Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/03/1996 08:07 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 250 - UNIV. OF ALASKA: LAND GRANT & ASSETS Number 1842 SENATOR STEVE FRANK stated that CS SB 250 (FIN) is this year's version of the university land grant bill. "This committee did pass out, last year, Senate Bill 16, which was the university land grant bill, which as you know, the Governor vetoed. We made some changes to it to address some of the concerns that were expressed in the Governor's veto message. Probably, the most significant change is the change that puts the Department of Natural Resources in, near total, control of the land selection process. It eliminates any potential for over filings or conflicts with existing or potential uses. By putting the power in the Department of Natural Resources, we should be able to eliminate any of those problems." Number 1888 SENATOR FRANK further stated, "With amendments that we do have today and would like to see adopted, we would require that the legislature approve any of the specific land designations to the university through legislation action. That will provide kind of a `belt and suspenders' approach to the process so that any legislator knows that he, or she, would have another opportunity to comment on lands transferred to the university. That is a major concession, from my perspective, and the university's perspective, because it does require, positive legislative action. And, as you all know, it is not easy to get a bill passed. Particularly, one that may be opposed by certain elements of the legislature." Number 1930 SENATOR FRANK continued, SB 250, "really provides a great deal of assurance to individual legislators, interest groups and the public in general. The public will have ample opportunity to comment on lands that would be transferred. As a practical matter, the Department of Natural Resources, they have a good handle on the land status throughout the state ... on areas that are appropriate for development through the university, or selection by the university ... areas they know are sensitive for whatever reason." SENATOR FRANK proceeded, "I really don't think the Administration would propose lands that would be controversial. The Governor has the final say in what lands would be submitted to the legislature for approval. I don't think the Governor would submit lands that were controversial. Certainly, even if he, or she, did, the legislature would have final say. Also, the legislature could remove a specific parcel that was of concern, if you adopt the amendments that we are hoping you will, this morning." Number 1986 SENATOR FRANK informed, "We, also, have amendments to alleviate, or allay, concerns that have been expressed by the mineral industry. The mineral industry has concerns about the bill ... we have tried to deal with those very straightforwardly. I think their concern is with regard to the rents and royalty schedules. We are asking that the legislation contain `express language' that the rent and royalty schedules would be exactly the same as the state's. So, there is no reason for the mineral industry to feel like they have something to be threatened by, in that regard. Their other concerns relate to over filing, which we have eliminated through the other mechanism that I spoke of a few minutes ago, and that sort of thing. So, I feel like we have gone the extra mile to alleviate concerns addressed by interested parties, whether they be development oriented interests, such as the mining industry, or environmental concerns expressed. " Number 2020 SENATOR FRANK explained, "The public will be very involved in making decisions ... there is lot of opportunities for input along the way, and, you really wind up with the legislature having the final say." CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN advised that committee staff would explain the proposed amendments. Number 2071 JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Staff to Representative Green, directed members to CSSB 250 (FIN) "M" entitled AMENDMENT explaining that the amendment was drafted with the concurrence of the chairman, the committee, the sponsor and the university: Page 7, line 22, After " ... whichever is less." Delete all material through line 26 and insert "the legislature must approve or disapprove a list of land to be conveyed by the end of the first regular session following the submission of the list. The legislature may approve some, or all, of the land proposed for conveyance." Page 8, line 30, following "conveyance" Delete "." Insert "and subject to the terms and conditions of conveyance and the provisions in AS 14.40.365 - AS 14.40.400 Page 10, line 22, following "principles" Delete "." Insert "subject to terms of conveyance and the provisions in AS 14.4.365 - AS 14.40.400. Page 10, line 30, following "leasing" Insert "and rent and royalty schedules" Page 10, line 16 Insert new subsection (k): (k) Nothing herein shall operate contrary to the purposes to the Memorandum of Agreement entered into on December 2, 1994 between the University, the state and various other parties in settlement of litigation in Consolidated Case No. 1JU-88-271 Civil." Page 11, line 17, following "land" Delete "." Insert "conveyed under AS 14.40.365 Page 11, line 21, following "land" Delete "." Insert "conveyed under AS 14.40.365 Number 2160 MR. LOGAN stated that the final amendment was on page 7, line 14: After " ... 29.65.140..." Insert, "or valid existing selections of the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority under AS 38.-05. The list shall not include lands whose management by the university would be inconsistent with the terms of the Alaska Mental Health Lands Trust Settlement." MR. LOGAN proceeded to explain the final amendment stating that this amendment, essentially, holds harmless the Alaska Mental Health Lands Trust Settlement which says that lands cannot be selected that would adversely impact that settlement. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN emphasized his understanding that the final amendment had, also, been agreed to. Number 2204 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN synthesized the amendments ... "So, the bottom line is that we will have another shot at it, as the lists, or the groups of land, that are brought before us, come to us ... we will have another chance to approve those. And, that would be done during the legislative session in which the land is selected, and it can impact, adversely, the prior settlement on the Mental Health Lands. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked for the appropriate copy of the committee substitute for SB 250 (FIN) (K). MR. LOGAN commented that each member should have version CSSB 250 (FIN) (K) AM. Number 2341 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved that the committee adopt the suite of proposed amendments before them. Number 2348 SENATOR FRANK said he would explain the elements in the other amendments: "The rents and royalties issue is the subject of the amendments on page 8, line 30, page 10, line 22 and page 10, line 30 ... where the mining industry is concerned that they have the same terms and conditions as existing state programs for rents and royalties, and to spell that out very plainly. We felt it was already clear in the law, but this spells it out even more clear." Number 2375 SENATOR FRANK said, "Page 10, line 16, the university suggested this language here ... they have a settlement with the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC) on the Yakataga issue, and SEACC was concerned that this bill not change anything in their settlement. So, the university agreed to put language in, to make sure that that is clear, and changes nothing relative to that settlement." Amendments on page 11, line 17, and on page 11, line 21, are merely conforming amendments to be consistent with the others." Number 2433 JOHN T. SHIVELY, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources, commended the university but, particularly, Senator Frank and Representative Davies who have made extensive efforts to work with the Department of Natural Resources, which are recognized in the amendments before the committee. "I have to say that the bill you are looking at this year is vastly improved over the bill that you saw last year. We still have some of the basic concerns that we expressed last year" ..... (CHANGE TAPE) TAPE 96-48, SIDE B Number 000 COMMISSIONER SHIVELY ...."in fact, on the university, in the near future, we don't think those lands are readily available. In addition, there are conflicts with other selections, but the sponsor and the university have `bent over backwards' to avoid those conflicts, and given the kind of responsibilities given to me, and my successors, as this proceeds, my assumption is those conflicts will be worked out, in terms of things, like municipal selections. That concern has pretty much been taken care of." Number 025 COMMISSIONER SHIVELY jokingly recalled that Senator Frank assumed that the Governor and the commissioner would not present, to the legislature, any land that was controversial. I have yet to find any land in my domain that is not controversial. Maybe, at some point after the legislature, the Senator and I can look over the maps and determine where this land is that is without controversy. Number 042 COMMISSIONER SHIVELY said, "I am not sure, ultimately, what we are going to do with the bill. We did veto it last year, the Governor has not made that decision. I have one other, institutional, concern, particularly, that I think is addressed conceptually in this bill, but not addressed specifically, and that is, I do not believe that oil and gas rights should go to the university. I think they are too important and should remain with the state. The university, I think, response to that has been, generally, ... well, since the commissioner has the right to decide what goes, then the commissioner can do that. I think that is something that you might want to consider." Number 074 COMMISSIONER SHIVELY voiced that, "Senator Frank has moved to accommodate some of those concerns, the fact that there has been opposition to this bill from ... sort of, both ends of the political spectrum. The environmentalists, on one hand, who basically support keeping land in public, state ownership, and some of the people in the development community who are concerned about, I think, a variety of different approaches on public lands." Number 100 COMMISSIONER SHIVELY remained available for questions. He, again, thanked Senator Frank, Representative Davies and the university for working with the department to make this a better bill. Number 112 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled Commissioner Shively's statement about the oil and gas and mineral rights, and asked, "In any conveyance that the state has made ... not necessarily dealing now with that which we are getting from the federal government, but once the state has gotten title to the land, do you know of any place where we have conveyed subsurface mineral rights? COMMISSIONER SHIVELY replied that, generally, by the constitution, we are restrained from doing that. "However, because the university is an instrument of the state, they, theoretically, could get those. For instance, on municipal land, to my knowledge, oil and gas rights do not go." Number 138 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Commissioner Shively whether he had specific objections to the amendments before the committee. Number 152 COMMISSIONER SHIVELY commented that he had not heard explanation of all amendments but, of the ones he heard, he had no objection. He said the Mental Health Lands amendment is a good one, but the amendment relating to rents and royalties on a mineral property is more of an issue for the mineral community than it is for the commissioner. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAM K. "BILL" WILLIAMS mentioned that this might be a good time to act on the amendments. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN reminded the committee that there is a motion on the table to adopt the amendments, as presented. Number 182 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT wanted clarification from the sponsor about the amendment that addresses legislative oversight. "In your opening remarks, Senator Frank, you mentioned how hard it was to pass a bill through the legislature, but if I understand this amendment, correctly, it's going to require a legislature to pass, either in support of, or rejecting the notion of it. It seems to be of a little different wrinkle than the way we have addressed other types of land conveyances." Number 209 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN premised the reason is to have a "second bite of the apple." "If the selection is in a position to create an adversity, for example, the Mental Health Lands, or to, perhaps, inadvertent over filing. It just gives the legislature another shot at approving the amount of land ... let's say they came in with 125,000 acres and 3,000 of that was in a problem area. The legislature could approve 122,000 and then the 3,000 (acres) would still be in contention. They would not be approved for selection. It does sound like micromanagement. I think the intent was, as a compromise, so that we would