Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/18/2000 03:08 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 252-STATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 252 to be up for consideration.
MR. LOEFFLER, DNR, explained that SB 252 does three things.
First, it deals with a recording problem with the existing
statute. In 1998, the statute directed DNR to record 602 trails.
The exact location of many of those trails was unknown. As a
result, DNR started to record the trails in locations where it
thought the trails might be, but that was on a wide swath of
land. When DNR notified the public it might record an
encumbrance upon their property, DNR received many objections.
SB 252 eliminates the requirement to record, except in two
places: in areas where DNR has actually surveyed and knows where
the trails are located, and on large parcels of 160 acres or
more. This will prevent DNR from recording encumbrances in
error, which occurs when DNR is not sure where a trail is.
MR. LOEFFLER said the 1998 statute requires legislative action
before DNR can assert new RS 2477 trails. SB 252 eliminates that
requirement but instead requires DNR to report its findings of
research to the legislature and to keep a report and database on
what DNR believes to be RS 2477s.
MR. LOEFFLER stated SB 252 also eliminates 12 trails from the
original list. On the basis of new information, DNR can no
longer conclude they are valid RS 2477 trails.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked who listed and catalogued the trails in
the 1998 statute.
MS. WELCH said the 602 trails listed in the statute were
catalogued by DNR as known RS 2477s at the time the law passed.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked who decided to record encumbrances on any
property within one mile of an RS 2477.
MS. WELCH answered because of the way the survey is catalogued on
the recording system, it effects title within any parcel that is
in a section. On trails that are actually surveyed, DNR can tell
exactly which lot is encumbered because of the survey location
and the encumbrance is attached to those parcels.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if property was encumbered up to one mile
away even thought the trails were evident on the ground and in
use.
MS. WELCH said that is correct. DNR did not have a survey and
staff has not been to the area around most of the trails. At
least 50 percent were historical trails without a trail bed and
were overgrown.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said it was done around the overgrown trails,
but it was also done around the obvious trails that are currently
being used.
MS. WELCH thought Chairman Halford was referring to letters that
DNR sent to 8,000 residents in the Matanuska-Susitna and
Fairbanks North Star Boroughs in June of 1999. She explained
that the Boroughs, using the trail information supplied by DNR,
gave DNR a list of lot owners that might be affected. The Mat-Su
Borough included lots that were outside of the trail.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked who created the RS 2477s as they apply to
private property.
MR. MYLES CONWAY, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
Natural Resources Section, stated that RS 2477s were created by
the federal government in conjunction with the State's acceptance
of the rights-of-way (at Statehood).
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said many people think that by providing public
notice, the State created encumbrances on their property when it
was actually created by federal law. Whether or not the
encumbrances exist is a matter of a determination; the
legislature's action primarily provided notice.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if DNR is proposing to delete 11 routes
because new research is showing they are not RS 2477s.
MR. CONWAY said that 12 routes are listed in brackets within SB
252. He noted they are listed in a more intelligent way in the
RS 2477 report to the legislature.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD encouraged committee members to review the RS
2477s in their districts. He asked a DNR representative to
address the proposed additions to that list.
MS. WELCH asked if the Chairman was referring to the report.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he was.
MS. WELCH explained that in 1999, DNR reported the RS 2477s that
it identified during the calendar year of 1998. This year DNR is
reporting those identified in calendar year 2000. DNR is
currently amending its easement regulations. A public notice
process is outlined in those regulations whereby DNR will
identify trails that have been proposed by either the public or
agencies, such as DNR or DOT. DNR will determine what trails
qualify based on the information that is brought forward.
MS. WELCH said that at the end of 1999, DNR provided public
notice on the trails it identified in 1998 and 1999 and asked for
additional factual information supporting or refuting those
trails. DNR received no factual information from the public.
Several comments were made by people who didn't like RS 2477s
crossing their properties or the management of RS 2477s. She
pointed out the report to the legislature is divided by
geographical region to make it easier to identify the trails.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he has received correspondence about the
proposed addition in Cantwell.
Number 1599
MR. LOEFFLER interrupted to say that DNR is not proposing that
the new trails be added to the bill, although DNR wouldn't oppose
that.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked Mr. Loeffler how he is proposing the
legislature deal with additions and deletions.
MR. LOEFFLER replied DNR is proposing that it retain a list of
valid RS 2477s, and that each year it report the cumulative list
to the legislature. It is only proposing deletions so that
incorrect information can be removed from the statute.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the effect will be the same thing.
MR. LOEFFLER answered it will.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that those with a conflict with an RS 2477,
be it on the statutory list or on DNR's list, really have a
conflict with potential users and that will be determined by the
court system.
MR. LOEFFLER agreed, and said to the extent that DNR could
mediate that conflict, it would be happy to do so.
SENATOR MACKIE asked what the Chairman intends to do with the
bill.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he isn't going to pass it out today, but he
wanted to get it on the table.
SENATOR GREEN asked, after this bill gets through the process,
whether DNR plans to send an additional letter to the people in
the Mat-Su Borough or whether it will provide public notice to
clarify the confusion from last summer.
MS. WELCH responded that DNR sent a follow-up letter in August to
the same mailing list stating it would not be recording those
trails unless they were surveyed.
SENATOR GREEN said she didn't think that letter brought the
relief that was needed in that particular subdivision because
those people were still waiting for the next step.
Number 1345
MR. LOEFFLER explained that in many cases there are section lines
that go through that area that were accepted as RS2477s under the
law. He is not recommending that DNR record them but he noted
the vacation process is not straightforward or easy for those
property owners. The RS 2477s do exist in the situation Senator
Green referred to whether or not DNR wants them to.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said people didn't understand that point from
the start. DNR wasn't creating RS 2477s; it was notifying
property owners of the existence or potential existence of RS
2477s that were probably created 40-60 years before these people
ever owned the property.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD suggested DNR streamline the vacation process
with regard to small parcels and organized areas with multiple
access points. He said in a case where there also may be a five-
acre parcel that crosses the Iditarod Trail, the Iditarod Trail
has an obvious prior existing right and no one has the right to
close it. That's what RS 2477s are for. That's the clear
intent. So, where there isn't alternative access, and a person
owns a piece of property, that property owner has a legal right
to the access provided by that RS 2477. When they go to court,
they will win, regardless of whether the State records or
doesn't.
MR.LOEFFLER answered "Yes, Mr. Chairman."
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said they would working on coming up with
something with regard to small parcel owners in organized areas
that relieves them of some of the worries. Everyone has to
recognize that RS2477s are competing rights and can't be taken
away without compensation, either. With no further business, he
adjourned the meeting at 4:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|