[Senate Hearing 106-935]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-935
CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 25, THE CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999
S. 2123, THE CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999
S. 2181, THE CONSERVATION AND STEWARDSHIP ACT, TO AUTHORIZE FUNDING FOR
A VARIETY OF CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
__________
MAY 24, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-424 cc WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri HARRY REID, Nevada
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BOB GRAHAM, Florida
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
Dave Conover, Staff Director
Tom Sliter, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MAY 24, 2000
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 1, 65
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California2, 26, 67
Chafee, Hon. Lincoln, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island52, 64
Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho..... 63
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida......... 66
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...25, 62
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 65
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut....................................................26, 67
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 1, 60
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 62
WITNESSES
Chenoweth-Hage, Hon. Helen, U.S. Representative from the State of
Idaho.......................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Clark, Hon. Jamie, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior..................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 78
Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 69
Hardiman, Mike, American Land Rights Association................. 40
Prepared statement........................................... 112
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Crapo............................................ 117
Senator Inhofe........................................... 113
Landrieu, Hon. Mary, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana.... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 69
Miller, Hon. George, U.S. Representative from the State of
Arizona........................................................ 22
Prepared statement........................................... 71
Niebling, Charlie, policy director, Society for the Protection of
New Hampshire Forests.......................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 124
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 127
O'Brien, Rindy, vice president of policy, The Wilderness Society. 44
Prepared statement........................................... 95
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Crapo............................................ 97
Senator Inhofe........................................... 98
Schlickeison, Rodger, president, Defenders of Wildlife........... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 99
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Crapo............................................ 109
Senator Inhofe........................................... 110
Shadegg, Hon. John, U.S. Representative from the State of Arizona 19
Prepared statement........................................... 73
Sparrowe, Rollin D., president, Wildlife Management Institute.... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 128
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Crapo............................................ 130
Senator Inhofe........................................... 132
Tauzin, Hon. Billy, U.S. Representative from the State of
Louisiana...................................................... 6
Vetter, Wayne, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department............ 47
Prepared statement........................................... 141
Waller, David, president, International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, director, Georgia Wildlife Resources
Division....................................................... 45
Prepared statement........................................... 87
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Bond............................................. 92
Senator Inhofe........................................... 89
Young, Hon. Don, U.S. Representative from the State of Alaska.... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 70
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Analysis, CARA as Passed by the House, Fred Kelly Grant.......... 118
Articles:
CARA Is Anti-Sportsman, Anti-Hunting......................... 115
Fatal Flaws of CARA.......................................... 167
Draft, language to amend Title III of H.R. 701, Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies..................................... 109
Letters:
American Land Rights Association............................. 121
Arnett, G. Ray............................................... 123
Gerhardt, Lee Ann............................................ 165
Gun Owners of America........................................ 116
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies...... 107
Keep Private Lands in Private Hands Coalition................ 165
New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources............... 136
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation...... 91
Western States Land Commissioners Association................ 173
Resolution, Western States Land Commissioners Association........ 173
Statements:
Keep Lands in Private Hands Coalition.......................143-165
Kreig, Ray, Anchorage, AK.................................... 166
Miller, Ted.................................................. 136
National Rifle Association................................... 134
Whitefeather, Bobby, Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians....... 138
Wildlife Society............................................. 142
Yozell, Sally, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Oceans and
Atmosphere, Department of Commerce......................... 83
CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Smith (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Smith, Baucus, Boxer, Chafee, Reid,
Inhofe, Lautenberg, Bennett, Graham, Lieberman, and Crapo.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Smith. The committee will come to order. We have a
lengthy hearing this morning with several Members of Congress
and Senators who have asked to testify. I have done my best to
accommodate everyone. Hopefully, the House members will be here
shortly. I understand the House of Representatives has a vote
at 10.
So with that in mind, I am going to ask Senators to
withhold opening statements at least until that time that the
members have had a chance to make their statements.
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a couple
of words, first. It is very, very brief. We all have schedules
to meet and attend. With your permission, I have just a couple
of words.
Senator Smith. Well, the only thing is, if we let one
Senator do it, we have got to let them all do it.
Senator Baucus. Well, there are only three or four here.
How about if you hold us to 1 minute?
Senator Smith. All right, go ahead.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. I just want to give mine afterwards.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. I just want to thank everyone here who has
worked so hard in leadership positions to bring these bills
forward.
Senator Landrieu has been probably one of the hardest
working to get this issue moving, hopefully past this Congress.
Over in the House, of course, it is Congressman Miller and
Congressman Young. I very much thank them. Senator Bingaman has
introduced a bill that I have cosponsored.
I just want to publicly acknowledge and thank all of you
who have worked so very, very hard, because I think we have a
good opportunity this year to enact this measure.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Senator Chafee, you had indicated to me that
you had to go at 10 anyway to preside. If you would like to
make some brief remarks here, I will permit that.
Senator Chafee. I will hold off and give my opening
statement when I come back at 11. That might work out better
for everybody.
Senator Smith. Is there anyone on this side?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I just would ask for 30
seconds, and I will give my full statement later.
I wanted everyone to know that I introduced the House
passed bill, and it is sitting at the desk at the Senate. I
think it is important, because if we can not see a bill come
out, it makes it easier, from a parliamentary sense, to have
the House bill at the desk.
So the actual House bill went to the committee, but I
introduced the House bill, word for word, even though I am with
Senator Baucus and Bingaman on Senator Bingaman's language.
I also want to say that it is terrific to see this all
coming together, 4,000 organizations. I introduced the original
bill, which was different from the Carr bill with Congressman
Miller. Then he left me for Congressman Young.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. I am a little hurt, but I think they did a
good job. That is where we are at this point. I want to thank
you for holding this hearing.
Senator Smith. Would anyone else like to make a brief
remark?
[No response.]
Senator Smith. We will come back to Senators for more
elaboration on the opening remarks in a little while.
This hearing this morning is to basically hear comment on
three bills: the S. 25, which is the bill introduced by Senator
Landrieu and Murkowski; S. 2123, also by Landrieu and
Murkowski; and S. 2181, by Senator Bingaman.
Do you have one in there, too, Senator Cochran? Did I miss
one?
Senator Cochran. I am co-sponsoring the Landrieu bill.
Senator Smith. So at this point, let me start with you,
Senator Landrieu. Of course, your statement will be made part
of the record.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY LANDRIEU, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by
thanking you and the Ranking Member for holding this hearing
this morning and for all of the interest that all of your
members have expressed on this subject.
It is going to take great work by this committee, as well
as the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and by every
member of the Senate to move such a significant piece of
legislation through, and to really work at it from many
different angles. So I really appreciate your committee, with
all that you have to do, giving time on this subject this
morning.
I am going to be relatively brief. As you all know, I could
talk hours about this subject, and I have. But I will be brief,
because I have got another committee, and I have got an able
partner here.
But let me just recognize Congressman Tauzin, who I
understand is here, to thank him for his great work in
shepherding this initiative through the House. As he will
testify later, and I sure you all know, there were over 315
members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats, who have
led this bill to a great victory in the House.
Now it is before the Senate. It has tremendous bipartisan
support here. So I think while we are not there yet, we are
clearly toward the end of this journey of having a bill that
will be a great conservation legacy for our Nation.
The President has indicated tremendous support for this
effort for the very beginning. I have every confidence that
when this bill is laid on his desk, something similar to what
came out of the House, that he will sign it, and it will be a
great victory for Congress and for this Administration.
CARA, which I want to speak about this morning, and I thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for your co-sponsorship of that, rests on a
couple of very simple principles.
One, we believe that CARA legislation lays down the
principle of a fiscal responsibility; that there is a source of
funding coming from offshore oil and gas revenues, that
actually would be better spent if they were directed in this
way, as opposed to the general fund of the Federal Treasury.
That is because this is not a regular tax. This is not a
tax that is going to go on indefinitely or forever. This is a
tax on a finite resource, and that resource is oil and gas
revenues, primarily off of our coast and primarily off the
coast of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and the Gulf Coast.
Just to share some numbers with you all that I hope will
impress you and I hope that you can keep, since 1950, the
Federal Government has taken $120 billion from that source in
taxes. Basically, it has gone directly into the general fund.
As Senator Feinstein said so eloquently in a press
conference on this subject, she said, in fact, these funds were
hijacked 30 years ago, because initially, these funds were
supposed to, or at least a portion of them, come back to fully
fund the land and water conservation fund, both the Federal
side and the State side, and to invest in our environment.
In fact, they never really have. It has been a hit and miss
situation, with more misses than hits. So CARA rests on the
principle that it really is more fiscally responsible, if you
are going to generate a tax from a finite resource, let us take
a portion of those revenues and invest them back in the
environment. That is what CARA does.
It also says in the CARA principles that many of us came
together on that environmental protection is more than just
rules and regulations. It is more than Federal land
acquisition. Really, this legacy that we are trying to create
is about good plans, good partnerships, and having financial
resources to make this real; the partnerships being at the
Federal and State level; good plans being made at the Federal
and State level.
But all the great plans and all the great partnerships in
the world are not worth very much if there is not money to
support them.
So CARA recognizes this special source of revenue. It
recognizes the fact that all the good plans and partnerships in
the world, of which many of you on this committee and I have
also helped to create, are not worth the paper that they are
written on, if there is not actual money to fund them.
So this money should go back to fund a variety of programs
that reinvest in a fiscally responsible way, and provide the
money, if you will, to make these plans real.
So the way the CARA bill has been developed and has come
now is identifying resources for coastal States; $1 billion of
the $2.8 billion for coastal impact assistance and
conservation; $900 million to fully fund the land and water
conservation fund; $350 million for wildlife conservation,
which is a particular interest to this committee; $125 million
for urban parks to fully fund historic preservation; $250
million for conservation easements; and $200 million set aside
for capital improvements for the land we already own.
Let me make just one point. In the Senate, this is an issue
of contention. Should we just go out and buy additional land;
should not we have some responsibility to care for the land we
already own?
So CARA recognizes that. It both enables us to purchase
land for willing sellers when Congress approves for additional
land, but it also invests money in improving the lands that we
already own, and for the western States, particularly, it helps
recognize by fully funding PILT. Senator, you and I have talked
about this, although you do not represent a western State. It
fully funds PILT, payment in lieu of taxes, which is an
important provision.
So the bill is balanced. It helps all areas of the Nation.
It does not just try to help producing States or non-producing
States or interior and coastal.
I think that is why, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me
say that this bill, of all the bills on the subject, has the
most support and the most bipartisan support, because it really
has, from its very beginning, wanted to be fair to every part
of this Nation, the northeast corridor, the great lakes, the
south, the west. It is very balanced in its approach, fiscally
conservative, and recognizes the real opportunity.
Let me just close by saying that some members have
criticized the fact that there are some producing States, like
Louisiana, that might get a large amount of this money. Because
the source of this money is produced almost 80 percent,
basically, off the coast of Louisiana, our State serves as the
platform for this oil and gas industry.
We are happy to do so. We think we can do so in an
environmentally sensitive way. Some States have chosen other
ways, or not to do production at all. That is fine.
But since our State serves as that platform, in Mississippi
and Texas, we feel that any bill that would come out of this
Congress should most certainly recognize that, that we produce
100 percent of the money. We are not asking for 100 percent. In
fact, CARA asks for less than 12 percent of these dollars to
come back to the Gulf Coast States.
We think that is quite generous and quite fair, so that
this money can be spread around the Nation in ways that will
make a great legacy.
My final point is this. If we do not do this now, Mr.
Chairman, when we are running a surplus, and when we can think
in the beginning of this new century, what should we do to make
sure that these surpluses are not just spent frivolously, or
not just allocated in ways that do not make much sense to our
future?
Here is a perfect opportunity to take a small portion of
this money, which would be less than, I think, one half of 1
percent of the total Federal budget, redirect it in ways that
it was supposed to, 30 years ago, and let us create a great
legacy for this Nation, for land acquisition, land improvement,
land conservation, working with landowners, respecting the
rights of private property owners, helping our coastal and
interior States, and protecting wildlife.
We could not think of a better way to start this new
century. We thank this committee for the interest they have and
look forward to working with you to get a good bill out that we
can all be proud of.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Well, thank you very much, Senator Landrieu,
and thank you for your leadership on this issue.
Senator Cochran, last night on the ``Millionaire'' I think
you probably would have been able to answer the $64,000
question, which was, what current famous popular author was a
member of the Mississippi State Legislature.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. One of the answers was John Grisham. That
was the right answer. I knew it, and the guy did not know it.
Senator Cochran. Oh, really?
Senator Smith. No, he did not, but I did not get any money
out of it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. Senator Cochran, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. THAD COCHRAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
inviting me to testify at this hearing.
The Federal Government has, for too long and too often,
used outer continental shelf revenues for big, high profile
projects, and has virtually left out States like Mississippi.
We have smaller projects, and our needs are not nearly as
great as some of the larger States. Yet, they are very real and
very important to the people who live in Mississippi.
This legislation will shift more of the money that comes
from these resources to States like Mississippi. We have
environmental organizations and State agencies that are trying
hard to protect fragile wetlands and fisheries resources. We
are restoring the habitat of the osprey and the eagle.
Great progress is being made on these and other similar
initiatives. But we need the extra money that this bill will
provide to provide to enable our State to do the job right.
For many years, we have sought additional funding for the
State-side portion of the land and water conservation fund,
which provides Federal funding for State initiatives for the
protection of valuable natural resources and fish and wildlife
habitat.
Our bill provides full funding for the State's share, while
still providing for Federal programs, coastal conservation and
impact assistance, wildlife conservation and education
programs, and historic preservation.
I am glad to be a co-sponsor of this legislation. I hope
this committee will recommend its approval by the Senate.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Cochran. Does anyone wish
to ask either Senator a question, at this point?
Senator Inhofe. What is the order, here?
Senator Smith. Well, we are ready to move up to the House
members.
Senator Inhofe. OK.
Senator Landrieu. If there are no questions, can I just
turn in, for the record, the list of 4,576 organizations and
businesses that have supported the CARA legislation, and
represent a grand coalition from business to environmental
leaders, Governors and mayors, and other elected leaders from
around the Nation that support our efforts, Mr. Chairman.
I am sure you will hear from some of the representatives of
some of these groups. But for the record, I would like to turn
it in and thank them for their great work, and for coming
together, across party lines and across ideological lines to
create a bill that we can all be proud of and one that will
truly help our Nation.
Senator Smith. Without objection, that will be made part of
the record.
[The referenced document follows:]
Senator Smith. I would now call up the House members who
had indicated they wished to testify: the Honorable Don Young
of Alaska, the Honorable George Miller of California, the
Honorable Helen Chenoweth-Hage of Idaho, the Honorable John
Shadegg of Arizona, the Honorable Billy Tauzin of Louisiana.
Any and all of those ladies and gentlemen who are here, if they
would come up.
We will start with you, Congressman Tauzin. Welcome, and
your entire statement will be made part of the record. Please
feel free to summarize it in any way you wish.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILLY TAUZIN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What I thought I would do is give you a quick backdrop to
this legislation, which is already, as you know, passed the
House, 315 to 102. So if the House were properly represented
here, I guess it would be three to one in favor of the bill,
but I wanted to give you the backdrop to it.
It all began with the 1998 memorandum, a report from the
Department of Interior's Minerals Management Services Agency
which recommended, based upon a request from Congress, an
appropriate sharing formula for off-shore revenues.
Interior States currently share in the revenues produced on
Federal lands within those States. The Federal law actually
provides a 50 percent share to the States where interior
development occurs.
For example, the State of New Mexico received $5.3 billion
over the years in its 50 percent share. The State of Wyoming
has actually received $7.4 billion over the years, as its 50
percent share of Federal oil, gas, and mineral revenue derived
from Interior Federal lands.
No such provision was ever made for the coastal States, who
have Federal lands from which oil and gas and other minerals
are derived, and for which major impacts are felt.
I want you to know, in our State of Louisiana, a little bit
about the impacts. Since 1930, we have lost over a million
acres of State coastal lands, much of it, as Mary pointed out
to you, because of the fact that we have accommodated, as a
launch pad, the development of oil and gas off those fragile
wetlands.
We also produced 29 percent of the Nation's seafood harvest
from those same wetlands. It was a pretty critical thing to be
losing them.
We lost, since the 1930's, an area of land equal to the
size of Rhode Island. Within the next 10 years, we are going to
lose enough land equal to the city of San Diego. We have got no
program in place to try to prevent or stop that immense
national and, I think, international ecological disaster that
is occurring in Louisiana.
Sharing the revenues from oil and gas production is one of
the ways that Minerals Management suggested we do it. Now
Minerals Management, as Mary pointed out, did not say, look,
just share it with the State that produces most of it. It said,
share it with all the coastal States.
So a portion of the moneys in the first title of this bill
are shared with all the coastal States; 35 different States
share. Louisiana and Texas, obviously, with the most
production, end up with a large number.
But, again, the impacts are immense, where the production
is occurring. We produced 80 percent of that production, which
is yielded, as Mary said, $120 billion to the U.S. Treasury,
since it all started offshore in 1948. So the first part of the
bill is a sharing formula.
The second part is the land and water acquisition fund, and
the other great programs in the bill that are really a great
environmental legacy, that I think our generation leaves to the
next and, frankly, I think, makes this an incredibly well
balanced bill.
I want to talk to you about that balance, briefly. The bill
was an intricately negotiated package, because it involves the
concept of environmental protection and land acquisition and
species protection. It was necessary that we negotiate
carefully to balance property rights into the package.
There is still a dispute over what is and what is not in
this package regarding property rights. So I thought if you
would give me a second, I would run through how this thing
works.
This is what an agency, wanting to acquire land, must do in
this bill. It must first seek to consolidate the checkerboard
pattern of Federal landholdings out west. That is its first
obligation, to consolidate, so that there are fewer inholdings
and, therefore, fewer restrictions on the owners of those
inholdings.
It must second, as a second priority, consider use of equal
value land exchanges, so that in States with very large
percentages of Federal landholdings, land exchanges can be used
to acquire the properties that the Government prefers in its
land packages.
Third, it must use permanent conservation easements as an
alternative, so that farmers and ranchers can grant easements,
instead of outright sales of their property in this program.
Fourth, it must prepare a list each year for Congress,
identifying the lands that have been singled out as surplus
lands that could be eligible for disposal. That has never been
done before. Every year, we would get a list of Federal lands
that the Government thinks it can dispose of, as it acquires
other more desirable lands for the Nation's benefit.
Fifth, it must site the statutory authority under which an
acquisition is occurring, and explain why the track was
proposed to be acquired, and notify everybody, all the Members
of Congress, the Senators, the local governments, the land
management folks, the city, town, village, county, and State
officials in the area. Nothing, anymore, will be done by
surprise. Everybody gets notice.
No moneys could be used to acquire the land until all
Federal review requirements, for example, like NEPA, are
complete, and all environmental impact statements are done. So
the Government is required, Mr. Chairman, to do exactly what
private landowners have to do. It has got to do all the
environmental reports and NEPA studies.
Then it has to submit in a budget request to Congress a
list identifying each track of land. The Administration must
say which track of land is available from a willing seller, and
which they want to acquire from an unwilling seller.
It can not acquire it from an unwilling seller unless
something very specific happens here in Congress. In other
words, all sales are from willing sellers unless we act in a
very specific way to acquire land from someone who does not
want to sell. Congress has to act again. This is how that
happens
The acquisition of land from an unwilling seller must,
first of all, be authorized by Congress. Congress must
authorize and effect each condemnation, and it must authorize
it in a corresponding appropriations bill and a funding bill.
It must identify, in fact, each parcel of land acquired in such
a fashion in the bill; not in the report language, but in the
bill where we can all see it.
The bill specifies that under the Fifth Amendment,
compensation must be paid for any takings that occur. It
specifies that nothing in this act creates any new Federal
authority over lands not yet acquired, whether they are inside
a boundary or outside a boundary. Even though they are proposed
for acquisition, until they are actually acquired by the
Government, there are no property rights, no restrictions on
use of the property.
As Mary mentioned to you, it provides a mechanism for the
full funding of PILT, which is critical. The bill is designed
also to address the $12 billion backlog in in-holders, who want
to sell their in-holding properties to the Government. And it
again provides that it must be done from willing sellers.
Finally, it provides $200 million annually for the maintenance
of Federal and Indian lands.
Mr. Chairman, this is a huge package of property rights
gains for folks in this country, when it comes to Federal
acquisition. Current law does not have a willing Seller
provision. It does not have all this notice. It does not have
all the provisions I mentioned to you.
These are all new gains for property rights, for property
owners in America, under the Fifth Amendment, as we balance off
their rights with this huge program, to make sure that the
Government has the capacity in the Land and Water Acquisition
Fund to continue acquiring for the benefit of future
generations the properties that are critical in that
acquisition program.
It is a delicately balanced package, but it is an awfully
good one. When the House votes for a bill three to one, you
have got to figure, with Republicans and Democrats joining
forces in the middle of an election year, there has got to be
an awful lot of good in here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Congressman Tauzin.
It is nice to see you, Congressman Chenoweth-Hage. Welcome,
and we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Ms. Chenoweth-Hage. Thank you, Senator Smith. I want to
thank you very much for holding this hearing today, and
allowing me to testify before your committee on the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act.
Mr. Chairman, I am fully aware of the support that has been
amassed for CARA. But I strongly urge this committee and the
Senate, in its deliberative nature, to pull the reins in on
this very fast moving wagon, and to take a very long and hard
look at what we are doing to America.
This bill establishes a $40 billion mandatory fund over the
next $15 years, billions of which will be given to the Federal
Government and States, or tribes, or non-governmental
organizations, non-profit organizations to purchase private
property, forever taking lands out of the production and off
the tax roles.
Billions more will be at the control of the Secretary of
Interior to fund everything under the sun, with little
oversight by Congress; everything under the sun, including the
listing of non-game species.
Now if we think we have a headache with the Endangered
Species Act and the listing of Endangered Species, wait until
the Federal and State government partnership up in managing
non-game species.
This bill also establishes a permanent revenue source for
non-governmental organizations to carry out their purposes;
these same governmental organizations that have been active in
political campaigns, too.
Mr. Chairman, I only have a few minutes to speak on this
issue. So I will cut to what I believe are the real central
issues that Congress must consider in this legislation.
First, while CARA is being established under the guise of
environment and conservation protection, its true premise has
more to do with who will own and control property and the use
of property in the United States of America.
When did we conclude that Government can manage the land
more responsibly and efficiently than the private property
owner; and when did we decide that it was the duty of the
Government to consume and govern the use of private property?
The truth is that a private property owner categorically
does a better job of utilizing and conserving private property
than does government.
Government, by its very nature, is inefficient. When it
comes to managing the land and water, one only needs to look at
the recent debacle created by the Federal Government in the
fires in New Mexico, and the $12 billion in maintenance and
repairs in the National Park Service facilities, and the woeful
state of our national forests, to prove this point that I am
making.
We need to invest money in the backlog of maintenance, and
ask the Government to take care of the land that it already
has.
Second, Mr. Chairman, what we must look at is what kinds of
precedents CARA will set in terms of additional mandatory trust
funds, taken from the general revenue streams; consider what it
will do to our fiscal priorities, such as paying down the
national debt, shoring up Social Security, building up our
national defenses, and providing needed tax relief. Every
dollar set aside for CARA is a dollar taken away from these
priorities.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, when presented with the facts, other
national priorities far outweigh CARA. In a recent national
poll, by a margin of 72 to 13 percent, Americans rejected
spending for CARA, when told that it will shift funds away from
Social Security and debt reduction.
Moreover, Americans on an eight to one margin said that we
should address our maintenance needs first, before acquiring
more lands. Finally, on a list of priorities, only 1 percent of
Americans picked land acquisition as our most important
priority.
Mr. Chairman, I want to let the committee know that I have
studied every single provision and every single word in this
legislation, and have carefully considered how it will be
interpreted.
There is so much more to say. I hope that the members of
this committee will probe into this issue with their questions.
Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of things that I do want
to address. One is the PILT payments. This bill does provide a
provision for PILT payments. But the revenue for the PILT
payments would be from interest acquired from money that the
Secretary of Interior did not spend on a yearly basis.
So in all reality, how many agencies of Government or how
many Secretaries really have a lot of money left over in their
accounts to acquire interest?
Second, in the PILT payments, there is a provision in the
bill that said the first priority must go to the National
Wetlands Conservation Plan. That will be the first priority for
those interest moneys that would be generated. It would not be
to PILT.
So second, I would like to address the protection of
private properties that has been addressed here. Mr. Chairman,
it does say that property should be acquired under the
constitutional provisions. But there is a parenthetical clause
that is often left out in the debate for the private property
protections.
That parenthetical clause in this bill states, ``unless
under some other provision of law.'' So property can be
acquired under another provision of law using moneys from CARA.
The willing buyer/willing seller issue really is a very
tragic situation in America. Because when the Government is the
only buyer, you know, the seller is at the mercy of the Federal
Government.
Finally, I would like to say that in Title 7 of the
Farmland Protection Program, it clearly states in here that the
Secretary will provide matching grants to eligible entities.
Now that can be anybody, by definition; anyone involved in
conservation.
I am reading from the bill. ``We will provide to eligible
entities these grants described in Section D to facilitate the
purchase of either permanent conservation easements, or other
interests in lands, when the lands are subject to a pending
offer from a State or local government.''
They are primarily concerned about the conversion of
cropland to less intensive uses than farming the cropland. So
the last thing we need, Mr. Chairman, is to see our scarce
farmland taken out of agricultural use.
There is so much I would like to share with you about this.
But I hear the bells going off, and I thank you very much.
Senator Smith. Let me just say, there is about, I think, 6
or 7 minutes left on approval of the journal vote, if you are
interested. That is just as a courtesy, in case you want to go.
Senator Inhofe has indicated that he had a question for
you, Congress Tauzin.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, I only have one question, if it is all
right with the committee to pose that, in case they have to run
off and approval the journal. For those on this panel who have
not served on the House, they do not know what we are talking
about.
But my question is a very serious one, and I ask it of my
friend, Billy Tauzin, because he and I, when he was a Democrat
and I was a House member, he was my Chairman on the Merchant
Marine and Fisheries Committee. We always got along famously,
until now.
Senator Boxer. Now that he is a Republican, you mean?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tauzin. They called me a ``Transvesti-crat'' at one
point or the other.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. I would like to ask a question that I think
is rather serious, and I would like to have you give me a very
serious answer, as you always do. It is a simple question.
I represent Oklahoma, and you represent Louisiana. Under
the distribution assist, Louisiana would get annually the
distribution of $311,660,000 and Oklahoma would get
$16,699,000.
My question is this, if I were representing Louisiana
instead of Oklahoma, I would enthusiastically support this
bill. If you were representing Oklahoma and I were representing
Louisiana, would you endorse and enthusiastically support this
bill as much as you are now?
Mr. Tauzin. Yes, sir, just as Louisiana supported the bill
that allows Oklahoma a 50 percent share of all oil and gas
revenues produced in Federal lands in Oklahoma, which you have
been enjoying since the beginning of oil and gas production.
You are getting $16 million with no coastline. You do not
have any offshore lands. You are getting what we call in Cajun
Country, ``lonopsha.'' You are getting money that you did not
earn, because you do not have offshore lands.
The reason you are getting it is because we agree with the
Mineral Management Program, that it ought to be shared with
States across America, and not just with the coastal production
States.
So let me say it again. I know my good friend Helen
Chenoweth-Hage has made the case that this is money that will
not go to certain areas.
No one is arguing that we ought to repeal the statute that
is providing Oklahomans with 50 percent of the oil, gas,
royalties and payments and leases and bonuses from Federal
lands located in Oklahoma. You get that every year. Louisiana
voted for that and supports that.
We are simply saying, fair is fair. We have Federal lands,
too, in Louisiana, right off of our coast, but we do not get a
dime from it. We have all those impacts, just as you, in
Oklahoma, have impacts from the Federal lands located in your
State, Senator.
So fair is fair; in fact, you are being treated more than
fairly, because you are getting some of our offshore
production; $16 million more. I have looked at a map recently,
and I do not remember Oklahoma having a coastline on the Gulf
of Mexico. So I think it is an abundant fairness that we are
sharing with all of the States, part of these revenues.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I would only respond by saying, less
than 5 percent of the land in Oklahoma is in the Federal
category.
Mr. Tauzin. Well, you are lucky. How would you like to be
in Helen's State? How much is that, Helen?
Ms. Chenoweth-Hage. It is 70 percent.
Mr. Tauzin. That is 70 percent, but she collects $7.4
billion in that 50 percent share, over those years. It is an
amazing contribution from the Federal Treasury to their State,
because of the amazing land ownership in their State.
Ms. Chenoweth-Hage. We would be happy to give it back.
Mr. Tauzin. I know you would not give it back.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tauzin. All we are saying is, fair is fair. Let us have
some sharing.
Senator Bennett. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but the Federal
Government owns two-thirds of the State of Utah. We would be
delighted to have them give us that ownership and let us
develop the land.
I mean, come on, let us not misrepresent what Federal
ownership is. It is not a great burden and a green bonanza and
a great boon.
Mr. Tauzin. Senator, I do not argue that. If I were
representing a State where the Government owned 70 percent of
my State, I would probably be sitting with Helen, complaining
about it.
I probably would have tried to get in this bill at least a
no-net gain, which I think Montana got in negotiations on the
House Floor.
Yes, I do not like the idea of the Government owning so
much property in our States. I really do not. I think that is
why we have set as a priority, land swapping and consolidation
of checkerboard land patterns.
All I am saying is that where the Federal Government does
own land in the interior States, and does have mineral
production, the law gives you 50 percent of it. We are not
sharing 50 percent of the offshore. It is not anywhere close to
that. Mary had the number, 12 percent.
Senator Bennett. Give me mineral production and I will be
with you.
Mr. Tauzin. Oh, of course.
Senator Smith. Senator Boxer?
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to put into the
record a poll that was done by the Luntz Research Companies. I
think he is pretty much a Republican consultant.
Mr. Tauzin. Very much so.
Senator Boxer. He is very much a Republican consultant.
It is very fascinating about people's views on this, and
even in the west. These are his words. ``The not-so-wild west;
the myth of too much public land does not hold, even in the
western States.'' This is your Frank Luntz.
The argument that ``there is already too much public land''
ranks fourth among four, in testing the most compelling
negative arguments against this bill, with only 12 percent
finding it most persuasive. The western mountain States
residents vary only within the margin of error.
I just find it very interesting that there is so much
support across the country for this bill. Now I just want to
maybe make the bill a little more exciting to my colleagues who
do not like it.
I think it goes too far. I mean, Billy, I think you have
changed the private property rights to the point where, you
know, I have some problems with it and Senator Bingaman has
some problems with it.
So I just want to make sure everyone understands that there
are those of us on the other side. What they did over there in
the House, I think, is a tremendous job of trying to deal with
those people straight down the middle and say, those people who
have the concerns added a lot of provisions here which, I think
Representative Tauzin is very much responsible for.
So I want to put this in the record, though, because I
think it is very important.
Senator Inhofe. Senator, let us reserve the right to
object.
Senator Boxer. To putting this in the record?
Senator Inhofe. Yes, I am reserving the right. I would like
to have you amend your request to have that poll, following by
a poll that was taken by this month by the Vox-somebody
Communications.
Anyway, one of the questions was, in your opinion, do you
think that the Federal Government should address maintenance
needs first, or should it continue to purchase more land and
create new parks? Eighty percent said to take care of
maintenance first. So can have both of these polls in the
record.
Senator Boxer. Sure, well, let the record show that I am
putting in the Luntz poll and you are putting in the whatever
it is.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. Without objection, both polls will be placed
in the record.
[The referenced documents follow:]
Senator Bennett. Does that mean it is a tie?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tauzin. Senator, I would like to elaborate just a
second on what you said. I do not know if you noticed, but the
two furthest extreme positions on this bill, one represented by
the National Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, and Green Peace;
and the other represented by the most vocal of the property
rights groups out west, both oppose the bill.
But an awful lot of environmental people are supporting it,
and an awful lot of property rights people are supporting it.
It is not going to please the very ends of the spectrum.
But try to pass a bill through here that does. It is
artfully balanced, and that is the best that we can do. I think
if you can improve on it, with more property rights, sir, I
would love you to do so.
If you can not, because Barbara will not let you, I
understand. We have the same problem in the House.
Senator Boxer. They have never paid attention to me before,
anyway. Do not worry about that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. For clarification, is that true? I was not
aware that the Sierra Club, Green Peace, and all that were in
opposition to this bill.
Mr. Tauzin. Yes, that is right.
Senator Boxer. Yes, it is true.
Mr. Tauzin. That ought to give you some comfort, Senator.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Well, you know, maybe my ratings will go
up.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. I am told there are at least maybe one or
two other Congressmen coming. We are going to have to shut this
down soon, to go to other witnesses. But I know Senator Crapo
came in late, and Senator Lautenberg. Do either of you have a
question of either of these witnesses?
Senator Crapo. Mr. Chairman, I think Frank was here first.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement, which
I would like to enter into the record. I have no questions for
them. I look forward to hearing from the panel.
Senator Smith. Your statement will be made part of the
record.
Senator Smith. Senator Crapo?
Senator Crapo. Mr. Chairman, if I could enter my statement
as a part of the record, I would just ask one question of
Representative Chenoweth.
Representative Chenoweth, one of the big issues out in
Idaho is the financial impact on the counties. I was not here,
and I am sorry, I was not able to get here on time because we
had a press conference with Taiwan, who was just announcing a
big purchase of wheat from Idaho, so I apologize that I missed
your testimony. But I have reviewed it and, of course, am very
familiar with your positions.
I wondered if you could explain to us a little bit more
about the impact that we were concerned about with regard to
the PILT funding, and the financial impact on the counties that
this bill could cause.
Senator Chenoweth-Hage. Well, Senator, the bill ostensibly
deals with PILT, but not really. PILT funds would be generated
only from interest accumulated from money left over that had
not been expended by the Secretary each year.
Now what Secretary has a lot of money left in his fund to
generate interest? It just does not happen; not in this town.
So the PILT funds really will not be there in the manner that
they have been promised.
Second, there is a priority in the bill that the PILT money
or the interest money would go to the Wetlands Conservation
Plan first, and then to PILT. But the bottom line is, the
revenue stream would only be from interest accumulated.
So with the large amount of Federal lands in Idaho and most
of our western States, the impact of the accumulation of more
land under Federal control and the shrinking of the tax base in
our counties that are already on their knees is very, very
devastating.
As you know, Senator, in our State, some of our schools are
only holding classes 4 days a week, because they can not afford
to stay open 5 days a week. That is how bad off some of our
counties are, and this would further harm them, and harm
schools and necessary services.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Tauzin. Senator, if I can, let me give you the
mechanism by which it works. The bill provides that as the
moneys accumulate in the Treasury and with the Secretary, all
this money that will be used for acquisition, they are going to
be investing in interest. It will earn substantial interest.
The bill provides that that money is then used as a match
to the appropriated funds for PILT. We annually appropriate to
PILT, but we only appropriate about 50 percent, as you know. We
have not done our job, frankly, in Congress in fully funding
PILT over the years.
This bill would provide a 50 percent match to the
appropriated funds of the Congress. So, hopefully, if the
Congress appropriates again at its 50 percent level or better,
we will fully fund that.
Senator Crapo. Billy, what would stop Congress from then
simply saying, well, we see what is available in the fund, so
we will just reduce what we are going to appropriate, so we
have what we have.
Mr. Tauzin. If Congress does not appropriate, there is no
match.
Senator Crapo. But if they could calculate that
mathematically and say, well, this is the amount we would have
appropriated, and we have got this money over here, so we will
mathematically adjust that, and end up where we would be.
Mr. Tauzin. ``They'' is us. We could do that.
Senator Crapo. Well, that is right. That is one of my
concerns, that we have been fighting the PILT battle for a long
time, and it is a big issue.
Mr. Tauzin. I understand, Senator. What I am saying is, we
provided a mechanism that if Congress will continue to fund at
least 50 percent of PILT, the other 50 percent is matched. It
is our hope, our intent that Congress continues to do that.
I will support you, and we will all support you in the
efforts to ensure that the appropriations bills continue to
appropriate at least that percentage. That gets you to
approximate full funding, which is what we all want.
Senator Crapo. Well, I appreciate your support. I know that
you have been a strong advocate on that. But you can see the
concern that I have with a Congress that wants to save money,
which this Congress wants to do. They could mathematically
simply adjust the appropriation to take advantage of the fund
without increasing the PILT funding.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Does anyone else have a question?
Go ahead, Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. I have just a quick comment. I would
appreciate a response.
I suppose I am tainted by the fact that I am an
appropriator, along with Senator Lautenberg and, for awhile,
Senator Boxer. But she found religion and move on someplace
else.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bennett. I am troubled with the idea of setting up
yet another trust fund with a dedicated source of revenue for
that trust fund.
That trend throughout the government, after a while,
bothers me, because if we end up with a Government of a series
of trust funds, dedicated revenue for dedicated purposes, we
ultimately destroy the power of the Congress to allocate
resources where they are most needed.
This is not a pure analogy, but it goes back to Senator
Boxer's State. Someone, and Senator Boxer can tell us who it
was, in Marin County left an estate for the purpose of support
for the arts.
Now there is not anybody in this Congress more determined
to support the arts than I am. I have taken heat back home for
support for the National Endowment for the Arts. A lot of
people think I am supporting pornography. I disagree with them,
but that is a separate issue.
That particular fund has grown to the point where an
argument could be made that the money could be used some place
else, and the arts could still fully be supported in Marin
County.
In Marin County, California, they have virtually anything
they want, because there is, what is it, Barbara, $1 billion in
that particular endowment? It is something of that kind. I
mean, we do not need the details.
Senator Boxer. I just want to make one quick correction,
since I live there. This estate was really for a number of
uses. She did not just leave it for the arts. She included the
arts.
Senator Bennett. OK.
Senator Boxer. So it is a little better than that, because
she did say to help the impoverished, et cetera. So there were
other things.
Senator Bennett. All right, but we find ourselves with a
worthwhile goal that is tied to a specific funding source. The
funding source may not be solid, or it may be excessive. The
appropriators are denied the right to make the kinds of
adjustments that we make everywhere else.
Now we have the airport airways trust fund. I was partially
responsible for creating that, because I was in the Nixon
Administration at the Department of Transportation, when that
came about. It was my responsibility to sell it to the
Congress.
We have the Highway Trust Fund. We have the Social Security
Trust Fund. We have a number of trust funds. We are creating or
supplementing or tying a source of revenue to another trust
fund, and creating interest cubicles, if you will, throughout
the Government, for a particular purpose, a particular goal,
and ultimately distorting the appropriations process,
distorting the authorization process.
Now I am taking no position in this comment about whether
or not the purposes of this bill are good purposes or bad
purposes. I happen to believe that the National Park System,
for example, is seriously under funded.
I sat on the Energy Committee, with Senator Wallace, and
said we were not going fund any more a single acre addition to
the National Park Service, no matter how meritorious, until we
start funding the maintenance of the National Parks to the
degree that they deserve to be funded.
This is from a man who is considered somewhat to the right
of Attila the Hun, by some people, but I think he was
absolutely right. We keep acquiring land, and then we do not
pay to take care of it. We do not pay to fund the Park Service
as we keep adding acres and acres. It is real nifty to have a
national park in your State, but who is going to take care of
the expenses of a national park?
So it is this overall question of the legitimacy of the
mechanism created in this bill that I want to address that
should we do it or should we not do it; should we do this in
this way?
Does anybody have a comment on that?
Mr. Tauzin. Yes, I can give you the results of that same
poll.
Mr. Bennett. May I make this comment? I do not want to
legislate by polls.
Mr. Tauzin. I understand.
Senator Bennett. And I do not want an Easterner, even if he
is solidly in my position in politics, coming out in the West
and asking a question. Because I can control the results of the
poll by controlling the wording of the question, and I can give
you examples of that. I am sorry that I get passionate about
this, but I do not want to legislate by polls.
Mr. Tauzin. I do not want you to do that, either.
Senator Bennett. OK.
Mr. Tauzin. But it already a part of your record. I thought
you ought to have the figures, if you want to look at them.
What it says is that the extremely popular Airport Trust
Fund was matched up against the extremely popular Highway Trust
Fund, against this proposal, to trust fund moneys for land and
water acquisition. Land and water acquisition topped them 45
percent, 37 to 7. I understand your feeling about polls.
Mr. Bennett. You are missing the point. Do we want
Government by trust funds? Regardless of how popular they may
be, is that a logical way to run the Government?
Mr. Tauzin. Let me try to answer that. What I wanted to say
is that we have done that, because indeed the moneys collected
for airports, we felt as a Congress, should go to airports. We
felt the money collected for highways should go to highways.
The moneys collected from these offshore funds was
dedicated, parts of it were, a long time ago, but it had never
been used for the purposes intended, for land and water
acquisition. That is a dedication that Congress made, years and
years ago.
Just as we collected money for highways and did not spend
it on highways, and for airports and did not spend it on
airports, we corrected that. Now we corrected it with trust
funding, to make sure that future Congresses did not do what
past Congresses have done with this offshore money; and that
is, just stuck it in the general fund and spent it for other
purposes, other than the purposes it was originally intended
and dedicated to by Congress, which was land and water
acquisition.
Mr. Bennett. I do not mean to be argumentative, but I am
questioning the whole concept of dedicating source money that
comes from one source to a source that is only vaguely related,
if in fact not unrelated.
Mr. Tauzin. Oh, but it is related.
Mr. Bennett. Money from the Highway Trust Fund to go to
repair highways; money from gasoline taxes to repair highways
is very, very clearly a user fee; and that, I have no problem
with.
Mr. Tauzin. Yes.
Mr. Bennett. Money from the airport airways, where you take
it from the people who are flying to pay for the airports that
they are in, in the FAA system, I have no problem with that.
But when you get to the point where you say, what does oil and
gas revenue have to do with PILT?
Mr. Tauzin. I think that is a good question. Let me try to
answer it. It has a lot to do with it.
Senator Smith. We will make this the last question, because
we can debate this somewhere else.
Mr. Bennett. I apologize.
Senator Smith. That is OK.
Senator Bennett. I will try to do it quickly.
Senator Smith. I want to get to Congressman Shadegg, and we
do have two more panels.
Mr. Tauzin. Senator, I invite you to come, whenever you
would like to, and I would love to entertain you in Louisiana,
and show you what it has to do with what we go through.
The pipelines and the canals that service the offshore
industry that product this $120 billion for the National
Treasury, all those pipelines have permitted salt water to
intrude. As I said, we have lost the size of the State of Rhode
Island, over these years, and we are going to lose a lot more.
The production of minerals on Federal lands impacts State
revenues for counties. It impacts the loss of wetlands in our
State. There is a direct relationship between the moneys
derived from the people of this country in royalties and
payments and leases, and the impacts we feel in land and water
preservation and conservation in both our State and across
America.
It has a direct impact to PILT, because it denies the local
people the revenues they need to operate their schools. This is
directly connected, and it is as connected as any highway fund
or airport fund, sir.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, could I correct the record on
something? I think it is important. My good friend, Senator
Bennett, has an ideological issue with trust funds, which is
another debate, I think.
But I wanted to agree with him that we do need to take care
of lands we already have. I wanted to point out that in CARA,
there is $200 million a year set aside for Federal and Indian
land restoration. There is $100 million set aside for historic
preservation. So when you see some of these beautiful sites in
your State and mine that are falling apart, we would have that.
There is $125 million for urban parks, to get in there and
take down the fences that are around some of these parks. So
there is money in here to take care of some of the problems we
are facing. I just wanted to make that point.
Mr. Bennett. No, I understand that, Senator. My point is, I
am not arguing, at this point, about the goals of the spending
side of the legislation, or of the validity of gathering the
money. I am just wondering how logical a link it is. I have
exceeded my time, and I apologize for that.
Senator Smith. There is no apology necessary.
We do have three more Members of Congress. We had set aside
a period of 9:30 and 10:30 to do this. It is now 10:30.
But let me just say to the three Congressmen who have just
arrived that your statements are made a part of the record. If
you could summarize in 2 or 3 minutes, we would appreciate it.
I will just take you in the order you came in.
Congressman Shadegg of Arizona, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHADEGG, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for the
opportunity to appear here before you today. I will try to
summarize in 3 minutes. I will certainly appreciate the
opportunity to insert my entire statement in the record.
Let me begin by saying, I agree with Senator Bennett, that
the goals of this legislation are well intended. I fully
support the goals of the legislation.
I want to also begin by saying that I think the authors are
very, very skilled legislators, and that they put together a
classic political coalition that is stitched together, district
by District, with support in the House; and stitched across the
Nation together, with support across the country.
But I think Senator Bennett said it well just a moment ago.
Our duty is not to legislate by polls. Indeed, Edmund Burke
made it very clear that our duty is to exercise our independent
judgment on the merits of legislation.
In that regard, I urge that your committee closely
scrutinize the merits of this legislation and, in particular,
the issue that Senator Bennett just raised, which is what is
the proper structure for achieving these goals.
Let me begin with some points about the legislation itself.
The supporters of the legislation will acknowledge that its
sets aside $450 million a year to acquire new Federal lands;
that is to buy more Federal land, year in and year out, $450
million.
I suggest that one serious flaw with that point is that it
does not distinguish where that land should be acquired. My
State of Arizona is already 87 percent owned by one level of
government or another.
The last thing we need in Arizona is to buy more Federal
land, taking it off of the tax roles, increasing the tax burden
on those who already own private property. So I think that is a
serious flaw.
Indeed, in Arizona, there is one county that is mostly
owned by the Federal Government, and 97 percent of that county
is owned by the Federal Government. They have to support the
county government on a tax base of 3 percent of the land.
The proponents of the bill will defend this by saying,
well, that was the average amount; $450 million was the average
amount spent over the last 5 years since the Republican
majority in the U.S. Congress. So that was a correct number to
pick.
You can quibble with the number, because there was a
particular high issue, but that is not the point I want to
make. This has been five extremely good economic years.
If we pick those five extremely good economic years and
say, well, that has been the average for five tremendously
strong economic years, let us make it the average in
perpetuity, forever and ever, and let us not make it the
average. Let us put it on auto-pilot. Let us turn the switch so
that every year, good year or bad year, year in, year out, we
spend $450 million to acquire more Federal land.
I believe that makes no sense. I would ask the members of
the panel, which among you believes that the economy is going
to stay as strong forever in the future as it has been for the
last 5 years. I suggest no one believes that.
Yet, this legislation would lock in, in entitlement, $450
million a year to buy new Federal land, even if the economy
took a serious dip.
The second point I want to raise is the one that was just
raised over here by one of the Senators in regard to the
maintenance backlog. She pointed out that there is money in
CARA for maintenance, and that is true. That is a good point.
But let us look at the real facts and figures.
The reality is that for every dollar in CARA to maintain
land that we already own, there is $2.50 to buy new Federal
land. That means that we are buying $2.50 worth of new Federal
land for ever dollar of maintenance that we do.
They will tell us, well, never in the past have we locked
in money for maintenance. I happen to agree with the comments
that were made earlier.
Our national parks, I think, are in dire shape. The Grand
Canyon National Park is in my State. There are several others,
and it is a disaster. We have not built new roads. We have not
built a parking lot at the Grand Canyon National Park since I
visited it when I was 13. I am here to tell you that was a long
time ago.
I believe the priorities in this bill with regard to
maintenance are simply backward. If you pass legislation to
achieve these goals, I would strongly urge you to put a greater
emphasis on maintenance. You can go visit any park in America,
and you can see a desperate and crying need for maintenance.
The next to the last point that I want to make is the whole
structure of entitlement. We are here for a reason. We have a
duty to exercise our judgment, and to make discretionary
decisions about where money ought to go.
This bill creates a new entitlement. In doing so, it puts
money ahead of every other priority. Who in this room would say
that $450 million every year, automatically spent on acquiring
more Federal land is more important than education?
Who in this room would say that doing that every year, even
in a bad economy, is more important than national defense? Who
is this room would say that doing that every year, even in a
bad economy; forget the past 5 years of good economy, but we
should do it automatically in a terrible depression year, ahead
of health care?
I suggest no one in this room believes that the acquisition
of more Federal land, when the Federal Government already owns
roughly a third of the land in the country, should be placed
ahead of education, ahead of national defense, ahead of health
care, and ahead of care for the indigent and the needy.
Yet, this bill does that. It creates an automatic pilot. It
puts it in entitlement status. I think that is a serious flaw
with the mechanism and, again, I agree with the goals of the
author.
The last point I want to make is that you will hear much
about the support for this legislation. You will hear that
Governors support it, mayors support it, city council members
support it, Parks Department members support it, hunters
support it, fishermen support it, and no doubt they will say
many, many others. That is true.
It is a tribute to the skill of its authors that they
stitch together a bill that achieves those goals. But I would
simply ask you to look closely at why those people support it,
and to recognize the difference between your role in the
process and their role in the process.
Governors support it because it gives money to States.
Mayors support it because of the point that was just made about
being able to buy new park land in their cities.
Parks Departments love it for that reason. Hunters love it
because it does some very good things for hunting, and I am an
avid hunter and a fisherman, and believe in it. All of those
constituencies support it, but they are looking just at their
little piece of the pie; their little stream of income that
becomes an entitlement, and comes to them every year to spend.
I think every one of us here would like to have more money
to spend each year, just funneled to us. It is our job to look
at the omnibus legislation to look at the whole picture, and to
decide if this is the right way to spend these moneys.
I appreciate the time.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Congressman Shadegg.
Next is Congressman Don Young, an old colleague and friend,
and Chairman of the Houses Resources Committee.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, with your prerogative and with my
prerogative, I would like to let Mr. Miller go first. I would
like to bat clean-up, if that is all right.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. All right, fair enough, if he does not use
up all the time, we will let you come back.
Mr. Miller. It is a strange relationship that we have, it
is trust and verify, and he wants to go last.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you very much for providing this opportunity for us to
testify.
I think we have sent to the Senate a magnificent piece of
legislation. When we started out on this journey, Chairman
Young and Senator Murkowski and Senator Landrieu introduced a
bill called the Conservation Reinvestment Act.
Senator Boxer and I introduced Resources 2000. Nearly
everyone said that these bills were too big, too expensive, and
too far reaching. When we said we would try to merge the bills
and everyone said it was impossible, Don Young and George
Miller together, we did it.
When they said we would never get it out of the Resources
Committee, we did it with a three to one bipartisan vote.
They said that we would never get the national coalition of
parks and wildlife, the soccer enthusiasts, and that we would
not get the hunters and the fishermen, together with the
traditional environmental groups, and we would not get the
hikers and the State and local officials together, and sports
teams and manufactures, but we did.
Over 4,000 organizations supported us. Why; because they
understand that this is the first opportunity to develop an
environmental infrastructure that so many of our communities
and many suburban communities are struggling with because of
the incredible growth in those communities.
They said that we would never get a schedule on the House
Floor, and there was too much ideological opposition, too many
budget questions, too many jurisdictional fights between
committees. But 3 weeks ago, 315 members of the House, a
majority of both parties, proved all of the doubters wrong.
We delivered to the American people on a promise we made to
them 36 years ago, and then forgot; a permanent substantial
commitment to invest a portion of offshore revenues back into
our parks, our coast, our urban recreation and our wildlife.
Despite the inflamed rhetoric that you will hear from a
tiny minority of voices, we did it responsibly, without
trampling on private property rights or States' rights. In
fact, our legislation takes special care to protect property
owners by giving them notice and ensuring that all are involved
in the process and focusing on alternatives to acquisition, and
putting most of the money, about 80 percent of it, in the hands
of State and local officials, and not in the hands of those
promoting State land acquisition.
Now the responsibility is yours. You can listen to the
rhetoric and the naysayers and the doubters, and try to kill
this legislation, or you can listen to the 80 percent of this
country that puts a very high value on parks, recreation, and
the conservation of wildlife.
Or you can do as we do in the House; you can look at the
bill and what it really says, not how it is characterized,
listen to your constituents, not to the hysterical voices and
the misstatements on the intent of the letter of the
legislation, and put aside the party and ideological
jurisdictional differences long enough to do something that
will endure longer than any of us.
If Don Young and George Miller can figure out how to work
together to pass CARA with 315 votes, I believe the U.S. Senate
can figure it out, also.
When a number of us were down to the White House a few
weeks ago, with Senators Murkowski, Landrieu, Breaux, Bingaman,
and Boxer; and Congressman Young, Congressman Tauzin, John
Dingle, and Congressman John, the President told us, and
everyone in that room agreed, it would be shameful if we failed
to pass this bill, having brought it so far. He was right, and
the American people overwhelming agree with this.
So let us figure out how to get it done. Our resources,
whether on the coast of Louisiana or the wildlife or the parks
or the soccer teams or any others who will benefit, are at
risk. We do not have years to delay. We have been waiting three
decades. The time is now to redeem the promise that we made the
American people.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Congressman Miller.
We welcome Representative Young, Chairman of the House
Resources Committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE
OF ALASKA
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the committee for having this
hearing. I also would suggest what Mr. Miller has said ought to
be done, along with Mr. Tauzin, we ought to move this bill.
I have been very reluctant to get involved on the Senate
side, because I know you have your own way of doing things, and
I understand that. I have two Senators over here, and I talk to
them continuously. One of them happens to be a sponsor of this
legislation.
I would like to just address the issue of financing, No. 1.
This Congress, and I collectively say the Senate and the House,
owe the American people approximately $15 billion, because we
have not spent the money on the original Land and Water
Conservation Act, itself. We spent it on programs, very
frankly, that we collect that money for, and it was not to be
spent for.
I suggest, respectfully, those that say this is going to
break the bank are not looking at the past history. I would
suggest if you really want to do this, just take the $15
billion, apply it to CARA as it is. That gives about 6 years,
under the present funding program. If it is not working out and
it is not correct, then we can revisit it.
We keep forgetting that every Congress is here temporarily.
Of all the naysayers that testified before this committee and
the other committees, if what they say comes true, we can
always change it. In fact, the people will demand it.
Right now, the people are demanding the passage of CARA.
Now it seems strange, you may think, that a person who has a
100 percent private property rights record would be supporting
this bill, because I truly believe this bill better supports,
better protects the private property rights people. The money
is there. It should be spent.
For those that say that this should not be done, I would
suggest, we did not draw this bill up according to polls. If
you look at our society today, it is changing. It is changing
dramatically.
We have a large organized area. When I first came here, Mr.
Chairman, we had approximately 7.5 percent of our population
that was in rural areas. Today, it is 1.5. There is a demand
for space. There is a demand for hunting and fishing and
recreation areas. There is a demand for historical
preservation. There is a demand for conservation easements.
There is a demand for the purchase of land.
But nothing says we are going to spend $480 million a year
to purchase land. This is a collective effort to try to solve,
I think, a very serious problem, as it comes down to this
Nation and this year 2000 and beyond.
I am a person who believes very strongly that the Congress
speaks for the people. There are 4,755 organizations that
support this legislation from all walks of life. These are the
people. It is not by a poll. This is the people that are asking
us to do this.
My job is to encourage you to do it. I am not going to tell
you how to do it or where to do it or when to do it. We all
know there will be differences. I expect to be on the
conference. I expect this to be done, and I hope to have your
help, Mr. Chairman, because it think it is truthfully
important.
I think the biggest disappointment is, we can have
differences of opinion on the House side on ideology and
philosophy of how this Nation should be run. But I have never
done anything by a poll or have done anything by the will or
the whim, or by how the wind blows. I have done during my whole
career, all my 28 years, what I believe is correct.
I have that respect, and I do believe everybody should
respect my opinions, and I respect theirs; but never question
the integrity of this legislation, because it was well thought
out, put forth. We included everyone. We had the discussion,
and I believe we achieved that goal.
By the way, if you extracted the appropriators from the
legislation, we would have probably had 140-some odd Members of
the Congress on our side of the aisle. There was a majority.
It is a minority that was opposing this. It is a minority
in the full House. It is a minority in my party. I do not think
you necessarily always have to listen to the minority. Let us
listen to the people of America.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Congressman Young.
Unless someone has a pressing question, I would prefer to
let the Congressmen and women leave, and bring the next panel
up. But Senator Graham and Senator Lieberman, you did come in
after they came, and if you have a question, I would be happy
to yield for that.
Senator Lieberman. No, thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, before they leave, I have one
observation that I have made, and I have enjoyed listening to
the presentations.
But of the estimated yearly CARA funding distribution, it
comes to a total of $2.8 billion. Of the four States that
comprise almost half of that, three of those States, we have
heard from in this testimony.
Again, you were not here when Representative Tauzin was
here, but I would have had to ask the same question here. Would
you enthusiastically support this the same if you were in a
State like Oklahoma, that would get $16.6 million, as opposed
to $380 million?
Mr. Young. I would, absolutely. This is the right thing to
do, and that is more money that you are getting with this than
you are getting right now.
Mr. Miller. We have always thought the Senate would take a
close look at that.
Senator Inhofe. Well, that is not quite true, Don, when you
consider the money that otherwise would be going into the
general fund for other purposes.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much. I am going to take only
a 3-minute recess, while C Clark comes up.
[Recess.]
Senator Smith. The committee will come to order.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, if I might, rather than to go
through a rather lengthy statement, most of my points have
already been made. I would like to enter my statement into the
record, and at the same time, associate myself with the
testimony of Ms. Chenoweth and Representative Shadegg.
I think particularly Representative Shadegg had some points
that I think are very significant, and I agreed with everything
that he said. I want the record to reflect that.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. Your statement
will be made part of the record. I also would ask unanimous
consent for a statement from Senator Warner to be added to the
record in support of S. 2123.
Senator Smith. Senator Graham?
Senator Graham. Mr. Chairman, I would like to also ask to
submit for the record a statement. At some point, I would like
to talk about the issue of the appropriateness of using a trust
fund model for the purposes of this legislation. It will be
based on the experience of my and other States in similar long-
term land acquisition programs.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Graham, we will certainly
have that opportunity.
Senator Lieberman?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like
to enter an opening statement into the record. I would just
briefly say that it is that we are at a moment of extraordinary
and, I suppose in some sense, unexpected opportunity. It is
very important to try to blend or work together to actually get
something done here in the Senate.
There is a great sense of expectation and hopefulness in
States like my own, which are effected by development that want
very much to acquire and preserve open spaces and wildlife
areas.
While our State last year actually adopted a open space and
watershed land grant program, with the goal of preserving 21
percent of the State as open space, the money that would come
to Connecticut, smaller though it may be than what will go to
the larger States, it nonetheless would have a significant
impact.
So I look forward to working with you and other members of
the committee and the Energy Committee to see that we get this
done, and do it in the right way. Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Lieberman.
Senator Boxer, go ahead.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA--CONTINUED
Senator Boxer. Thank you. I did speak briefly. I would ask
unanimous consent to place my full statement in the record. I
would like to speak for about a minute.
To me, this is that moment in history that we can do
something across party lines. I was very heartened by the vote
in the House, to see that coming together around this notion,
that we need to have a legacy for our lands.
There are many bills here on the Senate side. Senator
Bingaman was unable to be here because of a markup. I just
wanted to make sure that I mentioned the good things in Senator
Bingaman's bill that I hope any bill will have in the end.
Because to me, whatever bill it is, it is unimportant; whatever
name is on it is unimportant.
To me, the important thing is, one, we have substantial and
permanent funding for conservation purposes; that we ensure the
funds are used to benefit the environment; that we give
adequate guidance to direct the funds to the most pressing
needs; and that the bill be free of any incentives for offshore
oil and gas drilling. I think that would be a mistake. This is
a conservation bill, and not an incentives for drilling bill.
I think that Jeff Bingaman's bill, 2181, which is supported
by Senators Baucus and myself and, I am not sure, but I think
Senator Lieberman is on that bill, but it has some
distinguishing characteristics that are worth highlighting in a
few seconds here.
One, it includes an incentive program for landowners who
contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered
species. Increased outreach to landowners, I think, is
desperately needed for the continued survival of many
endangered species.
Like some other bills, it provides funding to State fish
and wildlife agencies for wildlife protection. But it does
require that the States do a strategic plan for using these
funds.
This ensures that funds will be used for non-game and game
species, alike. The funds will be directed to the species that
have the greatest conservation needs. That is the Bingaman
bill.
It also provides greater clarity to coastal States to
ensure that the funds will be used for the environment.
Finally, it includes safeguards to ensure that the bill in no
way creates incentives for that drilling that I talked about. I
hope that we can work those elements of the Bingaman bill into
the CARA bill.
My last point is, again, I wanted to reiterate that it was
my intention to hold the House bill at the desk. But it moved
so quickly that I did not have a chance to do that.
So what I did was to take the House bill, word for word,
and as I said before, it should be some comfort to Senators
Inhofe and Crapo and others, I do have some problems with it.
But I think it is a wonderful starting place for us.
We have introduced that as a bill, and we have put it on
the Senate calendar. So if we get trapped and stuck, and if no
committee can get a bill out, Senator Lott, who supports the
CARA bill, can just put it right there on the Floor. So that is
why I did that, as a little strategic move to make sure that we
can get this done.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I really want to thank you,
because I know that you did not have to have this hearing. You
did this because a lot of us urged you to. I appreciate it very
much.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Boxer, and of course,
your statement will be made a part of the record.
As you can see from the hearing, we did get all sides heard
here, which was the objective.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Smith. We still have the Honorable Jamie Clark, as
well as another panel following.
Before I introduce the Director of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, I just wanted to announce that this hearing
is the first EPW hearing to be simulcast on the Worldwide Web.
Senator Boxer. Oh, great.
Senator Smith. So it will be maintained for future viewing
on the committee web site. For those that are interested, it is
www.senate.gov/epw. So we are in the modern world.
Senator Boxer. Yes, we are.
Senator Smith. Director Clark, it is great to have you
here. You know the drill here. Your statement will be made part
of the record. If you could summarize it briefly, we would
appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMIE CLARK, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate the
opportunity to present the Administration's views on S. 25,
2123, and 2181, each of which provides permanent funding for
conservation programs from outer continental shelf oil and gas
receipts.
The President does feel strongly that this is the year to
secure permanent funding for State, tribal, and community
efforts to protect wildlife and local green spaces, to
reinforce Federal efforts to save natural and historic
treasures, and to expand efforts at all levels to protect ocean
and coastal resources. These bills all seek to accomplish this.
The Administration has several broad goals for the final
version of this legislation. We believe it must ensure that new
funding is devoted to purposes consistent with the conservation
goals of this legislation; that new funding for wildlife
protection be targeted primarily for at risk and non-game
species; and that an appropriate oversight role be secured for
the Department of Commerce.
We also strongly recommend that the bill not establish new
incentives for offshore exploration or development, and that it
not impose burdensome or unnecessary restrictions on Federal
authority to acquire and protect lands.
There is a tremendous degree of common ground between the
Administration's objectives and the bills pending before the
committee, and the Administration is fully committed to working
with you to achieve these goals.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, as you know, is involved in
a number of programs that these bills address. The first is a
coastal impact aide program found in differing forms in both
bills.
There are extensive coastal responsibilities in both the
Department of Interior and the Department of Commerce. Our own
coastal programs and activities are detailed in my formal
statement.
We urge you to provide for a shared role by the two
departments in this, as the most effective way to assure
coordination and to avoid duplication and waste.
In contrast to the divergence on coastal programs, the
bills have virtually identical provisions from matching grants
to the States for wildlife conservation, and we seek only a few
changes.
Both bills require an ``emphasis'' on non-game species, and
``emphasis'' is in quotes. We feel strongly that there should
be greater direction that the funds be used for at-risk, non-
game species.
These grants, particularly if focused as we request, can be
an invaluable tool to help prevent species from declining to
the point where they would need listing under the Endangered
Species Act.
Apart from Pittman-Robertson and Dingle-Johnson Acts, which
are focused on game species, virtually all Federal programs
have been devoted toward species that are already in serious
trouble.
Funding of the magnitude proposed in these bills could have
tremendous benefits for the Nation's at-risk non-game wildlife
species. We urge the committee to aggressively pursue enactment
of this wildlife grant program, and hope that we can work with
you to set its proper focus.
We are also very concerned about funds for administering
the program. S. 2123 provides 2 percent of available funds for
administration of the other programs it authorizes, while
prohibiting any administrative funds for the non-game wildlife
grants.
S. 2181 makes 2 percents of the funds available for
administration. The program will surely fail without
appropriate oversight and administration, and we need a
permanent and adequate source of funding for administration if
we are truly to make it work effectively.
We are pleased to see that 2123 provides for the interest
generated on the funds set aside for non-game grants to be made
available for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.
As this committee well knows, this is one of the most
successful and population conservation programs in the country,
and demands for grant moneys with matching funds far exceeds
the Federal funds available to make the grants each year. So
any funding that can be made available for this incredibly
successful program will be effectively and efficiently used.
Both bills provide funds for cooperative Endangered Species
recovery agreements, which is one of the most exciting concepts
within the legislation, and would be of tremendous value in
furthering our species recovery efforts.
Recovery, like all natural resources conservation, can not
succeed as a totally Governmental effort. The current demand
for landowner incentive grants to support species recovery
initiatives far exceeds available funding. Guaranteed funding
is probably the single most effective action that Congress
could take to speed recovery for listed species across this
country.
Last, we have refuge revenue sharing. S. 2123 provides
funding to pay a portion of the costs of the refuge revenue
sharing and payment in lieu of taxes programs, while S. 2181
provides funding only for PILT.
Currently, counties are receiving less than 60 percent of
their refuge revenue sharing entitlement. We, therefore,
welcome any additional sources of funds for this program, and
would hope that the committee would address this in the final
version of the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the Administration does, indeed, look forward
to working with this committee and the rest of the Senate to
build on the bipartisan spirit shown by the House, and to find
a way to do what the public clearly wants us to do; to leave a
legacy of financial resources adequate to protect our Nation's
national treasures.
This is truly an opportunity, in the words of Theodore
Roosevelt, to leave an even better land for our descendants
than it is for us.
I would be happy to respond to any questions. Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Director Clark.
Right on the point of the refuge revenue sharing, in your
opinion, in S. 2123, is the revenue provided or the funding
provided in that bill adequate to address the needs of all the
communities across America that may have a refuge within their
borders?
Ms. Clark. Well, it is clear that it provides a portion. I
am not sure that it provides for the full entitlement, but the
opportunity is certainly there, with a little bit of tweaking,
that we would be glad to work with you on.
Senator Smith. But the Administration is supportive of
spending money on this program; is that correct?
Ms. Clark. Yes, it is.
Senator Smith. As you know, last year, when GAO testified
before the House Resources Committee, they had some rather
harsh words for the Pittman-Robertson program. I think the
exact term was, the program was being administered in a manner
that ``spawned a culture of permissive spending.'' That is one
of the reasons why S. 2123 does not permit administrative funds
to be used for the Pittman-Robertson program.
What changes have been made in this program to rectify
these problems?
Ms. Clark. We have been in the midst of making a number of
changes, Mr. Chairman. Clearly, we heard loud and clear from
the Congress about their concerns about administration of this
program, and from the GAO, as well, although we still await
their final report.
The Fish and Wildlife Service also, along with a lot of
support from our State partners, conducted a fairly extensive
oversight review of the Federal aid program across this
country. Indeed, we also dealt with some internal evaluations,
dealing with how the dollars are accounted for, what the
appropriate oversight of our own program is, how we are going
to resolve audits.
We are in the midst of shoring up that program as we speak.
Rather than going to a lengthy report, I would be glad for the
record to demonstrate the distance we have come.
Certainly, the reaction in this legislation should not be,
in any negative way, aimed at compromising our ability to do
our part to shore up natural resources.
Senator Smith. On that, for the record, unless you want to
respond to it here, I just want to make sure that you indicate
how the Fish and Wildlife Service would administer this
program, if the funds are not authorized to administer the
additional revenue, if you could provide that for the record.
In view of the fact that GAO was critical, I think it is
important to clarify that.
Ms. Clark. I would be happy to.
Senator Smith. Senator Boxer?
Senator Boxer. I do not have any questions.
Senator Smith. Senator Crapo?
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Jamie, I appreciated your comments and your testimony about
the impact of PILT legislation or the lack of PILT funding and
other resources for the counties. I just wanted to pursue that
with you a little bit.
As you indicated, the counties are now seeing, especially
in rural areas that are heavily impacted by Federal ownership
of land, dramatic losses of resources, as we see the timber
revenues shrink up and other resources shrink. As a result of
that, needed funds for our rural education programs and some of
the other critical programs that the counties operate are going
unmet.
It is a constant battle here in Congress to get the
adequate funding for those support programs, even though it is
properly the Federal Government's responsibility to make up for
those loss of funds.
Do I take it from your testimony that the Administration
would support some effort in this legislation to not only
address that, but address it in a way that makes the solution
permanent, like some of the solutions that are in the bill
already are permanent, with regard to dedicating resources to
other purposes?
In other words, can we assure the counties, not that there
is a match if the Congress decides to do it in the right way,
but assure the counties that there will be adequate PILT
funding, or similar types of funding, for county support?
Ms. Clark. Well, Senator, every time you say PILT, I am
going to put ``refuge revenue sharing'' on the end, because I
am certainly concerned about the refuge system.
Senator Crapo. Fair enough.
Ms. Clark. But clearly, we have been exploring for a number
of years ways to respond to the counties and ways to reimburse,
so to speak, the counties from refuge revenue sharing. The
Administration is absolutely prepared to work within the
confines of this legislation to provide the level of certainly
that we believe is important.
Senator Crapo. So the Administration would not oppose
trying to put some kind of certainty, in terms of that funding,
into this legislation?
Ms. Clark. No.
Senator Crapo. Let me move to a another area. One of the
issues that has come up quite often is the issue of maintenance
of our currently owned public lands and facilities.
From what I understand, the maintenance backlog is in the
billions of dollars. I have seen numbers that range from $12 to
$20 billion, in terms of maintenance needs across the country.
First of all, are those numbers in the ballpark? Do we have
that large a maintenance need in the country?
Ms. Clark. There is a very substantial maintenance need
within the land agencies. Within the Fish and Wildlife Service,
it is about $800 million, of the backlog of maintenance needs
for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
So I would imagine when you add the Park Service and the
Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, that it
is pretty substantial.
Senator Crapo. It is a substantial amount.
In that context, I can tell you from our experience in
Idaho, that the maintenance needs are crying for some type of a
solution. That also has an impact on the local counties, and
the economies of these counties that depend on the tourism and
the recreation and the other activities that are related to the
use of the public lands.
Again, in that context, I would like to have your opinion
on whether we should not seek, as we address this overall
issue, to apply a larger portion of the resources we have to
maintenance, and to dedicate them to that objective.
Ms. Clark. Well, that is certainly an issue worthy of
discussion, as we look at the balance of targeted resources
within this bill. The Administration would be glad to engage
that.
We have been in this conversation with the Appropriations
Committees in both the House and Senate for a number of years,
and they have been very thoughtful and very generous about that
support. But it is certainly worth discussion.
Senator Crapo. All right, thank you. I have no further
questions at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Crapo.
Senator Baucus?
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Clark, I would like to discuss with you a provision in
the House bill, Section 211, which is a Montana-specific
provision. It was introduced by Congressman Hill from Montana.
I would like to have just your thoughts about it and how well
it would work or not work.
Clearly, we do not want excessive Federal ownership.
Nobody, I think, does. On the other hand, we also do not want
to discourage transactions that have broad public support.
The provision in the House bill essentially says that with
respect to Montana only and no other State, that an exchange or
an acquisition must be designed to ensure that there is no
increase in total acreage of Federal lands in Montana, that is
above de minimis.
I do know that in many cases, there are land exchanges
where acreage is not totally one-for-one. That is, acreage on
the one hand might be large, but the value of that acreage
might perhaps in the dollar value per acre is much less than
the dollar value of acreage that might be exchanged, or there
may be some cash involved in the land exchange.
I mention all of this because in Montana, we have had great
success lately, as you know very well, having been part of
this, with land exchanges.
The whole purpose of this is to consolidate private
ownership, and to consolidate Federal ownership to try to undo
the problem that was created years ago with checkerboard
Federal ownership patterns, caused by Congress in passing
legislation to give incentives to railroads, for example.
It went to private Federal land and just caused tremendous
management problems, both for the Federal Government, for the
Forest Service and BLM, and for private ownership, whether it
is timberlands or recreational land or whatnot.
So I am concerned about this provision. I just wondered,
from your perspective, how you see that working, and just
basically what your view is of that provision in the bill.
Ms. Clark. Sure, Senator, well, I share your concerns.
First, the notion of consolidation of Federal ownership is
something that the Fish and Wildlife Service and, I imagine, my
colleagues, are already focusing on. So that provision is, in
reality, unnecessary.
The notion of consolidating Federal land ownerships is
important to us, not only from an efficiency and effectiveness
of management standpoint, but to shore up the biological
integrity of these lands that we are entrusted to protect for
the future.
The de minimis requirement, I believe, is somewhat counter-
productive for a lot of the reasons that you just laid out. You
are right, when we are engaged in some of these really creative
land exchanges, it is not a one-for-one.
Oftentimes, what you are exchanging in one area, whether we
are shoring up biological value or land costs or intended use
of the area, it is not at a one-to-one.
So this notion of de minimis, I think, could seriously not
only limit options, but it could seriously affect the
biological integrity or the intentions of some of these
exchange opportunities. But it also could compromise, in a
negative way, the flexibility of the people of the State of
Montana.
Senator Baucus. You know, obviously, we do not want, as I
mentioned earlier, excessive Federal ownership. But it is just
my experience, frankly, at least in Montana, for example, the
purpose of the Royal Teton Ranch to help wildlife migration
patterns, north of Yellowstone Park.
Ms. Clark. Absolutely.
Senator Baucus. This is very, very important to the elk
herd and the other wildlife in Yellowstone Park.
But also other consolidations have been fully vented to the
public. I mean, there are untold hearings. It just seems to me
that we do not want an artificial constraint that is going to
prevent the public from accomplishing some result that seems to
the public to make sense.
Ms. Clark. Well, I certainly do not think you want do
compromise public involvement. Equally and importantly, you do
not want to compromise flexibility or opportunities to
ultimately get the best deal for all involved parties.
This amendment could compromise any kind of creativity and
flexibility that would be gained in any kind of open forum,
anyway.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much. I want to thank you
for your good work, too. You have been a real credit to the
Administration and to the people of the United States.
Ms. Clark. Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Baucus.
Senator Graham?
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. I would like to make a couple of
preliminary comments.
I put this legislation in the context of history; history
looking backward and historic challenges looking forward. It is
interesting to me, as we start the third century of the history
of the United States, that we have an opportunity, analogous to
that which was presented to us at the beginning of the first
and the second century.
In the first century, during the Administration of Thomas
Jefferson in 1802, we purchased Louisiana. It doubled the size
of the United States. It made the United States a continental,
rather than an Atlantic nation.
It prevented North America from being the site of colonial
wars among competing European interests. It was a bold,
visionary and, at the time, a very expensive undertaking. But
clearly, it was a great gift to the future of the Nation.
At the beginning of the second century, Theodore Roosevelt
added to the treasury of the public lands of the United States
an area that was the equivalent of all of the States from Maine
to Florida; again, a great gift, which has benefited our
Nation.
As we start the 21st century, we have a national population
of approximately 270 million to 275 million people. The Census
Bureau projects that by the beginning of the fourth century of
America's existence, we will have a population of 571 million
people.
So our challenge is what are we going to do, similar the
actions of Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt to be
prepared for not only that substantially larger number of
Americans that has been indicated, but a number of Americans
who will be even more urban.
They will also be older, and they will be more diverse than
the Americans today and, therefore, will have a wider range of
interests and desires to be able to participate in the outdoor
experience that this legislation intends to make more
available.
So I think we are talking about a piece of legislation that
is not the normal work that we do, but is really of historic
significance.
Second, there have been discussions about whether it is
appropriate to use a trust fund model for this. I will say from
my own experience as a State legislator and then Governor of a
State which had a very expansive land acquisition program, it
was our finding that unless you had a dedicated source that
could be depended upon, and which people had confidence in,
that a land program tended to become an annual fight within the
political entities as to who could get on the train that was
leaving town that day, because there was no confidence that
there was going to be another train leaving on the following
day.
One of the benefits of having an assured source of funding
is not only the adequacy of the funds, but the fact that it
allows you to do intelligent planning and the establishment of
priorities.
People who may look at that list and say, I am on the
priority list but I am 5 years downstream, will have enough
confidence that the program will exist 5 years from now that
they will be willing to defer their aspirations until their
time has come.
So I think this funding mechanism is critical to
accomplishing the very objectives for which we are establishing
this program.
Let me turn to the question that you were just discussing.
That is the issue of the accumulated maintenance requirements
on Federal lands.
Does the Department of Interior, in the various areas in
which it is a steward of Federal land, have a strategy for
beginning to deal with this accumulated backlog of maintenance,
and how does this legislation integrate with that strategy; and
would you recommend any modifications in this legislation in
order to more effectively impact that backlog of maintenance?
Ms. Clark. Clearly, Senator, the Administration has taken
very seriously the need to protect what we have. Indeed, the
Department of Interior does, in fact, have a strategy to
address the maintenance backlog on our lands.
We have dealt with it in 5 year intervals. This is
something that we can grab on to, with a primary focus on
health and safety, safe visits, safe passage, and then
following focus on resource priorities needs, and on and on.
So, certainly, for the Fish and Wildlife Service, we have a
very documented, strategic plan to address the backlog of
maintenance needs in the national wildlife refuse system.
I believe that this legislation, along with the initiations
already under way within the Department, could compliment each
other in a very positive way. It is so important that we take
care of what we have.
The initiatives in these bills before the Senate and the
work that is already ongoing in the department could very
significantly leverage and compliment each other. We look
forward to that discussion.
Senator Graham. Well, my time is up. But I recognize this
committee's principle jurisdiction on this matter is in your
agency, and that other areas of the Department of Interior,
such as the national parks, are in other committees.
But I would be interested in getting some further materials
on what the strategic plan is, and your thoughts about how this
legislation might be part of actually achieving that strategic
plan, and if that suggests any modifications in this
legislation.
Ms. Clark. Certainly, I would be glad to.
Senator Graham. If you could do that for your agency, and
if you could mention to Mr. Stanton and some of the other
folks, that we would like a similar analysis for their areas of
responsibility.
Ms. Clark. I will pass the word.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Graham.
Senator Crapo, do you have any further questions?
Senator Crapo. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Senator Boxer, do you have any further
questions for the witness?
Senator Boxer. I just might have one. Why is it important
to provide the funding for the non-game wildlife?
Ms. Clark. For a number of reasons; we have a very
successful program, the Pittman-Robertson program, that focuses
on game species, and rightfully so, as the income for that
program is derived from excise tax, derived from hunting and
hunters. The States have been incredibly successful at
maintaining and supporting populations of game species, over
the years.
We all know about the Endangered Species Act, and what
happens when it is at the end of the track, and the serious
investment that comes with trying to recover a species from the
brink of extinction, when they have already kind of gotten in
the bottom of the emergency room.
What we have in between is the vast majority of species,
the non-game species, for which the American public is
increasingly putting focus on, with bird watching, nature
photography, and on and on, as you know.
At-risk species, migratory bird species is a concern;
candidate species, species that are tumbling toward the
Endangered Species list; declining species within State
boundaries, sensitive species that are on other Federal
agencies list.
I certainly believe that they deserve dedicated focus. I
believe that the public deserves that they deserve dedicated
focus. It is far more efficient, far more effective. We have so
significantly much more flexibility if we can plan and address
the needs of those species, before they are sitting on my desk
in a red folder, putting them on the Endangered Species List.
Senator Boxer. So it is prevention, in way?
Ms. Clark. Absolutely, it is prevention and sustaining a
really rich biological heritage for this country.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Jamie.
Senator Smith. Senator Graham, did you have any followup,
second round?
Senator Graham. Mr. Chairman, I think I have covered the
principle issue that I wanted with Mr. Clark. I am looking
forward to her followup materials.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Thank you, Director Clark. We appreciate it very much.
We will now turn to the third panel. I will introduce them,
in the interest of time, as they come to the table: Mr. David
Waller, the President of the International Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies, accompanied by Mr. Wayne Vetter, the
Executive Director of the New Hampshire Fish and Game
Department; Ms. Rindy O'Brien, Vice President of Policy of the
Wilderness Society; Mr. Rodger Schlickeisen, President,
Defenders of Wildlife; Mr. Mike Hardiman, American Land Rights
Association; Mr. Charlie Niebling, Policy Director, Society for
the Protection of New Hampshire Forests; and Dr. Rollin
Sparrowe, President, Wildlife Management Institute.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to all of you. In the
interests of time, if you could summarize your statements in 2
or 3 minutes, we would appreciate it. Your statement will be
made a part of the record.
I will just start from left to right here, and start with
you, Dr. Sparrowe.
STATEMENT OF ROLLIN D. SPARROWE, PRESIDENT, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
INSTITUTE
Mr. Sparrowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We at the Wildlife Management Institute are pleased to lend
our strong support for a consolidated approach to legislation
reflected in the three pending Senate bills.
This is an issue on which people have been working for a
long, long time, and I want to offer some historical
perspective that you may not have.
Way back in 1973, a model non-game law proposal was
presented by Winchester Arms, with assistance from our
institute. In 1975, our institute worked with the Council on
Environmental Quality to do an assessment nationally of the
needs for non-game work by the States.
There was an early desire in this to see non-hunters and
fisherman share in the cost of conservation. The legitimate
needs surfaced in these early studies are some of what has
driven us through legislative attempts such as the 1989 Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Act, which was not funded by the
Congress.
So the needs are still there, and a lot of people have been
working on this, including the sporting community, for a long
time.
Our agencies are beset with increasing responsibilities for
things like environmental reviews, the fall-out from public
furor over what to be done with wildlife inhabitants on public
lands, as well as the private lands within States. This has
become a significant burden limiting the abilities of agencies
to keep up.
As an example, just across my desk yesterday, the State of
Montana's annual report shows license revenues at 64 percent,
and Federal aid at 22 percent of their entire budget. Yet, they
have to deal with an array of declining species. There is no
buffer for the periodic ups and downs in this kind of funding
that comes to the States. So the need is there, and it is very
critical.
We feel very strongly that such new funding would
strengthen the existing fish and wildlife agencies with habit
responsibilities for fish and wildlife. They have the
authority. This would keep that activity in their hands, where
it belongs.
It would add more habitat accessible to tradition uses,
like hunting and fishing as a dividend from broader
conservation. It would widely expand the public involvement now
in guiding and supporting these agencies.
I want to differ a bit from some of the testimony you have
heard. The Pittman-Robertson program has no limitation and
never has on focus on game species. It was a natural focus,
because those game species, in 1937, were essentially the
Endangered Species in North America.
When we started the teaming with wildlife activity here
about a decade ago, a survey of States showed that almost 40
percent of the money going into non-game and Endangered Species
programs in the State wildlife agencies was coming directly
from licensed revenues, from hunting and fishing, or from the
Federal aid existing programs. So they have supported a good
bit of the non-game work that has been done.
We feel very strongly that a management function with
stable funding in the agencies has to compliment any national
effort for land protection and land preservation, because in
order to get the benefits from this, we certainly think there
has to be active management in the long term of these wildlife
resources.
So our common message is that the need is clear and well
documented. There is a model in the existing Federal aid
programs that is very good, that we can buildupon. We want to
see the authority for these things kept with our States.
I have just a couple of final points. The vision of this,
from the beginning, back as early as 1973, was to fund work on
non-game species. That remains the vision of most of the people
who support this legislation.
I think there is an equal interest on the part of the
hunters and anglers of America in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. This was not something hatched by modern
environmental groups, many of whom did not exist when Land and
Water came forward.
In fact, the Isaak Walton League supported this initially,
and it was hunters and anglers that pushed for that fund, and
were its supporters in its earlier days, and remains so. We all
have a stake in many parts of this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Dr. Sparrowe.
Mr. Niebling, welcome.
STATEMENT OF CHARLIE NIEBLING, POLICY DIRECTOR, SOCIETY FOR THE
PROTECTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FORESTS
Mr. Niebling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Founded in 1901, the Society for the Protection of New
Hampshire Forests is a non-profit membership organization,
dedicated to the wise use of our natural resources, in their
complete protection and places of special environmental or
scenic importance.
We are also private landowners. We own and manage 33,000
acres of productive woodlands, which I believe makes us unique
among State-based conservation organizations.
Just last week, Mr. Chairman, the New Hampshire legislature
passed and funded a new program called the Land and Community
Heritage Investment Program. The Forest Society led a coalition
known as Citizens for New Hampshire Land and Community
Heritage, involving 120 farm and forest landowners, business,
civil, tourism, recreation, wildlife, historic preservation,
and land conservation organizations, over a 2-year period, to
secure passage of this landmark legislation.
This same coalition has also formally and actively lobbied
for the CARA bill, since 1999. For the record, we support
passage of the CARA bill, S. 2123.
There are elements of the Conservation and Stewardship Act,
S. 2181, that we support and would like to see incorporated
into 2123. There are elements of the recently passed H.R. 701,
the House version of CARA, that merit serious consideration by
this committee.
While there are many important provisions within 2183, one
important accomplishment is the restoration of full and
dedicated funding for LWCF. We are particularly supportive of
the significant dedicated funding for LWCF. We are particularly
supportive of the significant dedicated funding allocated to
the stateside program of land and water.
With the recent passage of our State Conservation Bill,
which also has a matching funding requirement, New Hampshire
communities are ready, willing, and able to take advantage of
stateside land and water funding.
This legislation would be improved, however, by
modifications embodied in S. 2181. In particular, Senator
Bingaman's bill would first, create an additional, more
flexible fund, which is capable of addressing important State-
led projects of local, regional, or national significance,
which exceed the capacity of the traditionally administered
stateside program.
Second, it would encourage the private, public partnership
embodied in the Forest Legacy Program and the Farmland
Protection Program. This provides a critically important tool
by allocating funds to purchase conservation easements from
willing sellers, thereby keeping our most productive forest and
farmlands in private ownership.
I want to briefly address each of these provisions. First,
flexible funding, Title II of S. 2123 reauthorizes Federal and
stateside programs of LWCF. Both are highly successful
programs, serving critical needs, and both deserve full and
permanent funding.
However, LWCF currently does not provide funding for larger
State or local projects of regional and national importance
that exceed the capacity of the stateside program. In addition,
States with little Federal land, or with small populations,
such as New Hampshire, do not have access to significant
Federal funding.
Many Senators and others have expressed concerns that the
distribution of funds under Title I, the Coastal Impact
Assistance, is unfair and disproportionately benefits a few
States.
A way to rectify this is to modify the formula and utilize
some of these funds in a competitively bid, flexible fund to
which all regions of the country, with well documented
conservation needs, that exceed the stateside formula, will
have equal access.
S. 2181 does this by adding a new Section 14 to the Land
and Water Conservation Fund Act, creating a fund known as the
Non-Federal Lands of Regional or National Interest Fund. H.R.
701 accomplishes the same, under Section 206 of Title II.
Many States, most notably New Hampshire, are looking for
ways to protect important working forests and ecologically or
recreationally important lands, without creating or expanding
Federal units. Supporting alternatives to new Federal ownership
promotes local control and partnerships that respect local
values and priorities. We hope the consensus Senate bill will
include this flexible funding provision.
Second is the Forest Legacy and Farmland Protection
Programs. New Hampshire has a long history of using
conservation easements to permanently protect land from
development, while retaining private ownership and control. Our
State has utilized legacy funds to protect thousands of acres
of productive, managed woodlands.
For example, there is much current interest in our State to
buy a conservation easement on 171,000 acres of productive
timberlands owned by a large corporate timberland owner. The
owner is a willing party to these discussions.
A legacy easement will keep these lands in private
ownership, keep them contributing to the tax base in the local
economy, and will protect both the economically important uses,
such as timber production, hunting, and snowmobiling, and
ecologically important features of the land.
Under Title VII, S. 2123 authorizes a conservation easement
program. Yet, it is unclear how this program relates to
existing Federal easement programs, such as Legacy or the
Farmland Protection Program.
Title VIII of S. 2181 addresses this by specifically
authorizing funding for Forest Legacy, the Farmland Protection
Program, and a new program called the Ranch Land Protection
Fund.
H.R. 701, as passed by the House on May 11, includes
language that we support, allowing qualified, non-profit
organizations to hold easements under these programs. We hope
the Senate will work to reconcile these slightly varying
approaches.
Let me just speak briefly to the issue of PILT, if I may,
Mr. Chairman. If the Federal Government is going to continue to
acquire lands, it must fully fund its authorized payment in
lieu of tax and refuge revenue sharing obligations.
Maintaining fiscal relationships with local governments is
as important an aspect of Federal land stewardship as is the
responsible management of the land.
As you know, Senator Smith, the Federal Governments pays
about 46 percent of the authorized PILT payments on lands of
the White Mount National Forest. This is a source of much
tension between our rural northern communities and the U.S.
Forest Service.
To summarize, Mr. Chairman, we strongly urge you to use
this hearing and other means to communicate with the leadership
of the Senate and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to
insist the differences be bridged and sound conservation
legislation be enacted this year.
There are considerable hurdles, budgetary and otherwise,
yet to overcome. Like you, however, we recognize that recent
passage of H.R. 701 in the House provides us with a rare
opportunity to pass significant legislation.
The House vote is an indication of a broad cross section of
Americans speaking loudly in support of CARA. Their message, to
paraphrase the American Express commercial is, do not leave for
home without it.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my testimony.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Niebling.
Mr. Hardiman?
STATEMENT OF MIKE HARDIMAN, AMERICAN LAND RIGHTS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Hardiman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting the
American Land Rights Association to testify today.
I am inholder of private property located in California
that is surrounded by the Bureau of Land Management. I
purchased the parcel 11 years ago, anticipating that access to
government-owned land would continue to be cutoff by the Desert
Protection Act and other laws.
That prediction has certainly held true. I use the property
for recreational purposes, such as camping, and as a base camp
for rock climbing and hiking.
On a per capita basis. S. 2123 is a remarkable cash cow for
two States, Louisiana and Alaska. Louisiana Benefits $71 per
capita, more than six times the average, and Alaska rakes in
$266 per capita annually or 24 times what the average State
receive.
These two States may have legitimate claims to the funds.
However, I implore the Senate to avoid the creation of a $45
billion, 15 year land acquisition trust fund, as part of a
political deal to satisfy those claims. It will provide the
power and money for Government agents to kick people like me
off my land.
Over-zealous regulators, joined by environmental pressure
groups, both have a front row seat on the CARA grant money
gravy train. They will make folly of the ``willing seller''
clause by harassing owners of properties targeted for
acquisition, and discouraging other potential buyers. It is not
possible to negotiate as a ``willing seller'' when Government
is the only buyer.
Every owner of a ranch, woodlot, or game preserve will be
at risk of being targeted by Government agencies, working in
tandem with environmental, anti-hunting, and animal rights
pressure groups.
Ironically, since they hold the most desirable properties,
private landowners who have been the most diligent caretakers
of their holdings will be on top of the land grab list for
government takeover.
The umbrella group that is coordinating the campaign in
support of CARA is an outfit called Americans for Heritage and
Recreation.
Proudly displayed on their web site are their Guiding
Principles, which include this statement regarding property
rights protections. ``AHR adamantly opposes any restrictions on
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, especially those that
limit acquisition to Federal inholdings or adjacent lands,
employ arbitrary geographic restrictions on the use of funds,
require new authorizations, or prevent condemnation.''
The differences between S. 25, introduced early in 1999,
and S. 2123, introduced early this year, kowtow to AHR's
demands. I will quote here a transcript of Senator Murkowski,
discussing land acquisition on Alaska Public Radio on May 9,
just 2 weeks ago.
Murkowski: ``This is the Senate Bill 25. It has to be
within units established by an act of Congress. It has to be
two thirds of the money spent east of the 100th meridian, which
is primarily east of the Mississippi, and the purchases of over
$5 million require Congressional approval. So we have got some
safeguards in here that are responsible.''
Caller: ``Is the Senator willing to filibuster if those
property protections are stripped out?''
Murkowski: ``Well, I would be happy to respond to the
caller, based on what kind of a debate we get in, and whether
this bill ultimately moves or not.''
Those protections are, in fact, not included in S. 2123.
Furthermore, in accordance with AHR's wishes, amendments to
prohibit use of CARA funds for condemnation of private
property, outside of the Federal side of LWCF, which is only
one-sixth of the total, were rejected by the bill's sponsors,
both in committee and on the Floor on the House side.
There are some hoops that the Government is required to
jump through on the Federal side of Title II, which is the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, but those in S. 2123 apply to only
$450 million out of nearly $3 billion per year that is
disbursed.
S. 2123, and its companion legislation, H.R. 701 is a
fraud. It is a political sell-out of landowners, in exchange
for huge piles of cash for Louisiana and Alaska. In per capital
terms, nickels and dimes are handed out to other States to buy
them off. It is a tragic and unprecedented attack on private
property ownership in the United States.
Attached to my testimony are additional statements opposing
CARA from several other organizations, the Gun Owners of
America, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Sixty-Plus
Senior Association and others.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you, very much, Mr. Hardiman.
Mr. Schlickeisen?
STATEMENT OF RODGER SCHLICKEISEN, PRESIDENT, DEFENDERS OF
WILDLIFE
Mr. Schlickeisen. Thank you. I guess I have been placed
here to give a contrary view. I guess I can do that.
Mr. Hardiman. I am outnumbered seven to one, today.
Mr. Schlickeisen. I am here representing the Defenders of
Wildlife, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to submit our testimony for
the record. It is also representing testimony of a number of
other members of our fairly sizable environmental coalition,
supporting this general legislation before you.
All of these bills have in common the very laudable goal of
rescuing the funding principle and promise that was enacted
into law in 1964, when the Land and Water Conservation Fund was
created as a kind of quid pro quo for expanded drilling in the
outer continental shelf.
As a number of people, including Senator Landrieu, for
example, and Representative Young, have commented that
principle and promise was to use the royalties generated by
exploitation of non-renewable oil and gas to provide permanent
protection for other natural resources.
That said, while the bills have that in common, I would
like to use my few minutes here to focus on a handful of
serious flaws in the legislation. I will focus primarily on S.
2123, the likely mark-up vehicle, I assume. These are flaws
that we think require correction before any law is signed into
being.
We think that all of the components necessary for an
excellent piece of legislation are present in the various bills
that are before this committee, or otherwise offered. What is
necessary is to combine them in a way that maximizes the
conservation benefits.
Looking first at Title I of S. 2123, I will not dwell on
this, but our coalition has been very concerned about the
incentives that are in S. 2123 for additional drilling,
especially off the coast of Alaska.
I will not dwell on it, Mr. Chairman, because
Representative Young promised the President that he would take
those incentives out. Indeed, he and Representative Miller did
take them out, when the bill came to the House Floor. So those
incentives are not in the legislation now, for all practical
purposes.
A second problem, though, with Title I has to do with the
usage of the funds. We are very concerned, in this case, that
there is a great potential here to violate the basic
conservation principle of the bill.
That is that if you look closely at the legislation, while
there are a number of good environmental uses that are
possible, it is also possible that the seven OCS states could
spend approximately $730 million on infrastructure,
environmentally destructive projects, such as making additional
roads and additional piers, and what have you.
We do not think that was the purpose of the legislation. We
encourage you to look at the approach taken in S. 2181, to
assure that the projects that are funded by this legislation by
Title I would all be environmentally friendly.
In the provisions in Title II of S. 2123 dealing with the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, our chief concern here is
that for some reason that we do not understand, 2123 singles
out the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Federal side of
it, to be treated differently from every other program in the
bill. For all other programs, annual funding is mandatory. But
for Federal LWCF, there must be a specific appropriation.
We think there is no small amount of irony in this. I mean,
after all, if you think back in 1964 when it was established as
quid pro quo, the idea was that these funds would go into this
fund and be dedicated to this purpose.
A number of speakers, as I mentioned earlier today, have
commented on these. I think it was Mary Landrieu that commented
that these funds had been hijacked. Representative Young
commented about this, himself.
Yet, when you look at 2123, you will find out, for some
reason, Federal LWCF is the only program for which funding is
not mandatory in this bill.
I am pleased to say that a large number of the other pieces
of legislation before the committee now and introduced on this
subject, and also the President's budget Land Legacy proposal,
all make this funding for Federal LWCF permanent and mandatory,
or the equivalent, thereof. So I encourage this committee to
look at that possibility, as they decide their position on this
bill.
Finally, I want to turn to Title III of S. 2123. This is a
new program that has a great deal of potential value that I
think would be of interest to this committee. It creates a new
program. It is kind of a revenue sharing program in the way
right now that it is written, unfortunately. It is a program
that provides $350 million per year to State fish and game
agencies for wildlife conservation purposes.
This provision would be a lot better if it had the kind of
planning requirements in it that a number of other people have
called for. There are a majority of comprehensive bills that
call for planning in this case. The White House, and Jamie
Clark sitting here a little bit ago, said that it was important
to them.
We have a letter that I want to submit for the record where
19 fish and game wildlife conservation agencies have banded
together to call for this planning provision to be in the
language. Yet, inexplicably, it continues to be missing from S.
2123.
I was very pleased, Mr. Chairman, in your letter to me of
May 4th, that you indicated very strong support for this
planning language. I appreciate it a great deal.
We are experiencing a growing problem with Endangered
Species, and Jamie referred to that. At a time when the
Congress can only find $180 million to fund ESA in the two
agencies that oversee it, to provide a new program with $350
million per year, and not require that the States at least make
a contribution to helping make sure that these imperiled
species and imperiled habitats do not become endangered does
not make any sense to us at all.
Nobody enjoys the kind of Endangered Species battles we
have been in over the last couple of decades. But if we are
going to get away from this, clearly, we need an upstream
solution to the Endangered Species problem. The upstream
solution has got to be one where the States who own our
wildlife assume their proper responsibility. This is the kind
of provision that can get that done.
Twenty years ago, this committee saw that. Under the
leadership at that point, the chief author of the bill, John
Chafee, put out a piece of legislation, the Fish and Wildlife
Conversation Act of 1980, that became law, and gave grants to
the States, and required them to do some planning to save non-
game and at-risk species, to avoid the Endangered Species
problem.
The planning language that was in that bill, Mr. Chairman,
is almost exactly the planning language that is in S. 2181. I
encourage this committee to strongly support that. I do not
know what that provision does for this committee, absent that
kind of language.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Schlickeisen.
Ms. O'Brien of the Wilderness Society, welcome.
STATEMENT OF RINDY O'BRIEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY, THE
WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Ms. O'Brien. Thank you. I appreciate getting the
opportunity to testify today.
The Wilderness Society believes that the House passed
legislation is a sound starting point for the Senate's
deliberations. Along side our colleagues in the environmental
community, we would welcome the opportunity to further improve
the bill, as it comes through the Senate.
I think Senator Boxer outlined a lot of the concerns that
we have, and the places where we would like to see some
improvements. But we also clearly acknowledge that there has
been substantial progress already made in balancing the
competing interests.
Between 1987 and 1997, three out of every four dollars were
spent elsewhere from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Oftentimes, people have said that the environmental community
has been too polite in not demanding that the funds that were
promised by Congress, some 36 years ago, be spent for the
purposes.
During this same period, the Land and Water Conservation
Fund spent an average $230 million, or just 25 percent of the
$900 million that had been authorized to flow into the fund.
There were some numbers presented earlier today about some
arbitrary number of $450 million being picked out for this
legislation. The fact is that the $900 million was authorized
35 years ago at that level to be split between the Federal side
and the state side. It is not an arbitrary number that has just
been calculated, looking at past numbers. If you are going to
do that, you would go to $230 million.
Clearly, there is a need and there is an obligation to have
acquisition under the Land and Water Conservation Fund, both on
the Federal and state side.
There were discussions earlier today about dueling polls.
As one of the organizations that actually hired Mr. Luntz to do
the poll, I wanted to speak to something in my testimony that
goes beyond dueling numbers.
That is what our voters are doing actually when they go the
polls. These are not just research tools, but what they are
actually voting on.
In 1998, 148 State and local open space measures were on
the ballot; 124 were approved. That is a resounding 84 percent
approval rate on these measures. Collectively, that represents
$5 billion in public revenues to preserve America's open
spaces.
The figures from 1999 are equally impressive, and this is
in an off election year. Of 102 open space ballot initiatives,
92 were successful. That is a 90 percent success rate, and
those 92 measures committed another $1.8 billion to public land
acquisition.
So you can either accept or reject research tools. But what
the voters are saying as they go to the ballot box around the
country, consistently, is that they believe that the Government
needs to be spending money to protect open space.
The Wilderness Society has three essential elements that
they find crucial, as you move through this legislative
process. First, the legislation must permanently remove the
Land and Water Conservation Fund from the financial obligations
that far too long have limited its effectiveness. This is the
year to take the Land and Water Conservation off budget, once
and for all.
A point that needs to be clarified from the morning debate,
as well, is during the House debate of H.R. 701, it was amended
to make it clear that expenditures under the legislation passed
there would not occur if they diminish the funds available for
Social Security and Medicare.
We have no dispute that these funds needs to be placed
above those two acts. But we firmly believe that the efforts to
protect our open spaces deserve the same protection that
Congress has provided for the Highway Trust, and most recently
for the Federal Aviation Trust.
If we can set aside money to pave it, we believe we can set
aside money to save it.
Second, the Land and Water Conservation Fund needs to be
fully funded. After years of diverting as much as 75 percent of
the intended money of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, now
is the time to make good on that promise.
Third, we believe the Land and Water Conversation Fund
should move forward, unencumbered by new restrictions on how it
operates.
I think that the committee members this morning from the
House side went through all of the provisions that were in the
House passed bill to protect property rights. We believe that
that has established some changes that maybe go beyond where we
need to, but we clearly believe we do not need to go as far as
the Hill language, which restricts a non-net gain in these
States. We actively oppose that.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Ms. O'Brien.
Mr. Waller, Director of the Wildlife Resources Division,
Representing the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DAVID WALLER, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES, DIRECTOR, GEORGIA WILDLIFE
RESOURCES DIVISION
ACCOMPANIED BY:
WAYNE VETTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW HAMPSHIRE FISH AND GAME
DEPARTMENT
Mr. Waller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before your
committee today to share with you the collective strong support
of all 50 State fish and wildlife agencies for the Conservation
and Reinvestment Act or for CARE, as it is more commonly
called.
Whether you hunt, fish, bird watch, hike, play soccer, or
just enjoy the peace and tranquility of being outdoors,
appreciating the vast natural bounty of our nation, this bill
will ensure that our children and future generations will enjoy
this natural wealth.
We urge your favorable attention to the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act, and encourage your cooperation and assistance
to Chairman Murkowski to facilitate a bill being expeditiously
reported to the full Senate for its consideration this year.
The association strongly supports CARA, because it is a
bipartisan consensus bill and common sense approach to
conservation that makes good economic sense, good common sense,
and good political sense.
The coalition of over 4,500 organization, and this has been
brought out two or three times today, has really come together
across the nation, and sounded a loud voice for conservation,
in general.
Our goal is to bring dedicated, consistent funding to
State-based fish and wildlife conversation programs, land and
water conservation, coastal conservation and environmental
programs, State and local outdoor recreation, historic
preservation, and incentives for our landowners to continue
good stewardship of their land in open space uses like
farmland, ranch land and forest land.
CARA places decisions on identifying needs and spending
priorities at the State and local level, which we believe can
best reflect the interest of our citizens. It does that while
giving greater protection than exists in current law to private
property owners, with respect to Federal land acquisition.
The most significant benefit of CARA to fish and wildlife
conservation is that State fish and wildlife agencies will
finally be in a position to take preventive measures to
conserve declining fish and wildlife species before they reach
a status where they must be listed as endangered or threatened.
In this way, the State fish and wildlife agencies can work
cooperatively with private landowners through voluntary, non-
regulatory means, such as incentives, technical assistance,
easements, and other such measures.
Preventative conservation now is an investment that will
continue to pay dividends far into the future. It simply costs
much less to conserve fish and wildlife species by responding
to early warnings of decline than it does to recover those
species, once they have been listed.
Let me share with you a few perfecting amendments that the
association recommends for Title III. The first one, we would
like to see the floor for minimum states increased from \1/2\
to 1 percent. That would benefit 10 States, and yours is one of
them, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. That got my attention.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Waller. It would benefit 10 States that really need
additional funding, because of the size and the population, and
those kinds of things.
We would like to see a 5-year phase-in period, with 90
percent Federal and 10 percent State match, because right now,
it is 70/25, as it is in Pittman-Robertson.
But many of the States would have a tough time coming up
with a 25 percent match. We would like to have 5 years for the
States to be able to develop that kind of match.
We would like to remove the 10 percent cap on wildlife-
associated recreation spending. That really handicaps a lot of
States very considerably, from State to State, and we feel like
the States should have a role in that, and let us not put a cap
on it.
We would like to reinstate the provision for up to 10
percent of the funds to be used for law enforcement. That was
in the original bill. Law enforcement is an important component
of wildlife conservation in the States, and we would like to
have that prerogative to have some funding included for that.
We would like to see the wildlife conversation planning
language included, as some of the other panelists have
suggested. We think that is important. We work with many of the
conservation groups around the country, and we think that is an
important part of it.
We would like to see establishing a floor of $350 million,
and a ceiling of up to 10 percent for the incoming OCS
receipts, whichever is greater. This bill started out at 10
percent for the wildlife fund, which would roughly be $450
million. We would like to see a floor of $350 million, but
allow it to go up, if OCS revenues increase.
In support of Director Clark, we would also like to see
adequate funding to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
delivering the CARA funds to the State. We think that is
important.
I would just like to say, we all want to work with you and
work together on getting this landmark legislation passed.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Waller.
Mr. Vetter, the Executive Director of New Hampshire Fish
and Game, do you have a comment or two?
STATEMENT OF WAYNE VETTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE FISH AND GAME
DEPARTMENT
Mr. Vetter. Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have some written testimony, but in the
interest of time, I will not read it. I just want to say thank
you to you for the opportunity to be here and testify, and
thank you for your support.
This CARA bill is good legislation. It proved that in the
House when it passed so overwhelmingly. We, the directors of
the State fish and game agencies, through our President, David
Waller, and through the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Services have come up with some ideas to make a good
piece of legislation better.
Those are offered to you in these amendments. We urge you
to support those amendments, and pass this bill.
Thank you very much, again, for the opportunity.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Vetter.
I was interested, Mr. Waller, in your term ``perfecting
amendments'' suggestions. The problem is, there are those who
suggest perfecting it in different directions. It makes our job
a lot more difficult.
Let me just start off with a couple of questions, and we
can just open it up here and finish the hearing this morning.
Mr. Schlickeisen, you said in your testimony that we must
do no harm in enacting CARA. I would agree with you on that,
although I believe that each of the Senate bills, I think you
can make the case, would achieve great good.
The question I have for you is, do you support the passage
of S. 2123 or the House bill in their current form; do you
support either/or of those two bills, in their current form?
Mr. Schlickeisen. I think of the two, I would prefer the
House-passed bill, primarily because of what it does with the
incentives issue in Title I.
But I think for the Defenders of Wildlife and for, I think,
probably almost all of our coalition, we would not like to see
any of them become law without some further improvements. Those
improvements were the ones that I identified in my testimony.
Senator Smith. But the House provided for basically a
snapshot in time. It limits payments to the coastal States.
Mr. Schlickeisen. Right.
Senator Smith. Does that address your concern?
Mr. Schlickeisen. I think it does. We are especially
encouraged by the Alaska conservation groups that have helped
our coalition groups examine this. They feel that that goes a
long way toward solving the problem.
I do not think they ever think that incentives are totally
removed. But the fact that they have not got a 5-year look-back
here, so that it would encourage the State and the cities and
the towns, and what have you, to see a pay-off down the road,
if they accept drilling now, I think that that went a long to
solving the problem.
Senator Smith. And Ms. O'Brien, in the perfecting language
issue, you indicated that the funds should be authorized
without any restrictions.
Do you think that any of these bills, and particularly the
House bill, has struck an appropriate balance, here?
Ms. O'Brien. Well, as my written testimony said, we believe
that the language adopted, minus one amendment, the Hill
amendment, that was ultimately adopted on the Floor, our
improvements to ease some of the concerns of the private
property side, we could stand by those changes, although we do
not believe they all were necessary. But if they do go toward
easing some of the concerns of the property rights, we are fine
with that.
The Hill amendment, though, went a step further. It
basically, as Senator Baucus went through this morning, first
of all, singles out one State for treatment different than the
other 50 States, which I think from a policy side is not good.
Second of all, we do not believe that the Land and Water
Fund should be a question of trading one acre off for another
acre. That was not the purpose of the Land and Water
Conversation Fund.
We do believe in consolidation of lands. We believe in
exchanges and easements. We do not believe you should have to
trade on acre for another acre, just so it is a number game.
You really need to look at what the resource is, and why you
are acquiring it, or having it for easement.
So that provision is very troubling to us. The rest that
was in the bill, as it went to the Floor, is fine.
Senator Smith. Mr. Niebling, it is interesting that your
group is representing, I do not know the number, several
thousand essentially woodlot owners or owners of substantial
pieces of property, and yet you are supportive of the bill.
I would agree with Mr. Hardiman on the concerns, that we
should respect absolutely the concerns of private property
owners. This is a substantial group of people who would have
every reason to be concerned about any private property group.
Yet, your group does support this legislation.
One of the provisions in the bill, and I think it is Title
VII, provides that there would be grants to landowners to
protect Endangered Species, if in fact you were stuck with a
situation where you had some limited use of your land, because
of an Endangered Species.
Would you agree that this is going to be helpful in
promoting partnerships with landowners, and could achieve a
real benefit here?
Mr. Niebling. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Like others who
have testified this morning, we have all been troubled and
frustrated by the tremendous difficulties in resolving the
reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act.
I think in the last couple of years, a number of
organizations, national, regional, and local, have begun to
recognize that a more incentive-based approach, whereby
Congress gives incentives to private landowners to manage their
properties in such a way that they do not diminish their
rights, necessarily, but they meet the interests of the
Endangered Species in question, and it is the right direction
to go in.
I know that you have been an advocate of provisions in
Senator Kempthorne's bill, I believe, last year, which would
have really focused on the role of incentives and more
nonregulatory approaches to accomplishing the goals of the act.
So, yes, to answer your question, we think that is a good
way to go, and support those provisions of the bill.
Senator Smith. The bottom line is, without these
modifications, any particular woodlot owner or member of your
organization could be in a situation where they would not be
able to do anything with their land, and at the same time, have
may not be in a financial position to provide any help at all
to enhance that species. So at some point, they could. Is that
correct?
Mr. Niebling. That is correct. If I may, Mr. Chairman, for
8 years, I served as Executive Director of the New Hampshire
Timberland Owners Association. While my current organization is
not comprised entirely of landowners, there are a great many
landowners.
You could say that I cut my teeth representing and
advocating for the rights and responsibilities of private
property owners. It is my firm belief that the legislation, as
passed by the House, has instituted a number of provisions that
will go a long way to addressing the issues and concerns of
private property owners, which I think are very different in
the west than they are in our part of the country.
If I may further, Mr. Chairman, you have my absolute
commitment that if this legislation is enacted, it will be
carried out in a way in New Hampshire that is supportive of and
based upon the best interests of private landowners.
I think that is the New Hampshire tradition. I see nothing
in this bill that would suggest any cause for concern, from our
perspective.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Senator Boxer?
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Mr. Hardiman, I am sure you feel very much in the minority
on this panel, but I think that you gave your best
presentation.
I have a couple of questions for you. On this property
rights, it is my understanding, as I follow the legislation,
that even some of the most ardent defenders of property rights
in the House admitted that, in fact, they went out of their way
to address the concerns.
If you heard Congressman Tauzin's presentation, for
example, there can be no condemnation of land, as I understand
it, which although it is very rarely used in every other act,
we do not say you can not do it.
So that was, I thought, quite something. Then they also
said that nothing in the bill shall impact private property
rights or water rights. So I have great respect for your point
of view, but I have a sense that your concerns were addressed
here.
I also picked up, you said that the Gunowners of America
did not support this bill. Is that what you said?
Mr. Hardiman. Yes, that is correct, and you have the
testimony there.
Senator Boxer. Yes, because I see that the National Rifle
Association does. I thought there was some connection between
the two groups.
Mr. Hardiman. They are two separate organizations.
Senator Boxer. Well, I wanted to say on the record that the
National Rifle Association, that I do not agree with, supports
this bill. The National Shooting Sports Foundation supports
this bill, and the North American Hunting Club.
So, again, I want to make the point, since guns are always
an issue that, I guess, is agitated, it seems that most of the
gun groups seem to support this, because in terms of
recreation, it is going to do a tremendous amount.
I am going to ask you to comment on why you think I am
misled here. Then I just have one other question for all the
others that would just require a show of hands. So if you could
answer that.
Mr. Hardiman. Yes, thank you, Senator, for the opportunity
to respond.
Condemnation is prohibited on the Federal side of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund. That is $450 million out of nearly
$300 billion per year. There is no prohibition on condemnation
for the other $2.5 billion per year.
As a matter of fact, in Title IV, the Urban Parks and
Recreation, existing prohibitions on acquiring land are
removed. Section 411 of S. 2123 removes the existing
prohibition in UPAR for acquiring land. So this is prohibition
on condemnation for $1 out of $6 that comes out of this bill.
Regarding the willing seller issue, actually, this is
something that is nationwide. For example, there is plenty of
money available under the current appropriations process, to
buy out legitimately willing sellers.
The first time I saw the willing seller scam was actually
in the New Jersey State legislature, for which I worked in the
1980's. There was Green Acres bond money, which is a very
popular bond issue that was passed in New Jersey. That money
went the Pinelands Commission, which oversees much of the pine
barons in South Jersey. I worked for a State legislator, who
represented a lot of that area.
They had money available to buy out willing sellers. The
legitimate willing sellers that ask to be bought out were
ignored. They took that money and went after people who were
not willing sellers.
Anyone who wanted to do anything with their property, they
had plenty of money to harass and buy out those people. But the
legitimate willing sellers were ignored, hoping that they would
stop paying taxes on the property, for example, and that they
would be able to pick it up for peanuts at a tax sale, later
on. So there are a lot of shenanigans that go on at the State
and Federal level regarding willing sellers.
I can tell you what will happen on my property in Southern
California. After this bill passes, I will have the Federal
Bureau of Land Management, some entity in DOI, come to me and
say, well, Mr. Hardiman, we will offer you $1 for your
property. I will say, no, I am not interested in selling.
Then the State of California, using Federal CARA funds,
will come to me and say, well, Mr. Hardiman, our appraiser says
your land is worth 82 cents. If you do not sell, we are going
to condemn you.
Senator Boxer. Is this in California, that land is worth 82
cents?
Mr. Hardiman. No, no, I am using this as an example; $1
versus 82 cents, so I am picking out a number. I am saying that
for every $1 that DOI would offer me, the State of California
might offer, for example, 82 cents on $1, for example, with a
threat of condemnation.
I would then, voluntarily, become a willing seller to the
Federal Government for $1, under threat of condemnation for,
for example, 82 cents on $1. That is what a fraud the willing
seller clause is, in this bill.
With the unprecedented fire hose of money from this bill,
people will be forced into being willing sellers. Legally,
technically, people like me will become willing sellers.
Practically speaking, we will be in no way willing sellers.
Senator Boxer. Let me just say this, first of all, there
can be no condemnation under the $450 million, we agree. No. 2,
the other $450 million is States' rights, and the States will
decide. I think most conservative members of the U.S. Senate
think that probably the best way is to have the States decide.
No. 3, for the vast majority of the remainder of the bill,
the moneys can not be used for land acquisition.
Mr. Hardiman. No, it can be.
Senator Boxer. Excuse me, sir, I will put that
documentation into the record.
Clearly, there are titles of the bill that deal with PILT
and other things that have nothing to do with land acquisition.
So let us get that straight. So your point that it is only a
tiny percent that is impacted, I do not believe is correct.
The vast majority is State's rights and prohibition on
condemnation, plus a statement clearly in the bill that this
bill can have no adverse impact on property rights or water
rights.
Outside of Mr. Hardiman, who I clearly get, does not want
any bill, so I know he does not want any bill, I would ask the
rest of you to help me out with a show of hands. I am going to
give you about three options.
Do you prefer the House-passed CARA bill, the Murkowski/
Landrieu bill, or the Bingaman bill? Do you all feel
comfortable on that? If you have no preference, do not raise
your hand at all, but try to tell me, because I think it is
really important that I have the answer.
Let us start off with the House-passed CARA bill. How many
prefer that?
[Show of hands.]
Senator Boxer. There are one, two three of you.
How many prefer the Murkowski/Landrieu bill?
[Show of hands.]
Senator Boxer. How many of you prefer the Bingaman bill?
[Show of hands.]
Senator Boxer. OK, thank you.
Let the record show, Mr. Hardiman does not want any of the
bills.
Thank you very much.
Senator Smith. Did somebody get those responses?
Senator Boxer. It is more for me than anybody else.
Senator Smith. Senator Chafee?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINCOLN CHAFEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing, and for your interest in this subject. I would like my
opening statement to be submitted for the record.
I would just say that I think we are in an historic moment
in time, when we can finally fully fund LWCF, which we have
been waiting for since 1965. We have a great opportunity to do
that.
My experience, as City Councilman and Mayor, in a community
that did go from dairy farms to department stores is that this
a very good thing to be doing.
The most important way to control growth is to buy land, to
buy the valuable land. Because in America, people do have the
right to sell their land. Under zoning, they have a right to
develop it.
The way to have wise growth, I think, is to have a very
aggressive open space acquisition initiative in communities all
across the country, whether it is Boise, Idaho or Salt Lake
City, Utah, or wherever it might be, where we are seeing
extraordinary growth.
We need to have these Federal funds available to make sure
that growth is in everybody's best interest. So I am in favor
of full funding, and I am also in favor of the flexible funding
provisions.
My question would be, Mr. Niebling, I did not see you raise
your hand on either or any of the three options. Is that true?
Mr. Niebling. Right, thank you, Senator Chafee. Please do
not construe my reluctance to raise my hand as non-support. I
guess there are provisions in all three bills that we like.
I indicated in my testimony that we support Senator
Murkowski's legislation. I do not know if you were here when I
spoke. But there were elements of Senator Bingaman's bill and
the House-passed bill that we wanted to see incorporated into
that legislation. So maybe I should have raised my hand on all
three, but I am not sure.
[Laughter.]
Senator Chafee. I came in, just in the middle of your
testimony.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Chafee.
Let me ask just a couple more, and then we can wrap up
here.
Mr. Vetter, many of the programs funded through CARA do
require the State or the local government to provide a match.
Some critics say that the States will be unable to provide the
necessary funds to take advantage of those programs.
New Hampshire does have such a fund that would enable them
to provide that State or local match, as you know. Is this
unique, and perhaps Mr. Waller could respond to this, also; do
other States have established funds to provide this match?
Mr. Vetter. I believe, Senator, that we are unique. But I
will refer that to Mr. Waller, because he is in touch with
that.
Senator Smith. Maybe Mr. Waller can tell me how many States
have that.
Mr. Waller. I think it will vary considerably, from State
to State. Some States will not have any funding to work with.
They will have to develop a funding source. Some States, you
know, already have some in place.
So that is why we are suggesting going for the first 5
years with a 90/10 match, to give some of the States the
opportunity to develop a funding source for their match.
Senator Smith. Mr. Hardiman, I know you feel like you have
been ganged up on, here. But I think you understand that there
were some pretty articulate private property advocates on the
first panel from the House side. So we have tried to give it as
much balance as possible.
I, as a strong private property advocate myself, share some
of your concerns. I do not seem to find in the language of the
bills before me the concerns that you have. This is my
difficulty.
I mean, right now, I am told there is about a $10 billion
backlog on people who want to sell their land to the Federal
Government. So whatever position you want to take, whether we
should or should not do it, the point is, the funds are not
there to do it, anyway.
So I do not know where we are coming up with taking land
from unwilling sellers in this legislation. I am trying hard to
understand that, because I do not want to do that. I will be
very honest with you. I would not be supportive of the
legislation if I thought that land was going to be taken from
unwilling sellers or condemned.
So I am not trying to be hostile. I am just trying to
understand where you are coming from. If you could be specific
in terms of where these concerns are, I would like to try to
address them.
Mr. Hardiman. Certainly, Senator, thank you.
The list of $10 billion worth of allegedly willing sellers,
I have never seen or heard of such a list. I would like to see
it. I am not familiar with that list.
I am familiar with, of course, the maintenance backlog
issue, which opens at $5 billion, and goes up from there. That
was covered in the March issue of ``Government Executive
Magazine'' quite extensively.
I will give you a specific example of willing sellers being
ignored, while an unwilling seller was gone after. In the
national recreation area in Los Angeles in Ventura County in
California, and I forget the name of it, but that area of the
mountains north of Los Angeles in Ventura County, the National
Park Service wanted to buy a parcel of land of private property
owned; the guy's name was Donald Scott.
They repeatedly asked to purchase the land. When Mr. Scott
refused, they trumped up a drug charge against him. They went
to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
Senator Smith. Who is ``they?'' Who did this?
Mr. Hardiman. The National Park Service did this. They went
to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. The National
Park Service had no money to buy out the legitimate willing
sellers. However, this is what they did to Mr. Scott, whose
property they did want to buy, because it was on a mountain
top.
They got together with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department, and raided Mr. Scott's house at 7 a.m. on a Sunday
morning. Mr. Scott appeared at the top of the stairs with a
revolver. They shot and killed Mr. Scott. His dying bleeding
body fell down the stairs and landed at his wife's feet.
The widow then filed suit against the National Park Service
and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Seven years
later, just a couple of months ago earlier this year, the
National Park Service settled for a $5 million wrongful death
lawsuit.
The widow absolutely promises and Mr. Scott's children
promise that they will never, never in 1,000 years sell that
property to any Government entity.
When the National Park Service or other agencies want
property, they find the money to go after it, while at the same
time ignoring legitimate willing sellers.
That $5 million, of course, is money that will not go to
land acquisition, since it is going to Donald Scott's widow.
Senator Smith. Well, do you believe that in the purest
sense, that there is ever a case where the U.S. Government
should acquire either conservation easements or purchase land
outright, for future generations?
Mr. Hardiman. The American Land Rights Association supports
the current appropriations process, where everyone has a say.
The American Land Rights Association have both agreed and
disagreed, numerous times, with the authorizing and
appropriating committees on the Senate side and on the House
side.
Sometimes we win. Sometimes we lose. But the regular
appropriations process is democracy. Trust fund is not
democracy.
Senator Boxer. Excuse me, if you do not mind, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Go ahead, Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. This bill subjects these purchases to the
regular appropriations process. As a matter of fact, some of us
feel that we would prefer that it did not go that far to do it.
But Congress can stop any of these acquisitions. That was
one of the issues. That is why I like the Bingaman bill better
because, frankly, I like the idea of a trust fund. Let the
administration go. If Congress does not stop it, then let the
funds go. But the way the bill came out of the House, Mr.
Hardiman, it is subjected to the appropriations process.
Mr. Hardiman. There is one-sixth of the bill, only the
Federal side of Title II, and that was money that must be
spent. It no longer competes with other priorities; anything
from illuminating the estate tax to Social Security to the core
sole of the other education, all of the other priorities. So,
once again, that is only one-sixth of the bill.
Senator Boxer. You keep going back to that. But if I just
might say, that is the heart and sole of the bill, the $900
million, in terms of purchase. Half of it, as my Chairman
reminded me, the States have the right to make those decisions.
So that you would have to take up with the States, how they
would handle their state-side money.
But the Federal money here which, again, you know, I have
to just be honest with you, I prefer the trust fund notion that
this Administration, whichever, Republican or Democrat, can put
the list out and go for it. That is not going to happen here.
It subjected to the appropriations process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
Senator Smith. Senator Chafee, do you have any further
questions or comments?
Senator Chafee. The only one would be, again, to Mr.
Hardiman. My experience is that the most heavy need to purchase
land is when the developers are coming in. That is when the
community usually rises up, and wants to buy that land, before
it is turned into whatever it is zoned for, commercial,
industrial, residential.
That has certainly been my experience. As we see changing
demographics, I just think that having these funds available,
all across the country, it is just in everybody's best
interests. I suppose there are those isolated incidence of
hostile actions. But I think there were extremely isolated.
Mr. Hardiman. I would respectfully have to obviously
disagree. I would say hostile takeover might be more accurate.
It appears to be many times in everyone's interest to buy a
piece of land, except for the landowner.
Senator Smith. Well, let me just thank the witnesses for
being here today. I know that many of you traveled long
distances. We appreciate it.
Dr. Sparrowe, I would say that you have got the appropriate
name for the organization you are with.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. You have probably heard that before.
Mr. Sparrowe. I have.
Senator Smith. I am going to close on a statement that I
did not get the opportunity to make, early on. If witnesses
need to leave, please feel free to do that as I am speaking. It
is all right.
I just want to say that there has been some discussion
about the jurisdiction on the committee. There is a overlap in
jurisdiction between the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, here in the Senate, which has primarily
jurisdiction.
Several of the programs, however, as Senator Boxer and I
were just discussing, were affected by this bill, and are under
our jurisdiction, such as Pittman-Robertson, Endangered Species
act. They are within our jurisdiction.
So it is our committee's responsibility to review this
legislation, although under the rules, we can not mark it up.
But it is appropriate for us to review it.
You heard considerable testimony today on three bills: S.
25, S. 2123, and S. 2181. They have been introduced in the
Senate, to fund various conservation programs. We talked a
little bit about the House bill. The issue has received a lot
of attention.
Certainly, with the passage of the House bill under the
leadership of Congressmen Young, Tauzin, and Miller, in a
bipartisan manner, by a margin as was stated here of three to
one, I think that is an incredible effort on their part.
The bill in my State, as I think you could tell from the
witnesses that are there this morning, and also in my travels
and meetings that I have held over the past 6 weeks in New
Hampshire, has broad support among the constituents of New
Hampshire.
I have heard from the New Hampshire Society of Forests. You
have heard from the Fish and Wildlife representatives here, and
I have heard from many others that there seems to be
overwhelmingly a strong majority support, if you will, on the
concepts of the bills. There may be some refining that we have
to do, but there is broad support.
You know, I am a conservative Republican. I think most
people know that. I do not think there is anybody that has been
more fiscally responsible than I have. I want to make a few
points here, though, that I believe need to be made.
I want to say, we have heard from Washington, over and over
again, that there is not any money available for conservation
programs. There is always money available for something else,
where it is Americorps or whether it is taking the Department
of Education from $3 billion to $34 billion in 15 or 20 years.
There is money for everything else.
They have also said, well, conservation is not up to the
Government, or it is not up to the States, or it is not up to
the local government or the Federal Government. It is up to the
landowners. Let them bear all the burden.
Well, they are the stewards, and I support that. They are
the stewards of saving our land and resources, but sometimes,
they need help. I think Mr. Niebling brought that point up very
well.
It is time now for the Federal Government to help out here.
We have not been doing our fair share. The Federal deficit is
now gone, and the budget is balanced. However, we do have a
huge national debt, and that is not going to be paid off in the
short term. It will be paid off, if we continue to manage
wisely our budget.
But we have to think about not the next election, not 10
years from now, but generations from now. I have said, over and
over and over and over again, since I have assumed the
Chairmanship that environmental policy is not about the next
election. It is about the next generation.
Environmental policy, although it is good politics,
sometimes, the Democrats have done a good job of politicizing
this, frankly, and we deserve a lot of the attacks that we
take.
But we have a unique opportunity to use outer continental
shelf revenues on the programs that they were originally
intended to fund, plus several other conservation programs that
have been underfunded.
Now the issue that Senator Bennett brought up, which is a
good one and fair one, about all of these trust funds, off
budget; fine, if we want to take all of the trust funds off
budget and deal with it through the appropriations process,
fine, but let us not pick some, rather than others.
Highways are no more important than preservation of land.
Some would say they are less important. I am not going to make
that case, but I am going to say they are no more important
than preservation of land.
You talk about urban sprawl. Why is there urban sprawl? It
is because we have a place to sprawl to, and with no
regulations. That is a new term.
It is time to keep the promise that we made years ago to
the OCS revenues, responsibly, and put some of those dollars
back to what they were intended to be for. That is all we are
asking to do.
We do not owe it to ourselves necessarily, as much as we
owe it to the future generations. We have to make decisions
today that are going to impact the future of this country.
I have sat here for 20 years almost in this Congress, and I
have fought hard to get that budget balanced, to get the
deficit eliminated, and to pay off that debt. If my votes had
prevailed, it would have been paid off 10 or 15 years ago, and
we would have had more money to deal with things that matter:
infrastructure, environmental programs in this country,
environmental land, preservation and clean-up.
That is what this is about. That is what this debate is
about. It is not about CARA. That is an acronym. I do not care
about the term. That is not what this is about.
We heard a lot of good people talking today, from all
across the political spectrum. I never thought in a million
years that I would, and I do not think Barbara Boxer did
either, see George Miller and Don Young on the same side of an
issue, let alone sitting at the same table.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. It does indicate there is support. Now some
would say, maybe it indicates there is something wrong with it.
Well, we will look it. We will look at that very carefully.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. But the bottom line is, Americans like to
spend time outdoors, especially in this high pressure situation
we have. It is true that our parks are not maintained, and we
need to do something about that. There is no question about it.
We all have our preferred vacation spots, whether it is
Yosemite or Yellowstone. I honeymooned in Yosemite, by the way.
Almost all Americans, probably as high as 90 percent, believe
we ought to be spending more money, not less, not necessarily
at the Federal level, on protecting our water and protecting
our land, our parks, our seashores, and so forth.
There is a growing consensus, and I am one of them, and you
can say, oh, I have had an evolution. Well, I am the same guy I
was 20 years ago. But we now have an opportunity to do
something about it that we did not have the opportunity to do
earlier.
We have to act now, not tomorrow but now, or we are going
to lose some very special places in this country. It is time we
stand up and realize it. We are going to lose the Everglades.
We could lose the Arctic National Wildlife Refuse. There are a
lot of places that we can lose, and a lot of small woodlots,
which is what CARA is about, and other small pieces of
property, all across America.
I agree with those Americans in those polls, and I am not
government by polls. If it was the other way around, as you
have heard with me on the Elian Gonzalez case, where it was 70/
30 against my position, I still stuck to my position, because I
was right, and history will prove it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. I want to do what I can to ensure that those
areas remain for our children and our grandchildren. That is
what this is about.
Now as we have heard, each of these bills has been
introduced in the Senate, including the one introduced by
Senator Boxer last week, as a companion to the House passed
bill. There is plenty of opportunity to debate these, to blend
them together, if you will. But the time is right to pass this
kind of legislation, because we do owe it to our future
generations.
Numerous States have been struggling for years to preserve
open space, limit urban sprawl, provide residents with a better
quality of life, with virtually no assistance, nothing from the
Federal Government.
Now it is time, in my view, for the Federal Government to
step up to the plate and assist, not to land grab, not to take
land from unwilling sellers, not to put easements on properties
that owners do not wish them to be on; but rather to do the
right thing to assist the States and the landowners.
Why are we holding this hearing? I just indicated that
because we do have the jurisdiction to do it. I regret to say
that a couple of my colleagues were upset, saying that we were
infringing upon somebody else's jurisdiction. I get a little
tired of hearing that.
We ought to air these issues. If we can air them here, then
that is good and that is positive for the issue, for the
proponents, as well as the opponents, as far as I am concerned.
Let me just conclude on the private property rights
concerns. Several of our colleagues raised these concerns, I
thought very eloquently. I share their support for the rights
of landowners and their concern that there should be limits on
Federal acquisition of land.
I believe that some of those concerns are misplaced. I am
prepared to take a hard look at where those concerns are
raised.
Senator Murkowski in S. 2123 and the House bill that was
passed a few weeks ago, addressed many of these concerns, or at
least so I thought. Contrary to popular belief, S. 2123
contains no new Federal land acquisition programs, that I know
of.
In addition, S. 2123 provides an unprecedented level of
protection for the private landowner. We heard that from
private landowners here today.
For example, funds from this bill can not be used by the
Government to implement regulations on private property. All
too often, the Federal Government places so many restrictions
on private property that the owner can no longer use it. This
bill prevents that unfair and probably unconstitutional
practice. That is the way I read it. If I am wrong, I will be
happy to listen to the opposition on that.
Under the Murkowski bill, for example, any Federal
acquisitions of land through the Land and Water Conservation
Fund would also be subject to significantly more restrictions
than under current law. In fact, this bill helps landowners who
have Endangered Species on their land, as you brought out, Mr.
Niebling, today.
So in conclusion, let me just say, I will stack my record
up as a fiscal conservative against anybody. If somebody wants
to match it, then let us talk about it, and we will see who has
been the most conservative around here.
We made a promise, and we ought to keep that promise,
whether we make it to the Social Security recipient, or the
veteran, or whether we made a promise to the lease and oil gas
rights on the outer continental shelf, to dedicate a portion of
the revenues to the environment. That is why they are paying
that money.
Now if we do not like that and we want to get rid of all
trust funds, then let us talk about that. But let us not single
out certain trust funds, as opposed to others, because the
environment is not less important than airports. It is not less
important than roads or anything else. You might say it is as
important, but it is not less important.
This is no different than the Highway Trust Fund. We have
not lived up to that promise in this time of budget surpluses,
and it is time we do.
So fulfilling our commitment to use revenue generated from
offshore oil drilling to preserve the environment elsewhere is
a balancing act, and it has been out of balance too darn long.
We have been taking without giving.
President Teddy Roosevelt summed it up when he said, ``I
recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and
use natural resources of the land. But I do not recognize the
right to waste them, or to rob by wasteful use the generations
that come after us.'' That is what this debate is about.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, may I just compliment you
mightily on your statement. I am so please. I think they may
have Miller/Young over there, but we have got Smith/Boxer over
here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Let me tell you, this issue is either going
to make us loved or something. But I am just so absolutely
pleased to hear you make that very heartfelt statement. I know,
because we have worked together on animal protection before,
that when you feel deeply about something, you are going to be
there for this fight.
I think we are going to have a bit of a battle. But with
your help, I just think we are going to see the light of day.
So I am very encouraged. I thank you for that statement.
Senator Smith. Now if you could just join me on a few other
issues, we would be all right.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. Thank you very much to the witnesses. The
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of Hon. Bob Smith, U.S. Senator from the State of New
Hampshire
Good Morning. Thank you for joining us here today to discuss the
bills that have been introduced in the Senate to fund various
conservation programs, including the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
from oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf.
This issue has received a lot of attention lately with the passage
of a companion bill in the House, under the leadership of Congressmen
Young, Tauzin and Miller, by a margin of three to one. I want to
congratulate them on their effort.
I have heard from many constituents in New Hampshire, and the
overwhelming majority strongly support the concepts in these bills. For
years now, they have heard from Washington that there isn't any money
available for conservation programs and that it's up to landowners to
bear the burdens of saving our land and resources. Well, those days are
over. Now, it's time for the Federal Government to contribute its fair
share. After many years of tightening our belts, the Federal deficit is
under control. We have a unique opportunity to use Outer Continental
Shelf revenues on the programs that they were originally intended to
fund, plus several other conservation programs that have been woefully
underfunded.
It's time to keep the promise we made years ago to use OCS revenues
responsibly to put back some of those dollars into restoring and
protecting the environment. We owe it to generations of Americans yet
to come.
It isn't often that you get Congressman Don Young from Alaska,
Billy Tauzin from Louisiana, and George Miller from California to agree
on environmental legislation. I'm willing to bet it's the first time
that those three have come before this committee to testify in support
of a single bill. That's a reflection of just how much broad, popular
support there is across the country for preserving our natural
resources whether they are small urban parks or pristine wilderness
areas.
The bottom line is that Americans like to spend their time
outdoors. Over half of all Americans will tell you that their preferred
vacation spots are national parks, forests, wilderness areas, beaches,
shorelines and mountains. And almost all Americans 94 percent believe
we should be spending more money on land and water conservation because
parks, forests and seashore provide an opportunity to visit areas
vastly different from their own. There is a growing consensus that we
must act now or we will lose many special places, and if we wait, what
is destroyed or lost will be gone forever. I agree with those Americans
who enjoy the special places that make America unique. I want to do
whatever I can now to ensure that those areas remain for our children
and grandchildren.
As we have heard, each of the bills that has been introduced in the
Senate, including the one introduced by Senator Boxer last week as a
companion to the House-passed bill, provides permanent funding to the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, as well as a number of other
important conservation initiatives, through Outer Continental Shelf
revenues. I believe the time is right to pass this kind of legislation.
We owe it to future generations to do what we can to preserve and
protect our scarce and unique resources. Numerous States have been
struggling for years to preserve open space, limit urban sprawl and
provide residents with a better quality of life, with virtually no
assistance from the Federal Government. It is time for the Federal
Government to step up to the plate and assist the States in their
efforts.
Many of you may be wondering why the Environment and Public Works
Committee is holding a hearing on these bills considering that they
have been referred to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. While
the Energy Committee has primary jurisdiction, several of the programs
affected by the bills, such as the Pittman-Robertson Act and the
Endangered Species Act, are clearly within our jurisdiction. As the
committee with jurisdiction, it is our responsibility to review the
proposed changes to those programs and, based on the committee's
institutional expertise, make recommendations as to any amendments that
may be appropriate. Next month, the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee plans on holding a markup. As most of you know, earlier this
year I cosponsored S. 2123, a bipartisan bill introduced by Senators
Landrieu and Murkowski. Since no bill is ever perfect, I look forward
to working with Senators Murkowski and Landrieu to make several
improvements that will address the needs of small States such as New
Hampshire.
Earlier, several of our colleagues from the House raised concerns
about the potential impact of these bills on private property rights.
While I share their very strong support for the rights of private land
owners, and their concern that there should be limits on Federal
acquisition of land, I believe that some of their concerns may be
misplaced. I believe that Senator Murkowski, in S. 2123, and the House,
in the bill passed a few weeks ago, have addressed many of the
legitimate concerns that were raised by the property rights community.
Contrary to popular belief, S. 2123 contains no new Federal land
acquisition programs. In addition, S. 2123 provides an unprecedented
level of protection for the private land owner.
For example, funds from this bill cannot be used by the Federal
Government to implement regulations on private property. All too often
the Federal Government places so many restrictions on private property
that the owner can no longer use it. This bill prevents that unfair and
probably unconstitutional practice.
Under the Murkowski bill, any Federal acquisitions of land through
the Land and Water Conservation Fund would also be subject to
significantly more restrictions than under current law. S. 2123
requires Congressional approval of all Federal acquisitions,
notification to the local communities, and prohibits the condemnation
of land unless Congress directs otherwise.
In fact, this bill helps landowners who have endangered species on
their land. For the first time, private landowners will be able to
apply for a grant to assist in the recovery of endangered of threatened
species on their property. In other words, they would be eligible to
get compensation for some of the conservation measures that they now
have to pay for themselves. In my opinion, that is a big step forward.
The programs funded in S. 2123 have worked well throughout the
years. One in particular is the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
state-side matching grant program. I have long supported this program,
and have worked tirelessly for the past several years to ensure that
some funds are appropriated. States rely heavily on this program to
purchase much needed recreation areas and facilities. Since the LWCF's
creation in 1964, the state-side matching grant program has funded more
than 37,000 projects and conserved approximately 2.3 million acres.
This program should serve as a model because the decision to conserve
land is made at the local level. Who better to know what lands should
be preserved than the people who live there.
There are many good provisions in this legislation. I am pleased to
be a cosponsor of S. 2123. I look forward to working with Senators
Murkowski and Landrieu to make further improvements to the bill and to
do what I can to help pass this historic piece of legislation.
I would also like to take this opportunity to extend my
appreciation to Wayne Vetter, Executive Director of the NH Fish and
Game Department, and Charlie Niebling of the Society for the Protection
of N.H. Forests. I appreciate their taking the time to come here today
to testify in support of these bills.
In closing, I think it is important to remember that it is not
anti-conservative to be pro-environment.
I'll stack my record as a fiscal conservative up against anyone's.
We made a promise when we decided to lease oil and gas rights on the
Outer Continental Shelf to dedicate a portion of those revenues to the
environment. This is no different than the highway trust fund. We
haven't lived up to that promise. In this time of budget surpluses, I
believe it's about time we do.
Fulfilling our commitment to use revenue generated from offshore
oil drilling to preserve the environment elsewhere is a balancing act.
Unfortunately, for too long we have been taking without giving. I
believe that President Teddy Roosevelt summed it up best when he said:
``Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I
recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use
natural resources of the land; but I do not recognize the right to
waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after
us.''
__________
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State of
Oklahoma
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this Hearing today on CARA.
This is a very important issue to this committee and my subcommittee,
since it deals with both the Outer Continental Shelf and private
property rights. I appreciate you inviting Mr. Hardiman with the
American Land Rights Association at my request, although I believe he
is outnumbered here. I know the Farm Bureau and the Cattlemen are
opposed to this bill as are numerous property rights groups.
I have serious reservations about this legislation and I can not
support it as currently drafted. While the goals of protecting and
preserving land are certainly commendable, this bill just has too many
problems.
1. On the Budget side, we should not be taking $3 billion off-
budget. It is not fiscally responsible. This bill creates a mandatory
program in which $2.4 billion is spent with no oversight by Congress
through the appropriations process.
2. The bill is primarily concerned with acquiring new land. It does
nothing to address the maintenance backlog on existing National Parks
and other Federal lands which is estimated at $15 billion. In fact it
will make the problem worse since we will not be able to afford the
maintenance on the new lands purchased.
3. Property rights for private citizens are not protected. The few
protections that are there only apply to $450 million of the total $3
billion per year, and in fact Title 4 actually repeals some existing
property rights protections involving condemnations in urban areas.
4. The Federal Government already owns and controls too much land,
particularly out West. Overall the Federal Government owns over 30
percent of all land, and that does not include States or local
governments.
5. Finally, while I understand that States and localities will
receive funds for projects, it should be noted that the Federal
Governments will have a dramatically increased role in local
decisionmaking. Cara requires the Federal Government to review and
approve most of the plans the States submit for the use of CARA funds.
I have serious concerns with the Federal Government making planning
decisions for Oklahoma.
I hope this bill does not come before the Senate in its current
form. There are too many budget problems and we would be trampling on
the rights of individual property owners. I look forward to the
testimony.
__________
Statement of Hon. Craig Thomas, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act bills currently pending before the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
As you know, there are a number of legislative proposals pending
before Congress which would use the outer continental shelf (OCS)
revenues to help fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and
various conservation programs. Senator Murkowski's bill, S. 2123, is
the likely legislative vehicle moving in the Senate, so I will focus my
comments on that bill. However, my major concerns with S. 2123 can also
be associated with the other related measures.
While some of the goals of this legislation may be laudable, I also
have several major concerns about the bill's language and its impact on
private property rights. We need to continue working to reduce the
number of inholdings on public lands throughout the West, including our
national parks. However, rather than purchasing these areas, as
proposed under S. 2123, I believe we should work to coordinate land
exchanges that will allow us to reduce these inholdings without
increasing Federal land ownership. I do not believe we should take any
action that would reduce the already limited amount of private property
in my State.
I remain concerned about protecting private property rights and tax
bases and still have concerns about the lack of protection against
Federal land grabs in S. 2123. That is why I will seek to amend S. 2123
when it is brought before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee
next month.
My amendment would limit the amount of private land the Federal
Government could acquire in States where 25 percent or more of the land
is federally owned. Additionally, when the government purchases 100
acres or more, it would be required to sell back into private ownership
land of equal value in the same State. Since 50 percent of Wyoming is
already owned by the government, I am concerned about adding more
federally owned land to our State that might be restricted for specific
uses. Without successfully attaching my ``No Net Loss Of Private
Lands'' amendment, S. 2123 has little if any chance of passing.
S. 2123 would also result in $45 billion in new entitlement
programs over the next 15 years, increasing the difficulty to control
spending by the Federal Government. Creating $3 billion in yearly
permanent appropriations, which is not subject to review by Congress,
allows the Administration too much discretion with Land and Water
Conservation Funding (LWCF). Authorizing large permanent appropriations
will require Congress to find offsets and place restrictions on other
public land programs.
Over the past year, the National Park Service, Forest Service and
BLM have all given estimates to Congress of backlog maintenance needs
of several billion dollars each. We do not need to increase Federal
lands' responsibilities, we need to ensure land managers take care of
what they already have.
The Senate Energy Committee has scheduled a markup of S. 2123 and I
will be working with my colleagues to address the concerns I have
raised. However, significant changes must be made to the bill to ensure
that private property rights are protected and budget problems are
addressed before it will gain my support.
Mr. Chairman, I will continue doing everything I can to return a
sense of fiscal responsibility to this debate and protect private
property owners in Wyoming as consideration of this issue continues.
__________
Statement of Hon. Mike Crapo, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. Although the CARA
bills have been referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, many of the provisions of this bill fall within the
jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. As such, I
appreciate the opportunity to further discuss the merits and flaws in
these bills.
First, I would like to recognize the presence of Representative
Helen Chenoweth-Hage of my State and thank her in advance for her
testimony. As chairman of the House Resources Subcommittee on Forests
and Forest health, Helen is acutely aware of the existing needs of our
public lands and I welcome her testimony--not to mention her passion
for private property protections.
I also appreciate seeing so many of my good friends from the House
here to testify on these bills. It is a rare treat and truly an
indication of the magnitude of this effort.
Let me begin by saying there are many very good provisions in each
of these bills. I support many of the items in these bills and have
participated in past efforts to secure funding for them, and I will
continue to support many of these projects.
However, I have concerns about the mandatory spending requirement
and the impact on budget priorities. For example, in Southern Idaho, in
the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, securing LWCF funds for scenic
and conservation easements has been one of my priorities. Nonetheless,
it must be considered as a reasonable priority-a reasonable priority
within the constructs of a balanced budget.
I am also concerned by the failure of these bills to address the
sizable maintenance backlog on our public lands. The recent fire in Los
Alamos underscores the danger of failing to actively maintain our
public lands. The cost to mitigate the damages, and restore the
ecosystem could have been prevented. There are more than 39 million
acres of National Forest System Land in the West that is in danger of
catastrophic fire. Many more millions of acres are at risk from insects
and disease. Is acquisition more important than adequately maintaining
our existing lands, particularly when the agencies estimate a
maintenance backlog of anywhere between $14 and $20 billion.
Should not taking care of our existing lands be given a priority
when we talk about adding to the Federal inventory, especially when the
Federal Government has not proven to me that it is a better steward of
the land that private property owners? Federal ownership of land is not
necessary for private property owners to achieve recreation or
environmental goals on their own land that benefit the public.
I also have unresolved concerns over the private property
provisions in the bill. In Idaho, the Federal Government owns over 63
percent of the land. Understandably, many Idahoans are skeptical of
further ownership in the State and how that land may be acquired.
Additionally, the impact on counties when property values are reduced
or taken off the tax roles is important to note. Payment in Lieu of
Taxes has not been fully funded and when we talk of acquiring more
public lands, it is incumbent upon us to first address this shortfall.
I share the concerns of numerous Idahoans regarding the impact of
public land ownership and look forward to future discussion of these
issues.
Many of the goals of these bills are laudable. They are reasonable
objectives, but like many reasonable policies, they must be considered
in the context of all our priorities and obligations.
That said, I appreciate the efforts my colleagues have made in
crafting these bills, and as chairman of the subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife, and Water, I am keenly interested in its goals and
provisions. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both the
Environment and Public Works Committee and the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee on these bills.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing the
testimony of the panelists.
__________
Statement of Hon. Lincoln Chafee, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on these very
important bills pending before the Senate. I can think of few
environmental issues facing this Congress more important than efforts
to conserve open space. This Congress has an opportunity to make some
critical investments in our nation's natural resources, and I hope that
we can take advantage of this opportunity.
The notion that revenues from the depletion of oil and gas
resources should be reinvested into our natural resources is not a new
or revolutionary idea. Congress recognized the wisdom of this idea in
1964, and passed the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. In 1986,
President Reagan's Commission On the American Outdoors reported that:
``Preservation of fast disappearing open space, investment in
rehabilitation of deteriorating facilities, getting ahead of urban
growth as it runs across the land--these are actions which cannot wait,
but must be taken now, for tomorrow they will be more expensive, or, in
some cases, impossible.''
For the past 40 years, many in and out of the Federal Government,
have talked about the need to increase investment in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, efforts to conserve fish and wildlife, historic
preservation and park restoration activities. I think we have had
sufficient talk, and now is the time to act.
Immediate action is necessary because the current opportunities to
conserve land and recover threatened and endangered species will not
exist in 10 or 15 years. As a city council member for 4 years, and a
local mayor for the past 7 years, I have witnessed firsthand the
conversion of dairy farms into department stores. My experience in
local government has taught me that the most critical element of
controlling growth is the wise acquisition of valuable open spaces. We
don't want the developers to have it all! And I am sure that this
sentiment is true in every State. In fact, in 1998, over 200 ballot
measures were approved across the country for green space acquisition.
And this year, the State of Rhode Island has proposed a $50 million
bond initiative for open space acquisition for the next 20 years. Many
local and State governments desperately want to conserve and protect
their precious natural resources areas. Unfortunately, existing funding
is not enough to accomplish the enormous task at hand. The Federal
Government must become involved in these efforts. If Congress fails to
act, we will continue to develop some of our most precious natural
areas, and we will continue to witness a decline in open space,
endangered species, recreational opportunities and our quality of life.
This issue is about our legacy to future generations, and our failure
to act will be costly.
While I strongly support the goals of the bills before us today, I
also believe that we can improve on the proposals. I urge the following
principles be incorporated in any bill that passes the Senate.
State lines do not trace ecosystems and some of America's most
important natural areas--the Northern Forest of New England, the
Mississippi Delta, and the Great Lakes--are not contained in one State
alone. This fact makes it difficult--particularly for small States like
those in New England--to preserve treasures like the ones I just
mentioned. The addition of a flexible funding component to the LWCF
could provide additional money that could be used by an individual
State for a costly project of national significance, or by a group of
States for preservation of areas that spill over State boundaries.
We should also avoid creating incentives for off-shore oil
drilling, and ensure that moneys earned from the nation's environmental
resources ought to be reinvested into other natural resources as
envisioned by the original 1965 bill--not used to build more roads or
lay new sewer lines. I recognize that there are legitimate
infrastructure impacts in OCS producing States that need to be
addressed, but I also believe that a significant portion of the funding
should be allocated toward mitigating the adverse impacts of OCS
production on the environment.
We also need to make greater investments in the protection and
recovery of endangered species and place greater emphasis on
conservation efforts that will prevent other declining species from
being added to the Threatened or Endangered lists. The value of open
space is not only in the land, but also the wildlife that the land
sustains. Current funding for wildlife conservation and management
efforts should be increased for threatened and endangered species, and
indeed for all wildlife--game and non-game species.
I want to thank you once again Mr. Chairman for holding this
hearing on such an important and timely environmental issue. I look
forward to the testimony of the witnesses.
__________
Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to thank all of those whose leadership has brought us
this far.
In the House, it's been the work of Congressman Young, Congressman
Miller, and others.
In the Senate, it's been Senator Murkowski. And Senator Bingaman,
who has written a very good bill that I am proud to cosponsor.
I want to pay a particular complement to Senator Landrieu. I don't
agree with every provision of her bill. But she's been a determined and
articulate advocate, pressing her case at every opportunity.
There's not much time left in this session of Congress. But, if we
roll up our sleeves, and work together, we can pass a solid lands
legacy bill. A bill that not only is good for coastal States, like
Louisiana, Alaska, and California, but that also is good four the
entire nation, including the west.
From the western perspective, some folks are concerned about the
impact that they think these bills might have on private property
rights.
We may have differences about that.
But there's a lot that we ought to be able to agree on.
For example, all of the bills would increase funding under the
Pittman-Robinson Act, which supports State conservation programs.
All of the bills provide financial incentives for landowners to
take voluntary steps to improve the environment, such as through
conservation easements.
The Bingaman-Baucus bill would provide funding for voluntary
agreements with landowners to protect endangered species, which is
critical to making the Endangered Species Act work better and achieve
more widespread support.
And the Bingaman-Baucus bill would fully fund to make payments in
lieu of taxes, to offset the impact that Federal land ownership has on
our local tax base.
These are important improvements.
Mr. Chairman, with the legislation before us today, we have an
important opportunity. We can write a solid, bipartisan bill that
leaves our children and grandchildren a legacy, in the tradition of one
of your heroes, Theodore Roosevelt.
We must not let the opportunity pass.
__________
Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the State of
New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the committee is holding a hearing
on such an important issue, and I look forward to hearing the views of
our distinguished witnesses. I strongly support legislation to
establish permanent funding for the protection of our precious natural
resources.
Enactment of this critical legislation would make an enormous
difference in the legacy we leave to future generations of Americans. I
am pleased to say that I am a cosponsor of S. 2181 sponsored by Senator
Bingaman, as well as S. 446 sponsored by Senator Boxer.
Over the past 30 years, appropriations from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund have purchased three million acres of land for the
national park, forest, and refuge systems. And States have purchased
another two million acres with grants from the Fund. However, we must
do more. It is critical that we establish a secure long-term source of
funding for conservation activities.
In the past several years, this program has often received less
than one-quarter of the total authorized level, with no funding going
to the State and local portion of the program between 1995 and 1999.
Congress' failure to fully appropriate LWCF funds has delayed the
purchase of tens of millions of acres of land for previously authorized
park projects.
These delays typically result in higher prices for the land when it
is ultimately acquired, and natural resources' values are often lost or
degraded in the interim.
If we are going to make a significant investment in our nation's
natural resources and preserve our open spaces, a dedicated revenue
stream is essential.
Currently, we have a $10 billion backlog in Federal land
acquisition needs that includes areas vital to conserving wetlands,
watersheds, and wilderness; protecting refuges and habitat; preserving
important historic and cultural sites; and providing trails and open
spaces for outdoor recreation. If these national treasures are not
protected, they may be lost forever.
In addition to critical needs in the area of land acquisition, the
bills before us fund many other essential environmental programs,
including wildlife conservation, the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
Program, historic preservation and coastal protection.
Mr. Chairman, unrestrained development is putting pressure on our
existing public lands. Urban and suburban sprawl and the loss of open
space have become primary concerns for communities throughout the
country.
In the 1998 elections, there were over 240 State and local parks
and conservation ballot initiatives.
Approximately 72 percent were successful, including a $1 billion
open space initiative in my own State of New Jersey.
The American people are making their voices heard on this critical
issue, and passage of conservation legislation is a strong and
meaningful way to respond.
I look forward to working with the members of this committee to
ensure that we do the right thing by preserving and protecting our
critical natural resources.
__________
Statement of Hon. Bob Graham, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing. This year
during the 106th Congress we have an opportunity to enact the broadest
conservation measures since the 1980 Alaska lands bill and the original
Land and Water Conservation Fund of the 1960's. Our committee will be
playing a key role in forging the compromise that will be necessary if
we are to pass this critical legislation this year.
We are beginning the third full century of our nation's history.
The first was marked by the Louisiana Purchase which added almost 530
million acres to the United States. It changed the United States from a
eastern, coastal nation to one covering the entire continent. The
second century of our nation's history was marked by additions to the
public land trust. President Theodore Roosevelt started the century by
designating for Federal protection between 1901 and 1909 almost 230
million acres--a land area equivalent to that of all of the East coast
States from Maine to Florida and just under one-half of the area
purchased in the Louisiana purchase.
As we enter the third full century of our nation's history, we must
ask ourselves, how can we preserve these national treasures given the
changing nature of American society? In the next century, America will
become a different place. The Census Bureau predicts that our
population will grow from 275 million to 571 million. This population
will become progressively more urban, more diverse, and older. We must
work today to ensure that our approach to conservation is in tune with
the greater demands that will be placed on our natural system. We must
strive to meet the challenge posed by Theodore Roosevelt, who said,
``We must ask ourselves if we are leaving for future generations an
environment that is as good, or better, than what we found.''
As a member of ENR Committee I have been engaged in the CARA bill
debate since early 1999. I believe one of the most critical elements of
the final package is one outside of the jurisdiction of this committee,
but critical in our nation's conservation policy--funding for our
national parks. In April 1999 I introduced The National Park
Preservation Act, S. 819, with my colleagues Senators Reid, Mack, and
Cleland. This bill would establish a National Park Preservation Fund of
$500 million for actions by the National Park Service to protect or
restore core park resources that are threatened by actions inside or
outside park boundaries. Over the last year, I have visited multiple
national parks throughout the Nation and have been stunned by the
condition of park resources.
In the Everglades, human manipulation of watershed led to ecosystem
devastation. At Ellis Island National Monument, historic structures
left unmanaged are dilapidated. At Bandelier National Monument,
cultural artifacts are soiled by graffiti and are left unprotected from
erosion.
This weekend I will be visiting Olympic National Park to broaden my
perspective on the State of our national parks. My legislation will
provide the National Park Service with the funding it needs to address
the condition of its natural, cultural, and historical resources. I
hope that each of you will join me in my support for our National Park
System and for forward progress on the OCS Revenue bills that we are
considering today.
This Congress has the opportunity to meet the challenge posed by
Theodore Roosevelt to leave our world a better place for future
generations. We have the opportunity, with action on the bills before
us today, to reach the people of the next century with the vision of
John Muir who said: ``Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized
people are beginning to find out that going to the mountains is going
home; that wilderness is a necessity; and that mountain parks and
reservations are useful not only as fountains of timber and irrigating
rivers, but as fountains of life.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
__________
Opening Statement of Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, U.S. Senator from the
State of Connecticut
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this important hearing. Rarely
are we presented with choices that will so profoundly influence the
environmental future of this nation as this one, the debate over Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas revenues. Happily, we have already
witnessed a tremendous commitment of time and effort to this important
subject, both here in the Senate and in the House. Let me begin by
recognizing that commitment, particularly on the part of my colleagues
who have introduced their own legislation, including Senators
Murkowski, Bingaman, Landrieu, Boxer, and Graham.
I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss this subject further
and look more closely at S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181 here today,
because I know that the conservation of land and wildlife is of great
concern to the people in my home State of Connecticut and around the
country. Last year, Connecticut passed an Open Space and Watershed Land
Grant Program with a goal of preserving as open space 21 percent of the
State--roughly half a million acres--by the year 2023. One hundred and
15 land trusts are now active and growing in Connecticut. Across the
United States, similar groups are also working hard to protect and
preserve lands in their own backyards.
The stakes are large, and it is clear that these groups cannot do
it alone. Local and State efforts need the support of a larger,
national vision of conservation and stewardship. The concept behind all
three bills we will consider today is straightforward: we should
reinvest the proceeds gained by the depletion of federally owned, non-
renewable natural resources such as oil and gas, into a reliable source
of funding for State, local, and Federal conservation and environmental
stewardship efforts. There are differences between how the bills would
achieve this goal, some of them significant, but before addressing
those differences, I believe it is important to recognize the value of
the underlying concept.
A few years ago, the late Senator John Chafee and Senator Jim
Jeffords and I also developed legislation on this subject, S. 1573, the
Natural Resources Reinvestment Act. We drafted S. 1573 based on four
basic principles that I still believe are relevant to crafting an
environmentally sound and regionally equitable proposal for reinvesting
OCS revenue. First, OCS revenues should be reinvested in the nation's
resources--environmental, natural, cultural and historic. Second, this
reinvestment must be meaningful and lasting. Third, we should
distribute the revenues equitably among all regions of this great
nation. Fourth, we should make the funding for our national
reinvestment permanent.
The bills before us today address these fore, core principles to
varying degrees. There is still time to blend them into a final
legislative product. I look forward to hearing our witnesses today and
learning from their perspectives on the principles I have described, as
well as on other improvements that might yet be made. Finally, I look
forward to a constructive dialog with my colleagues in the coming weeks
as we address these remaining challenges and work toward creating a
tremendous national environmental legacy that seems increasingly within
our reach and our grasp.
__________
Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from the State of
California
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding a hearing on what I
consider to be the most important and historic conservation legislation
to come before this Congress. I am pleased to say that I have been
involved from the very start in the effort to create a permanent source
of conservation funding. In February 1999, Representative Miller and I
introduced the Permanent Protection of America's Resources 2000 Act, a
bill that would provide nearly $3 billion in funding for a variety of
important conservation programs. Since then, I have worked closely with
Senator Bingaman and Senator Baucus to develop the Conservation and
Stewardship Act, S. 2181. I am deeply committed to the passage of
conservation funding legislation.
I want to begin by congratulating my colleagues, Chairman Young and
Representative Miller, for their remarkable and successful efforts to
pass H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. I am thrilled
that we have gotten to the point we are at now. The House-passed bill,
while not perfect, offers a useful starting point for the Senate. I was
particularly pleased with several key changes that I believe largely
address the question of drilling incentives.
Several days after the victory on the House floor, I introduced
identical legislation in the Senate and had it placed on the Senate
calendar. I did this not because I endorse everything that is in the
House bill but rather, because I believe that the fastest way to pass
conservation funding legislation is to take up where the House left
off. With so few days left in the legislative calendar, I fear the
Senate will miss its opportunity to work on this important issue unless
we move forward expeditiously. It would be a tragedy if we let this
session of Congress end without passing this critical legislation to
protect our invaluable natural and cultural heritage.
I understand that Chairman Murkowski has scheduled a mark-up for
these bills in mid-June. I commend the chairman, Senator Bingaman,
Senator Landrieu and others on the Energy Committee who have been
working for many months to find a compromise; I hope that they are
indeed able to move a strong bill out of their committee.
Whatever bill becomes the final vehicle, it should accomplish the
following four goals: 1) provide substantial and permanent funding for
conservation purposes; 2) ensure that the funds will be used only for
the benefit of the environment; 3) give adequate guidance to direct the
funds to the most pressing conservation needs; and 4) be free of any
incentives for increased offshore oil and gas development.
I believe that S. 2181 most effectively accomplishes these goals.
Although many of the bills have similar features, S. 2181 has some
important distinguishing characteristics that are worth highlighting.
Importantly, S. 2181 includes an incentives program for landowners who
contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species.
Increased outreach to landowners is desperately needed to ensure the
continued survival of many endangered and threatened species that are
found primarily on private lands.
Like many of the other conservation funding bills, S. 2181 also
provides funding to State fish and wildlife agencies for wildlife
protection. The bill, however, provides specific guidance to the
States, including a requirement that they develop a strategic plan for
using these funds. This ensures that the funds will be used for nongame
and game species alike and that the funds will be directed to the
species that have the greatest conservation needs. The planning
language for this title is supported by a broad array of wildlife
interest groups.
S. 2181 also provides greater clarity to coastal States about the
use of coastal impact assistance funds. It ensures that the funds will
be used only for projects related to environmental enhancement or
restoration. Without such explicit restrictions, there will be pressure
at the State level to siphon off these dollars for activities
completely unrelated to conservation, including environmentally harmful
activities.
Finally, S. 2181 includes safeguards to ensure that the bill in no
way creates incentives for State or local governments to support
increased offshore oil and gas drilling.
These are all features that should be incorporated into any bill
that moves forward in the Senate. The level of public awareness and
interest in these conservation issues has grown dramatically as people
realize that our natural and cultural treasures will continue to
disappear unless we act quickly to save them. During the last election
there were a record number of successful State ballot initiatives
directed at the protection of open space, slowing of suburban sprawl,
and increasing environmental protection. By margins of nearly 2 to 1,
Californian voters passed two major bond initiatives: a $2.1 billion
bond for land acquisition, outdoor recreation, urban parks, farmland
protection, and wildlife habitat; and a drinking water bond providing
$1.9 billion for watershed restoration and water quality improvement.
Americans understand that we can't afford not to make a long-term
investment in our natural treasures.
This level of public interest is reflected by the fact that nearly
every Governor has expressed support for the idea of permanent
conservation funding. The White House has sent strong signals of
endorsement. And most recently, the House demonstrated unequivocally
that broad bipartisan support exists across the political spectrum and
from all geographic regions. This is as it should be.
It is time now for the Senate to act. I am committed to doing
everything I can to create a permanent source of conservation funding,
and I am hopeful that we can pass legislation to do so this year.
__________
Statement of Hon. Thad Cochran, U.S. Senator from the State of
Mississippi
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing
today.
The Federal Government has too often used Outer Continental Shelf
revenues for big, high profile projects, and has virtually left out
small States like Mississippi. We have smaller projects, and our needs
are not nearly as great as some of the larger States, but yet they are
very real and very important to the people who live in Mississippi.
This legislation will shift more of the money that comes from these
resources to States like Mississippi.
We have environmental organizations and State agencies that are
trying hard to protect fragile wetlands and fisheries resources, and we
are restoring the habitat of the osprey and eagle. Great progress is
being made on these and other similar initiatives, but we need the
extra money this bill will provide to enable our State to do the job
right.
For many years, we have sought additional funding for the ``State-
side'' portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which provides
Federal funding for State initiatives for the protection of valuable
natural resources and fish and wildlife habitat. Our bill provides full
funding for the State's share while still providing for Federal
programs, coastal conservation and impact assistance, wildlife
conservation and education programs, and historic preservation.
I'm glad to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I hope this
committee will recommend its approval by the Senate.
__________
Statement of Hon. Mary L. Landrieu, U.S. Senator from the State of
Louisiana
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act (S. 2123). The Conservation and
Reinvestment Act represents a unique opportunity to enact legislation
making the largest commitment to conservation in the history of our
nation. This compelling and balanced bipartisan legislation would
reinvest a significant portion of the annual funds received from the
liquidation of a capital asset of the nation--offshore oil and gas in
the conservation of our coasts, our wildlife resources, our scenic
natural resources and our children, through enhanced outdoor and
recreational opportunities. It is free of harmful environmental impacts
to coastal and ocean resources; does not unduly hinder land acquisition
yet acknowledges Congress' role in making these decisions; reflects a
true partnership among Federals State and local governments and
reinvests in the renewable resource of wildlife conservation through
the currently authorized Pittman-Robertson program by nearly doubling
the Federal funds available for wildlife conservation and education
programs. The legislation is supported by a grassroots coalition of
approximately 4,500 organizations from around the Nation including the
Nature Conservancy and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. To date we have 19
cosponsors and counting, including members from both sides of the aisle
and from coastal and interior States. In fact, I am proud to point out
that four members of this committee: Chairman Smith as well as Senators
Warner, Bond and Wyden are cosponsors of S. 2123.
On May 11, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 701, the
bipartisan House companion to S. 2123, by an overwhelming vote of 315
to 102. Congressmen Don Young (R-AK), George Instiller (D-CA), Billy
Tauzin (R-LA), John Dingell (D-MI), Chris John (D LA) deserve accolades
for this remarkable compromise.
This legislation provides $2.8 billion for seven distinct
reinvestment programs. Title I authorizes $1 billion for Impact
Assistance and Coastal Conservation by creating a revenue sharing and
coastal conservation fund for coastal States and eligible local
governments to mitigate the various impacts of OCS activities while
providing funds for the conservation of our coastal ecosystems. ID
addition, the funds of Title I will support sustainable development of
nonrenewable resources without providing incentives for new oil and gas
development. All coastal States and territories will benefit from
coastal impact assistance under this legislation, not just those States
that host Federal OCS oil and gas development. Title II guarantees
stable and annual funding for the State and Federal sides of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at its authorized $900 million level
while protecting the rights of private property rights owners as I am
sure my colleagues from the House side will be more than happy to point
out during their testimony. The bill will restore Congressional intent
with to the LWCF, the goal of which is to share a significant portion
of revenues from offshore development with the states to provide for
protection and public use of the natural environment. Title III
establishes a Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Fund at $350
million through the successful program of Pittman-Robertson by
reinvesting the development of nonrenewable resources into a renewable
resource of wildlife conservation and education. This new source of
funding will nearly double the Federal funds available for wildlife
conservation. This program in particular enjoys a great deal of support
through the tireless support of a coalition of over 3,000 groups known
as Teaming with Wildlife. In addition, the Wildlife Conservation
program would be enhanced without imposing new taxes. Title IV provides
$125 million for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovered program
through matching grants to local governments to rehabilitate and
develop recreation programs, sites and facilities. The Urban Parks and
Recreation program would enable cities and towns to focus on the needs
of its populations within our more densely inhabited areas with fewer
greenspaces, playgrounds and soccer fields for our youth. Stable
funding will provide greater revenue certainty to State and local
planning authorities. Title V provides $100 million for a Historic
Preservation Fund through the programs of the Historic Preservation
Act, including grants to the States' maintaining the National Register
of Historic Places and administering numerous historic preservation
programs Title VI provides $200 million for Federal and Indian Lands
Restoration through a coordinated program on Federal and Indian lands
to restore degraded lands, protect resources that are threatened with
degradation and protect public health and safety. Title VII provides
$150 million for Conservation Easements and Species Recovery through
annual and dedicated funding for conservation easements and funding for
landowner incentives to all in the recovery of endangered and
threatened species. Finally, there is up to $200 million available for
the Payment In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program through the annual interest
generated from the CARE fund.
I would like to close by pointing out that the opportunity exists
to make the Conservation and Reinvestment Act even stronger. There are
additional programs such as urban forestry and national park resources
which we plan to address. In addition, as many of you know, Senator
Bingaman has introduced a bill, the Conservation and Stewardship Act,
which shares similar goals, albeit through a slightly different
approach. I applaud Senator Bingaman for his efforts and hope we are
able to reach a compromise in the near future as prospects for this
legislation may never again be as positive as they are in the year
2000. We must resolve our differences of approach and enact this major
commitment to conservation that will benefit not just certain people or
certain regions of the country, but all Americans for generations to
come.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
__________
Statement of Hon. Don Young, U.S. Representative from the State of
Alaska
Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank you for allowing me to
testify today on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, the bill known
as CARA. While there are several conservation measures before the
Senate, I will focus my testimony on H.R. 701 which passed the House
Thursday, May 11, 2000.
After 2-days of debate and 26 amendments, the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act of 2000 passed the House of Representatives by a vote
of 315 to 102. This vote was important as it is a clear super-majority
of the House and represents a majority of both Republicans and
Democrats.
I am certain this overwhelming bipartisan support was possible
because of the process CARA was formed within. It was a fair and
lengthy process that demanded a great deal of commitment and most
importantly patience. The Resources Committee held 5-days of
legislative hearings and hours of Member negotiations;
Ultimately, two things made our process effective. First, we had a
commitment to work together in solving real problems. As you have
witnessed, this initiative uncovers several problems. Some of the
solutions were challenging and others are too difficult to resolve
within this bill. However, H.R. 701 finds balance on issues ranging
from incentives for new oil and gas drilling to providing unity for the
wildlife community. CARA addresses the concern that it could create
incentives for new oil and gas development, by protecting current
moratoria areas. And the new wildlife program provides funding for a
State-controlled wildlife conservation and education program to the
benefit of game and non-game species.
The most persistent issue for CARA has been the discussion on
property rights. Let me say for the record, H.R. 701 protects the
rights of landowners--It does not diminish them.
If you care about willing sellers, a process to notify the public
of new Federal land acquisitions, a reasonable Congressional process
for new Federal land acquisition and Federal regulatory limitations--
you cannot be happy with current law. Current law falls terribly short
on these issues and CARA corrects these problems to the benefit of land
owners.
But don't just take the advocates word for it. I ask that you read
the bill. But also listen to one of CARA's critics who voted against
the bill in committee and on the House Floor. Congressman Richard Pombo
of California, a long-time champion of property rights, said the
following: ``I will have to also say that I do not believe that there
is anything in this legislation that directly takes away people's
property rights.'' Congressman Pombo has fought for property rights
along the side of Billy Tanzin and I long before it became a popular
issue.
The second issue that made our House process successful is the
revelation that the most significant enemy of this good legislation is
perfection. I think we all use that statement quite often, but it seems
to apply to this legislation.
CARA is such a comprehensive conservation and recreation package,
it is almost every Member's first instinct to see how one additional
change will bring the bill closer to perfection. In the end, we found
that the negotiated bill was worth protecting. As amendments and
changes have been made, we have successfully worked to protect the
central components of the bill. However, by returning CARA to an on-
budget framework, providing protections for Social Security and
Medicare and making reasonable changes for land acquisition policy,
CARA has become a more balanced package.
This conservation and recreation package will benefit the Nation
for decades to come and the Senate has a historic opportunity to
continue the efforts of this growing coalition by passing a bill this
session. I hope that your process will be one that capitalizes upon the
coalition that has rallied around these issues. A coalition that has
grown to 4,576 Governors, local governments, national and local
organizations and countless individuals across the nation.
Thank you for allowing me to testify and I ask that the list of the
4,576 supporting organizations be included in the record.
__________
Statement of Hon. George Miller, U.S. Representative from the State of
California
Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, and members of the committee, I
appreciate your providing me the opportunity to testify today on the
most important environmental and resource protection initiative to come
before Congress in many years.
When we began formulating various versions of this proposal--
Chairman Young, Senator Murkowski and Senator Landrieu called theirs
``The Conservation and Reinvestment Act,'' Senator Boxer and I called
ours ``Resources 2000''--nearly everyone said the bills were too big,
too expensive, too far reaching.
When we said we would try to merge the bills, nearly everyone said
it was impossible. Don Young and George Miller, together at last? But
we did it. They said we'd never get it out of the Resources Committee;
we did, by a 3-1 bipartisan vote.
They said we could never build a national coalition of parks and
wildlife and trails and soccer enthusiasts; of hunters and hikers and
State and local officials; of sports teams and sports manufacturers, of
police and firmer city recreation programs. We did, and over 4,000
organizations and individuals and dozens of newspapers and Legislatures
and city and county governments and others embraced our bill.
They said we'd never get it scheduled for the House floor; too much
ideological opposition, too many budget questions, too many
jurisdictional fights between committees. But 3 weeks ago, 315 Members
of the House, a majority of both parties, proved all the doubters
wrong.
We delivered to the American people on a promise we made 36 years
ago--and then forgot: a permanent, substantial commitment to invest a
portion of offshore revenues back into our parks and our coasts, our
urban recreation and our wildlife.
And despite the inflamed rhetoric you will hear from a tiny
minority of voices, we did it responsibly, without trampling on
property rights or States rights. In fact, our legislation takes
special care to protect property owners by giving them notice, ensuring
they are involved in the process, focusing on alternatives to
acquisition, and by putting most of the money--about 80 percent of it--
into the hands of State and local of finials, not into the hands of
those promoting Federal land acquisition.
So now the responsibility is yours. You can listen to the rhetoric
of the nay-sayers and the doubters and kill this legislation; you can
say ``no'' to the 80 to 90 percent of people in your State--in
practically every State, Frank Luntz' poll tells us--who want to fund
parks and recreation and wildlife.
Or you can do what we did in the House: look at what this bill
really says, not how it is characterized. Listen to your constituents,
not to hysterical voices who mix--state the intent and the letter of
the legislation. Put aside the party and ideological and jurisdictional
divisions just long enough to do something that will endure longer than
any of us.
If Don Young and George Miller can figure out how to work together
to pass CARA with 315 votes in the House, I think the U.S. Senate can
figure it out, too.
When a number of us were down at the White House a few weeks ago--
Sens. Murkowski, Landrieu, Breaux, Bingaman and Boxer; Congressmen
Young, Tauzin, John, Dingell and I--the President told us, and every
one of us agreed, that it would be shameful if we fail to pass this
bill after having brought it so far. He's right. And the American
people overwhelmingly agree with him.
So let's figure out how to get it done. Our resources--whether the
coast of Louisiana, or the wildlife, or the parks, or the soccer teams,
or any of the others who will benefit are at risk--we don't have years
to delay. We've been waiting for three decades. Let's redeem the
promise now.
__________
Statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth-Hage, U.S. Representative from the
State of Idaho
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today, and for
giving me the opportunity to testify before the Senate today on the
``Conservation and Reinvestment Act,'' (or CARA), a bill which will
have far reaching implications for the nation. I also want to recognize
my own Chairman, Don Young, who is here today to testify on behalf of
the legislation. I want to reiterate that although we fundamentally
disagree on this legislation (which is rare), I do admire the ability
of Chairman Young to work across party lines, and I think it is
important to be able to agree with one another and work together. But
not at the expense of our constituents out there, our private property
owners.
Mr. Chairman, I am fully aware of the support that has been amassed
in support of CARA. But I strongly urge this committee and the Senate
in its deliberative nature to pull the reigns on this fast-moving
wagon, and take a long and hard look at what we are doing. This bill
establishes a $40 billion mandatory fund over the next 15 years,
billions of which will be given to the Federal Government, States,
tribes and even non-profit organizations to purchase private property,
forever taking lands out of production and off the tax rolls. Billions
more will be at the control of the Secretary of Interior to fund
everything under the sun, with little oversight by Congress. This bill
also establishes a permanent revenue source for non-governmental
organizations, to carry out their purposes.
The point is, Mr. Chairman, is that CARA will dramatically impact
the lives of many of our constituents, it will dramatically expand the
scope and power of the Federal Government, and it will dramatically
reduce the Constitutional role of Congress to control the purse
strings. And for that reason, we cannot, we must not let CARA be
enacted into law. Whatever temporary benefits are derived, or pressure
that is relieved from clamoring special interest groups, will be more
than outweighed by the ultimate costs of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I only have a few minutes to speak on this issue--so
I will cut to what I believe are the central issues that Congress must
consider on this legislation. First, while CARA is being established
under the guise of ``environment'' and ``conservation,'' its true
premise has more to do with who will own and control property and its
use in the United States of America.
When did we conclude that the government can manage the land more
responsibly and efficiently than the private property owner?
When did we decide that it was the duty of the government to
consume and govern the use of private property?
The truth is that a private property owner categorically does a
better job of utilizing and conserving private property. Government, by
its very nature, is inefficient and unhealthy when it comes to managing
land and water. One only need to look at the recent debacle created by
the Federal Government in the fires of New Mexico, the $12 billion
backlog in maintenance and repairs for NPS facilities, and the woeful
state of our national forests to prove this point.
Second, Mr. Chairman, we must look at what kinds of precedents CARA
will set in terms of additional mandatory trust funds taken from
general revenue streams? Consider what it will do to our fiscal
priorities such as paying down our debt and shoring up Social Security,
building up our national defense, and providing tax relief. Every
dollar set aside for CARA is a dollar taken away from these priorities.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, when presented with the facts, other
national priorities far outweigh CARA. In a recent national poll, by a
margin of 72 percent to 13 percent, Americans rejected spending for
CARA when told that it will shift funds away from Social Security and
debt reduction. Moreover, Americans on an eight to one margin said that
we should address our maintenance needs first before acquiring more
lands. Finally, on a list of priorities, only 1 percent picked land
acquisition as our most important priority.
Mr. Chairman, I want to let the committee know that I have studied
every provision and word in this legislation, and have carefully
considered how it will be interpreted. There is so much more to say,
and I hope that the Members of this committee would probe this issue
through questions.
Finally, Mr Chairman, in considering CARA, I would urge the
committee to keep the words one of our founders John Adams in the
forefront of their minds. Adams warned: The moment that the idea is
admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God
and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it,
anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot
exist.
Again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my views on
this critical issue.
__________
Statement of Hon. John Shadegg, U.S. Representative from the State of
Arizona
Chairman Smith, thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding
the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). While I oppose this
legislation, I want to take a moment and compliment its three principal
authors, Representatives Young, Tauzin, and Miller. I think it is safe
to say that this coalition of men who have often been fierce
adversaries on issues relating to the environment and Federal land
policy is what has enabled this legislation to move forward. Each of
these Members brought their own distinct and differing priorities to
the table. Mr. Young fiercely advocated funding for the Pittman-Roberts
Wildlife Program. Mr. Tauzin fought to secure funding for coastal
States, such as his home State of Louisiana, which permit off-shore
drilling. Mr. Miller advanced the notion of full funding for Federal
and State land acquisition programs. On their own, each of these
proposals might not have gone very far in the legislative process.
Indeed I am confident that Mr. Young would have opposed a stand alone
measure which guarantees funding for Federal land acquisition just as
fiercely as Mr. Miller would have opposed funding that assisted a State
on the basis that it permitted offshore drilling. These Members,
however, were able to put aside their policy objections in the name of
creating one omnibus bill with a little bit of Federal money for
everyone, to create in the words of The Washington Post, a
``legislative freight train.'' In so doing they increased the
likelihood that each of them would see their own priority enacted into
lane While this arrangement may make good politics, I am afraid it
makes awful public policy.
Permit me to cite a few examples for the committee.
Private Property Rights--Proponents of CARA will tell you that
their bill strengthens private property rights and indeed the bill does
include several provisions such as community notification and
Congressional approval that improve the Federal land acquisition
process. However, the price paid for these provisions was extremely
high, namely the creation of an annual $450 million mandatory funding
stream for Federal land acquisition. Many private property rights
advocates, myself included, would argue that one of the greatest
threats to private property is the existence of such a large mandatory
funding stream exclusively for the purpose of acquiring more Federal
land. The proponents of this legislation will argue that this is not a
threat at all because to paraphrase them, ``on average, the Republican
Congress has provided around $400 million a year for Federal land
acquisition anyway.'' I would alert the committee to the fact that the
key to that statement is ``on average.'' While mathematically correct,
the use of an average by the proponents distorts the actual funding
trend. As you may recall, the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement included,
at the demand of President Clinton, a one-time appropriation for
Federal land acquisition of $697.7 million. This one-time agreement
dramatically inflates the 5-year average cited by proponents. If the
funds provided pursuant to the BBA agreement are excluded, the average
funding for Federal land acquisition during the Republican Congress
$263.4 million, almost $200 million less than what is provided annually
under CARA. Furthermore the bill actually repeals private property
rights protections that exist in current law under the State-side LWCF
Program and the Urban Parks Program.
Backlog Maintenance--Even in regards to protecting environmentally
sensitive land, the central issue which CARA is intended to address,
this legislation does more harm than good. CARA allocates $450 million
each year for Federal land acquisition but only allocates $180 million
per year for the upkeep and maintenance of existing Federal lands and
facilities. There currently exists between a $12 and $15 billion
maintenance backlog for federally owned properties. So at a time when
the Federal Government owns a third of all the land in the United
States and has a $15 billion maintenance backlog, CARA provides $2.50
for more Federal acquisition for every $1 it provides for maintenance.
At this rate, it will take 83 years to eliminate the current backlog.
Of course by acquiring more land we will increase our maintenance needs
and ultimately increase the backlog.
Financial Flexibility and Oversight--CARA creates a mandatory
spending program of approximately $3 billion per year for a 15 year
period; in effect, setting future Congresses on an autopilot course to
spending $45 billion. The Outer Continental Shelf revenues which CARA
will utilize are currently available for Congress to address any need
or priority, including education, our national defense, and tax relief.
Under CARA, this flexibility disappears. What is even worse is most of
the proposals for a dedicated funding stream for conservation,
including the proposal originally brought to the House floor by Mr.
Young, would spend $3 billion a year irrespective of the Federal
Government's financial situation. I think that most of use here today
would agree that it is foolish to assume that the economic prosperity
enjoyed by the American people and the Federal Government this year
will continue unchanged for the next 15 years. CARA, however, foolishly
locks us into spending $3 billion a year for the next 15 years.
The creation of a mandatory funding program also undermines the
ability of Congress to perform effective oversight over these Federal
programs. One of the most powerful tools of oversight this or any other
Congress enjoys is the power of the purse. Every year a majority of
each body attaches restrictions on the use of appropriated funds as a
way of addressing mismanagement, waste, and abuse in Federal programs.
When we take discretionary programs and turn them into mandatory
programs, we lose part of our ability to perform effective oversight.
CARA turns $3 billion a year for the next 15 years over to the
executive branch with relatively few strings attached.
There are numerous other policy objections to this legislation,
including increasing Federal land use planning, inadequate funding for
Payment in Lieu of Taxes, and the creation of funding mechanisms for
private non-governmental organizations. Each of these are outlined more
fully in the Policy Brief prepared by the House Conservative Action
Team which I am submitting for the record.
In closing, I would like to encourage my colleagues in the Senate
to be leery of the argument that we should pass this legislation
because it is what the American people are demanding. It is true, as
its proponents claim, that CARA has been endorsed by most of the
Governors, numerous mayors, and thousands of groups across this
country. A close look at this list, however, reveals that it is almost
entirely made up of groups which would be eligible for funding under
one or more titles of the bill. Those who have looked at this
legislation objectively, including both the Washington Post and the
Washington Times, two papers which rarely agree on anything, have
concluded that the bill is simply bad public policy.
Edmund Burke famously stated, ``Your representative owes you, not
his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving
you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.'' With the promise of free
money, it is very easy to get a group behind almost any legislative
proposal. CARA has attracted its supporters with little more than the
promise of free money. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to look
at these proposals objectively and weigh the benefits and the costs not
in a vacuum but in the context of our many competing national
priorities, and in the context of the most pressing conservation needs.
Analyzed in those contexts, I believe that you will find that these
proposals are full of good intentions, but bad policy.
CONSERVATIVE POLICY BRIEF
Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA)--H.R. 701 Analysis & Review
SUMMARY: CARA sets up a mandatory funding mechanism whereby $2.825
billion is annually taken from Outer Continental Shelf Revenues (mainly
oil and natural gas royalties which under current law are set aside to
address the environmental impact of offshore drilling) to the following
programs:
$1 billion to be distributed to Coastal States (includes any State
bordering the Great Lakes) $450 million for Federal Land and Water
Conservation Fund land acquisition $450 million for State Land and
Water Conservation Fund land acquisition $350 million for Federal Aid
in Wildlife Restoration (Pittman Robertson) $125 million for Urban Park
and Recreation Recovery Act $100 million for National Historic
Preservation $200 million for Indian and Federal Land Restoration $ 100
million for acquisition of Conservation Easements $50 million for
Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery.
CARA also makes up to $200 million annually in interest on the fund
available for Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Refuge Revenue
Sharing. However, the amount disbursed under the bill would be the
lesser of the amount appropriated from general funds or $200 million.
If Congress appropriated nothing from discretionary funds for PILT or
refuge revenue sharing, then CARA would also provide no funds.
The bill sunsets on September 30, 2015.
Budgetary impact: CARA declares off-budget the entire $2.825
billion it takes from the Outer Continental Shelf Fund and the interest
on the fund of up to $200 million. Since this money is currently
considered on-budget, the bill would have the effect of removing $3
billion annually from the budget process for the next 15 years. Since
the Budget Resolution adopted by Congress last month allocates all of
the surplus to either public debt reduction or tax relief. passage of
this bill would require Congress to either dip into Social Security,
cut the amount set aside for reducing the debt, or reduce the amount of
funds set aside for tax cuts.
Property rights: CARA contains a number provisions (including
notification of the public and government officials, willing seller
requirements, and Congressional approval) to protect private property
owners, HOWEVER, those provisions only apply to $450 million for the
Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. There are no private property
rights protections restricting the use of funds provided to State and
local governments. In fact, the bill actually eliminates property
protection provisions in current law related to acquisition of land.
Under the Urban Parks and Recreation Program (passed by a Democrat
Congress and signed into law by President Carter) none of the funds
made available by the Federal Government could be used for land
acquisition. CARA repeals that provision. Under the State Land and
Water Conservation Fund, the bill eliminates the current prohibition on
the use of funds for incidental costs related to State land
acquisition.
Some property rights advocates are also concerned that despite the
protections provided against Federal land acquisition, the creation of
an annual $450 million fund primarily dedicated for land acquisition
will only further encourage increased Federal acquisition. Right now,
funds for land acquisition have to compete against other priorities. In
the past it has been a priority of the Republican Congress to hold down
spending on acquisition and redirect funds to other priorities.
Maintenance backlog: Current cost estimates of the maintenance
backlog for federally owned properties, including the national park
system, range anywhere from $8 to $15 billion. CARA only allocates $180
million a year for Federal land maintenance, yet it allocates $450
million a year for Federal land acquisition. Over 15 years that is $2.7
billion for backlog maintenance and $6.75 billion for land acquisition.
In other words, CARA provides $2.50 to buy new Federal land for every
$1 it provides for maintenance. Furthermore, these new Federal lands
will also require maintenance which may further exacerbate the
maintenance backlog problem.
Funds for private organizations: Four of the seven titles within
CARA either specifically or implicitly provide authority for funds to
be transferred to private organizations. Title I--Impact Assistance and
Coastal Conservation--allows for cooperative initiatives with ``private
entities.'' Title III--Wildlife Conservation and Restoration--
authorizes grants and contracts for ``wildlife conservation
organizations and outdoor recreation and conservation education
entities. Title V--Historic Preservation Fund--authorizes funding for
the ``management entity for any national heritage area.'' Many of these
heritage areas are operated by private foundations. Title VII--
Conservation Easements--allows funds to be provided by the Secretary of
the Interior to private 501(c)(3) groups which are organized for
``conservation purposes'' to cover up to 50 percent of the costs of
acquiring an easement. CARA provides that these private organization
may hold title to and enforce any conservation easement. Some Members
are concerned that this is a method of funding land acquisition by some
environmental groups.
While it is impossible to put a dollar figure on the amount of
funds that could be provided to private organizations under CARA, it is
quite possible that millions of dollars a year could flow to private
organizations, such as the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, and the
Environmental Defense Fund with specific environmental or conservation
agendas. Indeed, this concern is significant enough that CARA includes
a provision to prohibit funds under Title III--Wildlife Conservation
and Restoration--from being used to promote or encourage opposition to
hunting.
Federal land use planning: CARA contains several provisions which
could significantly increase the Federal Governments involvement in
local land use planning. In order to receive funds under Title I
(grants to Coastal States) each State is required to submit a Coastal
State Conservation and Impact Assistance Plan setting outlining how
funds are to be used. This plan must be approved by the Secretary of
the Interior. Under Title II (Land and Water Conservation Fund) States
are also required to prepare a State Action Agenda ``in partnership
with its local governments and Federal agencies, and in consultation
with its citizens.'' (Emphasis added)
CARA also expands the ability of the Secretary of the Interior to
disapprove conversion requests submitted by State and local
governments. Under both the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the
Urban Parks program, current law states if a State or local government
wish to convert land that was acquired or developed with the assistance
of Federal funds to some other non-conservation or non-recreation
purpose (such as a new road) then it must be approved by the Secretary
of the Interior. Current law provides that the Secretary shall approve
of such conversions if he is satisfied that other properties of
equivalent fair market value and usefulness are set aside to replace
the land being converted. CARA expands the authority of the Secretary
of the Interior by providing that he shall only approve a conversion
request if the State ``demonstrates no prudent or feasible alternative
exists''. This exact language currently applies to conversion of
conservation lands for Federal transportation purposes. This authority
was recently used by the Secretary of the Interior to extract $20
million for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the Minneapolis /
St. Paul Airport as compensation for having flights approach the
airport over a wildlife reserve. (Source: Dear Colleague circulated by
Rep. Don Young 2-9-99)
Limited government: CARA resurrects two programs (State Land and
Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Parks Program) that the
Republican Congress had previously taken credit for eliminating.
(Source: Appropriations Committee Press Release touting ``Commitment to
Cut Government'' in Fiscal Year 1996)
additional concerns
1) Given that Congress has yet to fully fund Payments in Lieu of
Taxes (PILT), some Members are concerned that taking more land out of
private hands will significantly impact local economies and tax bases,
particularly for local schools and law enforcement. CARA does not
provide a guaranteed level of funding for PILT, the amount provided is
entirely dependent upon the amount provided in regular discretionary
appropriations.
2) In the view of some Members, CARA represents a significant
expansion of Federal spending. This will reduce the surplus directly
impacting Congresses ability to cut taxes, reduce debt, and meet other
priorities.
The views expressed in this Policy Brief do not necessarily reflect
the views of all Members of the Conservative Action Team. The
Conservative Action Team is a Congressional Member Organization of over
50 Republican House Members and is chaired by Representative John
Shadegg (R-AZ).
ATTACHMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CATs Policy Brief Young/Tauzin Response CATs Response to Young/Tauzin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regard to PILT and Refuge Revenue CARA creates a mechanism that Under CARA funding for PILT and
Sharing ". . . the amount disbursed should provide full funding for Refuge Revenue Sharing is
under the bill would be the lesser of PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing. contingent upon the amount
the amount appropriated from general CARA funds will be used to match appropriated by Congress in
funds or $200 million. the annual appropriation up to the regular appropriations bills. If
statutory cap for both programs.". Congress appropriates no money
for PILT or Refuge Revenue
Sharing, then CARA would provide
no funds for either program. This
is sharp contrast with the
mandatory funding provided for
other programs under CARA.
There are no private property rights This may or may not be true in There is a fundamental difference
protections restricting the use of every State. However, it is our between federal mandates and
funds provided to State and local understanding that many, if not restricting the use of federal
governments. most, States have protections for funds provided to the States. The
the rights of property owners. Republican Congress has
Legislating federal dictates to repeatedly included restrictive
local governments and States is language in grant programs. In
not a Republican nor fact CARA includes several
Constitutional principle. provisions restricting the use of
funds including, a cap on
administrative expenses and
penalties for using CARA funds
for unauthorized purposes.
In the past it has been a priority of That statement is not supported by While mathematically correct, the
the Republican Congress to hold down the facts. Our Republican Congress lectures provided by the
spending on acquisition and redirect has granted an average of $160 Resources Committee distort the
funds to other priorities. million above the Administration's actual funding trend. The 1997
request for LWCF land Balanced Budget Agreement
acquisitions, and average of $402 included a one-time appropriation
million each year. for LWCF of $697.7 million which
inflates the average provided by
the Committee. If the funds
provided pursuant to the BBA
agreement are excluded, the
average funding for LWCF during
the Republican Congress is $263.4
million.
Regarding Conservation easements--Some This title (Title VII, Subtitle A) CATs will review the new language
conservatives are concerned that this will be re-written per an in order to ascertain whether it
is a method of funding land agreement with the Committee on addresses the concerns raised in
acquisition by some environmental Agriculture. The new language the Policy Brief.
groups.. utilizes the funding for the Farm
Protection Program administered by
the Secretary of Agriculture--a
program supported by House
Republicans.
CARA contains several provisions which CARA does not provide the federal Current law regarding the
could significantly increase the control the policy brief alludes development Comprehensive State
federal government's involvement in to. Within Title I, the Secretary Plans does not require a State to
local land use planning. of the Interior is required to develop its plan in conjunction
approve State plans are consistent with the Federal Government.
with CARA's uses. While there is a CARA, however, specifically
plan within Title II, each State States that plans developed under
defines its own priorities and Title II shall be developed in
criteria.". conjunction with "Federal
agencies."
Given that the government currently This complaint speaks to the As discussed above, once the
owns 30% of all land in the United current process--a process CARA annual funding level is adjusted
States and that last year the improves. As mentioned above, CARA for a one-time appropriation.
Appropriations Committee identified is near the Republican Congress CARA's annual funding level of
$15 billion in backlog maintenance average annual appropriation ($402 $450 million for land acquisition
requirements, some conservatives do million). CARA creates many would be significantly higher
not approve of additional land property protections that do not than the Republican Congress
acquisition. The bill appropriates currently exist. At the same time, average of $263.4 million.
significantly more money for federal CARA will provide an additional
land acquisition, $450 million, than $200 million for current
it does for maintenance, $200 million. maintenance efforts. This year,
the administration has requested a
ratio of maintenance funding to
land acquisition at 3:1. The $200
million provided by CARA will be
in addition to the amount
appropriated by Congress.
CARA does not provide a guaranteed Today, the amount of funding Under CARA every program except
level of funding for PILT, the amount provided for PILT Is `entirely PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing
provided is entirely dependent upon dependent upon the amount provided has a guaranteed level of
the amount provided in the regular in the regular discretionary funding.
discretionary appropriations. appropriations'. With CARA, the
appropriators simply continue to
appropriate at historic levels and
the matching CARA funds do the
rest. CARA provides the only
opportunity to fully fund PILT and
Refuge Revenue Sharing.".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________
Statement of Jamie Rappaport Clark, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present the
Administration's views on S. 25, S. 2123 and S. 2181, all of which in
differing detail provide for permanent funding for a variety of
conservation programs from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas
receipts. The House 2 weeks ago passed its version of this legislation,
H.R. 701, the ``Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000?, or CARA,
which is very similar to S. 2123. I would like to first present the
Administration's goals for this legislation, summarize the bills, and
then address the specific areas in which the Fish and Wildlife Service
is involved and that are under the jurisdiction of the committee.
The President feels strongly that this is the year to secure
permanent funding for State and community efforts to protect wildlife
and local green spaces, reinforce Federal efforts to save natural and
historic treasures, and expand efforts at all levels to protect ocean
and coastal resources.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund was established to devote a
significant portion of the revenues from our offshore oil and gas
resources to conservation and outdoor recreation. Historically, as we
are all aware, the spending from the Fund has fallen far short of its
objectives, which is one of the reasons there has been such a
groundswell of support for the new legislation. We believe the time has
come to secure permanent funding to ensure that the vision for the Land
and Water Conservation Fund is fulfilled, and that this vision is
adapted to meet today's conservation challenges.
More specifically, while we believe there must continue to be a
strong Federal role in the protection of our natural resources--
particularly resources of national significance for which the
responsibility for protection goes beyond the State or local level--
there is a growing need and demand for additional assistance to States,
Tribes and communities struggling to preserve green space, restore
degraded lands and provide increased recreational opportunities.
Natural resource protection is Rotund cannot be the exclusive role of
the Federal Government. Many conservation needs are most appropriately
and most effectively addressed at the State or local level; or through
public-private partnerships.
The bills before you take this approach--matching grants for
acquisition or easements to protect locally important lands, matching
grants to States to preserve wildlife habitat and protect and restore
coastal areas, matching grants to help recover endangered species,
grants and technical assistance for urban parks, and matching grants to
protect farms and ranches from development--along with guaranteeing
funds for Federal acquisition from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund.
The Administration has several broad goals for the final version of
this legislation. We believe it must not impose burdensome or
unnecessary restrictions on Federal authority to acquire and protect
critical lands; it must ensure that new funding is devoted to purposes
consistent with the environmental and conservation goals of the
legislation; it must ensure that new funding for wildlife protection be
targeted primarily for at-risk and non-game species; in order to
provide continuity between Federal and State programs, the Department
of Commerce must have appropriate oversight authority for marine or
coastal plans, without modifying the existing responsibilities of other
agencies, and it must not establish new incentives for offshore
exploration or development. We also believe it must provide permanent
funding for conservation purposes within a balanced budget framework.
There is a tremendous degree of common ground between the
Administration's objectives and the bills pending before the committee.
The Administration is fully committed to working with Congress to
achieve these goals. We are pleased that H.R. 701 has passed the House
with such a broad bipartisan majority, and that you have scheduled this
hearing so quickly after the House action.
This is truly an opportunity, in the words of Theodore Roosevelt,
to leave ``an even better land for our descendants than it is for us.''
In the interest of simplicity, I will address my comments to S.
2123 and S. 2181, as Senator Landrieu, the sponsor of both S. 25 and S.
2123, has indicated she and the other cosponsors plan to base their
efforts on the latter bill.
Both bills provide permanently appropriated annual funding for a
similar but not identical group of conservation programs. S. 2123
provides for $1 billion to be allocated among all coastal States to
address the impacts of OCS oil leasing, while S. 2181 provides $365
million for an Oceans and Coastal Conservation Fund and a separate $100
million for impact aid to coastal producing States.
Both S. 2123 and S. 2181 provide the fully authorized amount of
$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, to be split 50
percent for Federal acquisition and 50 percent for State programs. In
addition, S. 2181 provides for $ 125 million for a new grant program to
assist in the conservation of Non-Federal Lands of Regional or National
Interest.
Both S. 2123 and S. 2181 provide $350 million for grants to the
States for wildlife conservation, to be managed through the existing
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration (Pit/man-Robertson) program. I will
subsequently discuss these provisions in more detail.
S. 2123 provides $100 million for historic preservation, while S.
2181 provides $150 million. S. 2123 provides $125 million for urban
parks and recreation recovery, while S. 2181 has $75
million, plus 550 million for an Urban and Community Forest
program. S. 2123 has $150 million for endangered species recovery
efforts and cooperative conservation easements, while S. 2181 has $50
million for endangered species recovery efforts, $50 million for
ranchland protection efforts under the Secretary of the Interior and
$50 million each for farmland and urban forest protection efforts under
the Secretary of Agriculture.
S. 2123 has $200 million for restoration of degraded Federal and
Tribal lands, while S. 2181 has $60 million for Youth Conservation
Corps projects, $150 million for National Park Service resource
protection, $ 15 million for coral reef protection efforts under the
Secretary of the Interior, with another $ 15 million available to the
Secretary of Commerce for coral reef activities under the Oceans and
Coastal Conservation Fund, and $25 million each for Forest Service
Rural Development Assistance and Rural Community Assistance programs.
S. 2181 makes funds directly available for Payment in Lieu of Taxes
(PILT), but does not include the Refuge Revenue Sharing program. S.
2123 makes up to $200 million in interest on the conservation funds
available to supplement appropriations for Revenue Sharing and PILT. It
also-makes between $40-50 million available annually from interest for
the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund; this is not covered in
S. 2181.
The portions of these programs in which the Fish and Wildlife
Service is actively involved and which I understand to be in whole or
part within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public
Works are the coastal impact assistance, the wildlife conservation
grants to the States, the endangered species recovery and conservation
easement grants; in S. 2123, funding for Refuge Revenue Sharing and the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act; and, in S. 2181, the coral
reef programs. We are also involved and interested in the Federal
portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and in S. 2123, the
Federal Lands Restoration Fund, both of which I understand to be under
the jurisdiction of the Energy Committee and which I will therefore not
address today.
The two bills take very different approaches to the issue of
coastal impact aid. S. 2123 has a large overall program under the
Secretary of the Interior, who has jurisdiction over the offshore
leasing program and who oversees numerous programs addressing coastal
conservation and environmental issues. However, this approach makes
only limited provision for the interests of the Department of Commerce,
which has several major coastal programs that directly relate to the
purposes of the State grants.
Many Senators are familiar with the Department of Commerce's marine
programs under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, the National Marine Sanctuary Act, the Coastal Zone Management
Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the
Oil Pollution Act, CERCLA, the Clean Water Act, the National Invasive
Species Act, the Hydrographic Services Act, the Coastal Wetlands
planning, Protection and Restoration Act, and Nation Sea Grant College
Program Act. You may not be as familiar with the Fish and Wildlife
Service's activities and authorities. Commerce will submit a statement
for the record setting forth these authorities.
Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, we have jurisdiction over
polar bears, walrus, sea otters and manatees, while Commerce has
jurisdiction over truly marine species like whales and dolphins. We
have shared jurisdiction with Commerce for many anadromous fish such as
Atlantic salmon and striped bass. We co-chair with Commerce the Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force, and the President's budget requests
includes over $10 million for Service activities to address this
problem.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is statutorily designated to comment
on fish and wildlife impacts from Clean Water Act section 404 permits
and other water-related development activities under Federal
authorization or permit. Over 45 percent of all threatened and
endangered species, virtually all of which are our responsibility,
inhabit coastal areas, as do, at one point or another in their life
cycle, 85 percent of all waterfowl and other migratory birds, which are
solely under our jurisdiction.
We have a Coastal Program dedicated to conserving coastal habitats
for the benefit of fish, wildlife and people, primarily through
partnership efforts. Since 1994, we have protected over 166,000 acres
of coastal habitat through easements or acquisition, restored more than
46,000 acres of coastal wetlands and 17,000 acres of coastal uplands,
and reopened nearly 2,300 miles of coastal streams for anadromous fish.
The budget request for this program for fiscal year 2001 is nearly
$9,000,000. We also administer the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, which
prevents taxpayer subsidies for development in Congressionally
designated undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and gulf
coasts.
We have over 150 National Wildlife Refuges in coastal, bay or
estuarine areas in every coastal State, comprising a total of nearly 36
million acres. Through these refuges, we manage and conserve virtually
all elements of coastal and coastal-related ecosystems. In the last
three fiscal years we have received a total of over $106 million for
land acquisition at our coastal refuges. In addition, some of these
refuges contain major areas of coral reef resources. We estimate that
1.5 million acres of coral reef resources are under our management and
control within National Wildlife Refuges. There are an additional
approximately I.4 million acres of coral reef habitat that occur in the
immediate vicinity of these refuges, where we are working in
cooperation with State, local and other jurisdictions on conservation
efforts.
Under the Coastal Wetlands, Planning, Protection and Restoration
Act, we made grants of over $ 11 million to coastal States last year,
and work with the Corps of Engineers and other Federal and State
agencies on coastal wetlands restoration in Louisiana. We administer
the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, under which funds (also
$11 million last year) are earmarked for coastal wetland protection and
enhancement grants. One of our major programs, Federal Aid in Sport
Fish Restoration, provides grants to States for both freshwater and
marine fishing, fish habitat, and water access projects. In recent
years, we have provided an average of over $40 million annually to
coastal States for projects related to marine fishing or marine
fisheries habitat protection. In addition, we administer under the main
Sport Fish program the Clean Vessel Act, which provides grants for
pumpout stations for boat toilets, and a new Recreational Boating
Infrastructure grant program, both of which benefit both coastal and
inland waters. The grant amounts for those programs this year will be
$10 million and $8 million, respectively.
In contrast to the divergence on coastal programs, the bills have
virtually identical provisions for matching grants to the States for
wildlife conservation. We seek only a few changes with respect to Title
III. Both bills require an emphasis on species that are not hunted or
fished; however, we feel strongly that there should be greater
direction that the funds be used for at-risk and non-game species.
These grants, particularly if focused as we request, can be an
invaluable tool to help prevent populations of non-game fish and
wildlife from declining to the point where they would need regulatory
protections such as listing under the Endangered Species Act. Game
species have had decades of assistance through the current Pittman-
Robertson Act program, which is financed by excise taxes on firearms,
ammunition, bows and arrows and related items. While non-game species
also receive major benefits from the habitat protection funded by the
Pittman-Robertson Act, the primary focus has quite understandably been
on game species.
The nation's hunters have long been enthusiastic supporters of this
program, and it was their lobbying efforts in the 1930's which led to
imposition of the taxes and creation of the program. Regrettably, there
has since then not been any consensus on a similar funding mechanism
for non-game species.
Apart from the Pittman-Robertson Act, virtually all Federal
programs have been devoted toward species that have already declined to
the point that they need the protection of the Endangered Species Act.
There has been nothing in between, although we have been making efforts
in that direction through the Candidate Conservation program; yet this
also benefits only species that are on the brink of needing ESA
listing. Funding of the magnitude proposed in these bills could have
benefits for the nation's at-risk, non-game wildlife species that would
be almost impossible to exaggerate.
In addition to the inherent benefits to fish and wildlife, there
are nearly 63 million Americans who watch, feed or photograph wildlife
who would benefit from enactment of this program. These 63 million
people spend nearly $30 billion annually in the course of their
activities. There is therefore a strong economic benefit to be derived
from a non-game program.
We urge the committee to aggressively pursue enactment of this non-
game wildlife grant program, and hope that we can work with you to
determine the appropriate focus for the program.
We also believe the Tribal governments need to be included in the
wildlife conservation grants. As you know, the Administration included
within our budget a request for $100 million for non-game wildlife
grants to States. Within that, we proposed that 3 percent of the funds
be available for grants to Tribal governments, on a competitive basis,
and we would hope that you would consider a similar arrangement.
We are also very concerned about funds for administration of the
program. S. 2123 generally provides 2 percent of available funds for
administration of the various grant programs it authorizes, while
prohibiting any administrative funds for the non-game wildlife grants.
We understand that the prohibition in S. 2123 is a direct outcome of
the largely resolved problems which have been identified with
administration of our Federal Aid programs, an issue which I understand
the committee plans to take up next month. While we have been assured
from the House side, where the prohibition originated, that funding for
this program will be incorporated into final legislation, I wanted to
alert you to this issue. The program could fail without appropriate
oversight and administration, and we need an adequate level of funding
for administration if we are to make it work effectively.
S. 2181 does make 2 percent of Title III funds available for
administration of that Title. I would urge you to include provisions
for program administration funding within whichever version of these
bills eventually emerges.
I would also note that S. 2123 provides that the interest generated
on the funds set aside for the non-game grants would be made directly
available to the Secretary of the Interior for the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act. As the committee well knows, this is one of
the most successful and popular conservation programs in the country,
and demands for grant moneys, with matching funds, far exceed the
Federal funds available to make the grants. Through early fiscal year
2000, the $320 million in Federal funds issued as grants under this
program have generated over $800 million in matching funds from over
900 partners. Any funding which can be made available for this program
will be effectively and efficiently used.
Both bills provide funds for cooperative endangered species
recovery agreements. This is one of the most exciting concepts within
the legislation, and would prove of tremendous value to our recovery
efforts. Recovery, like conservation generally, cannot succeed as a
totally governmental effort. Unfortunately, we have had until recently
rather limited tools for assisting participation in recovery efforts by
non-Federal parties. We began receiving funds for landowner incentive
grants toward recovery in fiscal year 1999, the same year our Safe
Harbor policy became final. Both of these have proven extremely
successful, with the demand for landowner incentive grants far
exceeding available funding. Inclusion of a guaranteed funding source
in the final version of this legislation is probably the single most
effective action Congress could take to speed recovery for listed
species.
I would note that S. 2181 makes no provision for participation by
the Department of Commerce, in Title IV, the Endangered Species
Recovery Fund, nor for any use of the Title II Coastal Stewardship Fund
for listed species. Commerce does have jurisdiction over certain
anadromous fish species listed under the ESA, including salmon species
on the West Coast, and they should have the ability to either
participate in the Endangered Species Recovery Fund. Title VII of S.
2123 has participation by both the Secretaries of Interior and
Commerce, without any allocation of funds. Absent further Congressional
action on this point, the Administration would allocate the funds
between the two Departments as part of the budget process each year,
and act to ensure proper coordination between the Departments to avoid
duplication and waste.
Lastly, we have Refuge Revenue Sharing. S. 2123 provides for the
OCS funds to earn interest while awaiting obligation, up to $200
million of which would be available to pay a portion of the costs of
the Refuge Revenue Sharing and Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT)
programs, while S. 2181 provides ``such sums as may be necessary''
directly from the OCS receipts to ``fully fund payments to units of
general local governments as provided in this Act''. Inasmuch as this
portion of the bill is entitled ``Payments in Lieu of Taxes'', it would
appear that S. 2181 would not include Refuge Revenue Sharing.
As you may know, the Refuge Revenue Sharing program was not
designed as a Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, but has come to be one
in all but name. It authorizes the Secretary to make payments to local
governments based on the greater of 25 percent of revenue generated
from the sale of products, privileges and leases on National Wildlife
Refuges within their boundaries (not including fees), three-fourths of
1 percent of appraised fair market value of the refuge lands, or 75
cents per acre. If refuge receipts are not sufficient to meet the
entitlement, Congress is authorized to make up the difference with
appropriated funds. If sufficient funds are not available from either
source, the payments are proportionately reduced. I would urge you to
include the Refuge Revenue Sharing Program with the PILT program in
whichever version of these bills emerges.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my specific comments. The
Administration looks forward to working with this committee and the
rest of the Senate to build on the bipartisan spirit shown by the House
and to find a way do what the public clearly wants us to do--leave a
legacy of financial resources adequate to protect our Nation's national
treasures. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
__________
Statement of Sally Yozell, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, Department of Commerce
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Administration's views on S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, all of which
provide permanent funding for a variety of conservation programs from
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas receipts.
The Administration applauds the efforts of the Congress to provide
a permanent stream of significant new resources to support State and
community efforts to protect ocean and coastal resources. We believe
your efforts go hand in hand with strides the Administration has made
toward conserving and protecting these precious resources. The
President has outlined his priorities for land and water conservation
in the Lands Legacy Initiative submitted to Congress in his fiscal year
2001 budget request. Under this Initiative, the Department of Commerce
is requesting a significant increase ($263.3 million) for coastal and
marine activities. The total Department of Commerce Lands Legacy
request of $428.5 million is almost one-third of the total Lands Legacy
package--all dedicated toward protecting and conserving our precious
coastal and marine resources. This increase includes $100,000,000 for a
Coastal Impact Assistance Fund for coastal States.
The Administration supports the objectives of these conservation
bills, and we have several broad goals that we believe should be in any
final version of legislation:
it must not contain burdensome or unnecessary
restrictions on current Federal authority;
it must ensure that moneys available under the bill be
devoted to purposes consistent with the environmental and conservation
goals of the legislation;
it must ensure that funding for wildlife-related entities
and programs is targeted primarily for at-risk and non-game species;
and
the legislation must not establish new incentives for
offshore exploration or development. We also believe it must provide
permanent funding for conservation purposes within a balanced budget
framework.
In addition, to provide continuity between Federal and State
programs, the Department of Commerce must have appropriate oversight
authority for marine or coastal plans, without modifying the existing
responsibilities of other agencies.
I would like to direct almost all of my comments today to the
``coastal titles'' of the bills before us. As I am sure most of you
know, the Department of Commerce houses the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Nation's ``ocean agency.'' NOAA
has the scientific and management expertise, statutory authorities and
experience to address the marine and coastal issues included in these
bills. The Congress, throughout the years, has given NOAA a range of
authorities for managing coastal and marine resources, including: the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (including the
National Estuarine Research Reserve program), the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA), the Oil Pollution Act (OPA),
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA or ``Superfund''), the Clean Water Act, the National
Invasive Species Act (NISA), the Hydrographic Services Act, and the
National Sea Grant College Program Act (Sea Grant). Under each of these
statutes, NOAA has authority for conserving and managing the Nation's
marine and coastal resources.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NOAA has broad management authority
for the conservation and management of living marine resources off the
U.S. coasts,-the implementation and enforcement of domestic and foreign
fishing regulations in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, and the
implementation and enforcement of international fishery agreements. The
Magnuson-Stevens Act established a unique management system for marine
resources through a system of regional fishery management councils,
with which many of you are familiar. These regional councils provide a
mechanism for bringing diverse fisheries interests together in
developing fishery management measures to ensure sustainable fisheries
resources. In fiscal year 2000, NOAA received $170 million in
appropriations to implement the Magnuson-Stevens Act and is requesting
an increase of $40 million for fiscal year 2001.
The CZMA is another effective and long-standing tool that NOAA and
the States use to protect our precious coastal areas. Under the
authorities of the CZMA, NOAA implements the Coastal Zone Management
Program in partnership with the coastal States and territories of which
34 out of 35 are now participating. This program is completely
voluntary and coastal States have joined it over the years because it
works. This program aims to balance competing demands on coastal land
and water resources within the coastal zone, such as habitat
protection, coastal hazard mitigation, public access and development.
After receiving Federal approval through the Department of Commerce for
their State coastal zone management plans, the programs are carried out
through State laws that are consistent with national guidelines set by
NOAA. In fiscal year 2000,NOAA is providing $54.7 million in grants to
address the complex set of challenges that coastal States and
territories face, and another $2.5 million to strengthen efforts to
reduce the flow of polluted runoff into coastal waters. The President
has requested an increase of almost $100 million for this vital program
to better help States with the variety of issues facing their coasts
such as urban sprawl, polluted runoff, and other coastal hazards.
A vital part of the CZMA is the National Estuarine Research Reserve
System. This system of 25 estuarine field sites protects coastal
resources, provides a network of laboratories for scientific
investigation of coastal processes, and provides critical management
information to coastal decisionmakers. NOAA operates this program in
partnership with the 21 coastal States and territories that have, or
will soon have, designated Reserves. More than one million acres of
estuarine lands and waters are now protected through this system. The
fiscal year 2000 budget for this program is $6.0 million, with another
$ 13.25 million for construction and land acquisition within the
Reserve System. In fiscal year 2001, the System will grow to 27 sites
and has a requested budget of $20 million.
I would like to talk next about our National Marine Sanctuaries
program and the authorities vested in NOAA through the NMSA. Under NMSA
authorities, NOAA has established a unique network of marine protected
areas dedicated to the conservation of nationally significant areas of
the marine environment. This is unique legislation that focuses
protection solely on marine and coastal resources, which is NOM's
specific expertise. The National Marine Sanctuary Program currently
consists of 12 sites around the United States off the coasts of
Massachusetts, American Samoa, California, Washington, and Florida. We
even have one sanctuary, the Flower Garden Banks, in the middle of
``oil country'' in the Gulf of Mexico. Under the primary mandate of the
NMSA, NOAA protects the sanctuary resources, including natural and
cultural resources, through direct management actions, education, and
research programs. Management is through an ecosystem approach,
protecting biological, physical, and chemical qualities. NOAA's budget
for this vital program is $25.9 million for fiscal year 2000 and we are
requesting a total of $35 million for fiscal year 2001.
Under the MMPA, NOM is the lead agency for the conservation,
protection and recovery for over 100 species of marine mammals, such as
whales, dolphins, seals and sea lions. As the USFWS outlined earlier,
they manage four marine mammals under the MMPA--polar bears, manatees,
sea otters and walrus. Under the ESA, we have jurisdiction over marine
species, such as Pacific salmon and share jurisdiction over Atlantic
salmon and sea turtles with USFWS. NOAA received approximately $155
million under these two authorities in fiscal year 2000. The
President's fiscal year 2001 request includes a large increase and
totals $280 million.
Under CWPPRA, NOM serves on a Task Force with four other Federal
agencies and the Governor of Louisiana as part of an ongoing effort to
restore the coastal wetlands of Louisiana. CWPPRA provides funding and
support for the restoration, protection, conservation and enhancement
of threatened wetlands in the Louisiana coastal zone. This ongoing
partnership between the Federal Government and the State has resulted
in funding for 111 restoration projects totaling over $340 million,
designed to address the rapid loss of Louisiana's wetlands. The Task
Force was responsible for the preparation of a comprehensive coastal
Restoration Plan for the State of Louisiana, which was completed at the
end of 1993, and conducts a scientific evaluation of the completed
wetlands restoration projects every 3 years and reports the findings to
Congress. In fiscal year 2000, NOAA is spending approximately $7
million on CWPPRA implementation.
NOAA is also the primary Federal trustee for protecting and
restoring coastal and marine resources injured by releases of oil and
other hazardous substances under the Clean Water Act, CERCLA, and OPA,
except in certain cases where the resources are managed by the
Department of the Interior. The President has designated specific
Federal officials to act on behalf of the public for natural resources
managed or controlled by the United States, including land, fish,
wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water drinking water supplies, and
their supporting ecosystems. The National Contingency Plan, which was
first drafted in 1968 to provide a blueprint for the Federal
Government's response efforts, specifically directs the Secretary of
Commerce, to act as a trustee for natural resources managed or
controlled by DOC and for natural resources managed or controlled by
other Federal agencies that are found in, under, or using water
navigable by deep draft vessels, tidally influenced waters, or waters
of the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the outer
continental shelf.
NOAA fulfills these responsibilities and has recovered over $250
million for the restoration of the public's coastal and marine
resources. The trustee authority is premised upon NOAA's expertise in
managing: Commercial and recreational fishery resources; Anadromous
species; Endangered and threatened marine species and their habitats;
Marine mammals; Marshes, mangroves, seagrass beds, coral reefs, and
other coastal habitats; and Resources associated with National Marine
Sanctuaries and National Estuarine Research Reserves.
NOAA also provides critical scientific advice during spills of oil
and hazardous materials. Our national oil and hazardous substance spill
response strategy is based on the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP 40 CFR 300 et seq.). The NCP provides
the organizational structure and procedures for preparing for and
responding to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants, and contaminants. The NCP establishes ``special forces'' to
assist the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) during a response.
NOAA's Scientific Support Coordinators (SSCs) are identified in the NCP
as a special team available to the FOSC. NOAA SSCs provide the primary
scientific support to the United States Coast Guard for spills
occurring in U. S. navigable waters, and respond to approximately 100
oil and hazardous substance spills a year. NOAA provides expertise in
oil slick tracking, pollutant transport modeling, natural resources at
risk and environmental tradeoffs of countermeasures and cleanup.
Under the National Invasive Species Act, NOAA performs various
research and outreach activities relating to aquatic nuisance species.
We provide $800,000 for NISA activities including regional activities
and support for the aquatic nuisance species task force which we
cochair with Department of the Interior, $3 million under Sea Grant to
fund grants for aquatic nuisance species research and outreach
activities, and fund aquatic nuisance species prevention and control
research at the NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory.
In conjunction with the Department of the Interior, we provide $850,000
for ballast water demonstration projects to develop technology to
control aquatic nuisance species.
NOAA is the primary Federal agency for ensuring safe navigation
through coastal and marine waters. Through the Coast and Geodetic
Survey Act and the more recent Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of
1998, NOAA and the Department of Commerce undertake acquisition of
hydrographic data and provide hydrographic services for safe
navigation. These responsibilities are supported through our nautical
charting, geodetic control, and real time tides and currents programs.
These programs not only ensure that hydrographic activities and data
serve to support the Nation's economy but also to protect the coastal
and marine environment by reducing groundings and spills from
navigation related activities. An important aspect of this is water
level information collected from around the coast and the Physical
Oceanographic Real-Time Systems (PORTS), which is the only Federal
supported program of its type, that NOAA has in partnership with
regional and local governments.
In addition, under the National Sea Grant College Program Act, NOAA
provides grants for research, education, training, and advisory service
activities in fields related to ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
resources. The National Sea Grant College Program network currently
consists of 30 Sea Grant college programs located in all coastal and
Great Lakes States and Puerto Rico. In addition, national strategic
investments in fields relating to ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes are
authorized. The President has requested $59.3 million for this
important program in fiscal year 2001. In summary these statutory
authorities clearly outlines NOAA's primary responsibilities as steward
for marine and coastal resources.
I would like to provide some comments on the conservation
legislation before us. First, I would like to comment on S. 2123,
legislation that mirrors H.R. 701 as introduced in the House. As I
stated earlier, while the Administration supports the objective of the
legislation, we do remain concerned about several aspects of S. 2123
and strongly support amendments to improve and strengthen the
legislation. For example, Title I of the legislation creates a wholly
new coastal State program requiring the development and approval of
``State Action Plans''. However, creating a new program is unneeded;
there are existing authorities in place, such as the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) planning process, and other Commerce and Interior
coastal programs that can be used to address the environmental
consequences of outer continental shelf (OCS) oil and gas development,
and the activities identified in Title I. This is the approach taken in
the President's Lands Legacy initiative. The Lands Legacy initiative
proposes $100 million be provided to affected States to mitigate
environmental impacts of OCS development. NOAA would allocate the funds
to the affected States through the CZMA, which States and the Federal
Government have been using since 1972 to coordinate activities within
the coastal zone. In addition, Lands Legacy includes $159 million for
traditional CZMA State grants and another $170 million in related
coastal and marine programs. This is a total of $429 million within
existing authorities to address coastal concerns, including mitigating
the environmental impacts of OCS development.
We recommend that whatever form Title I takes in any final
legislation that it provide appropriate oversight authority to the
Department of Commerce for coastal or marine plans without modifying
the existing responsibilities of other agencies. Title I currently does
not recognize existing responsibilities of the Department of Commerce,
acting through NOAA, for State and local conservation, research, and
management programs. Giving the Department of Commerce the authority to
approve the States' coastal or marine plans would eliminate confusion
and duplication of State efforts and make more efficient use of
existing Federal Government programs and resources. All the plans
submitted to the Department of Commerce would automatically be sent to
the Department of the Interior. With respect to those plans that affect
programs under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, we
would obtain Interior's concurrence. We would develop a mechanism, such
as a memorandum of agreement, with Interior to ensure an effective and
efficient process to ensure both agencies' mission responsibilities are
fully met. Such a process should be transparent to the States and
minimize States' needs to manage an approval process through multiple
Federal Governmental offices while ensuring each agency's environmental
and management responsibilities are respected.
All of the 11 authorized uses of Federal grant funds contained in
Title I of S. 2123 refer to programs that have Federal counterparts
administered by the Department of Commerce, through NOAA, by authority
of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 or subsequent legislation. In
fact, the creation of NOAA as a single, unified agency was intended to
bring together and improve coordination of a variety of synergistic
Federal programs, in cooperation with State and local governments,
dealing with living marine resources, coastal management and
conservation, marine education, maritime commerce and marine research.
Providing Department of Commerce oversight of the State and local
programs proposed in Title I would ensure consistency and coordination
with existing NOAA programs including the existing State and Commerce
coordination under the CZMA planning process.
Also, S. 2123 could cause confusion because it does not explicitly
provide that the new ``State Action Plans'' developed under the bill be
consistent with State Coastal Zone Management plans. We recommend that
language be added to both bills to clarify that the State plans be
consistent with the already-approved CZMA plans. In addition, we are
pleased to note that Title VII of S. 2123, which deals with endangered
species recovery efforts, has participation by both the Secretaries of
Interior and Commerce, without any allocation of funds. We would like
to see funds provided to the Department of Commerce so that we may also
continue our work under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act.
Absent further Congressional action on this point, the Administration
would allocate the funds between the two Departments as part of the
budget process each year, and act to ensure proper coordination between
the Departments to avoid duplication and waste.
As for S. 2181, the Administration applauds the objective of the
legislation and supports language in the bill that gives appropriate
jurisdiction over Title I to the Department of Commerce. We are also
pleased to see that priority is given to activities and plans which
support and are consistent with NOAA programs such as the National
Estuarine Research Reserves, the National Marine Sanctuaries, Coastal
Zone Management, and other Federal laws, such as the Magnuson Act,
MMPA, and ESA, which govern the conservation or restoration of coastal
or marine fish habitat. We also support priority being given to
activities and plans that promote coastal conservation, restoration or
water quality protection and other conservation needs. The Land and
Water Conservation Fund was created to better protect our environment
and it is crucial that funds be spent on activities consistent with
this goal.
Finally, Title IV of S. 2181 governs endangered species, over which
the Department of Commerce has joint management responsibility with the
Department of the Interior. Specifically, the Department of Commerce
has jurisdiction over most marine and anadromous species, and we have
joint jurisdiction over species such as sea turtles. And yet the bill
makes no provision for participation by the Department of Commerce in
Title IV, the Endangered Species Recovery Fund. The Department of
Commerce does have sole jurisdiction over certain anadromous fish
species listed under the ESA,including salmon species on the West
Coast, and shortnose sturgeon on the East Coast, and we should have the
ability to participate in the Endangered Species Recovery Fund for our
endangered species recovery efforts.
This concludes my specific comments. In closing, I would like to
reiterate that the Administration applauds the great strides this
Congress has made toward ensuring passage of OCS Revenue legislation
this year. The Administration looks forward to working with this
Committee, and the rest of the Senate to build on the bipartisan spirit
shown in the House. We are at the turn of a new century--a time we can
really make a difference in the future of our Nation. We hope we can
all work together to leave a legacy of financial resources to protect
our Nation's land and water treasures.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that, from the
standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to
the presentation of this statement to the Congress.
__________
Statement of David Waller, President, International Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David Waller, Director of the
Georgia Division of Wildlife, and President of the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Accompanying me today is
Wayne Vetter, Executive Director of the New Hampshire Game and Fish
Department, and President of the Northeast Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee today
to share with you the collective strong support of the 50 State Fish
and Wildlife Agencies for the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, a bill
that will ensure a conservation legacy for all Americans. This bill is
unquestionably the most significant legislative initiative for fish and
wildlife (and other natural resources) conservation in the last several
decades. Whether you hunt, fish, bird watch, hike, play soccer or just
enjoy the peace and tranquility of being outdoors appreciating the vast
natural bounty of our Nation, this bill will ensure that our children
and future generations will enjoy this bountiful natural wealth.
The overwhelmingly bipartisan House vote last week sending H.R. 701
to the Senate clearly shows that conservation programs are an extremely
high priority for the American people. This vote dedicating funding for
conservation sends an unmistakable message that certainty for
conservation program funding has finally achieved the standing in the
national budget that it truly deserves. As you know and appreciate, Mr.
Chairman, natural resource conservation and recreation programs
contribute significantly to our quality of life, our socio-economic
stability, and our Nation's health and well-being. Just as Social
Security is a financial safety net, conservation of our natural
resources is resource safety net for both this and future generations.
We urge your expeditious favorable attention to the Conservation
and Reinvestment Act, and encourage your cooperation with and
assistance to Chairman Murkowski to facilitate a bill being
expeditiously reported to the full Senate for its consideration this
year. Lets take advantage of the tremendous opportunity afforded us in
this bill to do something for all Americans!
The Association testified last year before this committee (on March
18, 1999) and before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee (on May
4, 1999), on S. 25 and several other proposals that would dedicate
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues to State-based enhanced programs
for fish and wildlife conservation, conservation education, and
wildlife associated recreation; land and water conservation; outdoor
recreation; and coastal conservation and impact assistance. Since that
time, Senator Landrieu and Senator Murkowski have introduced S2123 (the
House Resources Committee reported H.R. 701); Senator Bingaman has
introduced S2181, and, just last week, the House passed H.R. 701 and
sent it to this body for action. The Association strongly supports the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act because it is a bipartisan,
consensus-built, and common sense approach to conservation that makes
good economic sense, good common sense, and good political sense. We
sincerely appreciate the work of Senator Bingaman and Senator Baucus on
the wildlife title of S. 2181, and you'll find our recommended
improvements to Title III of CARA are certainly consistent with some of
their bill.
The coalition of over 4500 organizations that has come together in
support of CARA, and worked so tirelessly for House passage 2 weeks
ago, truly represents both broad and diverse grass-root support of the
business community, conservation organizations, elected officials at
all levels of governments, industry, the recreation community and other
interests. Citizens from ``soccer moms'' to hunters and wildlife
photographers strongly support CARA. Our common goal is to bring
dedicated, consistent funding to state-based fish and wildlife
conservation programs; land and water conservation; coastal
conservation and environmental programs; State and local outdoor
recreation; historic preservation; and incentives for our landowners to
continue good stewardship of their land in open space uses as farmland,
ranchland and forest land. CARA places decisions on identifying needs
and spending priorities at the State and local level which we believe
can best reflect the interest of our citizens, and, it does that while
giving greater protection than exists in current law to private
property owners with respect to Federal land acquisition. This
coalition truly represents America's interest in our natural and
cultural heritage, and our need to conserve that heritage for future
generations. The work of this coalition over the last 2 years has
resulted in the bipartisan, consensus-based bill that the House has
sent over to you, a product that we urge you to give serious
consideration as you undertake your own legislative deliberations.
As we have testified before, the most significant benefit of CARA
to fish and wildlife conservation is that the State fish and wildlife
agencies will finally be in a position to take preventative
conservation measures to address the life needs and habitat
requirements of declining species before they reach a status where they
must be listed as endangered or threatened species. This will save
money and prevent the social and economic disruption associated with
species being threatened or endangered. By acting proactively when more
conservation options are available to us, the State fish and wildlife
agencies can work cooperatively with private landowners through
voluntary, non-regulatory means such as incentives, technical
assistance, easements, and other such measures. Prevention makes good
biological sense, good economic sense, and good common sense.
Preventative conservation now is an investment that will continue to
pay dividends far into the future. It simply costs much less to
conserve fish and wildlife species by responding to early warning signs
of decline, than it does to recover these species once they have to be
listed.
Also, as you know, Mr. Chairman, outdoor recreation is the fastest
growing industry in this country, and CARA will position the State fish
and wildlife agencies to help local communities identify and take
advantage of wildlife related tourism opportunities. Programs to
capture these opportunities can significantly enhance the economy of
these rural communities.
Let me briefly share with you today the few perfecting amendments
the Association would urge be made to the Wildlife Title (Title III) of
the Conservation and Reinvestment Act before Senate passage. The
Association staff will continue to work closely with your committee
staff on the details of these suggested improvements.
First, the Association strongly urges that the floor (or minimum
amount) of Title III allocation for States be raised from \1/2\ of 1
percent to 1 percent. This relatively simple change would benefit 10
States, including New Hampshire, where pressures on fish and wildlife
and their habitats are significant, and where this modest adjustment
would greatly enhance these States' programs for fish and wildlife
conservation, conservation education, and wildlife associated
recreation. The 10 States benefiting from this change include ME, NH,
VT, RI, CT, DE, WV, ND, SD and HI. All of the State fish and wildlife
agencies concur with this requested change even though some, like my
State of Georgia, would have to give up a small amount of Title III
funds to raise the floor for the other States. A table showing
comparative allocations with the + percent and 1 percent minimum is
attached.
Second, the Association, in cooperation with many other fish and
wildlife conservation organizations, supports the inclusion of
``conservation strategy'' language that describes the decisionmaking
process the State fish and wildlife agencies will engage in to identify
the needs and priorities for spending Title III funds. This is
basically a process that our agencies already go through to decide how
to spend limited funds. It involves a comprehensive consideration of
the distribution and status of fish and wildlife species, availability
of habitat, land-use activities, planned infrastructure, demands on the
fish and wildlife resources and their habitats, etc. The language
(attached) we are recommending represents the hard work and good faith
efforts of many parties, and enjoys widespread support of the wildlife
conservation community.
Thirdly, we strongly encourage you to allow, at the discretion of
the State fish and wildlife agency, the expenditure of up to 10 percent
of the Title III funds for conservation law enforcement activities.
This discretion was removed from the House bill at committee mark-up,
but the Association sincerely urges you to provide for it in the Senate
bill. As you know, State fish and wildlife conservation officers have
many opportunities to work with landowners and the public to implement
voluntary, proactive fish and wildlife protection and public education
and outreach programs. They also prevent poaching, or over-utilization
of fish and wildlife resources, thereby reducing the likelihood that a
species may become threatened or endangered in the future. Further,
they provide for public safety, security, search and rescue functions,
and resolution of outdoor user conflicts. In short, conservation law
enforcement is an integral component of a comprehensive State fish and
wildlife program and should, at the discretion of the State Director,
be eligible for up to 10 percent funding under CARA.
Fourth, in the House passed H.R. 701, and in S. 2123, we would like
to call your attention to the 10 percent spending cap restriction on
wildlife related recreation expenses. In 1996, over 62 million
Americans participated in wildlife viewing with an economic impact of
nearly $30 billion. Wildlife related recreation is critical in the
fostering of the public's commitment to wildlife conservation in short,
responsible nature-based tourism development, the promotion of nature
and birding festivals, active wildlife-watching skill-building, and
other creative activities build and sustain a growing wildlife
conservation constituency. Although we recognize the concern that
infrastructure needs might divert needed funding away from on the
ground conservation, States need to be able to provide quality, safe
opportunities for wildlife viewing and photography which are not only
highly popular but provide significant economic benefits to
communities. Such wildlife recreation opportunities would be provided
consistent with other needs for wildlife management. Also, one-time
capital investments to provide wildlife related recreation facilities
while maintaining ongoing programs could require more funding than the
10 percent annual cap would allow. State fish and wildlife agencies are
in the best position to decide what mix of Title III funds should be
applied to conservation, wildlife associated recreation, and
conservation education, and we encourage your support for eliminating
the 10 percent cap on expenditures for wildlife associated recreation.
Fifth, the Association asks for your serious consideration of
allowing a 90 Federal: 10 State ratio match for the Title III funds for
the first 5 years of the program. This will allow some States, whose
fish and wildlife agencies currently receive no general funds, to build
their program in an orderly way as they go about securing State
matching funds.
Sixth, the Association supports the provision of an adequate amount
of funds, with appropriate Congressional direction on its use, be made
available to the USFWS for delivering apportioned CARA funds to the
States. The Association recommends that 2 percent-3 percent would be an
appropriate level, and urges that an additional 2 percent be made
available to the FWS to administer a Multi-State Conservation Grant
program to fund projects of regional or national significance such as
Partners in Flight. In addition to their on-the-ground benefits for
fish and wildlife resources, the cost of developing and implementing
these projects of multi-state benefit is significantly less than if
each State undertook the project on its own.
Finally, we would like to make an observation that puts funding for
comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation in perspective. The
Association estimates $1 billion or more in additional funding needs
annually for all 50 States for the programs that would be funded under
Title III of CARA. We are sincerely and genuinely appreciative of the
funding level in CARA now, but fully recognize that the needs are much,
much greater. Spending money now to address and conserve the so-called
nongame species will clearly save money in the future when these
species don't have to be listed as threatened or endangered to secure
their status. We encourage you to consider allowing the Title III funds
to rise if OCS gas and oil receipts rise, by establishing a floor of
$350 million, and a ceiling of up to 10 percent of the incoming OCS
receipts, which ever is greater. That way, as exploitation of this non-
renewable natural resource proceeds, the revenue can be used to
conserve renewable and sustainable natural resources as fish and
wildlife, and associated recreation for our citizens.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, the Association stands ready to assist
you in whatever way we can to make programs which would be funded under
CARA a reality for all of our citizens. Let's work together to pass
this landmark legislation now, and provide a future for our citizens
that we can all be proud of passing on.
We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
Thank you for the opportunity to share the Association's
perspectives with you.
______
Responses by David Waller to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. Please elaborate on the Federal Government's role in
State and local planning decisions under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181.
Response. The Federal Government is given no additional role in
State and local planning decisions under any of these proposals. What
CARA can and will do, however, is help States, counties, and local
communities make more informed land-use decisions regarding growth and
development that are consistent with natural resources conservation
since the State natural resources (and other) agencies will have better
information on what significant habitats, etc. need conservation
attention.
Question 2. If the Department of Interior disagrees with a State's
or locality's planning decision, could DOI withhold funds?
Response. I read nothing in any of the proposals that would give
DOI the authority to do that.
Question 3. I am concerned with the impact of S. 25, S. 2123, and
S. 2181 on lands used for hunting and fishing. The flood of money
provided by CARA will enable buying and turning over to the government,
private lands currently used for hunting and fishing. This will subject
the property's sporting use to the whim of public opinion, and a
bureaucracy increasingly hostile to sport, fishing, trapping, and gun
ownership.
An example of my concern is what happened in New York last year
with the largest land purchase in that State's history. For over one
hundred years, Champion International Timber Company and previous
private owners has leased out 139,000 acres of its holdings for
recreation, including fishing and hunting. When the State of New York
purchased the land, the State's first ``management'' action was to
eliminate hunting access and drastically limit other recreation uses.
Included with these mandates was ordering the destruction of 298
hunting cottages used by 3,000 sportsmen each year.
Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, how likely are scenarios like
this?
Response. The case you cite was raised by former Assistant
Secretary (USDI) Ray Arnett and was apparently and erroneously based on
press reports. Attached is a letter from Peter Duncan, Deputy
Commissioner of the NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation, who points
out that, contrary to Mr. Arnett's statement, the land will be
available for public hunting and fishing. Mr. Duncan was specifically
involved in the negotiations for the property, while Mr. Arnett's
allegations are based on erroneous information.
CARA Title III funds will be administered by the State fish and
wildlife agencies which have a long-standing and unquestionable record
of support for hunting, fishing and trapping as legitimate and
sustainable uses, under scientific wildlife management, of fish and
wildlife resources. The scenario you describe is extremely unlikely to
occur.
Question 4. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, how is the
applicability of the Pittman-Robertson Act expanded?
Response. With the exception of the very limited opportunity for
the CARA subaccount funds to be used for wildlife conservation
education and conservation law enforcement, the Pittman-Robertson Act
is not expanded under CARA. Only the source of funds for the CARA
subaccount is expanded from the original funding source.
Question 5. Could the additional funds lead to abuses of the
Pittman-Robertson fund?
Response. Congress is currently considering bills to legislatively
reform the administration of the Pittman-Robertson (and Wallop-Breaux)
programs by the USFWS. We anticipate that such reforms to the
administration of the underlying Act would also apply to the
administration of the CARA subaccount.
Question 6. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, what is the total
scope of potential land acquisition?
Question 7. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, how much land
acquisition power has any restrictions or protections placed upon it?
Response. With respect to Title III, we do not anticipate that a
significant amount of the funds will be spent on land acquisition. The
needs for acquisition either fee title, conservation easements or
purchase of development rights will depend on the State and will depend
on the species that need to be addressed and their habitat needs. For
example, in States that have a lot of public land, the mountain areas
tend to be in public ownership and the valleys tend to be privately
owned. Those valleys in many cases constitute critical winter range for
a large number of species, both game and non-game. A very practical
approach and a very workable one is to work with landowners on
conservation easements or purchase of development rights so those lands
could remain under private ownership but remain available for wildlife
during the critical winter period. This is beneficial both to
landowners who would like to remain on the land and to the future of
wildlife. At the same time there may be areas particularly in the east
where there is heavy human populations or it may be absolutely
essential to acquire through fee title or conservation easements
several hundred or thousands of acres of significant habitat in short
supply. Again to the extent that the State can meet its objective, we
would expect it to be done through conservation easements with maybe
some of it being subject to fee title in order to provide a level of
public use and public access to streams, canoe areas, etc.
Question 8. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, what is the
potential for significant increases in discretionary spending above and
beyond what would be dedicated to the trust fund?
Response. Congress will decide through the appropriations process
whether (and how much) to spend additional discretionary funds for
conservation/recreation purposes.
Question 9. Does creating a CARA trust fund violate the fiscal year
2001 budget resolution?
Response. Congress will decide which mix of spending will be
consistent with the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution.
______
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Offices of Natural Resources,
February 9, 2000.
To the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus:
I understand that a letter regarding the proposed Conservation and
Reinvestment Act penned by G. Ray Arnett and sent to the House
Resources Committee on November 5, 1999 continues to circulate and
confuse. The Arnett letter is a classic example of misinformation
designed to deceive the reader. Mr. Arnett falsely opines that
``overzealous regulators, joined by environmental pressure groups . . .
will make folly of the ``willing seller'' clause by harassing owners of
properties targeted for acquisition.'' Mr. Arnett falsely claims the
recent acquisition of Champion International lands by New York State an
example of such a ``folly.'' As a negotiator in the Champion Lands
agreement, I would like to set the record straight. In fact, was
Champion who approached New York State with a proposal to sell its
lands. There was never pressure from regulators or any other entity to
negotiate this win-win agreement that benefited Champion Internationad
as well the citizens of New York State. A better example of a truly
``willing seller'' is hard to imagine.
Contrary to Mr. Arnett's letter, New York State has not eliminated
hunting access to the lands recently purchased from Champion
International. In fact, this landmark acquisition, completed with a
willing seller and in accord with New York's Open Space Conservation
Plan, is the single largest addition to New York's publicly accessible
hunting and fishing land in this century. This complex transaction,
when fully implemented, will result in all New York anglers, hunters
and trappers once again having access to over 140,000 acres of lands
and waters that have been previously closed to the public for the past
100 years.
As part of this acquisition, New York State acquired fee titlee to
about 30,000 acres of famous ``northern flow'' river corridor lands
formerly owned and managed by Champion International. Upon acquisition,
these lands became part of New York's Forest Preserve, which by
provision of the New York State Constitution must remain forever wild.
However, New York State ensured that all existing hunting club leases
to the Champion lands were fully honored and that reasonable transition
periods were allowed before exclusive hunting rights pursuant to these
leases expired. As a result, leaseholds located on forest preserve
lands were granted a 1-year transition period at which time they have
the opportunity to keep their camps for 5 years including one-acre
envelope of exclusive use around each camp or relocate during the 5-
year period to the easement lands in order to take advantage of a 15-
year transition period. Beginning in July of 2000, all of these fee
title lands (forest preserve) will again be open to the public
including existing leaseholders, for a full range of recreational
activities including hunting, fishing and trapping.
The remaining Champion lands, approximately 110,000 acres, were
purchased in fee by a private timber investment company and will remain
in active forest management. Tke State of New York acquired
conservation easement, including development rights and recreation
rights, on these same 110,000 acres. Beginning in July 2000, these
easement lands will also be open to the public for a variety of outdoor
recreational uses, including hiking, canoeing and fishing. As part of
the acquisition, New York Sate agreed to end the exclusive hunting
rights of existing leaseholders on these 110,000 acres of easement
lands for a period of 15 years, even though the leases were annual
leases and the State had no legal obligation to renew or extend them.
Our goal was to provide the leaseholders with a transitional period in
which could continue to enjoy exclusive hunting on these easement lands
for a reasonable transition period. At the end of that fifteen-year
period, these easement lands will once again be opened to hunting and
trapping for not only the existing hunting camp lessees but for all the
public.
In negotiating this complex transaction the State has assured that
the interests of the existing leaseholders were considered, that the
easement lands will be maintained in productive and sustainable forest
management, that the habitat value of lands will be enhanced through
responsible forest management, and that all hunters and trappers will
have access to these land forever thereafter.
Mr. Arnett in dead wrong on how this important land acquisition end
management partnership will impact public access for hunting, fishing
and trapping. Mr. Arnett contends that lands under government ownership
and control will soon prohibit ``consumptive use of wildlife
resources'' without providing any justification for such a position.
All New York anglers, hunters and trappers will soon enjoy the access
to all of the former Champion land where previously those lands were
off limits to all but select few. We are proud of the Champion land
acquisition and believe it clearly demonstrates the value the Nation's
anglers, hunters and trappers can derive from a willing seller-based
acquisition program. We look forward to passage of the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act to provide New York and other States with the
financial resources to build on this record of success.
Sincerely,
Peter S. Duncan, Commissioner.
______
Responses by David Waller to Additional Questions from Senator Bond
Question 1. I notice that the Conservation and Reinvestment Act
includes conservation, conservation education and wildlife related
recreation. Briefly describe for me why these three different aspects
of Title III are important.
Response. Conservation includes first determining what we call the
status of the hundreds of species of wildlife that we regularly see
(such as many of the common birds that return in the spring) and
systematically collecting that information over time in order to
determine which species are declining and what their habitat
requirements are. With this information we can work cooperatively and
voluntarily with landowners to ensure that the species do not decline
to the point where they become threatened and endangered. We of course
already know a number of species that are declining and will
undoubtedly become threatened and endangered unless we begin immediate
work to reverse that decline. We also know some types of habitat that
are in decline and that the amount of that habitat may be getting less.
For example, there are remnants of historical prairie type grasses that
are very important to a number of species. There is a lot of interest
on the part of landowners to restoring the prairie habitat type. We
have the technical know how to do that and with some technical
assistance and other work with landowners, we believe in many cases we
could restore substantial part of that habitat which would be very
important for a lot of species.
The second part, conservation education, we think is fundamentally
important to conservation over time. There was a time when most of our
people lived on the land and had a fairly good idea of what constituted
conservation of land and water. As we have become a land of urbanites
and suburbanites, there is less understanding of the basic principles
of conservation which are important for both urban and rural areas. We
might as Aldo Leopold expressed, reach a point where we believe that
heat comes from the stove and milk from the milkman. We need to
understand our dependence on natural resources and the things that we
can do as individuals to help protect water, air, vegetation and soil.
The third part of Title III is wildlife related outdoor recreation.
The fastest growing form of outdoor recreation in the United States
today is related to wildlife. Whether it is along the northeast coast,
where there is an unparalleled level of migration of birds: or bears in
Montana or Alaska; or bats in Texas, the public wants to be able to
see, to photograph and to take home with them the experience of seeing
wildlife. Most people who visit national parks and national forests and
wildlife refuges, for example, record that the high point of their trip
is seeing some form of wildlife that they have not seen before. There
is a tremendous economic impact for communities from that type of
visitation.
Question 2. During the consideration of the wildlife title, there
was already considerable amount of conversation about game versus non-
game and whether this legislation ought to restrict OCS funds to non-
game species. What is the States' answer to that question?
Response. (1) We do not believe that the legislation should
restrict use of funds to non-game species. In the first place, wildlife
requires specific habitat and in virtually all habitats there are both
game and non-game species, so artificially restricting funding to game
or non-game does not make sense. (2) Recognizing that fact, a large
spectrum of wildlife related organizations ranging from the National
Wild Turkey Federation to Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to National
Rifle Association to Defenders of Wildlife have all agreed on so-called
planning strategy language which we commend for your use rather than
dealing with game or non-game restrictions or emphasis. The planning
strategy language simply says that a State will look carefully at the
status of species and the status of habitat and will address priority
needs for declining species and scarce habitat as it goes about
preparing the 5-year program. That is a reasonable and practical
approach and the process will include public involvement as the
planning strategy is developed. We believe that will provide a sound
approach to planning that is flexible enough for the States to meet its
overall needs for wildlife management, while at the same time providing
emphasis on species that are declining and on scarce habitat. As a
practical matter, in most States the species that are declining the
most tend to be non-game species simply because we do not have adequate
funding to address the needs of those species.
Question 3. Do you anticipate that a high percentage of the
wildlife money will be spent on acquisition?
Response. No, I do not. The needs for acquisition either fee title,
conservation easements or purchase of development rights will depend on
the State and will depend on the species that need to be addressed and
their habitat needs. For example, in States that have a lot of public
land, the mountain areas tend to be in public ownership and the valleys
tend to be privately owned. Those valleys in many cases constitute
critical winter range for a large number of species, both game and non-
game. A very practical approach and a very workable one is to work with
landowners on conservation easements or purchase of development rights
so those lands could remain under private ownership but remain
available for wildlife during the critical winter period. This is
beneficial both to landowners who would like to remain on the land and
to the future of wildlife. At the same time there may be areas
particularly in the east where there is heavy human populations or it
may be absolutely essential to acquire through fee title or
conservation easements several hundred or thousands of acres of
critically short habitat. Again to the extent that the State can meet
its objective, we would expect it to be done through conservation
easements with maybe some of it being subject to fee title in order to
provide a level of public use and public access to streams, canoe
areas, etc.
Question 4. Does Title III provide additional regulatory power for
either the Federal Government or the States?
Response. No, Title III is a completely non-regulatory, voluntary,
incentive based approach to wildlife management. That is the approach
valued by the States which has been very successful, as you know.
Question 5. How much money do the States have now on wildlife
management programs and who pays the bill?
Response. Nationally more than 80 percent of the bill is paid for
by hunters and anglers, either through license fees or through excise
taxes on guns, ammunition, fishing tackle or motorboat fuel taxes. The
balance comes from a variety of sources such as a \1/8\ percent sales
tax in Arkansas and Missouri, a portion of the sales tax in Virginia,
and a portion of the lottery in Arizona and Colorado. In more than half
the States, 100 percent of the wildlife management program is funded by
hunters and anglers. T am submitting a copy of the latest survey that
shows how the State fish and wildlife agencies are funded for the
record.
Question 6. Why do the States think a dedicated fund from OCS oil
receipts is so important compared to other approaches?
Response. We know that from the experience of the Pittman-Robertson
and Wallop-Breaux Acts, funds from which (beginning in 1937) have
provided a dedicated source of funding for wildlife that really works.
By knowing each year that we will have funding over time, it is
possible to lay out long-term programs to hire competent staff and to
establish a program of cooperation with landowners that works. I
believe that approach saves a lot of money rather than dealing with
rapidly changing program levels each year which makes it very difficult
to either hire staff or to establish long-term working programs with
landowners.
Question 7. You are aware that some believe that this new funding
should be restricted to non-game or at least there should be a mandate
that it be used primarily for non-game. Is the current Pittman-
Robertson program funded by those who buy guns and ammunition
restricted to game species?
Response. No, neither the Pittman-Robertson nor Wallop-Breaux funds
are restricted to game species. We recognize that in many States,
because all of the funding comes from hunters and anglers, that the
States must spend money on a wide variety of species, particularly
threatened and endangered species in order to carry out wildlife
habitat improvement programs. The annual report of the Association
indicates the States spend substantial amounts of money each year from
Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux funds for threatened and endangered
and other non-game species. The States also provide public information,
conservation education, and other services to the public whether the
public is interested in game or non-game species.
Question 8. What would keep the States from simply taking this new
money and carrying out the same old program and not addressing the
broad array of species or otherwise modifying the program to address
non-game species?
Response. The first pragmatic reason, of course, is that with the
huge coalition that has been developed around the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act, and the requirement for public involvement in
developing a 5-year program, there is simply no practical way the
States, even if they wanted to, could ignore that new constituency. All
of the States recognize that new constituency that is part of the
funding. Second, the States, more than a decade ago, recognized the
need to have a broad program that addressed the needs of the broad
array of species as reflected in this act. The States for 10 years have
supported this extra effort to obtain additional funding. The State
fish and wildlife agencies better than anyone else recognizes the need
for funding the at least 1500 species of wildlife that we now do not
have funding to address.
Question 9. In your proposal today, you ask that we not only pick
up the planning strategy language but that we also raise the minimum
per State from \1/2\ percent to 1 percent and that we move the upper
limit on outdoor recreation which was added to the Senate. You also
asked us to allow the States to use the up to 10 percent of the funds
for law enforcement, provide a transition funding from starting at 90
percent and being reduced to 75 percent over 5 years, and that we
increase the total amount of funding to $450 million. Would you please
address each one of those briefly.
Response. I would be glad to. (1) The planning strategy language
has been agreed to by a broad cross section of wildlife interests as
the realistic approach to addressing the needs of a broad array of
species whether they be game or non-game.
We believe that the raising of the minimum per State from \1/2\ to
1 percent is very important because with the \1/2\ percent of 1 percent
it really did not provide enough for States to have an effective
program, particularly those States that have a small land base but high
populations, where there is a lot of pressure being put on natural
resources. That includes such States as New Hampshire, Delaware, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, etc. A second kind of State where the \1/2\ of 1
percent is a problem are States such as North Dakota, South Dakota and
West Virginia, where there is a larger land base but very low relative
population. There are 10 States that would gain from the change from
\1/2\ percent to 1 percent. Several States such as New York, Alaska or
Texas would not change at all. The States that would get a little bit
less per State would provide a big help to the States where the minimum
is raised.
The ceiling of 10 percent on outdoor recreation funding was added
by the House apparently out of concern that the States would be lobbied
for outdoor recreation facilities and would spend too much money on
those activities. First, that is highly unlikely because you are
dealing with a State fish and wildlife agency which is very concerned
about wildlife. Our main concern, though, is that by providing a 10
percent limit per year, a State if it wanted to do any capital
investment such as building trails, a visitor facility or nature
center, would have to string out the billing of that facility over a
number of years because of the limitation. That would be both
inefficient and in our view counterproductive. Again, the States are
going to have to put together a 5-year program with public involvement
and we believe that the States are in the best position for determining
priorities and a 10 percent arbitrary limit simply does not make sense
particularly on a year to year basis.
On law enforcement, the State fish and wildlife agencies feel
strongly that appropriate conservation law enforcement is an important
part of a wildlife management program. Law enforcement personnel not
only provide outreach to many communities and assist in conservation
education, but law enforcement is necessary to guard against those who
are included to take wildlife in disregard of the law, such as capture
of wildlife for pets, which will be deterred by a law enforcement
presence. Again the State has the discretion of spending up to 10
percent of the funds for law enforcement, and we believe that is where
the discretion should rest.
On funding of 90 percent to the transition to 75 percent Federal
share over time?. it its particularly important to States who have no
ready source of match for this particular funding. States have
historically used hunting and fishing license fees to match Pittman-
Robertson and Wallop-Breaux programs. There is no parallel source of
funding for this new OCS funding. States will have to work hard to
develop the non-Federal source of the funds and it would be helpful if
there is a transition period to do so. States like Alaska, New
Hampshire, Montana and Idaho are examples of States that have very
little funding except that provided by hunters and anglers.
Finally, on raising the total amount of funding from $350 million
to a ceiling of 10 percent (or $450 million), we recognize that this is
difficult to do within the context of the total amount of money that
can be provided. To place the program needs within context, however, we
recognize that the States spend about $1.5 billion on less than 100
game and sportfish species. The need for the 1500 species we are
talking about now is at least $1 billion per year. The $350 million
will certainly be a great help to allow substantial progress to be
made, but we simply want to emphasize that the need is significantly
greater than the $350 million provided. Originally we were talking
about 10 percent of the amount of OCS oil which would have provided
about $450 million or so.
__________
Statement of Rindy O'Brien, Vice President, Public Policy The
Wilderness Society
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to submit this testimony for the record on S. 25, S. 2123,
and S. 2181, bills to fund a variety of conservation programs through
use of revenues received from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas
production.
On behalf of The Wlderness Society's 200,000 members nationwide and
the many grassroots partners that have worked tirelessly for the past
35 years protecting the Land and Water Conservation Fund, today's
hearing is a momentous occasion. The Wilderness Society founded in 1935
works to protect America's wilderness and wildlife and to develop a
nationwide network of wild lands through public education, scientific
analysis and advocacy. Our goals is to ensure that future generations
will enjoy the clean air and water, wildlife, beauty and opportunities
for recreation and renewal that pristine forests, rivers, deserts and
mountains provide.
The Senate has an historic opportunity this year to create a
lasting conservation legacy. By enacting legislation that will reinvest
Outer Continental Shelf oil revenues into the preservation of America's
wild and natural places, the 106th Congress can preserve irreplaceable
natural resources that are an essential part of our nation's heritage.
The legislation before the committee today is perhaps the most far-
reaching and complex piece of environmental legislation to be
considered by Congress in the past decade. As the committee knows, The
House of Representatives recently passed CARA legislation (H.R. 701)
with a strong bi-partisan majority of 315 to 102. Over 2 years, the
architects of H.R. 701 worked to accommodate the concerns of a wide
range of interests. In the end, the bill was supported by a diverse
coalition, cutting across partisan, geographic, and ideological lines.
The Wilderness Society believes this carefully crafted legislation
is a sound starting point for the Senate's deliberations. Alongside our
colleagues in the environmental community, we would welcome the
opportunity to further improve this bill. But, we also clearly
acknowledge the substantial progress already made in balancing
competing interests.
The committee will be hearing testimony from other conservation
organizations today on various aspects of these bills. I would like to
focus my remarks on the Title II provisions dealing with the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Over the 35-year history of LWCF, The
Wilderness Society has been a relentless advocate for full funding of
this critical conservation program.
As you know, when Congress created the Land and Water Conservation
Fund in 1964, a portion of the revenues from Federal offshore oil and
gas leases, amounting to about $900 million a year, was earmarked for
the Fund to purchase and protect ``areas of natural beauty and unique
recreational value.'' But Congress never spent all of the money for its
intended purpose. Between 1987 and 1997, $3 out of every $4 were spent
elsewhere. During the same period, LWCF spending averaged just $230
million or 25 percent of the $900 million authorized to flow into the
Fund. Congress did a little better in the early years of the Fund, but
not much.
One of the principal motivations of this under-spending was to make
the Federal budget appear to be less out of balance. But the failure to
take full advantage of LWCF's potential has also been a result of
insufficient commitment to the Fund's purpose in some corners of
Congress. Senators, we can no longer afford that lack of commitment.
Despite operating with severely less funding than originally
intended, LWCF has performed some small and large miracles for the
American environment. This little known and, until recently, almost
forgotten Fund was the invisible hand behind some of the most important
and vital Federal land acquisitions of the past three decades. On the
Eastern seaboard, these include: the Cape Cod National Seashore in
Massachusets, the New Jersey Pinelands, the expansion of the Florida
Everglades, and the completion of the Appalachian National Scenic
Trail. The Fund has preserved fisheries, wetlands, and wildlife
habitats. The state-side portion, when it actually received any money,
created scores of parks, soccer and baseball fields, community swimming
pools, greenways and bikeways in all of our neighborhoods, including
some of this nation's harshest urban settings.
Almost 7 million acres of land have been purchased with LWCF funds.
This committee has an opportunity to advance hundreds of additional
projects such as these. It is an opportunity that comes in a time of
both enormous need and extensive public support.
In 1998, of 148 State and local open space measures on the ballot,
124 were approved. That's a resounding 84 percent approval rating on
measures which, collectively, committed over $5 billion in public
revenues to preserving America's open spaces. The figures from 1999 are
equally impressive. Of 102 open space ballot initiatives, 92 were
successful. That's a 90 percent success rate and those 92 measures
committed another $1.8 billion to public land acquisition.
Leaders all across the country, Democrats and Republicans alike,
are stepping up to the plate to protect our natural heritage. It's time
for the Senate to join them and when you do, you can be assured of
broad public support. According to a recent survey conducted by the
Luntz Research Companies, 88 percent of voters nationwide agree with
the proposition that ``we must act now or we will lose many special
places and, if we wait, what is destroyed or lost cannot be replaced.''
In The Wilderness Society's view, there are three elements
essential to the final legislation as it relates to LWCF.
First, that legislation must permanently remove LWCF from the
financial machinations that,
for far too long, limited its effectiveness.
This is the year to take LWCF off-budget once and for all. During
the House debate, H.R. 701 was amended to make it clear that
expenditures under this legislation will not occur if they diminish the
funds available for Social Security and Medicare. We have no dispute
with that provision. But, we firmly believe that efforts to protect
open spaces deserve the same protection Congress has provided for the
Highway Trust Fund and, most recently, the Federal Aviation Trust Fund.
If we can set aside money to pave it, we can set aside money to
save it.
Here again, the American people agree. In the previously mentioned
Luntz study, voters were asked what use should be made of any Federal
off-budget trust funds. They chose protecting open space (45 percent)
over building highways (37 percent) and airport construction (7
percent).
Second, the LWCF must be fully funded.
After years of diverting as much as 75 percent of the intended
money out of LWCF, partial reparations are not good enough. The
original bipartisan intentions of Congress in 1964 should be honored by
funding LWCF at the full $900 million level.
Third, the LWCF should move forward unencumbered by new
restrictions on how it operates.
The LWCF isn't broken, and there is no need to fix it. Those who
are genuinely committed to its success will not, with one hand, finally
give LWCF the financial resources it needs, while, with the other hand,
taking away its effectiveness by adding new and needless restrictions
on how the Fund works. Why hamstring the 30 years of success?
S. 25, one of the pieces of legislation before the committee,
contains a number of needless and counter-productive restrictions on
the Federal side of LWCF. The House wisely rejected those restrictions
and we urge the Senate to do the same.
We also vigorously urge that the Senate reject any and all attempts
to impose a ``no net gain'' provision on Federal land acquisition. The
public lands now in existence were set aside for purposes other than
today's environmental needs, and, as they are now, they are not
sufficient to the ecological tasks we are imposing on them.
Today, development pressures on open spaces are unrelenting,
gobbling up land resources that, as you all should recognize, are vital
to the continued health, both economic and environmental, of our
nation. Seven thousand acres of land are lost every day to development.
And at least 110 species of plants and animals are now extinct in the
United States.
When Congress allocates funds for a new highway or a new runway, it
doesn't require that an equal-sized area by returned to an undeveloped
State. Especially in an era of rapidly expanding development, decisions
about protecting open spaces should be made on the merits, unencumbered
by an artificial ``no net gain'' limitation that has no support in
either science or common sense.
I'd like to close my remarks by directly addressing the specious
arguments being advanced by so-called ``property rights'' advocates who
are working hard to defeat CARA legislation. Senators, they would have
you believe that the bills you are considering today weaken the rights
of private landowners. The reality is that the House-passed bill
strengthens and clarifies their rights.
As Representative Don Young (R-Alaska), sponsor of the House-passed
CARA, commented during the House debate, ``For those that oppose the
bill on private property rights, again I will tell them that this bill
improves private property rights. It helps those people; it does not
hurt them.''
In fact, the House-passed bill contains a Protection of Private
Property Rights section (Sec. 10). Section 10 says:
Nothing in the Act shall authorize that private property be taken
for public use, without just compensation as provided by the Fifth and
Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.
Under the provisions, of this bill:
All transactions must be carried out with willing sellers. CARA
prohibits the government from using adverse condemnation to acquire
lands unless specifically authorized by Congress.
The Administration must seek to use exchange and conservation
easements as alternatives to fee-simple acquisition.
The Administration must seek to consolidate Federal land holdings
in States with checkerboard Federal land ownership patterns.
The Congressional representatives, Governor, local government
officials and public (via a widely distributed local newspaper) must be
notified of proposed acquisitions.
I believe that, the conservation community has gone out of our way
to make certain that the concerns some real, some imagined--of those on
the other side of this debate have been addressed in the development of
the LWCF provisions of CARA legislation. The wide margin of the House
vote indicates that a vast bipartisan majority of that body agrees that
we have achieved a compelling and persuasive balance of competing
interests.
______
Responses by Rindy O'Brien to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. The Maintenance backlog on our public lands in immense,
however, these bills propose to increase Federal ownership of lands.
Does it make sense to require a cost analysis of future operations and
maintenance costs associated with land to be acquired? If not, why?
Response. It is important to understand the reason why we have a
backlog on our public lands. For 12 years under the Reagan
Administration, lead initially by James Watt, Sec. Of DOI, the
Republican administrations of Reagan and Bush cut dramatically the
budgets for our public lands. The maintenance backlog is the result.
With increased budgets and better economic security, more funds have
been spent over the past 10 years to improve these agencies, and we are
beginning to see results. But these increases don't even bring these
agencies to baseline.
Almost all public lands are authorized by Congress. Many contain
specific authorization levels, and do exactly as you request of a cost
analysis. Congress requires CBO to score such legislation. Isn't your
request one in the same? Would we not be duplicating efforts?
Question 2. The House passed version of CARA, H.R. 701, includes an
amendment that would preclude the transfer of money to the CARA fund if
the CBO does not certify that Congress is on-track to eliminate the
national debt by 2013, or meet Social Security or Medicare obligations.
Do you support a similar amendment to the Senate bills and why? If not,
Why?
Response. Yes, we are seeking a dedicated funding trust, but do not
believe it has to be constructed like Social Security and Medicare. We
do not have a problem with it being structure in the same way that the
Highway Trust and Aviation Trust bills are dedicated and under
sequester rules if there is a national debt.
Question 3. Do you believe that the Federal Government is a better
steward of land than private ownership? Why?
Response. There are good examples of stewardship in both the
government and private ownership sectors. There are also examples of
bad stewardship in both. It begs the important questions--there should
be places in our country that the public has a right to access and use.
We should not allow international and large corporations buy up the
last remaining untamed lands of our nation for their own private use,
denying families and others a chance to hunt, fish, picnic, etc.
Question 4. S. 2181 provides full funding for PILT. S. 2123
provides a match for PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing. S. 25 is silent
on both points. Given the impact of increased Federal land ownership on
local communities, do you support providing full funding for PILT and
Refuge Sharing as part of CARA? If not, Why?
Response. We have always supported and worked hard each year with
the appropriations committee to achieve full funding of PILT and Refuge
sharing.
Question 5. Do any of the CARA bills adequately address the
operations shortfalls or maintenance backlog on Federal lands? If not,
should the CARA bills address this problem? If not, why?
Response. We do hope the CARA proposal will contain money for
backlog maintenance. We only ask that it not be at the expense of the
LWCF fund. We, as a nation, can afford both.
__________
Responses by Rindy O'Brien to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. Please elaborate on the Federal Government's role in
State and local planning decisions under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181.
Response. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was established 30
years ago. To ensure recreational opportunities are available for all
Americans, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has a State
matching-grant component. The state-side 50/50 match empowers
communities to realize their own ``green dreams'' and recreational
goals. This fund is distributed to States on a State formula that is
designated as part of the authorizing bill. Each State must conduct its
own inventory of needs and submit that inventory to the Secretary of
Interior. Once such an inventory exists, the Secretary releases the fun
to the Governor of the State. The Governor or his designee then
distributes the funds to local and or stat projects that have
demonstrated a 50 percent match. The projects do not have to be on the
inventory, per se, although often they are. The program really is
controlled at the State and local level.
Question 2. If the Department of Interior disagrees with a State's
or locality's planning decision, could DOI withhold funds?
Response. The decision to approve projects rest with the Governor
not DOI.
Question 3. I am concerned with the impact of S. 25, S. 2123, and
S. 2181 on lands used for hunting and fishing. The flood of money
provided by CARA will enable buying and turning over to the government,
private lands currently used for hunting and fishing. This will subject
the property's sporting use to the whim of public opinion, and a
bureaucracy increasingly hostile to sport, fishing, trapping, and gun
ownership.
An example of my concern is what happened in New York last year
with the largest land purchase in that State's history. For over one
hundred years, Champion International Timber Company and previous
private owners has leased out 139,000 acres of its holdings for
recreation, including fishing and hunting. When the State of New York
purchased the land, the State's first ``management'' action was to
eliminate hunting access and drastically limit other recreation uses.
Included with these mandates was ordering the destruction of 298
hunting cottages used by 3,000 sportsmen each year.
Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, how likely are scenarios like
this?
Response. Actually, the CARA program will do just the opposite. I
hear often from hunters and fishing folks that they are being denied
access to lands that traditionally have been in private ownership and
no are being sold to international corporations that fence and post no
hunting and fishing access. Actually CARA would provide funding for
conservation easements that would allow the both of two worlds. Private
ownership could remain but corporations could be paid to allow the more
traditional use of their property. There is no funding in the current
stewardship arena to do that.
Question 4. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, how is the
applicability of the Pittman Robertson Act expanded?
Response. I do not have expertise or knowledge of title III to
address that question.
Question 5. Could the additional funds lead to abuses of the
Pittman-Robertson fund?
Response. Do not know.
Question 6. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, what is the total
scope of potential land acquisition?
Response. I do not know that anyone knows the answer to this
question. There are thousands of inholders around the country that have
been waiting for the appropriations of LWCF to acquire, as willing
seller, their inholdings. This would allow the government to complete
promises made years ago. I emphasize that the land acquisition needs
have almost always (with a few exceptions) been by willing seller. This
would also allow for land exchanges and consolidation to provide better
management of our public lands.
Question 7. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, how much land
acquisition power has any restrictions or protections placed upon it?
Response. S. 25 would have placed geographic restrictions. All
bills contain language to strengthen the willing seller acquisition,
and all bills insure the constitutional rights of property owners.
Question 8. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, what is the
potential for significant increases in discretionary spending above and
beyond what would be dedicated to the trust fund?
Response. None.
Question 9. Does creating a CARA trust fund violate the fiscal year
2001 budget resolution?
Response. Yes, the FYI, 2001 budget resolution would have to be
amended. But, as I said in my testimony, if this nation can take
highway building off-budget, it should spend a fraction of the money
for preserving our parks and heritage. With the surplus funds of this
government, amending the budget should not be an issue.
__________
Statement of Rodger Schlickeisen, Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural
Resources Defense Council
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Rodger
Schlickeisen and I am President of Defenders of Wildlife, a national
non-profit conservation organization representing the interests of
400,000 members and supporters. The mission of Defenders of Wildlife is
the conservation of all plants and animals in their natural
communities. I thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony
today regarding the Conservation and Stewardship Act (S. 2181), the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act (S. 2123) and the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act (S. 25). I am presenting this testimony today on
behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, the Natural Resources Defense Council,
American Oceans Campaign, and the Center for Marine Conservation.
First, we are extremely grateful to authors and cosponsors of all
the proposals that have been introduced in the Senate and appreciate
their leadership and commitment in seeking to ensure funding for these
critical conservation needs. We also thank the committee for holding
this hearing and hope the committee will use its influence in assuring
that any final conservation funding legislation is environmentally
sound and truly provides dedicated funding for all covered programs.
Our highest legislative priority this Congress is the passage of
sound legislation that will provide dedicated funding to aid in the
conservation of our nation's imperiled biodiversity. To provide the
ongoing means for achieving the landscape level conservation needed in
this new century and to maintain and restore our once vibrant
biological heritage, such legislation must include funding for a broad
array of conservation tools including: land acquisition at the local,
State, regional and Federal levels; permanent conservation easements
for private landowners to conserve habitat on working lands; incentives
for private landowners to recover threatened and endangered species;
programs to protect and restore fragile coastal and marine resources;
and funding to States for State wildlife and habitat conservation
guided by a comprehensive habitat planning process. We also believe it
to be absolutely imperative that any final legislative package ``first,
must do no harm.'' We have won nothing if we take a step forward by
providing funding for critical conservation programs and then two steps
back by doing it in such a way that results in irreparable damage to
our coastal and marine areas.
Background
A 1998 survey by the American Museum of Natural History confirmed
that a majority of scientific experts believe that we are in the midst
of a mass extinction of living things. These scientists agree that:
the loss of species will pose a major threat to human existence in
this century; during the next 30 years as many as one-fifth of all
species alive today could become extinct; this so-called ``sixth
extinction'' is the fastest in the Earth's 4.5 billion-year history,
but unlike prior mass extinctions, is primarily the result of human
activity and not natural causes; biodiversity loss is a greater threat
than the depletion of the ozone layer, global warming or pollution and
contamination.
In the United States alone, there are over 1,200 species listed as
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Unfortunately, this list merely represents the tip of the iceberg. The
Nature Conservancy currently lists more than 6,900 U.S. species as
either critically imperiled, imperiled or vulnerable representing 1 in
3 of our native vertebrate, flowering plant and selected invertebrate
species.
Equally troubling as the demise of wild species is the loss and
degradation of entire ecosystems. A 1995 U.S. Department of the
Interior report identified 82 ecosystem types in the United States that
have lost more than 70 percent of their extent since European
settlement. Of these, 27 have declined by more than 98 percent. These
include natural communities from across the country, including eastern
deciduous old-growth forest, oak savanna in the Midwest, pine rocklands
in South Florida, canebrakes in the Southeast, native grasslands in
California, and Palouse prairie in the Pacific Northwest.
The loss of wild species and ecosystems or collectively,
biodiversity is clearly one of our most important environmental
problems. Fortunately, this Congress has before it an historic
opportunity to enact landmark legislation that will greatly increase
the number of tools available to conserve our dwindling biodiversity.
I. S. 2181, THE ``CONSERVATION AND STEWARDSHIP ACT, IS MORE EQUITABLE
AND WILL ACHIEVE GREATER CONSERVATION BENEFITS THAN S. 2123 OR S. 25
S. 2181, the Conservation and Stewardship Act, distributes Federal
funding more equitably than either version of the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act by reducing the amount provided for coastal impact
assistance and distributing it among other important conservation
programs. S. 2181 removes problematic incentives for Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) activity off Alaska and more effectively restricts OCS
impact grants to environmentally beneficial uses. Compared with S.
2123, S. 2181 provides more money for conservation easements and adds
funding to protect lands of regional and national interest and urban
forests. It also increases funding to protect important cultural and
historic resources through the Historic Preservation Fund and adds
funding for the Youth Conservation Corps and Forest Service programs to
assist rural resource dependent communities. We recommend, however,
expanding S. 2181's National Park System Resource Protection Fund in
Title VI to cover Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management,
Forest Service and Indian lands, similar to Title VI in S. 2123. We
also think it important to note that even though funding provided to
oil producing States in S. 2123 is excessive, the distribution of
funding in the bill as a whole is more equitable than in S. 25 which
does not fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and does not
provide dedicated funding for conservation easements, endangered
species recovery landowner incentives, coastal and marine conservation,
Federal lands restoration or historic preservation.
S. 2181 also addresses major problems associated with both S. 25
and S. 2123 which will be discussed below. We therefore, strongly
support and endorse the Conservation and Stewardship Act while
acknowledging that a few changes are needed to perfect the bill. We
will provide testimony regarding three of the areas under jurisdiction
of the Environment and Public Works Committee: potentially damaging
effects of coastal impact assistance upon habitat, State wildlife
habitat conservation, and incentives for recovery of listed species.
Because we think an intact and permanently funded Land and Water
Conservation Fund is the very core of an effective conservation funding
bill, we are including remarks on that as well.
II. S. 2181 WOULD REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
COMPREHENSIVE STATE WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION STRATEGIES
S. 2181, S. 2123, and S. 25 all propose to provide a portion of OCS
revenues to fund State wildlife conservation programs a goal that we
strongly support. These bills would all accomplish this goal by
augmenting State fish and game agency funding through the existing
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (a.k.a. Pittman-Robertson). We
strongly support the approach taken in S. 2181 because, of the three
referenced bills, it is the only one that requires each State to
develop a wildlife habitat conservation strategy that prioritizes the
expenditure of Federal funds to comprehensively protect biodiversity.
H.R. 4377, the House-passed version of CARA, is deficient because it
does not contain a wildlife habitat conservation strategy provision.
In 1980, Congressman Forsyth and Senator Chafee cosponsored
landmark legislation designed to provide much-needed financial
assistance to State fish and game agencies to begin to better address,
in a comprehensive and proactive way, the conservation needs of the
array of species that make up our wildlife heritage. The Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA) recognized the many significant values
of wildlife species, the majority of which are neither hunted, trapped
or otherwise caught. It also recognized that the traditional sources of
funding for wildlife management, such as those available through
Pittman-Robertson, were so closely tied to game species, that ``nongame
species'' were not receiving adequate conservation attention, and as
one result, many were becoming listed as threatened and endangered.
This far-sighted legislation sought to do two things. First was to
establish a reliable source of funding for nongame management to
complement the very successful game management programs of the State
fish and wildlife agencies. The second was to ask the State fish and
game agencies to develop and implement conservation plans and programs
for nongame fish and wildlife. Although enacted into law, the FWCA was
never funded by Congress.
Title III of S. 2181 embodies the spirit and goals of the FWCA it
emphasizes the particular needs of species that are not hunted or
fished and requires comprehensive State wildlife habitat conservation
strategies but with refinements that recognize the fundamental value of
biodiversity the full array of species and the natural communities and
ecosystems they form across the landscape. It also recognizes that the
leading threat to the maintenance of our biodiversity is the continued
loss and degradation of habitat, and that without proper habitat
protections, game and nongame species alike can become threatened or
endangered species in short order.
I was extremely pleased, Mr. Chairman, to see in your letter to me
of May 4, 2000, your agreement that Title III language in S. 2181 is
superior to that in S. 2123. You stated, ``I agree with you, however,
that there are elements in Senator Bingaman's competing bill, S. 2181,
that would improve on the language of CARA. For example, I will request
that language outlining a process to dedicate funds for low population
and declining species, be included in CARA as well. This language,
expected to benefit primarily non game species, is similar to language
contained in Title III of S. 2181.'' Mr. Chairman, your support will
help ensure that this critical language is included in any final bill.
A Strategic Approach to State Wildlife Habitat Conservation
S. 2181's emphasis on sound, comprehensive planning is particularly
important. Even with the significant funding levels proposed in all
three bills, it will be necessary for the States to strategically
prioritize and target how the money is spent most effectively and
efficiently to conserve biodiversity. It is certainly not unreasonable
or overly burdensome for Congress to require each State to develop
write lay out on paper its vision and comprehensive wildlife habitat
conservation strategy for spending its share of $350 million annually
in Federal funds. S. 2181 recognizes the need for a comprehensive,
state-wide assessment of our wildlife species, their habitat needs, the
threats to these species and their habitats, and the management actions
necessary to address those threats. It will ensure that each State
undertake an intensive look at what is necessary to conserve all
species. Equally important, it recognizes the need for meaningful
public participation in the development, implementation and revision of
State wildlife habitat conservation strategies. Twenty years after
passage of the FWCA, with an ever-growing list of threatened and
endangered species now more than 1,200 native species, 85 percent of
which are at risk due to habitat loss the need for comprehensive state-
based planning efforts has never been greater.
What are the key elements of state-based habitat conservation
strategies?
1. They are broad-based, both biologically and institutionally.
They cover all animal and plant species, but they can do so through a
coarse filter (community-based) fine filter (rare, threatened, or
endangered species occurrences) approach. They also should be done in
coordination with other relevant State and Federal land and resource
management agencies.
2. They identify the key habitat areas that must be maintained in
current land uses to provide adequate habitat for all natural community
types (the coarse filter) and all focal species (e.g. threatened,
endangered, or otherwise of management concern, whether game or
nongame).
3. They identify the key threats to focal species and essential
habitats, and identify and prioritize management options and research
needs for addressing those threats.
4. They use the best available data and information, such as State
Gap Analysis and Natural Heritage data bases and, if necessary,
identify additional survey needs where data gaps exist.
5. They establish a practical and informative program of monitoring
and assessment of essential habitat and focal species status that can
assist the agency in taking an adaptive management approach to
conservation. Such programs should be geared to evolving the State's
habitat conservation system plan on a periodic basis to address
changing conditions.
6. As any good government planning exercise must, they provide for
meaningful public participation in the development, implementation and
periodic revision of the strategy.
7. They provide opportunities to educate and inform the public on
the importance of conserving wild species and their habitats.
Entities in two States Florida and Oregon have attempted such
comprehensive, state-wide habitat conservation strategies. In Florida,
the effort was led by the Game and Freshwater Fish Commission,
demonstrating what the State agencies could do with adequate funding of
the FWCA. In Oregon, I am proud to say that the effort was led by
Defenders of Wildlife and The Nature Conservancy, but with active
participation and support from relevant State and Federal agencies, and
the private sector. I have brought copies of each strategy and I offer
them for the record and your consideration. Each effort has its own
unique features but each serves as a prototype for the type of
comprehensive, state-wide conservation planning that will be necessary
to maintain our nation's biodiversity. This is the kind of far-sighted,
proactive, problem-solving approach to conservation that was envisioned
in the FWCA and that, with passage of a planning provision such as in
S. 2181, can become a reality in all States.
We believe such planning exercises are absolutely essential to the
effective and efficient conservation of our wildlife heritage, be it
game, nongame, or endangered species. Properly done, such strategies
could be the blueprints for biodiversity conservation success, and
could provide a common framework for effective coordination for
existing or new conservation programs at the Federal, State, and local
levels.
The habitat conservation strategy provision in S. 2181 incorporates
the above elements and is strongly supported by a broad spectrum of
wildlife conservation groups. Last year a number of these groups
including the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
Wildlife Management Institute, National Wildlife Federation, National
Wild Turkey Federation and Defenders of Wildlife, among others, sent a
letter to Congressman Don Young requesting that the very same planning
language in S. 2181 be included in the House version of CARA. A copy of
that letter is attached to my testimony.
Defenders has recently conducted a survey of State fish and game
agencies, natural heritage programs, and State planning offices. More
than a dozen States indicated strong interest in developing
comprehensive habitat conservation plans. Many States indicated the
lack of available funding as a major impediment to completing such
plans.
Finally, we note that H.R. 4377, the House-passed bill, limits to
10 percent the amount of Title III funds that a State could spend on
wildlife-related recreational projects. We think that this is a
reasonable and appropriate restriction, given the existing biodiversity
crisis and tremendous need among State wildlife agencies for
substantially increased wildlife and habitat conservation funding. We
urge that a similar provision be included in any final Senate
legislation.
III. S. 2181 AND S. 2123 WOULD PROVIDE CRITICALLY NEEDED FUNDING FOR
THE RECOVERY OF ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES
Defenders strongly supports Title IV of S. 2181, the Endangered and
Threatened Species Recovery Fund, which would provide much needed and
dedicated funding to assist in the recovery of those species of
wildlife most in need endangered and threatened species. We also
support a similar provision in S. 2123. Through non-regulatory
incentives other than fee simple acquisition, this money would be
available to those private landowners interested in assisting with the
recovery of federally listed species. S. 25, however, includes no such
provision.
The ESA is the most important piece of legislation ever enacted
into law to conserve endangered species and their habitats. Since 1973,
the ESA has prevented the extinction of hundreds of species and has
helped focus attention on the need to conserve our nation's imperiled
biodiversity. We can and must, however, do better. Due in part to
improper implementation and inadequate funding, few species listed
under the ESA have recovered. If we are to fulfill the goal of the ESA
the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend we cannot be satisfied with merely
holding species at the brink of extinction. There must be a concerted
effort to implement programs and actions that promote the recovery of
listed species and their habitats.
Habitat loss is recognized as the primary factor leading to the
endangerment of species in the United States. Much of that habitat is
found on non-Federal lands. Over 40 percent of all federally listed
species occur exclusively on non-Federal lands, and over 60 percent of
all listed species' populations are on non-Federal lands. Clearly, if
we are to recover our nation's endangered and threatened species, we
must conserve and restore their habitats on non-Federal lands.
S. 2181 and S. 2123 would help accomplish this goal by providing
much needed funding for the purpose of enlisting the voluntary
participation of private landowners in the recovery of endangered and
threatened species. Under this provision, $50 million a year of
dedicated funds would be available to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and National Marine Fisheries Service for the purpose of
assisting private landowners in the development and implementation of
endangered and threatened species recovery agreements. This provision
contains two important standards to guide the types of agreements to be
funded, but without being so prescriptive as to restrict innovation.
First, the agreement must clearly contribute to the recovery of an
endangered or threatened species. Second, financial assistance under
this program would be restricted to voluntary activities that are not
otherwise required under law; mitigation performed under an ESA
incidental take permit or statement would not be eligible.
IV. S. 2181 TAKES A SIGNIFICANT STEP FORWARD IN PREVENTING HARM FROM
COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE AND REQUIRING ENVIRONMENTALLY BENEFICIAL USES
OF FUNDS
It is our view that the overarching goal for the coastal/ocean
title of these bills must be protection and restoration of our nation's
valuable and fragile coastal and marine resources. To achieve this,
there must be no incentives to States or local governments to accept
new offshore oil and gas activities, and the money allocated to States
and local governments must be spent in ways that help, not harm, the
environment. Of the bills addressed in our testimony today, S. 2181
comes closest to achieving these critical goals. Recognizing the need
for a small number of changes, we strongly support and endorse it.
A. Incentives for OCS activity
A major issue surrounding the debate over CARA and related bills
has been incentives to States and local governments to accept new
offshore oil activities. Offshore oil development brings with it water
pollution, air pollution, the potential for oil spills, as well as
onshore roads, pipelines, refineries and other infrastructure that pose
a major threat to coastal and marine areas. The problem of incentives
has arisen in the context of the allocation formula of these bills, and
in the source of OCS revenues used to fund all programs in CARA.
1. The allocation formula. S. 2123 allocates 50 percent of the $1
billion provided under Title 1 to the seven OCS States based on
proximity to OCS leasing; this allocation is revisited every 5 years.
The allocation scheme excludes leased tracts within the moratorium
areas on which there was no production as of 1/1/99 from the
calculation of which States get money and how much they get, a helpful
step forward. However, since Alaska (outside of Bristol Bay) is not
subject to the moratorium, the State will have an incentive to accept
new leasing, given that the more leasing it has, the greater its share
of the $500 million pie.
Compounding this problem, S. 2123 requires OCS States to directly
pass through to local governments 50 percent of the State's total
allocable share based in part (50 percent) on the locality's proximity
to leasing. In the past, many local communities in Alaska have
successfully fought offshore leasing, succeeding in getting sales
canceled or modified in ways that reduce the impact. Local communities
were key in getting the Governor of Alaska to oppose leasing in Bristol
Bay, Shelikoff Strait, Lower Cook Inlet, and elsewhere. The proximity-
linked pass through will undermine this opposition by providing a major
incentive for local governments and the State to accept more OCS
leasing. Without effective State and local opposition, there will be
more leasing in Alaska, threatening national parks, wildlife refuges,
wilderness areas and marine and coastal areas in the State.
Alaska has more coastline than the continental United States and
some of the nation's richest and most productive marine areas.
Sensitive areas in or adjacent to OCS areas open for potential leasing
include the Bering Sea, one of the world's most productive fishing
grounds, the Gulf of Alaska, Glacier Bay National Park, the Tongass
National Forest and two dozen national wildlife refuges, parks and
forests. These coastal and marine resources constitute national
treasures too precious to risk. The incentives for offshore oil
activity off Alaska in these bills must be removed.
S. 2181 makes a very helpful step toward this goal by eliminating
the pass through to local governments, an improvement we very strongly
support. Deleting the pass through not only dramatically reduces the
incentive for OCS development, but also eliminates concerns about the
uses of Title I money by local governments (see discussion below). In
addition, the overall allocation to the OCS States based on proximity
is much smaller in S. 2181 ($100 million vs. $500 million in CARA),
which has the effect of reducing the incentive. For these reasons, we
view S. 2181 as a critical step forward. At the same time, however, we
remain concerned that the State of Alaska will continue to benefit
financially from accepting new OCS activity under S. 2181. We recommend
that this incentive be removed from the final bill.
The approach in S. 25 is similar to that in S. 2123, except that S.
25 does not exclude the moratorium States and their local governments
from receiving money based on new production, providing an incentive
for the moratorium States and their local governments to eliminate the
moratorium and accept new leasing and production on existing leases.
For this and other reasons discussed below, we oppose S. 25.
The House-passed version of CARA represents an important
improvement over S. 2123 with respect to the allocation formula. The
House managers agreed to an amendment that removed the 5-year
revisitation of the State allocation, in essence adopting the snapshot
approach. Under the House-passed version of CARA, a State's allocation
will not change, no matter how much leasing it accepts. There is some
remaining ambiguity regarding whether local government allocation is
subject to the same snapshot approach, although in a colloquy the
managers indicated that was their intent. While we strongly recommend
eliminating the pass through to local governments altogether, if there
is to be a pass through, clarifying language in the bill itself to
ensure the snapshot applies to the local government allocation is
essential. Other changes needed to the House-passed bill are addressed
below.
2. Revenues Under S. 2181, S. 2123, and the House-passed version of
CARA., ``Qualified OCS revenues'' fund all three Titles of CARA. All of
these bills exclude revenues from tracts within the moratorium areas on
which there was no production as of 1/1/99, which is a helpful step
forward (in contrast, S. 25 does not). However, revenues from leasing
and production in Alaska (outside of Bristol Bay) would fund all titles
of these bills. As we have noted, this creates a major incentive for
various beneficiaries of the bill to support new leasing and
development in Alaska in order to provide sufficient revenues for the
activities funded by the bill. This is particularly the case if OCS
revenues from the Gulf of Mexico start declining and revenues from
Alaska are needed to make up the shortfall. As the Oil and Gas Journal
noted in January, ``oil lobbyists would like to see it [CARA] pass in
the hope that it would give inland States a vested interest in ensuring
that offshore drilling continues at current levels.'' We favor removing
Alaska revenues from funding any of the titles of these bills in the
same way that revenues from the moratorium areas are excluded.
B. Uses of Title I funds and oversight
CARA and its relatives have the potential to become among the most
important conservation initiatives of the new century. By providing
landmark levels of permanent funding for critical wildlife, land, and
historic preservation programs, these bills will significantly advance
conservation and protection of our nation's natural heritage. We
strongly believe that the coastal and ocean titles of these bills must
be equally conservation oriented. To accomplish this, it is crucial
that Title I funds be used to help, not harm the environment.
Unfortunately, S. 2123, S. 25 and the House passed version of CARA do
not achieve this goal.
As noted above, Title I of S. 2123 and the House-passed version of
CARA provide $1 billion per year to coastal States, the bulk of which
goes to the seven OCS States, (California, Alaska, Florida, Louisiana,
Texas, Mississippi and Alabama). These bills require the States to
spend the money on one or more uses, most of which are environmentally
beneficial. Unfortunately, however, there is nothing in these bills to
prevent the OCS States (and some non-OCS States that may be affected by
OCS activity in another State) from spending most or all of the more
than $700 million they will collectively get each year on
environmentally damaging onshore infrastructure, including roads,
ports, jetties, groins, and similar activities. While the bills provide
for Federal oversight, such oversight is of limited utility in the
absence of standards in the bill ensuring that the money will be spent
in a manner that does not harm the environment.
In addition, we have major concerns about the pass through to local
governments contained in both bills. Local governments may lack
jurisdiction or expertise to carry out many if not most of the
conservation uses permitted in the bill, leaving them with few options
other than construction.
Furthermore, both bills give the Interior Department oversight
authority over State expenditures of Title I funds, even though the
majority of the permitted uses fall under the jurisdiction and
expertise of the Commerce Department. Neither bill provides desperately
needed funding for existing Federal coastal and marine programs.
Finally, the 60 day approval process in Title I would preclude
meaningful review of State plans under NEPA, CZMA, etc.
S. 25 places virtually no restrictions on the uses of Title I
money. While the States may use the money for good environmental
projects, there is no requirement that they do so. Indeed, States and
localities could use the money for a huge array of purposes. While S.
25 requires the States to develop plans for use of the money and to
certify the plans to the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary is
given no authority to review and approve the plans. We are extremely
concerned about allocating huge sums to the States with essentially no
controls and no Federal oversight.
In contrast, S. 2181 establishes an ``Ocean and Coast Conservation
Fund'' of $365 million and requires coastal States to spend their
revenues on an array of environmentally beneficial purposes based on
demonstrated conservation and protection needs. The Fund prioritizes
State plans supporting State and Federal laws governing coastal and
marine protection. S. 2181 also provides modest funding for Federal
coral reef protection, a step in the right direction of providing
critically needed funding to supplement appropriations for existing
Federal marine and coastal protection programs. The impact assistance
section of the bill requires the OCS States to spend the additional
$100 million provided only to them only to mitigate the many
environmental impacts associated with offshore oil. Finally, by
avoiding the pass-through and giving principal oversight authority to
the Secretary of Commerce, S. 2181 helps ensure that funds will be used
to help, not hurt, the environment. Thus, S. 2181 represents a very
important step forward.
In conclusion, it is critically important that the coastal and
marine title of the final legislation be a positive step forward for
the environment. To achieve this, the final legislation must adhere to
the following principles:
1. The allocation to coastal States and local governments should be
principally based on shoreline miles and population. If OCS activity
must be a factor, it should be based on leasing as of the date of
enactment (the ``snapshot approach'') to avoid creating incentives for
new OCS activity.
2. Revenues funding the legislation should not include revenues
from OCS activity in the moratorium areas (with the exception of tracts
already in production as of the date of enactment) or off Alaska.
3. There must be clear standards in the bill specifying that Title
I funds must be used ONLY to benefit the environment. Infrastructure
that does not satisfy this requirement is not an appropriate use of
Title I funds. Such standards must be accompanied by effective
oversight by the Federal agency with relevant jurisdiction and
expertise to ensure that the standards in the bill are met.
4. There must be no mandatory pass through as long as the allowable
uses in Title I remain potentially destructive and as long as the local
government allocation is linked to new leasing; and
5. The bill should include supplementary, critically needed funding
for existing Federal coastal and marine conservation programs.
iv. s. 2181 would ensure full and permanent funding for lwcf
One of the major tools we have available to us to protect the
habitat essential to maintain our biodiversity heritage is the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Full and dedicated funding for the LWCF
has been a top priority for the environmental community for many years
and has been a driving force in the various conservation funding
proposals currently in play. We strongly support full and mandatory
funding for LWCF without any burdensome new restrictions. Of the bills
covered in our testimony today, only S. 2181 meets these criteria. Full
and guaranteed funding for LWCF is needed both to address the estimated
$10-12 billion in current acquisition needs for our National Wildlife
Refuges, Forests, Parks, and Bureau of Land Management special areas
and to give States and local entities the resources they need to
preserve dwindling vestiges of habitat and green space.
The ability to acquire land across a continuum of jurisdictions
Federal, State, and local is a critical tool in the increasingly
difficult battle to preserve what remains of our nation's dwindling
wildlife habitat and natural ecosystems. Land acquisition of core
habitat reserve areas and green space must serve as the essential
anchor for other conservation tools funded in these bills such as
easements, private landowner incentives, and State wildlife
conservation programs. As our nation's population grows by about 2.5
million people annually, accompanying development and sprawl continue
to fragment and destroy habitat. Loss of habitat is the primary cause
of species endangerment and will lead to more listings under the
Endangered Species Act.
In addition to the 1995 DOI report cited earlier, a1995 report by
Defenders, ``Endangered Ecosystems: A Status Report on America's
Vanishing Habitat and Wildlife'' found that extensive habitat
destruction is reaching the point where the Nation faces the loss of
not just thousands of species, but hundreds of natural ecosystems as
well. The report identified the 21 most endangered ecosystems which
include the south Florida landscape, southern Appalachian spruce fir
forest, California native grasslands, southwest riparian forests,
southern California coastal sage scrub, and tallgrass prairie. The 10
States with the greatest overall risk of ecosystem loss were found to
be Florida, California, Hawaii, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, South
Carolina, Virginia, Alabama, and Tennessee; however all States were
found to have serious problems.
A secure and adequate stream of LWCF funding is absolutely
necessary to help slow this loss before it accelerates further. S. 2181
provides full mandatory funding for both Federal and State LWCF, at
$450 million each, but still gives Congress oversight by requiring the
President to submit a list of proposed projects each year which
Congress can then change through legislation. We strongly support this
approach.
Concerns with LWCF titles in S. 25 and S. 2123
In contrast, S. 25, which funds LWCF as a percentage of OCS
receipts and funds the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery program out
of LWCF, does not provide full LWCF funding. S. 25 also imposes
unacceptable restrictions on Federal LWCF projects; restrictions that
would limit needed flexibility and could result in unforeseen obstacles
and unnecessary delays for high priority projects and ``willing
seller'' landowners.
The first of these restrictions would require subsequent and
specific authorization for funding of each Federal acquisition in
excess of $5 million. This is unnecessary and duplicative, as Federal
acquisition is already authorized in a number of statutes. And it would
put numerous Federal projects right back where they are now--
unnecessarily delayed because funding is unavailable. For example, even
under the existing acquisition process, landowners are routinely told
by the Fish and Wildlife Service that they must wait at least one and
one-half to 2 years for Congress to provide funding. Examples of
projects that could be affected are numerous, including some in excess
of $5 million proposed in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget such
as acquisitions for BLM California Wilderness, Florida's Archie Carr,
Florida Keys, Ding Darling, and Pelican Island National Wildlife
Refuges, Colorado's Great Sand Dunes National Monument, Virginia's
Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National
Military Park, Pennsylvania's Gettysburg National Military Park,
Wyoming's Grand Teton National Park and Uncompahgre (CO), Deerlodge
(MT), and Coconino (AZ) National Forests.
The second restriction, requiring that two-thirds of yearly funding
be spent east of the 100th meridian imposes an arbitrary geographic
limitation that could affect new opportunities similar to the recent
Headwaters Forest and New World Mine projects and timely acquisitions
from willing sellers of inholdings in a number of western States
including Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho,
Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. Flexibility must be
maintained to take advantage of conservation opportunities where they
exist, rather than imposing arbitrary geographic limitations on where
moneys can be spent.
The third restriction would limit expenditure of funds to lands
exclusively within exterior boundaries of our current land management
systems. While most acquisition takes place within boundaries, Federal
agencies have been allowed flexibility in this area, for example, where
single ownerships transect agency boundaries. Without this flexibility,
such landowners would be forced to split their acreage or sell
privately. Moreover, this provision would affect the National Forest
System's current authorization allowing acquisition of lands adjacent
to its boundaries. The ability of the National Forest System to acquire
adjacent lands can be particularly important in preventing
fragmentation of habitat and establishing wildlife corridors. A prime
example of an ongoing project which could be jeopardized by this
language is the North Florida Wildlife Corridor or Pinhook Swamp which
eventually will provide a linkage between the Okeefenokee National
Wildlife Refuge in Georgia and the Osceola National Forest in Florida.
This linkage would complete a large, regionally significant
conservation area providing a stronghold for wide-ranging species such
as the Florida black bear, a species that has pushed into areas so
small that a predominant cause of mortality is motor vehicle
collisions. The North Florida Wildlife Corridor is looked to nationally
as an example of a successful public-private-non-profit cooperative
venture to enhance the value of protected areas by establishing their
connection as one major ecosystem and for this reason was identified as
a model for future land acquisitions in the 1993 National Research
Council study Setting Priorities for Land Acquisition. This purchase is
also important in protecting a recharge area for the aquifer that
supplies drinking water for more than 20.5 million citizens of Florida
and Georgia and will be open as a recreation area for hiking, fishing,
hunting, camping, and wildlife observation.
We also have concerns with the LWCF title in S. 2123. We are
pleased that S. 2123 does provide the full $900 million for LWCF, split
evenly between Federal and State programs. However, Federal LWCF is
singled out to be treated differently from every other program in the
bill by still requiring action by the appropriators before moneys can
be spent. Furthermore, if the Appropriations Committee does not expend
the full $450 million for Federal LWCF in a given year the unobligated
balances do not remain available; thus a subsequent Congress is
prevented from making up the prior year's shortfall in a subsequent
year. We are also concerned that administrative costs for all
activities funded under S. 2123 are limited to not more than 2 percent
of their total operation, a provision that could be crippling for the
Federal LWCF program. Currently, the land agencies' administrative
expenses range from 10-20 percent, since the appropriators fund realty
staff and other needed activities such as appraisals through the LWCF
account. We were also very pleased that S. 2123 removed some of the
most crippling procedural restrictions in S. 25; however S. 2123 still
contains some potentially problematic procedural restrictions. One of
these would require consideration of other alternatives to acquisition
before moving forward with Federal land acquisition projects and could
provide a basis for future litigation and interpretation by the courts
that could be detrimental to future land acquisitions. Another would
require a willing seller or Congressional authorization before
acquisition projects could proceed. While adverse condemnation seldom
ever happens, this flexibility should be maintained if needed for quick
protection of important national resources.
An additional concern is that neither version of CARA contains a
flexible funding program to allow land acquisition for non-Federal
lands of regional and national significance. These projects, such as
the Northern Forest of New England, may go unaddressed because funding
available through stateside LWCF is inadequate to meet these needs,
especially in regions of low population which do not fare well in the
stateside formula. In contrast, S. 2181 provides $125 million for
competitive grants to help conserve these critical areas. It should
also be noted that the House-passed version of CARA, H.R. 4377, has
been amended to include such a program, however no funding has been
identified and allocated for it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our organizations believes there is an historic
opportunity in the 106th Congress to pass landmark legislation to fund
the menu of programs needed to help protect our magnificent natural
heritage as we move into the 21st century. We look forward to working
with the members of this committee, the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, and with sponsors of all the various bills to pass
a sound conservation funding bill this year. Thank you.
______
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
Washington, DC 20001, August 31, 1999.
Hon. Don Young, Chairman,
Committee on Resources,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Young: We write to express our sincere appreciation
for your continued efforts to come to consensus language on the
``Conservation and Reinvestment Act'' (H.R. 701) which can be reported
out of the Resources Committee with a strong, bipartisan vote. Your
efforts over the last year to move ahead will result ultimately, we
believe, in the most comprehensive and significant conservation funding
initiative in the last half of this century. President Theodore
Roosevelt's efforts on one end, and yours on the other to provide the
conservation ``bookends'' for this century. We appreciate your
willingness to work with us and others to achieve this objective.
Toward this end, we enclose a product of several weeks of
deliberation within the wildlife conservation community, which includes
a new finding and sets forth in more detail the strategy for a wildlife
conservation program called for in Title III of H.R. 701. This language
simply outlines a process of assessing species population status and
distribution, habitat availability, and factors contributing to the
decline of species or habitat, which the State fish and wildlife
agencies will use in determining the needs for fish and wildlife
conservation in their States. Through this process the States will then
determine whate their priorities are for spending funds available under
CARA (Title III) to address the needs of the diverse array of fish and
wildlife species in their State. H.R. 701 calls for a State process for
public involvement as program decisions are made and implemented. We
urge you to ensure that the opportunity for broad public involvement is
retained in the final legislation. We, as do you, recognize substantial
unmet conservation needs for so-called ``non-game'' species, and this
language outlines a process for unmet needs to be identified and
spending priorities decided by the States. The strategy language
anticipates that low population and declining species in most cases
will be non-game species.
The undersigned organizations strongly support the attached
language and believe it will significantly improve Title III. We
encourage you to incorporate this language during markup.
A few organizations are interested in further improvements to Title
III. All of our organizations are committed to working with you to
achieve successful legislation this year.
Thank you again for your efforts.
Sincerely,
Roger Holmes, President,
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
Bruce Shupp, National Conservation Director,
BASS, Inc.
Charles Duncan, President,
Association of Field Ornithologists.
Craig Hanson, Vice Chair for Conservation,
Pacific Seabird Group.
Paul Green, Executive Director,
American Bird Association.
Stephen Brown, Coordinator,
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
James Corven, Director,
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network.
Steve Walker, Associate Executive Director,
Bat Conservation International.
John Flicker, CEO,
National Audubon Society.
Daniel Pedrotti, President,
Boone & Crockett Club.
Mike Dennis, General Counsel,
The Nature Conservancy.
Paul Baiach, President,
Birder's Exchange.
Mark Van Putten, President & CEO,
National Wildlife Federation.
Rodger Schlickeisen, President,
Defenders of Wildlife.
Doug Grann, President & CEO,
Wildlife Forever.
Rollin Sparrowe, President,
Wildife Management Institute.
Thomas Franklin, Wildlife Policy Director,
The Wildlife Society.
Paul Hansen, Executive Director,
Issak Walton Lead of America.
Rob Keck, Executive Vice President & CEO,
National Wild Turkey Federation.
______
AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR STATE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGIES UNDER
TITLE III OF H.R. 701, THE ``CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF
1999''
``(e) Wildlife conservation strategy--Any State that receives an
apportionment pursuant to section 4(c) shall within 5 years of the date
of the initial apportionment develop and begin implementation of a
wildlife conservation strategy based upon the best available and
appropriate scientific information and data that----
``(1) uses such information on the distribution and abundance of
species of wildlife, including low population and declining species as
the State fish and wildlife department deems appropriate, that are
indicative of the diversity and health of the wildlife of the State;
``(2) identifies the extent and condition of wildlife habitats and
community types essential to the conservation of species identified
under paragraph (1);
``(3) identifies the problems which may adversely affect the
species identified under paragraph (1) or their habitats, and provides
for priority research and surveys to identify factors which may assist
in restoration and more effective conservation of such species and
their habitats;
``(4) determines those actions which should be taken to conserve
the species identified under paragraph (1) and their habitats, and
establishes priorities for implementing such conservation actions;
``(5) provides for periodic monitoring of species identified under
paragraph (1) and their habitats and the effectiveness of the
conservation actions determined under paragraph (4), and for adapting
conservation actions as appropriate to respond to new information or
changing conditions;
``(6) provides for the review of the State wildlife conservation
strategy and, if appropriate, revision at intervals of not more than 10
years; and
``(7) provides for coordination to the extent feasible by the State
fish and wildlife department, during the development, implementation,
review, and revision of the wildlife conservation strategy, with
Federal, State and local agencies and Indian tribes that manage
significant areas of land or water within the State, or administer
programs that significantly affect the conservation of species
identified under paragraph (1) of their habitats.
______
Responses by Rodger Schlickeisen to Additional Questions from Senator
Crapo
Question 1. The maintenance backlog on our public lands is immense,
however, these bills propose to increase Federal ownership of lands.
Does it make sense to require a cost analysis of future operations and
maintenance costs associated with land to be acquired? If not, why?
Response. As we said in our testimony, the backlog of needed
acquisitions in existing Federal land management units is estimated at
$10-12 billion. Moreover, loss of habitat is the primary cause of
species endangerment and will lead to more listings under the
Endangered Species Act. Equally troubling as the demise of wild species
is the loss and degradation of entire ecosystems. A 1995 U.S.
Department of the Interior report identified 82 ecosystem types in the
United States that have lost more than 70 percent of their extent since
European settlement. Of these, 27 have declined by more than 98
percent. Land acquisition must move forward as conservation
opportunities arise to address these pressing needs and before
inflation escalates purchase prices beyond reach. Once we acquire the
lands we can turn to ensuring operations and maintenance needs are
accurately estimated and then funded through the Interior and Related
Agencies appropriations bill. The bottom line is that both of these
areas--acquisition and operations/maintenance--must be prioritized in
the Federal budget; up until now, that has not happened.
Question 2. The House-passed version of CARA, H.R. 701, includes an
amendment that would preclude the transfer of money to the CARA fund if
the CBO does not certify that Congress is on-track to eliminate the
national debt by 2013, or meet Social Security or Medicare obligations.
Do you support a similar amendment to the Senate bills and why? If not,
why?
Response. No. We opposed that amendment in the House and oppose any
similar amendment in the Senate. Any legislation that is passed should
follow the principles established in the original Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act and Congressional intent at the time--that the
funding from the depletion of one non-renewable resource ought to be
dedicated to protect another nonrenewable resource and its spending
guaranteed. This promise was made with the passage of LWCF more than 30
years ago--had it been kept there would be no need for the current
legislation. Protection of our environment is no less important than
other priorities, such as transportation, and its funding should be
assured.
Question 3. Do you believe that the Federal Government is a better
steward of land than private ownership? Why?
Response. Yes, in many cases. However, it is clear that the total
amount of land needed for wildlife conservation will never be achieved
by outright acquisition. Management of private working lands to
maintain the current habitat base will complement protection afforded
by Federal and state-owned lands.
Question 4. S. 2181 provides full funding for PILT. S. 2123
provides a match for PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing. S. 25 is silent
on both points. Given the impact of increased Federal land ownership on
local communities, do you support providing full funding for PILT and
Refuge Sharing as part of CARA? If not, why?
Response. Yes, we support full funding for both as part of CARA.
Question 5. Do any of the CARA bills adequately address the
operations shortfalls or maintenance backlog on Federal lands? If not,
should the CARA bills address this problem? If not, why?
Response. No, the CARA bills should not address this problem.
Providing funding for the operations and maintenance needs of the
agencies is not the purpose of the CARA bills. These needs could be
handled in the regular appropriation process if the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee were given an adequate 302(b) allocation.
However, we do not oppose the inclusion of a title that provides a
modest amount to meet some of these needs, such as Title VI, Federal
and Indian Lands Restoration in S. 2123 and H. R. 4377, the House-
passed CARA bill. We would not support reducing funding for any of the
conservation titles in the bill in order to provide this operations and
maintenance funding, however--this amount would either have to be
additive or come out of the coastal impact assistance portion.
______
Responses by Rodger Schlickeisen to Additional Questions from Senator
Inhofe
Question 1. Please elaborate on the Federal Government's role in
State and local planning decisions under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181.
Response. A key purpose of these bills is to transfer revenues to
State and local governments for worthwhile conservation purposes. The
requirements for State and local planning under the bills are currently
minimal and, if anything, should be expanded. For example, S. 25 and S.
2123 should include the language currently in S. 2181 requiring
development and implementation of comprehensive State wildlife
conservation strategies for Title III, which provides funding for State
wildlife conservation.
Question 2. If the Department of the Interior disagrees with a
State's or locality's planning decision, could DOI withhold funds?
Response. The current planning requirements in the bill are so
general and minimal we find it difficult to foresee a circumstance
under which DOI would be able to withhold funds.
Question 3. I am concerned with the impact of S. 25, S. 2123, and
S. 2181 on lands used for hunting and fishing. The flood of money
provided by CARA will enable buying and turning over to the government,
private lands currently used for hunting and fishing. This will subject
the property's sporting use to the whim of public opinion, and a
bureaucracy increasingly hostile to sport fishing, trapping, and gun
ownership.
An example of my concern is what happened in New York last year
with the largest land purchase in that State's history. For over one
hundred years, Champion International Timber Company and previous
private owners has leased out 139,000 acres of its holdings for
recreation, including fishing and hunting. When the State of New York
purchased the land, the State's first ``management'' action was to
eliminate hunting access and drastically limit other recreation uses.
Included with these mandates was ordering the destruction of 298
hunting cottages used by 3,000 sportsmen each year.
Under S. 25 , S. 2123, and S. 2181, how likely are scenarios like
this?
Response. We believe it is purely speculative that acquisition of
lands by Federal and State governments would result in a decrease of
use by sporting interests. In fact, many hunting and fishing groups,
for example the Izaak Walton League, Wildlife Management Institute, and
the National Wild Turkey Federation, support the legislation.
Question 4. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, how is the
applicability of the Pittman-Robertson Act expanded?
Response. The applicability of the Pittman-Robertson Act (P-R) is
not expanded under these bills--the bills simply utilize P-R to set up
a new program/subaccount for wildlife conservation. Funding and any
requirements would be separate from the current P-R program.
Question 5. Could the additional funds lead to abuses of the
Pittman-Robertson fund?
Response. No, again, a new subaccount is established.
Question 6. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, what is the total
scope of potential land acquisition?
Response. The bills provide up to $900 million per year for LWCF,
the primary conduit for land acquisition in the bills.
Question 7. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, how much land
acquisition power has any restrictions or protections placed upon it?
Response. As we said in our testimony, under S. 25 and S. 2123, the
Federal LWCF is subject to burdensome and unnecessary new restrictions
which we unequivocally oppose. These restrictions would limit needed
flexibility and could result in unforeseen obstacles and unnecessary
delays for high priority projects and ``willing seller'' landowners.
S. 25 has three unacceptable restrictions. The first of these
restrictions would require subsequent and specific authorization for
funding of each Federal acquisition in excess of $5 million. This is
unnecessary and duplicative, as Federal acquisition is already
authorized in a number of statutes. . And it would put numerous Federal
projects right back where they are now--unnecessarily delayed because
funding is unavailable. For example, even under the existing
acquisition process, landowners are routinely told by the Fish and
Wildlife Service that they must wait at least one and one-half to 2
years for Congress to provide funding. Examples of projects that could
be affected are numerous, including some in excess of $5 million
proposed in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget such as
acquisitions for BLM California Wilderness, Florida's Archie Carr,
Florida Keys, Ding Darling, and Pelican Island National Wildlife
Refuges, Colorado's Great Sand Dunes National Monument, Virginia's
Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National
Military Park, Pennsylvania's Gettysburg National Military Park,
Wyoming's Grand Teton National Park and Uncompahgre (CO), Deerlodge
(MT), and Coconino (AZ) National Forests.
The second restriction, requiring that two-thirds of yearly funding
be spent east of the 100th meridian imposes an arbitrary geographic
limitation that could affect new opportunities similar to the recent
Headwaters Forest and New World Mine projects and timely acquisitions
from willing sellers of inholdings in a number of western States
including Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho,
Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. Flexibility must be
maintained to take advantage of conservation opportunities where they
exist, rather than imposing arbitrary geographic limitations on where
moneys can be spent.
The third restriction would limit expenditure of funds to lands
exclusively within exterior boundaries of our current land management
systems. While most acquisition takes place within boundaries, Federal
agencies have been allowed flexibility in this area, for example, where
single ownerships transect agency boundaries. Without this flexibility,
such landowners would be forced to split their acreage or sell
privately. Moreover, this provision would affect the National Forest
System's current authorization allowing acquisition of lands adjacent
to its boundaries. The ability of the National Forest System to acquire
adjacent lands can be particularly important in preventing
fragmentation of habitat and establishing wildlife corridors. A prime
example of an ongoing project which could be jeopardized by this
language is the North Florida Wildlife Corridor or Pinhook Swamp which
eventually will provide a linkage between the Okeefenokee National
Wildlife Refuge in Georgia and the Osceola National Forest in Florida.
This linkage would complete a large, regionally significant
conservation area providing a stronghold for wide-ranging species such
as the Florida black bear, a species that has pushed into areas so
small that a predominant cause of mortality is motor vehicle
collisions. The North Florida Wildlife Corridor is looked to nationally
as an example of a successful public-private-non-profit cooperative
venture to enhance the value of protected areas by establishing their
connection as one major ecosystem and for this reason was identified as
a model for future land acquisitions in the 1993 National Research
Council study Setting Priorities for Land Acquisition. This purchase is
also important in protecting a recharge area for the aquifer that
supplies drinking water for more than 20.5 million citizens of Florida
and Georgia and will be open as a recreation area for hiking, fishing,
hunting, camping, and wildlife observation.
Under S. 2123, Federal LWCF is singled out to be treated
differently from every other program in the bill by still requiring
action by the appropriators before moneys can be spent. Furthermore, if
the Appropriations Committee does not expend the full $450 million for
Federal LWCF in a given year the unobligated balances do not remain
available; thus a subsequent Congress is prevented from making up the
prior year's shortfall in a subsequent year. We are also concerned that
administrative costs for all activities funded under S. 2123 are
limited to not more than 2 percent of their total operation, a
provision that could be crippling for the Federal LWCF program.
Currently, the land agencies' administrative expenses range from 10-20
percent, since the appropriators fund realty staff and other needed
activities such as appraisals through the LWCF account. Other
restrictions in S. 2123 would also be damaging to the Federal LWCF. One
of these would require consideration of other alternatives to
acquisition before moving forward with Federal land acquisition
projects and could provide a basis for future litigation and
interpretation by the courts that could be detrimental to future land
acquisitions. Another would require a willing seller or Congressional
authorization before acquisition projects could proceed. While adverse
condemnation seldom ever happens, this flexibility should be maintained
if needed for quick protection of important national resources. Still
another requires extensive notification before acquisition projects can
move forward.
Question 8. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, what is the
potential for significant increases in discretionary spending above and
beyond what would be dedicated to the trust fund?
Response. Assuming the question refers to programs funded in the
CARA legislation, we would not foresee significant increases in
discretionary spending for these programs as long as the bills truly
provide full and mandatory funding.
Question 9. Does creating a CARA trust fund violate the fiscal year
2001 budget resolution?
Response. The CARA legislation anticipates that the budget
resolution would be reconciled to provide the mandatory funding levels,
a task that should prove simple given the ever-increasing surplus.
__________
Statement of Michael J. Hardiman, American Land Rights Association
Thank you Mr. Chairman for inviting me to testify today.
I represent the American Land Rights Association. ALRA is a twenty-
three year old nationwide grassroots organization that advocates
private property rights and recreational and commercial access to
Federal lands. Our membership includes small property owners and
Federal permitees in all 50 States.
Personally, I am an inholder of private property located in
California that is surrounded by the Bureau of Land Management. I
purchased the parcel 11 years ago, anticipating that access to
government owned land would continue to be cutoff by the Desert
Protection Act and other laws. That prediction has certainly held true.
I use the property for recreational purposes such as camping and as a
base camp for rock climbing and hiking.
On a per capita basis, S. 2123 is a remarkable cash cow for two
States, Louisiana and Alaska. The average State benefits less than $11
per person, per year from CARA. Louisiana benefits $71 per capita, more
than six times the average, and Alaska rakes in $266 per capita
annually, or twenty-four times what the average State receives.
These two States may have legitimate claims to the funds. However,
I implore the Senate to avoid the creation of a $45 billion, 15 year
land acquisition trust fund in order to satisfy those claims. It will
provide the power and money for government agents to kick people like
me off my land.
Overzealous regulators, joined by environmental pressure groups,
both have a front row seat on the CARA grant money gravy train. They
will make folly of the ``willing seller'' clause by harassing owners of
properties targeted for acquisition and discouraging other potential
buyers. It is not possible to negotiate as a ``willing seller'' when
government is the only buyer.
Every owner of a ranch, woodlot, or game preserve will be at risk
of being targeted by government agencies working in tandem with
environmental, anti-hunting and animal rights pressure groups.
Ironically, since they hold the most desirable properties, private
landowners who have been the most diligent caretakers of their holdings
will be on top of the land grab list for government takeover.
The umbrella group that is coordinating the campaign in support of
CARA is an outfit called Americans for Heritage and Recreation. Proudly
displayed on their website are their Guiding Principles which include
this statement regarding property rights protections:
``AHR adamantly opposes any restrictions on the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, especially those that limit acquisition to Federal
inholdings or adjacent lands, employ arbitrary geographic restrictions
on the use of funds, require new authorizations, or prevent
condemnation.''
The differences between S. 25 and S. 2123 kowtow to AHR's demands.
I will quote here a transcript of Senator Murkowski discussing land
acquisition on Alaska Public Radio on May 9, just 2 weeks ago.
Murkowski: ``This is the Senate Bill 25. It has to be within units
established by an act of Congress. It has to be two thirds of the money
spent east of the 100th meridian, which is primarily east of the
Mississippi, and the purchases of over $5 million require Congressional
approval. So we've got some safeguards in here that are responsible.''
Caller: ``Is the Senator willing to filibuster if those property
protections are stripped out?''
Murkowski: ``Well, I'll be happy to respond to the caller based on
what kind of a debate we get in and whether this bill ultimately moves
or not.''
Those protections are in fact not included in S. 2123.
Furthermore, in accordance with AHR's wishes, amendments to
prohibit use of CARA funds for condemnation of private property were
rejected by the bill's sponsors both in committee and on the floor on
the House side.
There are some hoops that the government is required to jump
through on the Federal side of Title 2, which is Land and Water
Conservation Fund. But those minimal protections in S. 2123 apply to
only $450 million out of nearly $3 billion per year that is disbursed.
S. 2181, Senator Bingaman's bill, is honest. It is a
straightforward wish list from the most extreme elements of the
environmental movement.
On the other hand, S. 2123 and its companion legislation H.R. 701
is a fraud. It is a political sell out of land owners in exchange for
huge piles of cash for Louisiana and Alaska. In per capita terms,
nickels and dimes are handed out to other States to buy them off. It is
a tragic and unprecedented attack on private property ownership in the
United States.
Attached to my testimony are additional statements opposing CARA
from the Gun Owners of America, from a former Executive Vice President
of the National Rifle Association, Citizens Against Government Waste,
the Sixty-Plus seniors association and others.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, Mr. Chairman.
______
Responses by Michael Hardiman to Additional Questions from Senator
Inhofe
Question 1. Please elaborate on the Federal Government's role in
State and local planning decisions.
Response. The Federal Government, through the approval process of
State plans, maintains control of CARA funds, and also gains effective
control over State matching money as well.
For example, in S. 2123, Section 102(b)(1) states, ``The Secretary
shall approve the Statewide plan if the Secretary determines that the
plan is consistent with the uses set forth in subsection (c).'' And
Section 304 (page 49) states, ``If the Secretary finds that the
comprehensive plan submitted by a State complies with paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall approve . . . .''
Question 2. If the Department of Interior disagrees with a State's
or locality's planning decision, could DOI withhold funds?
Response. Both DOI and the Department of Agriculture can withhold
funds by claiming that a State plan is not ``consistent with uses set
forth . . . .'' A State could disagree, but the desire for an
uninterrupted flow of funds will place pressure on non-Federal entities
to give in to Federal demands.
Question 3, 4, and 5. I am concerned with the impact on lands used
for hunting and fishing . . . How is the applicability of the Pittman-
Robertson Act expanded . . . Could the additional funds lead to abuses
of the Pittman-Robertson fund?
Response. This is one of the most disturbing parts of the CARA
debate. Most of the sportsmen's community has expressed support for S.
2123, because the trust fund grant money available for their government
agencies, foundations and non-government entities will nicely pad their
budgets.
Abuses of the Pittman-Robertson fund have been well documented over
the past year, and even acknowledged by supporters of CARA such as the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA). At
their 89th Annual Convention in September 1999, they approved a
resolution critical of abuses committed by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Legislation to correct these abuses has been approved by the House
and has moved to the Senate. However, CARA's sponsors have refused to
attach that legislation, H.R. 3671, to CARA proposals.
Pittman-Robertson is expanded considerably under S. 2123. For
example, Section 302 (page 45) includes ``public outreach'' as a
permitted use, which could lead to taxpayer financing of political
agendas. Section 302 (page 44) also includes introducing species into
``previously occupied range,'' with no further definition or
restriction. Section 301 and 303 refer to financing for the ``unmet
needs'' of ``all wildlife,'' which could lead to all sorts of
unintended consequences.
The example in your question of New York State converting private
hunting land to non-hunting use immediately upon government purchase
has become very controversial. The State bureaucracy insists that it
will not be the case, but local residents strongly disagree. See
December 17, 1999 news article from the Adirondack Daily Enterprise
attached. An amendment for no net loss of hunting lands under Title 3
of CARA was defeated in the House Resources Committee. See also
attached a letter from the Gun Owners of America, which is not on the
Federal grant money gravy train and so may have a more independent
view. They oppose CARA because of the condemnation threat to private
outdoor shooting ranges being converted to government owned, non-
firearms use.
Question 6 and 7. What is the total scope of potential land
acquisition? How much land acquisition power has any restrictions or
protections placed on it?
Response. Under S. 2123, the only effective protection for property
owners is in half of Title 2, Federal acquisitions under the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). These funds do not have power of
eminent domain. The other alleged protections in Section 205 are window
dressing. They amount to nothing because of the use of qualifying
phrases such as ``consider the use.'' Other so-called protections will
actually harm property owners, such as the creation of a ``hit list''
of properties targeted for acquisition.
Here is the annual total available for acquisition. There are many
other permitted uses for these funds, and it is highly unlikely that
all of it would be spent for acquisition in any 1 year. However, the
threat that this trust fund represents both in amount of money and
scope of purposes available for acquisition, combined with limited
protections for property owners and this trust fund's lack of State or
Federal legislative oversight, is incredibly dangerous.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eminent domain prohibited:
Title 2 (Federal) LWCF............ $450 million/year
TOTAL......................... $450 million/year
No eminent domain restrictions, no
protections for property owners:
Title 2 (State) LWCF.............. $450 million/year
Title 3 Pittman-Robertson......... $350 million/year
Title 4 urban parks (UPAR)........ $125 million/year
Title 5 historic preservation..... $100 million/year
Title 7 endangered species........ $150 million/year
TOTAL......................... $1.175 billion/year
GRAND TOTAL............... $1.625 billion/year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 8 and 9. What is the potential for significant increases
in discretionary spending above and beyond what would be dedicated to
the trust fund? Does creating a CARA trust fund violate the fiscal year
2001 budget resolution?
Response. A CARA trust fund will create a floor, not a ceiling, on
land acquisition and grant money. There is undetermined and unlimited
potential for additional discretionary spending. CARA was not included
in the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution, and is opposed by major
fiscal responsibility organizations. These include the National
Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a
Sound Economy, and Americans for Tax Reform.
______
THIS IS HOW CARA WILL WORK
Ray Susice, D-St. Regis Falls, chairman of the Franklin County
Board of Legislators, is concerned because land use restrictions that
apply to State land do not apply to private land. Snowmobilers,
hunters, anglers, mountain bikers, and people who ride four-wheelers
come to the area to use land leased by hunting clubs. He fears that
these activities would not be permitted as freely as they were under
private ownership of the land.
``It's also a way of life for the people of the North Country,''
said Susice. ``It's our way of life and they are taking it away from
us.''
William Manning, president of the Benz Pond Hunting Club, said that
another aspect of the hunting club is stewardship. He wonders if the
DEC can handle the added responsibility of patrolling another 139,000
acres.
See article attached from the Adirondack Daily Enterprise, December
17, 1999. The land was purchased with New York State bond money, and
the effect is the same as what CARA would do. It will allow
preservationists and animal rights groups to target privately owned
land for acquisition, then lobby for elimination of hunting, fishing
and other recreational use. This includes hunt clubs, and private land
leased to sportsmen including farms, ranches, woodlots, and any other
suitable private land. CARA is a $3 billion per year trust fund, with
one to two billion annually for land acquisition, including up to $450
million annually for adverse condemnation. No property owner is safe.
______
[Adirondack Daily Enterprise, December 17, 1999]
CARA Is Anti-Sportsmen, Anti-Hunting
suit attacks champion land purchase
(By Jonah Bruno)
CANTON--St. Lawrence County and several hunting clubs recently
joined a lawsuit protesting the State's $24.9 million acquisition of
139,000 acres of land in the Adirondack Park.
The land, originally owned by Champion International, a
Connecticut-based timber company, was purchased by the State in June.
As a condition of the purchase, 110,000 acres will be granted to
Heartwood Forestland Fund III, LP, a timber investment group, for
harvesting and development. This land will eventually be returned to
the State through a conservation easement. The State will keep the
remaining 29,000 acres.
Along with the county, three hunting clubs--Benz Pond Hunting Club,
Potsdam; the Azure Mountain Club, Ogdensburg; and the Quebec Brook
Hunting Club, Lisbon--also joined the suit. The clubs all lease land on
the property formerly owned by Champion.
As a condition of the purchase, the clubs will be denied exclusive
access to their land from January to September and, within the next 15
years, will have to remove their camps. Their leases will all be
reduced to one acre surrounding the camps.
The Franklin County Board of Legislators Thursday passed a
resolution endorsing the suit, although it not choose to join at this
time.
The suit is based on charges by the Property Rights Foundation of
America, Inc. (PRFA) that the State violated its own laws in the
purchase of the Championship lands.
``The State failed to abide by the State Environmental Quality
Review Act (SEQRA), requiring social and economic impact analysis of
major actions,'' said Carol LaGrasse, president of PRFA.
The plaintiffs hope to have the sale reversed through the suit.
LaGrasse hopes that the processes of land acquisition and easement
granting by the State would be more public in the future. She feels it
is fairly secretive, and she would like to see the processes subject to
public hearing.
Jennifer Pose, press officer for the State Department of
Environmental Conservation one of the parties named in the suit, said
the DEC was hesitant to comment in depth endorsing the suit, although
it did not choose because the case is currently in litigation.
``We're still studying the allegations,'' The suit is based on
charges by the said Post. ``The Department views this purchase as a
magnificent step in our continuing effort to preserve our natural
resources for future generations.
William Manning, president of the Benz Pond Hunting Club, would
also like to see the sale reversed.
``We are very upset with the way the State and Champion handled
this,'' said Manning. ``They didn't go to the townships.''
The plaintiffs also contend that the State violated the 1993
Environmental Trust Fund legislation and the 1996 Clean Water Clean Air
bond Act. These regulations require local approval for large purchases.
The Champion purchase is the largest State land acquisition in the
State's history.
Part of the SEQRA process also requires the State to consider the
opinions of local municipalities before making any large land
purchases. Part of environmental quality is the economy, and SEQRA is
intended, in part, to protect the economic stability of municipalities
affected by this type of purchase.
The DEC feels that it did adhere to the proper regulations in the
acquiring the land for the State.
We are confident that the transaction was handled appropriately,'
Post said.
Ray Susice, D-St. Regis Falls, chairman of the Franklin County
Board of Legislators, fears the economy of the county will suffer
greatly as a result of the Champion land acquisition.
``I believe that we're going to lose a lot of revenue due to the
loss of the revenue from the camps in our county,'' said Susice.
People with camps in the North Country buy supplies from area
stores, including gas for cars, snowmobiles, four-wheelers, and
generators; food; and hunting and fishing supplies.
Susice is also concerned because land use restrictions that apply
to State land do not apply to private land. Snowmobilers, hunters,
anglers, mountain bikers. and people who ride four-wheelers come to the
area to use land leased by hunting clubs. He fears that these
activities would not be permitted as freely as they were under private
ownership of the land.
``It's also a way of life for the people of the North Country,''
said Susice. ``It's our way of life and they are taking it away from
us.''
Manning said that another aspect of the hunting club is
stewardship. He wonders if the DEC can handle the added responsibility
of patrolling another 139,000 acres.
``We take care of our clubs,'' said Manning. ``Nobody throws junk
or anything else.''
A hunting club is about much more than hunting, according to
Manning. The clubs are about having a cabin in the middle of the woods
to use as a retreat or get-away. He said that the land in the Park,
like the land his club has leased from Champion, is not ideal hunting
ground. The brush is thick and visibility is low. He said that he
actually hunts on public land north of Park.
The Benz Pond Hunting Club has about 54 members. According to a
release from the PRFA, ``the State is mandating that 298 hunting camps
be demolished.'' If all the clubs affected were approximately the same
size as Benz Pond, it could impact more than 16,000 people.
However, Post told the Enterprise that she had recently heard
several people in the St. Lawrence County area had spoken out in
opposition to the suit.
``We continue to believe much of the public in that region was very
supportive of that land purchase,'' Post said.
The nearly $25 million the purchase is costing the State, Susice
contends, is a burden for taxpayers.
``The cost of the easement is going to be coming out of taxpayers'
pockets,'' Susice said.
As a condition of the purchase, I 10,000 acres will be acquired by
Heanwood Forestland Fund III, LP, a timber investment group, for
harvesting and development. This is in violation of Article XIV of the
New York State Constitution, known as the ``Forever Wild Clause,''
according to LaGrasse. The forever wild clause prohibits commercial
harvesting of timber on State-owned land.
The governor's office was not available for comment at press time.
______
Gun Owners of America,
May 10, 2000.
Dear Representative: Today, the House will be asked to consider H.R.
701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act.
On behalf of 200,000 gun owners nationwide, I would ask that you
give serious consideration to the possibility that the bill will:
encourage the governmental condemnation of large amounts
of private property--particularly property which is being used for
firing ranges and other Politically incorrect'' purposes;
provide extensive government funding for the political
Left and its agenda; and
ultimately reduce the amount of land available for
hunting and sporting purposes by creating large new public tracts
eligible for wilderness designation.
H.R. 701 expends $45 billion over 15 years on a trust fund which
will be applied to pork projects, government land acquisition, and
other purposes. This will be money which cannot be used for tax cuts,
debt reduction, or other salutary purposes--but which will be used to
seize property currently in private hands. (The ``just compensation''
provision in section 11 will be cold comfort to a lifelong resident who
loses his home or business. Neither does the fact that an acquisition
must be part of a large congressionally approved list provide
landholders with any significant protection.)
Western States which have suffered under government ownership of 80
to 90 percent of their lands can readily appreciate the ramifications
of this fact. Easterners who have seen the government seize their
lands--and then charge them admission fees for access to the natural
wonders in their towns and localities--can hardly be more sanguine
about the impact of this bill.
While we understand that H.R. 701 enjoys broad congressional
support, we would ask that you step back and give consideration, for
one final time, as to whether the recent Clinton administration Land
grabs'' represent the sort of practice which you wish to be replicated
on a large scale. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Larry Pratt, Executive Director.
______
Responses by Michael Hardiman to Additional Questions from Senator
Crapo
Question 1. Proponents of the bill contend that this bill actually
improves on property rights protections. As someone who is intimately
involved as a private property advocate, what is your position on this?
Response. This legislation is a disaster for private property
rights, and in that respect is the worst bill to move in Congress since
the American Heritage Trust Act in 1989. Statements suggesting
otherwise by the CARA sponsors are fraudulent, a deliberate deception.
Attached is an article from Nampa, Idaho land use consultant Fred
Kelly Grant outlining several claims made by CARA's sponsors, and
comparing those claims to the actual language of the bill.
Proponents of the bill from the Louisiana and Alaska delegations
have made a political decision to cashier their credibility in exchange
for a pile of money, literally for 30 pieces of silver.
Attached is a letter from ALRA Executive Director Charles Cushman
to members of the House outlining the legislative history of CARA on
the House side. It demonstrates that legitimate protections for
property owners and multiple use of Federal lands has been rejected by
CARA sponsors.
The so-called protections in Section 205 are a fig leaf. For
example, the legislation asks Federal agencies to ``consider the use
of'' land exchanges and conservation easements as alternatives to
acquisition. With the fire hose of guaranteed annual land acquisition
funds under CARA, such legislative suggestions will be swept aside and
will provide virtually no protection for land owners.
Question 2. How might the existence of a Department of Interior
acquisition list effect property values, or the potential to obtain
operating loans?
Response. An Interior or Agriculture Department ``hit list'' of
desired properties makes a joke of the ``willing seller'' clause in
CARA.
Attached is a letter from Ray Arnett, former President of the
National Wildlife Federation and former Executive Vice-President of the
National Rifle Association, sent to the bicameral Sportsmen's Caucus.
It demonstrates that such a list would depress property values by
chasing off all buyers except the government, and make it irresponsible
for a financial institution to loan funds on a property with an
uncertain future.
Question 3. How can the private property provisions of this bill be
improved?
Response. First, by prohibiting power of eminent domain using CARA
funds by Federal and non-Federal agencies in the entire bill.
Currently, eminent domain is prohibited only in the Federal half of
Title 2, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Land acquisition
is permitted in the State side of Title 2, and in Titles 3 (Pittman-
Robertson), 4 (urban parks), 5 (historic preservation), and 7
(endangered species) with no restrictions on use of eminent domain.
In total, over $1 billion per year can be used to threaten adverse
condemnation of private property, with an additional $450 million
(Federal LWCF) available for land acquisition without condemnation
power.
Second, by eliminating the trust fund, and having CARA subject to
the annual appropriations process. ALRA supports the regular
appropriations process, where everyone has a say. Sometimes we win,
sometimes we lose, but at least we have a chance.
______
Analysis of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 as passed by
the House Resources Committee, H.R. 701/S 2123, as printed in Stewards
of the Range
(By Fred Kelly Grant)
1. THE BILL DOES NOT PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
Supporters of the bill have claimed far and wide that it protects
private property rights from ``takings'' by the government. They have
claimed that purchases would be made only from ``willing sellers'' and
that there would be no authority extended to government to ``condemn''
private property for purposes under this act.
They have also claimed that mere use of funds appropriated under
the bill would not extend the regulatory authority of Federal agencies.
But the claims are simply not true. They are directly contradicted
by the specific provisions within the bill.
A. The bill does not protect against condemnation
Section 11 of the bill is entitled ``Protection of Private Property
Rights''. Subsection (a) is entitled ``Savings Clause'' and it is this
clause which many supporters refer to as the clause which protects
private property from condemnation. That claim does not withstand even
cursory review.
The subsection States that ``Nothing in the Act shall authorize
that private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation as provided by the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the
United States Constitution.'' If the subsection ended with the first
clause, the supporters could justifiably defend their claim that no
condemnations of land were authorized. If the subsection said only that
there would be no taking of private property, then there would be no
authority for condemnation.
But, the subsection does in fact contain the second clause
``without just compensation''. The combination of the two clauses
precisely defines what a condemnation is in fact. The term
``condemnation'' is defined as the ``process of taking private property
for public use through the power of eminent domain. ``Just
compensation'' must be paid to owner for taking of such.'' Black's Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
The language of the subsection provides a textbook illustration of
what condemnation is all about. In spite of appearing in a section
called ``Protection of Private Property Rights,'' the subsection
provides no protection other than that already provided by the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments. It certainly does not protect against
condemnation.
No one can claim, in good faith, that this bill does not authorize
condemnation of property in view of the language of Section 11 (a).
B. The bill does not prevent Federal agencies from extending the impact
of their regulations beyond land actually acquired
Subsection (b) of Section 11 purporting to protect private property
rights provides that ``Federal agencies, using funds appropriated under
this Act, may not apply any regulation on any lands until the lands or
water, or an interest therein, is acquired, unless authorized to do so
by another Act of Congress.'' What an intriguing attempt to assure a
scanner of the bill that Federal regulation cannot be extended to
private property. But, the last clause of the subsection makes one
aware of the deceit.
Most of the Acts of Congress extending management of Federal lands
to the Federal agencies contain language which authorizes the agency
management to take actions necessary to protect the Federal lands. So,
Section 11 (b) does not protect against the exercise of such protective
authority. Courts have made it clear that under protective provisions
of such acts of Congress, the Federal agencies have the power to
control land use of private property which adjoins Federal lands. In
Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518, the U.S. Supreme Court
confirmed the power of the Federal Government to abate fences on
adjoining land. In United States v. Lindsey, 595 F.2d 5 (9th Cir.
1979), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized the power of the
Federal Government to punish persons who built a campfire on non-
Federal land adjacent to a national recreation area. In United States
v. Arbo, 691 F.2d 862 (9th Cir. 1982) the same Court ruled that a
person could be charged with interference with a Federal Forest Service
officer even when the interfering action took place on non-Federal
property which was adjacent to Federal property. In Free Enterprise
Canoe Renter Association v. Watt, 549 F. Supp. 252 (E.D. Mo. 1982) the
Federal court held that the National Park Service could prohibit the
use of State roads for canoe pickups within a Federal Scenic Riverway.
Thus, the last clause of Section 11 (b) makes it clear that this
section changes nothing in current law, and extends no protection to
private property rights which do not already exist under the
Constitution. With or without the clause, the Federal agencies can
impact any private property adjoining Federal lands by extension of
their regulations. With or without the clause, the Federal agencies can
extend their regulatory authority to hunters, campers and fishermen
even when they are on private or State property.
Neither does Section 11(b) protect against the expansion of
regulations regarding protection of species. We have already seen that
the courts have allowed the agencies to extend their regulatory
protections of species to private property. Now, under this bill there
will be money authorized to States to extend species protection and to
enter into cooperative management agreements with the Federal agencies
in order to implement the species protection plans which are developed.
This provides a means of expanding Federal regulations, established
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, through such cooperative
management plans even though the Federal Government has acquired no
interest in the land covered by the plans.
So, the ``protection of private property rights'' set forth in
Section 11 offers no protection against condemnation, no protection
against expansion of Federal regulations, no protection which does not
already exist under the United States Constitution.
C. The claim that land will be acquired only from ``willing sellers''
is inconsistent with the specific terms of the bill
The main sponsor of the bill in the House has defended the bill by
claiming that all land purchases will be only from ``willing sellers.''
He thus chides private property advocates for opposing the bill, saying
that such advocates should support the opportunity for ``willing
sellers'' to dispose of their land.
Apparently the claim is based upon Section 205 which contains the
``Willing Seller Requirement.'' The very title would lead one to
believe that in fact no acquisition could be made other than from a
``willing seller.'' But, the language of the section belies the title.
The first two clauses of the section would seem to be consistent
with the title: ``The Federal portion may not be used to acquire any
property unless (A) the owner of the property concurs in the
acquisition.'' Accept for a moment that this statement defines a
``willing seller.'' It really does not, but for our initial purpose
accept that it does. One would read this as fulfilling the ``Willing
Seller Requirement.'' But, the next clause of the Section states:
``or (B) acquisition of that property is specifically approved by
an Act of Congress.'' So much for the ``requirement'' that there be a
``willing seller.'' The Section is written in the alternative: Federal
acquisitions must be from a concurring owner OR under approval by an
Act of Congress. So, if Congress approves an acquisition, it matters
not whether the owner concurs.
In touting this bill why would anyone contend that all acquisitions
had to be made from a ``willing seller'' when the language of the bill
is to the contrary. There is only one logical explanation: the claim is
made to try to thwart the impact of the opposition from private
property advocates by misleading those who have not studied the actual
terms of the bill.
Now that we have seen that the Federal acquisition can be made from
an unwilling seller if Congress approves the sale, let us consider what
that means. Some might say, ``well, if Congress does specifically
consider and approve an acquisition it will happen only after the
people have received notice and an opportunity to express their
opinions on the acquisition to their representatives.'' Not
necessarily. How many projects were approved in the infamously complex
appropriations bill for Fiscal 1999 without any specific advance
notice? Has anyone in the public ever seen the thousands of pages of
that appropriations bill put together? How many projects of various
types have been approved by Congress as an amendment to a bill
completely unrelated to the project?
So, the provisions of Section 205 allow the agencies to push
through acquisitions without the necessity of securing concurrence from
the owner of the land. Why then title the Section ``Willing Seller
Requirement,'' and why claim that purchases will be made only from
willing sellers, unless the purpose is to deceive those who might worry
about private property rights being lost through forced purchases by
the government.
One other consideration should be taken into account. The Section
is based on the premise that an owner who ``concurs'' in the
acquisition is ``willing.'' In a condemnation case, where ``fair market
value'' must be determined as a standard for ``just compensation'', the
question is not whether the seller ``concurs'', but whether under all
the circumstances it can be found that the seller ``wants'' to sell. A
land appraiser will tell you that market value is based upon the amount
which would exchange between a knowledgeable and willing seller, who is
under no compulsion to sell (no compulsion of any kind) and a willing
buyer under no compulsion to buy. In finding whether a seller is
``willing'', the trier of fact must determine whether the seller was
under compulsion of any kind and whether he wanted to sell, not merely
whether he concurred with the sale.
So, the bill does not really define a ``willing seller'' as that
term is traditionally used in the real estate market and in courts
which determine condemnation cases. It calls any seller who says ``ok''
to the acquisition a ``willing'' seller, even if he says ``ok'' after
being told that all the land adjoining his is going to be acquired in a
manner which will severely restrict the use and value of his land.
Those who have studied the growth of conservation and scenic easements
in this country are familiar with the scenario in which an owner sells
in desperation because of the threats of regulatory restrictions which
will otherwise be placed on his property.
In short, the bill does not require that all acquisitions by the
Federal Government be from a ``willing seller.''
D. Protections, such as they are, do not specifically extend to State
government acquisitions
The ``willing seller'' restriction, such as it is, is applicable
only to Federal acquisitions. This means that an acquisition made by a
State or local government which receives funds is not bound by even the
color of an attempt to restrict condemnation. The supporters may say
that Congress has no such right. Wrong. The bill could restrict the
funding of States and local governments to only those instances in
which the State or local government agreed that land acquisitions would
be made only from a true ``willing seller'' and that condemnation would
not be used.
The same is true for the language that seems to attempt to restrict
the Federal regulatory authority. Funding to States and local
governments could be limited to those cases in which States and local
governments would agree that their regulations would note be extended
to any lands until they were actually acquired from a true ``willing
seller.''
Given the provisions that call for joint and cooperative management
plans, it would make sense to extend these protections of private
property to the State and local government use of funds, IF the bill
really were intended to protect private property rights.
E. Water rights are not adequately protected
Section 210 is entitled ``Water Rights,'' but it does not contain
the language that would most assuredly protect vested water rights:
``nothing in this Act shall effect any existing water right.''
Throughout history, Congress has used language to that effect when it
intended to protect already existing and vested water rights. Not so in
this bill.
The language of 210 rather talks in terms of State and Federal
relationships regarding water. Nothing in the section pertains to
protecting existing private water rights.
Neither is there specific language which States a Congressional
intent that there be no implication of reservation of water for any
purpose stated in the Act.
II. THE BILL PAVES THE WAY FOR CREATION OF STATE PROTECTION OF SPECIES
EVEN BROADER THAN THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Through the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program, the bill
provides for State programs of species protection that is far broader
than the protection which has lead to destruction of private property
rights under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 302 (d) defines
the ``conservation'' use to which funding may be put by the States as
including:
``use of means and procedures necessary or desirable to sustain
healthy populations of wildlife including all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as . . . . acquisition,
improvement and management of habitat . . . and periodic or total
protection of a species or population.''
This language is all-inclusive. It does not pertain merely to
endangered or threatened species as now recognized by the ESA. It
applies to all:
``wildlife'' which would include even non-sport (hunting and
fishing) species. The breadth of this provision is awesome. It extends
to the States the funding to create species bills that the Federal
Government can't reach. That will allow the Federal Government, through
cooperative management plans called for by the bill, to extend its
regulations of use of land to any species related to any State program
funded under this bill.
The same section provides that such State programs must be
``approved by the Secretary,'' so the Federal Government can insist on
the broadest possible restrictions on species by the State in order to
gain funding. Section 304 provides that in order to gain the
Secretary's approval, the State must submit a ``comprehensive plan''
which provides that the State Fish and Game Department will have
overall responsibility for the program. By this provision, the Federal
Government can dictate to the State seeking funds as to which
department of government must run the program. The comprehensive plan
must also provide that this agency will develop and implement wildlife
conservation programs, giving ``appropriate consideration to all
wildlife.''
This bill has been touted by its supporters as a boon for hunters
and fishermen. Various sporting organizations have supported the bill
in reliance upon these claims. But, if they read the bill they will see
how the Federal Government can use the funding to gain control over the
State species protection programs. Once that happens, is there anyone
on the scene today who does not see that restriction of access is next
on the agenda. The Federal agencies have launched a massive effort to
restrict access during the past 18 months. This bill permits the
expansion of that effort to any land acquired by the State for its
wildlife programs.
III. THE BILL AUTHORIZES FUNDING TO NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS OF THE
TYPE WHICH HAVE FOUGHT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND OPEN ACCESS
Section 704 of the bill authorizes the funding of conservation
easement purchases by non-government organizations that qualify as a
non-profit, tax exempt organization. This allows the Secretary to fund
project purchases by the extremist environmentalist organizations which
have fought to overcome private property rights and to deny access to
Federal lands through the past two decades.
These same groups have filed lawsuit after lawsuit against the
government, costing advocates of private property rights millions of
dollars in attorneys fees to defend property rights and to seek and
defend open access to Federal lands. Now, the Federal Government will
fund their efforts. They can receive funds to use in purchasing
conservation easements that will extend the domain which they can
control. Then, they will be free to use their own revenue to continue
to battle private property rights and open access through their
debilitating litigation strategy. With the Federal funding, they can
acquire control over even more land, which they can close down to
multiple uses including hunting, fishing and motorized recreation uses.
IV. THE EXPENDITURES TO IMPLEMENT THIS BILL DO NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS
THE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Last year the Congress identified $15 billion needed for backlogged
maintenance of the federally owned lands. This government cannot even
afford to maintain the land already owned. Why does the government need
more land--when it cannot maintain and care for that already owned?
There is only one logical answer: the more land owned by the Federal
Government, or by State governments entangled through cooperative
management agreements with the Federal Government, the more power the
Federal Government has over local land use decisions and over the
operation of local governments themselves. Marx would be pleased.
______
THE H.R. 701 CARA LAND GRAB: A FRONTAL ASSAULT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
RIGHTS
American Land Rights Association,
Battle Ground, WA, May 11, 2000.
Dear Member of Congress: Congressmen Billy Tauzin and Don Young
have continued to perpetrate the fraud that their massive,
unprecedented pork barrel land grab in some way actually benefits
property owners.
After watching Wednesday's debate, I felt it was necessary to write
letter to make it as absolutely clear as possible that CARA is an
unmitigated disaster. It the worst legislation of its kind to move in
Congress in 12 years, since the American Heritage Trust Act in 1989.
Congressmen Tauzin and Young have served in Congress for a combined
total of nearly 50 years. They had been consistent advocates for
property owners on land use issues. By sponsoring CARA, they have made
a personal and political decision to cashier their credibility for a
fat pile of money for Louisiana and Alaska.
The property rights protections they claim are in the bill are
nothing more than a fig leaf, a lame excuse for them to hang their hat
on. They consist of making Federal agencies jump through a few extra
hoops in order to have access to Federal Land and Water Conservation
Fund money, which is half of Title 2. Title 1, the other half of 2, 3,
5, 6 and 7 have no protection. And in Title 4, protections in existing
law were stripped out!
There are two basic flaws in their claim. First, these minimal
protections impact $450 million out of a $3 billion annual payout.
There are no restrictions and no protections, in particular prohibiting
adverse condemnation of private land, included in the remaining $2.5
billion of this guaranteed annual gravy train. 83 percent of CARA has
no private property protections.
Second, even these minimal protections will certainly be stripped
from the bill at the behest of their allies in the preservationist
community, who also stand to gain millions each year from CARA.
Property rights language that appeared in H.R. 701 as introduced was
stripped under orders from George Miller and the ``greens'' when the
bill was marked up in the House Resources Committee.
Tauzin and Young have dollar signs in their eyes, and they are
plainly willing to sell out property owners in their home States and
across the country. Here are the numbers. The average State benefits
less than $11 per person, per year from CARA. Louisiana benefits per
capita, and Alaska, $272 per capita annually.
Here are results from the Resources Committee markup in November
1999, some of which are being repeated in debate this week:
Amendment to require 2/3 of the funds to be spent east of
the Mississippi River, in order to protect westerners and direct money
to where it is wanted most. This was included in H.R. 701 as
introduced. REJECTED by Tauzin and Young.
Amendment to have no net gain of Federal lands. REJECTED
by Tauzin and Young.
Amendment to prohibit adverse condemnation of private
property. REJECTED by Tauzin and Young.
Amendment to protect private property inholders. REJECTED
by Tauzin and Young.
Amendment to fully fund PILT payments. REJECTED by Tauzin
and Young.
Amendment that requires State approval for Federal LWCF
expenditures in that State. REJECTED by Tauzin and Young.
Amendment to prohibit large LWCF acquisitions in Idaho.
REJECTED by Tauzin and Young.
Amendment to prohibit LWCF purchases in large public
lands counties without local approval. REJECTED by Tauzin and Young.
Amendment to prohibit funds from being used for the
American ``Heritage Rivers'' Initiative. REJECTED by Tauzin and Young.
Amendment to require a published plan for land
acquisitions in Montana. REJECTED by Tauzin and Young.
Actions speak louder than words. This bill has nothing to do with
property owner protection, and little to do with protecting the
environment, hugging trees, or coddling warm fuzzy creatures. It has
everything to do with grant money for left wing environmental groups,
land acquisition money for Federal and State agencies, and pork money
for Louisiana and Alaska.
If you have any remaining doubt that CARA is a frontal assault on
private property rights, I invite you to view the website of the
lavishly financed umbrella group that is coordinating the campaign for
CARA. It is called Americans for Heritage and Recreation
(www.ahrinfo.org). Click onto `Get Involved,' and you will view'' AHR
Guiding Principles.'' Here is what they think about property rights
protections:
``AHR adamantly opposes any restrictions on the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and its 35-year tradition as the cornerstone of
American conservation and recreation, especially those that limit
acquisition to Federal inholdings or adjacent lands, employ arbitrary
geographic restrictions on the use of funds, require new
authorizations, or prevent condemnation. In addition, any legislation
must protect the traditional use of stateside funds for recreation
enhancement.''
Sincerely,
Chuck Cushman, Executive Director,
American Land Rights Association.
______
campaign to revitalize the lwcf--get involved!
Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation (AHR), has launched an
ambitious grassroots campaign in key States across the country to renew
the Federal commitment to open space protection by revitalizing the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The campaign has identified
these simple, guiding principles that will serve as the cornerstone to
all education and advocacy efforts:
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
AHR Guiding Principles
Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation (AHR) is
committed to full and permanent funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) and an equitable allocation of funds between
its Federal and state-matching grants programs. In addition, AHR
supports a revived and substantially funded Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery program (UPARR).
AHR adamantly opposes any restrictions on the Land and
Water Conservation Fund and its 35-year tradition as the cornerstone of
American conservation and recreation, especially those that limit
acquisition to Federal inholdings or adjacent lands, employ arbitrary
geographic restrictions on the use of fiends, require new
authorizations, or prevent condemnation. In addition, any legislation
must protect the traditional use of stateside funds for recreation
enhancement.
AHR recognizes the original purpose of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund as a long-term investment of non-renewable resources,
specifically offshore oil and gas revenues, to protect America's
natural resources and enhance recreation opportunities. However, AHR
will support only legislation that contains no incentive for additional
offshore oil or gas leasing, exploration, or development that should
continue to be governed solely.
______
G. Ray Arnett,
Stockton, CA, December 18, 1999.
To: The Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus
Dear Caucus Members: I am writing today on three subjects of great
importance--1) the protection of private property rights, 2) the
conservation of our nation's natural resources, and 3) the preservation
of sport hunting, sport fishing and sport trapping. My good and
longtime friends with the Alaska congressional delegation have been
strong proponents of these issues for decades. Unfortunately, today I
must state my opposition to Representative Don Young's proposed
legislation, The Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 (CARA), H.R.
701 and its Senate counterpart, S. 25.
My credentials in the area of sportsmen's activities and natural
resource conservation stretch back more than a had century. They
include 18 years on the board of directors, National Wildlife
Federation, and 3 years as NWF president; and serving on the National
Rifle Association of America board of directors before being elected to
NRA Executive Vice President in 1985. I was Director, California
Department of Fish and Game under Governor Reagan (196?1975) before
coming to Washington in 1980 to serve President Reagan again, this time
as Interior Department Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks (1981-1985).
Despite the best intentions of its authors, CARA fails on all
counts. It spells disaster for property owners. Overzealous regulators,
joined by environmental pressure groups and other extremists, will make
folly of the ``willing seller' clause by harassing owners of properties
targeted for acquisition and distracting potential buyers. Very few
families and small businesses in particular, have the financial and
emotional ability to stay over an extended period, government agencies
and foundation-funded, richly financed pressure groups. It is not
possible to negotiate as a ``willing seller' when government is the
only buyer.
With enormous riches of funds provided by CARA, agencies will have
an unprecedented incentive to engage in the ``willing seller' charade.
Every owner of a ranch, farm, woodlot, or game preserve will be at risk
of being targeted by government agencies working in tandem with
environmental, anti hunting, animal rights, pressure groups.
Ironically, since they hold the most desirable properties, private
landowners who have been the most diligent caretakers of their holdings
will be on top of the land grab list for government takeover.
CARA is destined to be a disaster for one of its intended
beneficiaries, the sporting community of hunters and fishermen who are
the true and most able conservationists in America. The unprecedented
flood of money provided by CARA will enable buying and fuming over to
the government, private lands historically and currently used for
hunting and fishing. This will subject the property's sporting use to
the whim of public opinion, and a bureaucracy increasingly hostile to
sport hunting, fishing, trapping, and gun ownership.
A harsh example of my concern is what transpired in New York
earlier this year with the largest land purchase in that State's
history. For over one hundred years, Champion International Timber
Company and previous private owners had leased 139,000 acres of its
holdings for recreation, including sport hunting and fishing. When the
State of New York purchased the land. The State's first Management
action was to eliminate hunting access and drastically limit other
recreation uses. Included with these mandates was ordering the
destruction of 298 hunting cottages used each year by almost 3,000
sportsmen.
Animal rights extremists have already taken aim at the Pittman-
Robertson fund in an effort to deny access for hunting and fishing. The
Animal Protection Institute is an umbrella coalition of 38 of the
largest of these anti sportsmen groups. One of the goals within APl's
effort to abolish hunting is to ``change the constituency of power
within our wildlife management agencies and the funding sources that
maintain these government agencies.''
CARA fits perfectly into the plans of API, since it wilt provide a
revenue source outside of the sportsmen-paid excise taxes to fund
Pittman-Robertson. There is no question that animal rights activists
will target for acquisition, fish and game clubs, leases, and other
private land where the taking of renewable wildlife resources is
permitted. Once the land is purchased and under government control,
these welt-funded, anti sportsmen groups will lobby Congress and
government agencies for the elimination of any consumptive use of
wildlife resources.
I commend the House Resources Committee for its series of hearings
exposing abuses in the Pittman-Robertson fund, and its publicizing
whistle blowers who have spoken out against U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service actions. Unfortunately, the arrogance of FWS and its refusal to
acknowledge mistakes serves as further reason not to hand over to that
troubled agency billions of dollars that would be available should CARA
be passed into law.
I urge Sportsmen's Caucus Members to prevent the passage of CARA.
No trust fund, period. CARA (H.R. 701 and S. 25) is bad proposed
legislation with serious flaws that can not be made acceptable with
minor amendments here and there. At best, this rearranging of the
Titanic's deckchairs, so to speak, may result in outwardly making a
rotten apple appear to be palatable, but the apple is still rotten.
Thank you for your attention to my concerns.
Sincerely,
G. Ray Arnett.
__________
Testimony of Charles R. Niebling, Senior Director, Policy and Land
Management, Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the committee on
Environment and Public Works. I am Charles Niebling, Senior Director
for Policy and Land Management with the Society for the Protection of
New Hampshire Forests. Founded in 1901, the Forest Society is a non-
profit membership organization dedicated to the wise use of New
Hampshire's natural resources, and their complete protection in places
of special environmental or scenic quality. In addition to our role as
a land trust and conservation advocate, we are unique among state-based
conservation organizations in that we also own and sustainably manage
33,000 acres of productive woodlands in 123 reservations across the
State. We not only preach good forestry and conservation, but we
practice it as well. We have 9,600 members.
Since our founding, the Forest Society has played a role in
permanent conservation of over 1 million acres in New Hampshire. We led
efforts to create the White Mountain National Forest in the early part
of the 20th century. We have worked closely with the State and with
communities to establish State and local parks and forests. In the late
1980's, we spearheaded creation of the Trust for NH Lands and the Land
Conservation Investment Program, which protected over 100,000 acres of
working farms, forests and recreation lands.
And just last week, the New Hampshire General Court passed and
funded the New Hampshire Land and Community Heritage Investment
Program. The Forest Society led a coalition, known as Citizens for New
Hampshire Land and Community Heritage, involving 120 farm and forest
industry, business, civic, tourism, recreation, wildlife, historic
preservation and land conservation organizations over a 2-year period
to secure passage of this landmark legislation.
This coalition has also actively lobbied for the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act since 1999. The same sense of common interest and
concern for the New Hampshire's future that brought these diverse
organizations together around State legislation has brought us together
around the Federal legislation as well.
In the next few weeks and months Congress will decide whether to
make good on its 35 year old promise to dedicate a portion of the
revenues for Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leases to conserve
some of our nation's most prized possessions: its lands, its water, its
wildlife, its legacy. Proposals now before the Senate offer the
opportunity to put words into action, and join the House and all 50
Governors in supporting a dedicated source of funding for conservation.
For the record, we support passage of the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act, S. 2123. There are elements of the Conservation and
Stewardship Act, S. 2181, introduced by Senator Bingaman, that we
support and would like to see incorporated into S. 2123. There are
elements of the recently passed H.R. 701, the House version of CARA,
that merit serious consideration by this committee.
While there are many important provisions within S. 2123, the most
important accomplishment is the restoration of full and permanent
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Revitalizing this
fund will have a direct impact on conservation efforts not only in New
Hampshire, but in every region of the country. We are particularly
supportive of the significant dedicated funding allocated to the
``state-side'' program of LWCF. With the recent passage of our State
conservation bill, which also has a matching funding requirement, New
Hampshire communities are ready, willing and able to take advantage of
state-side LWCF funding.
This legislation would be significantly improved, however, by
modifications embodied in S. 2181. In particular, Senator Bingaman's
bill would:
1. Create an additional, more flexible fund which is capable of
addressing important state-led projects of local, regional or national
significance which exceed the capacity of traditionally administered
state-side grants. And while the Northeast is particularly poised to
take advantage of such a provision, its benefits will be realized
nationwide.
2. Encourage the private/public partnership embodied in the Forest
Legacy Program and Farmland Protection Program. This provides a
critically important tool by allocating funds to purchase conservation
easements from willing sellers, thereby keeping our most productive
forest and farm lands in private ownership.
3. Provide for the full Payment in Lieu of Tax Obligation owed by
Federal Government to local communities and county governments with
acreage in national forests, national parks, wildlife refuges, bureau
of land management lands, and other Federal ownerships.
These three provisions will measurably improve S. 2123, increase
support for the bill, and should be incorporated in any legislation
that makes its way to the President's desk. The Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee can play a pivotal role in helping to forge a
broadly supported and strong conservation measure from these three
proposals. The conservation community in New England is committed to
working hard with you toward this end. I want to address each of these
three provisions in greater detail.
I. Flexible Funding
There is a critical component of conservation legislation that is
essential to regions of the country, including the Northern Forest of
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York, with important lands of
compelling public interest but without access to adequate Federal or
State LWCF funding. Title II of S. 2123 reauthorizes the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and provides land acquisition funding for Federal
land units, such as national forests, national parks or wildlife
refuges. It also directs grants to States on a 50/50 matching basis for
acquisition and development of State and local parks, forests and
outdoor recreation lands. Both are highly successful programs serving
critical needs, and both deserve full and permanent funding.
LWCF currently does not provide funding for larger State or local
projects of regional and national significance that exceed the capacity
of traditionally administered state-side grants. In addition, States
with few Federal land units or with low populations (e.g. New
Hampshire) do not have access to significant Federal funding.
To provide funding for the full array of project needs, the final
package voted on by Congress should fully and permanently fund LWCF at
its authorized level of $900 million and equally distribute the money
between traditional Federal and State programs. In addition, it should
include a provision that would add new funding for important projects
that exceed the capacity of the population-based, state-side formula or
that are outside of Federal land units. Without a source of flexible
Federal funds, States and local communities alone will be unable to
protect some of America's most important undeveloped forest and farm
lands, including those found in the Northern Forest of Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont, and New York.
Many States most notably New Hampshire--are looking for ways to
protect important working forests, and natural, cultural, and
recreational areas without creating or expanding Federal units.
Supporting alternatives to new Federal ownership promotes local control
and partnerships that respect local values and priorities. Protecting
national interest lands without new Federal ownership is also cost-
effective since State, local, and private partners will assume the
responsibilities of long term management.
II. Forest Legacy and Farmland Protection Programs
New Hampshire has a long history of using conservation easements to
permanently protect land from development, while retaining private
ownership and control. Our State has utilized Forest Legacy funds to
protect thousands of acres of productive, managed woodlands. These are
lands that stay on the tax roles, and require no on-going Federal
obligations because the State of New Hampshire holds and monitors these
conservation easements.
For example, there is much current interest in New Hampshire in
acquiring a conservation easement on 171,000 acres of productive
timberlands owned by Champion International Corporation in the northern
part of the State. Champion is a willing party to these discussions. A
Forest Legacy easement, held by the State or a qualified non-profit
organization, will keep these lands in private ownership, keep them
contributing to the tax base and local economy, and will protect both
economically important uses and ecologically important features of the
land.
Under Title VII, S. 2123 authorizes a conservation easement
program. Yet it is unclear how this program relates to existing Federal
programs, such as Forest Legacy or the Farmland Protection Program,
that authorize Federal funds for purchase of conservation easements.
Title VIII of S. 2181 addresses this by authorizing funding for Forest
Legacy, the Farmland Protection Program, and a new program to be called
the Ranchland Protection Fund. H.R. 701, as passed by the House on May
11, includes language that we support allowing qualified non-profit
organizations to hold easements under these programs. We hope the
committee will work to reconcile these slightly varying approaches.
III. Full Payment in Lieu of Tax
If the Federal Government is going to continue to acquire lands for
addition to national forests, national parks, wildlife refuges and
other Federal ownerships, it must fully fund its authorized payment in
lieu of tax obligations. Maintaining strong relationships with local
governments is as important an aspect of Federal land stewardship as is
the responsible management of the land.
Currently, the US Forest Service pays about 46 percent of the
authorized PILT payment on lands of the White Mountain National Forest.
This is a significant local issue in New Hampshire, and is the source
of much tension between our rural northern communities and the US
Forest Service.
Title II of S. 2123 funds Federal land acquisition at $450 million
per year. With few exceptions, these acquisitions will involve
privately owned lands that are now contributing property taxes to local
communities or county governments. We urge the committee to consider
adding language from Title X of S. 2181 to fund payments in lieu of tax
at the maximum level authorized under Federal statute. To fund
continued Federal land acquisition without making a commitment to fully
fund PILT is simply irresponsible.
Mr. Chairman, we strongly urge you to use this hearing and other
means to communicate with the bi-partisan leadership of the Senate and
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to insist that differences
be bridged, and sound conservation legislation be enacted this year.
Voters from States across the country have indicated at the ballot box
that they cannot afford to lose more opportunities to protect the lands
they consider important to their quality of life. The overwhelming
support of the NH General Court for the recently passed NH Land and
Community Heritage Investment Program is evidence of this (the bill
passed our House of Representatives 326-9, and our Senate 24-0). We can
assure you that your efforts in this regard will be noticed,
appreciated and rewarded.
If we are successful in passing a permanent conservation funding
bill, it would be a conservation milestone comparable to the passage of
landmark laws like the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and the original
Land and Water Conservation Fund. There are considerable hurdles,
budgetary and otherwise, yet to be overcome. Like you, however, we
recognize that the recent passage of H.R. 701 in the House provides us
with a rare window of opportunity to pass significant legislation.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before the
committee on this important legislation. I would be pleased to answer
any questions.
______
Responses of Charles Niebling to Additional Questions from Senator
Inhofe
Question 1. Please elaborate on the Federal Government's role in
State and local planning decisions under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181.
Response. The Federal Government may assume certain new authorities
with respect to State and local planning to the extent that States may
only receive funding (for example, under Title I, section 101, 102 of
S. 2123--approval of Coastal State Conservation and Impact Assistance
Plan) if certain plans are approved by the Secretary of the Dept. of
Interior. Approval of such plans is intended to ensure consistency with
provisions of the act, and ensure fiscal accountability to Congress.
Question 2. If the Department of Interior disagrees with a State's
or locality's planning decision, could DOI withhold funds.
Response. Only if such planning decisions are fundamentally
inconsistent with the purposes of these acts.
Question 3. I am concerned with the impact of S. 25, S. 2123, and
S. 2181 on lands used for hunting and fishing. The flood of money
provided by CARA will enable buying and turning over to the government,
private lands currently used for hunting and fishing. This will subject
the property's sporting use to the whim of public opinion, and a
bureaucracy increasingly hostile to sport, fishing, trapping, and gun
ownership.
An example of my concern is what happened in New York last year
with the largest land purchase in that State's history. For over one
hundred years, Champion International Timber Company and previous
private landowners has leased out 139,000 acres of its holdings for
recreation, including fishing and hunting. When the State of New York
purchased the land, the State's first ``management'' action was to
eliminate hunting access and drastically limit other recreation uses.
Included with these mandates was ordering the destruction of 298
hunting cottages used by 3,000 sportsmen each year.
Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, how likely are scenarios like
this?
Response. Federal aid guidelines will require some level of public
access, and State wildlife agencies to which Title III funds are
allocated are charged with providing for continued public access,
especially for fishing and hunting.
In general, US Fish and Wildlife Refuges to which Title II (L WCF)
funds may be allocated all allow public access, including hunting and
fishing with certain limited restrictions at some refuges.
The New York example is not a good example because these lands were
specifically acquired for addition to the Adirondack Park, which, since
1891, has been constitutionally mandated to be managed in a ``forever
wild'' status that expressly prohibits hunting and lease camps.
Question 4. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, how is the
applicability of the Pittman-Robertson Act expanded?
Response. I am not an expert on the Pittman-Robertson Act and am
not qualified to answer this question.
Question 5. Could the additional funds lead to abuses of the
Pittman-Robertson Fund?
Response. I am not an expert on the Pittman-Robertson Act and am
not qualified to answer this question.
Question 6. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, what is the total
scope of potential land acquisition?
Response. Under Title I of these acts (Coastal Assistance), land
acquisition may be authorized (e.g., S. 2123, Sec. 102 (c)(2)). Under
Title II (LWCF), land acquisition is explicitly authorized through the
Federal or stateside programs. Under Title III of these acts (Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration), land acquisition is authorized (e.g. S.
2123, sec. 302 (d)). Under the conservation easement titles of these
bills, acquisition of less-than-fee interest in private lands--where
title to the lands is retained in private ownership--is authorized.
Question 7. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, how much land
acquisition power has any restrictions or protections placed upon it?
Response. I do not entirely understand the question, but I'll do my
best.
In title I of these bills (Coastal Assistance), and land
acquisition must be consistent with an approved Coastal State
Conservation and Impact Assistance Plan, developed by each State, and
approved by the Secretary of the Dept. of Interior for consistency with
the act. These plans will require extensive public and community input.
fit is the consensus of the citizens of the State that land acquisition
should be limited, or prohibited, under this Title, then the plan will
reflect that.
Under Title II, Congress will decide as part of the appropriations
process which Federal projects are funded using the LWCF funds that are
allocated to the Federal program. Under the stateside LWCF program, any
acquisition must be consistent with the objectives set forth in the
State Action Agenda. This agenda will be developed with extensive
public involvement. The same is true for Title III.
In general believe strongly that there are sufficient checks and
balances incorporated into these bills to ensure the land acquisition
authorities set forth will not be abused by the Federal, State or local
governments.
Question 8. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, what is the
potential for significant increases in discretionary spending above and
beyond what would be dedicated to the trust fund?
Response. The Federal Government will assume increased costs, and
thus increased discretionary spending if funds are appropriated to
cover such costs, if under Title II of these bills it adds additional
lands to our existing system of national parks, national forests,
wildlife refuges, etc. There will be no additional Federal costs
associated with administration of the stateside LWCF program (State and
local governments will assume these costs). There will be no additional
costs associated with Title III of these bills, because the Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration program is handled as a pass through to
States. There will be no increased costs associated with the
conservation easement titles of these bills, because State or local
governments, or qualified non-profit organizations will assume
monitoring and enforcement responsibilities for conservation easements.
It should be noted that there may be increased Federal costs
associated with NOT passing CARE legislation, because of increased
coastal damage; habitat loss; increased costs associated with more
expensive endangered species recovery; flooding from accelerated
wetlands loss; loss of economic contributions from working forest and
farmland that is otherwise developed, etc., etc.
Question 9. Does creating a CARA trust fund violate the fiscal year
2001 budget resolution?
Response. I do not know.
__________
Testimony By Dr. Rollin D. Sparrowe, President Wildlife Management
Institute
Mr. Chairman:
The Wildlife Management Institute, founded in 1911, is a nonprofit
organization staffed by experienced resource management professionals
dedicated to improving the management of wildlife and wildlife habitat.
Our focus is wildlife policy both at the Federal and State level, with
a special emphasis on the administration and function of agencies. As
an example, each decade for the past four the Institute has conducted a
review of the organization, authorities, and programs of the 50 State
fish and wildlife agencies. We have also reviewed fish and wildlife
functions of the U.S. Forest Service on two occasions, and parts of
numerous other agencies at other times at their request. We have been
intimately involved in virtually all Federal legislation concerning
those agencies and their fish and wildlife and habitat programs.
Our Institute is pleased to lend its strong support for a
consolidated approach to legislation reflected in the three pending
Senate bills (S. 25, S. 2123, S. 2181) to fund conservation programs
through use of revenues received from outer continental shelf oil and
gas production. We have been strong supporters of H.R. 701 recently
passed by the House, and believe that the sportsmen and women of
America would clearly be well served by passage of comparable
legislation by the Senate.
This year more than $450 million for wildlife and fisheries
conservation will go to State agencies on a (75:25) matching basis.
Under the Pittman/Robertson, Dingle/Johnson-Wallop/Breaux programs,
excise tax revenues from arms and ammunition, archery equipment, and
fishing equipment provide stable funding that is the foundation of
wildlife and fishery management in all 50 States. This constitutes a
conservation legacy involving hunters and anglers that has persisted
for more than 60 years. We in the wildlife management and hunting
community are justly proud of the status of waterfowl, elk, wild
turkey, whitetailed deer, and many other species that have recovered
under Pittman/Robertson over those decades.
Other remedies have failed to address the needs in most States. In
1975, the Wildlife Management Institute worked with the Council on
Environmental Quality and conducted a national assessment of needs for
non-game fish and wildlife programs in the United States. Based on that
information, an alliance of about 200 groups successfully supported
passage of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980. This act
outlined great intent to fund non-game programs, and was amended by
this committee in 1988 to try to strengthen it. Congress has never
funded the Act. Those legitimate needs for funding to manage fish and
wildlife that are neither hunted nor fished continue today, and in fact
have accelerated greatly over the past 25 years.
The need is clear for our States to effectively manage the more
than 1,800 wildlife and fish and their habitats that currently receive
little attention, and that increasingly are been driven to scarcity and
even listing under the Endangered Species Act because of human
pressures on the land.
Our State fish and wildlife agencies are under tremendous pressure
from declining funding, and increasing responsibilities. These agencies
are forced to spend scarce sportsmen's dollars to conduct the extensive
environmental review involved in State responses to Federal actions
regarding public lands, and endangered species work. This has become a
significant burden on limited funding for wildlife conservation.
Most States receive 60-70 percent of their funding directly from
excise tax funded programs and license revenues, and programs are
vulnerable because of their limited sources. As an example, a 1993 die-
off of several big game species has led the State of Wyoming to make 30
percent reductions in staff and programs because of reduced license
sales. This not only reduced services to hunters beyond the recovery of
the herds, but affected the overall function of the agency in
delivering its broader programs. It is neither to the benefit of
sportsmen nor advantageous to the vast array of other fish and wildlife
species that need management, for such major fluctuations in programs
to occur. Currently there are no buffers to excise tax or license sale
decreases. Other fund raising devices like fees onsite, speciality
license plates, or tax checkoffs have had very limited success. Only a
small handful of States have been able to independently take
significant steps to provide alternative funding for broad fish and
wildlife programs.
We have worked with a large array of wildlife and fishery
organizations to support new funding to broaden wildlife management
programs through the existing State agencies to cover all wildlife, and
meet the needs of all of the public. It is clear that both hunters and
non-hunters would benefit from these programs. In fact, we think all
those interested in the future of wildlife in America have a stake in
not only new funding, but the continued flow of dollars to conservation
from hunting and fishing excise taxes and license fees. We are not
replacing programs with new funding proposals, but rather building on
the success of the past, with our eyes on a better future.
Looking practically at the role of State fish and wildlife agencies
and management needs, such new funding would:
Maintain the leadership role of the sporting community in fish and
wildlife conservation that has made so much progress.
Reduce the financial pressure on license fee and current excise tax
revenues derived from hunters and anglers.
Spread the cost of habitat and wildlife and fishery conservation to
the broader American public.
Add more habitat accessible to traditional uses like hunting and
fishing as a dividend from broader conservation actions.
Strengthen existing fish and wildlife agencies that have the legal
authorities for necessary management of all wildlife.
Widely expand the public involvement in guiding and supporting
those broader fish and wildlife agencies.
Build on the existing, proven administrative system of Pittman/
Robertson, Dingell/Johnson-Wallop/Breaux programs.
Allow the State fish and wildlife agencies to satisfy their broader
responsibilities to all wildlife.
Traditional fish and wildlife management organizations in America
believe very strongly that active management programs through our
agencies are essential to complement any investment in conserving the
land base. Certainly, we all recognize that habitat conservation is
essential for the future of wildlife. As important as acquisition is,
provision of stable funding for active management programs is an
equally important investment to assure that those lands return the
values for fish and wildlife and people that the Congress intends.
The need by the 50 States is clearly more than the $350 million per
year included in H.R. 701. While that will be a major step in the right
direction, down the road additional funding will be necessary to
satisfy what is currently a need more than three times that large. The
States have documented the size of that need and it will continue to
grow.
Mr. Chairman, I do not presume to speak for the millions of hunters
and anglers in America or for their organizations. I do know that they
strongly support the legislation that passed the House, and their
outspoken support played a role in that success. I know you will hear
directly from many of them.
The common message on the need for legislation you will hear is:
The need is clear and well documented.
We have a model with a good record in Pittman/Robertson and
Dingell/Johnson.
The authority and responsibilities for broader fish and wildlife
management lie with the 50 States.
Traditional wildlife management, and sportsmen and women themselves
will benefit from proactive conservation for all wildlife.
We request that you act now to meet a real need and take advantage
of an opportunity of strong bipartisan support for this landmark
legislative initiative.
Much of the publicity about the passage of H.R. 701 has incorrectly
cast it as a ``land acquisition bill''. In fact, the majority of the
money that would go to the State fish and wildlife agencies will
support long-term management programs, with professionally trained
staff, to ensure that those lands and other lands in each State
adequately provide for the fish and wildlife resources that we value.
We believe that concerns of private property owners have been fairly
addressed in the legislation that has passed the House. The Congress
will have solid oversight over all Federal land acquisition.
All of this should be viewed as a reinvestment in critical
resources for the future, providing environmental and conservation
values far beyond the dollar cost of this annual funding. It will
leverage additional funds for conservation. It provides a base for
proactive action to keep the States in control of wildlife management,
within their authority. This can avoid further erosion of State
management authority over wildlife, and reduce the need for Federal
control, by avoiding species declines to the point of listing. While
this is not an endangered species bill, it is an investment in
forestalling the rate of loss and decline of our valued wildlife and
fishery resources. Moreover, it continues the very successful flow of
funding to the States to be used at the local level to solve real
problems.
The original vision of Teaming With Wildlife that brought a large
coalition of interests together was to broaden wildlife and fisheries
programs to address species that are neither hunted or fished. After a
decade of work to reach the current opportunity, clearly the need for
such work remains highest priority for the States. We are ready to work
with the Senate on these and other details of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the wildlife management and hunting community has an
equal stake in appropriate expenditures under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund for the conservation of habitats. It was the Izaak
Walton League of America that lead other old-line traditional
conservation groups that supported the original Land and Water
Conservation Fund, before many current organizations even existed.
Careful addition to the Federal land base is still an important
wildlife conservation and public access need in America. We believe
that the additional protections for property rights written into H.R.
701 provide a model the Senate can use to cover such concerns. We urge
you to deal positively with both State and Federal programs to finally
deliver the true promise of the Land and Water Conservation Fund as an
investment in the quality of life for future Americans.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this extraordinary
legislative opportunity.
______
Responses by Rollin D. Sparrowe to Additional Questions from Senator
Crapo
Question 1. The maintenance backlog on our public lands is immense,
however, these bills propose to increase Federal ownership of lands.
Does it make sense to require a cost analysis of future operations and
maintenance costs associated with land to be acquired? If not, why?
Response. It would make good business sense for every Federal
agency to analyze the cost of future operations and maintenance of any
land acquisition. This would provide an objective assessment of needs
for the future to make the land produce what it was intended to produce
for the American people. This would allow agencies and the Congress to
budget for needed operations and maintenance on an orderly basis. Such
an analysis may or may not have an influence on a subsequent decision
to acquire land, since various threats like development or special
needs for unique properties may make them a high priority for
acquisition apart from assessing their future cost.
Question 2. The House passed version of CARA, H.R. 701, includes an
amendment that would preclude the transfer of money to the CARA fund if
the CBO does not certify that Congress is on-track to eliminate the
national debt by 2013, or meet Social Security or Medicare obligations.
Do you support a similar amendment to the Senate bills and why? If not,
why?
Response. As supporters of H.R. 701 and companion legislation now
pending before the Senate, we expect that the Congress will meet any of
its other budgetary requirements before it initiates new programs. Our
knowledge of whether CBO can truly estimate the detail of future
overall government finances is limited. We and other supporters would
prefer as few amendments as possible to Senate legislation for the CARA
fund, especially if the ability to carry out those stringent fiscal
requirements is not clear.
Question 3. Do you believe that the Federal Government is a better
steward of land than private ownership? Why?
Response. We firmly believe that significant land should be managed
by the Federal Government for the broad values they provide to the
American people. Public ownership of wild landscapes has provided
millions of people with scenic, recreational, and spiritual values
which will endure for our children and our grandchildren. We believe in
private land stewardship of private land, and equally effective
stewardship of the public lands.
We don't think it is appropriate to pit one against the other in an
``either or'' fashion in most cases. We believe that professional
management of Federal land provides stewardship when it is allowed to
proceed without interference.
Question 4. S. 2181 provides full funding for PILT. S. 2123
provides a match for PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing. S. 25 is silent
on both points. Given the impact of increased Federal land ownership on
local communities, do you support providing full funding for PILT and
Refuge Sharing as part of CARA? If not, why?
Response. Full funding for PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing would be
an asset both to communities in areas with Federal landownership, and
to Federal agencies. This has been a longtime problem in
appropriations, and should be resolved. We would endorse consideration
of the full funding provisions as presented in S. 2181.
Question 5. Do any of the CARA bills adequately address the
operations shortfalls or maintenance backlog on Federal lands? If not,
should the CARA bills address this problem? If not, why?
Response. All of the versions of CARA legislation have been
designed to deal with increased needs by the American people for lands,
management of their wildlife, and restoration of areas impacted by
development. Only Title 2, and half of its revenues at that, address
Federal lands at all. Under the original H.R. 701 (now S. 2123), Title
1 funding goes directly to the States, Title 2 is appropriately half
state-related and half Federal-related for land acquisition, and Title
3 is in fact operations money for State wildlife programs.
Realistically, if the maintenance backlog that has buildup over many
years for only Federal lands were included then the other objectives of
CARA could not be carried out.
As an organization, we have led a group of 18 organizations that
have worked for almost 6 years to deal effectively with the operation
and maintenance shortfalls of the national wildlife refuges. With the
help of Congress we have made progress both in documentation and
accountability for the use of such funds, and the Congress has found
several ways to enhance funding to solve the problem.
Question 6. In your submitted testimony, you mention the success of
the Federal Aid in Wildlife and Sport Fish programs. You suggest that
new funding would ``build on the existing, proven administrative system
of Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson/Wallop Breaux programs.'' Are
you aware that legislation has been introduced, and passed in the
House, that would reform the administration of the Federal Aid dollars?
Legislation that was prompted by a congressional and GAO investigation
of the misuse of the administrative funds by the Fish and Wildlife
Service. In your opinion, why is this not indicative of what the
government may do with permanent, entitlement funding?
Response. Our Institute was directly involved in passing the
original Pittman-Robertson legislation in 1937, and has been closely
involved in all aspects of the Federal aid program since that time. Our
staff worked directly with Chairman Young's committee in the House in
the development of reformed legislation. Our position has been
consistent, that the Fish and Wildlife Service misused some
administrative funds but also lacked clear guidance from the Congress
about how those administrative funds should be used. Proposed
legislation in both the House and Senate would fix that key problem by
clarifying what is appropriate administrative use. We still feel that
some details of that legislation need work to avoid problems in the
future, and we continue to work on the committees on that topic.
Most of the activities reported upon span several administrations,
and are not indicative of what has happened with the entire program. By
far, most of the money has been effectively delivered to the States.
Further, the key problems first surfaced both by GAO and the House
Resources Committee have been rectified by the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Some of the most acrimonious debates focus on personnel
actions and other details which none of us are privy to under the law.
We are confident that those will be dealt with by duly appointed
investigative officers . . . Once again, we believe it has been well
demonstrated that over 95 percent of the funding has been delivered as
designed, and this is not indicative of a larger problem likely with
new money.
______
Responses by Rollin D. Sparrowe to Additional Questions from Senator
Inhofe
Question 1. Please elaborate on the Federal Government's role in
State and local planning decisions under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181.
Response. The three bills pending in the Senate differ in their
approach to the Federal Government's role in State and local planning
decisions. Some of those decision tracks, such as under Title 1 of S.
2123, are controlled by the 34 States that would receive coastal
restoration funding. Title 3 would be managed through the existing
mechanisms of the Pittman/Robertson and Dingell-Johnson programs of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In essence, they would be annual grants
to the States through an established process. Considerable discussion
has centered around the role of the Federal Government in Federal land
acquisition to protect the property rights of individuals. S. 2123
incorporates the increased oversight by the Federal Government that
helps bring about the tremendous support for this legislation in the
House. Some feel that this may be even too restrictive and impede an
orderly process. We would support starting with the provisions under S.
2123 and incorporating the best parts of the other legislation on this
issue.
The role of this legislation and land acquisition is often
overstated. It is not clear at all how much acquisition there would be
under Title 1, which is half the funding, and in Title 2, half the
funding would go to the States and the other half to the Federal
Government. The money to the Federal Government would be roughly twice
what has gone in recent years, under very close scrutiny by the
Congress. Finally, Title 3 primarily is funding for operation and
maintenance of expanded State fish and wildlife programs. While there
might be some acquisition, it would occur under existing processes that
have worked very well in the past.
Question 2. If the Department of Interior disagrees with a State's
or locality's planning decision, could DOI withhold funds?
Response. It is our understanding that under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, the Congress will have the final word on
acquisition. Under Title 3, there is an existing process through which
the Fish and Wildlife Service reviews principal aspects of the land
acquisition proposed by a State wildlife agency and approves or
disapproves it. Generally, these work well and have not been a problem.
Question 3. I am concerned with the impact of S. 25, S. 2123, and
S. 2181 on lands used for hunting and fishing. The flood of money
provided by A wait enable buying and turning over to the government,
private lands currently used for hunting and fishing. This will subject
the property's sporting use to the whim of public opinion, and a
bureaucracy increasingly hostile to sport fishing, trapping, and gun
ownership.
An example of my concern is what happened in New York last year
with the largest land purchase in that State's history. For over one
hundred years, Champion International Timber Company and previous
private owners has leased out 139,000 acres of its holdings for
recreation, including fishing and hunting. When the State of New York
purchased the land, the State's first ``management'' action was to
eliminate hunting access and drastically limit other recreation uses.
Included with these mandates was ordering the destruction of 298
hunting cottages used by 3,000 sportsmen each year.
Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, how likely are scenarios like
this?
Response. America is putting increasing pressure on its lands and
having to make many decisions about what are appropriate uses. Seventy
percent of the landscape is still privately owned, and while it is open
for hunting and fishing, it is not open to the general public unless
the landowner so chooses. For Title 3, the State wildlife agencies are
the agencies that provide the hunting and fishing opportunities. Lands
that would be acquired with half of the Title 2 money may go into
varying types of public ownership, and we agree that there will be some
hard choices about appropriate public uses. Wildlife organizations are
paying more attention to the designated land uses for lands that are
put into different categories of Federal control. We will continue to
work on this problem. We recognize that segments of society are hostile
to some of our favorite outdoor pursuits and to gun ownership. We do
not see a connection with most of the activities that we anticipate
under CARA legislation.
A good example of the way it can work positively is recent activity
in the State of Missouri. Significant private timber lands of over
80,000 acres were transferred to the Missouri Department of
Conservation and The Nature Conservancy. A few necessary natural areas
have been protected for their intrinsic values, but by and large the
lands are available to appropriate public uses and it all has occurred
without controversy. Local laws and local land situations may make each
outcome a bit different than the other. But in the end, the interest of
the sporting public can be protected.
The Champion International transaction last year is actually an
excellent example of how the significance of public conservation
dollars can be increased through public/private partnerships. The
Conservation Fund orchestrated the transaction in which critical
habitats and important access areas were acquired by the New York
Department of Conservation (DEC), while productive forest lands were
acquired by private timber investors. Of the 140,000 acres offered for
sale by Champion, 110,000 acres were kept within the private sector
after the New York DEC had acquired a conservation easement that
protected the land from development and insured free access to all
citizens. The remaining 30,000 acres of Champion land were acquired by
New York DEC to protect important river corridor habitats but will also
be open to free access by all citizens. From a public hunting
perspective, the transaction substantially increases available hunting
areas for sportsmen. Under the terms of the easements and acquisition,
lands that had been closed to public access for over 100 years are now
open for fishing, hunting and trapping. In keeping with the long
standing DEC policy of not segregating use to one special interest or
group, existing hunting leases and camps have been given a 15 year
lease on the private lands and a 5-year lease on public lands before
they are to be removed. Public/private partnerships afford great
potential to multiply the conservation benefits of CARA moneys. We
think they, as the Champion/Conservation Fund project illustrates, have
the greatest potential to secure lands for hunting and fishing in the
future.
Question 4. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, how is the
applicability of the Pittman-Robertson Act expanded?
Response. Title 3 under all three of these bills would use the
Pittman-Robertson Act to add funding for State wildlife agencies to
expand their wildlife programs. The main purpose is to deal with the
vast array of wildlife and fish that have not received as much
management attention as some game species. Funding for projects still
would go to the States through the Fish and Wildlife Service with the
established system that has worked well under Pittman-Robertson in the
past.
Question 5. Could the additional funds lead to abuses of the
Pittman-Robertson fund?
Response. Our Institute was directly involved in passing the
original Pittman-Robertson legislation in 1937, and has been involved
in all aspects of the Federal aid program since that time. Our staff
worked directly with Chairman Young's committee in the House to develop
reformed legislation. Our position has been consistent, that the Fish
and Wildlife Service misused some administrative funds but also lacked
clear guidance from the Congress about how those administrative funds
should be used. Proposed legislation in both the House and Senate would
fix that key problem by clarifying what is appropriate administrative
use. We still feel that some details of that legislation need work to
avoid problems in the future, and we continue to work on the committees
on that topic.
Most of the activities reported upon span several administrations,
and are not indicative of what happened with the entire program. By
far, most of the money has been effectively delivered to the States.
Further, the key problems, first surfaced both by GAO and the House
Resources Committee, have been rectified by the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Some of the acrimonious debates focus on personnel actions and
other details which none of us are privy to under the law. We are
confident that those will be dealt with by duly appointed investigative
officers . . . Once again, we believe it has been well demonstrated
that over 95 percent of the funding has been delivered as designed, and
this is not indicative of a larger problem likely with new money.
Question 6. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, what is the total
scope of potential land acquisition?
Response. We believe the scope of potential land acquisition has
been considerably overstated by opponents of CARA. Title 1, generally
passes funding to the States to restore coastal areas affected by
development. We do not know how much acquisition would be involved, but
have not had that described to us as an acquisition fund. Title 2 would
provide the $900 million to the Land and Water Conservation fund, with
half going to State and local governments for recreational and outdoor
needs, and half going to Federal Government through the normal channel
for Federal acquisition. Specifically, the Federal Government is
required to consider land trades, easement, and other options before
dealing with willing sellers on fee-title acquisitions and with an
array of new steps of oversight before a final decision is made. Under
Title 3, some lands would be acquired, to complement the lands already
acquired under Pittman-Robertson funding from the past. This fund,
however, deals primarily with operation and management of broader
programs for wildlife and will fund biologist and on-the-ground science
and educational work for the public.
Question 7. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, how much land
acquisition power has any restrictions or protections places upon it?
Response. The answer given to question 6 comes as close as our
Institute can to answering this question. A large amount of CARA is not
likely to be used for land acquisition, and that which will be used,
particularly for Federal acquisition, has new and strong controls and
Federal oversight.
Question 8. Under S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, what is the
potential for significant increases in discretionary spending above and
beyond what would be dedicated to the trust fund?
Response. The only part of the pending legislation that would seem
to have a potential for increases in discretionary spending in the
future would be the operation and maintenance of new lands purchased.
To the extent that lands are traded, easements are developed, or
inholdings are purchased, it would not seem to be a large amount.
Certainly, there would be some greater cost in the future if an
individual knew a large block of land was purchased and had to be
managed.
Question 9. Does creating a CARA trust fund violate the fiscal year
2001 budget resolution?
Response. We are not experts on the details of the Congress' action
on budget resolutions. At the hearing on this legislation Chairman
Smith pointed out that over $500 billion had been put in a trust fund
for transportation, and over $40 billion had been dedicated to
aviation.
The Congress has been able to do this for other programs, and we
assume could accomplish this action as well.
__________
Statement of the National Rifle Association
May 31, 2000.
The Honorable Robert C. Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
SD-410 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Subject: Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA)
Dear Mr. Chairman: The National Rifle Association (NRA) would
appreciate having this letter placed in the record for the May 24, 2000
hearing held on CARA legislation by the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
The NRA supports CARA because of Title III--Wildlife Conservation
and Restoration. A year ago, we submitted a statement in support of S.
25 when the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a
hearing on CARA. However, given the number of legislative days
remaining, we encourage the Senate to take up H.R. 701, the version of
CARA that recently passed the House of Representatives, although all
the bills under consideration contain a Title III whose provisions are
similar to each other.
Title III is of vital importance to our 3.5 million members who
engage in recreational shooting and hunting because it amends the
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act commonly referred to as the
Pittman-Robertson Act or PR. When it was enacted in the 1930's, PR was
an innovative and farsighted response to rapidly declining wildlife
populations and their habitats. The highly successful and highly
enviable trust fund created by the enactment of PR has provided the
States with over $3 billion in its six-decade history. The required
State matching share has boosted that figure to over $4 billion. It
makes the greatest sense to channel new funds to the States for
wildlife conservation purposes through this same trust fund, as Title
III in all of its legislative versions specifically directs.
In a Board resolution adopted in 1996, the NRA agreed that in spite
of the largess provided by PR and its partner, the Federal Aid in Sport
Fish Restoration Act, the States had insufficient funds to meet all of
its wildlife management responsibilities, not only for game species but
for nongame and threatened and endangered species as well. The NRA,
therefore, supports CARA because it not only taps into a new source for
funding much needed wildlife work, but it provides for a generous level
of funding to assist the States in addressing the unmet needs of
wildlife species.
The NRA is pleased to be able to take a position in support of a
proposal that increases wildlife revenue to the States. This was not
the case with respect to the ``Teaming with Wildlife'' concept which
Title III replaced. Although the NRA did not take a position on
``Teaming with Wildlife'' because the concept was never introduced into
legislation, we nevertheless expressed serious concerns over the effect
it would have on our members. The fact that CARA imposes no new excise
taxes resolves those earlier concerns.
The NRA is in support of language in Title III that allows the OCS
funds to be used for a ``diverse array of species'' and would strongly
oppose having those funds earmarked exclusively for nongame wildlife,
as some environmental groups have urged. With the infusion of OCS
dollars, there is every expectation that all manner of wildlife will
benefit. Indeed, Title III states that the funds should be used for
``unmet'' wildlife needs. CARA provides guidance because there is no
reason to dictate to professional wildlife managers, who are in the
best position to identify wildlife conservation priorities, how to
spend these new funds. PR neither earmarks nor dictates the use of
excise tax dollars that the States have received over the past 60 years
and no reason has emerged to do otherwise.
Title III meets the desire of the hunting community to find
additional funds to assist the States in addressing the needs of all
wildlife, including nongame and threatened and endangered species.
Title III provides relief to the hunter who has shouldered the
responsibility for wildlife conservation and restoration for most of
the last century and into the 21st century. Using PR as the vehicle for
distributing these OCS funds to the State fish and wildlife agencies
also acknowledges and protects the vital role that the hunter plays in
the conservation of our nation's fish and wildlife resources. The NRA
offers its assistance to the Chairman in helping to make the goals and
objectives of CARA, especially Title III, a reality.
Sincerely,
Susan R. Lamson, Director,
Conservation, Wildlife and Natural Resources,
Institute for Legislation Action,
National Rifle Association of America.
__________
Statement of Ted Miller, 387 Main Street, Gorham, NH 03581
Honorable Senators,
My name is Ted Miller. I am an elected trustee of Local 75, a part
of PACE International Union representing about 700 millworkers in the
pulp and paper mills of Berlin and Gorham, NH. I am also active in the
Pulp and Paperworkers Resource Council, an organization representing
labor in over 100 wood product mills throughout the country. I have run
for public office in the past as a Democrat, and I will be doing so
again. I am requesting that the article below, which I wrote as an
editorial for a local paper be placed on the record regarding the CARA
hearing to be held on Wednesday, May 24, 2000. Thank you for your time
and this opportunity. TM
The Government vs rural Americans
``There can be no permanent democracy. A democracy can only exist
until voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the
nations treasury. From that time on, the majority of the voters will
always vote for the candidates promising the most money from the public
treasury. The eventual result is a collapse of the democracy due to a
loose fiscal policy. This is always followed by a dictatorship.''--
Alexander Tyler.
Item: 1989. Federal judge rules the spotted owl must be protected,
places over 20 million acres government land in the northwest off-
limits to timber harvesting despite there being no scientific need
demonstrated for this action. Ten years later, over 300 mills have
closed, among the 100,000 jobs lost besides millworkers and loggers,
are teachers, firemen, and law enforcement.
In Catron County, New Mexico, which was dependent on Federal
timber, the spotted owl claimed more victims, the people who once used
to work for the county's largest sawmill. After the mill closure,
families were forced to leave, the communities declined. With the
families, went the children. In the town of Reserve, NM, the graduating
class size shrank from as many as 25 down to 9 students.
In 1998, Liberty County, Florida saw their paper mill close as
their timber industry had its access to timber from the Apalachicoala
National Forest severely reduced. The cutback on timber harvesting came
in the name of protecting the red-cockaded woodpecker. In 2 years,
their school system lost 175 students. Many of the 6700 people
remaining in Liberty County still dependent on the forest for living,
have annual incomes of just over $19,000. No wonder the most popular
bumper sticker reads ``Save a logger. Eat a woodpecker''.
Item: Wolves reintroduced into Arizona by the US Fish & Wildlife
Service in 1998, have migrated into blew Mexico where they have killed
family pets and scores of ranchers' cattle. After a pack of wolves
killed a bull two miles away from the Glenwood Elementary School, a
lone male wolf began hanging around a bus stop in tiny Alma, New
Mexico. Fearful for their children's safety towns people kept their
children inside until the USFWS trapped the pack and removed the lone
wolf away from the community. USFWS wants to introduce more wolves into
New Mexico. USFWS also intends to introduce wolves to Maine, upstate
New York. and possibly Vermont.
Item: Trinity County, Northern California, 1999 The Bureau of Land
Management starts a series of controlled bums that quickly burn out of
control, consuming thousands of acres and several houses over a period
of weeks.
Item: May, 200(). National Park Service sets a fire at Bandelier
National Monument in New Mexico that quickly goes out of control, burns
hundreds of homes in the town of Los Alamos, forces the evacuation of
30,000 people, and threatens a government nuclear testing lab. A Grand
Canyon fire set by the UPS also rages out of control.
For over 900 years, generations of hard working rural Americans
have provided food, oil, minerals, and forest products for the people
of this country. Ranchers have proven that well-managed working
grasslands are healthier than those that are set aside as preserves.
Since 1920, forests have been growing faster than they have been
harvested.
So why has our government declared war on rural Americans? The
government cannot take care of the third of the country it already
owns, now it wants even more land.
It is ironic that on the same day the NPS set the fire that
destroyed Los Alamos, Congress passed the Conservation and Reinvestment
Act, a bill that allows the government to spend three billion dollars a
year on more land for parks and recreation programs. In Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont, hundreds of thousands of acres have already been
bought by the Nature Conservancy and the Conservation Fund in
anticipation of a massive government preserve.
As the government buys more land, the tax base of communities and
counties shrinks. Local economies are stifled, and rural people are
forced to move elsewhere to look for work. The only hope for many rural
Americans is that CARA (Senate Bill 25) will fail in the Senate. Yet,
the pressure is on from the people who are standing in line waiting for
money from the public treasury. Senator Judd Gregg supports S. 25, and
Senator Bob Smith is wavering toward also supporting that bill, which
could go before the Senate anytime. If this bill is to be defeated,
they need to hear you tell them to vote no on Senate Bill 95, the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act. If this bill passes, we will surely
be one step closer to the collapse of democracy envisioned by Alexander
Tyler.
__________
New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources,
Department of Cultural Resources,
Concord, New Hampshire 03302-2043, May 24, 2000.
The Hon. Bob Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Environment & Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington DC 20510.
RE: S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181 [Conservation & Reinvestment Act
(CARA)] and related legislation
Dear Senator Smith: Thank you for inviting the New Hampshire Division
of Historical Resources (DHR) to present testimony concerning S. 25, S.
2123, S. 2181, and related legislation.
We are a State agency within the New Hampshire Department of
Cultural Resources, and our director, Nancy C. Dutton, is also the
State Historic Preservation Officer. The DHR receives Federal funding
through an annual grant from the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF),
which we match with State appropriations, with donated cash, services,
and equipment, and with reimbursements from other State agencies for
specialized historic preservation services that we provide for them.
Although we are a State agency, a substantial part of our statutory
responsibilities under both State and Federal law is to conduct the
Federal historic preservation program in New Hampshire. (This system of
Federal/State cooperative administration of Federal statutory
requirements at the State level has been hailed as a worthwhile model
for other Federal grant and assistance programs.) Some of the principal
HPF program components are the National Register of Historic Places;
Federal tax incentives for income-producing historic preservation rehab
work; the statewide survey of historic properties; the New Hampshire
State historic preservation plan; Certified Local Governments (a best-
practices incentive program for municipalities); review of Federal
projects and mitigation of their impacts on historic properties;
historic preservation technical assistance; and matching grants for
historic preservation ``brick and mortar'' projects.
Unfortunately, in recent years the annual appropriations for the
Historic Preservation Fund have been less than $50 million annually
despite a statutory authorization of $150 million dollars a year and
that has resulted in an annual HPF grant to New Hampshire of less than
$390,000. per year. As a result, the DHR's matching grants program for
``brick and mortar'' projects has been suspended since 1980, except for
a one-time demonstration program of ``Jobs Bill'' grants in 1983-1984,
and for current preservation and restoration work at the Grasmere
Grange in Goffstown, assisted through the Certified Local Governments
program rather than with the regular HPF grants.
This is a triple burden; it means that we have a twenty-year
backlog of work needed to rescue our distinctive historic properties
from oblivion, or destruction, and to return them to the tax rolls or
to civic and community service. It means that our ability has been
diminished to compete globally in attracting high-quality visitors,
workers, businesses, and entrepreneurs to enjoy our distinctive
heritage resources, and to bring capital into our State economy. It
also means that we have lost 20 years of investment potential for
rehabilitating historic buildings and protecting historic places from
inappropriate development. This is particularly distressing because
economic studies, based on both national and New Hampshire data,
consistently show that reinvesting in historic properties generates
more jobs, accomplishes more work, and generates more money that
remains in the local economy longer, in comparison to new construction.
Yet another dimension of the problem is that in the past 20 years
the conversion of open land to new development has consumed important
aspects of our archaeological heritage before we could save or salvage
it.
In addition, the Division of Historical Resources is on the front
line for anxious calls from citizens and local officials who have just
learned that a treasured local landmark or historic district is at
risk. Almost every day brings more painful stories which are all the
more poignant because, without the Historic Preservation Fund at its
fully authorized level, there is no financial help we can offer until
July 2001 at the earliest, when limited and competitive funding from
the newly enacted ``NH Land Community Heritage Investment Program''
will be available. In that interim, we risk losing irreplaceable parts
of our heritage.
For example, not far from Concord is a historic farm that was the
home of one of the nation's most illustrious statesmen, one whom New
Hampshire is proud to call a native son. It has been designated as a
National Historic Landmark (one of only twenty-two in New Hampshire).
It is also a local landmark, a special place beloved by the people of
its community. In addition to architecturally and historically
significant buildings on the property, it also contains a historic
family cemetery, prehistoric archaeological resources, and fertile
agricultural fields which have been farmed by a neighboring family for
many years.
The religious order that owns the property is under orders to sell
it. If, as is likely, a developer purchases the place, the cemetery and
archaeological sites possibly even the historic buildings will be at
risk, and the farmland may soon be growing houses instead of corn and
hay. If the multi-generational farm family loses the use of this land,
the family members will not be able to sustain their operation solely
on their own acreage, and will no longer be able to farm. The community
will find itself pressured by development in an outlying area which has
little infrastructure in place; and even if costly utility extensions
are not needed, the added expenses of providing municipal services and
schooling for the residents of the new houses will cost more than any
real estate taxes generated by the new development.
If New Hampshire's share of the Historic Preservation Fund at the
authorized level of $150 million were available, our annual HPF grant
would increase to $1.2 million dollars. It would be possible for the
municipality or non-profit preservation agencies to apply for funds to
purchase an easement on the farm or to make a pre-acquisition, holding
the property until more extensive fundraising and private initiatives
could secure its future. Lacking the fully funded historic preservation
component in S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, and with New Hampshire's new
State Land & Community Heritage Investment Program funding unavailable
for at least another year, no other readily available means have been
found to respect and retain the history and current use of this
nationally significant property, and that of the people whose lives are
linked to it. Surely our heroes of history (and our present-day
farmers) deserve better treatment!
This is but one of many such stories. Our conservation colleagues
at the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests could relate
an equally compelling narrative of their efforts to preserve the large
and varied complex of nationally significant buildings at The Rocks
Estate (the former Glessner estate) in Bethlehem, New Hampshire, in an
area where buildings are subject to extreme weathering. The spirit and
the strength for preservation are present, but the necessary money a
prudent investment in the past for the future is not.
We also hope that the Senate will allow States the maximum
flexibility for allocating and expending the HPF money in accordance
with a state-focused consensus about pressing priorities--developed at
the State level through a long-established and well-functioning public
participation process. One-size-fits-all national mandates and special
set-asides based on Washington views rather than documented State and
local needs are impractical and inefficient when applied to resources
as individualized and character-defining as historic properties and
places.
In addition, we should note that the actual system by which HPF
grant reimbursements are made has been functioning well for a third of
century, and is fully tested by programmatic and fiscal audits on a
recurring basis.
An interlocking system of experienced staff and internal and
external controls, both State and Federal, precludes the possibility of
a ``Big Dig'' debacle. More money available for the HPF would be a
difference of degree rather than kind; it would mean more projects, not
more problems.
For these, and many other such reasons, we hope that in its
consideration of S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181, and any other legislation
related to the ``Conservation & Reinvestment Act,'' the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works will include the Historic
Preservation Fund at the full $150 million annual authorization, and in
so doing will recognize that an annual HPF appropriation at $150
million would be an investment, not an expense.
If you have any questions or concerns that you would like for us to
address, we will be happy to respond and to provide additional
information.
Sincerely,
Linda Ray Wilson,
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer.
__________
Testimony of the Honorable Bobby Whitefeather, Chairman, Red Lake Band
of Chippewa Indians Tribal Council
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the other distinguished members of
the committee for this opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of
the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, concerning the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act of 1999 (CARA). The Red Lake Band is a Native American
Indian tribal government recognized by the U.S. Government.
Red Lake and, I believe it is safe to say, most of the 557
federally recognized Indian tribes across the country, strongly support
CARA and the lasting benefits it will provide for conservation and
future generations of Americans.
My testimony today will focus on Titles III and VI of S. 2123, as
these are of critical concern to tribes. Title III of CARA, Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration, provides up to $350 million annually to
the States, the District of Columbia, and the territories to conduct
fish and wildlife restoration projects. I am extremely concerned that
Title III apportions nothing to federally recognized Indian tribes, and
I am seeking an amendment to fix this. I also want to express our
requests in the strongest terms, that Title VI, Federal and Indian
Lands Restoration, be kept intact as part of the final legislation. I
will justify my requests momentarily, but first I want to provide some
background information about Red Lake which I believe will assist you
in judging the merits of my requests.
Red Lake People and Resources
Red Lake is a relatively large Tribe with 9,300 members. Our
841,000 acre Reservation, located in northwestern Minnesota, is held in
trust for the Tribe by the United States. While it has been diminished
in overall size, our Reservation has never been broken apart or
allotted to individuals. Nor has our Reservation ever been subjected to
the criminal or civil jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota.
Consequently, we have a relatively large land and water area over which
the Tribe exercises full governmental authority and control, in
conjunction with the United States.
Red Lake Band members' lives center around a seasonal cycle of
reliance on natural resources. Fishing, hunting, and gathering
activities are as important today as they were 200 years ago. Time has
certainly changed some aspects of this cycle. The desires of Band
members to purchase modern-day products and goods has led to a
resource-based cash economy of fishing and logging that began early in
the 20th century and continues today. However, concerns about resource
depletion in recent years have led us to seek out economic
diversification.
Due in part to our Reservation's location far from centers of
population and commerce, we have few jobs available in the private
sector economy. While unemployment rates throughout America have
dropped to historically low levels, our unemployment rate remains at an
outrageously high level of 60 percent. The lack of good roads,
communications, and other necessary infrastructure continues to hold
back economic development and job opportunities. We have had limited
success with gaming, but our remote location prevents the type of
often-cited, large-scale gaming operations run by a small handful of
tribes throughout America. The limited gaming revenues we do receive
are devoted to human-services programs like meals for the elderly, our
nursing home, and community-based activities. Unfortunately, given the
pressing needs of people who live on the edge of survival on our
impoverished Reservation, none of these funds can be devoted to natural
resource protection on our Reservation.
Relatively speaking, our resources are vast and important to many
people who are our neighbors beyond our Reservation borders. The
resources for which the Red Lake Band, not the State of Minnesota, is
responsible, include 350,000 acres of forests, 471,000 acres of
wetlands (including forested wetlands), 237,000 acres of lakes, and 55
miles of rivers and streams. Title to all of these resources are held
in trust status for the benefit of the Red Lake Band by the United
States. Many of our resources are truly unique.
Our Reservation includes much of northern Minnesota's patterned
peatlands, which have received worldwide scientific recognition because
ours is the largest peatland resource outside of Alaska and because
many rare and endangered species reside in these areas.
Our Tribe's natural namesake, the Red Lake, is the sixth largest
natural, freshwater lake in the United States. It is larger than Lake
Champlain, a lake which may be more familiar to you.
Until just recently, Red Lake was home to the largest and longest
continuously operated freshwater commercial fishery in America and
provided important employment for some 500 reservation families.
Unfortunately, similar to the fate of commercial fisheries the world
over, stocks of walleye, which were the principal commercial Red Lake
species, collapsed in the mid-1990's forcing the closure of our fishery
for the first time since the beginning of World War I. The Tribe has
since implemented an aggressive recovery plan in conjunction with the
Federal Government and the State of Minnesota, which represents the
largest freshwater fish species recovery program in America today.
I have provided the above information to help you understand that
we have been blessed with abundant natural resources, and the
conservation and perpetuation of these resources is extremely important
to my people and their direct survival needs.
Resource Management
Our tribal resources are managed by a small but dedicated group of
biologists, technicians, and wardens. Our relatively meager natural
resources funding comes primarily from Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
programs. Unfortunately, recent Federal budget cuts in BIA natural
resource funding has diminished our resource management capacity by 20
percent in just the last 5 years. We have attempted to make up the
difference by seeking outside grant funds, but the opportunities are
very limited, especially for fish and wildlife conservation. Still, we
do the best we can with the limited funds we have.
Tribal Access to CARA Title III
Tribes have proposed that on the basis of fairness and equity, we
should receive 2.25 percent of the new ``wildlife conservation and
restoration account'' subaccount created by Title III in the Federal
aid to wildlife restoration fund. This percentage is based on the ratio
of Indian trust land, which tribes have the responsibility for
protecting and for which no Federal Aid funds go toward fish and
wildlife conservation, to the rest of the land area of the United
States.
Targeting such a percentage allocation to Indian tribes for the
benefit of trust land and water resources is necessary in order to
provide a critically needed, recurring source of funds like what the
Act provides to the States and territories--one that is allocated based
on equitable principles. The tribal amendment would distribute the
tribal allocation among the various Indian tribal governments according
to an inter-tribal formula that divides the tribal funds, one-third of
which is based on the ratio to which the trust land area of each tribe
bears to the total trust land area of all tribes and two-thirds of
which is based on the ratio to which the population of each tribe bears
to the total population of all tribes.
The argument for tribal access to these funds is based primarily on
two factors. First, the underlying principles of CARA, which tribes
strongly support, are to protect all of America's land and water
resources. Among the most important of these resources to the American
public is fish and wildlife. Like the States and territories, tribes
have a critical need for a dedicated, recurring source of funds for
fish and wildlife restoration, and only Title III provides this.
Second, for a very long time, tribes have argued that the apportionment
of other Federal Aid funds is unfair, in that tribes are not included
in the apportionment formulas, even though our members, like all
Americans, pay the same excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment.
Tribal attempts to amend these acts in the past have met with
opposition from the States during periods of time when the Federal Aid
fund allocations were not expanding and States were relying heavily on
these recurring funds to finance fish and wildlife restoration projects
With the new Title III fund, this basic inequity, and the frustration
experienced by tribes, can be remedied by ensuring access by tribes to
the new Title III Federal Aid funds through a statutory provision.
If the tribal amendment were to be extended, as a matter of equity,
to the previously authorized Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Act base apportionment formulas, we believe that could
engender State opposition since the allocations to the States and
territories under those formulas are longstanding. Therefore, our
proposed Title III amendment is in effect a compromise. The amendment
would affect only new CARA subaccount allocations never before raised
and distributed. The basic apportionment formulas under the Federal Aid
Acts would remain as they currently exist, with no apportionment going
to tribes.
Keep CARA Title VI Intact
Title VI of S. 2123, Federal and Indian Lands Restoration, provides
up to $200 million annually for a coordinated program on Federal and
Indian lands to restore degraded lands, protect resources that are
threatened with degradation, and protect public health and safety. Of
this amount, 60 percent would be allocated for Department of Interior
lands, 30 percent would be allocated for Department of Agriculture
lands, and 10 percent would be allocated for Indian lands. This
allocation formula is based on acreage.
Like the Federal Government and the States, tribes have an immense
wealth of natural resources under their management and care. However,
tribes lag far behind the Federal Government and the States in our
capacity to protect these resources. The development of this capacity
takes time and dedicated financial resources, and tribes have long been
disadvantaged in this area.
The $20 million allocated to tribes under this title is modest when
you consider that it must be spread among more than 550 tribal
governments and 56 million acres of Indian trust land. However, it does
represent a critically important source of funds, and I strongly urge
you to ensure that Title VI is kept intact in the final CARA
legislation. A final request I have regarding Title VI is that language
be included requiring the Secretary of Interior to consult with tribes
in the development of the competitive grant program for allocation of
funds to tribes. We have attached a proposed amendment that would do
this.
Conclusion
The protection of America's natural resources is of immense
importance. CARA represents perhaps the greatest opportunity ever to
provide a lasting legacy of resource preservation for future
generations of Americans. CARA is consistent with the first Americans'
view of protecting Mother Earth.
The equitable inclusion of tribes in the apportionment of CARA
Titles III and VI as I have described today is fair and reasonable.
More importantly, if tribes hope to preserve our resources and our way
of life, we need access to funds in a manner similar to other agencies
charged with the protection of America's land and water. I sincerely
hope that you will take my words to heart, and do the right thing on
behalf America's Indian tribes.
I have attached to this testimony proposed amendment language for
CARA Titles III and VI. Also attached is additional background
information which justifies my request. I would be pleased to provide
any additional information you need. I thank you for the opportunity to
present testimony today on behalf of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa
Indians.
__________
Statement of Wayne E. Vetter, President, Northeast Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies
I would like to thank Senator Smith and this committee for allowing
me the opportunity to provide testimony on this very important
conservation funding bill. As you all know, conservation funding is one
of the most popular issues with voters. You also undoubtedly know that
it is extremely difficult to get conservation funding bills passed, or
even heard, because there's always something else more critical. This
is truly a once in a lifetime opportunity to pass a popular and pro-
active bill to guarantee funding for the protection and management of
our invaluable natural resources.
This committee can greatly assist us in the implementation of these
programs by supporting the amendments suggested by the International
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies for Title III of these bills.
In particular:
Increasing the floor for minimum states from \1/2\ of 1 percent to
1 percent, Implementing a 5-year phase-in period with 90 percent
Federal to 10 percent State match, Remove the 10 percent cap on
wildlife associated recreation spending, Reinstate the provision for up
to 10 percent of the funds to be used for law enforcement, Including
wildlife conservation planning language, and Increasing the level of
wildlife funding in Title III to $450 million or 10 percent of OCS
revenues, whichever is greater.
Increasing the floor for minimum States from \1/2\ of 1 percent to
1 percent will have a great effect on small States like mine. This is a
more fair distribution of funds since all States, small and large, need
to fund a full range of wildlife programs. While our State is small, it
is within a 1-day drive of all the major northeastern cities, and is a
playground for many of those outdoor enthusiasts. This money is
desperately needed as development and recreational use pressures on our
landscape are intense. Remember, green space doesn't cost, it pays. We
currently have about 75 percent of over 500 vertebrate wildlife species
found in New Hampshire which don't qualify for State funding. This
minor change, which is supported by the State fish & wildlife agency
directors, would double the amount of money coming to New Hampshire
from $1.75 to $3.5 million. Our total nongame program budget is just
over $130,000 annually (including salaries) to manage over 400 species
of wildlife. While the CARA funds would be spread over several programs
within the Department I think you can understand the impact this
amendment could have on New Hampshire and several other small States,
with minimal impacts on larger States. I like to say that \1/2\ of 1
percent will support the infrastructure necessary for a full range of
wildlife programs within the State, and the other percent of a percent
will provide the money necessary to make sure those programs have the
dollars necessary to actually do the work.
Second, a 5 year phase-in period where the Title III money would be
available with a 90 percent Federal and 10 percent State match rate
would allow all States the necessary time to develop better funding
mechanisms for the state side match. We support moving the cost share
ratio to 75 percent Federal and 25 percent State funds after 5 years as
it will increase the overall scope of the program by mandating
increased State contributions. This is in the best interest of our
wildlife resources, but may be hard for some States to achieve in the
short term. It only makes sense to assure the Federal funds
appropriated are used rather than reverted for redistribution simply
because a State in need couldn't meet the cost share. This will
eliminate unnecessary stress on State fish and wildlife agencies who
currently receive no general fund moneys and/or have small programs.
New Hampshire Fish and Game is one of those agencies.
Third, eliminating the ceiling on wildlife associated recreation
projects will allow States to make a ``big bang'' early by putting
programs and facilities in place which will touch large numbers of non-
traditional resource users, thereby generating support for fund raising
efforts to make the increased match later. Recreation is the
springboard for a conservation ethic-it is how people begin their love
affair with the outdoors. Recreation related projects may well be one
of the best ways of launching CARA activities within our State. To
limit those funds may not be in anyone's best interest.
Fourth, reinstating the provision, which would allow up to 10
percent for conservation law enforcement will recognize the role they
play in protecting our resources. State fish and wildlife conservation
officers have many opportunities to work with landowners and the public
to implement voluntary, proactive fish and wildlife protection and
public education and outreach programs. By reinstating this language
you will give agency directors the ability to make the decision on how
best to use the CARA money, and the tremendous opportunity to increase
that face to face contact with the public that conservation law
enforcement officers present.
The fifth amendment referenced above requests that planning
language be added which will help to guide all States to develop a
comprehensive wildlife program with the funds provided, and to
strategically prioritize and target Title III conservation funds to
most effectively address the unmet needs of a diverse array of wildlife
species and their habitats. This language will set the stage for a
substantive public input process, which will strengthen the
relationship between the public and State agencies, and work toward
maximizing the benefits of this program.
And, finally, I ask you to consider increasing the level of
wildlife funding under Title III to $450 million or 10 percent of OCS
revenues, which ever is higher. As good as this program is for
wildlife, it still falls well short of the estimated $1 billion
additional dollars necessary to fully fund wildlife programs in the
States. Our profession has perhaps suffered at times in the past by not
asking for what is really needed to fulfill our mandates. This is our
opportunity to ask, and we are. This would make a good program great.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the International Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies, the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies and the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, I thank you
for the opportunity to speak before you today, and urge you to pass
this Legislation and the amendments suggested by IAFWA. Together we can
keep common species common.
Wayne E. Vetter, Executive Director New Hampshire Fish & Game
Department 2 Hazen Dr. Concord, NH 03301 (603) 271-3511
__________
Statement of Thomas M. Franklin, Wildlife Policy Director, The Wildlife
Society
The Wildlife Society thanks Chairman Bob Smith, Ranking Member Max
Caucus, and the members of this committee for the opportunity to
provide testimony on S. 2123, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of
1999, S. 2181, the Conservation and Stewardship Act, and S. 25, the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act. The Wildlife Society is the
association of wildlife professionals dedicated to excellence in
wildlife stewardship through science and education. We have worked
since 1937 to encourage a scientific approach to managing and
protecting the Nation's wild living resources. Our members are the
``front line'' professionals who are employed in the private sector,
academia, and in State and Federal agencies to ensure the wise
stewardship of wildlife resources.
If ever there were an opportunity to help ensure long-term
conservation of wildlife resources, that opportunity is before us now
with the conservation funding legislation that has passed the House and
currently exists in the Senate. Just as the Wildlife Society has
actively participated in the development and implementation of some of
the most historically significant conservation legislation of the last
century, so we begin this century by supporting the passage of a
conservation funding bill that provides dependable, long-term funding
for our Nation, imperiled wildlife populations.
The need for sufficiently funded proactive wildlife management
continues to grow, as does the public demand for the responsible
stewardship of wildlife. These public demands are reasonable and should
be met: without proper conservation, more and more species will become
threatened and endangered. Trying to reverse these trends, rather than
preventing them, is extremely expensive and inefficient, and the public
foots the bill. Annual expenditures for recovery efforts of listed
species have risen from $43 million in 1989 to $312 million in 1995. In
addition, although funding exists for game management through the
Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, the
public's interest in wildlife observation is substantial. According the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, wildlife-watchers spent $29 billion in
State and local economies in 1996, 39 percent more than that spent just
5 years before. And nature-based tourism is increasing, at a higher
rate than any other segment of tourism worldwide. We would like to
offer recommendations for the wildlife title of a compromise bill based
on elements found in Title III of S. 2123, S. 2181, and S. 25. The
Wildlife Society recommends that the following specific elements be
included in the final wildlife title of the bill:
Wildlife conservation strategy found in S. 2181. This language
provides for efficient and effective use of Title Ill funds to address
all wildlife species needs and has broad support among wildlife
conservationists. No cap on wildlife recreation program spending.
Success of wildlife conservation and management programs relies on
public support. Public support is fostered when people are engaged in
wildlife-related recreation from which they can develop a personal
connection to wildlife values. These recreational programs should not
be limited by a 10 percent funding cap. Both S. 25 and S. 2181 already
address this concern.
Increased base funding for States from \1/2\ to 1 percent to
benefit small population/small land-base States. The benefits to
wildlife conservation in these 11 small States (NH, SD, NJ, CT, DE, RI,
VT, ME, ND, HI, and WV) would greatly outweigh the minimal reduction in
funds distributed to all other 39 States (a total reallocation of $11.9
million, or 3.4 percent of the total, would result from this change).
In many of the small northeastern States, wildlife managers face many
unique challenges due to rapid development and increasing human
populations. The problems they face are no less pressing than those of
larger States. No existing bill currently addresses this issue. Assure
adequate funding for wildlife conservation, recreation and education.
The $350 million specified in CARA and CASA is the minimum necessary to
allow State wildlife agencies to begin addressing the estimated $1
billion per year need.
If States continue to be deprived of dependable funding for
wildlife conservation, the declining trends of many species will
continue to accelerate over the next few years. More than 2,000 non-
game, non-listed species of fish and wildlife in the ITS are lacking
the attention that they need. Without sufficient funding, State
resource managers will be unable to act as more and more species reach
a critical status and are listed as threatened or endangered. We all
know that our diverse wildlife is a source of pride for the citizens of
this country--so why wait until conditions are severely degraded before
taking action? There are cost-efficient, effective and popular ways of
providing, landowners with incentives to conserve wildlife habitat, by
providing States with the resources they need to be proper stewards of
this nation's wildlife, these responsible conservation techniques will
be implemented.
The Wildlife Society commends the members of this committee who
have sponsored or cosponsored some form of conservation funding
legislation. All of the existing bills are worthy of praise, and are a
testament to the commitment and foresight of this Congress to have a
conservation legacy that benefits all American citizens. We are
confident that your commitment to bipartisan legislation will produce a
compromise bill that preserves the integrity of the original bills and
provides for thorough, effective use of wildlife conservation funding.
Wildlife professionals, the American public, and their children will
thank you for it.
__________
Statement of Chuck Cushman, Coordinator, Keep Private Lands in Private
Hands Coalition, Battle Ground, WA
SUBMITTED TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, JUNE 12, 1999,
CONSIDERING H.R. 701, CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT
We regret that we were denied the opportunity to testify in person
at the hearing in Salt Lake as were many other organizations that
requested to testify. We will share our concerns about H.R. 701, the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999, H.R. 798 and the Clinton/
Gore Lands Legacy Initiative. We have considerable personal on the
ground experience with how the Land and Water Conservation Fund really
works, and the policies and practices of the Federal land agencies as
they carry out their land acquisition programs. If H.R. 701 or any of
these other bills and initiatives become law it will make land
acquisition in America far more threatening to the future of America.
We compliment Chairman Don Young on his most distinguished career
in Congress and the good he has done for multiple use and conservation
in general. We feel, however, that H.R. 701 is a misguided response to
a demand by several powerful special interest groups for a new
entitlement and subsidy giving them a disproportionate share of our
country's natural resources and an automatic yearly hand in the Federal
treasury.
I am Charles S. Cushman, Coordinator of the Keep Private Lands in
Private Hands Coalition and Executive Director of the American Land
Rights Association. My father was a ranger for the National Park
Service and I served the Park Service in the second Student
Conservation Corps in Olympic National Park in 1959. I also served as a
volunteer with the Audubon Society at what is now known as Channel
Islands National Park. My son worked for the Park Service in the living
history center in Wawona, Yosemite National Park and I served as a
member of the National Park System Advisory Board from 1981 to 1984. I
have personally visited most Park Service areas where land acquisition
has taken place in recent years as well as many other Federal areas.
The Keep Private Lands in Private Hands Coalition opposes H.R. 701,
H.R. 798 and the Lands Legacy Initiative. It has over 600 organizations
supporting it including the following:
Citizens for a Sound Economy
Americans For Tax Reform
Independent Forest Products Association
National Tax Limitation Committee
Alliance for America
National Wilderness Institute
American Agri-Women
Defenders of Property Rights
Pennsylvania Landowners Association
Private Landowners of Wisconsin
Riverside Farm Bureau CA
Schohrie Farm Bureau NY
Republican Party of Riverside County CA
Women Involved In Farm Economics--WIFE
Stop Taking Our Property--IN
Niobrara Basin Dev. Association NE
Small Property Owners Association
American Policy Center
Mt. St. Helen Trackriders WA
Multiple Use Association ME/NH
Associated Industries of Vermont
Frontiers of Freedom
American Land Rights Association--WA
Citizens For Constitutional Property Rights FL
People for the Constitution NV
Public Lands for the People CA
Competitive Enterprise Institute DC
New Mexico Public Lands Council
Environmental Conservation Organization
Frontiers of Freedom WY
Property Rights Foundation of America--NY
Alabama Family Alliance
NY Blue Line Council
Property Rights Alliance WA
Klamath All. for Resources and Environment CA
Eastern Oregon Mining Association
Citizens for Private Property Rights MO
Keep ME Posted ME
Maine Property Rights Alliance
NW Council of Governments WA
Riverside & Landowners Protection Coalition TX
Clearwater Resource Coalition MT
Montana Women Involved In Farm Economics
Take Back Kentucky
High Desert Multiple-Use Coalition CA
People for the USA Rio Virgin--UT
American Agriculture Movement, Inc.
Common Sense for Maine Forests
Washington Contract Loggers Association
Exotic Wildlife Association TX
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
Northeast Regional Forest Foundation VT
National Taxpayers Union
Montanans for Multiple-Use
Grassroots ESA Coalition
U. S. Taxpayers Alliance
Communities for a Great Northwest
Black Hills Women In Timber--SD
Property Owners Standing Together--VT
Citizens for Private Property Rights CA
Fairness to Land Owners Committee--FLOC
Vermont Forest Products Association
Montana Mining Association
Illinois Agri-Women
NM Woolgrowers Action Committee
East Mojave Property Owners (CA)
Bootheel Heritage Association--TX
Fire Island Nat. Seashore Adv. Board NY
California Outdoor Recreation League
People for the USA--Dent County, MO
People for the USA--Lander Valley, WY
Keep Maine Free
Washington County Alliance--ME
Blue Ribbon Coalition
Western Mining Council CA
Chamber of Commerce, Wrangell AK
Arizona Trail Riders
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Assoc.
New Mexico Cattle Growers
New Mexico Woolgrowers
Maine Conservation Rights Institute
League of Private Property Voters
Texas Wildlife Association
Nat Assoc of Reversionary Prop Own. WA
Idaho Cattle Association
Curry County Oregon Project
Vermont Cabinet Makers
Clallam County WA
Adirondack Solidarity Alliance
Unorganized Territories United, Maine
Columbia Basin Environ. Council--WA
People for the USA Beaverhead MT Pennsylvania Landowners Association
Rhode Island Wiseuse
Pennsylvania Forest Industry Association
North Shore Association--MI
Wind River Multiple Use Advocates--WY
Family Water Alliance--CA
Take Back Arkansas
Citizens Against Refuge Proposal--OH
Hill Country Heritage Association--TX
Kankakee River Prop. Rts. Task Force--IN
Davis Mountains Trans-Pecos Herit. TX
Trans Texas Heritage Association
The American Land Rights Association, formerly the National
Inholders Association, represents private landowners throughout the
United States. Of special interest are those people owning private land
or other interests within Federal boundaries or who are affected by
Federal statute such as the Endangered Species Act and various Wetlands
regulations. ALRA has over 18,000 members in 50 States and over 200
federally managed areas. There are an estimated 1.2 million inholders
nationwide. Many of these live in communities in National Forests who
have now idea they are now threatened by a massive increase in land
acquisition caused by H.R. 701.
Inholders are landowners in National Parks, refuges, forests and
other Federal areas, recreation residence cabin owners and other
special use permittees in National Forests, ranchers in areas managed
by the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service, small miners on
Federal lands, all kinds of inholders in and adjacent to FWS Wildlife
Refuges and many other types of rights holders. They are also people
who are impacted by the management, regulation of and access to Federal
areas.
The American Land Rights Association also works to support
continued multiple-use and productive contributions from our Federal
lands. Recreationists, miners, hunters, sportsmen, ranchers,
landowners, permittees, handicapped, elderly, and many others are
encouraged to cooperate to support access and multiple-use on our
Federal lands and to oppose selfish single-use designations that limit
access to millions of American families.
American Land Rights, National Inholders Association as it was
called then, made a fateful decision in 1980 with the proposal by
former Senator Alan Cranston to make Big Sur, California into a
National Park. The idea of opposing parks was foreign to my personal
beliefs but in the 2 years since our association was formed in 1978, we
had been unable to stem the tide of abuses against landowners inside
federally managed areas. We had reduced them and stopped some when we
heard about them in time, but overall, the wave continued.
We made a conscious decision that since we could not get the Park
Service, and to a lesser extent other agencies, to stop abusing
inholders inside Federal areas, we would begin to fight to keep people
from becoming inholders. It was not an anti park decision. It was a pro
people decision. Simply put, if we couldn't get the Federal Government
to take care of the inholders they already had, we would try not to let
them have any more inholders.
H.R. 701 clearly justifies our decision. If H.R. 701 passes, any
families we had allowed to become inholders would now be subject to
being aggressively eliminated over time. H.R. 701 is actually anti-
conservation because it says that if people do a good job of taking
care of nice places, they will be rewarded by being thrown out of those
places.
``Those That Fail to Remember History Are Bound To Repeat It''
To date little has been done by the Congress or the Federal
agencies to respond to the following reports by the General Accounting
Office critical of land acquisition policies and practices carried out
by those agencies. In large measure, the response by Congress has been
to give the Park Service, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and
Bureau of Land Management less money to buy land. That greatly reduced
the problem. More money will start the problems all over again. We're
reminded of the Clinton campaign motto in 1992, ``It's the Economy
Stupid.'' In the case of land acquisition, ``It's the Money Stupid.''
The scope and harm caused by land acquisition is simply a function of
how much money the Federal agencies get and the type of oversight they
receive. H.R. 701 over time will increase the money and reduce the
oversight. The result will be severe economic and cultural damage to
rural America.
Today there is largely a new generation of Members of Congress and
staff who do not remember the horror stories of the 1960's, 1970's and
1980's and even the 1990's. Most Members of Congress don't remember the
days when every Member of Congress had to become a management
consultant to the Park Service because the agency was unable to solve
its conflicts. The current situation at Saddleback Mountain Ski Area in
Maine is a perfect example. For over 20 years the landowner has been
unable to get the Park Service to resolve the route of the Appalachian
Trail. Without Congressional intervention, there is no hope.
The owner of the ski area has been prevented from upgrading and
expanding his potentially world class facility because the Park Service
has continually refused to settle on a trail route. If the Park Service
can't get it right on less than three miles of trail, why should the
public in Maine or anywhere else trust them with billions of additional
dollars for land acquisition.
It is critical that the House hold regional oversight hearings so
that it can get a better sense of the land acquisition abuses of the
past. If the Resources Committee does not want to face up to the
history of land acquisition, then individual Congressmen should take
the initiative and hold their own hearings in their own districts.
Some will say that the GAO reports listed below are dated. They are
the most current reports on a problem that was greatly reduced with the
reduction in funding. Since Congress is considering greatly expanded
and guaranteeing the funding, these reports must be examined carefully
to try to make sure any potential legislation does not cause a repeat
of the same mistakes.
general accounting office (gao) reports about land acquisition
The Federal Drive To Acquire Private Lands Should Be
Reassessed'' (CED-80-14) (December 14, 1979).
``Federal Land Acquisition and Management Practice''
(CED-81-135) (Sep. 11, 1981).
``Lands In The Lake Chelan National Recreation Area
Should Be Returned To Private Ownership'' (CED-81-10) (Jan. 22, 1981).
``The National Park Service Should Improve Its Land
Acquisition and Management At Fire Island'' (CED-81-78) (May 8, 1981).
``Federal Protection of Wild and Scenic Rivers Has Been
Slow and Costly'' (CED-78-96) (May 22, 1978).
``Federal Land Acquisitions By Condemnation Opportunities
To Reduce Delays and Costs'' (CED-80-54) (May 14-, 1980).
``Limited Progress Made In Documenting and Mitigating
Threats To Parks'' (RCED-87-36) (February 1987).
``New Rules for Protecting Land In The National Park
System Consistent Compliance Needed'' (RCED-86-16) (October 16, 1985).
PBS FRONTLINE DOCUMENTARY, ``FOR THE GOOD OF ALL''
The committee should watch the hour long documentary, Public
Television's ``Frontline' about the Cuyahoga Valley NRA in Ohio which
aired on June 6, 1983. It could have been filmed in areas managed by
the Park Service, Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service. The
only difference between when this film was made and today is money. You
give the Park Service the money, and in 5 years, you'll get another
film.
This tragic film documents the broken promises by the Congress and
the Park Service in the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area
between Akron and Cleveland, Ohio. Only 29 homes were to be taken for
the park. The law even promised the use of easements. Yet the number of
homes purchased was well over 300, the small community was destroyed,
churches and schools closed, their tax base eroded by unnecessary land
acquisition. Cuyahoga Valley could have been a success without much
land acquisition.
Willing Seller A Myth
``John Jones is a willing seller. He didn't want to sell and held
out as long as he could. First the Park Service came in and purchased
the, homes, farms and timberlands of his neighbors who did want to
sell. There will always be some. Then the agency began to search out
those families who were in some kind of financial distress such as from
a death, divorce, loss of job and other reason.
``Jones watched as his community was checker boarded by the Park
Service. He remembered being told when the park was created that he
would not be forced out. But now the agency was targeting local
businesses and the county itself. Many small businesses were purchased
and put out of business. The Park Service purchased the holdings of
several large timberland companies. Smaller timber owners began to sell
as they saw that the logging infrastructure might eventually not be
there. The mill eventually had to close because it could not get enough
wood. Like a natural ecosystem, the economic ecosystem, of a community
is very fragile.
``As more timberland was purchased, more homes and farms began to
disappear. Many residents wanted to hold out but with fewer jobs in the
county, the value of their homes and property began to go down. As the
Park Service purchased them, they lay empty for months or even years
because the agency said they did not have the funds to clear them out.
They became havens for vandals and drug houses.
``The Nature Conservancy and other land trusts began to circle like
buzzards. They would buy from financially distressed landowners, then
turn the land over to the Federal Government. Time after time this
happened, quietly, secretly arid silently they helped undercut the
community.
``As properties were taken off the tax rolls, the schools and
county services bean to suffer. Several closed making longer trips to
school necessary for families. The school district didn't have the
money for the necessary busses. Roads began to close. As the Park
Service purchased large areas, the agency put up chains across the
roads. Some of these roads had been used for years by neighbors as
access points to the river or to go camping, wood cutting or berry
picking. Usually we knew another way but over time, all the access was
closed off.
``Churches, clubs and other community services began to close. The
library was in trouble. The hours were cut for it and other county
services. There had been several markets in town and three gas
stations. There is only one of each now and it looks like the store
will close. That means an 80 mile drive to Millersville for groceries.
Over time, other essential services and stores began to disappear.
``When the park was created they promised tourism. I don't know
where it is. We gave up a lot of good jobs for this park and the
tourists don't come. Several motels and restaurants were built in
anticipation of the visitors. All but one restaurant is closed, and it
cut its hours back. We have two motels still open but they are
struggling.
``We have a very nice ski area but a Park Service trail runs
through it. The agency has harassed the owners so often that they're
close to giving up. They can't get any kind of commitment from the Park
Service as to a final trail location so they can't invest in
modernizing and expanding the ski area. There sure are a lot of people
in town who would benefit if the ski area was allowed to meet its
potential. We thought the Park Service supported recreation. Now it
seems the opposite is true. We heard from people out West that the Park
Service and the environmental groups were becoming anti-recreation. It
couldn't be true we said. It looks like we were wrong. They seem to be
against skiing and snowmobiling. It doesn't make sense.
``The county had no choice but to raise our taxes. The tax base for
the county was shrinking almost daily. We had one local bank and
several bank branches. Now there is only one branch open as part of the
market, but it may go away too. The banks have not made loans in our
town for several years now because the future is unstable. They won't
make loans to loggers, equipment suppliers, or small businessmen
because of threat from the Feds. No new houses have been built in some
time. The theater closed and the cable television company is
considering shutting down. It feels like a ghost town.
``Some of my neighbors are determined to stay and suffer the
consequences and severe hardships of living within a now nearly all
Federal enclave. I love my town. I was born and raised here, went away
to college and came back. It looks like that even though I stood up to
those Federal land acquisition agents, there will soon be nothing left
to stand up for. I never thought I'd be a willing seller. But I am
now.''
The ``willing buyer, willing seller procedure of acquiring land
touted by park officials is `meaningless' and a more proactive method
is generally used,'' said William Kriz, Chief of Land Acquisition in an
article in the Concord Journal in 1988.
Do Most People in Parks Want to Sell?
That's Nonsense!
The American Land Rights Association would not exist if that were
true. People would not support us with their membership dues and extra
contributions if all they wanted to do is sell. A very small part of
the authorized backlog is people who are willing sellers.
But these relatively few cases are hyped by the green groups and
some in Congress to justify their land acquisition goals. Let there be
no mistake. If a person wants to sell, we support his ability to do so.
But having the government involved corrupts the whole system. Once a
person makes the mental decision to sell, he'll sell the easiest way
possible. The Park Service and other agencies will have little reason
not to want to buy with a trust fund behind them. The result will be
even more of what has happened in the past the Park Service and other
agencies have become a dumping ground for open space.
However, often the only reason a landowner wants to sell is that he
has been harassed and driven half-crazy trying to deal with the Park
Service who generally fails to negotiate in good faith. After enough
pressure and abusive tactics, almost any landowner can become a willing
seller.
But the bottom line is that most landowners still do not wish to
sell their land and GAO says that it is not necessary to buy them to
achieve project objectives.
In the 1970's it was clear the Park Service and other agencies
didn't bother to prioritize their acquisitions. In their view they were
going to buy it all so who cared. The trust fund will simply restart
that mindless attack on rural America. In a 1979 interview with the
then Carter Administration Deputy Assistant Secretary of Interior David
Hales and the author, Hales said, ``If Congress puts a circle around
it, we're going to buy it all.''
______
Neighbors Follow The Money
THE MORE MONEY THE FEDERAL AGENCIES GET, THE WORSE NEIGHBORS THEY
BECOME.
Some Specific Case Studies from the 1970's
Lake Chelan National Recreation Area in Washington State--was
created at the same time as the North Cascades National Park. Lake
Chelan was made a NRA so that the small community of Stehekin could
continue its pioneering subsistence way of life. It was necessary for
the community to have access to wood, water and power to continue.
Lake Chelan offered a unique opportunity to provide the
handicapped, elderly, and children a truly wild experience at the end
of a 40 mile boat ride, the only regular method to get into Stehekin.
There were only 1,600 acres of private land. According to the GAO, the
Park Service purchased most of these, cutting off the ability of the
community to provide for many visitors.
In fact, it has been said that by 1980 there were half as many beds
available to disadvantaged recreationists as there had been in 1968
when the area was made a National Recreation Area. The Park Service had
purchased some of the facilities and closed them down.
Lake Crescent in Olympic National Park--There had been more than 15
recreation resorts and destinations at Lake Crescent before the Park
Service went on its land acquisition rampage. Now there are only two.
How many handicapped, elderly and children will not get that fine
experience they would have had with those facilities still operating?
The Buffalo National River in Arkansas--While preparing for a
debate on the ``Today'' show on NBC in 1988 between myself and Denis
Galvin of the Park Service, the NBC staffers found that the Park
Service had started out with 1,103 landowners. The law clearly
encouraged easements and did not intend to destroy the special cultural
communities along the river. The culture was so unique it was featured
in National Geographic. However, NBC said there were only eight
landowners left in 1988, the 20th anniversary.
I served with former Parks Committee Chairman Roy Taylor on the
National Park System Advisory Board and Council in 1982. He told me
personally that Congress never intended for the people of the Buffalo
to be destroyed.
St. Croix River in Minnesota--According to a 1978 report on rivers
by GAO, they found the Park Service had acquired 21,000 acres when they
were only supposed to acquire 1,000 acres of access sites according to
the legislative intent.
St. Croix River--Another GAO report issued in 1979 found the Park
Service had 2,100 acres under condemnation, which was 900 acres over
the legal limit. The Park Service agreed but said that when they
concluded the condemnation trials on people enough to reach the limit,
the rest would receive scenic easements.
St. Croix River--Park Service was found guilty by the Justice
Department of using project influence to pay landowners less than fair
market value. Justice planned to make the agency go back and re-
appraise the land and pay for what it had taken illegally. American
Land Rights had to pressure the Justice Department to follow through.
St. Croix River--Park Service is now over its legal limit for using
condemnation to buy fee title. They are now threatening landowners with
excessively restrictive public access easements that only leave the
landowner with the right to pay taxes and liability for personal
injury.
St. Croix River--Ironically, one of the best examples of the use of
easements was not by the Park Service. The Kettle River is a tributary
under the responsibility of the State of Minnesota. The State purchased
land protection in the form of easements for a fraction of the average
cost paid by the Park Service in adjacent areas.
Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota--The Forest Service used LWCF
funds to buy up and remove many resorts throughout the whole region of
Minnesota. The result was not more recreation but recreation
transferred to the young and healthy at the expense of the elderly,
handicapped and children. There was a massive loss of access to
traditional hunting and fishing areas further reducing broad-based
family recreation.
Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota--The Park Service admitted in a
1979 GAO report that they had acquired enough land for the park from
the timber companies and did not need to acquire all the private
landholdings that dotted this sparsely populated area. The agency went
on to acquire the inholders.
Fire Island National Seashore in New York--The Park Service was
found guilty by the GAO in a 1981 report of acquiring an expensive home
completely surrounded by other homes and not available for any form of
public recreation. The Park Service justified its condemnation simply
because the landowner had built his deck a little too large and had
received a zoning variance from the local town. The cost to the
taxpayer was $100,000 for nothing.
C & O Canal in Maryland--The Park Service threatened all landowners
with condemnation in the years around 1974. Even though they were
required to offer landowners a life tenancy under the 1969 Uniform
Relocation Act, the agency failed to provide each landowner notice of
his rights because park officials wanted to limit any use and occupancy
reservations to 25 years. The result is that now the landowners are
fighting to get what was fairly theirs. Their Congressman, Roscoe
Bartlett, has worked tirelessly to try to save the former landowners
from Park Service eviction.
Mt. Rogers National Recreation Area in Southwest Virginia--A Forest
Service area created in 1966. Congress had specified that the agency
should acquire 39,500 acres, 40 percent of them in fee title that would
have allowed the communities to stay. When questioned by congressional
investigators and the author in 1979 about how many acres they had
purchased in fee and how many easements, they responded that they had
purchased over 26,000 acres in fee and no easements. The agency thought
Congress didn't really mean what they said in the law. They viewed it
as just a suggestion. It took a surprising amount of hard work by
former Congressman Bill Wampler of Virginia to stop a massive new round
of condemnation actions planned by the Forest Service.
Yosemite National Park in California--76 year old James Downey, a
survivor of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, was threatened with
condemnation in 1971 because he wanted to add a bathroom. He had no tub
and had a double size septic tank and there was a covered breezeway
under which the bathroom was to be built. There would be no new land
coverage. The Park Service said what he was doing was an incompatible
act and he would be condemned. They came back to him 2 weeks later
after realizing their political insensitivity and said that if he would
sell them his home, they would lease it back to him and then it would
be OK to build his bathroom. Was the goal to stop the bathroom or buy
the house?
Yosemite National Park--Harold Tischmacher's home burned down in
December 1977. When he tried to rebuild it on the same foundation, the
Park Service started condemnation proceedings because they said it was
an incompatible act. He was saved by congressional intervention by
Congressman Bernie Sisk (D-CA).
Foresta Fire, Yosemite National Park--In the late 1980's a fire got
out of control in Yosemite National Park, roared up a canyon and wiped
out the entire village of Foresta, about 80 homes. Park Service
Superintendent Michael Findley had turned down help from the Forest
Service and the State forestry service. After the fire, Findley
requested that Congress give him immediate permission to condemn all
the home sites because he could buy them cheaply since fire insurance
would pay for the lost houses. When he was denied, he then set up as
many roadblocks as possible to prevent the landowners from rebuilding,
thereby forcing some to sell.
Unfortunately these cases are just the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds
and perhaps thousands more have not been recorded. Investigators can
find these kinds of stories at nearly every park or other special
designation Federal area.
NO LAW TO PREVENT THESE ABUSES HAS BEEN PASSED
In the 1980's condemnations went down because the Reagan
Administration opposed the use of this tool wherever possible. Offshore
oil and gas money was reassigned to other social priorities by sending
it directly to the treasury.
There Were Abuses in the 1980's
Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming--In an important national case
a landowner had been trying to sell his 160 acres to the Park Service
for 10 years. They've had the money. The problem was the bad faith
negotiations extending all the way up the highest levels of Park
Service management. The landowner finally had to threaten to subdivide
his land in order to get them to make the purchase. The landowner did
not want to subdivide and had been a good steward.
The agency condemned him. During the next 5 years this case took,
the landowner offered to settle with the Park Service and it was agreed
to right up to the Directors level. William Mott overturned the
agreement for $1.8 million. The case then went to trial and ultimately
cost the government over $3.2 million, far more than the agreed upon
settlement. The judge was not complimentary to the bad faith
negotiating by the Park Service. To make the case more bizarre, this
piece of land was the highest priority acquisition for the Park Service
in the country and they still could not manage to negotiate in good
faith.
Santa Monica Mountains NRA in California--In the Murphy Duane case
the landowner spent years going through all the vast permitting process
and Coastal Commission approval to get to the point were he could build
his dream home. The Park Service strategy was to let him go. Only when
he had spent thousands of dollars and man-hours to get local approval,
did they say they were going to condemn his land. Intervention by
Members of Congress stopped this abusive example.
Chesboro Canyon, Santa Monica Mountains NRA in California--The Park
Service had enough money to purchase this Trust For Public Land
Property for $8 million leaving hundreds of small landowners in another
area of the NRA laying helpless and strangling. This is the exact kind
of case that gives the impression that lots of landowners want to sell
and that there is the need for H.R. 701 because there isn't enough
money.
The plain fact is that if the Park Service had used its money
wisely to buy hardships and willing sellers they knew existed, there
would be no cry for more money. It was lobbying by the Trust For Public
Land that allowed the $8 million to go for property the Park Service
did not need to purchase thereby preventing the truly needy landowners
from being paid.
Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Sweeney Ridge in California--
The Trust For Public Land acquired an option on this property for $8.5
million. They then negotiated a sale to the Park Service for $9.6
million. The Park Service really did not want to buy the property at
all. Both the Carter and Reagan Administrations agreed that the land
was not of park quality and should not be purchased.
However, as is often the case with large land trusts, TPL
orchestrated a political campaign and forced a political confrontation.
They obtained appraisals to show that the land was valued at anywhere
from $21 million to $24 million. The landowner, part of a large oil
company, hoped to obtain a large tax deduction. Our investigation
showed the land worth from $7 to $10 million.
Interior Secretary Bill Clark ultimately negotiated a sale near the
$8.5 figure, due in part to our campaign against this unfortunate use
of land acquisition funds. The figure was 8 percent of the entire land
acquisition budget for the Park Service. Many other deserving
landowners were left out because of this misuse of money. The problem
is not that there wasn't enough money, but that the money was spent
unwisely.
Appalachian Trail, Hanover, New Hampshire--The Park Service,
working closely with the Dartmouth Outing Club, attempted to use LWCF
funds to buy a greenway around Dartmouth College. They did this by
moving the Appalachian Trail over to make it go through the middle of
farmlands rather than along the fence lines as they were supposed to do
and using a 1000 foot corridor to build their impact. They were found
to be lying to Washington officials about their activities when called
in to explain and ultimately had to move the trail back to the fence
line and share the impact among adjacent owners. They were forced to
use easements even though they tried to avoid using them. Only American
Land Rights intervention saved their lands.
Appalachian Trail, Sheffield, Massachusetts--Park Service ignored
the Land Protection Planning Process and ran the trail through town
without consulting local officials, holding hearings or meetings or
producing a land protection plan for the area that had been shown to
either local landowners or officials. In fact, the Park Service had
deliberately rerouted the trail at the request of the green groups to
run it through the land that was planned to be used for a high tech,
low impact recycling plant the greens wanted to stop. The Appalachian
Trail has often been used as a weapon. Park Service officials repeated
this kind of abuse over and over along the Appalachian Trail.
As in the earlier examples, this is the tip of the iceberg. When
there is little oversight there is no reason for the agency to even
attempt to obey the law. And they end up spending billions of dollars
that do not have to be spent.
How About the 1990's? The Abuses Continued
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lake Shore in Michigan--Riverside
Canoes owned by Kathy and Tom Stocklen has been serving the public well
for many years. Even the Park Service admitted they ran a good clean
recreation business. But they would not sign over an easement type
contract to the Park Service without compensation. The Park Service had
already purchased two other canoe liveries and a campground either in
condemnation or under threat of condemnation.
Finally, in 1990, the Park Service condemned the Stocklens. After
several meetings with Park Service officials in Washington, no one at
the agency could justify the condemnation, yet it went forward none the
less. Finally, in 1992 just before the election, American Land Rights
planned a huge demonstration in front of the Interior Building in
Washington, DC. The Interior Department forced a settlement that gave
the Stocklens back their land and compensated them for their attorney's
fees prior to the demonstration.
Sleeping Bear was originally set up as a National Recreation Area.
That is what a National Lakeshore is. It is tough to have full access
to recreation when the managing agency buys out all the services
providing certain types of recreation.
Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge in Maine--The FWS wanted to expand the
refuge. They promised the local people they would only buy from willing
sellers. The others relaxed. After the willing sellers had been
purchased, the agency came back, denied they had ever said they would
only buy from willing sellers, and began threatening condemnation. This
is a pattern that repeats itself over and over again.
Saddleback Mountain Ski Area in Maine--Time after time, for over 20
years, the family that owns Saddleback has tried to work out a
settlement of the route for the Appalachian Trail so that they could
modernize and complete their ski area. Bad faith followed by bad faith
by the Park Service in negotiations continues to this day. In fact,
Saddleback recently offered the Park Service twice the land they could
condemn under law just to settle the matter. Yet Saddleback sits
twisting in the wind. The losers are the family, the community that
loses jobs and $40 million of much needed economic activity per year
for the region. The recreation ski community loses access to what would
become one of the finest ski areas in America. The greens want new
National Parks in Maine. It is hard to imagine why Maine or Congress
would allow the Park Service to take over 5 to 10 million more acres in
Maine when they cannot seem to solve problems and get along on a simple
trail.
Little River Canyon National Preserve in Alabama--Here is an
example of pure politics at work. The former Congressman from the area
essentially told the Park Service to find him a park in his district.
He apparently needed another monument. Fortunately, the agency found
the Little River Canyon, which we consider of national significance.
The State of Alabama and the Alabama Power Company owned it. As usual,
the Park Service wanted much more. They tried to include the homes and
farms of over 500 nearby landowners. American Land Rights helped fight
the proposal, which ultimately was settled by Congress using just the
State and power company land. The cost to the Park Service was minimal.
It was totally unnecessary to include the 500 landowners. This kind of
expansionist process that is embedded in the Park Service culture
raises the cost of parks and hurts the taxpayer.
Can It Happen Again?
H.R. 701 Makes It Appear Impossible To Avoid!
Congress has passed no law that would prevent a return to the
terrible days of the 1970's. The only difference is money. A simple
change in policy by the Interior Department or less enforcement of the
present policy that already falls short is all it would take. H.R. 701
will bring on a nightmare to rural communities across America.
A SUMMARY
The Problem
While H.R. 701 starts out more modestly, it will ultimately and
inevitably increase to over $1 billion per year and probably more with
modest additions each election cycle. That is not counting the likely
possibility of a compromise with the more aggressive bills proposed by
others. Once the Trust Fund is set up, the gradual expansion process is
inevitable. There will be no going back. The cow will be out of the
barn and down the road. Just like the Endangered Species Act, Congress
will be cowed into allowing a law that hurts people to continue to hurt
people.
Why should the Park Service, Forest Service or Fish and Wildlife
Service be given a new entitlement by this Congress which gives those
agencies a higher priority for funding than the Defense Department,
education, aids research, and many other important issues. Every
program should have to compete for appropriations. No more
entitlements.
No private property will be safe with the funds from H.R. 701
available. Gradually, over time, all inholder families will be wiped
out. Special Interest Groups will seek to create new congressionally
designated lands to apply their newfound largess. As was said about
former Congressman Phil Burton, ``if the only tool he had was a hammer,
everything he saw would look like a nail.'' With H.R. 701, everything
will begin to look endangered to certain special interest groups and in
need of Federal purchase.
How much is enough? Is it the policy of this Congress to buy up all
America? There should be a no net loss of private land policy in
America so that any new acquisitions are accompanied by a corresponding
sale of government lands.
What is the end game? Many Members of Congress keep asking how
America is going to extract itself from Kosovo and the Balkans. We
would ask how Congress would be able to shut off this new
unappropriated, dedicated and off-budget trust fund entitlement once it
is started. The experience of the past says you will be unable to do
so. The end result for anyone who cares to look beyond the years of his
own term is obvious. The solution is so much bigger than the problem
that the solution becomes the problem. Land acquisition will overwhelm
rural America.
There is little oversight of land acquisition now. There will be
virtually none if this bill passes.
Why are inholder families targeted for acquisition and removal?
Senator Orrin Hatch once referred to this process as ``cultural
genocide.'' Why cannot Federal areas be managed with families and
communities still there? Why this hysterical rush to wipe out this
cultural resource? Hundreds of small communities in existing Federal
areas will be wiped off the map.
Land acquisition has always been used as a weapon to regulate and
control private landowners. With billions of dollars to spend in a
dependable and continuing stream, Federal agencies will be able to
threaten landowners and control their activities. The reach of H.R. 701
into the very underpinnings of our Republic is remarkable.
Land acquisition destroys the culture and history of the US, often
driving out old families. The Park Service is essentially the curator
of our nations history and culture. Yet, Park Service practice in the
past has been to buy out and destroy much or our cultural heritage.
Special Interest Groups will seek to designate hundreds of areas of
private land as new government reservations. It will never stop. Just
look at their current attempt to convert the 26 million-acre Northern
Forests of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York into new Federal
parks, refuges and other reservations of various kinds. Even the bill
language of H.R. 701 appears to encourage this massive government
sponsored population relocation plan.
Billions of dollars of private land will be taken off the tax
rolls, forcing local taxes up. The taxes for those people who are not
acquired will go up forcing some to sell, others not to invest and
generally place a negative push against community development.
The basic tax base of many jurisdictions will be damaged or
destroyed. It is true that H.R. 701 will provide money to the States,
which they can choose to build swimming pools and other recreation
alternatives. But H.R. 701 also funds the purchase of land by the State
and Federal Government which ultimately and permanently weakens that
community or jurisdictions ability to provide basic services or even
maintain those same swimming pools.
Reports over the past 20 years by the General Accounting Office
document an ever increasing trend of poorly maintained National Parks.
From an estimate of $2 billion in maintenance backlog in 1981, the
estimate by some seems to indicate that the backlog may approach $10
billion or more. Does it make sense for this country to buy more land
when it cannot take care of what it already owns?
The Payments In-Lieu of Tax Program, PILT, has never been fully
funding by Congress. Local communities don't get near enough money to
replace the tax revenue they lost to Federal land acquisition. What is
worse, PILT is essentially a ``snapshot'' concept where future payments
are based on the value of land as of the date of acquisition. Thus a
county that must meet the needs of 1999 gets payments based on 1976
values for example.
H.R. 701 will fund the buying out of new mining ventures, a vast
array of the timber supply and ranching operations all over America.
Thousands of jobs will be lost and with them a tremendous loss in
economic opportunity and vitality. Rural communities don't take much
economic upheaval to permanently damage the economic ecosystem.
Park Service Is Being Damaged
Unfortunately, Cuyahoga Valley is not an isolated example of how
our Park Service areas are being managed. It is rather common place.
Yet Congress has largely failed to examine the abuses discussed in this
important film or how they could be corrected. The loss is to the Park
Service. Because Congress failed to provide proper oversight, the Park
Service feels it is immune from criticism. People who don't have to
compete generally fail to be the best they can be. Congress, the
Administration and yes, even the environmental groups, are cheating
themselves and the American public out of a better Park Service.
Conservation and Reinvestment Act Will Buy Land and Destroy People
Inholders are the targets of H.R. 701. They are the families in
communities that will be removed at will by the National Park Service
and other Federal agencies who will no longer be constrained to attempt
to be good neighbors because they don't have enough money. If they
cannot condemn people, they will simply threaten them, harass them,
cutoff their access, cutoff Federal loans and grants and disaster
relief and eventually drive them out. It's easy. It just takes a little
more time.
The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 701) will make victims
out of people who are discriminated against because of where they live.
These people will be rewarded for taking care or their land by having
it taken from them.
Condemnation is a terrible tool often abused in its use in the past
by the Park Service and Forest Service. Only limited funds have kept it
under control. It is vital that any legislation adding financial
strength to the Land and Water Conservation Fund also carry with it the
restraints necessary to monitor and control that strength. We would be
glad if H.R. 701 ultimately applies funds only to willing sellers but
find the likelihood of that happening not very high. Even if willing
seller passes this Congress, it will be easy to add condemnation back
in next Congress. It's the Trust Fund, the money that does the damage.
In the near term, the Fish and Wildlife Service may be the most
dangerous Federal agency. They are the only agency that can set up a
Federal area without authorization by Congress. H.R. 701 says that
money will only go to areas designated by Congress. It will be a simple
matter for the Fish and Wildlife Service to set up a new refuge, then
go for congressional designation. The FWS has such a huge constituency
behind it that Members of Congress are afraid to put any real oversight
into this agency or its abuses. H.R. 701 will only make matters worse.
Millions of Acres Inside National Forests Will Now Be New Targets Of
Land Acquisition
Perhaps the most amazing aspect of H.R. 701 is that it will make
tens of thousands of landowners with millions of acres of private land
inside National Forests almost entirely new targets of land
acquisition. They don't even know it is coming. They have no experience
with land acquisition because the Forest Service has never focused on
land acquisition other than specially designated areas like National
Recreation Areas and Wild and Scenic Rivers. And there hasn't been the
money. Now there will be a massive attempt to consolidate all the
checkerboarded private lands and inholdings in the National Forests.
Hundreds of small, unincorporated communities will find that if H.R.
701 passes, life in the National Forests will be changed forever.
Members of Congress with National Forests in their districts ought
to hold a few hearings where they explain clearly to their constituents
that they are supporting a bill that would target these people. You
would see a huge uprising. As of now, the potential victims have no
idea of the impending danger. Who do you think they'll blame when they
figure it out? It will certainly be their Congressman who failed to
tell them. Then he'll spend the rest of his career being a management
consultant trying to mitigate the damage and hold off the Forest
Service.
Hunters and other Sportsmen Are In For A Surprise
Hunters and other sportsmen who count on private lands intermingled
with Federal land as their access to those lands that are often closed
because they're designated as Wilderness will find their favorite
hunting and fishing spots closed as the government targets these areas
for acquisition to eliminate the access.
Some sportsmen's organizations have recommended buying out the
ranchers and farmers around the forests and the parks to protect the
winter range for their hunting targets. We support hunting. But some
sportsmen seem to think that those farms and ranches will supply the
same level and quality of forage when the farmer or rancher is no
longer their. It is the working farm or ranch that provides the quality
winter range. Sometimes the farmer or rancher is not happy about it
because he is actually subsidizing the government and the hunters with
his private property. But the fact is that these farms and ranches
provide far more in winter range than they would if land acquisition
cleared out the occupants.
Trails Will Become the New Battlegrounds
Congress is creating a number of new trails across the nation. They
are trying to make sure there will not be massive land acquisition. But
like night follows day, the Appalachian Trail will be the model.
First, each new trail is a model of cooperation with landowners.
There are no threats. Deals are struck to run the trail across the land
of willing participants. Eventually this arrangement gets too
cumbersome so the trail society (like the Appalachian Trail Conference
and all its local groups) lobby Congress to add land acquisition.
Gradually the power of the managing agency is ratcheted up as the
lobbying intensifies. Because a trail is a long string of land, the
trail clubs have the power of many Congressional delegations supporting
them while the poor landowner only has one Congressman and two Senators
and virtually no chance to fight back. The result is generations of
anger and frustration as landowner after landowner loses his land.
Examples along the Appalachian Trail are numerous.
Another problem with trail management is that the support groups or
clubs like the Appalachian Trail Conference largely run the agency in
charge of the trail. In the case of most people who manage parks, they
are routinely rotated from park to park. But in a few cases they
develop fiefdoms and spend most of their careers in one place. The
current management of the Appalachian Trail is one example. The current
project manager has been at that one location for over 20 years. The
Appalachian Trail Conference wants consistent power. They constantly
lobby to keep ``their'' person in charge. The result is bad management
and political nest building that damages the Park Service and strains
relations with local governments and others who must deal with trail
management.
H.R. 701 Will Help Create a Slush Fund Subsidy or Entitlement
Certain powerful special interest groups have lobbied to set up
their own single-use entitlement program, the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act. It is curious that under the cover of the ``word-
tool'' called ``recreation'' these groups actually support legislation
such as H.R. 701 which is anti-recreation. At least for the broad
spectrum of the American public families; children, handicapped and the
elderly are largely locked out of areas created with the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. Instead these areas are set aside for the privileged
few that are young and healthy enough to gain access and enjoy them.
Why an entitlement or subsidy? Should we be setting up special
interest entitlements for every segment of society? Shouldn't resource
preservation and limited-use recreation have to stand in line with
everyone else during the budget process? Shouldn't wilderness and parks
have to compete with other important social priorities like the Defense
Department, education, AIDS research, childcare, and children's
programs.
Why should the environmental groups get a special deal? They have
become the privileged class. The Sierra Club advertises that the median
income of its members is well in excess of $60,000 yet it joins other
environmental groups equally as wealthy standing in front of the line
to the door to the Federal treasury. And they do it with tax-exempt
dollars too. How many subsidies would they like?
THE LAND TRUSTS LEADING OR FOLLOWING?
Who is Setting the Priorities?
It is very clear that the Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public
Land, Conservation Fund and other giant trusts are essentially taking
over the role of deciding where our new national parks and other
conservation areas will be. They are setting our future conservation
policy instead of Congress. This seems to us to be a very dangerous
course of action.
Already the land trusts are buying huge amounts of land in the
Northern Forests of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York in what
appears to be a plan to render moot what Congress thinks or plans. The
land trusts would not do this if they didn't think there was a very
good chance they would eventually be reimbursed by the Federal
Government for their efforts. Most of the land they purchase is
eventually transferred in some way to the Federal agencies.
Local officials in New England cannot go to bed at night knowing
they will still have a tax base in their town or county the next
morning. These land trusts are essentially deciding who lives and who
dies from a community standpoint. The potential for corrupting the
system and the Federal agencies is tremendous. The land trusts stand to
make huge profits as they often do from sales to the government. Yet
they are deciding where our next parks are coming from. Congress needs
to visit this issue and make some decisions. Who is in charge? We
believe the land trusts need to be put on notice that just because they
buy something, there is no obligation to Congress to reimburse them.
Further, as we have said elsewhere in this testimony, no land trust
should be able to sell land to the government that does not make their
books available for review by the General Accounting Office and
Congress.
Congress needs to decide just who is in charge. One Nature
Conservancy official said several years ago that no developer or
community should make plans about undeveloped land without going to the
Nature Conservancy first. Their reach and their computer data base are
so large that they have that kind of power. In fact, the Nature
Conservancy gave parts of its data base to each State along with an
operator so that hidden in all State land agencies is a computer data
base with virtually single piece of private land listed and
categorized. This data base would never have passed the State
legislature in each State but the Nature Conservancy sneaked it in
through the back door. If that sounds scary, it is. It is clear that
Congress needs to take charge of this situation. The self initiating
park manufacturing system now in place with the large land trusts
offers too much money, profits and opportunities for corruption without
some careful regulation.
NATIONAL NATURAL LANDMARKS
The Secret Park Service Land Grab
In the early 1960's Interior Secretary Stuart Udall initiated a
program whereby the National Park Service would reward landowners for
being good stewards. If they met certain criteria, their land would be
nominated as a National Natural Landmark. They would receive
recognition and awards as good stewards. Interior Department and Park
Service policy said the government had to ask permission of the
landowner before moving forward so things seemed reasonable.
Somewhere in the 1970's the Park Service got impatient. They
stopped telling the landowners they were nominating and began quietly
designating their land as National Natural Landmarks without telling
them. Hundreds were designated and several thousand were nominated.
Landowners only found out they had a problem when they went to do
something with their property and were told by local and State
authorities that they couldn't because their land was of ``national
significance.''
When the program began to unravel, no one was prepared for the
scope. One landmark nomination was for 10,000,000 acres. Huge amounts
of private and public land were included. The National Parks and
Conservation Association in their massive 1988 plan for park expansion
called these areas ``ladies in waiting.''
In the early 1990's the story broke courtesy of American Land
Rights and a network of other private property advocacy groups. Various
newspaper organizations and the Interior Department Inspector General
investigated the Park Service. The agency was found to be guilty of
taking control of private land or putting a legal cloud on that private
land without telling the landowners. The National Natural Landmarks
program was put in limbo. It just sat there for a number of years.
Just recently, the Clinton Administration has restarted the
program. They have a cute way of saying will never going to let go of
those properties. Most of their announcement said they were backing off
but if you read between the lines, the landowners are going to have one
heck of a time getting released. So much for stewardship and a
partnership with the Park Service. The landowners continue to have a
cloud on their title and fear in their hearts. The Park Service knows
it stole something and got away with it.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUN
No Money For Maintenance
The General Accounting Office, the ``non-partisan'' investigative
arm of Congress has released several reports over the past 20 years
that say Park Service superintendents believe there is a shortfall in
maintenance funding ranging in the billions of dollars. None of the
money for Federal agencies from H.R. 701 can go for anything but buying
land. Shouldn't we be able to take care of what we already own?
Parks Will Become Political Trading Stock
For those with short memories, the late Congressman Philip Burton
used parks as a tool to achieve great political success in Congress. A
billion dollar Trust Fund with a dedicated money source will allow all
Members of Congress to create new parks and other reserves at will.
They can say, ``Let the trust pay for it.'' No one will be financially
responsible . . . . except the taxpayer.
Actually, it was Burton who hosted a secret meeting in 1979 with
key Congressmen and staff from both parties along with agency officials
and land trust executives who first planned out how to set up a billion
dollar land acquisition trust fund and remove Congressional oversight.
H.R. 701 will make parks the political trading stock of the 1990's.
The Park Service will become the ``Pork Service'' as we head into the
era of what the Washington Post referred to in 1980 as ``one man one
park.'' In the late 1970's the Park Service became a dumping ground for
open space because they were used in the pork barrel trading process.
The University of California Press has released an important book about
the life of Phil Burton called A Rage For Justice by John Jacobs. This
book rivals the Power Broker, Robert Moses and the Fall of New York,
written in 1975 by Robert Caro. Both books document the use of parks as
political trading stock to control the political playing field and
Congress.
During my term on the National Park System Advisory Board, other
members appointed by the previous Administration, may not have agreed
with me on some issues. But they were almost united in feeling that the
resources and the will of the Park Service were being diluted by areas
not deserving of inclusion in the National Park System. They felt that
the National Park System was being damaged by its use as a political
tool by trading parks for votes.
Park Service Has Taken the Land of Over 115,000 Landowners Through
1995
Even though H.R. 701 says the LWCF will only buy from willing
sellers, we believe it will eventually allow for the condemnation and
destruction of landowners and small communities all across America. It
may happen with amendments in other Congresses but eventually this
unappropriated off budget trust fund will fund condemnation. More than
115,000 landowners have already lost their land to the Park Service
alone since 1966 because of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which
will be amended by H.R. 701.
Lack of Congressional Oversight
The National Park Service and to a lessor extent other agencies,
have been immune from Congressional oversight because they manage nice
places. Parks are good in political terms and it is bad to appear to be
against parks. The result is a runaway bureaucracy with little or no
accountability. These land buying agencies are buffered by support
groups who intimidate and overwhelm opposition.
Land Protection Planning Process
There has been a definite trend for the better. Mostly related to
funding. One of the true success stories of the Reagan Administration
was the Land Protection Planning Process. The fact that the planning
process is largely still in place testifies to the common sense nature
of the policy. Responding to the severe criticism by the General
Accounting Office in previous years, the Interior Department published
the Land Protection Regulations in 1982. And many in the Park Service
and Fish and Wildlife Service have made an effort to make them work.
Land Protection Plans were supposed to help the Park Service and
other Federal agencies obtain protection for more land at less cost.
They were supposed to encourage the use of cost effective easements and
other alternatives to fee acquisition. They were supposed to buy the
least amount of an interest necessary to meet congressional objectives.
Unfortunately, lack of support from certain Members of Congress and
the long held belief that we will buy everything anyway so why bother
prioritizing has led the Park Service and other agencies to largely
ignore the Land Protection Planning Process. H.R. 701 could be improved
by including the 1982 Land Protection Planning Policy into the bill.
We should make it clear that even though we have suggested
improvements to H.R. 701 in various places in this testimony, we do
that only to help landowners should this bill be made into law. As long
as it creates a Trust Fund, increases land acquisition funding and
those funds do not have to go through the appropriations process each
year; our opposition remains total, complete and unequivocal.
The East-West Conflict Over Parks
The East is overcrowded and needs more open space according to
some. The West feels it has been abused by having too much land locked
up. H.R. 701 may well be a response to calls for more parks in the
East, but much of the damage will still be in the West. The West
understands what condemnation, land acquisition and loss of tax base
will do. In some cases, the West never was given the tax base in the
first place. The East kept control by keeping the land in government
ownership to restrict Western growth.
We hope Eastern Congressmen and Senators will be truthful with
their citizens about what H.R. 701 means. Massive land acquisition of
private lands, much of it in the Northern Forests of Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont and New York. Yet, the public wants parks near where
they live. Ask them if they want their neighbor to lose his home as a
price for making the park? Ask the urban resident if he is willing to
pull the dollars out of his pocket to pay for the park? Don't extort
the money from him without letting him understand the price he is
paying.
Let's Be Honest, H.R. 701 Is A Billion Dollar Tax Increase
Let's be honest about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Any
money that is appropriated for the fund, or that comes from the sale of
public assets and put in the fund, is public money. Money that comes
from off-shore oil and gas sales would normally go into the treasury to
reduce taxes. Under H.R. 701, it will automatically be siphoned off for
special interest groups and land acquisition and the taxpayer will have
to make up the money. Lets not kid the folks back home and tell them
they won't have to pay for all this land acquisition. They are paying
for it all right . . . . only it's being done in a sneaky underhanded
way.
H.R. 701 Says Only Willing Seller, But Congress May Decide Otherwise
H.R. 701 contains no oversight provisions. The numerous General
Accounting Office reports listed above have criticized the Park Service
in particular and other Federal agencies for buying more land than they
are supposed to; creating projects with huge cost overruns; not
prioritizing their land acquisition so that they buy land they don't
need instead or lands intended by Congress; failure to use easements
and other cost effective protection alternatives; and failure to pay
attention to the needs of local communities, landowners, and local
government.
Use of eminent domain or condemnation must be severely restrained
if money is added to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. On the St.
Croix River the Park service has exceeded its condemnation limit. It
continued to threaten to condemn easements that include public access
over a person's entire property instead of just river access as the law
intended. Otherwise unwilling sellers have gladly sold willingly rather
than have nearly all the value of their land taken leaving them with
little resale value but the right to pay taxes.
Land acquisition money is used as a giant regulatory umbrella. The
Niobrara River Wild and Scenic River had a provision that limited
condemnation to 5 percent of the land. When asked by the author how
they would use this limited condemnation power, the Park Service said
they would hold back condemnation and threaten everyone with it to keep
them from making unwanted developments to their property.
The agency pays little or no attention to the legislative history
of areas managed by them. According to GAO, they are just as apt to buy
land they don't need as land that is critical. They assume they will
buy it all anyway so why plan. Therefore, many condemnations take place
that wouldn't have if more easements and other alternatives were used.
A court will not examine the taking it is assumed that if it is for
a ``public purpose'' then it is OK. The power comes with the power to
govern. Courts only ask two questions. Does the agency have the money
and the authority to spend it? They never ask if they have the
authority to spend it on that land or at that project.
Therefore, the landowners cannot contest the taking. The Park
Service uses condemnation as an abusive tool to intimidate. They know
that the only thing that can stop them is congressional oversight and
they have little to fear from that. Many landowners are squashed like
bugs without a chance to fight back. Yes, they get paid. And sometimes
they even get enough to replace what they had. But what is the price of
land you don't want to sell?
The Reagan and Bush Administrations held down condemnations and
funding for mass condemnation but even their Justice Department would
not review the thousands of condemnations in process when they came
into office. If the willing seller provision fails to survive, H.R. 701
will allow the Federal agencies to return to the wholesale condemnation
era of the late 1960's and 1970's. According to a report to Senator Ted
Stevens by the Justice Department released in 1979, of 21,000
condemnations in process nationwide by all Federal agencies that year,
the Park service had over 10,000 of them. That number is skewed
somewhat by the Big Cypress condemnations.
Despite the Willing Seller Willing Buyer provision in H.R. 701, we
believe that any bill coming out of Congress will include condemnation.
Declarations of Taking will increase if H.R. 701 passes. DT's, as they
are called, are used by the Park Service as an abusive tool to
intimidate and depress opposition to local land acquisition projects.
They give the government immediate title to the property and can be
used to force the landowner off the land in 90 days even if he has no
other place to go. Small businesses and farmers have been especially
hard hit by the use of this tool.
In the past, the congressional committees have often approved a DT
without ever taking the care to ask local elected officials or
landowners whether a DT is appropriate. Some are but most are not. The
Resources Committee in the past was often counted on by the Park
Service as an automatic sign-off to get a DT approved. It failed to
investigate the facts. As a result the Park Service often gave Congress
information that was not accurate. The Park Service did not have to
tell the truth because it knew the Committee was not likely to check.
The Committee has often not fulfilled its oversight role. By
passing H.R. 701, Congress would be placing a loaded gun in the hands
of the Park Service. H.R. 701 should carry some very carefully crafted
oversight provisions for the use of Declarations of Taking.
H.R. 701 will eliminate any motivation on the part of the Federal
agencies and particularly the Park Service to use easements to protect
land while saving money. The GAO says that the Park Service objections
to easements are more perceived than real. For example, on the St.
Croix, (Kettle River Section) the State of Minnesota purchased hundreds
of easements at a cost of 30 percent or less of fee title. On the St.
Croix just a few miles away, the Park Service was condemning fee title
costing far more money for the same kind of land. The difference in
management is money. If they have enough money they don't have to
negotiate. They take the easy way out. They don't have to be a good
neighbor. They always threaten condemnation. They use condemnation. The
use of a high percentage of easements would cut land acquisition costs
by a minimum of 40 percent while saving valuable cultural communities.
More land could be protected at less cost if Congress enforced the use
of easements.
Public Law 91-646, the Uniform Relocation Act is supposed to
protect landowners from overly aggressive bureaucracy. IT DOES NOT
WORK. If H.R. 701 passes it will be turning loose powerful
bureaucracies to prey on their own people. Money is the key. If the
land acquisition agencies do not have quite enough money to do their
job in the old way, they become creative and fiscally responsible. To
some extent this has happened in recent years. Without very tight
controls over land acquisition and the condemnation process, private
land in rural America will face a grave threat at the hands of its
government.
Multiple-use on Federal lands will be damaged by H.R. 701.
Multiple-use lands will be converted into single purpose restricted
areas where only a small minority of citizens can go. Congressmen and
Senators are able to change multiple-use lands into parks now, but they
must be responsible for huge costs associated with buying private lands
in those areas. Mineral rights, grazing rights, water rights and other
private interests must be paid for too.
If there is a billion dollar Trust Fund, Congressmen will simply
have to say: ``Let the trust PAY for the new Park.'' They will not have
to take fiscal responsibility for their actions. H.R. 701 will lead to
virtually no congressional oversight over land acquisition. H.R. 701 is
not the final Trust Fund. It is a transition bill that amends the Land
and Water Conservation Fund so that it has a dedicated source of funds
that will eventually grow to $1 billion and more. The goal is to
position the LWCF so that it will be removed from the congressional
appropriations and oversight process. This would complete the plan laid
out in June 1979 in the late Phil Burton's secret seminar where this
whole process was planned. The goal of that meeting was ``to get the
Land and Water Conservation Fund out from under congressional oversight
and give as much money as possible to land trusts'' where there would
be even less oversight.
Anyone who pays recreation or user fees on Federal land will
eventually have to pay higher fees because of H.R. 701. Like night
follows day. The environmental groups will use the excuse of paying for
the Trust to prod Congress into raising user fees. Their goal, of
course, is not really to raise money, but drive commodity production
and other multiple-uses off the Federal lands.
H.R. 701 will eventually give the Park Service, Forest Service,
Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau or Land Management 200 percent,
300 percent and even 400 percent of the land acquisition funding that
has been provided by Congress over the past 10 years. The threat to
rural America is staggering.
If H.R. 701 passes we will end up with a $25 billion backlog in 10
years. The appetite of some in Congress, the Park Service, and the
environmental groups is very big. Their eyes are bigger than their
funding. Instead of the current $8 billion backlog as we have now (if
you can believe the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors 10
years ago) you'll simply see a $25 billion backlog as Congress loads up
the process with new ego-political parks. Remember, they no longer have
to be accountable for costs because the ``Trust will pay.''
We will be mortgaging our children's future and setting impossible
goals while guaranteeing to raise their taxes because LWCF funds that
could have passed through to the general fund to help reduce the
deficit will now be siphoned off.
It is suggested that we must take funds from an asset we are using
up (off shore oil) to build another asset. There is some logic to that
argument. Often, however, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is
taking assets or their uses important to all Americans from them. We
may buy land, but it is placed in a non-use category. Small communities
are being destroyed and the local tax base damaged. H.R. 701 will
remove millions of additional acres from the tax rolls throwing the
burden of supporting necessary community services on other property
owners. Often counties support the LWCF to pay for the swimming pool
while giving up the tax base that could pay to keep up the swimming
pool.
None of the money from H.R. 701 can be used by the Park Service,
Fish and Wildlife Service or Forest Service for anything but buying
land. No maintenance, no rehabilitation, nothing else. Yet the backlog
in maintenance grows bigger with each passing year.
It seems inconsistent for the environmental groups to be suggesting
the sky is falling about the preservation of land when advocating huge
land acquisition increases while at the same time resisting to the
death any attempt to add maintenance and rehabilitation funding to the
Land and Water Conservation Fund.
If Congress passes H.R. 701, it will send a message to the Federal
agencies. Remove private uses and commodity production from Federal
lands. The logic is that if the government is spending so much money to
buy private land for recreation and preservation then of course
Congress must mean to rid existing Federal land of permits, leases, and
other private uses for the same reasons.
The President's Commission on Americans Outdoors recommended
massive increases in land use controls. These will be paid for by the
billion dollar Land Acquisition Trust Fund. Examples: 2,000 Wild and
Scenic Rivers by the year 2000; a national network of greenways modeled
after the 1,000 foot wide Appalachian Trail from Maine to Georgia; a
nationwide ``scenic byway'' program placing half-mile viewshed or
buffer zones on either side of secondary highways across America;
expansive new wetland and shoreline controls; growth shaping controls;
and many more costly red-tape regulations. Some of these proposals like
the ``scenic byways'' have been put into place on Federal land in areas
managed by the Forest Service. Also the wetland, shoreline and growth
controls. So far the impact on private land from the ``scenic byways''
has been minimal. What happens when there is a billion dollar Trust
Fund?
Where Will The Trust Funds Be Spent?
There is a whole list of programs and plans ready and waiting for
the money from this new Trust Fund. The National Parks and Conservation
Association 1988 Park Plan Hit List included 88 new national parks and
additions of 10 million acres to 212 existing parks. 25 percent of the
additions would come from private landowners. No one knows how much
private land is in the 88 new areas. Conservative estimates in 1988
suggested this plan would have cost a minimum of $30 billion and could
well be more than twice that.
The Wilderness Society and other groups have followed suit with the
``Blueprint For The Environment'' which sets out a huge agenda. Dozens
of other groups have their own ideas how to spend the new slush fund.
What is more onerous though are the secret future park projects
that exist within the Park Service. The Park Service has one called the
National Natural Landmarks program. Never authorized by Congress, this
back room project gets landowners to list their property by promising
that it will not be purchased and that they do not list people against
their will. It rewards them with special ceremonies and other ego
gratification. On the surface, it sounds like a good program.
However, lots of evidence surfaced a few years back that in fact
people's land is listed against their will without even telling them.
Despite protests to the contrary, this program is really a plan for
future additions to the National Park System. The NPCA calls them
``Ladies in waiting''. An Interior Department Inspector Generals
investigation has clearly shown that the Park Service grew impatient
waiting for landowners to give their permission and simply began
bypassing them, designating millions acres of private land as landmarks
without even telling the landowner they were under consideration. Land
Trusts like the Nature Conservancy eagerly participated in this secret
process in places such as Waas Island and Beals, Maine. Many more acres
of Federal lands were planned to be designated with the result that
other uses would eventually be removed.
The Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site program also appears
to be tied into a program for expanding the parks while locking out the
people. The first tangible evidence that these programs would be used
in this manner was by the Superintendent of Yellowstone National Park,
Michael Findley again, when he called in a United Nations inspection
team several years ago to examine the New World Mine and its supposed
threat to Yellowstone. The U.N. team recommended a huge buffer zone
around Yellowstone and was the moral authority upon which the Clinton
Administration based its successful efforts to shut down the project
buy using LWCF funds to buy it out thereby depriving Montana of much
needed jobs. It is our view that any threat to Yellowstone was largely
successful propaganda.
The 26 million-acre Northern Forests of Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont and New York are the primary initial target of the green groups
for much of the new Trust Fund. There are timber companies going
through an economic transition and seem willing to again sell Manhattan
Island to the Indians for beads, foregoing the economic future of the
area. Vast numbers of communities and thousands of jobs lay in the
balance.
The billion dollar Trust Fund was originally recommended by the
President's Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO). The General
Accounting Office released a report (RCED-88-86) in 1988 concluding
that the PCAO violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act by writing
its recommendations in closed, secret meetings excluding the public and
press. Lamar Alexander was the Chairman of that Commission and Victor
Ashe was the Executive Director.
According to the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors,
visitation to Park Service areas close to where people live has
increased modestly. However, visits to parks and Wilderness areas away
from population centers are moving steadily downward as the nations
population ages. Yet the PCAO, NPCA, and other plans include massive
land acquisition in areas away from where the trends say people now
generally go.
Some of the money from H.R. 701 will undoubtedly go to support
national and local land trusts. There are very grave dangers in that.
There are some large land trusts like the Nature Conservancy, Trust for
Public Land, The Conservation Fund and others that portend to save the
government money but there are indications now that they may in fact
increase the cost of acquisition. They are acting very much like tax-
exempt real estate companies, which cost the government (taxpayer) much
more, when they stand between the landowner and the government than if
the government could deal direct with the landowner. It is likely when
the dust clears that these land trusts have cost the taxpayer the
purchase price plus large deductions for perceived donations using
``special appraisers.'' In the end, the taxpayer could pay twice as
much ore more.
In an investigation several years ago by GAO, they reported that
they were not able to get the information necessary on the land trust
in question because the trust would not supply the required financial
records.
The Interior Department Inspector General was able to convict two
real estate agents that were involved in a scheme to sell land to the
Park Service at Santa Monica Mountains NRA at an inflated price through
a land trust. The land trust was not convicted of any wrongdoing.
H.R. 701 should carry with it a requirement that any land trust who
receives Land and Water Conservation Fund money should be required to
make full financial disclosure of its financial records in order to
qualify for participation in the LWCF.
Local land trusts are a good idea. They promote conservation and
enthusiasm on the local level. If they get Federal money they will
become extended arms of the land acquisition agencies. This condition
exists to some extent now but will be greatly expanded if H.R. 701
passes. Even the managers of local land trusts won't recognize their
organizations in a few years if they accept Federal money. One of the
main ideas of local land trusts is to raise public awareness and build
public involvement in local projects. That comes from fund raising. If
these trusts are financed with Federal dollars through the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, that local spirit will die.
Most of the Federal part of the over $8 billion spent by the Land
and Water Conservation Fund since 1966 is not available for general
public recreation. It has been locked up with people uses generally
limited and sometimes eliminated altogether. Recreation is an excuse or
a code word to develop public support for preservation projects when
the real goal is the elimination of people. Someday a major event will
bring this process of exclusion to the attention of the public. The
results will be dramatic and tragic. Those who now have the power to
swing the pendulum need to be careful not to swing it too far. It
always comes back with equal force.
The LWCF presently does not have money in it unless Congress
appropriates the funds first. Trust Fund proponents carry on the myth
that the fund has money in it or that money is owed to it. Congress
passed legislation authorizing $900 million per year for the fund in
1978. It only approached appropriating that figure in 1979. That was
also the year the former Congressman Sid Yates committee suspended the
Park Service condemnation authority because of all the abuses. Congress
must appropriate money each year from the present source of funds,
offshore oil and gas leasing money, or the money will pass through the
fund to support the general government treasury and reduce your taxes.
The greens and some Members of Congress who know better encourage the
fiction that somehow $900 million per year has built up in the fund and
now $8 billion is owed to the fund and that it doesn't cost the
taxpayer.
H.R. 701 dedicates up to $1 billion per year from offshore gas and
oil money to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, thus making it a
Trust. The Trust Fund does not have to compete against other important
national social priorities in the yearly budget process. Somehow, Trust
Fund proponents think that the environmentalists and hunters need a
special subsidy or entitlement to support their activities. Or perhaps
they think they cannot compete in the budget process like everyone else
and must receive special treatment.
If H.R. 701 passes, every special interest should insist on a
dedicated Trust Fund for their own pet projects. Congress should
consider doing away with the appropriations committees since they will
no longer be needed.
H.R. 701 or the Land and Water Conservation Fund should not be used
as a bargaining tool or trading stock to open the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. While we support opening ANWAR, the funds from ANWAR
should not be used to condemn land and destroy private property and
communities in the rest of the country. We oppose making H.R. 701 part
of other legislation involving ANWAR. It must stand alone and have to
compete on its own merits and not be a result of election year vote
trading. It would be appropriate to separate the LWCF from the current
H.R. 701 so that Congress will not sell out private property rights as
part of some goal to gain access to the Federal treasury by Coastal
States or the Safari Club. We're not making a judgment here over
whether that access for Coastal States is right or wrong. Slipping a
billion dollar Trust Fund in the bill is wrong.
Park Service land acquisition has led to condemnation and removal
of special cultural populations in small communities across America.
H.R. 701 will fund the continuation of this process.
Over 115,000 landowners have lost their land to the Park Service
alone since 1966 as a result or the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
The impact on rural America has been destructive and tragic.
It is very important that field hearings be held around the country
on H.R. 701. This bill is too important to have just a few carefully
scripted hearings in selected States.
The Chairman of the old Interior and Insular Affairs Committee
promised oversight hearings and a review of mistreatment of inholders
in 1980. He failed to deliver on his promise.
H.R. 701 contains protection against condemnation if that provision
passes Congress, a possibility we consider very unlikely. Whether or
not condemnation is included in any final version of H.R. 701, the bill
will do terrible social and cultural damage to rural communities across
America. Willing seller, willing buyer is largely a myth. The
government has ways to make you sell. It just takes the agencies 15
years to do what they can complete in 5 years with condemnation.
The conclusions of GAO report after GAO report confirm past abuses.
Newspaper and magazine stories by the hundred have told the story.
National television shows documenting the horror stories on public
television and network news magazine shows add to the documentation.
Purchase and relocation by the thousand. It is true . . . . terrible
things have been done to the American people and their communities in
the name of preservation.
HOW did this happen?
There are lots of little reasons, and TWO BIG REASONS.
First, our Constitution is written the way it is because the
founding fathers knew that big government would always try to expand
its power over those beneath it. It's why we have all those laws about
unreasonable search and seizure. Big government, even big corporate
government, always tried to get bigger and more powerful.
Second, for many reasons, most of them good, we have a huge and
powerful movement for the conservation and preservation of our natural
resources in this country. The American Land Rights Association
believes in sensible conservation . . . . some of our volunteers helped
found conservation organizations.
But this movement, this bureaucracy, is like all the rest. It
believes in itself . . . and its goals . . . above anything else . . .
including your rights and the rights of every American.
And they are very smart. They know that American politics and
politicians depend upon organizations like the environmentalists for
political support through their publications and for money . . . money
at election time and money to expose them in a good light in their many
and large publications and broadcasts of a ``non-political'' nature.
So they have power and influence. And they are dedicated.
Regardless of what they sometimes say, the basic goal of the
environmentalists is to ``get people off the land.'' There are many
quotes from the leaders of these groups to show that they really want
to keep everyone out of as much of the Federal lands . . . our land . .
. as they can.
One example is a 1991 statement by Brock Evans, then Vice President
and Chief Lobbyist for the National Audubon Society. He was comparing
the environmental groups (greens) campaign for Federal acquisition of
26 million acres of the Northern Forests of New England to his
successful campaign to shut down the forests and rural communities of
the Northwest, using the spotted owl as the tool. He told a group of
environmentalist leaders at an activist workshop at Tufts University:
``This will be an even bigger campaign in the next few years than
the Ancient Forest Campaign we're just going through in the Pacific
Northwest . . . I don't agree that we can't get it all back [sic] . . .
I don't agree that it shouldn't all be in the public domain.''
And they don't give a rat for your rights . . . or my rights. They
get most of their money from people who don't depend on the land . . .
who pay their dues and lend their names to ``good causes,'' because its
the ``right thing to do.''
These good people, as many Members of Congress, never think about
the human rights being trampled every day in the name of their good
cause.
'So what can I do about it?'' you ask. That's what I thought when
it happened to me. I have a cabin-inholding in Yosemite that the Park
Service decided to take. My family had been there for a long time, and
I didn't believe in simply being tossed out because some bureaucrat
said I was in the way.
So a group of us started the National Park Inholders Association
which became the American Land Rights Association. And it has become my
life.
God has given me reasonably good health, good friends and
employees, and dozens, even hundreds of intelligent hard-working
volunteers, decent people to help me.
And we have made a difference.
Before we were here, the National Park Service had seized nearly
100,000 pieces of property from American Citizens since 1966. Thousands
of others . . . miners, stockmen, ranchers, farmers, cabin owners,
landowners, recreationists, and other users of the Federal lands have
been told they had to go . . . that they ``didn't belong.''
Thousands of people were being deprived of rights and property that
had been assured by their government that they could stay. Families of
good men and women had to pack their bags and leave. Why? For
preservation. Never mind the promises that were made to create the new
parks. Forget about the assurances that the new funding would not take
their home. They had to go.
And so it goes . . . in hundreds of ``preservation'' areas across
the country. Rare and beautiful cultures and lifestyles are broken up
and destroyed. In America a culture must be 100 years old to be valued.
The Park Service has committed ``cultural genocide'' or ``cultural
cleansing'' over and over and Congress often has seemed not to care.
But we fight on.
We can't say we have stopped the carnage every time. But we have
stopped it, slowed it, made it more fair and made the bureaucrats think
twice about doing it again, just about every time.
Park service bureaucrats talk in jargon that makes people feel
stupid real stupid . . . and intimidated. They do that without
maliciousness these are not bad people, but they are people. Even
ranchers, miners, and truckers have jargon . . . we all do it . . .
it's human.
But it does make it hard on ordinary citizens . . . and it does
make the bureaucrats see the world in a special way. They come to see
their actions as part of a huge complex operation of which they are
only a part. To them, as to us, their job takes over their life.
Help us keep the system fair . . . help us protect the rights of
rural Americans. Don't give the giant environmental industrial complex
free access to the Federal treasury with an unappropriated trust fund.
Why do they need a subsidy or entitlement?
Write strict protections for families and communities into H.R. 701
defeat this bill. Don't discriminate against certain groups of people
because of where they live. Remember that the issue is not just a few
people in one place, it is the freedom of us all.
We do what we do because we believe that this system, this country,
is based on some remarkable ideas, principal among which is that
individuals and individual rights are important. Our Constitution was
designed to protect the individual against the overwhelming power of a
huge government that would take away rights and property.
We are Americans who are willing to work for our belief that it is
individuals. . . and individual rights. . . who make this country
important. We must never allow the single-use people to make their
world better at the expense of the rights of all Americans. That's what
this country's about.
Please. . . we cannot afford to buy all the nice places in this
country. Try making landowners into partners. . . not enemies. H.R. 701
will not help this country. . . it will destroy the fabric of its rural
communities.
Suggestions to Improve H.R. 701
Often when legislation is introduced that has the potential to
cause adverse and sometimes unintended consequences, we may make
recommendations. In the case of H.R. 701, these suggestions to improve
the bill should not be taken as ANY support for this bill. H.R. 701 is
so dangerous that we are unalterably opposed to it. But in the off
chance that it does pass, the suggestions below will at least mitigate
to some degree some of the terrible damage this bill will cause.
1. The Land Protection Planning Policy of the Interior Department
was created in 1982 and is still place and should be included in H.R.
701. While this is still the written policy of the Interior Department
and Agriculture Departments, a good many of the regulations have been
ignored. Also the Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest
Service implementing regulations should be included as amendments to
H.R. 701.
The Land Protection Planning Policy for the first time got the
agencies to create a Land Protection Plan in each park or management
area. That plan set priorities for which parcels were of high priority
and which were of a lessor priority. Before that, the agencies didn't
bother, feeling that they would ultimately buy it all so who cared.
The Land Protection Plan also had each agency identify the least
amount of interest in the land that needed to be purchased to meet the
intent of Congress. In some cases fee acquisition was recommended while
in others it was easements, purchase and sell back, memorandums of
understanding, cooperative agreements and other less invasive
agreements. Before Land Protection Plans, the agencies had just
purchased in fee title with little thought to alternatives. This
dramatically raised the cost of many projects by hundreds of millions
of dollars. Congress should instruct the agency to buy the least
expensive alternative that meets Congress' intent unless the landowner
wishes to sell a higher interest.
The Land Protection Planning Policy also requires the agencies to
hold public hearings (not workshops) so that local elected officials
and landowners can be involved and know what is going on.
2. Another amendment to H.R. 701 should require that each Federal
area be required to hold a public hearing once year on their Land
Protection Plan, what they purchased during that year and what
interests were acquired. That way the public and local officials can
see if the agency is following their Land Protection Plan. This
provision in the current policy is usually ignored by the agencies
which is why making it part of H.R. 701 would increase its strength.
3. Another amendment should require that the agencies not buy land
inside unincorporated and incorporated communities and seek ways to
protect the local community and culture. Otherwise the agency
checkerboards the community undermining its social function and tax
base and ultimately destroys it.
4. The agency using Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) money
funds should be required to notify the local county of any acquisitions
of developed property, either a home or business, at least 60 days
before closing and be required to seek approval from the local county
or other elected body. Notice should also be required of any
acquisition of undeveloped land of over 100 acres. That way the county
could monitor their tax base and object to the agency action in time to
make a difference if they felt that economic damage was taking place.
5. H.R. 701 should be amended to require all acquisition funds to
go through the appropriations process. There should be no entitlement.
The existing $1,000,000 threshold protects larger landowners to some
degree but ignores the needs of smaller landowners that constitute 99
percent of the land purchases. The bill should specify that there will
be no net loss of private property. If the agency wants to buy private
land, they should be required to identify land that will be sold to
off-set the loss just like Congress does now in the budget process.
6. The LWCF should be amended to allow moneys to be used for
maintenance and rehabilitation. Right now the Appropriations Committee
has said that the four key Federal land agencies are $12 billion behind
in maintenance funding. We should take care of what we have before
buying more.
7. Another amendment should say that the agencies may not buy any
land where the government already owns over 70 percent of the land and
that they must get permission from the local county in order to buy
land where the government owns a minimum of 20 percent of the private
land. This way the local county can be involved in protecting its tax
base and making sure there is enough private land to support basic
economic services to the people who live within the county.
8. An Environmental Impact Statement amendment should be included
in the LWCF to require an EIS for any area where the Federal Government
is carrying out large scale land acquisition and the Federal Government
already owns 40 percent of the land base.
9. Every landowner should be given a copy of a booklet with his or
her rights. They should be guaranteed a life tenancy if they choose
that option. At the present time the agencies do not always follow the
Uniform Relocation Act (91-646) and often deny the landowner the option
of staying on his property for 25 years or life. The agency goal, of
course, is to get the landowner off the property as quickly as
possible.
10. No LWCF funds should be allowed to buy mining properties with
documented reserves. If the agencies are allowed to buy the mining
properties the country is deprived of new wealth and possibly important
strategic minerals. Where would the country be today if the Free
World's only supply of Rare Earth in the California Desert had been
purchased by the Park Service before it was developed? It was years
before we learned how important these minerals were to saving energy
and lowering the weight of electric motors and much more.
11. LWCF funds should go to the State and local governments with
the restriction that they can only be used with willing sellers. As of
now, H.R. 701 allows the States and local jurisdictions to use
condemnation.
12. Any lands purchased with LWCF funds must remain open to
hunting, fishing and trapping. The irony of H.R. 701 is that the exact
people who are pushing the bill are people who stand to lose a great
deal in the long run. You can't hunt where you can't go. For example,
the millions of acres of Forest Service lands now checkerboarded with
private land will become targets for land acquisition for the first
time. Many hunters and fishermen use these lands now. In the long run,
H.R. 701 will Federalize those lands.
13. The Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program should be amended
into the LWCF so that the full PILT payments are made to local counties
before any land acquisitions take place.
14. The Tauzin amendment to the California Desert bill should be
added to the LWCF. This amendment was adopted by a large majority in
the 103d Congress. It prohibited the Federal agencies from using
environmental regulations such as the Endangered Species Act when
appraising property for potential Federal acquisition.
15. The LWCF should be amended to lower the authorization to the
historic level of appropriations, $200 to $300 million per year.
16. Another amendment should say that any lands purchased outside
existing designated Wilderness with LWCF Funds may not be put into
Wilderness in the future or put into any Wilderness Study category.
17. Land trusts that convey land to the Federal Government should
be required in the LWCF Act to provide a complete accounting of how
much the land cost and what kind of tax deductions were taken in the
acquisition. That is the only way Congress can know what it is really
spending on a piece of property. The land trusts should be limited to
making no more than 10 percent profit on sales to the Federal agencies
and that any purchases must fit into that agencies Land Protection
Plan.
ALRA
Assorted reading opportunities: (Available on the ALRA WEB site at
www.landrights.org)
A SOCIO-CULTURAL ASSESSMENT OF INHOLDERS ALONG THE APPALACHIAN
TRAIL IN THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE by Kent Anderson. A report funded
by the American Land Alliance located in Mountain View, California in
1983. Copies may be obtained through the American Land Rights
Association, P. O. Box 400, Battle Ground, WA 98604. (360) 687-3087.
FAX: (360) 687-2973.
PEOPLE OF THE BLUE RIDGE: A SOCIO-CULTURAL ASSESSMENT OF INHOLDERS
ALONG THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY by Kent Anderson. A report funded by the
Institute For Human Rights Research located in San Antonio, Texas in
1980. Copies may be obtained from the American Land Rights Association.
THE PEOPLE OF THE BUFFALO: A SOCIO-CULTURAL ASSESSMENT OF INHOLDERS
ALONG THE BUFFALO NATIONAL RIVER by Kent Anderson. A report funded by
the Institute for Human Rights Research in 1981.
A SOCIO-CULTUREAL ASSESSMENT OF INHOLDERS IN THE MOUNT ROGERS
NATIONAL RECREATION AREA (US Forest Service) by Kent Anderson. A report
funded by the Institute for Human Rights Research in 1980.
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF VOYAGEURS
NATIONAL PARK by Donald D. Parmeter. Mr. Parmeter was Executive
Director of the Citizens Committee on Voyageurs National Park under the
State of Minnesota. Copies may be obtained from the Committee in
International Falls, Minnesota.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE LAND ACQUISITION HEARINGS, SUMMER 1978
These were the only real hearings ever held on land acquisition by
the Park Service. Former Congressman Sidney Yates Appropriations
Interior Subcommittee took away the authority of the Park Service to
use condemnation until they held hearings. The agency expected just a
few people to show up but hundreds attended nationwide.
The hearings were held in Fresno, California; Seattle, Washington;
Denver, Colorado; Atlanta, Georgia; and Washington, DC. Verbatim
transcripts are available from the Park Service.
BOOKS
The Power Broker, Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. By Robert
Caro. 1974, Vintage Press, New York. Originally published in 1974 by
Alfred A. Knopf. Still in print. Winner of the Frances Parkman Prize
and the Pulitzer Prize in 1975.
Wilderness Next Door by John Hart. Foreword by Cecil Andrus. 1979
Presido Press, San Rafael, California.
The Adirondack Rebellion by Anthony N. D'Elia. 1979 Onchiota Books,
Glens Falls, New York.
The Taking by Joseph Gughemetti and Eugene Wheeler, 1981 Hidden
House Publications, Palo Alto, California.
At The Eye Of The Storm, James Watt and the Environmentalists by
Ron Arnold, 1982 Regnery Gateway, Chicago, Illinois.
Playing God In Yellowstone by Alston Chase, 1986 Harcourt Brace
Javanovich, Orlando, Florida.
Wake Up America, They're Stealing Your National Parks by Don
Hummel. 1987 Free Enterprise Press, Bellevue, Washington. Mr. Hummel
was the former mayor of Tucson, Arizona, an Assistant Secretary in the
Kennedy Administration and former concessionaire in Glacier National
Park, Lassen National Park and Grand Canyon National Park.
Cades Cove, The Life and Death Of a Southern Appalachian Community
by Durwood Dunn, 1988 University of Tennessee Press.
A Rage for Justice, The Passion and Politics of Phillip Burton,
1995, University of California, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
FILMS
``For The Good Of All'', an episode of the Public Television
``Frontline'' series first aired on June 6, 1983. Copies are available.
``For All People, For All Time'', a film by Mark and Dan Jury that
documented land acquisition in the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation
Area in Ohio. Portions of this film were used by Public Television when
they produced the ``Frontline'' episode above. Copies are available.
______
Wednesday, May 24, 2000.
To: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Re: H.R. 701/S. 25: Outer Continental Shelf Revenue Sharing Land
Acquisition Trust Proposals
Views of Keep Private Lands in Private Hands Coalition (Chuck Cushman,
Coordinator)
The leading organization educating the public about the harm
expected from enactment of H.R. 701/S. 25 is the Keep Private Lands in
Private Hands Coalition. The individual with the greatest knowledge in
the country about the problems with this bill is undoubtedly their
coordinator, Chuck Cushman. Mr. Cushman has over 30 years experience
representing landowners in federally managed areas. He founded the
National Inholders Association and is now also Executive Director of
the American Land Rights Association.
He prepared a superb history and analysis for the June 1999 House
Resources Committee hearing on H.R. 701 in Salt Lake City. Not only was
Mr. Cushman not allowed to testify, his testimony wasn't even printed
in the hearing record! The proceedings were heavily slanted in favor of
hearing instead the pleas of agencies and organizations that were to
receive the largesse of funds to be distributed under the bill
certainly self serving testimony of highly predicable and minimally
informative content.
This suppression of an outstanding scholarly treatise on the
subject of Federal Government land acquisition and accompanying
destruction of communities and citizen abuse has deprived the Congress
and the public of critical information needed to evaluate and improve
the subject bills. Grave doubt is cast on the credibility of the
process in the House when a hearing is slanted in this way.
I have faith that the Senate will do a much better job of
thoughtful deliberation on such a fundamental matter as buying massive
amounts of private land with off budget trust funds.
I ask that the attached testimony of Mr. Cushman be included in the
printed record of your committee hearing.
Sincerely yours,
Lee Ann Gerhart,
3818 Clay Products Road,
Anchorage Alaska 99517
______
Statement of Ray Kreig, Anchorage Alaska
My name is Ray Kreig. I have lived in Alaska since 1970 and I am an
inholder in four places: Kantishna in Denali National Park; Millers
Camp in Yukon Charley National Preserve; Three Saints Bay in Kodiak
National Wildlife Refuge; and Treat on the Big Piney Creek National
Scenic River in the Ozark National Forest, Arkansas. I am Chairman of
the Kantishna Inholders Association and Chairman of the Arkansas Scenic
Rivers Landowner Association. I testifying in an individual capacity.
I wish to bring to the attention of the Committee three recently
released major studies critical to an understanding of the Conservation
and Reinvestment Act (CARA) H.R. 701-S25.
I ask that they be included (in their entirety) in the official
hearing record. Each item here includes quotes from the publication or
summary provided by the authors:
NO. 1--HERITAGE FOUNDATION WHY CARA IS FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND A
THREAT TO LOCAL LAND USE DECISIONS, BY GREGG VANHELMOND AND ANGELA
ANTONELLI (HERITAGE BACKGROUNDER NO. 1370, MAY 9, 2000, 10 PAGES).
``The intention of H.R. 701--to improve land conservation and
recreation in the United States--at first glance is noble, but in
reality the bill represents little more than a pork-filled land grab by
Federal and State land management and recreation agencies . . . Making
CARA's proposed programs off-budget also violates the spirit of the
budget resolution, incorporating accounting gimmicks to increase
spending in fiscal year 2001 beyond what Members had agreed to spend .
. . Congress would be dedicating money to CARA that it otherwise would
have saved to shore up Social Security, reduce the debt, or give
Americans a tax cut. CARA also represents a vast expansion of Federal
and State roles in local land management decisions . . . Unlike the
practice in many of the programs that CARA would replace, H.R. 701
would require the U.S. Department of the Interior to review and approve
many of the plans the States submit for the use of the funds . . .
Finally, CARA is inherently unfair because it empowers government at
all levels and special interests to buy land, placing average Americans
at a disadvantage.''
NO. 2--STEWARDS OF THE RANGE FATAL FLAWS OF CARA, BY FRED KELLY GRANT
(2000, 9 PAGES).
``Much has been said and written about the benefits of and the
flaws in H.R. 701 (CARA). Its supporters have defended the bill against
advocates of private property rights by claiming that the bill protects
property rights while extending funding to Federal, State and local
agencies to preserve the great openness remaining in our nation.
``The supporters have utilized summaries of the bill and its
supposed benefits, and asked for support by the grassroots on faith
that the supporter's claims are factual. But, if one reads the
provisions of the bill--the provisions which will be binding Federal
law if the bill passes--the fallacies of the supporting claims become
evident.
``Because so much has been written, and because of the imminence of
the vote on the bill, the attempt here is to relate the actual language
of the bill as to limited specific issues regarding private property
rights, the potential spread of Federal control over land, and the
impact on other programs of importance to the grassroots. When the
actual language and the potential impact of the bill is studied, it
becomes apparent that H.R. 701 is the greatest threat to private
property rights ever conceived in this country. ``
NO. 3--POLITICAL ECONOMY RESEARCH CENTER FEDERAL ESTATE: IS BIGGER
BETTER?, BY HOLLY LIPPKE FRETWELL (PUBLIC LANDS REPORT III, 2000, 24
PAGES).
``As Congress prepares to add more land to the Federal estate for
conservation purposes, the condition of lands already under Federal
control continues to decline. Current Federal land stewardship is doing
more harm than good . . . . one-third of the land area of the United
States is under Federal control. Acreage continues to be added at a
rate of more than 800,000 acres per year and will rapidly increase if
the proposed legislation specifically for land acquisitions is passed.
While Federal land ownership expands, funds for managing these new
lands are not forthcoming . . . Any land manager whether working for a
Federal agency or overseeing a private farm or ranch, knows that
protecting resources requires management and that comes at a price.
Merely placing land into Federal ownership without addressing its
management needs in no way ensures conservation and can actually lead
to greater degradation. . . To protect valuable Federal lands, managers
must face economic realities rather than kowtowing to Congress for
their budgets.''
Thank you Mr. Chairman for providing this forum for examining CARA.
attachments
No. 1 Heritage Study--Adobe PDF file ``bg--1370.pdf''
Also available at: http://WWW.Heritage.org/library/backgrounder/
bg1370.html
No. 2 Stewards of the Range Study--WordPerfect file ``CARA.Fatal--
Flaws.wpd''
Also available at: http://www.stewardsoftherange.org/fatal--
flaws.htm
No. 3 PERC Study--Adobe PDF file ``pl3.pdf''
Also available at: http://www.PERC.ORG/pl3sum.htm
______
[Stewards of the Range, 2000]
Fatal Flaws of CARA
AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999 AS PASSED
BY THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
(By Fred Kelly Grant)
Much has been said and written about the benefits of and the flaws
in H.R. 701 (CARA). Its supporters have defended the bill against
advocates of private property rights by claiming that the bill protects
property rights while extending funding to Federal, State and local
agencies to preserve the great openness remaining in our nation.
The supporters have utilized summaries of the bill and its supposed
benefits, and asked for support by the grassroots on faith that the
supporter's claims are factual. But, if one reads the provisions of the
bill--the provisions which will be binding Federal law if the bill
passes--the fallacies of the supporting claims become evident.
Because so much has been written, and because of the imminence of
the vote on the bill, the attempt here is to relate the actual language
of the bill as to limited specific issues regarding private property
rights, the potential spread of Federal control over land, and the
impact on other programs of importance to the grassroots. When the
actual language and the potential impact of the bill is studied, it
becomes apparent that H.R. 701 is the greatest threat to private
property rights ever conceived in this country.
I. the claim that the bill adequately protects private property is
misleading at best
Supporters of the bill have claimed far and wide that there are
provisions in this bill which protect private property rights from
``takings'' by the government. They have claimed that purchases would
be made only from ``willing sellers'' and that there would be no
authority extended to government to ``condemn'' private property for
purposes under this act. They have also claimed that mere use of funds
appropriated under the bill would not extend the regulatory authority
of Federal agencies. These claims seem to have placated many Members of
Congress who are otherwise staunch supporters of private property
rights.
But the claims are simply not true. They are directly contradicted
by the specific provisions within the bill.
A. The Claim that the bill does not authorize condemnation is
incorrect. The bill does not protect against condemnation, thus
does authorize, condemnation
Section 11 of the bill is entitled ``Protection of Private Property
Rights''. Subsection (a) is entitled ``Savings Clause'' and it is this
clause which many supporters refer to as the clause which protects
private property from condemnation. That claim does not withstand even
cursory review.
The subsection states that ``Nothing in the Act shall authorize
that private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation as provided by the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the
United States Constitution.'' If the subsection ended with the first
clause, the supporters could justifiably defend their claim that no
condemnations of land were authorized. If the subsection said only that
there would be no taking of private property, then there would be no
authority for condemnation.
But, the subsection does in fact contain the second clause
``without just compensation''. The combination of the two clauses
precisely defines what a condemnation is in fact. The term
``condemnation'' is defined as the ``process of taking private property
for public use through the power of eminent domain. `Just compensation'
must be paid to owner for taking of such.'' Black's Law Dictionary,
Sixth Edition.
The language of the subsection provides a text-book illustration of
what condemnation is all about. In spite of appearing in a section
called ``Protection of Private Property Rights,'' the subsection
provides no protection other than that already provided by the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments. It certainly does not protect against
condemnation.
No one can claim, in good faith, that this bill does not authorize
condemnation of property in view of the language of Section 11 (a).
B. The bill does not prevent Federal agencies from extending the impact
of their regulations beyond land actually acquired
Subsection (b) of Section 11 purporting to protect private property
rights provides that ``Federal agencies, using funds appropriated under
this Act, may not apply any regulation on any lands until the lands or
water, or an interest therein, is acquired, unless authorized to do so
by another Act of Congress.'' What an intriguing attempt to assure a
scanner of the bill that Federal regulation cannot be extended to
private property. But, the last clause of the subsection makes one
aware of the deceit.
Most of the Acts of Congress extending management of Federal lands
to the Federal agencies contain language which authorizes the agency
management to take actions necessary to protect the Federal lands. So,
Section 11(b) does not protect against the exercise of such protective
authority. Courts have made it clear that under protective provisions
of such acts of Congress, the Federal agencies have the power to
control land use of private property which adjoins Federal lands. In
Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518, the U.S. Supreme Court
confirmed the power of the Federal Government to abate fences on
adjoining land. In United States v. Lindsey, 595 F.2d 5 (9th Cir.
1979), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized the power of the
Federal Government to punish persons who built a campfire on non-
Federal land adjacent to a national recreation area. In United States
v. Arbo, 691 F.2d 862 (9th Cir. 1982) the same Court ruled that a
person could be charged with interference with a Federal Forest Service
officer even when the interfering action took place on non-Federal
property which was adjacent to Federal property. In Free Enterprise
Canoe Renter Association v. Watt, 549 F. Supp. 252 (E.D. Mo. 1982) the
Federal court held that the National Park Service could prohibit the
use of State roads for canoe pickups within a Federal Scenic Riverway.
Thus, the last clause of Section 11(b) makes it clear that this
section changes nothing in current law, and extends no protection to
private property rights which do not already exist under the
Constitution. With or without the clause, the Federal agencies can
impact any private property adjoining Federal lands by extension of
their regulations. With or without the clause, the Federal agencies can
extend their regulatory authority to hunters, campers and fishermen
even when they are on private or State property.
Neither does Section 11(b) protect against the expansion of
regulations regarding protection of species. We have already seen that
the courts have allowed the agencies to extend their regulatory
protections of species to private property. Now, under this bill there
will be money authorized to States to extend species protection and to
enter into cooperative management agreements with the Federal agencies
in order to implement the species protection plans which are developed.
This provides a means of expanding Federal regulations, established
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, through such cooperative
management plans even though the Federal Government has acquired no
interest in the land covered by the plans.
So, the ``protection of private property rights'' set forth in
Section 11 offers no protection against condemnation, no protection
against expansion of Federal regulations, no protection which does not
already exist under the United States Constitution.
C. The claim that land will be acquired only from ``willing sellers''
is inconsistent with the specific terms of the bill
The main sponsor of the bill in the House has defended the bill by
claiming that all land purchases will be only from ``willing sellers.''
He thus chides private property advocates for opposing the bill, saying
that such advocates should support the opportunity for ``willing
sellers'' to dispose of their land.
Apparently the claim is based upon Section 205 which contains the
``Willing Seller Requirement.'' The very title would lead one to
believe that in fact no acquisition could be made other than from a
``willing seller.'' But, the language of the section belies the title.
The first two clauses of the section would seem to be consistent
with the title: ``The Federal portion may not be used to acquire any
property unless (A) the owner of the property concurs in the
acquisition.'' Accept for a moment that this statement defines a
``willing seller.'' It really does not, but for our initial purpose
accept that it does. One would read this as fulfilling the ``Willing
Seller Requirement.'' But, the next clause of the Section states: ``or
(B) acquisition of that property is specifically approved by an Act of
Congress.'' So much for the ``requirement'' that there be a ``willing
seller.'' The Section is written in the alternative: Federal
acquisitions must be from a concurring owner OR under approval by an
Act of Congress. So, if Congress approves an acquisition, it matters
not whether the owner concurs.
In touting this bill why would anyone contend that all acquisitions
had to be made from a ``willing seller'' when the language of the bill
is to the contrary. There is only one logical explanation: the claim is
made to try to thwart the impact of the opposition from private
property advocates by misleading those who have not studied the actual
terms of the bill. Rep. Young made the statement that ``Those who
oppose this bill are going to get run over.'' But, those who study the
actual language of this bill and compare it to Rep. Young's claims will
clearly see that the claims are bogus.
Now that we have seen that the Federal acquisition can be made from
an unwilling seller if Congress approves the sale, let us consider what
that means. Some might say, ``well, if Congress does specifically
consider and approve an acquisition it will happen only after the
people have received notice and an opportunity to express their
opinions on the acquisition to their representatives.'' Not
necessarily. How many projects were approved in the infamously complex
appropriations bill for Fiscal 1999 without any specific advance
notice? Has anyone in the public ever seen the thousands of pages of
that appropriations bill put together? How many projects of various
types have been approved by Congress as an amendment to a bill
completely unrelated to the project? One that comes to mind is the
Quincy Library Group bill related to central and northern California
which was enacted as an amendment to an Indian land lease authorization
relating to lands in the Dakotas. More recently, $2 million have
reportedly been included in the Interior Department appropriations bill
for the purchase of additional scenic easements in the Sawtooth
Recreation Area in central Idaho. The projects have not been identified
in that appropriation, but by allocating the money, Congress will have
approved acquisition of the easements.
So, the provisions of Section 205 allow the agencies to push
through acquisitions without the necessity of securing concurrence from
the owner of the land. Why then title the Section ``Willing Seller
Requirement,'' and why claim that purchases will be made only from
willing sellers, unless the purpose is to deceive those who might worry
about private property rights being lost through forced purchases by
the government.
One other consideration should be taken into account. The Section
is based on the premise that an owner who ``concurs'' in the
acquisition is ``willing.'' In a condemnation case, where ``fair market
value'' must be determined as a standard for ``just compensation'', the
question is not whether the seller ``concurs'', but whether under all
the circumstances it can be found that the seller ``wants'' to sell. A
land appraiser will tell you that market value is based upon the amount
which would exchange between a knowledgeable and willing seller, who is
under no compulsion to sell (no compulsion of any kind) and a willing
buyer under no compulsion to buy. In finding whether a seller is
``willing'', the trier of fact must determine whether the seller was
under compulsion of any kind and whether he wanted to sell, not merely
whether he concurred with the sale.
So, the bill does not really define a ``willing seller'' as that
term is traditionally used in the real estate market and in courts
which determine condemnation cases. It calls any seller who says ``ok''
to the acquisition a ``willing'' seller, even if he says ``ok'' after
being told that all the land adjoining his is going to be acquired in a
manner which will severely restrict the use and value of his land.
Those who have studied the growth of conservation and scenic easements
in this country are familiar with the scenario in which an owner sells
in desperation because of the threats of regulatory restrictions which
will otherwise be placed on his property.
In short, the bill does not require that all acquisitions by the
Federal Government be from a ``willing seller.''
D. Protections, such as they are, do not specifically extend to State
government acquisitions
The ``willing seller'' restriction, such as it is, is applicable
only to Federal acquisitions. This means that an acquisition made by a
State or local government which receives funds is not bound by even the
color of an attempt to restrict condemnation. The supporters may say
that Congress has no such right. Wrong. The bill could restrict the
funding of States and local governments to only those instances in
which the State or local government agreed that land acquisitions would
be made only from a true ``willing seller'' and that condemnation would
not be used.
The same is true for the language that seems to attempt to restrict
the Federal regulatory authority. Funding to States and local
governments could be limited to those cases in which States and local
governments would agree that their regulations would note be extended
to any lands until they were actually acquired from a true ``willing
seller.''
Given the provisions that call for joint and cooperative management
plans, it would make sense to extend these protections of private
property to the State and local government use of funds, IF the bill
really were intended to protect private property rights.
E. Water rights are not adequately protected
Section 210 is entitled ``Water Rights,'' but it does not contain
the language that would most assuredly protect vested water rights:
``nothing in this Act shall effect any existing water right.''
Throughout history, Congress has used language to that effect when it
intended to protect already existing and vested water rights. Not so in
this bill.
The language of 210 rather talks in terms of State and Federal
relationships regarding water. Nothing in the section pertains to
protecting existing private water rights.
Neither is there specific language which states a Congressional
intent that there be no implication of reservation of water for any
purpose stated in the Act. It would be very simple to insert specific
language that there was no reservation intended: ``Nothing in this Act
is intended to reserve water, or impliedly reserve water, for use of
any projects or acquisitions funded by this Act.'' It would be simple,
if it really were the intent of the sponsors to protect private
property rights.
II. this bill threatens the economic stability of county governments,
and threatens to cut vital local services for the taxpayers
In most States, the taxpayers are most directly served by local
government. County governments furnish the seats of justice in the
forms of lower and upper level trial courts, law enforcement and
detention facilities, official recording of documents, road and highway
maintenance, and the fiscal services necessary to collect and disburse
taxes for various local taxing districts such as school districts,
highway districts, ambulance districts, fire districts, library
districts, and agricultural fair districts. The taxpayers are in fact
served by county functions that are funded by ad valorem (property)
taxes which are based on assessed valuation of private property within
the county.
As the amount of private property is decreased in the county, the
tax base of the county is decreased. The acquisitions of private
property, which will be possible under the bill, threaten the very
existence of many county governments, particularly in rural areas. When
private property is purchased by a governmental entity, there will be
no revenue payable to the county which will replace the loss of tax
base.
This bill will accommodate land purchases that will dwarf the
purchases made by the Forest Service in the Sawtooth Recreation Area in
central Idaho. Yet, those purchases alone have devastated the tax base
of Custer County in Idaho.
The enabling statute which created the Sawtooth National Recreation
Area stated the clear intent of Congress that the Federal agency should
purchase, in fee simple, no more than 5 percent of the private land in
the proposed Recreation Area. In spite of that mandate, the Forest
Service has purchased, in fee simple, 17 percent of the private land in
the Area and are still buying. In fact, another $2 million have been
included in the appropriation for next year for further purchases in
the Area. This massive removal of private land from the tax base of
slightly populated Custer County endangers continuation of county
services.
In addition to the absolute removal of private property from the
tax rolls, the purchase of scenic easements by the government further
depletes the revenue of the County. The impact of the scenic easements
is to prevent all development, even when the development would not
detract at all from the visibility of the Scenic Area (which is the
stated purpose for the easement purchases). As a result, the tax base
for all private properties covered by the scenic easements is
permanently frozen at a much lower level than the tax base would be on
developed property. This means that county revenue is cut. So is
revenue for the school districts and all other local taxing and service
districts. The assessor and a former assessor of the County provided an
example: The owner of an 11.5 acre parcel sold a scenic easement to the
Forest Service for $306,000. Neither the county nor any taxing district
received any revenue benefit from that sale. The sale prevented
development of three residences that could have been constructed
without effecting in any way visibility of the Scenic Area. The former
assessor estimates that the three lots and buildings would have an
assessed value of nearly $2 million. Based on that valuation, the
school district alone would have received $14,571 each year in tax
revenue from those lots. Without that development, the owner who sold
the easement to the Forest Service pays only $5,296 in total property
tax revenue, with only a portion of that going to the school district.
The adverse impact of the Federal Government's purchase of private
land and of scenic easements, which decrease the valuation and
prospective valuation of property, is obvious from this example. Custer
County Idaho's experience is critical to that county, but it is
miniscule compared to the adverse impact on counties throughout the
Nation which will result from the massive land acquisitions to be
funded by H.R. 701. Federal agencies will push their agenda to further
decrease private property that is more difficult for them to control.
In the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, the Forest Service did not
deem itself bound by Congressional limitations on the amount of private
property which could be purchased. Congress said, ``buy no more than 5
percent of the private land.'' The Forest Service has already bought 17
percent of the private land and still spending. So, even the slight
limitations placed on the agencies in H.R. 701 will be meaningless to
the agencies. Armed with the almost unlimited discretion given to the
Secretary of Interior throughout this bill, the agencies will be in a
position to make the biggest grab of private land in history.
III. the bill paves the way for creation of state protection of species
even broader than the federal endangered species act
Through the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program, the bill
provides for State programs of species protection that is far broader
than the protection which has lead to destruction of private property
rights under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 302 (d) defines
the ``conservation'' use to which funding may be put by the States as
including ``use of means and procedures necessary or desirable to
sustain healthy populations of wildlife including all activities
associated with scientific resources management such as . . . .
acquisition, improvement and management of habitat . . . and periodic
or total protection of a species or population.''
This language is all-inclusive. It does not pertain merely to
endangered or threatened species as now recognized by the ESA. It
applies to all ``wildlife'' which would include even non-sport (hunting
and fishing) species. The breadth of this provision is awesome. It
extends to the States the funding to create species bills that the
Federal Government can't reach. That will allow the Federal Government,
through cooperative management plans called for by the bill, to extend
its regulations of use of land to any species related to any State
program funded under this bill.
The same section provides that such State programs must be
``approved by the Secretary,'' so the Federal Government can insist on
the broadest possible restrictions on species by the State in order to
gain funding. Section 304 provides that in order to gain the
Secretary's approval, the State must submit a ``comprehensive plan''
which provides that the State Fish and Game Department will have
overall responsibility for the program. By this provision, the Federal
Government can dictate to the State seeking funds as to which
department of government must run the program. The comprehensive plan
must also provide that this agency will develop and implement wildlife
conservation programs, giving ``appropriate consideration to all
wildlife.''
This bill has been touted by its supporters as a boon for hunters
and fishermen. Various sporting organizations have supported the bill
in reliance upon these claims. But, if they read the bill they will see
how the Federal Government can use the funding to gain control over the
State species protection programs. Once that happens, is there anyone
on the scene today who does not see that restriction of access is next
on the agenda. The Federal agencies have launched a massive effort to
restrict access during the past 18 months. This bill permits the
expansion of that effort to any land acquired by the State for its
wildlife programs.
Those who have fought re-authorization of the Endangered Species
Act, those who have rallied against the abuses of private property and
the closing of access under the Endangered Species Act, should take
note that under this bill the Congress will be setting up the Federal
agencies to take a position as commissar of a vast extension of
authority and control which can restrict private property rights and
access under the guise of protection of a whole new body of species
which it cannot touch under the ESA.
IV. the bill authorizes funding to non-government organizations of the
type which have fought private property rights and open access
Section 704 of the bill authorizes the funding of conservation
easement purchases by non-government organizations that qualify as a
non-profit, tax exempt organization. This allows the Secretary to fund
project purchases by the extremist environmentalist organizations which
have fought to overcome private property rights and to deny access to
Federal lands through the past two decades.
These same groups have filed lawsuit after lawsuit against the
government, costing advocates of private property rights millions of
dollars in attorneys fees to defend property rights and to seek and
defend open access to Federal lands. Now, the Federal Government will
fund their efforts. They can receive funds to use in purchasing
conservation easements that will extend the domain which they can
control. Then, they will be free to use their own revenue to continue
to battle private property rights and open access through their
debilitating litigation strategy. With the Federal funding, they can
acquire control over even more land, which they can close down to
multiple uses including hunting, fishing and motorized recreation uses.
Meanwhile, the taxpayers who have to defend their rights will be
paying the costs of the extremists through tax dollars. It is
remarkable to see that Members of the Congress who profess to be
advocates of private property would actually consider such funding of
organizations dedicated to the destruction of private property rights.
V. the expenditures to implement this bill will attack the `surplus'
and threaten important programs
Some conservative Members of the Congress have warned that the bill
will deplete the ``surplus'' which is critical to various trust type
programs. One of those, which has not been mentioned widely, is social
security. The chief sponsor has proclaimed widely that he is a friend
of the senior citizens and he managed to get the support of a national
organization representing seniors. But one wonders what will happen to
those Members of Congress who support this bill, when the grassroots
seniors realize that this bill will in fact deplete the surplus. That
means that all programs reliant on that surplus must compete for a
smaller amount of money. Social security will be pitted against
military appropriations and other appropriations critical to our
nation's safety and health.
Sooner or later the seniors in the country will realize that the
bill provides a threat to the funds available to support long-time
health of the social security program. Then, we will see the impact
that can be made by the grassroots.
VI. massive decreases in private property endanger the philosophical
basis upon which this nation was founded
It is not necessary, surely, to set forth the factors that evidence
the importance of private property ownership to the Founders of this
nation and to the philosophy of republican government that they
documented in the Constitution. Neither should it be necessary to set
forth the factors which evidence the importance to our enemies of
destroying the independence of our citizens which results from
ownership of property. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx warned the non-
communist world: ``In one word you reproach us with intending to do
away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.''
The Federal Government currently owns at least 30 percent of all
land in the United States. In the western States, the government owns
more than two-thirds of the land. Now, H.R. 701 authorizes vast
increases in this ownership, and with each increase we lose more
private property. We lose more of the resource that has always afforded
us the basis for independence.
Last year the Congress identified $15 billion needed for backlogged
maintenance of the federally owned lands. This government cannot even
afford to maintain the land already owned. Why does the government need
more land--when it cannot maintain and care for that already owned?
There is only one logical answer: the more land owned by the Federal
Government, or by State governments entangled through cooperative
management agreements with the Federal Government, the more power the
Federal Government has over local land use decisions and over the
operation of local governments themselves. Marx would be pleased.
Fred Kelly Grant is a native of Nampa, Idaho. He attained his B.A.
from the College of Idaho in 1958, majoring in History; with
specialization in Constitutional History and Law. He then attended the
University of Chicago School of Law. He served as Law Clerk to Chief
Judge Brune, in the Maryland Court of Appeals.
He first worked as an associate at Lord, Bissell, and Brook; a
Chicago law firm representing Lloyd's of London. He continued to
practice law in the District of Maryland, where he was an Assistant
United States Attorney. He later became Assistant State Attorney of
Baltimore, and then Chief of the Organized Crime Unit, State's Attorney
of Baltimore. He spent his remaining time in Baltimore involved in
criminal defense.
Grant has since returned to Idaho where he is an expert on land use
issues. He is the owner of Fred Kelly Grant Ltd., providing consulting
services in personnel and land use, and legal research. He is also
consultant to Owyhee County Land Use Planning Committee and to the
Board of County Commissioners regarding Land Use Planning for the
federally managed lands in the county. Grant has also been a consultant
to Stewards of the Range since 1997.
Liberty Matters, American Land Foundation and Stewards of the Range
are national property rights organizations whose members would be
directly affected by the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999.
Reprint permission is granted in whole or in part with attribution
to Liberty Matters, Stewards of the Range, and American Land
Foundation.
__________
Western States Land Commissioners Association,
Helena, MT, May 24, 2000.
The Honorable Robert Smith
Senate Environment and Public Works,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Smith: This letter is written for consideration by the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works at upcoming hearings
regarding the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 701).
The Western States Land Commissioners Association (WSLCA) consists
of 23 States, which together manage 447 million acres of land, mineral
right properties and land beneath navigable waterways. Although the
management structure varies between the member States, the mandate to
manage the State trust resources for current and future beneficiaries
is the same. Actions and decisions made by Congress and Federal Land
Management agencies often have direct impacts and influence
expectations for the management of State trust lands. As such, the
WSLCA has closely followed the Conservation and Reinvestment Act over
the past several months.
The WSLCA has generally supported the concept of providing adequate
financial resources to deal with natural resource management needs. The
WSLCA is particularly interested in the use of Land and Water
Conservation Funds to resolve longstanding inholding issues through
exchanges and other means that would be highly beneficial to the
respective States and Federal land management agencies. The WSLCA
passed the attached resolution regarding the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act at its annual winter meeting this past January and
would like that resolution to be considered as part of the record of
comments received by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on H.R. 701.
Sincerely,
M. Jeff Hagener, President.
______
RESOLUTION--2000-1
a resolution regarding the conservation and reinvestment act of 1999,
and recurring funding for the land and water conservation fund
WHEREAS, Congress established the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act, the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act, and the Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Act as means of investing in the environment and
our communities; and
WHEREAS, the challenges of maintaining and preserving that which
makes the Western States unique, including the conservation of wildlife
habitat and outdoor recreational opportunities, is becoming
increasingly difficult; and
WHEREAS, human demands are increasing, whether they are for
recreational pursuits, economic benefit, community bonding or caring
for the environment; and
WHEREAS, many of those demands have direct consequence on the
ability of the State land trusts to fulfill their respective mandates;
and
WHEREAS, Congress is considering the Conservation and Reinvestment
Act of 1999 which will serve as a means of funding the Land and Water
Conservation Fund which would provide a means of purchasing easements
and inholdings, and facilitating exchanges to resolve trust valuation
issues; and
WHEREAS, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act would provide for
funding of other programs that are important to enhancing the quality
of life in our communities and the States by sharing Federal offshore
mineral leasing revenues with the States; and
WHEREAS, the Congressional Acts supported by the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act emphasize the need to conserve public spaces and to
acquire national, State and local natural areas in anticipation of
increasing population to respond to rapid changes in land use and
availability; and
WHEREAS, the Western States have in the past benefited immensely
from the acquisition and development of neighborhood parks, open space,
wildlife habitat, baseball parks, soccer fields, picnic areas, bike
trails, playgrounds, scenic areas, and the preservation of cultural
sites; and
WHEREAS, investments from the fund can be used for acquisition or
conservation easements to secure areas that can contribute
significantly to the conservation of habitat and provide for
recreational opportunities for the citizens of the United States; and
WHEREAS, investments of these types serve as economic catalysts
that can benefit both the environment and community,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Western States Land
Commissioners Association encourages its members to urge Congress to
ensure passage of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act and that future
recurring Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations occur at the
authorized level.
Approved this 14th day of January, 2000.
Jeff Hagener, President.
Kevin S. Carter, Secretary.
-