SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
63–856
2000
CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO THE MISSOURI-
NEBRASKA BOUNDARY COMPACT AND THE
BOUNDARY CHANGE BETWEEN GEORGIA AND
SOUTH CAROLINA
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.J. Res. 54 and H.J. Res. 62
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JULY 29, 1999
Serial No. 50
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY BONO, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., General Counsel-Chief of Staff
JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania, Chairman
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
MARY BONO, California
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JERROLD NADLER, New York
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RAYMOND V. SMIETANKA, Chief Counsel
SUSAN JENSEN-CONKLIN, Counsel
JAMES W. HARPER, Counsel
C O N T E N T S
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HEARING DATE
July 29, 1999
TEXT OF BILLS
H.J. Res. 54
H.J. Res. 62
OPENING STATEMENT
Gekas, Hon. George W., a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, and chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
WITNESSES
Bereuter, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska
Challstrom, Charles W., Acting Director, National Geodetic Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC
Danner, Hon. Pat, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Duncan, David, Missouri Boundary Commission, Mound City, MO
Kingston, Hon. Jack, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Bereuter, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska: Prepared statement
Challstrom, Charles W., Acting Director, National Geodetic Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC: Prepared statement
Danner, Hon. Pat, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri: Prepared statement
Duncan, David, Missouri Boundary Commission, Mound City, MO: Prepared statement
Kingston, Hon. Jack, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia: Prepared statement
APPENDIX
Material submitted for the record
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO THE MISSOURI-NEBRASKA BOUNDARY COMPACT AND THE BOUNDARY CHANGE BETWEEN GEORGIA AND SOUTH CAROLINA
THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commercial
and Administrative Law,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Gekas [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives George W. Gekas, Steve Chabot, Asa Hutchinson, Lindsay O. Graham, Mary Bono, Spencer Bachus, Joe Scarborough, David Vitter, Jerrold Nadler, Melvin L. Watt, William D. Delahunt, Tammy Baldwin, Anthony D. Weiner.
Staff present: Raymond V. Smietanka, Subcommittee Chief Counsel; Susan Jensen-Conklin, Counsel; James W. Harper, Counsel; Sarah Zaffina, Staff Assistant; Sampak Garg, Minority Counsel; David Lachmann, Minority Professional Staff Member
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GEKAS
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GEKAS. The hour of 2 having arrived, the committee will come to order. We have kept faith with the Chair's intent to try to begin every meeting and every hearing on time, and we have succeeded today because the gentleman from Massachusetts has accorded us the privilege of having him in attendance as a member of the subcommittee.
We are prepared to hear testimony as the first item of business, namely, the boundary disputes. Not disputes, but boundary difficulties that have brought our colleagues to the witness table for the purpose of seeing through a compact which their respective legislatures and States have approved and which they want to see carried forward.
As everyone knows, the Constitution of the United States requires that when two or more States enter into agreements which have been designated as compacts over the years, that those compacts cannot go into fruition until and unless the Congress of the United States should approve. Our subcommittee has jurisdiction over those kinds of compacts and that is why we are here for the final stage of what the States have already approved.
The first one has to do with Missouri and Nebraska in which the waters that touch upon both seem to wander all over the place even to such an extent that we have anecdotal information, historical information, that Lewis and Clark had problems with it. Well, if they had problems with it maybe we also can see why the current crop of explorers would have the same problem.
[The text of H.J. Res 54 follows:]
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H.J. RES. 54
Granting the consent of Congress to the Missouri-Nebraska Boundary Compact.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 12, 1999
Ms. DANNER (for herself and Mr. BEREUTER) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Granting the consent of Congress to the Missouri-Nebraska Boundary Compact.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT.
The Congress consents to the Missouri-Nebraska Boundary Compact entered into between the States of Missouri and Nebraska. The compact reads substantially as follows:
''MISSOURI-NEBRASKA BOUNDARY COMPACT
''ARTICLE I
''FINDINGS AND PURPOSES
''(a) The states of Missouri and Nebraska find that there are actual and potential disputes, controversies, criminal proceedings and litigation arising or which may arise out of the location of the boundary line between the states of Missouri and Nebraska; that the Missouri River constituting the boundary between the states has changed its course from time to time, and that the United States Army Corps of Engineers has established a main channel of such river for navigation and other purposes, which main channel is identified on maps jointly certified by the state surveyors of Missouri and Nebraska and identified as the ''Missouri-Nebraska Boundary Maps'', which maps are incorporated in this act and made part of this act by reference, and which maps shall be filed with the secretaries of state of Missouri and Nebraska.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''(b) It is the principal purpose of the states of Missouri and Nebraska in executing the compact to establish an identifiable compromise boundary between the state of Missouri and the state of Nebraska for the entire distance thereof as of the effective date of the compact without interfering with or otherwise affecting private rights or titles to property, and the states of Nebraska and Missouri declare that further compelling purposes of the compact are—
''(1) to create a friendly and harmonious interstate relationship;
''(2) to avoid multiple exercise of sovereignty and jurisdiction including matters of taxation, judicial and police powers and exercise of administrative authority;
''(3) to encourage settlement and disposition of pending litigation and criminal proceedings and avoid or minimize future disputes and litigation;
''(4) to promote economic and political stability;
''(5) to encourage the optimum mutual beneficial use of the Missouri River, its waters and its facilities;
''(6) to establish a forum for settlement of future disputes;
''(7) to place the boundary in a location which can be identified or located; and
''(8) to express the intent and policy of the states that the common boundary be established within the confines of the Missouri River and both states shall continue to have access to and use of the waters of the river.
''ARTICLE II
''ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUNDARY
''The permanent compromise boundary line between the states of Missouri and Nebraska shall be fixed at the center line of the main channel of the Missouri River as of the effective date of the compact, except for that land known as McKissick's Island as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States to be within the state of Nebraska in the case of Missouri v. Nebraska, 196 U.S. 23, and 197 U.S. 577, all of which is identified on maps jointly prepared and certified by the state surveyors of Missouri and Nebraska and identified as the 'Missouri-Nebraska Boundary Compact Maps', incorporated in this act and made a part of this act by reference, and which maps shall be filed with the secretaries of state of Missouri and Nebraska. This center line of the main channel of the Missouri River between the states is also described in this act by metes and bounds on the 'Missouri-Nebraska Boundary Compact Maps' incorporated in this act by reference and made a part of this act. This center line of the main channel of the Missouri River as described on such maps shall be referred to as the 'compromise boundary'.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''ARTICLE III
''RELINQUISHMENT OF SOVEREIGNTY
''The state of Missouri hereby relinquishes to the state of Nebraska all sovereignty over all lands lying on the Nebraska side of such compromise boundary and the state of Nebraska hereby relinquishes to the state of Missouri all sovereignty over all lands lying on the Missouri side of such compromise boundary except for that land known as McKissick's Island which is identified on the 'Missouri-Nebraska Boundary Compact Maps' incorporated in this act by reference and made a part of this act.
''ARTICLE IV
''PENDING LITIGATION
''Nothing in the act shall be deemed or construed to affect any litigation pending in the courts of either of the states of Missouri or Nebraska as of the effective date of the compact concerning the title to any of the lands, sovereignty over which is relinquished by the state of Missouri to the state of Nebraska or by the state of Nebraska to the state of Missouri and any matter concerning the title to lands, sovereignty over which is relinquished by either state to the other, may be continued in the courts of the state where pending until the final determination thereof.
''ARTICLE V
''PUBLIC RECORDS
''(a) The public record of real estate titles, mortgages and other liens in the state of Missouri to any lands, the sovereignty over which is relinquished by the state of Missouri to the state of Nebraska, shall be accepted as evidence of record title to such lands, to and including the effective date of such relinquishment by the state of Missouri, by the courts of the state of Nebraska.
''(b) The public record of real estate titles, mortgages and other liens in the state of Nebraska to any lands, the sovereignty over which is relinquished by the state of Nebraska to the state of Missouri, shall be accepted as evidence of record title to such lands, to and including the effective date of such relinquishment by the state of Nebraska, by the courts of the state of Missouri.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''(c) As to lands, the sovereignty over which is relinquished, the recording officials of the counties of each state shall accept for filing documents of title using legal descriptions derived from the land descriptions of the other state. The acceptance of such documents for filing shall have no bearing upon the legal effect or sufficiency thereof.
''ARTICLE VI
''TAXES
''(a) Taxes lawfully imposed by either Missouri or Nebraska may be levied and collected by such state or its authorized governmental subdivisions and agencies on land, jurisdiction over which is relinquished by the taxing state to the other, and any liens or other rights accrued or accruing, including the right of collection, shall be fully recognized and the county treasurers of the counties or other taxing authorities affected shall act as agents in carrying out the provisions of this article; provided, that all liens or other rights arising out of the imposition of taxes, accrued or accruing, shall be claimed or asserted within five years after the compact becomes effective and if not so claimed or asserted shall be forever barred.
''(b) The lands, sovereignty over which is relinquished by the state of Missouri to the state of Nebraska, shall not thereafter be subject to the imposition of taxes in the state of Missouri from and after the effective date of the compact. The lands, sovereignty over which is relinquished by the state of Nebraska to the state of Missouri, shall not thereafter be subject to the imposition of taxes in the state of Nebraska from and after the effective date of the compact.
''ARTICLE VII
''PRIVATE RIGHTS
''(a) The compact shall not deprive any riparian owner of such riparian owner's rights based upon riparian law and the establishment of the compromise boundary between the states shall not in any way be deemed to change or affect the boundary line of riparian owners along the Missouri River as between such owners. The establishment of the compromise boundary shall not operate to limit such riparian owner's rights to accretions across such compromise boundary.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''(b) No private individual or entity claims of title to lands along the Missouri River, over which sovereignty is relinquished by the compact, shall be prejudiced by the relinquishment of such sovereignty and any claims or possessory rights necessary to establish adverse possession shall not be terminated or limited by the fact that the jurisdiction over such lands may have been transferred by the compact. Neither state will assert any claim of title to abandoned beds of the Missouri River, lands along the Missouri River, or the bed of the Missouri River based upon any doctrine of state ownership of the beds or abandoned beds of navigable waters, as against any land owners or claimants claiming interest in real estate arising out of titles, muniments of title, or exercises of jurisdiction of or from the other state, which titles or muniments of title commenced prior to the effective date of this compact.
''ARTICLE VIII
''READJUSTMENT OF BOUNDARY BY NEGOTIATION
''If at any time after the effective date of the compact the Missouri River shall move or be moved by natural means or otherwise so that the flow thereof at any point along the course forming the boundary between the states occurs entirely within one of the states, each state at the request of the other, agrees to enter into and conduct negotiations in good faith for the purpose of readjusting the boundary at the place or places where such movement occurred consistent with the intent, policy and purpose hereof that the boundary will be placed within the Missouri River.
''ARTICLE IX
''EFFECTIVE DATE
''(a) The compact shall become effective on the first day of January of the year after it is ratified by the general assembly of the state of Missouri and the legislature of the state of Nebraska and approved by the Congress of the United States.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''(b) As of the effective date of the compact, the state of Missouri and the state of Nebraska shall relinquish sovereignty over the lands described in the compact and shall assume and accept sovereignty over such lands ceded to them as provided in the compact.
''(c) In the event the compact is not approved by the general assembly of the state of Missouri and the legislature of the state of Nebraska on or before October 1, 1999, and approved by the Congress of the United States within three years from the date of such approval, the compact shall be inoperative and for all purposes shall be void.
''ARTICLE X
''ENFORCEMENT
''Nothing in the compact shall be construed to limit or prevent either state from instituting or maintaining any action or proceeding, legal or equitable, in any court having jurisdiction, for the protection of any right under the compact or the enforcement of any of its provisions.
''ARTICLE XI
''AMENDMENTS
''The compact shall remain in full force and effect unless amended in the same manner as that by which it was created.''.
SEC. 2. RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL
The right to alter, amend, or repeal this joint resolution is hereby expressly reserved. The consent granted by this joint resolution shall not be construed as impairing or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the United states in and over the region which forms the subject of the compact.
SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION AND SEVERABILITY.
It is intended that the provisions of this compact shall be reasonably and liberally construed to effectuate the purposes thereof. If any part or application of this compact, or legislation enabling the compact, is held invalid, the remainder of the compact or its application to other situations or persons shall not be affected.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SEC. 4. INCONSISTENCY OF LANGUAGE.
The validity of this compact shall not be affected by any insubstantial differences in its form or language as adopted by the 2 states.
And the second one has to do with a dispute, not a dispute again, I don't want to make it sound as though there is a war going on between Georgia and South Carolina. Let's begin with the testimony on H.R. 54, the boundary between Missouri and Nebraska being the impacted item. We have with us the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, and the lady from Missouri, Ms. Danner.
[The text of H.J. Res 62 follows:]
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H.J. RES. 62
To grant the consent of Congress to the boundary change between Georgia and South Carolina.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JULY 22, 1999
Mr. LINDER (for himself, Mr. KINGSTON, and Mr. SPENCE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To grant the consent of Congress to the boundary change between Georgia and South Carolina.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONSENT OF CONGRESS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The consent of Congress is given to the establishment of the boundary between the States of Georgia and South Carolina.
