Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/06/2013 10:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB77 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 77(RES)
"An Act relating to the Alaska Land Act, including
certain authorizations, contracts, leases, permits, or
other disposals of state land, resources, property, or
interests; relating to authorization for the use of
state land by general permit; relating to exchange of
state land; relating to procedures for certain
administrative appeals and requests for
reconsideration to the commissioner of natural
resources; relating to the Alaska Water Use Act; and
providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Meyer noted that Commissioner Sullivan had some
discussions since the last meeting on HB 77 and that maybe
there would be follow-up information available.
DANIEL SULLIVAN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, corrected a prior statement that the department
had made and related that there was one other state that
did not have public entities applying; that state was
Arizona. He addressed an issue raised in the prior hearing
of the bill and remarked that the Department of Law (DOL)
was very confident regarding the constitutionality of the
bill's provision. He discussed the strong record regarding
using water reservations and related that it was not the
only way of protecting fish habitat. He opined that the
bill's most controversial provision actually insured that
Alaskan's would have the right to get and use the water
that they needed. He referenced the department's strong
record of issuing water rights and temporary water-use
permits on a consistent basis. He mentioned that the vast
majority of the Department of Natural Resources'(DNR) work
was in getting water use and water rights to Alaskans;
furthermore, the department was making sure that people
with expertise in "these" issues managed the public
resources for the public's benefit rather than the courts
or outside non-governmental organizations (NGO). He
explained that outside NGOs did not always have Alaska's
interest in mind and that the best way was to give the
political entities and subdivisions that represented all
Alaskans the ability to apply; furthermore, any entity,
individual, or tribe could initiate "that process." He
emphasized that the debate only strengthened the
department's resolve, determination, and commitment to work
with all Alaskans, particularly with the state's Native
organizations and tribes, on "these important matters."
10:21:04 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered if the commissioner could
expand on how the legislation, specifically regarding
Section 40, was consistent with the state's constitution.
She discussed the "maximum benefit for the people of
Alaska," which was found in Article 8, Sections 1 and 2 of
the Alaska State Constitution, as well as Article 8,
Section 13, which dealt with water rights. She requested an
explanation of the bill regarding its consistency with the
state's constitution and noted that the committee had heard
from many Alaskans who were fearful that their rights would
be violated by the legislation. Commissioner Sullivan
responded that he would like to get back to the committee
with a response because he wanted the attorneys from DOL to
speak to the question directly.
ASHLEY BROWN, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), quoted from Article 8, Section 13 from the
state's constitution as follows:
Except for public water supply, an appropriation of
water shall be limited to stated purposes and subject
to preferences among beneficial uses, concurrent or
otherwise, as prescribed by law, and to the general
reservation of fish and wildlife.
Ms. Brown spoke to Article 8, Section 13 and offered that
although the waters of the state were subject to
appropriation, other than public water supply,
appropriations should be limited in its purposes;
furthermore, the appropriation could not remove fish and
wildlife from the general reservation to the people. She
related that the section made clear that an appropriation
would not cause fish and wildlife using the water to lose
their status as a common-use resource. She related an
example that fish using water that was impounded in a
reservoir would not become the private property of the
reservoir's water right holder.
Senator Hoffman discussed the two provisions that Vice-
Chair Fairclough had mentioned and related that they were
"crux" of the matter. He pointed out that the state was
trying to make water accessible to the people of the Alaska
and quoted from Article 8, Section 1 of the state's
constitution:
…making them available for maximum use consistent with
the public interest.
Senator Hoffman found it hard to believe that eliminating a
person from the application process was consistent with the
public interest. He pointed to Section 40 on Page 21, line
17 of the bill and offered that its only change was to
amend and delete "a person." He added that a person was a
citizen of the State of Alaska and that he did not think
that the current system was broken; furthermore, if the
system was not broken, it should be left alone to stay
consistent with the state's constitution. He quoted Article
8, Section 13 of the state's constitution as follows:
"All surface and subsurface waters reserved to the
people for common use…"
Senator Hoffman observed that the bill eliminated the
"person," which was a citizen of Alaska. He opined that the
legislation should be moved forward, but that Section 40
needed to be eliminated in order to protect the "person" or
a citizen of the state. He recalled the prior statements of
Commissioner Sullivan and reported that the citizens of
Alaska should not have to go through an agency or some
other entity to apply for water rights; he reiterated that
this was the "crux" of the issue for him. He offered that
if the interests of the citizens of State of Alaska could
be protected, he would be able to support the legislation.
He opined that many sections of the bill would serve the
state's interests, but found it unbelievable that another
step would be required of the people in order to get access
to water. He furthered that under the bill, if an
individual was denied access and could not convince another
agency to represent them, their only recourse was to
address the issue through the courts. He concluded that it
was "unfathomable" that legislators would make the process
more complicated. He acknowledged the need to streamline
the process, but opined that the need should not be
addressed at the expense of the rights of the citizens of
the state for access to water rights. He fully supported
the development and utilization of the resources of Alaska,
but did not support "trampling on the rights of the people
of the State of Alaska in order to get there."
10:27:50 AM
Commissioner Sullivan remarked that he had a number of
discussions with Senator Hoffman on the issue, but
clarified that in terms of "water use," the bill did not
affect any tribes' or individuals' abilities to apply for
"water use" activities such as temporary water use permits
or water rights. He stated that DNR was trying to make
"water use" more secure. He recalled that he had testified
in a prior meeting that currently, "water reservation"
issues needed to be adjudicated before the "water use"
issues on the same body of water; he offered that this made
it harder for Alaskans to use the water, which was not the
intent. He related that the department was trying to make
it so Alaskans could continue to access water. He related
that the department was very good at issuing temporary
water-use permits that went to villages, individuals, and
miners and that it wanted to continue to enable all
Alaskans to apply; He concluded that bill helped advance
that goal.
Senator Hoffman observed that his concern was not only his
own, but was also the concern of 95 percent of people that
had testified before the committee. He opined that
characterizing the concern as his concern only was
misdirected. He offered that he represented the people of
Alaska and that it was the people that were concerned with
the bill. He added that the people of the state represented
the "person" that would be eliminated on page 21, line 17
of bill. He stated that he would stand by the individual's
right because he did not believe that the system was
broken. He reiterated that he was speaking on behalf of 95
percent of people that had testified before the Senate
Finance Committee and challenged the perspective that he
was only person who was "of this opinion." Commissioner
Sullivan replied that he did not mean to imply that it was
Senator Hoffman's concern and apologized. He acknowledged
and respected that Senator Hoffman was representing his
constituents. He added that in the Alaska Statutes,
"person" was not defined as an Alaskan resident. He pointed
out that DOL could speak to the issue, but that a "person,"
in terms of the statutes, could be a New York City resident
who wanted a water reservation in Alaska. He offered that a
New York City resident wanting a water reservation in
Alaska was probably not in the state's interest.
10:32:25 AM
Co-Chair Meyer noted that he would like Ms. Brown from DOL
to weigh in the issue.
Ms. Brown stated that she agreed with Commissioner Sullivan
and that she could not find anything in the statues that
further defined person. She was unable to recall if there
was any case law that discussed the definition of person
any further. She pointed out that she had failed to mention
that there was a constitutional right to access navigable
waters of the state; furthermore, in Section 13, there was
a statement that all surface and subsurface waters were
subject appropriation. She reported that an in-stream flow
reservation was not necessary to be able to access water in
Alaska.
Senator Olson inquired what the legal definition of
"person" was regarding the bill and added that he assumed
there was a definition. Ms. Brown replied that she would
have to get back to committee with an answer. Senator Olson
noted that the lack of an answer was very concerning. Mr.
Brown relayed that there was another attorney who had
assisted on the bill, but that she was unable to attend the
meeting. She added that she would consult with the other
attorney and return to the committee with a response.
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that by looking that the past
applicants, the committee would have an idea of who was
being considered a "person." She noted Trout Unlimited, as
well as different NGOs outside of Alaska were considered a
"person." She related that a person could be many different
types of entities. She stated that "this" was a case in
which two reasonable people could see things differently.
She found that, with respect to all viewpoints, it was
interesting that a response was more likely promoted by
planting fear. She opined that sometimes people did not
have all of the information, but that they were fearful
that what they had heard was correct. She offered that
probably 99 percent of the testimony in committee had
shared Senator Hoffman's concern and thought that only two
people had testified in favor of the proposal. She offered
that the 99 percent of testifiers had been motivated by
fear rather than facts. She added that she respected the
fear of Alaskans and that legislators represented the
people of the state. She stated that she had been elected
by a region that was described as a boundary to represent
all of Alaskans and not just people who voted in her
district. She mentioned that there were several issues
regarding defining who a "person" was. She explained that
she had asked the questions in the prior meeting because a
"person," whether they were inside Alaska or outside of the
state, could not accomplish the task of reserving the water
reservation without the consultation of the federal
government, which was still an option under the bill, ADFG,
or DNR. She offered that according to the testimony the
prior day, individuals could not currently get water
reservations without talking to a government agency or a
political subdivision. She stated that if ADFG did not act
on behalf of the people of Alaska to protect the resource,
the federal government would not allow Alaska to continue
with those rights. She related the concerns with the
"dredge and fill" issues with the federal government and
offered that the federal government and its constitution
were the answer and "end all" to everything the state did.
She furthered that if there was a violation, the federal
government would hold the state accountable through the
court systems, which was currently the way that disputes
were settled. She reiterated that currently, a "person"
would not be able to reserve water because they would have
to go through ADFG or DNR; furthermore, an individual would
not be able to reserve water because they could not provide
the required tests to the appropriate entities. She
discussed Commissioner Sullivan's previous comments
regarding having to adjudicate water reservations in their
entirety before water rights could be issued to people from
the same body of water. She expressed concerns that
currently non-Alaskans could stop an Alaskan from accessing
water and warned that Alaska could be "hijacked" by people
who did not have the best benefits of Alaskan citizens in
mind. She was inclined to support Section 40 of the bill
not only for reasons that Commissioner Sullivan had
discussed, but primarily because other people were trying
to take control of Alaska.
10:39:27 AM
Senator Olson commented on a situation where someone from
New York was "weighing in" on issues in Alaska and offered
that sometimes the only avenue of recourse for some of the
smaller tribes was to bring in outside entities that had
the resources and expertise. He opined that the bill would
push "those people" further into a corner, so that that the
only choice was bring in outside interests to represent
them. He discussed how the development on the North Slope
had changed the conditions and lifestyles of people in the
region. He shared that until his recent death, Hugo Chavez
had one of best names in Rural Alaska because he was
supplying oil at affordable rates and that the state had
not been addressing the situation to "that extent." He
offered that while the commissioner had the best
intentions, he had mischaracterized that people in New York
were instigating issues in Alaska. He added that the people
in New York were taking the side of the people "up here."
Vice-Chair Fairclough acknowledged that Senator Olson's
comments were valid. She recalled Deputy Commissioner
Fogels and Commissioner Campbell stating that they helped
anyone through the process. She inquired if anyone had been
"turned down, so that we are forcing them to go somewhere
based on money." She reiterated that Commissioner Campbell
had indicated that the state helped people through the
process. Commissioner Sullivan replied that under the
statutes, a "person" included an individual, partnership,
association, public or private corporation, state agency,
political subdivision of the state, and the United States;
he added that the definition was broad. He addressed the
comments by Senator Olson and related that he did not
specifically say that there was a situation involving
someone from New York, but that there could be under the
definition of person.
Senator Olson requested the site for the definition of
"person."
WYNN MENEFEE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MINING, LAND AND
WATER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, replied that the
definition was found in AS 46.15.260, Section 7.
ED FOGELS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, responded to Vice-Chair Fairclough's previous
question regarding if DNR had ever turned anyone away and
believed that answer was no. He related that the department
wanted people to come to them early to work through the
issues with the reservation and that it did not want
someone to spend a lot of money and effort to collect data
and still have a problematic application. He opined that
ADFG had spent a lot of time working with NGOs on water
reservations. He offered that it might be good if
Commissioner Campbell weighed in on the issue.
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that Senator Olson raised a
valid point. She explained that the application had a cost
of $1,500, which would probably represent a burden to a
person. She requested Commissioner Campbell to comment.
10:43:58 AM
CORA CAMPBELL, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), agreed with the comments of
Mr. Fogels. She related that it was the department's
practice to assist people who wanted to work their way
through the process and not to turn them away.
Senator Olson discussed a recent court decision involving
the Chuitna project, in which a decision was made against
the "coalition that was there."[The comment was made in
reference to the Chuitna Citizens Coalition]. He noted that
the decision was later overturned by the trial court. He
pointed out the recent Chuitna case and expressed concerns
that DNR was claiming that no one was turned away. He
observed that the department was, in some ways, violating
its own rules by denying Alaskans the right to keep their
natural resources up. He challenged the department to tell
him where he was wrong in his assumption. He opined that it
appeared as though the state had not just turned the
coalition away, but had "downright" denied their
application, which was the reason why there was such a
passionate constituency regarding the issue. He inquired
where the department's dedication to the tribes was when
there was so much resistance to an amendment that removed
"person" and added an entity like a tribal organization. He
offered that DNR's comments about working with the tribes
seemed disingenuous given that they were unwilling to add
an amendment that recognized people "that are out there,
that are on the short end." He offered that DNR had been
"found wanting" and requested Mr. Fogels to correct him if
he was wrong. Mr. Fogels stated that the department had
before it two lawsuits on the Chuitna project and that one
of the lawsuits was the one that Senator Olson was
referring to. He explained that the lawsuit illustrated why
the bill was needed and expounded that the department was
being challenged on its ability to issue any other person
water from that water system until the in stream flow
reservation had been adjudicated. He pointed out that the
department was being challenged because it was going to
issue the mining company temporary water use permits for
exploratory drilling. He mused that the department could
have been challenged if a village or any other Alaskan
wanted to take water out of "that river." He shared that
the lawsuit that Senator Olson was referencing shined a
spotlight on the issue before the committee.
Commissioner Sullivan observed that they had laid out in
"their own press release" that they had had applied in 2009
for an in stream flow reservation ["They" was made in
reference to the Chuitna Citizens Coalition.]. He relayed
that the department had accepted the in stream flow
reservation, but had not processed it yet due to a large
backlog; however, he noted that DNR was doing "way better
than anyone else has ever done" dealing with the backlog,
which was in part because of the support from the
legislature. He stated that the reservations were primarily
focused on protecting fish habitat and offered that the
argument that DNR was not protecting fish habitat with
regard to water reservations was "completely incorrect." He
stated that "they" claimed in their press release that DNR
had issued a temporary water-use permit on the same body of
water, without consideration of their pending request for
an in stream flow reservation, after they had applied for
the reservation["They" was made in reference to the Chuitna
Citizens Coalition.]. He reported that DNR did not think
that it should be required to adjudicate a three-year to
five-year in stream flow reservation before it could
adjudicate water rights in order to get water to Alaskans;
he stated that this was their argument, which DNR had "big
issues" with ["Their" was made in reference to the Chuitna
Citizens Coalition.].
10:48:50 AM
Senator Hoffman remarked that DNR had been overturned in
the case in question and that the courts had agreed with
them, which was the "main difference"["Them" was made in
reference to the Chuitna Citizens Coalition.]. He offered
that the department had been wrong.
Senator Dunleavy inquired what department a person would
apply to first for a water reservation. Commissioner
Sullivan responded that ultimately, any application went
through DNR.
Senator Dunleavy further inquired how long a reservation
was for once it was granted. Commissioner Sullivan replied
that assuming the water reservation was granted, it would
possibly be held in perpetuity; however, the reservations
were reviewed every ten years. Senator Dunleavy noted that
a water reservation would last at least ten years and
possibly forever. Commissioner Sullivan observed that
Senator Dunleavy was correct.
Senator Olson inquired what Tim Troll's views were on the
issues surrounding the bill. He commented that Co-Chair
Meyer was going a very good job of keeping the mode and
decorum professional. He inquired if Mr. Troll could
comment on the proceedings.
Co-Chair Kelly inquired who Mr. Troll was.
Co-Chair Meyer queried what the intent in having Mr. Troll
speak was. Senator Olson stated that Mr. Troll had
expertise in the area of fishing and land issues. He
offered that he did know Mr. Troll very well, but that he
had expertise in "this" area and had been involved in the
process.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that Mr. Troll was with the Bristol
Bay Heritage Land Trust and inquired if there was a
specific question for him. Senator Olson responded that he
wanted Mr. Troll to comment on bill and inquired why
someone online would not be allowed to speak. Co-Chair
Meyer noted that public testimony had already been held on
the bill. Senator Olson interjected that he was not asking
for public testimony, but wondered what Mr. Troll's
thoughts and ideas were regarding the issue in from of the
committee. Co-Chair Meyer queried what Mr. Troll's
expertise was and how he was different than anyone else who
wanted to testify on the bill.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that he was trying to limit the
current meeting's testimony to answering questions with the
administration and related that it was administration's
legislation. He concluded that public testimony had been
closed on the bill.
Co-Chair Kelly agreed with the comments of Co-Chair Meyer.
Senator Dunleavy requested a brief at ease.
10:51:59 AM
AT EASE
10:56:48 AM
RECONVENED
10:56:58 AM
Senator Bishop commented that he had received numerous
emails from constituents in his district that lived on
creeks. He offered that he would give examples and
requested the administration to comment on how the
individual in his example would apply if the legislation
passed in its current form. He stated that he could support
the intent of the legislation, but that there had been a
lot of comments of concern. He offered that part of the
confusion was regarding a fear of the unknown because the
department had not shown clear lines on how it would
implement the bill; He inquired if this was a fair
assessment. Commissioner Sullivan replied in the
affirmative.
Senator Bishop related a hypothetical example of someone
who lived on Goldstream Creek in Fairbanks that wanted to
reserve water because of a mine that was upstream. He
inquired how the aforementioned person would apply for the
water reservation "under this bill, if it passed as is." He
further inquired whether the individual would have to go to
the North Star Borough for help with the application
process. Commissioner Sullivan replied that the person
would have a choice of whatever political entity they chose
to initiate that process. He added that the North Star
Borough, ADFG, and DNR would help work through the data
collection and that "one of those entities" would actually
apply to DNR.
Mr. Fogels interjected that a person would have to do what
Commissioner Sullivan had indicated if they wanted a water
reservation; however, a water right would be probably be
applied for on a creek for water use. He explained that the
bill did not, in any way, diminish the ability of any
Alaskan to get water rights or temporary water-use permits.
He furthered that individuals could apply directly to DNR
for a water rights. Commissioner Sullivan interjected that
DNR thought that the bill enhanced the ability of Alaskans
to get water rights or temporary water-use permits.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that Commissioner Sullivan would
probably have to educate the general public on this process
because it was confusing. He observed that John Baker from
DOL was online and queried what his position was with the
department. Mr. Menefee replied that Mr. Baker was familiar
with the recent lawsuits involving the Chuitna Project,
water-use law, and numerous other aspects of the laws that
DNR worked under.
JOHN BAKER, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, NATURAL RESOURCES SECTION
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), noted that he had only been
online for 15 minutes and inquired if there was a question.
11:01:18 AM
Senator Hoffman observed that the Red Dog Mine was a
project that "everyone says is a wonderful project," which
employed hundreds of people and brought millions of dollars
into the economy. He pointed out that the Nana Regional
Corporation had written the legislature to oppose the water
right reservation exclusion in the bill. He shared that
about a third of the land in Alaska was privately held, but
that the citizens of the state owned less than 1 percent
that; furthermore, the rest of the privately held land in
Alaska was owned by the Native corporations. He offered
that the bill represented a very key element to the
development of the resources that the Native corporations
owned. He stated that the Nana Regional Corporation was not
taking a position on HB 77, but that they were opposed to
the language in Section 40 of the bill. He inquired if the
Nana Regional Corporation would be allowed to apply for
water rights under the legislation if the Red Dog mine
opened or whether they would have to go to another agency
to apply for water rights. Mr. Baker replied that the
legislation did not affect the Nana Regional Corporation or
any other private corporation or entity that wanted to use
water to make a withdrawal, impoundment, or diversion of
water for beneficial use. He added that the only thing that
would be affected by the proposed legislation was
application for a reservation to leave a certain volume of
water in the stream. Senator Hoffman interjected that this
was exactly his point. Mr. Baker stated that unless Nana,
or whatever entity, was trying to leave water in a stream
through an in-stream flow reservation, nothing would be
affected by the bill. Senator Hoffman surmised that the
answer to his question was that an entity like the Nana
Regional Corporation would not be able to reserve water
rights under the bill and inquired if this was correct. Mr.
Baker stated under the bill, an entity like the Nana
Regional Corporation would have to go through a different
process for reserving in stream water; however, diverting
water for industrial use, drinking, or any out-of-stream
use of the water would not be affected by the bill. Senator
Hoffman asserted that the answer to his previous question
was no and that the Nana Regional Corporation would not be
able to apply directly to the state to reserve water
rights. He stated that under the proposed legislation, the
rest of the Native corporations that owned 33 million acres
would not be able to reserve water rights without going
through a third entity and requested a yes or no answer to
his assertion. Mr. Baker replied that in order to reserve
water in the stream, a Native corporation would have to go
through the appropriate agency in order to apply. He added
that for traditional water rights, which made up the vast
majority of all water rights applied for under AS 46.15,
there would be no change under the bill.
Senator Hoffman offered that under current law, Native
corporations could reserve water rights in order to enable
the majority private land holders in the state to
adequately develop the economic resources that they owned.
Co-Chair Meyer interjected that Senator Hoffman was leading
the testifier.
11:06:17 AM
Co-Chair Kelly noted that Senator Hoffman was continuing to
say "reserve water rights" and offered that this was the
source of the confusion. He reported that someone either
"reserved water" or received "water rights." He pointed out
that Senator Hoffman had used the wording "reserve water
rights," which caused confusion in the testifier.
Senator Bishop noted that "water rights" were off the table
in this discussion and queried if that was correct.
Commissioner Sullivan replied that Senator Bishop was
correct, but added that water rights could possibly be
enhanced. Senator Bishop inquired if "enhanced" meant "made
better." Commissioner Sullivan replied in the affirmative.
Senator Bishop relayed that the "crux" of the discussion
was regarding the reservation of water. Commissioner
Sullivan replied in the affirmative and shared that the
only issue regarding water authorization that was affected
by the legislation was the more lengthy water reservation
process, which was a request to keep water in a body for
habitat, recreational use, navigation, etc.
Senator Bishop continued to discuss the hypothetical
example involving private-property owner living on
Goldstream creek that was downstream from a mine;
furthermore, this person wanted to make sure that there was
enough water in the creek to run in stream hydro, catch the
"occasional grayling," and maintain his/her lifestyle down-
stream from a mine. He surmised that under the bill, the
person would have to approach the Fairbanks North Star
Borough to apply for a water reservation on his/her behalf
and inquired if he was right or wrong in that assumption.
Mr. Menefee replied that Senator Bishop was correct in most
of his statements, but that "water rights" would be applied
for instead of a "water reservation" in order to get water
for an in stream hydro. Senator Bishop requested Mr.
Menefee to forget the hydro issue for the moment and
inquired what recourse a person would have if the borough
denied their application. Mr. Menefee replied that the
options included ADFG, the borough, or the city and that if
one group said no, a person could go to another agency. He
added that if there was a legitimate reason for a
reservation, ADFG was supportive of working with
individuals and NGOs through the process.
Commissioner Sullivan stated that he had to leave to attend
another meeting and apologized. Co-Chair Meyer replied that
the he understood and thanked the commissioner for his
time.
Senator Dunleavy noted that a clarification had been made
that differentiated between a water "right" and a "reserve"
and offered that the discussion was furthered by continuing
to keep those concepts separate.
11:11:09 AM
Senator Olson discussed the Water Resources Board and
inquired if the department was familiar with that board. He
noted that the board was appointed by the governor and was
established under AS 46.15.222. Mr. Fogels replied that he
was not very familiar with the board and would have to
return to the committee with more information. He noted
that Mr. Menefee was also not familiar with the board.
Senator Olson assumed that the department did not have an
opinion of the bill from the Water Resources Board. Mr.
Fogels replied that it did not.
Senator Bishop summarized for his constituents and
constituents around the state that the bill was something
new and that people were confused. He acknowledged that
people were rightfully confused because he himself was
sometimes confused about the issue. He opined that there
needed to be some "clear, bright" lines and hypotheticals.
He added that the bill needed to be more broadly defined so
that people were clear on what was being discussed.
Senator Hoffman stated that he had two requests of DNR. He
noted that there was a letter written by the Nana Regional
Corporation and inquired if the corporation's concerns
regarding water reservations were valid. He opined that the
Nana Regional Corporation was not confused, was "right on
point," and fully understood the question. He requested a
written answer from the department that addressed the Nana
Regional Corporation's concerns, particularly its concerns
about Section 40 of the bill. He noted that he had received
a memorandum earlier that morning from Rick Halford, who
had testified on the legislation (copy on file). He relayed
that the department had stated that it acknowledged Mr.
Halford's expertise and valued his opinion. He requested
the department too issue a written response to Mr.
