Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120

04/19/2022 10:00 AM House FISHERIES

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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
10:03:17 AM Start
10:04:32 AM HB397
10:51:32 AM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= HB 397 STATE OWNERSHIP OF SUBMERGED LAND TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
            HB 397-STATE OWNERSHIP OF SUBMERGED LAND                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
10:04:32 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR TARR  announced that  the only order  of business  would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  397,  "An  Act relating  to  state ownership  of                                                               
submerged  land  within  and  adjacent   to  federal  areas;  and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR TARR noted  that the Department of  Natural Resources (DNR)                                                               
had provided  follow up information  to the  committee pertaining                                                               
its questions about HB 397.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
10:05:51 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHRISTY COLLES,  Division Operations Manager, Division  of Mining                                                               
Land and  Water, Department of Natural  Resources, explained that                                                               
the use  of state-owned lands  that exceed the  generally allowed                                                               
uses as  defined in  11 AAC 96.020  are subject  to authorization                                                               
pursuant to  constitutional, statutory, and  regulatory mandates.                                                               
She  noted that  the state  coordinates permitting  authorization                                                               
with  the federal  government for  state uplands,  tidelands, and                                                               
submerged  lands  for which  state  ownership  is certain.    She                                                               
stated that the  Division of Mining, Land, and  Water (DMLW) does                                                               
not  receive  applications  for navigable  waterways  in  federal                                                               
conservation system units (CSUs).   She noted that, should HB 397                                                               
pass, the  division would receive more  applications for permits,                                                               
easements,  and  leases from  the  federal  government and  other                                                               
entities.   She  noted that  fees are  waived for  federal agency                                                               
applicants in accordance with established regulations.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  TARR  drew  attention  to a  letter  [included  in  the                                                               
committee packet,] entitled  " HB 397 Research  - Submerged Lands                                                               
Response  from   DNR  3.31.22.pdf,"   and  asked   what  existing                                                               
processes  would  change  pertaining  to  the  permittable  items                                                               
listed in the letter, should HB 397 pass.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. COLLES  answered that the authorizations  listed already have                                                               
an  existing  process for  permitting  or  leasing and  that  the                                                               
anticipated change would be that  the federal government would be                                                               
required  to seek  authorization  for such  items on  state-owned                                                               
navigable  waters.   She explained  that non-government  entities                                                               
would apply  for permitting  via the state,  rather than  via the                                                               
federal government.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
10:10:06 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR TARR  expressed that  there may  exist concern  with the                                                               
nature of  proposed submerged  land use as  being conducted  in a                                                               
conservation   designated  unit,   and,  specifically,   concerns                                                               
regarding material  extraction activities.  She  asked whether it                                                               
could  be expected  that the  use  of the  submerged lands  would                                                               
likely significantly change.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  COLLES answered  that, should  the permitting  of extraction                                                               
activities  be  sought,  the  state  would  coordinate  with  the                                                               
federal upland  agencies in  a manner similar  to what  occurs in                                                               
current  practice,  including   opportunities  for  public  input                                                               
during  the   permitting  process.    She   noted  that  material                                                               
extraction requires  site designation  and is  subject to  a full                                                               
agency and public process in accordance with 38.05.945.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
10:12:31 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
JIM WALKER,  Section Chief, Public Access  Assertion and Defense,                                                               
Division  of  Mining  Land  and   Water,  Department  of  Natural                                                               
Resources, referred to  the letter that had been  provided to the                                                               
committee in response to questions  brought by the committee.  He                                                               
offered to provide a general  overview of the types of activities                                                               
and processes in which the division  is involved.  He stated that                                                               
individual  permitting   applications  would   involve  different                                                               
processes  depending on  the type  of  permit being  sought.   He                                                               
added that  the passage of  HB 397 would  not amount to  a "green                                                               
light" to any type of  activity and that permitting processes and                                                               
relevant public engagement would still be required.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ORTIZ  asked  state's   role  in  permitting  the                                                               
activities listed in  the letter should HB 397  pass, and whether                                                               
there existed  problems in obtaining permits  for such activities                                                               
by  the  federal  government  and  asked whether  HB  397  was  a                                                               
proposed solution to such problems.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. WALKER stated that the  division receives numerous complaints                                                               
from  individuals attempting  to obtain  permits for  permissible                                                               
