[House Report 111-178]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 111-178
======================================================================
TO VALIDATE FINAL PATENT NUMBER 27-2005-0081, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
June 23, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Rahall, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 762]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 762) to validate final patent number 27-2005-
0081, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that
the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 762 is to validate final patent number
27-2005-0081, and for other purposes.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
In 1988, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to
exchange certain federal lands in the Coyote Springs Valley of
Nevada, just outside Las Vegas, to the Aerojet Corporation, in
return for certain sensitive lands in the Everglades of Florida
(Nevada-Florida Land Exchange Authorization Act of 1988 [Public
Law 100-275]). Under this land exchange Aerojet acquired nearly
29,000 acres of patented lands to develop, and also acquired a
99-year lease on another approximately 14,000 acres in Nevada.
Under the exchange agreement, these leased lands were
intended to be used for habitat, primarily for the conservation
of the endangered desert tortoise. However, the lands were
located entirely within the boundary of the patented lands and
surrounded by development activities. This configuration of the
land resulted in the isolation of tortoise populations, led to
habitat fragmentation and undermined the long-term recovery of
the species. Citing these concerns in 2001, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) requested that the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) initiate a boundary adjustment to prevent the
further decline of tortoise populations.
In 2005, the BLM issued a final patent (Patent No. 27-2005-
0081), that would adjust the boundary line between the leased
and patented lands by reconfiguring them to accommodate habitat
connectivity for the tortoise. However, in 2006 the Western
Lands Project and Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association sued
the BLM, and the current property owners (Aerojet had sold the
lands to a development company, Coyote Springs Investment)
claiming the process used to reconfigure the boundary failed to
comply with federal law.
In 2007, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. H.R. 762
will implement one of several settlement stipulations by
validating the final patent to the land, and to the associated
reconfiguration of lands. All parties to the litigation support
H.R. 762.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 762 was introduced on January 28, 2009, by
Representative Heller (R-NV). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands.
At a National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee
hearing on May 14, 2009, a representative of the Department of
the Interior testified that the BLM supports the bill and no
changes were recommended.
On June 10, 2009, the Subcommittee was discharged from
further consideration of H.R. 762 and the full Natural
Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The bill was then
ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by
unanimous consent.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
of that Rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures.
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to validate final patent number 27-
2005-0081, and for other purposes.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
H.R. 762--A bill to validate final patent number 27-2005-0081, and for
other purposes
H.R. 762 would validate a patent issued by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) in 2005. The patent would convey title to
about 7,000 acres of land in Clark County, Nevada, to the
Coyote Springs Investment LLC (CSI). Based on information
provided by BLM, CBO estimates that implementing this
legislation would have no effect on the federal budget because
the affected land was already conveyed to the CSI in a
previously authorized land exchange. The legislation would
confirm that conveyance, which had been disputed in a lawsuit
with environmental organizations.
H.R. 762 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose cost on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis.
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
EARMARK STATEMENT
H.R. 762 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9(d), 9(e) or 9(f) of rule XXI.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.