Legislature(1997 - 1998)
01/23/1997 01:04 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
January 23, 1997
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Joe Green
Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 23
"An Act relating to traditional means of access for traditional
outdoor uses and to the classification and the sale, lease, or
other disposal of state land, water, or land and water."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 26
"An Act relating to big game tags for wolves; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 46
"An Act relating to mining; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 17
"An Act establishing the Department of Natural Resources as the
platting authority in certain areas of the state; relating to
subdivisions and dedications; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 23
SHORT TITLE: PROTECT ACCESS FOR TRADIT'NL OUTDOOR USES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MASEK
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 33 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 33 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 33 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
01/23/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
EDWARD GRASSER, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Beverly Masek
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2679
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 23 on behalf
of sponsor.
JANE ANGVIK, Director
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1122
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5947
Telephone: (907) 269-8503
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 23.
MARY KAY HESSION, Program Support
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1122
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5947
Telephone: (907) 269-8511
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 23.
JULES TILESTON, Director
Division of Mining and Water Management
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 800
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5935
Telephone: (907) 269-8600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 23.
LOWELL NORTH
1241 Silverberry Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (907) 457-3706
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 23; provided suggestions.
TED LEONARD, Representative
Interior Alaska Airboaters; and
Interior Branch, Alaska Boating Association
1606 Marika Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 452-5484
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 23.
DONALD SHERWOOD, President
Alaska Boating Association
1640 Brink Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 333-6268
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 23.
ELIZABETH HATTON
HC 52, Box 8900
Indian, Alaska 99540
Telephone: (907) 653-7649
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 23.
DANIEL ELLIOTT II
P.O. Box 647
Talkeetna, Alaska 99676
Telephone: (907) 376-5196
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 23; had concerns.
WILLIAM FOLSOM
P.O. Box 2408
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-4339
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 23.
ELAINA SPRAKER, Chairman
Kenai Peninsula Outdoor Coalition
P.O. Box 3336
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-9592
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 23.
BILL HAGAR
431 Gaffney Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-6295
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 23.
GABE SAM, Director
Wildlife and Parks
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 First Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-8251
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 23.
JUNE BURKHART, Member
Board of Directors
Alaska Building Association
P.O. Box 204
Willow, Alaska 99688
Telephone: (907) 495-6337
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 23.
ROY BURKHART, Member
Board of Directors
Alaska Building Association
P.O. Box 204
Willow, Alaska 99688
Telephone: (907) 495-6337
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 23.
LEONARD HAIRE, President
Mat-Su Chapter
Alaska Boating Association
P.O. Box 879030
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-6183
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 23.
THOMAS STARR, Representative
Mat-Su Motor Mushers
P.O. Box 870053
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
(No phone number available)
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 23.
TOM SCARBOROUGH
Tanana Valley Sportsmen Association
1676 Taroka Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-3412
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 23.
CRAIG COMPEAU, Manager
Compeau's
375 Parkland Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-2271
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 23.
DICK HENSEL
11405 Hawkins Lane
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 344-1752
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 23.
CLIFF EAMES
Alaska Center for the Environment
519 West 8th, Number 201
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-3621
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 23.
ROBERT HAKENSON
P.O. Box 1438
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-1469
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 23.
RALPH SEEKINS, President
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association
1625 Old Steese Highway
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 459-4025
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 23.
JACK McCOMBS
P.O. Box 71128
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 451-7926
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 23; provided suggestions.
STEVE MORGHEIM, Executive Director
Alaska Marine Dealers Association
12440 East Tudor Road, Number 792
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 561-4554
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 23.
TOM MEACHAM
9500 Prospect Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 346-1077
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 23.
MICK MANNS
Paradise Valley
Bettles, Alaska 99726
Telephone: (907) 479-5704
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 23.
CARL PORTMAN, Communications Director
Resource Development Council
121 West Fireweed, Suite 250
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 276-0700
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 23.
STEVE WELLS
Alaska Wildlife Alliance
P.O. Box 202022
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
Telephone: (907) 277-0897
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 23.
STEVE DARBY
1857 Standard Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 451-0272
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 23.
MIKE TINKER
P.O. Box 25197
Ester, Alaska 99725
Telephone: (907) 451-5120
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 23.
SUSAN OLSEN
1119 G Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 277-9968
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 23.
SUSAN SCHRADER, Executive Director
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 23.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-2, SIDE A
Number 001
CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Committee meeting
to order at 1:04 p.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Ogan, Hudson, Masek, Dyson, Green and Joule.
Representatives Williams, Nicholia and Barnes joined the meeting at
1:05 p.m., 1:10 p.m. and 1:17 p.m., respectively.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced that bills not heard that day would be
scheduled for January 30, as the January 28 meeting would be held
jointly with the House Special Committee on Oil and Gas in the
House Finance Committee room.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that fiscal notes for HB 23, HB 26, HB 46
and HB 17, provided late by the Administration, were on the
committee table for members.
HB 23 - PROTECT ACCESS FOR TRADIT'NL OUTDOOR USES
Number 182
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN introduced the first order of business, HB 23, "An
Act relating to traditional means of access for traditional outdoor
uses and to the classification and the sale, lease, or other
disposal of state land, water, or land and water." In 1996, the
House Resources Committee had heard a similar bill, which passed
the House and Senate but was vetoed by Governor Knowles.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that Representative Williams had joined the
meeting. He invited Representative Masek to present HB 23.
Number 230
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK, sponsor of HB 23, noted its
similarity to the previous year's HB 447. She said it was
supported statewide by a wide range of user groups, including
boaters, snowmobilers, hunters, fishermen, trappers and
conservationists. Representative Masek indicated HB 447 had
bipartisan support the previous year.
