[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 128 (Friday, October 13, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1791]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E1791]]
        CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE FOR H.R. 4721

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 12, 2000

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the benefit of the 
Members a copy of the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional 
Budget Office for H.R. 4721, a bill to provide for all right, title, 
and interest in and to certain property in Washington County, Utah, to 
be vested in the United States.

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                 Washington, DC, October 10, 2000.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Resources,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4721, an act to 
     provide for all right, title, and interest in and to certain 
     property in Washington County, Utah, to be vested in the 
     United States.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them, The CBO staff contacts are John R. 
     Righter (for federal costs), and Lauren Marks (for the 
     private-sector impact).
           Sincerely,
                                                 Barry B. Anderson
                                   (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
       Enclosure.
     H.R. 4721--An act to provide for all right, title, and 
         interest in and to certain property in Washington County, 
         Utah, to be vested in the United States
       H.R. 4721 would transfer about 1,550 acres in real property 
     in Washington County, Utah, to the federal government. As 
     compensation for the government's taking of private property, 
     the legislation would provide an immediate payment of $15 
     million, with a subsequent amount to be paid to Environmental 
     Land Technology, Ltd., the property owner, at a later date. 
     The amount of the second payment would depend, in part, on 
     whether the federal government could negotiate a settlement 
     with the property owner.
       Under a negotiated settlement, the second payment would 
     include the difference between the property's appraised value 
     and the initial payment of $15 million, plus interest accrued 
     from the date of the legislation's enactment. Alternatively, 
     if the amount of the second payment is decided in a court of 
     law, it would include the remaining property value as 
     determined by the court, accrued interest, reasonable 
     expenses of holding The property from February 1990 to the 
     date of the final payment, and reasonable court costs and 
     attorneys' fees. The legislation would provide the full faith 
     and credit of the United States to make such payments without 
     farther appropriation.
       CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4721 would increase direct 
     spending by $15 million in fiscal year 2001. The amount of 
     the second payment is uncertain and will probably be 
     determined in court. Based on information from the Bureau of 
     Land Management (BLM), CBO estimates that a second payment of 
     $43 million would be made in 2002. The estimated total of $58 
     million is the midpoint between the government's and the 
     property owner's estimates of the property's value (between 
     $30 million and $70 million), plus accrued interest and 
     reasonable property and court-related expenses. This estimate 
     assumes that, based on the wide difference in their estimates 
     of the property's value, the two sides would be unable to 
     negotiate an out-of-court settlement. Because H.R. 4721 would 
     affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. 
     The changes in direct spending are shown in the following 
     table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2001    2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    2007    2008    2009    2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays..............      15      43       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0
Changes in roceipts.............   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)  (\1\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable.

       In addition, because it is possible that BLM would have 
     purchased the property under current law using funds 
     appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 
     implementing the legislation could reduce the need for future 
     appropriations.
       H.R. 4721 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
     in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose 
     no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. H.R. 4721 
     would impose a private-sector mandate, as defined in UMRA, on 
     the property owner who would be required to confer his 
     property to the, federal government, CBO estimates that the 
     cost of complying with the mandate would fall below the 
     annual threshold established by UMRA ($109 million in 2000, 
     adjusted annually for inflation).
       The legislation would require, 30 days after enactment, the 
     landowner to confer to the United States all right, title, 
     and interest in and to, his property located within and 
     adjacent to the Red Cliffs Reserve. That requirement would be 
     a mandate as defined in UMRA. The cost of complying with the 
     mandate would be the fair market value of the land, expenses 
     incurred and lost interest in transferring the property to 
     the federal government, and the costs of relocating. 
     Estimates of the value of the property range between $30 
     million and $70 million. Thus, CBO expects that the direct 
     costs of complying with the mandate would fall below the 
     threshold established by UMRA ($109 million for private-
     sector mandates in 2000, adjusted annually for inflation). 
     The legislation provides that, in exchange for his land, the 
     landowner would receive an initial payment $15 million, as 
     well as a subsequent payment to be determined either through 
     a negotiated settlement or through litigation.
       On October 10, 2000, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 
     2873, a similar bill reported by the Senate Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources on October 2, 2000. CBO's two 
     cost estimates are identical.
       The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are John R. 
     Righter (for federal costs) and Lauren Marks (for the 
     private-sector impact). This estimate was approved by Peter 
     H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

     

                          ____________________