SB 94-RIGHTS-OF-WAY  1:48:31 PM CHAIR EGAN announced SB 94 to be up for consideration; the sponsor is Senator Olson. [SSSB 94 was before the committee.] KENT SULLIVAN, Attorney, Civil Division, Natural Resources Section, Department of Law (DOL), Juneau, Alaska, said the DOL had concerns with SB 94. A major concern is that it would cause the state to relinquish, on a massive scale, the RS-2477 property interests that it currently possesses. From a legal perspective, this would make the RS-2477 a far less valuable and effective tool to the state of Alaska. 1:51:24 PM This bill would cause the typical width of a state RS-2477 rights-of-way (ROW) to be narrowed from 100 feet to 60 feet. It would also greatly limit the allowed scope of uses that can occur within an RS-2477 ROW, and it would freeze RS-2477 ROW to the condition, mode, and method of use that existed at the time of its repeal in 1976. Finally, it would effectively grant private property owners veto authority over the state's maintenance and improvement activities on RS-2477 rights-of-way across private property. All of these things would have an impact to the state's RS-2477 property rights. MR. SULLIVAN explained that the state's interest in RS-2477 can be viewed as a bundle of sticks, with each stick considered separately. The width of the ROW, the right to access streams or park or camp within the ROW, and the right to pull over and take pictures are all different sticks. The state's right to maintain and improve the ROW and the different modes of transportation that can be used are also different sticks. He said the state's current RS-2477 rights are very broad and encompassing and include many, many sticks. This bill would effectively strip many of those sticks away, thereby diminishing the state's property interest. Each of those sticks has value, many of which are hard to determine. However, one that can easily be determined is the reduction in the width of the ROW from 100 feet to 60 feet. He explained that currently there is more than 20,000 linear miles of RS-2477 rights-of-way in the state, about half of which occur across private property. DNR estimates that reducing the ROW width would have a fiscal impact to the state of $48.5 million. He emphasized that that is just one of the many ways that SB 94 would reduce the state's property interests in RS- 2477 rights-of-way. 1:53:13 PM MR. SULLIVAN said that another reason for concern is whether or not the bill would cause a problem with regard to the state's obligation to preserve the public trust and constitutional requirements to protect access to state land and resources. RS- 2477 is a valuable tool in achieving access to state land and resources and this bill would effectively give up a lot of rights that the state possesses in that regard. 1:53:33 PM SB 94 would also create a disparate patchwork of property interests. RS-2477s frequently cross state, private and federal land, and this would create a different set of rules that apply to private land from the rules that apply to federal land and state land. There would be different widths, different management rights and responsibilities, and different scope of uses that would apply to each of the underlying land ownerships. That is extremely problematic from a management perspective and from a public use perspective. He said that SB 94 arguably would promote litigation because it creates a mechanism whereby if a private landowner objects to maintenance or improvement activities by the state it would first have to go to mediation and if it didn't go to mediation it would have to go to court. The concern is that this would hold up the state's ability to do those things until that legal action took place. 1:54:54 PM MR. SULLIVAN noted that the state is currently involved in litigation with Ahtna Corporation over the Klutina Lake Road. Under SB 94 anywhere that the Klutina Lake road RS-2477 ROW overlaps a 17(b) easement, the state would give up its RS-2477 ROW and accept a 17(b) easement. The problem is that there are many distinctions between 17(b) easements and RS-2477 rights-of- way. In that situation the bill would create a ROW that's a mix of the two. He explained that one of the problems with the 17(b) easement is that they are much more restrictive; they are owned, possessed and managed by the federal government as opposed to the State of Alaska. The state doesn't have control, and the federal government can unilaterally terminate a 17(b) easement without the state's say-so. Another concern is that the 17(b) easement can only be used for travel. You can't stop along it and take pictures or have day-use sites or camp or launch boats or any of the typical things that you can sometimes do on an RS-2477 ROW. Mr. Sullivan emphasized that it would basically circumvent all of the state's defenses and assertions that it has made in that case. 1:56:51 PM GEORGE HELMS, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, said he is a private landowner who would be affected by SB 94. It appears that the state can unilaterally add arterials to these RS-2477s, meaning if additional trails had been created across private property that connect to an existing RS-2477 the state has asserted that it can unilaterally collect those as well. In many cases, the state's routing goes on what are actually privately funded improvements and the state would basically be taking these free of charge for public use. This includes the cabins and outhouses on private land. SB 94 would help to curb some of that behavior and protect the private property interests on the adjacent properties. For those reasons he said he supports the bill. CHAIR EGAN, finding no further comments, held SB 94 in committee.