Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/17/1996 08:04 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 331 - POSTING OF BOND BEFORE LAND ENTRY Number 202 SARA FISHER, Legislative Aide to Representative Gene Therriault, said that HB 331 simply clarifies that the act of staking a mining claim does not require permission of the surface owner or require bonding where the surface is no longer owned by the state. This ambiguity has the potential of involving the department in resolving disputes from the mere act of staking. Hopefully, HB 331 helps to avoid these potential future costs to the department. She invited questions from committee members. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any questions of the sponsor. Hearing none, he announced the committee would hear testimony via teleconference. Number 259 JULES TILESTON, Director, Division of Mining & Water Management, Department of Natural Resources, said this legislation was introduced late in the session last year and a support of the bill analysis and a zero fiscal note had been forwarded at that time on the knowledge that this bill would come up again. The division took another look at what they said last year and that position still stands. The division's basic concern is there is a potential situation which could go back to Statehood where mining claims located on property where the state no longer holds the title might be in jeopardy by the mere fact that they did not have permission from the surface owner to go in. The division believes this is an unreasonable and untenable risk. He said, "Accordingly, we not only support the bill, but we do recommend one addition and that is the bill be effective retroactively to the date of Statehood because the basic statute was passed in the first legislature at that point in time. One other thing, posting requires a discovery; discovery does not require in all cases -- you have a D-9 digging up somebody's flower bed as an example. With our remote sensing technologies today, a lot of the discoveries are being done by such things as the aeromagnetic studies in Fairbanks. A lot of claims have been properly located on that method so we're not talking about something where private property is at risk, in my judgment." Number 335 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he understood there was a lawsuit on this issue and asked Mr. Tileston to describe the lawsuit and what the retroactivity would do to that situation. MR. TILESTON said he would give a brief overview. There was a court suit dealing with metal values associated with the AJ rock dump. There had been production and gold recovered from the rock dump prior to the individual (indisc.) to go into staking. There was a dispute between the surface owners and the individual trying to stake the claims. The Superior Court made a ruling that the staking could not take place without the consent of the landowner. It was recently held by the Supreme Court. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if it was a private landowner who had the land? MR. TILESTON replied, "Yes, it was. It was right there at Juneau." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if this bill would give permission for people to go on private land to stake mining claims? MR. TILESTON responded the state maintains full and absolute right to the subsurface minerals for any land the state has previously owned. He added that is covered under AS 38.05.125. That reservation is a absolute right for the state to go in; it does not give the absolute right to go in and damage another property and that's what AS 38.05.130 is intended to protect. This bill amends AS 38.05.130 by exempting the physical staking, which is the posting of the corners from the bonding and permission requirements. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked what kinds of things would be permitted under staking? For example, would a person be allowed to clear survey line of sight to put stakes in? MR. TILESTON replied, "No. You could do your line by simply flagging." Number 475 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "Are mineral rights for example, say a surface mine, similar to oil rights in that surface damages would have to be paid?" MR. TILESTON said that was true and added AS 38.05.130 requires the consent agreement and bonding for all surface disturbing uses associated with mining. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if it was Mr. Tileston's feeling that staking would not be sufficient disturbance to cause any damages or need to repay? MR. TILESTON affirmed that. Number 515 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked if a permit was needed to stake a mining claim? Also, wouldn't the individual have to furnish a map of the claim? MR. TILESTON responded that permission was not required to stake which is what was being discussed. He added, "If you are going to do something in the way of using mechanical equipment to actually mine, you are required to have permission for that." Number 551 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES inquired if there are other instances, apart from the AJ mine situation, where this has been a problem. MR. TILESTON responded no. Number 566 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Steven Borell to present his testimony. Number 569 STEVEN C. BORELL, P.E., Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association, Inc., testified from Anchorage that a letter of support for HB 331 could be found in committee member's packets. He noted this bill doesn't change anything. It maintains the status quo that the industry and the state has understood since Statehood in that indeed the mining claim could be staked, but no surface disturbance could take place until permission of the surface owner occurred. He said, "That's the hallmark of the past practice, of past interpretation and that's what this bill would maintain in place. It doesn't change anything at all in state practice or interpretation. To comment briefly on Representative Davies' question previously, I agree with Director Tileston that there has not, to my knowledge at least, been any other instances than the one there at the AJ rock dump. However, in your district in particular, are areas where there could very likely be, and I would suspect there will be, instances where say a small surface stake has been - say 5 acres or 10 acres - is held by a surface owner and the mining claim has been staked over a large area, and somewhere off in the middle of this large area is this 5 acre plot. Obviously, before any surface disturbing activity can take place, that individual is going to have to concur in that. But, we just believe it's unreasonable that those minerals which have been reserved by the state would be sterilized, if you will, by the requirement to have to have the permission of the surface owner just for the mere purpose of staking the claim." He invited questions from committee members. Number 677 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES agreed there were many circumstances in his district where there are even borough subdivisions on top of areas that have valid, and in some cases, patented claims. His concern is that we don't want to set up a situation of introducing unnecessary conflict. It was his understanding that the normal practice is that a person going on someone else's property would at least notify them and ask permission in a polite way, even if not technically required by law. He wondered if there shouldn't be some reasonable notice required to a property owner before a person goes on the property to avoid a situation of unnecessary conflict. MR. BORELL commented he had seen no such conflicts in the past. No one has raised that as an issue and it has not been a concern. He added, "If you will, state mining claims are 40 acres and a 4-inch by 4-inch wooden post, typically a small block of wood with a piece of rebar to drive in the ground, with a block of wood sitting on top of a piece of rebar, that forms a claim for them, so any disturbance that would be caused by an individual placing that 4- inch by 4-inch block of wood and the little aluminum plate that goes on it, I sure can't see that that's any damage." Number 790 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said his concern wasn't that damage was being caused, but rather of perceived trespass. He realized this hasn't occurred very often. He questioned why the statute was needed if there wasn't a problem. Also, if the statute was going to be changed in such a way that permits entry onto private property with no requirement of notice or permission, he was concerned about setting up a situation of trespass that could lead to hostilities. MR. BORELL noted that statutory authority is in place currently. The current need is because of the court case. The danger is that if the Supreme Court were to rule that the mining claims on the AJ rock dump were void by virtue of not having permission from the surface owner, all of a sudden throughout the Fairbanks district there would be a multitude of court cases arguing that various mining claims were void because the surface owner had not been notified. He added the problem is not with the status quo; the problem is if the state Supreme Court were to rule that those claims were void. Number 890 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he understood that, but he thought Mr. Borell was avoiding his question about reasonable notice. He asked if there was anything that would be harmful to the mining industry to require some kind of reasonable notice? MR. BORELL responded he wasn't trying to bypass the question, he just failed to address it. He said, "The situation will exist if you have to give notice to someone, a spark - a light bulb is surely going to come on and they will then have pre-notification that your personal energies and time and exploration throughout the district have shown that there might be something valuable. And if they're told there might be something valuable, they are very likely to jump out there right quick and put their own claim corners down. You would expect a prudent person to do that." Number 943 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that it's an awkward situation when the mineral rights are different from the surface rights. Number 953 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES commented that perhaps something could be worked out where the notice would prevent the private property owner from staking. He added there should be some reasonable time limits involved, but he thought there should be some way to solve that problem. He was uncomfortable with the notion that a person would expect someone to show up on their property without any notice. Number 980 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there were lines shot and surveyed when the properties were staked? MR. BORELL responded that currently they are done just by a GPS unit. He added, "You'll position them and there will not be an actual survey until such time as you go to perfect it - as you go to put your -- obviously at a later date - put your operating plan together." CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any other questions of Mr. Borell. Hearing none, he asked Mic Manns to testify. Number 1022 MIC MANNS, Representative, Paradise Valley Mines, testified from Fairbanks that Paradise Valley Mines and Rich Hughes of the Ryan Gold Mine supported HB 331. He noted there are already laws that require that before any surface disturbance by anyone on a piece of property can take place, the person doing that must acquire both bonding and insurance sufficient to pay for any damage or damages. Number 1082 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any questions of Mr. Manns. Hearing none, he announced that concluded the testimony via teleconference. Number 1096 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved a conceptual amendment to make the bill retroactive to Statehood since it appears this is the practice that has been ongoing and understood by not only the industry but also by the Division of Mining. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if that would add a Section 2 with an effective date. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that would allow for the drafters to work it in and it would probably be Section 2. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was discussion or objection to the conceptual amendment? Hearing none, the conceptual amendment was adopted. Number 1138 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed his ongoing concern about notification and requested the bill be held in committee to allow time to think about an amendment. Number 1174 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said in the interest of time remaining in this legislative session, he made a motion to pass HB 331 out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that would allow for an amendment in the Finance Committee. He asked if there was any objection? REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the motion were Representatives Austerman, Kott, Ogan, Williams and Green. Voting against the motion were Representatives Davies and Nicholia. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that CSHB 331(RES) was moved from the House Resources Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|