```

[House Report 107-386]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                                       
107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-386

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

 
        BEAR RIVER MIGRATORY BIRD REFUGE SETTLEMENT ACT OF 2002

                                _______
                                

 April 9, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 3958]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 3958) to provide a mechanism for the settlement of claims 
of the State of Utah regarding portions of the Bear River 
Migratory Bird Refuge located on the shore of the Great Salt 
Lake, Utah, 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 ``Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge 
Settlement Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

  Congress finds the following:
          (1) The Secretary of the Interior and the State of Utah have 
        negotiated a preliminary agreement concerning the ownership of 
        lands within the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge located in 
        Bear River Bay of the Great Salt Lake, Utah.
          (2) The State is entitled to ownership of those sovereign 
        lands constituting the bed of the Great Salt Lake, and, 
        generally, the location of the sovereign lands boundary was set 
        by an official survey of the Great Salt Lake meander line.
          (3) The establishment of the Refuge in 1928 along the shore 
        of the Great Salt Lake, and lack of a meander line survey 
        within the Refuge, has led to uncertainty of ownership of some 
        those sovereign lands.
          (4) In order to settle the uncertainty concerning the 
        sovereign land boundary caused by the gap in the surveyed Great 
        Salt Lake meander line within the Refuge, the Secretary and the 
        State have agreed to the establishment of a fixed sovereign 
        land boundary along the southern boundary of the Refuge and the 
        State has agreed to release any claim to the lake bed above 
        such boundary line.
          (5) The Secretary and the State have expressed their 
        intentions to establish a mutually agreed upon procedure to 
        address the conflicting claims to ownership of the lands and 
        interests in land within the Refuge.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

  In this Act:
          (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        the Interior.
          (2) Refuge.--The term ``Refuge'' means the Bear River 
        Migratory Bird Refuge located in Bear River Bay of the Great 
        Salt Lake, Utah.
          (3) Agreement.--The term ``agreement'' means the agreement to 
        be signed by the Secretary and the State to establish a 
        mutually agreeable procedure for addressing the conflicting 
        claims to ownership of the lands and interests in land within 
        the Refuge.
          (4) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Utah.

SEC. 4. REQUIRED TERMS OF LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT, BEAR RIVER MIGRATORY 
                    BIRD REFUGE, UTAH.

  (a) Specific Terms Required in Agreement.--The Secretary shall not 
enter into an agreement with the State for the quitclaim or other 
transfer of lands or interests in lands within the Refuge unless the 
terms of the agreement include each of the following provisions:
          (1) Nothing in the agreement shall be construed to impose 
        upon the State or any of agency of the State any obligation to 
        convey to the United States any interest in water owned or 
        controlled by the State, except upon appropriate terms and for 
        adequate consideration.
          (2) Nothing in the agreement shall constitute admission or 
        denial of the United States claim to a Federal reserved water 
        right.
          (3) The State shall support the United States application to 
        add an enlarged Hyrum Reservoir, or another storage facility, 
        as an alternate place of storage under the Refuge's existing 
        1000 cubic feet per second State certified water right. Such 
        support shall be contingent upon demonstration by the United 
        States that no injury to water rights shall occur as a result 
        of the addition.
          (4) Nothing in the agreement shall affect jurisdiction by the 
        State or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service over 
        wildlife resources management, including fishing, hunting and 
        trapping, within the Refuge.
          (5) If the State elects to bring suit against the United 
        States challenging the validity of the deed issued pursuant to 
        the agreement, and if such suit is successful in invalidating 
        such deed, the State will--
                  (A) pay the United States for the fair market value 
                of all real property improvements on the property at 
                the time of invalidation, such as dikes, water control 
                structures and buildings;
                  (B) repay any amounts paid by the United States 
                because of ownership of the land by the United States 
                from the date of establishment of the Refuge, such as 
                payments in lieu of taxes; and
                  (C) repay any amounts paid to the State pursuant to 
                the agreement.
          (6) Subject to the availability of funds for this purpose, 
        the Secretary shall agree to pay $15,000,000 to the State upon 
        delivery by the State of a quitclaim deed that meets all 
        applicable standards of the Department of Justice and covers 
        all lands and interests in lands claimed by the State within 
        the Refuge. Such payment shall be subject to the condition that 
        the State use the payment for the purposes, and in the amounts, 
        specified in subsections (b) and (c).
  (b) Wetlands and Wildlife Protection Programs.--
          (1) Deposit.--The State shall deposit $10,000,000 of the 
        amount paid pursuant to the agreement, as required by 
        subsection (a)(6), in a restricted account, known as the 
        Wetlands and Habitat Protection Account, to be used as provided 
        in paragraph (2).
          (2) Authorized uses.--The Executive Director of the Utah 
        Department of Natural Resources may withdraw from the Wetlands 
        and Habitat Protection Account, on an annual basis, amounts 
        equal to the interest earned on the amount deposited under 
        paragraph (1) for the following purposes:
                  (A) Wetland or open space protection in and near the 
                Great Salt Lake.
                  (B) Enhancement and acquisition of wildlife habitat 
                in and near the Great Salt Lake.
  (c) Recreational Trails and Streams Development and Expansion.--The 
Utah Department of Natural Resources shall use $5,000,000 of the amount 
paid pursuant to the agreement, as required by subsection (a)(6), for 
the following purposes:
          (1) Development, improvement, and expansion of motorized and 
        non-motorized recreational trails on public and private lands 
        in the State, with priority given to providing trail access to 
        the Great Salt Lake as part of the proposed Shoshone and Ogden-
        Weber trail systems.
          (2) Preservation, reclamation, enhancement, and conservation 
        of streams in the State.
  (d) Coordination of Projects.--The Executive Director of the Utah 
Department of Natural Resources shall seek to maximize the use of funds 
under subsections (b) and (c) through coordination with nonprofit 
organizations, Federal agencies, other agencies of the State, and local 
governments, and shall give priority to those projects under such 
subsections that include Federal, State, or private matching funds.
  (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated $15,000,000 for the payment required by subsection (a)(6) 
to be included as a term of the agreement.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 3958 is to provide a mechanism for the 
settlement of claims of the State of Utah regarding portions of 
the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge located on the north shore 
of the Great Lake, Utah.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    Surrounded by arid desert lands, it's little wonder the 
Bear River marshes have been a historical waterfowl oasis. 
Explorer John C. Fremont witnessed such a concentration of 
flocks that he wrote in 1843, ``the waterfowl made a noise like 
thunder * * * as the whole scene was animated with waterfowl.''
    As settlers moved into the area, projects were undertaken 
to divert large amounts of river water for use by upstream 
settlements and farms. The marshes began to dry. By 1920, only 
two or three thousand acres of the original forty-five thousand 
acres of marshlands were left. The loss of the marshlands 
through drying was a serious problem affecting the survival of 
migrating birds. But the drying occurred slowly, and attracted 
little attention or concern.
    Epidemics of avian botulism also threatened the marshland 
area. Records show that in addition to the two million birds 
that died in a 1910 outbreak, another die-off in 1920 claimed 
one and a half million birds. It was the public's reaction to 
these epidemics that brought about action. In 1928, Congress 
passed a special act to make the delta a National Wildlife 
Refuge.
    In 1983, the rising waters of the Great Salt Lake topped 
the Refuge dikes, contaminating wildlife habitats with salt 
water and destroying marsh vegetation. Dikes and water control 
structures were heavily damaged and all buildings were 
demolished. In short, the Refuge was rendered inoperable.
    By 1989, the Lake receded enough that the Refuge dikes 
could again be seen. Refuge employees, aided by scores of 
volunteers, began to work to put the Bear River Migratory Bird 
Refuge back together. To date, close to 1 million yards of 
earth has been moved to restore and enhance the Refuge. Forty-
seven primary water control structures have been restored along 
with over forty-seven miles of dikes.
    Bear River Refuge today consists of 74,000 acres of which 
the State of Utah claims 18,000 acres below the Great Salt Lake 
meander line as State sovereign lands. For nearly 75 years, the 
State and federal governments have disputed the ownership of 
these lands. A 1976 Supreme Court decision (Utah v. United 
States) quieted title to the bed of the Great Salt Lake in the 
State of Utah up to and including the surveyed meander line, 
excepting the Refuge from its decision.
    On September 28, 2001, negotiations between the Department 
of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of Utah 
resulted in a settlement agreement to be signed by the 
Secretary of the Interior and the Governor of Utah. The 
settlement agreement is conditional on Congressional 
authorization and appropriation of required funds as well as 
State legislative approval. The 2002 Utah Legislature approved 
the necessary measures.
    H.R. 3958 is the Congressional action necessary for the 
Secretary of the Interior to sign the final agreement. The bill 
authorizes an appropriation of $15 million as reimbursement to 
the State for the lands, oil, gas and mineral rights within the 
Refuge. In return, the State will drop its claim to the 
disputed portion of the refuge.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 3958 was introduced on March 13, 2002, by Congressman 
James V. Hansen (R-UT). The bill was referred to the Committee 
on Resources. On March 20, 2002, the Full Resources Committee 
met to consider the bill. Congressman Hansen offered an 
amendment to add the word ``executive'' to the title of the 
Director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources to be 
consistent with the correct title of the position. It was 
adopted by unanimous consent. The bill as amended was then 
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 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 Objects. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 
objective of this bill is to provide a mechanism for the 
settlement of claims of the State of Utah regarding portions of 
the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge located on the north shore 
of the Great Salt Lake, Utah.
    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:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, April 8, 2002.
Hon. James V. Hansen,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3958, the Bear 
River Migratory Bird Refuge Settlement Act of 2002.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah 
Reis (for federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for the state 
and local impact).
            Sincerely,
                                        Steven M. Lieberman
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3958--Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge Settlement Act of 2002

    H.R. 3958 would satisfy the federal requirements under a 
land claim settlement agreement between the Department of the 
Interior (DOI) and the state of Utah. That agreement would 
settle a historic dispute over the boundaries of the Bear River 
Migratory Bird Refuge in Utah. H.R. 3958 specifies certain 
terms and conditions to be included in the agreement and would 
require Utah to deliver a quitclaim deed covering all land and 
interests within the refuge claimed by the state in exchange 
for a federal payment of $15 million. The bill would authorize 
the appropriation of that amount to the Secretary of the 
Interior to make that payment.
    Based on information from DOI, CBO estimates that 
implementing this legislation would cost $15 million in 2003, 
assuming appropriation of the authorized amount. The bill would 
not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-
go procedures would not apply. H.R. 3958 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. Any costs resulting from 
the settlement agreement would be incurred voluntarily by the 
state as a part to that agreement.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Deborah Reis 
(for federal costs) and Marjorie Miller (for the state and 
local impact). 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 in existing 
law.

                                  

```