Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/08/1999 01:05 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
February 8, 1999
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jerry Sanders, Co-Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 12
"An Act relating to a utility corridor and railroad right-of-way
between the Alaska Railroad and the Alaska-Canada border."
- MOVED SSHB 12 OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 12
SHORT TITLE: RAIL/UTILITY EASEMENT TO AK-CANADA BORDER
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) JAMES, Therriault, Dyson, Harris
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 20 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99
1/19/99 20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 21 (H) TRANSPORTATION, RESOURCES
1/29/99 102 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED -
REFERRALS
1/29/99 102 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/29/99 102 (H) TRANSPORTATION, RESOURCES, FINANCE
2/02/99 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
2/02/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/02/99 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
2/03/99 129 (H) TRA RPT 5DP 2NR
2/03/99 129 (H) DP: KEMPLEN, SANDERS, COWDERY,
HALCRO, MASEK
2/03/99 129 (H) NR: HUDSON, KOOKESH
2/03/99 129 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DOT, DNR)
2/03/99 130 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
2/05/99 147 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HARRIS
2/08/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SSHB 12.
DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison/
Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
Telephone: (907) 465-3904
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to SSHB 12.
FRANK MIELKE, Chief
Right of Way and Utilities
Southeast Region
Division of Design and Engineering Services
Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
6860 Glacier Highway
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4541
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to SSHB 12.
LAUREL BARGER-SHEEN
Department of Economic Development
City of Delta Junction
P.O. Box 229
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-1081
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 12.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-5, SIDE A
Number 001
CO-CHAIR JERRY SANDERS called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Sanders, Ogan, Morgan, Whitaker,
Joule and Kapsner. Representatives Harris, Masek and Barnes
arrived at 1:09 p.m., 1:10 p.m. and 1:16 p.m., respectively.
SSHB 12 - RAIL/UTILITY EASEMENT TO AK-CANADA BORDER
Number 032
CO-CHAIR SANDERS announced the committee would hear Sponsor
Substitute for House Bill No. 12, "An Act relating to a utility
corridor and railroad right-of-way between the Alaska Railroad and
the Alaska-Canada border." He noted that the Anchorage and
Fairbanks Legislative Information Offices (LIOs) were on
teleconference.
Number 042
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of SSHB 12, presented the bill. She pointed out that people have
questioned its necessity, because in 1982 identification of this
corridor was authorized in statute, to connect Alaska's existing
railroad with the Canadian border. She referred to a red booklet
showing the route, titled "Alaska Railroad Extension Route
Selection, Eielson to Canadian Border," dated July 1979 and
produced by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT/PF), which followed a 1979 study. At that time, there was an
interest in connecting to the Lower 48 through Canada, and some
building of the rail bed towards Alaska occurred in Canada.
However, when Alaska didn't go forward with its end, either that
rail wasn't laid or the portion which had been laid was pulled up.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that in 1994 she had passed HB
183, which authorized delineation of a corridor from Fairbanks to
the Seward Peninsula, as well as HB 184, which authorized the
$10,000 for a study to determine the cost of acquiring the
right-of-way from Eielson to the Canadian border. She said her
purpose had been to let the world know that the issue of this
corridor was not dead. In 1995, the DOT/PF reached a cost estimate
of $6.363 million to acquire the right-of-way; $7,876 of the
$10,000 appropriation was expended in doing so. However, in 1996
the application was withdrawn "due to lack of interest," in spite
of the 1994 legislation that indicated a continuing interest.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES told members the next step is to reauthorize
delineation of the corridor; SSHB 12 brings the old legislation up
to date, authorizing the right-of-way but expanding it from 300
feet to 500 feet. She is not expecting any state appropriation for
this, nor a fiscal note. The bill says this is subject to
legislative appropriation, which would be through other legislation
or a budget process. She is asking that it be authorized in case
federal, international or private money becomes available. Noting
that DOT/PF representatives were available to answer questions, she
informed members that someone from the Alaska Railroad had
testified at the earlier House Transportation Standing Committee
hearing.