not reopen, under any possibility, reopen that Mental Health Trust Settlement that was made by possibly, inadvertently, though it may be reducing the land value, of that which was exchanged." Number 252 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT saw the chairman's point but theorized that if the university submits a parcel of land ...50,000 acres, one piece. And, there is a bill introduced that would require us to take some form of action, and this committee is the first committee of referral, and we find out there is a problem with this, and none of us support it. What this amendment would require is that this bill float through the entire process so that we, outwardly, reject it. I would suggest that `no action' by the legislature should come out a disapproval versus taking a proactive approach. Number 281 SENATOR FRANK remarked that Representative Kott paid attention to detail. "I think that the way we structured this amendment is probably, not exactly, correct, in that it implies that the legislature would have to take action to `disapprove.' In an earlier draft, in fact, the draft you have, version M, envisions inaction as being approval. He explained, "Last night, we made the change, which was a further concession on my part and the university's part to go to requiring approval. In drafting that, I thought about taking the words `or disapprove' out, because I know it has no effect. Inaction will be disapproval! I know as a matter of fact, that if a committee does an act on a bill and no approval or disapproval occurs, no conveyance of the land will occur." He assented to taking out the words `or disapprove' hoping that any future legislature would act, not just stall." Number 350 SENATOR FRANK continued, "It was an expression that the university would get a larger land grant, leaving it up to the Administration to work that out. They would have the authority to work that out. We've backpeddled to the point where the legislature has to be reinvolved in the process to approve those selections. I would hope that the legislature wouldn't just refuse to either deal with it, one way or the other." Number 387 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT exclaimed that is just his point, "If we don't, we are in violation of the statute, if I read this correctly. Number 400 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed saying, "And, some cantankerous committee chair could hold it is his committee and we would be in violation, because we would not have disapproved either. He interpreted Representative Kott's concern to mean that the legislature would be forced to take action or be in violation of our own statute. Even if it is to disapprove, we would have to take the action." Number 416 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN offered an amendment to the amendment to delete the words, "or disapprove." Number 440 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN shared Representative Kott's concern saying, "If we somehow don't take action, would that create, maybe, a necessity to come back into session?" Number 455 SENATOR FRANK had no problem with the amendment. "I think it is practical. I don't think the legislature would feel, itself, terribly compelled to follow that, if it did not want to." Number 466 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN called for the question on the amendment to the amendment. Number 474 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "We can't bind future legislatures, the legislature has the prerogative to act or not act. The practical impact of this is relatively minor." C0-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was objection to the amendment to the amendment. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. Number 499 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there is motion to accept the package of amendments, as amended. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that a plethora of people were waiting to testify of SB 250. He asked the witnesses to hold their testimony to two minutes each. Number 532 JEFF JERSEE, Attorney, Alaska Mental Health Land Trust Settlement, expressed appreciation of Chairman Green's consideration and said he had no comment but would be available for comments. Number 541 R. B. STILES, President, Alaska Coal Association, stated that he is, also, a member of the Alaska Miners Association and the Resource Development Council. He said he would testify on his own behalf and was not testifying on behalf of the organizations. MR. STILES expressed opposition to SB 250 for two reasons but clarified that there are two problems association with being in opposition to the legislation. " One, is the immediate appearance that you are in opposition to the University of Alaska, which is certainly not the case. Two, strong sponsorship of the bill, which also controls a whole lot of other parts of our destiny." MR. STILES declared that this is the third time he has seen the bill. "The resource development community was assured an opportunity to comment on this bill before it came up this third time. That opportunity was never granted. We are faced today with a set of amendments that none of us have seen before, so, it is very difficult for us to change our lack of support for this particular piece of legislation." MR. STILES expressed his personal opinion that were this bill to pass, the net economic effect on the affairs on the university would probably be "zip." "Certainly, there is no tentative advantage that is being granted to the university, vis a vis, other state land as a result of this bill. So, until we have time to review these amendments, we will continue to be in nonsupport." Number 656 MARTIN EPSTEIN, Director, Lands Management Office, University of Alaska, explained that this office would be responsible for managing the lands should this bill be passed and signed by the Governor, this year. He said he was available for questions during the committee's deliberations today. He stated his support of CS SB 250. Number 677 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wondered if it was Mr. Epstein's view that should this bill be passed that the university would benefit from it. Number 683 MR. EPSTEIN responded, "Yes, Representative Davies, it is my view. We have been responsible for university trust lands for less than 10 years and have generated a significant amount of revenue for the university, nearly $25,000,000. I believe that there still remains opportunities for the university for economic development on state land throughout the state." Number 714 REPRESENTATIVE LONG referred to Commissioner Shively's statement that the Administration would not consider a bill with oil and gas provisions, and asked Mr. Epstein his feeling on that. Number 725 MR. EPSTEIN believed that the Board of Regents would like to see the opportunity for the university to obtain subsurface rights, including oil and gas, to remain in this legislation. REPRESENTATIVE LONG asked if the bill would be acceptable without those provisions. Number 746 MR. EPSTEIN was not able to address the question without posing that question to the board. He said his understanding was that board's preference is to obtain oil and gas rights. Number 762 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether Mr. Epstein had heard Commissioner Shively's comments where he indicated that, at this time, he does not know the Governor's view, of the present bill, which has been modified significantly from that which was vetoed last year. Number 794 MR. EPSTEIN addressed the chair, "I would suggest that the university, while it has very modest land holdings, has held competitive oil and gas lease sales, and has another one planned for the Kenai, in the very near future, for our small holdings in that area. The transfer of those rights to the university would place in another organization the ability to develop such rights. I would not say that it would double the ability to get resources available for development but it would certainly increase because of the motivation of our office to responsibility develop those resources. In answer to your question, without consulting with the regents, it would be my opinion that the regents would look for state land, with other development opportunities, if oil and gas were excluded." Number 856 JEFF PARKER, Vice President, Trout Unlimited, and board member of the Alaska Sport Fishing Association, testified in opposition to SB 250. "We opposed this bill in the past, we do today because we see, again, no benefit to the university. We are concerned about dedicated funds issues, and we see a potential for adverse impacts in terms of creating conflicts between recreational use, subsistence and commercial fishing and therefore the creation or exacerbation of allocation issues. MR. PARKER recommended three amendments: (1) address contiguity issues in the land selection mechanisms and make those apply here. For example, we have in place, usually, requirements that `length of selections cannot surpass four times the width;' (2) we suggest that you eliminate language allowing conveyance of tides and submerged lands on page 8, lines 27 and 28; and (3) an amendment to provide expressly that this bill does not create a property right through the land selection (indisc). That means that there is not an entitlement here when it authorizes the university to select up to 350,000 acres." Number 950 JONI GATES testified from Petersburg proposing an amendment on page 11, lines 9, 10, and 11 regarding publishing notices in newspapers, and, general circulation, in the state, that provides the public with information on the location. She proposed that the notice include a map, shading the area of the land for sale. She related that the Petersburg Pilot insert was a two inch notice that said, "university land for sale, please call this number." A lot of people did not pick up on it, or even see it, and I think it is real important to put a map in there and let people know. Number 1025 VERN CARLSON, Chair, University of Fairbanks Committee on the Chamber, congratulated the committee on adopting the proposed amendments to SB 250. "I think one of the major concerns, in general, is how the university might administer these lands and whether they would be responsible. I submit to you that what better expertise, scientific knowledge and professionalism than to allow the world renown, and respected experts, to advise in the land use. Schools of business and management, tops in country; the arctic biology and research, the envy of the academic world; the geophysical, the leading (indisc.) in the world, and a great super computer availability. What better tools, and advisors, and minds can one have than those I just listed. This is where, once the lands are conveyed or transferred, we will be able to benefit and maximize." Number 1105 MR. CARLSON continued, "We are speaking of land transfers, which is the only resource that the state has as a commodity, but our greatest resource, and renewable resource, is the students and the education. Let's have a value-added product, that is a completed product which happens to be the students and the better education through the university." Number 1131 ART BUSWELL, Retired Citizen of Fairbanks, testified in support of SB 250 saying, "I believe this is an important issue before us." He congratulated the committee on adopting the amendments and the committee's favorable action, last year. He commended Senator Frank, Representative Davies and the university for the changes they made to help meet the Governor's objections. MR. BUSWELL challenged earlier comments that "this is the third time hearing the bill." He contended that the university has been waiting since 1917 to get the land they should have gotten when the Territory of Alaska accepted the land grant act. "I think it is time that the university was given more responsibility to help take care of itself." Number 1205 BILL ROBERTSON, President and CEO, Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber represents, some, 700 business members and 15,000 employees from the greater Fairbanks area. In June 1995, the chamber passed a resolution in support of SB 16, which was, ultimately, vetoed by the Governor. The chamber continues to be in support of legislation that will convey land to the university, other than entitlement. The present legislation, as amended, appears to be answering most of the questions of concern. In times of declining revenues, we should take all opportunities, such as this, to try to enhance the revenue base of the university. As you know, we continue to seek funds to take care of deferred maintenance and other costs that are associated with the university. This is an opportunity and I think they have a proven record of being able to gain revenue from land management. MR. ROBERTSON pointed out that the 500,000 acres in the legislation is less than one half of one percent of the state's entitlement of 104 million acres. Number 1284 GREG PROBST, UAF Graduate Student, testified on behalf of the University of Alaska students who oppose SB 250. "A handful of UAF students are here today to speak in opposition to the bill as it stands. An even greater number could not attend due to classes, homework and other commitments." MR. PROBST stated, "First of all, I would like to