[House Report 104-691]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-691
_______________________________________________________________________
VALIDATION OF CERTAIN LAND CONVEYANCES IN RENO, NEVADA AND TULARE,
CALIFORNIA
_______
July 18, 1996.--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
DEMOCRATIC VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1784]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 1784) to validate certain conveyances made by the
Southern Pacific Transportation Company within the cities of
Reno, Nevada, and Tulare, California, 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. LEGALIZATION OF CERTAIN CONVEYANCES.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and
subject to subsections (c) and (d), the following conveyances are
hereby validated to the extent that the conveyances would have been
legal or valid if all right, title, and interest of the United States
had been held by the Southern Pacific Transportation Company at the
time of such conveyances:
(1) Conveyances of parcels from the lands described in
subsection (b) made by the Southern Pacific Transportation
Company or its subsidiaries, predecessors, successors or
assigns, on or before January 1, 1995.
(2) Conveyances of parcels from the lands described in
subsection (b) made after January 1, 1995, by the Southern
Pacific Transportation Company, or its successors or assigns,
to the Redevelopment Agency of the city of Tulare or the
Redevelopment Agency of the city of Reno.
(b) Lands Described.--The lands referred to in subsection (a) are
the lands that--
(1) formed part of a railroad right-of-way granted to the
Central Pacific Railroad Company of California or the Southern
Pacific Railroad Company, or their successors or assigns, by
the Federal Government; and
(2)(A) are located within the boundaries of the Downtown
Redevelopment Area of the city of Reno, Nevada; or
(B) are located within the boundaries of Amended Urban
Renewal Plan for California A-8-1 (the Downtown Plan) adopted
by the city of Tulare.
(c) Minerals.--(1) The United States hereby reserves any federally-
owned minerals that may exist in land that is conveyed pursuant to this
Act, including the right of the United States, and its assignees or
lessees, to enter upon and utilize as much of the surface of such land
as is necessary to remove minerals under the laws of the United States.
(2) Any and all minerals reserved by paragraph (1) are hereby
withdrawn from all forms of entry, appropriation, and patent under the
mining, mineral leasing, and geothermal leasing laws of the United
States.
(d) Takings of Private Land.--If the validation of any conveyance
pursuant to subsection (a) would constitute a taking of the private
property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, the validation of the conveyance shall be effective only
upon payment by the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (or its
subsidiaries, successors or assigns) to the Secretary of the Treasury
of the fair market value of the property taken.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 1784 is to validate certain conveyances
made by the Southern Pacific Transportation Company within the
cities of Reno, Nevada, and Tulare, California.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
From 1862 through 1871, Congress adopted the Pacific
Railroad Acts (The Charter Acts) to establish a system of
railroads in the western United States. The Charter Acts gave
railroads a right-of-way to strips of land 200 feet wide on
each side of the railroad tracks where the tracks were laid
along routes established in the Charter Acts.
The right-of-way for the railroad tracks and a strip 200
feet wide on either side within the Downtown Redevelopment Area
of the City of Reno and a strip 220 feet wide on either side
within the Downtown Redevelopment Area of the City of Tulare
(Railroad Right-of-Way) was granted to the Central Pacific
Railroad Company of California and the Southern Pacific
Railroad Company under the Charter Acts in 1862.
Currently, the railroad rights-of-way through Reno and
Tulare are an active and essential part of the railroad
corridor. There is only a remote possibility that the railroad
tracks through downtown Reno and Tulare will ever be abandoned;
however, that possibility means title to eight parcels of land
is somewhat clouded and could be impaired or lost.
Congressional action is the only relief to clear title to the
eight parcels.
Under the bill, Congress corrects the problem by validating
and confirming title to the eight parcels in accordance with 43
U.S.C. 912, with an act similar to Public Law 326 of the Sixty-
Third Congress. In addition, on seven previous occasions
Congress has validated similar conveyances under the same
authority.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 1784 was introduced on June 7, 1995, by Congresswoman
Barbara F. Vucanovich (R-NV) for herself and Congressman
William M. Thomas (R-CA). The bill was originally referred to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. On July 11,
1995, that Committee was discharged and the bill was rereferred
to the Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands. On July 20,
1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1784, where Mrs.
Vucanovich and Mr. Thomas testified in support of the bill. On
October 17, 1995, the Subcommittee met to mark up H.R. 1784. No
amendments were offered and the bill was ordered favorably
reported to the Full Committee by voice vote. On November 15,
1995, the Full Resources Committee met to consider H.R. 1784.
Congressman James V. Hansen (R-UT) offered an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. To the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, Congressman George Miller (D-CA) offered an
amendment to require the railroad company to pay fair market
value to the U.S. Treasury if it is shown that any conveyance
by the company validated under the Act resulted in a private
property taking under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution; the amendment was adopted by voice vote.
Congressman Miller then offered an amendment to require that
fair market value be paid for the United States' interests that
are conveyed by the Southern Pacific Transportation Company;
the amendment failed on a recorded vote of 10-17, as follows:
committee on resources--104th congress
rollcall no.1
Bill: H.R. 1784, Pacific Railroad Land Conveyance.
Amendment or matter voted on: Miller No. 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Tauzin..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Miller....... X ........ .........
Mr. Hansen..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Rahall ...... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Saxton..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Vento........ ........ ........ .........
Mr. Gallegly................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Kildee....... X ........ .........
Mr. Duncan..................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Williams..... X ........ .........
Mr. Hefley..................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Gejdenson.... X ........ .........
Mr. Doolittle.................. ........ X ......... Mr. Richardson... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Allard..................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. DeFazio...... X ........ .........
Mr. Gilchrest.................. ........ ........ ......... Mr. Faleomavaega. ........ ........ .........
Mr. Calvert.................... ........ X ......... Mr. Johnson...... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Pombo...................... ........ X ......... Mr. Abercrombie.. ........ ........ .........
Mr. Torkildsen................. ........ X ......... Mr. Studds....... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Hayworth................... ........ ........ ......... ................. ........ ........ .........
Mr. Cremeans................... ........ X ......... Mr. Ortiz........ ........ ........ .........
Mr. Cubin...................... ........ X ......... Mr. Pickett...... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Cooley..................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Pallone...... X ........ .........
Mrs. Chenoweth................. ........ ........ ......... Mr. Dooley....... ........ X .........
Mrs. Smith..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Romero- X ........ .........
Barcelo.
Mr. Radanovich................. ........ X ......... Mr. Hinchey...... X ........ .........
Mr. Jones...................... ........ X ......... Mr. Underwood.... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Thornberry................. ........ ........ ......... Mr. Farr......... X ........ .........
Mr. Hastings................... ........ X .........
Mr. Metcalf.................... ........ X .........
Mr. Longley.................... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Shadegg.................... ........ X .........
Mr. Ensign..................... ........ X .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Miller offered and withdrew an amendment to
delete the prospective portion of the bill. The Hansen
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was
adopted by voice vote. the bill, as amended, was then ordered
favorably reported by a roll call vote of 17-10, as follows:
committee on resources--104th congress
rollcall no. 2
Bill: H.R. 1784, Pacific Railroad Land Conveyance.
Amendment or matter voted on: Final passage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Tauzin..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Miller....... ........ X .........
Mr. Hansen..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Rahall....... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Saxton..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Vento........ ........ ........ .........
Mr. Gallegly................... X ........ ......... Mr. Kildee....... ........ X .........
Mr. Duncan..................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Williams..... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Hefley..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Gejdenson.... ........ X .........
Mr. Doolittle.................. X ........ ......... Mr. Richardson... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Allard..................... X ........ ......... Mr. DeFazio...... ........ X .........
Mr. Gilchrest.................. ........ ........ ......... Mr. Faleomavaega. ........ ........ .........
Mr. Calvert.................... X ........ ......... Mr. Johnson...... ........ X .........
Mr. Pombo...................... X ........ ......... Mr. Abercrombie.. ........ X .........
Mr. Torkildsen................. X ........ ......... Mr. Studds....... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Hayworth................... ........ ........ ......... ................. ........ ........ .........
Mr. Cremeans................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Ortiz........ ........ ........ .........
Mrs. Cubin..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Pickett...... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Cooley..................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Pallone...... ........ X .........
Mrs. Chenoweth................. ........ ........ ......... Mr. Dooley....... ........ ........ .........
Mrs. Smith..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Romero- ........ X .........
Barcelo.
Mr. Radanovich................. X ........ ......... Mr. Hinchey...... ........ X .........
Mr. Jones...................... X ........ ......... Mr. Underwood.... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Thornberry................. ........ ........ ......... Mr. Farr......... ........ X .........
Mr. Hastings................... X ........ .........
Mr. Metcalf.................... X ........ .........
Mr. Longley.................... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Shadegg.................... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Ensign..................... X ........ .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Legalization of certain conveyances
Certain land conveyances described in the bill and made by
the Southern Pacific Transportation Company, or its
subsidiaries, predecessors, successors or assigns, are
validated.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3) of rule
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and clause
2(b)(1) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the Committee on Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
INFLATIONARY IMPACT STATEMENT
Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that the
enactment of H.R. 1784 will have no significant inflationary
impact on prices and costs in the operation of the national
economy.
COST OF THE LEGISLATION
Clause 7(a) 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
H.R. 1784. However, clause 7(d) 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 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XI
1. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, H.R.
1784 does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures.
2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of
rule XI 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 and
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 1784.
3. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of
rule XI 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 H.R.
1784 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, December 6, 1995.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
reviewed H.R. 1784, a bill to validate certain conveyances made
by the Southern Pacific Transportation Company within the
cities of Reno, Nevada, and Tulare, California, and for other
purposes, as ordered reported by the House Resources Committee
on November 15, 1995. Enacting H.R. 1784 could affect direct
spending if a taking of private property were later determined
to result from any conveyances made pursuant to this bill.
Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill.
CBO cannot estimate the likelihood or the year-by-year
magnitude of any budgetary effects that might result from
enacting this bill, but we estimate that any such changes would
net to zero over time.
H.R. 1784 would give the Southern Pacific Transportation
Company the right to convey title to certain lands that form
part of a railroad right-of-way previously granted by the
federal government. Hence, the bill would validate land
conveyances where the federal government owns the underlying
title and the railroad controls the right-of-way. The bill
would apply to both past and future conveyances.
Whether the federal government actually holds title to some
of the lands within the railroad right-of-way not be certain,
however. In some cases, the right to ownership should the
easements lapse might revert to a third party. If a conveyance
of any such lands results in a taking of private property, then
the bill provides that such conveyances would be valid only if
the Southern Pacific Transportation Company reimburses the
government for the cost of any takings compensation.
Federal Budgetary Impact.--The bill would provide that if
any conveyance validated by the bill is determined to be a
taking of private land because of disputed ownership rights,
then the Southern Pacific Transportation Company must pay the
federal government the fair market value for that conveyance.
The bill does not state how such funds are to be used, but if
the federal government were required to compensate a third
party for the fair market value of land under a takings
decision, then this provision would likely have the effect of
requiring the Southern Pacific Transportation Company to
reimburse the federal government for the costs of such
compensation. Although CBO cannot estimate the likelihood or
magnitude of any such takings claims, the net budgetary impact
over time should be zero because the bill would require that
the railroad reimburse the federal government for any takings
compensation.
Impact on State and Local Governments.--H.R. 1784 would
apply to lands that lie within railroad rights of way in the
cities of Tulare, California, and Reno, Nevada, and that were
conveyed to any party before January 1, 1995, or are conveyed
to the redevelopment agencies of these cities after that date.
The bill would benefit the city of Tulare and Washoe County
(which includes Reno) by clearing the title to parcels of land
purchased by those governments. Both cities have plans to make
additional purchases to further their redevelopment goals, but
can only do so if Southern Pacific is able to make valid
conveyances.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO contacts are Victoria V. Heid
and, for state and local impacts, Marjorie Miller.
