House Report 106-764 - CONVEYANCE OF PUBLIC LANDS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA

[House Report 106-764]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-764

======================================================================

CONVEYANCE OF PUBLIC LANDS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA

_______

July 19, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following

R E P O R T

together with

DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 2958]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 2958) to provide for the continuation of higher education
through the conveyance of certain public lands in the State of
Alaska to the University of Alaska, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purposes of H.R. 2958 are to provide for the
continuation of higher education through the conveyance of
certain public lands in the State of Alaska to the University
of Alaska, and for other purposes.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 2958 entitles the University of Alaska to select up to
250,000 acres of federal land in Alaska, and up to an
additional 250,000 acres of federal land to be matched on an
acre-for-acre basis with land grants made by the State of
Alaska. This means the University could acquire a total of
750,000 acres of federal/state land (500,000 federal/250,000
state).
Alaska is larger than the next three largest states
combined, yet it ranks near the bottom of all States in terms
of land grants for higher education. In 1915 Congress reserved
about 268,000 acres of public domain in the then-territory of
Alaska for the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines
(the former name of the University of Alaska). Land was to be
conveyed only after it was surveyed. At the time, the extremely
slow pace of surveying prevented most of the reserved public
land from being transferred to the college. Between 1915 and
the 1950s, less than one percent of all Alaska's land was
surveyed, precluding most of the 1915 land grant from being
conveyed. The slow conveyance of the 1915 land grant prompted
Congress in 1929 to provide an additional grant of 100,000
acres of the territory's public domain outright to the college.
When Alaska became a State in 1959, all claims to
unsurveyed lands pursuant to the 1915 reservation were
eliminated. As a result, the university at present has a total
of approximately 112,000 acres of land. By contrast the land
grant college of the smallest state, Rhode Island (488 times
smaller than Alaska), received at least 120,000 acres of land.
The original federal land grant was extinguished when
Alaska became a State. Some suggest the State was supposed to
complete the conveyance from its own land base. There is no
evidence in the legislative history of the Alaska Statehood Act
to support this view. It is true the Alaska Statehood Act
voided the original land grant, but there is neither an
explanation why nor a provision for fulfilling the original
pledge. State university systems of several other Western
states with significant amounts of federal land have obtained
generous land grants, but not Alaska's.
The unfulfilled land grant has had its consequences. In
Alaska, resource development on public lands is the primary
source of jobs, personal income, and government revenue. The
University's small land base has deprived it of a critical
source of funding to support a higher education mission. Over
the years, thousands of Alaska's brightest have sought a
college experience outside their State because the University
sometimes could not compete with its larger cousins in the
lower 48 states. The University has observed that many Alaskans
do not return when they seek an education out of State, while
those who seek a college education in Alaska stay home.
The University Administration and Board of Regents believe
the land grant authorized by H.R. 2958 will endow a stable and
lasting source of revenues and a land base for expansion to
meet the University's higher education mission serving
residents in the entire State.
H.R. 2958 provides a meaningful land grant for the
university. Every acre of land conveyed to the University will
be dedicated to higher education.
The land grant under H.R. 2958 is conditional. None of the
land transferred pursuant to this bill is taken from a
conservation system unit. Additionally, to obtain its land
grant the University must relinquish about 12,358 acres of
inholdings within several major National Wildlife Refuges,
National Forests, National Parks, and National Preserves.
In a State with over 220 million acres of federally-owned
land, most of which is not eligible to be transferred to the
University, H.R. 2958 is a reasonable and sensible measure to
ensure that Alaskans from Barrow and Kotzebue to Dutch Harbor
and Ketchikan, have a State university endowed with the
educational resources for their future.

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 2958 was introduced on September 27, 1999, by
Congressman Don Young (R-AK). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Resources. On October 27, 1999, the full Committee
held a hearing on the bill. On March 15, 2000, the Full
Resources Committee met to consider the bill. No amendments
were offered and the previous question was moved on the bill by
voice vote. On April 5, 2000, the Full Resources Committee met
again to consider the bill. The bill was ordered favorably
reported to the House of Representatives by voice vote.

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of this report.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3 of the
Constitution of the United States grant Congress the authority
to enact this bill.

