Yes.  In the 1950's many US congressmen thought that Alaska should not be a state, because they did not think that the new state could pay its bills.  They anticipated that every year the new state of Alaska would come to the US government asking for more money to pay civil servants, maintain roads, run schools and everything else.  To overcome this objection mineral title, the sub-surface mineral rights, was vested in the state, not individuals.  Alaska has chosen to use some of  the income from the mineral rights to make direct distribution to residents, rather than to provide support for the state.  This is of course popular, but lo, the seven fat years are past, and the lean years are upon us, and the harvest is not yet home.