Number 133
CO-CHAIR OGAN referred to the role played by the railroad across
the Lower 48 in opening up the West. He said it seems Alaska would
be well-served by railroad connections to the Lower 48. Mentioning
talk of a possible railroad connection to Siberia using a tunnel,
he expressed support for SSHB 12.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she has been working with people in the
Yukon Territory, as many have indicated this would benefit them in
their businesses. The tourism industry has been particularly
interested; although numerous buses bring tourists up the "Alcan"
(Alaska Highway), tourist industry people have indicated the trip
would be much cheaper by rail, as one rail car holds two busloads.
The biggest advantage, however, is that people prefer to use more
comfortable rail travel instead of going by bus. There is also a
big interest in tourism access to the Wrangell-St. Elias Mountains,
perhaps to relieve pressure on Denali National Park and Preserve;
there is no way to get tourists to the former location on a two-day
bus ride. Representative said she intends to see that this happens
sometime, although she doesn't know how yet.
Number 191
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked what is included in the DOT/PF's 1995
cost estimate of $6,363,000 to acquire the right-of-way.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred members to a one-page document
titled, "Right of Way Cost Estimate, State Highway" [provided in
packets attached to a two-page letter dated August 7, 1996]. She
said she assumes there would be some land trades, as well as land
purchases.
Number 207
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked how far it would be from the border to
connect to the Canadian railroad.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that it is about 400 miles from the
Canadian border to connect in Canada, and about 380 miles from
Eielson Air Force Base to the border. She pointed out that she
hadn't specified from where to where. The best route may come in
around Talkeetna, for example, rather than into Eielson. She is
asking for the best route, both economically and physically.
Number 225
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked whether there is an anticipation of
working with the Canadian government to develop an easement that
connects with Canada's infrastructure.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said yes. A small group including herself had
met once with the Yukon Territory delegation on that issue, and
another meeting is planned in Whitehorse, probably in April, with
representatives from the British Columbia Railway and other
interested parties. She emphasized the need to work together on
this.
Number 243
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he applauds the sponsor for taking this
long-overdue step.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER concurred, then asked whether
Representative James is aware of vested interests that might not be
well-served by a railroad connection to the Lower 48.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to HB 183 in 1994, involving a
connection from Fairbanks to the Seward Peninsula. She said there
are always rural residents who like to be remote, and who depend
upon being remote. However, a railroad is controlled access. If
some people don't want rail travelers to bother their village, the
railroad can go around and not stop there. In contrast, others who
want a connection can build a road to the railroad. She has found
a change in the attitudes of rural residents over the last five
years; now many want jobs or a small tourism business, for example,
although they may not be totally sold on the idea yet.
Furthermore, Representative James said she is not aware of any
economic interests that may not be well-served by this. In fact,
a recent conversation indicated that more rail would result in more
trucking jobs because rail doesn't deliver items to the final
destination. It would be cheaper and safer for truck trailers to
ride on the train instead of using the "Alcan," and those people
are supportive of the connection.
Number 305
CO-CHAIR SANDERS pointed out that few Alaskan truckers come up over
the Alaska Highway; most of those truckers are outsiders.
Number 310
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked why the DOT/PF withdrew the order for
the right-of-way.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she can only rely on what they told her,
which is that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) likes to clear
applications off the books. She suggested it may have been from a
perceived lack of interest, although she'd thought the $10,000
allocated [in 1994] had indicated the legislature's interest in
that corridor.
Number 333
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether Representative James had made
it known to those officials since then.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said yes, they'd had many conversations, and
they now understand that there is an interest. As she recalled,
Mr. Poshard had testified that he didn't know if the DOT/PF would
make that same decision today, and that it was probably a mistake.
Number 348
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether the Canadians had done anything
to move their rail line closer to the border.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she could find out. Her understanding is
that at the time, the Canadians prepared rail bed and had laid some
track in Alaska's direction; although they pulled up some track
when Alaska didn't go forward, the rail bed is still there to Dease
Lake.
Number 372
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked what the federal government has been
doing to advance this project.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered that the "TEA-21" [Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century] has an emphasis on rail, and some
money has been allocated for a demonstration project to determine
access on the other side of Fairbanks and towards Western Alaska;
that feasibility study is to be done between the railroad and the
DOT/PF. Representative James said a number of people had talked
with U.S. Senator Stevens, and providing there is public support,
she believes money from the federal government might be available.
She indicated an agreement with the Canadians would be necessary,
then added that also in the TEA-21 are national corridor planning
and border infrastructure programs. She mentioned NAFTA [North
American Free Trade Agreement] and suggested that a connection such
as rail - which is the best way to move equipment and freight,
especially - would certainly assist the economies of not only
Alaska but also Canada and the Lower 48.
Number 406
DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison/Special Assistant, Office of
the Commissioner, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT/PF), came forward at Co-Chair Sanders' request,
saying he had nothing to add but would answer questions.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked why the DOT/PF had vacated the
right-of-way with the BLM.
MR. POSHARD deferred to Mr. Mielke.
Number 422
FRANK MIELKE, Chief, Right of Way and Utilities, Southeast Region,
Division of Design and Engineering Services, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF), told members he is
acting as chief for the right-of-way committee for the state. He
explained that at some point site-specific information is required
to perfect a BLM application. The DOT/PF had received a right of
entry allowing them to go onto the land, survey it and do studies.
All of the right-of-way work was done; the information is still
there; and the route is still delineated on the DNR status plats,
as far as state lands, and still appears as a reservation.
However, the DOT/PF was unable to perfect its application across
federal lands; the next step would have been the filing of an
environmental impact statement (EIS), but there was no funding for
that. That is another level in the application process, similar to
what was done for the Trans-Alaska Gas System, which required
setting up an office; obtaining permits, including Title 16
permits; doing the EIS; and obtaining a conditional right-of-way.
Mr. Mielke said there hasn't been the interest or money to go that
level of application with this project. He emphasized that the
information is there and the application can be resubmitted
whenever the state is ready to go forward to that next level.
Number 446
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked if the DOT/PF had notified anyone in
the legislative branch that money was needed for an EIS.
MR. MIELKE said he couldn't answer that, but he finds no evidence
of it.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER suggested the Alaska Railroad Corporation
could be, or should be, a driving force behind the expansion. He
asked whether the DOT/PF had held conversations or corresponded
with them about that.
MR. POSHARD said Representative James has worked diligently with
the railroad, and the DOT/PF has held discussions with them. In
addition, someone from the Alaska Railroad Corporation had
testified in the previous committee that they have been involved
and are interested in moving forward with the corridor delineation.
Number 469
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER stated her understanding that the Alaska
Railroad Corporation is one of the few utilities that makes money
for the state. She asked whether they would be interested in
paying for part of it.
MR. POSHARD replied that he assumes that would be an option,
although he hadn't heard it discussed.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out that the Alaska Railroad
Corporation makes money for itself, not for the state.
Furthermore, she can't say they truly show a profit, she said,
because they frequently have to go to the federal government for
additional grants. For example, last year there was an additional
$10 million to upgrade portions of the railroad bed.
Number 488
CO-CHAIR SANDERS referred to the 1994 legislation; he asked when
the BLM had come back and asked whether there was any interest.
MR. POSHARD said he didn't have that information with him, although
he believes it was in 1996.
CO-CHAIR SANDERS suggested two or three years is a short time to
even come back and ask. Noting that a great deal of interest had
been expressed, he requested paperwork on how this happened.
MR. POSHARD agreed to provide that. He pointed out that these
applications had been on the books, without moving forward, since
the 1982 study. He added that the DOT/PF is working with
Representative James to correct the situation.
Number 517
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked what the Administration's position is
on SSHB 12.
MR. POSHARD replied that the Administration has not taken a
position, although they are more than willing to work with
Representative James and to delineate the corridor, should the
legislature appropriate money for that.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES requested that, whether SSHB 12 has moved out
or not, Mr. Poshard come back before the committee with what is
needed to ensure that the right-of-way work goes forward, and with
an assurance that the Administration truly supports this effort.
MR. POSHARD agreed to provide that. He pointed out that the
DOT/PF's "Fiscal Analysis for SSHB 12," submitted with the zero
fiscal note, gives a rough estimate of what it would cost to
proceed with a new delineation and to acquire the right-of-way.
Number 552
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES suggested the DOT/PF and the Alaska Railroad
Corporation move together on it. She mentioned the economic
necessity of having development unrelated to oil.
Number 589
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS stated his understanding that there is a zero
fiscal note because no money has been asked for.
MR. POSHARD affirmed that, explaining that SSHB 12 doesn't actually
require the DOT/PF to do anything unless there is an appropriation.
The attached fiscal analysis shows that the cost would be a little
more than $60,000 to complete the work required by SSHB 12, if the
legislature were to appropriate money. To move forward and
actually acquire the right-of-way would be, obviously, a much
larger figure.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS stated his understanding that SSHB 12
reauthorizes what happened in HB 184 [1994].
MR. POSHARD said he believes that is correct, with minor changes.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked why the cost of acquiring the
right-of-way is now $60,000.
Number 610
MR. MIELKE explained that the DOT/PF wants to verify that the route
is still the best one, as there have been land status changes, for
example. Furthermore, in anticipation of the EIS, they need to
look for alternatives. "If you're doing an EIS, even if there's no
imaginable other alternative, you've got to look at one, and it may
be timely to do that anyway," he concluded.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recalled that part of the right-of-way was
delineated during World War II, and that the corridor has existed
since then.
MR. MIELKE said he believes there is a "line on a map somewhere,"
but no corridor or land was set aside or reserved.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Mielke to research that, as she
remembered differently. She suggested it was probably laid out
when the Alaska Highway was built.
MR. POSHARD said they would be happy to research that.
TAPE 99-5, SIDE B
Number 001
CO-CHAIR SANDERS relayed information from the previous committee,
presented by the Alaska Railroad Corporation, indicating there had
been testimony in 1994 that building the railroad would run about
$1 million per mile; at roughly 500 miles, that would be a
half-billion dollars. Co-Chair Sanders said they now indicate it
would be $3 million per mile. He questioned why, with 2.5 percent
[inflation] over the past five years, the cost had gone up so much.
He suggested the need to move on this now, to avoid these
increases.
Number 034
LAUREL BARGER-SHEEN, Department of Economic Development, City of
Delta Junction, testified via teleconference in support of SSHB 12.
She told members Delta Junction residents are enthusiastic about
the idea of the railroad extending its services to Delta Junction,
Fort Greely and Canada, which residents believe will provide more
efficient transportation for the area's goods. Rail expansion
traditionally has brought economic development, which her region
desperately needs because of the impending closure or realignment
of Fort Greely in 2001. Residents believe a public-private
partnership might be practical for this project because if the
national missile defense siting team chooses Fort Greely as their
location, they may be willing to chip in funds to further this
project. Ms. Barger-Sheen emphasized that land values are
increasing steadily. She reminded members of what this could mean
to Alaska's future, including expansion of economic development
opportunities for the Interior, as well as support services for
Anchorage.
Number 065
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked what the status of agriculture is in
Delta Junction.
MS. BARGER-SHEEN said there have been two or three successive years
of environmental problems, and they are up against hard times.
However, they are exploring exotic meat markets with bison herds,
as well as other forms of agricultural production. A dairy
processor is interested in expanding operations, and there is a new
business proposal for a vegetable processing plant.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked if the Delta barley project is gone.
MS. BARGER-SHEEN said no, there are still producers out there,
although there has been a substantial shortage of grain due to
three years of bad weather.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked if the bison are still eating the
barley.
MS. BARGER-SHEEN said yes, and there is now a domestic herd
supplying the exotic meat market; there has been substantial demand
not only from Japan but also locally and in the Lower 48, as the
meat is leaner than beef.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked where they get the vegetables for the
processing plant.
MS. BARGER-SHEEN replied that there are several local producers,
including a large potato farm and a large carrot farm.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES mentioned the private prison that it is hoped
will be located at Fort Greely, suggesting that prisoners, goods
and services could be transported by rail.
Number 114
CO-CHAIR OGAN noted that a statute in Title 16 allows excess bison
to be used for agricultural purposes.
Number 154
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move SSHB 12 from the
committee with the attached zero fiscal note(s); she asked
unanimous consent. There being no objection, SSHB 12 moved from
the House Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 165
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 1:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|