49–006 

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 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
2 

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 nonIndian 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. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
3 

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 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
4 

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. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE