59–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 114–327 

RED RIVER PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT 

NOVEMBER 4, 2015.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2130] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 2130) to provide legal certainty to property owners along 

the Red River in Texas, 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 all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Red River Private Property Protection Act’’. 

SEC. 2. DISCLAIMER AND OUTDATED SURVEYS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary disclaims any right, title, and interest to the land 

located south of the South Bank boundary line in the affected area. 

(b) CLARIFICATION OF PRIOR SURVEYS.—Surveys conducted by the Bureau of Land 

Management before the date of the enactment of this Act shall have no force or effect in determining the South Bank boundary line. 

SEC. 3. SURVEY OF SOUTH BANK BOUNDARY LINE. 

(a) SURVEY REQUIRED.—To identify the South Bank boundary line in the affected 

area, the Secretary shall commission a survey. The survey shall— 

(1) adhere to the gradient boundary survey method; 

(2) span the entire length of the affected area; 

(3) be conducted by Licensed State Land Surveyors chosen by the Texas General Land Office, in consultation with the Oklahoma Commissioners of the Land 

Office; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

(4) be completed not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 

Act; and 

(5) not be submitted to the Bureau of Land Management for approval. 

(b) APPROVAL OF THE SURVEY.—After the survey is completed, the Secretary shall 

submit the survey to be approved by the Texas General Land Office, in consultation 

with the Oklahoma Commissioners of the Land Office. 

(c) SURVEYS OF INDIVIDUAL PARCELS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Parcels surveyed as required by this section shall be surveyed and approved on an individual basis by the Texas General Land Office, 

in consultation with the Oklahoma Commissioners of the Land Office. 

(2) SURVEYS OF INDIVIDUAL PARCELS NOT SUBMITTED TO THE BUREAU OF LAND

MANAGEMENT.—Surveys of individual parcels shall not be submitted to the Bureau of Land Management for approval. 

(d) NOTICE.— 

(1) NOTIFICATION TO THE SECRETARY.—Not later than 30 days after a survey 

for a parcel is approved by the Texas General Land Office under subsection (c), 

such office shall provide to the Secretary the following: 

(A) Notice of the approval of such survey. 

(B) A copy of such survey and field notes relating to such parcel. 

(2) NOTIFICATION TO ADJACENT LANDOWNERS.—Not later than 30 days after 

the date on which the Secretary receives notification relating to a parcel under 

paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide to landowners adjacent to such parcel 

the following: 

(A) Notice of the approval of such survey. 

(B) A copy of such survey and field notes relating to such parcel. 

(C) Notice that the landowner may file an appeal under section 4. 

(D) Notice that the landowner may apply for a patent under section 5. 

(E) Any additional information considered appropriate by the Secretary. 

SEC. 4. APPEAL. 

Not later than 1 year after the date on which a landowner receives notification 

under section 3(d)(2), a landowner who claims to hold right, title, or interest in the 

affected area may appeal the determination of the survey to an administrative law 

judge of the Department of the Interior. 

SEC. 5. RED RIVER SURFACE RIGHTS. 

(a) NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION PERIOD FOR PATENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—On the date that is 18 months after the date on which the 

Secretary receives notification relating to a parcel under section 3(d)(1), the Secretary shall determine whether such parcel is subject to appeal. 

(2) PARCEL NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL.—Not later than 30 days after the date 

on which the Secretary determines a parcel is not subject to appeal, the Secretary shall— 

(A) notify landowners adjacent to such parcel that the Secretary shall accept applications for patents for that parcel under subsection (b) for a period of 210 days; and 

(B) begin accepting applications for patents for that parcel under subsection (b) for a period of 210 days. 

(3) PARCEL SUBJECT TO APPEAL.—If the Secretary determines a parcel is subject to appeal, the Secretary shall, not less than once every 6 months, check the 

status of the appeals relating to such parcel, until the Secretary determines 

such parcel is not subject to appeal. 

(b) PATENTS FOR LANDS IN THE AFFECTED AREA.—If the Secretary receives an application for a patent for a parcel of identified Federal lands during the period for 

applications for such parcel under subsection (a)(2)(B) and determines that the parcel has been held in good faith and in peaceful adverse possession by an applicant, 

or the ancestors or grantors of such applicant, for more than 20 years under claim 

(including through a State land grant or deed or color of title), the Secretary may 

issue a patent for the surface rights to such parcel to the applicant, on the payment 

of $1.25 per acre, if the patent includes the following conditions: 

(1) All minerals contained in the parcel are reserved to the United States and 

subject to sale or disposal by the United States under applicable leasing and 

mineral land laws. 

(2) Permittees, lessees, or grantees of the United States have the right to 

enter the parcel for the purpose of prospecting for and mining deposits. 

(c) PENDING REQUESTS FOR PATENTS.—The Secretary shall not offer a parcel of 

identified Federal land for purchase under section 6 if a patent request for that parcel is pending under this section. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

SEC. 6. RIGHT OF REFUSAL AND COMPETITIVE SALE. 

(a) RIGHT OF REFUSAL.— 

(1) OFFERS TO PURCHASE.—After the expiration of the period for applications 

under section 5(a)(2)(B), the Secretary shall offer for purchase for a period of 

60 days for each right of refusal— 

(A) the surface rights to the remaining identified Federal lands located 

north of the vegetation line of the South Bank to— 

(i) the adjacent owner of land located in Oklahoma to the north with 

the first right of refusal; 

(ii) if applicable, the adjacent owner of land located in Texas to the 

south with the second right of refusal; 

(iii) if applicable, the adjacent owner of land located to the east with 

the third right of refusal; and 

(iv) if applicable, the adjacent owner of land located to the west with 

the fourth right of refusal; and 

(B) the surface rights to the remaining identified Federal lands located 

south of the vegetation line of the South Bank to— 

(i) the adjacent owner of land located in Texas to the south with the 

first right of refusal; 

(ii) if applicable, the adjacent owner of land located in Oklahoma to 

the north with the second right of refusal; 

(iii) if applicable, the adjacent owner of land located to the east with 

the third right of refusal; and 

(iv) if applicable, the adjacent owner of land located to the west with 

the fourth right of refusal. 

(2) REMAINING IDENTIFIED FEDERAL LANDS DEFINED.—In this subsection, the 

term ‘‘remaining identified Federal lands’’ means any parcel of identified Federal lands— 

(A) not subject to appeal under section 4; 

(B) not determined by an administrative law judge of the Department of 

the Interior or a Federal court to be the property of an adjacent landowner; 

and 

(C) not patented or subject to a pending request for a patent under section 5. 

(b) DISPOSAL BY COMPETITIVE SALE.—If a parcel offered under subsection (a) is 

not purchased, the Secretary shall offer the parcel for disposal by competitive sale 

for not less than fair market value as determined by an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized appraisal standards, including the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 

(c) CONDITIONS OF SALE.—The sale of a parcel under this section shall be subject 

to— 

(1) the condition that all minerals contained in the parcel are reserved to the 

United States and subject to sale or disposal by the United States under applicable leasing and mineral land laws; 

(2) the condition that permittees, lessees, or grantees of the United States 

have the right to enter the parcel for the purpose of prospecting for and mining 

deposits; and 

(3) valid existing State, tribal, and local rights. 

(d) REPORT.—Not later than 5 years after the date on which the survey is approved, 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 list of the parcels of identified Federal lands that have not been sold 

under subsection (b) and a description of the reasons such parcels were not sold. 

SEC. 7. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. 

The Secretary may not treat a parcel of identified Federal lands as Federal land 

for the purposes of a resource management plan if the treatment of such parcel does 

not comply with the provisions of this Act. 

SEC. 8. CONSTRUCTION. 

