CSSB 339(RES): 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. Gerald L. Gallagher, Director, Division of Mining, Department of Natural Resources, spoke to SB 339 by section. Questions were asked of Mr. Gallagher by Senators Rieger and Jacko. CSSB 339(RES) was REPORTED out of committee with individual recommendations, and a zero fiscal note for the Department of Natural Resources with revenue of $(100.0). CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 339(RES): 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 Pearce announced that SB 339 was before the committee. She invited to Gerald Gallagher to join the committee at the table. GERALD L. GALLAGHER, Director, Division of Mining, Department of Natural Resources, said that revisions to Title 38 in SB 339 were fairly broad and touched all resources. Sections 1 through 10 essentially reform the land disposal program in the state. What those sections did was require that land be identified in land use plans and properly classified. It also dictated that the department adopt regulations to sell land at no less than fair market value. Section 11 was amended in Senate Resources Committee and now conformed to language that allowed the exchange of native allotments when it was in the best interests of the state. Sections 12, 13, 14, again made conforming changes to coincide with land disposal changes in Sections 1 through 10. Section 15 was a minor definition change. Section 16 gave the department authority to require and to appropriate action if a lessee of state land did not clean up or remove material from the site at the end of the lease. Section 17 and 18 dealt with timber and allowed the Commissioner to negotiate timber sales where there might be a Spruce bark beetle infestation, or an economic loss to the resource for land conversion. Section 19 was identical to SB 322 that had passed the House and Senate. It would eliminate the 90 day restriction on oil and gas lease sales. Section 20 clarifies the Commissioner's authority to close land to mineral entry, limiting his authority on new claims and not on existing ones. Section 21 reformed who would be allowed to hold mining claims. This would conform to all business practices of the state. Section 22 changed how rents were adjusted for consumer price indexes. The new wording said "whenever it reached $5 increments" and would make for easier accounting. Section 23 allowed for surface use for mine tailings, mill sites, and changed out the word "permit" for "lease". Section 24 conformed. Section 25 changed old regulations that said if a person applied for a lease and did not return that lease to the department within 90 days, the lease was lost. Section 26 clarified when the department could use permits and was specific to reindeer grazing. It would allow such activities as rock collecting, etc. Section 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 were all conforming changes to coincide with the land disposal package in the first 10 sections of the bill. Section 33 contained all repealers to accomplish all of the above. Sections 34, 35, and 36 contained the effective dates and transitional provisions. In answer to Senator Rieger, Mr. Gallagher said there was nothing in the bill that dealt with water rights. In another answer to Senator Rieger, Mr. Gallagher said the Supreme Court had ruled that requiring the disposal be held in a local community and to have the winner present was unconstitutional. He acknowledged it was a good idea that the disposal be held in the community near the land in question, but it could not be required by law. In answer to Senator Rieger, Mr. Gallagher said rents on state mining claims, instead of a 10-year interval adjustment, would be increased by $5 increments for ease of accounting which would mean every 5, 10 or 15-years depending on the price-index. End SFC-93 #79, Side 1 Begin SFC-93 #79, Side 2 In answer to Senator Rieger, Mr. Gallagher said Section 24 exempted land surface from the competitive bidding process. Only the company that was developing the mine would have any reason to lease the surface for mine improvements. It did not exempt it from best interest findings and all the costs associated with that. Again in answer to Senator Rieger, page 13, line 23, Mr. Gallagher said that "limited value" was not defined but referred to a practice that had a low dollar value and little impact on the resources. Mr. Gallagher said there had been some discussion internally about the term. Some examples given were rock collecting, and short term grazing of reindeer. In answer to Senator Sharp, Mr. Gallagher said that there was nothing in the bill that applied to lands leased within the international airport systems. He did say that any state lease would come under this bill since it was state land. In answer to Senator Jacko, Mr. Gallagher said that Senate Resources Committee had added language that had already passed the Senate. Again in answer Senator Rieger, Mr. Gallagher said that most repealers were related to the land disposal program to make it conform with the fair market value competitive package. The one repealer that did not fall under that was 38.05.207, which pertained to a mining production license. The other repealers were conforming while this was a straight repealer. Senator Jacko MOVED for passage of CSSB 339(RES) from committee with individual recommendations. No objection being heard, it was REPORTED OUT of committee with individual recommendations, and a zero fiscal note for the Department of Natural Resources. Co-chair Pearce and Senator Jacko signed "do pass." Senators Rieger and Sharp signed "no recommendation." Recess 10:05am Reconvene 10:25am