HOUSE BILL 109 "An Act relating to the management and disposal of state land and resources; relating to certain remote parcel and homestead entry land purchase contracts and patents; and providing for an effective date." Co-Chair Therriault explained that HB 109 is a housekeeping measure intended primarily to clarify certain Title 38 statutes governing the Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) management of State land and resources. The bill is intended to bring greater efficiency to the management of state lands by simplifying programs and reducing costs to DNR. Co-Chair Therriault noted the highlights of the legislation: * Rewrite of the "remote cabin permit program" to a program that would allow for either the sale or lease for a remote cabin site. The permit program was never implemented because of the associated administrative costs with only a minimal return to the State. * Clarifies that the sale of state land does not obligate the State to provide additional services. * Simplifies the methods to receive a homestead parcel title by requiring that within five years, a parcel must be lived on for 25 months or purchased at fair market value. JANE ANGVIK, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LANDS, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, commented that the Department supports HB 109 as it would clean-up Title 38, resulting in the Division of Lands being operated more efficiently. She added that the Department also supports the amendments distributed to Committee members. She spoke to the shore fisheries issue and the Supreme Court ruling regarding that concern. Co-Chair Therriault noted that section had been dropped from the 2 proposed legislation. Representative J. Davies questioned why it would be difficult for the Division of Lands to follow the rules of the Supreme Court. Ms. Angvik replied that the Kachemak Bay Watch case challenged DNR to authorize aquatic water sites on State lands, a decision which called for significant aquatic planning efforts. The Court recommended that the Department participate in a land use plan identifying areas where mari-culture could occur and which was to be done after an accumulative evaluation of all events that could occur over time. If the Division of Lands had to comply with the Court ruling, it would take seven employees to perform an area wide plan for all of the coastal regions of the State. Representative J. Davies inquired if the Court required the Division to address the entire State for permit operations. Ms. Angvik replied that the Court indicated that the Division had failed in Southeast Alaska and Southcentral Alaska, so they ruled that the entire State must be undertaken. Representative J. Davies asked if the Department was planing to return to the Legislature with statutes which make sense. Ms. Angvik explained that the Division is doing a thorough job with each mari-culture location evaluation, although, the Court requested a higher standard. Discussion followed between Representative Davies and Ms. Angvik regarding land use planning. Representative Martin voiced concern for the shoreline tidelands and the coastal communities in Southeast Alaska. Ms. Angvik stated that the proposed amendment was designed to allow up-line owners to obtain a non competitive lease for dock sites. In a tideland area, a user can get a long- term lease to be able to operate a dock. The amendment would allow the tideland applicant to apply for a similar application for fresh water lakes and rivers. Co-Chair Therriault asked the terms of a lease for fresh water shore land. Ms. Angvik replied that the terms would probably be a 20 year lease for facility on a carbo operation, instead of a year by year competitive auction. The issue of value would be negotiated between the lessee and the State through an appraisal. The amendments do not address the negotiation process. ROBERT NAUHEIM, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, offered to answer questions regarding litigation which lead to the language of the bill. 3 Representative J. Davies noted that the litigation had indicated that the process used was not adequate. The bill has been accompanied by an amendment appropriate to that concern. He asked how a facility could be created in the future. Mr. Nauheim explained that the legislation was written to rescue several classes of aquatic farming operations which are in a difficult legal position. The Alaska Supreme Court stipulated that the application process was invalid. The Court upheld that the identification method used by the Department was faulty. The Department understood that, initially, the identification process was to be informal so as to aid the application process. The Supreme Court interpreted the straight forward language to require a very detailed formal planning process that would result in the identification of districts where specific sites would be identified for issuance of permits. That decision was determined invalid. The new legislation coupled with the newest amendments will call for the repeal of the old system. Representative J. Davies questioned if the regulations would create a new process for permitting of the facilities. Mr. Nauheim advised that the new language would command that the commission adopt new regulations and establish criteria for approving or denying the applications. Regulations will be similar to the current ones. Representative J. Davies asked if Amendment #3 was adopted, would a permit applicant be applying for a finite period of time. Ms. Angvik responded they would need to apply within 90 days. Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. [Copy on file]. Representative Martin questioned if the shoreline/tideline concerns in Southeast Alaska had been adequately addressed. Ms. Angvik offered to work with Representative Martin regarding his concerns. There being NO OBJECTION to Amendment #1, it was adopted. Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. [Copy on file]. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment #3. [Copy on file]. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative J. Davies MOVED to report CS HB 109 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. 4 CS HB 109 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the Department of Natural Resources dated 4/23/97.