[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 13, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H847-H848]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1500
    PROVIDING FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 880) to provide for the acquisition of property in 
Washington County, Utah, for implementation of a desert tortoise 
habitat conservation plan.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 880

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

     SECTION 1. ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN WASHINGTON 
                   COUNTY, UTAH.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, effective 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, all right, title, and interest in and to, and the 
     right to immediate possession of, the 1,516 acres of real 
     property owned by Environmental Land Technology, Ltd. (ELT), 
     within the Red Cliffs Reserve in Washington County, Utah, and 
     the 34 acres of real property owned by ELT which is adjacent 
     to the land within the Reserve but is landlocked as a result 
     of the creation of the Reserve, is hereby vested in the 
     United States.
       (b) Compensation for Property.--Subject to section 309(f) 
     of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management of 1996 
     (Public Law 104-333), the United States shall pay just 
     compensation to the owner of any real property taken pursuant 
     to this section, determined as of the date of the enactment 
     of this Act. An initial payment of $15,000,000 shall be made 
     to the owner of such real property not later than 30 days 
     after the date of taking. The full faith and credit of the 
     United States is hereby pledged to the payment of any 
     judgment entered against the United States with respect to 
     the taking of such property. Payment shall be in the amount 
     of--
       (1) the appraised value of such real property as agreed to 
     by the land owner and the United States, plus interest from 
     the date of the enactment of this Act; or
       (2) the valuation of such real property awarded by 
     judgment, plus interest from the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, reasonable costs and expenses of holding such 
     property from February 1990 to the date of final payment, 
     including damages, if any, and reasonable costs and attorneys 
     fees, as determined by the court. Payment shall be made from 
     the permanent judgment appropriation established pursuant to 
     section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, or from another 
     appropriate Federal Government fund.

     Interest under this subsection shall be compounded in the 
     same manner as provided for in section 1(b)(2)(B) of the Act 
     entitled ``An Act to preserve within Manassas National 
     Battlefield Park, Virginia, the most important properties 
     relating to the battle of Manassas, and for other purposes'', 
     approved April 17, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 429b(b)(2)(B)), except 
     that the reference in that provision to ``the date of the 
     enactment of the Manassas National Battlefield Park 
     Amendments of 1988'' shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Determination by Court in Lieu of Negotiated 
     Settlement.--In the absence of a negotiated settlement, or an 
     action by the owner, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     initiate within 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this section a proceeding in the United States Federal 
     District Court for the District of Utah, seeking a 
     determination, subject to section 309(f) of the Omnibus Parks 
     and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333), 
     of the value of the real property, reasonable costs and 
     expenses of holding such property from February 1990 to the 
     date of final payment, including damages, if any, and 
     reasonable costs and attorneys fees.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Guam (Mr. 
Underwood) 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. 880 is a voluntary legislative taking of 
approximately 1,550 acres of land in Washington County, Utah. The land 
is located in the Red Cliffs Preserve, which is the designated habitat 
conservation area set aside in Utah to protect the endangered desert 
tortoise.
  The Red Cliffs Reserve also happens to be located in Washington 
County, the fastest growing county in Utah. The owner of this property 
has been unable to sell, trade or develop this property for years 
because of the actions of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau 
of Land Management's inability to exchange this owner out of the 
preserve. In fact, $15 million was appropriated by the 105th Congress 
to buy this land, but the former administration unwisely chose to spend 
the money in other areas, rather than protecting habitat for this 
endangered species.
  This disagreement goes back to 1983 when Environmental Land 
Technology, Ltd. acquired 2,440 acres of school trust lands located 
just north of St. George, Utah, intended for residential and 
recreational development. Environmental Land Technology began to 
develop the property by purchasing water rights while conducting the 
requisite series of appraisals, cost estimates, and surveys.
  Unfortunately, shortly thereafter, the desert tortoise was designated 
as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Following years of 
negotiations, in 1996, a Habitat Conservation Plan and Implementation 
Agreement for the desert tortoise was reached between the BLM, Fish and 
Wildlife, Washington County, and the State of Utah. As part of that 
agreement, the Bureau of Land Management assumed the obligation to 
acquire from willing sellers approximately 12,600 acres of non-Federal 
land to create the Red Cliffs Reserve for the protection of the desert 
tortoise. The lands described in this legislation are part of that 
original obligation.
  Since that time, the BLM has been able to acquire most of the 
property in the area, except for the property owned by ELT. After a 
series of extensive land exchanges, BLM now has insufficient land 
available for an interstate transfer with ELT. For the past 10 years, 
ELT has paid taxes and interest on its property without the ability to 
sell or develop that land or even set foot on it.
  This legislation-taking would include the 1,516 acres located within 
the reserve, and 34 acres adjacent to the reserve, all of which is 
owned by ELT. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 880 authorizes the United States to 
acquire the title of this property, which would then eliminate the last 
private inholding within the Red Cliff Reserve.

[[Page H848]]

  I want to emphasize to Members on both sides of the aisle that this 
is a voluntary taking and is fully supported by the owner and is 
supported by BLM.
  Mr. Speaker, we held hearings on this legislation last year. At that 
time, several concerns were raised by the administration and by the 
minority regarding the issue of valuation. The discussion centered 
around what was the true value of the property and whether either the 
Federal Government or the property owner was being treated fairly.
  That very issue is what has held up the completion of the HCP itself 
for years. What this legislation does is provides initial compensation 
well below the estimated value of the property to the property owner, 
preventing the property from reverting to creditors. After the initial 
settlement, absent any action by the property owner or the Secretary of 
the Interior, the valuation issue is then moved into Federal court 
where the remaining unsettled value of the property will then be 
determined. The court, not Congress, not BLM, not the property owner, 
will make this determination. While all of the parties involved would 
have liked to avoid going to court, unfortunately, this is the best way 
to resolve this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 880 is identical to the legislation passed under 
suspension of the rules in the last Congress. We have incorporated the 
same amendments that were made to this legislation last year.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill; and I strongly urge my colleagues 
to support H.R. 880 and get this thing over with.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 880, introduced by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Hansen), is a legislative-taking. The bill mandates that 30 days after 
enactment, all right, title, and interest to 1,550 acres of private 
land in Utah will vest in the United States. This legislation is 
identical to a measure, H.R. 4721, which passed the House on October 3, 
2000, but which the Senate did not act upon prior to adjournment.
  A legislative-taking is an extraordinary procedure used by the 
Congress only a few times in the past 25 years. Further, the language 
of this particular taking is substantially different from that used in 
other rare cases.
  There has been an ongoing controversy associated with the land 
identified by the legislation. Title to the property had been clouded 
for years; and the land has been the subject of significant litigation, 
as outlined by the Chair. While everyone agrees that the land in 
question should be acquired, there are still differences regarding how 
it should be done. Negotiations to acquire the property have been 
hampered by the landowner's insistence on using appraisal assumptions 
that are inconsistent with Federal acquisition standards.
  The previous administration testified in opposition to this measure 
last year, stating its concern that the bill provides preferential 
treatment to one landowner and provides compensation above and beyond 
that received by other landowners. We do not have the views of the new 
administration, but I can guess what they might be.
  Mr. Speaker, while there is still some question on certain provisions 
of H.R. 880, we do not object to consideration of the measure by the 
House today. However, we hope that some of these matters can be 
addressed before the bill is finalized and presented to the President.
  Mr. Speaker, 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. 880.
  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.

                          ____________________