(a) LANDS LOCATED NORTH OF THE SOUTH BANK BOUNDARY LINE.—Nothing in 

this Act shall be construed to modify the interest of Texas or Oklahoma or sovereignty rights of any federally recognized Indian tribe over lands located to the 

north of the South Bank boundary line as established by the survey. 

(b) PATENTS UNDER THE COLOR OF TITLE ACT.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to modify land patented under the Act of December 22, 1928 (Public Law 70– 

645; 45 Stat. 1069; 43 U.S.C. 1068; commonly known as the Color of Title Act), before the date of the enactment of this Act. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

(c) RED RIVER BOUNDARY COMPACT.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 

modify the Red River Boundary Compact as enacted by the States of Texas and 

Oklahoma and consented to by the United States Congress by Public Law 106-288 

(114 Stat. 919). 

SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) AFFECTED AREA.—The term ‘‘affected area’’ means lands along the approximately 116-mile stretch of the Red River from its confluence with the North 

Fork of the Red River on the west to the 98th meridian on the east between 

the States of Texas and Oklahoma. 

(2) GRADIENT BOUNDARY SURVEY METHOD.—The term ‘‘gradient boundary survey method’’ means the measurement technique used to locate the South Bank 

boundary line under the methodology established in Oklahoma v. Texas, 261 

U.S. 340 (1923) (recognizing that the boundary line between the States of Texas 

and Oklahoma along the Red River is subject to change due to erosion and accretion). 

(3) IDENTIFIED FEDERAL LANDS.—The term ‘‘identified Federal lands’’ means 

the lands in the affected area from the South Bank boundary line north to the 

medial line of the Red River as identified pursuant to this Act. 

(4) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Interior, 

acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. 

(5) SOUTH BANK.—The term ‘‘South Bank’’ means the water-washed and relatively permanent elevation or acclivity, commonly called a cut bank, along the 

southerly or right side of the Red River which separates its bed from the adjacent upland, whether valley or hill, and usually serves to confine the waters 

within the bed and to preserve the course of the river (as specified in the fifth 

paragraph of Oklahoma v. Texas, 261 U.S. 340 (1923)). 

(6) SOUTH BANK BOUNDARY LINE.—The term ‘‘South Bank boundary line’’ 

means the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma identified through the gradient boundary survey method (as specified in the sixth and seventh paragraphs 

of Oklahoma v. Texas, 261 U.S. 340 (1923)). 

(7) SURVEY.—The term ‘‘survey’’ means the survey required by section 3(a). 

(8) VEGETATION LINE.—The term ‘‘vegetation line’’ means the visually identifiable continuous line of vegetation that is adjacent to the portion of the riverbed 

kept practically bare of vegetation by the natural flow of the river and is continuous with the vegetation beyond the riverbed. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 2130 is to provide legal certainty to property 

owners along the Red River in Texas. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Confusion and dispute over the Texas-Oklahoma border has been 

ongoing for over 200 years. Under the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, 

the United States bought from France land that included the riverbed of the Red River. Subsequent treaties between the United 

States and Spain, Mexico, and the Republic of Texas confirmed 

that the boundary between the Texas and Oklahoma was the south 

bank of the River. In 1867, the U.S. signed a treaty with the 

Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Tribes that designated a reservation north of the ‘‘middle of the main channel’’ of the Red River between the 98th Meridian and the North Fork. Congress later disposed of the reservation and created a grazing reserve that was ultimately disposed of in 1906. However, since the southern boundary 

of the reservation and grazing reserve was defined as the ‘‘middle 

of the main channel,’’ the land between the medial line of the River 

and the south bank remained as federal land. 

After oil was discovered in an area around the Red River, Oklahoma brought suit against Texas in 1919 to determine the common 

boundary. In a 1923 decision and decree, the U.S. Supreme Court 

adopted the gradient boundary survey method for determining the 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma v. Texas, 261 

U.S. 340. According to this decision, the gradient boundary is on 

and along the south bank at the average or mean level of the 

waters when they reach and wash the bank without overflowing it. 

In unique areas where there is no well-defined cut bank, but only 

a gradual incline from the sand bed of the River to the upland, the 

boundary is a line conforming to the mean level of the water when 

at other places in that vicinity they reach and wash the cut bank 

without overflowing it. 

In 2000, House Joint Resolution 72, which codified the Red River 

Boundary Compact agreed to by Texas and Oklahoma, was signed 

into law. The purpose of the compact was to establish a visible 

boundary between the two states that would resolve jurisdictional 

and sovereignty disputes issues. The compact set the political 

boundary as the vegetation line on the south bank of the Red 

River. While the compact does not affect land ownership, it is widely accepted that the vegetative line and the gradient boundary can 

be relatively the same or at least within feet of each other. 

Accretion, erosion, and avulsion have gradually altered the 

course and location of the Red River in the area subject to this bill. 

Accretion can be generally defined as the deposit of soil along the 

bank or bed of a river and erosion is the removal of soil from the 

banks or bed of a river. Legally, a landowner is allowed to keep the 

accretions attached to his or her land but loses title to eroded 

lands. An avulsion is the sudden change in a channel of a boundary 

river that can be caused through natural events or as a result from 

human activity. When this sudden change occurs, the boundary remains where it was before the avulsion event. The decree rendered 

in the 1923 U.S. Supreme Court decision explicitly addresses accretion, erosion, and avulsion and recognized that the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma would continually move with the River 

through accretion and erosion but not through avulsion. 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is currently updating 

its Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Resource Management Plan 

(RMP), which covers the 116-mile stretch of the Red River subject 

to this bill. BLM estimates this revision will be finalized in January 2018. BLM originally stated there are an estimated 90,000 

acres of land along this stretch of the River that may be considered 

public domain and managed as federal land. BLM has since reduced this estimate to at most 30,000 acres, of which only 6,402 

acres have been actually surveyed. 

These statements and the pending RMP revision have caused 

great concern among local landowners and others that the federal 

government is claiming to own land which was previously deeded 

to individual citizens. Most landowners along the River are now 

unsure if the land that they have held title to and have paid taxes 

on, in many cases for generations, will remain in their families or 

be subject to federal ownership and management. Further, the entire 116-mile stretch of the Red River at question has never been 

surveyed by BLM, and the method used to survey small stretches 

of the River strays widely from the accepted gradient boundary 

survey method established by the 1923 U.S. Supreme Court decision and decree. BLM’s surveys have been contested by landowners, county officials, the Texas General Land Office (GLO), and 

others. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

This bill attempts to make clear who actually holds title to the 

land at question. To do so, H.R. 2130 requires BLM to disclaim any 

right, title, and interest to certain lands along a 116-mile stretch 

of the River located south of the south bank boundary line of the 

River. BLM is also required to commission a survey of the entire 

stretch of contested land along the River using the gradient boundary survey method developed and backed by the U.S. Supreme 

Court. The survey must also be conducted by Licensed State Land 

Surveyors and approved by the Texas GLO. Landowners are allowed to appeal further public domain claims by BLM through an 

Administrative Law Judge. BLM is prevented from treating parcels 

in the affected area as federal land under any RMP until the survey has been completed and approved and the parcels are no longer 

subject to further appeal. BLM is required to sell off the surface 

rights of the remaining federally-owned land at fair market value 

after the proper boundary line is located and settled and submit to 

Congress a list of federal lands that have not been sold and the 

reasons why. The bill also explicitly states that the interest of the 

states and the sovereignty rights of the federally recognized Indian 

tribes north of the Texas state boundary line will not be affected. 

During Committee consideration of the bill, Chairman Rob 

Bishop offered an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute (ANS), 

which was approved by voice vote. The ANS makes technical and 

conforming changes, clarifies aspects of the survey and appeals procedure, requires the Texas GLO to approve the survey in consultation with the Commissioners of the Land Office in Oklahoma, ensures that the bill does not modify the Red River Boundary Compact, and allows land parcels to be surveyed and approved on an 

individual basis. The ANS also allows landowners to file for a 

modified Color-of-Title Act land patent request and sets forth procedures on the first and subsequent rights of refusal for adjacent 

Oklahoma and Texas landowners. 

A previous version of this bill, H.R. 4979, the Red River Private 

Property Protection Act, also authored by Congressman Mac Thornberry, was considered by the Natural Resources Committee during 

the 113th Congress. The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation held a hearing on the bill, and it was favorably reported to the House of Representatives by voice vote (House 

Report 113–700). 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 2130 was introduced on April 30, 2015, by Congressman 

Mac Thornberry (R–TX). The bill was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee 

on Federal Lands. On September 9, 2015, the Natural Resources 

Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman Rob Bishop (R–UT) 

offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. On September 10, 2015, the bill, 

as amended, was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by bipartisan roll call vote of 21 to 11, as follows: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 8 here HR327.001
8 

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. 2130—Red River Private Property Protection Act 

Summary: H.R. 2130 would establish a process under which the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would dispose of roughly 

30,000 acres of federal land along the border between Texas and 

Oklahoma. As part of that process, the bill would require BLM to 

commission a survey of a 116-mile segment of the Red River and 

about 160 tracts of land adjacent to the river. 

CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase net offsetting receipts, which are treated as reductions in direct spending, by 

$5 million over the 2018–2025 period; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting H.R. 2130 would not affect revenues. In 

addition, based on information provided by BLM and the Texas 

General Land Office, CBO estimates that implementing the bill 

would cost $2 million over the 2016–2020 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2130 would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion in any 

of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2026. 

H.R. 2130 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary effect of H.R. 2130 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources 

and environment). 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2016–2020 2016–2025 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Discounted Land Sales 

Estimated Budget Authority .......................................... 0 0 * * * * * * * * 1 2 Estimated Outlays ......................................................... 0 0 * * * * * * * * 1 2 

Fair Market Value Land Sales 

Estimated Budget Authority .......................................... 0 0 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥3 ¥7 

Estimated Outlays ......................................................... 0 0 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥3 ¥7 

Total Changes 

Estimated Budget Authority .......................................... 0 0 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥2 ¥5 

Estimated Outlays ......................................................... 0 0 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥2 ¥5 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level ...................................... 1 * * * * * * * * * 2 2 Estimated Outlays ......................................................... * * * * * * * * * * 2 2 

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding; * = less than $500,000. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the legislation will be enacted in 2016 and that the necessary amounts will 

be appropriated for each fiscal year. 

Direct spending 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2130 would increase net off- setting receipts by $5 million over the 2018–2025 period. That estimate includes two components: provisions authorizing BLM to convey certain federal lands to private citizens for $1.25 an acre would 

reduce offsetting receipts by roughly $2 million over that period; 

provisions requiring the BLM to sell federal lands for fair market 

value would increase offsetting receipts by $7 million over that period. 

Red River Boundary. A series of treaties in the early 1800s established the south bank of the Red River as the southern border 

between the United States and what is now the state of Texas. In 

1867, the federal government established the Kiowa-ComancheApache Reservation in what is now the state of Oklahoma and set 

the southern border of the reservation as the center of the Red 

River. Any land located between the center of the river and the 

southern bank remained federal land. 

Over time, the path of the river shifted, exposing lands that were 

once regularly submerged. For decades, parcels of land, primarily 

south of the river’s new southern bank, were sold to individuals in 

Oklahoma and Texas. Some individuals who obtained deeds to the 

affected parcels built structures and paid taxes on them. However, 

in the early 1980s, a U.S. District Court reestablished that private 

property in Oklahoma extended to the center of the river as it 

flowed in the 1800s while private property in Texas extended to the 

southern bank of the river as it flowed at that time. As a result, 

some of the land that was occupied by private landowners was 

awarded to other landowners across the river while other land was 

reclaimed as federal land under the jurisdiction of BLM. 

Discounted Land Sales. Under the Color of Title Act, individuals 

can acquire clear title to up to 160 acres of federal land if they hold 

title to the land, were unaware that title to the land was originally 

vested in the federal government, and meet certain other conditions. The act requires that individuals pay fair market value for 

acquired lands; however, the estimated value may be reduced to account for several factors, including improvements made on the land 

and property taxes paid. The minimum cost to acquire lands under 

the Color of Title Act is $1.25 per acre. 

Under current law, CBO estimates that 20,000 acres of federal 

land along the Red River are occupied by private landowners and 

owners of about 50 percent of that land (10,000 acres) meets the 

conditions necessary to be acquired under the Color of Title Act. 

We also estimate that owners of about 80 percent of the land eligible to be acquired (8,000 acres) will complete their claims. Finally, 

we estimate, based on the amounts paid to acquire lands under 

that act in recent years, that landowners will pay about $200 an 

acre (roughly 15 percent of the estimated fair market value), on average, to acquire the affected lands. As a result, CBO estimates 

that, BLM will collect offsetting receipts totaling roughly $2 million 

over the 2018–2025 period from individuals acquiring land under 

the Color of Title Act. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

Section 5 would require BLM to convey federal lands to private 

landowners who seek to acquire title and meet conditions similar 

to those required under the Color of Title Act. The bill would require landowners to pay $1.25 an acre (less than one-tenth of one 

percent of the estimated fair market value) to acquire the affected 

lands and, unlike the Color of Title Act, would not cap the number 

of acres a landowner could acquire at that price. CBO expects that 

eliminating the cap would make roughly 75 percent of the privately-occupied federal lands (15,000 acres) eligible for purchase at 

$1.25 per acre. We also expect that the lower price would increase 

the amount of land purchased to 95 percent of that amount (14,250 

acres). Therefore, CBO estimates that, under section 5, BLM would 

collect offsetting receipts totaling roughly $20,000 over the 2018– 

2025 period. On net, CB0 estimates that enacting the bill would reduce the amount of offsetting receipts BLM would collect from selling land at discounted prices by $2 million over the 2018–2025 period. 

Fair Market Value Land Sales. Under the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (FLPMA), BLM has the authority to dispose 

of federal lands in accordance with an approved land use plan. The 

agency is currently drafting a new plan that will determine how 

federal lands along the Red River will be administered. Based on 

information provided by BLM, CBO expects that the agency will 

probably identify all 30,000 acres of federal land along the river for 

disposal when its plan is completed in 2018. 

Under current law, CBO estimates that BLM could sell about 

22,000 acres of federal land along the Red River (the land remaining after conveyances under the Color of Title Act) at fair market 

value beginning in 2018. We also estimate, based on the value of 

similar lands in the area, that the fair market value of the affected 

lands would average about $1,500 an acre. Thus, CBO estimates 

that BLM could collect offsetting receipts from land sales along the 

Red River totaling up to $33 million over the 2018–2025 period. 

However, because we are uncertain about the actions BLM will 

take under the pending resource management plan, CBO estimates, after considering a range of possible outcomes, that the 

agency will collect receipts totaling about $17 million over that period. 

Section 6 would require BLM to sell at fair market value all 

lands along the Red River that are not sold at a discount under 

section 5. CBO estimates that, under the bill, the agency would sell 

roughly 16,000 acres of federal land at an average price of $1,500 

an acre. Thus, CBO estimates that, under the bill, BLM would generate offsetting receipts from the sale of federal land along the 

river totaling $24 million over the 2018–2025 period. On net, CBO 

estimates that conducting the land sales required under section 6 

would increase offsetting receipts by $7 million over that period. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

H.R. 2130 would require BLM to commission a survey of a 116- 

mile segment of the Red River and about 160 tracts of land adjacent to the river. Based on information provided by the Texas General Land Office, the entity that would oversee the survey, CBO estimates that conducting the survey would cost roughly $1 million 

over the 2016–2017 period. In addition, CBO estimates, based on 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

the cost of carrying out similar activities, that BLM would spend 

about $2 million over the 2018–2025 period to administer the conveyance of the affected lands. Because CBO expects that, under 

current law, BLM may carry out many of the tasks required under 

H.R. 2130, we estimate that implementing the bill would increase 

discretionary spending, relative to current law, by roughly $2 million over the 2016–2020 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. 

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 and revenues that are subject to those pay-asyou-go procedures are shown in the following table. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 2130, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2015– 2020 2015– 2025 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact ..................................................................................................... 0 0 0 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥2 ¥5 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

Increase in Long Term Direct Spending and Deficits: CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase net direct 

spending or on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion in any of the 

four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2026. 

Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Impact: H.R. 2130 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined 

in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: FederalCosts: Jeff LaFave; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Jon Sperl; Impact on the 

Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, 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 credit authority, or an increase 

or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office, implementation of this bill would cost $2 

million over the 2016–2010 time period, subject to appropriation, 

while increasing net offsetting receipts by $5 million over the 

2018–2025 time period. 

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 provide legal certainty to property owners along the 

Red River in Texas. 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(15) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

Federal interest in land along the Red River between Texas and 

Oklahoma dates back to the Louisiana Purchase. Fast forward 

more than two hundred years, several treaties and compacts later, 

and there is still confusion about the amount of land owned by the 

Federal government and the location of the boundary between 

Texas and Oklahoma. 

In several cases during the 1920s, the Supreme Court of the 

United States ruled that the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma along the Red River is determined by the gradient boundary 

method. Using this method in the years since, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) estimates that the Federal government retains 

interest in approximately 30,000 acres along the 116 mile stretch 

of the Red River, 23,000 of which are overlaid by private deeds. On 

July 26, 2013, BLM issued a Notice of Intent to begin work on a 

revision to the Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Resource Management Plan (RMP), which includes a comprehensive survey of the 

area and verification of ownership. There are many overlapping 

claims, missing and unreliable records, and even competing claims 

from both Texas and Oklahoma over the same pieces of property. 

Completion of the public planning process and survey will clear up 

all of the uncertainty. 

H.R. 2130 would halt that process and nullify all previous BLM 

surveys, transferring authority to survey the area to the Texas 

General Land Office. After nearly 100 years of uncontested surveys, the sponsors of H.R. 2130 claim that BLM has misinterpreted 

the Supreme Court’s definition of gradient and argue that the 

Texas border should be closer to the waterline of the river. Transferring BLM’s survey authority to the Texas General Land Office 

would permit the State of Texas to conduct a survey that moves its 

border northward toward the water, effectively eliminating a large 

portion of the estimated federal land holdings. 

This is unfair to the American taxpayers, who deserve fair compensation for their assets. If Texas wants to challenge BLM’s survey methods and interpretation of the law, it should do so in the 

courts, not Congress. 

Additionally, this jeopardizes a long standing agreement between 

the Federal government and the Kiowa, Apache, and Comanche 

tribes. These tribes receive 62.5 percent of any royalty generated 

for oil and gas development along this section of the Red River. If 

part of this land no longer belongs to the federal government, this 

important source of revenue relied on by the tribes could also vanish into thin air. 

With the long, complicated history and various ownership claims 

along the Red River, BLM must be allowed to complete its planning process and land survey. The survey is neither a land grab 

nor an example of government overreach; it is simply a federal 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

agency trying to resolve a very complex situation. Restricting the 

survey authority of the BLM, the Federal government’s surveyor of 

record, sets a dangerous precedent. We oppose H.R. 2130 because 

it blindly erases an asset owned by all Americans. 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources. 

NIKI TSONGAS, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Federal 

Lands. 

JARED HUFFMAN, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water, 

Power and Oceans. 

ALAN LOWENTHAL, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy and 

Mineral Resources. 

GRACE NAPOLITANO, 

Member of Congress. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS