Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
04/10/2015 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 | |
| HB38 | |
| HJR20 | |
| HJR24 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 179 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 24-LIFT FEDERAL LAND WITHDRAWALS
2:12:57 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER announced that the final order of business is
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 24, Urging the federal government to
honor its commitments to transfer land to the state; and urging
the United States Secretary of the Interior and the United
States Congress to adhere to the recommendations of the United
States Department of the Interior in its 2006 report under the
Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act, including lifting
withdrawals.
2:13:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
introduced HJR 24, explaining the resolution is talking about
lands that are due the state as a result of the laws, policies,
transactions, and negotiations that have gone on for decades.
He pointed out that page 2, line 29, lists the things that drive
this discussion of what land is still due the state. These
include the Alaska Statehood Act, Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA), Cook Inlet Land Exchange, Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), and the
Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act. He said the western
states have more federal land than the eastern states and he is
convinced that this is a valid issue, but it is not an issue
that is included in HJR 24. The resolution lays out a summary
of the laws, the promises, regarding Alaska's lands since
statehood. He has never met anyone who has disputed that Alaska
is due land, but there are many disputes related to it and that
is what HJR 24 is aiming at. The resolution is merely a summary
of the arguments, issues, and laws that can be looked at in a
summary format. He noted that [Ms. Sara Taylor] of the Citizens
Advisory Commission on Federal Areas (CACFA) is on line to help
with answering questions. He further noted he has not received
any negative comment or concern about the resolution from the
Department of Law. The point of the resolution is for the state
to get the land that it is due. The Alaska Land Transfer
Acceleration Act says that the value of the land has already
been determined and there is no sense keeping these withdrawals
levied on these huge chunks of land and they should be released
so transfer can be done. According to Ms. Taylor, the federal
people she deals with firsthand always presume that transfers
are going to happen, but it has been going on and on.
Therefore, HJR 24 says to get the transfers done.
2:19:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she likes the resolution, but noted
that sometimes there are fiscal constraints in terms of land
surveying or having enough money to get the final work done.
She asked whether there is anything the state can do to speed up
the land transfer process, such as a partnership when a federal
agency doesn't have the funds to get that kind of work done.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied the Secretary of Interior was
allowed to withdraw this land until it was evaluated for value
and it is still withdrawn. The state's top-filings cannot go
any further until the withdrawals are removed.
SARA TAYLOR, Executive Director, Citizens Advisory Commission on
Federal Areas (CACFA), responded HJR 24 is about the state
having 5 million acres that are due it and not so much that the
interference is a lack of money or a lack of cooperation. There
is significant cooperation between the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
This is about the things that are preventing the state from
selecting high quality land. The BLM has these withdrawals, all
of which are from the 1970s, and the state has certain areas it
would like to be able to select but those withdrawals prevent
this selection. Of the state's remaining 5 million acres, or
whatever is the amount the state has left, the state would
really like some of these lands and so the withdrawals need to
be lifted for the state to be able to acquire them.
2:22:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR related that she has received communication
from DNR talking about lifting the Public Land Orders (PLOs) and
that the legislature can voice its support for making that
happen more quickly. The department explained, for example,
that there needs to be a full survey of any area that the state
is interested in because there could be such things as
contamination. It is this type of circumstance that she is
asking whether the state could provide additional expediency.
MS. TAYLOR answered she would love to get to the point of
whether any of the land is contaminated because right now the
withdrawals prevent the state from even looking at the lands.
Some of these withdrawals were in contemplation of ANILCA, but
when ANILCA passed and all of the conservation system unit (CSU)
boundary lines were drawn, the withdrawals to facilitate ANILCA
remained and so the state is prevented from selecting lands that
weren't eventually put into a refuge, park, forest, or
wilderness area. The state is just waiting for the withdrawal
to be able to see whether it wants the land that it has top-
filed on. The very first step before the surveys, before
analyzing how much acreage, or whether the state wants the land,
is getting the withdrawal lifted.
2:24:58 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER opened public testimony on HJR 24, then closed
it after ascertaining that no one wished to testify.
2:25:40 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER continued committee discussion on HJR 24.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood the state has 5-5.5 million
acres of selection left and has filed on 10-11 million acres.
He inquired whether HJR 24 is asking to have 152 million acres
of withdrawals gotten rid of so that the state can make
selections other than the 10 million the state has currently
said it would like that 5 million acres to come out of.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied the way it worked is that the
Secretary of Interior was allowed to withdraw this land because
the value of the resources and value of the land was unclear.
Instead of dispersing the land at ANILCA it was withdrawn. The
state was then allowed to top-file over those and he doesn't
know the number of acres that the state has top-filed over.
Top-filing let the state express an interest in the land that
had been withdrawn. The report in 2006 was that 95 percent of
the withdrawals were no longer needed. If the withdrawals are
removed, then the state can select among its top-filing
interests, although he is unclear whether the state can add to
that. The real question is that the state has expressed an
interest but it cannot go to adjudication and the deal finished
because it is all on land that is withdrawn. He deferred to Ms.
Taylor for further explanation.
MS. TAYLOR explained there are about 159 million acres of [ANCSA
Section 17(d)(1)] withdrawals in Alaska. There are a lot of
overlapping withdrawals also that kind of go on top of a great
many of those. If all 159 million acres of withdrawals were
lifted, which BLM itself recommended in 2006, about 21.5 million
acres would have no further encumbrances. Although she doesn't
know the extent that Alaska has top-filed on those 21.5 million
acres, she said Alaska would immediately jump on its selections
if any of those lands were freed up. This isn't a re-opening of
an opportunity to select land, this is land the state has
already identified it wants and the land just needs to be moved
from the back storeroom to the actual store so the state can
finally buy it.
2:29:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is what is difficult to read in
the resolution: if the state is asking for all of the land to
be done on which it has top-filed, that is probably a smaller
subset of this entire amount. He suggested the legislature
might have more success if it says it wants 15-20 million acres
of withdrawals cancelled instead of saying 152 million acres.
He added, however, he is not opposed to the resolution.
VICE CHAIR HAWKER responded that a key in the resolution is that
the legislature is not initiating something, it is asking the
Secretary of Interior to honor the recommendations made in the
2006 report to Congress to lift the [152,181,400 acres] of land
withdrawals specified in that report. The legislature is
endorsing the recommendations made in this report as opposed to
initiating the state's own analysis.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER concurred with Vice Chair Hawker, saying
he cannot imagine why the legislature would want to recommend
less than what has already been recommended to be released.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated he is not opposed to the
resolution, but trying to figure out something given there has
been no momentum since 2006. It would appear something is
holding up the federal government from accepting that 2006
report. It was therefore a suggestion if all the state really
wants is the release of those lands that it has top-filed on.
2:33:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR related that in its letter, DNR also said
that some of the PLOs are related to ANCSA, which is discussed
in the resolution. She understood that not all of those land
selections have been completed and asked whether that could be,
in part, what's slowing down the process for the state's
selections.
MS. TAYLOR qualified this might be better answered by DNR, but
replied that for purposes of this resolution members want to
think about whether [the state] wants to take what's currently
on offer or would like to take real high quality lands that
could be available if the Section 17(d)(1) withdrawals are
lifted. If those withdrawals are lifted, they also become
available for selection by Native corporations. Native
corporations have their own top-filings throughout the state, so
the state and corporations would all be put back into the queue
of figuring out who would get the selections. Thus, it won't
necessarily speed things up or slow things down at that point.
2:35:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired whether there are tribal partners
or others in this effort that should receive copies of the
resolution and suggested that these names could be added if the
sponsor so chooses.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied he will consider this great
suggestion as the resolution goes through the process.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, responding to Vice Chair Hawker about
making a conceptual amendment at this time, said she is trying
to think who it would be best to include.
VICE CHAIR HAWKER pointed out that this resolution is being sent
to those people who can act on the request and so the question
is whether it is necessary to send the resolution directly to
Native corporations as if it is an appeal to them. He noted
that courtesy copies of resolutions are not usually sent, rather
the resolutions are sent to the people whom the legislature
wants to act on the resolutions.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR agreed and commented that everyone could
benefit by trying to move all of the processes forward and
resolve all of these issues since it has been decades. She said
more time doesn't need to be spent on this today, but perhaps
Ms. Taylor would have a suggestion for who could be added now or
at a later date.
MS. TAYLOR answered the appropriate person to contact in that
respect is Sally Jewell, Secretary of Interior, and she is
included in the copies.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:39 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.
2:40:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to report HJR 24 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note.
2:40:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON objected for discussion purposes,
saying he applauds the resolution but takes note of
Representative Seaton's comment about how much really needs to
be withdrawn. He likes the resolution, he said, because it is
pragmatic in just saying to get this done, no one is the devil
or the angel, and there is no vitriol or boogeyman. Offering
his appreciation to the sponsor, he removed his objection.
There being no further objection, HJR 24 was reported from the
House Resources Standing Committee.