activities  on state  submerged lands  when those  activities are                                                               
within  federal  CSUs.    He   stated  that  the  nature  of  the                                                               
complaints received  had suggested  federal overreach.   He added                                                               
that  there exists  a  "complete lack"  of  federal requests  for                                                               
permitting for activities and infrastructure  on state lands.  He                                                               
stated that HB 397 was  proposed to address individual complaints                                                               
and  the  alleged  lack  of  federal  cooperation  in  the  state                                                               
permitting  process  by  providing  clarity on  where  state  and                                                               
federal jurisdictions begin and end.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
10:17:13 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  TARR  asked  for  a specific  example  of  a  complaint                                                               
received by the division.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WALKER offered  that there  had  been a  situation that  had                                                               
occurred  in  Crescent Lake,  in  Lake  Clark National  Park  and                                                               
Preserve.    He stated  that  surrounding  areas had  never  been                                                               
explicitly withdrawn  at the time  of statehood from  state title                                                               
and  were, therefore,  state-owned  lands.   He  stated that  the                                                               
federal government  had denied permits  to commercial  guides and                                                               
others to place mooring buoys  and guides had been prevented from                                                               
storing  boats  along  the  high-water  mark  during  the  winter                                                               
months.  He  added that guides had been required  to fly boats in                                                               
and  out  surrounding  the  fishing  season,  which  was  neither                                                               
practical  nor,  in some  instances,  safe.    He stated  that  a                                                               
request  to permit  the storage  of boats  via the  state, rather                                                               
than  via   the  federal  government,   would  result   in  safer                                                               
operations.    He  stated  that not  all  requested  permits  are                                                               
granted.   He  stated that  the  division had  issued permits  to                                                               
individuals requesting  them [in  accordance with  the permitting                                                               
process] for  entities who  had not been  granted permits  by the                                                               
federal government.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  TARR asked  for an  additional example  or whether  the                                                               
example provided was representative of  the general nature of the                                                               
complaints.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WALKER   offered  another  example  that   had  occurred  in                                                               
Geographic Bay near Katmai National  Park & Preserve and which is                                                               
state-owned land.   The complaint  had alleged that  a commercial                                                               
fishing vessel  had attempted to  legally place fishing  nets and                                                               
had been  cautioned that, should  the nets be placed,  the fisher                                                               
would be  issued a federal citation.   He stated that  the fisher                                                               
had  foregone  the  fishing  opportunity due  to  the  threat  of                                                               
federal citation and he suggested  that the threat was tantamount                                                               
to  federal  interference  with one's  livelihood.    He  offered                                                               
another example that  had occurred in various  locations in which                                                               
local guides had conducted activities  on state submerged land in                                                               
which federal law  enforcement had advised guides  that they were                                                               
not  permitted   to  engage  in  such   activities,  despite  the                                                               
operators having  been granted state permits  for such activities                                                               
in accordance with state law.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
10:23:17 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STORY  asked  what  the rationale  or  any  known                                                               
concerns  would have  been  for the  federal  government to  deny                                                               
applications for boat storage.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. WALKER allowed hat he did  not have specific knowledge of the                                                               
rationale  for the  denial of  such permits  and postulated  that                                                               
that  wilderness   value,  aesthetics,  and   soundscapes  likely                                                               
comprised the rationale and had  been cited as reasons for denial                                                               
of other permits.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   STORY   speculated    that   concern   regarding                                                               
pollutants onboard stored  vessels could be a  matter of concern.                                                               
She stated  her understanding  that HB 397  was accompanied  by a                                                               
zero  fiscal  note and  asked  whether  a predicted  increase  in                                                               
permit requests to the division would require additional staff.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. WALKER stated  that HB 397 would memorialize  rights that had                                                               
been in existence since statehood  according to the Equal Footing                                                               
Doctrine,  the  Federal  Submerged  Lands  Act,  and  the  Alaska                                                               
Statehood  Act  which  rule  the   submerged  lands  under  every                                                               
navigable waterway  within its borders unless  the submerged were                                                               
withdrawn with a valid,  pre-statehood withdrawal that explicitly                                                               
and expressly  includes the  submerged land.   He stated  that HB
397  would not  add any  [lands] and  would confirm  and announce                                                               
state  ownership, management,  and control  of these  areas.   He                                                               
stated that  there would  be an  increase expected  in permitting                                                               
