[House Report 116-224]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 116-224
======================================================================
CHACO CULTURAL HERITAGE AREA PROTECTION ACT OF 2019
_______
October 4, 2019.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Grijalva, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2181]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 2181) to provide for the withdrawal and
protection of certain Federal land in the State of New Mexico,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 2181 is to provide for the withdrawal
and protection of certain Federal land in the state of New
Mexico.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversees more than 247
million acres of U.S. land and 700 million acres of subsurface
mineral estate and is the primary federal agency responsible
for managing oil and gas resources on public land. Over the
last decade, oil and gas production in New Mexico has increased
dramatically as a result of hydraulic fracturing and the
presence of abundant resources. New Mexico is 35 percent public
land, and oil and gas production in New Mexico is
disproportionately produced on these public lands--in 2017, 57
percent of New Mexico's oil and 65 percent of New Mexico's gas
was produced from the federal mineral estate. Two of the most
active plays in the state are the Permian Basin in the
southeast corner and the San Juan Basin in the northwest
corner. Under the Trump administration, BLM has sold 217,424
acres of oil and gas leases and approved over 1,700 oil and gas
drilling permits, bringing the total number of active wells in
New Mexico to over 31,000, spread across 3.7 million producing
acres.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See U.S. Dep't of the Interior, Bureau of Land Mgmt., Oil and
Gas Statistics (last visited Oct. 1, 2019), https://www.blm.gov/
programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-and-gas/oil-and-gas-statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and gas resources in the western U.S. frequently
overlap with and border Native American lands, presenting
indigenous peoples with opportunities to develop these
resources but leaving them to cope with the numerous health,
environmental, and cultural impacts that accompany energy
development. In northwest New Mexico, the Chaco Culture
National Historical Park (CHCU or Chaco Canyon) and the greater
Chaco landscape are a prime example of how sacred sites are
under threat from encroaching oil and gas development.
The greater Chaco landscape was home to thousands of
Ancestral Puebloans between 850 and 1250 AD, and Chaco Canyon
was a central location for ``ceremon[ies], trade and political
activity for the prehistoric Four Corners area.''\2\ This area
includes hundreds of nationally and internationally significant
cultural resources, including prehistoric roads, communities,
shrines, and houses. Chaco Canyon consists of approximately
4,000 archeological sites covering a span of over 10,000 years,
including a number of Great Houses and masonry structures such
as Hungo Pavi, Chetro Ketl, and the 600-room Pueblo Bonito.\3\
Chaco Canyon was a special gathering place for the Ancestral
Puebloans, and along with Mesa Verde and Bears Ears, these
areas are considered the ``footprints of ancestors'' by modern
Pueblo nations.\4\ Together, the archaeological and natural
features create a ``cultural landscape'' that binds the Pueblo
and Navajo people to Chaco Canyon.\5\ To this day, Chaco Canyon
and the surrounding region is a sacred place for tribes
throughout the southwest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Chaco Culture, UNESCO World Heritage Ctr., https://
whc.unesco.org/en/list/353/ (last visited Oct. 1, 2019).
\3\The Pew Charitable Trs., Chaco Culture National Historical Park
(2017), https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2017/11/
chacocasestudy_f.pdf.
\4\All Pueblo Council of Governors, Opinion, We Traveled 2,000
Miles to Save Chaco Canyon, High Country News, Oct. 4, 2018, https://
www.hcn.org/issues/50.18/opinion-tribal-affairs-we-traveled-2-000-
miles-to-save-chaco-canyon.
\5\The Trump Administration's Bias Towards the Oil and Gas Industry
during the Government Shutdown: Democratic Issues Forum Before the H.
Comm. on Nat. Res., 116th Cong. (2019) (testimony of Kurt Riley, former
Governor, Pueblo of Acoma, N.M.), https://naturalresources.house.gov/
imo/media/doc/Testimony%20-%20Kurt%20Riley%20Acoma%20 Pueblo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHCU was first protected federally in 1907 when President
Theodore Roosevelt established the Chaco Canyon National
Monument. In 1980, Congress redesignated the monument Chaco
Culture National Historical Park and added 13,000 acres to the
Park.\6\ In 1987, it was designated a UNESCO World Heritage
Site,\7\ and in 2013, it was certified as an International Dark
Sky Park.\8\ On average, 40,000 people visit CHCU each year,
and it continues to be studied by archeologists and
historians.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\U.S. Nat'l Park Serv., A Brief History of Chaco Culture National
Historical Park (last modified Dec. 13, 2017), https://www.nps.gov/
chcu/learn/upload/Chaco-Brief-History.pdf.
\7\Id.
\8\Chaco Night Sky Program, U.S. Nat'l Park Serv., https://
www.nps.gov/chcu/planyourvisit/nightsky.htm (last updated Nov. 4,
2018).
\9\Chaco Canyon Cross-Cutting, NASA: Develop Nat'l Program, https:/
/develop.larc.nasa.gov/2016/summer/ChacoCanyonCross.html (last visited
Oct. 1, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Juan Basin in northwest New Mexico has been a very
active region for oil and gas development for a significant
period, but activity is declining due to low natural gas
prices. There are currently tens of thousands of wells in the
region spread across federal, state, and tribal land, and these
wells are in close proximity to CHCU and other cultural and
environmental resources that exist inside and outside the Park
boundaries. BLM has already leased more than 90 percent of its
managed landscape in the region for oil and gas development,
and energy companies continue to have interest in development
despite low prices. In 2013, the U.S. Geological Survey
estimated the San Juan Basin holds roughly 19 million barrels
of undiscovered oil, 50 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered
gas, and 148 million barrels of undiscovered natural gas
liquids.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\U.S. Geological Survey, Total Petroleum Systems and Geologic
Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources in the San Juan Basin
Province, Exclusive of Paleozoic Rocks, New Mexico and Colorado 2
(2013), https://pubs.usgs.gov//dds/dds-069/dds-069-f/REPORTS/DDS-
69F_BOOK_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and gas development in the Chaco Canyon region impacts
tribal communities in multiple ways, including encroachment on
cultural resources and sacred sites, fragmentation of the
landscape by thousands of miles of roads, degradation of air
and water quality, and proliferation of noise and light
pollution. The National Park Night Sky Team has measured the
conditions of Chaco and has identified its darkness as ``one of
the best in the park system.''\11\ The increasing presence of
oil and gas development north and east of CHCU produces smog
and natural gas flares that impact the animals, vegetation, and
people that live nearby, and undermines the Park's pristine
night skies that help attract thousands of visitors each year.
Furthermore, noise and air pollution that comes from the heavy
machinery and equipment that accompanies oil and gas
development impacts the people and tribal communities that live
near wells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\G.B. Cornucopia, Chaco's Dark Skies, in Archaeology Sw., Recent
Efforts to Research, Preserve, and Protect the Greater Chaco Landscape
7 (2017), https://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/wp-content/uploads/
Recent-Efforts.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Around 2011, the San Juan Basin became the focus of renewed
oil and gas development, which resulted in a proliferation of
new wells and infrastructure in northwest New Mexico and near
Chaco Canyon. The level of activity and the expansion of
hydraulic fracturing technology had not been anticipated by BLM
in their 2003 resource management plan (RMP) for the region,
and a process to amend the RMP to account for the increased oil
and gas activity was triggered. While the amendment process was
underway, the Obama administration made an informal agreement
not to lease parcels within ten miles of Chaco Canyon. The
process to amend the RMP is still underway.
However, under the Trump administration, BLM has proposed
to sell oil and gas leases for parcels near Chaco Canyon three
different times. Fortunately, BLM withdrew the parcels in each
instance. In March 2018, then-Secretary Zinke removed 4,434
acres of land from a lease sale, stating, ``We're going to
defer those leases until we do some cultural
consultation.''\12\ Although there were no further studies or
tribal consultation, BLM once again planned to sell leases for
land near CHCU in October 2018. At that time, BLM deferred the
sale of 1,040 acres of land within the ten-mile proposed
protection zone but continued the sale of additional parcels
within the greater Chaco region.\13\ Most recently, in February
2019, BLM again withdrew from a scheduled lease sale
approximately 1,500 acres within the proposed protection
zone.\14\ These acres were removed after concerted push back
from tribal communities, lawmakers, environmental groups, and
other groups who utilize and appreciate the greater Chaco
region. At the end of May 2019, Secretary Bernhardt visited
Chaco Canyon, and on May 28, 2019, Secretary Bernhardt
announced that there would be no leasing within the ten-mile
buffer zone for one year while the RMP amendment process is
completed with a protective alternative option.\15\ While this
defers the threat to Chaco Canyon, H.R. 2181 is needed in order
to provide permanent protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Michael Coleman, Zinke Cancels Chaco Canyon Lease Sale,
Albuquerque J., Mar. 1, 2018, https://www.abqjournal.com/1140105/zinke-
cancels-chaco-canyon-lease-sale.html.
\13\Press Release, The Red Nation, Stop the Colonial Land Grab
Shutdown BLM Leases! (Nov. 29, 2018), https://therednation.org/2018/11/
29/stop-the-colonial-land-grab-shutdown-blm-leases/.
\14\Press Release, Bureau of Land Mgmt. New Mexico State Office,
BLM New Mexico Defers Nine Parcels for March Lease Sale (Feb. 8, 2019),
https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-new-mexico-defers-nine-parcels-
march-lease-sale.
\15\Scott Turner, Secretary Puts Leasing on Hold on Federal Lands
Near Chaco Canyon, Albuquerque J., May 29, 2019, https://
www.abqjournal.com/1321503/secretary-puts-leasing-on-hold-on-federal-
lands-near-chaco-canyon.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2181 withdraws the minerals owned by the federal
government located within the Proposed Chaco Protection Zone
from future mining and oil and gas development. The Protection
Zone is a 909,000-acre region that falls within a ten-mile
radius of Chaco Canyon, of which 316,076 acres is owned by the
federal government and would be withdrawn. The legislation is
supported by the entire New Mexico congressional delegation,
New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, the Navajo Nation,
and the All Pueblo Council of Governors (APCG). Over the course
of the two hearings to develop the bill, multiple Pueblo and
Navajo leaders spoke in support of the mineral withdrawal.
These supporters include the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of
the APCG, the Governor of the Pueblo of Acoma, the Governor of
the Pueblo of Santa Ana, the Vice President of the Navajo
Nation, and the Chairman of the Resources and Development
Committee for the Navajo Nation Council.
The APCG, which represents the twenty Pueblo Governors in
New Mexico and Texas, has repeatedly called on federal and
state land managers to protect sacred sites in the greater
Chaco Canyon region. In 2017, for the first time in the 400-
year history of the APCG, the Navajo Nation joined the APCG in
a ``historic summit'' to focus on ``how all tribal nations in
the Southwest can work together'' to safeguard the landscape
from oil and gas development.\16\ APCG and the Navajo held
their third official summit in March 2019. Pueblos and the
Navajo Nation have banded together multiple times to protest
the inclusion of parcels in BLM oil and gas lease sales that
are within ten miles of CHCU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Russell Begaye & Edward Paul Torres, Guest Column, Tribal
Nations Push Chaco Protection, Albuquerque J., Aug. 14, 2017, https://
www.abqjournal.com/1047471/tribal-nations-push-chaco-protection.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents of the legislation have falsely suggested that
H.R. 2181 would infringe on the rights of Navajo allottees to
develop the oil and gas resources they own beneath their
property. This is incorrect, as Section 6 of the bill
explicitly says the withdrawal will not affect the mineral
rights of an Indian Tribe or a member of an Indian Tribe,
including Navajo allottees. The bill will only place land owned
by the federal government off-limits for future development and
will not affect existing allottee leases or existing oil and
gas production within the ten-mile buffer.
