[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 21, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1132-H1134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA LAND EXCHANGE ACT OF 2000
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1680) to provide for the conveyance of Forest Service
property in Kern County, California, in exchange for county lands
suitable for inclusion in Sequoia National Forest, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1680
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Kern County California Land
Exchange Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. LAND EXCHANGE, CAMP OWEN AND RELATED PARCELS, KERN
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
(a) Exchange Required.--In exchange for the non-Federal
lands and the additional consideration described in
subsection (b), the Secretary of Agriculture shall convey to
Kern County, California, all right, title, and interest of
the United States in and to four parcels of land under the
jurisdiction of the Forest Service in Kern County, as
follows:
(1) Approximately 70 acres known as Camp Owen.
(2) Approximately 4 acres known as Wofford Heights Park.
(3) Approximately 4 acres known as the French Gulch
maintenance yard.
(4) Approximately 14 acres known as the Kernville Fish
Hatchery.
[[Page H1133]]
(b) Consideration.--
(1) Conveyance of non-federal lands.--As consideration for
the conveyance of the Federal lands referred to in subsection
(a), Kern County shall convey to the Secretary a parcel of
land consisting of approximately 52 acres of Greenhorn
Mountain Park in Kern County, California, which is owned by
Kern County within Sequoia National Forest.
(2) Replacement facility.--As additional consideration for
the conveyance of the storage facility located at the
maintenance yard referred to in subsection (a)(3), Kern
County shall provide a replacement storage facility of
comparable size and condition, as acceptable to the
Secretary, at the Greenhorn Ranger District Lake Isabella
Maintenance Yard property.
(3) Cash equalization payment.--As additional consideration
for the conveyance of the Federal lands referred to in
subsection (a), Kern County shall tender a cash equalization
payment specified by the Secretary, but not to exceed
$100,000. Subject to such limitation, the cash equalization
payment shall be based upon an appraisal performed at the
option of the Forest Service pursuant to section 206(b) of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1716(b)).
(c) Conditions on Acceptance.--Title to the non-Federal
lands to be conveyed under this section must be acceptable to
the Secretary, and the conveyance shall be subject to valid
existing rights of record. The non-Federal lands shall
conform with the title approval standards applicable to
Federal land acquisitions.
(d) Time for Conveyance.--Subject to subsection (c), the
Secretary shall complete the conveyance of the Federal lands
under subsection (a) within three months after Kern County
tenders to the Secretary the consideration required by
subsection (b).
(e) Status of Acquired Lands.--Upon approval and acceptance
of title by the Secretary, the non-Federal lands conveyed to
the United States under this section shall become part of
Sequoia National Forest, and the boundaries of the national
forest shall be adjusted to include the acquired lands. The
Secretary shall manage the acquired lands for recreational
purposes in accordance with the laws and regulations
pertaining to the National Forest System. For purposes of
section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
(16 U.S.C. 460l-9), the boundaries of the national forest, as
adjusted pursuant to this section, shall be considered to be
the boundaries of the national forest as of January 1, 1965.
(f) Relationship to Environmental Liability.--In connection
with the conveyances under this section, the Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions related to
environmental liability as the Secretary considers
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
(g) Legal Descriptions.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be exchanged under this
section shall be determined by a survey or surveys
satisfactory to the Secretary. The costs of any such survey,
as well as other administrative costs incurred to execute the
land exchange (other than costs incurred by Kern County to
comply with subsection (h)), shall be divided equally between
the Secretary and Kern County.
(h) Treatment of Existing Utility Lines at Camp Owen.--Upon
receipt of the Federal lands described in subsection (a)(1),
Kern County shall grant an easement, and record the easement
in the appropriate office, for permitted or licensed uses of
those lands that are unrecorded as of the date of the
conveyance.
(i) Applicable Law.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, any exchange of National Forest System land under
this section shall be subject to the laws (including
regulations) applicable to the conveyance and acquisition of
land for the National Forest System.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-
Barcelo) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1680 introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas), provides for a land exchange between the
Stanislaus Forest and Kern County, California. It will transfer
approximately 70 acres of national forest land that has been used by
the county for more than 50 years as a juvenile detention facility
known as Camp Owen to county ownership.
In exchange, the county will transfer the undeveloped portion of its
Greenhorn Mountain Park, approximately 52 acres, to the Forest Service
which manages the adjacent national forest lands. Several other small
parcels are also included in exchange, and the county will provide a
cash equalization payment to the Forest Service to make up the
difference in land values.
The Forest Service and the county have worked hard to resolve their
differences over details of this bill. I congratulate the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thomas) for his work in achieving this agreement,
which is reflected in the amendment that was reported by the Committee
on Resources.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill which will ensure that the lands
transferred to the county will continue to be used as a juvenile
detention facility and school. Valid existing rights will be protected
and land ownership will be consolidated, which should improve
management efficiencies for both the Forest Service and Kern County.
Therefore, I urge support of this bill as amended, and I congratulate
my colleague for his work to bring about this agreement on the details
of this exchange.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1680. This
legislation provides for a land exchange between Kern County,
California, and the U.S. Forest Service. The county would receive four
parcels totaling about 92 acres of Federal property in exchange for one
parcel of about 52 acres of county-owned property.
The county is currently operating a juvenile justice facility on the
Federal lands under permit. The county-owned lands, which are wooded,
are deemed suitable for inclusion in the Sequoia National Forest. So a
land swap in this case makes good sense.
The substitute adopted by the committee has greatly improved this
legislation. As amended, the bill now provides for an equal-value
exchange and public process in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act. Formal appraisals are normally required in
Federal land exchanges, but in this case the Forest Service is given
the option of relying on a preliminary appraisal and may receive a cash
equalization payment of up to $100,000.
While we do not intend that this serve as a model for equalization in
other exchanges, the difference in value is estimated to be in the
range of $50,000 and the extra time and expense of a formal appraisal
may not be necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the sponsor, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas), and the majority for their willingness to make
changes in this legislation to accommodate both our concerns and those
of the Forest Service. I am pleased to support H.R. 1680 and urge my
colleagues to do so as well.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the author of this legislation.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Hansen) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a long, twisted road that really should
have been a relatively short driveway in achieving today's presentation
on the floor of the House. As was indicated, this was an attempt to
resolve land use conflicts that developed over half a century. On the
Valley floor near the Kern River, which is pretty much barren and rock
strewn land, although above 4,000 feet in elevation, about half a
century ago the county began developing a youth detention camp along
the model with which most of us would be familiar. If one takes youths
who really are not bad, but who have an over-abundance of energy, and
direct it toward positive and useful activity in a rather hardy
environment, then a number of them become very useful and model
citizens. This has been successful for more than half a century.
As one might expect, the uses of the camp, which were fairly rustic
initially, have developed more into activities that would be meaningful
to youth today: the building of a large garage facility in which they
can rehabilitate cars; the development of a fish hatchery in which they
can involve themselves in useful experiences that actually become quite
useful when they are out looking for a job, all of this developed on
land that was Forest Service land.
Now, one would never recognize it as Forest Service land, but it was
Forest Service land. At the same time, the County of Kern, one of the
larger geographic counties in the United States, had, in a mountainous
area about 7,000 feet high, county property covered with large conifers
that had never been developed, which was immediately adjacent to
Sequoia National Forest. It
[[Page H1134]]
looked like Forest Service land. It was not used like a county parcel
would ordinarily be used because of its remote location and the profile
of the land itself.
So we thought several years ago that it would be a very appropriate
land swap. The idea that Kern County and the citizens of Kern County,
taxpayers, would not want to ask the Federal Government to give us the
land, but rather it was quite appropriate to trade that mountainous
fir-covered land for the developed land, the county land for the
Federal land. We then embarked on a process of trying to get the Forest
Service to say yes.
What happened over a number of years was that the Forest Service
would not say yes. The Forest Service wanted us to give up the lion's
share of the land and they would give us less. Kern County agreed.
The Forest Service did not want any camp sites in that county land up
in the mountains, so we shaped it to solve the Forest Service problems.
The Forest Service said, even though there is a maintenance yard that
has been used as the county and we are willing to give it to them, we
want them to duplicate the facilities so that we can have our own. The
county agreed.
The Forest Service then said, if there were any environmental
problems on this conifer-covered land, we certainly would not want to
go through an environmental impact study like anybody else would, so we
would like protection. We want to be indemnified from any case that
might be brought against us. Kern County agreed.
We finally came to the last piece of the puzzle and that was,
notwithstanding all of these concessions, we do not know for sure
whether the land in an accessible usable area is of the same value as
land that is in an inaccessible area that is not going to be used. So
Kern County, to try to end this process of the Forest Service never
willing to say yes, said we will place hard-earned county taxpayer
money on the table as well.
How much? We do not know for sure. Maybe it was 40 thousand dollars.
Maybe it was 50 thousand. The Forest Service could not come up with a
firm number. So what Kern County has said was we will double it. We
will say not more than $100,000, assuming it is going to be fifty cents
or less on the dollar, to get this agreement culminated so that we can
continue to develop this youth camp.
I just want to say that four bills have passed Congress this year in
which there have been absolute gifts of Federal land. We have an
exchange with money in this bill, and yet it has been more than one
Congress before we could reach this position. I just want to thank all
of the folks who endured with us this inability of the Forest Service
to say yes. We still have the provision in which they may say no, but
at least, we are to the floor. At least, it has been a public process.
At least, there has been public input. At least, there is a public
record before we go forward in dealing with taking land that belongs to
the public and doing something with it.
So notwithstanding the tale that I just told, Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased that we are at the point we are today and am very concerned
about processes that have occurred in the past and may occur in the
future when this administration, under ancient law passed in 1906,
called the Antiquities Act, will be able to deal with public lands
without the public hearings, without the public process, and without
the public's representatives voting on legislation that is the
Antiquities Act; and, believe it or not, there is a proposal that will
deal directly with the same national forest this bill does, the Sequoia
National Forest, with no requirement to follow the public process that
this modest little bill deals with, 52 acres. The proposal is in the
vicinity of 400,000 acres.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, if this process is good enough for me,
it ought to be good enough for the President when he makes decisions
about the public lands.
So once again, I want to applaud those individuals who have brought
the land swap to this position today, and I would urge all of us to be
very, very cautious about removing public lands from public use without
a public process.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 1680, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________