I rise in support of S. 1167, which seeks to correct a number of boundary conflicts that have occurred in the vicinity of the Mark Twain National Forest in Barry and Stone Counties, Missouri. The boundary conflicts at issue resulted from discrepancies between recent land surveys conducted by the U.S. Forest Service and decades-old surveys conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers. As a result of the more recent Forest Service land surveys, private property lines adjoining Federal lands were moved and private property landowners discovered that, due to their reliance on the older Army Corps of Engineers land surveys, they had inadvertently trespassed on Federal lands. S. 1167 will remedy these boundary conflicts by authorizing and directing either the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Army to convey title to U.S. Forest Service land on which private landowners can demonstrate that they inadvertently trespassed due to their innocent reliance on a previous inaccurate Federal survey, or relied on a survey based on a previous inaccurate survey.
Calvin Dooley: “I rise in support of S. 1167, which seeks to correct a number of boundary conflicts that have occurred in the vicinity…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing boundary conflicts related to land surveys near the Mark Twain National Forest.
Share
More from Calvin Dooley
I rise in favor of this amendment to restore funding for the Legal Services Corporation. I represent a district in the San Joaquin Valley of California that, despite the good economic times in our State and our Nation, is plagued by 14…
I think every Member has to fully understand what would happen if you vote with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) on this point of order. You would ensure that we would not provide the largest increase in agriculture research which…
the issue is clear, do we believe as a Congress that the voters of the United States have the right to know who is trying to influence the outcome of an election? Unless we close the issue advocacy loophole, we are not giving the voters…
the issue is, the gentleman is willing to have an unfunded mandate for some provisions and not others?





