H.B. 536 Criminal Conduct on Public Lands Amendments: transcript

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, vice chair and committee members. This is a honor to be here with you today. So this bill is, uh, I think a pretty straightforward one. I won't go into the details of the, the campaign on vandalism and destruction of our Indian art and, you know, valuable anti antiquities, uh, throughout the state. That levels kinda going up each year. And, uh, and you've seen the reports. It is like almost every month there's a port of a big mural or something that's, uh, been destroyed. And the extent in which people will go to de destroy these, uh, artifacts is, uh, incredible. You know, they go in with the power tools, actually cut out the rock mantle that they want to, uh, uh, take and, uh, you know, sell it on the open market. And there's very little, um, pushback to it. And we almost need a culture of integrity that's instilled within our, uh, citizens and nowhere stronger is that, uh, important for our southern Utah, uh, red canyons areas. But you know, that problem, and this is a complex issue, and this is just one point on that, and we'll need to move it the second sub, or actually first sub. Yeah. First sub. Yeah. With it at some point, if you Yeah, when we get to, to action, we'll do that.

Right? Yes, Uhhuh.

Okay, thank you. And so what that does basically is it creates a public land restoration, uh, fund. And I'm gonna just introduce the deputy chief of DNR and law enforcement. Wyatt Ock, or Bobank pronounced Bobank. Ock. Ock, yeah, I was gonna say, part of the country I live in is boo bag. Boo bag. Anyway, uh, he's here to also add some testimony and, and guidance, uh, too. Hey, go ahead, Wyatt.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair Members committee. Uh, deputy Chief Wyatt Ock, DNR law enforcement. This isn't necessarily a DNR law enforcement bill, although we've worked with, uh, the historical preservation office on some of these goals. And so, uh, just a quick summary. Over the past handful of years, there's been a, a couple initiatives put together to kind of help protect these antiquities and other, uh, historical items across the state. Uh, recently the archeological anti vandalism campaign, you have the Utah Cultural Stewardship Camp, uh, program. And then this is just another step that takes it one, an additional step to help preserve some of these cultural sites. So right now, um, in code, it does say that, uh, fines can be ordered to restore the site that was damaged. However, code isn't necessarily super clear on where that money goes, and it doesn't necessarily guarantee that it goes back to the resource in which it was intended to protect. And so what this bill does is, uh, it, it structures a, a funding mechanism similar to our help stop poaching program in, in DNR that ensures that that money that's ordered for restitutions or fines for restoration, that it goes into a specific fund that is then insured and has statutory mandates as to what that can be spent on, to ensure that it, uh, it goes back to the resources. It's an intended to protect. Uh, currently, if vandalism of this sort occurs on private property within the state, um, if it's desired to be restored by the private property owner, there's no funding source that allows them to, uh, restore that without them doing it with their own funds. Uh, this would help ensure that if there is restitutions or fines ordered, that those various landowners, whether it's a state park, uh, a different government agency, a private landowner can work with, uh, the historical preservation office to, uh, get funds to restore those, uh, antiquities if, if they're restorable on a private landscape or a public landscape. And then it also, uh, allows for them to, uh, run a more public, uh, reporting campaign associated with rewards, much like our help stock poaching program does in DNR and offers some potential rewards to those people that take the step to report, uh, some of these archeological and historical site vandalisms.

Yes. I think that will conclude it. That was pretty clear.

Yeah. Yes. Uh, it is the, it goes into the, the repair of that, uh, damaged property. In addition, it, uh, it kind of stipulates here, the goal is to keep it oriented in the park or the area that it was damaged. So, you know, so it doesn't get transferred from one national park to another, you know, those funds are specifically for that, uh, area or the, ideally the park it came from.

Ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, uh, your, your bill, uh, uh, uh, says natural or archeological, uh, places. What about, and, but, uh, uh, deputy Wyatt, um, mentioned historical, and that was what my question was. Would historical if, uh, sebe included in, in this, or do we have to have something separate for that?

Yeah, no archeological sites are in included in this. No, I, historical, I may have said I meant historical or historical sites.

Well, historical would also apply to,

Thank you. No, private land is separate, and this is designed to work with the, you know, private, uh, property owners, you know, so they can get some of that restitution money as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of quick questions, if I may. Um, go ahead. Is a hundred percent of the fine going into this new fund? And, and what do those fines look like and what's the sliding scale? I, I imagine it may be a sliding scale depending on the severity of the, of the crime, but just out of curiosity, where is that defined?

Well, I think the, uh, the fines or the amounts, I, I'm not aware of those amounts, you know, uh, specifically, but you could maybe comment.

Yeah. So, uh, again, deputy Chief Ock, um, so the fines if ordered by the court that fall under certain subsections of that code, if they are ordered for the restitution of the land, or excuse me, uh, restoration of the land or restitution associated with the violation, then all that would go into a fixed fund that would then be used for, I think there's like three or four, maybe five allowances under this bill that would allow those funds to be used for the various types of things. As far as the cost of them, in talking with, uh, representatives from Shippo, uh, they said they have, uh, vandalism that maybe a couple hundred dollars up to 10 or $15,000. And so it, it varies pretty widely based on the extent of the damage and the age of the art or whatever it may be, uh, that was damaged in the vandalism.

Do you have any historical information on how much has been collected in the past

On that? I don't ship mite. Um, the one example, they said that there's some rock art in American Fort Canyon that, uh, was 1400 years old. That would be 10 or $12,000 worth of damage that was done in that instance. But as far as scope wide, statewide, I don't have that information. Okay.

Just curious. Thank you for the information, you know,

Coleford. I, oh, excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I was just gonna say, I, I'm sure some of these places are not gonna be able to be restored. I mean, you see what happened in, uh, uh, what's the area where they, the, where the hoodoos were and they knocked rocks off. I mean, you, you're not gonna be able to restore that probably. But thi this is really critical. I think we need to protect our, our, our things. I appreciate that. Um, representative Arthur,

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I just have a couple of questions as well just to make sure that I understand this. So currently, if someone commits one of these, these crimes of defacing, this type of property, and they, they receive some sort of a, a, a fine, where does that money currently go? Does it just go to the state? Does it go, where does that go? Yeah, so I'll see if I can, uh, find that code, but it's, to me, in reading this, in reading the current existing code, not this bill, I, I couldn't identify exactly where that goes, where that goes into the agency's general fund that then can be spent on anything or versus the, the court systems funds or the state's general funds. It, it is not spelled out, at least to me, in code exactly where that goes. And that's one of the efforts associated with this, just to ensure that it goes back to the resources in which it was intended to protect. Perfect. And just, you know, when I look at the fiscal note, there's, there's no money assigned to it right now. It does allow within the bill for money appropriated by the legislature, but I think if I'm understanding this correctly, the intention is when this is passed and becomes law and someone commits one of these crimes, defacing one of these, uh, artifacts or one of these, these preserved areas that the funds or the, the fines drawn from that will go into the fund. They could theoretically earn interest and, and be put to these other uses where it's educating to the public and, and the other pieces laid out in the statute. But currently, there's, there's not gonna be any money in there until those those fines are collected. Is that, is that correct?

I'm okay to answer. Yeah. Yes. So it's, uh, I believe you had a similar question on, uh, representative ship's hunting and guiding bill as far as how that's structured. That's pretty common verbiage throughout a lot of these funds, at least that I'm familiar with. But yes, it'd, it'd be an empty fund up until there's a prosecution that assigns either fine amounts or restitution amounts into that fund.

Oh, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Go Ahead. If I could just add a comment. Uh, really a big cost of this, uh, program is the time that our officers have to spend out chasing people down. And I think a lot of times the fines don't really get collected 'cause of, you know, distance barriers and, and, and frankly, just the, uh, the effort and time needed to chase people down. They're, they're not parole officers. You know, they're not going to be going out on a job where, you know, they're, they're doing some community service and making sure that work gets done. That's all kinda left up to our, uh, court system. They can then pass this on the court system who can then follow this process, uh, out. So that's how I envision this, uh, working. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I'd like to move the first substitute. Okay. That's in order. Would you like to speak to it? Uh, you know what, I'll, I'll wave until we talk

I'll waive. Sponsor waive.

Thank you. Um, I'd like to make the motion that we pass out favorably first sub HB 5 36.

I, I just want to compliment the good sponsor on bringing this bill. I think that every time I see one of these stories on the news, it always breaks my heart as somebody who, who grew up going out into, uh, working really hard to find these locations to enjoy them. Um, and I, I really appreciate the fact that with this fund, the, the fines incurred will be used specifically within those localities to, to repair the harm done, and then also ultimately to, to build in that educational piece that will hopefully, uh, prevent more of these from taking place in the future. So I, I support this bill.

Yeah, thank you. I have a, a few concerns, and, and I, I, I'll support the bill. Um, if we can have some conversations outside with this year of, of some budget cuts and things. I have a little bit of concern that we're putting in here, um, that we, this money could be used for in lines 1 31 through 1 33, um, educational seminars and trainings to state agencies, local agencies, private organizations, individuals. It appears to me that the money could be used a little bit better specifically for the damage and things. And I think that this gives, um, a little bit too much. Um, but we can talk about that. I appreciate the bill. I, I think it's an important thing that we work on, especially when we're dealing with the amount of damages that we're dealing with. So I appreciate the sponsor, um, looking at this and bringing this issue forward.

Yeah, I just wanted to comment that the, the way the system works now, if you commit a crime, say you, you went and, and destroyed part of your neighbor's house, and, uh, compare it to what happens when you commit a crime on state land, the punishment for it is drastically reduced If it's on, on private land versus, uh, state land should be the opposite. This kind of helps sway that, that justice arm to make at least equal on both sides, whether that's done, you know, damaging, uh, an art piece of, you know, someone's house or whether it's on a park. And, uh, you know, as you walk outta this room, and you go and enter into the capitol, you'll see a large mural of some horses that surround, you know, you see coming around the, uh, corner. That's a minera tyer that painting's probably $300,000. And just imagine if someone came in and just cut out the, you know, a section of that, that mural, how you would fill and how you would value that. You know, the, the value's there, it's an asset sellable. But, um, you know, we can't let these things, uh, be destroyed. We got these, uh, murals that technically are kind of priceless. You can't replace 'em that are one of a kind. And, uh, they're Jim, you know, and we we're just fortunate to have an open, uh, state that allows us to go and find these and to view 'em and to enjoy 'em.

We appreciate this opportunity. Will you pull that microphone just squarely in front of you? Thank you. Yeah. Substitute two clarifies that restitution payments should be put directly towards restoring property, which was damaged. We're worried about the intentional harm done to public lands and antiquities house bill 5 36 broadens the criminal offense for defacing archeological features by graffiti on public lands to include other forms of alterations and, and destruction. This bill creates the Public Lands Restoration and protection fund. Those convicted of damaging archeological features or ancient antiquities on state lands can be instructed by the courts to pay restitution into the fund. The fund will be used for the pre the prevention of harm to and restoration of public funds. This follows in line with the anti vandalism campaign. I think all of you have seen the news, uh, covering of this. Every month there's a new, uh, area that's destroyed. Uh, this seems like now the, the vandalism has become more extreme, even to the point where they would cut out murals of Indian art with saws and, uh, completely deface the, uh, the, the treasure. I like to, uh, uh, and I, I'll stop there.

Yeah. Steve Burton with the Utah Defense Attorney Association. Um, I, I spoke with Representative Barland. He's willing to perhaps be open to continuing to work on some of the language. The biggest concern that I had is that the language of a rock formation is actually quite broad. So, um, it would say that somebody can be penalized criminally if they damage a natural feature, meaning a rock formation or feature geological formation or feature or another naturally occurring formation or feature such as a hoodoo cave, stalactite or stalagmite. So, um, if we're talking about any geological feature or rock formation, I mean, potentially this is written in such a broad and vague way that somebody pushing a Boulder down a hill or, you know, throwing some kind of, um, tipping over some kind of rock into a a lake, uh, could qualify. Um, but the good representative had said that he would try to see if maybe there's some compromised language. We have some proposed language to try to narrow that to some kind of unique or, uh, feature of value that's recognized as something special.

Um, I I, I think it gets closer. I mean, and you know, lawyer to lawyer unique, essentially everything is somewhat unique to some degree. I would hope that the prosecutor would interpret that to mean what we would intend it to mean. So hopefully that would help.

Yes. I, I do think that that would be a, a positive change. Hopefully it would send the message of that's what we're talking About. Okay. 'cause I just don't wanna slow down. This is the last ship out and I don't wanna slow down the bill otherwise.

Senator Brammer? Yeah, I'll Make a voice amendment on line one and add before, uh, where it says natural on the line, it says, natural feature means it says a rock formation. And I would add the word unique between A and rock 1 51. Yep.

Okay. I guess I could argue that every rock is unique in its own way. Just like every snowflake. And, and just for the record, I'm adding that because not everything like a snowflake is unique.

Uh, this is because we understand, uh, noteworthy things are unique and we consider our hoodoos and stalactites and stalagmites unique versus as compared to other rocks. Okay. So that's the sense in which I'm trying to convey.

Yes. That would be, I consider that a favor. Uh, uh, friendly amendment. Friendly amendment. Excuse me.

Yes, I would move that we recommend favorably HB 5 36 second substitute.

I do. Okay. I'm waiving to, uh, Senator Brammer.

I just want to thank, uh, Representative Barlow for his service and this being his last committee and his last vote. Anyone who votes against this bill, you know, good luck up to your soul in heaven. So thanks. And we just had to vote on Good Friday. So anybody that votes on no, on Good Friday and this bill, I don't know, you know, what's less for them?

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, motion to substitute The Motion to Adopt substitute to Thank you representative. That motion is an order. Would you like to speak to it? I would a substitute to clarifies the restitution payments should be put directly towards restoring the property which was damaged. We are worried about the internal harm done to public lands and, and, and ticket duties. Uh, house bill of 50 or 5 3 6 broadens the criminal offense of defacing archeological features by graffiti on public land to include other forms of alterations or destruction. This bill creates the Public Lands Restoration and Protection Fund. Those convicted of damaging archeological features or ancient antiquities on state lands can be instructed by the courts to pay restitution into the fund. The fund will be used for the preservation of harm to and restoration of public funds. This, uh, bill is, uh, part of an anti vandalism campaign going on to try to, uh, restore, replace damaged areas, uh, throughout the state from vandalism. All of us have seen the articles in the papers. Seems like now every month there's an article about how, uh, you know, some damage has been done. It seems to be spreading more spreads and more, it induces, uh, further graffiti and, uh, damage. And, uh, this is one step to help, uh, prevent that. It, it pretty much, uh, balances the, uh, the weights, justice weights on those who damage these uh, properties when, where the penalties are often less on state lands then on private lands. And so if you uh, you know, compare those, uh, the damages, uh, this will help, uh, equalize that disparity. And that concludes my presentation. Mr. Speaker.

Yeah, so I pretty well finished the presentation. So I'll, I'll waive further comments unless there's questions that I can now answer from the body.

I'll Waive summation has been waived.

Uh, motion to substitute The Motion to Adopt substitute to

I would a substitute to clarifies the restitution payments should be put directly towards restoring the property which was damaged. We are worried about the internal harm done to public lands and, and, and ticket duties. Uh, house bill of 50 or 5 3 6 broadens the criminal offense of defacing archeological features by graffiti on public land to include other forms of alterations or destruction. This bill creates the Public Lands Restoration and Protection Fund. Those convicted of damaging archeological features or ancient antiquities on state lands can be instructed by the courts to pay restitution into the fund. The fund will be used for the preservation of harm to and restoration of public funds. This, uh, bill is, uh, part of an anti vandalism campaign going on to try to, uh, restore, replace damaged areas, uh, throughout the state from vandalism. All of us have seen the articles in the papers. Seems like now every month there's an article about how, uh, you know, some damage has been done. It seems to be spreading more spreads and more, it induces, uh, further graffiti and, uh, damage. And, uh, this is one step to help, uh, prevent that. It, it pretty much, uh, balances the, uh, the weights, justice weights on those who damage these uh, properties when, where the penalties are often less on state lands then on private lands. And so if you uh, you know, compare those, uh, the damages, uh, this will help, uh, equalize that disparity. And that concludes my presentation. Mr. Speaker.

Oh, I apologize. Uh, my bad. I need to adopt the sub, uh, second substitute, uh, discussion to adopt second substitute under Representative Barlow's name on HP 5 36.

Yeah, so I pretty well finished the presentation. So I'll, I'll waive further comments unless there's questions that I can now answer from the body.

I'll Waive summation has been waived.

Ipson. Thank you Mr. President. This bill concerns criminal conduct on public lands. It has to do with graffiti. It's set up a, a plan to an account that finds for charged for the people who are charged with criminal conduct in on the ban will go into this account and help pay for ment to reclaim the area. With that, I'm open to questions.

I make a motion that house Bill 5 36 under suspension of the rules pass.

Senator Vickers, Baldy Lewin Brammer Bus Colmore Escamilla Fillmore Grover Aye. Harper Kinins Ipson Johnson. Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens pitcher Plum Rebe I Sandal Stevenson Stratton Pickers Weiler Wilson Winterton, president Adams

Thanks Mr. President.

Yeah. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, motion to concur with the Senate amendments.

I would. It's just one word added. Unique. And that's it.