Skip to main content

[The Use of Excess Funds Received for Trespasses on Federal Lands]

B-204874 Jul 28, 1982
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

GAO was asked to concur in an opinion of the Solicitor's Office, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), regarding the availability of funds received by BLM as a result of coal trespasses on Federal lands. At issue is whether section 305(a) of the Land Policy and Management Act requires that the funds in the account be expended only for the particular improvement or rehabilitation work necessitated by the action leading to the receipt of the funds. According to the Solicitor's Office, any funds that are not required to repair damage caused by the action leading to the receipt of those funds may be used on public lands. The Office also stated that: (1) the Senate report on an earlier version of the Act described the fund account as being composed solely of funds collected in excess of those needed for repairs; and (2) its position was supported by the fact that the annual appropriation of funds in the account contained no specific restriction on the expenditure of such funds. GAO held that: (1) the interpretation of the statute by the Solicitor's Office would be at odds with the language of the statute and would be inconsistent with the express inclusion of permissive authority to refund to individual resource developers, purchasers, or permittees excess deposits of amounts forfeited under the Act; (2) funds collected under a previous version of the statute were intended to be segregated for the rehabilitation of individual damaged lands, with excess amounts to be refunded when appropriate to the parties from whom they were collected; (3) the general language of the appropriations act does not repeal language contained in the authorizing legislation setting out the purposes for which the funds may be used; and (4) the funds that are not disposed of either for the rehabilitation of the specific property involved or for appropriate refunds must be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. Accordingly, GAO did not concur with the opinion of the Solicitor's Office.

Downloads

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs