HB 120-STATE LAND SALES AND LEASES; RIVERS  2:03:30 PM CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 120, "An Act relating to state land; relating to the authority of the Department of Education and Early Development to dispose of state land; relating to the authority of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to dispose of state land; relating to the authority of the Department of Natural Resources over certain state land; relating to the state land disposal income fund; relating to the leasing and sale of state land for commercial development; repealing establishment of recreation rivers and recreation river corridors; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 120, Version 32-GH1634\G, Bullard, 4/22/22, ("Version G"), adopted as the working document on 5/2/22.] 2:04:08 PM CHAIR PATKOTAK opened public testimony on HB 120. 2:04:36 PM JOHN SONIN, representing self, opined that the administration feels it is all about personal fantasies and doesn't consider the source of benefits, which he finds disdainful. He characterized the governor as having "turned [he Department of Natural Resources (DNR)] into a Safari Club." He said there is nothing more precious than fresh water and the oil Alaska has been extracting over the last 30 years. He stated that Alaska is losing its freshwater reserves from glaciers, and he cannot stand by while the administration takes control of those waters. 2:07:41 PM BILL THOMAS, representing self, testified in support of HB 120. He expressed his support for the amendment that allowed a land exchange between the State of Alaska and potential Native Vietnam veteran Native allotments. He said he served in Vietnam in 1968 and doesn't intend to go to the Interior, so he supports the amendment and the bill. 2:09:26 PM BECKY LONG, representing self, testified regarding her concerns with Section 13 of HB 120. She requested that the committee think about striking Section 13 because the regulatory process that would be initiated for a new commercial disposal would be broad and vague. She offered her belief that it circumvents the public process, which would create legal problems given the Alaska State Constitution provides the right of people to enjoy state lands. She stated that a responsible and transparent public process would require legal notification of adjacent landowners, a public comment period, and the ability for the public to ask for a public hearing to express their opinions on a public record. She addressed the DNR commissioner's statement that it would be a process like the oil and gas leasing best interest process but related that she had just gone through that process with the huge coalbed methane exploratory licenses in the Susitna Valley where DNR did not do any adjacent landowner notification and said that there is no ability for a recorded public hearing. The department had two informational meetings that weren't recorded, she continued; therefore, it lost all the public comment. She urged that Section 13 be struck and that there be a robust public process if HB 120 is passed. 2:11:27 PM JAN CONITZ, representing self, stated she is concerned about the provisions for public land disposal contained in HB 120. She said it seems there would be significant loss of public land under HB 120. She further said that the language to reclassify "any state land the department deems appropriate for commercial development" is irresponsibly broad and would give sweeping authority to the commissioner to reclassify state public lands without public process. She stated there doesn't appear to be a requirement for the commissioner to honor existing local and state land use plans that were developed through various public processes at significant time, effort, and cost. Nor does the bill appear to uphold existing riparian area protections, to notify adjacent landowners, or even to generate any profit or other public benefit, she pointed out. The bill, she continued, allows the removal of valuable land and habitat protections from the Alaska public at the discretion of a single politically appointed official. The effect of HB 120, Ms. Conitz added, would be to fragment Alaska's vast public lands and current access points to waterways, drainages, ridgelines, and historic trails, and put up no trespassing signs where people have been free to roam for countless generations. She said other serious consequences of HB 120 would be to accelerate and exacerbate salmon and other fish habitat loss, as well as to fragment wildlife habitat and cut off caribou migratory routes. She maintained that Alaska's wild resources and public land access and enjoyment are vastly more valuable in the long term than the gravel pit, vacation home, or box store that would permanently replace them if HB 120 were to pass. The only justified provision, Ms. Conitz continued, is for the Alaska Native Vietnam era veterans to receive the allotments that they were unfairly denied. 2:14:58 PM MELISSA HEUER, Executive Director, Susitna River Coalition, testified in opposition to HB 120. She expressed her concern that disposing of land with minimal consideration of the local land use plans is government overreach. Local governments throughout Alaska have spent thousands of hours drafting local land use plans, she continued, so it is highly concerning that the state thinks this bill is appropriate or beneficial for all Alaskans and Alaska communities. She said she values and supports Alaska's veterans but that this is not the way to go about doing it. She urged that the committee not advance the bill, but if it is moved, that Section 13 should be removed. She further urged that all language in the bill related to land use and disposal should be changed to require that any new owners need to comply with all local land use and management plans and that the commissioner should not be able to reclassify these lands without written approval by local land use management groups. 2:16:25 PM KATIE ROOKS, representing self, stated that as a passionate advocate for public land she is in opposition to HB 120, particularly Section 13. She said state and federal public lands are Alaska's greatest assets, and their disposal to corporate entities, people from out of state, and others will result in not caring for those lands in the way the public can. Disposal [under HB 120], she continued, bypasses the public process, and ignores the desires of many folks on how to treat this land and what to do with it. She charged that it is another assault by the governor's administration on public lands and public processes and HB 120 should not be moved forward. 2:17:44 PM CHAIR PATKOTAK closed public testimony on HB 120 after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify. 2:18:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted that the Tenakee Springs School is part of the Chatham School District, a Regional Educational Attendance Area (REAA), but that the transfer in the bill is to the City and Borough of Sitka, which does not operate the Tenakee Springs School. She further noted that all the rest are changing to municipalities. She asked whether the bill's provision for the Tenakee Springs School has to do with it being an REAA. She said she is concerned because it is an REAA school district and she knows that the Tenakee Springs School has struggled, and transferring away the Tenakee school site has some ongoing policy implications. 2:21:04 PM HEIDI TESHNER, Director, Finance and Support Services Division, Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), confirmed that the Tenakee Springs School is in the Chatham School District. She said she will get back to the committee with a follow-up to the question because she hasn't seen the document being referred to by Representative Hannan. CHAIR PATKOTAK surmised it is clarifying whether that is the appropriate place that the land gets transferred to so that the Tenakee Springs School can take possession of it. REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN responded that the Tenakee school is currently below the [required] student population, so is not functioning as a full attending school. She explained that Tenakee is a remote community and not everyone can do distance [schooling] from home, so it is being operated as "everybody come in and you can get on broadband from there and do your schoolwork." Of course, she added, the school district is hoping it will get back over the student population threshold and be able to operate as an in-person school again. She said it appears that the school is being transferred out of ownership of the state in an REAA and to the City and Borough of Sitka, which concerns her because it would preempt that REAA school district from ever being able to operate it because it is not part of the City and Borough of Sitka. 2:23:06 PM CHAIR PATKOTAK announced HB 120 was held over.