[House Report 106-471]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    106-471

======================================================================



 
            IVANPAH VALLEY AIRPORT PUBLIC LANDS TRANSFER ACT

                                _______
                                

 November 16, 1999.--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

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1695]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 1695) to provide for the conveyance of certain Federal 
public lands in the Ivanpah Valley, Nevada, to Clark County, 
Nevada, for the development of an airport facility, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 
amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands 
Transfer Act''.

SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF LANDS TO CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the land use planning requirements 
contained in sections 202 and 203 of the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712 and 1713), but subject to 
subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary shall convey to the 
County all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
the Federal public lands identified for disposition on the map entitled 
``Ivanpah Valley, Nevada-Airport Selections'' numbered 01, and dated 
April 1999, for the purpose of developing an airport facility and 
related infrastructure. The Secretary shall keep such map on file and 
available for public inspection in the offices of the Director of the 
Bureau of Land Management and in the district office of the Bureau 
located in Las Vegas, Nevada.
    (b) Conditions.--The Secretary shall make no conveyance under 
subsection (a) until each of the following conditions are fulfilled:
          (1) The County has conducted an airspace assessment to 
        identify any potential adverse effects on access to the Las 
        Vegas Basin under visual flight rules that would result from 
        the construction and operation of a commercial or primary 
        airport, or both, on the land to be conveyed.
          (2) The Federal Aviation Administration has made a 
        certification under section 4(b).
          (3) The County has entered into an agreement with the 
        Secretary to retain ownership of Jean Airport, located at Jean, 
        Nevada, and to maintain and operate such airport for general 
        aviation purposes.
    (c) Payment.--
          (1) In general.--As consideration for the conveyance of each 
        parcel, the County shall pay to the United States an amount 
        equal to the fair market value of the parcel.
          (2) Deposit in special account.--The Secretary shall deposit 
        the payments received under paragraph (1) in the special 
        account described in section 4(e)(1)(C) of the Southern Nevada 
        Public Land Management Act (31 U.S.C. 6901 note).
    (d) Reversion and Reentry.--
          (1) In general.--During the 5-year period beginning 20 years 
        after the date on which the Secretary conveys the lands under 
        subsection (a), if the Secretary determines that the County is 
        not developing or progressing toward the development of the 
        conveyed lands as an airport facility, all right, title, and 
        interest in those lands shall revert to the United States, and 
        the Secretary may reenter such lands.
          (2) Procedure.--Any determination of the Secretary under 
        paragraph (1) shall be made only on the record after an 
        opportunity for a hearing.
          (3) Refund.--If any right, title, and interest in lands 
        revert to the United States under this subsection, the 
        Secretary shall refund to the County all payments made to the 
        United States for such lands under subsection (c).

SEC. 3. MINERAL ENTRY FOR LANDS ELIGIBLE FOR CONVEYANCE.

    The public lands referred to in section 2(a) are withdrawn from 
mineral entry under the Act of May 10, 1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.; 
popularly known as the Mining Law of 1872) and the Mineral Leasing Act 
(30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.).

SEC. 4. ACTIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

    (a) Development of Airpsace Management Plan.--The Secretary of 
Transportation shall, in consultation with the Secretary, develop an 
airspace management plan for the Ivanpah Valley Airport that shall, to 
the maximum extent practicable and without adversely impacting safety 
considerations, restrict aircraft arrivals and departures over the 
Mojave Desert Preserve in California.
    (b) Certification of Assessment.--The Administrator of the Federal 
Aviation Administration shall certify to the Secretary that the 
assessment made by the County under section 2(b)(1) is thorough and 
that alternatives have been developed to address each adverse effect 
identified in the assessment, including alternatives that ensure access 
to the Las Vegas Basin under visual flight rules at a level that is 
equal to or better than existing access.

SEC. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 
                    REQUIRED.

    Prior to operation of an airport facility on lands conveyed under 
section 2, all actions required under the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) with respect to that operation 
shall be completed.

SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act--
          (1) the term ``County'' means Clark County, Nevada; and
          (2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
        Interior.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 1695 is to provide for the sale of 
certain public lands in the Ivanpah Valley, Nevada, to the 
Clark County Department of Aviation.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    The Las Vegas Valley is the fastest growing metropolitan 
area in the country. About 50 percent of the annual visitors to 
Las Vegas arrive in the area as passengers at McCarran Airport. 
As the resorts in Las Vegas increasingly become international 
travel destinations, this percentage will continue to climb. 
Consequently, McCarran Airport is quickly reaching capacity.
    H.R. 1695 would designate approximately 6,395 acres of 
Bureau of Land Management land in the Ivanpah Valley for 
gradual sale to the Clark County Department of Transportation 
at fair market value. This land would eventually become a new 
airport facility and surrounding infrastructure.
    There are a number of reasons why the Ivanpah Valley is an 
ideal place to build a new airport. The location has favorable 
topography and orientation. The airport is far enough away from 
McCarran Airport and Nellis Air Force Base to avoid the 
airspace capacity constraints that would face a new airport in 
the Las Vegas Valley and yet is close enough to serve the 
metropolitan area. The area is right next to I-15 and the Union 
Pacific Railroad, providing good transportation connections. 
There are also minimal environmental problems with the site.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 1695 was introduced on May 5, 1999, by Congressman Jim 
Gibbons (R-NV). The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 
National Parks and Public Lands. On July 13, 1999, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On September 23, 1999, 
the Subcommittee met to mark up the bill. No amendments were 
offered and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the Full 
Committee on a voice vote. On October 20, 1999, the Full 
Resources Committee met to consider the bill. Congressman 
Gibbons offered an en bloc amendment which eliminated the 
phased conveyance language in the bill. Congressman Bruce Vento 
(D-MN) offered a substitute amendment which placed additional 
conditions on the conveyance. The Vento substitute was defeated 
by a roll call vote of 12-22, as follows:


    The Gibbons en bloc amendment was then adopted by voice 
vote. Congressman Vento offered another amendment to require a 
special analysis of the proposed airport's effect on natural 
resources and provided that if any part of the airport project 
is found to have an adverse effect, no conveyance can be made 
unless there is no feasible alternative. Congressman Jim Hansen 
(R-UT) offered a substitute amendment to the Vento amendment 
that required National Environmental Policy Act compliance 
prior to the operation of an airport in the area. Congressman 
Hansen's substitute was adopted by a voice vote, and the Vento 
amendment, as amended, was then adopted by voice vote. The bill 
as amended was then ordered favorably reported to the House of 
Representatives by voice vote.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations 
are reflected in the body of this report.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3 of the 
Constitution of the United States grant Congress the authority 
to enact this bill.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) 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 this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) 
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 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) 
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures.
    3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII 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 on this bill.
    4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 
3(c)(3) of Rule XIII 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 this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, November 4, 1999.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1695, the Ivanpah 
Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Victoria 
Heid Hall (for federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for the 
state and local impact).
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1695--Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act

    Summary: H.R. 1695 would direct the Secretary of the 
Interior to convey to Clark County, Nevada, about 6,400 acres 
of public land for the purpose of developing an airport 
facility and related infrastructure. The county would pay fair 
market value for the land. The bill would authorize the 
secretary to spend the proceeds of the land sale. Because the 
Secretary could also spend interest earnings on the sale 
proceeds, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1695 would 
result in a net increase in direct spending of about $1 million 
over the 2001-2004 period. Because H.R. 1695 would affect 
direct spending (including offsetting receipts), pay-as-you-go 
procedures would apply. Implementing the bill also could 
increase spending subject to appropriation, but CBO estimates 
that any additional discretionary spending would be less than 
$500,000 a year.
    H.R. 1695 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 
Clark County would probably incur some costs as a result of 
this bill's enactment, but these costs would be voluntary.
    Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1695 is shown in the following table. 
The bill 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 years, in million of dollars--
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                                       2000     2001     2002     2003     2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Asset Sale Proceeds:
    Estimated Budget Authority.....................................        0       -6        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays..............................................        0       -6        0        0        0
Spending of Proceeds and Interest:
    Estimated Budget Authority.....................................        0        6    (\1\)    (\1\)        0
    Estimated Outlays..............................................        0        2        2        2        1
Net Changes:
    Estimated Budget Authority.....................................        0        0    (\1\)    (\1\)        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       By fiscal years, in million of dollars--
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                                       2000     2001     2002     2003     2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Estimated Outlays..............................................        0       -4        2        2        1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.

    Basis of estimate: CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 
1695 would result in a net increase in direct spending of about 
$1 million over the 2001-2004 period.

Direct spending (including offsetting receipts)

    H.R. 1695 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
convey about 6,400 acres of public land to Clark County, 
Nevada, at fair market value. Under current law, the Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) has no plans to sell the land, and the 
land does not generate any receipts for the federal government. 
According to BLM, the proceeds from sale of the land are highly 
uncertain since an appraisal has not been conducted and there 
are virtually no other comparable land sales in that area. 
Based on information from the local airport authority and BLM, 
CBO estimates that sale proceeds would total about $6 million 
in fiscal year 2001.
    Current law provides that states receive 5 percent of the 
net proceeds of sales of public lands within their limits. 
Thus, we estimate that payments to the state of Nevada would 
total about $300,000 in fiscal year 2001 as a result of 
implementing H.R. 1695.
    H.R. 1695 provides that proceeds from sale of the land 
shall be deposited in a special account in the Treasury created 
by section 4(e)(1)(C) of the Southern Nevada Public Land 
Management Act (Public Law 105-263). We assume that such 
deposits will be net of the payments to Nevada discussed above. 
Under current law, interest is added to the principal deposited 
in that special account; such interest payments do not affect 
receipts to the Treasury, but they do increase the funds 
available to be spent from the account. The principal and 
interest in this account would be available to the Secretary of 
the Interior, without further appropriation, to purchase 
environmentally sensitive land in Nevada, reimburse agency 
costs incurred in arranging the land disposal, and certain 
other purposes. CBO estimates that under H.R. 1695 the 
Secretary would spend about $2 million of the sale proceeds in 
fiscal year 2001, and about $7 million over the 2001-2004 
period, including interest earnings on the sale proceeds.

Spending subject to appropriation

    H.R. 1695 would make the land conveyance contingent on 
Clark County conducting an airspace assessment to identify any 
potential adverse effects on access to the Las Vegas Basin 
resulting from the construction and operation of an airport on 
the land to be conveyed. Further, the conveyance would be 
contingent on the Federal Aviation Administration certifying 
that the county's assessment is thorough and considers 
alternatives to any adverse effects identified in the 
assessment. The bill would direct the Secretary of 
Transportation to develop an airspace management plan for the 
Ivanpah Valley Airport that restricts arrivals and departures 
over the Mojave Desert Preserve in California. We estimate that 
the Department of Transportation's cost to certify the county's 
assessment and to develop an airspace management plan would 
total less than $500,000 each year over the 2000-2004 period, 
assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures 
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. 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 budget year 
and the succeeding four years are counted. Under the Balanced 
Budget Act, proceeds from nonroutine asset sales (sales that 
are not authorized under current law) may be counted for pay-
as-you-go purposes only if the sale would entail no financial 
cost to the government. Based on information provided by BLM, 
CBO estimates that the sale of the public land specified in 
H.R. 1695 would result in a net savings to the government, and 
therefore, the proceeds would count for pay-as-you-go purposes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            By fiscal year in millions of dollars
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2000   2001   2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays........................      0     -4      2      2      1      0      0      0      0      0
Changes in receipts.......................                              Not applicable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: 
H.R. 1695 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA. The conveyance authorized by this bill would be voluntary 
on the part of Clark County and any costs they would incur to 
fulfill the conditions of the conveyance also would be 
voluntary. This would include paying fair market value for the 
land and conducting an airspace assessment. The county would 
benefit from the opportunity to acquire this land, and the 
state of Nevada would benefit because they would receive a 
portion of the receipts from the sale.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: The bill would 
impose no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Victoria Heid Hall. 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie 
Miller.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    compliance with public law 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                preemption of state, local or tribal law

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

                        changes in existing law

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing 
law.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    I join with the Administration and a wide array of 
conservation organizations in opposing H.R. 1695, the ``Ivanpah 
Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act,'' as reported by the 
Committee on Resources. The bill directs the sale of public 
lands near the Mojave National Preserve for the development of 
a large commercial airport and related facilities for the Las 
Vegas area.
    The language of the bill providing for the mandatory 
conveyance of public lands overrides the Bureau of Land 
Management's (BLM) local resource management plan that calls 
for retention of these lands in federal ownership, as well as, 
negating existing statutory requirements for land use planning 
and the sale of public lands. In doing so, the bill circumvents 
the standard public participation and environmental review 
process required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It is 
for those very reasons that the proponents of H.R. 1695 have 
sought the legislative cover that the bill provides. The 
Secretary of the Interior already has administrative authority 
to convey the Ivanpah lands. No further legislation would be 
needed but for the fact that proponents want to circumvent 
current law and policy.
    What is most disturbing about the bill is that it prevents 
any meaningful evaluation of the environmental consequences of 
the land conveyance. This is especially significant because of 
the potential impacts on the adjacent Mojave National Preserve, 
which was designated in 1994 to preserve and protect the 
significant biological diversity of the area's desert 
ecosystem. The National Park Service testified before the 
Committee that there were numerous potential environmental 
impacts and land use conflicts associated with this conveyance. 
Unfortunately, the Committee chose to ignore those concerns. 
Instead, as part of this bill, the Committee has provided more 
protection for an existing small airport in the area, than it 
does for one of our great national park units.
    I offered in Committee an amendment that would have 
addressed the problems with the bill by requiring a review of 
the effect that development of the airport facility and related 
infrastructure may have on the environment. If adverse impact 
were found, the conveyance could still proceed if there was a 
finding that no suitable and feasible alternative exists and 
all possible steps were taken to minimize such adverse effects. 
This language parallels that found in the Airport and Airway 
Development Act of 1970 which is still in force and effect 
today, contrary to certain statements made at Full Committee 
mark up.
    If, as proponents claim, a review of alternatives has 
already been done and indeed this is the only feasible and 
prudent airport site, then the requirements of this amendment 
could have been dealt with quickly. However, the information 
that was provided to the Committee suggests that only a cursory 
review was done of alternatives and no assessment was made of 
the potential environmental impacts of the proposed use. In 
fact, out of a 2-inch thick feasibility review done by the 
entity seeking the conveyance, only four lines mention any 
study of alternatives and no attempt was made to access the 
environmental impacts.
    Unfortunately, the Committee rejected my amendment and 
instead substituted language referencing NEPA after the fact. 
This approach undermines any meaningful review of alternatives 
and environmental impacts associated with the transfer.
    The Committee also failed to adopt language I offered to 
correct several administrative problems with the bill. The 
first part of my amendment dealt with protecting valid existing 
rights, which the bill fails to do. We should not make the 
United States potentially liable for claims that may arise from 
a conveyance. The second part of the amendment retained the 
mineral rights to the 6600 acres to be conveyed for the United 
States. This is standard policy for land conveyances and 
eliminates the need for assessment and appraisals of mineral 
rights. The third part of the amendment required payment of 
fair market value for the 6600-acre site, including payments of 
the administrative costs incurred by the United States because 
of the conveyance. On the payment of administrative costs, I 
would note that it is Clark County, Nevada that is seeking this 
conveyance, not the BLM. The BLM should not have to absorb the 
administrative costs for an action that is clearly designed to 
benefit the County.
    I believe the Committee failed to do its job in dealing 
with the potential environmental impacts, land use conflicts 
and administrative problems associated with this proposal. 
Unless this bill is amended when it is considered by the House 
to address these concerns, I will strongly urge my colleagues 
to vote NO on this legislation.

                                  
