Opinion ID: 1198963
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Landowners' alternative arguments for affirmance

Text: The landowners ask us to affirm the ejectment on two alternative grounds. [26] Rights to mineral deposits in submerged land are not subject to appropriation by prior discovery, location, and recording. AS 38.05.205, .250. Arguing that the property was submerged land, the landowners assert that Hayes acquired no rights through staking his claims, and is therefore subject to ejectment. This position is without merit. Even though the land beneath the tailings was once submerged, the property became ordinary real estate long ago. Alaska Juneau Forest Indus., 748 P.2d at 336. Additionally, the tailings are above mean high tide. Id. at 337. The property is not in fact submerged land. AS 38.05.965(21). [27] The landowners alternatively assert that Hayes failed to comply with the technical requirements of AS 38.05.195 for locating a claim. Such alleged failures do not necessarily invalidate a locator's rights. Alaska Statute 38.05.185(b) explicitly states as much, as long as it appears to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the mining lessee or the locator complied as nearly as possible under the circumstances of the case, and that no conflicting rights are asserted by any other person. We cannot affirm the summary judgment on the theory Hayes did not fulfill the statutory requirements for locating a mining leasehold.