[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 110 (Monday, September 18, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7689-H7690]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   CLEAR CREEK COUNTY, COLORADO, PUBLIC LANDS TRANSFER ACT AMENDMENTS

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2799) to amend the Clear Creek County, Colorado, Public 
Lands Transfer Act of 1993 to provide additional time for Clear Creek 
County to dispose of certain lands transferred to the county under the 
act.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2799

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF LAND CONVEYANCE, CLEAR CREEK 
                   COUNTY, COLORADO.

       Section 5(c)(2) of the Clear Creek County, Colorado, Public 
     Lands Transfer Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-253; 108 Stat. 
     677) is amended by striking ``the date 10 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act'' and by inserting ``May 19, 
     2014''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) 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. 2799 is a simple measure that would amend the Clear 
Creek County, Colorado, Public Lands Transfer Act of 1993. This act 
transferred approximately 7,300 acres of BLM managed land to Clear 
Creek County.
  The 7,300 acres consisted of unmanageable and scattered tracks of 
land held by the BLM. Clear Creek County was given the option to retain 
or dispose of this land and was given a deadline to complete this by 
May 19, 2004. All lands that had not been disposed of at that time were 
to be retained by the county. Since the passage of the 1993 act, Clear 
Creek County has had difficulty in disposing of some of the transferred 
land that would be impossible for the county to manage.
  Instead of forcing Clear Creek County to retain lands they are 
incapable of properly managing, H.R. 2799 would provide 10 years 
additional time for the county to dispose of these lands.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2799.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as its author, I obviously 
support passage of this bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Resources, and our 
ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for 
making it possible for the House to consider it today.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Hansen), my colleague, for his assistance with this legislation.

                              {time}  1845

  I introduced the bill last year at the request of the commissioners 
of Clear Creek County. The bill amends section 5 of the Clear Creek 
Land Transfer Act of 1993. The effect of the amendment would be to 
allow Clear Creek County additional time to determine the future 
disposition of some former Federal land that was transferred to the 
county under that section of the 1993 act.
  The 1993 act was originally proposed by my predecessor, 
Representative David Skaggs. Its purpose was to clarify Federal land 
ownership questions in Clear Creek County while helping to complete 
consolidation of the Bureau of Land Management administration in 
eastern Colorado and assisting with protecting open space and 
preserving historic sites. As part of its plan to merge its eastern 
Colorado operations into one administrative office, the BLM has 
determined that it would be best to dispose of most of its surface 
lands in northeastern Colorado. The 1993 act helped achieve that goal 
by transferring some 14,000 acres of land from the Bureau of Land 
Management to the U.S. Forest Service to the State of Colorado to Clear 
Creek County and to the towns of Georgetown and Silver Plume.
  Of course, the BLM could have sold all of these lands and the local 
governments could have applied for parcels under the Recreation and 
Public Purposes Act. Under current law, however, the BLM would first 
have had to complete detailed boundary surveys. Since lands in question 
included many small, d-shaped parcels, some measured literally in 
inches, the BLM estimated that boundary surveys would have taken at 
least another 15 years to complete and could have cost as much as $18 
million.
  The estimated market value of these lands was only $3 million, and 
because the administrative costs were expected to be so much higher 
than the value of these lands, their disposal under existing law 
probably could never have been completed. And this would have been the 
worst of all outcomes because, after reaching the conclusion that the 
land should be transferred, the BLM in effect stopped managing them to 
the extent that they could have been managed at all.
  Until some means could be found to enable their transfer, these 
14,000 acres were effectively abandoned property, potentially 
attracting all the problems which befall property left uncared for and 
ignored.
  The 1993 act responded to that situation. Under it, about 3,500 acres 
of BLM land in Clear Creek County were transferred to the Arapaho 
National Forest. About 3,200 acres of land transferred to the State of 
Colorado, the county and the towns of Georgetown and Silver Plume.
  Finally, about 7,300 acres were transferred to the county. The bill 
before us today deals only with those lands transferred to the county. 
The 1993 act provides that after it prepares a comprehensive land use 
plan, the county may resale some of the land. Other parcels will be 
transferred to local governments, including the county, to be retained 
for recreation and public purposes.
  With regard to the lands that the county has authority to sell, the 
1993 act in effect authorizes the county to act as the BLM sales agent. 
It provides the Federal Government will receive any of the net receipts 
from the sale of these lands by the county. Under the 1993 act, the 
county has 10 years within which to resolve questions related to the 
rights of way, mining claims and trespass situations on the lands 
covered by that section of the act, and then to decide which parcels to 
transfer and which to retain.
  Among other things, the county is working with the Colorado Division 
of Wildlife on a proposal that will result in some 2,000 acres being 
transferred to the division of wildlife and management as big horn 
sheep habitat. While the county has completed the conveyance of some of 
these lands, they still have about 6,000 acres to dispose of. The 
county commissioners have informed me that the process is taking longer 
than they anticipated and that a 10-year extension of time would be 
helpful to them to complete the process.
  The bill that the House is considering today responds to that request 
by providing that extension. I urge its adoption, and I attach a letter 
from the commissioners of Clear Creek County explaining the request for 
this legislation.

                                        County of Clear Creek,

                                   Georgetown, CO, August 3, 1999.

     Re County of Clear Creek, Colorado Public Lands Transfer Act 
         of 1993.

     Congressman Mark Udall,
     Westminister, CO.
       Dear Congressman Udall:  I have been asked to provide 
     information regarding the status of this project. As of this 
     date, we have conveyed 118 parcels, consisting of 464 acres, 
     of the former BLM land. This means we still have over 1,100 
     parcels, or 6,000 acres, to dispose of.

[[Page H7690]]

       A considerable amount of the time on this project has 
     involved analysis and policy development to deal with broad 
     issues that affect most of the parcels, such as rights of way 
     and unpatented mining claims. We have developed suitable 
     solutions for most of these issues. As for trespass 
     situations on specific parcels, we have resolved six of them, 
     and there are four more that we are aware of.
       It has also taken a great deal of time to develop policies 
     and procedures for land conveyance that are equitable and 
     cost effective. As you are aware, much of this land consists 
     of hundreds of small fragments that are most appropriately 
     conveyed to owners of contiguous properties, since they are 
     too costly to manage in this configuration. Each parcel must 
     go through the zoning process, and in many cases, the 
     subdivision exemption process to divide them, before they be 
     conveyed. Getting these fragments into private ownership is 
     the biggest challenge of this project.
       There are some large tracts of consolidated acreage for 
     which we need to determine disposition. If we retain any of 
     the land (for Recreation (and Public Purpose, as stipulated 
     by the Transfer Act), it would be these tracts, since they 
     would be affordable to manage. However, this has not been 
     decided yet, because we are also looking into conveyance of 
     these tracts to land trusts or conservation groups.
       The Colorado Division of Wildlife has asked to purchase 
     approximately 2,000 acres for Bighorn Sheep habitat. They are 
     currently trying to put together funding for this purchase, 
     and we are told that this could take several years.
       If you need more information or have any questions, please 
     call me at (303) 679-2434.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Mark Spargue,
                         Project Manager, County Lands Department.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hulshof). 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. 2799.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________