Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
05/02/2022 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB204 | |
| HB120 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 204 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 120-STATE LAND SALES AND LEASES; RIVERS
1:31:18 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL 120, "An Act relating to state land; relating to
the authority of the Department of Education and Early
Development to dispose of state land; relating to the authority
of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to
dispose of state land; relating to the authority of the
Department of Natural Resources over certain state land;
relating to the state land disposal income fund; relating to the
leasing and sale of state land for commercial development;
repealing establishment of recreation rivers and recreation
river corridors; and providing for an effective date." [Before
the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB
120, Version 32-GH1634\B, Radford, 4/23/21 ("Version B"),
adopted as the working document on 4/30/21.]
1:31:46 PM
GRACE ERVINE, Staff, Representative Josiah Patkotak, Alaska
State Legislature, provided a recap of the committee's 2021
discussions on HB 120, [a bill by request of the governor]. She
related that HB 120 was introduced in March 2021, was heard
twice by the committee in 2021, and the committee adopted a
proposed CS, Version B, to match SB 97. She said the committee
received amendments from members in the administration and a
letter of concern from three Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) regional corporations. Over the interim, she further
related, the governor's office, the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), the Department of Law (DOL), the affected ANCSA
regional corporations, Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs), and
Chair Patkotak's office worked to address those concerns, and
the product of those conversations is a new proposed committee
substitute, Version G.
1:32:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt the proposed CS for HB
120, Version 32-GH1634\G, Bullard, 4/22/22 ("Version G"), as the
working document.
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:33:17 PM
MS. ERVINE noted Version G would be the second CS adopted by the
committee [Version B being the first]. She explained that the
most important change made by Version B was removal of the
Susitna recreational rivers provision, which remains removed in
Version G. She then spoke from the document in the committee
packet, titled "CS House Bill 120 (RES) Version G Summary of
Changes from Version B to Version G," which read as follows
[original punctation provided with some formatting changes]:
Title:
Adds "relating to the Alaska Native Vietnam veteran
land exchange" to the title of the bill.
Section 13, AS 38.05.086:
Subsection (c): Adds a requirement that the
commissioner specifically notify ANCSA regional
corporations and village corporations when classifying
or reclassifying land for disposal.
Subsection (p): Creates a new subsection requiring the
commissioner to reserve easements and rights-of-way on
land after giving ANCSA regional corporations, village
corporations, tribes, municipalities, and other
interested parties the opportunity to review those
reservations. Those reserved easements and rights-of-
way should include trails with traditional uses and
significance.
Subsection (q): Adds to the list of considerations in
making a best interest finding subsistence uses, fish
and wildlife habitat and populations and their uses,
and historical and cultural resources.
Section 17, AS 38.50.010(b):
Identifies AS 38.50.015 as an exception to the general
land exchange statutes.
Section 18, AS 38.50.015:
Creates an Alaska Native Vietnam Veteran land
exchange. Under this section, an Alaska Native Vietnam
veteran who has received a native allotment under 43
U.S.C. 1629g-1, section 1119 of the John Dingell Jr.
Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, may
apply to the department to exchange that allotment for
state land. This section lays out the process by which
land can be exchanged and valued.
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Version G was before the committee.
1:36:44 PM
CORRIE FEIGE, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), provided a reintroduction of HB 120 via a PowerPoint
presentation [hard copy included in the committee packet],
titled "HB 120 State Land Sales and Leases." She displayed the
first slide and said the intent of HB 120 is threefold: 1) To
facilitate economic growth and further utilization of Alaska's
lands; 2) To expand agricultural development and food production
to facilitate greater food security in Alaska; and 3) To ensure
that the Alaska Native veterans who served their country during
the Vietnam War are given equal opportunity to realize their
promised federal land grants in areas of the state that are
meaningful and connected to their home regions.
COMMISSIONER FEIGE moved to slide 2, "AUTHORITY TO DOT&PF AND
DEED TO DISPOSE OF STATE LAND," and said HB 120 achieves this
intent through four housekeeping measures. She said the first
measure is that HB 120 would streamline land conveyance
processes by the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT&PF) and the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) by allowing these agencies to make land
conveyances without DNR needing to facilitate that process once
those agencies have determined that they no longer need the
lands conveyed to them for a specific purpose once that specific
purpose has been satisfied. She proceeded to slide 3,
"CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS," and said the second measure is that HB
120 would align state and local municipal road development
standards, allowing for more lands to transfer into private
hands and an expansion of the local tax base more quickly.
Commissioner Feige continued to slide 4, "INCREASE LAND DISPOSAL
INCOME FUND CAP," and said the third measure is that HB 120
would increase the cap of the Land Disposal Income Fund from $5
million to $12 million to offset the impacts of inflation that
have occurred since the fund's creation in 2000. The fund, she
explained, is used to develop acreage for sale, including the
construction of the access roads in areas of the state where
that land will be offered. She displayed slide 5, "ADDITIONAL
SALE AUTHORITIES," and said the fourth measure is that HB 120
would align DNR's land sale and contracting practices to mirror
standard real estate contract terms more closely. She explained
that this includes such things as moving the standard contract
term from 20 years to 30 years and allowing modern online sale
practices like online land options.
1:39:55 PM
COMMISSIONER FEIGE addressed slide 6, "COMMERCIAL USE LAND
SALES." She said HB 120 seeks to encourage economic development
by creating a new land sale program for land intended to be used
for commercial purposes within qualified opportunity zones or
areas designated for commercial development. She related that
since the bill's hearings in 2021, DNR has met with Native
corporations and other stakeholders who rightly have concerns
about sufficient notification and public comment processes
available to private landowners located in the vicinity of a
proposed commercial land lease or sale. She further related
that DNR has addressed the concerns regarding the ability of
individuals to buy tracts of land either individually or
adjacent to other private land and then subsequently effectively
bar access through or around those parcels thereby creating a
barrier to the access and use by the public of general state
lands lying beyond.
COMMISSIONER FEIGE spoke to slide 7, "REDUCED RESTRICTIONS TO
AGRICULTURAL LAND SALES." To expand agricultural production and
enhance food security in Alaska, she explained, HB 120 would
modernize the criteria for activities allowed on agricultural
lands by allowing co-located small business activities that do
not detract from the primary purpose of agricultural production.
She said the bill would reduce the minimum agricultural parcel
size from 40 acres to 20 acres to reflect the technical
advancements in farming practice and commercial agriculture that
have taken place since Alaska's original agricultural covenant
was put into statute some 40 years ago. With these changes,
Commissioner Feige continued, Alaska's farmers would be able to
have small cottage businesses, like a family run bed and
breakfast, co-located on their working farm. She said it would
also allow for support businesses like feed stores or crop
storage to be located within agricultural development areas.
COMMISSIONER FEIGE displayed slide 8, "ALASKA NATIVE VIETNAM
VETERANS LAND EXCHANGE." She said HB 120 would create a program
for Alaska Native Vietnam veterans who received an allotment
under the federal Dingell Act, administered by the U.S.
Department of the Interior, and who may have received allotments
in parts of the state that have no connection to their home
region. She explained that HB 120 proposes a new program under
which these veterans could exchange their federal allotments for
general state land of an equivalent acreage or value in or near
to their home regions.
1:42:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether the Arctic Slope Regional
Corporation (ASRC), Doyon Limited, and NANA now endorse HB 120.
COMMISSIONER FEIGE replied yes. She said [DNR] has received
word from the ANCs that they do not have concerns about either
the lands access provisions that were discussed last year or
other portions of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS inquired whether these ANCs have written a
letter saying they now support HB 120.
COMMISSIONER FEIGE responded that she doesn't believe so.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated that he would like to see clarity
on where those stakeholders are now.
CHAIR PATKOTAK related that there was concern with the bill in
its original form, but those concerns were dealt with over the
interim, and now the ANCs are "kind of neutral" on the matter.
1:44:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether these veterans must have a
federal allotment to be able to select state land under this
provision. She further asked whether Native veterans whose
federal allotments are not satisfactory to them must select
state lands that are close to their traditional homelands and
what constitutes "close" by Alaska standards. She also asked
whether the exchange must be for the entirety of the federal
parcel or whether a veteran could retain, say, 80 acres of a
160-acre federal allotment and exchange the remaining 80 acres
for state land. Representative Hannan also asked whether DNR
has an estimate of the number of Native veterans who may ask to
exercise this provision as well as the volume of land that they
would be owed. Last, she inquired about timeframes from over
the past and into the future for exercising this provision.
COMMISSIONER FEIGE replied that a Native veteran must hold title
to that federal allotment prior to participating in the program,
which means to come to the program with that title in hand. She
deferred to Kristin Hess to answer the other questions.
1:47:21 PM
KRISTIN "KRIS" HESS, Deputy Director, Division of Mining, Land
and Water (DMLW), Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
responded that HB 120 is only for those Native allotees who
receive it under the Veterans Act. So, she stated, the Dingell
Act is what qualifies an individual to exchange land with the
state. Regarding the location, she explained, the state would
be required to identify land that would be made available for
exchange with a veteran allotee. Regarding whether a portion of
a federal allotment could be exchanged, she said an allotee
could exchange from 2.5 acres up to the entirety of their
federal allotment and retain ownership of any remaining portion
of their federal allotment. Regarding the veteran program, Ms.
Hess advised that it would be available only for veterans.
Individuals who have received an allotment under the 1906 Act,
she said, would not be eligible to do an exchange under this
section. However, she continued, they could come to the
department to do an exchange under DNR's regular statutes.
Regarding time limits, she explained that under the Dingell Act
the federal government has until 2025 to act and DNR would hold
land available for exchange after that. So, she said, there
wouldn't be a cutoff date, there would be land available that
these veterans could exchange with the state if they so choose.
1:49:45 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK inquired about the number of Alaska Native
Vietnam veterans owed their allotment as well as DNR's
expectation on the volume of acreage.
MS. HESS, regarding the [volume of] land, replied that DNR would
have to identify the land that would be available. Regarding
the number of veterans, she said DNR has identified about 3,000
individuals who would be eligible under the Dingell Act to
potentially come and exchange land with the state.
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested Ms. Hess to address the acreage of land
per claimant.
MS. HESS answered that under [Version G] the acreage can be
anywhere from 2.5 acres up to the whole 160 acres.
1:50:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN, regarding proximity to Indigenous
traditional land, posed an example of a Vietnam veteran from the
Pribilof Islands where not much land is available for allotment
and whose family members were, at various points in time,
relocated to Southeast Alaska where some of these family members
are now buried. She asked whether this veteran could exchange a
partial amount of their [federal] allotment for land on which
such a gravesite is located. She further asked whether the
state land must be close to the veteran's traditional lands, or
where the veteran lived when the [federal] allotment was
received, or where the veteran is a tribal citizen.
MS. HESS replied that [DNR] would identify lands and it would
have to be state lands that would be utilized. The location of
available state lands will guide and determine where lands are
available for exchange, she said. [The department] would do its
best to identify as many available state acres [as possible] but
cannot guarantee it's going to be identical or in the same
proximity, but would offer additional lands in areas that these
veterans might be interested in.
1:53:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether those identified lands for
veterans will have to comply with their current land management
plans, for example, state park, recreation river, and so forth.
MS. HESS replied that some lands with a higher potential or a
state interest, such as mineral or oil and gas, would not be
appropriate to be offered for this type of an exchange. She
said the department would evaluate the lands that would be made
available under the current bill, would look at all those
issues, and would look at potentially reclassifying if
necessary.
1:54:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether the commissioner or staff
had reviewed the letter from former DNR employee, Dick Mylius.
COMMISSIONER FEIGE indicated yes.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS noted that Mr. Mylius [previously] worked
at DNR, including as deputy director and director of the
Division of Mining, Land and Water. He related that in the
letter Mr. Mylius expresses concerns that the state could sell
by sole source. He asked whether the department could sell land
sole source after it is nominated. He further related that Mr.
Mylius's critique is that the department could sell land to
someone who could then use it in contravention to some existing
management plans or potentially in contravention to what a local
government has set out as intended use for land. He asked
whether Mr. Mylius's critiques are still accurate under the
[proposed CS, Version G].
1:55:38 PM
BRENT GOODRUM, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), responded that some plans
have been out for 15-30 years, so public process was done some
time ago; therefore, the plans are not as current as the
department would like them to be. He stated that it would give
DNR the opportunity through a public notice to engage on
appropriate uses of those lands going forward. Most of this
conversation under Section 13, Version G, is dealing with the
commercial aspect, he continued, so there will be opportunities
to re-engage with the public and receive that feedback to
determine if it is in the state's interest to consider
reclassifying land.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said he thinks Section 3 of the bill
outlines public notice and he interprets that section as saying
that if someone nominated land for commercial use, DNR would
post something on the online public notice system for a month
and the department would contact any applicable regional and
village corporation. There is no notice requirement for
adjacent landowners or a local government, he continued, so the
problem with this section is that there could be 100 adjacent
landowners who don't know. He posed a scenario in which land
that had been used historically for recreation suddenly is
purchased and access is then blocked to other users. He said it
seems that with the paucity of public notice DNR might sell land
to someone without even knowing that another use had been
designated through an appropriate public process.
MR. GOODRUM answered that under AS 38.04.065 DNR does take local
area plans into consideration. When doing planning, he said,
DNR needs to be as consistent as possible with local area plans,
so the department does take those important factors into
consideration when making determinations about future land use.
1:58:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether HB 120 would allow sole
source distribution of land and DNR would not have to put out a
bid.
MR. GOODRUM responded that under Section 13 a process would be
created in which DNR would have to make a public best interest
finding that says it's appropriate for the state to do a
commercial development. That information and that decision are
appealable, he said, and DNR would also give public comment on
that before advancing to any sort of request for proposal for
anticipated commercial use. If more than one party were to
express interest in commercial development, he continued, DNR
would then have a competitive bid process that would be
contemplated as laid out in Section 13.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS surmised that if only one person expressed
interest, then that person potentially could buy the land.
MR. GOODRUM replied, "Either lease it or buy it."
1:59:43 PM
COMMISSIONER FEIGE added that the process envisioned here is
like what DNR does for, say, an oil and gas exploration license
where a very large area is identified. A best interest finding
is undertaken for that area, she said, and that addresses the
public notice ensuring private landowners in the area are made
aware of what the state is contemplating. The department
reviews its existing area plans, she explained, and then once
that large area is identified, DNR holds the sensitive
commercial information as confidential and notifies the public
that an application for a commercial land sale has been received
and opens it up to other takers. If other people in the area
nominate a parcel, and it doesn't necessarily overlap or have to
overlap, then the department achieves the competitive aspect,
Commissioner Feige stated. If there is only one taker, then,
yes, the land sale would go to the individual who made the
original application. So, she said, it's a process familiar to
the department from having applied that similar type of approach
for the exploration license as just one example.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated he doesn't see notification
requirements in the bill for adjacent landowners and local
governments.
MS. HESS answered that another statute, AS 38.05.945, requires
notification and that would notify affected individuals, so
potentially landowners would receive that notification under
that statute.
2:02:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN offered her understanding that the state
still has some obligations to all local governments for land
transfers, but that there are constraints on which lands a local
government can request for transfer. She expressed her concern
over the possibility of the state distributing lands before its
obligations to all local governments have been fulfilled,
especially state lands adjacent to communities that have yet to
organize as first-class municipal governments. She noted that
HB 120 is targeted at an individual commercial development, but
asked whether local governments can participate under this
provision.
MR. GOODRUM replied that Representative Hannan is talking about
the municipal land program and as per municipalities come into
existence, they are granted a certain amount of land
entitlement. He said it is correct that DNR does not convey out
of state ownership certain types of classified lands, such as
highly mineralized areas, oil and gas, or locatable minerals,
and that some types of classification are solely retained in the
state government. He said he believes that if municipalities
engage with DNR about identifying lands that they would like to
own, the department will have some ability to look at whether
reclassification is appropriate as well in those situations.
2:05:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether a local government's
allocation is currently limited to requesting only state land
adjacent to the local government's existing boundaries.
MR. GOODRUM responded that a local government's allocation of
land is based upon the boundaries of the borough. He said he
doesn't believe they are able to extend outside their existing
limits. He advised that if they were contemplating expanding
their borough they probably could and should engage with DNR
about that and what that might mean, but to be conveyed land it
would need to be within their existing borough or municipality,
as appropriate.
2:06:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said he doesn't see a requirement in AS
38.05.945 to notify adjacent landowners by mail or other direct
means. He recognized that those requirements are old school,
but said he is asking these questions while thinking about the
area around Hatcher Pass which has an amalgam of multiple
different types of state land. He related that local government
has been very involved in developing the area for recreational
use that has driven a lot of local economic opportunity, and he
doesn't want to vote for a bill that unwittingly undoes a lot of
local planning. He maintained that the underlying public notice
requirements in [AS 38.05.945] are not adequate for this kind of
expedited land disposal process and he has a big problem with
landowners not knowing that land immediately adjacent to them
has been sold.
COMMISSIONER FEIGE answered that the concerns of Representative
Fields are legitimate. She advised that part of the public
notice requirements under AS 38.05.945 remain intentionally
broad because DNR has all of Alaska to accommodate under those.
Interwoven into that, she continued, is that primary land use
documents like the comprehensive plan under the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough must be considered as part of DNR's best
interest finding. She further advised that through the
reservation of easements DNR is making sure that the public
cannot be barred from access through areas that have been
disposed into private hands.
MS. HESS added that it doesn't say specifically adjacent
landowners, but it does say notification of parties known or
likely to be affected by the action. She said DNR would
consider the neighbors around the area and would endeavor to
make sure they are notified and aware of the proposal.
2:10:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether there are any types of
state lands that would not be available for nominating for these
commercial purposes. He requested a list of all the types of
state lands, and which would be available for nomination under
HB 120.
MS. HESS replied yes, there are some lands that DNR probably
would not make available for commercial lease or sale, such as
oil and gas or highly mineralized areas. But, she continued, in
going through this process of identifying lands to make
available for commercial use, DNR would look to see whether the
current classification is still appropriate or should be
reclassified.
COMMISSIONER FEIGE added that DNR will screen out areas with
sensitive habitat, as well as cultural or archeological
considerations, since in this program DNR would be looking for
areas that could be deemed appropriate specifically for
commercial development.
2:12:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired whether these commercial
nominations would have subsurface rights, including geothermal.
COMMISSIONER FEIGE responded no, the subsurface mineral estate
and geothermal would be retained in state ownership for use and
maximum benefit to all Alaskans. She qualified, however, that
near surface geothermal that local homeowners could use for
things like heat pumps would be excluded.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted that he shares the concerns of
Representative Fields about notice for neighboring landowners.
2:13:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS requested an explanation of the language
change proposed in Version G, beginning on page 4, line 1,
relating to AS 35.20.070, that states vacating and disposing of
land is repealed and reenacted.
MR. GOODRUM answered that he believes 35.20.070 is statute that
deals with DOT&PF, not [Title] 38. He said it has to do with
the provisions that allow DOT&PF to dispose of land just like
there is another section that allows DEED to dispose of lands.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said the current language in 35.20.070 and
the proposed new language are very similar. He asked what the
new language would do that the old language does not.
COMMISSIONER FEIGE replied that DNR will get back to the
committee with a definitive answer from the Department of Law.
She said it is one of the housekeeping measures she mentioned
earlier, which is that for any lands conveyed to DOT&PF or DEED
that did not come through DNR, then those agencies could dispose
of those lands once the use for which they were conveyed is
satisfied. She explained that presently there is vagary in the
language which leads to DOT&PF and DEED needing to come to DNR
as the agency which disposes of or manages state land. The
[proposed] language restatement would take out DNR as the
middleman and allow for DOT&PF and DEED to dispose of those
parcels.
2:17:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS surmised DOT&PF and DEED are currently
disallowed from conveying lands, so DNR is doing that. He asked
whether DOT&PF and DEED are required to follow the same statutes
in Title 39 about public notice. He further inquired about the
amount of land that DOT&PF and DEED could dispose of and
requested to see a map. Last, he asked whether it would make
more sense to route the land through DNR if there is lots of
land for disposal and if DOT&PF and DEED must follow the same
process for disposal that DNR already follows.
MS. HESS responded that currently DEED and DOT&PF can sell land
to federal, state, or municipal agencies but not to third-party
individuals. The language in Version G would allow DEED and
DOT&PF, if they desire, to sell to third parties if the land
isn't being used for the purpose of which it was acquired.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether, under Version G, DOT&PF and
DEED would follow the same or different notice and bidding
competition requirements as those for DNR.
MS. HESS answered that she isn't positive about DOT&PF's and
DEED's land disposal sale requirements under either Title 35 or
Title 14. She said she assumes they still would have some
public notification requirements, but they wouldn't be following
Title 38, which includes the public notice requirements for DNR.
2:19:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS remarked that this deserves further
examination. He said it seems odd because there could be DNR
land near DOT&PF land and there would be one set of procedures
for one area of land and potentially not nearly as rigorous of
procedures [for the adjacent area]. Some DOT&PF land offered
for sale could be very valuable, he continued, and [the state]
should get the best value out of it.
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated that the committee looks forward to the
follow-up from DNR on the line of questioning by Representative
Fields as well as detailed maps per Representative Hopkins for
what land is available for disposal through the commercial
process.
2:20:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS, regarding agricultural land covenants,
offered his understanding that the minimum parcel size for
someone subdividing their agricultural tract would be 20 acres.
COMMISSIONER FEIGE responded that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether there is a reason for not
going smaller than 20 acres, given the recent interest in one-
acre to five-acre parcels for modern types of agriculture.
COMMISSIONER FEIGE replied that two specific and different types
of lands are being looked at. She said agricultural land is
specific in its classification and the purchaser receives a
requisite reduction in purchase price because the land will, in
theory, be put into active large scale agricultural production.
Whereas, she continued, the smaller farms being talked about by
Representative Hopkins can be undertaken on general state land
and do not need the specific agricultural covenant to facilitate
agricultural production. [This proposal] looks at the initial
agricultural covenant, she stated, which is focused on very
large agricultural crop production, and reduces that from 40
acres to 20 [as an incentive for] families and that today's
farming methods are much more productive than 40-50 years ago.
Micro-farms, such as peony farms on two-five acres, are good
commercially, she added, but do not feed people except for the
money the person makes from them. She deferred to Mr. Schade to
answer further.
2:22:55 PM
DAVID SCHADE, Director, Division of Agriculture, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), explained that the idea for
agricultural covenant land is to get the land's purchase price
down to the level that people can afford and to do both crop and
animal agriculture. He said the balance of keeping traditional
agriculture and the abilities is for the state to go to parcels
that are 20 acres. He noted that under [Sec.14(a)(1)(B)] the
state "can" provide for agricultural parcels less than 20 acres,
but only the state. So, he continued, if an area of land is
found where the economic availability would be for flowers,
which is an average of five acres, then the department might do
that. Mr. Schade said another reason for keeping 20 acres as
the general minimum for agricultural covenant land is that when
there is a disease or a problem the farmer must rotate among
different crops or fallow the land, which requires a minimum
area of land.
2:24:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS recalled that bed and breakfast and farm
to table dining have been brought up as allowable uses that
would be agricultural specific. He asked whether a cell tower
would be an allowable use of agricultural land and what would
need to be done to the land to make that allowable.
MR. SCHADE answered that decisions have been made in the past
that allowed a cell tower and that disallowed a cell tower. He
said the change proposed in Version G would allow such de
minimis uses given modern communications are a positive thing.
He stated that with the passage of HB 120 DNR likely would
develop regulations specifying what things are absolutely
allowed and what things are absolutely disallowed. For things
in the middle, he continued, a person could come to the
department and get an answer. He related that the key question
is: "Is this in support of your farm?" If the use in question
does not impede the agriculture use then it will likely be
allowed.
2:26:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN requested verification that [under the
proposed provisions] of Sec. 3, Sec. 35.20.070(a), DOT&PF could
vacate an easement that it acquired for public works once the
purpose is fulfilled or no longer needed. She also requested
affirmation that DOT&PF could not sell off an easement on
someone's private property, i.e., if DOT&PF vacated an easement
the deed would remain with the adjacent property owner so that
there would not be any selling of easements of DOT&PF land.
MS. HESS responded that is correct, an easement that DOT&PF had
obtained would go to the underlying landowner; it would not be
up for sale to somebody else. She noted DOT&PF currently does
have authority under 38.05.030 to dispose of lands, but
35.20.070 was not included under that current statute. The
repeal and reenactment of this section, she explained, is to
allow DOT&PF to sell land directly under Title 35. Regarding
Representative Fields' question about the authority, she
specified that if DOT&PF or DEED had the ability to sell its own
land, it would be required under Article 8, Section 10, of the
Alaska State Constitution to give public notice of any type of
sale even though that is not under its statutes of Title 35 or
Title 14.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS commented that it would benefit the public
to have public notice consistent across departments, whether it
is done completely through DNR or done through the different
departments. He said he questions whether DEED would find it in
its best interest to separately dispose of land rather than just
transferring it to [DNR] and letting [DNR] do it.
2:30:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether the bill repeals the
recreational river designation for rivers in the Susitna River
Valley and, if so, where in the bill it does that.
MR. GOODRUM responded that that language was in the original
bill when it first was submitted but is no longer a provision in
the current bill version. Responding further to Representative
Fields, he confirmed there is nothing in [Version G] that would
affect river designations.
2:31:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS posed a scenario in which a parcel of
nominated land has a designated Revised Statute (RS) 2477 going
through it. He asked what would happen to that designated RS
2477 if the parcel is purchased.
MR. GOODRUM replied that prior existing rights are always going
to be incorporated in whatever the state does. So, he said, an
RS 2477 would be identified as a prior existing right; it would
be listed and referenced in any type of future action, and those
rights would be maintained.
MS. HESS added that DNR is required by statute to retain access
to additional public lands or private lands before DNR would
convey it out of state ownership.
2:33:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS recounted that several years ago the
Municipality of Anchorage surrendered public access from the
Prudhoe Bay Neighborhood adjacent Chugach State Park, which
created all kinds of problems. He asked how the municipality
was able to do that if it is in violation of the underlying
state law. He further requested a greater explanation of how
the existing statute protects what Mr. Goodrum described as
inviolate public access across these lands.
MR. GOODRUM responded that the department will bring that back
to the committee in its homework.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS inquired about the intended pace for
potentially amending HB 120.
CHAIR PATKOTAK responded that public testimony will be held on
5/6/22 if the joint session cancels the committee's 5/4/22
meeting, and an amendment deadline will be set on 5/6/22.
2:34:39 PM
VERDIE BOWEN, Director, Alaska State Office of Veterans Affairs,
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, expressed support
for creating the ability of [Alaska Native Vietnam] veterans to
receive land closer to their territorial ground. He advised
that, in the new portion, 1,957 veterans are applying for land
under the Dingell Act. He said 497 of them live in Southeast
Alaska but all the lands that are going to be offered to them
will be from Seward up through the Interior. Therefore, he
continued, this would give them an option or an opportunity to
select lands closer to their home or in their region. He stated
that the next largest group is the Cook Inlet, and this would
also help those veterans get land conveyed to them that is
closer to their home. Even though they are trading land from
one location to another, Mr. Bowen continued, this would be a
huge boost to help those veterans feel like their service is
more directly honored.
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked Mr. Bowen to provide the committee with a
list of potential applicants based on region, if such a list is
available.
2:36:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether the number of [1,957]
veterans is in addition to the 3,000 veterans stated by [Ms.
Hess of DNR], such that it would be [4,957] potential parcels
for Vietnam veterans, or the [1,957] is a subset of the 3,000.
MR. BOWEN answered that the 1,957 are the new additions but they
are not above the 3,000; the overall total amount is 3,000.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether the term "closer" means into
a veteran's region of traditional use or whether the term
"closer" could mean a veteran whose traditional homeland was the
North Slope but who is now living in the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley could choose a parcel closer to the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley.
COMMISSIONER FEIGE replied that the intent of HB 120 is to allow
these veterans to have an allotment that is in an area where it
is useable to them, where they have access to it, or where they
can fish, hunt, gather, and enjoy the traditional activities.
She said there could be some veterans who are so displaced from
where the land they received under the Dingell Act is located
that they have no way to get there, or it is too expensive to
get there, or they have no connection to the goods and services
at that location. Commissioner Feige pointed out that the
program under which the veterans holding allotments can apply is
voluntary, so it would be up to the veterans to determine [where
they would like to select their allotments for exchange].
2:39:39 PM
COMMISSIONER FEIGE concluded her presentation by stating that
Alaska has a vast wealth of land that can be placed into the
hands of Alaskans for building businesses, creating jobs and
economy, and helping to feed local communities. She said HB 120
aims to put land into use while also recognizing and respecting
the private landowners who already own land in the areas where
new lands may be disposed of and placed into commercial use.
Alaska has not yet reached the point where private landownership
is pervasive, she stated, and where a local tax base and economy
is being generated from that land. She urged the committee to
support HB 120.
2:41:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS suggested the committee consider including
a provision in the bill that the purchasing parties be required
to improve and maintain existing trails to ensure that public
access is preserved.
[HB 120 was held over.]