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the billprepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit
authority, or an increase or decrease in tax expenditures.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, enactment of this
bill will reduce offsetting receipts and increase direct
spending by about $5 million a year beginning in fiscal year
2002.
3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on
Government Reform on this bill.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:

U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2958, a bill to
provide for the continuation of higher education through the
conveyance of certain public lands in the state of Alaska to
the University of Alaska, and for other purposes.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah
Reis (for federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for the impact
on state and local governments).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.

H.R. 2958--A bill to provide for the continuation of higher education
through the conveyance of certain public lands in the state of
Alaska to the University of Alaska, and for other purposes

Summary: H.R. 2958 would entitle the University of Alaska
to select up to 500,000 acres of certain federal land in or
adjacent to Alaska as a federal grant. In exchange for the
first 250,000 acres, the university would convey to the
Secretary of the Interior certain university land within the
boundaries of national parks and wildlife refuges. The
university's selection of the second 250,000 acres of federal
land would be contingent on the state of Alaska granting an
equal amount of state land to the university.
CBO estimates that enacting this bill would reduce
offsetting receipts and thus increase direct spending by about
$5 million a year beginning in fiscal year 2002, or a total of
about $45 million over the 2001-2010 period. H.R. 2958 contains
no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but it could lead to a
redistribution of resources among various state, local, and
tribal entities in Alaska. This bill would improve no new
private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The impact of
H.R. 2958 on the federal budget is uncertain because it depends
on which federal lands are selected by the University of
Alaska. Depending on the lands selected, enacting the bill
could lead to net losses of offsetting receipts ranging from
about $1 million a year to more than $10 million a year. Such
losses would probably not begin before fiscal year 2002. CBO's
estimate of the most likely budgetary impact of H.R. 2958 is
shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation
fall within budget functions 300 (natural resources and
environment) and 800 (general government).

Estimated Budget Authority................................ 0 0 5 5 5 5
Estimated Outlays......................................... 0 0 5 5 5 5

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level............................. 0 0 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
Estimated Outlays......................................... 0 0 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.

