House Report 106-471 - IVANPAH VALLEY AIRPORT PUBLIC LANDS TRANSFER ACT

[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).

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.