year, but not full time. They might
have a schedule like three months on and one month off or
something like that.
CHAIR OGAN asked Chief Jimmy if he wanted to testify.
CHIEF CHARLIE JIMMIE, Village of Minto, responded that the
alcohol camp is open all year, but closes temporarily because of
flooding. The cultural camp starts June 1 and runs through late
August. People fish out of the river all summer long. People
moved to the new site actually in 1969, but they moved onto
Native allotment land that was given to the village.
CHAIR OGAN asked if the council he represents is a 502(3)(c).
CHIEF JIMMIE replied yes. He said that people from new Minto
like to go back to the old Minto and work with the two camps
that help people with problems.
MR. WYN MENEFEE, Chief of Operations, Division of Mining, Land
and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), said he would
let Joe Joiner answer the question of why the land was not
selected through ANCSA. He explained that DNR has a lease on the
land that can be transferred.
What we see is the village is getting what they need
out of it; DNR actually gets removed out of the
picture through this conveyance so we don't have any
sort of reverter. It's basically a straight
conveyance.
MR. JOE JOINER, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), said:
The reason why the Village of Minto under ANCSA did
not select the old Minto Village site was because
under ANCSA they were only allowed to select within a
certain area around the village. The old Minto site
fell beyond that boundary. So, they were not legally
allowed to select a site.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked what legal entity would have been entitled
to that selection if it would have been eligible for selection
under ANCSA.
MR. JOINER replied he thought it would have been the Native
Village Corporation.
MR. MENEFEE replied that it would have gone to the Native
Village of Minto, but it would have to have been in the right
area.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he was confused about how these legal
entities exist. He asked if the Native Village of Minto existed
as a state chartered corporation prior to the land claim
selections of ANCSA.
MR. MENEFEE said he couldn't positively answer that. ANCSA is
the point at which corporations were created.
SENATOR SEEKINS stated that he was trying to figure out if this
land could have been selected under ANCSA and, if so, what
corporate entity would have been eligible to select it.
If it was being transferred to the Boy Scouts of
America, would it have to be noted that was a non-
profit corporation? Are there any overlapping
authorities? I'm just trying to find out where this
land then falls in terms of jurisdiction under state
law.... I guess I'm trying to figure out if we're
giving it to private individuals or if we're giving it
to a recognized political subdivision of the state of
Alaska or if we're giving it to a shareholder-owned
corporation or if we're giving it to a group of people
and under what definition do they exist?
MR. MENEFEE responded:
The call on who to convey it to is actually a call of
Senator Lincoln's office, because they have done some
investigation on this on whether the corporation of
the Native Village of Minto is capable legally to own
land and they have said yes and so they are conveyable
to that. The state conveys land to municipal entities
and also just to general private landowners.... So, on
the state side of things we don't have any problem at
all conveying it to any of those entities as long as
they are capable of owning land. So, we don't make a
differentiation.
So, with Senator Lincoln's office, we don't have an
interest in determining whether they really are under
some level of a native corporation. The only thing we
are interested in is are they legally capable of
owning land. Through their investigation they have
discovered they are capable of owning land. Therefore,
if the legislature directs DNR to convey the land, we
will convey it to that entity. The repercussions of
whether they are a governmental organization, a
corporate entity or a private landowner doesn't matter
to us.
On all land that we convey, we take out the standard
mineral reservation that then protects the geothermal,
the mineral estate, all the locatable minerals - oil,
gas.... But, because we would be conveying it outside
of our normal statutes... we needed to put that in
there - because we are required to keep that in state
ownership.... It is the choice of the legislature who
we give it to.
SENATOR LINOCLN said when this site was permanently established
for this band of Athabascans, it had flooding and erosion
problems. The state would not help with any conservation
programs and the village had to move. It went through years of
looking for a new site and two individuals donated two native
allotments.
So, they didn't want to move from the old site, but
they were forced to move. It could not have gone to
them under ANCSA, because [it] was still held by the
Athabascan Indians of Minto. Their gravesite was
there; their church was there. They still wanted to
utilize it as their village. So, they still have this
real strong connection to the old Minto site.... It's
the same community. They wanted access to have control
over what happens to that old site.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he wasn't against this concept at all, but
he is concerned about the status of the property and what
jurisdictional laws it is under.
TAPE 04-41, SIDE B
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the Department of Law had done some
research on how a transfer would affect the jurisdiction over
the land by the state of Alaska.
SENATOR WAGONER said he wanted to know how many other situations
there are like this in the state and if there are other
instances, how are they going to be handled. He was thinking
specifically about Shishmaref.
MR. MENEFEE said he didn't have a list of all the different
villages that might be in the same boat. "I don't know that it's
so prevalent that we've gotten into any sort of case of figuring
out a program to deal with it. Basically, it would be on a case-
by-case basis, because having to move a village is relatively
rare.
SENATOR WAGONER said he knew of two or three sites on the Kenai
River that were villages at one time that no one lives at any
longer. At least one of the sites has not been taken in
allotment lands or claims or anything else.
MR. MENEFEE related that many different people come to DNR who
want land for different reasons. What makes this situation stand
out is that the people had historical use of the land and the
use is a public type of use. Even though the camps are exclusive
to some types of people who need to be in this program, it's
still a community for helping Alaskans. If a lodge were put
there, the committee might feel differently, but he didn't think
this should be turned into a broad program.
CHAIR OGAN concurred saying the village site was first moved
because of erosion problems, and he was concerned that if cabins
were built for programs or whatever, that the state would
eventually be looked to for bailing it out again.
SENATOR WAGONER said he had no problem with the intentions here,
but he would be more comfortable with covenants as to what the
land is going to be used for.
What I see - there's 30 some acres of land that's part
of the state public domain now and I don't have any
problem at all for what the Village of Minto wants to
use it for, but I don't want it to be put in some
place where it can be sold or traded or anything else
and then have a commercial purpose or a residential
purpose - sold to somebody. I guess if we put in a
covenant that had Division of Lands write up a
covenant for it, I would have no problem with it.
SENATOR SEEKINS said the terrain is very flat and marshy and
it's right alongside the Tanana River. While it's not
intrinsically beautiful, there are a number of boats on it.
The use to which it's being put right now is very
valuable in my opinion and I absolutely agree with
being connected with where your grandparents and your
ancestors are buried. I have no problem with that....
But, I do have some of your concern on the erosion
problems as they come forward.
He wanted to know what entity has title to the new Minto.
SENATOR LINCOLN replied, "Native Village of Minto.... They were
deeded over the Native allotments. That is their land that they
are sitting on."
SENATOR SEEKINS said he wanted a legal opinion on the issue of
transferring the land to a legal state charter entity and that
in so doing the state loses no jurisdiction over the land.
SENATOR KIM ELTON said he heard this bill in a previous
committee. If the concern is that there may be future liability
because of natural things that may or may not happen, the land
is already being used and those liabilities may be there whether
or not the land is owned by the state or is owned by the Minto
Corporation. He guessed if the land is transferred, it may
lessen the liability of the state. Also, if covenants were added
beyond the normal restrictions (mineral and right-of-way rights,
etc.) that are already in this transfer, it flies in the face of
what the state has been saying about disposal of state lands for
many other purposes.
I don't know that we want to restrict future uses or
future kinds of things. Those kinds of decisions ought
to be made by the private landholder and that's one of
the reasons many people have advocated that we dispose
of state lands. So, I'm arguing against covenants that
could be applied prior to the transfer.
SENATOR WAGONER responded that the reason he is talking about
covenants is because the land belongs to the State of Alaska
currently and it is being transferred to the new Village of
Minto.
I don't know how we get by without a fiscal note,
because there's a value of some kind to that land. I
have no problem giving that to them for the purposes
they state in here. The problem I would have is for
additional purposes at a later date....
SENATOR ELTON said his impression is that the bill, itself,
doesn't specify purposes to which the land can be put to use.
Adding further covenants would be restrictive on the landholder
and he is arguing against that.
MR. MENEFEE broke in relating that his division considered both
covenants and reverter clauses.
Covenants are just as you're talking about - you
needn't do this on that land. A reverter is if you
don't do that on that land, then the state gets it
back. We actually, at DNR, don't want either one of
those and I'll give you the reasons why. I'll start
with the reverter. First of all, we don't want a
reverter because if we hand this over and convey this
land, we don't want to - 10, 20, 30 years down the
line - have various buildings and structures that have
been built in any different way that the Native
corporation feels fit on their own land to build.
Potentially - I'm not saying that they're going to do
it - it could have hazardous materials, there or
whatever. What we have run into with receiving lands
back from people is it creates a management headache
down the line. So, at DNR we really don't want to get
land back that we don't have control over through a
lease or something. And we don't want the management
of the lease in this case.
MR. MENEFEE explained that the state already has an approved 55-
year lease. That lease gets conveyed to the Native Village in
the bill, because of the rehabilitation center. The lease
encompasses the full 30 acres. If the village council decides to
stop that lease, that's fine; but up to that point, the lessee
has a right to continue on with that lease through the village
corporations. That essentially locks in the public purpose for
at least 55 years. "So, in our view, there wasn't necessarily a
need for a covenant because of the lease issue and in our view,
both of those were actually covered." He continued:
If you go beyond 55 years or the lessee decides
they don't want to do it anymore, the state
doesn't have control. But the question is, "Well,
do you want to revert it at that point or do you
not want to revert it? It was much easier to say
no covenants, we transfer the lease."
SENATOR SEEKINS said his only concern is that if the state
transfers the property (that is susceptible to flooding, which
makes it difficult for people to subsist there) and keeps itself
in the position of having liability for future damage from a
flood, that would not be in the best interests of the state.
Most people know that threat exists and are willing to take that
risk with the structures they have there now.
SENATOR WAGONER attempted to clarify who the parties of the
lease are and asked if the recovery camp is operated by the
Tanana Chief's Conference, not the Village of Minto. If that's
so, the lease would be between the Tanana Chief's Conference and
the new Village of Minto, not the state.
SENATOR LINCOLN said that is correct.
CHAIR OGAN asked what the fees are for a year.
MR. MENEFEE replied that it is charitable and the state doesn't
receive any money for that.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked to hold the bill long enough for him to
get together with the sponsor and the Department of Law and
answer his questions so he can feel comfortable.
SENATOR LINCOLN said it would be helpful to talk about how it
became part of the Minto Flats State Game Refuge in 1988.
MR. MATT ROBUS, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), explained that the
land is managed by DNR, but over the top of that is its status
as a state game refuge since the late 80s when the entire Minto
Flats chunk of state land was incorporated into a refuge. All
user groups agreed that the main thing was to insure that the
wildlife would be able to perpetuate and be used by people. The
old Minto site was a parcel that was included in the refuge and
has been part of its management, as well as DNR management, ever
since.
Basically, my purpose here today is to say if this 31
acre site is removed from the refuge, it, in our view,
doesn't have any negative impact on management of the
refuge resources and in fact there are things that go
on at that site that are permitted through the
Department of Fish and Game. I know we've issued
permits to take a moose for the cultural camp in some
years. Whether or not this site remains in the refuge,
that's going to still happen through the Department of
Fish and Game. So, we're pretty comfortable with
managing the refuge. With the site removed from the
refuge, we don't see any substantial impacts.
CHAIR OGAN said he would hold this bill until Wednesday and
adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|