Basis of estimate

Direct spending (including offsetting receipts)
H.R. 2958 would entitle the University of Alaska to select
up to 500,000 acres of certain federal land in or adjacent to
Alaska. That action could lead to a loss of offsetting receipts
that the federal government would otherwise collect under
current law. The university's land grant holdings currently
total 140,000 acres.
In exchange for the first 250,000 acres, the university
would convey to the Secretary of the Interior about 14,000
acres of land within the boundaries of national parks and
wildlife refuges. The bill also provides that if the state of
Alaska grants up to 250,000 acres of state-owned land to the
university, the university could obtain up to 250,000 acres of
additional federal land on an acre-for-acre basis to match the
land granted by the state. Thus, H.R. 2958 would allow the
university to obtain up to 750,000 acres of federal and state
land.
H.R. 2958 would allow the university to select up to
500,000 acres from federal lands, including the National
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A), certain areas in the
National Forest System, the outer continental shelf (OCS),
federal onshore oil and gas leases, and surplus federal
property. The bill also would direct the Secretary of the
Interior to attempt to conclude an agreement with the
University of Alaska and the state to share receipts from NPR-A
leases. The bill specifies that such an agreement should
provide the university with up to 10 percent of NPR-A receipts
or $9 million annually, whichever is less, in lieu of
university land selections in the NPR-A north of latitude 69
degrees north. CBO cannot predict specifically which federal
lands the university would pick under H.R. 2958, or whether the
Department of the Interior (DOI) would reach an agreement with
the university to share NPR-A receipts. However, an agreement
to share NPR-A receipts would not necessarily preclude the
university from selecting 500,000 acres of land outside the
NPR-A.
If the university made all its selections from OCS lands,
including areas expected to be leased over the next few years,
we estimate that forgone receipts could average more than $10
million a year over the next 10 years, net of any payments to
the state of Alaska. If the university selected federal onshore
oil and gas leases managed by the Bureau of Land Management, or
if the university picked surplus government property that would
otherwise have been sold, the loss of receipts to the federal
government could range from $1 million to $10 million annually
over the next decade, net of any payments to Alaska. If the
university reached an agreement with DOI and the state to share
NPR-A receipts in lieu of land selections in NPR-A, the loss of
receipts to the federal government could be as much as $9
million each year, in addition to the loss of receipts from
land the university selected elsewhere, depending on the terms
of the agreement. The university also might choose federal
lands that could be used for future commercial development,
here the federal government might not collect any receipts over
the next 10 years. Assuming that the university would select a
number of different types of federal land, CBO estimates that
enacting H.R. 2958 would increase direct spending by about $5
million a year, net of payments to the state.
Spending subject to appropriation
Enacting H.R. 2958 also would likely affect discretionary
spending, but the amount would vary greatly depending on which
lands the university selects. On the one hand, reducing the
amount of land managed by the federal government could decrease
administrative costs. On the other hand, the university's
selections could increase costs to manage the remaining federal
land depending on the new ownership patterns created, the type
of land selected, and how the university uses the land it
selects. Overall, CBO estimates that any such changes would
likely net to an increase or decrease of less than $500,000 a
year in appropriated spending.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. As shown
in the following table, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2958
would increase direct spending by about $5 million a year,
beginning in 2002. For the purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go
procedures, however, only the effects in the current year, the
budget year, and the subsequent four years are counted.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays............................ 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Changes in receipts........................... Not applicable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated impact on State, local,and tribal governments:
H.R. 2958 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in
UMRA. The exchange authorized by this bill would be voluntary
on the part of the University of Alaska--an instrumentality of
the state of Alaska.
While this bill would confer a significant benefit on the
state of Alaska, it could lead to a redistribution of resources
among various state, local, and tribal entities in the state.
Because CBO cannot predict what land would be chosen by the
university, however, we cannot predict the magnitude of these
changes.
In order for the university to obtain the second 250,000
acres of federal land, H.R. 2958 would require the state to
provide an acre-for-acre match of state land. If the state
should choose to provide land that generates income, the bill
would result in the diversion of receipts from general state
use to the exclusive use of the university. State income might
be further diverted to the university if the state agrees to
give up part of its share of NPR-A receipts under an agreement
with the university and DOI, as provided for in the bill. CBO
cannot, however, predict the terms of any such agreement.
Some of the federal land in the state of Alaska produces
receipts that, under current law, are shared with local
governments. To the extent that the university selects such
lands, the result would be a shift of resources from local
governments in Alaska to the university. Local governments also
would lose federal payments in lieu of taxes due to the
transfer of land from the federal governments to the state.
Further, while the bill would preclude the university from
selecting land already selected by the state or by Alaska
native corporations, these selections by the university would
reduce the pool of land available for selection by those other
entities.
Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill would
impose no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Previous CBO estimate: On June 9, 1999, CBO transmitted a
cost estimate for S. 744, a bill to provide for the
continuation of higher education through the conveyance of
certain public lands in the state of Alaska to the University
of Alaska. S. 744 was ordered reported by the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources on June 2, 1999. The two bills
are identical, and the estimated costs are the same except that
we now assume enactment in 2000 instead of 1999, delaying the
first year of annual costs from 2001 to 2002.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis and
Victoria Heid Hall. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal
Governments: Marjorie Miller. Impact on the Private-Sector:
Keith Mattrick.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.

Compliance with Public Law 104-4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.

Changes in Existing Law

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.

DISSENTING VIEWS

We can certainly understand the frustration of the
University of Alaska which has faced budget problems for over a
decade notwithstanding the many billions in state revenues that
have been generated from North Slope oil fields. But we can not
support this bill which would authorize the University to
cherry-pick up to 500,000 acres of the most valuable federal
lands in Alaska.
The State of Alaska received a land grant of 105 million
acres which is about the size of the State of California and
more than four times the amount of Federal land provided to any
other state. The Statehood Act allowed for a general purpose
land grant of 102.5 million acres, thus allowing Alaskans to
determine for themselves how much land should be dedicated to
support education. The University has received 185,000 acres of
land, but two Governors--including current Governor Tony
Knowles--have vetoed efforts by the state legislature to convey
more land.
The State of Alaska has used its generous land grant to
obtain some of the most valuable real estate in North America.
The North Slope oil fields on state-selected lands have
produced over 12 billion barrels of oil. Between 1977 and 1998,
the state legislature approriated $56 billion in oil revenues.
A dedicated savings account known as the Permanent Fund is now
over $28 billion and is projected to grow to more than $63
billion in the next twenty years. Alaskans pay no state income
on sales taxes, but each of the 575,000 residents gets an
annual Permanent Fund dividend. Over $1 billion was distributed
to Alaskans in 1999, with each resident receiving a $1,770
check. This year, the dividend checks are projected to be
$1,950 for each resident.
The important point is that the budget problems faced by
the University were not created by any failure of Congress to
provide the State of Alaska with an adequate land base. The
real problem is that Alaskans have been unwilling to commit
adequate funding to the University. Congress has been more than
generous to the State of Alaska and there is no justification
for an outright give-away of important federal lands.
The University of Alaska receives an equitable share of
federal education funding and has further benefitted from
earmarks in the congressional appropriations process. But this
bill does not provide an acceptable means to the end of
supporting higher education. It allows the University to pick
and chose oil-rich federal lands in the NPR-A and the Outer
Continental Shelf. It opens to selection the entire Chugach
National Forest and portions of the Tongass National Forest.
Land selections could also include the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
Corridor. And it adds insult to injury to federal taxpayers by
waiving application of the National Environmental Policy Act.
It is not surprising that H.R. 2958 faces substantial
public opposition. both the Secretaries of Agriculture and
Interior have recommended that the President veto the bill, if
enacted [see attached March 14, 2000 letter]. If brought before
the House, it should be rejected.

George Miller.
Bruce F. Vento.
------

The Secretary of the Interior,
Washington, March 14, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter responds to your request for
the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2958, which
would require the Secretary to convey to the University of
Alaska up to 500,000 acres of federal lands in Alaska--up to
250,000 acres as selected by the University, and up to 250,000
additional acres on a matching basis if the State were to
convey an equal amount to the University. These views were
initially presented in oral and written testimony to the
Committee on October 27.
We, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture, strongly oppose this bill and will recommend that
the President veto the bill if it were to pass the Congress.
First, the underlying premise of this bill is faulty. It
presumes that the Federal government failed to provide the
University with an adequate land base, and as a result the
University has failed to achieve its full potential. The fact
is that over the years, starting in 1915, the Federal
Government has, through several separate statutes, granted the
State of Alaska about 105 million acres of Federal land. This
is an area larger than the State of California. It is more than
four times the amount of federal land provided to any other
State. It is also a much higher percentage of land than any
other State received. (A few Western States were granted about
one-ninth, or 11% of the land within their borders through
Federal land grants. The State of Alaska gained entitlement to
about 27% of the land within its borders through Federal land
grants.)
While about 185,000 acres of Federal land was conveyed to
Alaska specifically for its University, most of it was in the
form of a generally unrestricted grant. Congress chose the
``block grant'' approach deliberately, in order to provide
Alaska with the independent discretion to chart its own course,
to make its own decisions how to allocate these lands, and the
proceeds therefrom, to specific purposes, including support of
Alaska's state university system, and other state institutions
purposes. (We are attaching an Appendix that discusses the
historical record in some detail.) To the extent the State has
not allocated a portion of its large Federal land grant to the
University, that has been its own choice. State governments are
generally responsible for funding state universities. It is not
theresponsibility of the federal government to provide
continuing funding to the University of Alaska--or any other state
university--through an on-going series of land grants.
These points were underscored by a senior University
official early last year in testimony to the Senate Resources
Committee in the Alaska legislature, essentially as follows:
(1) State legislative proposals to give a land grant to the
University have been very controversial for years, with a
number of constituent groups within Alaska strongly opposed to
such a grant; (2) a land grant would not make much difference
to the school and would not solve its funding problem; (3) the
Federal government's position that it doesn't owe the State any
more land is ``probably correct''; and (4) the fact that the
Federal land grant at Statehood was in the form of a general
grant rather than in specific allotments for specific purposes
enabled the State to get more land than in otherwise would.
Second, the bill would allow the University to select
federal lands of great financial and environmental value to the
citizens of the United States, with potentially profound
impacts. For example, the University could select lands in the
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, the Trans-Alaska pipeline
corridor, the Tongass and Chugach National Forests, or the
outer continental shelf. Although the bill would prevent
selecting federal land within a Conservation System Unit (as
defined in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act), there is no prohibition on University selection within
other areas notable for conservation values such as the
Colville River Special Area with nesting peregrine falcons, the
Steese National Conservation Area of the White Mountains
National Recreation Area. (The attached Appendix also includes
a short discussion of some specific features of the bill in
relation to these concerns.)
Land selections under this bill would likely pit Alaska
landowners and users against one another and spawn conflicts
and litigation between the University, local governments, and
Native interests. It would result in additional pressure for
lands to be developed for timber, mining, and oil and gas uses
in sensitive areas and at the expense of other uses such as
hunting, fishing, subsistence, tourism, recreation, and other
values of importance to Alaskans and other Americans.
University management of its lands has historically been
subject to pressure for short-term revenues without the more
stringent environmental standards that apply to Federal and
other States lands. On the Kenai Peninsula, for example,
approximately 5,000 acres of University lands have been logged
with little reforestation, apparently because the University is
exempt from State reforestation requirements if the harvest
does not provide enough revenues to support reforestation. The
University is also exempt from the requirements for streamside
buffers and fish and wildlife protection measures that apply on
National Forest System or other State lands. In addition, the
University does not have to prepare an environmental analysis
under the National Environmental Policy Act for oil and gas,
mining, timber harvest or other major development projects. For
these reasons among others, Native interests,
environmentalists, fishing interests, some local governments
and others have expressed concerns over proposals like that
found in H.R. 2958.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the presentation of this report from the
standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Bruce Babbitt,
Secretary of the Interior.
Dan Glickman,
Secretary of Agriculture.
Enclosure.

Appendix

Federal land grant legislation in Alaska

The Act of March 4, 1915, (38 Stat. 1214), set aside each
surveyed section 33 in the Tanana Valley for the support of a
Territorial agricultural college. Twenty-six of these sections
were surveyed and 11,850.60 acres were transferred to the
Territory of Alaska for the benefit of an agricultural college
and school of mines.
The 1915 Act was repealed by the Alaska Statehood Act in
1959, although the sections that had already been surveyed
continued to be reserved for future conveyance to the State.
There was a lingering dispute in 1980 between Alaska and the
Federal government concerning which land grant sections vested
in the State at the time of statehood and which sections were
revoked in the Alaska Statehood Act.
To resolve this, in 1980, Congress passed section 906(b) of
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, granting
the State 75,000 additional acres of land and clearly stating
that any and all Federal obligations under the Act of March 4,
1915, had been extinguished. Section 906(b) states that:

In full and final settlement of any and all claims by
the State of Alaska arising under the Act of March 4,
1915 * * * as confirmed and transferred in section 6(k)
of the Alaska Statehood Act, the State is hereby
granted seventy-five thousand acres which it shall be
entitled to select until January 4, 1994, from vacant,
unappropriated, and unreserved public lands. In
exercising the selection rights granted herein, the
State shall be deemed to have relinquished all claims
to any right, title, or interest to any school lands
which failed to vest under the above statutes at the
time Alaska became a State (January 3, 1959), including
lands unsurveyed on that date or surveyed lands which
were within Federal reservations or withdrawals on that
date.

The Act of January 21, 1929, (45 Stat. 1091), provided an
additional 100,000-acre grant to the Territory on behalf of the
University. The 1929 Act did not restrict the land grants to
sections in-place, but instead allowed Alaska to select vacant,
unappropriated, and unreserved land anywhere within the
Territory's boundaries. This gave the Territory the opportunity
to choose the highest value land from all lands meeting the
selection criteria. To date, 99,417 acres of this grant have
been transferred to the State.
The Alaska Statehood Act of 1958, (72 Stat. 339), provided
a general grant of 102.5 million acres of Federal land for
higher education and other public purposes. Congress made it
clear that in giving the State this land entitlement, it was
extinguishing and fully satisfying previous university land
entitlements. In other words, Alaska was given a block land
grant with a proviso that the grant was ``in lieu'' of future
grants for internal improvements.
Congress's original approach to provide support for higher
education in the States came in the landmark Morrill Act of
1862. This Act awarded each State an amount of land based on
the State's population, not its size. Had Alaska been a state
in 1862 when the original Morrill Act passed, it would have
received a total of 90,000 acres (30,000 acres each for one
Representative and two Senators). When Alaska was still in
territorial status, it received more land (through the Acts of
March 4, 1915, and January 21, 1929, described above), than it
would have under the Morrill Act. Although some other states
also received lands in excess of Morrill Act entitlements, in a
few cases considerably more, no other state has received
anything remotely approaching the 102.5 million acre general
grant provided to Alaska at statehood.
Section 6(l) of the Alaska Statehood Act explicitly states
that Alaska will not be entitled to receive any additional
lands under the Morrill Act. This made clear that Congress's
omission of a separate grant for the University was not an
omission, but reflected a clear congressional understanding
that it was adequately providing for the needs of the
University and all state institutions through the general
purpose grant of 102.5 million acres in section 6(b).
Both the House and Senate Alaska Statehood bills (H.R. 7999
and S. 49) addressed the ``in lieu'' issue in identical terms:

The grants provided for in this Act shall be in lieu
of the grant of land (emphasis added) for purposes of
internal improvements made to new States by section 8
of the Act of September 4, 1841, (5 Stat. 455), and
sections 2378 and 2379 of the Revised Statutes (43
U.S.C. sec. 857), and in lieu of the swampland grant
made by the Act of September 28, 1850, (9 Stat. 520),
and section 2479 of the Revised Statutes (43 U.S.C.
sec. 982), and in lieu of the grant of thirty thousand
acres for each Senator and Representative in Congress
made by the Act of July 2, 1862, as amended (12 Stat.
503; 7 U.S.C. secs. 301-308 (The Morrill Act)), which
grants are hereby declared not to extend to the State
of Alaska.

Due to other differences in the two bills, conferees met
and agreed upon H.R. 7999 with certain concessions to S. 49,
including a quantity grant of 102,500,000 acres. Both houses
passed the bill as amended by the conferees. The final version,
as reflected by section 6(b) of the Alaska Statehood Act,
provided a quantity land grant of 102,550,000 acres with only a
very few internal improvement grants, namely: 6(a) (800,000
acres) for community expansion; 6(c) and 6(d) for government
buildings in Juneau; 6(e) for improvements used in fish and
wildlife conservation and protection, and another 1.5 million
in section 6(k), confirming and transferring to the State lands
previously granted to the territory of Alaska.

Comments on some specific provisions of the land selection features of
H.R. 2958

Section 2(b)(4) establishes a framework for land selection
within the NPRA, and a possible royalty-sharing agreement
between the University of Alaska and the Department of the
Interior for NPRA lease revenues. The University could select
up to 92,000 acres within the NPRA above 69 degrees North
latitude, or unlimited amounts below it, and in lieu of any
selections above the line, could elect to receive up to 10
percent of annual leasing revenues from the NPRA. The Federal
government has no discretion in that election. It is unclear
how that 10 percent lease share affects the current 50-50
sharing of lease revenues between the Federal government and
the State. The University could apparently take the 10 percent
revenues for waiving selections above the 69 degree line and
still make unlimited land selections in the NPRA below the
line.
Any of the various scenarios for this NPRA agreement
process would reduce future federal royalties and most likely
also the State's share of NPRA production. Private development
would exclude the United States and the State of Alaska from
any share of royalties.
Depending upon the tracts selected, the costs of the
proposed legislation in terms of naturally important lands and
future lost revenue to the federal treasury could be
significant. Onshore and offshore leasable minerals, including
the outer continental shelf, could be selected.
In addition to lost lands and revenue, planning costs,
survey, adjudication and management costs of the proposal could
be significant. Procedures in the bill are unworkable.
Litigation risks are high.
With respect to the Tongass National Forest, while the
language in section 2(b)(3) is not clear, it appears to limit
Tongass selection to cut-over second growth within areas
classified as LUD [land use designation] III and IV by the
Forest Service. It should be noted that LUD III [moderate
development] or LUD IV [intensive development] are terms from
the 1979 forest management plan. That plan was revised,
changing Land Use Designations for 18 areas of the Tongass
National Forest. The changes are contained in the 1999 Record
of Decision signed by Jim Lyons, Under Secretary of Agriculture
for Natural Resources and Environment. It is likely that the
University would pursue multiple tracts of high-value timber
producing lands from the Tongass National Forest, the United
States' premier temperate rain forest located in southeastern
Alaska. The effect could be to undermine the Tongass National
Forest Land Management Plan by harvesting areas that had been
designed in the 1999 plan for protection.