PDF(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)Tip?
114th Congress} { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 114-257
======================================================================
ELKHORN RANCH AND WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST CONVEYANCE ACT OF 2015
_______
September 9, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1554]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 1554) to require a land conveyance involving the
Elkhorn Ranch and the White River National Forest in the State
of Colorado, 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. 1554 is to require a land conveyance
involving the Elkhorn Ranch and the White River National Forest
in the State of Colorado.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
This legislation would correct a discrepancy in the survey
of 148 acres in Garfield County, Colorado, currently known as
Elkhorn Ranch, and require the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to
convey by patent the area to the Gordman-Leverich Partnership
(GLP).
In 1908, three families began homesteading portions of the
parcel after it was patented and conveyed into private
ownership by the federal government. The area, which is
directly north of the boundary of the White River National
Forest (WRNF), has been owned by several successors since it
was originally patented and was purchased by GLP in 1998. Since
it was originally homesteaded, Elkhorn Ranch has been improved
and used by patentees and their successors for ranching and
agricultural purposes. Today seven stock ponds, two developed
springs, fences, and roads exist on the property.
Shortly before the parcel was originally patented, the
General Land Office confirmed with the original patentees that
their homesteads were located in Section 18 with east-west
fence lines, which conforms to present fence lines. A
subsequent survey conducted in 1949, which portrayed the
southern-most boundary of the area on an angle rather than a
true east-west line, resulted in the inclusion of the 148 acres
in the boundaries of the WRNF and called into question the true
ownership of the acreage. The patentees were not notified of
this conflicting survey after its completion and the USFS first
learned of the discrepancy in 2002.
Beginning in 2002, the Surveyor of the WRNF began to
closely examine the conflicting surveys. In 2014, the Surveyor
issued a report indicating that the original patents were based
on a proper survey and recommended a ``legislative boundary
correction protecting bona fide rights'' in order to correct
the survey discrepancy and ensure that the area is re-patented
to the appropriate private landowner.\1\ The Garfield County
Surveyor agreed with the USFS' conclusion and
recommendations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Bontrager, Wyman M. Professional Licensed Surveyor 29408, Forest
Land Surveyor, White River National Forest Service, ``Short Summary of
Boundary Status--Beaver Creek; Sections 18 and 19, T. 7 S. R. 93 W.,
6th PM.'' February 19, 2014.
\2\Letter from Scott E. Aibner, P.L.S. Garfield County Surveyor to
Andy Wiessner, Western Land Group. May 7, 2104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the Surveyor's 2014 report, the Forest
Supervisor of the WRNF recommended that the area be ``confirmed
in the successors in interest to the original patentees'' and
admitted that ``the White River National Forest does not
currently manage the 148 acres as National Forest land.''\3\
The Forest Supervisor has also stated that reaffirming the land
as private would not ``be counter to the Forest Land Management
Plan . . . Nor would such conveyance have any meaningful impact
on the goals that Congress intended to impose when it
designated the boundaries of the White River National
Forest.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Letter from Scott G. Fitzwilliams, Forest Supervisor, White
River National Forest, to Senator Mark Udall. March 25, 2014.
\4\Letter from Don G. Carroll, Acting Forest Supervisor, White
River National Forest to John Case, Esq. October 20, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2011, the Bureau of Land Management issued Federal oil
and gas lease COC-75070, which overlaps a portion of the
Elkhorn Ranch. The bill would maintain the valid existing
rights of the leaseholder and would provide the United States
the continued right to collect rent and royalty payments from
this lease.
The conveyance does not modify the exterior boundary of the
WRNF, and GLP would be required to pay for all costs related to
any survey, platting, legal description, or other activities
carried out to prepare and issue the patent.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 1554 was introduced on March 3, 2015, by Congressman
Scott R. Tipton (R-CO). The bill was referred to the Committee
on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Federal Lands. The Subcommittee had a hearing
on the bill on June 16, 2015. On July 8, 2015, the Natural
Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee
was discharged by unanimous consent. No amendments were offered
and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the House of
Representatives by unanimous consent on July 9, 2015.
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.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) 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)(2)(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. 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. 1554--Elkhorn Ranch and White River National Forest Conveyance Act
of 2015
H.R. 1554 would require the Forest Service to convey 148
acres of federal lands in Colorado to a private entity. Under
the bill, the federal government would retain the right to
collect rent and royalty payments from an existing oil and gas
lease on those lands; however, if that lease expires, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would not be allowed to offer
the parcel for lease. Because CBO expects that enacting the
bill could reduce offsetting receipts, which are treated as
reductions in direct spending, from bonus bids over the next 10
years, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, we estimate
that net bonus bids from the affected parcel would total less
than $500,000 over that period. Enacting the bill would not
affect revenues.
In 2012, BLM issued a federal oil and gas lease on a
portion of the affected lands. If the firm holding that lease
takes certain steps to begin producing oil and gas before the
lease is set to expire in 2022, the firm would retain the lease
until production ended. Under current law and under the bill,
the federal government would collect rent and any royalties
generated from oil and gas produced on that lease, and 49
percent of those proceeds would be paid to the state of
Colorado In that case, enacting the bill would have no effect
on direct spending.
If the lease expires in 2022, BLM could offer the parcel
for lease after that date under current law. However, the
agency could not offer the affected parcel for lease under the
bill. Because CBO has no basis for determining how the relevant
parties would respond if the lease were allowed to expire, our
estimate reflects a point within a range of possible outcomes.
Based on the amount paid for the lease in 2012 ($335,000), CBO
estimates that enacting the bill would reduce receipts by less
than $500,000 over the 2022-2025 period.
H.R. 1554 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Ben
Christopher and Jeff LaFave. The estimate was approved by H.
Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget
Analysis.
2. Section 308(a) of 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. The Congressional
Budget Office estimates that ``enacting the bill would reduce
receipts by less than $500,000 over the 2022-2025 period''
owing to the possibility that a bonus bid might not be possible
if the existing oil and gas lease expires in 2022 and is sold
again.
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 require a land conveyance
involving the Elkhorn Ranch and the White River National Forest
in the State of Colorado.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5
Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that
this bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any
specific rule-making proceedings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
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.
[all]
