Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/18/1994 08:15 AM 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 18, 1994
8:15 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative David Finkelstein
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eldon Mulder
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Pat Carney
Representative John Davies
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Gene Therriault
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HB 462 "An Act repealing certain provisions of the laws,
other than those in the Alaska Land Act, relating
to recording requirements, labor and improvement
requirements, and size requirements for mining
claims and providing for the suspension or waiver
of state annual mining labor requirements when the
federal government has suspended or waived federal
annual mining labor requirements administratively
or by statute; and providing for an effective
date."
MOVED HB 462 OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
HB 446: "An Act relating to community agreements for
environmental conservation purposes; and providing
for an effective date."
MOVED HB 446 OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
HB 352: "An Act relating to the approval of subdivision
plats in areas outside organized boroughs, in the
unorganized borough outside of cities, and in the
third class boroughs; and relating to the
definitions of `street' and `subdivision'."
ADOPTED AND MOVED CSSSHB 352(RES) OUT COMMITTEE
WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4797
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 462
JERRY GALLAGHER, Director
Division of Mining
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 107016
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7016
Phone: 762-2165
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 462
MARY NORDALE, President
Alaska Miners Association
P.O. Box 21211
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 586-3340
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 462
MEAD TREADWELL, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-5065
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 446
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 352
RON SWANSON, Director
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 107005
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7005
Phone: 762-2692
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 352
RICK HARRIS, Vice President
Resource Planning and Administration
Sealaska Corporation
One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-1512
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 352
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 462
SHORT TITLE: MINING REQUIREMENTS:RECORDING/LABOR/SIZE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT,Kott
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/11/94 2345 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/11/94 2345 (H) RESOURCES
02/14/94 2389 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT
03/18/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 446
SHORT TITLE: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION AGREEMENTS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/04/94 2264 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/04/94 2264 (H) COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS,
RESOURCES
02/04/94 2264 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DEC) 2/4/94
02/04/94 2265 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/01/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/01/94 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/02/94 2575 (H) CRA RPT 7DP
03/02/94 2575 (H) DP: SANDERS, DAVIES, WILLIS,
TOOHEY
03/02/94 2575 (H) DP: OLBERG, BUNDE, WILLIAMS
03/02/94 2575 (H) -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE
(DEC) 2/4/94
03/18/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 352
SHORT TITLE: SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL:UNORGANIZED BOR
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/07/94 2020 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/10/94 2020 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/10/94 2020 (H) CRA, RESOURCES, FINANCE
01/21/94 2124 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
01/21/94 2124 (H) CRA, RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/10/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/10/94 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/15/94 2403 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) NEW TITLE 4DP
2NR
02/15/94 2404 (H) DP: SANDERS, BUNDE, TOOHEY,
OLBERG
02/15/94 2404 (H) NR: WILLIS, WILLIAMS
02/15/94 2404 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 2/15/94
03/18/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-35, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by
Chairman Bill Williams at 8:22 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Bunde,
Finkelstein and James. Members absent were Representatives
Carney, Davies, Green, and Mulder.
CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced there is a quorum present.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
GREEN joined the committee at 8:25 a.m.)
HB 462 - Mining Requirements: Recording/Labor/Size
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT, PRIME SPONSOR, stated HB 462
is a clean-up of provisions in Title 27. Title 27 dates
back to territorial days when it was crafted to match
federal requirements in place at the time. He said over
time, these federal requirements have changed and state
statutes have not kept pace, and in many instances no longer
conform. This lack of conformity is currently causing
confusion and must be updated. He told committee members
that a letter of support from the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) which identifies the specific problem each
section of HB 462 is designed to correct is contained in
their folders.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT explained current state statutes
direct miners to do one thing and federal statutes tell them
to do something else. In Section 1, existing language
allows for recording of a location after 90 days, but before
the ground is staked by another locator. He pointed out
federal laws no longer allow such late recording under any
circumstances, so HB 462 brings that provision current with
federal requirements. In Section 2, there is a
clarification that if federal requirements are changed
through administrative action, the requirements of AS
27.10.060 are likewise affected. He said there has been
action on the federal level with statutes and the statutes
have been changed not so much by law, but through
administrative action.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said Section 3 deletes an out of
date requirement for recording of an annual labor affidavit
within six months after the close of an annual labor year.
