[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.

                          ____________________