U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

89–010 

" ! SENATE 

111TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2010

111–300 

Calendar No. 582 

KINGMAN AND HERITAGE ISLANDS ACT OF 

2009 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

H.R. 2092 

TO AMEND THE NATIONAL CHILDREN’S ISLAND ACT OF 1995 TO 

EXPAND ALLOWABLE USES FOR KINGMAN AND HERITAGE ISLANDS BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGcongress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

KEVIN J. LANDY, Chief Counsel 

ELYSE F. GREENWALD, Professional Staff Member 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

AMANDA WOOD, Minority Director for Governmental Affairs 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Calendar No. 582 

111TH CONGRESS SENATE REPORT " ! 2d Session 111–300 

KINGMAN AND HERITAGE ISLANDS ACT OF 2009 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 2092] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (H.R. 2092) to amend the National 

Children’s Island Act of 1995 to expand allowable uses for Kingman and Heritage Islands by the District of Columbia, and for 

other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 

thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1 

II. Background and Need ................................................................................... 2 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 3 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 3 

V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 4 

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 4 

VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 5 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

In 1997, the federal government transferred to the District of Columbia title to much of two islands located in the Anacostia River. 

The law directing the title transfer required the District to use the 

land for a children’s recreational park. Over the past decade, the 

District has reconsidered its plans for the islands and would like 

to make them available for broader recreational, environmental 

and educational uses than initially contemplated. H.R. 2092 would 

amend the existing law directing the title transfer to permit these 

expanded uses. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
2 

1 Information on the Comprehensive Plan can be found here: http://www.planning.dc.gov/ 

planning/cwp/view,a,1282,q,607547,planningNav,|32341|.asp. Information on the Waterfront 

Plan can be found here: http://www.planning.dc.gov/planning/cwp/view,a,1285,q, 

582193,planningNavlGID,1708.asp. 2The Anacostia Waterfront Corporation was a government-sponsored enterprise of D.C. intended to lead the revitalization of lands along the Anacostia River. In 2007, it was dissolved 

and folded into the District’s Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development. 3 In 2000, the Secretary of the Interior wrote the District a letter stating that the District had 

fully lived up to the letter and spirit of the Act and that D.C. should retain title to the Islands. 

All parties agree, however, that amending the law to make clear the permissibility of the current uses and other currently contemplated uses would be the best course. 

II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers created Kingman and Heritage Islands from sediment dredged from the Anacostia River. Until 

the enactment in 1996 of the National Children’s Island Act (the 

Act), the National Park Service (NPS), part of the Department of 

the Interior, held administrative jurisdiction on both islands. The 

Act required the federal government to transfer title of Heritage Island and portions of Kingman Island (the Islands) to the District 

of Columbia for use as a children’s recreational park. It also mandated that title to the Islands would revert back to the federal government if the District did not use the land in a manner consistent 

with the purposes specified in the Act. The Secretary of the Interior 

transferred title of the Islands to the District via quitclaim deed in 

January 1997. 

D.C. has not developed a children’s recreational park on the Islands, and since that time, it has re-evaluated its needs and interests and no longer seeks to use the Islands for that purpose. In 

2003, in accordance with a memorandum of understanding between 

D.C. and several federal agencies, including the NPS, the District 

developed the Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan (Waterfront 

Plan) to redevelop and revitalize the Anacostia waterfront. The Waterfront Plan envisions using the islands for nature-themed exhibitions and educational projects. The District also has developed a 

Comprehensive Plan to serve as a general policy document to provide overall guidance for future planning and development in D.C.1

Recently, the District has taken steps toward implementing the 

Waterfront Plan. In the summer of 2007, the Anacostia Waterfront 

Corporation,2 partnered with a number of other organizations to 

begin using the Islands to host environmental programs and cleanup. Since May 2008, Living Classrooms, a non-profit educational 

organization with a focus on experiential learning, has been managing the islands and running programs there, including educational programming and volunteer events aimed at restoring the 

Islands. 

To ensure that the activities it has authorized do not raise any 

questions about its title to the Islands,3 the District has asked Congress to amend the Act to sanction the broader work now occurring 

on the Islands. H.R. 2092 would do just that, by amending the National Children’s Island Act in order to allow the District to conduct 

recreational, environmental and educational activities on the Islands, consistent with the Waterfront Plan and the District’s Comprehensive Plan. 

In considering the bill, the Committee adopted one amendment 

to the House-passed language. As passed by the House, the bill 

would end the federal government’s reversionary interest 30 years 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
3 

after enactment. The Committee’s amendment instead would retain 

the reversionary interest for the federal government in perpetuity. 

The Committee’s amendment also clarified that if any portion of 

the land was used for an activity that was not recreational, environmental or educational, the reversionary process could begin. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 2092 was introduced by D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton on April 23, 2009, and was referred to the House Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform. That Committee considered 

the legislation on September 10, 2009, and adopted an amendment 

to limit the federal government’s reversionary interest in the Islands to 30 years after enactment. The House Committee then 

adopted H.R. 2092, as amended by voice vote. On October 7, 2009, 

H.R. 2092 passed the House of Representatives under suspension 

of the rules. 

On October 8, 2009, H.R. 2092 was referred to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The Committee considered the bill on May 17, 2010, and adopted one 

amendment by voice vote. The amendment, which was offered by 

Senators Daniel Akaka and George Voinovich, struck the provision 

limiting the federal government’s reversionary interest to 30 years 

and clarified that if any portion of the land was used for an activity 

that was not recreational, environmental or educational, the reversionary process could begin. 

The Committee then ordered the bill, as amended, favorably reported to the full Senate by voice vote. The Senators present for 

both voice votes were Senators Lieberman, Akaka, Carper, Pryor, 

Landrieu, Burris, Collins, Brown, Voinovich, and Graham. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Sec. 1. Short title 

The short title of the bill is the Kingman and Heritage Islands 

Act of 2009. 

Sec. 2. Amendments to National Children’s Island Act of 1995 

Subsection (a) of Section 2 would amend the National Children’s 

Island Act (‘‘the Act’’) by creating a new section, which would state 

that it is not a violation of the Act for the District to use the lands 

conveyed and the easements granted under the Act for recreational, environmental, or educational purposes in accordance 

with the Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. Subsection (a) also defines the Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. 

Subsection (b) of Section 2 would modify section 3(d) of the Act 

by striking paragraph 1 and inserting language which states that 

the Islands shall revert back to the federal government if the Secretary determines that D.C. is using any portion of the Islands for 

any purpose that is not recreational, environmental or educational 

and in accordance with the National Children’s Island, the Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan or the Comprehensive Plan. The 

reversion will take place 60 days after the Secretary of the Interior 

gives written notice to the District of such a finding. This provision 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
4 

would maintain the federal government’s reversionary interest 

without an end date. 

VI. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirement of paragraph 11(b)(1) of rule XXVI 

of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill and has determined that the bill 

would have no regulatory impact. Moreover, CBO states that the 

bill 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. 

VII. ESTIMATED COST OF LEGISLATION

MAY 24, 2010. 

Hon. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2092, the Kingman and 

Heritage Islands Act of 2009. 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 2092—Kingman and Heritage Islands Act of 2009 

H.R. 2092 would amend the National Children’s Island Act of 

1995 to clarify that the District of Columbia may use two islands 

located in the Anacostia River for recreational, environmental, or 

educational purposes. (The islands were conveyed by the Department of the Interior to the District in 1997 for recreational uses.) 

The legislation also would amend the terms of the department’s reversionary interest in the properties, which governs the circumstances under which title to the property could revert to the 

federal government. 

Based on information provided by the National Park Service, 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2092 would have no impact on 

the federal budget. Enacting the legislation would not affect direct 

spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would 

not apply. 

H.R. 2092 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. 

On September 15, 2009, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for 

H.R. 2092, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on September 10, 2009. The two 

versions of the legislation are similar, and the estimated costs are 

the same. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. The 

estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
5 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the following changes in existing law made by 

the bill, as reported, are shown as follows: (existing law proposed 

to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed 

in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE 

TITLE 10—PARKS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, 

GROUNDS, AND SPACE 

Subtitle IV—Specific Locales 

CHAPTER 14—NATIONAL CHILDREN’S ISLAND 

Subchapter I—General 

SEC. 10–1402. PROPERTY TRANSFER 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) REVERSION.— (1) øThe transfer under subsection (a) of this section and the 

grant of easements under subsection (b) of this section shall be 

subject to the condition that the Islands only be used for the 

purposes of National Children’s Island. Title in the property 

transferred under subsection (a) of this section and the easements granted under subsection (b) of this section, shall revert 

to the United States 60 days after the date on which the Secretary provides written notice of the reversion to the District 

based on the Secretary’s determination, which shall be made in 

accordance with chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code (relating to the administrative procedures), that one of the following 

has occurred: 

ø(A) Failure to commence improvements in the recreational park within the earlier of— 

ø(i) Three years after building permits are obtained 

for construction of such improvements; or 

ø(ii) Four years after title has been transferred, as 

provided in subsection (a) of this section. 

ø(B) Failure to commence operation of the recreation 

park within the earlier of— 

ø(i) Five years after building permits are obtained 

for construction of such improvements; or 

ø(ii) Seven years after title has been transferred, as 

provided in subsection (a) of this section. 

ø(C) After completion of construction and commencement 

of operation, the abandonment or nonuse of the recreation 

park for a period of 2 years. 

ø(D) After completion of construction and commencement of operation, conversion of the Islands to a use other 

than that specified in this subchapter or conversion to a 

parking use not in accordance with section 10–1403(b).¿ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
6 

Title in the property transferred under subsection (a) and 

the easements granted under subsection (b) shall revert to 

the United States upon the expiration of the 60–day period 

which begins on the date on which the Secretary provides 

written notice to the District that the Secretary has determined that the District is using any portion of the property 

for a use other than recreational, environmental, or education purposes in accordance with National Children’s Island, the Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan, or the 

Comprehensive Plan. Such notice shall be made in accordance with chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code (relating 

to administrative procedures). 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 10–1406. COMPREHENSIVE AND ANACOSTIA WATERFRONT FRAMEWORK PLANS. 

(a) COMPLIANCE WITH PLANS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, it is not a violation of the terms and conditions of 

this Act for the District of Columbia to use the lands conveyed and 

the easements granted under this Act for recreational, environmental, or educational purposes in accordance with the Anacostia 

Waterfront Framework Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. 

(b) DEFINITIONS.—For the purposes of this section, the following 

definitions apply: 

(1) ANACOSTIA WATERFRONT FRAMEWORK PLAN.—The term 

‘‘Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan’’ means the November 

2003 Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan to redevelop and 

revitalize the Anacostia waterfront in the District of Columbia, 

as may be amended from time to time, developed pursuant to 

a memorandum of understanding dated March 22, 2000, between the General Services Administration, Government of the 

District of Columbia, Office of Management and Budget, Naval 

District Washington, Military District Washington, Marine Barracks Washington, National Park Service, Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, National Capital Planning Commission, National Arboretum, and Small Business Administration. 

(2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.—The term ‘‘Comprehensive Plan’’ 

means the Comprehensive Plan of the District of Columbia approved by the Council of the District of Columbia on December 

28, 2006, as such plan may be amended or superseded from 

time to time. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING