SB 155-EXPLORATION & MINING RIGHTS; ANNUAL LABOR  3:49:27 PM CHAIR MICCICHE reconvened the meeting and announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 155, "An Act relating to exploration and mining rights; relating to annual labor requirements with respect to mining claims and related leases; relating to statements of annual labor; defining 'labor'; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR MICCICHE said SB 155 was introduced on February 5th, when the committee heard a presentation and took invited testimony. He said it was his intention to take public testimony today. 3:50:04 PM CHAD HUTCHINSON, Staff, Senate Majority Office, Juneau, Alaska, said that the purpose of SB 155 is to ensure that miners are able to produce. This bill would update the statutes to allow them to do so. The genesis of the bill starts with Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, Article VIII. He paraphrased Section 1, that resources must be developed for the maximum use consistent with the public interest. Article VIII, Section 11, relates to mineral interests and continuation of mineral interests in the state. It requires that in order to continue mineral rights, annual labor must be performed and fees, rents, royalties must be paid. He provided a brief recap of the sectional analysis of SB 155. The first three sections relate to qualifications. Sections 4 and 5 relate to mining claims, including the Meridian, Township, Range, Section, and Claim (MTRSC) system and amendments to mining claims. Sections 6-9 outline guidelines and procedures for annual labor. The definition of labor was updated in Section 10. The definition of abandonment is updated in Section 11. Section 12 clarifies transfers from an unqualified person to a qualified person with an interest in a mining claim. He said that Section 13 relates to mining claim locations, Section 14 relates to applicability, Section 15 relates to transition process, and Section 16 provides the effective date. 3:52:12 PM CHAIR MICCICHE opened public testimony on SB 155. 3:52:33 PM JAMES STEVENS, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in opposition to Section 11 of SB 155. He said he attended the hearing on February 5th and it raised some unpleasant memories of experiences he has had in his dealings with mineral exploration companies. He said that in addition to protecting the interests of the miners, the bill needs to protect the interests of Alaskan businesses that work to support mineral exploration in the state. For the past 40 years he has been a proponent of rural economic development and resource development in rural Alaska. He spoke in opposition to the deletion in Section 11, on page 9, line 2, which read, "[A STATEMENT OF ANNUAL LABOR THAT DOES NOT ACCURATELY SET OUT THE ESSENTIAL FACTS IS VOID AND OF NO EFFECT.] He said this language allows the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to declare labor null and void, even though Alaskan businesses need administrative remedies, besides legal remedies to protect themselves from unscrupulous junior mining companies. MR. STEVENS related his experience to illustrate his point. About eight or nine years ago, his family worked to support mineral exploration on some claims north of the Pebble deposit. The company his business supported amassed about $350,000 in bills under Mr. Steven's name. This included invoices from air taxis, helicopters, air freight companies, laborers and other subcontractors who were engaged and never paid. Yet, this company had the audacity to list the value of all that labor on their affidavit of annual labor. When he asked DNR to enforce that portion of existing law, the department said it did not have explicit authorization to do so. MR. STEVENS said this event has followed him for the past eight years. The companies not paid blame him, yet the mining company was able to retain its mining claims based on its disclosure that listed labor, even though it was unpaid labor. The state should address this clearly and explicitly. He suggested that the committee should add language to strengthen protections for Alaska businesses that support this vital industry. He thanked the committee for the opportunity to testify. 3:56:14 PM CHAIR MICCICHE asked him to forward his written testimony. 3:56:42 PM BRONK JORGENSEN, Trustee, 40 Mile Mining District, and Chair, Alaska Minerals Commission, Tok, Alaska, said he is a lifelong Alaskan. On behalf of the Alaska Mineral Commission, he spoke in support of SB 155 to ensure that mineral tenure laws are modernized. It was one of the priorities of the commission in 2019 and 2020. The commission's role is to recommend strategy to the legislature and governor to mitigate constraints on mineral development in Alaska. MR. JORGENSEN also offered his support for SB 155, speaking as trustee the 40 Mile Mining District. He related that many placer miners have had significant issues with annual labor reporting in what are known as fatal flaws. He characterized this as a complicated issue, one that creates great stress for placer miners, whether or not they lose their mining claims. This bill would put labor affidavit requirements clearly in statute. He related his experiences with fatal flaws, including one possible error made by the original claim owner in the early 1990s. In 2011, he also made an error and was lucky that no one over- staked his claims. He was able to re-stake his ground at a significant cost, but he did not lose his claims. Most importantly, the bill would provide authority for DNR to send notices to those with mining claims to correct clerical errors prior to receiving notices of abandonment. MR. JORGENSEN said SB 155 is of utmost importance to the 40 Mile Mining District. He urged the committee to pass the bill. 4:00:15 PM DAVID WRIGHT, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, said he and his partners are small-scale placer miners who have held many mining claims. In 2010, 2011, and 2012 two claims were auctioned to other companies. In 2013, he discovered that the affidavits of annual labor had fatal flaws for both projects. Since no one had over-staked the claims, he hired a helicopter to re-stake one claim, and he re-staked the other from the ground. This came at great expense, but it was better than losing the claims. He said he supports SB 155 because a clerical error should not be a reason to lose a claim. He agreed with [Mr. Steven's] testimony that some mechanism should also protect businesses. In closing, he said he would like to see SB 155 pass to correct the problem of clerical errors being a potential avenue to lose claims. 4:02:50 PM CHAIR MICCICHE said he would keep public testimony open on SB 155. [SB 155 was held in committee].