```

[House Report 108-647]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     108-647

======================================================================

 
              RANCHO EL CAJON BOUNDARY RECONCILIATION ACT

                                _______
                                

 September 7, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Pombo, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 3954]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 3954) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
resolve boundary discrepancies in San Diego County, California, 
arising from an erroneous survey conducted by a Government 
contractor in 1881 that resulted in overlapping boundaries for 
certain lands, 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 ``Rancho El Cajon Boundary 
Reconciliation Act''.

SEC. 2. RESOLUTION OF BOUNDARY DISCREPANCIES, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, 
                    CALIFORNIA.

  (a) Resolution of Boundary Discrepancies.--The Secretary of the 
Interior shall provide compensation to any landowner whose title to 
land in lots 1 and 2 of section 9, township 15 south, range 1 east, San 
Bernardino Meridian, in San Diego County, California, is based on an 
erroneous survey conducted by a Government contractor in 1881 and is 
rendered void because that title is inferior to the title to the same 
land established by a survey of the Rancho El Cajon conducted in 1872 
and approved by the Commissioner of the General Land Office in 1876.
  (b) Forms of Compensation.--Compensation under subsection (a) shall 
be mutually agreed upon by the Secretary and the landowner and shall 
consist of--
          (1) public lands in San Diego or Imperial Counties, 
        California, selected jointly by the Secretary and the landowner 
        and conveyed by the Secretary to the landowner;
          (2) a cash payment to the landowner; or
          (3) a combination of a conveyance under paragraph (1) and a 
        cash payment under paragraph (2).
  (c) Equal Value.--Compensation provided under subsection (a) for a 
parcel of land whose title was rendered void, as described in such 
subsection, may not exceed the fair market value of the land, as 
determined by an appraisal satisfactory to the Secretary and the 
landowner.
  (d) Source of Funds.--The Secretary may make payments under 
subsection (a) using funds available to the Secretary to equalize land 
exchanges under section 206(b) of the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716(b)).
  (e) Public Lands Defined.--In this section, the term ``public lands'' 
has the meaning given the term in section 103(e) of the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (7 U.S.C. 1702(e)).

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 3954 is to authorize the Secretary of 
the Interior to resolve boundary discrepancies in San Diego 
County, California, arising from an erroneous survey conducted 
by a Government contractor in 1881 that resulted in overlapping 
boundaries for certain lands, and for other purposes.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    In 1848, the California Territory received a 48,000 acre 
land grant known as the Rancho El Cajon from Mexico. Following 
the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Act of March 3, 
1851, which established a process for confirming Mexican land 
grant titles, the Board of Land Commissioners confirmed the 
validity of the Mexican land grant for Rancho El Cajon in 
November 1854. The original northern Rancho El Cajon boundary 
was depicted on the official plat of survey in May 1859. In 
1881, portions of this Rancho boundary were retraced, 
subdivisional lines were surveyed, and an official plat of 
survey was approved. In 1945, the State of California selected 
Lots 1 and 2 of Section 9 of the Rancho El Cajon as Indemnity 
School Land Selections. Then, in 1962 the State sold these lots 
to a private individual and Mr. Frederick Gruner. Thus, Mr. 
Gruner's title to Lots 1 and 2 of Section 9 trace back to the 
State of California, which selected these lands from among 
those made available by the United States based on the 1881 
federal survey. Over the subsequent years, conflicts arose over 
the actual location of this Rancho boundary as these two 
surveys were apparently different in their results.
    To resolve this long standing conflict, the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) Cadastral Staff in 1998 initiated a dependent 
resurvey of a portion of the Rancho El Cajon boundary to 
identify the federal interest lands in several sections within 
the survey area. The results of the survey determined that 
several lots, specifically Lots 1 and 2 of Section 9, did 
overlap into the Rancho El Cajon northern boundary. For many 
years, local landowners and professional land surveyors have 
known that discrepancies exist between the 1859 and 1881 
surveys of this Rancho boundary.
    Following the resurvey, the County of San Diego removed 
Lots 1 and 2 from its taxable property rolls. Since that time, 
Mr. Gruner and others have been seeking redress from the 
federal government. However, according to the BLM, it does not 
have the means, through regulation or otherwise, to resolve 
ownership issues between or among private landowners, including 
the ability to reimburse the property owners. H.R. 3954 would 
begin the process to compensate Mr. Gruner and possible others 
for the loss of their property.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 3954 was introduced on March 11, 2004, by Congressman 
Duncan Hunter (R-CA). The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 
National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands. On June 15, 2004, 
the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On July 8, 2004, 
the Subcommittee met to mark up the bill. Congressman George 
Radanovich (R-CA) offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute that struck the Bureau of Land Management study from 
the bill and provided compensation to those landowners affected 
by the erroneous survey. The amendment was adopted by unanimous 
consent. The bill as amended was forwarded to the Full 
Resources Committee by unanimous consent. On July 14, 2004, the 
Full Resources Committee met to consider the bill. No further 
amendments were offered and the bill as amended was 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 Resources' oversight findings and recommendations 
are reflected in the body of this report.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3 of the 
Constitution of the United States grant 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. This bill does 
not authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not 
apply.
    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. 3954--Rancho El Cajon Boundary Reconciliation Act

    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3954 would not 
significantly affect the federal budget. The bill would not 
affect direct spending or revenue. H.R. 3954 contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on 
state, local, or tribal governments.
    H.R. 3954 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
compensate private landowners whose title to certain land in 
San Diego County, California, is rendered void because of an 
erroneous federal survey conducted in 1881. Based on 
information from the Bureau of Land Management about the 
estimated value of the affected land, CBO estimates that the 
agency would pay between $200,000 and $500,000 in 2005 to 
compensate those individuals, assuming the availability of 
appropriated funds.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Megan Carroll. 
This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                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 to existing 
law.

                                  

```