Stay Connected with the Library All ways to connect »
Find us on
49-006
1st Session
109-294
--TO AMEND THE YUMA CROSSING NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA ACT OF 2000 TO ADJUST THE BOUNDARY OF THE YUMA CROSSING NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA
[To accompany H.R. 326]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The purpose of H.R. 326 is to amend the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Act of 2000 to adjust the boundary of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area and to extend the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance under that Act.
When the Yuma Crossing Heritage Area was authorized in 2000, the public in Yuma County did not understand the scope of the project and was surprised by the size of the designation. Citizens originally believed that the heritage area would focus mainly around the historic districts and the wetlands. Furthermore, many property owners were not aware that they were also included in the new designation. Concerns were raised by citizens about the size of the designation and the potential for additional Federal oversight. The fear of adverse impacts on private property rights were realized when local government agencies began to use the immense heritage area boundary to determine zoning restrictions.
In an effort to alleviate the property rights concerns and better focus the available funds on the historic areas, H.R. 326 adjusts the boundaries to include only those areas where there is greater consensus of perceived public support.
As introduced, H.R. 326 included a provision to extend the authorization of appropriations to the heritage area by five years. Since the current authorization does not expire until 2015, the Committee believes an extension at this time is not necessary, and accordingly deleted that provision from the bill. However, witnesses from the local community had compelling arguments on why an extension may be needed and the Committee would note that its decision on this matter in no way prejudices any action that may be taken on an extension in the future.
H.R. 326 was introduced on January 25, 2005, by Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ). The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on National Parks. On September 29, 2005, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On October 19, 2005 the full Committee on Resources met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged from further consideration of the bill by unanimous consent. Congressman Stevan Pearce (R-NM) offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute which replaced the boundary description with a map and struck the five year sunset extension. The Pearce amendment was adopted by unanimous consent. The bill, as amended, was ordered favorably to the House of Representatives by unanimous consent.
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 Resources' oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
Article I, section 8, and Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution of the United States grant Congress the authority to enact this bill.
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 tax expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office, enactment of this bill would increase offsetting receipts and direct spending, but `any net change in direct spending would be negligible.'
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. This bill does not authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not apply.
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. 326--A bill to amend the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Act of 2000 to adjust the boundary of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area
H.R. 326 would modify the boundary of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area in New Mexico to exclude certain private lands. CBO estimates that implementing this bill would have no impact on the Federal budget because the Federal Government is not expected to ever acquire or manage the affected properties.
H.R. 326 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law.
[ (b) BOUNDARIES- The Heritage Area shall be comprised of those portions of the Yuma region totaling approximately 21 square miles, encompassing over 150 identified historic, geologic, and cultural resources, and bounded-- ][<-Struck out][ (1) on the west, by the Colorado River (including the crossing point of the Army of the West); ][<-Struck out][ (2) on the east, by Avenue 7E; ][<-Struck out][ (3) on the north, by the Colorado River; and ][<-Struck out][ (4) on the south, by the 12th Street alignment. ][<-Struck out]* * * * * * *