applications  but  cautioned  that  it would  be  speculative  to                                                               
attempt to  predict by how  much.   He suggested that,  should HB
397  pass,   the  division  would  provide   information  to  the                                                               
legislature  regarding the  number of  requests and  other future                                                               
needs  that could  result.   He referred  to the  earlier example                                                               
given regarding  [complaints about] Geographic Bay  and suggested                                                               
that  there  exist differences  in  perception  based on  federal                                                               
employees' experience in  the Lower 48 that  may have contributed                                                               
to  the  decisions to  deny  permits.    He stated  that  federal                                                               
employees are  often not  aware of  the Alaska  National Interest                                                               
Lands  Conservation Act  (ANILCA), and  the U.  S. Supreme  Court                                                               
ruling in Sturgeon v. Frost,  and that the rules governing Alaska                                                             
are unique.  He stated  that attempted law enforcement activities                                                               
may be valid in  other areas in the Lower 48 but  they may not be                                                               
applicable  to Alaska.   He  stated that  the passage  of HB  397                                                               
would be  tantamount to  a bold  statement asserting  the state's                                                               
ownership, management, and control of submerged lands.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
10:29:09 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STORY asked  for  an estimate  of  the number  of                                                               
complaints  received   by  the  division  and   asked  whether  a                                                               
resolution process exists and how difficult it was.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WALKER   answered  that  the  division   does  not  maintain                                                               
statistics  related   to  such  complaints.     He  offered  that                                                               
resolution of  complaints require escalation to  high-level state                                                               
and federal government officials  and usually contain some threat                                                               
of litigation  as an incentive  towards federal cooperation.   He                                                               
restated that the  passage of HB 397 would  clarify precisely the                                                               
boundaries of state-owned lands.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ referred to the  letter from DNR dated March                                                               
30, 2022 and  noted the list of additional  permitting that would                                                               
be performed by  DNR should HB 397 pass, and  asked whether there                                                               
would exist a  need for additional staff  and resources including                                                               
those which may be required in cases that involve litigation.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WALKER  stated his  belief  that  no additional  cost  would                                                               
occur,  should HB  397  pass.   He explained  that  the state  is                                                               
currently involved in multiple  litigations that he characterized                                                               
as being  a result of  federal intransigence.  He  suggested that                                                               
the passage  of HB  397 would  establish clear  jurisdiction over                                                               
the  items listed  in the  letter  and would  provide clarity  to                                                               
which lands  are state-owned.   He suggested  that the  burden of                                                               
litigation would be reduced, and  the federal government would no                                                               
longer  be  allowed  to  withhold or  refuse  permits  and  would                                                               
instead be obligated  to challenge a permit  rather than obstruct                                                               
the  granting  of permissible  activities.    He noted  that  the                                                               
passage of  HB 397 would not  add to the existing  workload since                                                               
it  would not  increase  any  land holdings  of  the  state.   He                                                               
offered  an example  in which  [federal] upland  owners had  been                                                               
given an opportunity  to comment on proposed permits  such as one                                                               
for a dock, and the  landowners had publicly opposed the granting                                                               
of the permit and, since  the submerged land was state-owned, the                                                               
upland  [federal]  owners  could   not  [unilaterally]  deny  the                                                               
permit.  He reminded the  committee of the instance in Geographic                                                               
Bay  in which  the federal  government  had denied  a fisher  his                                                               
rights to  fishing and thereby  his rights  to earn a  living via                                                               
the threat of  a federal citation for  activities permitted under                                                               
state law.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
10:38:28 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
JOHN  STURGEON,  Plaintiff in  Supreme  Court  Case vs.  National                                                               
Parks Service, stated  that he had been  a party in a  2019 U. S.                                                               
Supreme  Court Case  involving the  State  of Alaska's  navigable                                                               
waters.   He offered  background information  regarding navigable                                                               
waters and  noted that, in  many places throughout  rural Alaska,                                                               
navigable  waterways   function  as  transportation   routes  for                                                               
approximately   80   percent   of  Alaska's   population.      He                                                               
characterized the  Yukon, Kuskokwim, Stikine, and  Susitna Rivers                                                               
as transportation  superhighways since  the arrival of  the first                                                               
indigenous settlers.   He  stated that  the founding  fathers had                                                               
designated navigable  waters as  being owned by  the states.   He                                                               
added  that,  at  the  time  of  statehood,  under  the  Fairness                                                               
Doctrine,  Alaska had  been granted  the title  to all  navigable                                                               
waters in  the state.   He explained that,  in 2007, he  had been                                                               
hunting  moose on  a tributary  to the  Yukon River,  near Eagle,                                                               
Alaska, within  the Yukon-Charley  Rivers National Preserve.   He                                                               
stated that  he had been  operating a 10-foot hovercraft  and had                                                               
been  approached by  law enforcement  officers from  the National                                                               
Park Service  and informed that hovercrafts  were not permissible                                                               
in national  park lands.   He informed  the officers that  he was                                                               
operating  on state-owned  waters  and  questioned the  officers'                                                               
jurisdiction,  and   the  officers  asserted  that   the  federal                                                               
government  owned  the  upland  lands   and,  as  a  result,  had                                                               
management  jurisdiction rights  over  the waterway.   He  stated                                                               
that,  although  he  had  not  received  a  citation  during  the                                                               
encounter, a  13-year federal court  case had ensued with  a cost                                                               
of $1.6  million, funded by donations.   He stated that  the case                                                               
he was  involved in was one  of 8,000 related cases  submitted in                                                               
2019 and was one  of only 41 of the cases  that were accepted [by                                                               
the courts.]   He stated that  the unanimous ruling in  his favor                                                               
ruled that all navigable waters  and submerged lands in the State                                                               
of Alaska  were state-owned and  of vital importance  to Alaska's                                                               
citizens and economy.  He stated  that, since the unanimous U. S.                                                               
Supreme Court  ruling, no  changes to  navigable waters  had been                                                               
granted to the state.  He  added that only 9 percent of navigable                                                               
waters  in   Alaska  had  been   transferred  from   the  federal                                                               
government to  the state  in the  63 years  since statehood.   He                                                               
offered   his   opinion   that   the   federal   government   was                                                               
intentionally withholding  management rights of  navigable waters                                                               
from the State of Alaska.   He stated that the federal government                                                               
manages  lands for  maximum biodiversity  and  the state  manages                                                               
lands  for  maximum  sustained  yield  and  that  the  state  has                                                               
management tools in place.  He urged the passage of HB 397.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
10:44:37 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MIKE  SEWRIGHT, Assistant  Attorney General  (Retired), testified                                                               
in support of HB 397.  He  offered details on his background as a                                                               
lifelong Alaskan.  He stated that  he had been a lead attorney at                                                               
the Department of  Law in cases dealing with  navigable waters in                                                               
Alaska  and  had  been  lead  counsel  in  cases  that  addressed                                                               
navigable  waters  standards.    He  emphasized  the  concept  of                                                               
certain rivers  in Alaska being [equivalent  to] superhighways in                                                               
Alaska.  He stated that  the federal government generally did not                                                               
challenge  the question  of navigability  of the  main rivers  in                                                               
Alaska but that it questioned  the navigability status of smaller                                                               
rivers.   He noted that there  exist a large number  of navigable                                                               
waters, as listed in the bill.   He stated that the U. S. Supreme                                                               
Court had endorsed  waterways in Alaska as  navigable should they                                                               
be  used for  or  be  susceptible to  use  for commercial  travel                                                               
including travel by small watercraft.   He offered the headwaters                                                               
of the Nation  River as an example.  He  stated his understanding                                                               
that the  importance of  HB 397  would be to  state the  State of                                                               
Alaska's position of ownership of the waterways.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
10:48:23 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SEWRIGHT  stated  that  the   passage  HB  397  would  be  a                                                               
legislative statement that  the state owns the  waterways, and he                                                               
characterized it as an important bill.   He suggested that HB 397                                                               
was not  a partisan bill and  had been carefully drafted,  and he                                                               
encouraged the passage of HB 397.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
10:50:55 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR TARR announced that HB 397 was held over.                                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 397 Sponsor Statement 3.10.22.pdf HFSH 3/22/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/5/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/19/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 5/5/2022 10:00:00 AM
HB 397
HB 397 Version A 3.14.22.PDF HFSH 3/22/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/5/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/19/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 5/5/2022 10:00:00 AM
HB 397
HB 397 Sectional Analysis 3.15.22.pdf HFSH 3/22/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/5/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/19/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 5/5/2022 10:00:00 AM
HB 397
HB 397 Research - Submerged Lands Presentation 3.22.22.pdf HFSH 3/22/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/5/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/19/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 5/5/2022 10:00:00 AM
HB 397
HB 397 Fiscal Note One - 3.14.22.PDF HFSH 3/22/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/5/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/19/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 5/5/2022 10:00:00 AM
HB 397
HB 397 Research - Submerged Lands Response from DNR 3.31.22.pdf HFSH 4/5/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/19/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 5/5/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 5/12/2022 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 5/17/2022 10:00:00 AM
HB 397