[House Report 111-310]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 111-310
======================================================================
SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY EXPANSION AND STUDY ACT OF 2009
_______
October 21, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Rahall, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 715]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 715) to expand the boundary of Saguaro National
Park, to study additional land for future adjustments to the
boundary of the Park, 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. 715 is to expand the boundary of
Saguaro National Park, to study additional land for future
adjustments to the boundary of the Park, and for other
purposes.
Background and Need for Legislation
President Herbert Hoover established Saguaro National
Monument in 1933 by proclamation. The 63,500-acre monument,
centered on Rincon Mountain east of Tucson, Arizona, was
created due to ``outstanding scientific interest because of the
exceptional growth thereon of various species of cacti,
including the so-called giant cactus.''
In 1961, President John F. Kennedy added to the national
monument (also by proclamation) a separate area west of Tucson,
the Tucson Mountain District, to protect its ``remarkable
display of relatively undisturbed lower Sonoran desert
vegetation, including a saguaro stand which equals or surpasses
saguaro stands elsewhere in the Nation.''
Congress adjusted the boundaries of the monument in 1976
(P.L. 94-578) and added more land to both districts in 1991
(P.L. 102-61) and 1994 (P.L. 103-364); the 1994 legislation
also changed the designation of the unit from national monument
to national park. The park currently encompasses 91,440 acres.
Directly between the park's two districts lies the city of
Tucson, which is growing rapidly. Subdivisions and other
development drawing ever nearer to both Rincon Mountain and
Tucson Mountain threaten to isolate park lands, block wildlife
corridors, and eliminate riparian areas near the park.
H.R. 715 would expand the boundary of the park to allow the
acquisition of three parcels totaling 674.41 acres adjacent to
the Rincon Mountain District, and eight parcels totaling 300.18
acres adjacent to the Tucson Mountain District. All of the
landowners have expressed their willingness to sell or donate
their property.
The parcels located along the southern boundary of the
Rincon Mountain District include three miles of Rincon Creek,
which flows through the only riparian hardwood forest in the
park and provides habitat for rare species such as gray hawks,
yellow-bill cuckoos, giant spotted whiptail lizards, and
lowland leopard frogs.
The proposed additions to the Tucson Mountain District will
protect wildlife corridors (and may aid the area's dwindling
mountain lion population) and protect park viewsheds.
In addition, H.R. 715 directs the NPS to study lands
adjacent to the park to determine whether further boundary
adjustments are warranted. The study would consider not only
lands that might be suitable for inclusion in the park, but
also examine properties that were included inside the park
boundary in earlier additions but which have not been acquired.
Some of those parcels have been developed in the interim, and
the study would determine whether such properties should be
excluded from the park.
Committee Action
H.R. 715 was introduced January 27, 2009 by National Parks,
Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee Chairman Raul Grijalva
(D-AZ). The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural
Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
On March 3, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the
bill. Representatives of the Department of the Interior and the
Tucson office of the National Parks Conservation Association
testified in favor of the legislation.
On July 9, 2009, the National Parks, Forests and Public
Lands Subcommittee was discharged from further consideration of
H.R. 715 and the full Natural Resources Committee met to
consider the bill. Subcommittee Ranking Member Rob Bishop (R-
UT) offered an amendment regarding law enforcement ``within the
boundaries, buffer zone, viewscape or soundscape of the park.''
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 yeas
and 22 nays, as follows:
Representative Bishop then offered an amendment to delete
language in current law that allows the Secretary of the
Interior to acquire land by eminent domain if the Secretary
determines that the land is being developed, or is proposed to
be developed in a manner which is detrimental to the integrity
of the park. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call
vote of 19 yeas and 24 nays, as follows:
The bill was then ordered favorably reported to the House
of Representatives by voice vote.
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants 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. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to expand the boundary of Saguaro
National Park, to study additional land for future adjustments
to the boundary of the Park, and for other purposes.
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. 715--Saguaro National Park Boundary Expansion and Study Act of
2009
H.R. 715 would expand the boundaries of the Saguaro
National Park in Arizona by about 975 acres. The bill also
would require the National Park Service (NPS), which manages
the park, to conduct a study to identify other property that
should be included in future boundary adjustments.
Based on information provided by the NPS and assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that
implementing H.R. 715 would cost the federal government about
$30 million over the next five years. Most of that amount would
be used to acquire the proposed acreage, assuming all 11
properties in the acquisition area were purchased rather than
acquired by exchange or donation. (The NPS may be able to
acquire some parcels by donation; if so, total costs would be
lower.) We estimate that the cost of developing and
administering the added acreage would not be significant.
Enacting the legislation would not affect revenues or direct
spending.