say that we, wholeheartedly, support the educational initiative at the University of Alaska, and we support funding for the university. However, we oppose SB 250 because it would allow the University of Alaska to develop land grant parcels and surface rights without regard to the environment. We understand that the University of Alaska has a draft land policy favoring sustainable development of natural resources whenever possible. We are concerned that economic and political realities often preclude sustainable land use. Currently, pressing financial obligations forced the University of Alaska to maximize revenues from land grants and surface rights over the short term. This, unavoidably, results in nonsustainable extraction of resources. As students, we are direct beneficiaries of funds derived from irresponsible land stewardship." MR. PROBST proceeded, "Although, we believe in the mission of the university, we cannot support the degradation of the environment for the sake of education. Furthermore, although, we support the university's policy toward sustainable development, our policy is not strong enough to compel environmentally sound land management. However, the force of law is. So, we would like to see the sustainable development quality written into the law, and we oppose SB 250 as it stands because it fails to do so. We also urge the legislature to demonstrate its commitment to higher education by funding the university through normal appropriation processes. Number 1413 STUART PECHEK, longtime Fairbanks resident and commercial fisherman, affirmed his support of the university achieving fiscal integrity but felt that SB 250 is not the total answer. "I see many red flags popping up by letting the university become a state land business baron." MR. PECHEK related that interaction with various UAF instructors left him with the impression of unfavorable handling of the many money matters (indisc. coughing, paper shuffling) ... some of this may be personal, but there seems to be an incredible trend that seriously questions the university's amount of good business sense. It is hard to believe that would change and, to me, our state lands are far too valuable for that kind of financial misuse." Number 1473 MR. PECHEK continued, "If we are looking for another revenue manager here, I support that one percent income tax." Number 1530 MARI-EMILLE SWEIGART, UAF student and member, Student Conservancy, testified in opposition to SB 250 not because it gives land to the university, but because there is no language in the law to compel environmentally sound land management. In the past, when the university has been given land parcels, they have clearcutted the land. This is not a sustainable use of resources. Clearcutting eliminates wildlife habitat including streams, it eradicates fisheries and hastens erosion. We cannot have nonsustainable obstruction of natural resources and the university needs to take responsibility and not degrade the environment. Therefore, in a nutshell, I am opposed to the law because there is no language to compel the university to use environmentally sound land management. Number 1598 GARY PAUL, Natural Resource Management Major, UAF, supports an enhanced revenue base for the university, but opposes SB 250 on the basis of the value-added industries. "I do not think, at this point, that the infrastructure exists in the state to where a mature, value-added concurrence of benefit will develop from a clearcutting type of revenue generated out of university lands." CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN informed the committee that a number of students from the University of Alaska Anchorage would testify via offnet. Number 1668 TARA BRADLEY, UAA student, testified in opposition to SB 250 stating that a huge population of students, in Anchorage, signed a petition and are adamantly opposed to the bill. She proceeded to rapidly read a letter from the president of the Environmental Action Club, which she said speaks the sentiment for much of the community here: "I am speaking on behalf of Anchorage students who are concerned about clearcutting on remote old growth forests off the coast of Yakataga. We are opposed to SB 250. It has been brought to our attention that contractors at the University of Alaska have clearcut more than 30,000,000 board feet of timber and that plans are under way to logging another 200 million board feet. MS. BRADLEY continued, "This proposal is frightening to students because it is known that state biologists and ecologists have been complaining that their agencies are underfunded and understaffed. Cuts have deeply inhibited the ability of state agencies to monitor an area and enforce environmental regulations before and after clearcutting. MS. BRADLEY said, "Rick Rogers, Senior Forester, University's Statewide Office of Land Management, met with UAA's Environmental Action Club on February 24th and stated that the department had only one person in charge of monitoring the situation at Yakataga. We found disturbing, his statement `we are not managing for wildlife, we are managing for revenue.'" MS. BRADLEY continued, "The state Department of Environmental Conservation also answered questions pertaining to the effects of clearcutting. It was stated that clearcutting stripped away the diversity of the forest. A devastating environmental condition resolved from soil erosion. Once, various species of trees, and different plants, are eliminated, there is nothing to hold the soil in place. Many forms of plants die from the collapse of the ecosystem and those, which many survived, have lost their habitat. MS. BRADLEY read, "In this area, our major concern is the mountain goats. The location that is being clearcut has the largest number of mountain goats, in the survey area, between Valdez and Icy Bay. Goats are sensitive to disturbance and it is easy to ascertain what destructive action clearcutting is to their habitat. Clearcutting can not be an option. There are certainly other uses for the land. It can be left open for recreation, tourism or (indisc.) The area at Yakataga should be preserved. It addition, we are opposed to legislation that can turn more public land over to the university for further deforestation. MS. BRADLEY continued to read, "We find the university's role as a land manager disturbing. Pride in one's institution is very important. UAA students would like our university to leave a positive legacy. As students, we would like our university to leave a legacy of intelligence, progression and foresight, not environmental destruction." Number 1870 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN addressed Ms. Bradley informing her that as a pilot, a hunter and a 20-year resident of Alaska, he had yet to see a mountain goat in the trees. Number 1905 SOREN WUERTH informed the committee that Fish and Game biologists in Cordova have mapped mountain goat habitats and the mountain goats, in that area, have the highest concentrations of mountain goats between Valdez and Icy Bay. MR. WUERTH, UAA Alumni, stated his appall that his university is clearcutting old growth rain forest in Cape Yakataga. The logging operation, the university is conducting in this region, is reckless and unsustainable. It is reckless because the only oversight of logging practices comes from the Department of Fish and Game, specifically, two people. These scientists who, already lack the funds, visit the areas being logged without spending their own money, will have even less of an ability to monitor timber harvesting under proposed funding cuts. The university is failing to comply with the intent of the Alaska State Forest Practices Act. University land management is ecologically unsustainable because slow (indisc.) road building, (indisc.) leaves poor drainage, sediment erosion and inadequate revegitation. MR. WUERTH continued, "I am also concerned that the university is exporting jobs. Not only are raw logs being shipped out of the country, but money generated from timber operations is being used by the university to fund projects like the one called, `Timber for China.' A project to explore marketing these raw logs in China. China, while the university exports jobs to other counties, and uses its revenues to find ways to export even more jobs outside. Obviously, the university's land grant policy has been an embarrassment to this institution. Why doesn't UAA's Administrators work with, or even inform, its staff and faculty about its land management decisions. Perhaps, their decisions would not be so unpopular and controversial, if they had the support of the students in the community." Number 2079 SUSAN GARDINER DILLON, student, testified in opposition to the clearcutting of University of Alaska land in the Cape Yakataga area. "I am, also, opposed to granting the University of Alaska 500,000 acres for development. Contractors for the University of Alaska have clearcut more than 30,000,000 board feet, near White River, and plans are underway to clearcut another 200,000,000 board feet in Cape Yakataga. We have gathered hundreds of signatures in an attempt to stop the clearcutting in progress. Students are very concerned about the university's land management practices." She concluded by stating, "Please consider the hundreds of students, who are registered voters, opposed to the university's land grant legislation, and we look forward to receiving more signatures on this issue as the legislative session progresses." Number 2190 KEVIN TRITT, Senator, student government, stated,"We are looking at the university's land management practices and policies, right now, with one of our ad hoc committees. So, my opinions, right now, represent my personal views and I am not speaking for the entire assembly here. However, I am absolutely surprised since we began addressing this issue that I have not seen the mobilization of the large numbers of students that I have, behind any issue here on campus, like I have from the logging issue that is going on right now in Cape Yakataga. MR. TRITT said, "My major concern, right now, is the future of the state of Alaska because the university is where the leaders of this state are built, in our university system. I am concerned that the trend for development only, and, that is exactly what our Board of Regents is looking at right now is ways to make money. Their only viable option, as far as I know, that they have even considered, are timber and oil development. I have sat in on Board of Regents meetings and heard comments that I did not, exactly, appreciate. They are talking about `getting the state off our back' to give us more room to do whatever we want to do. I think the state serves a very important role in managing its own land because they allow public input, they make sure that wildlife is protected and transferring these lands to the university, I am concerned that those assurances that proper protection of land would not be as well maintained as well if the land stayed in the state's hands. I want to see the university, and, hopefully, the state look at other some other alternatives besides timber and oil. I know we have a vast resource up here, but all resources can be depleted. We have seen that from our development, in this country, from the East Coast, across the midwest to West Coast, and up to Alaska. It is a trend and if we do not heed history, we are going to be in trouble. MR. TRITT said, "We are looking at proposing alternatives to the Board of Regents, as far as alternatives they could do with their land besides clearcutting and oil extraction. I believe that if the university is going to serve its proper role, then it needs to be progressive in some development in this state. By progressive, I mean looking at some of these alternatives rather than relying on ... what has done a very good job of building this state. However, those types of things are not going to last forever. Students here are very conscious of the balance that is necessary to be maintained on the planet and, I think, we all should. That is the continuing trend, that is not something that is just a fad. It is obvious. As we go into the future, we need to start looking at these other alternatives. The Board of Regents is simply going by the status quo, trying to put some money into their trust fund. I want to see a little more time to work through this and look at other alternatives besides just the timber and oil resource. Because, if this goes through, that is the only thing they have got in their mind right now and they are going to end up locking it up like that for 20 to 50 years or something. If we have more time to propose alternatives maybe we can have them suggest..."(CHANGE TAPE) TAPE 96-49, SIDE A Number 000 MR. TRITT concluded his testimony stating, "We definitely stand against SB 250 in current its form." Number 068 SARA HANNAN, Executive Director, Alaska Environmental Lobby, testified, "We are opposed to SB 250, the university land grant. I want to talk about it in a philosophic and policy deliberation for a moment. First of all, the University of Alaska is a land grant institution. Land grant is a federal program. The state of Alaska's obligation to fulfill land grant is fulfilled. The (state) does not have a legal requirement or a moral obligation to give the university any more land. They have a land trust provided at statehood. Post statehood, the state of Alaska, has a legal obligation to provide certain kinds of services, public schools being one of them. Yet, we have never created a public school endowment in the state, although, it was attempted in the mid 1980s. We have a legal obligation to provide public safety. We do not have an endowment to provide the funding to provide public safety mechanisms. The University of Alaska believes they would be able to profit from a `gift' of land for their management. I would venture to guess that any Alaskan or any Alaskan institution or any Alaskan entity that you decide to `gift' land to, could generate revenue and benefit from it. If we decide to do that for public schools or for public safety or for public fisheries or for mental health, we could do that. That is a policy deliberation, if you choose to take that policy debate and pursue giving additional gifts of land to the university, you should keep in mind that the examples of the university generating revenue off their land is not a hard equation." Number 201 MS. HANNAN continued, "When the state is managing land for multiple purpose, they cannot benefit one entity, explicitly, for revenue. The state has to balance its interests when it looks at what it does with `Parcel X.' If it is, purposefully, delineated for revenue generation, that decision making grid is very narrow and short and you quickly can tell. Can I make money off of it? Can I sell the gravel? Can I sell the timber? Can I lease it? Can I do a third party sale for commercial real estate? Much of the land that is still undelineated, in the state of Alaska, does not have a clear revenue generating option. It is land that Alaskans hunt and fish on, fly over, travel on. MS. HANNAN stated, "Now, we get into a lot of land that people are using, and anytime someone is not going to get to use it, they are going to be upset. Conflicts over land management arise and they are, increasingly, going to happen as Alaska's expands. If you decided to put 500 million acres or a million acres or 350,000 acres into aggressive revenue generating for the benefit of the general fund of the state of Alaska, the Department of Natural Resources could undertake that and generate additional revenue. But, we have not made that a policy decision, we contend that this is a shortsighted policy to benefit one entity while at the detriment of cutting off our options for future revenue generated for the state of Alaska. MS. HANNAN said, "Within the land management policy of the University of Alaska, (Ms. Hannan has a copy) they delineate how they would try and take real estate and convert it into assets. Some of it would be extracted resources, dig the travel, cut the trees, but a large percent of their potential revenue generation comes from third party resale of potential revenue generating commercial properties. If your local government took land within its municipal entitlement and decided, through a municipal planning process, to resell it, for commercial real estate development, it could do that. It would follow an extensive public process, your community and your constituents would have deliberation with its local government and that decision could be made. But, they could not take any land that they have through municipal entitlement, that is submerged lands or tidelands, and resell it." Number 385 MS. HANNAN further stated, "The state of Alaska is one of the states that reserves all public access to submerged and tidelands to the public. Until last year, we did not let municipal governments even select tidelands and submerged lands unless they were a local government that existed prior to statehood. They could not select tidelands and submerged lands because we realized that what had happened on the East Coast was, everywhere someone owns it, a fence goes up and no one gets to transect it. We have decided, in the state of Alaska, that our public access to lands and tidelands is very important, and restricting the resale of that to third party is significant." MS. HANNAN further commented, "Probably, the biggest growth in tourism, in the state of Alaska, is going to be on our coast lands. It is going to be on waterfront properties, it is going to be on riverfront properties, and that is the land that is going to have resale value. If the state of Alaska decides that it wants to have large, commercial development on its tidelands, and submerged lands up and down the coast, of our boroughs and bays that have great fisheries, we can do that. But, we should do that with a conscious policy, that is what you are undertaking. Not through gifting the land to the university and letting them do a third party resale of tidelands and submerged lands." Number 426 MS. HANNAN concluded, "We think it is a bad policy for the state of Alaska to undertake this gift to the university, we do not believe that there is a legal obligation to do it, and we believe that there are many policy questions that you should undertake before this bill would pass from committee." Number 478 JERRY McCUTCHEON testified from Anchorage emphasizing that the timber at Cape Yakataga is "the finest timber in the world, bar none." He spent several minutes expounding the magnificence of the forested area and the enormity of its setting. He said, "It is something that should be saved. You could make more money out of that building a boardwalk through the area, and running tourists through it, than you can selling timber off it in round logs and shipping it to Japan." MR. McCUTCHEON recommended, "We ought not to have any more timber sales on state land until we can get the federal laws changed with respect to the processing of timber in Alaska. He further recommended that the legislature think over what it is they are going to give the university, and their past experience, from what I have seen, has not been good. A piece of property that now holds Northway Mall, that whole square mile in that area, once belonged to the University of Alaska and they sold it off for little or nothing. I don't know how they got fumbled out of it because it was supposed to be lease basis only." Number 671 DAN RITZMAN, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, testified in opposition to SB 250. Senate Bill 250 exempts selected public lands from public oversight and state land planning requirements. The University claims to be concerned about public input to its land management but recent history does not demonstrate this. You have heard a lot about the Yakataga timber harvest. Up here, in Fairbanks, we had the Walmart fiasco, a few years ago, with university lands, and this year, with SB 250 on the Senate side the bill was fast tracked right past the public. There was only one hearing in the Senate and the hearing was not even teleconferenced and it left a lot of individuals across the state without a voice." MR. RITZMAN said, "The bill removes 350,000 acres of public land from public control, access to public lands traditionally used for fishing, hunting, trapping and many other purposes which will be lost or restricted after the transfer to the university. We believe that this will lead to development conflicts on existing uses of neighboring public and private land as well. Number 767 MR. RITZMAN testified, "Senate Bill 250 is likely to violate the dedicated fund prohibition in the state constitution. But, whether or not the land giveaway is constitutional, the Northern Center believes this is bad fiscal policy, the state will lose general state revenues and the flexibility for future funding decisions. MR. RITZMAN, "Finally, strictly speaking, this is not a question of whether to develop or not, but how we make decisions on public lands. Do we involve the public or do we turn the land over to, essentially, private control, and keep the public out? Also, the shares and the revenue from these lands, does everyone in the state share or is it just a few individuals who share in revenue? Number 824 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN talked about his concerns with the bill which is the portion that allows the university to control the subsurface rights and whether or not it is appropriate to, essentially, give to the university, and take away some of the authority that the legislature has in allocating money and setting policy on what kinds of funds we give them. "If I had real warm, fuzzy feelings about how the university manages their deferred maintenance and a few other things, and I felt that they were doing a good job there and in some of the other problem areas, I would probably be quite a bit more in support of the bill. But, I am having some reservations about it. Number 902 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN synthesized that the university is trying to be akin to other land grant colleges where they do actually have both surface and subsurface. And, I am thinking now of the University of Texas which actually was in the oil business as a pretty big player. They since have depleted ... but they have been able to expand their campuses and do a lot of things in Texas through that source of revenue rather than depend so much on taxation or state aid. I share your concern about some of the management practices that we have been made privy to at the university, and I am not sure that would, necessarily, apply to granting them land. You may recall that when we debated this last year, that I had great concern that, as a land grant school, as was brought out, that should probably have been land granted from the federal government rather than from the state government. All that aside, I think, there is some merit to granting some land." Number 978 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES could not resist commenting on what he believes is the "red herring" about the deferred maintenance issue. He said, "The university had requested funds, for over a decade, specifically acknowledging that there was a deferred maintenance. The legislature chose not to fund those requests. The university has, through the Board of Regents, recognized that the legislature is probably not going to step up at the plate. In the past two years, through the reassessment process, the reallocation of resources process that the university has gone through has made a decision that is in operation now and the university will deflect money from classrooms to maintain buildings, that is the only place they have." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt the Board of Regents has been extremely responsible in coming to that decision. "It is not a decision that they came to lightly because they believe that the resources that come, ought to be directed as much as possible to the classroom. The capital needs of the university should be dealt with through the capital budget but since the legislature is not going to do that, the Board of Regents are now redirecting operating monies into capital renewal and renovation. It is the only choice they have, but it is a reluctant choice that they have made." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES pointed out that he felt that the state of Alaska has not been any more responsible. "If you look across the rest of the state, the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, the Court System, those buildings have all fallen into disrepair in the same way and for the same reasons. We have a deferred maintenance problem and it is not just at the university. It is a billion dollars statewide. I do not think it is fair to raise that as an issue whether the university is a responsible land manager or not. I think it is a red herring." Number 1106 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to the subsurface minerals issue on 6(i), there is an Attorney General's opinion on that. "The university is being regarded as an agent of the state, and, therefore, it is appropriate to transfer subsurface rights to the university for management (indisc. House bell ringing) and any other agency in the state might. But, the 6(i) restraints apply and the university may not resell those subsurface rights to a third party. The state cannot sell those rights and the university will be bound by that same restriction. He said there were other issues about ... whether it is a valid state purpose, which we certainly believe that it is and that the university has to adopt procedures substantially similar to whatever the state management of mineral resources would be and we have amended that even more tight in the bill today. A purpose in the transfer is the Congressional purpose of ensuring long term revenue to the state and the legislature would, in fact, continue ... and that gets to the next issue, and that is the concern about whether the legislature should be involved in how the funding is used. Under the terms of this bill, any revenues, derived from this land, have to be appropriated by the legislature each and every year. So, there is no dedicated fund problem and there is no problem with the legislature allocating resources. We are in the loop." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that Representative Davies had addressed his concern about setting up a form of dedicated fund. Number 1181 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS moved that HCSCSSB 250 (RES) move from the House Resources Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|