[House Report 108-647]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 108-647
======================================================================
RANCHO EL CAJON BOUNDARY RECONCILIATION ACT
_______
September 7, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Pombo, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3954]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 3954) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
resolve boundary discrepancies in San Diego County, California,
arising from an erroneous survey conducted by a Government
contractor in 1881 that resulted in overlapping boundaries for
certain lands, 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 all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Rancho El Cajon Boundary
Reconciliation Act''.
SEC. 2. RESOLUTION OF BOUNDARY DISCREPANCIES, SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA.
(a) Resolution of Boundary Discrepancies.--The Secretary of the
Interior shall provide compensation to any landowner whose title to
land in lots 1 and 2 of section 9, township 15 south, range 1 east, San
Bernardino Meridian, in San Diego County, California, is based on an
erroneous survey conducted by a Government contractor in 1881 and is
rendered void because that title is inferior to the title to the same
land established by a survey of the Rancho El Cajon conducted in 1872
and approved by the Commissioner of the General Land Office in 1876.
(b) Forms of Compensation.--Compensation under subsection (a) shall
be mutually agreed upon by the Secretary and the landowner and shall
consist of--
(1) public lands in San Diego or Imperial Counties,
California, selected jointly by the Secretary and the landowner
and conveyed by the Secretary to the landowner;
(2) a cash payment to the landowner; or
(3) a combination of a conveyance under paragraph (1) and a
cash payment under paragraph (2).
(c) Equal Value.--Compensation provided under subsection (a) for a
parcel of land whose title was rendered void, as described in such
subsection, may not exceed the fair market value of the land, as
determined by an appraisal satisfactory to the Secretary and the
landowner.
(d) Source of Funds.--The Secretary may make payments under
subsection (a) using funds available to the Secretary to equalize land
exchanges under section 206(b) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716(b)).
(e) Public Lands Defined.--In this section, the term ``public lands''
has the meaning given the term in section 103(e) of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (7 U.S.C. 1702(e)).
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 3954 is to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to resolve boundary discrepancies in San Diego
County, California, arising from an erroneous survey conducted
by a Government contractor in 1881 that resulted in overlapping
boundaries for certain lands, and for other purposes.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
In 1848, the California Territory received a 48,000 acre
land grant known as the Rancho El Cajon from Mexico. Following
the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Act of March 3,
1851, which established a process for confirming Mexican land
grant titles, the Board of Land Commissioners confirmed the
validity of the Mexican land grant for Rancho El Cajon in
November 1854. The original northern Rancho El Cajon boundary
was depicted on the official plat of survey in May 1859. In
1881, portions of this Rancho boundary were retraced,
subdivisional lines were surveyed, and an official plat of
survey was approved. In 1945, the State of California selected
Lots 1 and 2 of Section 9 of the Rancho El Cajon as Indemnity
School Land Selections. Then, in 1962 the State sold these lots
to a private individual and Mr. Frederick Gruner. Thus, Mr.
Gruner's title to Lots 1 and 2 of Section 9 trace back to the
State of California, which selected these lands from among
those made available by the United States based on the 1881
federal survey. Over the subsequent years, conflicts arose over
the actual location of this Rancho boundary as these two
surveys were apparently different in their results.
To resolve this long standing conflict, the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) Cadastral Staff in 1998 initiated a dependent
resurvey of a portion of the Rancho El Cajon boundary to
identify the federal interest lands in several sections within
the survey area. The results of the survey determined that
several lots, specifically Lots 1 and 2 of Section 9, did
overlap into the Rancho El Cajon northern boundary. For many
years, local landowners and professional land surveyors have
known that discrepancies exist between the 1859 and 1881
surveys of this Rancho boundary.
Following the resurvey, the County of San Diego removed
Lots 1 and 2 from its taxable property rolls. Since that time,
Mr. Gruner and others have been seeking redress from the
federal government. However, according to the BLM, it does not
have the means, through regulation or otherwise, to resolve
ownership issues between or among private landowners, including
the ability to reimburse the property owners. H.R. 3954 would
begin the process to compensate Mr. Gruner and possible others
for the loss of their property.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 3954 was introduced on March 11, 2004, by Congressman
Duncan Hunter (R-CA). The bill was referred to the Committee on
Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands. On June 15, 2004,
the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On July 8, 2004,
the Subcommittee met to mark up the bill. Congressman George
Radanovich (R-CA) offered an amendment in the nature of a
substitute that struck the Bureau of Land Management study from
the bill and provided compensation to those landowners affected
by the erroneous survey. The amendment was adopted by unanimous
consent. The bill as amended was forwarded to the Full
Resources Committee by unanimous consent. On July 14, 2004, the
Full Resources Committee met to consider the bill. No further
amendments were offered and the bill as amended was ordered
favorably reported to the House of Representatives by unanimous
consent.
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. General Performance Goals and Objectives. This bill does
not authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not
apply.
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:
H.R. 3954--Rancho El Cajon Boundary Reconciliation Act
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3954 would not
significantly affect the federal budget. The bill would not
affect direct spending or revenue. H.R. 3954 contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on
state, local, or tribal governments.
H.R. 3954 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
compensate private landowners whose title to certain land in
San Diego County, California, is rendered void because of an
erroneous federal survey conducted in 1881. Based on
information from the Bureau of Land Management about the
estimated value of the affected land, CBO estimates that the
agency would pay between $200,000 and $500,000 in 2005 to
compensate those individuals, assuming the availability of
appropriated funds.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Megan Carroll.
This estimate was 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 to existing
law.