Bill Overview
Title: University of Alaska Fiscal Foundation Act
Description: This bill directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to establish a program to identify and convey available federal land in Alaska to the University of Alaska for a land grant to support higher education. The bill also permits the BLM or the Department of Agriculture to acquire by purchase or exchange, with the university's consent, university-owned inholdings within conservation system units. Any land exchanged shall be of equal value. No later than four years after enactment of the bill, Alaska and the university may jointly identify no more than 500,000 acres of land for inclusion in the program, of which not more than 360,000 acres may be conveyed and patented to the university. Upon the request of Alaska and the university, the BLM shall provide technical assistance in the identification of land. If Alaska and the university notify the BLM in writing that Alaska and the university jointly concur with the conveyance of all or a portion of the land identified for conveyance, and that Alaska relinquishes its selection rights to the land covered by the notification, the BLM shall convey the land to the university, to be held in trust for the exclusive use and benefit of the university. The BLM shall notify Congress of the land conveyed and patented.
Sponsors: Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]
Target Audience
Population: Students, staff, and affiliates of the University of Alaska
Estimated Size: 750000
- The primary group impacted is students and staff of the University of Alaska, who would benefit from increased resources and land management capabilities.
- The University of Alaska will directly benefit from potential expansion and development opportunities afforded by new land assets.
- The regional economy may see increased educational infrastructure, providing benefits to local communities through job creation and economic activity.
- Federal land management strategies might shift, impacting personnel and policy within the Bureau of Land Management and Department of Agriculture.
- Potential environmental impacts on conservation units and broader ecological systems in Alaska as land trade or sale happens must be considered.
- The broader higher education community may find implications in the precedent this sets for land grant financing.
Reasoning
- The University of Alaska is the primary beneficiary of the policy, with direct implications for its faculty, staff, students, and affiliates. This includes potential increases in funding and resources through land acquisition.
- Local communities and the state economy might experience indirect benefits due to increased educational infrastructure that could result from the land conveyed to the university.
- Changes in land management may lead to environmental impacts that could concern conservationists and environmental scientists within the area.
- The federal entities involved in land management, such as the Bureau of Land Management and USDA, are stakeholders because their operations may change due to this policy.
- Residents of Alaska, particularly those near the University of Alaska, might see the most direct consequences in terms of access to resources and employment opportunities.
- Given the scale of the land and budget afforded by the policy, financial and administrative impacts will require careful execution within the budget limits.
Simulated Interviews
Student (Fairbanks, Alaska)
Age: 20 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is a great opportunity for our university to expand its resources and offer more to students like me.
- I'm concerned about how the environmental impacts will be mitigated, but overall, more land means more facilities and possibly lower tuition fees in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
University Professor (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy offers a unique chance to expand our research facilities, which can enhance the quality of education and research here.
- However, I worry about the actual implementation and whether this will really resolve our current financial constraints.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Juneau, Alaska)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that conveying federal land to the university could negatively impact ecological conservation efforts.
- While education is important, it's crucial that we balance development with environmental protection.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could set a precedent for other universities seeking similar land grants, impacting federal land resource management.
- I anticipate operational adjustments within the department to accommodate this change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (Nome, Alaska)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that this policy will lead to more educational opportunities for younger generations in Alaska.
- I hope the process considers the needs of local communities and environmental impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Environmental NGO Worker (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy potentially diverts conservation resources and lands for educational infrastructure, possibly affecting biodiversity.
- There need to be clear environmental protections in place before supporting such policy changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
BLM Employee (Seward, Alaska)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will require significant restructuring in how we manage land resources in Alaska.
- I see potential benefits in streamlining land management, though it may challenge existing federal procedures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Higher Education Policy Expert (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an intriguing model for higher education funding through land grants, and it could serve as a model for other institutions if successful.
- However, the complexity of land transactions presents a risk that could complicate other higher education policy initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Local Business Owner (Barrow, Alaska)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy strengthens the university, it could indirectly boost local businesses by increasing student and faculty spending.
- However, the allocation of land should be carefully considered to avoid negative impacts on local communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Higher Education Consultant (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could provide a valuable case study for sustainable land grant management in higher education.
- I'm curious about how the budget will be utilized effectively without compromising educational or environmental standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $5500000)
Year 3: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $5500000)
Year 5: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The direct financial costs involve federal agency operations essential to facilitate the conveyance process, including possible acquisition or exchange arrangements.
- Indirect benefits might result in long-term savings through the university's augmented capacity to finance its activities independently.
- The policy's implementation could set precedents for similar future federal land-grant initiatives impacting long-term fiscal policy frameworks.
- Environmental impact assessments are crucial as the execution of the act may influence conservation efforts.