[House Report 104-755]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-755
_______________________________________________________________________
LANDS IN CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
_______
September 4, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2135]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 2135) to provide for the correction of boundaries of
certain lands in Clark County, Nevada, acquired by persons who
purchased such lands in good faith reliance on existing private
land surveys, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended
do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds and declares that:
(1) Certain landowners in the (North) Decatur Boulevard area
of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada, who own
property adjacent to lands managed by the Bureau of Land
Management have been adversely affected by certain erroneous
private surveys.
(2) These landowners have occupied or improved their property
in good faith and in reliance on erroneous surveys of their
properties that they believed were accurate.
(3) These landowners presumed their occupancy was codified
through an Eighth Judicial District Court (Nevada) Judgment and
Decree filed October 26, 1989, as a ``friendly lawsuit''
affecting numerous landowners in the (North) Decatur Boulevard
area.
(4) The 1990 Bureau of Land Management dependent resurvey and
section subdivision of sections 6, 7, 18, and 19, T. 19 S., R.
61 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, correctly established
accurate boundaries between such public lands and private
lands.
(5) The Bureau of Land Management has the authority to sell
public lands which are affected as a result of erroneous
private survey and encroachments existing as of the date of
this Act as it affects T. 19 S., R. 61 E., sections 18 and 19,
and T. 19 S. R. 60 E., section 13 and 24, if encroachments
based on the same erroneous private survey are identified, in
accordance with this Act.
SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF LANDS.
(a) Claims.--Within one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the city of Las Vegas on behalf of the owners of real
property, located adjacent to the lands described in subsection (b),
may submit to the Secretary of the Interior (hereafter in this Act
referred to as the ``Secretary'') in writing a claim to the lands
described in subsection (b). The claim submitted to the Secretary shall
be accompanied by--
(1) a description of the lands claimed;
(2) information relating to the claim of ownership of such
lands; and
(3) such other information as the Secretary may require.
(b) Lands Described.--The lands described in this subsection are
those Federal lands located in the Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas
District, Clark County, Nevada, in sections 18 and 19, T. 19 S., R. 61
E., Mount Diablo Meridian, as described by the dependent resurvey by
the Bureau of Land Management accepted May 4, 1990, under Group No.
683, Nevada, and subsequent supplemental plats of sections 18 and 19,
T. 19 S., R. 61 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, as contained on plats
accepted November 17, 1992. Such lands are described as (1) government
lots 22, 23, 26, and 27 in said section 18; and (2) government lots 20,
21, and 24 in said section 19, containing 29.36 acres, more or less.
(c) Conveyance.--The Secretary shall convey all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the public lands described in
subsection (b) to the city of Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada, upon
payment by the city of fair market value based on a Bureau of Land
Management approved appraised market value of the lands as of December
1, 1982, and on the condition that the city convey the effected lands
to the land owners referred to in subsection (a).
Amend the title so as to read:
A bill to provide for the relief of certain persons in
Clark County, Nevada, who purchased lands in good faith
reliance on existing private land surveys.
purpose of the bill
The purpose of H.R. 2135 is to provide for the correction
of boundaries of certain lands in Clark County, Nevada,
acquired by persons who purchased such lands in good faith
reliance on existing land surveys.
background and need for legislation
Within the City of Las Vegas there are many areas where
longstanding property line disputes exist. One of the most
difficult is along the Decatur Boulevard alignment at the
border between the cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas and
involves a trespass on Federal land by the property owners of
adjacent parcels.
The original land surveys of the subject area were
performed in 1881 and 1882. There is considerable evidence that
the points set by the original government contract surveys were
not stones as called for in the official field notes, but small
mesquite stakes. While it is probable that the exterior lines
of the townships were run, it is doubtful that all of the
interior section lines were surveyed. This was not an uncommon
circumstance in remote areas of the west.
The first record of a private survey in the area was in
1953. The area under question is near the Las Vegas Wash in the
northeast area of the City of Las Vegas and the original
corners very likely were destroyed by time and weather. It is
assumed that the private surveyors of this era could not find
evidence of the original survey. Over a twenty year period of
time, various private surveys were performed and property
corners set. Unfortunately, the variance between them was as
much as 250 feet in the east-west direction. Property owners in
the area built houses and developed their properties in good
faith, relying on the various private surveys.
As years passed and development increased, it became
evident that severe discrepancies existed among the property
surveys. In 1989, in response to citizens' concerns, the City
of Las Vegas commissioned a survey of the properties in an area
four miles north to south and one mile on each side of Decatur
Boulevard. Suit was brought in District Court on behalf of all
the property owners in eight sections of land to quiet title to
their individual parcels. On October 25, 1989, District Judge
Charles Thompson issued a judgment and decree quieting title to
the land in question. The judgment set the street centerline
and adjoining property lines at the most equitable solution for
all properties involved. This solution in effect set the
property lines at the lines of occupation.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) objected to the court
action, stating that it had not been properly notified, and
that the District Court had no jurisdiction over the Federal
land included in the judgment. BLM had been notified at the
Washington, D.C. address, but the local District Office had not
received notification.
In 1990, the BLM, under its sole Federal authority,
performed a dependent resurvey of the land. A dependent
resurvey is intended to retrace the original survey (1881)
without deviation, regardless of occupation. The City of North
Las Vegas had applied to purchase a large block of Federal land
on the east side of Decatur Boulevard, and the survey was also
to delineate and monument these lands. The resurvey set the
line west of the adjudicated centerline of Decatur Boulevard,
and in fact passes through at least one house. The BLM
maintains that the property owners who occupy the disputed land
are in trespass on Federal property.
If the land sale to North Las Vegas had been completed, the
land in conflict between the centerline of Decatur Boulevard
and the range line would have been quitclaimed to the City of
Las Vegas, and in turn, quitclaimed to the affected property
owners, clearing title to their lands.
An injunction against the sale of the public lands to the
City of North Las Vegas was filed jointly by the Sierra Club
and Citizen Alert with the Department of Interior Board of Land
Appeals (IBLA). The injunction was finally lifted this year,
freeing the land to be sold to private ownership. A new
appraisal of the land ensued. The developers who were
interested in the land have declined to purchase it at the new
appraisal price so the sale has not taken place. With the land
still in Federal ownership, the boundary line adjustments
cannot take place and the people who own or occupy land in the
disputed area cannot sell or refinance their homes, or obtain
clear title.
In November 1992, the BLM, in a cooperative effort to
resolve the problem, issued supplemental plats of the two
sections of land involved which created seven government lots
encompassing the disputed area. The creation of these lots is
the first step in making them available for transfer to private
ownership.
The next step is legislation transferring title of the
seven lots from the United States to the City of Las Vegas.
When this occurs, the City will take appropriate action to
divide the lots further and quitclaim to adjacent owners, who
are now either occupying the land or believe they have title to
it by virtue of the early private surveys or the district court
decision.
The other option which for obvious reasons is much less
attractive to the City of Las Vegas would be to purchase the
land from the Federal Government. This cost is estimated at
$500,000 to $600,000. The City estimates that they have already
spent nearly $500,000 on survey and court costs.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 2135 was introduced on July 27, 1995, by Congresswoman
Barbara F. Vucanovich (R-NV). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands. On May 30,
1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 2135, where Mr.
Mat Millenbach, Deputy Director of the BLM, testified in
support, provided that the bill would be amended to reflect the
BLM's concerns. In addition to Mr. Millenbach, Ms. Rita Lumos,
City Surveyor for the City of Las Vegas, Nevada, testified on
the bill. On June 27, 1996, the Subcommittee met to mark up
H.R. 2135. An amendment to require the City of Las Vegas to pay
fair market value on the date in which this problem first came
to the attention of the BLM (December 1, 1982) was offered by
Congressman James V. Hansen (R-UT), and adopted by voice vote.
The bill was then ordered favorably reported to the Full
Committee by voice vote. On July 17, 1996, the Full Resources
Committee met to consider H.R. 2135. Congressman Hansen offered
an amendment to clarify the lands involved in the erroneous
private surveys and to provide the BLM with flexibility to
fully resolve this problem. The amendment was adopted by voice
vote. The bill was then ordered favorably reported to the House
of Representatives by voice vote, in the presence of a quorum.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Findings
Section 1 states that certain landowners in the Decatur
Boulevard area of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas, Clark County,
Nevada, who own property adjacent to lands managed by the BLM
have been adversely affected by certain erroneous private
surveys. These landowners have occupied or improved these lands
in good faith and presumed their occupancy was codified through
an Eight Judicial District Court (Nevada) Judgment and Decree
filed October 26, 1989.
The 1990 BLM dependent resurvey and section subdivision of
sections 6, 7, 18 and 19, T. 19 S., R. 61 E., Mount Diablo
Meridian, Nevada, correctly establishes the boundaries.
The BLM has the authority to sell public lands which are
affected by the erroneous private survey and encroachments
existing as of the date of this Act.
Section 2. Conveyance of lands
Section 2 provides that within one year after the date of
enactment, the city of Las Vegas on behalf of the land owners,
may submit to the Secretary of the Interior in writing a claim
to the lands described in subsection (b). The Secretary shall
convey all right, title, and interest of the United States to
the City of Las Vegas upon payment by the City of fair market
value based on a BLM approved appraisal as of December 1, 1982,
and on the condition that the City convey the affected lands to
the lands owners.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3) of rule
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the Committee on Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
INFLATIONARY IMPACT STATEMENT
Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that the
enactment of H.R. 2135 will have no significant inflationary
impact on prices and costs in the operation of the national
economy.
COST OF THE LEGISLATION
Clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the
Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out
H.R. 2135. However, clause 7(d) of that Rule provides that this
requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XI
1. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, H.R.
2135 does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in tax
expenditures. If enacted, H.R. 2135 would decrease offsetting
receipts to the Federal Government by approximately $1 million.
2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 2135.
3. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R.
2135 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
congressional budget office cost estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 1, 1996.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
reviewed H.R. 2135, a bill to provide for the relief of certain
persons in Clark County, Nevada, who purchased lands in good
faith reliance on existing private land surveys. The bill was
ordered reported by the House Committee on Resources on July
17, 1996. Enacting the bill would result in no significant
change in discretionary spending. Enacting the bill would
affect direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures
would apply to the bill. CBO estimates that direct spending
would increase by about $1 million over the next few years.
Because of incorrect private surveys, certain private land
owners in Las Vegas, Nevada, have occupied neighboring federal
lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The
federal lands in question total about 30 acres, and BLM
currently plans to sell that property. This bill would direct
the Secretary of the Interior to sell the land to the city of
Las Vegas at its appraised 1982 market value and would require
the city to convey the land to the owners of property that is
adjacent to the BLM property. The 1982 market value is about $1
million less than the lands' current market value, which we
expect the federal government would otherwise receive under
current law. Therefore, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2135
would decrease offsetting receipts by about $1 million. We
expect that the property would otherwise be sold at market
value some time over the next few years.
H.R. 2135 contains no private-sector or intergovernmental
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4) and would impose no costs on state, local,
or tribal governments. The sale authorized by this bill would
take place only upon the voluntary decision by the city of Las
Vegas to submit a claim to these lands on behalf of the owners.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Jonathan
Womer and Victoria Heid.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill, Director.
compliance with public law 104-4
H.R. 2135 contains no unfunded mandates.
changes in existing law
If enacted, H.R. 2135 would make no changes in existing
law.