BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1734|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 1734
Author: Obernolte (R), et al.
Introduced:2/1/16
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/14/16
AYES: Pavley, Stone, Allen, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson,
Monning, Vidak, Wolk
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 3/28/16 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT: Mining claims: recording
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill conforms annual reporting provisions for
state and federal mining claims to avoid a conflict between
state and federal procedures.
ANALYSIS: Existing federal and state law requires the annual
disclosure of individuals involved in mining claims. The
difference between federal and state mining reporting provisions
relates to the disclosure (or not) of the individuals involved
in the mining claim, as follows:
1)Pursuant to federal mining law, a mining claimant is required
to file an annual affidavit that is recorded with the county
recorder with the mailing addresses of the individuals
involved in the claim. This changed in 2012. Prior to 2012,
the annual mining form required both the mailing and
residential addresses of those individuals.
AB 1734
Page 2
2)Pursuant to state mining law, the California version of the
annual form (which is required for claims on BLM land as well
as private lands) requires both the mailing and residential
addresses of the individuals involved in the claim to be filed
annually with the county recorder.
This bill conforms annual reporting provisions for state and
federal mining claims to avoid a conflict between state and
federal procedures.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified6/14/16)
County of Inyo
County Recorders Association of California
Rural County Representatives of California
OPPOSITION: (Verified6/14/16)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, county recorders
in California may not legally process the federal form.
Claimants may be at risk of losing their claim if the corrected
forms are not received and recorded by the prescribed deadline.
Data provided by the author from Inyo County illustrates the
issue:
According to the county, one mining claim may generate several
annual forms because a claim may have more than one individual
AB 1734
Page 3
associated with it. The actual number of active mining claims
requiring an annual notice is around 350. The total number of
documents recorded in Inyo County in 2015 is 4,376. In that
year, the county rejected 100% of Affidavit of Assessments who
mailed in their Affidavit using the approved BLM form. Because
the county mailed every miner the modified form in 2015, it
was able to mitigate rejection rates in Inyo County by
directing miners to the form posted on its website. However,
the county is not aware of how other counties are handling the
problem.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 3/28/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow,
Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos,
Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd,
Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo
Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove,
Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Medina, Melendez, Mullin,
Nazarian, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas,
Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond,
Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chang, Dahle, Eggman, McCarty, O'Donnell
Prepared by:William Craven / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116
6/22/16 17:56:42
**** END ****