Sincerely,
James L. Blum
(For June E. O'Neil, Director).
----------
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 10, 1996.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
has reviewed H.R. 1784, a bill to validate certain conveyances
made by the Southern Pacific Transportation Company within the
cities of Reno, Nevada, and Tulare, California, and for other
purposes, as ordered reported by the House Committee on
Resources on November 15, 1995. This letter conveys CBO's
determination regarding intergovernmental and private-sector
mandates in the bill. Our estimate of the federal budgetary
impact was transmitted to the committee on December 6, 1995.
H.R. 1784 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in Public Law 104-4 and would impose no costs on state, local,
or tribal governments. H.R. 1784 would apply to lands that lie
within railroad rights of way in the cities of Tulare,
California, and Reno, Nevada, and that were conveyed to any
party before January 1, 1995, or are conveyed to the
redevelopment agencies of these cities after that date. The
bill would benefit the city of Tulare and Washoe County (which
includes Reno) by clearing the title to parcels of land
purchased by those governments. Both cities have plans to make
additional purchases to further their redevelopment goals, but
can only do so if Southern Pacific is able to make valid
conveyances.
CBO estimates that H.R. 1784 contains no private-sector
mandates exceeding the annual threshold as defined in Public
Law 104-4. H.R. 1784 could only impose private-sector mandates
in the unlikely event that a private party claims ownership of
the land to be conveyed and is successful in pressing that
claim. In that case, the federal government would compensate
the private party, Southern Pacific would be forced to
reimburse the Treasury, and thus the railroad would bear the
cost of the mandate.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO contacts are Majorie Miller
for state and local impacts and Amy Downs for private-sector
impacts.
Sincerely,
James L. Blum
(For June E. O'Neill, Director).
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
H.R. 1784 contains no unfunded intergovernmental mandates
or any private sector mandates over the threshold set by Public
Law 104-4.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, H.R. 1784 would make no changes in existing
law.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
The Committee has received the following departmental
report dated November 8, 1995, on H.R. 1784.
Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, November 8, 1995.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to provide
the views of the Department of the Interior (DOI) on H.R. 1784,
a bill to validate certain conveyances made by the Southern
Pacific Transportation Company within the cities of Reno,
Nevada and Tulare, California. A preliminary review of the
facts and records available to the DOI reveals a very complex
set of issues regarding the ownership and title status of these
lands. Many issues related to these conveyances cannot be
resolved without a complete title search of Federal and State
title records. We have, however, identified a number of
problems with the bill and would oppose enactment of H.R. 1784
unless amended as suggested below.
background
The interest of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company
(SPT) in the lands that are the subject of the bill originates
from a right-of-way granted under the Pacific Railroads Act of
July 1, 1862, ch. 120, 12 Stat. 489, as amended. Section 2 of
the Act granted a 400 foot-wide right-of-way through the public
lands of the United States ``[F]or the construction of a
railroad and a telegraph line.'' In Northern Pac. Ry. v.
Townsend, 190 U.S. 267, 271 (1903), the right-of-way grant was
characterized as a limited fee made on an implied condition of
reverter in the event that the railroad ceased to use the
right-of-way for the purpose for which it was granted.
Operationally, in the event that the railroad ceases use of the
right-of-way, and a forfeiture is declared by the Congress or a
judicial proceeding initiated by the Attorney General of the
United States, the interest of the railroad is forfeited. In
United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 353 U.S. 112
(1957), the Supreme Court also determined that the grants made
under Section 2 of the Act did not include a conveyance of the
mineral rights.
Records of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Nevada
State Office indicate that the lands which include the right-
of-way were subsequently patented to third parties, which took
title subject to the railroad's limited fee.
The DOI maintains no records or information as to
subsequent conveyances following the granting of the right-of-
way and the issuance of patents.
H.R. 1784
The stated purpose of H.R. 1784 is to validate certain
conveyances made by the SPT to third parties. Section 1(a) of
the bill validates those conveyances to the extent that they
would have been legal or valid if the land had been held by SPT
under absolute fee-simple title. Section 1(a)(1) validates
conveyances made by SPT for certain lands on or before January
1, 1995.