H.R. 715 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no
costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
If the Secretary of the Interior acquires any of the
property within the expansion area by means of condemnation,
H.R. 715 would impose a private-sector mandate as defined in
UMRA. The cost of the mandate would be equal to the value of
the property. Since that aggregate value is about $30 million,
the cost of the mandate, if imposed, would fall well below the
annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector
mandates ($139 million in 2009, adjusted annually for
inflation). However, testimony from affected parties indicates
the landowners want to be included in the park; therefore, CBO
estimates that the bill would likely impose no mandate.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Deborah Reis
(for federal costs) and Amy Petz (for the private-sector
impact). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Compliance With Public Law 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
Earmark Statement
H.R. 715 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of rule XXI.
Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 4 OF THE SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 1994
SEC. 4. EXPANSION OF PARK BOUNDARIES.
(a) In General.--(1) The boundaries of the park are hereby
modified to reflect the addition of approximately 3,460 acres
of land and interests therein as generally depicted on the map
entitled ``Saguaro National Monument Additions'' and dated
April, 1994.
(2) The boundary of the park is further modified to include
approximately 975 acres, as generally depicted on the map
titled ``Saguaro National Park Proposed Boundary Adjustment'',
numbered 151/80,045A, and dated August 2008. The map shall be
on file and available for inspection in the appropriate offices
of the National Park Service.
(b) Land Acquisition.--(1) Within the lands added to the park
pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized to
acquire lands and interests therein by donation, purchase with
donated or appropriated funds, transfer, or exchange: Provided,
That no such lands or interests therein may be acquired without
the consent of the owner thereof unless the Secretary
determines that the land is being developed, or is proposed to
be developed in a manner which is determental to the integrity
of the park.
[(2) Lands or interests therein owned by the State of Arizona
or a political subdivision thereof may only be acquired by
donation or exchange.]
(2) The Secretary may, with the consent of the State and in
accordance with Federal and State law, acquire from the State
land or interests in land within the boundary of the park.
(3) If the Secretary is unable to acquire the State land
under paragraph (2), the Secretary may enter into an agreement
that would allow the National Park Service to manage State land
within the boundary of the park.
* * * * * * *
(d) Boundary Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study
to identify lands that would be a part of any future
boundary adjustments for the park.
(2) Criteria.--The study shall examine the natural,
cultural, recreational, and scenic values and
characters of lands identified under paragraph (1).
(3) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date
funds are made available for the study under this
subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee
on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of
the Senate a report on the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the study.
DISSENTING VIEWS
We oppose H.R. 715 because it fails to protect property
rights and leaves intact impediments to securing our nation's
borders against criminal incursions and the environmental
degradation that is now occurring along the border as a result.
This legislation will expand Saguaro National Park by 975
acres, nearly all of it private, except for one parcel owned by
a county. These property owners will face new limitations on
their property. Specifically, the Secretary of the Interior
will have the authority to take private land if he determines
the owner's use of the land is detrimental to the park. The
federal government already has more land than it can adequately
manage and yet this Congress keeps expanding boundaries and
providing endless funding mechanisms to acquire even more.
Under these circumstances, there is no reason to continue
providing the National Park Service with the hammer of
condemnation that it wields to create so-called ``willing
sellers.''
At the full Committee markup, Congressman Rob Bishop
offered an amendment to remove the threatening authority and
provide a degree of security to property owners in line with
current standards for recent park expansion bills.
Unfortunately, this common sense amendment was defeated on a
largely partisan vote.
Saguaro National Park used to be a crown jewel in our
National Park system. Recently, however, the Fraternal Order of
Police named it one of the top 10 most dangerous parks in the
country, stating that Saguaro is ``home to body dumping,
smuggling and poaching after rangers go home at night.'' The
National Park Service's own website alerts visitors to be on
the lookout for arson, vandalism, theft of cactus, poaching,
dumping of debris, marijuana cultivation and drug labs. With
these growing new threats to the environment of the park along
the borderlands, it is imperative that Congress re-define and
balance the roles of the Interior Department and the Department
of Homeland Security. It is now apparent that the undue
prohibitions and restrictions being imposed on needed Border
Patrol enforcement activities harm both border security and the
park environment.
When arguing against an amendment offered by Congressman
Rob Bishop that would have prevented the Park Service from
placing restrictions on the Border Patrol from securing the
park, the sponsor of H.R. 715 stated that it should be up to
the individual parks to negotiate what is and isn't
permissible. It is our belief that Congress, not bureaucrats,
should establish our national security strategy. Unfortunately,
this sound policy, border security amendment was defeated by
the Majority Democrats on a party-line vote.
We are also concerned with the cost of the legislation. The
National Park Service has a well-publicized backlog estimated
at nearly $9 billion, and this expansion could cost as much as
$30 million. When will this Democrat Majority show restraint
and take care of the neglected land we already have?
Despite the refusal to accept Republican amendments in
committee that would have corrected these issues, we are
hopeful that careful analysis of these shortcomings on the
Floor of the House of Representatives, under an open rule, will
allow us to pass these amendments with strong bipartisan
support.
Doc Hastings.
Rob Bishop.