HRES-260508-1300

Good afternoon. This meeting of the House Resources Committee will now come to order. It is now 1:11 PM Friday, May 8th, 2026, in Capitol Room 124. Members present are Representative Hall, Representative Mears, Representative Prox, Co-Chair Representative Freer, and myself, Co-Chair Representative Dybert. Please let the record reflect that we have a quorum to conduct business.

Please take this time to silence your cell phones for the duration of the meeting. Thank you so much. I would like to thank Cheryl Cole from Records and Renzo Moises from the Juneau LIO for staffing the committee today. Thank you both so much. Today we will have Senate Joint Resolution 20 from Representative Bjorkman on cleanup marine debris.

After that, we will hear House Bill 296, agricultural— agriculture land leases, from Representative Mears this afternoon. And last year we had a committee presentation from the Ocean Conservancy, and this year we have a resolution to ask our congressional delegation to advocate for additional funding to, to support more marine debris cleanup around our state. I would like to welcome Senator Bjorkman and his staff, Sevea Bieber, to the table to give us more information on the resolution. And as they make their way up to the table, I would like to, for the record, welcome Representative Klum at 1:12 PM to House Resources. Good afternoon.

Thank you very much, Co-Chair Dybert, Co-Chair Freer, and members of the esteemed House Resources Committee. I especially want to thank you for all of your long for the hours of work that you've put into the Gas Line Bill recently. For the record, my name is Senator Jesse Bjorkman, and I represent the northern and central portions of the Kenai Peninsula. Thank you for hearing Senate Joint Resolution 20 today. A healthy ocean is central to life in Alaska.

Communities across the state depend on the ocean for food, employment, and our way of life. Remote uninhabited islands around Alaska have been taken over by foreign debris. Trash has been identified from Russia, China, Italy, Malaysia, Canada, Singapore, Taiwan, and the lower 48 states by looking at the language on labels or distribution location. It is estimated that since cleanup efforts of our shores began in 2006, only 6% of the coastline in the state has been cleaned up. Alaska has an estimated 44,000 miles of shoreline.

Most of which is inaccessible by road. Distance, expense, and extreme conditions make removing marine debris particularly challenging. Often, this debris ends up sitting in coastal communities because there is no way to dispose or recycle it. Senate Joint Resolution 20 supports efforts to clean up the shoreline around the state.

State and urges federal agencies to provide funding for efforts to prevent, clean up, and remove this marine debris. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator Bjorkman, for your presentation and reminding us the bulk of the bill with us. Are there any other— are there any questions from the committee? And before we go to questions, I would like to, for the record, Welcome Representative Sadler to House Resources at 1:13 PM. Welcome.

Okay. Seeing no questions— oh, Representative Sadler. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can't let him get off scot-free. Is the marine debris, is that primarily a Pacific, you know, our part of the world, or is this something of an international global problem?

Help me understand this in the context of the larger planetary concerns.

Through the chair to Representative Sadler, uh, yes, it is a global problem. Um, however, there have been significant, uh, research work and papers written on Pacific garbage patches, very large patches of trash that collect in ocean gyres that get, uh, concentrated by the Pacific currents. And when trash breaks out of those gyres, uh, travels ashore, it litters our beaches. Follow-up? Follow-up?

And where I was going, does this coordinate with or comport with any international treaties or efforts, United Nations, I don't know, any other global organizations or initiatives? Through the chair to Representative Sadler, I believe our invited testifiers could probably tell you more about that. Good lead-in. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you, Representative Sadler. Are there any further questions? [Speaker:COMMISSIONER ARKOOSH] I have a question, but I can wait until after. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER STEINGASSER] After, okay. Great.

We will now turn to invited testimony on SGR-20. It looks like we have Mike Levine from Ocean Conservancy in the room with us. Mr. Levine, please come forward. Good afternoon.

Put yourself on the record and begin your testimony on SGR-20. SJR 20. Uh, thank you, uh, Chair— Co-chair Dybert, Co-chair Freer, members of the committee. For the record, my name is Michael Levine. I am the senior director of Alaska programs for Ocean Conservancy.

I live and work here in Juneau, and I'd like to begin by recognizing Senator Berkman and thanking him for his leadership on this issue and the committee for its attention. Ocean Conservancy works to bring collaborative, science-based decisions to challenges facing the world's ocean. We a national nonprofit with deep roots here in Alaska. We have 9 staff people spread around the state, and we know to look for uniquely Alaskan solutions to uniquely Alaskan problems. For us, that means listening and learning, and we seek to build partnerships with tribes, in communities, with local, state, federal agencies, with industry, and with others.

One of our signature programs is the International Coastal Cleanup. And to get right to your question, Representative Sadler, marine debris is an international problem. The International Coastal Cleanup has been housed at Ocean Conservancy for more than 40 years, during which times we've documented more than 440 million pounds of debris removed from Alaskan shores. And while it is an international problem, Representative Sadler, it is uniquely a problem here in Alaska. Debris accumulates in astounding quantities on our shores from all around the Pacific, and it often is, it is mostly derelict fishing gear, the majority of which is plastics.

And so in addition to contaminating beaches, it affects our wildlife, um, and our communities. And the way that Ocean Conservancy, through our International Coastal Cleanup program and our Alaska-based program, addresses this problem is by seeking to support local partners. So we provide technical expertise, supplies, resources, knowledge sharing, and collaborative fundraising to empower local partners to continue and expand cleanup programs. Um, last year alone, uh, we documented that more than 1.5 million pounds of debris were removed from Alaska shores. That's just last summer and just in cleanups that we, um, can document.

Uh, those cleanups require significant resources. They can require vessels, equipment, know-how, safety, and they're very expensive. So the majority of the funds that have been provided to support cleanups on that scale have come from the federal government, especially from NOAA and from EPA. Those funds go to provide those resources. They put people to work in communities.

We're working with fishing vessels, with barge vessels, and others. So in addition to keeping beaches clean, that fund— those funds are creating economic— some economic benefit in communities. And as Senator Bjorkman noted, picking up debris off beaches is one thing, and it's an important thing, but once you pick it up, you run the risk of moving a problem from one place to the other. If it ends up in a rural landfill, or as in the case of St. George, for example, piled on a hill somewhere. And so working through our Senate delegation, Ocean Conservancy received a grant to work on what we call the backhaul of marine debris, trying to take advantage of existing shipping and other vessel traffic to take debris from rural communities to down south for proper disposal and recycling.

And we expect that program to ramp up significantly this summer. And I'll conclude just by expressing Ocean Conservancy's support for the resolution and noting that particularly now in a time of uncertain federal funding, doing all the things we can do to support having this money continue to come to Alaska to keep beaches clean and people doing cleanups and removal is really important. And it is an important step that the legislature can take to support our congressional delegation and others. And with one more second, I would like to officially wish Co-Chair Dybard a happy birthday.

Aanibaaasi. Thank you so much, Mr. Levine. For your testimony. Um, are there— would you like to follow up? Yeah, I'd like to take a question through the chair to Mr. Levine.

Um, you know, when I pay for a fishing license, a sport fishing license, a certain amount of that goes to the federal Dingell-Johnson program and others to maintain the environment from which I draw my far too few fish for sport fishing. But is there any similar analogous mechanism for assessing the commercial fishing industry to help share a cost of the recovery and cleanup of marine nets, long lines, you know, buoys, that kind of stuff? Through the chair, Representative Sadler, that's a really excellent question. The answer is no, at least not that I'm aware of. There are some individual programs, I believe that they are down south, that have been targeted for crab gear, especially because the buoys would be attached.

But no, and part of the challenge is that it's extremely difficult to attribute gear to an individual. So, um, one of the things that Ocean Conservancy has sought funding for and will continue to is to try to identify not only the where is the fishing gear coming from, but the when. How long is it staying in the ocean? What's its residence period? We see it on the beach, and unfortunately we see it in marine mammals and other things.

Um, and with Representative Salazar, I could just answer your earlier question also, just very quickly. Um, There are some international programs that are seeking to address marine debris. So Ocean Conservancy is part of something called the Arctic Coastal Clean— or the Arctic Cleanup, I think, which began as a program of the Arctic Council and is intended to bring together communities from around the Arctic to do cleanups. The existing international agreements like the Law of the Sea Treaty and others might provide some mechanisms for enforcement, but they really don't address these issues very well, even if the U.S. was party to some of them. Thank you for that.

A follow-up. I don't want to monopolize, but a quick follow-up. I know that, you know, close to shore, within 200 miles, we have the North Pacific Fishery Management Council that can set conditions and so forth. Maybe we can't address— act locally, right? Um, I wonder if the North Pacific Council has any, um, lever, uh, or any authority that it can wield to try and impose any fee or kind of pooling.

Again, I can understand you cannot attribute unless people mistakenly leave their names on their gear, as they discard it. But, uh, there might be something that can be done federally, and I suspect your organization has considered that. Yes, through the chair, Representative Sadler. Yes. Um, and for the most part, we have found the fishing industry to be a really great partner.

Um, in fact, the, the nonprofit entity that existed before NOAA sort of became the major funder was a, was a collection that was organized through the commercial fishing industry in Alaska called the Marine Debris Foundation. We— the, the policy levers available at the Fishery Council, for example, don't work particularly well because they're designed to address how, when, and where you can catch fish. I think we would acknowledge that nobody wants to lose gear, so industry in some places knows where and when it loses gear and avoids it, and we have explored these options, especially looking toward working with industry partners to identify ways that they could track gear, etc., but we haven't looked at the, the penalty aspect of it yet. Thank you, Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Levine.

Um, Representative Kollum. Thank you, Chair, through the Chair. So, Mr. Levine, you said that you got a grant to help with disposal. Can you tell me about how much that was? That, um, that grant came through the EPA State and Tribal Assistance.

Grant program. I may have gotten the name slightly wrong, but it's— it was for $1.7 million over 3 years, and we are committed to hiring local staff and using the vast majority of that money. More than $1 million of it is intended to go out to pay for shipping and to pay for communities to do sorting and storage. And so we're trying to, to maximize the amount of money that's going out to other places in addition to our staff time and supplies and things that we can purchase with it. Follow-up.

Follow-up. So the resolution is, my understanding is requesting more money from the federal government to do this. Do you have any idea how much more money that we need? Through the chair, Representative Klima, all of it? No.

And to be clear, the resolution is not intended to get money for Ocean Conservancy. We, when we receive money, we try to pass it through. So for example, we received part of a grant grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that had specific money designated to go to the tribe in Yakutat, to the CDQ group, to NSEDC, the CDQ group, and to the Sitka Sound Science Center to do cleanups in their region. And that's the model that we like. A separate grant program is open actually right now through Ocean Conservancy where— I can't remember how much, forgive me, but it's— I think it's about $2 million— is again open to a competitive grant program for people around the state.

To give you some idea, The grant that we worked with the Aleut community of St. Paul Island on a number of years ago was somewhere in the neighborhood of $200,000 to do cleanups over a couple years, which we expect to remove about 50,000 pounds of debris. And that didn't include getting it from St. Paul to down south. So these cleanups can be very expensive, and you can get a lot of benefit from smaller investments. You can get a lot of worth out of a few hundred dollars of pizza and donuts for people to make them want to do it and feel invested in it. So it largely depends on the scale of the problem that you're looking to address.

Okay, and one more follow-up. Yep, follow-up. So when you guys, um, you know, pull those piles off of islands, where, where do you, where do you put all that stuff? I know it's a problem trying to put it through the Chair, Representative Kwon, it's a big problem. And part of the reason that we got down the road of getting the grant that we got was because the more places we went doing cleanups, the more we learned that it was going to end up being burned in a landfill or taking up space.

Or in the example of, of right now, I think in Kotlik, it just rolled back into the river and now they had to pick it back up and now we're sorting it and getting it out. And so the idea and what we're trying to make happen, and which we will work this summer and which we've started to do, is to have it barged or taken on a fishing vessel down to Seattle. And there's a recycler in British Columbia that will take most of the debris. So the hope is that we can get most of these things from communities to down south, and then in Seattle bifurcate it between a landfill and the recycler that's in British Columbia. And the hope would be if we can prove concept, then when people do cleanups, they'll know what kinds of fun— what kinds of costs to include in their grant applications and then their requests.

And the system will be set up. And to take advantage of vessels that are transiting less full than they might be otherwise to get reduced rates and work on— and to be perfectly honest, we're hamstrung— we're not hamstrung, but it's changing on a daily basis as the price of fuel goes up, how much of this we can do. But we expect to do a fair amount this summer, and we'll look forward to coming back in the fall with a report. Thank you. Great.

Thank you. Representative Sadler. Thank you. And this perhaps might be a line of questioning better addressed to the sponsor of the resolution, Senator Bjorkman, but there is reference on page 2 to asking to remove barriers faced by tribes and rural communities. What barriers are tribes particularly facing that others aren't, and why is there a call-out specifically for tribes a couple places in the resolution's paragraphs?

Thank you, Rep. Sadler. Mr. Lein, do you want to—. Through the chair, Rep. Sadler, I can try to take a general answer to this. The, the thing that comes to mind most immediately with that question are a number of these grant programs have match requirements, and so in order to get the money that you need to, um, to do your cleanup, you're required to provide a match or have an exception. And the federal granting process is cumbersome.

Part of the reason we've gotten down the road of being a pass-through is because we have the capacity to take on the application, the monitoring, the reporting requirements, which I can tell you from my personal experience, because this is the first federal grant I've ever been involved in, are really onerous. And so those kinds of barriers prevent people in communities and in places from doing cleanups. And I will take a guess at why tribes are called out in particular. I think it's because as we look around the state, tribes and tribal entities are leading a lot of these efforts alongside the community organizations. And so I suspect that's— that would be the reason for them being called out in particular.

And to follow up that same similar line— follow-up, I think, on page 3 of the resolution, the final resolution clause asks the legislature to urge the state to work with coastal communities, tribes, nonprofits, municipal departments, and the private sector. I don't see a call of the state to work with— um, I would almost say that nonprofit organizations might encompass tribes, but I guess my question is, why is there not a specific call-out to include representatives of the fishing industry? You might argue that private sector includes fishing industry, but I would argue nonprofits may include tribes. Why no specific reference to working with the fishing industry from which much of the plastic and marine debris comes from?

Thank you, Representative Sadler. Mr. Levine, co-chair, Dibert, Representative Sadler, I, I at least to my mind, the private sector encompasses both barge companies and fishing industry. I would argue they're— I would think they would be included. In fact, that would be my working assumption. And speaking for my own nonprofit, we are not a tribal government entity, and I wouldn't see us as being encompassing of a tribe in any meaningful way.

[Speaker:KELLY] Thank you. And last one. [Speaker:KELLY] Follow-up. [Speaker:KELLY] And I guess I would declare my intent that private sector would include representatives of the fishing industry that may have the closest nexus to marine debris. That would be my desire and intent.

Thank you. Okay. All right. Seeing any— not seeing any further questions. And I would also like to, for the record, welcome Representative Fields at 1:21 PM to House Resources.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Lyon, for your testimony this afternoon. We will now open the bill up for public testimony. First off, is there anyone in the room who wishes to testify?

Seeing none, seeing no one online to testify on Senate Joint Resolution 20, I'm going to go ahead and close public testimony. We have no amendments to the resolution today. I would entertain a motion to move the bill from committee. Uh, Co-Chair Dybert, I move Senate Joint Resolution Work Order 34-LS0769/n as amended from committee with individual recommendations and Attached fiscal notes, not amended.

Is there any objection?

Seeing none, committee substitute for SGR 20 passes from committee.

We will now go at ease while members sign the committee report, and we will prepare for our second agenda item. Free for these.

All right, back on the record here in House Resources for our next agenda item, House Bill 296. We We hold the first hearing on House Bill 296 on agricultural land leases from Representative Mears and her staff, Ariel Svetlick. Welcome to the dais. Please state your name and begin your presentation. Thank you.

For the record, Representative Donna Mears from House District 21, East Anchorage, South Muldoon. Thank you, Co-chair Darbert, Co-chair Freer, and members of the House Resources Committee for taking the time to hear House Bill 296. Agricultural land leasing. I'm carrying House Bill 296 as a companion bill to legislation by Senator Bjorkman to support the agricultural industry and food security here in Alaska. Substantial work has been done on this bill by the senator and his staff, and I want to acknowledge that and appreciate their diligent support of farmers.

This bill makes it easier for farmers to lease state land and for the Department of Natural Resources to ensure state land sold for agricultural purposes remains in agricultural production. House Bill 296 does 3 things. It creates a new leasing program that allows farmers to select a parcel of state land and apply to rent it at below-market rates. Costly, time-consuming appraisals and surveys will only be required if the commissioner deems those items necessary. Additionally, a lease would only be approved if it's in the best interest of the state based on a scoring rubric set out in regulation.

Second, the bill allows the Department of Natural Resources to add a merit-based component to the sale of agricultural parcels rather than solely awarding these parcels to the highest bidder. This would also rely on a regulation-based scoring system. And finally, the bill would make it easier for the department to encourage compliance with the regulations of our agricultural covenants without having to use the extreme measure of repossessing the land by giving DNR the ability to assess civil penalties. With the chair's permission, we have testifiers available today to discuss the need for farmable land for Alaska's agricultural industry and for this bill. And once we've heard from the invited testimony, Ms. Fetlik is available for reading a section.

Thank you, Representative Mears. We do have 3 test— invited testimony members online. And for the committee's knowledge, we have also Rachel Longacre, Chief of Operations, Division of Mining, Land and Water, available for questions, and Brian Scoresby, Director, Division of Agriculture with DNR, also available for questions.

Okay.

We have 3 people for invited testimony for House Bill 296 who are all testifying by phone. First off, we have Amy Seitz from the Alaska Farm Bureau. Amy, if you can hear us, please state your name for the record and begin your testimony.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, and just to make sure I'm coming through okay, can you hear me fine? Yes, we can. Welcome to House Resources. All right, thank you.

And for the record, my name is Amy Seitz. I'm the policy director for the Alaska Farm Bureau, and I really appreciate the opportunity to speak today in support of House Bill 296, legislation that addresses the most fundamental barrier to a stronger agriculture system, and that's getting suitable, affordable land into the hands of those ready to put it into production. And it's also been an important issue for the Alaska Farm Bureau for many years. So we're, we're really excited to see the work happening, to see things moving through and hopefully have a resolution this year and make it easier. So when we think about agriculture and we discuss agriculture, we often focus on the direct farm production and harvest, which just expanding in that area would be a big benefit to the state.

One thing a lot of people don't think about is the ripple effects of agriculture. And there's real economic opportunity for Alaska through the secondary industries that agriculture brings. Things like processing, transportation, the local support businesses that a robust farming sector requires. And we see this happening in other states, other countries, even cold climate nations. Where they have a strong economic sector that's based on a farm foundation.

In order to realize this economic potential, we do need to build a solid farming foundation, and in order to do that, our farmers need access to land. Because of Alaska's vastness, there's a common misconception that finding a place to farm should be easy, but in reality, not all of our land is suitable for agriculture. Much of the land is not easily accessible. It's uncleared. It lacks infrastructure like power.

And then only about 1% of our land is owned by private individuals. Much of that's already been developed or outpriced for agricultural use. And we're losing some of that private-owned farmland to development. So we're, we're actually pretty limited at this point on land our farmers can access. So this is where the state can be a great partner.

Having public lands more attainable is a common sense pathway to bridge this gap. House Bill 296 adjusts the state's approach to land use for agriculture through 3 critical shifts. That's lowering the financial barriers, moving away from the appraisal based on full development value and instead using a fee schedule appropriate for the agriculture production. And then having it a merit-based selection rather than the highest bidder, which again can drive the cost up. The state would use a merit-based system, and this ensures the land awarded to those with the experience and a viable business plan to be successful.

And then the accountability, establishing a management system to ensure land stays in in production and productive. Whether the land is leased or sold, there must be accountability to ensure it's being farmed and contributing to our food security and our economy.

By making state land accessible and affordable, we're not just helping our farmers, we're building a more resilient, diversified local economy. House Bill 296 ensures that Alaskans with the vision to grow our food have a fair path to the land required to do so. And with that, I appreciate your time. I'm happy to answer any questions if there are any.

Thank you.

Ms. Seitz, for your testimony. Representative Sadler. Thank you. Through the chair, Ms. Seitz, good to hear your voice again. I suspect we'd be hearing you on this one.

Kind of for the record, to develop the dialectic here, what are the current provisions in state law for the sale and lease of agricultural land? Why are those not sufficient requiring this additional legislation?

Yeah, I'm sure the chair, Representative Sadler, it's always good to hear your voice, and I actually get to see you on the AKledge TV, so it's nice to see you as well. Um, and, and you will hear one of the other invited testimonies today is actually someone, a farmer who has been going through the process, and so she will be talking about the, the hurdles and One of the big ones is the cost, you know, being assessed on the highest and best value, the development value. It's priced her out of— and I don't want to take away all she's going to say, but it has priced her out. It's been a long process. I think she's going on year 4.

So it might be good for you to hear what she's gone through, um, and just the fact that we have, I think, 4 existing leases and she's the 5th.

So thank you, Miss Seitz. And yeah, we'll— why don't we go to the next testifier on that, that lead. So next up we have Margaret Adsett from Alaska Farmlands Trust. Margaret, if If you can hear us, please state your name and affiliation and begin your testimony.

Good afternoon. Everybody hear me loud and clear? I'll do that Amy thing too. My— for the record, my name is Margaret Assett, and I serve as the Lands Coordinator with the Alaska Farmland Trust. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of HB 296.

At its core, as Amy mentioned, HB 296 is about getting that agricultural land into the hands of people who are ready and who are qualified to farm it while helping ensure that the land remains in agriculture for the long term. I'll explain why this is important across the agricultural industry. The Alaska Farmland Trust has spent the last 20 years working directly with farmers, landowners, and communities across the state to protect farmland, support agriculture viability, and improve land access. One of the primary ways we do that is through the Alaska Farm Link Program, which has worked to connect retiring landowners and available farmland with new and expanding farmers farmers seeking land to lease or purchase. Through that work, we've seen firsthand both demand for agricultural land and the barriers preventing producers from accessing it.

Right now, Alaska Farm Link has roughly 90 individuals actively seeking farmland opportunities across the state. These are people who are trained, motivated, ready to produce food or nursery crops or livestock and other agricultural products. Many already have extensive agricultural experience or business plans in place. The challenge is not the lack of interest in farming, it is a lack of affordable and accessible land. At the same time, Alaska has a lot of state-managed lands that contain soils of statewide importance, high-quality agricultural land, or areas already designated for agriculture use but not currently farmed.

HB 296 helps us close the gap between available agricultural land and producers ready to put it into production.

One of the strongest aspects of this bill is a move toward a merit-based agricultural land system, which has already been spoken on. Rather than treating agricultural land simply as a commodity, HB 296 prioritizes applicants based on their qualifications, agricultural plans, and their ability to successfully steward and produce from the land. That shift matters because it centers around agricultural outcomes and food production as a primary public benefit. We have also seen how effective this approach can be through the Farmland Program. When the right farmer gains access to the right piece of land, farms are established or continue to grow, local food systems continue to grow stronger, and community benefits from that economic growth.

Right now, the opportunities are limited by cost, speculation, and an agricultural leasing system that can be difficult to navigate for our producers. HB 296 begins to address these barriers by creating a more transparent and workable pathway for agricultural leasing and long-term agricultural use. This is especially important because for many producers, leasing is the only realistic entry point into agriculture. New farmers often cannot absorb the cost of purchasing land outright, particularly in areas like the Mat-Su, Kenai, and Fairbanks regions, where some of Alaska's best agricultural soils are located near major population centers. In the Matsue borough alone, more than 3,000 acres of farmland have been lost over the last decade, while developed land has increased by 23,000 acres.

This shift has influenced prices, and in the core area of the Matsue area, we're seeing, uh, fee-simple land go from $45,000 to $75,000 per acre. These costs place land ownership out of reach for many beginning farmers and create a significant barrier to expansion for existing operations. Leasing provides producers with the opportunity to establish infrastructure, build their markets, improve soils, and demonstrate long-term viability before taking on the financial burden of ownership. HB 296 recognizes that reality by creating structured leasing opportunities, renewal pathways, and the potential for eventual purchase following the successful agricultural use. Another important component of the bill is to— is recognition that agricultural land should be valued based on its agricultural use, not speculative land, um, land prices.

When farmland values are driven primarily by residential or commercial development potential, farmers are priced out of the market. Aligning lease rates and land valuation with agricultural productivity helps keep farming economically viable and supports long-term food production. As these lands transition into private ownership through agricultural use, it is important that they remain in agriculture. I appreciate that this bill includes agricultural use requirements, inspection enforcement mechanisms, Continued attention to strong agricultural covenants and active oversight will be critical to ensuring that these lands continue contributing to Alaska's food system for generations to come, because once farmland is lost to development, it's extraordinarily difficult and expensive to bring back to production. Agriculture land is not simply vacant land or real estate.

It is essential to the infrastructure of Alaska's food security, economic resilience, and future agricultural capacity. Protecting and utilizing high-quality agricultural soils near our population centers is one of the most strategic investments we can make in strengthening Alaska's food system. HB 296 is a thoughtful and practical step in that direction. It improves access to farmland, prioritizes qualified producers, and supports long-term agricultural use. Thank you so much for your time, and I'm happy to ask any— if there are any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Adsit, for your testimony. Are there any questions? Representative Prox. Yes, thank you. Through the chair, um, this— I am assuming that agricultural land has been previously designated, we have an inventory of it.

Through the—. I'm sorry, is that directed at me? So through the chair to Representative Prox, um, this might be, uh, more accurately, uh, shifted over to, um, Mr. Scoresby with the Division of Agriculture. But yes, so all of Soils in the state of Alaska which are farmland of local importance have been mapped and are known in the system. If you're saying have they already been sold, the answer is no.

There's a large bank of resource and maybe Mr. Scoresby could talk to that better. Okay, thank you, Ms. Hadsett. Mr. Scoresby, if you can hear us. I'm not sure if you heard the question. If we could repeat it if you need.

That'd be great if you could— it'd be great if you could repeat the question. Yes, uh, Representative Prox. Yes, well, thank you. I guess I'll rephrase it. Has— I'm— what I'm getting down to, I guess, is how one determines whether agricultural land is more valuable public value than land that can be developed for other uses.

As an example, there might be good soil to land that is right even maybe adjacent to a city or suitable for residential development.

Okay, Brian Scorsby, Director of the Division of Agriculture, through the Chair, Representative Prax. The agricultural lands that are near the population centers are usually, like in the Mat-Su Valley as an example, are usually older properties and do not have an ag covenant on them. There is scattered lands throughout the state that have ag covenants, and all of the In the last 30 or so years, all of the ag lands have an ag covenant.

Attached to them. The Ag Covenant requires that land to be in agriculture production, and we have a State Farm Conservation Plan on those. Uh, and value-wise, the appraisers make a valuation based upon the agricultural value, not the development value they would like on land close into the city when a developer's buying it who do a housing subdivision or something. So there's definitely a difference, a disparity in value, because it's only the agricultural value being appraised.

Follow-up. Follow-up. Well then, how would you account for other— the value of other potential uses for the land?

Or do you just ignore uses?

Through the chair, Representative Prax, I'm not the appraiser, so I, you know, it'd be speculative for me to answer. But, uh, you know, appraisers actually go through a process to consider those other uses. Uh, when we sell, uh, agricultural covenant land, the land only has the value for agriculture. We don't sell— I mean, you can't make it a gravel pit, you can't, uh develop it into housing. You can't do all kinds of other things, just really use it for a farm.

Okay, follow-up. Uh, and before the follow-up, thank you, Mr. Scoresby. I'm also going to, um, ask the sponsor of the bill to take a stab at this question. Representative Mears. Uh, thank you.

Through the chair to Representative Prox, uh, actually Rachel Longacre from DNR. Can address your original question about state lands available for agricultural lease. Great, excellent. Miss Longacre, if you could hear us, state your name for the record.

