89–006 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 111–310 

SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY EXPANSION AND 

STUDY ACT OF 2009 

OCTOBER 21, 2009.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. RAHALL, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 715] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 715) to expand the boundary of Saguaro National Park, 

to study additional land for future adjustments to the boundary of 

the Park, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that 

the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 715 is to expand the boundary of Saguaro 

National Park, to study additional land for future adjustments to 

the boundary of the Park, and for other purposes. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

President Herbert Hoover established Saguaro National Monument in 1933 by proclamation. The 63,500-acre monument, centered on Rincon Mountain east of Tucson, Arizona, was created due 

to ‘‘outstanding scientific interest because of the exceptional growth 

thereon of various species of cacti, including the so-called giant cactus.’’ 

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy added to the national monument (also by proclamation) a separate area west of Tucson, the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
2 

Tucson Mountain District, to protect its ‘‘remarkable display of relatively undisturbed lower Sonoran desert vegetation, including a 

saguaro stand which equals or surpasses saguaro stands elsewhere 

in the Nation.’’ 

Congress adjusted the boundaries of the monument in 1976 (P.L. 

94–578) and added more land to both districts in 1991 (P.L. 102– 

61) and 1994 (P.L. 103–364); the 1994 legislation also changed the 

designation of the unit from national monument to national park. 

The park currently encompasses 91,440 acres. 

Directly between the park’s two districts lies the city of Tucson, 

which is growing rapidly. Subdivisions and other development 

drawing ever nearer to both Rincon Mountain and Tucson Mountain threaten to isolate park lands, block wildlife corridors, and 

eliminate riparian areas near the park. 

H.R. 715 would expand the boundary of the park to allow the acquisition of three parcels totaling 674.41 acres adjacent to the 

Rincon Mountain District, and eight parcels totaling 300.18 acres 

adjacent to the Tucson Mountain District. All of the landowners 

have expressed their willingness to sell or donate their property. 

The parcels located along the southern boundary of the Rincon 

Mountain District include three miles of Rincon Creek, which flows 

through the only riparian hardwood forest in the park and provides 

habitat for rare species such as gray hawks, yellow-bill cuckoos, 

giant spotted whiptail lizards, and lowland leopard frogs. 

The proposed additions to the Tucson Mountain District will protect wildlife corridors (and may aid the area’s dwindling mountain 

lion population) and protect park viewsheds. 

In addition, H.R. 715 directs the NPS to study lands adjacent to 

the park to determine whether further boundary adjustments are 

warranted. The study would consider not only lands that might be 

suitable for inclusion in the park, but also examine properties that 

were included inside the park boundary in earlier additions but 

which have not been acquired. Some of those parcels have been developed in the interim, and the study would determine whether 

such properties should be excluded from the park. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 715 was introduced January 27, 2009 by National Parks, 

Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee Chairman Rau ́l Grijalva 

(D–AZ). The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. 

On March 3, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. 

Representatives of the Department of the Interior and the Tucson 

office of the National Parks Conservation Association testified in 

favor of the legislation. 

On July 9, 2009, the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Subcommittee was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 

715 and the full Natural Resources Committee met to consider the 

bill. Subcommittee Ranking Member Rob Bishop (R–UT) offered an 

amendment regarding law enforcement ‘‘within the boundaries, 

buffer zone, viewscape or soundscape of the park.’’ The amendment 

was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 yeas and 22 nays, as follows: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
3 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 4 here HR310.001
4 

Representative Bishop then offered an amendment to delete language in current law that allows the Secretary of the Interior to 

acquire land by eminent domain if the Secretary determines that 

the land is being developed, or is proposed to be developed in a 

manner which is detrimental to the integrity of the park. The 

amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 19 yeas and 24 

nays, as follows: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
5 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 6 here HR310.002
6 

The bill was then ordered favorably reported to the House of 

Representatives by voice vote. 

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. 

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 Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to expand the boundary of Saguaro National Park, to 

study additional land for future adjustments to the boundary of the 

Park, and for other purposes. 

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. 715—Saguaro National Park Boundary Expansion and Study 

Act of 2009 

H.R. 715 would expand the boundaries of the Saguaro National 

Park in Arizona by about 975 acres. The bill also would require the 

National Park Service (NPS), which manages the park, to conduct 

a study to identify other property that should be included in future 

boundary adjustments. 

Based on information provided by the NPS and assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 715 would cost the federal government about $30 

million over the next five years. Most of that amount would be 

used to acquire the proposed acreage, assuming all 11 properties in 

the acquisition area were purchased rather than acquired by exchange or donation. (The NPS may be able to acquire some parcels 

by donation; if so, total costs would be lower.) We estimate that the 

cost of developing and administering the added acreage would not 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
7 

be significant. Enacting the legislation would not affect revenues or 

direct spending. 

H.R. 715 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no 

costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

If the Secretary of the Interior acquires any of the property within the expansion area by means of condemnation, H.R. 715 would 

impose a private-sector mandate as defined in UMRA. The cost of 

the mandate would be equal to the value of the property. Since 

that aggregate value is about $30 million, the cost of the mandate, 

if imposed, would fall well below the annual threshold established 

in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($139 million in 2009, adjusted annually for inflation). However, testimony from affected 

parties indicates the landowners want to be included in the park; 

therefore, CBO estimates that the bill would likely impose no mandate. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Deborah Reis (for 

federal costs) and Amy Petz (for the private-sector impact). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

H.R. 715 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule 

XXI. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, 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): 

SECTION 4 OF THE SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK 

ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 1994 

SEC. 4. EXPANSION OF PARK BOUNDARIES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) The boundaries of the park are hereby 

modified to reflect the addition of approximately 3,460 acres of land 

and interests therein as generally depicted on the map entitled 

‘‘Saguaro National Monument Additions’’ and dated April, 1994. 

(2) The boundary of the park is further modified to include approximately 975 acres, as generally depicted on the map titled 

‘‘Saguaro National Park Proposed Boundary Adjustment’’, numbered 151/80,045A, and dated August 2008. The map shall be on 

file and available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
8 

(b) LAND ACQUISITION.—(1) Within the lands added to the park 

pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized to acquire 

lands and interests therein by donation, purchase with donated or 

appropriated funds, transfer, or exchange: Provided, That no such 

lands or interests therein may be acquired without the consent of 

the owner thereof unless the Secretary determines that the land is 

being developed, or is proposed to be developed in a manner which 

is determental to the integrity of the park. 

ø(2) Lands or interests therein owned by the State of Arizona or 

a political subdivision thereof may only be acquired by donation or 

exchange.¿ 

(2) The Secretary may, with the consent of the State and in accordance with Federal and State law, acquire from the State land 

or interests in land within the boundary of the park. 

(3) If the Secretary is unable to acquire the State land under 

paragraph (2), the Secretary may enter into an agreement that 

would allow the National Park Service to manage State land within 

the boundary of the park. 

* * * * * * * 

(d) BOUNDARY STUDY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to 

identify lands that would be a part of any future boundary adjustments for the park. 

(2) CRITERIA.—The study shall examine the natural, cultural, 

recreational, and scenic values and characters of lands identified under paragraph (1). 

(3) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date funds are 

made available for the study under this subsection, 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 report on the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the study. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(9) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We oppose H.R. 715 because it fails to protect property rights 

and leaves intact impediments to securing our nation’s borders 

against criminal incursions and the environmental degradation 

that is now occurring along the border as a result. 

This legislation will expand Saguaro National Park by 975 acres, 

nearly all of it private, except for one parcel owned by a county. 

These property owners will face new limitations on their property. 

Specifically, the Secretary of the Interior will have the authority to 

take private land if he determines the owner’s use of the land is 

detrimental to the park. The federal government already has more 

land than it can adequately manage and yet this Congress keeps 

expanding boundaries and providing endless funding mechanisms 

to acquire even more. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to continue providing the National Park Service with the hammer of condemnation that it wields to create so-called ‘‘willing sellers.’’ 

At the full Committee markup, Congressman Rob Bishop offered 

an amendment to remove the threatening authority and provide a 

degree of security to property owners in line with current standards for recent park expansion bills. Unfortunately, this common 

sense amendment was defeated on a largely partisan vote. 

Saguaro National Park used to be a crown jewel in our National 

Park system. Recently, however, the Fraternal Order of Police 

named it one of the top 10 most dangerous parks in the country, 

stating that Saguaro is ‘‘home to body dumping, smuggling and 

poaching after rangers go home at night.’’ The National Park Service’s own website alerts visitors to be on the lookout for arson, vandalism, theft of cactus, poaching, dumping of debris, marijuana cultivation and drug labs. With these growing new threats to the environment of the park along the borderlands, it is imperative that 

Congress re-define and balance the roles of the Interior Department and the Department of Homeland Security. It is now apparent that the undue prohibitions and restrictions being imposed on 

needed Border Patrol enforcement activities harm both border security and the park environment. 

When arguing against an amendment offered by Congressman 

Rob Bishop that would have prevented the Park Service from placing restrictions on the Border Patrol from securing the park, the 

sponsor of H.R. 715 stated that it should be up to the individual 

parks to negotiate what is and isn’t permissible. It is our belief 

that Congress, not bureaucrats, should establish our national security strategy. Unfortunately, this sound policy, border security 

amendment was defeated by the Majority Democrats on a partyline vote. 

We are also concerned with the cost of the legislation. The National Park Service has a well-publicized backlog estimated at 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
10 

nearly $9 billion, and this expansion could cost as much as $30 million. When will this Democrat Majority show restraint and take 

care of the neglected land we already have? 

Despite the refusal to accept Republican amendments in committee that would have corrected these issues, we are hopeful that 

careful analysis of these shortcomings on the Floor of the House of 

Representatives, under an open rule, will allow us to pass these 

amendments with strong bipartisan support. 

DOC HASTINGS. 

ROB BISHOP. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING