SENATE BILL NO. 305 An Act relating to state ownership of submerged land underlying water that was navigable at the time Alaska achieved statehood. Vice-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft #23-LS1489 Version Q, Bullock, dated 4/13/04, as the version of legislation before the Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. JOE BALASH, STAFF TO SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, explained that the Federal Government granted all submerged lands under navigable waters to the State of Alaska at the time of statehood, a nearly 60 million-acre entitlement. Since that time it has been difficult to win concessions from the Federal Government on which waters are navigable and which are not. In the years since statehood, Alaska has gone to court to win determinations on 20 water bodies. Those court decisions refined the criteria by which the determination of navigability is made. This legislation stakes out the State's claim to those water bodies fitting the criteria. Mr. Balash pointed out the language on page 3, line 8 that directs the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to make determinations of navigability, to compile a list, and to map the water bodies. It also directs the DNR to give notice to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of the State asserting the claim and staking it. Mr. Balash explained that Senator Therriault pledged to work with the Native regional corporations. Navigable water bodies over submerged lands belong to the State. When the BLM used incorrect criteria and conveyed acreage to the Native corporations, the BLM conveyed lands that it no longer possessed because Alaska received the lands at the time of statehood. As a result, corporations were charged for acreage they did not receive. The bill sponsor had been working primarily through SEALASKA Corporation to address the shared concerns. Mr. Balash pointed out that the added language on page 3, lines 26-30, contains a disclaimer that the list and action does not create an interest in or right of entry onto any real property that does not otherwise exist under State law, that it may not be recorded and it does not constitute final agency action. He explained that the language was added so that determinations would not be contested within 30 days of the action by the Commissioner. In Section 3, the sponsor reworked the language of the notice so that it doesn't appear adversarial, and would allow the Native corporations to take the list to the BLM and rectify issues relating to the prior conveyance of lands. Representative Joule commented that a lot of good work was put into the bill. Representative Hawker asked if these added sections resolve the Native corporations' concerns. Mr. Balash thought that they did. JON TILLINGHAST, CORPORATE COUNSEL, SEALASKA CORPORATION, explained that Sealaska Corporation worked closely with Senator Therriault's office and other native corporations in a collaborative effort to sort out ownership problems on waterways throughout the state. Sealaska Corporation feels that the current version addresses their concerns, and supports the bill. In response to a question by Representative Joule, Mr. Tillinghast said that Sealaska Corporation coordinated closely with other regional corporations to ensure that their interests were accommodated. MRYL THOMPSON, REPRESENTING SELF, explained that he is a property owner of land extending into a navigable river. He thought that this version of the bill is better, but he worried about its consequences. He discussed the problem of a river running through his private property, comprising as much as 2 acres that he's being taxed on. He said that once the bill becomes law, he would contest the amount of land that the borough assesses him for taxes. He would not be compensated for his loss of 2 acres of river to the State. He also pointed out that the lower assessment would cost the borough money. He foresaw the same problem affecting the Native corporations, and commented on the lengthy process of getting land from the Federal Government. Mr. Balash thought that Mr. Thompson's situation illustrates why the legislation is needed. If the Federal Government sold the submerged land prior to statehood, the land is exempted from this situation. The bill does not take land from anyone. If the land was conveyed to the State at the time of statehood, it belongs to the State and could never have been given or sold to anyone unless the State granted it. He said that concerns over property tax assessments and valuations should be raised with the local taxing jurisdictions. Representative Foster MOVED to report HCS SB 305(FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HCS SB 305(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and one previously published fiscal impact note. TAPE HFC 04 - 103, Side B