Yes. Good afternoon, this is Rachel Longacre. For the record, Representative Prax, to answer your question, when we determine the highest and best use of the land, we're often going through an area planning process process, and so we assess whether it's useful for agriculture, that there's significant input through soil data, public input, resources for ag, access, etc. We also look at other uses of that land. Once it's determined that it's for agricultural use, Director Scorsese is correct, there is an appraisal process typically that will evaluate that land.

Follow up. Yes, I guess I'm concerned particularly— well, particularly in District 33. There was land that was homesteaded 60 years ago, I suppose, and developed as a farm and was a farm for quite a while. And actually several places that are— that were then redeveloped into residential subdivisions. And then the other example would be the Ileson Farm project was appraised and sold for agricultural rights, and it has underperformed expectations, shall we say.

And now some of the people out in that area would like to subdivide that land either into just smaller plots that could be used for agriculture, still used for agriculture, or even development, given the proximity to North Pole and the growth in that area.

So how do we— if it's designated agriculture, does it ever get redesignated?

Representative Prox, there's a multitude of things that you've asked that I'm going to try to sequentially go through. When parcels are sold as agriculture, they do include covenants, and it's been determined that their highest and best use is ag. However, I will say that there was other previous land sales under other authorities that were not maybe vetted as well as we do now today, as well as what we anticipate will be a better use with with this bill. It'll help improve our process. As well as those covenants didn't have, as it was mentioned earlier, did not have any peach in them for us to do any sort of enforcement of the land.

We didn't have any sort of civil penalties. All we could do is go and take back that land. And oftentimes there's farm housing or residential housing to support the farming activity on there. So literally the state would be taking away somebody's home. This bill helps provide us with those civil penalties to help encourage that enforcement.

Enforcement. As far as— I can't speak specifically to what is happening in Isle Saint, I would need to do some research and I'm happy to follow up with the committee if that pleases the committee. But in Isle Saint, I would assume those agricultural covenants are there. There are subdivisions of ag that is allowed, but agriculture is the primary purpose and would continue to follow that land through subsequent deeds.

Thank you, Ms. Longacre. Does that satisfy your thoughts on—. I—. Representative Prox? I think yes for now, otherwise this bill is going nowhere.

But I would like some follow-up with the division on actually several, quite a few areas around the Fairbanks, North Starboro area. Yeah, thank you, Representative Prox. I understand we have Eielson Air Force Base right near the area, and we— it's been a struggle finding housing for families that serve us in the Air Force out there. So it is a concern for the Interior community. So I guess, Miss Longacre, a follow-up would be helpful on that, just You know, if we can get a deeper dive into that.

That's a great question, Representative Prox. Representative Sadler. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think through Miss Longacre, that it's sometimes it's difficult to get real general clear answers. You know, this bill provides for some ways to get land into agricultural use at lower than market prices and so forth.

I get the essential question we have to answer before we can agree that this is needed is what is the availability Is there that big of a problem? And I think I hear you saying kind of yes, that prices in competition between— I'm sorry, the price for land when considered for agricultural use versus residential use has more value for residential. But— and I think Representative Prox was asking how much land is currently under agricultural covenants. Please give me a general statement of how bad the problem is, how challenging it is, how much land is available, or that the 80 or so people you say are interested are not— are fighting over? I know you've hinted at it and you may have said it, but I just would like to hear it really directly and clearly.

Miss Longacre. Representative Sadler. Yes, and for the record, this is Rachel Longacre. Representative Sadler, through the chair, um, I would have to provide you with exact numbers if you're asking how much is settlement acreage, which is primarily for residential use, and how much is listed for agricultural across the state or in a specific region, if that's what you're asking. What this bill does for us is when we have land that we've determined is in the highest and best use is for agriculture, this makes it easier for the farmers.

So we anticipate that there are farmers out there who have wanted to farm on state land, but the barriers have been difficult to overcome, and so then they are not actively using state land for farming. All of our area plans do— well, I would say most of our area plans do include significant agricultural acreage. Okay, thank you, Ms. Longacre.

I would also like to look to the bill sponsor for a follow-up to that. Thank you. Through the chair to Representative Saller, actually to the committee, I think we're getting into some areas that our next invited testimony could share some light on. Emily Garrity is a farmer and dealing with these issues, and she's got some interesting information about how many agricultural leases we do have right now and how long it's been since since we've really done that work. Thank you, Representative Mears.

So let's go ahead and go to our next invited testimony. We have Emily Garrity from Twitter Creek Gardens, I believe in Homer. Please state your name and affiliation and begin your testimony, Emily.

Thank you, Madam Co-chair Dybert, Madam Co-chair Fryer, and members of the House Resources Committee. For the record, my name is Emily Garrity. I am the owner-operator of Twitter Creek Gardens, and we are a mixed vegetable farm outside of Homer. I was born and raised in Alaska and have been farming here for over 2 decades. Currently, we have 2 acres in cultivation, and last year we produced 40,000 pounds of vegetables on these 2 acres.

I have been asking for the opportunity to expand our food production on a parcel of state-owned land that is less than a half mile from our existing operation. This parcel is located.

Parcel has historically been used for agriculture, including grazing, hay production, and was a UAF beef experimental site. It is a 27-acre parcel and is classified currently as recreational use property. Our local ski club maintains group trails for winter recreation, and inside the loop of the ski trails is 4.5 acres of field that hasn't been utilized for over 20 years. So this application I submitted in April of 2023 requested access to this field And with the application, I included the unanimous resolution of support provided by the ski clubs. The field is already cleared, has road access, and contains a deep, well-drained soil that is an ideal medium for vegetable production.

This is the same soil profile as the ground we've been yielding literal tons of vegetables from for years. The existing soil, along with the proximity to our established infrastructure and the markets we supply, make this parcel an ideal location. With this lease, we have the potential to triple our current food production. When I began the process, it was estimated that an annual fee would be $1,000 per year and that an appraisal would not be required based on the lease term that I requested, which was 10 years with an option to renew. However, 2 years into the process, it was determined that the parcel would need to be appraised, and that significantly changed the price tag for the annual lease fee.

The land was appraised at $117,000, which sets a lease fee at a record high value for agricultural land use of $9,360 per year for 4.5 acres, which equates to over $2,000 per acre. I would like to note that the appraisal reflects unrestricted use and does not take into consideration the limitations of the property. The other 4 active crop production leases in the state are set at an annual rate of between less than $1 to $9,000. $90 Per acre. This is shown on the handout that I provided for your packets.

In comparison, grazing leases start at 3 cents per acre and the Kenai Peninsula Borough leases agricultural land for $15 per acre. The price that was set for this lease that I'm requesting is cost prohibitive and would be to almost any farmer. The constraint is at the statute level and DNR has made that very clear. House Bill 296 addresses this and the revamp of the leasing structure, particularly in Section 8, could help dissolve this access barrier. I understand that determining the best use for state land takes time and due diligence, and I appreciate that local experts like the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and Fish and Game are asked to evaluate resource concerns and that the general public is invited to weigh in.

Our state land is certainly precious. I stand firm that all Alaskans deserve access to the produce we can grow here, and they need to have access at a price point that they can afford. I'm a farmer because I believe in the power of feeding Alaskans with the wholesome and nutritious food grown from the soils of Alaska. Making state lands available to farmers is a clear path to help in this endeavor, but the cost must allow for the price of carrots at the checkup stand to be within reach of our local Alaskan families. Charging over $2,000 per acre per year for the land that they are grown on is not going to get us there.

I'm asking you to consider House Bill 296 to allow for the leasing of state lands to be accessible, for agricultural production to be prioritized and to be set at a price point that your trusted Alaskan farmers can afford. I appreciate the time today and for the opportunity to speak with you. I'm hoping that some of the information I provided addressed, um, the questions provided by Representative Prox and Representative Sadler. Please let me know if you want any follow-up on those. Thank you so much, Miss Garrity, for your testimony and for all you do for feeding your community and Alaska.

It's very much appreciated. And I'm looking at your graph and your handout. It's very helpful in understanding food and the importance of very healthy soil to grow food for all of us. So we do have a couple of questions. Representative Sadler.

Thank you. And this may be for the sponsor, maybe for Ms. Garrity, and it betrays a little bit of my, my either forgetfulness or ignorance. Does the Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund provide loans for purchase of agricultural land, or is it just for equipment, feed, fertilizer, seed, etc.? I suspect a member of the Farm Caucus will have an answer for me. Representative Mears.

Thank you. For the record, Representative Mears, I will actually suggest that Brian Scoresby from the Division of Agriculture would be able to answer that more thoroughly than I. Okay, Mr. Scoresby, if you could hear us, state your name for the record.

Yes, I heard the question clearly, thank you. Brian Scoresby again, Division Director of the Division of Agriculture. Through the Chair, Representative Sadler, the ARLF program, Ag Revolving Loan Fund, does have loans available to purchase land And we also have other loans for chattel, like equipment, or operating loans. Someone in a lease situation like Ms. Garrity is asking would be an operating type loan perhaps, where lease payments would be one of the many— one of the several expenses that could be included in an ARLF loan should she request one.

Thank you, Mr. Scoresby. Follow-up? Thank you. And a follow-up, I guess, Mr. Skorzyj, I'll ask this question. Again, this bill suggests we make some pretty fundamental changes in land policy.

Is the— I guess I'm under the assumption that the current process is well organized and well staffed, is working, but is the ARLF and the current land disposal or sale system not working well for farmers, in your opinion? Through the chair, Representative Sadler, I think our ARLF program is doing very, very well. The ARLF board has been very aggressive in lending out funds, and we have, uh, you estimate $4.1 million left, uh, to lend. And so we've encouraged our farmers across state to get their, their applications in early.

Okay, uh, one follow-up, then I'm going to go to Representative Calhoun. Thank you. I'm kind of pitching you a softball, Mr. Scorsese.

Is it— is the system we have not meeting our needs? It's kind of hard to ask the Division of Agriculture if things couldn't be better for farmers, but is there a significant need that justifies making this change in the land use and disposition law?

In my opinion, Representative Sadler, through the chair, yes, we need to make this leasing available to expand the available lands available to farmers. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Director. Uh, Representative Kulum. Uh, thank you, Chair.

Through the Chair, I think this is for the bill sponsor, but if it's somebody else, uh, well, I have a couple of questions if it's okay. Yes. Um, my first question is, so the bill starts out saying the director may renew a lease, and then most of the bill says the commissioner. So is the director the director of agriculture? And is the commissioner a DNR commissioner?

Ms. Svetlick. Through the Chair, Ariel Svetlick, staff to Representative Mears. We actually have a CS which we are hoping to introduce that is going to change some of how this is done. It is in line with work that was done in the Senate Companion between stakeholders, the senator, and the divisions of agriculture and mining, land and water. And so that will clean some of that language up.

Follow-up. So right now, is this the Director of Mining and Water?

Through the Chair of Representative Colon. Which section again? It's the very first sentence in Section 1.

The director may renew a lease. I'm just trying to figure out which departments are doing what, I guess, is my question. Through the Chair of Representative Colon, this is Mining land and water. Mining land and water. Okay.

And then the, um, the commissioner that's mentioned throughout the bill is the DNR commissioner? Yes. Okay. Um, I did have another question. Okay.

So, um, I'm trying to figure out how the bidding works. So it was clear that there's, there's an affordability issue to get these leases, and so it sounds like the land would go up for auction, and right now basically the higher— highest bidder gets it. The bill says, well, it's not just necessarily the highest bidder, it's the one with the best business plan, or I forget what the word was. Is that— am I understanding that's what the bill does? Miss Spetlik?

Um, so if we do look at the version I that we're hoping to adopt in the committee, um, I would need to remember exactly what section, but in Section 3 it does point out that there will be established in regulations a scoring system that the Commissioner will use to decide who merits the land. Representative Mears. Thank you. Through the Chair to Representative Calombe. And some of this is interest.

It's not necessarily something that goes out for bid. It's folks that are expressing interest, but Ms. Longacre from DNR would be able.

To articulate that better.

Uh, Miss Longacre, if you could hear us, we could restate the question. Yes, thank you. This is Rachel Longacre. I apologize, my line was still muted there for a bit. Um, to fully assess the processes, there's, there's really two processes here, um, for the highest bid, that's our current process.

What this bill will do is allow the division, and with consultation with the Division of Ag— so the Division of Mining, Land, and Water and the Division of Ag work together to assess what the business plan, if you will, or the farm plan will be for the highest and best use. The merit structure, or how we award that merit structure, that is going to be developed in regulation. Follow-up? Follow-up. Yeah, so I guess I'm trying to figure out, you know, at the end— maybe this is changing— but the end, the lessee has an option to buy the land for the fair market appraised, fair market value.

Our Constitution says we have to have the maximum use of our resources, and at least in this legislature, that seems to be dollar amounts, not other things. So I'm trying to figure out, if we do this, you, you put a scoring system in place, is there any concern that there— that is not really following the Constitution with the, the maximum use of our resources? Or if you're giving out land that you could get more money for it, but you scored it and gave it less, is there any legal issues with that that you can see?

Representative Calhoun, through the chair, this is Rachel Longacre again. For the record, this bill has been vetted very at length with both legal counsel for that very question. There is a line in there that it's with public interest. I'm searching here quickly for the language, but it's no longer putting the focus on the dollar amount returned to the state, but the return to the state in public benefit. Hmm, I really like that.

You know, that's, that's kind of my attitude towards gas line. I don't know, public benefit. All right, that clarifies it. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Longacre. Uh, sorry, Representative Proxim. Yes, thank you. I think this might be for, uh, Miss Garrity. It's, it's just a specific example that might help me understand what's going on here.

Yeah, I— as I understood you to say, there's a parcel of land that was valued way more than it would be worth to put it into agricultural use. Well, that brings up the question, in a normal appraisal, um, the highest and best use is determined by the market, not for a specific use. And in this particular land, did I understand correctly, it was in a recreational area?

Ms. Garrity.

Um, for the record, this is Emily Garrity again. Through the chair, Representative Crocks, I'll do my best to answer that question. We are in a residential area, and the parcel of land that I am proposing to lease is Currently classified as recreation, and it's 27 acres. Um, there's quite a bit of state and federal land in the area. I think where the issue came up for me specifically is when they appraised the land that I'm requesting.

They're appraising based on residential property and development value and not considering that this particular parcel of land it, I believe, has no intention of ever being developed for residential use or for development. If it's classified as recreation now and in the future, um, using it in addition to recreational use property as agricultural land based on the soils that it provides, and if we can co-utilize it, even though that might not be the highest dollar value based on the protocol that's currently in statute to assess that land. It very well could be, and I'm suggesting that it could be the highest potential for that particular use of property. And I would assume that that would happen in other areas as well. Hopefully that answers your question.

Ms. Longacre might be able to follow up with that better. Well, just a quick follow-up. Follow-up. We're talking about land that's owned by the state or owned by the borough or some government entity?

Through the chair, Representative Prox, this parcel that I'm suggesting is owned by the state. Okay, thank you.

Representative Sadler. Thank you, Madam Chair. And we're kind of— we are— I can see all of us kind of not stumbling around but creeping around the larger issues that this bill tries to address. There's a couple ways to skin the cat to get state land into production. We do have the agricultural covenant.

We have area planning. We have the bids for sales. There might be some individual programs. But the issue seems to be that the Farm Bureau and so forth, others have said, is— and Ms. Garrity— there's just— it's not easy to get land. It's expensive.

It's onerous. It's a long process. And I applaud the maker of the— the sponsor of the bill for trying to find a way to do that. But because the value of land right now has to compete with residential or commercial uses, which maybe make more money. Are bad for the state's food security, et cetera.

So our policy call is, should the state minimize, you know, take less expense to achieve the greater good of having agricultural land? This is one way to do it. I think I also saw eyes light up when the question came about lowering the amount of cash the state will bring in for the greater good of agriculture. The parallel directly is clear, the question of royalty relief to encourage the greater public good of energy access. So So that's the kind of philosophical question we're dealing with.

There's lots of details about the bill. I'm sure we'll understand more of them as we work through it. But to me, that's kind of the essential fulcrum of the issue here. No question. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Sadler.

Representative Sadler.

With that, not seeing any further questions, I want to thank you, Ms. Garrity, Ms. Adsett, Ms. Seitz, for your testimony this afternoon. We're going to take a brief at ease before we move to the next step. Thank you. Brief at ease.

Alright, back on the record here in House Resources. Before we move into public testimony, I would like to make a motion to adopt the CS as our working document. Representative Fields, do you have a motion? I move the House Resources Committee adopt the CS for House Bill 296, work order number 34-LS1414/i. And I'll object to talk about it.

Okay. Would you like to speak to your objection? Certainly, Madam Chair. It's just a request for— we did hear some reference to changes. There were some questions about language, so just ask for a description of the changes between the original.

Version of the CS. This is for us. Thank you, Rep. Sadler. Uh, Miss Svetlick. Through the record, Ariel Svetlick, staff to Representative Mears.

So the changes that we have were largely done on the Senate side in collaboration with the department to make this bill more workable for what we are hoping to achieve with this legislation. So the version I from version A adds a new section 1 through 5. This creates the optional merit-based process for the sale of state land under agricultural for purposes in AS 38.05.059 and makes conforming changes to the affected statutes. And it also amends sections 6 through 9, which are 1 through 4 of version A, making changes to the new leasing program that reflects stakeholder feedback. This includes clarifying the information required from applicants, allowing the department to reject any application that isn't in the best interest of the state, allowing activities such as building housing and clearing timber rather than designating them as agricultural purposes, and requiring regular inspections of leased land.

It also adds a new Section 10 and 11. This is establishing a civil penalty authority under the department to enforce agricultural covenants and make conforming changes to affected statutes. It adds new Sections 12 and 13 to create an immediate effective date for the department to draft regulations implementing HB 296, and it numbers Section 14, which is Section 5 in version A, making the provisions in the bill effective January 1st, 2027. Thank you, Representative Sadler. That is a great summation.

If you have a written version of that, I'd love to have it as a companion to my CS. It's in there. It's in there. Okay. Oh, not probably tapped.

Okay, very good. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Representative Sadler, do you maintain your objection? I'll remove my objection to adopting the CS.

I will object. Object. Object. Just go to a vote. Okay, would the clerk please call the roll?

Representative Hall. Yes. Representative Mears.

Yes. Representative Fields. Yes. Representative Sadler. Yeah, yes.

Representative Prox. No. Representative Colon. Yes. Representative Elam is absent.

Co-chair Daivert. Yes. Co-chair Freer. Absent.

Absent. So 6 yeas and 1 nay. And with a vote of 6 yeas and 1 nay, the CS for House Bill 296 has been adopted.

We will now move— open the bill for public testimony.

First off, is there anyone in the room who wishes to testify? Seeing none, Do we have anyone online?

Okay, we do.

All right, we have one— seen one person online to testify on House Bill 296, Rod Arno. If you could hear us, state your name and affiliation and begin your testimony. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] My name is Ron Arnold, Palmer, Alaska. I'm the public policy director for the Alaska Outdoor Council. And our concerns, and as we watch the process here on what's happening with the lack of access to 60% of the state on federal lands, we're watching closely for outdoor folks.

What access you'll have on state lands. So when I see bills like 296 that talks about the sale of agriculture lands, not just the lease, uh, the Outdoor Council has concerns about how that affects the amount of wildlife habitat. And as urban sprawl takes up farmland, where's the end of it moving to where we're getting into agriculture lands, coming in in areas that were once wildlife habitat, which is important to our membership. Thank you so much for the time to give comments. I appreciate it.

Thank you so much, Mr. Arno, for calling in, for, um, testifying. And Mr. Arno, if you We have a few questions here in resource. I'll go to Representative Fields. Thank you. I think it's both a question for Mr. Arno and for the bill sponsor.

Has there been thought about if we're going to take state land and put it into agricultural use, preserving the ability for, say, non-motorized access for the public to access state or federal lands, which a lot of countries do this. And I don't know if there's been any discussion of that. Thank you.

I can go to Mr. Arno.

Yep. Good chair, Chris. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Yeah. I mean, you know, you definitely always have an access issue. Once something's passed into private ownership, and that's what sales are, is that you've got no access rights to private.

And the debate can go on, uh, as far as leases, what kind of access rights you would have to that. But the underlying issue is, is like, where I just— the Outdoor Council is concerned that there isn't a limit says, okay, these are the agriculture lands, and we could agree with that. That's, that's, we can support. But the idea that as those lands are used up in something else, you just move on, and its negative effect on the amount of wildlife habitat on state lands, which is becoming more and more important all the time. Okay, uh, Representative Mears.

Uh, thank you. Through the chair to Representative Fields, I'd like to look to Ms. Longacre from the Division of Mining, Land and Water to talk about access, deed restrictions that might happen with the sale. All right, Ms. Longacre. Um, looks like she is offline, but maybe we can get her back. Maybe.

Um, before Mr. Arno, I think I saw another hand. Are we Representative Southland. I'm going to kill the time before we get Mr. Longacre here because my questions are— I guess I'll just ask a quick question of Mr. Arno if I may. Are your concerns about this bill specific to any particular parcels of land or areas of land or just as a general concern about the erosion of public access for outdoorsmen generally in Alaska? Mr.

Arno. Through the chair, Representative Southland. Absolutely, it's not on any specific piece of land right now. It is what is Alaska's direction headed.

As far as making state lands that have wildlife habitat available for our membership and the outdoor council. Miss Longacre will be up for my questions too.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Arno. Uh, Representative Fields. Yeah, just as a follow-up, I would be interested in working with Mr. Arno and the bill sponsor on trying to address at least the access portion of this so that if, say, the state is leasing land for agriculture that is maybe adjacent to other land that is used for hunting, fishing, other recreational access, that there is a process where the department look at maintaining access. Perhaps that's doable. So happy to work more on it.

Representative Mears, uh, thank you. Through the chair to Representative Fields.

I think that we can get some written responses from Ms. Longacre. She's not available at the moment. That might— I'm sure these issues have come up before and there's a more thorough response from the department, and this might already be taken care of in processes. So we will turn to our subject matter experts in the department. Okay, that's, that's great, and we could address that as a follow-up.

Okay, Representative Sadler. Thank you. While waiting for Ms. Longacre, perhaps Amy Seitz of the Farm Bureau might be able to answer some questions. You know, my model is Ohio, where you, if you were going to hunt, you had to get permission of Old MacDonald, farmer, you know, of his land. They came to us and asked for hunting and fishing on our lands.

That's okay. Is that the current practice right now on private land, Ms. Seitz, if you can hear me? If there's land in cultivation during the fall or winter when it's fallow, what is there, are the legal access provisions for farmland for outdoor access by non-owners. Uh, Mrs. Sites.

Yes, through the chair, Representative Tabler, for the record, this is Amy Sites, executive policy director for the Alaska Farm Bureau. And I know, um, farmland— I, I do know we have several farmers in.

State, and I don't know for sure if they have Ag Covenant land or, you know, fee-simple title to their land, but we do have farmers around the state who do give access. They probably have some sort of fee structure set up for people to have access to hunt, fish across their property.

When it comes to leased land, it's I believe, and I know Rachel would be able to answer it more directly, I believe there is a, like, a multi-use requirement. Just like with Emily's property, the ski club will still be able to use the land that she leases. I've heard from other farmers who have leased, I think, the one other parcel. If it's leased, the state doesn't block it and the leasee can't block it from other people using it since it is still public land. It's just being leased for agriculture also.

So I know there are— between the land that is owned, some farmers will give access. My understanding on leased land, the state allows the multi-use option. Thank you. If that answers your question. It does.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Ms. Seitz. And it looks like we have Ms. Longacre back online with us. Welcome back, Ms. Longacre. We have a question from Representative Fields.

Thank you. Through the chair to Ms. Longacre, I am interested in making sure that if there are lands leased under this bill, they preserve public access to hunting, fishing grounds, recreation, particularly in the case where we might be leasing state land that would otherwise be contiguous with other state lands. For example, in the Mat-Su Valley and the Hatcher Pass area, Mat-Su Valley and the Moose Creek drainage, there are a lot of examples of this. So how would we best address that in the bill? And I'm just looking at it, looks to me like the, the lessee could could commit and put in an easement access maybe like on page 6 where the applicant has to list a bunch of details about the land.

What do you think? Thank you.

Representative Fields, through the Chair, this is Rachel Longacre, Chief of Operations with the Division of Mining, Land and Water. I believe that in the context of this conversation, we're mixing up a little bit between grazing leases and agricultural leases. Grazing leases don't give you all of the same sticks as agricultural leases. When you have a grazing lease, there are compatible uses that are required to be maintained. So a grazing lease is going to be significantly larger, and a farmer is going to be moving their cattle about the land in different areas at different seasons, which is very, very different than somebody who's actually farming the land and tilling the land.

When you have an agricultural lease, you do have more interest in the land, and so you can actually create create boundaries and block access across that land. However, when we're doing land disposals for leases or for sales, we ensure that there are access points around that land to other state land to ensure that there are resources being used, other resources being used, such as hunting, fishing, public recreation, et cetera. So when we do a lease disposal, we are ensuring that there is not blocked access by that lease. Follow-up. Yeah, follow-up.

I would like to— through the chair, I would like to understand that process. So if you were leasing— let's just say you're selling state land under this bill, um, taking into account existing law, would the landowner then have to, um, agree to an easement either along a corner, you know, along the edge of the land, through the land in some way, and you would work with them and on the alignment of the easement, taking and taking into account topography and so on? Is that how it works? Representative Fields, that is correct. We, when we are doing a disposal, we are going to consider access as one of our primary considerations in that disposal.

And so yes, there could be that we need to ensure that a section line is maintained or is developed or an easement is provided so that there is not any blocked access to state land as well as access for the farmer. Follow? Follow-up. I appreciate it. Ms. Longacre, do you do that as a matter of practice, or is that process outlined in regulation or in statute?

Representative Fields, that's actually outlined in our other statutes in regards to access, as well as our disposal statutes, which is 3805.035(e). There's a couple different provisions in there. If it pleases the committee, I'm happy to follow up with those in writing. Yes, please. Okay, thank you, Miss Longacre.

That'll, that'll help us understand the bill. Great question. One more follow-up. Um, Miss Longacre, are you mandated under those stats? Like, if this bill passed, would those existing statutes mandate that you maintain public access across land that is being sold or leased, or is it optional for you?

Representative Field, that is mandated. Okay, thank Thank you.

Thank you so much, Ms. Longacre, for coming back and joining us in this conversation of the bill. Really appreciate it. Seeing no further— Representative Sadler. Thank you. And just to follow up on a point, clarify a point the Representative Fields asked.

Ms. Longacre, the bill would mandate public access through sold land. Or access to engage in practice hunting practices on that land. I just want to make sure I clarify, is this a right of transit or a right to use the land?

The public access provision. Representative Fessler, I don't think I understand your question. Could you reframe that for me, please? Certainly. Representative Fields was asking questions whether the bill would mandate public access to land that was sold for agricultural purposes under this bill.

My specific question, does that allow public access to transit through the land or the right to use the land for hunting or recreation. I believe it's just transit through, right-of-way section line access. I just wanted to make sure it was clear for the record. And me. Representative Sadler, and for the record again, this is Rachel Longacre, Chief of Operations.

When somebody has a lease boundary, it is now closed to public access within that lease unless there's an established easement. When we are doing a land disposal, we're going to look to do an easement either around that parcel or we're going to create an easement through that parcel. But the entire leased parcel is not going to be open to the public for hunting or access through it unless it's through that easement. So it's around in both leased and sales, it's around and not through the land, I think. Generally, we always try it.

Representative Sadler, yes, we try to go around parcels. It's very difficult to bisect somebody's land development. Very good, thank you. Okay, see no further questions for our testifiers. Thank you so much, uh, Ms. Seitz and Ms. Longacre, for being here, and Mr. Arno for your testimony.

Wrap up. Representative Mears. Apologies, Co-Chair Dybert. I was just reminding you that public testimony is still open. That's correct.

I need to get to my lunch that's sitting next to me. I'm going to go ahead and close public testimony.

All right. We will be holding House Bill 296 over for another hearing. That completes the agenda for our— That completes the agenda for our House Resources Committee meeting today. The time is 2:42 PM, and this hearing from the House Resources Committee is now adjourned.

Are we a hive? Are we a hive?