The federal law requires such affidavits to be recorded 90
days after the close of the labor year. Section 4 repeals
the limitation on the size of associated placer claims. He
stated this limitation is inconsistent with federal law
currently. Section 5 is necessary to ensure that changes
made in Section 2 take place at the same time the federal
law was changed so there is not a window where there were
two laws and a question about which set of laws the miners
should have been following.
Number 043
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
MULDER joined the committee at 8:27 a.m.)
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked Representative Therriault
to explain Section 4 again. He clarified at the present
time no placer mining claim may be located in excess of 40
acres, and have a greater length than 2640 feet and that is
repealed to comply with federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT thought that question should be
directed to Jerry Gallagher.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked what is being discussed -
federal claims on federal land or federal claims on state
land.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT responded claims on federal land.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if HB 462 will eliminate
inconsistencies on land which the state does not have patent
to, but has selection or tentative approval.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said Representative Kott has a
bill which allows the transfer from federal regulations to
state regulations simultaneously when the land transfers
hands.
Number 065
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked when a federal change is made,
does the federal government notify the miner or does the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT responded the federal government
notifies people who have claims on their property.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said conformance is not the concern.
He thought if the state has laws which are different and the
federal law is changed, the federal government is in charge
of making that change known to the miner, with the state not
responsible for any violation. He wondered if the state
accepts the federal law and are party to it, is the state
subjected to liability because a miner did not conform
according to federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT did not feel it is an issue. He
said the federal law is supreme.
Number 093
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked if HB 462 only
applied to mining claims on federal land.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that is correct as that is
what Title 27 addresses.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked where that could be seen in
the law. He wondered if Section 2 addresses changes made in
federal law or federal requirements being waived in a
specific case.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT gave an example. He said in the
past year, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by
administrative action, allowed federal miners to waive
annual labor if an annual grant payment was made. He stated
this section in present statute caused confusion because it
says if federal laws are suspended and the question becomes
is a waiver a suspension.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if the federal government
changed regulations or did they use an administrative action
for an exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT stated it was administrative
action.
Number 122
JERRY GALLAGHER, DIRECTOR OF MINING, DNR, stated the
department supports HB 462. He said states have
traditionally adopted laws which support and give certain
specificity to the federal mining law, that law which allows
miners to stake federal mining claims on federal land. He
pointed out there are certain overriding requirements
nationally but there are specificity issues to recording
documents which varies by state. There are certain business
relationships which vary by state. He added that states
have generally in state law provided specificity of those
aspects of the law. He stressed that is what Title 27 has
done.
MR. GALLAGHER stated the present law goes back to 1949. No
one has paid much attention to Title 27 because federal law
controls. He said as the federal law has changed,
inconsistencies and conflicts of law have developed and HB
462 addresses some of those inconsistencies and fixes them.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked why the state does not just use
the federal law.
MR. GALLAGHER responded the state may have to revisit Title
27 to keep it current, but there are specific provisions in
Title 27 which are important such as the specificity about
recording. He said there is specificity about how location
notices are posted. Those issues are important to the state
for the state's recording of them. There are a number of old
provisions in Title 27 which have become out of date and
need to be cleaned up. He does not advocate eliminating the
provisions in Title 27 in their entirety because some of the
public records and factual statements in the law about
discovery are important.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the mining industry agrees
with that opinion.
MR. GALLAGHER said yes, but mentioned a representative from
the mining industry is present to testify.
Number 174
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked Mr. Gallagher to explain
the change in Section 4.
MR. GALLAGHER responded there was a section of federal law
which applied to placer claims and association placer claims
dating back 60-80 years. There was an effort by the federal
government to make sure that any individual or group of
individuals could not control huge amounts of land in placer
districts. He said Section 4 repeals all of AS 27.10.110
which is the limit on size and he believed those limitations
have been removed from federal law. This is an archaic
limitation which is contained in state law and is an
unnecessary piece of the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER asked if the state will need to
revisit Title 27 over and over again based on potential
changes made to the federal mining law.
MR. GALLAGHER responded if the federal government changes
the mining law of 1872 substantively, the answer is yes. He
stated Section 2 says if the law is changed
administratively, likewise the state law is changed. He
said the federal mining law says you have to do annual
labor. Last year, the Administration by administrative
action said no, you have to pay a fee and if you do not want
to do the annual labor, you do not have to. He stated the
miners pointed out the state law says they do, unless the
federal law has changed. Then the question became, is
administrative action a change in the federal law or not.
