[Senate Report 105-291]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 528
105th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 2d Session                                                     105-291
_______________________________________________________________________


 
           SOUTHERN NEVADA PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1997

                                _______
                                

                August 25, 1998.--Ordered to be printed

   Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of July 31, 1998

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Murkowski, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 449]

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 
referred the Act (H.R. 449) to provide for the orderly disposal 
of certain Federal lands in Clark County, Nevada, and to 
provide for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands 
in the State of Nevada, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the 
Act, do pass.

                         Purpose of the Measure

    H.R. 449, as ordered reported, would provide for the 
orderly disposal of certain Federal lands in Clark County, 
Nevada, and for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive 
lands in the State of Nevada.

                          Background and Need

    Clark County, Nevada, and its municipalities of Las Vegas, 
North Las Vegas, and Henderson, comprise one of the fastest 
growing metropolitan areas in the United States. There is, 
however, a growing sparsity of undeveloped land available for 
the construction of housing for new residents. The 
unprecedented growth has placed extraordinary demands on the 
largest landowner in the County--the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM). The large number and scale of land exchanges conducted 
by BLM, the pressurized workload which they have generated for 
the agency, and the complexities of the exchange process have 
fostered concerns about the existing procedures. The purpose of 
H.R. 449 is to establish, and authorize the BLM to implement, 
an improved process for public/private land transactions 
throughout Nevada.
    H.R. 449 builds on the existing Santini-Burton Act which 
provides for the sale of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands 
in Clark County, Nevada, and use those funds to purchase 
environmentally sensitive land sin Nevada.
    Driven by sustained growth, the Las Vegas/Clark County area 
has been the fastest growing urban area in the United States 
for the past five years. In 1994, the Las Vegas area 
experienced a gain in average annual employment of 53,900, and 
local government issued 25,570 residential building permits. 
During 1994 and 1995, several large casino/resorts opened in 
Las Vegas, adding 20,100 jobs to the area's economy. Over the 
past eight years, local governments have issued over 160,000 
residential building permits. Clark County now has an estimated 
population of over one million. While the growth rate settled 
at 5.5 percent in 1995 compared with 9.6 percent in 1994, the 
area continues to be the most rapidly growing area in the 
United States.
    Clark County and other units of local governments are 
currently impacted by the privatization of Federal land through 
the land exchange and land sale processes. Large tracts of land 
in the Las Vegas valley continue to be privatized in exchange 
for land elsewhere in the state that is deemedto be 
environmentally sensitive. Most of the land transferred to Federal 
ownership through these exchanges is outside Clark County. In the last 
decade, the BLM has privatized approximately 17,380 acres of land in 
Clark County. The sale and privatization of these Federal lands through 
land exchanges has forced the local governments to shoulder the burden 
of providing essential infrastructure, such as roads, water delivery, 
and electricity.
    H.R. 449 establishes a process to provide for the orderly 
disposal of Federal lands in Clark County and to provide for 
the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands in the State 
of Nevada. The Secretary of the Interior and the unit of local 
government in whose jurisdiction the lands are located shall 
jointly select lands to be offered for sale or exchange.

                          Legislative History

    H.R. 449 was introduced in the House of Representatives by 
Congressman John Ensign on January 20, 1997. A hearing on H.R. 
449 was held before the House Resource Committee on March 13, 
1997. The bill was favorably reported from the Resource 
Committee on April 16, 1997. The House passed H.R. 449, as 
reported, by voice vote on April 23, 1997.
    H.R. 449 was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources where a hearing on the bill was held in the 
Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands on May 6, 1998.

            Committee Recommendation and Tabulation of Votes

    The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in 
open business session on June 24, 1998, by unanimous vote of a 
quorum present recommends that the Senate pass H.R. 449 without 
amendment.
    The roll call vote on reporting the measure was 20 yeas, no 
nays as follows:
        YEAS                          NAYS
Mr. Murkowski
Mr. Domenici \1\
Mr. Nickles \1\
Mr. Craig
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Thomas
Mr. Kyl \1\
Mr. Grams
Mr. Smith
Mr. Gorton
Mr. Burns
Mr. Bumpers \1\
Mr. Ford
Mr. Bingaman \1\
Mr. Akaka \1\
Mr. Dorgan
Mr. Graham \1\
Mr. Wyden \1\
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu

    \1\ Indicates vote by proxy.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 2(a)(1) states that BLM ownership of large parcels 
of land interspersed with private land in Las Vegas Valley, 
Nevada complicates the management process to such a degree as 
to make disposal of those public lands appropriate.
    Section 2(a)(2) states that certain Federal land should be 
sold, based on recommendations by the local government and 
public.
    Section 2(a)(3) notes that the significant growth in the 
Las Vegas metropolitan area has adversely impacted surrounding 
National Recreation and Conservation areas.
    Section 3(2) specifies that the term ``unit of local 
government'' refers to Clark County, the city of Las Vegas, the 
city of North Las Vegas, or the city of Henderson, all in the 
State of Nevada.
    Section 3(3) clarifies the term ``Agreement'' as used in 
the Act as referencing ``The Interim Cooperative Management 
Agreement between the United States Department of the Interior 
and the Bureau of Land Management and Clark County'', dated 
November 4, 1992.
    Section 3(5) offers the clarification that the term 
``Recreation and Public Purposes Act'' refers to the Act 
entitled ``An Act to authorize acquisition or use of public 
lands by states, counties, or municipalities for recreational 
purposes'', approved June 14, 1926.
    Section 4(a) states that the Secretary is authorized to 
dispose of lands within the boundary of an area under the 
jurisdiction of the Director of the Bureau of Land Management 
in Clark County, Nevada, as generally depicted on the map 
entitled ``Las Vegas Valley, Nevada, Land Disposal Map'', dated 
April 10, 1997.
    Section 4(b)(1) specifies that the State of Nevada or a 
unit of local government may elect to obtain any lands within 
the disposal area for local public purposes thirty days before 
offering the lands for sale or exchange, pursuant to the 
Recreation and Public Purposes Act.
    Section 4(b)(2) states that, upon application, the 
Secretary shall in accordance with this and other applicable 
law, issue right-of-way grants on Federal lands in Clark 
County, Nevada for all reservoirs, canals, channels, ditches, 
pipes, pipelines, tunnels, and other facilities needed 
forcertain identified water related purposes. These grants shall be 
valid in perpetuity and shall not require the payment of rental fees.
    Section 4(d)(1) states that the Secretary and the units of 
local government in whose jurisdiction the lands are located 
shall jointly select lands to be offered for sale or exchange. 
The Committee supports the principal of local government input 
into the exchange process. The Committee further finds it is 
advantageous when local governments are able to engage in 
partnerships with the developers for the acquisition of Federal 
lands so as to help mitigate the problems encountered by the 
rapid growth experienced in the Las Vegas valley and to better 
plan the long term economic impact and community planning 
priorities. The North Las Vegas partnership is demonstrative of 
the type of partnership the Committee finds valuable.
    The Committee also finds that it is prudent in avoiding 
local controversy where multiple local jurisdictions occupy 
Federal land, that the jurisdiction which will provide the 
primary government and safety services to the Federal property 
upon private acquisition, should be the unit of local 
government which provides the principal input to the Federal 
Government regarding acquisition priorities.
    Section 4(e) deals with the distribution of the proceeds, 
including the payment, by the non-Federal exchange party, of 
fifteen percent of the value of the public lands involved to 
the State and local government. This section sets forth that 
five percent of the gross proceeds of sales of land in each 
fiscal year shall be paid directly to the State of Nevada for 
use in the State's education program, ten percent shall be paid 
directly to the Southern Nevada Water Authority, and the 
remainder shall be deposited in a special account in the 
Treasury of the United States.
    Section 4(e)(2)(A) provides that in the case of land 
exchanges under this section, the non-Federal party shall 
provide to the State of Nevada and the Southern Nevada Water 
authority such cash payments as directed in section 4(e)(1).
    The language contained in subsection 4(e)(2)(B) governs the 
so-called pending exchanges that are currently being processed 
where the initial ``agreement to initiate exchange'' was signed 
prior to February 29, 1996. The Committee is aware that certain 
of these pending land exchanges utilize a document styled a 
``non-binding statement of intent'' which was used prior to the 
BLM's current ``agreement to initiate exchange'' document and 
the Committee considers pending exchanges using either of the 
two documents to be equivalent for purposes of subsection 
4(e)(2)(B) of this Act. The Committee expects BLM to proceed 
with these pending exchanges and to bring them to finality on 
an expedited basis.
    Most of the provisions of this act do not apply to these 
pending land exchange transactions. The provisions that do 
apply are contained in subsections (a), (b), and (e) of section 
4. Subsections (a) and (b) authorize the disposal of lands and 
recognize certain authorization opportunities for recreation 
and public purposes and rights-of-way. In applying subsection 
(b) to pending exchanges, the Committee intends to facilitate 
these pending exchanges and does not intend tocreate 
opportunity to subvert, upset, or in any way interfere with the pending 
exchanges. Consequently, to the maximum extent possible, BLM shall 
respect and adhere to the understandings developed prior to this 
legislation between the BLM or the respective exchange party on the one 
hand and local government on the other relating to public use of the 
exchange property by local government.
    It is the intent of the Committee that a pending exchange 
proponent will provide fifteen percent of the value of the 
selected public lands to the state and local governments 
pursuant to subsection (e)(2)(A) of section 4, regardless of 
whether the ``agreement to initiate exchange'' or the ``non-
binding statement of intent'' entered into prior to enactment 
of this Act so provides. It is also the Committee's intent that 
BLM shall provide one hundred percent of the value of the 
exchange proponents in the form of land or cash equalization. 
Specifically, it is not necessary for the language regarding 
such compensation to appear in the actual ``agreement to 
initiate exchange'' or ``non-binding statement of intent'' for 
it to apply to these pending exchanges. To do otherwise would 
defeat the purpose of subsection 4(e)(2)(B) which is designed 
to facilitate and expedite these pending exchanges which were 
set in motion prior to enactment of this Act. The Committee is 
aware that pending exchanges may have experienced delays 
pending the expected enactment of H.R. 449 and that, as a 
consequence, the documentation may need to be supplemented, 
reworked, or replaced in the near future if final processing of 
these prospective transactions is not completed promptly after 
enactment. The Committee urges the relevant land management 
agencies to give priority to such processing so as to avoid 
this additional paperwork and staffing burden.
    Section 4(e)(3) states that funds deposited in the special 
account may be expended by the Secretary for: (1) acquisition 
of environmentally sensitive land; (2) capital improvements; 
(3) development of habitat conservation in Clark County, 
Nevada; (4) development of parks, trails and natural areas in 
that county; and reimbursement of costs incurred by the local 
offices of the BLM.
    Section 4(e)(3)(B) establishes that the Secretary shall 
coordinate the use of the special account with the Secretary of 
Agriculture, the State of Nevada, local governments, and other 
interested persons.
    Section 4(e)(3)(C) mandates that no more than twenty-five 
percent of the special account may be used in any fiscal year 
for capitol improvements at certain federally designated 
conservation and recreation areas.
    Section 4(g) mandates that the Secretary shall transfer all 
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
lands identified in the Agreement to Clark County, Nevada, 
subject to the stipulations in the Act.
    Section 4(g)(4) stipulates that if the lands or interests 
therein are sold, leased, or otherwise conveyed at fair market 
value, Clark County shall notify the BLM immediately after such 
atransaction occurs. Proceeds are then dispersed as follows: 
eighty-five percent of the gross proceeds must go to the special 
account, five percent directly to the State of Nevada for the benefit 
of its education program, and the remainder shall be available for the 
Clark County Department of Aviation for airport development and the 
Noise Compatibility Program.
    Section 5(a) sets forth the definition of ``environmentally 
sensitive land'' as land that would promote preservation of 
natural, scientific, aesthetic, historical, cultural, or 
wildlife values, would enhance recreational opportunities, or 
would provide the opportunity to achieve better management of 
public land.
    Section 5(c) clarifies that market value shall be 
determined pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act of 1976.
    Section 6 mandates that the Secretary shall submit an 
annual report on all transactions carried out under this Act to 
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the 
Resource Committee of the House of Representatives.
    Section 7 states that the Secretary may transfer the 
reversionary interest in lands within Clark County to other 
non-federal lands, provided those lands are of equal value.
    Section 7(b) states that under such terms and conditions as 
the Secretary may choose, he may make available Federal land in 
the State of Nevada at less than fair market value for 
affordable housing purposes. These lands shall be made 
available only to state and local government entities.
    Section 8 amends section 3(a)(2) of the Red Rock Canyon 
National Conservation Area Establishment Act of 1990 to read 
``The conservation area shall consist of approximately 195,780 
acres as generally depicted on the map entitled `Red Rock 
Canyon National Conservation Area Administrative Boundary 
Modification', August 8, 1996.''

                   Cost and Budgetary Considerations

    The following estimate of costs of this measure has been 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 10, 1998.
Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 449, the Southern 
Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1997.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Victoria V. 
Heid (for federal costs), and Susan Sieg (for the state and 
local impact).
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 449.--Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1997

    Summary: H.R. 449 would authorize the Secretary of the 
Interior to dispose of certain federally owned lands in Clark 
County, Nevada, and use the proceeds to purchase 
environmentally sensitive land and for certain other 
activities. CBO estimates that enacting the act would increase 
offsetting receipts to the government from asset sales by about 
$70 million in fiscal year 1999 and by a total of about $350 
million over the 1999-2003 period. In addition, we estimate 
that enacting the act would increase other direct spending by 
$20 million in fiscal year 1999 and by $287 million over the 
1999-2003 period. Over the next five years, the act would 
decrease direct spending by a total of $63 million. Over the 
long term, however, the bill would increase direct spending.
    Because enacting H.R. 449 would affect direct spending, 
pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the act. H.R. 449 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would 
impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. The 
state of Nevada, Clark County, and the Southern Nevada Water 
Authority would benefit from various provisions of this act.
    Description of the act's major provisions: H.R. 449 would:
          provide that 85 percent of the gross proceeds from 
        the sale of certain federal lands in Clark County, 
        Nevada, be placed in a special account in the Treasury; 
        interest on the principal would be added to that 
        account, and amounts in the special account would be 
        available to the Secretary of the Interior, without 
        further appropriation, to acquire environmentally 
        sensitive land and for certain other purposes;
          provide that of the gross proceeds from sale of those 
        lands, 5 percent shall be paid directly to the state of 
        Nevada and 10 percent shall be paid directly to the 
        Southern Nevada Water Authority for certain purposes;
          require that the nonfederal party pay the state of 
        Nevada and the Southern Nevada Water Authority 5 
        percent and 10 percent (respectively) of the fair 
        market value of the federal lands exchanged under 
        section 4;
          waive the fees for right-of-way grants issued on 
        federal lands in Clark County, Nevada, upon application 
        by a unit of local government or regional government 
        entity;
          direct the Secretary to offer, within 30 days after a 
        request by Clark County, Nevada, certain land for the 
        construction of youth activity facilities;
          direct the Secretary to transfer without 
        consideration, upon the request of Clark County, 
        Nevada, all right, title, and interest of the United 
        States in and to the airport environs overlay district 
        lands identified in an agreement between the Bureau of 
        Land Management (BLM) and Clark County; if the county 
        subsequently conveys that land to a third party, the 
        county would be required to contribute 85 percent of 
        the gross proceeds from the conveyance to the BLM 
        special account;
          provide that any land acquired by the federal 
        government under section 5 of H.R. 449 be included in 
        the payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) calculation;
          authorize the Secretary to transfer the reversionary 
        interest in federal lands in Clark County, Nevada, 
        subject to a lease or patent under the Recreation and 
        Public Purposes Act to other nonfederal lands; if the 
        fair market value of the nonfederal lands were less 
        than that of the federal lands under the original lease 
        or patent, the act would require the unit of local 
        government to pay the difference to the Secretary of 
        the Interior;
          authorize the Secretary to make available any federal 
        land in Nevada at less than fair market value for 
        affordable housing purposes; and
          modify the boundaries of the Red Rock Canyon National 
        Conservation Area to include additional acreage.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 449 is shown in the table below. The 
act also could affect spending subject to appropriation, but 
CBO estimates that any changes in discretionary spending would 
be less than $500,000 a year. The costs of this legislation 
fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and the 
environment).

                [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   1999    2000    2001    2002    2003 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING                       
                                                                        
Asset Sale Proceeds: \1\                                                
    Estimated Budget Authority..       0     -70     -70     -70     -70
    Estimated Outlays...........     -70     -70     -70     -70     -70
Spending from Proceeds,                                                 
 Including Interest:                                                    
    Estimated Budget Authority..      70      73      74      74      74
    Estimated Outlays...........      20      50      70      73      74
Net Changes in Direct Spending:                                         
    Estimated Budget Authority..       0       3       4       4       4
    Estimated Outlays...........     -50     -20       0       3      4 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, proceeds from nonroutine     
  asset sales may be counted for purposes of pay-as-you-go scorekeeping 
  only if such sales would entail no net financial cost to the          
  government. Because selling BLM lands under H.R. 449 would not entail 
  a net financial cost, the proceeds would be counted for pay-as-you-go 
  purposes.                                                             

    Basis of estimate: CBO estimates that H.R. 449 would 
increase offsetting receipts to the government from asset sales 
by about $350 million over the 1999-2003 period. In addition, 
we estimate that the act would increase other direct spending 
by $287 million over that same period.
    Direct spending and asset sale receipts: Under current law, 
the Secretary of the Interior has the authority to dispose of 
federal lands on the Las Vegas Valley, Nevada, Land Disposal 
Map specified in H.R. 449. The department's current policy is 
to dispose of the land by exchanging it for environmentally 
sensitive land of equal value. Such exchanges generate no 
receipts to the Treasury. Becausethe act would authorize the 
Secretary of the Interior to spend a portion of the proceeds from sale 
of the land, without further appropriation, enacting H.R. 449 would 
likely result in sale of the federal lands rather than exchange.
    Based on information from BLM and Clark County, roughly 
27,000 acres of federal land on the Las Vegas Valley, Nevada, 
Land Disposal Map specified in H.R. 449 would be suitable for 
sale, after accounting for local government selections under 
the Recreation and Public Purposes Act and other restrictions 
on land within the disposal area. The proceeds from sale of the 
land are highly uncertain and would depend on many factors 
including mutual agreement between BLM and the units of local 
government in selecting the lands to be offered for sale, how 
quickly the land is sold, the number of acres sold in each 
transaction, and the general real estate market in Clark 
County. CBO estimates that proceeds would be about $70 million 
annually and would total about $350 million over the 1999-2003 
period.
    Section 4 of the act provides that of the gross proceeds 
from sale of the land, 5 percent shall be paid directly to the 
state of Nevada and 10 percent shall be paid directly to the 
Southern Nevada Water Authority. CBO estimates that these 
payments would total about $10 million per year, or about $50 
million over the 1999-2003 period.
    Section 4 would place 85 percent of the gross proceeds from 
sale of federal land identified on the Las Vegas Valley, 
Nevada, Land Disposal Map in a special account in the Treasury. 
The act provides that interest be added to the principal in the 
special account; such interest payments would not affect 
receipts to the Treasury, but it would increase the funds 
available in the special account. Amounts in the special 
account would be available to the Secretary of the Interior, 
without further appropriation, to spend for acquisition of 
environmentally sensitive land, capital improvements at certain 
national recreation areas and refuges, development of a 
conservation plan in Clark County, development of parks and 
trails, and reimbursement of the agency costs incurred in 
arranging the land disposal. CBO estimates that spending from 
the special account would total $10 million in fiscal year 1999 
and $237 million over the 1999-2003 period. The act would 
result in net savings over the next five years because spending 
to acquire new land is likely to lag behind the proceeds from 
sales; over the long term, however, the provision that would 
allow spending of the interest on the proceeds would result in 
a net increase in direct spending.
    A number of other provisions in the act could affect direct 
spending, but CBO estimates that for most of those other 
provisions any change in direct spending would be 
insignificant. In two cases (described below), the impact could 
be significant, but we have no basis for estimating the amounts 
of potential changes.
    Section 4 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
offer to Clark county, Nevada, the land depicted on the map 
entitled ``Vicinity Map Parcel 177-28-101-020 dated August 14, 
1996,'' for the construction of youth activity facilities. 
Section 4 also provides that, upon request of Clark County, the 
Secretary shall transfer to the county certain land in the 
Airport Environs Overlay District. Based on information from 
BLM, under current law these federal lands will be unlikely to 
generate receipts to the Treasury. Therefore, CBO estimates 
that enacting these provisions probably would not affect direct 
spending. If the county subsequently conveys the land in the 
airport Environs Overlay District, the conveyance must be at 
fair market value, and the county must contribute 85 percent of 
the gross proceeds from the conveyance to the special account 
in the Treasury. This provision could affect offsetting 
receipts, but CBO cannot predict if or when such a conveyance 
might occur.
    Section 7 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development, to make available any land in the state of Nevada 
at less than fair market value for affordable housing purposes. 
Enacting this provision could result in a loss of receipts if 
federal land which would have been sold at fair market value 
were now sold for something less than fair market value; the 
provision could also increase receipts if it caused additional 
sales. CBO has no basis for predicting which federal lands 
might be sold under this provision or the price at which they 
might be sold. Therefore, we cannot estimate the budgetary 
effect of this provision.
    Spending subject to appropriation: H.R. 449 provides that 
the entitlement lands used to calculate payments in lieu of 
taxes (PILT) to units of local government include any lands 
acquired by the federal government under section 5 of the act. 
Calculation of PILT is based on the amount of federally owned 
acreage, subject to a population cap. Enacting H.R. 449 could 
increase the total number of federally owned acres, since the 
fair market value of the BLM land to be disposed of in Clark 
County may be higher than that of the environmentally sensitive 
land acquired under this act, but according to BLM, Clark 
County's PILT is already subject to a population cap. 
Therefore, we estimate that enacting H.R. 449 would not affect 
PILT to Clark County. Since the act would direct the Secretary 
of the Interior to give priority to the acquisition of 
environmentally sensitive lands in Clark County, we estimate 
that the act would be unlikely to affect PILT to other units of 
local government significantly. Any changes to PILT would be 
subject to appropriation.
    H.R. 449 would modify the boundaries of the Red Rock Canyon 
National Conservation Area to include additional acreage. Based 
on information from BLM, CBO estimates that theagency would 
incur costs to manage the additional acreage, but that any effect on 
discretionary spending would total less than $100,000 per year.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
receipts. Under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, proceeds from 
nonroutine asset sales may be counted for purposes of pay-as-
you-go scorekeeping only if such sales would entail no net 
financial cost to the government. Selling these BLM lands would 
not entail a net financial cost; therefore, the proceeds would 
be counted for pay-as-you-go purposes.
    The net changes in outlays that are subject to pay-as-you-
go procedures are shown in the following table. For the 
purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the 
effects in the current year, the budget year, and the 
succeeding four years are counted.

                                                        [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1998     1999     2000     2001     2002     2003     2004     2005     2006     2007     2008 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays...................................        0        0      -50      -20        0        3        4        4        4        4        4
Changes in receipts..................................                                                                                                   
(10) Not applicable                                                                                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: 
H.R. 449 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    The state of Nevada, Clark County, and the Southern Nevada 
Water Authority would benefit from various provisions of this 
act. As noted above, CBO estimates that payments to the state 
and to the authority out of the proceeds of land sales would 
total about $50 million over the 1999-2003 period. In addition, 
the act would allow local governments in Clark County to 
receive right-of-way grants on federal lands without paying 
fees that may be charged under current law. CBO estimates that 
this provision would allow these governments to avoid fees 
totaling less than $50,000 per year.
    H.R. 449 would give the local government in whose 
jurisdiction these lands are located (Clark County, in most 
cases) joint authority, along with the federal government, to 
selectlands to be offered for sale. This would allow local 
governments to control the pace and direction of private development 
and limit the demand for public facilities.
    Also included in the act are several provisions that would 
allow the state and local governments in Clark County to obtain 
federal lands at little or no cost. These include the provision 
directing the Secretary of the Interior to transfer certain 
lands in the Airport Environs Overlay District to Clark County. 
According to county officials, this transfer would ease the 
administrative burden of managing the development of these 
lands. In addition, under the terms of this act, the county 
could convey this land to private parties and retain 15 percent 
of the proceeds. The remaining proceeds would have to be turned 
over to the federal government. CBO cannot predict if or when 
such a conveyance might occur.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: This act would 
impose no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Previous CBO estimate: On April 23, 1997, CBO prepared a 
cost estimate for H.R. 449, the Southern Nevada Public Land 
Management Act of 1997, as ordered reported by the House 
Committee on Resources on April 16, 1997. This version of H.R. 
449 is similar to the House version and the estimated proceeds 
from asset sales and spending of those proceeds are the same. 
However, the estimated budgetary effects for pay-as-you-go 
purposes are different because of a change to the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA) regarding 
nonroutine asset sales.
    Under BBEDCA as in effect in April 1997, proceeds from 
nonroutine asset sales did not count for purposes of pay-as-
you-go scorekeeping. As a result, CBO estimated in April 1997 
that enacting H.R. 449 would increase direct spending by a 
total of $287 million over the 1998-2002 period for pay-as-you-
go purposes. Net budgetary savings (including asset sale 
proceeds) would total $63 million over the same five-year 
period.
    Since our previous cost estimate on H.R. 449, the Congress 
enacted the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Under that act, which 
amended BBEDCA, proceeds from nonroutine asset sales may be 
counted for purposes of pay-as-you-go scorekeeping if they 
would entail no net financial cost to the government. Because 
selling BLM lands under H.R. 449 would not entail a net 
financial cost, the proceeds would now be counted for pay-as-
you-go purposes.
    Therefore, CBO currently estimates that H.R. 449 would 
reduce direct spending by $63 million over the next five years.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Victoria V. Heid. 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Susan Sieg.
    Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                      Regulatory Impact Evaluation

    In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following 
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in 
carrying out H.R. 449
    The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of 
imposing Government established standards or significant 
economic responsibilities on private individuals and 
businesses. No personal information would be collected in 
administering the program. Therefore, there would be no impact 
on personal privacy. Little if any additional paperwork would 
result from the enactment of H.R. 449

                        Executive Communications

    On May 6, 1998, the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources requested executive comment from the Department of 
the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget setting 
forth executive views of H.R. 449. These comments had not yet 
been received at the time H.R. 449 was reported. When the 
requested reports become available, the Chairman will request 
that they be printed in the Congressional Record for the advice 
of the Senate. The testimony provided by the Bureau of Land 
Management at the Subcommittee hearing follows:

    Statement of Tom Fry, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 94 and H.R. 
449, the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1997, 
regarding land disposal in the Las Vegas Valley. The Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) supports the concept behind these bills. 
We believe that through continuing discussions with the bill's 
authors in the House and the Senate, a final bill can be 
produced that would receive the Administration's endorsement.
    Let me provide some background and context for this 
legislation. In many parts of the West, the legacy of 
settlement has left us with a scattered ownership pattern. The 
Las Vegas area is a good example. As communities such as Las 
Vegas expand, the BLM works with local jurisdictions to make 
public lands available through sale or exchange and also 
provide lands for public purposes through Recreation and Public 
Purpose (R&PP) Act patents and leases. In the Las Vegas Valley, 
BLM is working with all jurisdictions and private interests to 
facilitate the disposal of public lands, mostly through 
exchange. Our program of land exchanges in the Las Vegas Valley 
is designed to dispose of land with high commercial value, 
which allows us to acquire resources significant to all 
Americans including: Prime recreation areas; riparian and 
wetland habitat; critical habitat for threatened, sensitive and 
endangered species, and significant historical, archaeological, 
and cultural sites.
    S. 94 and its companion House bill, H.R. 449, specifically 
affect several thousand acres of public land in the Las Vegas 
Valley, which are managed by the BLM. In recent years, the Las 
Vegas Valley has become the fastest growing metropolitan region 
in the country, but development has been influenced by the 
presence of public lands in the area. The rapid expansion has 
also had an impact on the Las Vegas District of BLM, which has 
experienced an increase in applications for permits to use 
public lands. These requests have included rights-of-way for 
power lines and roads, R&PP leases for fire stations and 
schools, land exchange proposals, and other realty actions. 
This bill seeks to resolve the future of these public lands by 
requiring BLM to sell, exchange or transfer public land in the 
Las Vegas Valley.
    Mr. Chairman, the BLM strongly believes that the land 
ownership pattern in the Las Vegas area needs to be addressed. 
In fact, our draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the area 
targets the vast majority of BLM-managed lands within the Las 
Vegas metropolitan area for disposal in order to meet the 
growth needs of the community. The lands specified in S. 94 and 
H.R. 449 are nearly identical to those identified for disposal 
in the RMP.
    As part of its planning process, BLM's Las Vegas District 
works toward partnerships with local governments in southern 
Nevada. The BLM is a charter member of the Southern Nevada 
Public Lands Task Force which established the disposal 
boundary. BLM personnel meet quarterly with the Clark County 
Planning Director and this task force. In January 1996, BLM 
initiated the Southern Nevada Land Exchange Strategy Project to 
improve the effectiveness of the land exchange program and 
other realty actions in the Las Vegas District. Coordination 
and communication with local governments continue to be key to 
success of the project. In the area of land exchanges, our goal 
is to prioritize land exchange opportunities and move forward 
with timely completion of high priority land exchanges that 
meet the public interest and respond to local needs.
    One of the best examples of sound legislation that 
addressed public land disposal is the Santini-Burton Act of 
1980. The law gave the Department of the Interior the authority 
to sell land in the Las Vegas Valley and to use 85% of the 
revenue to purchase private lands within the National Forest 
System in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The Federal government shares a 
portion of the receipts (15%) with Clark County, the City of 
Las Vegas and the State of Nevada. In return, lands in the 
magnificent Lake Tahoe Basin have been protected and made 
available for the enjoyment of the public.
    The intent of S. 94 and H.R. 449 is to capture parts of the 
BLM's land exchange goals, the Santini-Burton Act and the 
partnerships that have been developed with local government. 
These bills provide for the disposal, by sale or exchange, of 
certain Federally owned, BLM-managed lands within a limited 
area of the Las Vegas valley. Fifteen percent of the proceeds 
from these land disposals would be distributed to local 
entities. The balance of the funds would be used for the 
benefit of natural resource management within Nevada for 
Federal land acquisition, capital improvements, development of 
a multi-species habitat conservation plan in Clark County and 
the development of recreation and natural areas within Clark 
County. The bill also provides for the transfer of lands to 
Clark County, at no cost, within the airport management area 
for McCarran International Airport. Should those lands be sold 
or leased, the United States would be paid 85% of the fair 
market value received. These bills also include a provision 
allowing local governmental entities to select public lands 
needed under the R&PP Act prior to their conveyance. Local and 
regional governmental entities may also apply for rights of way 
for flood control and water treatment purposes which can be 
granted in perpetuity and at no cost. Additionally, the 
Secretary is authorized to transfer the R&PP reversionary 
clause from one parcel of land to another upon request by the 
owner of those lands.
    Nearly two years ago, the BLM acting Director, Mike Dombeck 
testified in opposition to an earlier version of this bill. At 
that time, Mr. Dombeck stated, ``while we support the goal of 
disposing of certain public lands within Las Vegas to 
accommodate the city's growth, the Department strongly opposes 
this bill.'' He pointed out that the earlier bill would divert 
huge amounts of Federal resources and funds to local interests, 
offering a windfall to a few at the expense of many. Since that 
hearing two years ago, the Nevada delegation staffs have worked 
to resolve many of the problems we identified with the bill, as 
originally introduced in the 104th Congress.
    Since H.R. 449 was introduced in the House (and its 
companion bill S. 94), a number of technical issues have been 
discussed and resolved between BLM and Congressional staffs. 
The bill that passed the House of Representatives on April 23, 
1997, contained many of the recommended modifications. Those 
details are unnecessary to pursue here. However, there remain a 
few issues that are as yet unresolved that need to be remedied 
before the Department can endorse the bill. For purposes of 
discussion, I will speak from the bill that was passed by the 
House, H.R. 449.
    First, section 4(a) waives FLPMA sections 202 and 203 for 
land disposals and section 4(b)(3) waives environmental laws 
for construction of a youth activity facility. The 
Administration strongly opposes waivers of environmental laws 
in legislation. Such waivers undercut the applicability of the 
laws, undermine enforcement, possibly lead to serious 
environmental problems and set a dangerous precedent. We urge 
that these waivers be removed from the bill.
    Second, section 4(f) of the bill establishes a special 
account for 85% of the proceeds of land sales. Creating a 
special account that makes funds available without further 
appropriation is a significant departure from current policy. 
However, for purposes of this situation, the Department could 
support the establishment of such a fund if its uses were 
limited to land acquisition within Nevada and reimbursement of 
costs incurred by the local BLM offices in arranging sales or 
exchanges.
    Third, Section 4(d) of the bill is entitled, ``Joint 
Selection Required.'' This section appears to require the 
Secretary to obtain local government concurrence before any 
land disposal action. The Secretary, just like a corporation or 
a private homeowner, should have the discretion to dispose of 
lands without having to wait for the local government to 
approve that transaction. After all, local government has the 
ultimate control of land development through planning and 
zoning. We believe strongly in consultation with local 
governments, but do not believe they should have veto power. We 
request that the term joint selection be changed to 
``consultation.''
    Fourth, Section 4(g) of the bill transfers 4,600 acres that 
are located within the Las Vegas Airport noise area to Clark 
County, at no cost. Specifically, the bill requires the 
Secretary of the Interior to transfer lands that are identified 
in a current Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the BLM to 
Clark County, at its request and at no cost. If the lands are 
later sold or leased, then the Airport Authority is required to 
pay the Federal government 85% of the value received. Although 
this approach is superior to the straight donation as designed 
in earlier versions of the bill, it seems more appropriate to 
allow the BLM to dispose of the lands subject to a covenant 
that assures compatibility with the airport noise area. I am 
sure the airport authority would like to keep this process as 
simple as possible without creating unnecessary long-term 
management problems. We would be glad to work with the 
subcommittee staff and the airport authority on this issue.
    The bill contains a provision which allows public lands to 
be conveyed at less than market value for affordable housing 
anywhere within Nevada in accordance with local land use 
planning and zoning. In addition to local planning and zoning, 
the disposal of these lands must be in accordance with BLM land 
use plans. As this bill is a southern Nevada land disposal 
bill, we recommend that this provision apply only to the lands 
identified in Section 4(a).
    Finally, we point out that the Department does not yet have 
on file the maps referenced in Section 4(a), section 4(b)(3), 
and section 8. On March 5, 1998, the District Court for the 
District of Columbia, in its decision in Coast Alliance v. 
Babbitt, essentially nullified section 220 of the omnibus Parks 
and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 because maps referenced 
in that section were not on file on the date of enactment of 
that act. We, therefore, believe it is essential for the 
Committee to work with the Department to develop a dated and 
filed map prior to the markup of this legislation. We were 
provided preliminary maps from House staff, but have not seen 
final maps.


                               conclusion


    Mr. Chairman, we all recognize that a population explosion 
is occurring in many western communities. Las Vegas is seeing 
an increased migration of people from southern California and 
large metropolitan areas in the east. Public lands can be part 
of the solution, and an effective land disposal program can 
assist in orderly growth. The BLM agrees that we need to move 
to dispose of much of the urban lands in the Las Vegas area 
when appropriate. Of the 130,000 acres within the area affected 
by this legislation, about 20,000 of those acres are public 
lands. These public lands should be disposed of in harmony with 
the needs of the local or tribal jurisdiction while protecting 
public interests. We also believe that all land disposals must 
benefit both the American people and the local community, as 
well as our natural resources.
    This legislation provides a framework for dealing with the 
situation in the Las Vegas area. The bill deals with disposal 
of public land using a nearly identical boundary as developed 
within the BLM Draft Resource Management Plan. With changes to 
address the concerns outlined above, as well as some changes of 
a more technical nature, the Department could support the 
legislation. We would be happy to work with the Nevada 
delegation to provide such a solution.
    Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear 
before the Subcommittee and discuss this bill. I will be glad 
to answer any questions.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 11 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the Act H.R. 449, as ordered reported, are shown as follows 
(existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black 
brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in 
which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

              Section 6901 of Title 31, United States Code

6901. Definitions

    In this chapter--
          (1) ``entitlement land'' means land owned by the 
        United States Government--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (F) that is located in the vicinity of 
                Purgatory River Canyon and Pinon Canyon, 
                Colorado, and acquired after December 23, 1981, 
                by the United States Government to expand the 
                Fort Carson military installation; [or]
                  (G) that is a reserve area (as defined in 
                section 401(g)(3) of the Act of June 15, 1935 
                (16 U.S.C. 715s(g)(3)))[.]; or
                  (H) acquired by the Secretary of the Interior 
                or the Secretary of Agriculture under section 5 
                of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management 
                Act of 1997 that is not otherwise described in 
                subparagraphs (A) through (G)

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


      Section 3 of the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area 
                       Establishment Act of 1990

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONSERVATION AREA.

    (a) In General.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(2) The conservation area shall consist of approximately 
195,610 acres as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Red 
Rock Canyon National Conservation Area--Proposed Expansion'', 
numbered NV-RRCNCA-002, and dated July 1994.]
    (2) The conservation area shall consist of approximately 
195,780 acres as generally depicted on the map entitled ``Red 
Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Administrative Boundary 
Modification'', dated August 8, 1996.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *