Opinion ID: 2611904
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Purpose of section 14(c).

Text: In determining the meaning of a statute, we begin with an examination of the language employed construed in light of the purpose of the statute. Beck v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Public Facilities, 837 P.2d 105, 117 (Alaska 1992). The purpose of legislation can often be understood by considering the problem which the legislation was designed to address. The overall objective of ANCSA is clear. It is the prompt and just settlement of all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska, based on aboriginal land claims... . ANCSA § 2, 43 U.S.C. 1601(a). In an enactment of the magnitude of ANCSA, however, there are many subsidiary, more specific purposes. The specific purpose of section 14(c) may be ascertained by an examination of the problem that section was intended to address. The central problem was that in most of Alaska's villages, individual Natives did not own the land on which their houses were located. More generally, the non-ownership problem also applied to non-Natives in the villages and to business and subsistence sites. The influential report to Congress of the Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska, Alaska Natives and the Land (U.S. Govt. Anchorage, 1968) (hereafter Alaska Natives and the Land) made this clear: Another characteristic of village Alaska is that most of its people live not on land they own, but on the public domain. Two thirds of Alaska's 7,500 village families own no land at all. Village Alaskans own in fee less than 500 acres of 375 million acres of their Native land. These parcels of land are held by about 1,400 families who have received or petitioned for unrestricted title to their townsite lots. Under restricted title, somewhat more than 15,000 acres are held by 961 households. Most of this acreage is in 175 allotments  obtained by Natives in the 62 years since the Indian Allotment Act was enacted; the remainder is in 786 townsite lots in 32 villages. Very little acreage  in townsite lots or allotments  is in northern and western Alaska, where most Alaska Natives live. .... Without title and without tenure, the vast majority of the rural people live on, range over, and use the public domain as they have for generations. [9] Alaska Natives and the Land, supra p. 21 at 45-46 (footnotes omitted). In another section the report again observed that the Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1906 and the Townsite Act of 1926 had largely failed to distribute needed land to individual Natives: Specific land legislation passed for Alaska Natives  the Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1906 and the Townsite Act of 1926  has failed to meet the land needs of the Native people. In the 62 years since passage of the Native Allotment Act only slightly more than 15,000 acres of land have been deeded, by restricted deed, to 175 Native allottees. And in the 42 years since the passage of the Townsite Act, only 28 Native villages have been surveyed with deeds issued to their inhabitants; and title in fee simple to less than 500 acres has been conveyed.[ [10] ] Id. at 537. The report noted that lack of ownership contributed to the problem of inadequate housing: While the low cash income of villagers is an important reason behind substandard dwellings in village Alaska, it is not the sole explanation. Federal programs of insured loans are not available, even to those with ability to repay, if they do not possess title to the land upon which a house is to be situated, and most Alaska villagers are landless. Id. at 73. Discussing the economic consequences of a land claims settlement, the report stated: The absence of title to land occupied by Natives in Alaska villages is clearly an obstacle to financing homes, businesses, and community facilities. The grant of title to these lands would just as clearly have a beneficial effect on the village economy.... Grants of land title for homesites, businesses, community facilities, and special-purpose locations such as fish camps and burial grounds should not be expected to have any negative effects on general economic development. Some question might be raised about sites in existing withdrawals such as national forests. The total area of land involved is so small, however, that we can find no instance in which such transfers would subvert the purposes of the original withdrawal. Id. at 529. Addressing the problem of lack of individual, as distinct from collective, village land ownership is then the primary purpose of section 14(c)(1) and (2) of the Act. Arnold, supra note 1, at 250-51, describes the process of individual conveyancing under the Act as follows: Although most of the land that is conveyed to Natives under the settlement act goes to corporations they own, perhaps 10,000 Natives are entitled by the act to become property owners as individuals. There are three ways in which this can take place: (1) by reconveyance by a village; (2) by individual application from those living at isolated locations; and (3) by obtaining an allotment filed for prior to passage of the act. .... Most Natives who become individual landowners will receive their land by reconveyance from their village corporations. Once village corporations receive title (patent or interim conveyance) to lands they have selected, they are, among other things, to reconvey parcels of land to individual occupants of such parcels. Specifically, they are required to give surface title at no cost to Natives and non-Natives who are using such parcels as: . a primary place of residence; . a primary place of business; . a subsistence campsite, or . a headquarters for reindeer husbandry. Although there were about 49,000 Natives who considered their place of residence to be one of the 203 village corporations, it is not clear that all of them will receive tracts of village land... . Persons who receive land from their village corporations may immediately sell or lease it. There is no restriction (as there is with stock ownership) against the sale of land. Individually held lands are subject to property taxes if they are developed or leased... . Individuals receiving title do not obtain the subsurface estate. Except for the wildlife refuges and Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4, the subsurface belongs to the regional corporation... . Transfer of title to individuals is but one task of reconveyance imposed on a village corporation. It is also required to convey surface title to nonprofit organizations (such as churches) for tracts they occupy, either without cost to the organization or for what the land was worth when it was first occupied. It must also convey to the municipal, state, or federal governments surface title to lands where airports or air navigation aids are located. And it must convey to its municipal government no less than 1,280 acres of the remaining improved lands in the village; if there is no city government, this acreage is to be conveyed to the State where it would be held in trust. Another text, David S. Case, Alaska Natives and American Laws (1984), recognizes that the primary purpose of section 14(c) is to convey land in settled areas to individual occupants. It states that in this respect 14(c) was intended to serve the same purpose as the townsite laws which were previously applicable to Alaska. [11] Section 14(c) of ANCSA appears to be an alternative to the subsequently repealed Alaska townsite laws. As now amended, it requires each village corporation to deed to local residents, businesses and non-profit organizations the surface estate of those village lands they occupied as of December 18, 1971. As originally enacted, a minimum of 1,280 acres of the remaining surface estate also had to be conveyed to the incorporated municipality or to the state in trust for any future municipality, but 1980 amendments to ANCSA now permit village corporations to negotiate lower municipal grants with the state or affected municipalities. .... Congress repealed [the 1926 Alaska Native Townsite Act] because ANCSA had made it obsolete... . Id. at 167-168 (footnote omitted).