[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.

                                