We assume that the intent of Congress is to relinquish
whatever interest the United States now has in the subject
lands. The language in Section 1(a) could be construed to do
more. Confirming the conveyances as if the SPT has full fee
title may interfere with the property rights of other parties
who may claim an interest in the land. We therefore suggest
that Section 1(a) be amended to read:
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, and subject to section 2, the following
conveyances are hereby validated to the extent that the
conveyances would have been legal or valid if all
right, title or interest of the United States had been
held by the Southern Pacific Transportation Company at
the time of such conveyances:
In the alternative, the Congress could simply enact
language that terminates the limitations on use as provided in
the 1862 Act as to those lands that are the subject of the
bill. This would act to terminate the possibility of reverter
as well.
Section 1(a)(2) purports to validate conveyances
prospectively after January 1, 1995. It is our understanding
that the purpose of this bill is to protect and assist grantees
of the SPT who were unaware of the limitations on use and
reversionary interest of the United States. We have no
objection to including any of those grantees in section 1(a) of
the bill. However, any prospective conveyances would be made
with full knowledge by the parties of the limitations on the
railroad interest and we question why those conveyances would
need to be protected under this bill.
Section 1(b) describes the lands referred to in subsection
(a). Section 1(b)(2)(A) describes lands ``located within the
boundaries of the Downtown Redevelopment Area of the city of
Reno, Nevada (as defined and determined by the Secretary of the
Interior, in consultation with the appropriate official of the
city of Reno, Nevada);'' It is our understanding that the City
of Reno, by ordinance, has established and defined its Downtown
Redevelopment Area. We don't believe that it is appropriate for
the Secretary of the Interior to become involved in defining
and determining the boundaries of a city's redevelopment area
when the city has already established it by ordinance. We
suggest that this reference and the similar parenthetical
reference in section 1(b)(2)(B) be deleted.
Section 2 requires the Secretary of the Interior to file
for recordation in the County records of Tulare County,
California, and Washoes County, Nevada, such instruments as are
necessary to document the legal interests validated under
section 1. We believe that this section establishes a bad
precedent in that the United States does not pay for filing
costs and record documents in County offices for the benefit of
grantees. In the usual course of business, the grantee, as the
benefited party, takes such action. Furthermore, this section
is contrary to the long-standing requirement that the legal
repository for records of conveyance documents issued by the
Secretary of the Interior is the appropriate Bureau of Land
Management office and not the County Recorder's Office. We
believe that such action is unnecessary because the bill itself
confirms conveyancing documents that already exist rather than
creates new conveyances. Creation of new coveyancing documents
might be confusing and contrary to the objectives of this bill.
Finally, we have noted over the years, a number of
legislative initiatives to correct title problems that occur as
a result of purchasers taking deeds from railroads, only to
discover that the railroads have conveyed questionable titles.
Congress enacted legislation in 1922 with this concern in mind.
See 43 U.S.C. 912. The Congress recently recognized the value
of railroad rights-of-way when it enacted Section 9 of the
National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1248). This statute
provides for Federal ownership of abandoned or forfeited
railroad rights-of-way. It, in part, supersedes the 1922
legislation. The pending bill does not take the policy of
section 9 into account.
Therefore, if the Congress would like to provide for
validation of conveyances in section 1(a) of the bill, and any
future conveyances, we recommend that the validation be subject
to the payment by the railroad companies of fair market value
for the United States' or other interests that are purportedly
conveyed.
The continuing practice of railroad companies to purport to
convey valid titles to purchases and then look to the Congress
in order to validate such conveyances is contrary to the intent
of the National Trails Systems Act, is contrary to the spirit
of the acts which granted rights-of-way for railroad purposes
only, and is inconsistent with the notion that the American
people should realize fair market value for interests in
publicly-owned land.
The Office of Management and Budget advised that there is
no objection to the presentation of this report from the
standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management.
DEMOCRATIC VIEWS
There are several areas of concern with H.R. 1784.
The process used by the Committee during consideration of
H.R. 1784 was unusual and yielded little information to
Committee Members. A hearing was held by the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests and Lands on July 20, 1995, yet no
witnesses appeared to give testimony to the Subcommittee on the
bill. Only the bill's sponsors, Reps. Vucanovich and Thomas,
spoke on the bill. The Administration was not prepared to
testify but subsequently submitted its views in opposition to
the bill on November 8, 1995; however, the Subcommittee met and
marked up the bill on October 17, 1995. The Resources Committee
reported this bill on November 15, 1995.
The Committee considered this legislation without benefit
of receiving input from the Southern Pacific Transportation
Company; the affected cities of Reno, Nevada, or Tulare,
California; those who paid Southern Pacific for the
conveyances; adjacent landowners; or supporters of rails to
trails programs. The lack of information was evident during the
full committee markup of the bill where Members asked several
questions and stated that it was not clear what specific land
sites would be covered by the legislation.
Southern Pacific Transportation Company received an
interest in the lands that are the subject of H.R. 1748 through
a right-of-way granted under the Pacific Railroads Act of July
1, 1862, ch. 120, 12 Stat. 489, as amended. Section 2 of the
Act granted a 400 foot-wide right-of-way through the public
lands of the United States ``For the construction of a railroad
and telegraph line.''
In Northern Pac. Ry. v. Townsend, 190 U.S. 267, 271 (1903),
the right-of-way grant was characterized as a ``limited fee
made on an implied condition of reverter'' in the event that
the railroad ceased to use the right-of-way for the purpose for
which it was granted. If the railroad ceases use of the right-
of-way, and a forfeiture is declared by the Congress or a
judicial proceeding initiated by the Attorney General of the
United States, the railroad loses its interest in the land. In
United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 353 U.S. 112
(1957), the Supreme Court also determined that the grants made
under Section 2 of the Act did not include a conveyance of the
mineral rights.
Because the United States has a reversionary interest in
railroad rights-of-way, the railroads exceed their ownership
rights when they purport to transfer these properties to other
entities for non-transportation uses. Congress has validated
some such transfers in the past, but we are concerned that
repeated validation of transfers will encourage railroads to
sell property they do not entirely own, with the expectation
that Congress will grant a post hoc validation of the transfer.
Such transfers can be highly profitable; in this case the
purchasers paid more than $10 million for the property rights
transferred in Reno. Giving away the government's interest in
these valuable properties clearly violates the taxpayers'
interest in receiving fair market value for Federal property.
Under previous Congressional validations very small parcels
of land had been conveyed to private landowners who had
inadvertently encroached on the right-of-way land. Often the
landowner was unaware of the encroachment until sale of the
property showed a clouded title. Support for validating such a
conveyance was done to assist the landowner and allow a clear
title to proceed.
H.R. 1784 is not similar to previous Congressional
validations because this bill uses such validations for
commercial redevelopment of the cities of Reno and Tulare. Use
of Congressional validation for this purpose runs counter to
the intent of Section 9 of the National Trails System Act (16
U.S.C. 1248), which provided for Federal ownership of railroad
rights-of-way that are forfeited or abandoned. If Congress
wants to amend or discontinue the effects of the National
Trails System Act, it should do so by addressing the Act
directly.
Further, H.R. 1784 is dissimilar to previous Congressional
validations in that it would prospectively validate sales. The
legislation would automatically clear titles to all future
sales by the Southern Pacific Transportation Company allowing
them to sell land within what the cities of Reno and Tulare
consider to be redevelopment areas without restriction. This
adds an entirely new aspect to the handling of conveyance
validations which Congress has approved in the past. Taking
such action would give a clear signal to the railroad companies
that continued sale of these properties is acceptable to
Congress regardless of location. If enacted, this legislation
would result in Southern Pacific Transportation Company reaping
huge financial gains, and some potential opportunity for the
Cities of Reno and Tulare to benefit, while the Federal
government relinquishes all its rights without compensation.
In a letter to the Committee regarding this legislation,
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wrote of the very complex
set of issues regarding ownership of title to these lands,
which it stated could only be resolved with a complete title
search. Further, BLM reported, ``The continuing practices of
railroad companies to purport to convey valid titles to
purchasers and then look to the Congress in order to validate
such conveyances is contrary to the intent of the National
Trails Systems Act, is contrary to the spirit of the acts which
granted rights-of-way for railroad purposes only, and is
inconsistent with the notion that the American people should
realize fair market value for interests in publicly-owned
land.''
H.R. 1784 as introduced may also create a situation where
the federal government may be directly taking private property.
The main purpose of the bill is to validate property claims
where there is a cloud on the title. The cloud results from the
``reversionary'' interests of the U.S. government and third
parties--that is, a right to have the property revert to others
when the land ceases to be used for railroad purposes. The
right is generally held by the federal government for lands
granted to the railroads from the public domain. However, the
provisions of a 1922 law and patents to mining companies under
the 1872 Mining Law have created a number of situations where
private landowners hold the reversionary interest.
In other words, the purpose of the bill is to extinguish
property rights that interfere with the title granted Southern
Pacific Transportation Company. Extinguishing those rights if
they are owned by private parties, is a straightforward taking
of private property. The property owners whose rights were
extinguished would have a clear claim for reimbursement from
the Treasury under the Fifth Amendment.
In order to address this takings problem, Rep. George
Miller offered an amendment which was adopted during full
Committee markup of the bill. Mr. Miller's amendment would
require Southern Pacific Transportation Company to pay fair
market value to the U.S. Treasury if it is shown that any
conveyance by the company validated under this Act resulted in
a private property taking under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.
During Committee consideration of the bill, Rep. Neil
Abercrombie (D-HI) raised a concern relating to the specific
language in H.R. 1784 as it relates to reservation of federal
mineral rights. Mr. Abercrombie, as ranking Democrat on the
Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, correctly noted that
the language in the bill as introduced and as in the Hansen
substitute does not conform with prior laws. In the past, with
withdrawals from the mining laws, Congress has most commonly
stated that the lands in question are no longer subject to
appropriation from such law, and normally Congress has made
this withdrawal subject to valid existing rights. With respect
to the mineral leasing laws, the withdrawal is often stated as
the lands are no longer subject to disposition or the operation
of such laws. [See for example sec. 9(a)(iii) of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act of sec. 4(d)(3) of the Wilderness Act].
At other times, Congress has phrased withdrawals from the
mining laws to state that the lands are no longer subject to
entry under the mining laws (there are examples where this term
is also used in conjunction with appropriation, i.e., ``entry
or appropriation under the mining law'') or to location (of
claims) under the mining laws (there are other examples where
this term in used in conjunction with entry, i.e., ``entry or
location under the mining law'').
H.R. 1784 incorrectly makes the ``minerals closed to
further entry'' which is not consistent with the mining laws
since it is the lands that should be closed from entry, not the
minerals. In a colloquy with Rep. Hansen during Committee
consideration of the bill, Rep. Abercrombie was assured that
his concerns relating to the language in the bill as introduced
would be resolved as a technical amendment subsequent to
Committee consideration and prior to House action. This has not
occurred. The Minority requested that the bill, as amended and
reported by the Committee, be further modified to replace
subsection (c) with language that more closely conforms with
prior laws, such as P.L. 99-543. The intent of both provisions
is the same: to reserve to the United States all minerals
located in the lands in question.
Since the Committee reported the bill, we have heard from
landowners in Reno, Nevada regarding potential problems they
face. Conveyances made by Southern Pacific have included city
streets and sidewalks abutting private property. These property
owners may be left landlocked and at the mercy of the new
owners. In at least one instance ``air rights'' were sold; in
another, an underground vault was conveyed which had always
been considered part of one owner's building. Property taxes
and street assessments over the years have been paid by the
private owners or lessees. These concerns should be addressed
before this bill moves forward.
George Miller.
Bruce Vento.
Neil Abercrombie.
Dale Kildee.