HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE May 3, 1995 8:13 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman Representative Alan Austerman Representative John Davies Representative Pete Kott MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Ramona Barnes Representative Eileen MacLean Representative Irene Nicholia COMMITTEE CALENDAR CSSJR 27(RES): Endorsing development of the Fall Creek hydroelectric project near Gustavus. CSSJR 27(RES) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE CSSB 77(FIN) am: "An Act relating to management of game populations, to the powers and duties of the commissioner of fish and game, and to the division of game." HCS CSSB 77(RES) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE CSSB 16(FIN) am: "An Act relating to the University of Alaska and university land, authorizing the University of Alaska to select additional state public domain land, and defining net income from the University of Alaska's endowment trust fund as 'university receipts' subject to prior legislative appropriation." HCS CSSB 16(RES) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITNESS REGISTER SANDY BURD, Legislative Secretary Senator Fred Zharoff Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 121 Juneau, AK 99801 Phone: 465-3473 POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor SJR 27 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 513 Juneau, AK 99801 Phone: 465-2327 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 77 DON CORNELIUS, Representative Defenders of Wildlife P.O. Box 1727 Petersburg, AK 99833 Phone: 772-4864 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77 WAYNE REGELIN, Acting Director Division of Wildlife Conservation Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802 Phone: 465-4190 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77 JACK PHELPS, Legislative Assistant Representative Bill Williams Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 124 Juneau, AK 99801 Phone: 465-3715 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question regarding SB 77 ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant Representative Pete Kott Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 432 Juneau, AK 99801 Phone: 465-3777 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question regarding SB 77 BRUCE CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant Representative Pete Kelly Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 513 Juneau, AK 99801 Phone: 465-2327 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question regarding SB 77 SARA HANNAN, Executive Director Alaska Environmental Lobby P.O. Box 22151 Juneau, AK 99802 Phone: 463-3366 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77 NICO BUS, Legislative Liaison Department of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801 Phone: 465-2406 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered question regarding SB 16 WENDY REDMAN, Vice President University Relations University of Alaska 3rd Floor Signers' Hall Fairbanks, AK 99774 Phone: 474-7211 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered question regarding SB 16 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SJR 27 SHORT TITLE: ENDORSING FALLS CREEK HYDROPOWER PROJECT SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) ZHAROFF, Rieger, Duncan, Taylor, Leman, Frank; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Mackie JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 04/25/95 1229 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 04/25/95 1229 (S) RESOURCES 04/26/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 04/27/95 (S) RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203 04/27/95 1269 (S) RES RPT CS 6DP NEW TITLE 04/27/95 1269 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 04/28/95 1309 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/28/95 04/28/95 1319 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 04/28/95 1320 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 04/28/95 1320 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 04/28/95 1320 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR 27(RES) 04/28/95 1320 (S) COSPONSOR(S): RIEGER, DUNCAN, TAYLOR, 04/28/95 1320 (S) LEMAN, FRANK 04/28/95 1320 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1 04/28/95 1323 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 04/29/95 1659 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 04/29/95 1659 (H) RESOURCES 04/29/95 1681 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): MACKIE 05/03/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124 BILL: SB 77 SHORT TITLE: INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SHARP JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/08/95 207 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/08/95 207 (S) RESOURCES 03/10/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 03/10/95 (S) MINUTE(RES) 03/15/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 03/20/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 03/20/95 (S) MINUTE(RES) 03/22/95 744 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP 1DNP 1NR NEW TITLE 03/22/95 745 (S) FN TO SB (F&G) 03/22/95 745 (S) FN TO CS (F&G) 03/22/95 745 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED 04/24/95 (S) FIN AT 11:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 04/26/95 1247 (S) FIN RPT CS 4DP 3NR NEW TITLE 04/26/95 1247 (S) PREVIOUS FN (F&G #2) 04/27/95 (S) RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203 04/28/95 1309 (S) RULES RPT 2CAL 1 OTHER REC 1DNP 04/28/95 1313 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 04/28/95 1314 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 04/28/95 1314 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y12 N7 E1 