[House Report 113-639]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 113-639
======================================================================
BLACKFOOT RIVER LAND EXCHANGE ACT OF 2014
_______
December 1, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 5049]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 5049) to exchange trust and fee land to resolve
land disputes created by the realignment of the Blackfoot River
along the boundary of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, and for
other purposes, 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. 5049 is to exchange trust and fee land
to resolve land disputes created by the realignment of the
Blackfoot River along the boundary of the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The Fort Hall Indian Reservation, located in southeast
Idaho near Pocatello and Blackfoot, was originally established
in 1867 by Executive Order for the benefit of various Bands of
the Shoshone and Bannock Indians. Pursuant to the Executive
Order, the Blackfoot River, as it existed in its natural state,
formed the northern boundary of the Reservation. Today, the
Reservation encompasses 544,000 acres of land, 97 percent of
which is held by the United States in trust for the tribe or
individual Indians.
In 1964, the Army Corps of Engineers undertook a flood
control project to realign and straighten a looping, meandered
channel of the Blackfoot River. As a result of the project,
Indians and non-Indian land owners along the realigned channel
found their properties with new boundaries: the Indian parcels
(approximately 37.04 acres) are bounded by non-Indian lands on
the north side of the river, and the non-Indian parcels
(approximately 31.01 acres) are bounded by Indian trust land on
the south side of the river. The project did not, however,
change the legal boundaries of the reservation. These parcels
have remained idle due to rights-of-way access and trespass
problems for the landowners, tribe, and individual Indian
allottees.
The access problems appear to be exacerbated by a dispute
concerning water right claims by several non-Indian landowners,
whose lands were affected by the 1964 flood control project. In
the 1980s, under Idaho state law, the Snake River Basin
Adjudication began to decree water rights on all streams and
rivers in the Snake River Basin in Idaho, which includes the
Blackfoot River Basin. During the Snake River Adjudication,
several non-Indian landowners, whose lands were affected by the
realignment of the Blackfoot River, claimed as their water
rights' place of use lands on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
In 2006, the tribes filed objections to these claimed water
rights. After extensive meetings and multiple status
conferences among the court, tribe, and non-Indian landowners,
it was determined that federal legislation was needed to
resolve land disputes created by the realignment of the
Blackfoot River. H.R. 5049 will enable the general stream
adjudication of the Snake River to be concluded without
interfering with water rights claims.
H.R. 5049 would authorize the United States to take certain
non-Indian lands into trust on behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes in Idaho; authorize the United States to convey certain
Indian lands as fee lands; and extinguish certain claims that
could be asserted by the Tribes against the United States.
These three main features in the bill would resolve the land
ownership problems for both Indian and non-Indian landowners
along Blackfoot River. Lands owned by non-Indians along the
realigned channel would be placed in trust for the tribes (made
part of the Fort Hall Reservation); title held by the United
States in trust for allottees and the tribes would be
transferred to the Blackfeet River Flood Control District No.
7, which represents the North Bank non-Indian landowners. Lands
transferred to the parties are described in a Bureau of Land
Management survey located at the Fort Hall Indian Agency office
of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and at the Blackfoot River
Flood Control District No. 7.
The Department of the Interior and tribes support this
bill.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 5049 was introduced on July 9, 2014, by Congressman
Michael Simpson (R-ID). The bill was referred to the Committee
on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. On July 29,
2014, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On September
18, 2014, the Full Natural Resources Committee met to consider
the bill. The Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs
was discharged by unanimous consent. No amendments were
offered, and the bill was adopted and 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 Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) 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)(2)(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. 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. 5049--Blackfoot River Land Exchange Act of 2014
H.R. 5049 would require an exchange of tribal and private
lands to settle a dispute between the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
and certain non-Indian landowners in southeastern Idaho. Under
the bill, the Department of the Interior (DOT) would exchange
37 acres of Indian trust land for 31 acres of private land that
would be held in trust for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Based
on information provided by DOT, CBO estimates that implementing
the legislation would have no significant effect on the federal
budget. Enacting H.R. 5049 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
By requiring the exchange of lands through federal statute,
H.R. 5049 would impose both intergovernmental and private-
sector mandates, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA), on tribal and nontribal land owners. The bill would
terminate rights to certain parcels of land surrounding the
Blackfoot River, and extinguish any past, present, or future
claims on that land. The cost of the mandates would be the
forgone compensation for damages that could have been collected
through legal actions related to clarifying title to the
property, and the net value of the land being exchanged by the
federal government. Any forgone damages are unlikely to be
significant. In a market study used by DOI, the value of the
land is estimated to be less than $500,000. Therefore, CBO
estimates that the aggregate cost of the mandates would fall
well below the annual thresholds established in UMRA for both
intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($76 million and
$152 million, respectively, in 2014, adjusted annually for
inflation).
On June 17, 2014, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S.
2040, the Blackfoot River Land Exchange Act of 2014, as ordered
reported by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on May 21,
2014. The two pieces of legislation are similar, and the CBO
cost estimates are the same.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Martin von
Gnechten (for federal costs), Melissa Merrell (for the state
and local impact), and Tristan Hanon (for the private-sector
impact). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
2. Section 308(a) of 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. CBO estimates that
implementing the legislation would have no significant effect
on the federal budget.
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to exchange trust and fee land to
resolve land disputes created by the realignment of the
Blackfoot River along the boundary of the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation.
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.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5
Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that
this bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any
specific rule-making proceedings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
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.