Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 124
01/24/2007 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB87 | |
| HB25 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 25 - RECREATIONAL LAND USE LIABILITY/ADV. POSS 2:03:58 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 25, "An Act relating to landowners' immunity for allowing use of land without charge for a recreational activity; relating to landowners' liability where landowner conduct involves gross negligence or reckless or intentional misconduct; relating to claims of adverse possession and prescriptive easements, or similar claims; and providing for an effective date." 2:04:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, sponsor of HB 25, explained that the intent of HB 25 is to provide landowners comfort in allowing free public use of their land for recreation without fear of being sued should someone get hurt. The aforementioned is achieved by raising the standard of care that a landowner owes for allowing someone to use their land. The bill provides immunity from suit unless there is gross negligence, intentional misconduct, or reckless endangerment. The bill also provides that permission does not have to be explicit - if a landowner does not prevent somebody from using his/her land, then the landowner is implicitly letting them use it for free for recreation. However, running barbed wire across a trail would not give a landowner immunity under this bill. Representative Seaton noted that Alaska has handled immunity for recreational uses through trail easements, which are limited to 50 feet wide. He pointed out that landowners have no immunity if easements are over 50 feet wide. He further pointed out that such easements have to be picked up by the state or municipal government. However, state and municipal governments are reticent to acquire easements because of surveying costs and other things. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON emphasized that HB 25 pertains only to free public use. This bill does not cover those who charge a fee. There is an Alaska statute that gives some protections to people operating commercial land uses like ski slopes. This bill does not cover the aforementioned group or municipalities or governments. He stressed that HB 25 also protects landowners from adverse possession or prescriptive easement claims by someone using the property for recreation. 2:09:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that material in the committee's packet provides a breakdown of what is happening in other states in this regard and shows that HB 25 is consistent with practices in many other states. He informed the committee that the House Resources Standing Committee considered and passed an identical bill last year and that the bill was unanimously passed by the House of Representatives. 2:10:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if Representative Seaton was satisfied that the language on page 1, line 9, covers the entire range of protections that is being sought. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON affirmed that he thought it did, in particular because of the reference to indirect permission. 2:11:38 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired about cases in which a landowner posts his/her land against trespassing, yet someone trespasses and is hurt. Under existing statutes, could the homeowner be sued, he asked. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that the legal liability is very murky. There is a statute that allows for unimproved land, but the question is what constitutes unimproved land. Under existing law and HB 25 [a landowner] can be sued. However, statutorily under HB 25 a suit would have to be for gross negligence, reckless, or intentional conduct rather than simple negligence. 2:13:20 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO asked if it is considered charging [a fee] when a landowner collects a fee for someone to come onto the land to pick potatoes or cut firewood. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2, line 22, and pointed out that Representative Gatto's example would not give the landowner immunity because it wasn't for free recreational use of the private land. In further response to Co-Chair Gatto, Representative Seaton confirmed that HB 25 deals solely with recreational use and raising the standard under which a suit could take place and be effective. A commercial venture on one's land is covered by totally different statutes. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced his intention to move HB 25 from committee. 2:16:22 PM DAVE BRANN, Kachemak Nordic Ski Club, reported that in his 30 years of experience as a volunteer constructing and maintaining ski trails, the biggest deterrent to recreational trail development has been reluctance of private landowners to have trails cross their property due to liability concerns. Mr. Brann related support for HB 25 because of its simplicity and clarity to encourage private landowners to allow recreational use. Mr. Brann concluded by encouraging the committee to support and report out HB 25. 2:18:33 PM KARYN NOYES, Conservation Director, Kachemak Heritage Land Trust, expressed strong support for HB 25. Kachemak Heritage Land Trust works on trail and public access issues across the Kenai Peninsula. Private landowners are often concerned about liability in allowing the public to access their land and yet these landowners do support trail development and use. By decreasing liability to landowners, a more comprehensive trail network can be created and this will enhance recreational opportunities for both visitors and residents. 2:19:23 PM LINDSAY WINKLER, Homer Soil & Water Conservation District, Alaska Association of Conservation Districts, related her organization's support for HB 25. All 11 districts in the Alaska Association of Conservation Districts - from Delta down to Kodiak - supported last year's [identical] bill. The association's support is driven by the clarity the bill provides to landowners and the standard language that is used across the country, she said. Furthermore, the bill specifically states that this informal, noncommercial use does not constitute a basis for prescriptive easement against a landowner. 2:20:37 PM JACK MOSBY, Alaska Trails, pointed out that Alaska Trails, an all-volunteer group, conducted numerous trails training classes throughout the state. The number one issue raised in all of those classes was liability, he related. The organization wholeheartedly supports passage of HB 25, he said. 2:21:30 PM RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing Association, affirmed his organization's support of HB 25. He then asked if the definition of "recreational activity" would include personal uses. He then related a situation on the Kenai River in which there is commercial and private ownership that would like to provide access to various users. He asked if HB 25 would cover this situation. In response to Co-Chair Johnson, he agreed to discuss the matter with the sponsor. 2:23:30 PM ANNE MARIE HOLEN, Assistant to the City Manager, City of Homer, testified on behalf of Homer's City Manager who was attending other meetings. She related that in 2006 the Homer City Council strongly endorsed last year's [identical] bill. Outdoor recreation is an important part of Homer's identity and local economy. Ms. Holen noted that HB 25 addresses the concerns of landowners who support trails but are nervous about liability. It provides protection for well-meaning landowners without offering protection to those who are reckless or grossly negligent. From the City of Homer's perspective, HB 25 is a common sense solution for everyone involved. 2:24:43 PM JULIE ENGEBRETSEN supported HB 25 as a way for property owners to allow recreation on their lands without undue liability. The Kenai Peninsula Borough does not have trails powers and cannot accept trail easements. In unincorporated areas, the state is the only entity that can accept easements and this is a cumbersome process that takes time and money. She remarked that it is important to protect Alaskans' quality of life and it is reasonable for the state to provide protections for property owners that allow for recreational use. 2:25:50 PM MILLIE MARTIN said she concurred with all that had been said before her. She advised that a resolution supporting HB 25 will soon be coming before the Kenai Borough Assembly. She related that she is one of the private property owners who wants to designate ski trails across her land. The current statutory provisions, she opined, do not provide adequate protection as it only provides tort immunity if the land is unimproved. She referred to litigation in which the University of Alaska was denied immunity for a sledding hill on its property. 2:27:28 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO ascertained that the university ruling was because the court considered the sledding hill improved property. MS. MARTIN said that was correct. Therefore, she surmised that the court would consider any kind of an improved ski trail an improvement and thus she appreciated HB 25. 2:28:21 PM ROBERTA HIGHLAND noted her strong support for HB 25. She explained that she and her husband allow people to use trails on their land and this bill would relieve concerns about litigation. 2:28:51 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON closed public testimony. 2:29:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES informed the committee that he has a conflict of interest because he owns some recreational property in Kachemak Bay. There being no objection, Representative Roses would be required to vote. 2:30:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report HB 25 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 25 was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|