Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/18/1994 08:15 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 462 - Mining Requirements: Recording/Labor/Size REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT, PRIME SPONSOR, stated HB 462 is a clean-up of provisions in Title 27. Title 27 dates back to territorial days when it was crafted to match federal requirements in place at the time. He said over time, these federal requirements have changed and state statutes have not kept pace, and in many instances no longer conform. This lack of conformity is currently causing confusion and must be updated. He told committee members that a letter of support from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) which identifies the specific problem each section of HB 462 is designed to correct is contained in their folders. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT explained current state statutes direct miners to do one thing and federal statutes tell them to do something else. In Section 1, existing language allows for recording of a location after 90 days, but before the ground is staked by another locator. He pointed out federal laws no longer allow such late recording under any circumstances, so HB 462 brings that provision current with federal requirements. In Section 2, there is a clarification that if federal requirements are changed through administrative action, the requirements of AS 27.10.060 are likewise affected. He said there has been action on the federal level with statutes and the statutes have been changed not so much by law, but through administrative action. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said Section 3 deletes an out of date requirement for recording of an annual labor affidavit within six months after the close of an annual labor year. The federal law requires such affidavits to be recorded 90 days after the close of the labor year. Section 4 repeals the limitation on the size of associated placer claims. He stated this limitation is inconsistent with federal law currently. Section 5 is necessary to ensure that changes made in Section 2 take place at the same time the federal law was changed so there is not a window where there were two laws and a question about which set of laws the miners should have been following. Number 043 (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE MULDER joined the committee at 8:27 a.m.) REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked Representative Therriault to explain Section 4 again. He clarified at the present time no placer mining claim may be located in excess of 40 acres, and have a greater length than 2640 feet and that is repealed to comply with federal law. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT thought that question should be directed to Jerry Gallagher. REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked what is being discussed - federal claims on federal land or federal claims on state land. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT responded claims on federal land. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if HB 462 will eliminate inconsistencies on land which the state does not have patent to, but has selection or tentative approval. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said Representative Kott has a bill which allows the transfer from federal regulations to state regulations simultaneously when the land transfers hands. Number 065 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked when a federal change is made, does the federal government notify the miner or does the state. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT responded the federal government notifies people who have claims on their property. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said conformance is not the concern. He thought if the state has laws which are different and the federal law is changed, the federal government is in charge of making that change known to the miner, with the state not responsible for any violation. He wondered if the state accepts the federal law and are party to it, is the state subjected to liability because a miner did not conform according to federal law. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT did not feel it is an issue. He said the federal law is supreme. Number 093 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked if HB 462 only applied to mining claims on federal land. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that is correct as that is what Title 27 addresses. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked where that could be seen in the law. He wondered if Section 2 addresses changes made in federal law or federal requirements being waived in a specific case. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT gave an example. He said in the past year, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by administrative action, allowed federal miners to waive annual labor if an annual grant payment was made. He stated this section in present statute caused confusion because it says if federal laws are suspended and the question becomes is a waiver a suspension. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if the federal government changed regulations or did they use an administrative action for an exemption. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT stated it was administrative action. Number 122 JERRY GALLAGHER, DIRECTOR OF MINING, DNR, stated the department supports HB 462. He said states have traditionally adopted laws which support and give certain specificity to the federal mining law, that law which allows miners to stake federal mining claims on federal land. He pointed out there are certain overriding requirements nationally but there are specificity issues to recording documents which varies by state. There are certain business relationships which vary by state. He added that states have generally in state law provided specificity of those aspects of the law. He stressed that is what Title 27 has done. MR. GALLAGHER stated the present law goes back to 1949. No one has paid much attention to Title 27 because federal law controls. He said as the federal law has changed, inconsistencies and conflicts of law have developed and HB 462 addresses some of those inconsistencies and fixes them. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked why the state does not just use the federal law. MR. GALLAGHER responded the state may have to revisit Title 27 to keep it current, but there are specific provisions in Title 27 which are important such as the specificity about recording. He said there is specificity about how location notices are posted. Those issues are important to the state for the state's recording of them. There are a number of old provisions in Title 27 which have become out of date and need to be cleaned up. He does not advocate eliminating the provisions in Title 27 in their entirety because some of the public records and factual statements in the law about discovery are important. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the mining industry agrees with that opinion. MR. GALLAGHER said yes, but mentioned a representative from the mining industry is present to testify. Number 174 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked Mr. Gallagher to explain the change in Section 4. MR. GALLAGHER responded there was a section of federal law which applied to placer claims and association placer claims dating back 60-80 years. There was an effort by the federal government to make sure that any individual or group of individuals could not control huge amounts of land in placer districts. He said Section 4 repeals all of AS 27.10.110 which is the limit on size and he believed those limitations have been removed from federal law. This is an archaic limitation which is contained in state law and is an unnecessary piece of the statute. REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER asked if the state will need to revisit Title 27 over and over again based on potential changes made to the federal mining law. MR. GALLAGHER responded if the federal government changes the mining law of 1872 substantively, the answer is yes. He stated Section 2 says if the law is changed administratively, likewise the state law is changed. He said the federal mining law says you have to do annual labor. Last year, the Administration by administrative action said no, you have to pay a fee and if you do not want to do the annual labor, you do not have to. He stated the miners pointed out the state law says they do, unless the federal law has changed. Then the question became, is administrative action a change in the federal law or not. He pointed out that Secretary Babbitt is considering changing the federal mining law through administrative action. If those federal changes are made administratively, Section 2 incorporates those changes. Section 2 also says that if the federal mining law changes, those sections also change. He felt there is a need to revisit Title 27 occasionally to ensure it stays current. REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES said in discussing revisiting Title 27 in the future, there may be a point when it will have to be said that mining claims are not allowed on federal land in the state of Alaska. MR. GALLAGHER responded only the federal government will make that statement. Number 248 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked what the state's vested interest is in requiring affidavits and wondered if the state is requiring duplicate reports. MR. GALLAGHER replied the federal law says miners have to record an affidavit, but the state law says certain things have to be included in the affidavit such as the name, location, number of days work which was done, etc. Those specifics are important to the state because it provides consistency with some of the state's recording requirements, and added it is also important to the miners in the state because there is a framework of what is required in the affidavit. That affidavit tells the miners whether that claim is properly located and properly maintained and whether or not they can stake it. He did not feel there is any duplication. The federal law says the miner will record and the state law says what specifics need to be in the document. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON wondered if the federal government, in laying out the requirements, assumes the state will accomplish them. MR. GALLAGHER said that is correct. He did not feel the requirements are onerous or unnecessary. He added the specific recording requirements are in federal law but each state has different recording requirement and what needs to be there. Number 292 MARY NORDALE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION (AMA), stated AMA supports HB 462. She said the problem the state and the territory attempted to resolve is confusion of records. It is important for every state to have comprehensive, complete and accurate land records. In the mining industry, title, whether it is the title which arises from a mining claim or from purchase, etc., is important. There are certain things one can do and must do under federal law in order to establish a title. One of those is to record, but it is important that the state be able to require certain elements of information to be included in the document so the state builds up a comprehensive record on land ownership. She pointed out if HB 462 is reviewed, it really addresses recorded notice. The repeal on association claims is due to the federal law not allowing association claims anymore so why retain an archaic requirement in the statute which has no application. She said HB 462 is needed, it will be more efficient, and will reduce paperwork, as well as confusion on the part of the mining industry. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the Division of Mining is more akin to the Alaska Oil and Conservation Commission in operating wells which are on federal land or more akin to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's operating game back when they operated game on federal management. MR. GALLAGHER stated the Division of Mining is more akin to the Division of Oil and Gas. The Division of Mining has authority on state land for state mining claims. He said as part of the division's broader interest, they watch what happens on federal land and reiterated the section being discussed applies to federal land. MS. NORDALE stated federal law requires the location notices and affidavits of annual labor be recorded and it makes sense to have them conform to state standards. Number 352 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to MOVE HB 462 with a zero fiscal note out of committee with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|