(b) NEW BOUNDARY.—The boundary referred to in subsection (a) is the boundary—
(1) agreed to by the State of Georgia in Act Number 1044 (S.B. No. 572) approved by the Governor on April 5, 1994, and agreed to by the State of South Carolina in Act Number 375 (S.B. No. 1315) approved by the Governor on May 29, 1996;
(2) agreed to by the State of Georgia in Act Number 1044 (S.B. No. 572) approved by the Governor on April 5, 1994, and agreed to by the State of South Carolina in an Act approved by its Governor not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution;
(3) agreed to by the State of South Carolina in Act Number 375 (S.B. No. 1315) approved by the Governor on May 29, 1996, and agreed to by the State of Georgia in an Act approved by its Governor not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution; or
(4) agreed to by the States of Georgia and South Carolina in Acts approved by each of their Governors not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this joint resolution.
(c) COMPACT.—The Acts referred to in subsection (b) are recognized by Congress as an interstate compact pursuant to section 10 of article I of the United States Constitution.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We will begin with testimony from Doug Bereuter, who is a fifth generation resident of Nebraska so he has credentials for his appearance here today. And he obtained a bachelor of arts while attending the University of Nebraska. Mr. Bereuter went on to serve in the Army and obtained two master's degrees from Harvard, one in public administration and another in city planning.
When he came to Congress in 1979, Doug brought to bear his broad experience as a State legislator, businessman, veteran, college educator, urban planner, and State agency administrator. We are happy, of course, to hear him today on this matter important to his State.
Representative Pat Danner from Missouri's Sixth Congressional District grew up in Missouri where she also obtained her bachelor of arts while attending Northeast Missouri State University. She has also served as co-chair of the Ozarks Regional Commission and has been a State senator where she first became involved in this issue. She was elected to Congress in 1993. Ms. Danner has been instrumental in settling this dispute.
Representative Bereuter will begin the testimony. We will not restrict the gentleman or the lady to the normal 5-minute limitation but we ask them to try to self-limit somewhere around that time period.
STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG BEREUTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Delahunt, members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for receiving the testimony from my colleague and I today. And, of course, I support H.J. Res. 54, which was introduced by my colleague. I am an original co-sponsor with her. H.J. Res. 54 would provide Congressional approval, as you indicated, to a land compact which was previously approved by the State legislatures in both Nebraska and Missouri.
Lewis and Clark did have problems there, especially with mosquitoes. The compact establishes the middle of the Missouri River as the boundary between the two States except for that land known as McKissick's Island as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court to be within the State of Nebraska. Nebraska comes out slightly the loser on acreage, but this dispute has been pending for many decades and so we are pleased to say that our legislatures have now acted.
The compact, of course, would transfer certain lands west of Missouri to Nebraska and certain lands east of the river to Missouri. The river from a point above Sioux City, Iowa, to St. Louis has now been channelized and stabilized so we believe that this solution will be for the long term. The compact would also allow the States to negotiate boundary adjustments in the future in the event, however, of changes in the river's channel.
The center of the Missouri River formed the original boundary between Nebraska and Missouri. However, the boundary disputes originated from the shifting of the Missouri River, which you referenced. It cuts new channels and creates avulsions. This natural process was greatly halted when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began efforts to stabilize the river in the 1930's. Since then, the river has generally maintained its current channel.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The problems necessitating this compact have been around for decades and it is now time to settle this troublesome matter. I also believe there is a renewed sense of urgency because of the confusion regarding the taxation of farmland in the disputed areas. In some cases, farmers are receiving tax notices for both Missouri and Nebraska. With the agricultural community facing such difficult economic times, the last thing a farmer needs is to pay taxes twice on the same land.
In addition to taxation concerns, there are also jurisdictional problems related to law enforcement and the delivery of other public services. It is currently possible, for example, that because of jurisdictional uncertainties, an individual could escape punishment if a crime is committed in the disputed areas. Clearly, there are serious problems and they would be resolved by this legislation.
In certain cases, costly litigation is needed to determine the true and correct boundary line. In some instances, a Missouri court may determine that the land should be located in Missouri, while a Nebraska court will find the same land belongs to Nebraska. It is, therefore, in the best interests of both States, as well as those landowners affected by this uncertainty, to have these disputes handled in a formal manner that makes sense. The compact is intended to do just that.
I would like to include in the record a letter from State Senator Roger Wehrbein, who is one of the two State senators whose jurisdiction is affected by that in Nebraska. The entire jurisdiction of the Nebraska side is my Congressional district.
Mr. GEKAS. Without objection, the document will be entered into the record.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you. People from Missouri and Nebraska will still have occasional disagreements about important matters such as football and basketball, but with the enactment of H.J. Res. 54, at long last we will have resolved the boundary dispute to the satisfaction of both State governments. I thank you for hearing my comments.
Mr. GEKAS. We thank the gentleman. The written statement that was offered by the gentleman from Nebraska will also be admitted for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bereuter follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG BEREUTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Chairman Gekas, Congressman Nadler, Delahunt and Members of the Subcommittee: I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.J. Res. 54.
I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation which was introduced by my colleague, Congresswoman Danner from Missouri. House Joint Resolution 54 would provide Congressional approval to a land compact which was previously approved by the state legislatures in both Nebraska and Missouri. The compact establishes the middle of the Missouri River as the boundary between the two states, except for that land known as McKissick's Island as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court to be within the state of Nebraska. In doing so, the compact would transfer certain lands west of the Missouri River to Nebraska and certain lands east of the river to Missouri. The compact would also allow the states to negotiate boundary adjustments in the future in the event of changes in the river's channel.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The center of the Missouri River formed the original boundary between Nebraska and Missouri. However, the boundary disputes originated from the shifting Missouri River which cut new channels and created avulsions. This natural process was greatly halted when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began efforts to stabilize the river in the 1930s. Since then, the river has generally maintained its current channel.
The problems necessitating this compact have been around for decades and it is now time to settle this troublesome matter. I also believe there is a renewed sense of urgency because of the confusion regarding the taxation of farmland in the disputed areas. In some cases, farmers are receiving tax notices from both Nebraska and Missouri. With the agricultural community facing such difficult economic times, the last thing a farmer needs is to pay taxes twice on the same land.
In addition to taxation concerns, there are also jurisdictional problems related to law enforcement and the delivery of services. It is currently possible, for example, that because of jurisdictional uncertainties, an individual could escape punishment if a crime is committed in the disputed areas. Clearly, these are serious problems and they would be resolved by this legislation.
In certain cases, costly litigation is needed to determine the true and correct boundary line. In some instances, a Missouri court may determine that the land should be located in Missouri, while a Nebraska court will find that the same land belongs to Nebraska. It is in the best interests of both states as well as those landowners affected by this uncertainty to have these disputes handled in a formal manner which makes sense. The compact is intended to do just that.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
People from Nebraska and Missouri will still have occasional disagreements about important matters such as football and basketball, but with enactment of H.J. Res. 54, at long last they will have resolved the boundary dispute to the satisfaction of both state governments.
Mr. GEKAS. Now we turn to Representative Danner.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAT DANNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Ms. DANNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing, and as my colleague I will stay within the 5-minute limitation, I can assure you. In 1863 Longfellow wrote, ''All good things come to him who will but wait.'' Well, those are prophetic words for me as a legislator because I have been waiting 7 years here in Congress for this agreement on the exact boundary of the Missouri and Nebraska lines. More importantly, the people of Missouri and Nebraska have been waiting patiently, or I should probably say more impatiently, since the 1930's.
And while I will leave a detailed explanation of the history and resolution of this dispute to a Boundary Commission member who is present with us today and who will testify later, David Duncan, I want to share my experience with this matter as it pre-dates my time here in Congress. After the Army Corps of Engineers straightened and channelized the Missouri River, disputes over the proper border emerged.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Despite a number of costly court efforts, the exact location of the border could not be agreed upon. For 19 years, both Missouri and Nebraska considered land compact legislation to resolve an issue that had plagued both our States since the last century. However, the versions each State adopted were not accepted by the other State.
By 1992, it was clear a different approach was necessary. In my capacity as Chairman of the Missouri Senate's Transportation Committee, I sponsored legislation establishing the Missouri Boundary Commission. In 1995, that Boundary Commission, joined by the Nebraska Boundary Commission, reached the agreement the subcommittee is considering today. This agreement was passed by our General Assembly and in 1998 Nebraska passed its version.
Earlier this month, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources completed the surveying of the new border. The State of Nebraska has seen and approved the survey maps. This new boundary will follow the center line of the Missouri River design channel with the exception of an area of land known as McKissick's Island which is east of the Missouri but which has been ruled part of Nebraska by the United States Supreme Court. Now that Nebraska and Missouri have agreed on the exact border, all that remains is Congressional approval and the matter will be finally settled.
Today, I am hoping and hopeful that the waiting Mr. Longfellow referred to in 1863 will result in the passage of House Joint Resolution 54. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Danner follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PAT DANNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, in 1863 Longfellow wrote, ''All things come round to him who will but wait.'' Well, those are prophetic words for me because, as a legislator, I have been waiting for 7 years for an agreement on the exact location of the boundary between Missouri and Nebraska. More importantly, the people of Missouri and Nebraska have been waiting patiently, or more accurately, impatiently, since the 1930's.
While I will leave a detailed explanation of the history and resolution of this dispute to Boundary Commission member David Duncan, whose presence here is greatly appreciated, I wanted to share my experience with this matter as it pre-dates my time in Congress.
After the Army Corps of Engineers straightened and channelized the Missouri River, disputes over the proper border emerged. Despite a number of costly court efforts, the exact location of the border could not be agreed upon. For 19 years, both Missouri and Nebraska considered land compact legislation to resolve an issue that had plagued both states since the last century. However the versions each state adopted were not accepted by the other state.
By 1992, it was clear a different approach was necessary. In my capacity as Chairman of the Missouri Senate's Transportation Committee, I sponsored legislation creating the Missouri Boundary Commission. In 1995, the Missouri Boundary Commission, joined by the Nebraska Boundary Commission, reached the agreement the Subcommittee is considering today.
This agreement was passed by the Missouri legislature in 1995, and renewed in 1997. In 1998, Nebraska passed its version of this agreement.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Earlier this month, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources completed the surveying of the new border. The State of Nebraska has seen and approved the survey maps. This new boundary will follow the centerline of the Missouri River design channel with the exception of an area of land known as McKissick's Island which is east of the Missouri but has been ruled part of Nebraska by the Supreme Court of the United States. Now that Missouri and Nebraska have agreed on the exact border, all that remains is Congressional approval and the matter will be finally settled.
Today, I am hopeful that the waiting Mr. Longfellow referred to in 1863 will result in the passage of House Joint Resolution 54.
Thank you.
Mr. GEKAS. We thank the lady, and as we indicated, her written statement will become part of the record without objection. And that will conclude your portion. We have no cross examination to offer because you would melt under the hot cross examination.
Ms. DANNER. We can tell that.
Mr. GEKAS. So we excuse you with our thanks.
Ms. DANNER. And I would be remiss in not mentioning that one of the reasons Lewis and Clark were so successful in finally navigating the river was because they had Sacajawea with them.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GEKAS. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. BEREUTER. I would hope you are going to support the final approval of the commemorative coin for the bicentennial.
Ms. DANNER. Yes.
Mr. GEKAS. We call to the witness table David Duncan. Is he present? Who has represented the public on the Missouri Boundary Commission since 1992. He is a long-time resident of Missouri and a successful entrepreneur. Mr. Duncan received his BS in economics and business from McPherson College in Kansas and has since become president and owner of Tiffany Care Centers providing long-term care in 38 counties of Missouri. Please be free to relate the oral portion of your written statement. Your written statement will become a matter of the Congressional record, and you will be restricted, unfortunately, to 5 minutes to make your presentation.
STATEMENT OF DAVID DUNCAN, MISSOURI BOUNDARY COMMISSION, MOUND CITY, MISSOURI
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee about a matter that has bedeviled Missouri and Nebraska officials and citizens for over one hundred years: the exact location of the boundary between the two States. Upon admission to the Union in 1821, Missouri's western boundary was the meridian line from the southern boundary of the State to the mouth of the Kansas River, and continuing along the same meridian to Missouri's northern border. Four years later, the United States concluded the Platte Purchase and ceded the newly acquired land to Missouri. This pushed the State's western border to the Missouri River.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1867, Nebraska was admitted to the union with its eastern boundary set as the Missouri River. It was July of that very same year that a large flood caused the first border dispute between the two States. This flood changed the course of the River and 5,097 acres of land, known as McKissick's Island, which had been on the west of the Missouri River suddenly was east of the River.
Both Missouri and Nebraska claimed this land. The dispute rested on whether or not the change in course was considered an avulsion, a sudden and perceptive change in the River's course, or an accretion, the gradual increase to riparian land caused by the deposit of sand sediment along the river bank. The distinction is important because in cases of avulsion, the boundary remains the old channel even if no water flows through it, while in the case of accretion, the boundary moves with the River.
In 1904, the Supreme Court ruled that the course change was properly termed avulsion and therefore the land belonged to Nebraska. The agreement we are discussing today is consistent with that ruling. In the 1930's, the Army Corps of Engineers began an ambitious project to channelize the Missouri River in order to provide better flood control and navigation. Because these Corps activities were also ruled avulsive, the boundary properly remained at the center line of the original Missouri River channel.
This led to disputes between Missouri and Nebraska about precisely where the centerline was located. In many cases, both States claimed the same land. This created problems for landowners who were being taxed by both States for the same land. It also raised jurisdictional concerns should a crime occur on disputed lands. For these reasons, starting in the 1960's both States attempted to resolve the issue through negotiations and legal action. These often expensive efforts did not resolve the issue.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the 1970's, the Nebraska legislature passed land compact legislation setting the border as the Missouri River with the exception of McKissick's Island, the disputed land I mentioned earlier in my testimony. However, because of concerns about the accuracy of maps, Missouri declined to pass a similar measure. Through the 1980's, the situation remained unresolved.
In 1990, the Missouri legislature approved a land compact that would have set the border as the centerline of the Missouri River. Unlike the earlier Nebraska legislation, this compact language would have made McKissick's Island part of Missouri. Because of concerns about this, Nebraska did not consider a similar bill. In 1992, after hearing from constituents who were facing taxation from both Missouri and Nebraska, Missouri State Senator and now Congresswoman Pat Danner sponsored legislation creating the Missouri Boundary Commission. This legislation was passed into law and I was appointed one of eight members of the Commission.
The efforts of our commission and a similar Nebraska commission led to a 1995 Missouri General Assembly bill defining the Missouri-Nebraska boundary as the center of the Missouri River channel, except for McKissick's Island which would remain part of Nebraska. This bill passed the Missouri legislature, but expired before Nebraska acted on a similar measure. Because the legislation had expired, it had to be re-approved in 1997. In 1998, Nebraska approved its version of the bill, and now all that remains is final approval from the Federal Government through an act of Congress.
This year, Representative Danner of Missouri and Representative Bereuter of Nebraska introduced House Joint Resolution 54, a bill to grant approval to the Missouri-Nebraska compact. Their joint, and I might add, bi-partisan, sponsorship symbolizes the fact that the Missouri-Nebraska Compact has support from both Missouri and Nebraska and will finally resolve an issue which has created so much confusion over the years.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Before I conclude, I would like to take a moment to recognize all those who spend so much time on this issue. I have a paragraph.
Mr. GEKAS. Bring your statement to a close.
Mr. DUNCAN. It is only another sentence. Including the seven members of the Nebraska Boundary Commission and the other seven members of the Missouri Boundary Commission. They have all worked tirelessly on the issue for many years and deserve recognition. I would also like to thank John Teele and other Midland Engineering workers who worked closely with the survey team to precisely map McKissick's Island, something that had not been done for 100 years.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Duncan follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID DUNCAN, MISSOURI BOUNDARY COMMISSION, MOUND CITY, MISSOURI
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee about a matter that has bedeviled Missouri and Nebraska officials and citizens for over one hundred years: the exact location of the boundary between the two states.
Upon admission to the Union in 1821, Missouri's western boundary was the meridian line from the southern boundary of the state to the mouth of the Kansas River, and continuing along the same meridian to Missouri's northern border. Four years later, the United States concluded the Platte Purchase and ceded the newly acquired land to Missouri. This pushed the state's western border to the Missouri River.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1867, Nebraska was admitted to the union with its eastern boundary set as the Missouri River. It was July of that very same year that a large flood caused the first border dispute between the two states.
This flood changed the course of the River and 5,097 acres of land, known as McKissick's Island, which had been west of the Missouri River suddenly was east of the River. Both Missouri and Nebraska claimed this land. The dispute rested on whether or not the change in course was consider avulsion—a sudden and perceptive change in the River's course—or accretion—the gradual increase to riparian land caused by the deposit of sand sediment along a river bank. The distinction is important because in cases of avulsion, the boundary remains the old channel even if water no long flows through it, while in the case of accretion, the boundary moves with the River. In 1904, the Supreme Court ruled that the course change was properly termed avulsion and therefore the land belonged to Nebraska. The agreement we are discussing today is consistent with that ruling.
In the 1930's, the Army Corps of Engineers began an ambitious project to channelize the Missouri River in order to provide better flood control and navigation. Because these Corps activities were also ruled avulsive, the boundary properly remained at the center line of the original Missouri River channel. This led to disputes between Missouri and Nebraska about precisely where this centerline was located. In many cases, both states claimed the same land. This created problems for landowners who were being taxed by both states for the same land. It also raised jurisdictional concerns should a crime occur on disputed lands. For these reasons, starting in the 1960's both states attempted to resolve the issue through negotiations and legal action. These often expensive efforts did not resolve the issue.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the 1970's, the Nebraska legislature passed land compact legislation setting the border as the Missouri River with the exception of McKissick's Island—the disputed land I mentioned earlier in my testimony. However, because of concerns about the accuracy of maps, Missouri declined to pass a similar measure. Through the 1980's, the situation remained unresolved.
In 1990, the Missouri legislature approved a land compact bill that would have set the border as the centerline of the Missouri River. Unlike the earlier Nebraska legislation, this compact language would have made McKissick's Island part of Missouri. Because of concerns about this, Nebraska did not consider a similar bill.
In 1992, after hearing from constituents who were facing taxation from both Missouri and Nebraska, Missouri State Senator and now Congresswoman Pat Danner sponsored legislation creating the Missouri Boundary Commission. This legislation was passed into law and I was appointed one of 8 members of the Commission.
The efforts of our commission and a similar Nebraska commission led to a 1995 Missouri General Assembly bill defining the Missouri-Nebraska boundary as the center of the Missouri River channel, except for McKissick's Island which would remain part of Nebraska. This bill passed the Missouri legislature, but expired before Nebraska acted on a similar measure.
Because the legislation had expired, it had to be re-approved in 1997. In 1998, Nebraska approved its version of the bill, and now all that remains is final approval from the federal government through an act of Congress.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This year, Representative Danner of Missouri and Representative Bereuter of Nebraska introduced House Joint Resolution 54, a bill to grant approval to the Missouri-Nebraska compact. Their joint, and I might add bi-partisan, sponsorship symbolizes the fact that the Missouri-Nebraska Compact has support from both Missouri and Nebraska and will finally resolve an issue which has created so much confusion over the years.
Before I conclude, I would like to take a moment to recognize all those who spent so much time on this issue, including the 7 members of the Nebraska Boundary Commission and the other 7 seven member of the Missouri Boundary Commission. They have worked tirelessly on the issue for many years and deserve recognition. I would also like to thank John Teele and the other Midland Engineering workers who worked closely with the survey team to precisely map McKissick's Island—something that had not been done in over 100 years. Finally, I would like to thank Representatives Bereuter and Danner who have sponsored this legislation. This truly shows that it is possible for citizens to join with their local, state and federal officials to resolve problems and make a difference in the lives of all those who were innocent victims of this boundary dispute.
On behalf of all those involved in resolving this matter, I want to again thank you for allowing me to appear and urge rapid approval of this long-overdue legislation.
Mr. GEKAS. We thank you, Mr. Duncan, on two counts. We thank you first, for bringing your testimony to the legislative chambers and to allow it to be entered into the record, as we will with unanimous consent permit your written statement to become a part of the record, and secondly, for being a member as a citizen of a commission that performed this valuable service for your State and for Nebraska. So we thank you on those counts. Does anyone have any questions to ask Mr. Duncan? If not, we excuse you with our gratitude.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Challstrom may come to the witness—this concerns the second compact matter, which is reflected in H.J. Res. 62, having to do with Georgia and South Carolina. And Mr. Challstrom is currently the acting director of the National Geodetic Survey within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce. His duties there include overseeing the coastal mapping program.
Mr. Challstrom holds a bachelor's degree from California State University and a master's degree from Ohio State University. He has been a geodicist, I suppose that is the right way to say it, at the Survey since 1973. Additionally, Mr. Challstrom has served as a member of the board of directors of the American Congress of Surveying and Mapping and as president of the American Association for Geodetic Survey.
Currently he is auditor of the UK Bureau of the International Federation of Surveyors and plans to serve as treasurer of the U.S. Bureau. In addition to his professional accomplishments, Mr. Challstrom is devoted to public service and has held several municipal and public offices including mayor of Washington Grove, Maryland. We will ask him to try to restrict his oral testimony to about 5 minutes. And in the meantime we will ask unanimous consent that his statement be included in the record.
We note for the record the attendance of the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, the lady from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin, and the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, in addition to the already noted presence of the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt. And we are also joined by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot. Mr. Challstrom, you may proceed.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. CHALLSTROM, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. CHALLSTROM. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Charles Challstrom, and I am the acting director of the National Geodetic Survey, an agency of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. I thank you for this opportunity to testify today on NOAA's technical role in the boundary change between the States of Georgia and South Carolina from Savannah, Georgia, to the seaward boundary.
Before I talk about NOAA's role and our views on House Joint Resolution 62, I would like to commend all of the parties involved in this undertaking on their successful efforts to resolve this issue, particularly the astute attention to the sometimes complex geodetic aspects of correctly implementing such a change. I view this as a good example of how NOAA works with the States, local communities, and other entities to ensure that NOAA's geodetic technical services and expertise are available to support a wide variety of applications.
Most recently, NOAA has analyzed and reviewed all materials related to this cooperative effort. This analysis and review involved comparing coordinate data in each State's legislation to ensure consistent values for the boundary points. NOAA has confirmed that the data used to identify the northern edge of the navigational channel originated from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District. I should note, however, that NOAA is not able to confirm the positional accuracy of these coordinates.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The results of our comparison of the two sets of data contained in the State bills passed by Georgia and South Carolina are attached to the written testimony, but here is a brief summary. While the comparison of the coordinates for all cited boundary points is not exact, the differences do not exceed 0.002 seconds of latitude or longitude which translates to a maximum positional difference of approximately 6 centimeters or 2 1/2 inches.
It has been our experience with other State boundary determinations that this difference is considered to be inconsequential for any practical purpose, and it is our understanding that both Georgia and South Carolina are also of this view. However, this is a matter for the States to decide.
Turning now to House Joint Resolution 62, I would like to offer the following observations. I note that Resolution 62 affords the States with four options on how to establish the new boundary. Implementation of the first option would result in the boundary descriptions in both State bills being accepted, despite any minor differences between them. The Georgia Assembly bill requires that the boundary be depicted on a NOAA chart.
Any discrepancy between the two State bill descriptions would then be superceded by the NOAA chart depiction, and the NOAA chart depiction would become the legal definition of the boundary. Although this option is the States' perogative to exercise, NOAA does not recommend this option be pursued for several reasons. First, NOAA as a matter of standard procedure only displays State land boundaries on its nautical charts. State boundaries over water are not generally displayed as they are not needed for purposes of navigation.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, and more importantly, the use of a graphical depiction as a legal definition for a State water boundary is not recommended, not customary, due to accuracy issues. For example, the NOAA chart for the Savannah River is published at a scale of 1:40,000. Based on the United States National Map Accuracy Standards, a point on this chart would have an accuracy of approximately 70 feet. It would be very easy for someone to misidentify their coordinate position by utilizing a chart depiction by at least this amount.
NOAA instead recommends a coordinate-based description be used to legally define the boundary. This is a more common practice. With currently available Global Positioning System technology, users on the water can determine the location of the boundary fairly easily to within a 10-foot accuracy. NOAA would be pleased to assist the States in this coordinate-based approach.
The remaining options allow the States to either adopt one or the other's boundary, or to adopt a different boundary description through new State legislation. Resolution 62 provides 5 years to do so, which NOAA believes offers adequate time to work through any technical differences or issues. I hope our comments on Resolution 62, as well as NOAA's past and ongoing technical assistance to the States, will help facilitate final implementation of the boundary agreement between Georgia and South Carolina. We look forward to continuing working cooperatively with both States, as well as any assistance the committee may require, as this matter progresses.
That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I would like once again to thank you for this opportunity to testify on how NOAA can work cooperatively with the States and provide technical assistance. I would be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee would have.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Challstrom follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. CHALLSTROM, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, DC
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Charles Challstrom, and I am the Acting Director of the National Geodetic Survey, an agency of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce. I thank you for this opportunity to testify today on NOAA's technical role in the boundary change between the States of Georgia and South Carolina from Savannah, Georgia to the seaward boundary. I would like to commend all of the parties involved in this undertaking on their successful efforts to resolve this issue, particularly their astute attention to the sometimes complex geodetic aspects of correctly implementing such a change. I view this as a good example of how NOAA works with the states, local communities and other entities to ensure that the necessary geodetic technical services and expertise that NOAA can provide are available to support a wide variety of applications.
However, before I testify on NOAA's role in this undertaking, I would like to present our credentials, if you will. NOAA's National Geodetic Survey (NGS) is the lead federal agency responsible for providing a highly accurate and standardized positioning reference framework for the nation. In plain English, this framework enables everyone to know where they are and where other things are...anytime, anyplace. It connects everyone and everyplace in our country through a common basis. NGS is committed to meeting the current and anticipated positioning needs of the American public by developing the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS). The NSRS provides the reference base for position, height, distance, direction, and gravity values, and how these values change with time. This information is essential for ensuring the reliability of transportation, communication and defense systems, land records, mapping and charting, public utilities, coastal zone management, natural resource mapping, and a multitude of scientific and engineering applications. NGS also provides federal leadership in developing specifications and standards for conducting geodetic surveys, coordinates the development and application of new surveying instrumentation and procedures, and assists state, county, and municipal agencies through a variety of cooperative programs.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is through just such a cooperative program that NOAA became involved in 1991 with the states of Georgia and South Carolina in helping both parties accurately identify the boundary agreed upon by both states and in accordance with decisions rendered by the Special Master. As you know, the parties initially adopted the Special Master's decision that the main thread of the Savannah River as it existed on charts produced in 1855 would be used to define the boundary. NOAA then provided operational guidance and technical expertise, flew new aerial surveys of the river, performed a ground survey to establish geodetic control, and plotted the 1855 thread of the river on the new surveys. Upon completion of this work by NOAA, the states realized that the course of the river had changed significantly since 1855 and instead agreed to use the northern edge of the navigational shipping channel as maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In 1994 the Georgia General Assembly adopted the agreed upon boundary in their legislation and described the boundary line using the Georgia Plane Coordinate System. In 1996 the South Carolina General Assembly adopted the agreed upon boundary in their legislation and described the boundary line using coordinates converted from the Georgia Plane Coordinate System by NOAA.
Most recently, NOAA has analyzed and reviewed all materials related to this cooperative effort. This analysis and review involved comparing coordinate data in each state's legislation to ensure consistent values for the boundary points. NOAA has confirmed that the data used to identify the northern edge of the navigational channel originated from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District; however I should note that NOAA is not able to confirm the positional accuracy of these coordinates.
The data for Georgia are cited in an amendment to Article 1 of Chapter 2 of Title 50 of the official Code of Georgia Annotated, and the data for South Carolina are cited in an act to amend Section 1-1-10, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976. The results of our comparison of the two sets of data are attached to this testimony, but here is a brief summary. We note that the South Carolina legislation includes a point SR-17 that does not appear in the Georgia legislation. This is not problematic. While the comparison of coordinates for all cited boundary points is not exact, the differences do not exceed 0.002 seconds of latitude or longitude which translates to a maximum positional difference of approximately 0.06 meter (0.2 feet). It has been our experience with other state boundary determinations that this difference is considered to be inconsequential for any practical purpose, and it is our understanding that both Georgia and South Carolina are also of this view. However, this is a matter for the states to decide.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Turning now to House Joint Resolution 62 (HJRES 62), I would like to offer the following observations. I note that HJRES 62 affords the states with four options on how to establish the new boundary. Implementation of the first option would result in the boundary descriptions in both state bills being accepted, despite any minor differences between them. The Georgia Assembly bill, requires that the boundary be depicted on a NOAA chart. Any discrepancy between the two state bill descriptions would then be superceded by the NOAA chart depiction, and the NOAA chart depiction would become the legal definition of the boundary. Although this option is the states' perogative to exercise, NOAA does not recommend that this option be pursued for several reasons.
First, NOAA as a matter of standard procedure only displays state land boundaries on its nautical charts. State boundaries over water are not generally displayed as they are not needed for purposes of navigation. NOAA's policies and procedures are documented in its Nautical Chart Manual.
Second, and more importantly, the use of a graphical depiction as a legal definition for a state water boundary is not recommended, nor customary, due to accuracy issues. For example, the NOAA chart for the Savannah River And Wassaw Sound is published at a scale of 1:40,000. Based on the United States National Map Accuracy Standards, a point on this chart would have an accuracy of approximately 70 feet. It would be very easy for someone to misidentify their coordinate position by utilizing a chart depiction by at least this amount. NOAA instead recommends that a coordinate-based description be used to legally define the boundary. This is a more common practice. With currently available Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, users on the water can determine the location of the boundary fairly easily to within 5-10 foot accuracy. NOAA would be pleased to assist the states in this coordinate-based approach.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The remaining options allow the states to either adopt one or the other's boundary, or to adopt a different boundary description through new state legislation. HJRES 62 provides 5 years to do so, which NOAA believes offers adequate time to work through any technical differences or issues.
I hope our comments on HJRES 62, as well as NOAA's past and ongoing technical assistance to the states, will help facilitate final implementation of the boundary agreement between Georgia and South Carolina. We look forward to continuing working cooperatively with both states, as well as any assistance the Committee may require, as this matter progresses.
That concludes my testimony Mr. Chairman, and I would once again like to thank you for this opportunity to testify on how NOAA can work cooperatively with the states and provide technical assistance. I would be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the Committee may have at this time.
63856A.eps
Mr. GEKAS. We thank the witness for his statement, and without objection as indicated before his statement will become automatically a part of the record. Does any member wish to pose any questions to the witness? The only question I have is the options you are discussing here have been agreed to by both legislatures of the states in question, is that correct?
Mr. CHALLSTROM. The options I have been discussing are the options contained in House Joint Resolution 62. I believe these options provide adequate flexibility for Georgia and South Carolina to resolve any technical differences that may exist between the two State bills enacted by their respective State legislatures.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GEKAS. So, even if it takes 5 years, a solution is already in place.
Mr. CHALLSTROM. House Joint Resolution 62 provides that both States have 5 years to resolve any techncial differences, but should no action be taken, the boundary defined by the existing State bills will take effect.
Mr. GEKAS. We thank the gentleman and we excuse his testimony. The Chair will note the attendance now of the lady from California, Ms. Bono, and the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter.
[Whereupon, the subcommittee proceeded to other business.]
Mr. GEKAS. We will proceed now to hear the testimony of Representative Kingston from Georgia's First Congressional District, who grew up in Athens, Georgia, where he also received his bachelor of arts degree in economics from the University of Georgia. Mr. Kingston lives in Savannah, which is not far from here. It is covered by the boundary compact. Before being elected to Congress in 1992, Mr. Kingston was a Georgia State representative and vice president of a business and commercial insurance company. Please proceed. Your written statement will naturally become a part of the record. We ask you to summarize what your statement has to offer.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACK KINGSTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will summarize quickly. I appreciate your letting me be with you today and thank the ranking member and my distinguished friend from Massachusetts for recognizing me as I walked in the door. I was at two other meetings so I regret I am late. H.J. Res. 62 simply settles a boundary dispute between Georgia and South Carolina. Georgia and South Carolina's boundary was originally set in 1787 by the Beaufort Convention and 140 years later, 1922, it was challenged, and since that time there has been some murkiness as to what the boundary is.
And just recently the States have been working with NOAA to come up with a new mapping and surveying plan to settle this. And it simply has to do with the fact that the Savannah River, like all rivers, move, islands are formed, and we have to deal with the islands in terms of whether they become part of South Carolina or part of Georgia. And this has the support of the State legislature and I believe all members of the State delegation in Washington, and I will submit it for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kingston follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JACK KINGSTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you on House Joint Resolution 62, a resolution to ratify an interstate compact that corrects a longstanding border dispute between the states of Georgia and South Carolina.
It isn't every day that Congress deals with the borders between states sometimes it seems that borders are some of the only constants in the changing social and political landscape of America. Nevertheless, Georgia and South Carolina come to Congress today to settle a dispute that has gone as high as the United States Supreme Court concerning their common border where the Savannah River meets the sea in my coastal Georgia district.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The issue at hand is essentially a product of time and geography. The original line between the states was set in 1787 at the Beaufort Convention. Much of the interior of the two states had not been surveyed, and officials hadn't even dreamed of the precise coordinate systems of today. Therefore, the delegates to the Convention used the natural landmarks they had available and set the boundary as the northern branch of the Savannah River, reserving all islands to Georgia.
This line stood unquestioned for 140 years until 1922, when the Supreme Court clarified the line in a case between Georgia and South Carolina involving the stage of the river that should be used to determine the boundary. In this decision, the Court stated that where there were islands in the Savannah River, the boundary would fall at the midpoint between the island's bank and the South Carolina bank at normal stage. Where there were no islands, the border would fall at the midpoint between the two banks at normal stage.
In the years following this decision, the obvious question arose concerning whether islands that had formed since the Beaufort Convention automatically belonged to Georgia or to the state into whose territory the islands would have fallen at the time of the Convention. Dredging performed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the Savannah River and additional questions involving the mouth of the River further complicated the border dispute. The expansion of the Port of Savannah and the economic interests in the region began to be disrupted by the confusion.
Finally, in 1990, the Supreme Court decided the issue by assigning the particular set of islands in dispute, the Barnwell Islands, to South Carolina. Further, the Court found that the Beaufort Convention did not control new islands formed in the river since its ratification. The Court directed the states to draw up a new boundary agreement based on these principles. The two states have worked with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, using the best mapping and surveying equipment available, to set a boundary that is in keeping with the Court's findings. It is this new agreement that we bring before the Subcommittee today.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to thank the Chairman for the Subcommittee's hard work on this legislation. This joint resolution satisfies the Constitution's requirement that Congress ratify all interstate compacts. I understand that there are some discrepancies between the authorizing bills from the two states, but I believe that this resolution will allow Congress to approve the agreement while giving the states the flexibility to make any final corrections that may be necessary. I hope that the Subcommittee will look favorably on our states' efforts to legally clarify our borders using today's sophisticated mapping technology, and I thank the Chairman for this opportunity to address an issue that uniquely affects the people of coastal Georgia.
Mr. GEKAS. We thank the gentleman. With the geodetic survey individual who testified and with your testimony, we should have no difficulty in marking up——
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GEKAS. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, thank you. I just wanted to indicate that the gentleman's argument has convinced me to support the gentleman's position.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GEKAS. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I also want to indicate that the gentleman's excellent and persuasive testimony has persuaded me of the necessity in supporting this excellent measure. And I just want to also express the hope without requiring a reply that when it comes time for legislative action that legislative action will receive equal attention when it comes time to correct the Supreme Court's mistake in the question of the location of Ellis Island is between New York and New Jersey.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for his question. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the personal attention the gentleman from New York and from Massachusetts have shown on this very matter. We have always been somewhat leery when people north of the Mason-Dixon come looking into our business but in the case of these two gentlemen they have been absolute saviors. We appreciate that.
Mr. GEKAS. We thank the gentleman. The hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
| Nebraska State Legislature, |
| District No. 1, |
| Table Rock, NE, July 26, 1999. |
Hon. DOUG BEREUTER,
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. BEREUTER: We were informed by the Nebraska Attorney General's Office that the bill regardingg ratification of the Missouri-Nebraska Boundary Compact is scheduled to be heard before a SubCommittee on Wednesday, July 28th. I understand this bill was authored by Congresswoinan Pat Danner fiom Missouri and co-sponsored by yourself I would like to take this opportunity to share with you some of my thoughts on this issue.
A portion of my constituency feels very strongly that the lands in dispute should not be handed over to Missouri, and that if they must be, that some form of compensation be provided to the appropriate Nebraska counties and subdivisions for their losses. The consensus of the people I represent is that the proposed settlement offered by Missouri is not adequate due to! lack of consideration of the impact on Nebraska subdivisions.
Having said that, I am committed that this issue be resolved, It has always been my hope that we could reach a settlement with Missouri that is satisfactory to both sides. A settlement that would be made prior to any costly litigation
If you have any questions or wish any additional information from me, plesase feel free to contact me. I wish you well on your discussions of this issue as we have spent issue trying to find a common ground for both sides.
Sincerely,
| Floyd P. Vrtiska, Senator. |
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
| Nebraska State Legislature, |
| District No. 2, |
| Plattsmouth, NE, July 27, 1999. |
Hon. DOUGLAS BEREUTER, Representative,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN BEREUTER: Please allow me the opportunity to convey to you and the members of the Judiciary Committee, and specifically the members of the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee, of my strong, continued, and unequivocal support of H.J. RES. 54. It is my understanding that this joint resolution will be presented for committee consideration on Thursday, July 29th, 1999 for pending congressional approval.
As you are well aware, the genesis of H.J. RES. 54 is the result of the parallel passage of legislation by General Assembly of the State of Missouri and the Nebraska Legislature that enabled the two states to successfully reach a much-needed compromise regarding a long-standing boundary dispute. The similarly enacted language of H.B. 35 (Missouri, 1997) and LB 59 (Nebraska, 1998) amends the Missouri-Nebraska Boundary Compact of 1971 in order to establish the permanent boundary line between the two states as the centerline of the designed channel of the Missouri River as described by survey maps agreed to by Missouri and Nebraska. As the primary sponsor of L13 59, I would like to express my gratitude that the U.S. Congress is properly addressing this issue in the form of H.J. RES. 54.
Federal ratification by the U.S. Congress of the mutually agreed upon interstate compact is necessary and will provide a clear and definitive resolution regarding the uncertainty of state sovereignty of the lands in question, in conjunction with settling troubling taxation and jurisdictional issues between the two states. For these very important reasons, it is imperative that H.J. RES. 54 be congressionally approved and ratified posthaste in order for the survey and boundary designation process to begin.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In closing, I ask you to forward my correspondence to the members of the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee in order that my written statements may be officially enteredd into the congressional record and respectfully request the subcommittee members to support H.J. RES. 54. 1 thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
| Roger R. Wehrbein, Senator. |