Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/14/1996 01:12 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 14, 1996
1:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Don Long
Representative Irene Nicholia (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Alan Austerman
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gene Kubina
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 54
Encouraging the lessees of Alaska's vast North Slope natural gas
reserves to reach agreement to market gas, expressing the
legislature's support for an Alaska North Slope (ANS) gas
transmission pipeline, and requesting the President of the United
States and the Governor of the State of Alaska to publicly support
and take action that will help expedite the construction of that
system.
- PASSED CSHJR 54(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL 539
"An Act changing the name of the Alaska Soil and Water Conservation
Board."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 60
Relating to Revised Statute 2477 rights-of-way.
- PASSED CSHJR 60(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL 469
"An Act relating to the University of Alaska and to assets of the
University of Alaska; authorizing the University of Alaska to
select additional state public domain land, designating that land
as `university trust land,' and describing the principles
applicable to the land's management; and defining the net income
from the University of Alaska's endowment trust fund as `university
receipts' subject to prior legislative appropriation."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 537
"An Act renaming the division of geological and geophysical surveys
in the Department of Natural Resources as the department's division
of mining and geology, and revising the duties of the state
geologist within that division; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 54
SHORT TITLE: FAVOR TRANS-ALASKA GAS SYSTEM & LNG SALES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KUBINA, Green, Barnes, Navarre,
Mackie, Grussendorf, Phillips, B. Davis, Willis, Sanders, Davies,
Robinson, Rokeberg, Ogan
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
01/16/96 2453 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/96 2453 (H) O&G, RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/05/96 2633 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROBINSON
02/07/96 2666 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG
02/09/96 2707 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OGAN
02/13/96 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/13/96 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
02/13/96 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
02/14/96 2749 (H) O&G RPT CS(O&G) 3DP 3NR 1AM
02/14/96 2749 (H) DP: B.DAVIS, OGAN, FINKELSTEIN
02/14/96 2749 (H) NR: BRICE, G.DAVIS, WILLIAMS
02/14/96 2749 (H) AM: ROKEBERG
02/14/96 2749 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DNR)
03/13/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/13/96 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/14/96 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 539
SHORT TITLE: NAME CHANGE FOR SOIL AND WATER BOARD
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/08/96 3029 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/08/96 3029 (H) RESOURCES
03/13/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/13/96 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/14/96 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 60
SHORT TITLE: RS 2477 HIGHWAY RIGHTS OF WAY
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/16/96 2790 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/16/96 2790 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, RESOURCES
02/20/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/20/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/96 2823 (H) STA RPT 5DP 1NR
02/21/96 2823 (H) DP: JAMES, PORTER, GREEN, WILLIS,
OGAN
02/21/96 2823 (H) NR: ROBINSON
02/21/96 2823 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (STA CMTE/LAA)
02/21/96 2823 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
03/13/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/13/96 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/14/96 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 469
SHORT TITLE: INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT, Toohey, Kelly, Davies
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/02/96 2610 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/02/96 2610 (H) HES, RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/09/96 2708 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DAVIES
02/28/96 2943 (H) HES REFERRAL WAIVED
02/28/96 2943 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
03/13/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/13/96 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/14/96 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
TOM VAN BROCKLIN, Legislative Staff
to Representative Gene Kubina
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 406
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4859
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement on HJR 54.
JOHN LANDRUM, Kenai Region Manager
Kenai LNG Facility
Phillips Petroleum Company
P.O. Drawer 66
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 776-6027
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 54.
BARBARA HUFF-TUCKNESS
Teamsters Local 959
4300 Boniface Parkway
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 269-4236
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 54.
DAN LaSOTA, Assembly Member
Fairbanks North Star Borough
639 Manchester Loop
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (907) 479-0650
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 54.
MIKE MACY, Coordinator
TransAlaska Gas System Environmental Review Committee
750 West Second Avenue, Suite 104
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2167
Telephone: (907) 279-8247
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 54.
JEFF LOWENFELS, President
Yukon Pacific Corporation
1049 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 265-3100
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 54.
CHERYL SUTTON, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Bill Williams
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 128
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3424
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement on HB 539.
JEFF HARTMAN, Executive Director
Alaska Soil and Water Conservation Board
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1724
Telephone: (907) 465-2495
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 539.
TOM HARRIS, Chief Executive Officer
Tyonek Native Corporation
1689 C Street, Suite 219
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 272-0707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 60.
KATHLEEN DALTON
P.O. Box 70681
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 479-6733
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 60.
BILL PERHACH, Volunteer
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P. O. Box 34
Denali, Alaska 99755
Telephone: (907) 683-1373
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 60.
JOSEPH HENRI, Chair
Finance, Facilities and Land Management Committee
University of Alaska Board of Regents
9921 Near Point Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 279-1493
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 469.
HEATH HILYARD, Student Body Representative
University of Alaska Fairbanks
542 Falcon View Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (907) 457-2236
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 469.
SUSAN FLENSBURG, Director
Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area
Coastal Management Program
P.O. Box 849
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-2666
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 469.
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President for University Relations
University of Alaska Fairbanks
P.O. Box 755200
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-5200
Telephone: (907) 474-7582
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 469.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-34, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN reconvened the House Resources Committee
meeting, recessed the previous day, at 1:12 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Green, Williams, Ogan,
Davies, Kott, and Long. Representative Barnes arrived late and
Representative Nicholia participated via teleconference.
Representative Austerman was absent.
HJR 54 - FAVOR TRANS-ALASKA GAS SYSTEM & LNG SALES
Number 0067
TOM VAN BROCKLIN, Legislative Staff to Representative Gene Kubina,
sponsor of HJR 54, noted that Representative Kubina would arrive
momentarily.
JOHN LANDRUM, Kenai Region Manager, Kenai LNG Facility, Phillips
Petroleum Company, testified via teleconference, saying he was
responsible for the Phillips/Marathon liquified natural gas (LNG)
project. Started in 1969, the LNG project on the Kenai Peninsula
had been in continuous operation for over 26 years, exporting LNG
to customers in Japan.
MR. LANDRUM specified he was testifying as a technical and business
expert regarding the LNG business, saying he was an engineer
associated with LNG in a management role for several years. His
company believed the LNG business was a big, well-developed, global
business that was still growing at a significant rate. "It is also
a business that is very safe and environmentally friendly and
therefore can be a very good industrial citizen in the communities
where it is located," Mr. Landrum stated. He said several members
of the House Resources Committee had visited the company's plant
near Nikiski.
MR. LANDRUM supported a resolution to encourage all parties
involved to move toward developing an economically viable LNG
project to market gas reserves from Alaska's North Slope. However,
Phillips was not necessarily a disinterested third party, he said.
They had an interest in some North Slope gas reserves,
specifically, the yet-to-be-developed Point Thompson field. They
also possessed proprietary technology and experience that could be
used in such a project and generally sought involvement in LNG
projects around the world where they saw economic opportunity.
MR. LANDRUM stated, "As far as the proposed resolution is
concerned, we agree that an opportunity to market natural gas in
the North Slope as liquefied natural gas in the Pacific Rim should
open up early next century. We also agree that there will be a
very strong competition for that market and various projects around
the Pacific Rim, especially those where expansions of existing
capacity are possible. A North Slope project has some competitive
disadvantages to overcome, particularly the long distances between
where the gas is produced and where it could be liquefied and
loaded onto tankers for export. However, it should be advantageous
for the North Slope gas that most of the wells and production
facilities on the North Slope are already in place."
MR. LANDRUM stated that to successfully compete, a means must be
found to reduce the investment required for a North Slope gas
project. He said there was significant potential for lowering this
investment requirement and the operating costs of the North Slope
project through better technology and maximizing use of existing
infrastructure. He felt it was important for the state to follow
the development and issues involved and be prepared to assist, when
needed, with expediting permits and approvals, as well as possibly
adjusting physical terms to make the project more competitive.
MR. LANDRUM said, "However, I would like to raise a bit of caution
about the state becoming too involved in dealing directly with the
potential customers, especially the Japanese. It has been our
experience that the Japanese customers become uncomfortable with
too much direct involvement in a project by the local government."
Number 0438
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked what the production capabilities
were at Point Thompson. He asked whether it would be possible to
develop Point Thompson as a "jump-start" to get the gas pipeline
going, perhaps bringing Prudhoe Bay on later, for example.
MR. LANDRUM responded that was possible. However, he did not
believe the potential production rate had been determined yet.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to other projects competing in the
world market and asked if those would cause serious problems for
Alaska getting into the market later.
MR. LANDRUM replied that many projects, such as Natuna, were quite
advanced. He suggested the result could be deferral of Alaska's
place in the supply and demand forecast. However, he thought that
sometime between the years 2005 and 2010, there should be ample
opportunity to market the significant body of LNG in Alaska.
Number 0650
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN apologized for the late start of the meeting and
noted that Representative Kubina, prime sponsor of HJR 54, was now
present.
BARBARA HUFF-TUCKNESS, Teamsters Local 959, testified via
teleconference, saying there were over 5,000 working Teamsters in
Alaska in the private and public sectors, all of whom favored
passage of HJR 54. They perceived the resolution as a call for
action. Ms. Huff-Tuckness said organized labor and Yukon Pacific
Corporation were addressing an agreement to ensure Alaska hire and
a plan of action to ensure that rural residents and Native Alaskans
would not be excluded from job opportunities. "This is not the oil
pipeline," she said. "This is an Alaska project by Alaskans and
for Alaskans."
Number 0899
MS. HUFF-TUCKNESS said this particular project was not an
environmental issue but a jobs issue. She suggested it would
reduce need for governmental aid to individuals and provide much-
needed jobs for Alaskans.
Number 1080
DAN LaSOTA, Assembly Member, Fairbanks North Star Borough,
testified via teleconference. He referred to the assembly's
Resolution 96-009, unanimously passed January 25, 1996, which
supported HJR 54; a copy of that resolution was included in the
committee packets. Mr. LaSota noted that he had also testified
before the House Committee on Oil and Gas on an earlier version of
HJR 54. He referred to page 3, line 9, and said he was pleased to
see that language had been included. He said the current version
of HJR 54 was most acceptable to the borough. "The bottom line is
that we want the gas to get to the market and for our people to get
to work," he concluded.
Number 1163
MIKE MACY, Coordinator, TransAlaska Gas System (TAGS) Environmental
Review Committee, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He
urged the state to consider environmental and socio-economic
impacts. He discussed local hire and suggested the state conduct
a survey to determine whether Alaska currently had the workers
necessary for the project. To the extent there might be a
shortfall, they wanted to see training programs for Alaskans,
especially those from rural areas, so that the project could be
built in-house. "Otherwise, the hundreds of millions of dollars
the state will receive from this project will be frittered away on
a tidal wave of nonresidents," Mr. Macy stated. He suggested no
village had been more negatively impacted by the oil pipeline than
Stevens Village. He wanted indigenous people along the pipeline to
directly benefit from the project.
MR. MACY stated, "The committee is not enthusiastic about the
inevitable impact of an 800-mile, $10 billion-dollar pipeline and
liquefaction facility construction project. But we have been
encouraged by Yukon Pacific's openness and willingness to respond
to our concerns to follow rather than subvert the law and make
their project go without a slough of fiscal concessions from the
people of Alaska. We're dismayed that the gas producers are still
talking about alternative routes. There are significant economic
and environmental arguments to using as much of the existing
Alyeska TAPS infrastructure as possible. However, we worry that
the producers may see these options as a clever way of avoiding
their obligations to remove the oil pipeline and related facilities
at the end of its service."
MR. MACY continued, "We would prefer not to turn Anderson Bay into
an industrial zone but we have three concerns about the [indisc.]
a brand-new, state-of-the-art LNG facility to an aging, problem-
plagued crude oil terminal. This is asking for trouble. The
resulting exclusion zone, the area which has to be evacuated within
ten minutes in the event of an LNG spill, would extend all the way
to Valdez's waterfront. The people of Valdez will not stand for
that level of risk. And the federal energy regulatory commission
will not allow the commingling of [indisc. -- coughing] nation's
domestic oil supply with an LNG export facility. It's appropriate
that the legislature's taking an interest in North Slope gas export
issues. However, we ask the legislature to put its money where its
mouth is and make sure that the state agencies have enough
resources to ensure that a gas project is done correctly, with
maximum local hire and minimal avoidable impacts."
Number 1389
MR. MACY pointed out that a strong regulatory presence lowered
insurance rates and prevented unscrupulous companies from getting
a competitive advantage over good corporate citizens, and prevented
developers from shifting development costs onto the public and its
resources, which was the real and unacknowledged national debt. He
therefore urged restoration of full funding to the Department of
Environmental Conservation, Department of Fish and Game, Department
of Natural Resources and Department of Law.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he would have to excuse himself shortly and
turn the meeting over to Co-Chairman Williams.
CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS noted there were two people in Kodiak waiting to
give testimony on HB 118. He informed them that no testimony would
be taken on that bill that day and that the committee would call
them when a hearing was scheduled.
Number 1506
JEFF LOWENFELS, President, Yukon Pacific Corporation, testified
that Yukon Pacific was sponsor of the Alaskan gas export project,
called the TransAlaska Gas System or TAGS project. "As most of you
know, Yukon Pacific is a business unit of the CSX Corporation, a
large, international transportation company headquartered in
Richmond, Virginia," he said. "CSX has funded Yukon Pacific's
successful efforts to permit, promote and advance the TAGS
project."
MR. LOWENFELS said the resolution represented an important
advancement in the evolution of gas sales from Alaska. Its
language and bipartisan sponsorship demonstrated a recognition of
the promise this project held for all Alaskans, he said. More
significantly, it sent a clear message to markets, and to
competitors for those markets, that Alaska's representative body
recognized the huge potential of Alaska's North Slope resources.
"This is an extremely important threshold in the evolution of the
TAGS project," Mr. Lowenfels stated. "This kind of action by the
state of Alaska is exactly the kind of support other countries give
our competitive projects."
MR. LOWENFELS referred to a newspaper article from the Financial
Times, included in the committee packets, and said the Jakarta
government had 16 ministers pushing its Natuna project. The
article showed a project that would cost $40 billion, the same size
as Alaska's $13 billion project, seeking to sell gas for $4.50 to
$5 to the same markets to which Alaska sought to sell its gas.
That Indonesian project was aiming for construction to begin in
1997, he said.
Number 1629
MR. LOWENFELS concluded by saying unanimous passage of the
resolution would contribute to the TAGS project's success strategy
by telling Alaska's markets, which Indonesia also sought to serve,
that the legislature supported gas sales and that Alaska had a
competitive strategy and was willing to act.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked about the construction scheduled to start
in 1997.
MR. LOWENFELS responded that the article from the London-based
Financial Times indicated that the Indonesian - Pertamina
partnership's intention was to start construction in 1997 for a
project that was, at a minimum, $8 billion more expensive than
Alaska's project. Mr. Lowenfels believed they could therefore get
into the marketplace before a less expensive Alaskan project could
do so. "And it is something we all need to be very concerned
about," he concluded.
Number 1690
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to the article and said it appeared
that Exxon was willing to compete with whoever stands up. Buyers
were to sign up before construction began next year. "So, they're
obviously aggressively pursuing these customers, which, in my
opinion, would compete with Alaskan customers and interests," he
said.
MR. LOWENFELS indicated there was no question that the Natuna
project was competition to Alaska.
Number 1794
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES asked who had submitted the amendment
in the packet.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he had great problems with the
amendment, which he thought substantially weakened the bill,
especially the last portion, which removed lines 23 and 24 on
page2. He asked if the work draft had been adopted as a committee
substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES moved that CSHJR 54, version D, dated
2/16/96, as a work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected for purposes of discussion. He said
he had agreed to move the amendment for sake of discussion, not
that he necessarily supported it.
Number 1869
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said the only difference in the work draft
was the addition of a local hire statement on page 3. "And I think
we left out the sending a copy to the Governor, and so we thought
we should do that, since we're asking him to do some thing," he
said.
CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS asked if there was any objection. He noted that
the amendment was tied into version D.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN withdrew his objection.
CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS noted there was no objection and ordered that
work draft D be adopted. He asked for the wishes of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES moved that CSHJR 54 move from committee with
individual recommendations, and asked unanimous consent.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT said he believed the original bill had a
fiscal note.
Number 1942
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said, "I would move it with a zero fiscal
note, because there is a fiscal note in here and I don't believe
it's necessary." She asked unanimous consent.
CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS asked if there was any objection. There being
none, CSHJR 54 moved from the House Resources Committee.
HB 539 - NAME CHANGE FOR SOIL AND WATER BOARD
Number 2022
CHERYL SUTTON, Legislative Assistant to Representative Bill
Williams, introduced HB 539 by reading the sponsor statement into
the record:
"House Bill 539 was introduced by request of the Soil and Water
Conservation Board. It simply changes the name of the Board to the
Natural Resources Conservation and Development Board. This request
has been made for the following reasons:
MS. SUTTON read, "The declaration of policy for the board is to
provide for the development, use and conservation of the farm,
forest and grazing land of the state. The present name does not
reflect adequately that the board has a resource development as
well as a conservation mission.
"MS. SUTTON continued, "This name change is in agreement with that
of the major federal player in the partnership -- the Natural
Resources Conservation Service. This organization changed its name
from the Soil Conservation Service in the Department of
Agriculture.
MS. SUTTON proceeded, "The board, as well as the local Soil and
Water districts, has a close tie with the NRCS Alaska Resource
Conservation and Development offices in assisting rural regions of
the state in adding value to their available resources.
MS. SUTTON concluded, "The name change will not affect any of the
statutory responsibilities of the board. It has a zero fiscal
note."
Number 2070
JEFF HARTMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Soil and Water
Conservation Board, Department of Natural Resources, testified via
teleconference from Aniak. He stated that the third mission of the
board is to advise the commissioner and make recommendations for
a specific action necessary for effective and orderly development
of agriculture, forests and grazing land.
MR. HARTMAN explained the board's present name does not reflect
that and the board feels that the name change to the Natural
Resources Conservation and Development Board is appropriate. The
name change will not affect the function and there is no cost.
Number 2137
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES inferred that the title appears to change the
scope of work of the board.
Number 2181
MR. HARTMAN responded that the "Natural Resources" part of the name
does reflect the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the
board's federal partner, in the Department of Agriculture.
MR. HARTMAN explained that the main issue is the "development"
aspect and the resources include forestry and agriculture. Two
members of the present board are involved with game ranching and a
health farm in the Kenai, and one member is the past president of
the Reindeer Herders Association. The board is involved in many
resources other than land and water, and the "Natural Resources"
reflects that we work for the Department of Natural Resources and
our major federal partner, the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
MR. HARTMAN said the board is not trying to assume any duties of
the Oil & Gas Conservation Commission. Our emphasis is on rural
development and "value added" development of the program, and
specifically, the resource conservation development within the
NRCS.
Number 2274
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT wondered who developed the language in the
boards and commissions manual as to the board's function.
MR. HARTMAN was not able to answer that question. He did say that
the Alaska Soil and Water Conservation program will have its 50th
anniversary next year. He said this bill does not change the
Alaska Soil and Water program, nor the district, but the one aspect
of the program, the five member advisory board to the commissioner,
we are seeking to change, is the name change.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT suggested looking at the language in the
function because the current board name would serve the function,
at least, in the boards and commissions handbook, and might be more
appropriate than a new name.
MR. HARTMAN said that if the name change is approved, he will draft
a new mission statement for the boards and commissions handbook.
Number 2328
MS. SUTTON explained that the purpose for this particular board is
outlined in statute. She said the language is fairly clear and
does seem to fit with their purpose in statute.
Number 2345
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that the purpose in statute for the
present Alaska Soil and Water Conservation Board fits under the
proposed new title, but that is because the proposed title is so
broad. He asked Mr. Hartman if he had considered something like
the "Agricultural and Silvicultural Conservation and Development
Board."
MR. HARTMAN replied that that was not specifically addressed by the
board when they arrived at the present name.
MR. HARTMAN apprised the committee of the board's interest in
developing tourist related products from natural resources. He
said he was looking at a birch wood box in Aniak, which is not
agricultural, but it is utilizing a natural resource with the help
of the Natural Resources Conservation and Development Board to
develop a market. He said the board is also working with others
and trying to broaden the scope into locally available resources in
the soil and water district. He talked about a project in the
Willow area of making pressboard out of wood chips. He said that
is not agricultural but it is using byproducts from a lumber mill
and making a marketable product. Another project in Fairbanks is
a dog "waste" compost project making compost and fertilizer from
dog team waste.....(end tape)
TAPE 96-34, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved that HB 539 move from the House Resources
Committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal
note.
Number 0015
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected.
Number 0033
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he would hold the bill for a quorum and
rescheduled HB 539 for Monday, March 18th.
HJR 60 - RS 2477 HIGHWAY RIGHTS OF WAY
Number 0033
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced that the committee would take
testimony on HJR 60 while awaiting the arrival of the bill's
sponsor, Representative Jeannette James.
Number 0109
TOM HARRIS, Chief Executive Officer, Tyonek Native Corporation,
testified on behalf of the Village of Tyonek. He requested that
the March 14, 1996 letter addressed to Senator Georgianna Lincoln
from the Tyonek Native Corporation be entered into the record as
part of the corporation's testimony:
"Tyonek Native Corporation and The Native Village of Tyonek are
requesting your assistance in conveying our concerns over House
Joint Resolution No. 60. relating to Revised Statute 2477 right-of-
way (RS 2477).
"Please be aware that the State has made a claim of RS 2477 (200)
that crosses the Chuitna River at its mouth, takes out a 100 feet
through the village, and violates the Russian Orthodox cemetery in
the village, then travels on to the old village site where it
terminates in the old village cemetery (also Russian Orthodox),
turns around and comes back.
"The purpose of RS 2477 is supposedly to provide access to
mineralized areas to the general public. As you know, Tyonek is a
private community much like the private communities elsewhere in
the lower 48. However to meet the needs of the resource
development industry, Tyonek has already provided access to
resource developers such as ARCO, Pacer Dome, Unocal, to name a
few. Such access was provided by Tyonek, at no cost to the State
of Alaska and without disrupting the community. Why then is
RS2477(200) needed? Why does the state need access to Tyonek's
cemeteries?
"RS 2477 as written and proposed by U.S. Congress Bill H.R. 2081,
provides for no public review or comment on any RS 2477 right-of-
way, no permitting or environmental impact review, no compensation
to the land owner (constituting a taking under the 5th Amendment),
and no commitment by the State to maintain the right-of-way after
it's taken. While we agree that there are certain rights-of-way
that everyone can agree to support, we cannot and do not support RS
2477(200) in its present format, and have grave concerns about the
constitutionality of RS 2477 in its present form. Thank you for
your support and consideration on this issue."
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Harris if he had further testimony.
Number 0134
MR. HARRIS emphasized that Tyonek is not opposed to resource
development and supports responsible resource development, but does
not believe that RS 2477 allows any public land, 100 foot public
right-of-way, anywhere for any reason, without public comment or
review, without appropriate federal, state or local government
permitting and without appropriate confrontation with the land
owners that it is reasonable, responsible or in Alaska's best
interest.
Number 0197
MR. HARRIS stated that Tyonek's opposition is primarily in respect
to RS 2477 (200). He reminded the committee that there are over
1,800 of these rights-of-ways and stated that HJR 60 lists just
over 500. He said that none of those rights-of-ways have been
publicly reviewed and stated that the resolution is worded that the
rights-of-ways were documented and qualified. He said he had
received no information that they were qualified and by whom.
Number 0230
MR. HARRIS said that RS 2477 (200) goes right through the Village
of Tyonek. It violates two cemeteries, Russian Orthodox cemetery,
and terminates in one of those cemeteries and then turns around and
goes back. We just do not see the need for that. This kind of
development is very counterproductive to relationships across the
state.
Number 0256
MR. HARRIS referred to page 3, line 1, "to enable this generation
and future generations of Alaskans to use the routes established by
pioneer Alaskans." He said, "Respectfully, Mr. Chairman and
committee members, we believe that it ought to state pioneer and
`Native Alaskans.'" It is only appropriate if this bill is going
to be considered, it ought to document pioneer Alaskans and also
Native Alaskans usage of the land.
Number 0293
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, sponsor of HJR 60, responded to Mr.
Harris that she would be happy to write in "Native Alaskans."
REPRESENTATIVE LONG suggested that deleting the word "pioneer"
would simplify the issue.
Number 0328
KATHLEEN DALTON testified from Fairbanks, stating she was formerly
associated with the study of the 1,500-1,800 RS 2477 rights-of-
ways. She complimented HJR 60 on being well written and factual.
MS. DALTON informed the committee that the Department of the
Interior has been attempting in the last four years to legislate by
regulation. She cautioned, "In other words, to eliminate any
access to an RS 2477 right-of-way before the assertion is made, if
an assertion is ever made, before the state can review it."
Number 0400
MS. DALTON applauded legislative leadership in recognizing that
this is a serious problem. She said access is a serious problem in
Alaska and we know that ANILCA has Title XI which has appeared as
a solution to any access problem by some, but she believes that
ANILCA does not answer all access problems. She referred to 17 (b)
under ANCSA relating to access possibility, and said it is not an
access possibility except at the time of a conveyance of Native
land to a Native corporation. There are very strict limitations on
those.
Number 0437
MS. DALTON referred to page 2, line 17 reading, "Whereas federal
and state courts have consistently ruled for 100 years that it was
the intent of the Congress in enacting RS 2477 that the law of the
state where the RS 2477 right-of-way is located defines the acts
that constitute acceptance and the scope of the right-of-way." She
indicated that the state has not had an opportunity as far as
decline (indisc.) and she hopes the issue will remain open and it
may be 10 years from now that this is needed.
MS. DALTON addressed Mr. Harris from Tyonek stating that some of
the trails that were looked at in the study were traditional Native
trails. She mentioned Shishmaref across the conservation unit.
There is a cultural trail from the upper Alatna area over into
Kobuk. That trail has been established there for centuries.
Number 0502
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS closed teleconference testimony and invited
Juneau participants to come forward.
Number 0530
BILL PERHACH, Volunteer, Alaska Environmental Lobby, testified that
the Alaska Environmental Lobby cannot support HJR 60 and read his
statement into the record:
"This resolution accurately quotes the language of RS 2477
providing that the "right-of-way for the construction of highways
over public lands, not reserved for public use, is hereby granted."
MR. PERHACH continued, "It correctly notes the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act repealing RS 2477 in 1976 expressly reserves
existing rights-of-way created under RS 2477.
MR. PERHACH proceeded, "It laudably commits Alaska `to a balanced
philosophy of the development and wise use of Alaska's scenic
beauty, mineral wealth, wildlife, and other natural resources
coupled with environmental protection to ensure future generations'
might experience Alaska as we still know it.
MR. PERHACH stated, "However, this resolution's reliance on case
law supporting the intent of a Congress that governed the United
States 130 years ago might very well be misplaced. `The law must
be stable, but it cannot stand still.'
MR. PERHACH, "The resolution's confidence in a definition of
`construction' satisfied by mere use is tenuous and - at the very
least - will make lawyers wealthy.
MR. PERHACH said, "Ultimately, however, HJR 60 fails to deserve
support because it endorses bad legislation: U.S. Senate Bill 1425
and U.S. House Bill 2081. These Bills are open ended and do not
address major concerns of many Alaskans such as the `taking' of
private lands; the status of Native Lands; the disposition of
surveyed and unsurveyed section lines, the scope of `upgrades'
(winter trails across wetlands to all weather highways); unmanaged
motorized access, and access to and through National Parks.
MR. PERHACH concluded, "Ultimately, Alaska is acquiring a poor
reputation as steward of its resources. This resolution does
nothing for that image and only provides more ammunition for those
who say we're not."
MR. PERHACH further stated that he is from the Denali Borough and
in initial studies that were done in Denali Park, there were 30 RS
2477 routes identified. Six of those were routes that go into the
Kantishna. You will recall that part of all six routes were looked
at as a way of bringing another road into the Kantishna providing
what is referred to as North Side Access. He said the engineers,
the Fairbanks Northern Regional DOT, referred to the favored route
also known as the Stampede Trail, all of those routes are winter
trails.
Number 0709
REPRESENTATIVE LONG thanked Mr. Perhach for his testimony stating
that he had been teetering on whether to support this legislation
until the testimony alleged that lawmakers were poor stewards.
Number 0727
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that he was not teetering and takes high
offense to Mr. Perhach's assertion that the legislature is a poor
steward. He said, "The ultimate lockup and the ultimate win for the
environmental community would be to, forever, have no access to the
state. I think the environmental community is quietly sitting back
and hoping, and praying, that we will not be able to establish any
rights-of-ways, because it is the only win. Then you guys will not
have to fight things project-by-project, because then there will
never be any projects."
Number 0771
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES prefaced that HJR 60 was designed to
establish that the state has some rights in the RS 2477, and said
that the Federal Revised Statute 2477 (RS 2477) provided for `the
right-of-way' for the construction of highways over public lands,
not reserved for public use. HJR 60 preserves access all over
Alaska using traditional roads and trails for future roads and
trails.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the definition of "highways" could be
construed to mean black top and in Alaska that is not the case. We
have spent a lot of time and money trying to identify where these
trails are and time is running out. We need some assistance.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES further speculated if a trail is protected, it
is possible by negotiation to move the trail a little to be sure
that it is physically able to be constructed or does not interfere
with some other uses since the trail was used. I think that if
Alaska wants to have a successful future, this resolution is a very
important part of it. We are going to have to talk this out and
work this out together.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES further said, I do not see that we have any
controversy with the Native lands and the Native issues in the
state. I think that our entire goal should be to be able to
provide ourselves with income off of our resources. We need these
trails in order to do that. Yes, we have spent a lot of money
trying to identify where these trails are. No, we have not been
able to get into court to assert our rights and get a court
decision that says, in fact, this is a valid trail. When we bring
forward these identified trails throughout the state, and we go to
court to establish them, that is the time when people can come
forward with their objections. These are not automatic, we have to
assert them first.
Number 0898
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES referred to page 3, line 2 and moved
to insert "Native and" before the word "pioneer." The sentence
would read, "to enable this generation and future generations of
Alaskan to use the routes established by Native and pioneer
Alaskans." She said Native Alaskans were here first and it stands
to reason that they should be included first.
Number 0922
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said, hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
Number 0938
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that if we are going to continue to be
good stewards of the state, and manage the state's resources in a
responsible manner, and we continue to represent the protection of
the environment in a safe way, this is the public process. To not
do anything is the wrong answer. The thing is to do it in a
responsible manner. I think this is an important message to send to
Washington, D.C.
Number 0983
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES offered an amendment on page 2, line 25-29:
delete all material.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES objected.
Number 1016
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that she understands Representative
Davies concern but felt it imperative to keep the language, "to
preserve the long-standing judicial and executive interpretation of
RS 2477 and to protect the existence of rights-of-way previously
granted by the federal government under RS 2477."
Number 1070
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES interpreted Representative Davies intent and
suggested the deletion of "S. 1425" on line 25; the language could
read, "Whereas legislation has been introduced in the United States
Senate." On line 26 delete "H.R. 2081" and the language could
read, "Whereas legislation has been introduced in the United States
House." She felt that would accomplish Representative Davies
purpose and stated that she supported that amendment.
Number 1100
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES accepted Representative Barnes amendment to
the amendment. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 1120
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there was objection to the amendment.
Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 1123
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES moved that HJR 60, as amended, move from the
House Resources Committee with individual recommendations and
attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHJR 60(RES)
passed from the House Resources Committee.
HB 469 - INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA
Number 1137
CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS announced the next order of business was HB 469.
He called on Joseph Henri to testify.
JOSEPH HENRI, Chair, Finance, Facilities and Land Management
Committee, University of Alaska Board of Regents, explained that
committee had been pushing for a state land grant and said the bill
was much needed. "We're a land grant university under the federal
statute, but we have no lands, substantively speaking," he said.
He indicated that while the university had 112,000 acres of land,
Alaska had 104,000,000 upland acres, plus an unspecified amount of
tideland and submerged acreage.
Number 1231
MR. HENRI noted the university was asking for one-third of
1percent of the land owned by the state. Receiving 500,000 acres
would be a big step for the university, which would work hard to
induce development and to earn money on it, which was necessitated
by diminishing general fund money. "I think we will offer the
mining world a good, sensible, reliable deal," he said. "We will
not be arbitrary with them. If we were, they wouldn't come to our
land. And, of course, we have, in our university system, a school
of mineral engineering, graduates of whom are running some of these
companies this very day."
Number 1436
CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS asked Sara Hannan of the Alaska Environmental
Lobby if she could wait until the following Monday to speak, to
which she agreed.
HEATH HILYARD, Student Body Representative, University of
Fairbanks, spoke on behalf of HB 469. Tuition rates had risen
nearly 200 percent over the past decade, he said. Meanwhile,
general fund monies to the university had diminished enough that
tuition increases had not entirely offset the decline. Mr. Hilyard
noted that the Board of Regents had just approved another tuition
increase. "We're not even maintaining status quo at this point in
time," he said. "We're just slowing the rate of regression in the
UA system. This additional 500,000 acres would go a long way to
helping the university generate enough revenue to begin to at least
maintain status quo, if not possibly succeed and progress, as I was
presuming it was intended to do." Mr. Hilyard said there were
serious technical and external issues that were not of great
concern to the students. However, they were concerned about
tuition increases, coupled with unfunded faculty positions and
program closures. As a result, the students firmly supported
HB469.
Number 1580
REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG asked if Mr. Hilyard knew which lands were
being looked at.
MR. HILYARD indicated he did not know.
CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS informed people waiting on teleconference that
more public testimony would be taken Monday. He asked for a motion
to accept CSHB 469, version F, as a work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said, "So moved." There being no objection, it
was so ordered.
Number 1740
SUSAN FLENSBURG, Director, Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service
Area (BBCRSA) Coastal Management Program, testified via
teleconference, saying BBCRSA's coastal district encompassed 11
communities, including Dillingham. The majority of land in the
coastal district was owned by the state. There had been two state
management plans in effect for the area, including the Bristol Bay
Area Plan and the Nushagak/Mulchatna Rivers Recreation Management
Plan. Ms. Flensburg said the latter was not only a land use plan
for the Department of Natural Resources but also a special coastal
management plan for the district.
MS. FLENSBURG said, "I support education. I think the university
needs increased funding. We've got a small branch out here in
Dillingham, as well. But my main concern with the bill, the way
it's presently crafted, is that it seems to totally by-pass any
kind of public review process." She referred to Section 8(e), page
8, lines 17-20, and said the management plans had taken years to
develop, with a full-blown public review process upon which
decisions were made. She thought the bill threw all that out the
window. "My understanding of the bill is that none of the existing
land use management plans would apply," she said. "There would be
no best-interest finding determination, which is typically done for
land use decisions." Ms. Flensburg asked why the bill was written
so that it precluded relying on the land use plans and the state's
best interest finding determination process for land selection.
CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS deferred to Wendy Redman for a response.
Number 1975
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President for University Relations, University
of Alaska Fairbanks, explained HB 469 included sections that
expanded the university's current public process. The university
had also passed new policies expanding on that process, she said.
She noted that prior to disposal of any lands, the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) had to meet requirements addressing best
use determination.
MS. REDMAN said, "This bill was specifically redrafted this year in
a way that gives, essentially, total control to the Department of
Natural Resources for them to determine even what lands would be
available for us to select from." She indicated that was
primarily in response to concerns raised by the environmental
community and others, who wanted to make sure DNR would follow the
public processes with which Alaskans were comfortable. "So, we
were comfortable with that, as well," she said. "And so, this bill
really is a much more simplified way. Essentially, it says DNR
gets to determine what lands are even available for selection,
based on their own best use determination."
Number 2100
MS. FLENSBURG stated she did not see that in the bill. She
referred to Section 8 (e), which began, "In conveying land to the
University of Alaska under this section, the commissioner of
natural resources shall give public notice under AS 38.05.945(b)".
Ms. Flensburg noted that was the standard public notice provision
in Title 38. She pointed out subsection (e) concluded by saying,
"but other provisions of AS 38.04 and AS 38.05 do not apply." Ms.
Flensburg said those sections talked about the state's best
interest planning determination process. She said the bill removed
the state's ability to rely on existing land use plans to help
determine what those selections should be. Although public notice
would be provided, there would be no public review process.
[END OF TAPE]
TAPE 96-35, SIDE A
Number 0005
CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS announced the teleconference would conclude at
2:45 p.m. He informed Ms. Flensburg that Representative
Therriault, sponsor of the bill, had an 800 number and offered to
call Ms. Flensburg to provide that number.
MS. FLENSBURG indicated she could call Representative Therriault's
office. She concluded by saying she hoped the committee understood
how significant Section 8 (e) was.
Number 0088
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES pointed out to Ms. Flensburg that under
Section 8, the land list had to be submitted to the legislature,
which should provide a public process.
CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS announced that the public hearing would continue
Monday at 8:00 a.m.
AN UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN, speaking via teleconference from the
University of Alaska Anchorage, indicated numerous students were
waiting on teleconference to testify. She said most of the
students there opposed the bill. She asked if the hearing could be
continued that day.
Number 0197
CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS responded that although the committee members
would be willing, the teleconference was ending. He apologized
that not everyone could be heard that day. After the
teleconference concluded, he offered to hear testimony from two
students in the audience, who declined, saying they were from
Juneau and would return Monday.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, CO-CHAIR WILLIAMS
adjourned the House Resources Committee meeting at 2:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|