[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS INITIATIVE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 1842, TO TERMINATE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS INITIATIVE
__________
SEPTEMBER 24, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-70
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-912 CC WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held September 24, 1997.................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Bonilla, Hon. Henry, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement of...................... 110
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 11
Cannon, Hon. Christopher B., a Repesentative in Congress from
the State of Utah, prepared statement of................... 11
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 1
Additional material submitted for the record by.......... 169
Emerson, Hon. Jo Ann, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri.......................................... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Furse, Hon. Elizabeth, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, prepared statement of..................... 7
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Herger, Hon. Wally, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Hunt, Hon. James B., Jr., Governor, North Carolina, letter to
Board of Directors, Riverlink.............................. 197
Hutchinson, Hon. Asa, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas, prepared statement of................... 113
Johnson, Hon. Nancy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut....................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Kanjorski, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania...................................... 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 139
LaHood, Hon. Ray, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, prepared statement of......................... 111
Pallone, Jr., Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey.................................... 3
Paul, Hon. Ron. a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas and Hon. Bill Archer, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas, letter to President Clinton....... 189
Reyes, Hon. Silvestre, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 32
Scott, Hon. Robert, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia.......................................... 19
Smith, Hon. Lamar S., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement of...................... 112
Stearns, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 18
Statement of Witnesses:
Blomquist, Dan, Montanans for Multiple Use, Kalispell,
Montana.................................................... 97
Prepared statement of.................................... 247
Bright, David L., Sr., Harrison, Arkansas.................... 92
Further information submitted by......................... 236
Chavis, Mayor Larry, Richmond, Virginia, prepared statement
of......................................................... 6
DeVeny, Bill, Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, Boise, Idaho..... 81
Prepared statement of.................................... 122
Ealy, David Allan, Perrysville, Indiana...................... 83
Prepared statement of.................................... 215
Hoover, Lois Van, Idaho Multiple Land Use Coalition, Yellow
Pine, Idaho................................................ 64
Prepared statement of.................................... 186
Kustra, Robert, Governor of Illinois, prepared statement of.. 3
LaGrasse, Carol, Property Rights Foundation of America, Stony
Creek, New York............................................ 85
Prepared statement of.................................... 223
Lynch, Robert S., Central Arizona Project Association,
Phoenix, Arizona........................................... 62
Prepared statement of.................................... 114
McGinty, Kathleen, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality,
Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC.......... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 145
Moss, Linda Bourque, Western Heritage Center, Billings,
Montana.................................................... 99
Prepared statement of.................................... 262
Nelson, Reginald William, Richmond, Virginia................. 102
Prepared statement of.................................... 127
Pendley, William Perry, Mountain States Legal Foundation,
Denver, Colorado........................................... 60
Prepared statement of.................................... 174
Ross, Gordon, Coos County Commissioner, Coos County, Oregon.. 79
Prepared statement of.................................... 122
Samuel, Peter, Schuylkill River Greenway and Heritage
Corridor, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania......................... 94
Prepared statement of.................................... 125
Smith, Desmond K., Trans Texas Heritage Association, Alpine,
Texas...................................................... 66
Prepared statement of.................................... 117
Sundquist, Hon. Don, Governor, Tennessee..................... 199
Young, David, Buncombe County Commissioner, Asheville, North
Carolina................................................... 76
Prepared statement of.................................... 68
Yturria, Mary A., Brownsville, Texas......................... 119
Prepared statement of.................................... 191
Additional material supplied:
Budget Options for American Heritage Rivers.................. 308
Central Arizona Project Assoc., letter to Mr. Young.......... 337
CEQ, Memorandum to Distribution, Ray Clark, CEQ.............. 306
Clinton discloses plan to improve waterways, The Washington
Times...................................................... 305
Council on Environmental Quality............................. 276
CRZLR, Inc., letter to Mr. Young............................. 322
Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, letter to Ms. McGinty.......... 159
Kruse, Charles E., President, Missouri Farm Bureau, and
others, letter to Mr. Ray Clark............................ 332
Letter to the Executive Office of the President, Council
on Environmental Quality............................... 162
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., and Hon. Dan Coats, letter to Ms.
McGinty.................................................... 323
Missouri Levee and Drainage District Assoc., letter to Mr.
Young...................................................... 324
Owyhee County Commissioners, letter to the Executive Office
of the President, Council on Environmental Quality......... 164
Resources Committee, American Rivers Heritage, obtained from
CEQ........................................................ 311
River, fisheries, recreation, business, and conservation
orgranizations letter opposing H.R.1842.................... 132
Text of H.R. 1842............................................ 274
Trans Texas Heritage Assoc., letter to Ms. Karen Hobbs....... 334
Voting motion on Dept. of Interior's Appropriation Bill...... 131
Winona, Minnesota, City Hall, letter to Mr. Young............ 330
Communications submitted:
Blue Ribbon Coalition Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho............... 255
County of Buncombe, text of Proclamation..................... 199
Seattle Times................................................ 137
Tri-City Herald.............................................. 138
Watershed Projects in Coos County............................ 204
HEARING ON H.R. 1842, TO TERMINATE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS INITIATIVE
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12 p.m., in room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen Chenoweth
presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. Chenoweth. [presiding] The Committee on Resources will
come to order.
The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on my
legislation, H.R. 1842, which is a bill to stop the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative.
I would like to welcome our witnesses, many of whom have
traveled thousands of miles to get here, and two of my
constituents from Idaho, Lois Van Hoover, representing the
Idaho Multiple Land Use Coalition, and Bill DeVeny,
representing the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation. We also have a
number of Members of Congress today, and I welcome you all.
I'm honored to be here in the chair today, and I greatly
appreciate Chairman Don Young's allowing me to conduct this
hearing. I've been looking forward to it, but it seems to me
that something is wrong with the picture that we're going to be
seeing today--wrong procedurally. We are doing things exactly
backward.
Generally, and if things are in correct constitutional
order, it is the legislative branch of government that creates
the programs and the executive branch that carries them out.
Here, though, with the American Heritage Rivers Initiative,
there's been a complete and literal flip-flop between the roles
and duties of the Congress and the Clinton Administration.
Instead of Congress making the proposal and the administration
commenting on it, it is the Clinton White House dreaming up the
initiative, and we, the Congress, are the ones commenting. We
are actually in the position of taking testimony, not on the
creation of a new program, but on how to stop one.
This initiative clearly violates the doctrine of separation
of powers as intended by our Founding Fathers. And as James
Madison wrote in Federalist No. 47, ``The accumulation of all
powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same
hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary,
self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very
definition of tyranny.''
My colleagues, this American Heritage Rivers Initiative is
being thrust upon the American people in the exact manner James
Madison warned us against.
I introduced H.R. 1842 on June 10, shortly after President
Clinton's American Heritage River Initiative was first
published in the Federal Register. This legislation, which is
co-sponsored by 38 Members, would prohibit Federal agencies
from spending any funds on this unauthorized, unappropriated,
and intrusive program.
On Sept. 11, and with no consultation with the leadership
of Congress, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13061
directing 12 Federal agencies to implement this program. Many
Americans are disturbed by this arbitrary use, and many would
say ``abuse'' of Presidential authority.
I, along with millions of other Americans, was shocked and
appalled that President Clinton would use so Draconian a
process to rob people of their constitutional rights and
patently ignore the legislative branch of government. However,
I should not be surprised by this display of power. After all,
this is the same administration which locked up 1.7 million
acres in Utah without even consulting Utah's Governor and their
congressional delegation, not to mention other State and local
officials.
It's also the same administration that proposed a $64
million buyout of a mining property in Montana to a Canadian
company without consulting the Montana Governor and its
congressional delegation, or the U.S. Congress. This program is
illegal, has not met public requirements, misappropriates funds
Congress mandated for other purposes, and usurps individual
water rights, private property rights, and the sovereignty of
all 50 States. It defies the imagination how President Clinton
could ram this initiative down our throats, despite massive
resistance outside the Washington, DC beltway.
In addition to the violation of water and property rights,
what I find very, very troubling is how an agency like CEQ,
with a budget of only $2.4 million, can run a program like the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which costs by very
conservative efforts $4 million to $7 million every year so
far. Where is the money coming from? And who appropriated it?
Who authorized it to be spent like this?
No place in U.S. Statutes can you find the phrase,
``American Heritage Rivers Initiative,'' and no place can you
find the position of a ``river navigator'' or the term ``river
community.'' And this leads me to wonder whether the Anti-
Deficiency Act of 1982, which prohibits and proscribes criminal
sanctions for the expenditure of Federal funds for unauthorized
purposes, is implicated.
And certainly one is left to wonder if this meets the
requirements of 31 U.S.C. 1301(a), which states,
``Appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which
the appropriations were made.''
Beyond the constitutional and legal questions raised by the
executive order, there are some fundamental questions that I
share with many of my colleagues. If this program is 100
percent honorary, voluntary, and non-regulatory, then why is it
being done by the Federal Government and with no less than 12
agencies?
If it is 100 percent voluntary, why does the program not
explicitly require that the Federal agencies get written
permission from private land owners before their land is
included within an American Heritage Rivers designation?
And why did the Council on Environmental Quality totally
ignore the request of 55 Members of the House, who requested
that the public comment period on this initiative be extended
beyond August 20?
I look forward to hearing Ms. McGinty's response to these
and other questions, and I also look forward to hearing from
other witnesses today.
Mr. Chairman, I--the Chair now recognizes the Ranking
Member, Mr. Pallone, for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you for the title, Madam Chairman.
Let me first, if I could, request unanimous consent to
include in the record four documents. One is a statement from
Lieutenant Governor Bob Kustra, of Illinois, who was an invited
witness but couldn't make it; second, testimony from Mayor
Larry Chavis--I guess--of Richmond, Virginia; third, statements
from Representative Furse and Representative Gejdenson, and,
finally, a letter from, well--American Rivers--I'm not sure
exactly what that refers to, but American Rivers. I would ask
unanimous consent to include those.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Governor Kustra follows:]
Statement of Hon. Bob Kustra, Lieutenant Governor, Illinois
Mr. Chairman. Distinguished members of the committee. I want to
thank you for the opportunity to address what I believe is a very
important issue not only for my state of Illinois but for the country
in our efforts to improve our rivers and streams.
Just as our rivers and watersheds cross many governmental
boundaries, our efforts to revitalize these resources must be a
partnership of local, state and Federal efforts. The American Heritage
Rivers Initiative proposed by President Clinton in his State of the
Union Address, and detailed 2 weeks ago, provides us with a great
opportunity for us to navigate through what some have seen as a river
of bureaucratic red tape in getting the help and assistance we need for
river improvement at the state and local levels.
We are currently in the process of preparing our nomination of the
Illinois River Watershed for such designation.
The strength of this new initiative is that it will help us better
coordinate Federal services and assistance. The Illinois River
watershed is a vast Z5,000 square mile area encompassing 55 of our 102
counties. Approximately 80 percent of the river's watershed is within
our state's jurisdiction, which is an asset; however, Federal agency
programs in the watershed area also have a strong impact on the
ecosystem, from navigation to soil conservation, from Chicago to St.
Louis.
The improved service delivery, technical assistance, coordination
of Federal involvement, and work toward our local communities'
objectives will be key benefits this initiative can provide our
Illinois River Watershed should we receive this designation.
Simply put, we see this initiative as providing coordination for a
revitalization effort that will benefit not only our state but the
entire nation as well.
This initiative embodies what many have said is a fundamental role
of our Federal Government--to complement local and state initiatives.
We support this program for the following reasons:
1. The American Heritage Rivers initiative is voluntary--we
initiate whether to participate or not. We realize the
importance of the Federal Government in joining our state and
local partnership in progress. No one has forced our hand in
this matter, and should we receive this designation we may exit
the program at any time.
2. It is locally driven--our communities throughout the 55
counties of the Illinois River Basin are currently at work with
their efforts to improve the watershed. Those that live, work
and play along the river know what's best for this vital
resource. They will not give up their right to dictate the
future of a river that has shaped the history of their
communities. There will be no takeover under this Initiative.
No one, however, can underestimate the technological and
informational resources that the Federal Government can provide
to our local efforts. This initiative enables us to look to the
Federal Government as a clearinghouse of knowledge and
expertise in river improvement and revitalization. For towns
like Havana, population 7,000, and larger cities like Chicago,
this is an enormous opportunity to put the Federal Government
to work for them, not the other way around.
3. There are no new regulations or rules dictated by the
Federal Government. Contrary to what some critics of this
proposal say, we find nothing in the materials that recommends
further restricting what our local communities can or cannot do
with their efforts along the river.
4. There is also a great opportunity under this initiative to
learn what the Federal Government is doing right and what it is
doing wrong as it relates to our rivers and streams. Through
this initiative, the Federal Government will be listening to
state and local communities that have lived with Federal
Government involvement in the past. This dialog and interaction
at the local level will enable the Federal Government to study
and improve how it provides assistance to communities
throughout the nation.
Unfortunately, not all view this initiative in a positive light. It
has been described as a program ``unleashing United Nations troops
patrolling the Illinois River's curving path.'' The program has been
portrayed as a ``new Federal land-use scheme,'' that the Federal
Government ``will control all land use and will police this initiative
by aerial photography and satellite surveillance.''
We have seen nor heard anything from the Federal Government that
would indicate they are interested in pushing us around in Illinois.
What they are interested in doing is maintaining the quality of one of
this Nation's most important rivers. Furthermore, there is nothing in
our plans for the Illinois River that could be described as a take-
over, or that is in any way going to take land away from anyone.
While some may see controversy, we see opportunity in the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative. We feel the Federal Government is needed
here to be a partner, not a manager or boss.
To understand why I believe this initiative is important to my
state, one must understand the integral part the Illinois River and its
watershed have played in our state, regional, and indeed national
histories.
The Illinois River flows diagonally across the State of Illinois,
beginning southeast of Chicago and joining the Mississippi near St.
Louis. Eighty percent of the lands that drain into the Illinois River
are in the State of Illinois. Because of the ways we have used the
river and the land, the river has experienced both decline and
recovery.
In fact, the National Research Council, which is associated with
the National Academy of Science and the National Academy of
Engineering, named the Illinois River as one of three river-floodplain
ecosystems in the United States that are priorities for restoration.
Throughout the history of our nation's expansion westward, the
Illinois River and its tributaries have served as a major
transportation highway for goods and products.
More than 50 percent of the commercial traffic on the
Mississippi River above St. Louis comes from the Illinois waterway;
More than 60 million tons of commodities are shipped on
the Illinois River annually;
Approximately one half of the 1.4 billion bushels of corn
produced in lllinois travel the Illinois waterway; and
Ninety percent of our state's population live and work
within the Illinois River basin.
The Illinois River was once unparalleled in this country as a
natural resource. But since the turn of the century, as the state's
population and economic base grew, the Illinois River has experienced
profound changes.
By the 1950's, virtually all aquatic vegetation had vanished from
the Illinois River and its backwater lakes due to water pollution and
modified water levels. As a result fish, mammals, waterfowl, clams, and
other related life forms declined drastically. Without the vegetation,
sediment was no longer anchored to the bottom of the riverbed and
lakes, but rather was stirred up in the water by wind and boat
movement.
To this point in the state's history, agricultural productivity
soared, as did population growth and urban growth. The increasing
movement of soil from the land, due to channelized streams, eroding
streams, and land conversion greatly increased the amount of sediment
reaching the Illinois River.
Since this time, agricultural practices have been modified to keep
more of the productive soil in place. Industries and municipalities
have markedly improved sewage and wastewater treatment methods under
the Clean Water Act.
As of 1995, more than three-fourths of the state's farmland is at
``T,'' the tolerable rate of soil loss where soil building processes
replace the amount of soil lost. In the Upper and Lower Illinois River
Basins, more than 4.2 million acres of cropland are in conservation
tillage systems.
The Illinois River and its backwater areas occupy about one-third
of the floodplain, of which 47,000 acres are in state and Federal
ownership and 34,000 are owned by private sporting clubs. Forests along
the Middle and Lower Illinois River are among the largest remnant
forest ecosystems in the state north of the Shawnee National Forest.
Today more than 20 communities rely on the waters of the Illinois and
its tributaries for their drinking water, and sportfish and waterfowl
populations are growing.
Citizen action in the Illinois River watershed also is widespread
and diverse in communities like Meredosia with a population of just
under 1,200 and in the Chicago suburbs 100 times the size of Meredosia.
The Chicago River, for example, is enjoying unprecedented attention
for restoration and economic development. More than two hundred miles
south, citizens in Meredosia have created a River Museum and annual
Riverfest celebrating the river's past abundant fish, fowl and mussel
populations that supported substantial harvests. In the early 1900's
there were 15 factories along the Illinois River manufacturing buttons
from mussel shells. In partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the area's backwater lake is being restored through active
management, providing habitat for migrating waterfowl. Walking paths
and economic development are results that celebrate the river's past as
well as Meredosia's future.
Despite the seemingly remarkable recovery, the future of the
watershed and the river corridor are truly imperiled.
Each year more than 14 million tons of sediment are transported
through the watershed. More than half of this sediment load is
deposited in the Illinois River Valley, and the balance is carried to
the Mississippi River.
Most backwater lakes have lost more than 70 percent of their
storage capacity, destroying wildlife and recreational areas. In
northeastern Illinois, during a recent 20-year span, land conversion
for residential purposes grew by nearly 50 percent while population
increased by less than 5 percent. Erosion control is needed on 4.1
million acres of cropland in the Upper and Lower Illinois River Basins.
Stormwater management is a vexing problem throughout the watershed.
Sudden flooding, from both large and small storm events, occurs due to
past alterations to speed water from the land. Swiftly moving waters
take more sediment, carving away at stream banks.
The sediment, coupled with unseasonal flooding, yield a river
system less capable of ``managing'' its sediment through a natural
pattern of deposition, drying and compaction. Operation and maintenance
of the navigation system is increasingly difficult, due to accumulation
of sediment in the channel and rapidly fluctuating water levels.
The diversity of interests and stake holders throughout the
watershed is evident in reviewing the history of the region. When
issues and interests overlap and compete, disagreements often arise
about which management approaches to take.
Yet, despite this diversity, there is strong agreement that the
future condition of the watershed of the Illinois River and its
tributaries will greatly influence the region's capacity for
navigation, recreation, economic prosperity, and ecological balance.
We recognize that for our state, region and nation, if this
important highway cannot be traveled, if this great recreational outlet
cannot be utilized, and if this natural resource cannot be preserved,
then our health is indeed in jeopardy.
Over the past 2 years, we have brought competing interest to the
table to discuss ways to protect and restore the river, and we produced
comprehensive management plan guided by principles rooted in fairness
and emphasizing a volunteer approach.
In January as we unveiled this Integrated Management Plan for the
Illinois River Watershed, I said, ``There are no quick fixes or easy
outs. It's time to roll up our sleeves and get to work, putting aside
political and professional differences. We face a long-term commitment
to seeing that this vital economic, ecological and aesthetic resource
is improved for future generations.''
We have begun putting the recommendations of our plan in place. We
know that this is a partnership of state and local entities, working
with our private sector.
Carrying out these recommendations will go a long way toward saving
the Illinois River for future generations. In the future, we must
monitor our progress and evaluate our efforts, and we certainly must
never forget just how important and fragile this river is.
I see the steps we have taken at the state and local level as
providing the basis for a unique partnership with our Federal
Government through the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Some 87 years ago, President Theodore Roosevelt viewed the Illinois
River and its valley from the scenic bluffs of Peoria's Grand View
Dive. He said, ``I have traveled all over the world, and this is the
world's most beautiful drive.''
It is our hope that the American Heritage Rivers Initiative and our
state and local efforts already underway will once again enable
passers-by to remark on the beauty of this great natural resource.
We have everything to gain by acting now to save this vital natural
resource and everything to lose if action is not taken.
Again, I want to thank this Committee for the opportunity to
address its members today and I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chavis follows:]
Statement of Hon. Larry Chavis, Mayor of the City of Richmond
Good morning ladies gentlemen, Chairman Young, Congressman
Miller, members of the Resources Committee and all others who
have taken the time to be with us here today.
Thank you for allowing us to address you today--for the
opportunity to tell you--from a grass-roots and urban
perspective--just what the American Heritage Rivers Initiative
has already done for localizes up and down Virginia's historic
James River. Positive changes are happening on our river:
changes brought about well in advance of any possible
designation for the James as an American Heritage River.
Vice-Mayor Baskerville and I are here today as
representatives of the James River Heritage Partnership.
We are a dedicated group of well over 150 individuals,
representing
20 counties, 9 cities, 2 towns, 2 Native American
Tribes,
8 regional planning district commissions,
dozens of non-profit agencies dedicated to outdoor
recreation and natural resource protection, historic
preservation and cultural awareness
dozens of riparian corporations, and most
importantly
the hundreds and hundreds of private citizens in
the communities along the James who are supportive of our
efforts.
The mere fact that we have all come together to achieve a
common goal is unprecedented in the history of Virginia. Given
the state's unique political structure--which often separates
rather than unifies localities--working together--as we are
now--is the exception and not necessarily the rule. From this
perspective, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative has
already worked wonders for us.
On Friday of last week, the city of Richmond welcomed
Senator Charles Robb and the U.S. Secretary of Transportation
Rodney Slater to the banks of the James River. This was a
golden opportunity for members of the Partnership to show our
guests the exciting, innovative programs happening along the
James. The American Heritage Rivers Initiative affords
riverfront cities like Richmond a chance to rediscover the
vital roots of their downtowns, to once again nurture and enjoy
riparian land that for years has either been isolated or
underutilized.
Along the James River, we have
Extensive and ongoing waterfront development
activities at Hampton Roads and Lynchburg,
Cooperative initiatives among all 19 soil and
watershed conservation districts in the James River watershed
to develop The Chesapeake Bay Tributaries Strategy.
Habitat restoration programs aimed at restoring
and protecting the summer nesting grounds of the bald eagle,
and year-round populations of striped bass, shad and river
herring
None of these initiatives are being developed, I might add
at to expense or exclusion of our corporate neighbors along the
James, many of whom contribute significantly to river
stewardship programs in addition to the important contributions
they make to our regional economies.
The members of the James River Heritage Partnership are
working together to
develop active programs that highlight the economic,
cultural and natural resources of this important river, which
represents the common wealth of our many diverse heritages--
whether European, African, or Native American
We are working together to
Gain designation for the entire James River, from its
headwaters at Irongate in Botetourt County to where the River
flows into Chesapeake Bay at Hampton Roads, 450 miles of some
of the most scenic lands in the entire country
We are working together to
Be among to first ten rivers to be rightly called an
American Heritage River
We are working together because the river will continue to
impact us all.
Since President Clinton announced this initiative during
his 1997 State of the Union message the program has had its
detractors. It is to the opponents of the President's
Initiative--some of whom we respectfully address this morning--
that I submit the following points for consideration:
First and foremost, The American Heritage Rivers Initiative
does not seek to
jeopardize the rights of riparian property owners
whether they are large corporate citizens so vital to the
regional economy of western, central and/or Tidewater, Virginia
or to the small farmers or other private individuals who own
land adjacent to the river
The Initiative does not seek to
Advocate for the imposition of any new federal
mandates or regulations that would in any way hamper the rights
of riparian localities to make their own land use decisions.
For these reasons and so many others that time does not
allow me to expound on, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative
represents the potential for positive working relationships
between federal agencies and local communities dedicated to
being good stewards of their rivers. We sincerely hope that
what you have heard today will enable you to make the right
decision and allow for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative
to go forward.
We thank you very much for the chance to give voice to our
support of the President's Initiative. The City of Richmond
anticipates great and lasting benefits to all Virginians should
the James achieve the status of an American Heritage River. A
status I might add that it greatly deserves.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Furse follows:]
Statement of Hon. Elizabeth Furse, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Oregon
I appreciate the opportunity to express any strong support
for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
President Clinton announced this initiative as a way to
assist local communities in realizing the goals of
revitalization they have for their own rivers. By providing a
supportive Federal-local partnership, this voluntary initiative
will essentially help local people help themselves. The
initiative involves no regulations, no Federal mandates, and no
unwilling participants. Instead it helps communities tap into
the myriad of resources available to restore and protect the
environmental, cultural, recreational, and historic values of
their favorite waterway.
Not only do I support the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative in general, I specifically am supporting the
nomination of the Willamette River, which flows through the
heart of Portland, as one of the ten selected American Heritage
rivers.
Oregonians remember the days when the Willamette was one of
the most polluted rivers in the country. The waters of this
river were so choked with pollution that when live fish were
put in a basket and lowered into the river to check the water
quality, it took only a minute and a half for the fish to die.
Oregonians remember the phrase they used as youngsters to
describe swimming in the river--the ``Willamette River
stroke''--a phrase which refers to the fact that they would
have to clear a path through the floating sewage debris in the
water before they could swim.
But those days of neglect are gone and now the Willamette
is the focus of a mayor campaign of restoration and protection.
This effort has widespread local support and has been endorsed
by Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, Oregon state agencies, the
city of Portland, Portland Audubon Society, the Student
Watershed Research Project at the Saturday Academy, the
Willamette Riverkeepers and countless other organizations and
citizens.
These Oregonians hope to capitalize on the assistance that
would be provided through the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative to turn their dream for the Willamette River into a
reality.
I support these efforts to restore the Willamette and I
support the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which will
help foster this and other local efforts to revive and
celebrate the rich river heritage of this country.
[The information referred follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.209
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. And Madam Chairman, let me say that
I am opposed to your legislation, and I am very much supportive
of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. I have to say very
emphatically that my constituents, and not only in my district,
but throughout the State of New Jersey, are very excited about
this initiative and, frankly, I think, would be just as shocked
to think that there is opposition to it as I think you are
shocked to think that it would proceed.
So, I guess it sort of indicates that there is a big
discrepancy, you know, maybe in different parts of the country
or in different ideologies. But I do want to stress that this
is something that a lot of people are excited about and are
very much in favor of, not only in my district and in New
Jersey but, I think, throughout the country.
And I think the reason for that is very simple. Our country
has been built around our Nation's rivers. From the very
beginning rivers served as an essential means of
transportation, as a conduit for trade and commerce, and as a
source of unlimited recreational opportunities.
The goal of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, as
announced by the President in the State of the Union address
and as outlined in two separate Federal Register notices and an
executive order that you mentioned that was signed by the
President earlier this month, is to support communities in
their efforts to restore and revitalize the economic, historic,
cultural, recreational, and environmental values of their
rivers. It's really not something, I think, that you can argue
about in terms of the purpose of the initiative.
And, again, I would stress, this is a non-regulatory
program. The American Heritage Rivers Initiative imposes no new
Federal regulations. It's also a domestic initiative. The
American Heritage Rivers Initiative does not give foreign
governments or international organizations any role or
authority over these rivers.
But really, most importantly, and I know that the Chairman
mentioned it, but I have to stress again that this is a purely
voluntary program. Local communities must nominate their own
river for designation as an American Heritage river and must
define their own plans for the river. In order to receive a
designation, the nomination must have broad-based support from
the local community, and it's my understanding that if the
river nomination does not have the support of the Member of
Congress from that district, it will more than likely be denied
a designation as an American Heritage river.
If there's a river community in any Member's district that
does not want to participate in this initiative for any reason,
the community does not have to participate. I'm certain that
those communities which are looking to have rivers designated
would welcome the reduction in competition. I have to say that,
actually, when I told some of my constituents that there were a
lot of Members in Congress who were opposed to this, in some
ways they were happy because they figured, well, maybe that
means there's less competition; there won't be as many
candidates.
The bottom line on the American Heritage Rivers Initiative
is that it is really a prime example of good government at
work. The initiative is going to reduce overlapping efforts
among Federal agencies, cut bureaucracy and red tape, and spur
economic development in local communities.
And I think that--I know that the Chairman mentioned the
Council on Environmental Quality. That is really what I think
the job of that council is. I mean, the whole purpose of the
council and what I have seen them do, not only in this case,
but in many others, is to simply try to reduce red tape, to cut
bureaucracy, to basically bring together Federal agencies--I
know the Chairman mentioned 12. In a way, that makes it more
likely that a project moves forward in a collective way without
having to go through a lot of hurdles.
And I've seen the Council on Environmental Quality most
recently work very effectively in this way with an effort to
put an end to the dumping of toxic dredge materials off the
coast of my district in New Jersey. On September 1, we actually
announced the end of the dumping of toxic dredge material.
Kathy McGinty was there in New Jersey to announce it, and if it
wasn't for the Council on Environmental Quality and their work
in trying to basically sift through all of these different
Federal agencies and come to a conclusion and get everybody
collectively to come to a consensus, we would still have that
dumping of toxic dredge material.
So, I think the purpose of the CEQ is pretty clear. I don't
think it's to create more bureaucracy or to get around
Congress. I think it's just the opposite. It's to try to bring
Federal agencies together to establish a consensus, and I think
this American Heritage Rivers Initiative is just another
example of that.
None of these things are going to proceed without
consensus, and I am certain that any Member of Congress could
veto the proposal in their district and it wouldn't even get to
the CEQ unless there was broad bipartisan support for the river
being designated.
I would yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. And without
objection, I will also enter into the record the opening
statement of Mr. Ken Calvert, my colleague from California.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of Hon. Ken Calvert, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
Remarks on the American Heritage Rivers Initiative
I thank the Gentlelady from Idaho for bringing this issue
before us today. The current Administration has consistently
been waging a war on the West, treading on private property
rights and the western way of life. Unfortunately, the
Administration has once again gone too far with the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative. I am shocked that the
Administration blatantly tried to skirt around the democratic
process by enacting the American Heritage Rivers Initiative
without receiving Congressional approval. And carried this
injustice one step further by shortening the required public
comment period.
I cosigned the letter to the Council on Environmental
Quality Chairwoman Katy McGinty advising her to extend the
comment period, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1842,
which would not only put a stop to further implementation of
this initiative, but also cease all funding. The War on the
West has gone on for too long, and its time we put a stop to
it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Are there any other opening statements?
With that I'd like to just proceed, then, to the Members
that we have in front of us. I'm very pleased that you're here;
that dem-
onstrates a lot of good interest, and I look forward to your
testimonies.
Mr. Radanovich. Madam Chair? Helen?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes. Yes, Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. I'd be curious to know, as we're discussing
this issue with various witnesses, whether or not, especially
Members, whether or not they have an interest for rivers in
their own districts to be designated as opposed to rivers
outside their district; if you would, please.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Would you please repeat that? I'm sorry,
Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. I just want to make sure that any Member
that is on record for supporting or opposing Heritage Rivers
indicates that they have a special desire for rivers in their
own districts or rivers in other Members' districts.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. We will, if there is no
objection from the Congressman who will be testifying, we would
like for you to indicate whether you are supporting rivers in
your own district or the issue in general.
So, I would like to recognize the Honorable Nancy Johnson,
first, for her testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NANCY JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, and thank you, Madam
Chairman for this opportunity. I appreciate your holding this
hearing.
I am a strong proponent of the designation of the
Connecticut River Basin as a national heritage river. It is the
largest river basin in New England. It covers four States, and
so on and so forth.
But my testimony today is in support of the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative. I respect the comments you made
about how this was developed and the lack of communication, and
I regret that. But I want to address myself to why I think this
innovative approach is really--why it has been so embraced in
New England and why there is so much enthusiasm for it among
the local communities that I represent, all kinds of groups of
people that I represent, because they really see it as an
opportunity to better preserve the historic, cultural,
economic, and environmental value of the rivers.
For the first time the small towns are seeing the values of
the rivers, and so they're beginning to think that this could
contribute to their economy. So there are a lot of ideas out
there; there's going to be a lot of development. We need to
make--I mean, I want to make sure that the development is
harmonious with environmental preservation goals as well as
economic revitalization goals, and so do the towns. So, we are
a densely populated part of the country. We have small towns,
and so along the river there are many towns.
You know, on some of the western rivers there are not so
many towns along the river. There are lots of towns along our
river, and so cooperation and coordination is extremely
important, but it's also hard. Small towns cannot afford the
kind of sophisticated per-
sonnel that can find, literally, the resources that we have
already appropriated because they're in--what--six or eight
different Federal agencies. So, we have resources out there. We
have technical assistance out there, but a little town with no
expertise has a very hard time finding these programs,
integrating them, coordinating with the town next to it.
And, truly, the opportunity here for a whole river basin to
be able to have one person in the bureaucracy who knows that
river and knows their problems and knows what people upstream
are doing and what people downstream are doing is really just
an--would be an extraordinary help to us; the problems inter-
agency, the problems with a single agency.
We have had a tremendous success rehabilitating the river
front in Hartford, and the river front in Hartford on both
banks now has parks, recreational facilities, and amphitheaters
at Riverfront Plaza. It's become a real economic driver for the
city. The area now attracts major sporting events like
professional water skiing competitions, but also was the site
of the champion bass fishing tournament. Now who would
associate that with Hartford, Connecticut? Nobody in their
right mind, a few years ago.
So, we have dealt with the river in a way that's good for
the river and good for the economy of this urban area. But the
Hartford river front project could never have gone forward if
they hadn't been able to get money from other places to get the
sophisticated personnel. It took them 18 months to get the
permit to just do a walkway across the river for pedestrians.
So we really do need to be able to cut through the red
tape. We really do need to be able to do inter-agency
cooperation. Little towns need somebody out there who knows the
whole river and what's being done and can provide them with
that kind of help.
Let me just conclude, because I don't want to take too much
of your time, but I spent 10 years working with this Committee
to get the Farmington River designated as a wild and scenic
river under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers program. And it
took a long time, because in my part of the Nation local
government is very, very strong, and people are very jealous of
local power. And they were afraid that if you studied the river
and you designated the river, you would control the river.
So, our designation legislation required a Committee--this
was when Reagan was president his first term--and we had
representatives from every town on the Committee. The
Department of Interior used to look at me and say, ``We don't
do it this way. We don't do it this way.'' I said, ``You don't
understand. We have to do it this way, because that's the way
we govern in New England.''
Anyway, out of it we came up with a designation bill, then,
that has set the model for New England, so now we have more
rivers designated, but it is completely different than the old
designation law because it retains the power to control
development and property rights and all those issues along the
river. And those towns committed themselves to a river
preservation plan that the Department of Interior said would
meet the wild and scenic river criteria, but it protected the
local communities from that fear that the Federal Government
would do to them that which they did not want done to them.
But it also gave the Federal Government support and gave
the towns the support and the technical assistance and, in
fact, the money to study the river in its initial phase that we
needed in order to get a healthy river management plan and
economic development plan in place. So, we have a unique local-
Federal partnership under the wild and scenic rivers program
through working with a part of the country that is absolutely
committed to local control. So they see this as no new
resources, no new authority, no new mandates, but an
opportunity to have somebody help them break through the
bureaucracy and the inter-agency barriers to developing and
preserving our river.
So, it's that part of it that I support. We're excited
about it. We think we're the best application, and, as I say to
the administration, you don't ever want to have a rivers
program that's only western or only southern. And for a long
time wild and scenics didn't have any designations in New
England, so I hope, at least, the designations under this
program will represent benefits across the Nation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Statement of Hon. Nancy L. Johnson, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Connecticut
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you as a committed
supporter of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Ever since President Clinton announced his intention to
create this program, I have been among its leading supporters
because this innovative approach is just what my local
communities need to restore and revitalize their rivers and
waterfronts. I recognized the promise this initiative holds for
the historic, cultural, economic and environmental value of
rivers such as the Connecticut River in my home state, simply
by enabling local communities to gain better access to
scattered Federal resources to achieve community defined goals.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative is about making the
Federal Government a better partner with local communities in
river conservation and revitalization efforts. The program will
assist river communities to gain timely and coordinated access
to existing programs and resources. The objective here is to
provide better delivery of Federal services in such a way that
is not only approved by local residents, but is designed by
local residents. It is entirely a ``bottom up'' program. For my
fellow Republicans, this should represent a welcomed departure
from more traditional conservation programs in that it moves
away from the usual Federal command and control approach toward
empowering local communities and supporting local initiatives.
Many of the supporters of H.R. 1842 cite their fear of an
impending Federal land grab and the loss of private property
rights as justification for blocking this program. But that
will not happen under this initiative. This is an entirely
voluntary program. Even the published notice in the Federal
Register stated that ``The initiative will create no new
regulatory requirements for individuals, or state or local
governments.'' The President reiterated this just 2 weeks ago
in a September 11 press conference in which he said, ``Every
step of the way, the initiative will be driven by the needs and
desires of the communities that choose to participate. There
will be no Federal mandates, no regulations, no restrictions on
property holder's rights.''
I believe the opposition to this program is based on a
misunderstanding of its structure and differing regional needs.
This program rests on the principle of local control and seeks
to break through the bureaucratic barriers that currently block
local access to existing Federal resources. Those barriers are
real and paralyzing to small towns without sophisticated
personnel and are particularly daunting to groups of small
towns that want to coordinate development projects. Because we
are an old and densely populated part of the nation, our river
towns value this support to make cooperation easier and reduce
bureaucratic and interagency barriers to need resources. The
goal of this program is to improve the efficiency of government
programs and promote economic growth in river towns. Those I
represent welcome this new opportunity.
This initiative is as much about the future as it is about
our past. I point to the Connecticut River and the new
Riverfront in Hartford, Connecticut. On both banks of the
river, parks, recreational facilities, amphitheaters and a
riverfront plaza have been completed or are under development.
This is providing a tremendous economic boon for the city. The
area now attracts major sporting events like professional water
ski competitions and championship bass fishing tournaments.
When Bud Light sponsored a triathalon in 1992, it brought in
more than 1100 athletes from more than 30 states with an
estimated local economic benefit of $4 million. The American
Fisheries Society will bring its national convention to
Hartford in 1998 with an expected economic benefit of $2
million.
The Riverfront was recognized by the prestigious American
Rivers organization as being one of America's most improved
urban rivers due to its phenomenal economic revitalization. And
yet when you talk with those who were responsible for this
change they can tell you how much red tape they had to deal
with to move ahead with restoration or revitalization efforts.
As successful as the Riverfront has been, it too had to contend
with lengthy bureaucratic delays even though it was in constant
consultation with the relevant agencies. It took the 18 months
to receive approval from the Army Corps of Engineers to build a
simple walk bridge. The Riverfront on the Connecticut River and
other waterways like it would enjoy even greater success with
the assistance that comes from receiving the designation of
being an American Heritage River.
For the sake of the local communities that surround our
great rivers, I urge the members of this Committee to support
this voluntary approach to the preservation of river areas of
historic and environmental value, to the expansion of cultural
richness and to the economic revitalization of our great river
basins as they run through old cities and pre-revolutionary
towns alike.
I thank the members of the Committee and hope that my
testimony will cause you to reevaluate this sensible
conservation program.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Nancy Johnson. I appreciate your
comments.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Herger.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WALLY HERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Herger. Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the
Committee, for this opportunity to express my strong support
for your legislation and to share my strong concerns regarding
the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
And let me state at this time, on behalf of an overwhelming
number of constituents who have contacted me over the last
several months, our northern California district stands very
strongly in opposition to any rivers being declared so under
this Act within our northern California district.
This initiative sets a terrible precedent for overriding
local involvement in land use, planning, and zoning issues, and
totally disregards authority of established community
governments. It also poses a serious threat to the rights of
private property owners across the Nation. Seventy percent of
the total land base in the United States is owned by private
individuals. By implementing a program that requires increased
Federal intervention in private property use and enjoyment,
this initiative sets up a situation ripe with the potential for
abuse.
Traditionally, the Federal Government has allowed private
property owners free use and maintenance of their land, so long
as it does not interfere with the use and enjoyment of
surrounding property owners. This initiative, however, bypasses
established procedures and interjects the Federal Government
into the planning and zoning processes historically undertaken
at local levels as a function of properly elected local
government.
Planning and zoning activities have developed along a
finely balanced set of practices and principles that ensures
each individual in the community first, has the right to be
heard and, second, that he or she has the right to reasonably
use his or her property. By allowing this Federal intervention,
the Clinton Administration interjects the Federal Government in
the local decision process and forces private land owners to
subjugate their own land use interest to that of the Federal
Government.
How is this accomplished? To begin with, the Executive
Order fails to define how much land and how many jurisdictions
will make up the land base of the nominated rivers.
Furthermore, the person in charge of administering the
designated river, called a river navigator, would be appointed
solely by the President. By disregarding existing political
boundaries and by appointing another Federal agent, whose job
is held only at the behest of the President, residents of the
river community are left with no political recourse to address
damages suffered as a result of the river designation.
Through tradition and well-established legal practices, the
Supreme Court has granted States and communities the authority
to institute local planning and zoning commissions. Under this
valid authority, these commissions follow a well-defined
process to develop a master plan for their communities. This
master plan is shared with the public. Proper notice is given.
Comments are submitted and hearings are held. Then the master
plan is voted on and officially adopted.
Unless this process is followed, and members of the public
are given the opportunity to participate, comment, and vote,
the courts have held time and time again that any regulatory
zoning ordinance pursuant to the master plan is considered
invalid.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative, on the other hand,
completely disregards this process and unilaterally throws out
more than 100 years of land use, planning, and zoning laws. In
addition, once an area is designated, there is no mechanism in
place to allow the community to undesignate itself. Without
this power in place, the President's designation of a river as
an American Heritage River becomes permanent.
In effect, this initiative therefore imposes an Escalante
monument on the different rivers every year. And with 70
percent of this Nation owned by private individuals, it will do
so in many areas where no Federal interests currently exists.
According to administration officials, however, we have nothing
to fear, quote: ``This is a voluntary program,'' close quote.
They say that only serves to, quote, ``facilitate cooperation
between communities and the Federal Government,'' close quote.
We are all in favor of the benefits of facilitated
cooperation; however, there is a cost involved that I do not
believe the American public is willing to pay. I do not
understand how adding another agency to the Federal bureaucracy
makes anything easier for local communities. Why, in an age
where we talk about re-inventing government do we turn around
and create more of the same? What communities really need are
for current Federal agencies to live up to their existing
duties and are more accountable to their stewardship.
Madam Chair, and members, over the last couple of months I
have continually heard from the citizens of my rural northern
California district regarding this issue. American Heritage
Rivers had become one of the hottest topics in my area. I am
here to relay my constituents' overwhelming sentiment opposing
this initiative, and urge this Committee and this Congress on
their behalf to make sure that not a penny is spent on its
implementation.
Again, I thank you for this opportunity to testify at your
hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Herger follows:]
Statement of Hon. Wally Herger, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee for
this opportunity to share my concerns regarding the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative.
This initiative sets a terrible precedent for overriding
local involvement in land use, planning, and zoning issues, and
totally disregards authority of established community
governments. It also poses a serious threat to the rights of
private property owners across the nation. Seventy percent of
the total land base in the United States is owned by private
individuals. By implementing a program that requires increased
Federal intervention in private property use and enjoyment,
this initiative sets up a situation ripe with the potential for
abuse. Traditionally, the Federal Government has allowed
private property owners free use and maintenance of their land
so long as their activities do not interfere with the use and
enjoyment of surrounding property owners.
This initiative, however, bypasses established procedures
and interjects the Federal Government into the planning and
zoning processes historically undertaken at local levels as a
function of properly elected local government. Planning and
zoning activities have developed along a finely balanced set of
practices and principles that ensure each individual in the
community first, has the right to be heard, and second, that he
or she has the right to reasonably use his or her property. By
allowing Federal intervention, the administration interjects
the Federal Government in the local decision process and forces
private landowners to subjugate their own land use interests to
that of the Federal Government. How is this accomplished?
To begin with, the executive order fails to define how much
land and how many jurisdictions will make up the land base of
the nominated rivers. Furthermore, the person in charge of
administering the designated river, called a river navigator,
will be appointed solely by the President. By disregarding
existing political boundaries, and by appointing another
Federal agent whose job is held only at the behest of the
President, residents of the river community are left with no
political recourse to address damages suffered as a result of
the river designation.
Through tradition and well-established legal principles,
the supreme court has granted states and communities the
authority to institute local planning and zoning commissions.
Under this valid authority these commissions follow a well-
defined process to develop a master development plan for their
communities. This master plan is shared with the public--proper
notice is given, comments are submitted and hearings are
held,--then the master plan is voted on and officially adopted.
Unless this process is followed, and members of the public are
given the opportunity to participate, comment and vote, the
courts have held time and time again that any regulatory zoning
ordinance instituted pursuant to the master plan is considered
invalid.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative, on the other hand,
completely disregards this process and unilaterally throws out
more than 100 years of land use, planning and zoning laws. In
addition, once an area is designated, there is no mechanism in
place to allow the community to undesignate itself. Without
this power in place, the President's designation of a river as
an American Heritage River becomes permanent. In effect, this
initiative therefore imposes an Escalante Monument on ten
different rivers every year, and with 70 percent of this nation
owned by private individuals it will do so in many areas where
no Federal interest exists.
According to administration officials, however, we have
nothing to fear. ``This is a voluntary Program,'' they say,
that only serves to ``facilitate cooperation between
communities and the Federal Government.'' We are all in favor
of the benefits of facilitated cooperation, however, there is a
cost involved that I do not believe the American public is
willing to pay. I do not understand how adding another agency
to the Federal bureaucracy makes anything easier for local
communities. Why, in an age where we talk about reinventing
government, do we turn around and create more of the same?
What communities really need are Federal agencies that live
up to their existing duties and are more accountable for their
stewardships.
Mr. Chairman, and Members, over the last couple months I
have continually heard from the people of my rural Northern
California district regarding this issue. American Heritage
Rivers has become one of the hottest issues in my district. I
am here to relay my constituents' overwhelming sentiment
opposing this initiative and urge this Committee and this
Congress, on their behalf, to make sure that not a penny is
spent on its implementation.
Again thank you for this opportunity to testify at this
hearing.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Herger. I appreciate your
testimony.
The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Cliff Stearns.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Stearns. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, and let me
just say I'm delighted to be here and have the opportunity to
speak. As you know, and perhaps members of the staff know, that
I am a co-sponsor of your bill to terminate the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative.
My colleague from Connecticut mentioned the good that this
bill--that the intention of the American Heritage Rivers has
with it. Let me point out that all of us--all of us--want to
care about our national rivers and waterways, but the
administration's plan does it without the participation of
Members of Congress and the State legislatures.
I pose this question for the Members of Congress: Would you
like to have this country run by notices in the Federal
Register? Wouldn't you like to have an opportunity for debate
on the House floor and the Senate, and then we advise the
President? Well, what the President did is notify the people
that he was going to establish this program in the Federal
Register. And as you'll recall, this proposal was only allowed
a 3-week pubic comment instead of the required 3 months. But
there was a lot of objection; a lot of people didn't
understand, so it was extended from June 9, 1997 until August
20, 1997.
Clearly, many people in my State, in my congressional
district in Florida, were very concerned. There was some talk
about designating the St. John's River, which is in the State
of Florida, and it is a beautiful river. But the question
became, What about private property owners, people who are
close and contiguous to the river? Who would decide if their
property was going to be impacted? How would they have a say-
so?
And, you know, when you looked at the recent Federal
Register notice, there was one page offered of vague and
nebulous language about water rights, land use, planning, and
water quality standards. But it did not address the fundamental
issue of how a private land owner can be excluded from a
designation. You own the property, you don't want to be a part
of it, you don't want to abide by this, quote, ``river
navigator.''
So the real question is, Are private property owners going
to be impacted? And why won't the administration bring it
through Congress and let us have a bill and debate it, instead
of notifying all the people of this fine land that their going
to do X-Y-Z in the Federal Register?
Now as you know, the Senate had a vote yesterday--last
week--concerning this, by Senator Tim Hutchinson, and he simply
said, ``Let's require that all private land owners that abut
the affected rivers be notified of this proposed designation.''
There was great debate on this; it did not pass.
But I think it's incumbent upon us, who have been elected
by the people, who represent the people, to say to ourselves,
``Let's not let the Federal Register decide what we're going to
do in this country. Don't let a water management within a State
decide and apply for permanent Federal regulation and
designation without the State representative, the State
senator, the Governor, the Congressman, and the Senator having
some say-so and debate it openly. If the administration wants
to push this, come to Congress, ask for funding. Don't strip
out funding from 13 different Federal agencies and use that
money under clandestine operations to push the American
Heritage Rivers program.''
Because they continually say, ``Well, it's not going to
cost any money. It's all voluntary.'' But they're taking money
from all these different appropriations, and that's how they're
doing it. So let's ask the administration to come back to
Congress and propose their bill, and let's talk about it. The
administration's claim continually to say that this is
voluntary, and this is something that can be debated on a local
level sort of sidesteps the issue that Congress should be
involved, and the Governors, as well as the State senators and
State representatives.
So, obviously, Madam Chairman, I support H.R. 1842, and I
think this is an attempt by the administration to sidestep
Congress, just like they tried to do with Fast Track and some
of these other agreements where there's not the participation.
And, so, I hope your bill passes. I hope many of the people on
my side will realize that they have a fiduciary responsibility
to speak out and try and let Congress take an act and implement
this before the administration does it without our vote. Thank
you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Stearns. It was good to hear
your testimony.
And the Chair now recognizes The Honorable Robert Scott.
Mr. Scott.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Scott. Thank you Madam Chairman, members of the
Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today to speak about the importance of preserving the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative set forth by the President in an
Executive Order issued earlier this month.
The preservation of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative
is important, because just the designation of a river as an
American Heritage River alone will serve as a catalyst to
increase tourism, economic development, environmental
protection, and preserve our heritage with virtually no
additional resources, other than what's already been
appropriated.
This initiative builds on existing community efforts, both
public and private, and provides coordination with Federal
agencies to further enhance efforts for economic
revitalization, environmental protection, and historic and
cultural preservation.
I'm sure that there are several excellent candidates for
designation as American Heritage rivers, and one is the James
River in Virginia. And in response to the gentleman from
California's inquiry, that's in my district and one that we're
very excited about. The communities surrounding the James
River, including many of those in my district, are excited
about this opportunity and are aggressively seeking designation
as one of the first rivers in the Nation to be designated an
American Heritage river, and fittingly so.
The James River is America's first river. The first forts
and farms and churches and villages, even the first hospital in
the English-speaking colonies, were all built along its shores.
From the first settlers at Jamestown, to the battlefields of
the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, to the dry docks of the
Newport News shipyard and other shipyards along the James
River, the James has played an important role in the
development of this country.
The James River watershed, covering approximately 25
percent of the State, has provided significant opportunities
for river-related industries along its 340-mile course for
centuries for its surrounding communities, including tourism,
national defense, ship-building, commercial fishing,
agriculture, and more recently, Virginia's growing industry,
the wine industry. It is home for the world's largest natural
harbor in Hampton Roads, a harbor which easily accommodates
America's biggest ships, the 90,000-ton aircraft carriers.
Communities surrounding the James have made a tremendous
headway in restoring its grandeur. They have spent hundreds of
millions of dollars on projects to improve the water quality in
an effort to preserve the James and to promote a healthier
Chesapeake Bay. Efforts include the Virginia History
Initiative, a public-private partnership to develop the
historical resources and tourism in Virginia, and the James
River Days, held since 1995 for white-water races and clean-up
days and historical re-enactments. So communities of Virginia
are committed to preserving the James.
While there are numerous initiatives on the State and local
level to enhance the James, at present there is no collective
plan of action with regard to river-related activities. The
American Heritage River designation will serve as a catalyst to
transform the current piecemeal approach of individual local
programs into a program with a broader agenda, whose purpose is
to assist in the historic preservation, the environmental
protection, and economic revitalization along the entire James.
The 30 localities along the length of the river, along with
their respective planning district commissions, are actively
involved in the planning and consideration of efforts to gain
designation for the James as an American Heritage river. The
effort is currently being led by the James River Heritage
Partnership, a coalition of governmental, civic, and business
leaders from 20 counties, nine cities, two towns, and two
Indian tribes.
I would, therefore, urge your skepticism of any efforts
which would stand in the way of the effort to combine Federal,
State, and local resources in the pursuit of a comprehensive
approach in restoring America's rivers for current and future
generations. Far from being a Federal take-over, this Executive
Order sets forth coordination of existing Federal resources
with those communities who voluntarily wish to apply to
participate in the program.
For those States or communities which have concerns about
the program because of perceived interference from the Federal
Government, I would offer this simple advice: Don't apply. I
implore you not to prevent other communities from taking
advantage of what others would want to pass up.
America's first river, the James River, wants to and
deserves to be designated as the first American Heritage river.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
And the Chair now recognizes Doc Hastings, from Washington.
Mr. Hastings.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for allowing me to
testify before your Committee this morning in support of H.R.
1842 and to tell you of my opposition to the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative. I would like to express my strong support
for the measure before you which would stop, I believe, all
further development and implementation of the President's
American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Let me emphasize this point, that this is simply not a new
regulation; rather, it is an entirely new program that should
be authorized, or at the very least debated, by this Congress.
This is not only a new way of delivering Federal services, but
it also provides for a new Federal service. Let me emphasize
that point: It's not a new way to deliver Federal services, but
it is, indeed, in my mind, a new Federal service. And if this
program is truly a better way to deliver Federal services, why
don't we just authorize this new delivery system government-
wide?
How will this program help or hurt local residents and
private property owners? How will this new program affect the
funding of different agencies that are involved? These are
questions that are normally answered during the thorough debate
that Congress engages in when new programs are laid before us.
However, this administration is attempting to circumvent the
constitutional role of Congress--oversight and approval of new
programs--and in my mind, to prevent an open and fair
discussion regarding the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
In addition, this administration does not have a stellar
record when it comes to protecting private property rights and
ensuring local decisionmaking authority in important regional
actions. For example, in central Washington, which is part of
my legislative or congressional district, we have seen this
administration attempt to control regional land use on a
massive scale through the Columbia Basin Ecosystem management
project. That proposal would, through new regulations, control
over 70 million acres in the Northwest.
Last year, the administration attempted to regulate eastern
Washington by designating the entire region a sole-source
aquifer. Well, since the sole-source aquifer designation hasn't
taken hold and the ecosystem management project appears to have
slowed down--and I might say mainly through the actions of the
Congress in the funding area--this administration has found a
new way to impose their bureaucratic regulations in the West--
the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
All new proposals of this scope should be debated by
Congress, period. Without a fair and open debate, how can we
know what the true intent is of the program? The simple answer
is, is that we can't, and that is precisely the reason why I
urge this Committee to favorably approve H.R. 1842. We must
stop this new initiative before the administration finally
succeeds in thwarting the will of Congress and the U.S.
citizens, and usurping control of our land by passing countless
new regulations.
And Madam Chairman, I would like to submit for the record
two articles, an editorial from the Tri-City Herald in my
district, and a newspaper article from the Seattle Times
talking about the problems that the tri-city area is having
with the land transfer problem.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hastings. And I bring it to your attention for this
reason. In the last Congress we passed legislation to allow
along the Columbia River, which is one of the great rivers in
the country, transfer of Federal property--specific Corps of
Engineers property--to the local entities, and there are five
local entities that are involved in this.
This article of August 17 and the editorial of August 17,
point out the difficulties that these local communities are
having in getting the Corps of Engineers simply to sit down and
transfer the land. Now I bring this to your attention because,
undoubtedly, somebody is going to come up here in favor of this
initiative and say, ``This is precisely what the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative is supposed to resolve.''
Well, I would conclude this: Why is it that we have to have
another government nanny, if you will, to oversee what
government is supposed to do for people in the first place? So,
if somebody were to come up here and say that this is precisely
what this new initiative is all about, to take care of all of
the problems in the tri-city area on the Columbia River, I hope
one of you will ask the question of why we have to have this
government nanny to oversee what government is supposed to do
for people in that area.
So with that, Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for this
hearing, and thank you for the opportunity to allow me to
testify this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Statement of Hon. Doc Hastings, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington
Mr. Chairman: Thank you for allowing me to testify before
your Committee this morning in support of H.R. 1842. I know you
have several more witnesses and I'll keep this as short as
possible.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, H.R. 1842 would stop all further
development and implementation of the President's new program,
the ``American Heritage Rivers Initiative.'' And let me
emphasize that point. This is a new way of delivering Federal
services but it also provides a new Federal service. And if
this program is a better way to deliver Federal services, why
don't we authorize this new delivery system government wide?
How will this new program help or hinder the local
residents and private property owners? How will this new
program affect the funding of the different agencies involved?
These are questions that are normally answered during the
thorough debate that Congress engages in when new programs are
laid before us. However, the Administration is attempting to
circumvent the Constitutional role of Congress--oversight and
approval of new Federal programs--and prevent an open and fair
discussion regarding the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Furthermore, the Administration does not have a stellar
record when it comes to protecting private property rights and
ensuring local decision-making authority in important regional
actions. In Central Washington alone, we have seen this
Administration attempt to control regional land use on a
massive scale through the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Project. This proposal would, through regulation,
control over 70 million acres in the Northwest. Last year, the
Administration attempted to regulate Eastern Washington by
designating the entire region a ``sole source aquifer.''
Since the Sole-Source Aquifer didn't work, and the
Ecosystem Management Project appears doomed, the Administration
has found a new way to impose their bureaucratic regulations in
the West--the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. All new
proposals of this scope should be debated by Congress, period.
Without a fair and open debate, how can we know the true intent
of the program? The simple answer is, we can't. And that is
precisely the reason I would urge you to approve H.R. 1842. We
must stop this new initiative before the Administration finally
succeeds in thwarting the will of the citizens and usurping
control of our land by passing countless new regulations.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing and
allowing me to testify.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Hastings, and without
objections, we will accept into the record the documents that
you suggested.
I would love to hear from Mr. Reyes, but it looks like
we're just going to be able to run and make the vote. We have
three votes coming up, and Mr. Reyes, I think it will take
about a half-hour; there are three procedural votes. We will
recess temporarily, and then be back in 30 minutes; we look
forward to hearing from you then.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Committee will come to order. The Chair
now recognizes The Honorable Jo Ann Emerson, from the State of
Missouri. Ms. Emerson.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JO ANN EMERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Mrs. Emerson. Madam Chairman, and members of the Committee,
I want to first thank you for holding this hearing on an
important subject that is of great interest to many, many of my
constituents in southern Missouri, and for allowing me to
testify.
As you certainly know, there is great concern among the
public about exactly what this initiative entails and many yet
unanswered questions about exactly what is being proposed.
I'll get right to the point, because I know you have other
witnesses that you would like to hear. In my opinion, the
Executive Order signed by the President on September 11 of this
year, while well-intentioned, I'm sure, has the potential to
seriously erode one of our most fundamental rights--the right
of property ownership.
While the broad goals as outlined by the President and the
Council on Environmental Quality to ``help communities protect
their river resources in a way that integrates natural resource
protection, economic development, and the preservation of
historic and cultural values'' are laudable and things we all
support, there are still many questions to be raised about
exactly what is being proposed.
The problem, as I see it, is that we have an Executive
Order that, originating from the executive branch, has not gone
through the committee process and has lacked any congressional
review. Had it not been for the strong interest of this
Committee and other Members, including myself, to request that
the ridiculously abbreviated comment period be extended, I have
no doubt that this proposal would have moved forward quietly
within the walls of the White House with few, if any, Members
of Congress aware of it. So I applaud you for being out in
front and really paying very close intention.
Second, this proposal is far-reaching and broad in its
mandate. It's my understanding, from what I have read, that
funding for this initiative would come from nine Cabinet
departments, and, in addition to that, there is proposed
funding from a number of agencies, including the EPA, the NEA,
the NEH, and the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation. I
think that in these times of making our government smaller and
more efficient, I can hardly see how a proposal that includes
nine Cabinets and numerous other agencies is in step with our
efforts to streamline government.
In addition, it is my contention that, from the outset,
this proposal has been controlled by environmental groups that
have tried on many occasions to stop economic development,
navigation, flood control, and any other activities on our
Nation's inland water system that may be contrary to their
agenda.
I know that most of the meetings held by the CEQ were
dominated by the input of what I call preservationist-type
environmental groups, and while I was not invited to
participate in one of these meetings, a very close friend of
mine, but who is an extreme environmental activist, I might
say, did attend and warned that this could, in fact, be a black
hole.
I know that none of my constituents were invited to attend,
as well, and while I applaud being able to have public
hearings--people notified through the Federal Register via
Heritage Rivers web site--most of the people in my district
don't have computers, and I dare say that they wouldn't know to
look in the Federal Register, as I'm sure few people in the
country would know to do.
Madam Chairperson, the entire eastern boundary of my
congressional district borders the Mississippi River, and the
Missouri River runs through the middle of the Show-Me State
just to our north. Both of these rivers have proved vital for
our State, our region, and our country's commerce and
productivity. Citizens of Missouri have fought many, many
battles over the years, most recently the Midwest floods of
1993 and 1995.
We have battled many, many proposals to let our network of
levees and flood control structures give way to ill-conceived
ideas of allowing our rivers to run their natural course along
their original flood plains. So, quite naturally, you can
understand why we're a little leery, to say the least, of
proposals that claim to, quote, ``enhance,'' end-quote, our
rivers. Enhancing can take on a variety of meanings, depending
on who is leading the enhancement.
I've heard from literally hundreds of constituents
throughout southern Missouri who are adamantly opposed to the
creation of this new bureaucracy. I'm also very pleased, Madam
Chairman, that you have introduced legislation to prohibit any
Federal funding to be used to implement the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative, and the hundreds of constituents who have
contacted me have asked me to support your legislation, which I
have proudly done.
It's also my understanding that Senator Hutchinson offered
an amendment to the Interior Appropriations during floor
consideration in the Senate that called for land owner
consultation and input, a clear definition of a river
community, and to make the initiative subject to the existing
provisions of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts.
Unfortunately, it failed by a few votes, and I must say that I
thought that the Senator's amendment was certainly very
responsible, and I'm very sad that it did, in fact, fail.
In closing, I'd like to state for the record that most
citizens in my congressional district are not necessarily
opposed to most of the concepts in this initiative. Everyone
wants to revitalize communities, bring in economic development,
and make our cities and towns more productive places in which
to live and work. But, as you may know, Missouri is the Show-Me
State, and we feel like we have yet to know and to be shown
exactly how this plan is supposed to work. Until my
constituents have a clear understanding of how this may or may
not directly impact them, they're going to remain naturally
skeptical and largely opposed to this initiative.
So I thank you again, Madam Chairman, for allowing me to
testify on this important issue, and I stand ready to help in
any way and would be glad to answer any questions you might
have.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Emerson follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jo Ann Emerson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I want to first thank you for holding this hearing on an
important subject that is of great interest to many, many of my
constituents in Southern Missouri and for allowing me to
testify. As you certainly know, there is great concern among
the public about exactly what this initiative entails and many
yet unanswered questions about exactly what is being proposed.
I'll get right to the point because I know you have other
witnesses that you would like to hear. In my opinion, the
Executive Order signed by the President on September 11th of
this year, while well-intentioned--I'm sure--has the potential
to seriously erode one of our most fundamental rights--the
right of property ownership. While the broad goals as outlined
by the President and the Council on Environmental Quality to
``help communities protect their river resources in a way that
integrates natural resource protection, economic development
and the preservation of historic and cultural values'' are
laudable and things we all support, there are still many
questions to be raised about exactly what is being proposed.
The problem, as I see it, is that we have an Executive
Order that, originating from the Executive branch, has not gone
through the committee process and has lacked any congressional
review. Had it not been for the strong interest of this
Committee and other Members, myself included, to request that
the ridiculously abbreviated comment period be extended, I have
no doubt that this proposal would have moved forward quietly
within the walls of the White House with very few, if any,
Members of Congress aware of it.
Second, this proposal is far-reaching and broad in its
mandate. It is my understanding that funding for this
initiative would come from 8 Cabinet departments including the
Departments of Defense, Justice, Transportation, Agriculture,
Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Interior and Energy.
In addition, there is proposed funding from a number of
agencies as well: EPA, NEA, NEH and the Advisory Council of
Historic Preservation. In these times of making our government
smaller and more efficient, I can hardly see how a proposal
that includes 8 cabinets and numerous other agencies is in step
with our efforts to streamline government.
In addition, it is my contention that from the outset, this
proposal has been controlled by environmental groups that have
tried on many occasions to stop economic development,
navigation, flood control, and any other activities on our
nation's inland waterway system that may be contrary to their
agenda. I know that most of the meetings held by the CEQ were
dominated by the input of what I call preservationist-type
environmental groups.
Mr. Chairman, the entire eastern boundary of my
congressional district borders the Mississippi River, and the
Missouri River runs through the middle of the Show-Me state
just to our north. Both of these rivers have proved vital for
our state, our region, and our country's commerce and
productivity. The citizens of Missouri have fought many battles
over the past few years due to the Midwest floods of 1993 and
1995. We have battled proposals to let our network of levees
and flood control structures give way to ill-conceived ideas of
allowing our rivers to run their natural course along their
original flood plains. So quite naturally, we are a little
leery, to say the least, of proposals that claim to ``enhance''
our rivers. Enhancing can take on a variety of meanings
depending on who is leading the enhancement.
I have heard from literally hundreds of constituents
throughout Southern Missouri who are adamantly opposed to the
creation of this new bureaucracy. Mr. Chairman, our colleague
and a valued member of your Committee, Mrs. Chenoweth, has
introduced legislation, H.R. 1842, to prohibit any Federal
funding to be used to implement the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative. Congress should act upon this bill soon and without
delay. It is my understanding that Senator Hutchinson offered
an amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill during floor
consideration that called for landowner consultation and input,
a clear definition of a river community, and to make the
initiative subject to the existing provisions of the Clean
Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts. Unfortunately, it failed by
just a few votes.
In closing, I would like to state for the record that most
citizens in my congressional district are not necessarily
opposed to most of the concepts in this initiative. Everybody
wants to revitalize communities, bring in economic development,
and make our cities and towns more productive places to live
and work. But as you may know, Missouri is the Show-Me state
and we feel like we have yet to be shown exactly how this plan
is supposed to work. Until my constituents have a clear
understanding of how this may or may not directly impact them,
they will remain naturally skeptical and largely opposed to
this initiative. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing
me to testify on this important issue and I stand ready to help
in any way that I can.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mrs. Emerson. I appreciate your
testimony, and we will certainly stay in touch.
Mrs. Emerson. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes The Honorable Mr. Kanjorski. Thank you
for being here.
Mr. Kanjorski. Thank you very much, Mrs. Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PAUL KANJORSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Kanjorski. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the hearings
today, and I look at this as an opportunity to really analyze
what the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is all about.
First, if I may say, to be facetious, I had suggested that
maybe we do an amendment to the President's order and
disqualify everyone west of the Mississippi River and south of
the Mason-Dixon line, with the exception of the James River of
Virginia.
I understand the fierce individuality of the West and the
South, and I think since we're all one Union we have to take
that into consideration. But the effort and the openness
expressed by the administration in putting together the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative, I think, is to be
responded to in a remarkable way and not in a conflicting way.
I look at this whole approach as intelligently, for the
first time, analyzing what should be done with our waterways.
And let me say that I come to it as a resident of one of the
major old rivers of Pennsylvania, the Susquehanna River. It has
suffered through both feast and famine, if you will. It
provided the mechanism for travel that sparked the coal and the
wood of the Industrial Revolution of America. And it has been
badly misused and abused to the point now that it is, in my
area of Wyoming Valley in northeastern Pennsylvania, the major
industrial polluter of the Chesapeake Bay because of the old
mine operations and the leakage therefrom of acid mine water
and the various spoilings that occurred as a result of bad
mining practices of 150 and 100 years ago.
I look at the opportunity of the Heritage Rivers to
rekindle and refocus the spirit of local communities and local
people to solve a problem that has been long there and ignored.
Now, I look back at Europe and I compare it to America, and I
say, ``That's why the challenge.''--that I would like to
congratulate the administration about.
We have a window of opportunity here. It's a very short
period of time, perhaps a decade or two, and after that, the
land masses along our rivers will be exposed to private
ownership to the extent that any attempt to use some natural
methods and methodologies of cleaning the water, such as re-
manufacture of wetlands, will be lost.
All a Member of Congress has to do to understand this is
travel through Europe, and particularly the great Rhine River
of Germany. There is absolutely no way that the river can be
reconstituted into clean water in any other way but a manual
and very expensive cleaning process, simply because, through
density and population expansion, there are no lands along the
river available any longer to natural uses for water
cleanliness.
So I urge that we support what it's doing, and I think as
Mr. Scott said, those Members of Congress, those States and
those communities that either fear black helicopters or fear
some conspiratorial intention of the U.S. Government, let them
wait for the second or the third round. There's nothing wrong
with that.
Those of us in the industrial Northeast and Midwest, that
understand that we have a limited time of opportunity to solve
the problems along our rivers or forever lose their benefits,
should be given the opportunity to act now.
The major compliment, I think, toward the entire endeavor
is, it isn't re-instilling government; it isn't a new program.
It's reinventing government in its finest way. There isn't a
Member of this Congress that can't appreciate the fact that
regardless of all of the projects and all of the programs that
we fund and put into place, sometimes we suffer from Catch-22
results. They just don't get done, or they don't get done
properly.
This whole concept of a navigator is not something to be
feared. It's something to be taken into consideration in terms
of, ``It's government at its best.'' It's going to use the
programs and the projects that are out there, but they're going
to be used in a more efficient and a more effective way and a
more focused way. I only wish that we could take this example,
study it for several years, and perhaps apply the navigator
approach to economic development.
You know, I sit on the Banking Committee, and I've been
heavily involved in economic development programs in this
country for the last 13 years. And the one thing I can tell you
that is lacking in all of these programs is the inability to
have the money focused and placed and targeted in those areas
that most need it, and the reason being is those areas usually
lack the grantsmanship and the talent and the focused ability
to know what programs are out there, how they can be used, and
how they can be utilized for economic development. And the same
thing is very true about the natural resources of this country.
In Pennsylvania, so unlike other States in the Union, we
have 2,400 municipalities in Pennsylvania. Along the
Susquehanna River, there's got to be, in Pennsylvania alone,
more than 700 municipalities and probably 18 counties.
There's absolutely no way in the world that they can come
together and have an impact on that river unless they are
coordinated and focused by the intentions of the Federal
Government, the State government--and then, with all the tools
possible--and then the navigator. It is a hope for us that this
will be an opportunity to re-focus people and to take us out of
the political structure of the 19th Century and, indeed, lead
us to the 21st Century so that we can be competitive.
And if we can take a natural resource, such as a river, and
accomplish that end, we will accomplish two things. We will
have saved our natural resources, the beauty of our river, and
the healthfulness of our river, but also it will be a great
tool for economic development, and it will be a great tool for
reinventing government, even at the local level, which, quite
frankly, contrary to most of my colleagues in Congress, I sort
of fear the concept of devolution.
We devolve power to where? To the States? To local
government?--that at this point in Pennsylvania, 95 percent of
our municipal governments have a population of less than 3,500
people and no professionalism at all at the local level. At the
State level, where they refuse to take the responsibility of
the administration of programs and projects that are presently
in existence in the Federal Government, and lose the
wherewithall and the support of the moneys that are available?
All anyone has to do to understand and appreciate the
benefits of the American Heritage Rivers concept is to come to
Pennsylvania, and you don't have to come to my district in
Pennsylvania. You can go to any river in any district in
Pennsylvania, and you'll fast appreciate that this concept of
reinventing government, that this administration is instilling
through this program, will provide an efficient and effective
way to use existing programs that really accomplish an end and
will have objectives that can be tested.
I urge this Committee to put aside partisanship, put aside
ideology, put aside philosophies that may be held because of
the particular regions or areas of the countries or
propensities we have when we come. And if you in the West, if
those in the South, that cannot see the benefit of this
program, let them stand aside. Let us show the way in the
Northeast, as we did for independence and liberty in this
country, once again, that we have a window of opportunity to
save our resources. Let us do it, and do not pass the pending
legislation to inhibit that program.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Kanjorski. I really
appreciated your comments. By the way, how would you like some
wolves in Pennsylvania?
Mr. Kanjorski. Some----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Wolves.
Mr. Kanjorski. Wolves?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Or grizzly bears.
Mr. Kanjorski. I think, Madam Chairman, that we have some
wolves in Pennsylvania, but they have two legs.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. By the way, I really did appreciate your
comments. I'm not sure how black helicopters fall into the
logic of this whole thing, but I guess that remains to be seen.
Mr. Kanjorski. I hope the Chairman will appreciate that's
all facetious, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kanjorski follows:]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I do want to let you know that we do have
another vote. This is a day when it seems we're being called on
a lot of votes. We just have one up, and it's on agreeing to
the legislative branch appropriations conference report. So, we
will temporarily adjourn the Committee, and be back in just a
little bit, probably about 15 minutes.
I appreciate your patience. We may have this pattern evolve
for the rest of the afternoon, but we will continue. Thank you
very much.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The meeting will come to order. I'll now
introduce our next panel, which consists of Ms. Katie McGinty,
Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality.
But before we continue, I would like to explain that I
intend to place all witnesses under oath, and this is a
formality of the Committee that is meant to assure open and
honest discussions and should not affect the witness or the
testimony given. I believe that all of the witnesses were
informed of this before appearing here today, and they have
each been provided a copy of the Committee Rules.
Ms. McGinty, if you would stand, please.
[Witness sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Ms. McGinty, would you please proceed with
your testimony?
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN McGINTY, CHAIR, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. McGinty. Thank you, Congressman.
Madam Chairman, and members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today on the important American
Heritage Rivers Initiative, and concomitantly, to express the
administration's strong and unequivocal opposition to H.R.
1842, that kills the initiative, and in our mind deprives
communities of the important support that they would otherwise
be entitled to.
Madam Chairman, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative
represents a historic opportunity for all of us to support our
citizens' efforts to revitalize their communities. American
Heritage Rivers focuses on the powerful link between healthy
rivers and healthy communities. As prescribed by the National
Environmental Policy Act, the initiative is built on the fact
that environmental, cultural, historical, and economic goals
are inextricably linked, and that citizens' voices must be
heard and must be the drivers in Federal action.
Why, rivers? Because, Madam Chair, as Mayor Richard Reardon
said of Los Angeles River, ``Rivers often represent the heart
of our city's spirit or our community's spirit. Rivers, with
their beauty, their history, their lore, their central economic
force, provide a centerpiece and organizing principle around
which disparate elements of a community can and do come
together to work toward the economic, cultural, and
environmental revitalization of their place, their home.''
Madam, I've had the privilege and opportunity to see this
happen in every part of our country. My own home town is
Philadelphia, and I will tell you 20 years ago the Delaware
River, the waterfront there, was not a place that you
particularly wanted to be--crime and drugs, trash and decay.
But as our Nation's bicentennial approached, that river,
the Delaware, captured our imaginations. It had a story to
tell, we realized: Penn's landing, George Washington's
crossing. It was part of what made our country, our city, great
indeed. Philadelphians, then, were determined to take that
waterfront back, push the pushers out, and restore the historic
buildings. Revitalizing that waterfront then compelled action
to take back Front Street and then Second Street and Third,
until now, the entire downtown area is thriving and is very
much alive.
Chattanooga, Tennessee: In 1969, Chattanooga was voted
America's dirtiest city. Today, Chattanooga is hailed as a
miracle city and one of America's most livable. And where did
that whole renaissance start? Well, it started with one high
school student who said, ``The Tennessee River is a special and
valuable resource. Why don't we celebrate it by putting a
first-of-its-kind fresh water aquarium on its banks?'' They
did, and now that aquarium and, indeed, the entire city is
world-renowned.
St. Paul, Minnesota: I visited there recently with Mayor
Norm Coleman and some 20 other mayors from the upper
Mississippi region. They gathered because of their tremendous
enthusiasm about this program. Mayor Coleman has taken to
calling renaming St. Paul, ``St. Paul on the Mississippi,'' and
he will tell you in no uncertain terms that re-connecting the
city with this wonderful river and this wonderful resource was
recently the single most important factor in his effort to
convince a major software manufacturer to locate back in the
city, bringing jobs back to that city. The river, restored,
makes that city an attractive, exciting, unique, and extremely
compelling place to be.
Members of the Committee, this spirit is alive all over our
country. We are blessed because it gives us the opportunity to
grow and thrive together. We should be celebrating this spirit.
You've heard from Members of Congress today who are
spearheading efforts around the country, and you will hear from
citizens from Texas, from Montana, from North Carolina, from
Pennsylvania. We should celebrate their spirit, as the American
Heritage Rivers program does. It would be a tragedy, indeed, if
H.R. 1842 were enacted, and this Committee were to vote to
crush the work of those citizens.
Madam Chairman, I would like to offer some declarative
statements about this program, because it's helpful to clarify,
I think, in simple terms what this is and what it is not. What
it is, it is 100 percent voluntary. Communities don't have to
participate, and after participating, at any time, a community
can opt out. It is 100 percent locally driven. This is purely a
bottoms-up process. Whether to participate and the plan for
participation are completely under the control and in the hands
of local citizens.
It's 100 percent non-regulatory. There are absolutely no
new regulatory requirements or restrictions of any kind that
will be imposed on an individual or State or local government
through this initiative. It is 100 percent in compliance with,
and, indeed, it is compelled by the National Environmental
Policy Act which charges us with stopping these false choices
between the economy and the environment and, instead,
integrating all of those considerations in every action we
undertake.
And, finally, it is 100 percent directed by the President's
and Vice President's effort to reinvent government. This
initiative is a directive to Federal agencies to serve citizens
better than they have, to do more with less, to cut red tape
and bureaucracy so citizens can access resources that they have
paid for in an efficient and effective way. The Federal
agencies are eager to serve citizens in this manner, and to us
in the administration it is incomprehensible that we would want
to tell them that they should not do so.
What this program is not: It is not an attempt by Federal
agencies to take on new authorities or responsibilities;
rather, it is an effort to execute current authorities, as
agencies should, in a coherent and coordinated way. It is not
an attempt to take anyone's private property. Private property
rights will in no way be adversely affected in this effort. And
to dispel any notion to the contrary, in conversations with
various Members of Congress, the final program incorporates
language on this matter penned by President Ronald Reagan.
Finally, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is not a
program of the United Nations, and no foreign governments will
be involved in this in any way.
Madam Chairman, this is a positive initiative. It is based
on principles that this Committee has espoused. It is locally
driven; it cuts bureaucracy and red tape; it brings economic
and social concerns into the environmental picture. Purely and
simply, it is government at the service of citizens.
It is, indeed, incomprehensible to us in the administration
why we would want to crush this effort and with it the work of
thousands of citizens across this country. That's what H.R.
1842 would do, and that why, respectfully, Madam Chairman, the
administration does strongly oppose the legislation.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McGinty may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Ms. McGinty.
The Chair now recognizes my colleague, Mr. Reyes. I'm glad
you could join us.
And Ms. McGinty, if you don't mind, I would like to call on
the Congressman to give his statement now. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SILVESTRE REYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Reyes. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It's been kind of an
interesting day here on the Hill. I appreciate this
opportunity.
Madam Chairman, and members of the Committee, I am here
today to oppose H.R. 1842, which would terminate the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative announced by President Clinton in
his State of the Union speech earlier this year.
Madam Chairman, I'll get right to the point. Communities
that don't want to participate should not. People who do not
want to support this initiative should not. But Members of
Congress who would prevent communities like El Paso in the 16th
district, which I represent, from participating, should not, as
well.
Maybe the rivers in your district are as clean as they need
to be. Maybe everyone in your district has running water. Maybe
the cities in your district have all the tourists they want,
and maybe your economy is thriving and the unemployment is low.
Maybe you don't need anyone to coordinate efforts to make the
best use of existing Federal programs. That's nice for those
that can afford that, but it doesn't help my district or the
Texas border region, which spans more than 1,250 miles and is
marked the entire length by the Rio Grande River.
According to a report issued this year by the Texas Water
Development Board and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission, the Texas border region needs about $2.5 billion--
that's $2.5 billion--for improvements to water and waste water
systems. More than 47,000 people in this region have no water
service at all. Four counties in this region need 80 percent of
the necessary improvements. One of those is El Paso, the most
populous county in the Texas border region and the county which
I represent.
I am a very strong supporter of the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative for the following reasons. No. 1, it is
voluntary and locally driven. No. 2, it creates no new
regulatory requirements, and No. 3, it uses existing Federal
resources to assist communities like ours.
I am satisfied that the concerns of the opponents of this
initiative have been addressed, and that I am working very
closely with my colleagues in Texas to submit a proposal to
designate the Rio Grande River as one of the first 10 rivers to
be designated through this initiative. Working through the
Council of Governments, we have developed a statement of
principles and a memorandum of agreement for this proposal for
the communities who choose--again, I say who choose--to
participate.
We believe this designation will accomplish three basic
things. One, it is using existing Federal resources, which will
help each community to estimate its water resources and its
needs for the next 50 years by providing technical assistance.
No. 2, it is using existing Federal resources which will help
each community in their efforts to seek Federal support for
local projects that preserve the region's history, culture, and
recreational resources. And, finally, No. 3, using existing
Federal resources, it will help each community create and
enhance its potential for increased tourism.
Finally, I want to point out that earlier this year the
Texas legislature passed a major overhaul of our State's water
law. Communities and regions need help as they work together to
meet the water needs for our future. Under the law signed by
Governor Bush, the Rio Grande River was cited as a special
case, and State agencies were instructed to seek Federal
assistance to help communities along the Rio Grande River. To
quote Winston Churchill, I will leave you with this one
thought: ``Give us the tools and we can finish the job.''
Madam Chairman, El Paso needs the tools that the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative has to offer. I urge you and this
Committee to allow us to have these tools, and, therefore, I
strongly oppose H.R. 1842, and I appreciate this opportunity to
testify before your committee. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reyes follows:]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Reyes. I know that your time
has been fragmented, and I very much appreciate your being here
and appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Reyes. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I wanted to ask you, how many miles of the
River does your district cover?
Mr. Reyes. Our district?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes.
Mr. Reyes. Our district probably encompasses about--I'm
going to guess--about 80 miles; I think it's 84, but it's about
80 miles. One of the--just to elaborate a little on your
question--one of the important aspects of this initiative that
I think it will provide for El Paso, and really, the El Paso-
Juarez region, is it will allow us to utilize existing
resources to clean up our water and our watershed area along
the Rio Grande River.
This is an opportunity that I think is unique, because
since we share an international boundary--a city of 700,000 on
our side of the border with a city of 2 million people--it will
provide us an opportunity to work together to make the best
possible usage of something that, historically, has been used
to designate our differences. It brings together our region and
our community to utilize it to the best of both of our
abilities, both on the Mexican side and the United States side.
I have had an opportunity to discuss it with leaders on the
Mexican side of the river, and they're excited about an
opportunity that finally would give us an initiative where we
could clean up the water, would promote tourism, and finally
participate in the long-range process that impacts not just El
Paso-Juarez, but also all of the communities that the river
serves until it empties into the Gulf of Mexico.
So, 1,250 miles ultimately would be affected by just our
initiative in the El Paso-Juarez region.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I just wondered--I was just handed by
Congressman Bonilla his news release stating that he was in
support of my bill, and he represents 800 miles of the river.
And so, there are certainly a lot of different opinions coming
out of Texas.
Mr. Reyes. Well--and you know, just to clear up that,
because I have had a number of conversations with our
colleague, Congressman Bonilla. The Laredo area supports the
initiative. They're facing essentially the same situation the
El Paso-Juarez region faces, because they've got Laredo on one
side of the international boundary and Nuevo Laredo on the
Mexican side. They're very excited about this opportunity to
get this designation to be able to consolidate efforts, not
just federally on our side, but internationally with Mexico for
the benefit of that whole region.
So, there is, I guess--everybody knows this is not an issue
that's unanimously agreed to or opposed. It depends on what the
local perspective and what the local possibilities may be. So,
with all due respect to my colleague, Congressman Bonilla,
there are areas within his district that are in support of this
initiative.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. I did have just one quick question
for the Congressman. If the Rio Grande was designated, or part
of it was designated as an American Heritage river, how many
congressional districts would touch on to the area that would
be designated that way?
Mr. Reyes. In Texas, there would be five. It would be
Congressman Ortiz, Congressman Hinojosa, Congressman Rodriguez,
Congressman Bonilla, and myself, in Texas.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Again, Mr. Reyes, thank you very much for
your testimony and for being here with us.
Mr. Reyes. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair will now recognize the members
for questions with Mrs. McGinty, and the Chair first recognizes
Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that.
The last time you were here, Ms. McGinty, we talked about
politics and the political implications of this kind of
program. You are aware, I believe, that my concern is that
having a river navigator who is tied to the administration--
this, or whatever following administration we have--would have
the ability to pressure or punish or reward certain areas of
the country or certain congressional districts, depending upon
whether you're looking at it as a Presidential election or a
congressional election.
Since we had that discussion, have you had a chance to
think about the potential implications of the use of this
program? What we're doing here is we're creating a system, as
you say, to cut red tape. That means focusing resources out of
a broad program run by people who respond to Congress into a
narrow process, which may well have significant political clout
behind it. Have you considered the implications of that? And
how would you expect to avoid having that happen?
Ms. McGinty. Well, the point very definitely is to have
those agencies working at the behest of local citizens, that
citizens would be in the driver's seat. Since our earlier
hearing here, we have also worked on the concept of the river
navigator and have added in the final program a provision which
states that the local community will put together the job
description, if you will, for the river navigator. That
person's role and responsibility will be, again, driven by the
local community. So we have added that.
Mr. Cannon. Pardon me, but every community is going to want
the maximum number of dollars, and, therefore, the description
is going to be exactly what an administration--this or a
Republican or any other administration--would want. And to the
degree that a President has the ability to look over the
country and strategically plan how to affect districts, if he's
willing to ally the power of his office with the particular
river navigator, the navigator is going to be doing what the
city wants. That's why it would be an effective tool.
Ms. McGinty. Well, I'd also, though, remind us that a
community, any community, is not going to be a part of this
program at all in order for that scenario to eventuate, unless
they have elected to become a part of this program. So that,
for example, if you have in mind that this is a political tool
and places will be chosen around the country for political
favor, that is, I think, pretty well precluded by the notion
that it's not top down. Communities participate bottom up.
Mr. Cannon. But many communities will want to participate
in a program where they can cut the red tape----
Ms. McGinty. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. [continuing] and shake money out of current
programs. So you're going to have--even though, I think, that
if you listen to the testimony and who's interested, we have a
very different problem on the Rio Grande River, as Mr. Reyes
just talked about, from what we have in most of the rest of the
West. We have a very different problem in the Northeast, where
mining has been terrifically destructive, where we have brown
sites. So we have very different problems around the country.
Nevertheless, virtually every city is going to want to be
able to shake some of that cash loose, and in the end I don't
see--I don't think you're being responsive to the question. How
is it that you're going to create a context for the river
navigator to operate that doesn't allow him to also reward or
punish people or regions politically.
And let's take, for example, over the next three years or
so, before the next Presidential election, I suspect that
you're going to go through two or three iterations of awarding
these initiatives. That would mean 10 in 1998, 10 in 1999, and
probably 10 in the year 2000.
Ms. McGinty. Unless this program kills us first.
Mr. Cannon. Pardon me? Well, that's what we hope--that's
what some of us hope, of course--with some reason, I think.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cannon. But Mr. Reyes has just testified that five
districts, five congressional districts, would be affected in
Texas alone.
Ms. McGinty. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. My guess is you're going to average three
districts. If you have 30 rivers or systems named as an
American Heritage Rivers under the initiative, that would be in
the ball park of 90 or 100 congressional seats. That is a
terrific amount of narrow particular contact. Every President,
as I said before, Republican or Democrat, has tried to boost
the economy appropriately to enhance his likelihood of getting
re-elected. That is such a tempting temptation, and I think
that this administration has shown that it is willing to submit
to those temptations in the past.
How on earth could we look at this program and say that we
can protect that from happening?
Ms. McGinty. Well, I just can, I guess, itemize the things
we've tried to do to insulate this from politics. One, again,
is that it is bottom-up; it's not top-down. That's one.
Two, what the river navigator him or herself will be able
to do will be described and prescribed by the local community.
Three, we have also added the notion of a blue ribbon FACA
panel will be brought together to help in the selection of
these things. So it won't just be the administration making
this----
Mr. Cannon. Will that panel have oversight or just be part
of the selection process?
Ms. McGinty. We will have out for comment what the role of
the FACA should be. Certainly, it will have a major role in the
selection.
Mr. Cannon. OK. Could I ask unanimous consent for another
couple of minutes, please?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. So what you're saying is what you said before,
but I don't think it responds to what I believe is the fact.
Every city, every community, every river basin community is
going to want money.
Ms. McGinty. Sure.
Mr. Cannon. And, therefore, they are not the people to
control how the goodies are passed out by a river navigator who
can easily have highest-level access in this administration or
any other administration. Where is the safeguard that will keep
the integrity of the programs that are going to be rated for
these narrow communities which will want the money? They will
want the rating to have because they get a disproportionate
particular benefit.
Ms. McGinty. Well, let me respond in this way, because I
think it relates to questions that have also been asked
previously by this Committee, and that is, that to the extent
you're envisioning a scenario where programs can be channeled
toward a certain community as opposed to another one, there is
nothing in this initiative that can touch the criteria that are
written in law and regulation for every program that's
authorized and appropriated by this Committee or others in the
Congress.
Mr. Cannon. Pardon me, Ms. McGinty, because my time is
limited, but what you're doing, what you have said, your stated
objective is to cut red tape?
Ms. McGinty. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. Now the red tape is the process that protects
the integrity of how we dish out money in America. What you're
suggesting is that we're going to cut the red tape on the one
hand, but it won't be cut in such a way as to give a
disproportionate benefit that has a political ring to it, and I
don't understand. Those are inconsistent positions. In other
words, you want to do with this bill what seems to me to open
the Pandora's box of political favoritism--a wharf goes here,
not there; this is a Democrat or that's a Republican; he gets
the benefit; the district doesn't. It seems to me that you're
creating my case for me by the way you're answering the
question.
Ms. McGinty. Well, I mean, I would assume that there is
plenty of red tape that can be cut before we get to the
essentials of a program. Indeed, I think this Congress has
stated many times that there is at least a little bit of
inefficiency out there that maybe we could work on eliminating,
and we're trying to do that.
Mr. Cannon. And, frankly, the inefficiency is significant,
but it doesn't go to what I think may create a much greater
inefficiency by cutting out the safeguards. And what I haven't
heard yet--and of course we've talked about this before, but I
have not yet heard--anything, any part of the program, any
context that will protect this program from the whims or
desires of a powerful President in an election year, and that
concerns me greatly. There are many other concerns that I have;
we don't have time to go into those.
But how could I support a program that is tailormade to
slit the purse and drop money where it will have the most
political impact? I think that's improper, and that's why I
oppose your program and support this bill.
Ms. McGinty. The last thing I'd just say is the oversight
role of this Committee, and every other committee on Capitol
Hill, will certainly be there and retained, in order to oversee
how the various programs are being----
Mr. Cannon. That oversight would be dramatically different
if the Congress was controlled by the same party as the
administration. This Democratic administration or a Republican
administration--the intensity of the desire to oversee is not
there, and this is not a little thing; this is a huge political
impact.
And I apologize, Madam Chairman, for going overtime here.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And welcome, Ms. McGinty, to the panel. I am also vice
chairman of the Western Caucus, and would like to extend an
invitation to you to visit with our Western Caucus at some time
in the future----
Ms. McGinty. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. [continuing] if you'd like.
Ms. McGinty. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Previously to coming to Washington, I was a
Mariposa County supervisor in California, a small county of
about 15,000 people. Mariposa has about 1,500 people in it. And
through my work on the planning commission and also the county
board of supervisors, we were able to bring into the county
general plan a small creek called Mariposa Creek, which drains
into the San Joaquin River, which eventually drains into San
Francisco Bay, and did it without Federal participation. I have
to tell you that I object strongly to this initiative.
And I wanted to bring that up along with the other examples
that you had brought up that were originated without Federal
participation. And I'm afraid that something like this
initiative is a bit like what happened in the crime bill a few
years ago with midnight basketball, that was brought up in one
community in an urban area; it was a great idea for a school
district somewhere to open up the gyms to people all night. It
ended up being an idea that somebody got a hold of, made a
Federal program out of it, and we realized that a one-size-
fits-all-type approach to some of this stuff was just foolish.
And I have to admit that I feel the same way about this
initiative. I would rather, if the administration is concerned
about the rivers in this country, that they would realize that
you actually get better environmental protection by encouraging
private property incentives and local control, and not through
Federal programs.
And, you know, most of the people that testified in favor
of the Heritage Rivers--in fact, I've got the list of those
States, the people that testified for it, and how much Federal
ownership is involved in their States. I come from California;
44 million acres are owned by the Federal Government, which
is--California is a big State, but that totals 48 percent of
our land mass. And we had a gentleman from Pennsylvania
testifying about the fact that maybe some people in the West
are fearful of black helicopters and all these other things,
but Pennsylvania is less than 5 percent owned by the Federal
Government; New York is .5 percent; Virginia is a little bit
more, somewhere between 5 and 20 percent. Connecticut--my
friend Nancy Johnson was testifying for it--less than 1 percent
of Connecticut is in Federal ownership. Texas--my good friend
from Texas comes from a State where about 5 percent or less is
owned by the Federal Government.
And my advice to any of them is that, if you want to take
care of an issue, the last person you want involved in it is
the Federal Government, and it's almost a smack in the face to
your citizens to not understand why you can't come up with
these solutions on your own, as evidenced by your examples that
you pointed out prior to going into the development of the
Heritage Rivers.
So what I would like to see, in my view, the administration
do is encourage--for example, in California there was an air
quality issue for the San Joaquin Basin. As you know, it's
ringed by the coast range and the Sierra Nevadas. In order to
address the problem, the counties got together and formed a
joint powers agreement to deal with the problem. So this was
intrastate, which may be a little bit different than the
gentleman from the Rio Grande, who has an international border
to deal with, but it was an issue where the counties took care
of their own problems through a joint powers agreement. I would
venture to guess that would be probably the same solution for
Nancy Johnson in Connecticut, and most of the other people that
are in there.
And rather than developing a new program like this, and
having a river navigator and some of these things, you're more
better off, I think, encouraging communities to begin to
realize what are the assets in their own communities--these
rivers and these things.
I come from a State, again, that's 48 percent federally
owned. The tiny river that I--or the tiny creek that I had a
hand in helping out is connected by about 3 hours' drive to the
San Francisco Bay. People that are in and around the San
Francisco Bay are not necessarily conducive, nor are they very
well-informed as to what's best for the riparian nature in my
own area. Those rivers in between, too, also drain through the
San Joaquin Valley, which is some of the richest farm ground in
the United States, which, by current Federal policy, is going
to lead to the urbanization of that valley and the degradation
of that environment, simply because we have got a community
that is not close to the resource, and which I feel is the
future of environmentalism, and that's why its nexus should be
around local control and private property rights, because those
people that are so closely attached to the environment know how
to take care of the environment better than those that are far
away.
Conversely, those people that are farther away from the
environment and live in urban areas are less subject to flighty
ideas of nature and environmental protection, promoted by
people that are really out of touch with good environmental
protection. And so to develop another Federal program, rather
than encouraging what's going on in the first place, I think is
counterproductive. And that's why I object to--actually in
support of Ms. Chenoweth's bill, but also object strongly to--I
think it's a novel approach on the part of the administration
to deal with a serious issue. And I think if you want to be
really serious, you need to begin to deal with ways to
encourage people to do what they're doing already.
Ms. McGinty. Madam Chair, if I might respond? I see the
light's on.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes.
Ms. McGinty. Thank you.
There's much in what you said, which is what we are at
least endeavoring to do here, and I would very much welcome the
opportunity to visit with you to discuss it in more detail, but
let me just hit on a couple of the points that I think you so
well-articulated.
The effort here is to have local people connected with
their environment, their economic resources, identify what they
consider to be their challenging, and to plan the vision for
their own future. But the only point is that, in response to
that, shouldn't those communities have access to the resources
that they are paying for, whether it is, as you suggest: Can
they get information on what are their economic assets? Are
there data bases that can help them to analyze that? What about
the qualities of their river and the watershed area?
The fact is that there are technical resources, financial
resources, that are deposited in these various Federal
agencies, but it is hard for local communities, struggling with
their own issues and problems, to be able to go to the myriad
of agencies and demand those resources.
Mr. Radanovich. If I can respond just briefly and have a
little more time, Madam Chair--I wouldn't--let me comment on
that, and that is to say that it is not the issue of access to
information; it is the inspiring of local citizens to see that
happen with their own local communities. You can't develop a
Federal program that accomplishes that.
Ms. McGinty. Agreed, but this program will not take that to
a community. Again, it's a community inspired to come together
that comes to us and submits an application. This is locally
driven. And, in fact, since the President announced this
initiative, many communities have become inspired to pull
together themselves and to say, hey, we're proud of our place;
we can compete for this. And they are coming bottoms-up to us;
we're not going top-down to them. It is their initiative.
Mr. Radanovich. Well, all I can say is that I don't want
the people of the Bay Area coming to my small community in
Mariposa telling me how to run a river.
Ms. McGinty. And under this program, they will not be able
to. They will not be able to submit an application under this
program.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much. I'm very interested in this
issue, and I think I'm very surprised at what I'm hearing in
this hearing today, statements that people have made, including
some of my colleagues from California. I, like you, served in
county government and went on to serve in the legislature and
chaired the local government committee, which had jurisdiction
over 6,000 governments in California, and formed the Tourism
Caucus in the California legislature. And when I've been back
here, I've formed the National Scenic Byways and All American
Roads Caucus, which is made up of Republicans and Democrats
from around the country.
And I just notice, looking down the list, that all the
people that oppose this legislation, none of them have a Scenic
Byway or All American Road in their district. So I guess you
have--like Winston Churchill said: the greatest thing to fear
is fear itself--by people who haven't realized what benefits
can be derived.
And let me understand this. This is a bottoms-up process.
It doesn't exist without people coming and petitioning and
wanting a Heritage River, isn't that correct?
Ms. McGinty. Yes, it is correct.
Mr. Farr. And if you come to the government right now and
try to petition for anything, you have all different
departments you have to go to, and what you're trying to do is
consolidate in one stop? I mean, it's interesting that the same
people who support fast track oppose this kind of position of
trying to have fast track in the government bureaucracy, so
that you can get a decision.
So what you're trying to do is two-part. One is initiate
from the bottoms-up an application for a Heritage River, and if
that application is approved, then consolidate the
decisionmaking process so that they can get answers to
questions quickly without having to say that you've got to go
to 13 different doors and different departments to get a
response; is that correct? That's all it really does?
Ms. McGinty. That's pretty much it, yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. Well, then, where is all this fear? I mean,
everybody I know is trying to get more help to try to promote
our outdoors. I mean, the last time I checked, tourism in
America, I never found a tourist that went out to look at oil
wells and real estate signs. Mega-Trend says that the biggest
economy in this country in the outdoors is watchable wildlife,
and that more people are looking at wildlife than all the
national professional sports in this country. I mean, it's a
big, big economy.
Mr. Radanovich, who opposes this Federal idea, comes out
and lobbies for Federal water supports for his crops, lobbies
for Federal money to promote wine sales overseas, lobbies for
cotton subsidies, lobbies for help for the famous Federal
Yosemite National Park in his district, lobbies for moneys for
the road to get to Yosemite, and has I think stated very well
that he was able on a county board of supervisors to protect
the riparian corridor of a creek. And, therefore, you don't
need the Federal Government to protect creeks----
Mrs. Chenoweth. I'd remind the gentleman from California
that the issue is American Heritage Rivers----
Mr. Farr. And I'm getting to that. This is exactly--you've
made my point, that this is not called the American Heritage
Creek; it's called the American Heritage River because the
river runs through it. It runs through a lot of stuff,
sometimes even more than one State. So you need a Federal role
in order to protect the river.
And I guess what I'm worried about is that the legislation
suggests that we've got to go out and fear something that the
community has to start in the first place. I thought we were
the ones that supported local government and local control. Why
are we trying to tell our communities that they can't come to
Washington and ask for help with trying to do something that's
a lineal in effect.
Ms. McGinty. Yes, and I do want to just underscore that
this is completely at the initiative of communities. I have to
echo what Congressman Scott said before me, which is if a
community does not want to participate, they simply should not
apply. There is enough interest in this program that there will
be plenty of communities who do need the resources, as
Congressman Reyes has said, to be able to revitalize their
economy and bring life back into their communities.
Mr. Farr. Well, I am very--we are very involved in the
National Scenic Byway and All American Roads, and it's gotten
so much popularity because of the fact that if you protect the
right, the scenic viewshed of these highways, and you keep them
rural and you keep them in their natural state, people can see
the great America experience, and then Congress Members from
those districts lobby like mad in ISTEA to protect it, in a
caucus we've formed to do it. Because why? It's jobs; it's not
just pretty scenery. It's more employment; it's more
visitation; it's more opportunity. And I would just hope that
people who think that there's some kind of--that this is a
siege of local control, this is a threat of local control, are
just upside-down in that attitude. You know, they're the same
people that will come here--I see there's a lot of city and
county folks that come here; they come here and lobby for all
kinds of Federal help, for community block grants, for highway
money, for housing money, for all kinds of stuff, and the Farm
Bureau's included. I sit on the Agriculture Committee; I watch
it all. And then they turn around and think that this is going
to be some kind of threat.
I can guarantee you, I represent the central coast of
California. We get no Federal subsidies in agriculture, and we
do a better job of agriculture than anybody. We also have the
California coast of Big Sur and Monterey and Carmel, and these
towns are towns that would support this in a quick minute,
because it's going to be more jobs and more opportunity and
better for the local economy. I think the President's doing a
great job, and I'm really proud of the work you're doing for
the President.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I want to thank the gentleman from
California. I do want to remind the gentleman from California,
with regard to the fast track comment, the President is in
favor of fast track and the President is in favor of the
American Heritage Rivers, and I won't yield----
Mr. Farr. And there is fast track in this bill.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Excuse me. And, also, I wanted to let you
know that Congress did crate a Pennsylvania oil field heritage
area, so apparently the politicians believe that people still
go look at oil fields.
Mr. Radanovich. Well, if the Chair would yield, too--if you
don't mind, the only statement that I want to make is it's not
an issue of fear; it's an issue of how--what is the best way to
take care our environment? And a program coming from
Washington, in my view, does not encourage what I think the
future of environmentalism is, and that is local control and
private property incentive.
Mr. Farr. And that's why we created national flood plain
insurance, because local control could not deal with flooding
rivers.
Mr. Radanovich. This is with regard to rivers, and I'd let
my statement stand.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much. These are the times
that try men's souls with regards to votes on procedure about
every 15 minutes, and I know your souls are being tried; the
soles of my feet are being tried. I wore the wrong shoes today.
But, anyway, I am very sorry; we are called for another
vote. This vote is on a motion to adjourn, and as far as I
know, unlike last time, it will only be one vote, and as such,
we'll probably be back in 15 minutes, and we will then resume
with questions from Mr. Schaefer. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Committee will resume with questioning
from Mr. Bob Schaefer from Colorado.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ms. McGinty,
welcome to the Committee.
Ms. McGinty. Thank you.
Mr. Schaffer. I wanted to just say I was encouraged
actually by the comment you made, I believe it was, to Mr.
Cannon about the--or maybe it was Mr. Radanovich; I don't
recall at the moment--about accountability with respect to the
Congress----
Ms. McGinty. Yes.
Mr. Schaffer. [continuing] and our involvement in the
Heritage Rivers Initiative, and so on; that our role as
overseers or the oversight capacity this Committee has does, in
fact, give us a certain amount of leverage. And so I would like
you to expound on that a little bit more, if you would, about
how you envision that taking place at some other point in time,
if maybe a year from now we find some irregularities to which
we might object, and how you would envision our interaction
taking place in a way that would result in meaningful progress.
Ms. McGinty. Yes. Well, just as an example, there may be a
community that, as part of their plan, for example, would like
help in accessing brown fields grants. That would be one part
of their plan. They've got an abandoned industrial site on a
riverfront; they would like grant money to help revitalize
that. They go to the river navigator and they say, ``This is
something we're interested in. How can you help us to pursue
that objective?'' And the river navigator's job would be to
facilitate their work with the Environmental Protection Agency
to secure a brown fields grant.
Now this Committee or the appropriate committee on Capitol
Hill that has oversight on EPA's budget, and the brown fields
program in particular, would retain that oversight if the
Committee felt that that particular community was not the
proper recipient of a browns field grant. And that all is
intact.
Mr. Schaffer. We're actually moving in a little bit
different direction. I mean specifically with respect to the
Council on Environmental Quality----
Ms. McGinty. Yes.
Mr. Schaffer. [continuing] and the implementation of this
Act. Because what this question and this bill is all about is
just the cash, frankly, at this point and whether the Congress
has any recognizable role, at least on the administration's
viewpoint, in the dollars associated with implementing the
plan.
Let me just direct my comments that way. How much is the
program going to cost?
Ms. McGinty. Well, there are no new or additional funds
that are involved in this program at all because the program is
only about coordinating programs that are otherwise authorized
and appropriated by Congress.
Mr. Schaffer. We're talking about 10 new, potentially 10
employees, new employees a year? I don't know what all other
additional costs that are associated with just the
organization, and so on, but there must be some sense of what
the expenditures involving this initiative amount to. Can you
tell us what that might be?
Ms. McGinty. Well, the staff that have been involved in
this initiative to date, and the ones that will continue to be
involved, are already Federal employees charged with programs
and responsibilities that bear on river revitalization. That's
what they do. They are now doing it in a coordinated fashion.
That's the difference.
Mr. Schaffer. So the program is free to the American
taxpayers; is that what I'm hearing?
Ms. McGinty. No, it is not free, because there are endless
numbers of programs authorized and appropriated by the Congress
that exist and that will be coordinated through this
initiative.
Mr. Schaffer. For 10 river coordinators or 10 navigators,
as they are called, which will be--they may be employed in some
other agency or department presently. When you bring these
resources through the coordination of the Heritage River
Initiative, do you have any estimate on what the cost of the
initiative would be, of that consolidation would be? How much
money are we----
Ms. McGinty. No, I understand. We do not expect there would
be any additive cost, because the persons involved in this
initiative are already Federal employees charged with these
responsibilities. We will be asking those employees to do more,
but that's part of the reinventing government initiative; it's
do more with less, and we've had success in asking employees to
do more with less.
Mr. Schaffer. Mrs. Johnson from Connecticut, when she spoke
earlier, mentioned that one of the projects in Hartford,
Connecticut was held up for a considerable amount of time
because it took 18 months to get Federal permit.
Ms. McGinty. Yes.
Mr. Schaffer. When it comes to asking Federal employees to
do more, wouldn't one example be speeding up the time it takes
to get a permit from the Federal Government were they are
currently and without the need for a new program?
Ms. McGinty. Absolutely, and that's why this isn't a new
program; it is expediting, making more efficient, the programs
that are out there and existing.
Mr. Schaffer. If in a year from now this Committee may have
questions about the budgeting, the funding, associated with the
initiative, how would you propose that the Congress deal with
the costs associated with the initiative?
Ms. McGinty. Well, I am certainly, and will be, responsive
to the Committee at any time. And in addition, again, each of
the agencies that will be participating are certainly obliged
to be, and will be, responsive to members of the Committee and
to the Congress in general.
Mr. Schaffer. I appreciate the commitment for
responsiveness. Back on June 4, this Committee sent a letter to
you asking for a comprehensive review of all budgetary
reprogramming required in fiscal year 1998 be provided to the
Committee. As of today, we have not received any kind of
response. Are you aware of any response that you have given us
with respect to that letter?
Ms. McGinty. The response given at the hearing--and I'll
reiterate it here today--is that there will be no need for
reprogramming. We have not reprogrammed in 1997. We will not
request any reprogramming in 1998, but we will submit that to
you formally in writing as well.
Mr. Schaffer. Have you submitted anything to us so far?
Ms. McGinty. Not in writing, no.
Mr. Schaffer. On July 3, this Committee requested to
provide detailed accounting of all travel costs, per diem, and
meeting costs for the Federal agency personnel involved in the
American River--Heritage River stakeholders' meetings that have
already been held throughout the United States during April and
May. We have not received any response to that inquiry. Are you
aware of any response that you might have made that we may not
have received?
Ms. McGinty. I'm sorry, I'm not aware of the inquiry, but I
certainly will look into it.
Mr. Schaffer. Do you think it's possible that there were
travel costs, per diem, and other meeting costs associated with
those stakeholder meetings?
Ms. McGinty. I would assume so, yes. I mean, we were
immediately responsive to any invitation from any person in any
part of the country to come and hear concerns and/or to provide
further information for those who want to participate in the
program.
Mr. Schaffer. Back on July 31 of this year, this Committee
requested that you provide detailed answers to questions for
the record on the Committee with respect to the American
Heritage Rivers Program, and that, the meeting that we had on
July 15, and those questions were directed at the Council on
Environmental Quality, the Department of the Interior, and the
Department of Agriculture. Your agency was requested to
coordinate the responses to those questions. As of today, we
have not received any response from the Council on
Environmental Quality. Do you know if that's----
Ms. McGinty. Yes, that's what I was originally referring
to. We responded orally. We will respond in writing very soon.
Mr. Schaffer. What has occurred in the interim between
those previous meetings and today, unfortunately, is that the
administration has gone ahead with an Executive Order and that
rules have been suggested in The Federal Register--all outside
of the acknowledgment of these three written inquiries on
behalf of a congressional committee. So I really go back to my
original question on accountability and oversight. When you
reassure this Committee that there will be an opportunity for
exchange and that this kind of exchange is the way that we
exercise accountability on behalf of the American taxpayers,
I'd just merely point out that it is--that my confidence that
that will occur is eroded somewhat because of the several
efforts that this Committee has made just to get simple and
basic information that we have not received; the cooperation
and coordination has not occurred on a Committee basis, and the
administration has gone forward anyway with an Executive Order
and with rules in the Federal record, and has essentially
ignored the House of Representatives and the Resources
Committee.
Ms. McGinty. Well, I would say, sir, with all due respect,
we, ourselves, visited on this issue, and you raised several
issues--all of which were addressed in coordination with your
office immediately by my office, and they are reflected in the
final program. Whether it was your questions concerning water
rights or your questions concerning local land use decisions--
all of those we immediately responded to. The program details
that are in the final program here are very responsive to
issues that were raised by Members of Congress.
In addition to what I had referred to before, Congressman
Skeen had raised a question about property rights, and in
coordination with him, the program now has language penned by
President Reagan that he agreed to and that is now here. So
when it comes to the substantive programmatic details, we have
been very responsive, and the program reflects the very
valuable input of this Committee and other committees.
Mr. Schaffer. Well, I'm more than willing to acknowledge
and commend you for the communications you've had with
individual members of the Committee. I don't want to detract
from that because I believe that to be also important. But with
respect to accountability and oversight, you specifically
mentioned this Committee, and this is the Committee that deals
with resource-related topics. My status as a Member of Congress
is not--is nowhere near the status of a sitting committee with
a chairman and members that are appointed and formally
appointed, and so on. That is the context with which I think
you raised your assurances of accountability and the questions
that I asked regarding the specific inquiries, written
inquiries, that were made through this Committee that were
ignored.
So why is it, do you believe, the American public should
place any confidence in this oversight and accountability
relationship that the Congress has with the administration,
when the three documented examples of requests for information
have gone unanswered, and in the meantime the administration
moves far ahead anyway with Executive Orders and rulemaking
within the Federal Register?
Ms. McGinty. Well, I would say, sir, that today's
proceedings are strong evidence of the vigorous oversight role
and the tenacity of this Committee to be very much involved in
this program, and to make sure that oversight is being
conducted.
Mr. Schaffer. Lacking other members, Madam Chairman, may I
ask unanimous consent for a little more time?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Absolutely.
Mr. Schaffer. Let me ask about the 90-day comment period.
The comment period ran from May 19 to August 20, as I recall.
There was a request from--I don't know; it seems 20--from 55
Members of Congress to extend that comment period further. That
request was rejected, and I'd like to ask you why that request
was not honored.
Ms. McGinty. Yes, there were equal requests not to extend
the comment period, both from the House and the Senate, many
Members saying that their communities were anxiously awaiting
this program, wanting to participate and asking us, in light of
the fact that we had had more outreach and communication and
public comment on this initiative than almost any initiative
that one can think of, that it was time to move on and not to
delay and frustrate communities who were waiting to
participate.
Mr. Schaffer. Well, notwithstanding the opinions or the
differences of opinions by Members of Congress, the decision
was made, nonetheless, to not extend----
Ms. McGinty. Yes, with this----
Mr. Schaffer. [continuing] the comment period, and that's
the decision that I'd like you to defend.
Ms. McGinty. And that's what I am trying to do. There were
two requests to extend the comment period. We responded
positively to the first request, and we did extend the comment
period for more than 60 days. When the second request came, at
that point after we had had more than 90 days of public
comment, when the second request came, there were equal
requests saying, ``Please don't frustrate the citizens in my
community any longer. They have been waiting since the
President's State-of-the-Union Address in January of the year.
It's time for the delay to stop and let's move on.''
And we thought that the proper balance was, having
respected those who wanted delay in the first instance, that
respect was due to those who were vigorously opposed to further
delay in the second instance, and that was a fair way to move
forward.
Mr. Schaffer. So in the second instance, the requests for
additional extension of the--or extension of the comment period
were, in your opinion, just not as persuasive as those to close
the comment period at the 90 days? Is that accurate?
Ms. McGinty. Especially given the fact that we had 90 days
of comments; we had visits with more than 100 Members of
Congress; we traveled to every region in this country where
there were public hearings. I personally had traveled to every
place I was invited to come and hear from communities who are
interested in this. The outreach on this is extensive, which is
why I answered your earlier question about whether or not there
were expenditures in travel on this program: There certainly
have been, because we have been enormously responsive to those
who have wanted to comment and to be heard on the program.
Mr. Schaffer. During the comment period, the report that
you published suggested there were approximately 1,700 comments
received, and throughout the course of the appendix of that as
well--I think it's appendix 2--it gives a summary of what some
of those comments were, and kind of categorizes them. But
nowhere in this report does it suggest how many were for, how
many were against, how many comments were negative or positive,
and so on. Is there any kind of recording or tally of those for
or those against, of the 1,700 comments that you received
during that 90-day period?
Ms. McGinty. I do believe we have that analysis, and I can
provide it. I don't have it--the numbers--off the top of my
head.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Schaffer. Well, can you tell us generally? Was it
evenly split, overwhelmingly in favor, or overwhelmingly
opposed?
Ms. McGinty. I can't give an estimation of it. There were
communities who were strongly in support of it; there were
individuals who were vigorously opposed, and I think we heard
from some of that representation today, as well as those who
were in favor.
Mr. Schaffer. I just find it somewhat remarkable that you
don't even have a sense of whether the respondents were
somewhat favorable, mixed, opposed. Even if it seems to be a
close call, that would seem certainly an indicator for the need
for caution.
Ms. McGinty. No, there's definitely difference of opinion
with regard to this initiative, and I think this hearing has
been very instructive in elucidating where there is difference
of opinion. So I would not--let me be clear. The comments were
not 100 percent positive. The only thing I am hesitating to do
here is to put an exact number on how many were positive and
how many were negative. There is definitely difference of
opinion with regard to this initiative.
Mr. Schaffer. The State constitution in my State suggests
that--this speaks more to the substance of the program--the
State constitution in my State, and I know many western States
as well, is very clear that the allocation of water rights and
the establishment of water rights and appropriations in my
State--they're established in the Constitution. They're within
the domain of States. My take on the whole concept of local
control here is perhaps different than others might be. When I
read the 10th Amendment, suggesting that powers not
specifically enumerated to the Federal Government in the
Constitution are reserved to the States or to the people, city
government isn't mentioned in there for some reason, and
neither is the counties, and so on.
Now, as it turns out, in my State there is great deference
to counties and local governments, but I guess the question is,
the emphasis here seems to skip over the State level of
government on the establishment of a Rivers Initiative in the
designation, and relies upon communities and municipalities,
neighborhoods, or whatever the case may be.
In a semi-arid State like Colorado, there is wide
disagreement, as you might imagine, even between communities
within a State. Communities fight over water routinely under
our State provisions. Now we manage to negotiate those and to
arbitrate those very well as a State with several years of
history as a State in developing those water laws.
I guess my concern is the neglect of a statewide approach
on the river process. You have given the veto authority, or
suggested that it exists, for Members of Congress. What about a
United States Senator----
Ms. McGinty. Yes----
Mr. Schaffer. [continuing] on a statewide basis or a
Governor or a State legislator voting--legislature voting by
resolution?
Ms. McGinty. Well, let me say several things. First of all,
in terms of the veto, a Senator will have the right to exercise
that veto as well as the Member of Congress in whose district
this river, or stretch of river, might run. In addition, The
Federal Register notice makes clear the authorities of the
State and also the necessity of having State support. It
itemizes, for example, letters of endorsement from not just
local governments, but State and tribal government. It also
makes clear, as it says here, of course, any projects
identified in the nomination packet must undergo applicable
State review processes.
After our conversations, it also makes clear that the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative, for example, may not
conflict with matters of State or local government
jurisdiction, and then itemizes some of those things that you
were helpful in elucidating. So there is a very strong emphasis
on that throughout the program.
Mr. Schaffer. And I appreciate those. That gesture, I
assure you, is appreciated; that those comments were considered
as a result of the individual meeting that you and I had.
The thing about rules established in the Federal Register
is that they're pretty easy to change, and how about opting-
out----
Ms. McGinty. Yes.
Mr. Schaffer. [continuing] after a program is established?
Is it your intention that a Member of Congress can have a
Heritage River delisted or removed from the program after the
program is established, and has that been provided for? And any
individual, for that matter, who might find their land or their
farm or their water rights associated with the program, how do
they go about opting-out and protecting themselves?
Ms. McGinty. Well, the Member of Congress certainly, as I
had previously articulated, is afforded in this program a veto
right in terms of the existence or the participation in this
program. In addition to that, in light of the comments----
Mr. Schaffer. That's after the existence of the program?
Ms. McGinty. It's a veto authority that the Member of
Congress would retain throughout the existence of the program.
In addition to that, we have provided that at the time of the
nomination or selection of a particular river that the
community also would dictate to us their procedures for opting
out. Any community that becomes part of this program can opt
out at any time, and moreover, the procedures through which
that will be accomplished we will not dictate, but the
community themselves will decide how that process would be
effectuated.
Mr. Schaffer. The community as a whole--so that does not
include an individual farmer or rancher or water rights-holder;
is that correct?
Ms. McGinty. Unless a particular community said, well, the
way we're going to opt out of this is that if any particular
member of the community says they no longer want their
community to participate, then we want to opt out; under those
circumstances, we would say that's fine.
Mr. Schaffer. You know, it happens every day in the West,
and I suppose throughout the rest of the country, too, that a
municipality or a county, unfortunately, intrudes upon the
rights of an individual. Right now I think most local elected
officials are very responsible. I mean, just be clear about
that. But on occasion, there is a zoning issue or some water
rights-related matter, where a municipality and an individual
rights-holder come in conflict.
What this seems to do here, as you described, is in fact
gives a local government entity a certain amount of authority
that they presently do not have over another rights-holder,
whether it be property rights or water rights. Again, going
back to how the Tenth Amendment reads and has been stated, that
these rights belong to the States or to the people, and I'm
concerned that the people part of that seem to have no recourse
if they decide they want to opt out of a program that they do
not wish to be a part of, which you've described as non-
regulatory.
Ms. McGinty. Well, again, they do have every right to opt
out, and they will prescribe the procedures through which
they'll opt out. We will not tell them how they can or can't
opt out. It will be purely up to----
Mr. Schaffer. Let me just ask the other way, just to be
sure: Is it possible, under the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative, that a farmer or a rancher or a water rights-holder
might find themselves within the boundaries of a Heritage River
designation and be unable to opt out of the designation?
Ms. McGinty. If they are able to--if the community says,
here are the procedures through which we want to opt out of
this program, and they're procedures A through Z; procedure M
involves an individual landowner comes and petitions and says,
``We don't want to be part of this anymore.'' That will govern
the process.
Mr. Schaffer. So if a community comes up with a
recommendation that excludes the ability of a property rights-
holder to remove himself from the process, you will empower
that community through the initiative, through this Executive
Order; is that correct?
Ms. McGinty. Well, again, we have to keep in mind what this
initiative does. If there is any part of it that an individual
landowner is not supportive of, to go back to this: Any protect
needs to undergo applicable State and local review processing.
So if that owner right now has a right under State or local law
to say no to particular project, that right is still there, and
there's nothing in this initiative that changes the rights of
those local landowners in any way.
Mr. Schaffer. I'm really hoping my questioning helps you
understand the confusion you stated when you started out--that
you don't understand why anybody would oppose this, because it
seems so free and open and voluntary, and so on. What we are
nailing down here in this one example a situation where a
landowner or a water rights-holder might find themselves within
the boundary of a Heritage River Initiative and be bound by
rules that presently do not exist, by new authority that has
been created by this Executive Order that empowers a local
community in a way that they are not empowered presently.
Now even though they follow local meetings and go through
the routine process of public hearings, and so on, the fact
remains that the communities today that we're speaking about do
not have the authority to establish a Heritage Rivers
designation in a way that compels the Federal--I'll finish--in
a way that compels the Federal Government like we are here.
That is the new authority that this represents and the real
threat that landowners, ranchers, farmers, water rights-holders
are very concerned about, and downstream or people with senior
water rights in headwater States like mine.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. McGinty. But there are no new rules that come with this
program or new authorities. There's no new regulation or
regulatory program of any kind that an individual is not
subject today that they would be subject to tomorrow, if their
particular--the place where they lived was designated an
American Heritage River. There is nothing from a regulatory or
a legal point of view that will be different tomorrow than it
is today for that individual.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Schaefer, I thank you for your
questioning, and I do want to let you know that, should you
wish to have another period of questioning, we will go for
another round.
Mr. Schaffer. I appreciate your tolerance on that, Madam
Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Ms. McGinty, when you were before the
Committee before, you mentioned that--and, again, you
reiterated the fact that anyone who wanted to opt out could.
And along that line, I wanted to present to you a letter from
our entire Idaho delegation, Senators and Congressmen, saying
our whole State wants to opt out, and two letters from the
Idaho Farm Bureau, and then a letter from the Awahee County
commissioners. That's a county down in the southwest corner of
Idaho, and so we would like to present those to you at this
time. And we would like a written response to all of the
letters, and most especially the delegation letter.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. What is your oral response to the
delegation letter?
Ms. McGinty. Thank you very much.
[Laughter.]
Ms. McGinty. I will respond immediately, but I assume that
this is a statement that communities in Idaho will not be
participating in this program, and you've exercised a veto, and
I think that's just fine. This program isn't for every
community, and if the communities of Idaho don't want to be
part of it, that's their choice.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So you will accept no nominations from
Idaho; right?
Ms. McGinty. Well, I guess I would return the question. I
would assume that this represents a consultation with the
people of Idaho, and you don't expect a nomination to come from
the people of Idaho.
Mrs. Chenoweth. That's not what your testimony indicated
before. You did indicate, if a Congressman or anyone----
Ms. McGinty. Absolutely. You will have the absolute right
to veto----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Veto power.
Ms. McGinty. [continuing] any nomination that should come
from people within your district to nominate a river in your
district. And on top of that, Senators from the State would
have the veto authority to reject the nomination of citizens
from their entire State, yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What our delegation has expressed by making
this move is that no petition should even be entertained from
Idaho.
Ms. McGinty. That's fine, and that's the authority that you
certainly have to nominate--I mean to veto any nomination that
otherwise might be forthcoming.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And will you respect that?
Ms. McGinty. I will respect it. I will not make the choices
of which communities are designated, but there's no question
that you have the absolute authority to ensure that no
community in your district, and the Senators from the State
have the absolute authority to make sure that no community in
the entire State, is a participant in this program. And that is
fine and that will be respected.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I do want to reiterate the fact that at the
previous hearings you said--and it's on the record--that
congressional opposition would stop the initiative in a
congressional district, and in this case we've got all the
Senators----
Ms. McGinty. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. [continuing] and Congressmen lined up----
Ms. McGinty. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. [continuing] and it will stop the process
in Idaho?
Ms. McGinty. Absolutely. Well, it will--it will result in a
veto on any nomination that would be submitted. Now I have no
way of knowing if there is a nomination forthcoming from Idaho,
but it would be a veto, yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, let me ask you again: Will any
initiative petitions be entertained by you from Idaho?
Ms. McGinty. I consider that there is now an absolute veto
on any participation in this program by anyone in Idaho.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK. Thank you.
Ms. McGinty, you are an attorney, aren't you?
Ms. McGinty. I went to law school, Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. And did you take the bar?
Ms. McGinty. I never took the bar exam, no. I'm not
licensed to practice in any State of the Union.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You cited--let me back up and say that one
of the biggest questions that I have is the authority under
which this initiative has been put forth. And while I
understand that agencies of the Executive have broad
discretionary powers, especially with generally 2.5 percent of
their budget for discretionary expenditure, that has normally
been based on existing authorized programs.
Ms. McGinty. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Now this program has not been authorized by
the Congress. It has not been--monies have not been
appropriated for it, and you did cite your authority as coming
from NEPA. Now you're not an officer of the court, I
understand, because you haven't passed the bar, but you are an
attorney.
Ms. McGinty. I have not taken the bar exam.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Oh, excuse me--have not taken the bar.
There's a big difference there.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. But you did cite NEPA. Could you give me
the cite exactly in NEPA that authorizes this?
Ms. McGinty. Certainly. I am charged and sworn to execute
the National Environmental Policy Act. The National
Environmental Policy Act requires every Federal agency in every
major undertaking that they--in every major action that they
undertake that has significant impact on the environment to
coordinate environmental, economic, and social considerations
into that decisionmaking first, and, second, to afford the
citizens of the country, and including in particular local
citizens, to participate in that decisionmaking. That's what is
at the heart of what we are trying to do.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Could you cite within----
Ms. McGinty. Section 101 of the National Environmental
Policy Act.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Section 101 states the purposes of NEPA.
Ms. McGinty. It's section 101(b)(4)--precisely requires the
Federal agencies to do what I've just articulated.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And that is coordinate?
Ms. McGinty. It is to integrate environmental, economic,
and social considerations into every major Federal action and
to afford the public an opportunity to participate in
decisionmaking.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Now the purpose of NEPA, beginning as
affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in a decision beginning with
National Helium v. Morton, and then never overturned, was that
the purpose of NEPA was to have the Federal Government produce
not only studies, but a decision on government actions on man
and his environment, and it took NEPA absolutely no further
than the study process. And so, therefore, I still actively
question that there has ever been authority to grant certain
rivers under a certain designation and expend funds and appoint
people. We may never agree on that, Ms. McGinty, but I do feel
very strongly that the agencies of the Federal Government need
to stay in absolute line with the authority given them by
Congress.
The Anti-Deficiency Act, in fact, that I cited in my
opening statements, in Title 31, also very clearly states that
an officer or an employee of the United States may not make
appropriations outside that which has been authorized, and in
some cases recently, such as the Endangered Species Act, the
courts have adjudged that appropriating funds is in and of
itself authorizing programs, but that, again, departs--this is
a new departure from even those concepts.
So I really think that we're moving out--you're an
adventurous and very bright woman, but I think that we are
embarking on a new form of law under this United States that
may be a bit dangerous, and could amount to a very definite
shift of power into the Office of the Executive.
Ms. McGinty. Chairman, if I might, I absolutely understand
and respect the requirements of the Anti-Deficiency Act, and I
think you're absolutely right to raise that up among the
various laws that this initiative and every initiative needs to
be in accord with, but I do want to underscore again that there
is no new expenditure of funds of any kind here. This is simply
an effort to try to facilitate a coordination among the
agencies and a more efficient execution of the responsibilities
they are charged with under any number of statutes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In your earlier testimony, you were stating
what the program would be--voluntary, locally driven, et
cetera. You finished that cluster of items that it would be
with a statement that I believe you said it would exert parent
authority. Was that correct? Did I hear that correctly?
Ms. McGinty. I wouldn't understand what that statement was
referring to, no. It could be the Philadelphia accent. I don't
know.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. According to the Executive Order, it
appears that you are the permanent co-chair of the Interagency
Committee on the American Heritage Rivers, and will develop the
procedures regarding the panel of experts that make
recommendations to the President regarding the merit of
particular river designations. Some would argue that this makes
you the administration's rivers czar, which is a very, very
powerful position in these United States. I just wondered, who,
other than the President and his staff, and the Vice President,
and maybe some members of his staff, but I would doubt that,
oversee your work on this particular program?
Ms. McGinty. I report directly to the President of the
United States.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK. What was the sense of urgency that
caused the President to issue the Executive Order rather than
establishing this program through the more conventional means
through the Congress--by having authority, statutory authority
come through the Congress?
Ms. McGinty. Let me address the first part of the question,
which is the urgency--to recall for the Committee the history
that the President announced his intention to launch this
initiative in January of this year. It's been since January
that we have engaged in extensive public outreach, public
comment, participation, and development of the program. So it
has been the better part of nine months that have been invested
in putting this initiative together. So I don't--there's been a
longer history here to this, and this has been a program that
has involved extensive outreach and public participation.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I just wish that our permitting process in
every area could be as efficient as the White House has
demonstrated their willingness to be in this particular issue.
And I do want to bring back the testimony that Nancy Johnson
had given the Committee and comments that you made about how
the communities in Pennsylvania had actually gone about
cleaning up the Delaware River, and that is the people's river.
We all do feel very much a part of that effort and commend the
people of that river basin for their fine work. But there are
already-existing programs. Based on the good testimony that we
have heard today, there is the National Rural Development
Partnership Program that was initiated by President Bush, and
generally, as far as the general overall ability to coordinate
and try to help communities break rule the regulatory maze,
President Bush had envisioned pulling this together to help
communities.
There are hundreds of examples where communities have been
helped. The only problem is that this new American Heritage
Rivers Initiative will have the Director of CEQ as pretty much
the head kahoona, the head honcho in this whole thing. And we
are reinventing that which seemed to have been working pretty
well under President Bush.
There are many programs and a lot of help that can be given
to communities in the form of grants, and so forth, and I
realize there are small communities who may not have the
sophistication to know where to go, but I know that those of us
who are responsive to our constituents are inundated with
casework and are willing to respond.
Did you wish to respond to that?
Ms. McGinty. Just to affirm the point that there are any
number of programs out there that communities turn in any
direction they can, including their congressional
representatives, including having sometimes to hire expensive
experts to help them wade through and access the resources that
are their resources and that should be more effectively and
efficiently put at their disposal.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Can you tell me, for the record, how do you
define a river community for the purposes of this new program?
Ms. McGinty. There is no one-size-fits-all definition or
command and control of what a river community constitutes.
Because this is 100 percent locally driven, the locality will
self-select. A community will decide or not decide to
participate and will define itself, both who's going to be and
who's going to be out, and what are the programs that the
community is interested in pursuing.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Ms. McGinty, I want to return to the fact
that our entire delegation asked to have the entire State of
Idaho opted out of this program. What about a river nominated
over its entire length of the water or the watershed, like the
Columbia River, from a source outside of, say, my State? But
some part of the river is within the boundaries of my State or
the watershed impacts my State or my district. I want to get it
on the record. Would that kind of nomination impact a
nomination in Idaho, or will the veto that has been asserted
here remain intact?
Ms. McGinty. Chairman, if the example is that a nomination
comes forward and proposes that a stretch of river be
nominated, and some part of that river has been subject to a
veto, the veto extends to the proposal. That proposal would be
vetoed, and it would be up to those who still want to
participate to go back and recraft their nomination proposal,
so that the community that has opted out is no longer a part of
it, yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. Mr. Schaefer, do you have any
other questions?
Mr. Schaffer. Yes, I would like to visit the river
navigator topic again. One of the items that I had raised in
our private meeting, as well as in the last hearing that we
had, was with respect to river navigators or other Federal
employees involved in the Heritage River Initiative, whether
they would be permitted or whether we should expect to see them
testifying in a water court or before a board of county
commissioners or a city council with respect to a zoning
decision of some sort? Are these--my desire, as you know, is to
have them precluded from participating in those kinds of
hearings. Do you see any way to accommodate that desire on
behalf of my constituents?
Ms. McGinty. Well, as a result of our conversations, we
have accommodated these issues in at least two places in the
final Federal Register notice. For example, the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative will not conflict with matters of
State and local government jurisdiction, such as--and land use
planning is mentioned there specifically in a separate item. It
also reiterates that this initiative may not infringe on the
existing authority of local governments to plan or control land
use or to provide or transfer authority over such land use.
So in at least two places, and maybe more, we have made
sure that the sovereignty of local authority over land use
planning is absolutely respected here.
Mr. Schaffer. Respecting the sovereignty and authority of
local land use planners is good, and I appreciate that. I'm
speaking to something different, which is the river navigator
showing up in a water court before a board of county
commissioners, testifying against a landowner. Once again, what
we're talking about here is this bill is about cash at the
moment, about spending Federal funds on this particular
project, and the question we have to resolve is whether this is
inherently in the best interest of the public that will pay for
them, If the bill--if you were to prevail and the bill would
fail, and were rejected by this Committee or some other body
along the process here, what would happen, essentially, is that
landowners, property owners, income taxpayers throughout the
country send their cash here to Washington, and we send it back
to them in the form of somebody who will be employed now with
those dollars to testify against them. That is the activity I
would like to prevent.
Ms. McGinty. Well, let me say two things, if I might, on
that--well, three. First of all, I do want to reiterate again
that there are no new Federal dollars involved in this program,
but, second, specifically to the point of what the Federal
employee, this river navigator, will be doing, the Federal
Register notice makes clear that employees of the Federal
Government may not, as a result of this initiative, infringe
this authority of local governments, and then, further, the
Federal Register notice specifies that the community, rather
than the river navigator, will be responsible for the
implementation of the community's plan. The river navigator
will have no authority to, among other things, adjudicate and
may not engage in the following: lobbying, leadership of
community partnership, or any of its endeavors, et cetera. So
there is a clear proscription on the river navigator becoming a
lobbyist of any kind with regard to any element of this plan.
The plan is the responsibility of the community.
Mr. Schaffer. This is a new--this individual would
represent a new level of Federal presence within a jurisdiction
of some sort? It is a new----
Ms. McGinty. This would be a person who is--this is not a
new Federal presence. Again, these are existing programs. The
people who have been involved in this initiative to date are
all Federal employees already engaged in working in these areas
under the various laws that govern these kinds of activities.
Mr. Schaffer. If the South Platte River in Colorado were
designated as a Heritage River Initiative or designated as a
river within the initiative, a river navigator would be
employed and appointed----
Ms. McGinty. Yes. Well, a river navigator would be
identified with a community having the right to participate in
the selection of that person, but the anticipation is that that
is a person who is already employed by the Federal Government
for these purposes. We're just asking those people to take on
another job, and that is to be an ombudsman for a local
community.
Mr. Schaffer. You have a person with a new title, with a
new job description, with a new function, with a new
designation for an existing river----
Ms. McGinty. Which job description will be written by the
community.
Mr. Schaffer. OK, I guess we have a difference of opinion
as to whether that constitutes a new level of Federal
involvement. I think it's undeniable that it does--that it is a
new level of Federal involvement, and that really is the
question that is still not resolved. Protecting local zoning
ordinances and authority, and so on, is fine, but all of a
sudden this initiative has the potential of injecting a new
Federal employee with a new job title, with a new set of
responsibilities, and the question I want--let me just reverse
the question again and see if I can answer it that way. Is it
possible that a Federal river navigator under this initiative
could testify against a landowner in a water court, before a
zoning board, or in any local setting of that sort?
Ms. McGinty. If it is possible for that Federal employee to
do so today, there is nothing in this initiative that changes
that in terms of what can happen----
Mr. Schaffer. But there are no river navigators today.
They're not there.
Ms. McGinty. But there is no authority--to the point, this
program is not a piece of legislation. That means it can
neither cede nor abrogate current Federal responsibilities or
authorities. There will be nothing different in terms of
Federal responsibilities or authorities tomorrow than there are
today.
Mr. Schaffer. Is it possible that the person who is
designated as the river navigator will testify in a water court
or before a board of county commissioners in a zoning hearing
or anything of that sort?
Ms. McGinty. The answer is, if it is possible for that to
happen today--and I have no information or understanding as to
whether it is--if it's possible for that to happen today, there
is nothing in this program that would change that possibility
tomorrow.
Mr. Schaffer. Well, let me ask--this is more difficult than
it needs to be.
Ms. McGinty. If--if----
Mr. Schiff. Let me--OK, let's talk about today. Is it
possible for one of these river navigators to go testify in a
court today?
Ms. McGinty. I would cede to others who have expertise on
this. I do not know----
Mr. Schaffer. Well, how--there are no river navigators
today.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Schaffer. Why is this hard to answer?
Ms. McGinty. The answer is that there are no new
authorities, that someone who's name today is Joe Smith and
tomorrow is Joe Smith, River Navigator, they will have no new
authorities when they have comma ``River Navigator'' after
their name than they have today. And so if Joe Smith doesn't
have that authority today, he will not enjoy that authority
tomorrow when he's Joe Smith, River Navigator.
Mr. Schaffer. I'm just trying to get this answer--you know,
the American public, who relies on these congressional records
and the records and transcripts from these hearings, or a
judge, who I assure you at some point in time is going to be
reviewing this record to make a decision, wants to know what
our intention is. And all I want to know is, is it possible
that the river navigator, whether it's an existing person today
or somebody that you hire out of the blue and put the job title
and give them the business card, ``I am the River Navigator,''
is that person--is it possible that that person can walk into a
water court or a zoning board and provide testimony under that
title?
Ms. McGinty. Sir, the only answer I can give you is, if, in
the absence of this program, that person would have that
authority, then the answer is yes. But if the answer is no,
then the answer remains no.
Mr. Schaffer. So you're suggesting there's somebody who is
the equivalent of a river navigator today?
Ms. McGinty. What I'm suggesting is that, assuming the
title of river navigator affords a Federal employee no new
rights or authority. And so if that Federal employee today--
there are no river navigators, but there are Federal
employees--if those Federal employees do not have the authority
that you're referring to, they will not have it as a
consequence of this program.
Mr. Schaffer. Is it impossible to get a yes-or-no answer to
the previous question?
[Laughter.]
Ms. McGinty. I'm being as clear as I possibly can. If there
is--if it currently is the case that Federal employees can
testify as you are describing, then it still will be the case
that Federal employees called ``river navigators'' will be able
to do that, but I am not aware as to whether or not--if we've
got an expert who can tell us whether today a Federal employee
can testify before a water court, if the answer to that is yes,
then a Federal employee tomorrow would be able to do that, too,
after this program is in effect.
But I don't know if we have----
Mr. Schaffer. Madam Chairman, I'm just going to defer to
the Chairman. I have stated that question--if there is some way
to get a definitive answer on that, I would sure love to have
it----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Is the general counsel here? I understand
she is. Would you like to ask the general counsel, so we can
get it on the record?
Mr. Schaffer. Oh, sure. Sure. Is there----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dinah, I wonder if you would stand and take
the oath?
[Witness sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Please proceed.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Would you identify yourself? I don't know you.
Ms. Bear. Yes, my name is Dinah Bear. I'm general counsel
of the Council on Environmental Quality.
Mr. Schaffer. Well, you've heard the question and the
answer.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Schaffer. But I want to know--is it----
Ms. Bear. OK, let me see if I can give this a try. But it
is substantively the same answer that Ms. McGinty has been
giving.
There are a number of circumstances in which Federal
employees can testify in Federal, State courts or local
proceedings--obviously, in their individual capacities, not as
a Federal employee, but as a U.S. citizen; as a Federal
employee. Federal agencies occasionally, of course, are sued--
sometimes by State and local agencies. They may be called on as
witnesses. They may be subpoenaed in different circumstances
and obligated to give testimony.
There is nothing about this program that would change any
of those authorities or responsibilities. Similarly, or
conversely, there is nothing about the designation of river
navigator under the American Heritage Rivers Program that would
give them any authority or responsibility, as I understand it,
to appear in court or in any kind of special administrative or
arbitrative proceeding as a river navigator.
Mr. Schaffer. That's understood.
Ms. Bear. If they are a lawyer for an agency or a biologist
or an engineer, and they're called on to testify in that
capacity in court, in some sort of litigation or proceeding,
there's nothing that would bar them from doing so as a result
of their appointment as a river navigator, but they would not
be representing the Federal Government in their capacity as a
river navigator.
Mr. Schaffer. How about in the capacity of testifying
against a landowner in a zoning hearing, before a zoning board,
or a water rights-holder with respect to a water court?
Ms. Bear. My understanding is that they would not be
testifying in a capacity as a river navigator. I think where
some of the confusion may be arising here is there's a
reluctance to say they would not be able to testify, either
voluntarily or as a result of a subpoena, in any kind of a
proceeding in their other capacity as a Federal employee. I
think Ms. McGinty has indicated that this would be in addition
to the regular job, not necessarily a substitute for their job.
And because the community would be developing the job
description, it might or might not subsume the rest of the
responsibilities.
But I think the key here, I think what you're looking for
is whether or not there would be testifying against a landowner
in their capacity as a river navigator, and I believe the
answer to that is no. You, of course--or the Committee, of
course--could, I assume, ask river navigators to testify, if
you wanted to do so, but that's the only exception that I can
think of to that.
Mr. Schaffer. I suppose that would be correct. But let me--
which raises up--which raises an old issue, at least as far as
this issue has gone. In repeated questions as to whether
anybody can envision a need or an occasion where the river
navigator would testify against a landowner or a water rights-
holder in a Federal water court, the answer is no--from Ms.
McGinty, from Bruce Babbitt, from Dan Glickman. Everyone says,
no, we can't imagine when this would ever need to occur. My
response was, well, it would make a lot of us feel better if we
could just write that into the Executive Order or into the
Federal Register or secure that guarantee some way or another.
And it is the resistance from the Clinton Administration to
providing that safeguard which causes the concern.
And so it seems to me the question is--the question of, can
a river navigator--is it possible that the river navigator
could end up in front of a water court or a zoning board,
testifying against a landowner, that the answer is yes, but we
can't envision when that would be needed. Why would it be
harmful----
Ms. McGinty. The answer is----
Mr. Schaffer. [continuing] to preclude the river navigator
from testifying against a landowner or water rights-holder in a
water court or before a zoning board?
Ms. McGinty. The answer is yes--only to the extent that
that employee currently has that authority. The answer is no in
terms of whether this initiative grants that employee that
authority. It does not.
Mr. Schaffer. Well, Federal employees currently have the
authority, is what I'm told. Is that not correct?
Ms. McGinty. I have no expertise on whether or not Federal
employees have the authority to testify against local
landowners in either land use or water use courts. To the
extent that they do, there's nothing in this program that
changes that equation. To the extent that they don't, there's
also nothing in this program that changes that equation.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Ms. Bear----
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'll stop asking
questions.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Ms. McGinty and Ms. Bear, I want to thank
you very much for your testimony. It's been a long day. It's
going to be suppertime before too long. And you can be excused
now.
I would ask, if it's at all possible, for either you or
your staff to remain and listen to the rest of the testimony,
if that's possible, but you are excused now from the witness
table, and thank you very much.
Ms. McGinty. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And the Chairman now recognizes our first
panel. We have been at this for 5 hours almost, and I want to
recognize Mr. William Perry Pendley from the Mountain States
Legal Foundation in Denver, Colorado; Mr. Robert Lynch, Central
Arizona Project Association, Phoenix, Arizona; Ms. Lois Van
Hoover, Idaho Multiple Land Use Coalition, Yellow Pine, Idaho;
Mr. Desmond K. Smith, Trans Texas Heritage Association, Alpine,
Texas, and Ms. Mary A. Yturria, Brownsville, Texas.
We welcome you all.
And while our panelists are taking their place at the
witness table, I want to acknowledge two very special friends
of mine who are present in the room, who came all the way from
Idaho. Pat Barkley, who is president of the Idaho Multiple Land
Use Coalition--her office is in Boise, Idaho. I know she spends
as much time in Yellow Pine, Idaho as she can. I'd like that,
too, Pat. I'm awful glad you're here.
And representative and a chairman of one of our more
prominent committees in the Idaho legislature, Sylvia McHeath.
Thank you both for traveling across the country to be
present and join us today.
So with that, I wonder if you might all stand and take the
oath, please. Raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Pendley?
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM PERRY PENDLEY, MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL
FOUNDATION, DENVER, COLORADO
Mr. Pendley. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You have my
prepared testimony for the record.
I will just say to answer the question Congressman Schaffer
asked--Federal officials will testify, and they have testified.
You need only look at the example of the New World Mine and the
way the superintendent of Yellowstone National Park tried to
prevent the opening of that mine. The water adjudications now
going on in the State of Idaho have Federal witness after
Federal witness. So the answer to the question is yes.
Just as Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, ``Regardless of
the good you're trying to achieve, there's no excuse for doing
it any other way than the constitutional way.'' And that's what
we're dealing with here. We've got the cart before the horse.
We're talking about essentially what is legislation, and I
sense the frustration that the Committee has in trying to
figure out, to paraphrase a famous example, ``Where's the beef?
Where's the pork?''--because you are buying essentially a pig
in a poke here. You don't know. The ball is constantly in
motion, as you heard the testimony here today, and anyone who
puts any confidence at all in where it will be in the end is, I
think, foolish.
I come from that part of the world, as you know, where the
rubber hits the road. We are where all these good ideas and
well-intended remarks are implemented by bureaucrats and their
win-at-all-costs attorneys. We are out there where the caveats
and the compromises and the concessions that have been made to
protect us end up in the ditch, while the rights and the
privileges and the economic opportunities of the people that
are going to testify today wind up as roadkill in the middle of
the highway.
And those who have the wherewithal of paying attorneys--
those that don't, maybe they can get the attention of Mountain
States Legal Foundation, and we can get in the litigation--come
back here and say: What about all the agreements that were
made? What about the compromises that were made to protect our
rights? And we are told it's in litigation; Congress can't get
involved.
Let me give a couple of examples. They're from testimony
I've given before. They're situations that this body knows of
well. We are told there's a self-defense exception in the
Endangered Species Act, and yet the only man ever to kill a
grizzly bear in his own yard is in his seventh year of
litigation to try to use that self-defense claim, because the
Fish and Wildlife Service doesn't like it and doesn't want it
to be used.
We are told that the Wilderness Act prohibition against
motorized vehicles will be implemented sensibly, will use
common law, and will allow for emergencies and dangerous
situations and accidents and necessity. But, as you know from
the famous Bobby Unser case, the Forest Service took the
position that being in a wilderness in a snowmobile
accidentally, out of necessity, or out of emergency is
irrelevant; being there alone is a violation of Federal law.
And, finally, you know as well, when you pass a Wilderness
Act, despite the valid existing rights protections that are put
in, we have the Forest Service taking the official position
that when Congress adopted the valid existing rights provision,
it did not know what the phrase meant and so Forest Service can
implement it any way it wants.
We remain optimistic. Hope springs, it seems, eternal. I
think we are forever like Charlie Brown, thinking that Lucy
this time--this time--will leave the ball on the ground, and
that we're on the same page, if not maybe the same team, and
that she won't pull the ball away from us, and everything will
be OK. And it never is, and we just keeping hoping that this
time it will be all right.
It strikes me as quite incredible that we have created this
oppressive, monstrous bureaucracy that doesn't work, that can't
deliver services efficiently, and we're told, ``Oh, but only if
we had one more layer of bureaucracy, then we could assure the
efficient delivery of services.''--Oops, but only for 10
rivers, not for anybody else in America.
I point the Committee to the experience of the Natural
Historic Landmarks (NHL), what happened under that oppressive
program, how the National Park Service admitted that it
violated property rights, and how eventually the NHL was used
by neighbors to nominate lands for designation to prevent
neighbors from using their property.
Listening to this, reading the Federal Register, we're left
with only questions--questions after questions of who, when,
where, what, why. Who's going to be on the panel? Who's going
to decide the terms? What is a vision? All unanswered.
And the point that Congressman Schaffer made with regard
to--I'm sorry, Chairman, you made--with regard to NEPA is a
valid one. NEPA does not compel what Ms. McGinty is doing or
what this President is doing. NEPA, in fact, compels that this
administration do what it has refused to do, which is to comply
with NEPA, publish this, go through an EA, go through a FONSI,
go through an EIS, and allow the American people to comment on
it.
The fact of the matter is there is absolutely no statutory
authority for what the administration is doing here. There are
so many questions undecided.
When I came here somebody cynically suggested to me--I
thought it was cynically--that people will do this because of
pork. I thought that was cynical until I got here and listened
to the testimony, and it strikes me as maybe it is pork, and I
say, geez, what a low price for which to sell one's liberty.
We have a Constitution that guarantee how our government
should do business. The Bill of Rights is not the source of our
protection exclusively. It is the way our government is
structured that is that source. Read, for example, Justice
Scalia's opinion in the Brady case earlier this year, where he
lays it out very thoughtfully that source of the guarantee of
our rights comes from the way the government is structured, the
vision of our government, and the fact that this is the body
that adopts legislation, and the executive branch is the body
that implements it.
I know my time expired, but let me just add one
parenthetical. What will be the ``balance'' implemented out
there in the field? Pick up this morning's copy of The
Washington Post and look at the balance this administration
takes with regard to western resources, where the
administration, in balancing the needs of the Nation for
energy, in the most potentially productive area of the lower
48, Overthrust Belt of Montana, has said, no, we're not going
to allow oil and gas activities there; we're going to set it
all aside for environmental purposes. And so anybody who thinks
that this Federal Register notice, where it talks about
economic activity, will answer some recognition of that
activity, I think, again, is foolish.
Finally, let me just say that I don't think these people
are going to wait until they are roadkill, until their rights
are roadkill, in this particular program. I don't think we're
going to have to wait until the rights are violated for a
lawsuit to go forward. I think this whole program will be
challenged, and we'll have the opportunity to have a Federal
judge asked some of the questions that the gentleman from
Colorado and you, Madam Chairman, are asking, and maybe we'll
get some better answers.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pendley may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Pendley.
And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Lynch for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. LYNCH, CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT
ASSOCIATION, PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Mr. Schaffer, for
the opportunity to appear here today and testify on the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative and the Chairman's bill,
H.R. 1842, which I might note with some pleasure will be co-
sponsored by my Congressman, Mr. Shadegg, who I believe
notified you of that earlier this afternoon. I have submitted
copies of my written testimony to the Committee, and I'll try
not to repeat that.
The primary focus of the Central Arizona Project
Association is, of course, the Central Arizona Project itself,
formed in 1946 to promote the project, its authorization, its
construction, and its operation. And I'm pleased to report that
this year CAP will deliver approximately 1.5 million acre feet
of Colorado River water through a 336-mile canal system through
the metropolitan areas of central Arizona. It supplies about
two-thirds of our population.
We are not, however, without problems, and those are all,
you might imagine, environmental, and they affect the main stem
of the Colorado River. Our interest in this initiative stems
from our activities in Arizona to solve problems and our fear
that this initiative may add a layer of bureaucracy that
interferes with the problem-solving that is ongoing in Arizona.
I might note that I have heard a great deal about this
initiative today from Ms. McGinty that isn't in the Federal
Register notice, and it sounds a lot like the beginnings of a
second set of regulations and detail. And we were concerned
before we heard that detail; we're even more concerned now
because we can't figure out where CAP fits into this scheme.
Unfortunately, the beneficiaries of the Central Arizona
Project and the Colorado River don't live on the Colorado River
and they don't work on the Colorado River. They live in central
Arizona. Phoenix is 190 miles from the Colorado River. Tucson's
another 120 miles southeast of us. And yet the beneficiaries of
the Central Arizona Project have as much concern about the
Colorado River as do our residents and citizens who live on the
river. Yet this initiative pays only lip service to those
beneficiaries and doesn't involve them either in the nomination
process or anything other than a tangential sort of reference
to a plan.
Frankly, we don't need a plan. We've got a plan. In the
Lower Colorado River Basin, it's called a multi-species
conservation plan. It is supported by a Memorandum of
Understanding with the United States involving all three lower
basin States, major environmental groups, and other interests.
We don't need interference with that plan. What we need is for
the employees of the Federal Government who are already
committed to that plan, to our plan, not to be diverted from
that by having to pay attention to this initiative.
And one of our great concerns is that, with all the cost-
cutting that's going on and the paring-down of Federal
agencies, you're getting down somewhere close to essential
numbers of personnel doing tasks who have certain skills. And
if those skills are diverted, and if those people are diverted
to this, we're afraid that we won't be able to get our problem-
solving done under the Endangered Species Act in this plan, or
in the upper basin's conservation plan, a recovery plan for
four endangered fish. So we're very concerned about what's
going to happen to the people we need to continue our problem-
solving if they get, because of their expertise, their
understanding of rivers, and their scientific backgrounds,
diverted into this whole new program.
We're also concerned about the process. I have to disagree
with Ms. McGinty; I think they have, in fact, created new
regulations, because there's a consultation mechanism in the
Executive Order. I don't know why people aren't paying
attention to it, but I consider that some real problem in terms
of figuring out the process, the consultation requirements that
Congress has legislated in several other areas.
And let me speak about reprogramming. Ms. McGinty said no
reprogramming. There's got to be reprogramming. The
beneficiaries of CAP pay, through water and power charges, for
Federal employees to do work that's considered reimbursable
expense. If they are then diverted to this, they're going to
pay for this, too. This certainly ought not to be a
reimbursable expense to the beneficiaries of local projects who
agreed in contract what they were going to be obligated to. Now
this is being laid on top of it.
I know I'm out of time, and there are many more witnesses,
but I just want to say I agreed fully with what Mr. Pendley
said. The National Environmental Policy Act does not authorize
this program and it's not a legal foundation for it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lynch may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Lynch, I want to thank you for your
testimony, and Mr. Pendley.
We have been called to another vote, and we will look
forward to hearing from Lois Van Hoover when we get back. And I
can see some of you back there who have sat all day long
waiting for your chance to respond to our request, to hear from
you, and I thank you very much for your patience. It is beyond
my control, though, and my responsibility is to make sure that
Mr. Schaffer and I can get over there and vote and do our job
like our constituents expect of us and cast the vote.
So there will be two votes probably, and we'll hit the
tail-end of this vote, and the next vote will be a 5-minute
vote. Hopefully, we'll be back in 15 to 20 minutes. So bear
with us. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. This hearing will come to order. We will
resume testimony by hearing from Lois Van Hoover from Yellow
Pine, Idaho.
STATEMENT OF LOIS VAN HOOVER, IDAHO MULTIPLE LAND USE
COALITION, YELLOW PINE, IDAHO
Ms. Van Hoover. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. As you said,
I'm Lois Van Hoover, and I represent the Idaho Multiple Plan
Use Coalition. Additionally, I sit on the boards of the Idaho
Council on Industry and the Environment, the Independent
Miners, and the Alliance of Independent Miners. I am a co-
founder of a new group that is forming called the Natural
Resource Advocacy Center, and I live in Yellow Pine, Idaho with
my husband, Leo.
I just want to speak briefly, encapsulate my written
statement. When I first reviewed the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative, I think my first response to that was that it was
harmless--even though it wouldn't do anything, it wouldn't be
effective. With a little further review, I had some real
concerns about private property rights and State rights. I need
to say that I reviewed this with Katie McGinty's office, and
they did put some verbiage in to try to appease those fears. I
have to say that I'm still not totally satisfied, obviously,
with what I was told.
Ms. McGinty, at the Western States Coalition meeting last
July in Spokane, and again today, stated that her inspiration
for this program was the Philadelphia waterfront
revitalization. However, the Philadelphia projects have been
done through a partnership of private and public entities
without the benefit of this program, and it didn't add--there
was no added bureaucracy from the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative. Many cities and communities in my home State of
Idaho have done similar projects without the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative, and have not required an additional tax
burden on the American people.
Further research indicated that the American Heritage
Rivers Program is practically a carbon copy of the Canadian
Heritage Rivers Program. Amazingly enough, one could exchange
the verbiage from one program to the other. The St. Corry
River, on the border of Maine, is part of the Canadian Heritage
Rivers Program and is administered by a joint international
committee.
I want to thank you and the rest of the delegation for
opting out of this program. I think that that is one of the
best things that could happen to the State of Idaho.
In June when I was in Ms. McGinty's office, I asked them to
define--I did not; somebody in the party did, actually--to
define what a river community was. The definitions varied--
everything from a river basin to a watershed. And if we're
talking about a river community being a watershed, Idaho is a
watershed and the headwaters for a lot of different States. And
I did hear Ms. McGinty's answer today to your question, Madam
Chair, but I still have a question over the jurisdiction of
those headwaters, as the example you used, being the Columbia--
for the headwaters that would originate in the State of Idaho,
and who would have jurisdiction over those waters. That also
raises a question of the State's primacy over its water, and as
you know, the Supreme Court has held that up many times--that
the State does have primacy over its water.
Is it possible that the American Heritage Rivers Initiative
could include efforts such as zoning that typically come under
county government? I suppose that question is a NEPA question.
If we are designating rivers and we're going through a NEPA
process, and we have county plans or community plans for the
river community, will those plans come under NEPA? And if they
come under NEPA, that takes away local control. And I have some
questions about that, and I believe those are all the
jurisdictional questions. That does not take into consideration
the--again, I would like to state--the international borders.
And as a voting, tax-paying American citizen, I take
offense to programs that are being initiated by Executive
Order, when they should have gone through the legislative
process. One of the strengths the Founding Fathers built into
our form of government was the separation of powers between the
President and the Congress.
Cities and counties are perfectly capable of deciding how
to manage their land. Local control with input from local
consensus groups will provide the best results.
It seems to me that the Federal Government has a fiduciary
responsibility to the taxpayers of the United States of
America. This initiative duplicates an existing program: the
Rural Development Partnership established by the Bush
Administration in 1991. It is already operating in 38 States.
You do not reinvent government by duplicating and adding a
layer of Federal bureaucracy, nor do you satisfy your
responsibility to the taxpayers.
And one of the major differences between what was put in by
the Bush Administration and this initiative is that it is
headed in each State, and the Governor of each State puts out
who is going to nominate the director for the Rural
Partnership.
One of the selling points of the initiative is that it will
make use of existing Federal personnel. In Idaho, we already do
that. For example, the head of our EPA office is working on the
Rural Development Partnership. Will he be able to do both? Or
would another Federal employee be pulled away from his present
duties to be assigned to this program? In any case, who will do
the task that these Federal employees are doing now? In fact,
who is paying the current 12 members of the American Heritage
Rivers Working Group and who is doing their job while they are
working on this initiative?
The additional Federal initiative is proposed at a time
when we are supposed to be downsizing Federal Government and
giving more control to the States. This is the exact opposite.
We do not need a river czar. We do need to have Federal
employees who simply do their jobs. We do not need the American
Heritage Rivers Program, even though Ms. McGinty said in
Spokane last July that she was doing this program because she
could not trust State and local government and the private
sector to do the job.
If one of the major reasons for the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative is to recognize outstanding efforts by
communities on behalf of our river heritage in this country, I
would suggest that the local communities could be recognized
with a plaque that can be placed at the city limits noting
their achievement, or you could even include a description of
the community's unique efforts in the Congressional Record. But
I strongly believe that anything to do within the boundary of
the State and the State waters is best left at the State and
local level.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Van Hoover may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mrs. Van Hoover.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Desmond Smith, and I
understand that you have twice canceled your flight, and will
be departing right after your testimony. So we will excuse you.
STATEMENT OF DESMOND K. SMITH, TRANS TEXAS HERITAGE
ASSOCIATION, ALPINE, TEXAS
Mr. Desmond Smith. Thank you for inviting me to testify. My
name is Desmond Smith. I'm a rancher from Lampastas, Texas,
where me and my wife operate a ranch that's been in her family
for 147 years. I'm president of the Trans Texas Heritage
Association. I'm here today representing our members who own
15.5 million acres of private property in Texas, and 1 million
acres in New Mexico.
Over the past few years, landowners have been trying to
make Congress and the public understand the concept of the
regulatory taking of private property, but we have not been
very successful. We understand that Federal designations can
bring with them limitations of the use of private property.
This is why we are concerned about the American Heritage River
Initiative.
We found that Garry Mauro, the Commissioner of the Texas
Land Office, was pushing for local officials along the Rio
Grande to petition the river for designation as an American
Heritage River. A friend of ours in the Governor's office told
us about a meeting that was going to take place in Laredo on
the 28th of April of this year. My wife and one other director
of our organization decided to go.
When we walked in, the people at the desk started looking
for our name tags, but I told them they wouldn't find them. It
turned out that the meeting was by invitation only. There were
people from all levels of government, also from the Nature
Conservancy the Audubon Society. If we had not shown up, there
wouldn't have been any representation from any property rights
group.
Garry Mauro breezed into the meeting for a few minutes, and
there was a lot of back-slapping and glad-handing. It was
suggested that he should be made the river navigator during the
process of the meeting.
Since then, we've learned that this is supposed to a
bottoms-up initiative, but what was obvious that day was that
the Texas General Land Office and Commissioner Mauro were
really backing this. At this meeting people talked about AHRI
in terms of clean water, cultural heritage, economical
development. I stood up and asked the question if this would
include our friends in Mexico. The fellow from the Council of
Environmental Quality said it wouldn't. Then I asked him how
they expected to clean up the Rio Grande when Mexico pollutes
the river, and he didn't answer.
Right after that the moderator asked everyone to stand and
state their name and organization affiliations. Everyone there
except us was either from the government or the Nature
Conservancy or the Audubon Society. It was clear that the
meeting was anything but grassroots and bottoms-up.
Now I've lived in Texas all in my life, and my organization
has members who are property owners along the Rio Grande. The
people who were invited to the meeting do not speak or
represent all the people along the Rio Grande. The landowners I
represent do not want their land designated as an American
Heritage River--not now, not ever.
Ever since that meeting, we've been trying to figure out
what AHRI is all really about, and nothing we have been told
makes any sense. The CEQ assured us there would be no Federal
dollars and no new regulations.
When Mr. Ray Clark with the CEQ came to Austin on July the
9th, we asked him if the AHRI was about improving water
quality; if so, given the fact that we already have the Clean
Water Act, and especially since Mexico dumps raw sewage and
industrial waste into the Rio Grande, how would the AHRI, with
no new regulations, improve water quality? If not water
quality, then how about restoring water quantity? Mr. Clark
told us the AHRI would have nothing to do with removing dams
and improve impoundments along the river.
If there are no new Federal regulations and no Federal
dollars, what can we accomplish with AHRI that can't be
accomplished now? Nothing. If we private property owners hadn't
done such a good job caring for our land, I doubt if the
Federal Government and the environmentalists would be so
interested in it. Public ownership and access to land does not
offer the same protection as the loving care it receives at the
hands of private property owners. If resource protection is a
problem, private property--not public ownership--is, and always
has been, the best solution.
I understand Congressman Reyes and the people of El Paso
want a river walk. Well, San Antonio has a river walk, and have
had it for years, and they didn't have to get a Federal
designation to accomplish that. What is really going on here?
The thinking people of this Nation were shocked and
sickened by Clinton's arrogant designation of the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Now he has given us the
American Heritage River Incentive. There are two things that I
find very unsettling about this incident. The first is that the
administration thinks the American people are so stupid we
would fall for this. The second is the negative property rights
implication inherent in the Federal designation of anything.
I'm asking you folks to please do the American people a
great service and pass H.R. 1842--not just out of this
Committee, but out of the full Congress. I thank you for your
time. God bless each of you and our Nation, and thank you for
having me.
Now may I be excused?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Desmond Smith may be found
at end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. You are a real trooper. I do want to let
you know that--and I wanted to announce--that I have just
received, and will place into the record a letter from eight
members of the Texas delegation to President Clinton asking to
have their districts exempted from the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative.
And now you may be excused.
Mr. Desmond Smith. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Yturria, you have been patient all day, and we welcome
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARY A. YTURRIA, BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS
Ms. Yturria. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, for being
kind enough to ask me to appear here today.
After explaining a little bit about who I am and where I
came from, I want to make two points about why some of us who
live on the Texas/Mexico border are working so hard to secure
an American Heritage River designation for the Rio Grande. One
concerns what border communities will face if we do not get
more engaged in dealing with the degradation of our river. The
other concerns the opportunity we have to celebrate and share
with America our very unique history and culture. I will then
give you a thumbnail sketch of how we hope to take advantage of
the initiative and share my concern over the legislation you
are considering.
The Rio Grande flows 1,800 miles, making it our Nation's
second-longest river. In my State it serves as our border with
Mexico, and I am one of over million Texans who live and work
in communities along its banks. My home is in Brownsville,
Texas, a city near the mouth of the Rio Grande. We are property
owners, working ranches that have been in my husband's family
for over 140 years.
Fifty years ago, when I married Frank Yturria and came to
the Rio Grande Valley, I quickly learned that the quality of
our lives, our health, and our well-being are linked to the
river and its waters. I soon learned that there is a special
Rio Grande heritage that is very complex and sometimes almost
magical. It's a fine place to live. I knew immediately I would
never leave.
The Rio Grande is the principal source of water for our
towns and cities. Its water irrigate our farmland, sustain our
industry, and nourishes vital ecosystems and wildlife habitat.
They support a tourist industry that ranges from hunting and
fishing to birding and whitewater rafting. When the border
economy is seen from a business perspective, it is clear the
river is our most important asset.
Congress has had ample opportunity to examine the
conditions of his river and the plight of communities along its
banks. Some say it is America's most polluted river. I say
let's get to work and clean it up. Some say border growth will
cause water demand to outstrip what the river can offer. I say
let's make better use of what we have.
If our communities along the Rio Grande are to survive, we
all must work to build the economy in concert with the wise use
of our river. We who live and work along the Rio Grande must be
allowed to create partnerships, plan for the future, and get
meaningfully engaged. If we are prevented from doing so by H.R.
1842, we will all lose--rich, poor, Democrat, Republican,
colonias dweller, property owner, even the Federal Government.
Madam Chairman, I want to make another point. The river is
something more than an economic asset at risk; it symbolizes
the heart of a treasured heritage. In Texas the Rio Grande is
both a dividing line between two nations and the place where
two cultures have joined to produce a unique borderlands
heritage. We treasure our history and our unique mixture of
language and custom--our food, our architecture, our music.
Along the Rio Grande you will find people from all stations in
life working to preserve and celebrate that heritage. Some are
Anglos; some are Hispanics. Some have wealth; some do not. Like
the waters of the river, our Rio Grande culture is a precious
asset, a key facet of America's frontier heritage. Those
working to preserve that history and celebrate our heritage
deserve recognition, encouragement, and sometimes a helping
hand. They, too, want to build partnerships. They want to bring
to the Rio Grande the private foundations, great public
institutions, and our own hands that built so many American
communities.
When I first heard of the American Heritage Rivers idea, I
was thrilled. The idea of looking at all the dimensions of our
rivers--physical, historical, cultural--made a lot of sense to
me, but what really excited me was the emphasis on local
initiative to identify needs and plan responses. Let me repeat
that: What really excited me was the emphasis on local
initiative to identify needs and plan responses. I thought
someone in Washington has finally gotten it.
Better than anyone, we who live and work here know our
river, what needs to be done, what we can do on our own, and
when we need help. I hoped our local leaders would seize the
opportunity, seek the designation, and build a partnership with
the Federal Government in which the local authorities and
managing partners are partners. I was not disappointed. Within
a few weeks, all along the Rio Grande, mayors and county
officials were looking into the President's proposal, assisted
by our representatives and State officials. Civic groups came
forward, as well as private citizens and landowners like me.
When private property concerns were expressed, the White House
made a special effort to brief the Texas Farm Bureau in Waco,
agricultural interests in Austin, Governor Bush's office, and
other State agencies. Throughout the 90-day comment period,
people came forward with suggestions on how to shape this
initiative. Some came with ideas about what to do and what not
to do. There were, of course, those who suggested we do nothing
with the Federal Government.
To fan the flames of anti-government sentiment is not fair
to communities around the country, and those who do so will
lose. That also is an impractical solution when dealing with
the Rio Grande River. We don't want an absence of government;
we want the presence of better government. Fortunately,
positive thinking is prevailing, encouraged by leaders like
Congressman Silvestre Reyes from El Paso, Mayor Saul Ramirez,
Jr., and Judge Mercurio Martines from Laredo. My own mayor,
Henry Gonzales from Brownsville, and his colleagues in city and
county government throughout the Lower Rio Grande Valley have
supported----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mrs. Yturria, will you be able to wrap it
up?
Ms. Yturria. I know, it's--oh, this is very hard to do. I
would like to say that the Rio Grande River is in a class all
by itself because it is the river that separates two nations.
We have Federal problems there, as you can well imagine. NAFTA
was pushed through. We were promised all kinds of help. We've
not gotten it. We're sitting down there desperate. Austin has
neglected that valley and Washington almost pretends that we do
not exist, and this is not acceptable.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Yturria may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much.
And the Chair recognizes Mr. Schaffer for questions.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Before I'd ask any
questions, I'd note that Mr. Pendley's written testimony
contains a number of very useful and very well-researched
commentary on legal opinion with respect to the legal questions
surrounding the propriety, I guess, of the whole American
Heritage Rivers Initiative in the first place.
What I would suggest, Madam Chairman, and ask it to be part
of the Committee's deliberations, is to send another letter to
the Council on Environmental Quality stating specifically these
concerns that Mr. Pendley has outlined and request, as part of
our consideration of the legislation before us, answers to
these particular challenges and questions and request, in
providing it, a suitable deadline at the Chairman's discretion
as to when we would like to have those questions answered. But
I think that would provide for the Committee's deliberations a
pretty good picture about the legal basis for the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative and, again, shed some light on the
propriety of the program and the necessity of your legislation.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection, so ordered, and we will
set a deadline of 30 days.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Schaffer. I'd like to ask Mr. Pendley--you mentioned
the Brady Act briefly. I'd like you to speak a little bit more
to that, the relationship between the Brady Act and the Prince
v. United States case, and the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative.
Mr. Pendley. Yes, I should give the lawyer disclosure
comment. I am admitted to the practice of law in Wyoming,
Colorado, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
I think it's instructive to reflect on the Brady Act case,
simply because of what happened here in the House. Congressman
Joe Skeen, when the Brady Act was coming up on the floor, he
said, ``We cannot order sheriffs to do this work. This is not a
role of Congress. Sheriffs don't work for Congress. We can't do
this.'' Others said, ``No, no, it's very, very important; we've
got to save lives. The objective is the key thing; the way we
do it is unimportant, and we have to do this.''
And it got to the Supreme Court, fortunately, and the U.S.
Supreme Court said, ``No, there's certain ways you do things
under the Constitution.'' In Justice Scalia's opinion, he lays
out very carefully how our Founding Fathers put together our
system of government; that it's a system of dual sovereignty;
that we have the Federal Government does; the Federal
Government has certain things the Federal Government, and we
have the State governments and there are certain things the
State government does.
What the Supreme Court opinion finally concluded was that
in earlier decisions the Supreme Court had said Congress cannot
order States to do certain things on pain of receipt of Federal
funds, certain things that fall within the responsibility of a
State. What we are saying in this opinion, said Justice Scalia,
is that Congress cannot circumvent States and order employees
of the State--in other words, sheriffs--to do what the Congress
could not order the States to do.
So what the opinion stands for, once again, is this
fundamental principle that we heard in the Supreme Court
decision in Lopez with regard to the Safe School Yard Act. Once
again, it was something everybody agreed on: we certainly can't
have people bringing guns into school yards. But thirty-five
States have laws that prohibit guns on school yards, so we
don't need a Federal law to do that. The Supreme Court said,
furthermore, it's a violation of the Tenth Amendment and the
Commerce Clause to do so.
So I think that's an effective summary of what the Supreme
Court decided in that case. But I would also say that Scalia
pointed out in his opinion that every generation meets new
emergencies, and there are emergencies of the day that we hear
about and we're told, ``Gee, we've got to bypass these
technicalities in our Constitution in order to solve this
emergency, this crisis.'' The fact of the matter is these
provisions are adopted for our protection to ensure that we
don't do that.
Mr. Schaffer. I'd like to ask Mrs. Yturria, if I could, for
a moment--you mentioned that the Texas Farm Bureau was part of
the meeting with the Council on Environmental Quality when they
came and explained their posture on some of the property rights
issues, and so forth. Does the Texas Farm Bureau support the
initiative as it stands?
Ms. Yturria. Oh, well, I am told that they did. I was not
at that meeting, so----
Mr. Schaffer. The other question that I have in the time
remaining--you mentioned--you stated that this bill in front of
us would prevent communities from working together on projects
regarding the Rio Grande River. Earlier, I don't know if you
were here or not, but Congressman Reyes was here speaking about
his desire to see the river preserved and protected, and
communities come together and work together. I would just point
out, by way of example, my State in Colorado has had a number
of projects over the years where we have had similar concerns
and managed to provide various protections and have communities
come together through the work of a congressional office of a
United States Senator's office or other elected officials. Do
you believe there's something that prevents your Congressman or
your mayor--you mentioned Mayor Gonzales in Brownsville--or
other elected officials from using the resources and the
experience that they have in their offices to accomplish these
goals?
Ms. Yturria. That is a very complex question. Brownsville
is--about 3 years ago, it was noted that it was the poorest
city in the United States. Now it's true, Congressmen and
Senators come down, and what do they do? They go to a meeting
place, and they are there for perhaps 20 or 30 minutes. They
never see the colonias; they never see the horror stories that
exist in my area.
We need someone to come to that border and see for
themselves what really exists. I think people know more--the
people in Washington seem to know more about Bosnia than they
know about Brownsville, Texas. Really, you can't believe what
kind of a condition that border is in and how few people come
and really take the time to go out and look at what the reality
is.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer.
Mrs. Yturria, the Resources Committee disclosure form that
you completed says that you're representing the General Land
Office in the State of Texas. What is you relationship with the
General Land Office, for the record?
Ms. Yturria. I hold no position in the Texas Land Office.
Over the years since I have been very involved in environmental
issues, naturally that would be the office that I would have
worked through over the years, and that is my contact with the
Land Office.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Was your testimony approved by the General
Land Office in the State of Texas?
Ms. Yturria. Yes, it was.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Yturria. You're welcome.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Pendley, could you cite for the record
the similarities between the President's use of the Antiquities
Act in Utah and this program, the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative?
Mr. Pendley. I don't think we want to go on that long, do
we, Madam Chairman? There are a lot of similarities, obviously.
Congress was very clear with regard to the Antiquities Act and
what the President could do. The President could set aside
areas that are ``scientific,'' areas that are ``historic.'' He
had to limit it to ``the smallest area'' necessary compatible
with the resource. I don't think there's any way in the world
that you can say 1.7 million acres of scenic land, largely
scenic land, meets that requirement. So, No. 1, you have this
situation where there is no statutory authority for the
President's action.
Let's look now at the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Ms. McGinty, as you pointed out, Madam Chairman, the only thing
she cites to for authority is the purposes section of NEPA,
which is all the feel good language about what Congress is
trying to achieve. The instructive language, the mandatory
language, follows, and the mandatory language is: Do a study
once you propose an action that ``significantly affects the
quality of the human environment,'' that is, if it's a ``major
Federal action.'' So on both issues I think there is no
statutory authority for the President to act.
With regard to the Utah situation, what became clear
afterwards was that nobody in Utah had ever been notified. This
was an initiative that went forward because environmental
groups inside Utah that were not effective in electing
congressional representatives that represented their point of
view, and people from outside--for example, Robert Redford who
was consulted prior to the designation--demanded it. The
President did not consult with anybody locally. He ignored what
the Governor wanted, basically left the Governor sitting
outside the Oval Office awaiting a meeting with the President.
In fact, as I understand it, there was a phone call made to the
Governor of Utah. He was told that: We have no plans to do
this, and then at 2 a.m. another call went in: We're about to
announce it; in 5 hours we will announce it. So there was no
consultation, no recognition of the unique role that the
delegation plays.
And here, of course, all we have is this representation you
received this afternoon that, yes, we'll consult; yes, we'll
make sure that the locals are taken care of. In addition, of
course, you have this balance issue. We're told in the Federal
Register documents that they're going to take recognition of
economic activities; that they're going to ensure economic
activities are taken care of. In Utah the President had the
unique opportunity to permit a trillion dollar coal deposit
that represents $2 billion to the school children of the State
of Utah to go forward, and he choose not to. He choose to set
it all aside. And so no wonder we have great fears with regard
to a river initiative where we're concerned about economic
activities. I think any concerns on that issue are justified.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Pendley, does your foundation intend on
suing the Federal Government over this particular point?
Mr. Pendley. Well, certainly we're looking at it. As I lay
out in my statement, I think there's a lot of violations here.
We have this unique situation. I don't think I've ever seen a
situation like this before where we have a program announced by
the President for which there is absolutely no statutory
authority. The only thing that Ms. McGinty can cite to is the
purposes section of NEPA, and she says, that's our authority;
that's why we're forced to do this, compelled to this. Gee, I
just think it's a no-brainer: they can't do this.
And when you add the uncertainty, the indistinctness of all
of this, the arbitrary and capriciousness of it is even more
questionable. If we are significantly affecting the human
environment--and, of course, Ms. McGinty says we are--we're
going to make it all better; we're going to improve the
environment, then NEPA requires preparation of these documents.
They are required not just when you improve the environment,
but when you adversely affect the environment, both when you
adversely affect it and when you improve it. Any--any impact on
the environment requires a NEPA compliance. So she says we're
going to make it all better. I think she's got a major Federal
action that significantly affects the quality of the human
environment. At the very least, that's an issue as well. I
think the issue you brought up of the Anti-Deficiency Act--we
got this reprogramming--raises serious questions. Also does it
violate the Reorganization Act? I think there's a lot of issues
yet to be decided there, and at bottom Congress is the entity
that has the authority under the Commerce Clause to take action
with regard to our navigable streams and our rivers. I think
Congress has to start it.
And this idea that, well, we announced this initiative and
then we came up and talked to you, so it's OK now, and you'll
do oversight--I mean, where's your hammer? I don't see where
the hammer is. I don't see how you rein them in--the very point
the Congressman from Colorado made.
So the bottom line is our board of directors has to approve
all the cases that we undertake. Our board of directors has not
yet approved a case like this, but whenever we see this kind of
mischief, we are interested.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair yields back to Mr. Schaffer for
any further questions.
Mr. Schaffer. No, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I have some more. I have a question for
Lois Van Hoover. Thank you, Mr. Pendley.
Why do you not believe that this program will be voluntary,
nonregulatory, as its promoters claim? Why are you suspicious
about it?
Ms. Van Hoover. Any time you put another layer of
bureaucracy, there has to be some guiding mechanism, and
guiding mechanism ends up being regulation, either in guidance
or in actual regulation, as we see it today.
There is nothing out there--they're talking about an
initiative that requires no funding and no additional programs.
So why do we need it? So the only purpose to have it is so that
the Federal Government can hold our hand because we're not
smart enough to do it ourselves and lead us down the road they
want us to go. And there has to be some kind of regulation or
they change the word and call it ``guidance,'' but it is the
same thing.
EVENING SESSION
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
I also wanted to ask Mr. Lynch if you would further
elaborate about the possible impacts of the consultation
language in the Executive Order to various resource users?
Mr. Lynch. Yes, Madam Chairman. I'll give you two specifics
that are in statute. The consultation requirement under the
1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act: the seven basin States
must be consulted with by the Secretary of the Interior for
plans for operating the dams constructed on the Colorado River.
That's done through an annual operating plan process and
through periodic review of long-range operating criteria that
were established pursuant to that Act.
There is also another Act that pertains to the Colorado
River, as an example, the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act, in
which there are, I believe, three provisions that directly
order the Secretary to consult with affected interests that are
named in that Act. I look at--and I think in my written
testimony I pointed out that consultation with affected
interests does not occur under section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act. The Fish and Wildlife Service takes the position
that that is a one-on-one debate between the consulting agency
and the Service, and the rest of us are left out of the
process.
I wouldn't be so worried about this if it were in the CEQ
program, but it's in the Executive Order. The President says
you will consult with these entities that constitute whatever
this river community is, if there's been a designation. That's
a direct command, and if he does have the authority, then he is
making an Executive command to the Federal agencies. He is, in
fact, setting up a consultation program, and he has that--if he
has the basic authority for the program at all, he clearly has
the Executive authority to issue those kinds of directions.
Now I agree with Mr. Pendley that there is no foundational
authority for this program, but there clearly, if this goes
forward, is Executive authority for him to order the agencies
around, and that is exactly what he's done. And I don't see how
you square with the specifically mandated congressional
consultation programs where you've made these designations and
how you square it with the lack of consultation that we suffer
with some of these other programs. It seems to me that we're
just asking for trouble, and I think it was a serious mistake
for the Executive Order to make that provision in sort of a
casual way, either without elaboration or some specificity. I
think it's going to cause us a lot of problems trying to go
forward with the kind of problem-solving we're doing in the
Colorado River Basin now and the changes we need.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Lynch. I want to thank the
panelists for their very outstanding testimony, and excuse you
now, and welcome the second panel.
The Honorable Gordon Ross, Coos County Commissioner, Coos
County, Oregon; the Honorable David Young, Buncombe County
Commissioner, Asheville, North Carolina; Mr. Bill DeVeny, Idaho
Farm Bureau Federation, Boise, Idaho; Mr. David Allan Ealy,
Perrysville, Indiana, and Ms. Carol LaGrasse, Property Rights
Foundation of America, Stony Creek, New York.
If you would all please take your place at the witness
table--would you please stand and raise your right hand?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Young has a plane to catch, and he's
asked if we might go out of order, and we will. I'll call on
Mr. Young first to deliver his testimony.
STATEMENT OF DAVID YOUNG, BUNCOMBE COUNTY COMMISSIONER,
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Young. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is David
Young. I'm a resident of Asheville, located in western North
Carolina. I'm here today to speak to you as a citizen, small
business owner, local elected official, and chairman of the
Riverlake Task Force, spearheading the nomination of the French
Broad River as an American Heritage River. French Broad--
interesting name for a river--it was the broad point in a
French territory.
In all of these capacities, I fully support the American
Heritage River Initiative. Our task force has been following
the American Heritage River Initiative since the President
announced the program on February the 4th. Our task force is
comprised of interested citizens, chamber of commerce
executives, elected officials from throughout the river basin,
riverfront property owners, recreational enthusiasts, artists,
craftsmen, tourists, development experts, and nonprofit
agencies. And I'm not going to read from my text; I'm just
going to summarize a few points for you, Madam Chairman.
In forming our task force to nominate the French Broad
River, we have made a conscious effort to not make this a
partisan effort. In fact, we have had tremendous bipartisan
support. We have had over 2,000 endorsements similar to the
ones in your packet. We have letters from the Governor of North
Carolina, Jim Hunt, a Democrat; the Governor of Tennessee, Don
Seques, a Republican; resolutions from the Henderson County
commissioners, who are all Republicans, and the Buncombe County
commissioners, who are all Democrats--all in support of this
effort to nominate the French Broad as an American Heritage
River.
This issue is bigger than politics in our area. We must
look beyond politics to the people side of this issue and
improving the quality of life for the citizens who reside in
our area.
In our efforts to name the French Broad River as an
American Heritage River, we realize that we have already won
the prize. We have come together in a whole new way, formed new
partnerships and alliances, and discovered are neighbors
again--not just nearby cities and counties, but our sister
State, Tennessee. These are things that perhaps we should have
done, but we didn't.
On May 1, we hosted a public input session in Nashville.
Many of the suggestions from that meeting have been
incorporated into the permanent criteria for the American
Heritage River Initiative. During our May 1st meeting, public
comments were heard from residents from two States, along with
elected officials, property owners, business men/women. We
basically came together, discussed plans for our future, and
excitement has grown from that initial meeting.
What we discovered is we need the American Heritage River
Initiative. We know that alone no one entity, no one government
agency, no foundation, no one person can accomplish all that we
have planned for the French Broad. The American Heritage River
Initiative gives us the umbrella under which we can continue to
build our plans and development of the French Broad River. It
helps us unravel the maze of Federal grants and technical
assistance opportunities and will give us access to programs
that we now don't even know exists.
The Federal Government is big, and often finding the right
assistance is difficult. The idea of our own river navigator is
exciting to us. It would help us develop and sustain our great
river, which brings me to my final point.
We, as our committee, have passed a resolution supporting
the American Heritage River Initiative because it is
nonregulatory and will not cause an increase in the Federal
budget. Rather, it will focus resources on our plan of action.
It would give an umbrella under which to work. The initiative
will force the Federal Government to be responsive to our plan
of action for our river. We have taken this promise to a new
level, and I want to read that. We passed a resolution.
``We are pursuing the nomination''--this is our committee's
resolution; we have passed this unanimously at our last
meeting. ``We are pursuing the nomination of the French Broad
River as an American Heritage River. Our initial plan with
other aspects calls for a greenway along the entire length of
the French Broad River corridor through Transylvania County,
North Carolina, to Knox County, Tennessee, which would be
interpreted with public historic markers.''
In pursuit of this greenway and the American Heritage River
status, we pledge individually and collectively that no
property will be condemned, no property owner will be coerced,
and that all participation in the greenway voluntary, with all
due regard for individual property rights. We understand our
statement and code of conduct is in complete compliance with
the stated objectives, goals, and the American Heritage River
Initiative Program, as outlined in the Federal Register.
I ask your help for our region to continue to grow and
prosper by allowing the American Heritage River Initiative to
continue and to vote against the bill H.R. 1842. I also ask
that you rethink the timing of this legislation. It might be
best to allow this initiative to continue and to look at the
results in a year. I think Mr. Schaffer made that suggestion
also, to come back in a year.
In fact, if our river is named, I would like to personally
invite each of the Committee to visit the French Broad in
January 1999, after we have had Federal assistance for one
year, and let's look together at the results. I'm convinced
that this will be a good program for our river and other rivers
chosen throughout the country.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Commissioner, and before you
leave----
Mr. Young. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Chenoweth. [continuing] I do have a couple of
questions.
Mr. Young. Please go ahead.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In your statement you note the strong
support for the French Broad designation, but the Committee has
received letters of opposition to this designation from State
Senator Bob Carpenter of Franklin, North Carolina; from the
Southern Appalachian Multiple Use Council; and the TS
Hardwoods, Inc. Were you aware of this opposition?
Mr. Young. Well, Bob Carpenter's district is not in our
river basin, but that would not--he's not a senator for any of
the counties that are involved in this, and I had not heard of
the others.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. I wanted to further elaborate on
your testimony by asking you, because this program is described
as voluntary, and many property owners believe they should only
be included in a particular river heritage designation, if they
give written permission to do so, would you support such a
provision to this, too?
Mr. Young. That they would not be included unless there
was----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Unless there was written permission to do
so.
Mr. Young. You know, that's an interesting question, in
that the idea of them agreeing to be a part of it, I think if
we're going to do a greenway, which is one of the things we've
talked about for what our plan is, and they don't want to be a
part of that greenway or have the greenway on their property,
they ought to be able to opt out of that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So you will support the provision, then,
that anyone who doesn't mind being included in it would give
written permission to be included?
Mr. Young. Well, when you start talking about trying to get
written permission from every property owner, I think that
adds--it makes it very difficult. But, you know, you cannot--if
our plan is to do a greenway, we cannot do it without the
property owner's consent to do that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So, then, you would agree that----
Mr. Young. Well, if you're asking, will I agree that before
we get the designation, we get all the property owners to
agree, no, I don't think that would be fair. If you say that--
--
Mrs. Chenoweth. Oh, no, that's not my question. I'm not
asking they agree with each other. I'm only asking if you would
agree that they should give written permission to be included
in a river designation.
Mr. Young. Before we get the designation?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Before?
Mr. Young. I don't know. I could not agree to that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK, then, as it's proposed?
Mr. Young. As what's proposed?
Mrs. Chenoweth. The designation.
Mr. Young. I'm sorry, say that one more time.
Mrs. Chenoweth. As it's proposed, which it seems to be--it
seems to be proposed in Asheville and around that area.
Mr. Young. Right.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So at this point in time, would you agree,
then, that there should be written permission from the property
owners to be included?
Mr. Young. Well, like I said, I don't think before--we have
a December deadline. I think it would be impossible for us to
get written permission from every property owner before we got
after the designation. If, in fact, we do a greenway, we have
to have their consent and know--I've stated our committee
passed a resolution saying that we would not look at anybody--
we would not do a taking of anybody's land or coerce anybody to
give up their land. So, in effect, they would have to agree to
be a part of the greenway.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK. All right, with that, we'll let you
catch your plane----
Mr. Young. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. [continuing] and thank you for your
patience in this long day.
Mr. Young. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ross.
STATEMENT OF GORDON ROSS, COOS COUNTY COMMISSIONER, COOS
COUNTY, OREGON
Mr. Ross. Chairman Chenoweth, Coos County is protective of
all its rivers and streams, just as we're protective of all our
constituents--our landowners and those who farm along those
rivers, and those who have timber holdings in those watersheds.
What we've done in Coos County is quite unique, although it
should not be, because how we started with our watershed
associations--and, incidentally, I've made copies of pictorials
in a blue binder that you have before you of before and after.
Sometimes it's hard to visualize why before and after is
better, but if you read what was happening, you can, I think,
see that.
We began on two of our streams in the Coos Bay area with a
coordinated resource management plan, which is something's
that's been available to anyone in the United States for over
40 years. In fact, it was, I believe, clear back in the
Roosevelt era that the Agricultural Adjustment Act include the
conservation plans and the opportunity for coordinated resource
management programs within your community. At the present time,
at the Federal level there are Memorandums of Understanding
between all resource agencies. At the State level of every
State in the Nation there are also signed Memorandums of
Understanding between the resource agencies at the State level
and at the community level.
So every community that has a soil and water conservation
district made up of local landowners who are elected by the
people, not just by landowners, but by all the people in the
county, has this opportunity to go to the soil and water
conservation district in that the technical expertise of the
Soil Conservation Service, now called the Resource Conservation
Service, for a coordinated resource management plan in their
community. The landowners, whether it's a full watershed or
just a short area, a small area, can get the assistance of all
the agencies to improve their streams or to improve their
watersheds, or whatever the need may be. And this voted on
congressionally. This is something that's here and is available
to every community in America.
I want to say that Coos County is one of the most favored
counties in America, I believe, and for some of the reasons I
mentioned in my testimony here: Seventy percent of our land is
privately owned. We have no Scenic River designations. We have
no congressionally withdrawn Wilderness Areas in our county. We
have consistently, since 1855, harvested more timber than any
county in the State of Oregon, and that's because we're on the
only deep-water port on the coast of Oregon, other than Astoria
at the northern end.
We built San Francisco from the days of the Forty-niners
until she burned in 1906, and we rebuilt it after that up until
1920. And this has been the largest lumber shipping port in the
world for most of my lifetime and for decades before that, and
yet we have more Coho salmon spotting per mile than any county
on the coast, on the West Coast, and we also have more coho
salmon than all the other counties in Oregon combined--and that
during a period of time when we harvest more timber than any
other county in Oregon.
This seems to defy conventional wisdom, but we also have
watershed associations partnering with up to 75 percent of the
landowners in the Coos Basin and a good number in the Coquille
River Basin. And the private landowners--this is a bottom-up,
nonregulatory approach. We have heard that today quite a few
times. I can tell you in Coos County it is.
And I want to say that, with the exception of our Federal
partners, this has worked very well. And I want to say also
that, in defense of our Federal partners on the local level, it
has worked very well with them also. It's been above that that
things begin to bog down--I think maybe partly because people
in the Federal Government don't understand the ecosystems that
we have on the coast are the Douglas fir region, and our
andramous streams are a result of disturbances--forest fire and
flood, now logging and flood--and these disturbance-based
ecosystems, we understand now, are the reason for our
tremendous response in Coho salmon and in the timber industry.
I see the light is coming on. I just want to say that we've
had a lot of great cooperation with our landowners, but when it
comes to our Federal partners, their interpretation of the Food
and Security Act, the Clean Water Act, and wetland regulations
have been a constant impediment to getting through the permit
process in order to do Coho habitat enhancement with, for
instance, projects ranging from side-rearing ponds to taking
sediment out of the streams in order to allow for Coho
enhancement have been viewed as wetland violations, and one of
our best cooperators was even charged with discharging
pollutants into the waters of the United States. He had taken
sediment out of his ditch from a previous storm and placed it
on his farmland, and that was the charge.
In conclusion, I wish to say that the bottoms-up,
nonregulatory, cooperative approach to enlist the efforts of
every private landowner can and does accomplish far more than
the Federal presence in our communities. I believe it was the
Fiddler on the Roof--in the Fiddler on the Roof where someone
asked the rabbi, ``Is there a proper blessing for the czar?''
And he said, ``Yes, God bless the czar and keep him far, far
from us.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ross may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Ross, and Mr. Schaffer and I
both have reviewed this. It's very, very good. Thank you for
providing it to us.
The Chair now recognizes my friend from Idaho, Mr. Bill
DeVeny.
STATEMENT OF BILL DeVENY, IDAHO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, BOISE,
IDAHO
Mr. DeVeny. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, members of the
Committee, and visitors. Thank you for the opportunity to
present these comments.
My name is Bill DeVeny. I am a rancher from Riggins in
central Idaho--maybe I should say west central Idaho. I am
speaking on behalf of the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation,
representing 47,000 member families, and also on behalf of
myself. My testimony is in support of H.R. 1842, to terminate
further development and implication of the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative.
One contradiction follows another in the initiative.
Creating another layer of government cannot possibly make
existing government agencies function more efficiently.
Allowing nongovernmental organizations to coordinate delivery
of Federal services, as stated in the initiative, is a lot like
having the fox guard the chicken house. These nongovernmental
organizations, NGO's, as they are often called, have no respect
for the heritage of the American West. Most of them are bound
and determined to eliminate every aspect of the heritage of the
West.
Ours is a heritage for trappers of furs, then miners,
followed by grazers and farmers; next, loggers, and more
recently, recreationists. Trappers are virtually extinct, and
the NGO's are the very ones attempting to send the rest of us
the same way.
The initiative usurps State powers and ignores
constitutional provisions. Water is the lifeblood of Idaho, so
the way it is managed and used is a concern to all of us in
Idaho. This initiative circumvents the right of States to
manage and control water, which is clearly a right of each of
us in the State.
Another concern I have is that there is no constitutional
authority for the Federal Government to become involved in the
issue of water. The Constitution enumerates the powers granted
to the Federal Government and reserves to all others the States
or to the individuals.
This initiative is duplication of efforts between other
Federal agencies--for example, the Rural Development Councils.
In some cases, the initiative appears to be in violation of
existing law such as NEPA.
This initiative circumvents the authority of Congress and
vests authority in yet another bureaucracy. It introduces
another layer which we do not need. Agencies have become the
fourth arm of government, and this is detrimental. We need less
bureaucracy, not more.
From personal experience, about two weeks before this
hearing, I was contacted by two Federal employees wanting to
come on my private property to make a stream-side survey to see
what kind of fish and habitat are in a very small stream that
crosses my private property. When questioned why they wanted to
make the survey, the employees would not say, nor would they
tell me by what authority they were coming on my property. And
last of all, they were not willing to provide me with a copy of
their survey data or any of the results.
From experience, I am very certain that whatever they might
do with the information would not be to my benefit and would be
detrimental to my interest, as well as that as to the general
public in the long run. This is just an example of the
increased intrusiveness of the government that will be created
by the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Knowing Federal agencies like I do--and I have for 50
years--their help does not have to be helpful or even be nice.
When the prospect of grant money is added, local units of
government have a hard time saying no. Several years ago, I was
asked to testify at the Idaho Association of Counties
concerning some of the heritage legislation that was being
proposed by Congressman Udall. Earlier versions had been
rejected or ignored, but when the counties were promised a
share of the money, many county commissioners had a hard time
saying no. They were not interested in the heritage areas. They
knew very little about them in most cases, but they were
definitely interested in the pork. They were willing to accept
the money regardless of the consequences, but, fortunately,
there was enough commissioners present who could see the down
side that the group voted to reject the proposal.
This country was founded on several important principles,
not the least of which is the right to own private property.
One of the primary reasons many immigrants come to this country
is the right to own and control land outright. This initiative
is just another chink in taking away private property rights
and a step toward Federal land use control. I know of no
instance where the government does a better job in the long run
for managing property than property owners themselves. We need
less government control, not more. So I encourage you to do
whatever is in your power to curtail this initiative.
Withholding funding is certainly a step in the right direction.
In summary, we do not want another Federal designation, a
greater Federal presence, enhanced Federal control over our
waters, and we do not want the government to come up with yet
another way to spend our taxpayer dollars. Additional detail is
provided in my written testimony, and I thank you for the
opportunity to present my comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeVeny may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. DeVeny. I appreciate your
good testimony.
Mr. Ealy, we'd like to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF DAVID ALLAN EALY, PERRYSVILLE, INDIANA
Mr. Ealy. Hello, Madam Chairman. I'm from Indiana, for
those who don't know me here, and I live along the Wabash
River. I am not a part of any group or organization. The
grassroots kind of nominated me to come and speak to you
because they felt I could answer your questions.
I've heard a lot of comments today, and I'm going to direct
my time at some of those. First off, in Indiana they talk about
this thing being a bottom-up. The National Park Service is who
is behind getting this initiative started in Indiana, and we
have fought them all along. They took the proposal for the
American Heritage River to a little environmental group called
Banks of the Wabash, and when we found out about their meeting
on June 30, about 40, 50 farmers showed up, and they realized
it wasn't a good idea to take a vote at that point, they passed
the initiative on to a non-elected State commission. We already
have an Indiana State program that is more advanced and more
aggressive than what they're proposing at the Federal level
from the White House.
Anyway, this Wabash Commission then had a meeting and
decided that they really didn't have the authority to deal with
this. So they decided to pass it back to the county
commissioners and try to get their approval to move forward by
July 16. That didn't happen. The county commissioners either
said no or they were silent. So then what happened, the Wabash
Commission decided to make themselves the river, and they
scheduled three public meetings, and the advertised purpose of
those meetings was to solicit public input. But no public input
was allowed.
What we were given was a 50-minute presentation by
officials, including the Federal Government. It was a sales
pitch, primarily, I think, for the media to absorb. And then if
we wanted to, we could ask questions for 10 minutes about the
presentation, but we were allowed no input. There was no give-
and-take; there was no opposing viewpoints allowed.
They were very vague initially as to what was going to be
involved in this as far as the amount of land. At the Lafayette
meeting they were also very vague about these new regulations
and things, again claiming, as we've heard today, that there
would be no mandates, no new regulations. Finally, a farmer
asked a question: ``You mean to tell me you're just going to
hand us all this money with no strings attached?'' And the
Federal official said, ``Well, of course there will be strings
attached.'' Now that kind of tells us folks in Indiana that
there's going to be some regulations. Incidentally, that
statement's on this tape and I'll put that in as one of my
exhibits.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Ealy. Thank you. Down at Vincenze, the question had
come up at Lafayette as to how much land would be involved, and
they got very vague at Lafayette, but they were specific at
Vincenze, and they decided that they would take all of the
lands of these 19 counties, which is about 4 million acres in
the initial application. Now this appointed commission has no
authority over the lands or the Wabash River. They're there
just to promote the historical, cultural, get people to work
together, that type of thing.
As a result of that, the county commissioners have realized
that, hey, this thing is serious; these people are talking
about extending their authority well beyond anything that was
ever given to them by the Indiana legislature, and since that
meeting 10 counties have issued letters telling their
commissioners to vote against this thing, when it comes up on
October 1; 7 counties have said we're withdrawing from the
State designation, so that they cannot include our county in
the Federal designation. We'll have three more by the end of
the week.
Where this is coming from is the original language that
came out for this was they were going to restore and protect
rivers. Well, restore to what and protect from what? And what
are they going to measure this and how are they going to
accomplish it?
They talked about incorporating sustainable development.
That raised a lot of eyebrows right away in our country, and
then with the Federal official talking about there would be
strings attached, people started getting real understanding
that what they were talking about was creating out of thin air
a new level of government, a regional planning authority that
would be a Federal authority and it would consist of this
Wabash Commission; it would consist of 12 or 13 or 14 Federal
agencies. There would be a river navigator involved, and there
would be at least one Federal board involved. And our county
officials looked at this as an unfunded mandate that was going
to potentially come down on them and on the State, and of
course it affects the Congress as well.
The newest stuff is calling for a clearly defined plan of
action, and before a legislative services committee a couple of
weeks ago, the Federal official held up this and said: ``You're
a plum. The Wabash is a plum because you already this State
designation, and you already have a clearly defined plan of
action.''
Well, this clearly defined plan of action is a warmed-over
version of our wetlands bill which was rejected by our
legislature. It has not been approved by our legislature or any
county government. It includes things like creating a 510-mile-
long greenway, stopping all agricultural runoff into the Wabash
watershed; transfer taxes; environmental courts--all of these
types of things, which is a part of the more advanced
environmental agenda, which of course is not going to get
through our State legislature, but this could end up being
implemented as the voluntary plan through our river community,
this Wabash Commission, and we could end up in court trying to
fight Federal officials from implementing this or helping them
implement it. So that's why the counties are opting out. They
don't want to be any part of that.
When we got really pushy down at Vincenze and it looked
like we brought this up, I explained to them that these
counties could opt out. The Federal official said, well, if the
commission doesn't vote for this, we'll see if we can get a
nomination from a lions club or a church. So this idea of a
community literally is anything; there's no definition of it.
And it is only the community who can withdraw. I, as an
individual, if I don't file the application and if the
community doesn't write some kind of rules for me to get out of
it, I'm stuck with it.
Thank you. I support H.R. 1842.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ealy may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. DeVeny. I'm glad you made that clear.
Mr. Ealy. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I am very glad to know that.
Mr. Ealy, I also wonder if you might introduce your son.
I've noticed that he's been sitting here through hours and
hours of testimony.
Mr. Ealy. Well, I have three sons.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You have three sons? They have been
remarkable in this hearing.
Mr. Ealy. I have Brian over here. He's taking notes for his
journalism class.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Brian.
Mr. Ealy. Benjamin is behind me, and Patrick is in front of
him.
Mrs. Chenoweth. That is great. They are very, very fine
young men.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. And you are teaching them well.
Mr. Schaffer. Madam Chairman, if I may?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Schaffer?
Mr. Schaffer. I was commenting to those youngsters back
there a little earlier that their behavior during the hours
they've sat here is far superior to that of Members of Congress
on the House floor today.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ealy. I have been impressed.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And even here, Mr. Schaffer. They stuck it
out, and it's just you and me, Tonto.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. So you are to be commended, and your sons
are to be commended.
Carol LaGrasse, it is so good to see you again, and
welcome. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF CAROL LaGRASSE, PROPERTY RIGHTS FOUNDATION OF
AMERICA, STONY CREEK, NEW YORK
Ms. LaGrasse. Thank you, Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you for the
honor of testifying today.
My name is Carol LaGrasse. I'm the president of the
Property Rights Foundation of America in Stony Creek, New York.
That organization is a grassroots, nationwide organization
dedicated to preserving, in all its fullness, the fundamental
human right to own private property, as guaranteed in the U.S.
Constitution.
I'm a retired Stony Creek elected councilman and also a
retired civil and environmental engineer. For the past 4 years,
I have been studying the National, or American, Heritage Areas
(or Corridors) and exposing the grandiose scope of this program
and its implications for private property rights and local
representative government. Now the President has pronounced the
American Heritage Rivers program.
Around the countryside where I live in upstate New York or
down in New York City or on Long Island, where I originally
hail from, no one has told me that they're looking for an
American Rivers Heritage Program or for any element of the
program, as defined in any of the written documents. And on the
other side of the coin, many people have called the Property
Rights Foundation of America from the States of Washington and
California, to the midwestern States of Indiana and Minnesota,
to the eastern States of Maine and Virginia, and many more, for
help to block the program.
The American Heritage Rivers program is of great national
concern. Because of the widespread fear, I've been invited to
speak numerous times about the American Heritage Rivers program
on Radio and TV talk shows, and have in fact received more
requests to speak about this topic than any other topic during
the year.
After 3 years of successful grassroots private property
rights opposition to the National, or American, Heritage Areas
program in Congress, the Clinton Administration has pronounced
this, a very similar, but more ambitious, in my estimation,
program unilaterally through the rulemaking or Executive Order
process. Of course, everybody knew that, no matter how much the
wording was watered down in the American Heritage Areas
program, it was designed to bring the National Park Service
into local zoning and to transfer land ownership to government.
This is the mentality and future people are afraid of, and I am
not ashamed to use the word ``fear.''
Now I have to add some remarks about New York and get to
the home territory because there were some statements which I
think were misleading today. In New York's Hudson Valley,
contrary to the impression left by Mr. Babbitt, Mr. Hinchey,
and Mr. Miller at the July 15th congressional hearing, there is
widespread opposition still remaining to the National Heritage
Areas Program. People still don't like it in connection with
the Hudson River Valley designation, however successfully it's
been completed. And I've attached to the testimony two items
that demonstrate the continuing opposition.
The first is a statement by one of the active local
citizens' groups, the Coxsackie Awareness Group, which was
printed in the New York Property Rights Clearinghouse published
by this organization, and explains that the local people oppose
the program as another potential infringement on their private
property rights.
Now this group which authored the letter that we published
had gotten started because it successfully defeated a local
town zoning program that came down over a period of 25 years
from the passage by Congress of the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act.
The second item I'm enclosing is a recent letter to the
editor by a Hyde Park resident in opposition to me personally
and the Property Rights Foundation. The writer mentions a
meeting that was a forum by the Columbia County Planning
Department, where I was one of six speakers. The other five
were government speakers in support of the Hudson Valley
National Heritage Area being completed. You may recall that the
Solomon portion was left out, and it was later added.
There was $10 million in pork barrel that was concerning
these speakers, as well as the environmentalists who were
included in the six. The writer of this letter states that his
group needs Federal funding because of the problem, as he calls
it, to him, and now I quote, ``The majority of the standing-
room only audience appeared to be supportive of her'' [meaning
Carol LaGrasse's] views.''
Now, the Council on Environmental Quality has represented
the American Heritage Rivers Program as an honor and ombudsman.
I'd just like to make the statement that, at most, the honor is
a very minor feature of the program. Neither is the ombudsman
an adequate explanation, as Ms. McGinty has said repeatedly.
There are no proposed rules applying to any of these
agencies describing how they could possibly be expediting
processes or relaxing enforcement. Those are to me the two
elements of an ombudsman. Neither one is ever elucidated.
Today there was some testimony from the Honorable
Congressman from Pennsylvania that in the Northeast there is a
need for this program because our rivers are deteriorating.
Well, the truth of the matter is that in the State of New York
the Hudson River, which will be considered, including the
Champlain Valley all the way to the Montreal border (if you
want to go into the Jeffords plan), the Hudson River Valley was
once very heavily farmed and industrialized. The shores were
punctuated by wharves and all sorts of industries, but now it's
grown up in forests, and it certainly doesn't need to be
restored to any kind of a natural heritage that's maybe pre-
colonial. It's really changed quite a lot in the recent 50
years.
Another remark was made that the myriad of local planning
departments in states like Pennsylvania--and New York which is
a very similar state in its governmental structure--aren't
``professional''; local government isn't ``professional''
enough. Well, we have very professional planners in New York,
and where we don't have them on staff as government-appointed
officials, we're required to hire them as very expensive
consultants. So we really are very adequately professionalized
in our government, even dismayingly so.
The heart of each application for designation is a very
elaborately stated planning plan for the future of the entire
river and the land along it. That's the point of concern. The
confusing description of the program seems to denote some kind
of a plan to coordinate a number of important, powerful Federal
agencies under a new national commission established for the
purposes of the program at each designated river, in order to
meet a plan of action to protect the river, which is nebulously
defined as a ``community'', and apparently this is being worked
out in conjunction with the Federal Government to define this
community and this plan.
Now a federally appointed ``riverkeeper,'' as you know, for
each American Heritage River coordinates with the community and
all of these Federal agencies. It seems to me that a plan,
judging by how planning takes place in this nation these days,
a plan for each river is presumably one that will further
restrict the use of land and water to protect nature and
someone's idea of historical importance.
Now this new body, the American Heritage Rivers Interagency
Committee, includes the heads of 12 agencies, as you know, from
the Defense Department to the National Endowment for the
Humanities. The primary agencies--the Environmental Protection
Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Corps of
Engineers--are ones that are historically trampling on private
property rights. So it seems to me that this program of more
efficient coordination of Federal enforcement agencies sounds
like a juggernaut--the opposite of an ombudsman.
In my estimation, the practical meaning and future of the
American Heritage Rivers program is to likely pan out something
like this: The planning process will be led by Federal agencies
and preservation groups which are hostile to private property
rights and will be dominated by professionals,
environmentalists, economic development types who are experts
in the government gravy train who will go the rounds in each
river area. Over the years, even 5 to 20 years, of quasi-
voluntary partnership programs and mandatory programs of
varying nature around the U.S.----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mrs. LaGrasse, would you be able to----
Ms. LaGrasse. Oh, I'm sorry, I should be done, and I am
done.
Anyway, it will pan out in that way, with all of these
planning programs, and there will be stumbling blocks to local
government as responsive to the local populations and problems
for private property owners.
I would just like to say that the Property Rights
Foundation of America obviously supports your bill, and
appreciates your bill, and appreciates the opportunity to
testify today.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And we appreciate your being here, too.
Thank you very much.
And the Chair recognizes Mr. Schaffer for questions.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Commissioner Ross, looking through the watershed projects
in Coos County and some of the other projects that you
mentioned, I just have a pretty simple question. In contrast to
the statements by some who believe that the only way you can
engage in water-related projects, river projects, is with the
Heritage Rivers Initiative, I just want to know, how did you
get all this done without the Federal Government and without
the Heritage Rivers Initiative?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ross. We would have gotten farther without them.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ross. Excuse me. Mr. Schaffer, Madam Chair, I started
with a small group of foresters and fishermen. We call
ourselves the Coquille Forestry and Fishery Alliance, and we
were looking at ways to solve the problems that some people
felt were opposed to each other, and there are still people
that try to drive wedges between our resource users in Coos
County, but we brought these resource users together, and we
did it years ago. Different programs that began in Coos County,
the Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program, the Adopt-a-Stream--
these all started in Coos County with people that are
interested in fisheries and the resource issues that are very
near and dear to us there. And so we've been able to work with
the farmers, with the loggers, and with the fishermen. Our
loggers all fish, too. Our farmers fish. And our fishermen
appreciate the efforts that the other industries, the resource
industries, have come together to help what is their
livelihood--our commercial fishing industry as well as our
sport fisheries.
So I guess we've just been lucky that people have enjoyed
working together, and we've had some good leadership at
different times. Different people in the community spearheaded
these. It's hard to define where it started, but it started
with individual people. It didn't start with a government
person. It started with people in the community that saw a need
and spearheaded something, and then got the resources together.
Mr. Schaffer. You are not the reason the Federal Government
believes we need to have a Federal agent coordinate these
projects?
Mr. Ross. Pardon?
Mr. Schaffer. So you are not the reason, then, that the
Federal Government believes that it needs a Federal employee to
coordinate these projects?
Mr. Ross. I hope I'm not the reason.
Mr. Schaffer. OK.
Mr. Ross. I'd get recalled at home.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer.
I wanted to ask Mr. DeVeny, did you let the Federal agents
on your property----
Mr. DeVeny. No.
Mrs. Chenoweth. [continuing] to survey the stream?
Mr. DeVeny. Yes, Madam Chairman, I did not--I had a little
discussion with one of them the next morning, and when he was
telling me what he was--or how he was going to use it, and so I
said, no; I said, ``I just can't let you do it.'' So he said,
``OK, we won't look at you, but we'll go up above you,'' which
is Federal land. It is Forest Service, and it is a long, long,
hard walk around on either side.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. And could you also repeat for me, very
quickly, what the response was in Louiston with regards to this
designation?
Mr. DeVeny. Which designation?
Mrs. Chenoweth. The American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Was there an invitation?
Mr. DeVeny. No, there was not. I was not present, Madam
Chairman, but from what I hear from the locals, no, there was
no sympathy whatsoever for it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Ross, in your written testimony you
state that one of your cooperating landowners was charged with
discharging pollutants into the waters of the United States.
What exactly was that, and what was that it he supposedly
discharged? What did he do? And how serious was this charge?
Mr. Ross. Madam Chair, he was part of one of our
coordinated resource management programs for Larson Inlet. He's
a dairyman on Larson Inlet. He's a fellow that loves to fish
and loves to do things for the fish, and part of the program
had come up with the need to take the sediment out of Larson
Inlet, and he had been waiting for 2 years to get through the
permit system, and then we had a big storm and it just--he just
finally concluded that he and fish, neither one, could wait for
a permit from the Corps of Engineers, and he dug the whole
thing out, and it was turned over to the EPA, and they charged
him with discharging pollutants into the waters of the United
States.
Now we thought he took the pollutants out of the waters.
This confused us. But the waters was his farmland, you see,
because this might be jurisdictional wetland, and none of us
qualify there for a prior converted farmland. So what we have
is wetland pasture.
And the pollutant was the material coming out. Now the
interesting thing--and I explained it to the EPA before and we
did get them to turn it back over to local resource people to
work with him to mitigate this horrible offense, which did
everything a world of good, the fish included. I explained to
him it would be an interesting prospect to go before a Federal
judge and have one of your people on the witness stand and come
with two buckets of dirt, and have you identify which one of
them is the waters of the United States and which one's the
pollutant, because they'd be exactly alike. Both are erosion
from the very same watershed. One formed the land over the
years, and the other is what stuck in the creek that year and
took out and put on the land.
But this is a serious offense. This person in Meyersville,
Pennsylvania a few years back that was an immigrant from
Poland, he was charged with this same thing because, after
years of working as a mechanic, he was able to realize the
great American dream, and he bought a garage and a wrecking
yard, and he got rid of all the wrecked automobiles, and in an
EPA-approved manner, got rid of a whole stack of tires, and he
went into the garage business for himself, and he put up a sign
that said: ``Fill dirt wanted.'' Well, while the tires were
there, they had plugged up a culvert and a couple of skunk
cabbages had grown. So he was arrested also for polluting, for
polluting the waters of the United States, and he served 3
years in a Federal penitentiary, and was fined $206,000. And I
met his daughter a few years ago on the steps of the Capitol in
a fly in for freedom back here; she was trying to get her
father out, and I had read about this in the Reader's Digest
already. So I knew what----
Mrs. Chenoweth. And what----
Mr. Ross. This person had a very serious charge, and we
worked to get that turned back to the local people and the
local Corps of Engineers, to work with him on some side-rearing
ponds and do some mitigation, and get out from under this, or
I'd have had a neighbor in the Federal penitentiary probably by
today.
Mrs. Chenoweth. That was John Pasquis? Was that John
Pasquis or was that----
Mr. Ross. No, the person--oh, I think that's the name of
the person from Meyersville. I believe that was his name.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes, he was one of my clients, and he was a
Hungarian immigrant, a freedom fighter who was--who had an
admirable reputation as being a freedom fighter from Hungary,
and escaped to America, the land of the free and the home of
the brave, and this is how we treated him. I could spend all
evening on this case, but, anyway, thank you very much.
And, Mr. Ealy, I wanted to ask you, what has been the
response of the Indiana State legislature in the designating of
the Wabash River in the American Heritage Rivers Initiative?
Mr. Ealy. Our legislature right now is out of session. So
what we hear from them we hear over the telephone or in
different meetings. Some of them are saying they've looked at
the Kentucky resolution and they want to put something like
that in Indiana law, which forbids anyone from seeking
something like the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, because
that properly is within the jurisdiction of the State
legislature. If the Indiana people wish a designation like
that, they should petition the State legislature.
An interesting response was the original representative who
actually wrote the bill that created this. He happens to be my
representative. He's a Democrat. He went before the Legislative
Services Committee a week or two ago and asked them to put out
an immediate letter, even though they were out of session,
telling the county commissioners to oppose it. He also
lambasted, opposed, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. He
also lambasted the commissioners who where there, including the
president of the commission, and explained to them that we had
concerns when we established this State designation that it
could impact property rights. We put protection within the law,
within the code, to make sure that that never happened. We gave
you no authority over land use or over the Wabash River. You
are ignoring those protections. And when the legislature gets
back in session, we're going to deal with that.
So we have bipartisan opposition in Indiana to this idea of
a Federal designation or this commission exceeding their
authority. I had another senator who said, if they do this,
we'll sue them all the way to the Supreme Court. I'm not sure
how he could do that, but that's what his comment was.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I also--I might suggest from the Chair that
they might also, as Congressmen, opt out for their districts of
the program, as we did today for Idaho.
Mr. Ealy. Now are you talking about State or Federal?
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Federal, the American Heritage----
Mr. Ealy. OK. At the Federal level--I was speaking of the
State--at the Federal level, we have two of our Congressmen who
have come out vehemently opposed, and two who are somewhat
opposed. So we need to work on them a little bit.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Good, good. Mrs. LaGrasse, you heard Lois
Van Hoover talk about the same American Heritage Rivers
Initiative Program being used in Canada. Have you heard about
this, the Laquois River?
Ms. LaGrasse. No, I haven't heard about it, I'm sorry.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK.
Ms. LaGrasse. I can't comment on that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. Well, I want to thank the panel
very much for your fine testimony and for your great patience
today, and the Committee may have further questions for you in
writing and I would appreciate if you could have your answers
back to us in 3 weeks. Thank you very much.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair now calls the final panel: Mr.
David Bright, Sr., from Harrison, Arkansas; Mr. Peter Samuel
from the Schuylkill River Greenway and Heritage Corridor in
Wyomissing, Pennsylvania; Dan Blomquist, Montanans for Multiple
Use, Kalispell, Montana; Linda Bourque Moss, Western Heritage
Center, Billings, Montana, and Reginald William Nelson from
Richmond, Virginia.
Would you remain standing and raise your right arm, please?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Bright, I wonder if you can open with
testimony.
STATEMENT OF DAVID L. BRIGHT, SR., HARRISON, ARKANSAS
Mr. Bright. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I submitted
quite a bit of testimony, and some of it was the rage we felt
for 25 years, and I'm not much of a writer, so I've done some
more here to get it down to 5 minutes.
But, as I listened today, you had very good witnesses on
the American Heritage Initiative. So what I'd rather talk about
is how a Federal river worked for us.
And it was something that Mrs. Yturria said, and I hope I
got that name right, but she said Washington had finally gotten
it, she thought. And I would really have liked to have told
her, they got ours 25 years ago. It was called the Buffalo
River; it's now a national river, and it was the first national
river.
And I'm hearing the same terms today that we heard back
then. The Forest Service rangers come to our community church
in about 1970 to explain this program to us, and they said they
only needed about 50 foot up the bank for a national river.
That's all they really needed. Nobody would be moved from their
homes. Those were all rumors, you know, about taking land and
stuff; that the benefits would far outweigh losing that river,
because we were going to have tourists flooding in, and I'm
hearing that same stuff today, and I just want to tell you how
it works.
There's no old folks--my community is totally gone. All the
people were moved off; the houses were burned or dozed down or
hauled off. No old folks died on their place, like they said.
In my community the park boundaries are probably three to five
miles wide, not 50 foot, and I just want--I'm hearing this same
stuff today.
And I want to mention about the partnerships. We've seen
these same partnerships, Federal and State and NGO's, on the
biosphere nomination. We've seen them on stream teams this year
when they developed them in Arkansas, the same people, Federal
and State and NGO's. We're seeing them now--now we're hearing
about--on this--partnerships, and I'm going to tell you, Madam
Chairman, to us it looks a lot more like gang activity than it
does partnerships.
There's no way to ever--and another thing we've heard here
today, and we hear it on all of them, is customs and culture
and heritage. Now let me tell you how they protected my
community. We're talking about communities. I don't know what
this community is because evidently you can be a community if
you're a few people, and you can designate 200 miles of river.
But I want you to remember what happened to my community, and
they were going to help it, too, and it's gone.
My church house is now an eco-tour destination, and the
cemetery where I buried my daughter is, likewise, an eco-tour
destination. The cemetery, because of the Civil War graves of
that era there, those people had lived on that land forever;
the government patented those people that land. I guess we're
supposed to believe the government giveth and the government
taketh away, because that's what they did.
But if you come to my county, you'll see what tourism has
done for it. We had a Dog Patch USA Park three miles from the
Federal park. It's bankrupt and closed, and has been for years.
It went bankrupt three or four times. It sits on our main drag,
which is winding, two-lane, no-shoulder, scenic U.S. byway. So
that's our highest traffic density.
And I just want you to come and look around my square. We
have about 7,000 people, or thereabouts, in my county. Come
walk around the square that was supposed--see if you see any
highrise motels or any hiking store supplies. Come and look.
The Federal Government park--I'm not aware of them hiring any
locals, but they may, to haul trash off or something. They've
taken 41,000 acres of our very best farmland, our bottom land.
We've been exiled in our county to ridgetops and hillsides, and
Madam Chairman, they're after it. They want the whole
watershed, which is what we've got left on those ridgetops.
There's 197,000 acres also of forestland. We're under an
ecosystem assessment, another partnership, by the Forest
Service. This year they offered for sale 281 acres to cut for
timber. Now I don't cut timber. I'm a real estate broker, but
the southern part of my county--and my county coffers depend
heavily on the Federal Government, and I believe it's their
responsibility, when they have that much of our land base, to
provide some jobs and opportunities for our people.
Deer School sits down on that forestland and they're losing
kids. The population's going down. Those people are driving 60
miles to pluck chickens, people that used to work in the woods,
and there's nothing wrong with plucking chickens; don't get me
wrong. I mean, it's honest work, isn't it? But those people are
moving out because they can, for what it costs them in gas and
wear and tear on their vehicle, and the fact that they spend 4
hours a day driving away from their family to have a job--they
can make payments in Carroll County, and that's where they're
doing that. And we're losing families.
Madam Chairman, they call this stuff ``honorary.'' I'm
going to tell you, we've got--we've had a sackful of
honoraries. We've got two Wilderness Areas. We've got Scenic
Trailways and Byways. Every stream that runs 3 months of the
year is now a Wild and Scenic Riverway. We have--I'm going to
tell you, we've had so many honors that we can hardly cope. If
we get one--every time we get an honor, we lose families and
jobs, and we have had all the honors we need.
There is a bill up here, and I think it sits in your
Committee, that mentions Newton County again by name. The last
thing we want to do is you people up here to even know where
we're at. You've found us so many times that, when you mention
us by name, we go to shaking. We've got a little bit of people
left, and we really just want to be left alone with the lands
you've left us and just live. Is that possible any more in
America? Can we own anything? Is there anything sacred that we
can own that you can't take? An acre? A stream? Anything? You
know, we've just had just too, too much honor.
And I'm begging you--I support your bill, and I don't want
you to think I'm one of those right-wing radicals, but there
are many of my heroes that sits on this panel, and I want you
to know that. And I appreciate the two that stayed all day; I
really do. And we have some hope that maybe there will be some
sensibility again because of these kind of bills, and H.R. 901,
which we supported heavily, obviously, last year, that as an
American ought to make everybody cringe and cry that we even
need to introduce a bill like that, but, second, and even
worse, that you can't get two-thirds of the people up here to
vote for it. And we're watching H.R. 901 with some interest.
I know you're not here to talk about H.R. 901, but I wanted
to--I took my first plane trip to come here, and I wanted to
throw my two cents in while I was here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bright. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I appreciate that, Mr. Bright, and I
appreciate your entering the tragic story about your community
in the record. Thank you for being here and for waiting so
long.
Mr. Bright. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I forgot--could I
enter--would you entertain entering this? This is the testimony
and kind of stuff put together by a county judge, and he wanted
you to know that the Park Service is not the best neighbors
that we've ever seen. And he sent this up here with me, and if
I could entertain you to enter what portions you want or take,
and look it over, I would really appreciate that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Bright.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Samuel.
STATEMENT OF PETER SAMUEL, SCHUYLKILL RIVER GREENWAY AND
HERITAGE CORRIDOR, WYOMISSING, PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Samuel. Thank you. I'm Peter Samuel. I'm the director
of the Schuylkill River Greenway and Heritage Corridor, and on
behalf of that group, its partners, and community
organizations, I want to thank you and the members of this
Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony in
opposition to H.R. 1842.
We are opposed to H.R. 1842 because we believe the American
Heritage River Initiative will provide opportunities and
benefits to our region in southeastern Pennsylvania. The
Schuylkill River Greenway Association is a membership
organization which has been working with citizens and community
groups and a host of other partners up and down the river for
almost 25 years to promote the river resources and advocate
their protection.
In the 1990's we went through a process to develop a
management action plan for the Schuylkill as a Heritage
Corridor, and in 1995 the Schuylkill River Corridor was
designated by Governor Tom Ridge as Pennsylvania's seventh
State Heritage Park.
We in the Schuylkill watershed, including conservationists,
elected officials, municipal governments, landowners,
recreationalists, industry owners, and more, are very much
interested in the American Heritage River Initiative because it
will provide an excellent chance for the widest range of people
to take new pride in their river. It will enable us to work
with the Federal Government as a partner in efforts to improve
and restore the resources associated with the Schuylkill.
The goal of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is to
support communities within the existing laws and regulations by
providing them with better information, tools, and resources,
and by encouraging local efforts deserving of special
recognition. This is precisely the kind of assistance the
Schuylkill River Greenway Association needs. This will help
people better understand how to access existing Federal
resources.
Let me provide a little background on the Schuylkill River
Valley. You heard about the Delaware River a little bit today.
We are a close associate of the Delaware.
The Schuylkill River flows through some of the most
historically significant land in the United States. The river
itself extends 128 miles from the mining region of Schuylkill
County through four other counties and into the city of
Philadelphia, where it links up with the Delaware. It comprises
three national parks, many acres of State park and gamelands,
widespread residential development, agriculture, industrial
towns, and private lands.
By the 1770's, Philadelphia had become the hub of America's
revolutionary activity. It was the site of the First and Second
Continental Congresses, the birthplace of the Declaration of
Independence. It was along the Schuylkill in the winter of 1778
that General Washington and his troops camped in Valley Forge,
before the turning point in the Revolutionary War.
By 1900, the use of anthracite coal from Schuylkill County
to power industry caused a total transformation in the valley.
During this period, the entire river valley functioned as an
interlocking series of industrial engines, and Philadelphia
became a national leader in industry. All this growth and
development of communities and industries was not without
consequence. By 1927, it was estimated that there was 38
million tons of coal silt in the river. The river was so
polluted that it had essentially lost its value as a river. The
canal system was no longer navigable. The drinking water had
seriously been degraded.
The river has been making a slow comeback. In the 1970's,
the Schuylkill River Greenway Association was formed to begin
advocating the protection and health of the river and its
tributaries. The Schuylkill was designated by the State
legislature as Pennsylvania's first scenic river in 1978. After
an extensive 3-year planning process which involved
representatives from each of the five counties and the public
and private sectors, the Schuylkill Heritage Corridor was
designated as a Pennsylvania Heritage Area.
The Schuylkill River Greenway Association, which had many
years of experience working with partners throughout the
corridor, expanded its mission to include increasing
recreational opportunities, conserving cultural and historic
resources, encouraging regional cooperation, attracting
tourism, and generating jobs and permanent economic benefits.
Since I became the director of the Schuylkill Corridor,
I've realized that there are Federal agencies in our region
which have programs that could provide assistance to our
various communities. The Army Corps of Engineers has indicated
an interest in transforming the de-silting basins into
wetlands. The Environmental Protection Agency has funds for
creating riparian buffers along the tributaries. The National
Park Service can provide greenways and trail planning. Fish and
Wildlife is interested in the development of fish ladders along
the many dams, and there are probably many others.
My information about these potential programs has been
haphazard, almost accidental, but if the Schuylkill River is
designated as an American Heritage River, information about all
these programs could be made available as a coordinated package
of services. The Federal Government would begin to work for us.
People have called for a better, smarter, more coordinated way
to work with the Federal Government. The American Heritage
Rivers Initiative seeks to coordinate these existing
authorities in a more efficient and complementary way, and
proposes that assistance from the government will come at the
request of our community.
There is no existing system to provide communities with a
coordinated package of Federal services. In fact, there is so
much lack of coordination, it is very possible that within one
very small agency, such as the National Park Service, that more
than one department or division could be involved with the same
project, and they'd never know what the other is doing. If what
is being proposed by the American Heritage Rivers Initiative
comes to fruition, it will be a major advance for government.
I'm not talking about more government, not more
regulations, not more interference. I'm talking about
coordination, organization, and responsiveness. I'm talking
about better government, ideal government--one that is there
when you want it and one that provides a coordinated strategy
of services that will be truly helpful.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative will allow for
recognition of the contributions of ordinary people in the
significant regions of our Nation. The Schuylkill Heritage
Corridor provides a framework for all types of people to take
pride in their community, understand their history, and work
together to enhance the quality of life for their children. We
are treating our history and heritage as one of our greatest
resources. The American Heritage River Initiative will allow us
to build on that and ensure that the present and future is
successfully linked to our past.
Thank you. I would also like to provide for the record a
letter from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and an
attachment, if I might.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Samuel may be found at end
of hearing.]
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Samuel, I want to thank you for your testimony very
much.
Mr. Samuel. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Blomquist, it is very good to see you
again.
STATEMENT OF DAN BLOMQUIST, MONTANANS FOR MULTIPLE USE,
KALISPELL, MONTANA
Mr. Blomquist. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Welcome to Washington. We will entertain
your testimony.
Mr. Blomquist. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Yes, I'm
president of Montanans for Multiple Use, a grassroots
organization with five chapter groups spread throughout the
State of Montana, and, yes, it's good to see you again. I
remember the first time that I met you there up in Kalispell,
where we were talking about forest access, and as I started to
talk about my personal experience with forest access--and I'm
going to do it again here in a second--I ended up crying about
it, and you said, ``I wish that all of Congress could have seen
that.'' Well, I thought this was where they were going to be.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Blomquist. So it's bad that there is so many demands on
other people's time today.
One of the first things that I want to bring up is that our
county commissioners, both for Flathead County and Lincoln
County, which is most of northwestern Montana, they cover an
area of probably bigger than a couple of States back here. Both
of them have unanimously signed resolutions that they do not
want the American Heritage River; they don't want any part of
it. If it's introduced, they will not participate. They will
not allow it into their counties, and those are in the written
record there. So I also know that they're working with other
counties within the State of Montana to come up with the same
thing.
I've rewritten this thing about 27 times today because I
keep hearing just gross inaccuracies. Ms. McGinty, she makes
lots of promises, but follows through, in my personal
experience, on very, very few. She spoke at the Western States
Coalition Summit Meeting in July 1997 in Spokane, Washington,
and I'm going to have to paraphrase this a little bit, but she
said something to the effect of she would like to trust people,
but she can't always trust people to do the right thing. Well,
apparently, she has reasons to believe this because she didn't
follow through and do the right thing, and put into the--the
promises made at that meeting, put them into the documentation
in the final deal of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
She specifically said, and I asked her again today--I
walked over here to the side of the room and asked her--I says,
``In Spokane, you said that a private property owner could opt
out of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative if they so
desired.'' And she says, ``No, I said a community.'' And I
says, ``No, you were specifically asked the question and you
said that a private property owner could opt out of it.''
There's many other instances throughout there that she's done
the same thing.
And I tried to explain to her that it's this kind of
vagueness, this kind of saying one thing one time and doing
something else--her response to me was, ``Well, it's our
intentions to make government better.'' Give me a break. All
your actions, everything that you've done has said exactly the
opposite.
Now something that doesn't have anything to do with
American Heritage Rivers, but it has to do with rivers and
water qualities--I have a book here--Congressman Hill has a
copy of this, if you'd like to see it, and if you would like to
have a copy, I will get it to you, if you will let me know
about it. This is water quality money that was set aside to
reduce sedimentation in the streams. This is full of pictures
of what happened when the Federal Government got involved in
removing culverts for the sake of closing roads on the Flathead
National Forest. One stream, two culverts, 80 tons of sediment
into the stream because of what they've done. That's one of the
hazards you run into when you take moneys from one program that
are set aside to do something and divert them over here to do
something totally different. You run into these kind of
problems. Now they have no money to fix it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Blomquist, let me ask you, would you
like that to be a part of the record?
Mr. Blomquist. Yes, you can have it, sure.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. So ordered.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Blomquist. OK. We have one--in fact, Ms. Moss will
speak to this, and we have one river that's proposed for
listing in Montana, Yellowstone River, and I had heard a lot of
things about what the proposal was. So I asked her today
specifically what it was, and it's to bring out the history of
the river and have little sites along, kind of a walk-down-
memory-lane. And surprisingly, I support that, but I do not and
cannot support the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
This is a way--I don't think that she really understands--
or not her personally, but the committee that's down there--
really understands what happens when you start working with the
Federal Government. I can't outdo Mr. Bright over here, but
we've got the spotted grizzly bear; we've got the spotted gray
wolf; we've got the spotted bull trout; we've got National Park
Service; we've got 78 percent of our county is administered by
the Federal Government, and we know what kind of partners they
are, and it ain't the best ones in the world.
I would have the opportunity to come here today for a
little different reason than what most people have had. We
didn't have the money to come here. I didn't have it
personally; my organization didn't have it. But when I was
invited, I started asking people and organizations from all
over the State of Montana. That was a very humbling thing for
me to do--to go around with my hand out and ask for donations
to get here. And the response was just overwhelming.
And I always think of Isabelle Fratt, who called me and
says, ``I'm so sick of what the Federal Government's been doing
to us. I can't send much, but could I please have your address
and send you $10 to help you get to Washington, DC?''
Excuse me. I'd better go back to reading something so I can
get through this.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania said this morning that the
Northeast has led the way in independence. Well, the ancestors
from the Northeast moved to the West, looking for the same
things: independence and liberty. And for 150 years, they've
taken care of the places like Montana, so that they're still
the last best place. We are still leading the way for freedom
and liberty, and we don't want a river rammed through it.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blomquist may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Blomquist. I appreciate your
testimony. And can you give up another notebook for the record?
Mr. Blomquist. Pardon?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Can you give up another notebook for the
record, the exhibit there?
Mr. Blomquist. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right, good. thank you.
And the Chair recognizes Linda Bourque Moss, and thank you
for your patience, Ms. Moss. We welcome your testimony.
STATEMENT OF LYNDA BOURQUE MOSS, WESTERN HERITAGE CENTER,
BILLINGS, MONTANA
Ms. Moss. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chairman and
members of the Committee. My name is Lynda Bourque Moss and I
am the director of the Western Heritage Center, a regional
museum located in Billings, Montana. Founded in 1970, the
Western Heritage Center is a museum dedicated to interpreting
and reflecting Yellowstone River Valley life. I am here this
evening to present the background of a regional project of the
Western Heritage Center, the Yellowstone Heritage Partnership,
and to relate our regional interest in support of the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative. I am here today with the
encouragement of the Yellowstone County commissioners, the
Western Heritage Center board of directors, and supporters of
the Yellowstone Heritage Partnership. I'm just going to
summarize my written statement for you.
Several years ago the Western Heritage Center began two
projects: one called Our Place in the West, which was a long-
term exhibit and oral history projects, and public programs,
and publications that looked at living in the Yellowstone River
Valley from the perspective of residents. We also embarked on
another project called The Real West: Farming and Ranching
Families of the Yellowstone Valley.
With both of those projects, we visited people. We were in
kitchens and back yards of farmers and ranchers throughout the
Yellowstone Valley, getting their sense of their history and
perspective of this remarkable region. Many of those people
were very interested in continuing this history project. We
worked with small, local museums. We looked at their artifacts
and collections, and saw that there was a remarkable wealth of
information within the Yellowstone region. Out of this dialog,
we saw that there was a need to develop a regional partnership,
and in 1996 the Western Heritage Center became the lead
organization for the Yellowstone Heritage Partnership.
For the Yellowstone Heritage Partnership, we focused on the
Yellowstone region, which involves Montana, northern Wyoming,
and western North Dakota. To begin building support, and the
process to establish this partnership, we requested technical
assistance from the RTCA program, which is with the National
Park Service.
For that assistance, we enlisted the support of counties
and all types of nonprofit organizations and museums throughout
the Yellowstone Valley. We had over 40 letters of support for
that application. One of my favorite letters came from McKensey
County in North Dakota, and they even called me and said, ``We
are so pleased that you're including us in this regional
project. We've always felt that we are part of the Yellowstone
Valley, and in western North Dakota oftentimes we go
unnoticed.''
In January 1996, the Western Heritage formed an advisory
council, and that was comprised of many individuals that sent
in letters of support. And we have letters of support from that
from county commissioners throughout this region.
The Yellowstone Hertitage Partnership advisory council
includes representatives from Federal, State, and local
agencies, museums, colleges. The Crow and Northern Cheyenne
communities have representation on our advisory council.
Agriculture, recreation, and natural resource management
organizations in Montana, northern Wyoming, and western North
Dakota are involved. We have three appointees from each of the
Governors--from the Governor of Wyoming, the Governor of
Montana, and the Governor of North Dakota.
In February 1996, the advisory council formulated a vision
statement. Our vision statement is this: ``The Yellowstone
Heritage Partnership, working together to promote the
Yellowstone River Valley: a place valued for its quality of
life; communities that respect their region's natural and
cultural heritage, and consider these in their developmental
projects; a region with a sustainable economy that offers
opportunities for growth and employment while managing change;
and a people that cooperate through the free exchange of ideas
and develop consensus.''
Since 1996, we've had many public meetings throughout the
Yellowstone Valley. We've had meetings in Billings, in
Colstrip, Lame Deer, Hardin, Crow Agency, in Livingston, Red
Lodge, Joliet. We've had meetings in Williston, North Dakota,
and in Sheridan, Wyoming, we had over 100 people attend a
meeting.
We also worked with another organization who is a partner,
the Yellowstone Center for Applied Economic Research, and that
organization has conducted several focus group studies
throughout the region, asking residents their perception of the
region, the quality of life, resource use, and economic
development. And one of those is cultural tourism.
And I'm going to read some of the statements from people
from those meetings. This is from Bill Michaels. He's a
sugarbeet farmer. He lives in Huntley, which is near Billings,
and he's also on our advisory council.
He said, ``I could support any program that does not in any
way diminish private property rights. My concern is agriculture
and its future. Family farms are very important. It is my
belief most rivers need some type of flood control and effort
to diminish the destruction of timberland''--he was talking
about deer habitat--``and productive farmlands. Strange how
farmers and ranchers are not part of many of these programs.''
Ivy Brubaker in Terry, Montana--Ivy is probably 80 years
old, and whenever I see her, she gives me a big hug. ``We think
the State and county should have charge of our area. We are
concerned for the farmers and ranchers, fishermen, and those
with their fun boats.''
Dallas Johannsen--this is from a meeting in Hysham that I
attended. He's the executive director of the Eastern Plains
RC&D. We went through very intense discussion of the
Yellowstone Heritage Partnership with many of their members,
and Dallas commented, ``We need to begin to build trust as we
look at these types of initiatives.''
Based on the public input through these methods, the
Western Heritage Center identified the following projects and
tasks as part of our partnership. One is to develop a traveling
exhibit. That's called ``Explore the Yellowstone!'' and we're
going to take that to fairs and pow-wows, rodeos, places where
people gather, to begin talking to people about the Yellowstone
region, sharing this wonderful history of this area.
We're conducting a regional economic study of cultural
tourism in the Yellowstone region which will create information
that is user-friendly, so all these organizations can be using
the same data, as we talk about cultural tourism as one leg of
the economy of the Yellowstone region.
We looked at the need to obtain what we called a circuit
rider for the region or someone that could facilitate multi-
agency coordination and collaboration, and also further
expanding the support base of the partnership. At all of our
advisory council meetings we have representation from our three
congressional offices, and they have been very helpful in
providing input from their perspective as well.
When the American Heritage Rivers Initiative was announced
by President Clinton, the partnership began gathering
information about the initiative. Many of the partnership
members saw parallels between our regional initiative and the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative. In May we received a
consensus to continue to evaluate the initiative while
conducting a regional survey to gather other information
related to the initiative, and we submitted comments as part of
that public review process.
Our preliminary approach is based on information gathered
from 17 surveys, and the strongest----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Ms. Moss, will you be able to wrap it up
pretty soon?
Ms. Moss. Oh, sure. I'm sorry. OK.
The strongest surveys, the projects look at the Lewis and
Clark Bicentennial, the Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and
the Yellowstone River Greenway.
While I was here today, two of my colleagues were meeting
with the Montana Stockgrowers Association to talk about our
plans for this initiative, and I will just conclude by stating
something from Mike Penfill, the director of the Montana State
Parks Association.
``We believe in community-based, citizen, grassroots action
as the best way for people to secure a positive future for
Montana. With that as the background, we are excited about the
American Heritage River Initiative for the Yellowstone River in
Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota.''
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Moss may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Nelson.
STATEMENT OF REGINALD WILLIAM NELSON, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I guess I'm the one
you've been waiting for, being last on the list.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Nelson. No one will be happier than I when my time is
up.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Nelson. I'm here today to support H.R. 1842. My name is
Reginald Nelson, and I live at 1820 New Market Road in eastern
Henrico County, which is just outside the city of Richmond.
Mr. DeVeny from Idaho could have written my testimony for
me, and I could have changed the name and a few facts. I'm a
full-time farmer also, and have experienced many of the same
things that he has dealing with the Federal Government and
bureaucrats.
The land that we farm is in sight of the James River, which
has a watershed of over 10,000 square miles, as mentioned
earlier. We've been farming most of this land for the past 75
years.
I have no business really being here today. This is the
height of our harvest season, and time is very precious to us
now. I'm spending 12 to 16 hours a day this time of the year,
and I had a hard time explaining to my two young daughters
yesterday why I had to come to Washington today to testify
before this Committee--to protect our rights.
I elected representatives to Congress to protect my
interest and my rights, not to be run over with Presidential
Executive Orders in which Congress had no say. This seems to be
dictatorial, not democratic.
In my testimony, you will see that I have stated that my
Congressman is Thomas Bliley. He is the one who represents my
interest. I live on the edge of the district, and technically
live in--my Congressman is Mr. Scott.
As a farmer, I already know about excessive regulation. I
comply and file--comply with and file a nutrient management
plan, a Chesapeake Bay plan, an integrated pest management
plan, record the pesticides which I use on my property, and at
the same time have to comply with local land use regulation.
And, yet, none of these regulations have changed the way my
family has farmed this land over the years. We have been good
stewards of the land since the beginning. My father and
grandfather took care of it and taught me how to take care of
it. We haven't needed the Federal Government to tell us how to
farm. What has changed is the amount of time and the cost that
it takes to report these things back to the Federal
bureaucrats.
A question I have: If this initiative is truly voluntary
and nonregulatory, why is there a Federal presence? Why will
Federal agents be involved? Why? It's because there clearly
will be additional regulations or policies placed on the
property that has this designation. Is this going to mean that
we're going to have more records and more reporting to do with
more regulation?
We've dealt with some of these so-called partnerships over
the years with the farm, and it seems to be a way to pass the
buck. One agency tells us we need to see the next agency, and
that agency tells us we need to go back to the first agency.
Another question I've got is where the funding comes from
for these policies. If it's not going to cost any more and we
don't have to hire any more people, what have these people been
doing if they didn't--they didn't have anything to do before
now?
There are 12 agencies that have been identified to work
with this initiative. FSA is one of those agencies, I believe,
the Farm Service Agency, and many of the offices have been
consolidated and closed recently due to budget cuts. They
apparently don't have an excess amount of money to support
these things.
What really irritates me more than anything is the fact
that my Senators and my Representatives didn't have the
opportunity to approve this Federal program, nor did they have
a part in creating it. This initiative has been created with
the rules yet to be established, it appears. The devil is in
the details, and we haven't been given those details in advance
of this program being written.
Now for years we were asked as farmers to sign up in the
farm programs, where the rules and regulations were written
sometimes after we signed up. This doesn't work; it never has
worked; it never will work.
We have dealt with--in our neighborhood we have had a lot
of problem with the National Park Service coming in and trying
to overrun us with historic preservation. It appears that some
of these bureaucrats must go to the same school and learn how
to avoid answering questions, as we saw Ms. McGinty earlier.
The question was asked if the Federal--if the person could
testify at a zoning board hearing. The National Park Service
representative, superintendent of Richmond Battlefield Parks,
stands up frequently at the board meetings and the zoning
meetings in uniform and testifies. So it does happen.
Some years ago, we had the opportunity in the State to have
a road, Route 5, voluntarily designated as a Scenic Byway.
Nothing was done then except a few pretty signs were put up
along the road stating this designation. Now we have a group of
citizens in the area who are using this designation, trying to
obtain a 1,300-foot setback off of Route 5 back onto our
property. They're trying to stop development, and they want no
further improvements to Route 5, saying it's an historic road.
Well, farm equipment has become rather wide, and with the
traffic we have on Route 5, if the road's not improved, we
won't be able to continue to farm it, and then the development
will come, and then the road will be improved.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Nelson, will you be able to wrap it up
in the next minute or two?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, I will.
I am fortunate that my local jurisdiction, Henrico County,
is in strong opposition to the designation and is preparing a
letter to be sent to all of our congressional delegation
stating and clarifying their opinion. I would like to provide a
copy of that letter to this Committee to be attached to my
testimony as soon as it is available.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Nelson. Again, I would just like to strongly support
H.R. 1842, and thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Being the daughter
of a farmer, and knowing what farm life is like, I certainly
understand. I understand your sacrifice today, and I understand
the sacrifice of every single one of you who are here. I just
want you to know there is a committee markup going on in the
Commerce Committee and in ISTEA, and even as we speak, my staff
is giving a major speech for me--that there's a lot of times
things have to go by the wayside. That pales in comparison to
the sacrifice of all of you in coming here to offer your
testimony.
And although there's just two of us here, remaining here, I
want you to know that this becomes a part of the permanent
record, part of the permanent congressional record that will
last in the archives of the Library of Congress, and your
contribution today will be referenced a lot and reviewed by
many people. And so I just want to say, for my colleagues who
can't be here, thank you so very, very much for coming.
I would like now to yield to Mr. Schaffer for any questions
he might have.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I like to think in terms of quality instead of quantity
when it comes to Committee members here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Schaffer. So I can assure you we're in good shape here.
I'd like to ask Mr. Samuel--if this Heritage River Program
continues to move forward as it is suggested by the Clinton
Administration and you pursue it--you're in southwest
Pennsylvania?
Mr. Samuel. Southeast.
Mr. Schaffer. That's right.
Mr. Samuel. Philadelphia's southeast.
Mr. Schaffer. Oh, you're in southeast, OK. You're in
southeast Pennsylvania. What are your thoughts about this opt-
out provision? You've heard the exchange between Ms. McGinty
and I on who would establish the standards associated with--the
terms of who would be opting out or not. She suggested that
it's her intention to give quite a bit of authority to the
local proposal, the organizing group. In your case, stating
your desire to pursue the Heritage River Initiative on your
particular river, do you plan on allowing property owners along
the river to opt out of the program right at the beginning?
Mr. Samuel. I don't quite understand what opting out is
going to do for someone. And the reason I say that is the
Schuylkill has been designated a Heritage Corridor. That didn't
do anything to landowners along the river, and you have to
understand southeastern Pennsylvania, obviously, is very
different from Idaho and many parts of the West. It's very
densely populated. It's very heavily residential. We're talking
about a lot of residents with small properties. We're not
talking about a lot of large farmers or landowners.
And I think--you know, there was some discussion earlier
that perhaps everyone who's a landowner along the river should
be sur-
veyed and given the opportunity to opt out. I guess I don't
understand, with the Schuylkill being a greenway, with the
Schuylkill being a Heritage Corridor, with the Schuylkill being
a designated Scenic River, what did that do to landowners that
created any restrictions for them? And I also don't see the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative imposing any restrictions
on landowners.
So I don't understand truly why there's a real need for
opting out, and I guess that's--explain it to me: Why--what
there is to fear? I guess I'm not sure what's going to happen
to landowners along the river that they need to opt out of
something.
Mr. Schaffer. I'm less interested in explaining to you the
fears that need to be associated with the Heritage River
Initiative. As for me, I sat through quite a bit of scary
testimony from others who have been affected by the Federal
Government in various ways, but that's not really the point of
my question. It is, though, presumably, you would be primarily
involved in formulating the proposal and working with the
community on drafting the proposal to the Federal Government to
establish the Heritage River Initiative on the Schuylkill
River, and I'm just trying to inquire, at least at this point--
so much of this is speculative, even the rules and regulations
and how they will eventually unfold. But from your perspective,
do you envision allowing local property owners who live along
the river, who own land along the river, to opt out in your
proposal?
Mr. Samuel. Oh, I would say there certainly can be people
who do not support it. I guess I don't--and I'm sorry that I
was not clear, but I don't understand what opting-out means. I
guess I can----
Mr. Schaffer. Well, it would mean--let's say Farmer Jones
has a little farm, one of these little farms, you mentioned
that's right along the banks of the Schuylkill River, and he
hears that you're applying for the Heritage River Initiative
and you want the designation, and he sends you a letter and
says, ``You know, this might be fine for everybody else, but I
would appreciate it if the boundary went around my property.''
Are you going to allow that. That's what that means.
Mr. Samuel. OK. I guess, again, my confusion is that I
didn't see that there was any boundaries here. I mean, we
already have a Schuylkill Heritage Corridor that has very, very
mysterious unclarified boundaries, and it's really more a
partnership among----
Mr. Schaffer. OK, but I'm suggesting that Farmer Jones
wants you to establish a boundary around his little farm on the
banks of the river.
Mr. Samuel. Then I do not have a problem with that. That's
the answer.
Mr. Schaffer. Do you anticipate that your proposal will
allow for the opt-out provisions so the boundary can be drawn
around his land?
Mr. Samuel. Yes.
Mr. Schaffer. You do?
Mr. Samuel. If there are boundaries drawn and someone needs
to be outside of those boundaries--I mean, I guess I--you know,
we're functioning on a model of----
Mr. Schaffer. I'm not suggesting need; I'm suggesting
desire--that he just wants to be outside the boundary.
Mr. Samuel. Yes, I mean, it seems like you're using a model
of like a national park, where they draw a boundary around
something and say, ``This is all now under the jurisdiction of
the Federal Government,'' and I don't think that's what a
Heritage Area or a Heritage River is about. There's not a firm
boundary. It's a way of developing a partnership amongst
interested people who are interested, in this case, in a river,
in a river corridor. I don't see a hard boundary, but if we do
draw a boundary and someone does not want to be in that
boundary, then they have, certainly, the free will to be
outside of it.
Mr. Schaffer. Well, that is encouraging. My time's up, so
I'll stop. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Ms. Bourque Moss, I'd like to ask the same
question of you that was posed to Mr. Samuel. Do you believe
that people ought to give written permission before they are
included in a designation under the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative?
Ms. Moss. As it stands now, we have a task force that's
working on our proposal for the Yellowstone River as an
American Heritage River. And based on the latest information
from the Federal Register, it doesn't have to be the entire
river, and that helps us considerably. We'll be looking at
specific areas.
And the focus of our projects look at public places, at
museums, at sites, whether they're national historic sites or
parks, places that are in the public interest. So we won't be
looking at private property at all. We are working with the
Montana Stockgrowers Association and they have offered their
assistance to work with us on this nomination, as we proceed to
make sure that it meets the interest of that particular
organization. We've always felt that it's important to be open
with our project and our partnership and invite the views of
many different groups of individuals and associations in this
region, so that that dialog hasn't come up yet with our
advisory council members; it certainly will. We have a meeting
in October, and I'm sure that will be part of the discussion.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So, generally, what you are saying is that
the property owners will not even be considered as being
included?
Ms. Moss. They're an important voice to the Yellowstone
region. We aren't defining boundaries at this point.
Mrs. Chenoweth. But if they want boundaries defined around
their property, define them out of the project, would you
support that?
Ms. Moss. I think so. That would be fine with us.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Mr. Blomquist?
Mr. Blomquist. Yes, just for clarification here, I know the
Montana Stockgrowers I've been talking with them, too, and I
know that they do support the idea of some kind of history
being--a lot of what they're talking about as far as the
history sites, putting up a display, or whatever it is, working
with the museums and all that, but I also have a letter here
from the--it's in with my testimony there--from the Montana
Stockgrowers, and I'll just--it's quite lengthy, but I'll just
read a couple of sentences here at the very end of it.
It says, ``We support your effort to bring''--this is
addressed to me, by the way--``We support your efforts to bring
badly needed insight to this ominous program through testimony
during the congressional hearings. We also offer our support
for your efforts to have this initiative withdrawn until a full
congressional review has been completed and a fully developed
program is presented for adequate public comment.''
They are interested in working with the group in Billings,
because if it's going to go ahead anyhow, which apparently this
President has the idea that this will go ahead regardless of
what we do, they certainly want to be part of it. But they are
very, very concerned because this thing has not been up for
public comment; it has not been fully developed; it has not
been fully explained.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. Mr. Bright, could you briefly
describe the National Park Service's policy regarding roads
within the Buffalo National Park?
Mr. Bright. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. When they came
to our community, they talked about better access for more
people, and in reality they've taken roads that were
historically our county roads and blocked them. And I'd just
like to give you one example, if I could.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Oh, wait a minute. Wait a minute. ``They''
being----
Mr. Bright. I mean the Park Service put boulders in part of
them because they say that our roads were not surveyed off and
that we just had a proscriptive easement, but you have to
understand, this was not Federal land; this was private land,
and we had those easements in there. We had a visitor fall off
a bluff--they love to climb bluffs, you know, and he fell, and
it took our first responders, local people, 3 hours to haul him
out for medical attention. He fell within 100 yards of our
county roads called Centerpoint Road. They had a horse die down
there; they unlocked the cable on it and took a backhoe down
and hauled the dead horse out. But we had to haul the--they had
to haul the gentleman that had fell out by hand; it took them 3
hours. They have no common sense.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, where is your sheriff and your county
commissioners?
Mr. Bright. That's a good question.
Mrs. Chenoweth. They have absolutely no--I'm sorry about
getting so excited, and I'm not supposed to testify here, but
they have no jurisdiction over your county roads. What's wrong
with your local units of government?
Mr. Bright. They're intimidated; they've been bullied and
intimidated, and we are a very poor county and they don't have
the guts to wind up in court, and the Park Service tells them
that when they put that gate there, that if they go through
that, they'll be destroying government property and they'll
be----
Mrs. Chenoweth. It isn't government--I'm sorry.
Mr. Bright. I know, I understand. The cable's there; you
have to understand, Madam Chairman. The cable they put up is
theirs, and I guess if you knock it down, that would be
government property; I don't know. I don't get it, either.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, this is shocking to me.
Mr. Bright. We would really appreciate some help. I know
you've got so much to investigate up here, though; you probably
don't have time to investigate something in poor little Newton
County, but if you ever get around to it, we'd love to have
you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, I'm telling you, I am exceedingly
interested in this particular issue. You have certainly gotten
my attention. The Park Service--no national or Federal agency
has jurisdiction over ingress or egress using county roads, and
I don't know where your county attorney is, or who's protecting
you people, but you need protecting, and that's not from the
Federal Government.
Mr. Bright. I understand. We had an attorney general's
opinion, and he really agreed with them. He also joined a suit
with the Sierra Club on a timber sale in Newton County, and
probably will again, and is currently suing three property
owners along Crooked Creek, trying to prove that it is a
navigable stream, because they have fences there, and they've
had them there for 50 years. So we don't get much help at home
in places.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Bright, I know the hour is late, but I
want you to stay in personal contact with me on this.
Mr. Bright. I would be happy to do that, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Would you, please?
Mr. Bright. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Mr. Bright. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Nelson, would you please elaborate more
about what you testified to, about the Park Service
superintendent standing up in uniform and testifying at county
zoning board meetings?
Mr. Nelson. The superintendent has attended several
meetings. I believe one of them had to do with the mining, a
farm that was going to be mined for gravel that was in the
viewshed of the park. They objected to that. They had--they
presented in front of the board of supervisors on different--
with their different plans and other things as well.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, I guess it's a new trend, but I'm not
pleased with it.
Mr. Nelson. We're not pleased with it, either.
Mrs. Chenoweth. No.
How much of your property would be--is there--let me ask it
this way: Is there a part of your property that aligns a river?
Mr. Nelson. We have a road that separates us from the
river. There is the property right on the river, then the road,
and then we're across the road from that. We can see the river.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Nelson, tell me, where does your county
come down on the American Heritage Rivers designation?
Mr. Nelson. The county, to my--as I have been informed, is
in opposition to it, to that initiative.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I would suggest you go home and get your
county to petition or just simply to opt out.
Mr. Nelson. OK. As I stated in here, they're supposed to be
writing a letter to their congressional----
Mrs. Chenoweth. And I would very much appreciate--and I
know Mr. Schaffer would, too--receiving a copy of that letter.
Mr. Nelson. Yes, ma'am.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK.
Mr. Nelson. And as an individual, I opt out of it.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. That's good. Mr. Nelson, would you please
get Mr. Bliley to sign onto my bill? You work on him from the
home front; I'll work on him from this front.
Mr. Nelson. We will try.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank
you so much for your patience. Your testimony has been very,
very valuable. I must commend Ms. Moss on the work that she is
doing, especially on the local level, and all of you, thank you
very, very much for your testimony. And, again, it's been a
long day, but my hat is off to you for your perseverance, and
please stay in touch with me as things develop in your State.
Thank you.
This record will remain open for three weeks. If any of you
wish to alter or amend any of your testimony, please do so
within that timeframe. I want you to know also members of the
Committee may have additional questions, and if they do, they
will be submitting them to you in writing.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Schaffer, do you have anything for the
Committee?
Mr. Schaffer. No, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. With that, this Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 7:53 p.m., the Committee adjourned subject
to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Hon. Christopher B. Cannon, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Utah
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to discuss this
bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1842. I along with
many of you here today have serious concern about the need for
the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Although this national rivers proposal has been in the
Federal Register for three months and was the subject of a
recent hearing by the House Resources Committee, few of my
fundamental questions about this proposal have been
satisfactorily answered. I, along with 54 of my colleagues,
signed a letter to President Clinton on August 14 asking him to
postpone the comment deadline for the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative. We were denied our request. The Administration's
response was that in the 90 day comment period, they had
received enough comments and enough suggestions. In fact they
had received less then 2,000 comments from across this country.
But it appears that no number of comments would have affected
the Administration because the individuals who had proposed the
program had already made up their minds.
Limited input is not sufficient input. Last year, my home
state of Utah had eleven days notice before the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument was created--notice given
in a leaked story of the Washington Post. Utah's elected
officials approached the Administration and objected to the
proposal. The Administration adamantly claimed that no action
was imminent. Now the Administration claims that Utahans had
input. Of course that is silly. Now, I guess I shouldn't
complain. I would have been exhilarated to have had the chance
to solicit some 1,700 comments and suggestions on the
Administration's actions last Fall in Utah.
There is another aspect of this initiative that is
important to me. I have serious concerns that this initiative
will be used as a political tool to reward ``friends'' of the
Administration. Now that we have exposed the White House
fundraising scandals, I foresee a partisan political agenda
that will grant American Heritage River status as favors to
various supporters nationwide. My fear is that political
undercurrents will soon be driving the river designation
process.
I support H.R. 1842 because the American Heritage Rivers
program is not good for our rivers, a River Navigator is not
good for our communities or the programs that would be raided.
This Administration has proved it does not care about private
property rights. A voluntary program should not take 13
agencies for implementation. If we need a program to help our
rivers, let us do it on the local level, where states and local
communities can run it without layering another bureaucratic
blanket across our nation.
Ms. McGinty, chair of the Council on Environmental Quality,
has said that they have ``worked diligently'' to address the
concerns about private property rights. If they were serious
about answering our concerns, they would have at least taken
the time to listen to them. In my view they have not done that,
and our private property rights are seriously in jeopardy. That
is why I support H.R. 1842.
------
Statement of Hon. Henry Bonilla, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas
Chairman Young, thank you for the opportunity to present
testimony to your Committee today on the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative (AHRI). I have many concerns about the
initiative the President just implemented, without
Congressional approval.
I represent the 23rd Congressional District of Texas, which
includes 800 miles of the Rio Grande. For those of you who have
never seen the river, let me tell you it is majestic river that
twists and turns its way through some rough but beautiful
country. The river has contributed a great deal to the rich
culture and heritage of the region and just imagine, it has
managed to do all of this without a Federal initiative, program
or declaration.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) asserts this
initiative will ``create a government that works better and
costs less through focusing on customer service, developing
partnerships and delegating power to the front lines.'' The
Federal Government should already be doing this. Efficiency
should not require a new Federal order. Why do we need this or
any other initiative to direct the Federal agencies to do their
jobs? Since when is duplicative government a good idea?
The initiative's authors claim it will not cost any
additional money or add new regulations. My understanding is
that communities can already apply for money and they can apply
without any type of Federal designation. We just do not know
what kind of strings will be attached to the designation and
any money that may come with it. The AHRI only says the
communities will receive assistance with the application
process but it does not guarantee any money.
I am also concerned that this initiative will lead to
increased Federal intrusions into communities and may regulate
or control the use and access of the rivers. The possibility
that it may be defined as including watersheds is particularly
alarming. This could lead to government control of an entire
region. Any time the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is hunting
for new tasks I am very worried. Let the bureaucrats in and
there goes the use and control of the river and any property
along the river to say the very least.
I am particularly concerned about the directive to the
Federal agencies to go into the communities to restore the
river. Until Congress is able to bring common sense to many of
the overburdensome laws and regulations such as the Endangered
Species Act, and Federal wetlands policies, to name a few,
these agencies be able to wield as much power as they want in
these communities and on private ranch and farm land.
CEQ has also promoted this as a grass roots or bottom up
program that is good for the communities and the rivers. But I
have to wonder about this. Most of my constituents are vehement
in their opposition.
I also have to wonder why CEQ rushed this initiative
limiting thereby citizens input. Why did they need to rush the
initial comment period? Only after being inundated with
requests to extend the deadline did they add another 60 days to
the comment period.
I would also add that since the initiative was first
proposed I have received many letters and phone calls from
constituents asking me to oppose the initiative. And that is
exactly why I am here today, to allow the people in my district
to have a voice. Most of the people I have heard from live in
rural communities along the river and depend on the river for
their livelihoods.
The significance of the Rio Grande will not change based on
this designation nor will it be diminished in any way if it
does not receive this designation. I will continue to stand
strong for property rights and recognition to the area for the
rich heritage and culture that the river has brought the
region. We need not sacrifice any right to obtain Federal
recognition of our region's beauty and importance. We know far
better than any Washington bureaucrat the unique nature of our
region. This is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1842 and I have
come here today to support the passage of this bill. I look
forward to voting for this bill on the House floor.
The only things clear about the AHRI are the questions it
raises. Thank you.
------
Statement of Hon. Ray LaHood, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to appear here
today to express my support for the President's American
Heritage Rivers Initiative.
When the President announced this initiative during his
State of the Union Address, many of us in Illinois, who have
been working since 1994 to develop an integrated management
plan for the Illinois River, were elated that such national
prominence was being placed on the protection and restoration
of our nation's rivers. Without the leadership of Lt. Governor
Bob Kustra, the monetary commitment of Governor Jim Edgar, and
the teamwork of the Illinois River Strategy Team, Peoria Lakes,
in my hometown, would be nothing more than a mosquito infested
mud flat in a very short time. Over the last eight years,
nearly a foot of silt has been deposited across the bottom of
the river in Peoria Lakes.
Additionally, serious flooding in many areas along the
river has caused tremendous damage. While increased rainfall
contributes mightily to flooding, there is no doubt that a
shallower river, altered landscapes, and channelized streams
throughout the watershed have a strong influence on where that
rainfall, and the silt carried in flood waters, is deposited.
Water naturally follows the easiest path. When the volume of
the river is reduced due to a shallower base, the flood water
will rise into surrounding farmlands and communities, bringing
the financial damage that goes with it.
Illinois cannot afford to wait to take action on plans to
restore the river to what was once a national treasure. That's
why the Illinois River Strategy Team was created. This team is
a diverse group of farmers, environmentalists, local company
executives, college professors, and elected officials. I am a
member of that team. And let me take this opportunity to
emphasize that our plan recognizes that both the public
interest and private property rights must be protected if this
plan is to move forward. The plan brings together local
citizens and all levels of government in a grassroots,
coalition-building effort to maintain the watershed. We are all
interested in the long-term maintenance of the river for our
future generations. By asking his Administration to focus on
coordinating Federal resources for the restoration of our
national waterways and to serve as a network, the President has
given all of us a tremendous boost in our efforts to implement
our plans. We would be very disappointed to have to go back to
the people that have worked so hard to develop these plans and
tell them that this initiative will not receive the support of
Congress.
Clearly, we believe that implementation must be controlled
at the local and state level, but with the help of the Federal
Government as a partner. I, for one, will work to see that
control under this initiative is maintained at the state level.
But I believe the Federal Government has an important role to
play.
While I have given my support to the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative, I remain a fierce advocate of personal
property rights. Additionally, any attempt to alter, limit, or
restrict farmers and ranchers access to traditional
agricultural environmental programs, will not be favorably
looked upon by me.
Agriculture has made tremendous strides in the last decade
in meeting its environmental obligations. Today's farming
techniques have come a long way. These techniques make the
Federal Government a partner with producers in addressing
environmental challenges, rather than an adversary. It is
voluntary and incentive-based and that should not change. I
view the American Heritage River initiative as another
incentive-based, voluntary program available to agriculture.
The Illinois River is a tremendous natural, recreational
and economic resource for the country. And nine out of every
ten Illinois residents are in some way touched by the Illinois
River watershed, which is why our entire Illinois delegation
has written to the President supporting the National Heritage
Rivers Initiative, and, in particular, our own Illinois River
as one of the National Heritage Rivers. A copy of our letter to
the President is attached to this statement for the record. It
is my hope that this process will be allowed to continue and to
provide much needed national attention and a coordinated effort
by all of us to improve our nation's rivers.
Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
appear here today.
------
Statement of Hon. Lamar S. Smith, a Representative in Congresss from
the State of Texas
I appreciate the Committee's willingness to allow me to
testify today about the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Congress has an important responsibility to protect
citizen's Constitutional guarantees such as the right to own
and use private property. I am extremely concerned about the
recent Proclamation issued by President Clinton that creates
the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
When the President announced in his State of the Union
address that he was creating a program such as this, I never
dreamed that he would completely dismiss the legislative
process. As we all know, this proposal was rammed through the
administrative process without Congressional comment or review.
Had the normal process for the creation of new programs been
followed, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative would have
had the benefit of congressional hearings. And the public would
have had maximum input. It would have been carefully considered
and amended, if necessary, in a series of legislative steps
that begin with full and open debate on the floors of the House
and Senate and end with recorded votes.
Full and open debate on a bill that was supported by a
majority of Senator's and Representative's would have yielded
authorization and appropriation of the program. However,
because the program was created by Presidential proclamation,
Congress has done neither.
Absent any express funding, the President has chosen to
ignore Congressional intent and reprogram funding. Money is
being taken from legitimate, authorized programs that have
already undergone cuts to pay for this unauthorized and
unstudied new program. The President's plan is taking personnel
from many of these same programs and requiring them to work on
the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. This is not fair to
those programs who are already strapped for funding and
personnel, nor to the constituents who rely on them.
The lack of protection for private property rights within
this program is of great concern to me. I have expressed my
concern repeatedly since the program was first published in the
Federal Register. There are no substantive protections for
private property rights. And given that a majority of the land
in the United States is privately held land, I think there is
cause for concern.
While the final rule has been issued for this program, a
number of questions remain about the protection of private
property rights. First and foremost in my mind is how much
control over private property would ultimately be placed in the
hands of Federal regulators?
From my reading of the final rule I believe that an
enormous amount of power would be granted to Federal agencies
and in particular the one Federal agency from which the ``river
navigator'' is chosen. This river navigator would have the
power to dictate how land abutting a designated river could and
could not be used. Why are local citizens not trusted to care
for local resources?
This power raises serious concerns, especially in my home
state of Texas where many farmers and ranchers rely heavily on
rivers, streams, and watersheds. In many cases it is their only
source for irrigation purposes or for the survival of their
livestock. Much to my dismay this issue has never been
adequately addressed.
Problems occur when Federal agencies are allowed to run
rampant and given new authority without Congressional approval.
This is precisely what will happen with the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative. Federal agencies have been given no
parameters to work within. I cringe at the thought of farmers,
ranchers, and especially private property owners fighting this
unchecked power in the future.
It is a shame that President Clinton did not have the
confidence in his program to allow it to bear the burden of
public scrutiny, whether from the citizens or from Congress.
Since the announcement of this program the President and
Kathleen McGinty from the Council on Environmental Quality have
said they are ``baffled'' by the outrage that has been
generated. Once again the Administration has completely misused
the American people. However, they decided to move forward amid
much public discontent and officially create the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative.
As Members of Congress we have an obligation to our
constituents to protect their rivers and their land. It is our
duty to ensure that the money that we authorize and appropriate
is spent on its intended programs and not ``reprogrammed.'' The
American Heritage Rivers Initiative is in direct contrast to
the will of the people and the Congress and should not receive
any money until it authorized and appropriations are made. I am
a cosponsor of Mrs. Chenoweth's bill because I feel that it is
our best opportunity to halt the forward movement of this
program and hopefully bring it to Congress to be fully vetted
by the people's representatives.
As the Chairman of the House Coalition on Property Rights,
I am supportive of any steps that this Committee takes in
moving Mrs. Chenoweth's bill forward. A vote on the House floor
will reflect the voice of the American people--the voice that
was ignored by the administration when it created this program.
Again I thank the Committee for allowing me to testify
today on this important issue.
------
Statement of Hon. Asa Hutchinson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas
Mr. Chairman and members of the Resources Committee, I
thank you for inviting me here to testify before you today, and
I commend you for the outstanding leadership you have displayed
throughout the months since the announcement and publication of
the Administration's ``American Heritage Rivers Initiative.'' I
am grateful for the opportunity to express to this body the
concerns of many of the constituents I serve in the Third
District of Arkansas, and, I am delighted that later on today
you will welcome one of those constituents, Mr. David Bright of
Jasper, Arkansas, to speak to those concerns himself.
Mr. Bright's is a story which, I am sad to say, is not the
only one of its kind. But it is my hope that through the
efforts of this Committee and citizens like Mr. Bright, the
potentially negative effects of innocent-sounding Federal
involvement in local land matters will be brought to light and
scenarios like the one Mr. Bright and his neighbors endured
will not be allowed to take place in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I was first alerted to the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative during the week of May the 19th, when I
received at least fifty calls from angered constituents asking
that I oppose the President's new river plan and stop the
Administration from taking their land.
Mr. Chairman, I have a number of concerns about the
substance of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative and about
the way the Administration has gone about its implementation.
The Administration states that the initiative creates no
new Federal regulation but simply allows ``River Communities''
streamlined access to Federal programs. It is designed to be
community-driven and community-led, and is not supposed to
appropriate any new monies or create any new programs. This, on
the surface, seems commendable. However, I would assert that
the implementation of the initiative will not be as simple and
beneficial as it seems, and I must question why it is being
implemented by executive fiat rather than through the normal
legislative process.
The initiative does not require the authorization of local
officials in designating a river a ``Heritage River.'' Nor does
it specifically state that if a river community's action plan
infringes on the rights of private property owners living in a
heritage area, designation will not take place. This is
understandably worrisome to those private landowners living
within the bounds of these areas.
Rivers are not limited by man-made boundaries; they run
freely across state, county and local lines. By designating
rivers ``Heritage Rivers,'' and allowing people in those areas
to avail themselves of Federal resources, the initiative will
create new Federal jurisdictions that cut across town, city,
county and state lines. Moreover, the initiative allows for
designations encompassing not only rivers, but contributing
watersheds and streams as well and will allow the twelve
Federal agencies involved in implementing the initiative to
favor these ``Heritage River'' communities over other
communities in granting Federal aid. This circumvents the
Federal legislative process and, more importantly, the will of
the people who elected Federal legislators by reprogramming and
reallocating Federal funds without the express consent or
authorization of Congress. This is not right.
Mr. Chairman, as I stated before, the Administration's
final proposal states that the initiative will create no new
Federal regulations. However, it also states that ``the
American Heritage Rivers Interagency Committee may assist in
overcoming obstacles that arise as many Federal services are
provided.'' This committee is comprised of twelve Federal
agency heads. In ``overcoming obstacles,'' what is to prevent
these agency heads from withholding funds from other projects
in the event that communities do not cooperate unanimously?
What will keep them from imposing existing regulations, to
which these areas are nor currently subject, on these areas--
from imposing them on the people or land in these areas?
Mr. Chairman, I realize that the President has the
prerogative to set rules and regulations for executive branch
agencies, and I believe that the Administration means well in
creating this initiative. However, the Administration is aware
of the concerns of this Committee about the program's
refocusing of funds, reallocation of resources, grant monies
and employees, and its new enforcement of already-existing
regulations on areas not currently under ``Federal''
jurisdiction. These are all things that should come under the
jurisdiction of Congress, but the President has already enacted
this initiative by Executive Order--without congressional
hearings or congressional consent.
By doing so, the Administration has already demonstrated an
unwillingness to act in good faith in the process. Why, in this
era of cooperation displayed in the recent enactment of the
Balanced Budget and Taxpayer Relief Acts, is the Administration
so unwilling to cooperate with Congress on this matter and
submit this initiative to the normal legislative process? Why,
with as much controversy as surrounds the initiative at this
point, should we believe that the Administration will act in
any better a fashion in implementing the initiative's
provisions than it has acted in ordering its enactment?
This initiative, which is supposed to be part of the ``re-
invention of government'' touted so vigorously as of late, will
only reinforce a dependence upon Washington for that which
should come from the community. If this initiative is
community-driven, why is there a need for ``focused attention''
from Federal agencies? If this initiative is designed to make
government smaller and more easily accessible, why not remove
the Federal Government from participation all together?
Mr. Chairman, I applaud the effort of this Committee to
prevent the further implementation of the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative--not because I don't believe that our
nation's rivers need to be protected, but because I believe
that our communities and the people living in them know best
how to protect these resources and can do so without Federal
oversight or regulation. For these reasons, I have co-sponsored
H.R. 1842, which is being considered by the Committee today,
and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.
------
Statement of Robert S. Lynch, Chairman of the Board, Central Arizona
Project Association
Mr. Chairman, Members of the House Resources Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and testify
on the American Heritage Rivers Initiative and H.R. 1842. I
have the pleasure of serving as Chairman of the Board of the
Central Arizona Project Association, an Arizona non-profit
association formed in 1946 to promote authorization and then
construction and operation of the Central Arizona Project. Our
Association membership represents business, resource, local
government and agricultural interests throughout the state
interested in the continued success of the Central Arizona
Project.
The Project itself consists of over 300 miles of canal
system and a regulating reservoir that provides an average of
1.5 million acre-feet of water annually to roughly two-thirds
of the population of the state, industries, agriculture and
Indian communities in central Arizona. That quantity of water
represents over half of the entitlement of the State of Arizona
to water from the Colorado River and some 20 percent of the
entitlement of the three Lower Basin states (Arizona,
California and Nevada) to water from the Colorado River.
Our interest in the American Heritage Rivers Initiative
stems from our interest in and support of the Central Arizona
Project. We are concerned that implementing this Initiative
could very well interfere with ongoing efforts to resolve
problems in the Colorado River Basin that affect the Central
Arizona Project and its water supply. Our concerns fall into
three categories: participation, process and personnel.
PARTICIPATION
Both the President's Executive Order and the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) Federal Register notice imply some
loose geographic standard for defining non-Federal
participation in this Initiative. The Executive Order talks
about ``communities along rivers,'' 62 Fed. Reg. 48443 at 48445
(September 15, 1997). The CEQ Federal Register notice talks
about ``communities surrounding designated rivers'' and ``River
communities'' and ``People . . . who live and work in the area
. . .'', 62 Fed. Reg. 48860, 48862 (September 17, 1997). The
Phoenix metropolitan area served by CAP is some 190 miles from
the Colorado River. The Tucson metropolitan area is another 120
miles beyond that. CAP is a vital part of the water supplies of
central Arizona but this Initiative apparently would not
consider these vital interests part of the interests to which
the interagency committee established by the Executive Order
would listen concerning the Colorado River.
Similarly, Salt Lake City would have no voice in matters
related to the Duchesne or Green Rivers, even though receiving
water from the Central Utah Project. Denver and other east
slope Colorado cities would have no voice in the Colorado, the
Green, the Yampa, the White, the Gunnison, etc. People in
Albuquerque could voice opinions about the Rio Grande but not
the San Juan. The Los Angeles metropolitan area would have
nothing to say about the Lower Colorado River as this
Initiative may impact it. Presumably national and regional
environmental groups and other organizations also would be
excluded from this process.
The point is that legitimate interests concerning rivers
are not confined merely to those who live or work alongside
them. Nor is proximity much of a test when, as is often the
case in the West, no one lives or works alongside them. It
appears that those who crafted this Initiative, while paying
lip service to rural areas and Western communities, were
primarily drawing on their personal experiences as residents of
other parts of the country. In the West, legitimate interests
regarding rivers are often at great distance from them. That
does not render these interests any less legitimate nor any
less important. The Initiative is seriously flawed in this
respect.
PROCESS
We are very concerned about the processes outlined in the
Executive Order and the CEQ program. The Executive Order
mandates a consultation requirement that must precede Federal
agency action with regard to rivers designated under this
program. There is no explanation in the Executive Order or in
the CEQ program about how this gets done and how this
consultation requirement relates to similar requirements in
various laws affecting the same resources. For example, the
1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act contains some very specific
directives from Congress about consultation. If the Colorado
River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead were designated
under this Initiative, would this consultation requirement add
processes to those required by Congress? There is no
requirement, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service, under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to consult with
affected interests when the Service is consulting with another
Federal agency (or itself) as required by Section 7. If a river
is designated under the Initiative, must the Fish and Wildlife
Service now consult with affected interests before entering
into consultation with another agency under Section 7? Must the
Environmental Protection Agency add a consultation requirement
pursuant to this Executive Order to permit processes under the
Clean Water Act and other programs it administers?
We raise these issues because we have had some experience
with the Colorado River and these programs. There is an ongoing
recovery program in the Upper Colorado River related to four
endangered fish. There is a program entered into for the Lower
Colorado River between the United States on the one hand and
the three Lower Basin states and other affected interests on
the other covering over 100 species from Glen Canyon Dam to the
southerly international border. If the Colorado or any portion
of it were designated, would these processes be impacted by
this new consultation requirement? Would the River Navigator or
River Navigators designated assume a role not currently defined
in Colorado River processes? Would the consultation
requirements of the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act be
affected?
Additionally, the CEQ Federal Register notice promises that
obligations of Federal agencies under the National
Environmental Policy Act will not be disturbed by this
Initiative (62 Fed. Reg. at 48866). Since the agencies in the
next breath are being directed to provide programs and
resources aimed at satisfying community interests in site-
specific areas of a watercourse, it would seem that this
program is creating a new class of Federal actions requiring
NEPA clearance separate and apart from existing programs. Will
designation require such NEPA clearance before any Federal help
can be received after the designation? Who will pay the cost of
that clearance?
PERSONNEL
Finally, we are concerned about the effects of implementing
this new Initiative on Federal personnel and the costs
associated with that commitment. The Executive Order requires
agencies to establish a method for field offices to assess the
success of the Initiative and recommend changes. The Executive
Order also mandates high-level participation by 12 departments
and agencies, directs the agencies to do a number of
assessments and inventories of programs, regulations, grants
and other assistance and then requires them to reformulate
those to fit this Initiative. That reads like a serious time
commitment.
In turn, the CEQ program announces that Federal field staff
have been identified in each state to answer questions (62 Fed.
Reg. at 48861). It provides for a River Navigator to be
available for each designation. This person would be a Federal
employee. Other Federal employees would have to be involved in
distributing, receiving and processing nomination packets. A
report for the panel of experts would have to be provided and
staffing for the cabinet or sub-cabinet interagency task force
would also have to be provided, as well as the members
themselves.
All of this takes time. Presumably, the people involved in
this program at the various agencies will be people with some
knowledge and background about rivers and about the resources
typically associated with them. People knowledgeable in the
sciences, people active in cultural, archaeological, endangered
species, water resources, power resources, wetlands, and
environmental programs, etc., will have to be detailed to these
tasks. We are concerned that doing so will pull them away from
other important tasks that already take too much time to get
accomplished. We are concerned that other coordination and
permitting processes could suffer. Specifically, we are
concerned that people already stretched to the limit will be
drawn away from two critical Endangered Species Act programs:
the Upper Basin Recovery Program and the Lower Colorado River
Basin Multi-Species Conservation Plan. We are also concerned
that, in a year of stressful hydrologic conditions, personnel
of the Bureau of Reclamation may be diverted from critical
tasks on the Colorado River to other areas because of
designations that need to have knowledgeable people involved in
them.
We are also concerned that costs associated with
implementing this new program have not been addressed. Even if
no new dollars are appropriated by Congress for grants, loans,
construction funds, and the like, the personnel costs
associated with implementing this program have to be borne
somewhere. How will those costs be allocated? To what programs
or projects will they be assigned? Will they be reimbursable by
local sponsors of existing projects and programs? Is there a
danger of significant cost shifting from costs already assigned
pursuant to which Congress has already approved funding?
One thing is clear. There will be costs in both time and
dollars associated with implementing this Initiative. Those
costs are real and may be substantial. If the Initiative goes
forward, those costs should be tracked and reported to Congress
by each of the agencies involved. In the meantime, the public
should be assured that existing projects and programs will not
be hampered by this additional workload. Justice delayed is
justice denied in the executive branch as well.
Before closing, we would be remiss if we did not
congratulate Congressman Bob Schaffer for his efforts in having
inserted in the CEQ Federal Register notice the savings
language with regard to water and water rights. That had been
and continues to be a matter of critical concern to us and to
many others in the West. We remain concerned, however, that the
focus of designation pursuant to this Initiative on a
particular watercourse will concentrate interest in applying
other regulatory programs to those water resources in a manner
that could create the same problems this savings language seeks
to avoid. If Congress is providing no additional money beyond
salaries and administration for this program, what the agencies
are left with is a command from the President to go forward and
only existing tools to use. The Federal tools used on rivers
are typically the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act,
the Safe Drinking Water Act and similar laws with Federal
enforcement programs and permit programs. The river community
congratulating itself about its designation may find that the
``help'' it is getting from the Federal Government comes in the
form of increased demands for changes in water uses.
Concentrated examination under existing regulatory programs of
that river or river segment may generate local costs, rather
than local benefits.
CONCLUSION
Having made a sincere effort to review these documents and
understand their intent, we are unfortunately left confused. We
do not see how CAP interests can participate in, let alone be
enhanced by, this new program. We cannot tell how the
requirements of this new program mesh with existing
requirements that affect CAP interests and the interests of
others similarly situated. We cannot ascertain how the costs of
this new program and the time burdens associated with it will
be allocated and what barriers to accomplishing tasks under
other programs will be created.
This new program is uncomfortably vague. We would recommend
that this program be set aside, at least for the moment.
Perhaps CEQ could enter into another, more inclusive, round of
discussions with interested groups and parties around the
country and answer the questions that have been raised such as
those we raise here. Failing interest in doing that,
regretfully we would recommend that Congress withhold funding
for any efforts under this Initiative until it can be clarified
as to its purpose and impacts.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here
today and testify on this important subject.
------
Statement of Desmond Smith, President, Trans Texas Heritage Association
My name is Desmond Smith. I am president of the Trans Texas
Heritage Association and I am here today representing our
members who own 15\1/2\ million acres of private property in
Texas and one million acres in New Mexico. The Trans Texas
Heritage Association has four regional associations; Davis
Mountains Trans-Pecos Heritage Association, Hill Country
Heritage Association, East Texas Heritage Association and the
Bootheel Heritage Association in New Mexico. Our purpose and
goal as an organization is the preservation of private property
rights.
I am a rancher from Lampasas, Texas, where we operate a
ranch that has been in my wife's family for 147 years. Most
people know that farmers and ranchers are the original
environmentalists. In fact, if we hadn't done such a good job
of caring for our land I doubt the government and the
environmentalists would be so interested in taking it from us,
even though there is ample evidence that public ownership and
public access to land does not offer the same protection as the
loving care it receives at the hands of private property
owners. So you can see why private property owners would
question the motives of the environmental movement. If resource
protection is the problem, private--not public--ownership and
control is and always has been the solution.
In Texas, 98 percent of the land is privately owned and
we'd like to keep it that way. But it's getting more and more
difficult. Not because the government has been on a buying
spree, but because the government is taking more and more
private property through regulatory means. Through Federal laws
like the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, the
government has been telling landowners what they cannot do with
their land.
Over the past few years, landowners have been trying to
make Congress and the public understand the concept of
regulatory taking of private property, but we haven't been very
successful. For some reason, people think the 5th and 14th
Amendments to the Constitution don't count and that it's OK to
take people's property in the name of the environment. Now this
administration has gone beyond even regulatory takings to
``takings'' by Federal designation.
The people of Utah know how it feels to have their land
taken by designation, and Texas landowners are no stranger to
this concept. In 1994, there was a move to designate 5 water
bodies as Outstanding National Resource Waters. The property
rights implications for surrounding landowners were grave. We
were able to defeat that. Then, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service threatened to designate 33 counties in central Texas as
critical habitat for the endangered golden-checked warbler.
Again, the property rights of every landowner in those 33
counties would have been gone, except that Texas landowners
said ``absolutely not.''
We understood then as we do now that Federal designations
necessarily bring with them limitations on the use of private
property. And this is why we are so concerned about the impact
of the Federal designation of the Rio Grande River as an
American Heritage River.
I first became aware of the AHRI from a rancher who noticed
low-level helicopter flights over his land. He asked the pilot
later at the local airport what was going on and he was told
the Texas General Land office was conducting aerial mapping of
the private property along the Rio Grande as part of an effort
to map transnational resources. I learned more about this
mapping through an article in the Marfa, Texas newspaper dated
February 13, 1997, but not nearly enough. And nobody I have
talked to yet can tell me what a ``transnational resource'' is.
Some of our members who are landowners along the Rio Grande
were naturally concerned that their land and water might
suddenly be classified as a transnational resource.
Then we found out that Texas Land Commissioner Garry Mauro
was pushing the local officials along the Rio Grande to
petition for Federal designation as an American Heritage River.
A friend in our Governor's office told us about a meeting on
the AHRI in Laredo on April 28, this year, and my wife and I
and one of the directors of our organization decided to go.
When we walked in, the people at the desk started looking
for our name tags and I told them they wouldn't find them. It
turns out the meeting was by invitation only. There were people
from all levels of government and also from the Nature
Conservancy and the Audubon Society. If we hadn't just shown
up, there would have been no representation from landowners or
landowner groups.
What we have learned since then, is that this is supposed
to be a ``bottom up'' initiative, but what was obvious that day
was that the Texas General Land Office was really behind this.
It is generally known that Garry Mauro, the Land Commissioner,
is a good friend of the Clintons and we were told that the
White House had suggested the AHRI would be good for the Rio
Grande. That sure doesn't sound very bottom up to me.
Garry Mauro breezed in to that meeting for a few minutes
and there was a lot of backslapping and glad handing going on.
He did a TV interview then said he had to leave for Washington,
DC. At the meeting it was suggested Garry Mauro should be made
the ``River Navigator'' for the Rio Grande. I won't elaborate
on that here, but if you have any questions about the River
Navigator, please feel free to ask me later.
At that Laredo meeting, the people talked about the AHRI in
terms of clean water and cultural heritage and economic
development. I stood up and asked if this would include Mexico
and the fellow from the CEQ said it wouldn't. Then I asked him
how they expected to clean up the Rio Grande if Mexico wasn't
going to be made to do its part. He didn't answer.
Right after that, the moderator asked everyone to stand and
state their name and organizational affiliations. Everyone
there was from the government except the people from the Nature
Conservancy and the Audubon Society and us. When I discovered a
representative from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was
there I really became concerned. It was obvious from their
presence and that of the environmental groups that the AHRI was
intended to have some environmental consequence.
We've been trying to figure out what the AHRI is all about
ever since and nothing we have been told makes any sense. The
CEQ said the AHRI is supposed to help Federal agencies do a
better job of giving money away at the local level. We were
told it was part of Vice President Gore's plan to reinvent
government. Somehow, if a community would apply for a Federal
designation as an American Heritage River, these agencies would
magically begin to do their jobs. The CEQ assured us there
would be no new Federal dollars and no new regulations--just
that Federal agencies would focus more on communities that had
applied for and received the Federal designation.
The CEQ told us the AHRI was about restoring rivers, but
how do you restore a river? When Ray Clark with the CEQ came to
Austin on July 9, we asked him about that. Did they mean
restoring water quality? If so, given the fact that we have a
Clean Water Act already and especially since Mexico still dumps
raw sewage and industrial waste into the Rio Grande, how would
the AHRI, with no new regulations, improve water quality? He
allowed as how a petition for designation of the Rio Grande on
the basis of improving water quality probably wouldn't be very
well received.
If not water quality, then how about restoring water
quantity? If you look at the website for American Rivers, an
environmental group dedicated to restoring rivers to their
natural state, you'll see that they heartily support the AHRI.
This group also supports removing dams and impoundments. Is
that what this is really about? If so, what about water rights
and flood control and drinking water supplies and hydroelectric
power from dams? Ray Clark told us the AHRI wouldn't have
anything to do with removing dams and impoundments along the
river.
Well, what's left? How else do you restore a river? Did
they mean restoring commerce to the river? If so, to what
previous level and what prevents this from happening now,
without a Federal designation? For that matter, if there are no
new Federal dollars and no new Federal regulations, what can we
accomplish with AHRI that we can't accomplish now? NOTHING.
Why would a local community allow itself to become a
Federal community in order to attract Federal dollars that are
already there for the asking through programs that already
exist? I understand Congressman Sylvestre Reyes and the people
of El Paso want a River Walk. Well, San Antonio has had a river
walk for years but they didn't have to get a Federal
designation to accomplish that. What in the hell is really
going on here?
The thinking people of this nation were shocked and
sickened by Clinton's arrogant designation of the Grand
Staircase Escalante as a national monument. Now he has given us
the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which will ignore
private property rights in the name of economic development, I
guess. Only with AHRI he won't take it from the people; he'll
blackmail communities into asking for the Federal designation
using the veiled threat of withholding Federal dollars.
There are two things that I find very unsettling about the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative. The first is that this
administration thinks the American people are so stupid we
would fall for this. The other is the negative property rights
implications inherent in the Federal designation of anything.
I am asking you folks to please do the American people a
great service and pass H.R. 1842, not just out of this
Committee but out of the full Congress. And if there is
anything the Trans Texas Heritage Association can do to help
you, please know we are at your service.
Thank you for your time. God bless America and God bless
you all. I will be happy to entertain your questions.
------
Statement of David Young, Asheville, North Carolina
Good Morning:
My name is David Young. I am a resident of Asheville,
located in western North Carolina. I am here today to speak to
you as a citizen, small business owner, local elected official,
and as the Chairman of the RiverLink task force spearheading
the nomination of the French Broad as an American Heritage
River. In all of these capacities, I fully support the American
Heritage River Initiative.
Our task force has been following the AHRI since the
President announced the program on February 4th. Our task force
is comprised of interested citizens, chamber of commerce
executives, elected officials from throughout the river basin,
riverfront property owners, recreational enthusiast, artists
and craftsmen, tourism development experts and non-profit
agencies.
We cannot afford to make this a partisan issue. This is a
viable program which will help us both develop and preserve our
wonderful river. We have over 2,000 endorsements similar to the
ones in your packets. We have widespread bipartisan support
including Governor of North Carolina, James B. Hunt, Jr., a
Democrat and Don Sundquist, Governor of Tennessee a Republican.
We have resolutions by the Henderson County Board of
Commissioners, (all Republicans) and the Buncombe County Board
of Commissioners, (all Democrats) all in support of this effort
to nominate the French Broad as an American Heritage River.
Our task force has been meeting with officials from
Tennessee since the initiative was announced and we have formed
a new bond with our sister state. Like the river itself our
committee has decided that we will not be bound by superficial
state, city or county lines. Rather we will work together,
mindful of the fact that we all live upstream and downstream of
each other.
Wilma Dykeman, the author of the book The French Broad, is
the honorary chairman of our efforts. A native of WNC, Wilma
divides her time between her homes in Eastern Tennessee and
Western North Carolina. She is the State historian for
Tennessee and has written over 17 books and numerous articles
that have chronicled the French Broad Region. I know she won't
mind me quoting from her book, the French Broad when I describe
the French Broad as ``a river and a watershed and a way of life
where day before yesterday and day after tomorrow exist in an
odd and fascinating harmony as a way of life.'' ``The French
Broad country, like most of the mountain region which surrounds
it, nourishes paradox. That is the source of much of its
allure.'' Over the years our French Broad has become urban and
rural, suburban and farmland--it carries us toward our future
yet reminds us daily of our past--of our beginnings.
The French Broad River Basin is the ninth largest river
basin in the state of North Carolina covering 2,842 square
miles. It is located entirely within the Southern Appalachian
Mountains region, west of the Eastern Continental Divide. All
waters from the French Broad basin drain to the gulf of Mexico
via the Tennessee, Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. The basin
includes the highest point in the United States, east of the
Mississippi River, located atop Mount Mitchell (elevation 6,684
feet above mean sea level ). The lowest elevation in the basin
is 1,254, mean sea level, where the French Broad River flows
into Tennessee. There are 4,113 miles of freshwater streams in
the basin and seven lakes, all man-made, greater than eight
acres in size. The French Broad river watershed has only three
small dams--making it one of the most free flowing watersheds
in the county.
On May 1, 1997 RiverLink sponsored a public input session
to help gather ideas and develop criteria for the AHRI. We are
delighted to see that our suggestions during that May 1 meeting
have been incorporated into the permanent criteria for the
AHRI. Most notably our suggestion that the designation be given
to a broad variety of rivers--some smaller--some larger. The
French Broad may not be the largest river in the United States,
or the widest or the longest--but it certainly is one of the
most diverse.
During our May 1 public comment period, residents from the
two states mixed with elected officials, property owners,
businessmen and women, environmentalists, young and old alike--
and you could feel the excitement grow. Our interest in the
French Broad is igniting a prairie fire of action and a new
spirit of cooperation.
We have all learned quite a bit on our journey of discovery
of the French Broad. For example, two areas on the French Broad
river--the city of Asheville and Cooke county Tennessee are
each celebrating their bicentennial this year. These areas were
settled as a direct result of the French Broad. The French
Broad has been the region's historic lifeline providing
transportation for commerce and routes for exploration. The
earliest settlers to the region used the Buncombe County
turnpike, which followed the course of the French Broad, to
deliver livestock and others goods to and from Tennessee, and
Western North Carolina to the seaports in South Carolina.
The French Broad watershed has over 20 archaeological
sites--some as old as 12,000 years. Our earliest settlers were
the Pisgah Culture, ancestors of the Cherokee Nation, utilized
the river for religious ceremony, for bathing, for farming, for
fishing and for hunting. Hernando DeSoto and his men floated
the French Broad River in search of gold in 1540. One of his
campsites, built on top of an ancient Indian Mound, in the
middle of the French Broad river, is buried today under the
Douglas Dam which provides the power source for Oak Ridge--
where man unraveled one of the secrets of the universe and the
first atom was split.
The botanical diversity of the French Broad River is
unequaled anywhere in the U.S.A., perhaps in the world. 25,000
years ago as the great ice cap formed over Labrador and pushed
slowly out across North America, animal and plant life fled
before its crushing destruction to our mountain region. Our
forests, the Pisgah National and the Cherokee National, are
richer in variety of trees than the whole of Europe. The French
Broad is the area where Northern and Southern vegetation meet
and mingle. While all of the northern United States was buried
under ice, the trees and plants once native to Canada made
their last stand on the heights of the Southern Appalachian--
these trees and shrubs and herbs have never deserted the
mountain refuge they found in WNC and Eastern Tennessee.
Also along the banks of the French Broad at George
Vanderbilt's summer home, The Biltmore Estate, the first school
of Forestry in the United States was founded in 1898.
During the past decade our focus on the French Broad as a
place where people can work, live and play has been intensified
under the leadership of RiverLink. RiverLink is a non-profit
regional organization dedicated to the environmental and
economic revitalization of the French Broad River and its
watershed. We view the river as the link--just as our name
indicates--the river link to our past and to our future. The
river links our businesses to our neighborhoods, our commercial
centers to our recreational amenities.
The French Broad is our water source, play space, job
creator and major attraction. But above all is a living symbol
of our common destiny.
Old warehouses, remnants of the 1920's through 50's
industrial riverfront sat empty for many years. Today they are
teeming with life once again as artists and craftsmen are
reclaiming these historic riverfront buildings for studio and
living space. We believe that our efforts to reclaim the French
Broad are now paying divi-
dends. The French Broad is featured in the September-October
issue of Audubon Magazine as one of three rivers in the United
States where the Clean Water Act, coupled with citizen
governmental involvement has resulted in a river that, once
again, can sustain human and animal life.
In meetings with our Task Force for the AHRI, we have
talked about the possibility of building a greenway from the
French Broad's headwaters to where it ends in eastern
Tennessee. This won't be any ordinary greenway! It will
encompass two national forests, the Appalachian Trail, the Blue
Ridge Parkway, the Biltmore Estate, the NC Arboretum, the
Ramsey House in Tennessee, Dollywood, Civil War battle sites,
neighborhoods, and industrial, recreational and commercial
districts, just to name a few of our attractions. We would like
for the greenway to have historical markers and public art
interpreting the many and varied events that have occurred on
the river's banks. We have also discussed the possibility of
reestablishing passenger train service along the French Broad
River Gorge. The gorge has some of the most spectacular scenery
in the world and tourists and residents alike will marvel at
the vistas. We have also spoken of the need for special
economic assistance programs for Madison County in North
Carolina and Cocke County in Tennessee. These two counties are
contiguous and are among the most economically distressed in
either of our states.
We will be seeking additional public comment on October
15th at the North Carolina Arboretum and on October 24 at the
Cocke County, Tennessee Community Center. We have sent out over
8,000 letters of invitation to attend these public
brainstorming sessions and have invited every foundation in
western North Carolina and Eastern Tennessee to join us as
partners as we develop our application to nominate the French
Broad as an American Heritage River.
We know that alone, no one entity, no government agency, no
foundation, no one person can accomplish all that we have
planned for the French Broad. That is why the American Heritage
River Initiative is so important--It gives us an umbrella under
which we can continue to build our constituency for the French
Broad. We need businesses, and environmentalists, and bankers
and boaters and craftsmen and government to sit together and
plan for the future. The AHRI umbrella will help us unravel the
maze of Federal grants and technical assistance opportunities;
and will give us access to programs that we don't even know
exist.
Our greenway demonstration project at the confluence of the
French Broad and Swannanoa Rivers is a perfect example of the
community coming to together to reclaim the river. Our local
electric utility company, Carolina Power and Light, donated 1.9
miles of riverfront property as the first link in an urban
greenway system. This land had been an unofficial
``landfill''--people would clean out their closets, their
attics or their basements and bring their discarded items to
the river. Today, after years of clean-up work and the
cooperation of over 1,300 people, foundations, government
agencies, companies and garden clubs the French Broad River
Greenway is a wonderful example of what can and does happen
when a community comes together in a spirit of cooperation.
That's what we believe is the premise of the American Heritage
River Initiative--cooperation and coordination with a single
vision from the broadest cross-section of the community.
In our efforts to name the French Broad as an American
Heritage River we realize that we have already won the prize.
We have come together in a whole new way, formed new
partnerships and alliances, and discovered our neighbors again,
not just nearby cities and counties but our sister state--
Tennessee. There are things that perhaps we should have known,
but we didn't.
We support the American Heritage River Initiative because
it is non-regulatory and will not cause an increase in the
Federal budget. Rather, it will focus resources on ``OUR'' plan
of action. It gives us an umbrella under which to work. The
AHRI will force the Federal Government to be responsive to
``OUR'' plan of action for ``OUR'' river.
In addition to the AHRI promise of no additional
regulations for rivers selected, our committee has adopted its
own code of conduct in regard to our pursuit of the AHR
designation for the French Broad. I would like to read that to
you. This was adopted unanimously at our last meeting as an
additional and personal guarantee.
``We the organizing committee for the AHRI, adopt the
following as our personal guarantee and code of conduct in
seeking the nomination of the French Broad as an American
Heritage River.''
We are pursuing the nomination of the French Broad River as
an American Heritage River. Our initial plan, along with other
aspects, calls for a greenway along the entire length of the
French Broad river corridor from Transylvania County to Knox
County, Tennessee, which will be interpreted with public art
and historic markers. In pursuit of this greenway and the
American Heritage River status we pledge individually and
collectively that no property will be condemned, no property
owners will be coerced and that all participation in the
greenway will be voluntary with all due regard for individual
``property rights.'' We understand that our statement and code
of conduct is in complete compliance with the stated
objectives, goals and American Heritage River Initiative
program as outlined in the Federal Register.
When I am not acting as a county commissioner, or a
RiverLink board member or as the chairman of the American
Heritage River Initiative I am a small businessman. My wife and
I own a travel agency. Over the years our business has grown as
our region has been discovered. I know that the national
recognition and the coordinated Federal services that will
accompany the naming of the French Broad as an AHR will bring
more people, tourists and businesses to our region. That's good
for my business and good for business in general. I invite you
to visit our French Broad--I invite you join us as we applaud
the French Broad--and I urge you to support the American
Heritage River Initiative.
Thank you for this opportunity to tout the French Broad and
to show our regions support for the American Heritage River
Initiative.
------
Statement of Gordon Ross, Coos County Commissioner, Coos County, Oregon
In the opinion of this County Commissioner, Coos County is the most
favored county in the most favored state in the union for some of the
following reasons:
1. Seventy percent of our 1 million acres is privately owned;
2. We have no ``scenic rivers'' designated;
3. We have no Congressionally withdrawn wilderness areas;
4. We have consistently, since 1855, harvested more timber than
any county in the State of Oregon;
5. We have more Coho Salmon per spawning mile than any county
on the West Coast;
6. We have more Coho salmon than any county on the Pacific
Coast;
7. We have more Coho Salmon than all other coastal Oregon
counties combined; and
8. We have watershed associations partnering with up to 75
percent of the land owners and managers in the watershed,
improving habitat conditions in a ``bottom up'' non-regulatory
cooperative fashion.
I must say, in defense of our Federal partners on the local level,
we have the best of cooperation, but that is where it ends. Almost
without exception, Federal regulatory agencies and their regulatory
mind set, stand in the way of progressive local problem solving. Agency
interpretation of 1990 Food Security Act, the Clean Water Act, Wetland
Regulations, etc. have been a constant impediment in getting through
the permit process in order to do Coho habitat enhancement with our
farm land cooperators. Projects ranging from sediment removal to ``side
rearing ponds'' have been viewed as ``wetland violations'' and one
cooperator was even charged with ``discharging pollutants into the
waters of the United States.'' He had taken sediment from the previous
year's storm out of the creek and placed it on his farm land.
What Coos County does not need is another Federal presence in our
county or another Federal designation. It may be argued that the
``Navigator'' that would be hired would ``help'' us get through the
Federal red tape. I would propose that it is time Congress take care of
the ``navigation'' by getting rid of the red tape.
In conclusion, I wish to say that the ``bottoms up'' non-
regulatory, cooperative approach that enlists the efforts of the
private land owners can and does accomplish far more than another
Federal presence in our community. I believe it was in Fiddler on the
Roof where the rabbi was asked ``Is there a proper blessing for the
Czar.? Yes he replied. God bless the czar and keep him----far far from
us.!"
Please do not saddle us with any more Federal bureaucracy. We don't
need any heritage river designations. We, at the local level, are best
suited to protect our watersheds. We are the true ``guardians'' of our
heritage, the caretakers of the future.
______
Statement of Bill DeVeny, State Director, District V, Idaho Farm Bureau
Federation
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee and visitors, thank
you for the opportunity to present comments before this
Committee. My name is Bill DeVeny. This written testimony is
submitted in support of H.R. 1842 to terminate further
development and implementation of the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative. I am a rancher from Riggins which is in Central
Idaho. I am speaking in behalf of the Idaho Farm Bureau
Federation representing 47,000 member families in Idaho and
also in behalf of myself.
Water is the lifeblood of Idaho, so the way it is managed
and used is of concern to all of us in Idaho. Water is not only
essential for all domestic uses, but has transformed the arid
southern part of the state into productive, irrigated crop
ground producing grain, onions, beans, potatoes, sugar beets,
hay, mint, hops, small seeds, fruit, and numerous other crops
on 3.4 million acres. The value of agricultural products
produced including cattle is $35 to $45 billion. Water provides
transportation from the Port of Lewiston to the Pacific Ocean
at Portland, Oregon, for 2 million tons of cargo valued at $1.5
to $2.0 billion. Hydro-power generation of electricity provides
an average of 70 percent of the electricity used in Idaho.
Recreation, which is the third largest industry in the state,
depends heavily on water resources including lakes, rivers and
streams for a variety of uses such as rafting, boating, and
fishing. Continued use of Idaho water is essential to the
continued well being and quality of life for residents of this
state.
One concern I have with the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative is that it circumvents the right of states to manage
and control water which is clearly a right of each individual
state. The Idaho Constitution (as approved by Congress when
Idaho entered the Union) expressly states: ``The use of all
waters . . . (is) subject to the regulations and control of the
state . . .''. Additionally, Idaho code 42-101 states: ``All
the waters of the state, when flowing in their natural
channels, including the waters of all natural springs and lakes
within the boundaries of the state are declared to be the
property of the state, whose duty it shall be to supervise
their appropriation and allotment to those diverting the same
therefrom for any beneficial purpose.'' The initiative would
clearly be in direct violation of state law and the state
constitution.
Another concern I have with the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative is that nowhere in the Constitution of the United
States is there authority for the Federal Government to become
involved in the issue of water. The Constitution enumerates the
powers granted to the Federal Government and reserves all
others to the states or to individuals.
Furthermore, there is no authority for the Federal
Government to expend funds for the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative. The following is quoted from IMPRIMIS, ``Our
Unconstitutional Congress,'' by Stephen Moore.
``The enumerated powers of the Federal Government to spend
money are defined in the Constitution under Article 1, Section
8. These powers include the right to `establish Post Offices
and post roads; raise and support Armies; provide and maintain
a Navy; declare War . . .' and to conduct a few other
activities related mostly to national defense. No matter how
long one searches, it is impossible to find in the Constitution
and language that authorized at least 90 percent of the
civilian programs that Congress crams into the Federal budget
today.''
There certainly is nothing that allows the executive branch
to initiate spending programs. My understanding has always been
that spending originates with the House of Representatives.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative is duplication of
effort between other Federal, state, and local agencies: for
example, the Corps of Engineers, Rural and Economic Community
Development, Rural Development Councils, Natural Resource
Conservation Service, and Soil Conservation Districts to
mention a few. There also are other rural initiative programs
in effect and there is no reason to think that another Federal
program can accomplish what these other programs are not doing,
nor can any other Federal program cause existing Federal
programs to be more efficient or effective. In reality,
probably just the opposite is true.
A serious anomaly is created by the initiative when
``nongovernmental organizations'' are included to nominate
rivers, and to ``coordinate delivery of Federal services'' and
``. . . restore, protect, and revitalize American Heritage
Rivers that run through their communities.'' These
nongovernmental organizations are the same organizations that
do not respect any of the heritage of the American West. The
heritage, at least in the West, relies first on the trappers
(which have become virtually extinct), then miners, later
grazers followed by farmers, next loggers, and recently
recreationists. These nongovernmental organizations are the
very ones that are trying to send the rest of us, grazers,
farmers, loggers, and recreationists, the way of the trappers--
into extinction. The nongovernmental organizations might
tolerate a few recreationists who are hardy souls and want to
brave a wilderness, but even that will require agency
permission.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative is in conflict with
other Federal laws such as the Clean Water Act and does not
comply with existing laws such as NEPA which requires an
extensive environmental assessment for Federal actions or at
least a finding of no significant impact. The initiative
attempts to avoid the intent of Congress when it passed the
Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act by claiming this
is not a rule. It also avoids, in fact violates, the
Administrative Procedures Act.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative is circumventing
the authority of Congress and vesting authority in yet another
bureaucracy. It introduces another layer of bureaucracy which
we do not need. Agencies have become the ``fourth'' arm of
government and this is detrimental. We need less bureaucracy,
not more.
From personal experience about two weeks before this
hearing I was contacted by two Federal employees wanting to
come on my private property to make a stream side survey to see
what kind of fish were in a very small stream running through
my property and what kind of habitat there was. When questioned
why they wanted to make the survey, the employees would not
tell me why they wanted to know, what they would do with the
information, or by what authority they were collecting this
information. From experience I am pretty sure that whatever
they did would probably not be for my benefit and would
probably be detrimental to my interests and well being and in
the long run to the general public as well. This is simply an
example of the intrusiveness of government that this new
initiative would create more of.
The ``river communities'' that would be created by the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative would have no
jurisdictional basis and could, in fact, cross jurisdictional
lines such as those between cities and counties and thus create
hard feelings or confrontations. The results could be chaotic
and entirely unpredictable situations.
When the prospect of grant money is added to a legislative
proposal, local units of government have a hard time saying no.
Several years ago I was asked to testify at a meeting of the
Idaho Association of Counties concerning some of the heritage
legislation that was being proposed by the late Morris Udall.
Earlier versions of heritage legislation had been rejected, but
when the counties were promised a share of the money which most
certainly would have been ``pork,'' many county commissioners
had a hard time saying no. They were willing to accept the
money regardless of the consequences even though there might
have been serious bad side effects from accepting this money.
Fortunately there were enough commissioners present who could
see the down side to the proposed legislation that the
Association of Counties voted to reject the proposal. Since the
``river communities'' are not legally established units of
government, the temptation to accept grant money might even be
greater and put the private property owners within the area in
jeopardy because of the obligations that would come associated
with the grant money. There always are some obligations, even
though hidden initially. Grant money is a ``carrot and stick''
approach. The promise of grant money is the carrot. Any agency
is made up of human beings, and they can be very unfriendly,
then the stick is wielded. In an initiative such as this one
there are myriad opportunities for favoritism. This initiative
is particularly susceptible to these failings, and to creating
special favors for selected people or groups of people.
Another concern I have is for the position that would be
created of ``river navigator.'' This would be yet one more
unelected official who would have untold powers over the
rights, lives, and livelihoods of citizens of the area involved
yet individuals impacted would have no recourse for unfavorable
actions or decisions. Local control and decision making will be
further diluted. For instance in Idaho, this could interfere
with the Snake River Basin Adjudication of water rights that is
taking place for the Snake River System. This is a legal
proceeding.
Once a river is designated, the designation becomes
permanent and there are no provisions to reverse this
designation or for individuals or groups of individuals to opt
out of the program. The definition of those who can propose a
designation would allow people from entirely out of the area to
control local issues. The American Heritage Rivers Initiative
is yet another tool for use by environmental extremists to stop
the wise use of our lands. This is an issue about the control
of resources, Separation of Powers, State Sovereignty, private
property rights, and freedom from unnecessary and harmful
Federal intrusion.
In my view the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is
contrary to every thing I have ever learned about our form of
government. We are a nation of laws. The legislative branch is
to create the laws, the executive branch is to implement and to
enforce the laws, and the judiciary branch is to interpret the
laws--not to make the laws. The American Heritage Rivers
Initiative is contrary to each of those tenets.
This country is founded on several important principles not
the least of which is the right to own private property. One of
the primary reasons many, if not most, immigrants came to this
country was the freedom to own and control land outright. This
initiative is just another chink in taking away private
property rights and a step toward Federal land use control. I
know of no instances where the government does a better job in
the long run of managing property than private property owners
themselves.
We need less government control, not more, so I encourage
you to do whatever is in your power to curtail the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative. Withholding funding as proposed in
H.R. 1842 is certainly a step in the right direction.
We do not want another Federal designation. We do not want
a greater Federal presence. We do not want enhanced Federal
control over our waters. And we do not want the government to
come up with yet another way to spend taxpayer dollars.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
------
Statement of Peter Samuel, Executive Director, Schuylkill River
Greenway and Heritage Corridor
On behalf of the Schuylkill River Greenway and Heritage
Corridor, its partners and community organizations, I want to
thank you and the members of this Committee for the opportunity
to provide testimony in opposition to H.R. 1842. We are opposed
to H.R. 1842 because we believe the American Heritage River
Initiative will provide opportunities and benefits to our
region in Southeastern Pennsylvania and others like ours around
the country.
The Schuylkill River Greenway Association is a membership
organization which has been working with citizens and community
groups and a host of other partners up and down the river for
almost 25 years to promote the river resources and advocate the
protection of open space. In the 1990's we went through a
process to develop a plan for the Schuylkill as a Heritage
Corridor. In 1995 the river corridor was designated by Governor
Ridge as Pennsylvania's seventh Heritage Park. Thus the
Association expanded its mission to include conservation of the
historic and cultural resources within the watershed and a
focus on economic development.
We in the Schuylkill Watershed--including conservationists,
elected officials, municipal governments, landowners,
recreationalists, industry owners and more--are very much
interested in the American Heritage River Initiative because it
will provide an excellent chance for the widest range of people
to take new pride in their river. It will enable us to work
with the Federal Government as a partner in efforts to improve
and restore the resources associated with the Schuylkill.
The goal of the American Heritage Rivers initiative is to
support communities within existing laws and regulations, by
providing them with better information, tools and resources and
by encouraging local efforts deserving of special recognition.
This is precisely the kind of assistance the Schuylkill River
Corridor needs.
We believe that our community knows best what resources
will benefit us the most and would like to see the government
prioritize Federal spending based on that community led
process, and to help people better understand how to access
existing Federal resources.
Before I explain further why and how this proposed new
initiative will help the people and resources directly in the
Schuylkill River Valley I would like to describe my area of the
country. I will discuss our efforts to create a heritage
corridor based on wide ranging partnerships, what works already
been accomplished, what the larger shared vision is for the
region and there, how we see this new government initiative
fitting into the entire picture.
BACKGROUND ON THE SCHUYLKILL
The Schuylkill River flows through some of the most
historically significant land in the United States. The natural
resources of the region and the people who live and work there
have helped weave the social, political, economic and
industrial fabric of Pennsylvania and the nation.
The river itself extends 128 miles from the mining region
of Schuylkill County through four other counties and into the
city of Philadelphia where it links up with the Delaware River.
It comprises three national parks, many acres of state park and
game lands, numerous county parks, arboretums, wildlife
preserves as well as widespread residential development,
agriculture, industrial towns and private lands.
William Penn established his colony relatively late in the
history of European colonization of North America's seaboard,
but the rapid growth of the colony soon made Pennsylvania a
region of major substance and significance within the world.
By the 1770's Philadelphia stood as the political, economic
and cultural center of colonial America. The city's strategic
location, wealth, industrial and commercial importance, large
and cosmopolitan population combined to make it the hub of
America's revolutionary activity. It was the site of the First
and Second Continental Congresses and the birthplace of the
Declaration of Independence. It was along the Schuylkill, in
the winter of 1778, that General Washington and his troops
camped in Valley Forge before the turning point in the
Revolutionary War.
By 1900, the use of anthracite coal to power industry
caused a total transformation in the valley. The region was
still dominated by Philadelphia, but with many urban and
industrial centers, both large and small, thriving and
interconnected by railroads. During this period, the entire
river valley functioned as an interlocking series of industrial
engines, and Philadelphia became a national leader in industry.
The vast growth and development of communities and
industries along the river was not without consequence. By 1927
it was estimated that there was 38 million tons of coal silt in
the river. The Schuylkill was so polluted that it had
essentially lost its value as a river--the canal system was no
longer navigable, the river was spurned as a recreational
resource and as a supply of drinking water it had become
seriously degraded.
The river has been making a slow come back. In the 1970's
the Schuylkill River Greenway Association was formed to begin
advocating the protection and health of the river and its
tributaries. The Schuylkill was designated by the state
legislature as Pennsylvania's first scenic river in 1977.
In the spring of 1995, after an extensive three year
planning process involving representatives from each of the
five counties and the public and private sectors, a Management
Action Plan for the Schuylkill Heritage Corridor was completed.
Later that year the Schuylkill was designated by Governor Tom
Ridge as Pennsylvania's seventh State Heritage Park.
The Schuylkill River Greenway Association which had many
years of experience working with partners throughout the
corridor, became the organization to implement the Heritage
Corridor Plan. The SRGA adopted a revised and expanded mission
for improving the river, increasing recreational opportunities,
saving historic structures, encouraging regional cooperation,
attracting tourism and generating jobs and permanent economic
benefits.
These actions mirror steps that have been taken in hundreds
of communities. People across the nation have begun to realize
the promise of heritage tourism. They are discovering how well
the preservation of historic, cultural and natural resources
combines with the development and marketing of tourism to
sustain local economies and ways of life. Resource preservation
and economic viability are not mutually exclusive but
compatible and mutually enhancing. It has been recognized that
multiple management and funding sources are the most
appropriate method of preserving and interpreting the
nationally important resources and themes.
The Greenway and Heritage Corridor has committed to work
towards the following goals:
--Be the keeper of the vision--coordinating, managing and
implementing programs projects and activities within the
corridor that serve to celebrate the heritage and preserve and
enhance quality of life
--Linking and Leveraging--working between and among agencies,
attractions and organizations in support of the vision, mission
and goals of the Schuylkill Heritage Corridor
--Serve as a resource--providing leadership and guidance in
educational, historical, financial and marketing efforts and
technical assistance in training, interpretation, and community
involvement
PROJECTS OF THE GREENWAY AND HERITAGE CORRIDOR
Projects range from the creation of trails built on abandoned rail
corridors, the construction or improvement of trail bridges that cross
streams and roads, development of riverside parks and open space,
creation of canoe launches, historic conservation and interpretation
projects, development of visitor information and a wayfinding system,
and the implementation of an educational curriculum plan.
Projects throughout the five county area in Historic Conservation
and Interpretation include:
Planning for the renovation of the historic
Phoenixville Foundry building in Phoenixville to become a
visitor center which focuses on the steel and iron making
heritage--in association with Phoenixville Area Development
Corporation
The Reconstruction of the Schuylkill Navigation Canal
Lock 60 in Port Providence--in association with the Schuylkill
Canal Association
Interpretive Planning and Exhibit Design to develop
visitor center exhibits to describe the agricultural history in
the Schuylkill Valley--in association with the Peter Wentz
Farmstead
Development of a plan for reuse of the historic
Tamaqua Train Station in downtown Tamaqua for use as a visitor
reception point--in association with the Save Our Station group
Renovation of an historic building in downtown Reading
to be used as a heritage corridor visitor center--in
association with the Berks County Conservancy
Development of Engineering Plans for the restoration
of the historic water wheel at the Fairmount Waterworks in
Philadelphia--in association with the Philadelphia Water
Department and Fairmount Park
Assistance in the stabilization of the historic
Continental Powder Works--in association with East Vincent
Township
It was recognized early on that there would need to be a broad
range of support among financial, community, educational, business, and
government leaders and foundations and existing partners in order to
balance programmatic goals and objectives and achieve financial
stability within the organization. This diversification of support
allows the organization to develop flexible funding programs that
strengthens the corridor and ensures its long-term success.
HOW THE AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVER INITIATIVE CAN HELP OUR WORK
Since I became the Director of the Schuylkill Corridor I have
realized that there are Federal agencies in our region which have
programs that could provide assistance to our various communities. The
Army Corps of Engineers has indicated an interest in rehabilitation of
desilting basins into wetlands, the Environmental Protection Agency may
have funds for restoration projects on the tributaries, the National
Park Service could provide greenway and trail planning, Fish and
Wildlife may be involved in the development of fish ladders along the
many dams. And there are probably many others. How would I know?
My information about these potential programs has been haphazard,
helter skelter. If the Schuylkill River is designated as an American
Heritage River, information about all of these programs would be made
available as a coordinated package of services. The Federal Government
would begin to work for us.
People have called for a better, smarter and more coordinated way
to work with the Federal Government. The American Heritage River
Initiative seeks to coordinate these existing authorities in a more
efficient and complementary way and proposes that assistance from the
Federal Government will come at the request of the community. Once a
river is designated, a team of Federal agency representatives will be
available to help the community determine the role for Federal
assistance. The committee will look for opportunities to reduce
bureaucracy, streamline services and remove policy obstacles.
There is no existing system to provide communities with a
coordinated system of Federal services. In fact there is so much lack
of coordination that it is very possible that within one very small
agency such as the National Park Service that more than one department
or division could be involved with the same project and never know what
the other is doing.
If what is being proposed by the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative comes to fruition, it will be a major advance for
government. I am not talking about more government, more regulations,
more interference, I am talking about coordination, organization and
responsiveness. I am talking about better government, ideal government.
One that is there when you want it to be and one that provides a
coordinated strategy of services that will be truly helpful.
The American Heritage River Initiative will allow for the proper
recognition of the collective contributions of ordinary people in
significant regions of our nation. The Schuylkill Heritage Corridor
provides a framework for people to take pride in their communities,
understand their history and work together to enhance the quality of
life for their children. We are treating our history and heritage as
one of our greatest resources. The American Heritage River Initiative
will allow us to build on that and ensure that the present and future
is successfully linked to our past.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.
______
Statement of Reginald William Nelson
Mr. Chairman, members of this Committee, ladies and
gentlemen:
My name is Reginald William Nelson and I live at 1820 New
Market Road in eastern Henrico County, just outside of the City
of Richmond, Virginia. I am a full-time farmer. I farm land
within sight of the James River and practice responsible
management of my farmland to ensure the safety of my livelihood
for the perpetuation of my farming, and the cleanliness of the
environment, as my father and grandfather before me have done.
My farmland is just beyond the urban boundaries of the City of
Richmond.
I and many of my neighbors are concerned that President
Clinton's ``Executive Order'' creating the ``American Heritage
Rivers Initiative'' will further denigrate our ability to
effectively produce crops from our fields and use our private
property as guaranteed by our United States Constitution.
This ``Initiative'' addresses ``river communities.'' Those
folks lobbying hard for this Federal bureaucratic program have
been defining the boundaries of this Initiative to include all
land within a river's watershed. That is a broad and inclusive
definition. Along the James River, its watershed includes
10,102 square miles, one fourth of the land base of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
What we are sure of, is that this ``Initiative'' intends to
consume more than the riparian properties adjacent to any
designated river.
Further, this ``Initiative'' addresses the concerns of
those people who consider themselves to be ``stakeholders'' in
this initiative. They appear to be many, varying ``special
interest groups''--not among them, appears to be the affected
individual private property owner!
There is no provision in this ``Initiative'' for even the
individual notification of all property owners which are to be
included in any such ``designation.'' That is appalling to
me!--However, from my experience over the recent years with the
Department of the Interior, this is the Federal bureaucracy
functioning in its regular mode of operation.
Having worked for several years to try to gain local
control over the National Park Service's boundary, condemnation
authority and land use control over as much as 250,000 acres in
and around Richmond, (including my property), and observing the
bureaucratic attitude to ignore residents and property owners'
requests and recommendations--I have had to learn how this
mushrooming, land-usurping predator works. It continually
creates additional layers of Federal bureaucrats to confuse the
taxpaying citizen to slowly, but surely, diminish the private
property owner's Constitutional rights to use his own property.
Instead of helping the private property owner, the Federal
bureaucracy works to use private property ``For the Good of
All'' such as that non-owner ``stakeholder'' I spoke of
earlier.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have no business being here before
you today. I should be at home in my fields--on my combine--
where I am presently at the peak of my corn and soybean
harvesting. I usually spend twelve (12) to sixteen (16) hours a
day this time of year away from my family--working, farming--to
support my family--and they know an understand that. My two
young daughters were confused that instead, today, I have
traveled to, and am sitting in, a Congressional Hearing Room to
tell you about the harm this ``American Heritage Rivers
Initiative'' will cause for me and innumerable Americans.
I and my neighbors regularly elect a Congressman from our
home district; mine is The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
Congressman Bliley understands the considerable economic
harm this new Federal program will cause to me and my neighbors
as we go about our business of farming and using our private
property without additional Federal bureaucratic intervention
or accountability;--and yet, this ``Initiative'' can designate
and begin appointing a ``River Navigator'' to ``oversee'' the
activities within a designated community and a river's
watershed--even over the objection of the duly elected
Congressional Representative! This is unconstitutional and just
plain wrong!
As a farmer I already know about excessive regulation. I
must comply with and file a ``Nutrient Management Plan,'' an
``Integrated Pest Management Plan,'' a ``Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Plan,'' and I am also required to record the
pesticides I use in my farming, as well as assuring that I am
in compliance with local land use regulations.
And yet, I am here to tell you that none of those
regulations has changed my family's farming practices or the
methods by which my family grow crops. We have always been
responsible guardians of our land and the environment. What it
has changed--is the time and costs involved in reporting back
to these unelected, government bureaucrats, whose job is
perpetuated by my being required to spend time at my computer
reporting minute details of what I have done to grow my crops,
instead of either: (1) working my fields, or (2) sharing
precious time with my wife and children.
If this ``Initiative'' is truly voluntary and
nonregulatory, why is there to be a Federal presence? Why are
there Federal agencies to be involved? Why? Because, clearly,
there will be additional regulations placed on all properties
within a designation--written by nameless, faceless,
unaccountable bureaucrats. If this ``Initiative'' is truly
``honorary,'' there would be no Federal involvement.
The reason I am here to speak in favor of H.R. 1842 is that
I fear this Presidential Executive Order's effect on my farm,
my family, my neighbors, my community and our diminishing
Constitutional Rights.
Neither my Senators nor my Representative were given an
opportunity to vote their approval of this Federal program.
They were not a part of the process of creat-
ing it. They were not given my right for them to vote on this
invasive and expensive Federal program which will add an
additional layer of bureaucracy through which I must weave to
earn a living for my family.
There is no reason that localities along any river cannot
work together to accomplish what this ``Initiative'' purports
to do. No Federal program is necessary or serves a constructive
purpose.
Along our James River, the localities are meeting and
finding creative methods to promote the river, but, at this
time, the Federal Government is not involved--or in control.
And ``in control'' is what it wants to be. But that is neither
necessary--nor desirable.
Years ago the James River was seriously polluted. Today it
is recovering--without Federal intervention. It is not needed--
or wanted--now. The cost for this program is to come from the
resources within the 12 Federal agencies already identified to
be involved in this Presidential enacted ``Initiative''--from
agency budgets reportedly already stretched beyond their
ability to function appropriately. Will funds be take from
roadway repair projects? Will they be taken from
environmentally sensitive clean-up programs to fund this
``Initiative''? Clearly, the burden of the cost of this added
layer of bureaucracy will be passed to the over-taxed American
taxpayer--of which I am one.
This ``American Heritage Rivers Initiative'' was stated to
be created to ``preserve, protect and restore rivers and their
adjacent communities.'' The vagueness and imprecision of these
words will allow the established--and ``yet to be
established''--bureaucracies to use Federal controls on private
use of privately owned property. This strikes fear in the
hearts and minds of property owners anywhere near any river!
And so it should! ``The devil is in the details!'' And we have
not been given those to review in advance of the establishment
of this Federal bureaucratic program! They will, instead, be
determined at some later time by those nameless, faceless,
unaccountable bureaucrats!
Any citizen ever hoping to own property should fear such
authority for unchecked Federal control!
This new Federal power will be used to impose the will of
the Federal bureaucracy on local jurisdictions, usurping the
powers Constitutionally ``reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.''
Any intelligent person knows that, historically,
development began around these flowing conduits. Rivers were--
and are--a natural mode of transportation for relocation and
trade. And, of course, there is usually fertile farmland near
and adjacent to rivers. So, with no limits, controls,
guidelines or ``opt-out provisions'' in this Federal program--
not unlike any other trumped-up ``historic'' or ``heritage''
designations--virtually any river in the United States would
qualify for control by this central, Federal bureaucrat--the
``River Navigator''--who could impose great and costly
restrictions on local government land use control.
I bring to you today a different knowledge and perspective
from your other speakers. I have had the unfortunate necessity
to research and learn, together with my neighbors, the details
and effect of a ``historic designation'' under the Historic
Preservation Act. We were all under attack by the National Park
Service in our area, and were misleadingly assured that such a
designation, even over our objection, had no effect on the use
or value of our land. Well, that's what they would like
citizens to believe! But it is absolutely untrue!
This Presidential Executive Order creating the ``American
Heritage Rivers Initiative'' expressly states that the
Department of the Interior shall be one of those Federal
agencies which shall ``identify all technical tools, including
those developed for purposes other than river conservation,
that can be applied to river protection. . . .'' My community
and others around my state know all too well how that Section
106 Review Process of the Historic Preservation Act can curtail
any changes in the area. Progress stops--not just damage. If
the members of this Committee are not aware of this Act and its
Section 106 Review process--and the far reaching effect it can
and has had on communities around the nation--please contact me
or have your staff members look into the matter. It has the
propensity to bring this nation to a halt.
I am fortunate that my local jurisdiction, Henrico County,
Virginia, is in strong opposition to the designation of the
river threatening my community, and is preparing a letter to be
sent to all of our Congressional delegation stating and
clarifying their opposition. I would like to provide a copy of
that letter to this Committee to be attached to my testimony,
as soon as it is available.
This Presidential-created program, however, does not
clarify that my community can be saved by my local government's
refusal to approve of, or request, the designation--we may
still be forced into the designation by the request of other
more-naive . . . to say nothing of it being forced upon the
unnotified, individual private property owners!
There are no guarantees under this program--except that we
have no guarantees that our Constitutionally guaranteed rights
to representation and private property protections have--and
will be--further violated by this program.
I ask again--if this ``Initiative'' is truly honorary and
voluntary, why is there a Federal presence? Why is there no
property owner notification? Why is it not, instead, required
that the property owner request the designation in writing and
have the right to quit the program at any time?
Why? Is it because these protections from our Federal
Government were never intended to be a part of this program?
Because land use control being removed from local control was
the primary intent from its inception?
I believe it was and still is.
Mr. Chairman, and members of this Committee, I appreciate
this opportunity to explain my personal concerns about the
``American Heritage Rivers Initiative,'' and I enthusiastically
request your strong support for H.R. 1842 so that I may go home
and pursue my livelihood the anticipation of no further Federal
manipulation and regulation of my land and my community. Such
an invasive and controlling program should be created only by
the will of the people--and then must be in compliance with the
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution!
Please take action to stop this oppressive, dictatorially-
created Federal program by passing and enforcing H.R. 1842.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5912.208