SB 180 - STATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY: RS 2477 CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to order at 3:38 p.m. and announced SB 180 to be up for consideration. He said this legislation was introduced as a result of the Committee's on-going effort with regard to what is happening with R.S. 2477. He noted that there are still questions to be answered and that they had responses from the Attorney General's Office and the Department of Natural Resources indicating they did not have any objection to a legislative assertion of the catalogue and documented 500 plus listed trails that were put together by DNR, Fairbanks. MR. BRETT HUBER, Staff to Senate Resources Committee, said revised Statute 2477 (R.S. 2477) was a right granted to the states by the United States Congress with the passage of the Mining Act of 1866. The purpose of this law was to provide for and guarantee, the public's right to establish access across federal lands. Subsequent congressional action and more than 100 years of case law has recognized the State's authority to determine and define R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. Although Congress repealed R.S. 2477 in 1976 with the adoption of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, they specifically acknowledged the legal existence of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way established prior to the repeal. Current federal regulation explicitly provides that any rights conferred by the R.S. 2477 grant shall not be diminished. He said that this important state's right issue has received a lot of legislative attention in the past. Beginning with the legislative appropriations in 1992 and 1993, which funded the research and compilation of historical information regarding R.S. 2477, the legislature has taken the lead in moving this issue forward. In undertaking those legislatively designated projects, the DNR reviewed some potential R.S. 2477 routes. This DNR review resulted in the identification of 582 rights-of-way that appear to qualify and can be supported with appropriate documentation. These 582 routes are published in the Historical Trails catalogue and incorporated into the State land administration system (LAS). Last year the legislature passed SJR 18 with broad support. It reiterated the legislature's position and made clear the objection to the United States Department of the Interior's proposed policy which would drastically reduce the State's opportunity to resolve these issues in our favor. Information that came forward during the committee process on SJR 13, as well as the during the joint Senate and House Committee's overview last February, supports the action proposed in SB 180 which codifies 582 documented R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. It requires them to be recorded and provides a process for and limitation to their vacation. While the R.S. 2477 rights-of-way codified in SB 180 have already been accepted by public users and deemed supportable by the State, it is likely the federal government will dispute the State's ownership on some or all of these routes. Although the current federal administration is attempting to limit the State's rights regarding R.S. 2477 rights-of-way, over 100 years of case law recognizes the State law as controlling on the issue. Therefore, codifying these rights in statute will strengthen the State's position for possible subsequent litigation and provide the affected land owners and the general public clear notification that these R.S. 2477 rights-of- way do exist and are available for use. SB 180 simply says that these are rights-of-way and are available for use. They are an existing State right that we should not allow to be regulated away. This legislation doesn't create a new state right. It merely statutorily asserts the rights we already have. SENATOR LEMAN asked if there was any chance that in asserting these rights we diminish any potential rights that we may have to others that we currently can't document, but might be able to in the future. MR. HUBER replied that the bill specifically drafted that we're accepting all rights-of-way granted under 43 USC 932. Section one of the bill says that failure to include or identify a right-of-way under (d) of the section does not relinquish any right, title, or interest the State has in a right-of-way. The direction of the bill is that the DNR continue to establish, document, and research other routes and bring those forward in an annual report to the legislature and then determine whether they would legislatively assert the new routes that are identified. Number 110 SENATOR LINCOLN asked (on page 2, line 4) what it means that the trail has been accepted by public users. MR. HUBER answered that no actual government action was required to accept an R.S. 2477 that was granted under the old mining act. They could be accepted by a governmental action by a State or a subdivision of the State, but they could also be accepted just because they are or were used. That's what's meant by public use. SENATOR LINCOLN said there was an old postal dog sled trail between Rampart and Manly that her uncles established and no one officially said that was the route that would be taken to connect the two. She asked if that was what they meant by a U.S. postal route. CHAIRMAN HALFORD answered that if it was a documented U.S. mail route, it was specifically included in the federal legislation and that is exactly what they meant when they passed R.S. 2477. He understands from the people in Fairbanks that a lot of information came out of the U.S. postal records. MR. HUBER added that he understood if it was another postal route, where needed, people ought to be able to cross federal land, if it wasn't previously reserved for another use. A trail that a family or a group of families had used for a dog sled route from one point to another that crossed a federal trail could also qualify as an R.S. 2477. It didn't have to be a postal route. That was just one of the records they used to substantiate some of the routes in question. CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that this deals with the existence of the list of trails and not the scope or uses of the listed trails. He thought there was legitimate concern as to what happens in those decisions, but those are more in-state decisions and less apt to be precluded by not doing anything in dealing with the federal government. Number 217 CHAIRMAN HALFORD said last year he was told that the administration was opposing the January 97 Babbit policy and asked if there has been any progress in that effort. MS. ELIZABETH BERRY, Assistant Attorney General, answered that Congress has continued the moratorium against the federal government in adopting any sort of regulations and, in fact, made the moratorium permanent so that Department of Interior cannot proceed with really changing the rules. She filed a memorandum objecting to the policy the Secretary proposed to change and there has been no further developments that she is aware of. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked for the status of the assertions the Outdoor Council started last year. MS. JANE ANGVIK, Director, Division of Land, said she had not done additional projects from the Outdoor Council. They are still working on updating their research so they can certify additional routes. Out of the 1,700 potential cases there are several in the category of "holding" where additional evaluation of data would allow DNR to strengthen the record so they can actually certify 23 additional routes that had previously not been identified. Nancy Welsh and Jennie Chapmen have been doing that work for the past 6 - 8 months. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if she would be comfortable if those routes were added to this bill. MS. ANGVIK said she would refer that answer to Nancy Welsh, but one of the concerns she has with this bill is the recording of these routes means that any private land owner would have a cloud on their title and DNR wouldn't be able to certify that where they have placed the title is actually where the route is located without field work. She did not think recording would provide him with the level of protection he hoped to achieve. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if there isn't already a cloud on the title if there is an R.S. 2477 on the property and, if someone is really trying to sell a piece of property that has an R.S. 2477 on it without informing the buyer, is it not a violation of State law and all the real estate transaction regulations that we currently have? MS. ANGVIK responded that if they have a surveyed route and know exactly where it is, it would be appropriate to identify that in a recording. However, the cloud problem is that they don't know precisely where the trail is located until they have had a chance to survey it. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he understood her concern, but he thought that someone who is thinking about buying a piece of property that has a potential R.S. 2477 on it should at least know about it. The "cloud" on the title would be just another disclaimer in a title insurance policy just as we see now. There would be a statement that there is an asserted or in some way recorded R.S. 2477 passing through the property and the buyer should note where it is and satisfy himself that he's not adversely affected. He thought that notice would be something we owe everybody. MS. ANGVIK responded that we are not in a position to be able to say where it is located, however, until they have actually conducted the survey on the ground. CHAIRMAN HALFORD agreed with her concern, but this is exactly the way some of the disclaimers title companies are written. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the State had done anything on litigating any of the R.S. 2477 claims since last year. MR. MILES CONWAY, Assistant Attorney General, answered that a lawsuit has been filed on the Harrison/Portage Creek Trail in the Circle Mining District. They are in federal court in that case right now and have done substantial work with experts and in the field. He anticipates going to trial sometime before the end of the year. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how long was the trail he is talking about. MR. CONWAY answered that it's 26 miles and goes from the old Miller Road House on the Steese Highway and connects to Circle Hot Springs. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how much they have spent on it so far. MR. CONWAY answered that they have spent about $30,000 on experts and he is in the process of putting together another budget. Before it's over he thought they would need another $50,000 for experts and he thought they needed it sooner rather than later. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if that included Department of Law. MR. CONWAY replied no, this is money being spent on outside department experts. MS. BERRY said that costs from within the Department ran about $50,000 to $60,000 for the whole R.S. 2477 issue. She explained that there are four other cases. The Chickaloon Road Case, a condemnation action filed in federal court, is one and their argument is that we don't have to pay for the condemnation, because the road is already ours as an R.S. 2477. They are also drafting an amicus brief to file on the U.S. Supreme Court on the Chilts case. They have also given their 180-day notice of intention to sue in the Jualin Mine Road case, an old mining tramway out of Berners Bay. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked her to give the committee the status of the Knik case. MS. BERRY answered to the best of her knowledge, that case has been up to the State Supreme Court and been sent back down to the Superior Court for a determination of the width of the right-of- way. The Superior Court determined it was a 100 ft. right-of-way. The parties have appealed again to the State Supreme Court. Their notice of appeal challenges the existence of the right-of-way again which should be easily dispensed with. The real issue here should be the proper width to establish for that right-of-way. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if this is a case in State Court where someone is accessing property on an R.S. 2477 that crosses owned by another individual. MS. PERRY answered yes. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what the State's position was. MS. BERRY answered the State is supporting the existence of a 100 ft. right-of-way. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the private property owner is contending there is no right-of-way or a narrower right-of-way. MS. BERRY replied they are contending there is no right-of-way. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the Supreme Court held that there is a right-of-way. MS.BERRY answered that the Supreme Court held that it does exist. Number 400 SENATOR SHARP asked if the federal government had denied this is a trail that has been in use for many years, because he knows that many people have driven that road in two wheel drive pickups. He wanted to know why it was so difficult to prove that it exists. MR. CONWAY explained that the federal government is contesting the existence of that right-of-way and is asserting there is no road. They do not contest that portions on either end of the right-of-way had some use, but they do contest the middle section in the Steese Conservation Area was ever a right-of-way. He said the State has learned of a number of people who have driven on this right-of-way and intends to offer them all as witnesses at the trial. They have taken a field visit out there and it's difficult, because a portion of the road way they are contesting is in the middle of the creek and it appears to wash out numerous times every year and there isn't much of a right-of-way to see in a number of spots. He agreed that there was a trail there, but it's difficult to define because of the proximity to the river. The location of the right- of-way changed every season as the mining activity changed. There is also an issue of abandonment and the statute of limitations. It presents some challenging issues with respect to federal mining claims and the extent to which the federal government retains an interest in federal mining claims. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said listening to the dollar amounts, it sounds like we have already spent $100,000 to argue with the federal government over a right-of-way that's a driveable road, and if we have 582 in this category and $100,000 for each one and three years of court time each, he didn't think we would get many R.S. 2477s if that's the only approach we take. That's what why he introduced this legislation. Number 438 MR. RON ARNO, Alaska Outdoor Council, said they very strongly supported SB 180. Legal public access on and across federal lands plus potential access across private land is of utmost importance to the membership. Assertion of identified public R.S. 2477 rights-of-way could potentially become necessary for Alaskans to continue their traditional pre-1976 activities of hunting, fishing, trapping, portaging, skiing, wood gathering, berry picking, etc. Eliminating the R.S. 2477s could lock out development to mining, recreational use, and transportation corridors. Because land ownership changes created by ANCSA and ANILCA have caused numerous conflicts between private land owners and individuals legally accessing public lands and waters, the establishment of R.S. 2477s could eliminate conflicts in the future. MR. NELSON ANGAPAK, Alaska Federation of Natives, said that any time an assertion is used to identify an access across ANCSA lands, that assures a cloud on the title which will eventually be conveyed to the native corporations. When Congress passed ANCSA in 1971, natives were promised quick settlement of their claims and to date not a whole lot of selected lands have been patented. As long as those lands remain in the control of the federal government, they remain, by defacto, federal lands. They are also concerned with page 2 which says, " failure to include or identify a right-of-way under (d) of this section does not relinquish any right, title or interests the State has in a right-of-way." There will always be a possibility of that claim being raised in the future. The writers of ANCSA recognized that there are prior existing rights on the lands that would eventually be conveyed to the native corporations and, therefore, included the 17 (b) easement process. This process was established to identify access across and into native lands and into adjacent federal lands. In 1977, federal courts ruled that those easements that were jointly identified by the native corporations and BLM, and the State of Alaska should use that process to have access identified across native lands. As far as ANCSA lands are concerned, the proper way to identify access across lands is to use 17 (b). Number 575 SENATOR LEMAN commented that he didn't think the legislature's efforts in SB 180 and his preference for 17 (b) were mutually exclusive. He thought the two could work together. When he and Ms. Berry, Department of Law, testified before Congress, she said, "If access across native-owned and other private lands is determined to be necessary through a process involving public review, right-of-way authority other than the application of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way will be utilized if available." MR. ANGAPAK responded that their preference is still 17 (b) because they are already on record as being recorded. He suggested the Committee consider a process to be used to abandon unused access routes, and in particular, on the lands that are conveyed to the native corporations. MS. KIRSTEN SHELTON, Alaska Outdoor Voice, opposed SB 180. This bill will not achieve any meaningful public policy benefit, but invites further gridlock between the State and federal government and private land owners. A blanket acceptance of rights-of-way denies the reality that any and all R.S. 2477s can only be adjudicated in a court of law where claimants must establish, at least in the case of federal and private lands, to the court's satisfaction the factual basis for a claim. Passing SB 180 does not satisfy the requirement of proof and cannot supplant a judicial review. TAPE 98-8, SIDE B Number 578 A great many assertions would have a profound effect on adjacent land holders. This includes many native corporations and other private land owners who look to the integrity of their lands for the protection of important subsistence habitat as well as economic development consistent with local goals. SENATOR LEMAN asked if it wouldn't be advantageous to the public and land owners to have documented in some way that there is a reasonable basis for the assertion of R.S. 2477 claims. MS. SHELTON asked if he meant other than the Historical Trails data base. SENATOR LEMAN said yes. MS. SHELTON said that she didn't think the data base did what they wanted. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that she was right; asserting them is not the final step. But if we are talking about what would happen spending $100,000 on a road and spending years doing it, we will never get solutions to these things if we don't take any kind of action at all. If he was a potential buyer of a piece of property that had an old wagon road going through it and the person trying to sell it to him said it was just a road out to the dump, he would want to know if that was an R.S. 2477 and that his house and shed were on opposite sides of it. If it had been thoroughly researched, he would want the title to be clouded so that he would at least know about it. MS. SHELTON agreed that you would want to know that, but the only way to find out for sure is to go through the court system. It could always be challenged, otherwise. MR. DON SHERWOOD, President, Alaska Boating Association, supported SB 180. It would allow various user groups to travel to various destinations throughout connecting trailheads and allow access to back country areas without conflict to others. The State is taking an aggressive approach in defending the rights of the public. As property is sold in more populated areas, the right to use traditional existing trail heads and trails to the back country are being sold along with the land without regard to existing access routes, like the Big Lake Snow Machine Trail system where there are major reroutings around those areas. MR. KEN FREEMAN, Executive Director, Resources Development Council (RDC), supported SB 180. He said that assuring access to provide for transportation and resource development opportunities is a top priority of RDC. They have long supported actions to designate and settle historic R.S. 2477 rights-of-way across public lands in Alaska while respecting private property rights. Given the fact that close to 60 percent of the State is federal land, access across public land is vital to Alaska's continuing development. Number 509 MR. HAROLD GILLAM, Fairbanks, approved of SB 180 and suggested on page 2, line 7 to change "state" to "public." R.S. 2477s guarantee an access and are vital to native corporations because access is the only way their lands will ever be developed. He thought DNR was trying to make this process overly complicated by saying all the rights-of-way have to be identified on the ground. Every patent that the federal government has ever issued was for small tract lands or homesteads and subjected those lands to a floating right -of-way for telegraphs, lines, pipelines, and railroads. He asked why suits were filed in federal court when the case law has almost always been that the State court is the adjudicator of an R.S. 2477. Many definitions and laws establishing rights-of-way are in territorial law and should be looked at like it was passed by the federal government. The roads don't really need to be surveyed because the lands can be subject to floating easements. BLM has always stated on all the plats that these lands that are being transferred may be subject to an R.S. 2477. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he also has asked why we filed in federal court and not State court on the upper Knik/Harrison Creek. MS. BERRY explained that the Knik Glacier Trail came into State court and the Harrison Creek case is in federal court because it's against the federal government and you can't sue the federal government in State court. The federal government has not waived its sovereign immunity to be sued in state court. MR. GILLAM asked if these are rights that were granted to the State and the public by the federal government, why are we suing the federal government? Why not let the federal government sue us? CHAIRMAN HALFORD responded that that's what he's trying to do with this kind of legislation. MS. MARY NORDALE, Chairman, Alaska Miners Association (AMA), said she endorsed a letter from the AMA supporting SB 180. She emphasized support in the letter which dealt with the creation of regulations establishing the procedural steps required to vacate rights-of-way. Also, as an attorney representing a client involved in a Sue Allen Mines Trail case, she is concerned that the attitude she saw in Washington D.C. demonstrated by the Department of Interior is that the federal government will not exercise any affirmative initiative with respect to our R.S. 2477s. The burden is on the State and public. In her case, she is representing a mining company that is suing on behalf of the public to establish a route over federal lands. MS. RACHEL MORELAND, Alaska Forest Association, supported SB 180. They anticipate the Federal Government's attitude won't change in the future. SB 180 is a timely and necessary step in the preservation of Alaska's R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. It sends a clear message that they are open and available for use. It also sends a clear message that Alaskans will not sit idly by while their rights-of-way are stolen. Number 414 MR. JESS LANMAN, Palmer resident, said he is on the tribal council of the Chickaloon Tribe. He thanked everyone for attempting to deal with this very difficult problem. He said it is important to take the time to recognize the many natural resources we enjoy here in Alaska and look at them in a responsible way. He thought that there were good intentions behind SB 180, but there were several trails that go through their lands and each one of them has different details. He thought it was a case by case issue. Some of the trails that are named have the wrong names and some same trails have different names while in fact they are the same trails. He said the Village of Chickaloon would be very happy to work with DNR on the rights-of-way. MR. CRAIG PUDDICOMBE said he is involved with the Knik Glacier R.S. 2477. He guaranteed that SB 180 was not going to be a fix-all. He said that there were a lot of false statements in the sponsor statement which talks a lot about federal lands, but doesn't mention state land or private property. It also states that not all R.S. 2477s are going to be 100 ft. wide. In the definition of an R.S. 2477, the word "highway" is there; and according to Alaska State statute, because the word "highway" is there, it calls for a 100 ft. right-of-way, period. That's what they have asserted on his property and that's what they will assert on all R.S. 2477s. He did agree with the vacation of rights-of-way, but he thought they should add to the intent section if all present users are not satisfied, the DNR will make the final determination. The reason is that in his case the DNR had a decision come down October 25, 1995 saying there was no R.S. 2477 across his property. The defendants, even though they had an alternate route, simply said they weren't satisfied. He said someone has to make the final determination. CHAIRMAN HALFORD explained that the final section of the bill is intended to provide some process by which a decision is made where there is clearly an R.S. 2477 and where it is not necessary because it's duplicated by a 17 (b) easement, by a developed road or something else. Number 288 MS. MIKE DALTON said that the Portage Creek/Harrison Creek Trail is one of 11 the State has noticed the federal government on and will set a precedent when it is won. There are many others on the list of 585 that meet the same standards and criteria though will not theoretically have to be litigated. She said that on native lands people use the 17 (b) easement as an easy answer to access native lands, but it is applicable only at the time of conveyance. It's not floating out there for the next 50 years. The vast acreages that are owned by the native corporations and private owners in the State of Alaska are not adjacent. They are scattered all over the State. R.S. 2477s are very important for access to all of them. CHAIRMAN HALFORD thanked her for her comments and her multi-year efforts in advocating for R.S. 2477s. SENATOR TAYLOR noted that he didn't find either the Unuk Trail or the Stikine River Wagon Road on the list of 585 and asked why. MS. DALTON replied that the Stikine River didn't meet the basic research criteria of the Department. She noted that the Unuk Road was R.S. 20014. MR. ROGER BURGGRAF said he is a miner and outdoors man and has used many R.S. 2477 trails to obtain access to mining claims and for other outdoor work. He supported SB 180 as a step in the right direction. We need to do something to protect our rights to access. Number 162 MR. KEVIN MOORE, private land owner, opposed SB 180 because he is one of the land owners who is affected by the Wolverine R.S. 2477 which is also his driveway. He would like to see an alternate route. CHAIRMAN HALFORD explained that SB 180 just gets the R.S. 2477 recorded. He suggested that Mr. Moore look at the provisions under vacation rights-of-way once he knows what he's dealing with. He has the option of going to the DNR and doing an alternative access. MR. MOORE responded that the only problem with that is that he has watched the PUDDICOMBE Case and it didn't work for him, and he saw that as just setting a precedent against him. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said it might be better to acknowledge the existence of a right-of-way and go through the process of vacating it, if there's alternative access. He asked if there were other public accesses to the Wolverine Lake he was talking about. MR. MOORE replied there was one going in at the northwest end of the Lake. MR. ROY BURKHART, Alaska State Snow Machine Association and Mat-Su Motor Mushers, supported SB 180, but thought there should be companion legislation. If there are any trails that go through private property, the private property owner should be held harmless for any liability. CHAIRMAN HALFORD responded that there is a proposed amendment that deals with liability on R.S. 2477s and other trails. MR. DICK BISHOP, speaking on his own behalf, supported SB 180 because it takes a long step forward in addressing the public's interests and concerns with public access on public and potentially private lands. He said 17 (b) easements had not been adequately addressed by the State. He thought the burden of proof should be on the federal government. MR. KARL HANNEMAN, member of the Alaska Minerals Commission, supported SB 180. Because these are documented public use rights- of-way, we need to respect the land owners where they cross. TAPE 98-9, SIDE A Number 001 MR. MARK STREDNY supported SB 180. MS. PAM LABOLLE, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, supported SB 180. She said they have had a resolution on the subject of R.S. 2477s for many years. They are pleased the State is doing something proactive on this. She hoped they would do a lot of work with private land owners to make sure their rights are being protected. MR. GEORGE STRUTHERS, Engineering Manager, Mat-Su Borough, supported SB 180. He suggested on page 1, line 11 to insert, "or a municipal corporation with transportation powers" after "public facilities." This would allow DNR to transfer R.S. 2477s rights- of-way to local governments that have road powers so the road can be built and be maintained by the local governments. Number 85 MS. PATRICIA WADE asked if the committee was aware that the President of the United States decreed that the State Legislature will work together with the tribes on a government to government basis. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he was aware that there are a number of provisions in the Indian Self-determination Act and actions by Congress that try to encourage interaction with tribal entities and local governments and he also was aware that there are conflicts in State law and State Supreme Court opinions on doing some of those things and they try to work around them the best they can. MS. WADE asked if he had contacted any of the tribes in regards to these trails. CHAIRMAN HALFORD answered that they hadn't and that this was a list put together by DNR in an extensive project that had been occurring over the last two or three years. The list is based on essentially prior use that was documented, not on any activity by any individual. It is thought by many that it will be to the advantage of Alaskans, both native and non-native. MS. WADE said that sacred burial grounds were sold by the State into private ownership and now they don't have access to them. She said she didn't like SB 180 and asked if he could comment on the graves in Sutton and how that might be linked to it. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he didn't know the answer to that. He asked if there were more questions and there were none. SENATOR TAYLOR said it's his understanding that use of a public right-of-way by the public does not entitle those public users to a cause of action against the underlying fee owner of the property. If that's a true statement like he believes, there should be no cases out there where someone has been sued on a public right-of- way. If there are no cases out there that would indicate that people are being subjected to this type of litigation, this (amendment) is a useless gesture. He also pointed out a typographical error in the amendment saying that instead of "conversation" it should be "conservation." He thought the bill was about easements and rights-of-way and that the amendment goes much beyond that. CHAIRMAN HALFORD added that part of it was a request by DNR and the other parts were concerns over a floating easement without a determination of location. He personally believes if you have the right to use someone else's property and have no obligation to compensate them for that use, you shouldn't have the right to sue them for anything to do with that use. This was the subject of the first legislation he worked on in 1979 which had broad support from private land owners and native corporations because they had a huge amount of land and no way to control trespass, and didn't want to be liable for someone who was trespassing on their land getting hurt. SENATOR TAYLOR said he was concerned that private land owners can't put up a cable across a paths so that someone comes flying along and it takes their head off. He said people like that have been found liable for erecting those types of gates. He doesn't have a problem with that. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that DNR's concern was conservation easements. He asked if there were further questions and there were none. He thanked everyone for their testimony and adjourned the meeting at 5:27 p.m.