04/28/95 1314 (S) THIRD READING 4/29 CALENDAR 04/29/95 1350 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 77(FIN) 04/29/95 1351 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 1 FLD Y8 N10 E2 04/29/95 1351 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 2 FLD Y8 N10 E2 04/29/95 1352 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 3 FLD Y9 N9 E2 04/29/95 1352 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 4 UNAN CONSENT 04/29/95 1352 (S) AM NO 4 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 04/29/95 1353 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING 04/29/95 1353 (S) PASSED Y13 N5 E2 04/29/95 1353 (S) Lincoln NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 04/30/95 1368 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING 04/30/95 1369 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y13 N5 E2 04/30/95 1369 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 04/30/95 1687 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 04/30/95 1687 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE 05/03/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124 BILL: SB 16 SHORT TITLE: INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) FRANK, Kelly, Sharp, Rieger, Miller JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/06/95 17 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/6/95 01/16/95 17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/16/95 17 (S) CRA, RES, FIN 01/20/95 60 (S) COSPONSOR(S): RIEGER 02/15/95 (S) CRA AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 02/20/95 (S) CRA AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 02/20/95 (S) MINUTE(CRA) 02/22/95 365 (S) CRA RPT CS 2DP 3NR SAME TITLE 02/22/95 366 (S) FISCAL NOTES (F&G, DNR, UA) 02/22/95 366 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES (REV-2) 03/03/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 03/10/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 03/10/95 (S) MINUTE(RES) 03/17/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 03/17/95 (S) MINUTE(RES) 03/20/95 695 (S) RES RPT 3DP 1DNP 1NR (CRA)CS 03/20/95 696 (S) FN (DNR) 03/20/95 696 (S) PREVIOUS FNS (F&G, DNR, UA) 03/20/95 696 (S) ZERO FNS (REV-2) 03/23/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 03/23/95 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 03/27/95 788 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 1DNP 2NR SAME TITLE 03/27/95 789 (S) FNS TO CS (DNR, F&G) 03/27/95 789 (S) ZERO FN (REV) 03/27/95 789 (S) PREVIOUS FNS (UA, DNR) 03/27/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 03/28/95 (S) RLS AT 12:20 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203 03/28/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 04/10/95 956 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/10/95 04/10/95 958 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 04/10/95 958 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 04/10/95 958 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 04/10/95 958 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 04/10/95 958 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 16(FIN) AM 04/10/95 958 (S) COSPONSOR: MILLER 04/10/95 959 (S) (S) ADOPTED ZHAROFF LETTER OF INTENT 04/10/95 959 (S) PASSED Y11 N9 04/10/95 959 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 04/11/95 983 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP 04/11/95 984 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 04/12/95 1276 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 04/12/95 1277 (H) CRA, RESOURCES, FINANCE 04/25/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124 04/26/95 1557 (H) CRA REFERRAL WAIVED 04/27/95 (H) RES AT 04:00 PM CAPITOL 124 04/27/95 (H) MINUTE(RES) 04/28/95 (H) RES AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124 04/28/95 (H) MINUTE(RES) 05/01/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124 05/01/95 (H) MINUTE(RES) 05/02/95 (H) RES AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 17 05/02/95 (H) MINUTE(RES) 05/03/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 95-62, SIDE A Number 000 The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman Green at 8:13 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Green, Williams, Ogan, Austerman, Davies, and Kott. Members absent were Representatives Barnes, MacLean, and Nicholia. SJR 27 - ENDORSING FALL CREEK HYDROPOWER PROJECT SANDY BURD, LEGISLATIVE SECRETARY TO SENATOR FRED ZHAROFF, PRIME SPONSOR, told committee members they heard the house version of this resolution a few days ago. She said SJR 27 was introduced to help Gustavus address long-term energy needs. She stated there is a stream close to town--Fall Creek--which lends itself to harnessing for power generation. The creek is located within the boundary of Glacier Bay National Park, and therefore, an act of Congress will be needed to change the land designation so it can be developed as a power project. MS. BURD stated the community supports the project. She said the National Park Service, in a letter of intent, has indicated a willingness to cooperate in transferring the land designation. CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS made a MOTION to MOVE CSSJR 27(RES), with attached zero fiscal note, out of committee with individual recommendations. CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. SB 77 - INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME Number 075 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN made a MOTION to CONCEPTUALLY AMEND SB 77 to adopt the language in CSHB 170(RES) to replace the language in CSSB 77(FIN) am. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated the committee had four hearings on HB 170. REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY said the sponsor, Representative Bert Sharp, does not object to adopting the language in CSHB 170(RES). Number 122 DON CORNELIUS, REPRESENTATIVE, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE (DOW), testified via teleconference and stated he is a professional wildlife biologist who worked for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) for 25 years. He said DOW opposes SB 77. DOW is concerned because this legislation was just passed last year. He pointed out SB 77 will further restrict the Board of Game's flexibility to achieve its management objectives by restricting methods or means of taking game, access to game, and human harvest of game. He equated the situation with driving a new car--you have a new car but all of a sudden you do not have any brakes or a clutch. MR. CORNELIUS said SB 77 seeks to maintain prey populations at historic high levels. These historic high levels have often been reached when species exceeded the carrying capacity of the range. Historically this was, and still is, an unsustainable level. He reiterated DOW is opposed to SB 77 and said there is a need for more input from professional biologists from ADF&G. Number 158 WAYNE REGELIN, ACTING DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, ADF&G, said the department remains opposed to SB 77, even if substitute language is used from the house version. The department feels SB 77 is bad wildlife policy. He stated the department is working hard to settle the wolf control controversy. In order to settle the controversy, the department must have a wolf management policy which is balanced and science based, so the public can accept it and the Board of Game and the department can use it to make good decisions. MR. REGELIN said unfortunately, the debate over the wolf control issue is being controlled by three to five percent of the people on each side of the issue with the most extreme views. He stated SB 77 is supported by a very small minority of hunters who are demanding very high harvest rates for moose and caribou. Their solution is wide-spread wolf control which will virtually eliminate wolves, brown bears, and black bears from many areas in Alaska. He noted it is the same group that is advocating paying bounties for wolves. MR. REGELIN stated mainstream hunting groups in Alaska, like the Safari Clubs, the Alaska Outdoor Council, and local sportsmen associations, do not endorse SB 77. He said these groups are very much in favor of intensive management but they are not in favor of a bill which goes this far. They know that management programs must have some balance or in the long term, they will damage hunting. He told committee members the department and the Board of Game currently have all the tools needed to manage wildlife. He noted the department and the Board of Game also have the intensive management bill the legislature passed last year that provides a clear direction on how the legislature wants them to manage. He explained the department and the Board of Game is in the process of implementing that new law and are moving as fast as the law allows. MR. REGELIN said SB 77 mandates harvest levels which are unattainable in the northern areas of the state which have hard winters. Even if all of the predators were removed from these areas, the department does not believe the harvest levels could be achieved as mandated in SB 77. He stated if SB 77 does become law, the department will do its best to implement it. However, based on his experience over the past five years working in wolf management, implementing a program in unit 20-A, and going through much effort to have a wolf control program, he is convinced the public will not accept the wide-spread wolf control program which SB 77 mandates because it lacks balance and safeguards for predator populations. He pointed out the program will be extremely controversial, it will direct world-wide attention and public ridicule at Alaska and will result in tremendous amounts of litigation and very likely federal intervention. In the long term, it will be stopped and the loser will be the hunter, not only in Alaska, but throughout the U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES OBJECTED to the motion. Number 240 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there are several differences between the two versions. He stated in CSHB 170(RES) on page 2, line 9, it reads "implementing regulations and management plans as requested..." and the Senate version says "implementing regulations, programs, and research as requested..." He explained in CSHB 170(RES) on page 2, line 18, it reads "depletion of the big game prey population or reduction..." and CSSB 77(FIN) am reads "depletion of the big game prey population from historic high levels or reduction..." CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN continued with differences between the two versions. He said in Section 5 of CSHB 170(RES), the word "active" is used in lines 1, 4, and 13 replacing the word "intensive". On page 3, lines 6 and 7, the Senate version reads "intensive management" means management, in accordance with the sustained yield principle, of an identified..." He noted CSHB 170(RES) has a repealer section, Section 10, which is not in the Senate version. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Number 336 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN reiterated the motion is beginning with line 1, replaced the language in CSSB 77(FIN) am with the language contained in the house version CSHB 170(RES). CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there is a technical problem at hand in that the committee needs to maintain the same title as the Senate version and in so doing, would need to insert Section 4 from CSSB 77(FIN) am into HCS CSSB 77(RES). He stated that section says "The commissioner may, with the approval of the governor, establish a departmental division of commercial fisheries, a departmental division of sport fisheries, and other departmental divisions as are necessary." and eliminates the words, [A DEPARTMENTAL DIVISION OF GAME,]. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN explained there is a need to adopt Section 4 of the Senate version, place it in the same position (after Section 3), insert the section after line 11, on page 2 of HCS CSSB 77(RES) and renumber the subsequent sections. He said that would make the bill consistent with no title change and would accomplish the flexibility within the department. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Regelin to give his interpretation of what Section 4 does. Number 395 MR. REGELIN stated Section 4 and Section 5 of CSSB 77(FIN) am need to go together. He said these sections change the name of the Division of Wildlife Conservation to the Division of Game by statute. Therefore, if only Section 4 is adopted, then it would be up to the discretion of the commissioner. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that Mr. Regelin recommends both sections be included rather than leaving it up to the department. MR. REGELIN stated the Division of Wildlife Conservation is responsible for the management of 512 species in Alaska and 87 percent are not hunted. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt the committee could leave the title alone and not adopt Sections 4 and 5. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said it probably would be an extended title. Number 425 JACK PHELPS, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TO REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS, stated in discussions he has had with the drafting attorneys over this kind of issue, the title has to accurately reflect the contents of the bill. If a section is taken out which is reflected in the title, an incorrect title results. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES agreed the title has to accurately reflect the contents of the bill but he does not believe there is a requirement that everything in the title be in the bill. He felt everything in the bill affects the division. ROD MOURANT, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, said in recent conversations with Jack Chenoweth, Legislative Legal Services, he indicated an overextended title is permissible and defensible, while too limiting a title is not. Therefore, if the title mentions things not included in the final version, that is acceptable. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a MOTION to ADOPT the TITLE in CSSB 77(FIN) am to be used in HCS CSSB 77(RES). CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. Number 480 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 77(RES) on page 3, lines 17 and 18: delete ", but not including restrictions on methods or means of taking game, access to game, or human harvest of game." and insert "and regulations by humans." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN OBJECTED for discussion purposes. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY told committee members he objects to the amendment and reminded them a similar amendment was offered during deliberations over HB 170. He noted that amendment was defeated. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the amendment was Representative Davies. Voting against the amendment were Representatives Austerman, Kott, Ogan, Williams and Green. The MOTION FAILED 5-1. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 77(RES) on page 3, line 29, after the word "shall" delete the words "attempt to" and insert the words "adopt goals to". CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN OBJECTED for discussion purposes. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES thought the committee had adopted a similar amendment when discussing HB 170. He said testimony at that time indicated this was a goal which was not realistic. Number 539 REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN said when the committee heard and discussed HB 170, the amendment just moved was offered and was accepted. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY disagreed. He stated that amendment was in connection with page 3, line 29... BRUCE CAMPBELL, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, said it was a verbal modification by the Chairman to that amendment suggesting the word "attempt" and the word "attempt" satisfied Representative Davies goals and was accepted by the committee. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES WITHDREW his MOTION. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 77(RES) on page 3, line 13, after the word "management," insert the language "in accordance with the sustained yield principle,". CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. Number 565 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated he does not support HCS CSSB 77(RES) because he believes the bill is premature for the many reasons heard in testimony. He said the legislature passed a sweeping change to the law last year. He felt the process has not been allowed to move forward. He noted there have been several unfortunate instances which have set the process back again and people are rethinking about how to carry intensive game management forward. He supports intensive game management as a principle but believes there is a lot of public interest in how that is done. There needs to be a lot of public involvement and education in the process of moving intensive game management forward which takes a lot of time. He stressed the Board of Game and the department has not been allowed enough time to implement the law passed last year. SARA HANNAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY (AEL), expressed concern about the prematureness of this legislation. She felt it was an ironic move that in the Senate budget which cuts the ADF&G budget by $1.8 million, it also puts in $1.2 million for intensive game management applications. She thought it was totally inappropriate for the House Resources Committee to endorse those kinds of efforts when the committee's constituencies are commercial fishermen, subsistence users, and active hunters. Those constituencies are going to suffer in their management because of the decision to try a new tool, tie the hands of the department and spend $1.2 million on it. She urged the committee to oppose SB 77. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he shared similar concerns mentioned by Representative Davies. He felt the legislature has not given the opportunity to see the full effect of the legislation passed last year. He stated he will not hold the bill up in committee in order to allow the House to vote on it. He noted unless he is convinced otherwise, he will probably oppose SB 77 on the floor. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN felt there is legitimacy to the concerns raised. He wondered if the measures passed last year have been fully implemented. MR. REGELIN responded the Board of Game met in March and made several changes in game management Unit 13 on bear management. The board made the decision that a reduction in wolf numbers is not necessary. The board directed the department to draft implementation plans for four other areas. Those plans will be considered at the board's October meeting. He noted by law, those plans have to be written by the department, they have to contain certain items, and they have to have public hearings. He added that process is currently ongoing. He explained the board will decide in October whether or not they want to authorize predator control in the other areas. He stressed the measures passed last year are not fully implemented but are in the process as rapidly as the law allows. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted there have been a series of iterations on trying to establish a wolf control policy of the Board of Game and at a number of those stages, in addition to the regulations proposed to be adopted, there were measures proposed to begin a dialogue with the general public which would enable a broader understanding of the scientific basis for active management of game. He wondered if those measures had been initiated. MR. REGELIN said that is correct. He stated the department is in the process of trying to develop a process which will establish a wolf management policy that can be long standing, acceptable by the public and the legislature, and useful by the board. He noted the department is working closely with the Board of Game and the Office of the Governor, and hopefully, with the leaders of the legislature in putting the plan together. He added that many ideas have been put forth and feedback is being received. The department has talked to most of the interest groups on all sides of the issue, getting their advice and trying to determine how to move forward so there can be a policy which will withstand the test of time and not be stopped as soon as it is implemented. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS made a MOTION to MOVE HCS CSSB 77(RES), out of committee with individual recommendations. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the motion were Representatives Kott, Austerman, Ogan, Williams, and Green. Voting against the motion was Representative Davies. The MOTION PASSED 5-1. TAPE 95-62, SIDE B Number 000 SB 16 - INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS made a MOTION to ADOPT HCS CSSB 16(RES), version K. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN OBJECTED for discussion purposes. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT reviewed the changes contained in the committee substitute. He said the first change is on page 15, line 6, which protects the mental health lands until the mental health trust has been reconstituted. The next change is on page 4, line 1, which allows the university, rather than the Department of Revenue, to manage their trust fund and report on its performance to the legislature. He stated the next change begins on page 5, line 11, and protects prospecting sites and claims if they have been selected. The next change is on page 2, line 19 and is intent language encouraging the development of in-state value-added industries to the maximum extent feasible. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated the next change is on page 10, line 17, and clarifies the university has in place a development program to derive income from the land selection. Number 120 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the point was made at the subcommittee meeting that the university might not have income received from their lands selected within the time frame but certainly could have a plan in place to do that. He stated quite often it takes a number of years to formulate an effective plan. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the next change is on page 5, line 30, and provides a minimum selection of 640 acres. Since the subcommittee met, there has been considerable feedback from the department and the university indicating they would like to discuss this change. The next change is on page 4, line 29, and reduces the amount of acreage that can be selected by the university from one million acres to 350,000 acres, which was the original amount of acreage conveyed to the university at the time of statehood, even though that amount of acreage was never conveyed. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated the next change is on page 10, line 20, and relates to the conveyance of land. He asked Co-Chairman Green to discuss this change. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said originally the university land was to come from the federal government and there were many people who felt that some of the state land conveyed should have been available to the university. However, that was never documented. He stated the concern was that the first step should be to go to the federal government for state land and if that does not work, the next concept is if there is going to be a conveyance of land that is now granted to the university and the university subsequently wants to divest itself of that land, it should be on an exchange basis rather than a sale. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT told committee members the next change is on page 2, line 17, and suggests that renewable resources should be managed on a sustained yield basis, taking into account the total land grant, therefore, avoiding looking at one isolated pocket. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN WITHDREW his OBJECTION to the motion. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections to adopting the committee substitute. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. Number 250 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said on page 5, line 30, the 640 acres might pose a problem in selecting parcels of land of that size. He stated both the department and the university have come forward with that concern. He said a conceptual amendment might be in order which would allow for the initial selection to be at a minimum of 640 acres and thereafter, any additional selections to be at a minimum of 40 acres. NICO BUS, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR), said in talking with Ron Swanson, Director, Division of Land, it was his experience in dealing with the mental health settlement and other issues, that 640 acres was too large, and specifically for residential and recreational sites, 40 acres is a better number. He stated Mr. Swanson suggested changing the language on page 5, line 30, from 640 acres to 40-60 acres in size. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if Mr. Swanson had a suggested number from that range. MR. BUS said the minimum is 40 acres. He stated the problem is if there is a selection of 640 acres, there is a conflict and the university is only interested in a 40 acre site, the department would be willing to give them the 40 acres but would not be willing to give them the full 640 acres because of conflicting land interests or public interest values. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said his concern is that smaller parcels will create an expanded duty on the conveyance because there will be four times as many conveyances. The other concern is that it would perhaps make for more checker boarding rather than contiguity. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated a number of these parcels can be conveyed with a single conveyance action, so it does not necessarily have to increase the paperwork. He felt intent language is needed saying the legislature would like the university to select as large as parcel as possible. However, expressing that in the actual statute is somewhat difficult. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 16(RES) on page 5, line 30, delete the word "whole"; replace the word "sections" with the word "parcels"; change the number 640 to 40; after the word acres, insert the words ", or larger wherever practical"; and on line 31, delete the words "and may not be made in fractional parts of sections;". REPRESENTATIVE KOTT OBJECTED. He said that would suggest 40 acres or larger wherever possible and there could be five acres conveyed or one acre. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES disagreed. He said 40 acres is the minimum. He mentioned it was important to let the bill drafter know the importance of the comma before the words "or larger wherever practical". REPRESENTATIVE KOTT withdrew his objection. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections to the amendment. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. Number 378 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 16(RES) on page 4, line 29, delete the number 350,000 and insert the number 1,000,000. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN OBJECTED. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS felt the figure will be debated on the floor as it was last year. He stated getting land as close to the private sector as possible is better for the state. He noted the university has a track record of managing their land correctly in an environmentally safe manner. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the subcommittee felt if the figure was 1 million acres, it would connote that the committee supported 1 million acres. Therefore, the subcommittee felt compelled to reduce the figure down to another number. The most legitimate number, based on the information available, was 350,000 since that was the original number used to convey land to the university at statehood. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated in discussions the subcommittee had, there was concern that even 1 million acres is far below, percentage- wise, that which other land grant schools get. On the other hand, the state has a lot of land that could potentially make the figure go up to 10 million acres. He noted the 1 million acres was an arbitrary number. He said the 350,000 figure at least had a tie, as that was the original grant. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "If in the wisdom of the legislature they want to bring that back up to 500,000 as it was at one time, 250,000 was suggested...there were lots of numbers discussed, but for the committee to come in with 1 million acres could send a message saying, we do not care, we want you to have a great number of acreage. I think your point that they have done well in managing their land...they have...there is still land they have not done much with...so the discussion last night got to the point that if we were to grant 350,000 and they can come back and show they have done a good job managing the land...look what we have done as compared to what the same number of years under state ownership did...they could certainly increase that with another bill. They could go back up showing they have this great track record on an even expanded number of acres because this acreage is not going to be pristine, prime, wonderful acreage because it has already been selected." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted the 350,000 acres was not a unanimous decision in the subcommittee. He agreed there is no history behind the 1 million acres figure but felt there is a rationale for that number. He did not feel there is any particular stronger tie or rationale for the original 350,000 acres. He said it is a consideration people make who are making the decision...they look at all the factors involved and come to an agreement on what is ultimately an arbitrary number. He stated it is not totally without rationale. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt the committee should discuss what the level of the land grant should be in the context of what is intended to be accomplished. He said the bill is trying to accomplish two things: Provide a stable, financial underpinning for the university; and provide an additional diversified stimulation to the state's economy. He stated both of those goals are furthered by having a larger endowment to the university. He thought the discussion needs to center on that, rather than trying to find some magic tie out there. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt the committee should not be fixating on something that was magic from pre-statehood days as the situation was quite different then. Perhaps there was a rationale for that number at that time. He noted much has happened since then and that figure should be revisited in light of what is known today and what the intent of the bill is. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "My tie concept has to do with the fact that this did happen some time ago and that if we are going to go back because someone thinks there was some indication that this land should come out of the land granted to the state as part of that which normally land grant schools get from the federal government but since we got ours from the federal government then we should give part of that to the school if we are tying to that then that is why I say we should tie with that understanding at that time was 350,000 which to me makes a stronger case than to say well because back there we need to get it from the state but we are not going to take what was the suggested amount back there--we are going to take some other number. To me that begins to mix apples and oranges." Number 491 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated with the time constraints involved in managing lands, to manage lands correctly there is a need to get the amount to be worked with immediately so planning for the future can begin. He recalled it was mentioned earlier that it is going to take at least ten years in order to get the conveyances from the state. During that time, the university could be planning for the one million acres and do a better job at managing the lands correctly and perhaps even selecting lands. He noted it is not known what the university's top priority is. He wondered if the sponsor agreed with changing the one million acres to 350,000 acres. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he talked to the sponsor several days ago and told him there would probably be amendments made to SB 16. The sponsor stated he did not object to amendments as long as they made the bill better and more easily accepted. Co-Chairman Green thought keeping the acreage low would be more acceptable. He noted he can do a good job managing his back yard. If he has to manage all the yards in the neighborhood, his ability is going to go down. He pointed out 350,000 acres is twice the amount of land the university currently has and is a significant increase. He stressed if the university can still manage that land and wants more land, they should come back and get more but to give them five times the amount they have now may not be helpful. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote on the amendment. Voting in favor of the motion were Representatives Austerman, Davies, and Williams. Voting against the motion were Representatives Kott, Ogan, and Green. The MOTION FAILED 3-3. Number 547 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 16 on page 4, line 29, delete 350,000 and insert 500,000. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT OBJECTED. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the motion were Representatives Davies, Austerman, and Williams. Voting against the motion were Representatives Kott, Ogan, and Green. The MOTION FAILED 3-3. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES discussed page 10, line 20. He said the committee heard convincing testimony on the rationale as to why this kind of restriction is not wanted. There are exceptional circumstances where a very small conveyance is clearly in the fiduciary interest of the university. An example is where a small amount of acreage is sold enabling the federal government to build a park headquarters and as a result of building that headquarters, all the surrounding land the university has then becomes far more valuable...campsites could be installed and revenue could be derived from the land as a result of that federal investment. He stated the federal laws prevent the federal government from building a building like that on anything but federal land. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated there are rare exceptions where it is clearly in the university's interest to do that. He noted the Board of Regents already have a policy which says the university is not in the business of getting rid of their land but rather, their land is to be managed for the very long term. The Regents do not contemplate giving the land to anyone, including the federal government, as a matter of policy. He felt any concerns are already protected. He stressed it is not in the university's financial interest to dispose of lands when they are trying to establish an endowment for the long term. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said there are exceptional circumstances and to try to force the university to achieve an acre for acre exchange is complicated. He felt the language unnecessarily hamstrings the university. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 16(RES) by undoing the amendment offered in the subcommittee in regard to page 10, lines 19 through 25. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated the subcommittee discussed that this would be a rare case and if it is that rare, the language should not unduly restrict the university on the rare occasion such as the park situation. He suggested on those rare occasions, a land swap could be worked out because there would be a lot of lead time. He said the reason the language is contained in the bill is to preclude future chancellory from going in the other direction, especially in times where revenues might be even tighter than they are now. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT OBJECTED to the motion. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the amendment was Representative Davies. Voting against the motion were Representatives Austerman, Kott, Ogan, Williams, and Green. The MOTION FAILED 5-1. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS questioned page 2, line 17. He thought somewhere else in the bill it mentioned the requirement to manage land under the Department of Natural Resources regulations. He wondered if this language was redundant. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted the language was in the findings section. Number 653 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT told committee members the subcommittee agreed to forward a letter to the Board of Regents urging them to approach Congress again to try and urge them to transfer federal lands to the university. TAPE 95-63, SIDE A Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said if SB 16 passes, there would be a recognition that there is an honest effort on the legislature's part to provide the university some additional acreage and perhaps the federal government could do the same. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated he looked into having an amendment drafted but it was determined the amendment would be unconstitutional (a dedicated fund) to have the funds derived from any proceeds from developing this land put into deferred maintenance. He wondered if it would be acceptable to address that issue in the legislative intent section. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt the Board of Regents has been grappling with that issue over the last few years. The Regents now have put into place a policy that requires on the first draw of the budget to take care of maintenance. He said there is a process each campus has to go through to identify what the ongoing, absolutely essential maintenance needs are and those things get funded. He thought the issue was being taken care of. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the money derived from the land grant is used directly by the university or does it go into the general fund. Number 068 WENDY REDMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, stated approximately ten years ago, the legislature set up in statute a natural resource endowment which follows the intent of the federal land grant statutes and defines what the money is used for, which is essentially natural resource issues. The money goes into the endowment trust fund and all of the earnings, minus inflation proofing, are available to the university as program receipts which are appropriated by the legislature, as program receipts, to the university each year. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated if legislative intent language was included, he would be more willing to consider larger acreage for the university. MS. REDMAN responded use of any receipts from the natural resource endowment for deferred maintenance, unless it was maintenance on agricultural experiment station or the fisheries industrial technology center, would not be in the scope of the statute already on the books for the use of the fund. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted whatever amount of money coming in to the university from the earnings of that fund offsets the need for those funds and makes more funds available to deferred maintenance and everything else the university does. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT thanked the members of the subcommittee and members of the House Resources Committee who made contributions to the committee substitute. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN made a MOTION to MOVE HCS CSSB 16(RES), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would hear SB 171 and HB 334 on Thursday, May 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the House Resources Committee, Co-Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 9:50 a.m.