It's not unreasonable for landowners to protect themselves

Spectrum, by John Vinduska

My name and many others will be on the petition to recall Sen. Scott Ogan. Signing the petition was something I regret having to do because I realize the grief this recall attempt will cause Ogan and his family.

It has to be done, however, because Senator Ogan has stubbornly refused to help us property owners out of the mess he helped create. This is so unfortunate because this situation could be resolved if our legislators would just do what is right and fair.

In the Jan. 13 Spectrum, "Let's get back to basics on coal-bed methane," Sen. Tom Wagoner uses most of the same irrelevant arguments that Senator Ogan used to defend his actions. The basics from a property owner's view are quite different.

We know that most of us don't have mineral rights. We also know that to recover subsurface minerals or gas, the surface has to be occupied and possibly damaged. So why, since we call our land "private property," would anyone consider it unreasonable to pass laws allowing landowners the ability to restrict access to their property and prevent the possible damage. It wouldn't be any different than property owners lawfully restricting access to their land to hunt or fish, event though the states fish and game resources are owned in common by all Alaskans.

The federal government is not going to confiscate any land or mineral rights just because the state grants priority to the landowners surface estate. It is absolutely absurd to think the federal government would subject itself to the bad press and lawsuits that such action would trigger.

Less than 1 percent of land in Alaska is privately owned. In my opinion, there is no need to even be on private property. Contrary to what Senator Wagoner and others would like you to believe, the mineral interests from the small amount of private land in Alaska has not significantly added to the permanent fund. Senator Ogan likes to call the fund "Alaska's little experiment in socialism." He and other legislators think that this is the carrot they can hang in front of people who aren't directly affected by coal-bed methane development. It's the old divide and conquer strategy.

This permanent fund scare, however, is irrelevant because if property owners had the right to refuse access, it would not significantly alter the amount of royalties the state received. That's because there is so little private property and because if a gas company wanted to get on private property, they could do so by negotiating for access. The state would still get its royalty money and the property owner would be able to deal with the company from a position of power. The property owner could then charge for the use of his land instead of just hoping to be paid for damages.

It's a situation and it's very reasonable that the person who owns the land, takes care of the land and pays the taxes should have the legal priority. It's also very reasonable that citizens should be able to control at the local level, where and how gas development will occur. We know that the now infamous House Bill 69 provided for a waiver of local requirements when there is an overriding state interest. Isn't that absurd? What security would there be in making laws at the local level when it is very likely that the state would claim overriding state interests.

The ink wasn't even dry yet on HB69 before Rep. Vic Kohring and Senator Ogan were calling the claimed shortage of natural gas an emergency situation. Of course, they never mentioned that much of the gas from the Cook Inlet fields was exported.

I agree with Senator Wagoner that we do not need to go back to the basics on coal-bed methane. How about using a little common sense? We are getting very tired of our representatives blaming mythical anti-development Outside environmentalists for the problem, instead of acknowledging legitimate landowner concerns.

We are also losing patience watching some representatives pretending that they're trying to help us when actually it's just a feeble attempt at political damage control.

This recall is a sad situation, but thankfully we live in a country where we have this remedy available to us.

Hopefully our legislators will realize that many Alaskans place a great value on their private property. We have worked so hard for that property that we won't tolerate our representatives working for anyone but us.

John Vinduska is a Palmer resident.