He pointed out that Secretary Babbitt is considering
changing the federal mining law through administrative
action. If those federal changes are made administratively,
Section 2 incorporates those changes. Section 2 also says
that if the federal mining law changes, those sections also
change. He felt there is a need to revisit Title 27
occasionally to ensure it stays current.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES said in discussing revisiting
Title 27 in the future, there may be a point when it will
have to be said that mining claims are not allowed on
federal land in the state of Alaska.
MR. GALLAGHER responded only the federal government will
make that statement.
Number 248
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked what the state's vested interest
is in requiring affidavits and wondered if the state is
requiring duplicate reports.
MR. GALLAGHER replied the federal law says miners have to
record an affidavit, but the state law says certain things
have to be included in the affidavit such as the name,
location, number of days work which was done, etc. Those
specifics are important to the state because it provides
consistency with some of the state's recording requirements,
and added it is also important to the miners in the state
because there is a framework of what is required in the
affidavit. That affidavit tells the miners whether that
claim is properly located and properly maintained and
whether or not they can stake it. He did not feel there is
any duplication. The federal law says the miner will record
and the state law says what specifics need to be in the
document.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON wondered if the federal government, in
laying out the requirements, assumes the state will
accomplish them.
MR. GALLAGHER said that is correct. He did not feel the
requirements are onerous or unnecessary. He added the
specific recording requirements are in federal law but each
state has different recording requirement and what needs to
be there.
Number 292
MARY NORDALE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION (AMA),
stated AMA supports HB 462. She said the problem the state
and the territory attempted to resolve is confusion of
records. It is important for every state to have
comprehensive, complete and accurate land records. In the
mining industry, title, whether it is the title which arises
from a mining claim or from purchase, etc., is important.
There are certain things one can do and must do under
federal law in order to establish a title. One of those is
to record, but it is important that the state be able to
require certain elements of information to be included in
the document so the state builds up a comprehensive record
on land ownership. She pointed out if HB 462 is reviewed,
it really addresses recorded notice. The repeal on
association claims is due to the federal law not allowing
association claims anymore so why retain an archaic
requirement in the statute which has no application. She
said HB 462 is needed, it will be more efficient, and will
reduce paperwork, as well as confusion on the part of the
mining industry.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the Division of Mining is more
akin to the Alaska Oil and Conservation Commission in
operating wells which are on federal land or more akin to
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's operating game back
when they operated game on federal management.
MR. GALLAGHER stated the Division of Mining is more akin to
the Division of Oil and Gas. The Division of Mining has
authority on state land for state mining claims. He said as
part of the division's broader interest, they watch what
happens on federal land and reiterated the section being
discussed applies to federal land.
MS. NORDALE stated federal law requires the location notices
and affidavits of annual labor be recorded and it makes
sense to have them conform to state standards.
Number 352
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to MOVE HB 462 with a
zero fiscal note out of committee with INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
HB 446 - Environmental Conservation Agreements
MEAD TREADWELL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC), stated HB 446 which was
presented by the governor relates to partnerships. He said
DEC has over 500,000 people who live in the state who care
for its environment. DEC has approximately 500 employees
who cannot do the job unless it is done together with others
in partnership. He said HB 446 strengthens the law to
ensure it is clear that DEC has the authority to enter into
partnerships with communities and other entities, to work on
delegating state or federal programs where possible, to set
up indicators to track progress on environmental concerns
and set priorities on those concerns.
MR. TREADWELL pointed out that most federal and state
environmental laws might be decried as the stove pipe
approach. There are air laws which do not take into account
water problems; water laws which do not take into account
hazardous waste problems. In trying to find compliance with
the laws, there is a need to set priorities in a community
because there may be a situation, for example, where people
may be catching a disease from poor drinking water in a
community, but an air requirement might require lots of
money to be spent on monitoring the only power plant within
a 3-4 mile radius. He stressed that DEC feels it is
important to sit down with a community and know its
environmental priorities through the partnership process.
Number 402
MR. TREADWELL stated in regard to prioritization, there are
1500 contaminated sites around the state and what may be on
a high action list for state action may not represent a
community's priorities. This process of community
agreements allows DEC to sit down with a city council, talk
about those sites in their area, and encourage local action.
He advised committee members that the last committee which
heard HB 446 had all Do Pass recommendations. He stressed
HB 446 strengthens and builds upon the partnerships DEC
already has in existence.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked how the number of contaminated
sites in Alaska compares with the state of Washington.
MR. TREADWELL said he could not answer that question, but
being discussed in regard to the indicators program is to be
able to make those kinds of comparisons. He stated of the
contaminated sites the state has, there are a number which
are major threats to drinking water, but DEC is making a
good effort.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said he was trying to get an idea on
the relative value in terms of the threat the state has
compared to other states, past stewardship, where the state
is, and where it is going. He asked if this partnership
process is like what the Department of Transportation does
in the six year planning of their capital improvement
program, they work through communities to develop priorities
and as funding is available, the priorities are put into the
Governor's capital budget.
Number 456
MR. TREADWELL responded DEC has a similar process currently
for capital appropriations and gave an example. He said
solid waste is a major problem in Southeast Alaska and as
federal regulations have increased, having this kind of
agreement has enabled DEC to sit down in various areas of
Southeast to try and prioritize regional landfills. He said
the partnership agreement is basically a problem solving
approach.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the community agreements are
contractual agreements giving communities the authority to
take legal action in the event of noncompliance.
MR. TREADWELL responded that DEC has delegated some state
programs to communities. Fairbanks and Anchorage do health
inspections, for example. He said DEC would like to
delegate more and added that under the law, DEC has certain
oversight responsibilities when they do delegate. The
community agreements do not give DEC additional power to
delegate but makes it clear that it is the intent of the
legislature to work toward the areas where delegation is
applicable under other laws.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified the community agreement is
more of a policy statement.
Number 495
MR. TREADWELL said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON reiterated the agreement does not
relieve DEC of any current responsibilities and does not
eliminate DEC's authority to take legal action in the event
of an illegal action.
MR. TREADWELL replied that is correct and added the
agreement also does not mandate that DEC pass certain things
on to communities.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated the partnership agreement is
more of an arms length policy mechanism.
Number 530
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said unfunded mandates tend to come
from the top down, federal to state, state to local
community, and clarified that the community agreements do
not evolve into an unfunded mandate, coming from the
community up to the state.
MR. TREADWELL stated legislators continually hear from
municipalities about their needs to fulfill their
responsibilities and the community agreements will not
change that. He said the agreements allow DEC to sit down
with a city council once a year and discuss present and
future activities and priorities. For example, if a town
plans to build a sewer facility, DEC should be aware of
that. He gave other examples. He explained the agreements
will not create entitlement for communities, but will allow
DEC to be better educated about what the needs are.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER noted there is a zero fiscal note
attached to HB 446 and felt that in five years, the cost
could be substantial because the passage of HB 446 will give
justification for the existence of another branch of DEC.
MR. TREADWELL disagreed. He pointed out there is a regional
organization currently in place and a community lead person
within DEC has been identified to work with each community.
He added that embedded in DEC's budget is a large amount for
data acquisition and stated DEC is data rich and information
poor. The community agreements will help DEC determine what
information they have on a community by community basis. He
felt the agreements will help DEC's work to be more
effective and does not see HB 446 creating a new entitlement
for DEC. He said on the indicators project, DEC has
received federal funds to develop a set of indicators which
are consistent with other states and has received a grant
for comparative risk. Once that project is set up, DEC will
be able to report the information collected to communities.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked if anything is going to stop if
HB 446 is not passed.
MR. TREADWELL said no. He stated the commissioner and the
Governor have asked for this legislation to have the
legislature, as a policy body, reaffirm the program which is
ongoing.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked if the lead person mentioned
earlier is funded out of general funds.
MR. TREADWELL responded DEC has a regional administrator for
each of the four regions of the state: Southeast,
Southcentral, Northern and Pipeline Corridor. There are
approximately 200 communities in the state. Through the
community agreement program, DEC has told the mayor of a
given community that this lead person should be involved on
day to day issues. That lead person knows it is their
responsibility to process permits, etc., but also to sit
down once a year with the mayor and city council to develop
an agreement so DEC and the community have common
priorities. He explained the lead person is in reality many
people making up the regional staff and they are funded
through federal funds, general funds and response funds, but
added that part of their job is touching base with each
community.
Number 671
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern in regard to oil
operations. He said there are local emergency planning
committees (LEPCs), regional citizens' advisory councils
(RCAC), etc., and they receive considerable contributions
from a fund. He thought entering into an agreement with a
community sounds like an advisory position and has more
strength than indicated. He wondered with going to
communities to discuss issues and the travel, time, etc.,
involved, why there is a zero fiscal note. He did not see
how DEC can do more without costing more and asked about
funding sources.
MR. TREADWELL responded DEC has not funded, except for one
time, any RCAC's.
TAPE 94-35, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. TREADWELL gave an example where the federal government
writes rules which require communities to test their
drinking water once a month for bacteriological things,
twice a year for certain heavy minerals, once every three
years for radiation, etc., which is a tremendous unfunded
mandate upon each community. He said certain regions in the
state have the lowest compliance rate in the country. DEC
has gone as far as possible with direct command, control and
enforcement to get the problems addressed. To go above and
beyond that is to sit down with the mayor and city council
and discuss why the requirements are important and what
needs to be done. He stressed the community agreement
program is not going to cost more money.
MR. TREADWELL said for example, the person who runs the
field office in Nome is responsible for 40 villages. When
he goes to a village, he is there to visit the water system,
check on contaminated sites, check on the school district,
check the dump, etc., but in each of these cases, he is
dealing with one city official and part of his job now is to
spend time with the mayor and city council to address
problems together.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed confusion.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated a community agreement will get a
community to focus on particular problems before they become
serious problems. For example, in Ketchikan there is a
problem with the waste water discharge in the borough which
previously was unknown. Now the community is upset about
what is happening in regard to regulations, etc. Had the
community been prepared, it would have been able to plan for
the problem.
MR. TREADWELL said that is accurate.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if having a community agreement
in that example would have precluded the situation.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said a community agreement would have
helped make the community and DEC work together to focus on
the problem.
MR. TREADWELL stressed the community agreement program is a
voluntary program. He said DEC has had communities turn
down the agreement offer while other communities have been
grateful. DEC has had attorneys look at the agreements to
ensure they do not create entitlement or advocate other
laws. He said 90 percent of what DEC does is working with
communities.
Number 093
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated the agreement program is a
formalized cooperative methodology of compliance with
federal and state requirements. He asked on page 2, line 2
where it indicates through delegation or cooperative
management, if that implies delegation of legal authority to
the local level.
MR. TREADWELL responded in the same way the federal
government retains oversight on the state when programs are
delegated to DEC, DEC retains oversight over municipal
programs when they are delegated there and gave several
examples where DEC hoped they could get delegation. He said
DEC still writes the regulations, they still have to be
consistent with state law, but DEC has gone as far as
possible with delegation to make sure the decisions are made
by communities.
Number 145
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked who will be allowed to
enter into the agreements.
MR. TREADWELL responded it will be cities and boroughs. He
said the broad definition of local governing body for an
incorporated community can meet any of the Title 29
depredations.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN wondered if there will be a
constitutional problem when an entity such as a Native
regional corporation which represents a portion of people
within an area and is a for-profit corporation, applies for
permits.
MR. TREADWELL said currently if a Native regional
corporation owns both fuel tanks in 20 places along a river
to support a fueling operation, DEC can enter into a
compliance order by consent which says as well as paying a
fine, getting a court order, etc., it is appropriate for DEC
to sit down with the group ahead of time and say in order to
avoid long-term compliance problems, let us deal with the
problem comprehensively ahead of time. He gave an example.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to MOVE HB 446 with a
zero fiscal note out of committee, with INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
CSSSHB 352: "An Act relating to the approval, change, or
vacation of subdivision plats in areas outside organized
boroughs, in the unorganized borough outside of cities, and
in the third class boroughs; and relating to the definitions
of `street' and `subdivision'."
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES stated HB 352 came to her
attention because she had a university subdivision being
created in her district in an area where there was no
platting or planning authority. She said there was a
problem with legal access to the subdivision. She explained
that all subdivisions filed within an unorganized borough or
a borough which does have platting authority are filed with
DNR, but DNR has no authority to determine whether or not
the subdivision was in compliance with state law.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she has been working with the
Division of Land and the Native corporations on the issue,
and the sponsor substitute before the committee addresses
their interests. She explained HB 352 will provide some
oversight by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) when
subdivisions are filed within an area where there is no
platting authority to ensure that in the future, there will
not be clouds on the title, access problems and other
problems created by improperly filing plats. She pointed
out on page 3, line 17, where it says "organized under P.L.
92-203, by the creation of public access", it has been
suggested that it say, "by the creation of public or common
carrier access."
Number 234
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON wondered if the proposed amendments
from Sealaska are incorporated into the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said they are included. She explained
their needs have been met, but the language may not be word
for word.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a MOTION to ADOPT CSSSHB
352(RES).
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 265
RON SWANSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LAND, DNR, stated Section
1 defines subdivisions. Currently there are two or three
definitions of subdivisions. The change made in that
section provides for one definition for subdivision which
will apply to all platting authorities.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said he noticed on page 3, lines 14-
18, subdivision is defined and asked if that is what
Sealaska has an interest in.
MR. SWANSON thought that was correct. He said Sealaska's
main concern is that when conveyance is received from the
federal government, a big block of land is received which
has roads, access, utility lines, etc., through it, and
Sealaska does not want that to create the original
subdivision.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN thought lines 14-18, on page 3
meant the exception for those corporations is only in the
creation of public access.
MR. SWANSON said what DNR is attempting to do is if a RS2477
happens to fall across land conveyed to a Native
corporation, that would not create the subdivision. It is
the subsequent action to create lots which would create the
subdivision and would go into the plat review. He explained
it would be the same situation if there was a need to run a
utility line across the land. DNR does not want that to
create a subdivision.
Number 311
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern in regard to the
public access portion and asked if it would apply to the
rights on section and quarter section lines.
MR. SWANSON requested Sealaska to respond to the question.
He said when land is conveyed to a Native corporation, only
the exterior boundaries are surveyed, so section lines do
not exist unless they were surveyed before. If the section
line has been surveyed, the section line access is there.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated the exemption applies to more
than Native land.
MR. SWANSON said the exemption is only for land conveyed to
Native corporations which is Public Law 92-203.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Mr. Swanson to explain
application of the sponsor's suggested amendment to add
common carrier, on page 3, line 17.
MR. SWANSON responded common carrier is a telephone,
telegraph, utility line or pipeline, so putting in that
particular utility will not create the subdivision, it will
just allow that to happen.
Number 337
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked Mr. Swanson to continue
explaining the changes.
MR. SWANSON said Sections 1 and 2 are the definitions of
subdivisions.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he still was not clear why
there is a definition of subdivision in Sections 2 and 5.
He asked why there are two different definitions of
subdivision.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded because two different areas
of the law are being discussed.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said one section applies to public
lands and the other applies only to Native land.
MR. SWANSON stated a change is being made in Title 38 to
define subdivision and changes are also being made in Title
40. He said there is a desire to get one definition of
subdivision.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES added a change is being made in Title
46, as well.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER felt to say they are being made
uniform is not correct. He pointed out the definitions
contained in CSSSHB 352(RES) are not repetitive and asked
how they are being made the same.
Number 360
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded there is a definition for
Native lands and then there is the rest which has the other
definition. He said the definition is the same for the same
type of ground.
MR. SWANSON stated currently there is no definition of
subdivision in Title 38 and Section 1 addresses that
problem.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked why the definition in Section 2
is different than the others.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER thought Title 34, Title 40, and Title
46 all have...
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked committee members to use the
Chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated although the definition for
subdivision is not word for word in each of the sections, it
is the same. She said because there are different sections,
there is different information needed, but the basic
definition of a subdivision means: "the division of a tract
or parcel of land into two or more lots or by the creation
of public access; does not include cadastral plats,
cadastral control plats, open-to-entry plats, remote parcel
plats created by or on behalf of the state regardless of
whether these plats include easements or other public
dedications, or plats prepared by the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities for the purpose of
transferring leasehold interests at state-owned airports or
creating or adjusting right-of-way boundaries." She said
the other language in the bill is applicable to that
particular section of law and only that section of law. She
explained each section refers back to the specific
definition of a subdivision.
Number 451
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked why the exception for land
owned by corporations organized under P.L. 92-203...and
apply it to the other definitions as well.
MR. SWANSON responded Title 38 only applies to state land
and that is the reason for the Native corporation exception.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that Section 34 does not
apply to state-owned land but other land.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the person from Sealaska could
speak as some of the questions being asked could be
answered.
RICK HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT, RESOURCE PLANNING AND
ADMINISTRATION, SEALASKA CORPORATION, stated the proposed
change in Section 1 making the reference to AS 40.15.290
meets the concerns which Sealaska had raised. He said Title
34 of the statutes relates to private lands, while Title 38
represents state lands. Sealaska was interested in the
legislation because in correcting the problem discovered by
Representative James in her district, it opened another
problem. He explained Native corporations are conveyed
large blocks of ground and at times, access across the
ground will be required for public access or common carrier
corridors. He said by having public access or common
carrier corridors across their property, they do not want
property they have not subdivided to all of a sudden be
thrown into the subdivision definition which then starts
kicking off other things under the provisions of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act and state law.
MR. HARRIS stated Sealaska is satisfied with Section 1 and
Section 5 with the proposed amendment which Representative
James offered.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a MOTION to AMEND CSSSHB
352(RES), on page 3, line 17, after the word "public", add
"or common carrier."
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 550
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if the explanation of the
changes to the law could continue.
MR. SWANSON stated Section 2 establishes a new section in
Title 38 for state land which defines subdivision. Section
3 addresses public records which set out DNR as the platting
authority outside of organized boroughs or boroughs who do
not have platting authority.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what the significance is of
removing the words, "for the change or vacation..."
MR. SWANSON responded that deletion allows DNR to review all
plats instead of just vacation of existing plats or a
portion of plats.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if that implies a greater work
load on the department.
MR. SWANSON replied the department is assuming they will
have approximately 250 more plats to review. Existing
regulations allow the department to charge for that plat
review. He said the fees charged will more than cover the
cost of the additional workload. He added the savings and
benefits to the lot community will be substantial.
Number 590
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if the program operates
under program receipts authority.
MR. SWANSON answered that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN wondered if the fiscal note does
not pass, is the department's program receipt authority any
bigger than the actual program receipts, and is there room
to take the money and apply it to the department's budget.
MR. SWANSON answered no. He said the department does not
have any program receipt authority within the survey
budgeting. He stated the department has fees and the fees
go back into the general fund.
Number 612
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated there is a fiscal note because
there is income to cover expenses.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said there is not a zero fiscal note,
it has a zero impact in relation to the general fund.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated there must be an assurance that
the receipt and expenditure authorization is appropriated in
the budget. Otherwise, the department will be given added
responsibilities with no money to accomplish them and the
money collected will go into the general fund.
Number 665
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked if the department's concerns
have been addressed.
MR. SWANSON answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said in Section 4, it says the
department may not disapprove a new subdivision plat except
for failure (1) to comply with applicable state law; or (2)
of the plat to provide for, or otherwise specify, access...
He asked what else could the department disapprove a plat
for.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES thought the section related to public
input. When a plat is filed and if it meets state laws and
regulations, it is on the books.
TAPE 94-36, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if public hearings, etc.,
are state law requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded they are by platting and
planning authority within the various communities.
MR. SWANSON said there are some requirements within Title 29
which is the municipal actions, but this legislation is
outside municipal actions.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN clarified that nothing in state
law is therefore being left out in the department's ability
to disapprove a new subdivision plat.
MR. SWANSON said the way he reads it is that the department
will review the plat to make sure it complies with any state
law as far as consistency with platting, public records,
etc., and will make sure it has public access. If the plat
meets those requirements, DNR will approve the plat.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated if the old language is read it
says that "DNR is the platting authority in the area outside
the organized boroughs,...for only the purposes of hearing
and acting on petitions for the change or vacation of plats"
which means it has already been done and shall execute in
accordance with AS 29.40.130-29.40.160. He pointed out DNR
is being given the platting authority and the other words
are providing some limitations they have in their platting
authority. DNR may not disapprove except for failure to
comply with state law or to otherwise provide access to the
lots. He felt the way the section has been rewritten is to
conform with the new elements of function.
Number 028
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES added that DNR cannot disapprove a plat
for any subjective reason.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt the language indicates a
state department cannot disapprove anything except for a
violation of a state law. He thought he was missing
something because all a state department can enforce is the
state law.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a MOTION to move CSSSHB 352(RES)
with fiscal note out of committee with INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will meet Monday,
March 21 at 8:15 a.m. to hear HB 496 and HB 238.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting
at 10:05 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|