Halford's memo. He remarked that he was not confused on the
issue, but was looking at the reserve of water for the
development of resources on 99 percent of the privately
held land in Alaska. He pointed out that if Alaska wanted
to assure that the development of the resources were made
available to "those private individuals," who could
potentially provide the development of "millions, maybe
billions" of dollars in resources, then the state was
"moving in the wrong direction." He expressed great
concerns about the Donlin Creek area. He discussed the Fort
Knox Mine, which created millions of dollars and
"potentially" provided over 10 percent of the economy to
Fairbanks; he offered that Donlin Creek's scope could be
multiplied by ten times in relation to the Fort Knox Mine.
He shared that the rights to the Donlin Creek resource was
owned by the Calista Corporation, of which he was a
shareholder. He explained that under the bill, the Calista
Corporation would not be able to go directly to the state
for a water reservation. He stated that the committee was
not discussing something that was of little consequence,
but that bill would impact 99 percent of the private lands
that where in Alaska.
11:16:01 AM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if the DNR had a copy of the letter
from the Nana Regional Corporation. Mr. Fogels responded in
the affirmative. Co-Chair Meyer thought that the Nana
Regional Corporation's concerns had been addressed, but
requested the department to address the concerns in
writing. He additional requested the department to address
the Donlin Creek situation that Senator Hoffman had made
reference to.
Co-Chair Meyer stated that if Mr. Halford was a lobbyist,
the department did not have to respond to his memo. Senator
Hoffman interjected that Mr. Halford was not a registered
lobbyist. Co-Chair Meyer interjected that perhaps Mr.
Halford should be a registered lobbyist, but requested
written comments from administration regarding the memo.
Mr. Fogels addressed the Calista Corporation's recent
project and stated that it could potentially provide a huge
economy to the region for many generations. He relayed that
the department thought a "water right" or multiple water
rights, which would not be affected by the bill, would be
applied for on Donlin Creek rather than a "water
reservation" for the mine. He added that the appropriate
mechanism for a project like the Calista Corporation's
Donlin Creek project was a "water right" and not a "water
reservation." Co-Chair Meyer requested the comments in
writing. Mr. Fogels replied in the affirmative and added
that the department could reply to Mr. Halford's letter if
the committee desired. Co-Chair Meyer directed the
department to respond to Mr. Halford's memo at the request
of Senator Hoffman.
Vice-Chair Fairclough observed that while the focus of the
discussion in the current meeting was on the "person,"
there was an issue with the state having to adjudicate the
water reservations before water rights on the same body of
water could be issued. She inquired if there was a "brief"
or a location where the issue of adjudication was being
raised; she requested that the information be supplied to
the committee. Mr. Fogels responded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that this morning's meeting was
helpful and provided the committee with additional
information that would help them contemplate the bill.
Senator Dunleavy requested a clarification and inquired if
the issue was with water reserves on private land. Senator
Hoffman replied that his concern was regarding the access
that private land holders would have. He furthered that his
question was tied to the department's response to the
letter from the Nana Regional Corporation regarding whether
the corporation's concerns, as a private land owner, were
valid or not.
Senator Hoffman remarked that the Nana Regional Corporation
was, by far, the largest private land owner in the state.
Co-Chair Meyer discussed the following meeting's agenda.
11:20:29 AM
CSHB 77(RES) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| FW CS HB 77.msg |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| FW Support and Pass CS HB-77.msg |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 AMA Support Letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 DSmobileSCAN-450.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 NVN_resolution_SB26 (3).pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 SB 26 |
| HB 77 Opposition Letter - Burdett.docx |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Opposition Letter - Kraft.msg |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Opposition Letter - Lopez.msg |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 RDC Support Letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Support Letter - Atchison.msg |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| Hb 77 Support Letter - Gould.msg |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Support Letter - Lynden.msg |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Support Letter - MacKinnon.msg |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Support Letter - Schofield.msg |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Support Letter Amberg.msg |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Support Letter Burggraf.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Support Letter Denton.msg |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Support Letter Spickler.msg |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Halford Response Memorandum 040513.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Support Letter Jesperson.msg |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Support Letter Wesley.msg |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Opposition Letter - Matz.msg |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Support Letter - Greenfield.docx |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 CCC Senate Finance Committee.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Chuitna Citizens Coalition Clarifications.msg |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 2013 02 25 Decision TWUP appeal 833.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 NEW AMA comments.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Chuitna DNR Motion.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 DNR Response Letter 4-7-13.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 NANA Testimony.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |