STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
RS 02711

Defines "federal lands rights-of-way" within the context of Revised Statute 2477 codified as 43 United States Code 932, and other access grants of interest to Idaho. The State of Idaho recognizes perpetual term of grant, method for abandonment, form of documentation, requirement for maintenance and liability, no relinquishment of ownership. Provides method for county clerks to record assertions.

FISCAL NOTE

No fiscal impact to General Fund.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE/FISCAL NOTE

H 388

BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

A JOINT MEMORIAL

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES IN CONGRESS
ASSEMBLED, AND TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION REPRESENTING THE STATE OF
IDAHO IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

We, your Memorialists, the House of Representatives and the Senate of the State of Idaho assembled in the First Regular Session of the Fifty-second Idaho Legislature, do hereby respectfully represent that:

WHEREAS, western United States territories, before and after joining the Union of States, presented unique transportation and settlement challenges with little or no governmental oversight; and

WHEREAS, the 1800's saw this western settlement occur with sometimes unorganized surges of immigrants who had no governmental authority to guide them in the establishment of roads, schools, village boundaries, township lines and related infrastructure; and

WHEREAS, economic opportunities attracted thousands of settlers who traversed the lands in search of gold and other minerals, furs and homesteads and who caused to be constructed roads, paths and trails for the common use; and

WHEREAS, Congress in 1866 amended the mining law in order to recognize legal rights-of-way for those roads, paths and trails by adding Section 2477, commonly referred to as Revised Statute 2477; and

WHEREAS, many of the surface trails for horses, dog teams and man became permanent transportation links between settlements; and

WHEREAS, the phases of exploration, settlement and transportation did occur concurrently, in intervening years, and in current times in Idaho and other western states where the Revised Statute 2477 grants are still applicable; and

WHEREAS, there is a growing threat to surface access to private "inholding" properties in some conservation units, certain national parks and wildlife designations, and in other federal land withdrawals; and

WHEREAS, there are increased efforts to pressure Congress to extinguish the Revised Statute 2477 authorization and grants.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the First Regular Session the Fifty-second Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein, that we urge Congress to recognize its legal and historic commitment, under Revised Statute 2477, to rights-of-way access to unreserved, or formerly unreserved, public lands.

31

32

33

of

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

tives

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Clerk of the House of Representabe, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, and the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States.

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SUB COMMITTEE ON

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
ADDENDUM TO TESTIMONY

BY

PETE T. CENARRUSA
SECRETARY OF STATE

STATE CAPITOL

BOISE, IDAHO

MAY 25, 1993

This is additional testimony regarding H.R. 1603 as submitted by Idaho's Organization termed "SOAR" Save our Access Rights of

Way.

"The Time Frame as listed on page 11 lines 13 & 14 is too short and unrealistic in light of the amount of work that the bill requires. To do the work that is required would probably take 10 plus years. Further, there should be provisions in the bill which would allow the states the expenditures to finance such a road study.

The publication requirement on page 12 line 12 should not be required. Submission of the claim to the proper office should be sufficient for the BLM to initiate an investigation.

In addition there is no need to have the claimant submit all the information indicated in as much as the BLM will required to make an official investigation and would have to gather the same information all over again, thus duplicating the research work.

The documentation required on page 11 line 21 to page 12 line 14 is impossible to meet in the allotted time frame. In addition the publication costs are prohibitive to the private individual or non-profit organization. Even if it was possible to meet the costs there is no assurance that the information will be accepted by those who have the authority for review, in which case all of the expenditure would be lost.

Failure to meet the required dates and submit the required information as stated on page 12 lines 15 - 22 constitutes

abandonment. Under the specified time frame this is

unacceptable. This time period should be extended several years as it is impossible to do what the bill requires in the amount of

time specified.

Recordation, page 12 line 23, should be proof of validity until such time as it is proved that the claim is not valid.

Under appeals, page 16 lines 16-20, the investigating officer has too much authority. If in the investigation this person has a bias against the claim or the claimant he can slant a report so as to make the claim invalid and thus force the claimant to make a costly appeal. Prior to a decision the claim should be heard by no less than an administrative judge before the claimant has to resort to an appeal. Additionally, we feel a judge that is elected by the people to be more appropriate in the matter of public road ways. We think this is provided for under disputes (see page 15 line 11) but not to the investigating officers determination."

Mr. VENTO. Ms. Hjelle.

STATEMENT OF BARBARA HJELLE

Ms. HJELLE. Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to be here today to testify on behalf of the Utah Association of Counties.

My experience with R.S. 2477, which is the focus of my statements today, started in 1985 and has continued through involvement in the entire Burr Trail litigation, which I am sure many of you have heard of involving a road in Garfield County in Utah.

In the course of my experiences in dealing with Garfield County and other counties in Southern Utah, the importance of these roads to rural Utah has become apparent to me.

These roads provide the infrastructure of transportation throughout the rural West and throughout rural Utah. These are the roads by which people are getting to and from work, to and from school, by which health, police, fire protection services are provided and by which all other general forms of transportation are made similar to what everyone here does everyday, driving the beltway or driving to and fro.

The fact that they may not all be paved or substantial does not render them less significant or less important to the economic and social activities of rural counties. On the contrary, they are all the more important.

I have brought with me today, and would ask that each of you take a copy of, a series of photographs that have been taken of R.S. 2477 roads in Utah. And I don't think these roads are necessarily representative of all the kinds of roads that are considered or would be impacted by this legislation. But they certainly would give you an idea of the importance of these roads.

These are roads that go to airports, that access national parks, State parks, and other important areas in the State. There are certainly less developed roads that are also important. But the word that you are getting that rural counties are out to defeat wilderness, are out to stop Federal resource protection through claiming unnecessary rights, through claiming marginal roads, has not been my experience. This has not been my observation.

Furthermore, my observation has been that the counties and other local governmental agencies that are managing these roads are acting responsibly. And if you are not getting that information, I am here to tell you that that is what I see, that counties and governmental entities that are dealing with BLM and the National Park Service have bent over backwards to accommodate the Federal agencies that are designed to protect Federal resources and the natural resources on the public lands.

So, I really have to disagree with anyone who tells you that counties are out to try to defeat wilderness, to try to make inroads into Federal lands where these roads are not already in existence and not important to the counties.

They don't have the money or the resources to do it. They are not going to get ability to do it. So they want to protect their transportation infrastructure. They want to protect roads that have already legitimately been accepted pursuant to this grant from Congress.