39–010 

Calendar No. 29 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 109–18 

ALBUQUERQUE BIOLOGICAL PARK TITLE CLARIFICATION 

ACT 

MARCH 7, 2005.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 229] 

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 

referred the bill (S. 229) to clear title to certain real property in 

New Mexico associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project, and for 

other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 

thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE

The purpose of S. 229 is to clear title to certain real property in 

New Mexico associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project, and for 

other purposes. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED

The bill directs the Secretary to issue a quitclaim deed conveying 

any right, title, and interest that the United States may have in 

the two properties to the city of Albuquerque for no additional consideration. These properties are key to the city’s plans to develop 

a Biological Park to serve as an environmental education center for 

its citizens. In pursuit of the project, the city, in 1997, purchased 

two properties from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District 

(MRGCD) for $3,875,000. At the time, it was thought that the properties were only subject to an easement interest held by the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation. 

In the year 2000, the city’s plan was interrupted when the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation claimed it had actually acquired ownership 

of all of MRGCD’s property that is associated with the Middle Rio 

Grande Project. Reclamation’s assertion called into question the vaVerDate Aug 04 2004 22:34 Mar 08, 2005 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR018.XXX SR018
2 

lidity of the 1997 transaction between the city and MRGCD. Both 

MRGCD and the city dispute the United States’ claim of ownership. This legislation would resolve the title dispute as it applies 

only to these two parcels of land. Reclamation has determined that 

the two properties are surplus to the needs of the Middle Rio 

Grande project. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 229 was introduced on February 1, 2005 by Senators Bingaman and Domenici. No hearings were held on the measure. At the 

business meeting on February 9, 2005, the Committee on Energy 

and Natural Resources ordered S. 229 favorably reported. 

During the 108th Congress, a similar measure, S. 213 was introduced on January 23, 2003 by Senators Bingaman and Domenici. 

The Water and Power Subcommittee held a hearing on S. 213 on 

September 23, 2003. S. Hrg. 108–211. At the business meeting on 

February 11, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 213, with an amendment, favorably reported. S. 

Rept. 108–229. The Senate passed S. 213 by unanimous consent on 

May 19, 2004. 

During the 107th Congress, a similar measure, S. 2696, was introduced by Senator Bingaman on June 27, 2002. The Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing on S. 2696 on July 

31, 2002. S. Hrg. 107–853. The Committee ordered the bill reported 

with an amendment on October 3, 2002. The Senate agreed to 

Amendment 4978 to S. 2556, which incorporated the text of S. 

2696, and passed S. 2556, as amended, on November 19, 2002. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND TABULATION OF VOTES

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open business session on February 9, 2005, by a unanimous vote of a 

quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 229. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 states the short title. 

Section 2 states the purpose of the bill. 

Section 3 defines key terms used in the Act. 

Section 4 (a) directs the Secretary of the Interior to issue a quitclaim deed to the two properties to the City of Albuquerque. 

Subsection (b) states that the Secretary should convey title as 

soon as practicable after the date of enactment and in accordance 

with all applicable law. 

Subsection (c) states that the city is not required to pay any additional costs to the United States for the value of the two properties. 

Section 5 (a) states that nothing in this Act shall be construed 

to affect any right, title, or interest in and to any other land associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project. 

Subsection (b) states that nothing in this Act shall be construed 

to affect or otherwise interfere with ongoing litigation, specifically 

No. CV 99–1320 JP/RLP–ACE, entitled Rio Grande Silvery Minnow 

v. John W. Keys, III. 

3 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following estimate of costs of this measure has been provided 

by the Congressional Budget Office: 

FEBRUARY 11, 2005. 

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 229, the Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Julie Middleton. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

S. 229—Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act 

CBO estimates that implementing S. 229 would have no significant impact on the federal budget. This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue a quitclaim deed conveying all right, 

title, and interest of the federal government in two pieces of property in New Mexico, to the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico. The 

properties are known as Tingley Beach and San Gabriel Park. 

The federal government currently does not generate any income 

from these two pieces of property, nor does it spend any funds to 

operate or maintain them. Tingley Beach and San Gabriel Park are 

part of a larger reclamation project called the Middle Rio Grande 

Project which is operated primarily by the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District. The federal government and the district are currently involved in a lawsuit regarding title to all of the lands in the 

Middle Rio Grande Project. S. 229 would settle the title of the two 

pieces of property by conveying them to the city of Albuquerque. 

The government would not receive any compensation from the city 

for these lands. 

Enacting S. 229 would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

This legislation 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. Enacting this legislation would benefit the city of Albuquerque. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Julie Middleton. This 

estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following evaluation 

of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out 

S. 229. The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of imposing Government-established standards or significant economic responsibilities on private individuals and businesses. 

No personal information would be collected in administering the 

program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal privacy. 

4 

Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the enactment of S. 229, as ordered reported. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The testimony provided by the Department of the Interior during 

the Subcommittee hearing on S. 213 in the 108th Congress follows: 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GABALDON, DIRECTOR, POLICY, 

MANAGEMENT, AND TECHNICAL SERVICES, BUREAU OF

RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

My name is Michael Gabaldon, Director, Policy, Management, and Technical Services of the Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation). I am pleased to be here today to present the 

views of the Department regarding S. 213, which would 

clear title to real property in New Mexico associated with 

the Middle Rio Grande Project and for other purposes. 

The Department has several concerns with S. 213 as 

drafted, primarily that the dispute over ownership of the 

San Gabriel and Tingley Beach parcel currently implicates 

a lawsuit pending before the United States District Court 

for the District of New Mexico. In addition, the Department has concerns about how the transfer of property that 

would be effected by this legislation may affect other property rights in the litigation related to this matter. 

The Department is not averse to transferring ownership 

to another entity, but all parties must agree on the venue 

and all applicable federal laws must be met in the process. 

The Department believes the prudent course of action is to 

allow the legal system to render its decision before instituting a legislative remedy. Therefore, the Department 

cannot support S. 213 at this time. 

With respect to the City of Albuquerque’s desires to 

make improvements on this property, Reclamation has 

provided a license to the City which allows the use of those 

lands as proposed in the City’s improvement plans. In addition to the license, Reclamation has met directly with 

members of the City Planning Department to facilitate the 

review of the City’s proposed improvements for Tingley 

Beach and worked with staff to assist them with State 

Historical Preservation Office review. 

The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy district (District) 

was created by the Conservancy Act of 1923 to improve the 

economy of the Middle Valley by lowering the water table 

and providing flood protection and water for irrigation. In 

the 1940’s, the District requested that Reclamation take 

over the operation of the District and retire its outstanding 

bonds. In September 1951, the District and Reclamation 

entered into a 50-year repayment contract in the amount 

of $15,708,567. A key component of the contract is Article 

29, which states: 

‘‘Title to all works constructed by the United States 

under this contract and to all such works as are conveyed 

to the United States by the provision hereof, shall as provided in Article 26, be and continue to be vested in the 

5 

name of the United States until otherwise provided for by 

Congress, notwithstanding the transfer hereafter of any 

such works to the District for operation and maintenance.’’ 

Therefore, the Department is also concerned with some 

of the findings in Section 2. Contrary to the implication of 

Section 2(a)(3) of the bill, the U.S. did not claim title to 

Tingley Beach and San Gabriel Park for the first time in 

2000. Rather, until recently, the U.S. and MRGCD had 

agreed for decades that title to all properties necessary for 

the Middle Rio Grande Project had been conveyed to the 

United States. For example, both the United States and 

MRGCD filed several briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court 

in the 1950’s stating unequivocally that title had been 

transferred to the U.S., and in the 1970’s MRGCD got a 

nuisance case involving all MRP ditches and canals in the 

Albuquerque Area dismissed on the basis that these properties had been conveyed to the United States. 

Furthermore, in 1998 testimony before a committee of 

the New Mexico Legislature, the District acknowledged the 

need and desire to seek reconveyance after its debt was repaid. 

Section 5 of the bill states that ‘‘nothing in this act shall 

be construed to affect or otherwise interfere with any position set forth by any party in the lawsuit * * *’’ It is unclear how the passage of this legislation could not affect 

the lawsuit given that the ownership of Middle Rio Grande 

Project properties is a central question in the quiet title 

claim of the litigation. 

Despite this disagreement, the District has been a good 

partner on this project and has retired its debt to the 

United States. While we are always open to working with 

all interested parties to find acceptable solutions, we believe that it is best to wait on the court’s decision on the 

quiet title claims. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks and I would 

be happy to respond to any questions the Committee may 

have. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 229, as ordered reported. 

Æ