Number 365
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS asked if HB 23 and HB 447 from the
previous year were identical.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied, "It's pretty much the same as [HB]
447."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS inquired about changes he recalled during
the previous session.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said one technical amendment was added, but
there were very few changes. She invited Edward Grasser to respond
to technical questions and asked Representative Williams if he
recalled the relevant section.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said he did not remember.
Number 442
EDWARD GRASSER, Legislative Assistant to Representative Beverly
Masek, explained there were changes from the original form of HB
447, one involving subsistence. "We wanted to make sure
subsistence was protected," he said. "So it was changed so that
subsistence uses were not equated with the recreational uses but
would, rather, remain subsistence uses. And that's in the current
form of the bill as it passed the House last year."
MR. GRASSER continued, "Also, there was a change in Section 4 that
was requested by the miners to make sure that people that had
mining claims could operate and protect the public safety by
creating either alternate routes around the claim, for the public
access, public lands, or by controlling access through their claim,
with certain restrictions of time and place or whatever. And after
those changes were made, the bill garnered support from most
members in the legislature."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked if it was now basically the same
bill.
Number 517
MR. GRASSER replied, "This is the exact same bill that passed."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that Representative Nicholia had joined the
meeting.
Number 537
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN referred to the fiscal note dated 1/23/97
from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and said, "It shows
an annual operating increase of nearly $71,000, and then there's a
change in revenue, with a negative number." He asked for
clarification.
MR. GRASSER replied, "These are the new fiscal notes." The 1996
fiscal note had also been distributed to the committee. Mr.
Grasser had contacted DNR to find out why they changed the fiscal
note for HB 23, which was identical to the bill of the previous
year. He said, "Their new interpretation of the bill, and the
reason they have these fees on the new fiscal note, revolves around
one section of the bill, and I need to speak with Legislative Legal
[Services] and find out for sure that their interpretation is the
correct one and ours is not. But they're concerned that the value
of a sale is going to be depressed because the bill protects
recreational access onto parcels that might be sold to the private
sector, and the value of those parcels would be depressed because
of the recreational access values protected in this bill."
MR. GRASSER continued: "Their assessment of the language in the
bill says that a pattern of use established on a particular section
of land in this state, that's currently being used by the public,
means that they have to grant a blanket easement to that parcel if
it's sold, which means, ... say, [if] people were snow machining
across it, they'd be able to snow machine across the person's
private property after it was sold to them, anyplace they wanted
to."
Number 648
MR. GRASSER believed Section 4 took care of that question by
allowing DNR to set up easements in the case of sales or disposals
of lands. He said, "I guess that's a question of legalities as to
whose interpretation is correct. We may have to make a technical
amendment ... to take care of that."
MR. GRASSER had been in contact with the Alaska Miners Association.
"[W]e discovered a little glitch in Section 4, which was basically
at their request last year to protect the interests of miners that
were operating, for reasons of public safety, to redirect access
through their mining area," he explained. "And the way the
language now reads, it deals with mining leases; and the mining
association is concerned that ... there's other forms of mining
operations that are taking place, unlike mining claims. And we
need to make sure that we're covering those also. So we may have
to have a technical amendment there also." Mr. Grasser asked if
that answered Representative Green's question.
Number 737
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern that there were "some
wording changes that we don't see today" and "a fiscal note that we
don't quite know whether is fair or not."
MR. GRASSER agreed that was correct. He said, "Most of this fiscal
note, as I understand it, talking with a representative from the
department, would go away if we could resolve the conflict in
thinking between whether the bill does or does not provide the
department the tools to dispose of lands in a sale to a private
party and only grant easements through that, say, public lands
beyond it, rather than a blanket easement that would allow people
to drive or snow machine over the property at will. So, basically,
the $1.1 million in lost revenues is derived from their assessment
of the depressed value of the property because of the blanket
easement."
Number 778
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, "Will this bill be accompanied
somewhere by where these traditional rights-of-way are, so that
there would be some concept, before the legislation is enacted,
where these trails may ultimately go?" He referred to RS 2477, of
the Revised Statutes from the Mining Act of 1866, and asked, "[A]re
they more extensive than that?"
Number 804
MR. GRASSER replied, "No, this bill basically would protect ...
traditional public access onto parcels of land ... and, originally,
to make sure that the Administration didn't withdraw lands for
exclusive use by one segment of the public over another segment, so
that traditional access would continue on those parcels."
MR. GRASSER said it would be a Herculean effort to determine where
people were snowmobiling, using all-terrain vehicles, cross-country
skiing or putting in trapping lines on state land throughout
Alaska. There was no data base for that. With HB 23, if the state
wanted to dispose of land or restrict a land base under Title 38,
the public would have to come forward and object, saying, "We've
been using this for these types of access."
MR. GRASSER said if a claim could be substantiated, and if the
restriction involved an area larger than 640 acres or a time period
longer than eight months cumulative in a three-year period, then
legislative approval was needed to restrict access. The burden
fell to the public when a restriction was proposed.
Number 892
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what decision would be made if a member
of the public claimed traditional use of a parcel but DNR
disagreed.
MR. GRASSER again said in order to place restrictions, if the
parcel was greater than 640 acres in size or the time period was
more than a cumulative of eight months in a three-year period, DNR
would have to go through a legislative approval process. At that
time, the public could make their case to the legislature as to
whether access routes or activities were taking place on that
parcel.
Number 949
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated his understanding that if DNR was going
to make a parcel available and there was no objection from the
public, that transaction could go forward. But if a person claimed
a traditional use, it would have to come back to the legislature.
MR. GRASSER concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it seemed to open the door to any
obstructionist, completely defeating the purpose of putting land
into private hands.
Number 993
MR. GRASSER responded that HB 23 was primarily designed to keep DNR
from restricting access to public lands. In the case of a sale of
land, HB 23 allowed alternatives to be established for access.
"So, that part doesn't necessarily have to come back to the
legislature," he said. "But if they withdraw a bunch of land and
say, `You can no longer snow machine here,' because they want to
create a park or something, then they have to come to you for
approval of that."
Number 1034
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON asked if HB 23 provided a public
notification process. He understood in case of a complaint or
protest, there would be no restrictions without coming back to the
legislature first.
Number 1071
MR. GRASSER agreed that was basically correct. However, DNR used
public noticing procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act
during their assessments when a section of land was to be
reclassified. At that time, individuals from the public could
present their case.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether notification to the public would,
then, be through the Administrative Procedures Act.
MR. GRASSER said that was correct.
Number 1115
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE raised the issue of liability. If a
land sale transferred public land to private ownership and there
was a subsequent snowmobiling accident, would the private owner be
liable for something on his property over which he had no control?
MR. GRASSER stated his interpretation of HB 23: If and when a
parcel of land came up for sale or disposal by DNR, the department
was to provide an alternative access route or create an access
route through the parcel that would not necessarily belong to the
buyer.
Number 1198
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE suggested when land transferred, the new
private owners would not have as much say over their property as
they otherwise would have had. Some people saw this as devaluing
the property.
MR. GRASSER replied that was one of the technical questions that
needed to be addressed. However, the intent of HB 23 was not to
devalue property at a sale. The main intent was to provide access
to public lands being restricted by administrative action in other
areas besides sales or disposals.
MR. GRASSER indicated large portions of public land were being
restricted because of conflicts between user groups that involved
aesthetic values. "In the case of a land sale, this bill would
still apply," he said. "But the department, in Section 4, has the
opportunity to establish an alternate route, a reasonable
alternative, so that they could still do the land sale." For
example, DNR could reroute an existing trail around a parcel.
Number 1305
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked who "they" were and who was responsible
for that.
MR. GRASSER said it was the Department of Natural Resources.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE suggested the cost of maintaining public
access would be on the state.
MR. GRASSER responded, "This really wouldn't be that much cost.
They'd just have to establish that there's a corridor somewhere.
They don't have to build anything."
Number 1337
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that Representative Barnes had joined the
meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES recalled there was a law relating to
tort liability, which dealt specifically with injury on another
person's private property while trespassing thereon. She asked if
a representative from DNR would address that issue.
Number 1403
JANE ANGVIK, Director, Division of Land, Department of Natural
Resources, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. In answer
to Representative Barnes's question, she indicated staff was
looking up the relevant statute. Ms. Angvik said the legislature
had provided individual property owners a waiver from liability on
unimproved property.
MS. ANGVIK stated, "It's our interpretation of the proposed
legislation that if land was actually transferred to an individual
from the State of Alaska ... and someone asserted that they had
been using that area for snow machining, that we would have to, on
the title, actually indicate that that ... public access exists on
the private land and that it would physically cloud the title that
is going to the private individual and would also mean that ... any
sale, either to an individual or a transfer of land to a
municipality, would be subject to assertion by anyone that they
have a right to be there because they had traditionally used it.
So we have some concerns about that."
Number 1477
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked for confirmation that for any
unimproved private land, the legislature had provided an exemption
for tort claims under that section.
MS. ANGVIK replied, "My understanding ... is that ... you passed a
waiver that says that persons are not liable for torts on
unimproved property."
Number 1515
MARY KAY HESSION, Program Support, Division of Land, Department of
Natural Resources, testified via teleconference from Anchorage,
indicating AS 09.65.200, adopted in 1988, says owners of unimproved
land are not liable for torts in personal injuries on their land.
Number 1554
MS. ANGVIK testified that DNR opposed HB 23. "Our understanding's
that the bill intends to ensure public access to state lands, so
that people can use it for outdoor activities like hunting and
fishing, snow machining and hiking," she said. "Uses are currently
allowed and have rarely been restricted on general state lands.
The situation is we start with lands being open, if it is public
land, and all those activities are allowed on public lands unless
it is restricted. The state rarely restricts the use of public
lands. We oppose it because it's not necessary to protect public
access, and it has some broad negative implications."
MS. ANGVIK said HB 23 placed a burden on the DNR land management
and disposal process that would invite delays and possible
litigation. It would significantly devalue land sold or conveyed
by the state, which was reflected in DNR's fiscal note. She
reiterated that DNR seldom restricted access on general state
lands; when it did so, state law required DNR to provide
alternative access. "This legislation provides a requirement that
says that whenever DNR sells, leases or transfers state land, that
we have to provide for this kind of a floating access," she added.
Number 1630
MS. ANGVIK noted HB 23 had two major parts. The first prohibited
DNR from classifying state lands for access. She asked where
people had been denied access to public land and said, "Because it
wouldn't have happened by us. The only examples that we have are
that, in past projects, DNR required ... restricted access on the
North Slope in order to provide for protection of the tundra from
all-terrain vehicles, in order to provide for continuing oil
development."
MS. ANGVIK mentioned a second example, involving Marmot Island off
the coast of Kodiak, where DNR restricted access to a Steller sea
lion rookery to minimize the threat that the federal government
would place the animals on the endangered species list, which would
have negatively affected commercial fisheries. "So, the only
examples that we can cite where DNR has restricted access were
usually in order to support development or to prevent something bad
...," she said.
Number 1697
MS. ANGVIK referred to the second part of HB 23, which said any
future disposals of state land must provide for traditional means
of access. The definition of traditional means of access was broad
and somewhat unclear, she said. If DNR transferred land, a parcel
would be subject to an easement that would provide for individual,
family or community life patterns that any person could assert.
Ms. Angvik suggested such a "reserved blanket or a floating public
access easement" would significantly devalue state lands
transferred to both individuals and municipalities.
MS. ANGVIK explained, "Occasionally, on Native allotments that
erroneously transfer to the State of Alaska, we then give it back
to the federal government so they can turn around and give it to
the allottee. And we do this regularly. What that means is that
even allotments could end up with this kind of a (indisc.) that
says that any member of the public can assert a traditional
activity on their privately-held land."
Number 1758
MS. ANGVIK concluded by saying HB 23 provided little benefit and
represented a significant inhibitor to future land disposals and
developments. She expressed concern about what problem was being
addressed in HB 23 and asked for an example. She said general
public land was very seldom restricted.
Number 1787
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Ms. Angvik how guaranteeing access devalued
land.
MS. ANGVIK specified she was talking about devaluing land that
would transfer out of state ownership, thereby making it either
municipal or private land. The land would be devalued because a
new requirement would be placed on it.
MS. ANGVIK explained when DNR disposed of state land today, they
were required by existing statutes to ensure access to that land
and to any public lands beyond it. When state land went into
private ownership, it would be devalued because of the threat of
somebody saying, for example, "I have the right to have my snow
machine here and you can't do anything about it." Ms. Angvik said
that would actually be on the title, which DNR regarded as a cloud
on the title.
Number 1845
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked Ms. Angvik, "Suppose you lease
some land to a mining company and they have deep pits all over --
it's part of their job and their gold mining activities. And a
snow machiner comes across and falls into this pit and gets hurt.
Who is liable? Is it the legislature because we passed a bill like
this, or is it the state department or ... the person who owns the
... land lease?"
MS. ANGVIK said she was not sure. She acknowledged the state was
a "deep pocket." However, she believed a leasing company would
also be liable if a person had a blanket public right to be there.
"I'm not familiar with the provision that was worked out with the
mining association that the staff member addressed," she advised.
"So he may know specifically about if it was a mining operation
that I'm not familiar with. ... But the issue for this bill is:
Would they have a right to be there?"
Number 1942
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said, "This bill intends to keep lands as
they were traditionally used. So, if there were snow machiners
that were using this land before the mining lease was approved and
then if the miners didn't want to have the liability, since it's
not clear who would be liable for the person that got hurt ... on
their claims, could they put up `keep out - no trespassing' signs?
Is that possible with this bill?"
MS. ANGVIK deferred to Jules Tileston, who she indicated could
elaborate on the authority of mining companies with respect to
controlling access to their mining leases.
Number 1999
JULES TILESTON, Director, Division of Mining and Water Management,
Department of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. He stated, "The best example that I can give you is
Fort Knox. In that case, and the question was, can a mining
company (indisc. -- papers shuffling) something that makes a
liability either to the company or to the state, as a result of
their mining operation? In the case of Fort Knox, they had an
active mining operation that was identified early in the process
that there would be risks to the public indeed across that ... set
of mining claims. There were snow machine trails, there were dog
sled trails, there were cross-country trails. And what was worked
out in that case, on a site-specific basis, is that DNR, through
the public process, said, `We are going to close the public access
and that the mining company has full right and responsibility to
exercise that right to restrict public access, and the mining
company will develop alternative routes for the dog sleds, for the
cross-country skiers and the snow machiners around the property.'
And I think that's really what would happen. If we had a risk,
we'd know it during the planning process; then our collective
responsibility is to protect the public."
Number 2070
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON viewed HB 23 as trying to ensure a higher
standard for the maintenance of access for traditional outdoor
activities. He asked why, given the provisions of being able to
come back to the legislature for larger parcels or those restricted
for longer periods of time, land would be devalued. He suggested
HB 23 provided oversight or an opportunity for the legislature to
operate on behalf of those who felt DNR's classification denied
them access for traditional outdoor activities. He asked Ms.
Angvik to explain the basis for the $1.1 million fiscal note.
Number 2145
MS. ANGVIK explained, "[I]f you buy a homesite or you prove up on
a homesite ... and we're in the process of transferring that land
to you, the reason that the land is less valuable than it would
have been without this legislation [is] that there is a shadow on
the title of that land which says anybody who wants to and can
assert that they have traditionally used that land can continue to
do so, even though you are the owner. If I was selling you a piece
of real estate and I said, `This is your piece of real estate and
you've got it and you can do anything you want with it because you
bought it,' then it has `x' value. If I sell you a piece of real
estate and say, `This is your piece of land, but anybody who wants
to can come and use it,' then it has less value."
Number 2220
MS. ANGVIK emphasized that the value question had nothing to do
with the millions of acres of state land not being conveyed to
individuals or municipalities. Currently, state lands started as
"open" to these traditional activities. Only in the most unusual
circumstances did DNR in any way limit people's access in the use
of state lands. Ms. Angvik again asked for an example of where
lands had been closed and asserted that HB 23 did not accomplish
the intended goal.
Number 2249
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said there was concern about restricting access
through unilateral activities of not necessarily the current
commissioner but of any commissioner. Being able to come back to
the legislature for approval would provide a relief valve.
Number 2297
MS. ANGVIK responded that DNR had no difficulty with legislative
oversight and welcomed it. However, they knew of no example of
where the access issue had been a problem. She said, "I don't know
what it affects, other than our ability to cordon off the Steller
sea lions so that they don't become endangered or something like
that." She again requested an example.
Number 2331
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK mentioned Blair Lake, a popular lake in the
Mat-Su Valley where the commissioner of DNR had been going to shut
down access for float planes. She said DNR had not provided an
avenue for public input there, resulting in an outcry. Through HB
23, the legislature would have more authority, including ability to
get involved if land was to be closed to access for a period of
more than eight months.
Number 2408
MR. GRASSER discussed the Recreational Rivers Bill, passed in the
1980s, which designated certain lands to be managed specifically by
the Division of Lands, not the Division of Parks. In ensuing
years, certain uses had been restricted on stretches of those
rivers. "And although those restrictions may have been valid in
the planning process, this bill precludes DNR from doing similar
restrictions on other public lands and waters without legislative
approval," Mr. Grasser said. He believed the intent of the
Recreational Rivers Bill had been circumvented by DNR's
transferring of management of certain portions to the Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation.
Number 2468
MS. ANGVIK said the Blair Lake example helped her understand the
sponsor's concerns. However, Blair Lake was inside a state park
and therefore controlled by Title 41.
TAPE 97-2, SIDE B
Number 001
MS. ANGVIK indicated if the issue was the Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation's capacity to control access, Title 41 addressed
that. Moreover, the Blair Lake area was less than 640 acres in
size. "So, if ... that's the problem you wanted this bill to
address, it doesn't get at it," she said.
MS. ANGVIK explained the "Recreational Rivers management
structure," saying the Division of Lands managed lands adjacent to
those rivers, as provided for in statute. She stated, "Secondly,
the law specifically says, adopted under the state legislature, in
order to come back to the legislature with the plan, the
legislature itself had to adopt a plan, which you did. In the
plan, which was known, it says the commissioner can adopt
regulations to implement the plan and to establish criteria for the
management of the plan."
Number 064
MS. ANGVIK voiced understanding of concerns about closing sections
of the Recreational Rivers areas to motorboat use. "But the state
statute specifically gives the commissioner the authority to
regulate boating if necessary under the management plan adopted by
the Rec Rivers Plan," she said. That legislation still stood and
would not be affected by HB 23. "However, the lands that we may,
in fact, dispose of are very negatively affected," she added.
Number 121
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN concurred with Ms. Angvik's concern over what
exactly was broken and needing fixed. He said, "What I'm really
concerned about is something happening, if the current legislature
is of the mind-set to try to get more land into private hands, that
this would become an issue that -- it sounds like almost anyone can
come in and say that there was a traditional use. `I have been
berry picking there', `I have been snow machining there for years
and year or last week or whatever.' There's no time limit. What
establishes tradition? And that, then, was going to be coming back
to the legislature."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated he and other legislators wanted to
reduce the amount of time they were in session. "And this sounds
like it's going to expand that, or could, certainly, expand it," he
stated. "So I'm concerned that we're opening Pandora's Box,
potentially, to try to solve a few incidences. And it seems to me
maybe we should be looking at those incidences, rather than
statewide. Unless I hear something to the contrary."
Number 176
MR. GRASSER responded, "It's our interpretation that Ms. Angvik's
interpretation of the bill is erroneous. Section 4 of the bill ...
doesn't say just leases, it says sale and disposal of land. It
also provides in that section that they can provide alternate
routes or other means for access. Their interpretation of the bill
says that they have to give a blanket access to those parcels that
they sell because of a pattern of use. ... I noted that we may have
to make a technical amendment to ensure that the intent of Section
4 is coupled to the pattern-of-use language in the definition of
traditional access in Section 3. But that would take care of Ms.
Angvik's concerns about devaluing the land and causing problems in
the disposal of problem."
Number 235
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he was not opposed to making a
traditional use in a noncontroversial area easier. If it was a
problem statewide, he was in favor of HB 23. However, if it would
happen just incidentally, he questioned the bill's merits.
Representative Green expressed concern that too broad a brush was
being used to correct a small problem. "And so far, I haven't
heard that there is a real major problem in this regard," he added.
Number 275
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said, "Another fine example is the area on
Curry Ridge, which is located out in the Southcentral. They've had
a lot of problems up there dealing with this similar situation."
She asked Mr. Grasser to comment.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted there was a long list of people waiting to
testify.
Number 298
MR. GRASSER said, "First of all, I don't believe that the true
nature of the Rec Rivers bill was related to you by Ms. Angvik.
That bill specifically allowed for traditional means of access on
those river corridors. And during the planning process, there was
a tremendous amount of public testimony to maintain that
traditional access, and the department unilaterally restricted it.
And getting at the rest of your question, ... there's continually
coming before the Department of Natural Resources and other state
agencies requests to restrict access."
MR. GRASSER referred to a recent study by the Department of Fish
and Game that would affect public lands under Title 38 in the
Nelchina Basin. That study suggested access into that area may be
causing habitat problems. "I'm not sure that it is," Mr. Grasser
said. "And maybe it is, and in that case, the legislature would
have the option of allowing some restrictions to take place there."
MR. GRASSER said the impetus for HB 23 was that the public was
continually being bombarded with problems of having to go to
hearings to maintain their right to access land because of DNR, not
just because of the Division of Lands but in other areas, as well.
Number 378
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that following two questions by committee
members, public testimony would be heard.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES withdrew her question in order to listen to
public comment.
Number 398
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said she shared Representative Green's
concerns. She asked Ms. Angvik if HB 23 would have any impacts on
Tier 1 or Tier 2 provisions or controlled use areas.
MS. ANGVIK replied, "This bill has nothing to do with that, because
this bill regulates land under Title 38. The Tier 1 and Tier 2 are
manned by the Department of Fish and Game, and anyplace where
anybody currently can have access to public lands to do
subsistence, they would still be able to do that, would be my
guess."
Number 444
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked if the state could still use the
controlled use areas if HB 23 passed.
MS. ANGVIK asked the definition of "controlled use area."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said it was a Title 16 controlled use for, e.g.,
restricting motorized vehicles for hunting.
Number 476
MS. ANGVIK said HB 23 would not affect controlled use, which was
determined under Title 16 aspects of management of fish and game."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN opened the meeting for public comment. He advised
that it was not his intention to move HB 23 that day. He asked
testifiers to limit comments to two minutes in order to accommodate
everyone.
Number 547
LOWELL NORTH testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HB 23, suggesting other traditional means of access should be
included in Section 3.
Number 598
TED LEONARD, Representative, Interior Alaska Airboaters; and
Interior Branch, Alaska Boating Association, testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks in support of HB 23. His
organizations did not view the problem as minor, as many instances
of restrictions and prohibitions on traditional access were being
placed by DNR and other departments.
Number 655
DONALD SHERWOOD, President, Alaska Boating Association, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage in support of HB 23. He
protested DNR's restrictions on motorized access, suggesting
special interests were at work and public hearings were a mockery.
A veteran, he said handicapped and elderly Alaskans who had used
traditional access were not being considered when areas were
closed.
Number 751
ELIZABETH HATTON testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HB 23, saying she belonged to the Alaska Quiet Rights
Coalition but was speaking for herself. She believed the intrinsic
value of the land and waters, as stated in the bill, were exactly
what most Alaskans value. The bill threw away DNR's ability to
protect Alaskans and what is most dear to them, including wildlife,
fishing and hunting, and peace and quiet. The owner of a remote
cabin, she originally accessed it on skis but now used snow
machines, planes and boats. The trails in the area were created by
people going to their cabins. Now, however, hundreds of snow
machine users were coming across her land. She was concerned about
the implications of making such use legal.
Number 871
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that the committee would only hear
testimony on HB 23. He apologized to anyone waiting to testify on
other bills, which would be rescheduled to Thursday, January 30.
He noted that the next meeting would be Tuesday, January 28, at 10
a.m., to hear HCR 1.
Number 919
DANIEL ELLIOTT II testified via teleconference from Mat-Su. He
expressed surprise that HB 23 did not include state parks.
Sympathetic with its intent, he nonetheless believed HB 23 was too
broad. He envisioned people making bogus claims or destroying, for
example, a blueberry patch, resulting in that traditional use no
longer existing. Sometimes things had to be regulated. While a
sleepy little town might not need a stoplight, when it became the
size of Anchorage, restrictions were needed.
Number 1012
WILLIAM FOLSOM testified via teleconference from Mat-Su, saying he
was on the board of directors for Mat-Su Valley Sportsmen. He
indicated everyone he had talked with favored HB 23. He referred
to the Recreational Rivers Bill and said all recreational uses
would be compatible unless determined by the "director of DNR" to
be incompatible. "You've got to take some of that power away from
DNR," he stated. He hoped loopholes could be tightened up and HB
23 passed.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN suggested that persons with written testimony fax
it to the committee from their local Legislative Information Office
(LIO).
Number 1131
ELAINA SPRAKER, Chairman, Kenai Peninsula Outdoor Coalition,
testified via teleconference, saying although the group had formed
to fight the subsistence issue, the board of directors included
trappers, snowmobilers, hunters and both sport and commercial
fishermen. She referred to Caribou Hills, which had multiple uses
including moose hunting, snowmobiling, dog sledding, trapping and
other activities. She asked Ms. Angvik whether DNR had the power
to sell off that land and displace recreational activities and, if
so, was there any protection.
Number 1202
MS. ANGVIK replied that the Caribou Hills area was "sale land."
Should a sale be planned, the area was not protected. However,
none was currently planned.
MS. SPRAKER said she would support some type of protection for
traditional uses there.
Number 1290
BILL HAGAR testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HB 23. He referred to Article VIII, Section 3, of the
Constitution of the State of Alaska, which he suggested prohibited
the state from granting to anyone "monopolistic access" to a
natural resource. He said, "We find that the agencies have a
tendency to segregate users, and they grant themselves conflict
resolution authority." His position paralleled that of "the man in
Mat-Su," and he believed it was impossible to keep up with public
meetings. Therefore, he was looking to the legislature.
Number 1380
GABE SAM, Director, Wildlife and Parks, Tanana Chiefs Conference,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to HB 23.
He said the state already had a vehicle to address these issues in
the form of the Board of Game and DNR. He believed the legislature
should not be directly involved with either entity's policies.
Number 1444
JUNE BURKHART, Member, Board of Directors, Alaska Building
Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support
of HB 23, saying it was important to all Alaskans who used the
outdoors as frequent recreation users and consumptive users of fish
and game. She suggested free, open access was sometimes critical
to assure some people's livelihood. "This would put the control of
the access to public lands where it should be, under the control of
the legislature," she stated. If and when restrictions needed to
be imposed, she believed they should apply equally to all citizens.
Number 1579
ROY BURKHART, Member, Board of Directors, Alaska Building
Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage,
addressing the easement issue. He said a section line was already
an easement. Therefore, ideally, if the state sold 640 acres,
there was a section line there. "If the section line's there, you
don't even need the easement," he asserted. "If there's a
navigable stream, you don't need the easement. If there's neither
one, it's real simple. You make a 30-foot easement through the
land to get to the other land. And that solves the problem."
MR. BURKHART wanted the committee to ask Ms. Angvik how many times
there had been a user conflict where DNR had restricted
nonmotorized users versus motorized users. "And this is why we
need the bill," he added.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Jane Angvik to respond to Mr. Burkhart's
question at a future hearing.
Number 1745
LEONARD HAIRE, President, Mat-Su Chapter, Alaska Boating
Association, testified via teleconference in support of HB 23,
saying he was an avid sportsman. He said public meetings made no
difference, no matter how overwhelming the numbers were, and cited
the case of the Recreational Rivers Bill. He had attended probably
100 meetings in the last three years, and at every one DNR "and the
parks" were dominating, with the issue repeatedly being restricted
access. He could think of no bill more important than HB 23.
Number 1893
THOMAS STARR, Representative, Mat-Su Motor Mushers, testified via
teleconference in support of HB 23, saying his snow machine club
had 500 members in the Mat-Su Borough. "Recreational access is
primary to the development and the future of our winter development
here in the valley, of course, but [also] throughout the state," he
said.
Number 1980
TOM SCARBOROUGH testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying
he represented himself and the Tanana Valley Sportsmen Association.
He supported HB 23 and said access questions should not be left to
the whim of DNR employees. He commented that section line access
was only for public transportation such as road building. "That is
not legal access for any other purpose, by law," he added.
Number 2089
CRAIG COMPEAU, Manager, Compeau's, testified via teleconference
from Fairbanks in support of HB 23, indicating Compeau's was one of
the largest snow machine companies in the country. He referred to
recent legislation attempting to restrict or select access to Curry
Ridge by certain user groups. He said Jim Stratton, Director of
the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, had mentioned in a
response in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner that public testimony
was 40-1 against restricting access. Mr. Compeau said he had heard
a similar response ratio in his store.
Number 2192
DICK HENSEL testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HB 23. Although a member of the Mat-Su Parks
Advisory Board, he was representing himself. He believed HB 23
implied the commissioner of DNR was insensitive to the needs of
public user groups and was incapable of making management
decisions. "I can't really accept that," he said. He believed HB
23 placed undue emphasis on guaranteeing public use at the expense
of resource protection and that it conflicted with objectives set
forth in state plan documents. For these reasons, HB 23 was
unacceptable.
Number 2296
CLIFF EAMES, Alaska Center for the Environment, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to HB 23. Noting there
was an additional office in the Mat-Su Valley, he said his
organization's membership included approximately 4,000 households.
Their goal for state land management as it related to motorized
recreational vehicle use was two-pronged. First, all users
including Alaskans and tourists, not just motorized users, should
be accommodated. Impacts on residents and cabin owners from
motorized vehicle use should be minimized or eliminated.
MR. EAMES stated, "We have a lot of land in Alaska. People agree
on that. We believe that we can share it, but it requires some
allocations." He cited recent serious conflicts involving Eagle
River residents, including a new snow machine trail and a proposed
corridor from Anchorage to Eagle River. His organization believed
a balance should be initiated between areas available for
nonmotorized users and those available for motorized users.
MR. EAMES referred to snow machining and said the state had looked
a year ago at an area of approximately 35 million acres of public
lands in Southcentral Alaska. Only 4.5 percent of those lands had
been set aside as quiet areas. "We don't believe that this is a
fair balance and allocation of our public lands," he said. "We
can, in fact, allocate lands successfully. It's been done in
Chugach State Park. It's been done at Turnagain Pass. And it's
been done on the Resurrection Pass Trail."
MR. EAMES acknowledged the issues were complicated. He believed
the best vehicle for addressing them was the administrative
planning and regulatory process. Administrators at the Division of
Land and the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, as well as
at the Department of Fish and Game, had the expertise and time to
deal with these complicated issues.
TAPE 97-3, SIDE A
Number 042
ROBERT HAKENSON testified via teleconference from Mat-Su in support
of HB 23. A lifelong Alaska resident and "active outdoor person,"
he had lived in the Mat-Su Valley since 1975. He stated, "I can't
imagine being in Alaska without our freedom and having the land
available to us."
Number 120
RALPH SEEKINS, President, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association,
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He said, "We think
it's wonderful when access is made available to everyone. ... [W]e
should not steal any experience from common Alaskans for the
benefit of the elitists who have the time, money and health to hike
or float, or for the narrow benefit of those who got there first
and don't want anyone else near their cabin."
MR. SEEKINS said the Board of Game had recently closed a million
acres to airboats because of a potential conflict. "And the way it
was solved was that an entire group of users was eliminated from
access," he stated. "That's simply wrong and it should be
protected from ever happening again."
Number 230
JACK McCOMBS testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HB 23. He felt strongly about getting the "philosophical
management of lands" back in the hands of legislators and out of
the hands of "some micromanaging special interest bureaucrat." Mr.
McCombs suggested HB 23 be broadened to include parks and other
special use state lands, thereby guaranteeing access. He commented
that liability was always an issue and should not dissuade
supporters of the bill.
Number 364
STEVE MORGHEIM, Executive Director, Alaska Marine Dealers
Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support
of HB 23. He said, "Repeatedly our membership, which consists of
about 50 businesses, are inundated by comments from their customers
about the confusion and the continued frustration they face in
having restrictions placed on their traditional access to waterways
and what they enjoy in the way of outdoor recreation." He thought
HB 23 leveled the playing field. "It would appear to me that, in
reading this legislation, there's nothing in here that any of the
departments are restricted from doing. They just have to do a
better job of selling it to the people," he concluded.
Number 523
TOM MEACHAM testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HB 23. He thought it would unwisely limit DNR's
management ability to protect state lands from erosion, habitat
damage, and displacement of wildlife and certain recreational uses.
He cited the area off the Denali Highway as somewhere DNR perhaps
should consider placing restrictions to prevent terrain damage by
the summer use of overland vehicles.
MR. MEACHAM stated, "I think the apparent assumption of this bill
is that all means of access are equal, and that if they're not,
motorized access always should prevail. I think, in contrast of
what some other people have said, ... this is an elitist view
because it presumes that the prevailing access user has the money
and the ability to buy the kind of vehicle which will predominate
in these access questions." He pointed out there was always a
displacement of nonmotorized users where motorized users
predominated.
MR. MEACHAM believed there was public support for the ability of
DNR to manage state lands to protect the intrinsic values of lands,
which were specified in HB 23. He noted that even Caterpillar D-8
tractors were traditional means of access to some Alaskans, despite
damage to terrain.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to page 2, lines 21 - 25, of the bill and
said it was not exclusive to motorized transportation.
Number 726
MICK MANNS testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying
everybody he had talked to in the Bettles area supported HB 23.
The previous year, however, one company had run 400 dog mushers
over a trail, beating it down to where it could hardly be used by
snowmobilers. "So we might need to put something in there that
commercial users that take out more than 12 or 15 clients ought to
pull drags, so that the trail will stay good enough for the rest of
us to be able to use it," he suggested.
MICK MANNS said, "Go back to Section 8 of the Natural Resources.
It says in there that reservation of access is to be preserved but
that purchasers of land and lessees of land do have the right to
prevent trespass on their active use areas. The UCC Code and law
says that when a landlord takes away that reservation of trespass,
that the landlord becomes liable, which would put the liability
back on the state. And as long as there's a reservation of access
that would preserve to the actual use area for the leaser or the
purchaser, it reverts back to the purchaser provided that the state
does ... go by Section 8 of the state law." Mr. Manns again stated
his support for HB 23.
Number 876
CARL PORTMAN, Communications Director, Resource Development
Council, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of
HB 23. Access to Alaska's vast public lands was a major priority
of his organization. "It is imperative Alaska retain the widest
possible range of multiple uses on its lands and preserve as many
options as possible for access, especially traditional access for
recreation and other uses," he said. Mr. Portman believed Alaskans
should have proper representation by their elected officials in
cases involving restrictions on traditional recreational access.
"Access including aircraft, snowmobiles and boats are an essential
element to Alaska's unique access equation," he stated.
Number 956
STEVE WELLS, Alaska Wildlife Alliance, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage, saying HB 23 was not about tradition or access. It
was about motorized use. The state did not close access to state
lands for the public at large. "People have rights to access," he
explained. "Motors don't. There's a reason for that, and that is
that the impacts to the land, the wildlife and other users aren't
equal. Motorized use can damage habitat, displace wildlife and
does certainly displace other ... nonmotorized users due to the
noise and safety concerns that are intrinsic in motorized use."
MR. WELLS questioned where the problem was. He said there was no
record of significant closures to access on state lands for
motorized use. Mr. Wells asked, "Do we really believe that there's
no room for areas that are closed to motorized use, to provide for
quiet recreation or protection of the intrinsic values of this
great state?'"
MR. WELLS believed it ironic that motorized use advocates
complained the public process did not work. It had worked well for
motorized use at Curry Ridge and Denali Park, where a compromise in
the master plan, adopted after a lengthy public process, was
overturned due to the heavy turnout of snowmobilers. Mr. Wells
advised that he would provide further testimony in writing.
Number 1091
STEVE DARBY testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HB 23, saying he had a "recreational use shop." He did not
believe most motorized users were irresponsible. A lifelong
Alaskan, he felt fortunate to live in Alaska instead of where there
were numerous restrictions. He wanted his customers, his children
and their children to be able to use the land as well.
Number 1155
MIKE TINKER testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HB 23. He believed then-President Jimmy Carter had created
enough nonmotorized country in Alaska for "all of you to use for
the next five lifetimes." He wanted some left for motorized uses.
"We certainly don't exclude you from that," he said. He wanted to
see similar bills include parks and other agencies such as the
Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Transportation.
He asked: Is there a motorized area of the state that nonmotorized
users cannot go also?
Number 1234
SUSAN OLSEN testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HB 23. She questioned the drafting of the bill and
said there were problems with the definition of traditional use.
"I wonder who is to judge what is traditional use, how that is to
be established," she said. She believed HB 23 was a "totally
wrong-headed attempt" in that it attempted to freeze in place
various so-called rights to access. The effects of one person's
access changed dramatically when that was multiplied by 40.
Regardless of the numbers, all uses similar to a traditional use
could occur.
MS. OLSEN thought HB 23 left DNR without the right to protect the
land and carry out its job. She referred to Article VIII, Section
2, of the Constitution of the State of Alaska. She suggested HB 23
was unconstitutional because it would not result in the maximum
benefit for all the people.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN apologized to Susan Schrader for the long wait and
thanked everyone for their expeditious testimony.
Number 1366
SUSAN SCHRADER, Executive Director, Alaska Environmental Lobby,
testified in opposition to HB 23. She noted that the Alaska
Environmental Lobby, a coalition of 22 environmental groups,
represented more than 10,000 Alaskans. She concurred with many
comments already made concerning people's opposition to HB 23.
MS. SCHRADER said, "We have over a 100 million acres in this state
of state land. I see absolutely no reason why, with some effort
and some careful negotiation between the user groups, we cannot
resolve a lot of these issues. Unfortunately, this bill does
absolutely nothing to help the resolution of the conflict between
motorized and nonmotorized users. In fact, this bill will make it
even more difficult and really put a damper on the dialogue that
many groups, particularly in the Anchorage area, are trying to
start between the varying interest groups."
MS. SCHRADER expressed concern about taking away responsibility for
land management from DNR. "Whether we want to call them
bureaucrats or not, they are professionals," she stated. "They are
trained in habitat and conservation issues. They have a mandate to
protect our natural resources."
MS. SCHRADER said unfortunately, motorized access modes had a much
lengthier history of negative impact on natural resources than did
nonmotorized uses. "And to take that ability to monitor and to
enforce ... and give it to the legislature, and take it out of the
hands of the professionals at DNR, I think is a very large
mistake," she concluded.
Number 1488
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that the committee would meet next on
Tuesday, January 28, to hear HCR 1, the natural gas pipeline
resolution. He thanked committee members and the public for their
participation.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN adjourned the House Resources Committee meeting at
3:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|