For years, tribal leaders, local community members,
archeological organizations, and a host of other stakeholders
have called for federal action to protect the land and cultural
resources surrounding Chaco Canyon from encroaching oil and gas
development. H.R. 2181 would provide the permanent protection
that this special place desperately needs.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 2181 was introduced on April 9, 2019 by Representative
Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM). The bill was referred solely to the
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands and
the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. On June 5,
2019, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public
Lands held a hearing on the bill. On July 17, 2019, the Natural
Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittees
were discharged by unanimous consent. Representative Paul Gosar
(R-AZ) offered an amendment designated Gosar #3. The amendment
was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas and 19 nays,
as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Representative Gosar offered an amendment designated Gosar
#5. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14
yeas and 19 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO) offered an amendment
designated Lamborn #2. The amendment was not agreed to by a
roll call vote of 14 yeas and 19 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The bill was ordered favorably reported to the House of
Representatives by a roll call vote of 19 yeas and 14 nays, as
follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
HEARINGS
For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the
116th Congress--the following hearings were used to develop or
consider H.R. 2181: oversight hearing titled ``Oil and Gas
Development: Impacts on Air Pollution and Sacred Sites'' held
by the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on April
15, 2019, in Santa Fe, New Mexico and legislative hearing on
H.R. 1373 and H.R. 2181 held by the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests, and Public Lands on June 5, 2019, in the
Longworth House Office Building.
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 Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, September 25, 2019.
Hon. Raul M. Grijalva,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2181, the Chaco
Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Janani
Shankaran.
Sincerely,
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director.
Enclosure.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The bill would
Withdraw federal land within a 10-mile
buffer of Chaco Culture National Historical Park in New
Mexico from entry under hardrock mining laws and from
mineral and geothermal leasing acivities, subject to
valid existing rights
Terminate any existing leasing agreements in
the withdrawal area that are not producing by the end
of their initial terms
Estimated budgetary effects would primarily stem from
Forgone government income resulting from
prohibiting new mineral leasing on the affected land.
Bill summary: H.R. 2181 would withdraw federal lands within
roughly a 10-mile buffer of Chaco Culture National Historical
Park in New Mexico from entry under hardrock mining laws and
from mineral and geothermal leasing activities, subject to
valid existing rights. That is, the bill would not allow new
hardrock mining claims or mineral and geothermal leases on land
adjacent to the park. The bill also would terminate any
existing leasing agreements on the affected land that have not
commenced drilling operations or mineral production before the
end of their initial terms.
Estimated Federal cost: The estimated budgetary effect of
H.R. 2181 is shown in Table 1. The costs of the legislation
fall within budget functions 300 (natural resources and
environment) and 800 (general government).
TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED DIRECT SPENDING UNDER H.R. 2181\a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Fiscal Year, Millions of Dollars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2019-2024 2019-2029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Budget Authority........................... 0 0 * * * 1 * * * * * 2 3
Estimated Outlays.................................... 0 0 * * * 1 * * * * * 2 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Components may not sum to totals because of rounding; * = between zero and $500,000.
aCBO estimates that any administrative costs incurred by the Department of the Interior to implement the withdrawal would not be significant; any such
spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
legislation will be enacted near the start of 2020.
Background: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers
onshore mineral leasing on federal lands. For all leasing
agreements that are executed, lessees pay the federal
government a bonus bid (the amount that a company is willing to
pay for the right to extract mineral resources), annual rent to
retain the agreement, and royalties based on the value of any
oil or gas produced. Those payments are recorded in the budget
as offsetting receipts, or reductions in direct spending. Under
the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), states receive 49 percent of all
royalties, rents, and bonus bids collected. (The federal
government generally does not collect any bonus bids,
royalties, or rents from hardrock mining activities on federal
lands in New Mexico.)
Direct spending: CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2181
would increase direct spending by $3 million over the 2020-2029
period.
Potential for future leasing under current law: In recent
years, the Department of the Interior (DOI) has deferred
mineral lease sales on the affected land. Using information
from BLM and the Energy Information Administration, CBO expects
that the land has high potential for oil and gas resources and
low-to-moderate potential for geothermal and coal resources.
Based on the number of parcels that have been deferred for
oil and gas leasing, CBO estimates that roughly 18,000 acres
will be leased in the near future, under current law. In recent
years, lessees have paid about $250 per acre in bonus bids to
lease federal lands in northwest New Mexico. On that basis, CBO
estimates that the federal government will collect roughly $5
million in gross bonus bids over the 2020-2029 period to lease
out the affected land. At $1.50 per acre until production
commences, annual rental payments will total less than $500,000
over that same period.
Using information from DOI on mineral leasing in northwest
New Mexico, CBO estimates that the agency could execute 20 new
federal leasing agreements on the affected land in the near
term. We estimate that each agreement will produce between
3,000 and 10,000 barrels of oil and between 40,000 and 50,000
thousand cubic feet of gas annually over the initial years.
Using projections for oil and gas prices under CBO's May 2019
baseline, and applying the 12.5 percent royalty rate under the
MLA, CBO estimates that gross royalties from oil and gas
production could total $8 million over the 2020-2029 period. In
addition, CBO estimates that any bonus bids, rents, and
royalties from coal and geothermal leasing will be
insignificant over that same period.
However, CBO has no basis to estimate the specific
probability of BLM conducting lease sales on the affected land.
In the absence of specific information, CBO uses a 50 percent
probability that the land will be leased under current law. On
that basis, and accounting for payments to states under the MLA
of 49 percent, we estimate that net federal receipts from
mineral and geothermal leasing on the affected land will total
$3 million over the 2020-2029 period. Under the bill, the
federal government would forgo those receipts. Thus, CBO
estimates that the withdrawal required under the bill would
increase net direct spending by $3 million over the 2020-2029
period.
Termination of existing agreements: H.R. 2181 would
terminate any leasing agreements on the affected land that have
not commenced drilling operations or production before the end
of their primary term, which is typically 10 years. Current law
already authorizes DOI to terminate such leases. The bill also
would prohibit reinstatement of terminated leases.
According to BLM, there are 32 nonproducing agreements on
the affected land; roughly one-third will expire if they do not
commence operations by 2024. CBO expects that under current
law, a small portion of those agreements will expire and be
reinstated and will commence production before 2029. Under the
bill, we expect that some of those agreements would commence
production earlier than they otherwise would, while others
would be terminated without reinstatement. CBO estimates that
the net increase in direct spending (from forgone royalties)
would be insignificant over the 2020-2029 period.
Spending subject to appropriation: Based on the costs of
similar tasks, CBO estimates that any administrative costs
incurred by DOI to implement the withdrawal would be
insignificant; any spending would be subject to the
availability of appropriated funds.
Uncertainty: The amount the government will collect from
bonus bids and royalties for mineral leases in the proposed
withdrawal area is uncertain and could be higher or lower than
CBO estimates. Specifically, CBO cannot forecast with certainty
whether or when DOI will hold lease sales, and the amount of
acreage that companies will lease. CBO also cannot foresee with
certainty the volume or value of oil and gas production on the
affected lands.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those
pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2.--CBO'S ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS OF H.R. 2181
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Fiscal Year, Millions of Dollars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2019-2024 2019-2029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Increase in the Deficit
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Effect....................... 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase in long-term deficits: CBO estimates that under
H.R. 2181 the federal government would forgo royalties from oil
and gas production after 2029 on the affected land. However, we
estimate that enacting the bill would not increase on-budget
deficits by more than $5 billion in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2030.
Mandates: H.R. 2181 would impose a private-sector mandate
as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by
prohibiting DOI from extending or reinstating oil and gas
leases that are terminated as a result of the bill. Under
current law, DOI is authorized to reinstate or extend
terminated leases in certain circumstances. The cost of the
mandate would be revenue forgone by leaseholders that would be
unable to reinstate their terminated leases. CBO estimates
revenue from potential production of oil and gas from those
leases would be less than $1 million per year, well below the
private-sector threshold established in UMRA ($164 million in
2019, adjusted annually for inflation).
H.R. 2181 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in UMRA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Janani Shankaran;
Mandates: Lilia Ledezma.
Estimate reviewed by: Kim P. Cawley, Chief, Natural and
Physical Resources Cost Estimates Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goals and
objectives of this bill is to provide for the withdrawal and
protection of certain Federal land in the state of New Mexico.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT STATEMENT
According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 2181
would impose a private-sector mandate as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by prohibiting DOI from
extending or reinstating oil and gas leases that are terminated
as a result of the bill. Under current law, DOI is authorized
to reinstate or extend terminated leases in certain
circumstances. The cost of the mandate would be revenue forgone
by leaseholders that would be unable to reinstate their
terminated leases. CBO estimates revenue from potential
production of oil and gas from those leases would be less than
$1 million per year, well below the private-sector threshold
established in UMRA ($164 million in 2019, adjusted annually
for inflation).
H.R. 2181 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in UMRA.
EXISTING PROGRAMS
This bill does not establish or reauthorize a program of
the federal government known to be duplicative of another
program.
APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW
Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the
U.S. Constitution.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing
law.
DISSENTING VIEWS
If ideological purity was the test for legislation becoming
law, H.R. 2181 wins a gold star. The bill fits nicely with the
Committee Democrats'' pattern of partisan intransigence. Like
so many of the Majority's bills, H.R. 2181 is going nowhere
fast.
The bill would permanently ban federal oil and natural gas
leasing on roughly 316,000 acres of land in New Mexico. This
would have a deeply negative long-term economic impacts on the
State of New Mexico, eliminate key revenue sources for future
public investments, and undermine a range of economic
activities associated with responsible energy development. In
fiscal year 2013 the combined revenues from oil and gas for the
four counties that are near the proposed moratorium area was
$198.2 million.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\New Mexico--Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department,
Oil Conservation Division Oil and Gas Education http://
www.emnrd.state.nm.us/OCD/education.html#OGProd2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This permanent ban would also jeopardize the financial
future of thousands of Indian allottees by making it virtually
impossible for them to develop the energy resources they own.
The bill claims not to affect allottee mineral rights, but the
reality is that many allottee lands are surrounded by federal
lands that would be withdrawn by this legislation. This will
create significant access and extraction complications for the
Indian allottees along with any companies they partner with and
will lead to a de facto extraction ban on their lands.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Sandoval, Michael Navajo Allottees Frustrated By Interior Delay
On Leasing Near Chaco Canyon May 30, 2019. http://westernwire.net/
navajo-allottees-frustrated-by-interior-delay-on-leasing-near-chaco-
canyon/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the June 5, 2019, hearing on H.R. 2181, the Natural
Resources Committee heard testimony from Debora Hesuse, a
citizen of the Navajo Nation, Nageezi chapter, and an Indian
allottee who owns mineral resources in the proposed area. Ms.
Hesuse testified that H.R. 2181 would ``put many of our mineral
rights off limits and stop a much-needed source of income to
feed, shelter, clothe and protect our families.''\3\ Ms. Hesuse
also submitted for the record a petition signed by 131 Navajo
allotees opposing this legislation, as well as two resolutions
from the Huerfano and Nageezi Navajo chapters, which are
closest to this area, expressing support for the Navajo
allotment landowners and recognizing their opposition to this
bill. It is very concerning that the local people that live and
own allotments in this area are being ignored by the proponents
of this legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Hesuse, Delore, Navajo Nation Citizen, Nageezi Chapter.
Testimony for Legislative hearing on H.R. 2181. June 5th, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During markup of H.R. 2181, several amendments offered by
Republicans seeking to address flaws in the bill were rejected
on largely party line votes. Among these was an amendment
offered by Congressman Paul Gosar that would have delayed
implementation of this legislation until the Department of the
Interior is able to properly confirm that this withdrawal will
not adversely affect mineral rights held by Native Americans in
the area. Also offered at the markup was an amendment from
Congresswoman Liz Cheney that would have simply provided
recognition for the Indian allottee opposition to the bill by
adding one line to the bill's findings section. These
amendments were rejected by Committee Democrats, and the
legislation advanced without a single Republican vote.
Rob Bishop.
Paul A. Gosar.
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen.
Jody B. Hice.
Mike Johnson.
[all]