[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 5102, H.R. 5185 and H.R. 5513
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND
FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
October 10, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-157
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
82-315 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Greg Walden, Oregon Hilda L. Solis, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Tim Holden, Pennsylvania
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman
JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania, Tom Udall, New Mexico
Vice Chairman Mark Udall, Colorado
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 10, 2002................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Gallegly, Hon. Elton, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 27
Prepared statement on H.R. 5185.......................... 29
Hayworth, Hon. J.D., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 3
Prepared statement on H.R. 5513.......................... 5
Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado, prepared statement on H.R. 5102......... 2
Inslee, Hon. Jay, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Washington.............................................. 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Gioia, Tony, Camp Verde, Arizona............................. 9
Prepared statement on H.R. 5513.......................... 11
Hamilton, Larry, Director, Fire and Aviation, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior................ 29
Prepared statement on H.R. 5102 and H.R. 5185............ 31
Resavage, Roy, President, Helicopter Association
International.............................................. 34
Prepared statement on H.R. 5102 and H.R. 5185............ 36
Ruskin, Fred, Manager, Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership..... 12
Prepared statement on H.R. 5513.......................... 14
Thompson, Tom L., Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, statement on H.R. 5513.......... 6
Statement on H.R. 5102 and H.R. 5185..................... 32
Prepared statement on H.R. 5102, H.R. 5185 and H.R. 5513. 7
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 5513 TO AUTHORIZE AND DIRECT THE EXCHANGE
OF CERTAIN LAND IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA BETWEEN THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE AND YAVAPAI RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; H.R. 5185 TO REMOVE
A RESTRICTION ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH ANY FEDERAL
AGENCY TO ACQUIRE GOODS AND SERVICES DIRECTLY RELATED TO IMPROVING OR
USING THE WILDFIRE FIGHTING CAPABILITY OF THOSE AGENCIES; AND H.R. 5102
TO EXPEDITE THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE MAY UTILIZE AIRCRAFT TO FIGHT WILDFIRES, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
----------
Thursday, October 10, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:30 p.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. J.D. Hayworth
presiding.
Mr. Hayworth. The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear
testimony on H.R. 5513, the Yavapai Ranchland Exchange
Refinement Act of 2002, which I am privileged to sponsor; H.R.
5185, the Wildfire Response Enhancement Act, sponsored by Mr.
Gallegly and Mr. Gibbons; and H.R. 5102, the Wildfire Response
Act of 2002, sponsored by Mr. Hefley.
The Chair would pose at this time again to thank all of you
rolling with the changes in today's schedule. The Chair
appreciates your willingness to stay, and I am cognizant of the
fact that it changes some schedules and again we thank you very
much.
At this point, I would ask unanimous consent that
Representatives Gallegly, Gibbons, and Flake have permission to
sit on the dais and participate in the hearing. There is nobody
here to object, so guess what? It is so ordered.
Due to the postponement, Mr. Hefley will not be able to
make today's hearing, but he has asked that his statement be
submitted into the record and, without objection, that is so
ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hefley follows:]
Statement of Hon. Joel Hefley, a Representative in Congress form the
State of Colorado
Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing today on my
bill, H.R. 5102.
The purpose of my bill is simple. As things currently stand, when
fighting forest fires the Department of Interior and the U.S. Forest
Service are required to comply with the dictates of the Economy Act of
1931. That law, intended to insure that the federal government does not
compete with the private sector, requires that government agencies
exhaust all commercial vendors of such things as aviation services
before turning to military assets. My bill would allow these federal
agencies to waive this requirement for fighting wildfires and submit to
Congress the reasons for exercising the exception.
In general, the present policy has worked well. It has freed the
government from the need to maintain an aircraft fleet solely for
firefighting and held down costs. I have no argument with its overall
intent. My argument, and the rationale for H.R. 5102, is that in times
of emergency these federal agencies should have the flexibility to
access all available materiel to respond to a disaster, such as a
forest fire, regardless of whether the materiel is civilian or
military.
My interest in this subject was prompted by the recent Hayman fire
in Colorado. That Hefley fire was discovered at approximately 4 p.m. on
June 8. The Forest Service said it responded aggressively to the blaze
within 45 minutes. That response included four aerial tankers.
Approximately 50 miles away, in Colorado Springs, two C-130 cargo
planes were parked on the runway at Peterson Air Force Base. Attached
to the 302nd Airlift Wing, U.S. Air Force Reserve, the planes and their
crews were trained and equipped to drop flame retardant on forest
fires. Indeed, the crews had, in past years, bemoaned the fact they
were often among the last units called up to fight forest fires in the
Pacific Northwest and California. The base was also equipped with a
number of Modular Airborne Fire Fighting Systems, or MAFFS units.
As the fire grew, my district office in Colorado Springs was
inundated with calls from constituents asking why the C-130s were still
parked on the runway at Peterson and not in the air fighting fires. The
short answer was that the Forest Service had judged they were not
needed at the time. At the height of the Haman and other fires in
Colorado last June, the Forest Service had 23 tankers in the air. The
longer answer is that the Peterson MIFFS units lacked the bladders
needed to haul retardant. Eventually, the tankers were called up, the
bladders were installed and the C-130s joined the effort on Friday,
June 14
Since June, I have learned to my satisfaction that the use of the
C-130s at Peterson were not an issue in the air coverage of the Hayman
fire. But while researching the issue, Forest Service personnel
admitted they were looking for a Type 3 Skymaster helicopter to aid in
another fire near Grand Junction. My office offered its assistance with
the military but were told that procedures required that civilian
vendors be exhausted first.
At a meeting with representatives of the Forest Service's aviation
section, Tony Kern, National Aviation Officer, admitted that it was
conceivable that fire fighters might, at times, run into a situation
where being able to access available military assets might be useful in
containing a wildfire at an early stage, before it spread. It should be
noted that virtually of the Haman fire almost 138,000 acres burned on
the second day.
Since introducing this legislation on July 11, I have heard from a
number of organizations representing the aerial contractors involved in
forest fire fighting. I have heard there is no problem. That if there
is a problem, it can be handled with existing procedures. Finally, I
have read quotes in an Arizona newspaper that enacting my bill would be
devastating to this industry. I have even heard that this bill was a
plot by the military to take over all forest fire fighting operations
and drive private industry out of business.
After introducing this bill, I learned of a second bill, H.R. 5185,
introduced by my friend and colleague, Mr. Gallegly of California. His
original bill, introduced in 1993, was prompted by a similar situation
in Ventura County, California. In researching my bill and this
statement, our staffs compared notes and found that the arguments
raised against our 2002 bills were identical to those raised against
Mr. Gallegy's bill in 1993.
Mr. Chairman, since becoming involved in the forest fire fighting
issues, I have become impressed by the similarities between fighting
fires and fighting a war. One of the most important tenets of war is to
bring all available force to bear at the outset. ``Git thar fustest
with the mostest.'' Another is to direct all efforts toward your end
objective. My bill seeks to give federal agencies the flexibility to do
that. If we can stop a Hayman-type fire in its initial stages with
civilian aircraft, we should do that. If we can stop the same fire in
its initial stages with military aircraft, we should do that. The
objective is to contain and stop the fire and protect public lives,
land and property. It is not to be chained to procedures or insure
contracts. As things stand now, federal agencies are in the position of
an emergency medical technician who comes across as accident victim
laying on the road in front of him. The EMT has all the training needed
to treat the accident victim but procedures require the EMT to call 9-
1-1 and wait for an ambulance to arrive. That would be absurd. The
objective is to treat the victim and save his life ... and the
objective here is contain and stop the fire and protect public lives,
property and land.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. J.D. HAYWORTH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Hayworth. While we await the arrival of the ranking
minority member, I would take advantage of the opportunity to
offer my opening statement on the legislation that I have
introduced.
Congressman Bob Stump and I have introduced the bill, H.R.
5513, together with Congressman Flake, because it will achieve
several important goals. First, it will consolidate 110 square
miles of land at the northern tip of the Prescott National
Forest, or some would say in our neck of the woods Prescott
National Forest, into solid Forest Service ownership.
This area on the Yavapai Ranch contains beautiful high-
elevation ponderosa pine forest land, part of the upper
watershed of the Verde River, and a large area of critical
habitat for prong-horned antelope. It is also adjacent to the
Juniper Mesa Wilderness Area.
Both the Forest Service and the Arizona Department of Game
and Fish believe the land consolidation is important to meet
long-term needs for the protection of wildlife habitat and
outdoor recreation. And I would stress they have reviewed the
lands to be exchanged and feel that the lands the Forest
Service is acquiring are far more valuable for wildlife and
recreation than the lands the Forest Service is giving up.
This exchange will also convey lands to the communities of
Williams and Flagstaff into six youth summer camps for their
long-term use. There has not been a time in recent memory that
I have not been to Flagstaff and haven't heard from the mayor
and city council members about the urgency of this exchange
from their vantage point.
Now, we have heard from some residents of Arizona and from
outside organizations that this land exchange should be
processed through normal administrative procedures. However,
when we asked the Forest Service about the timeframe of the
administrative change, we would told that it would likely take
7 to 8 years, if it were accomplished at all.
The cities of Flagstaff and Williams in the Verde Valley,
as well as the youth camps involved in the exchange, simply do
not want to have to wait so long for what at best would be an
uncertain outcome, given the appeals and lawsuits that seem to
accompany almost everything our Forest Service has done in
recent memory.
So it seems to me we have two choices here. Either we
legislate this land exchange so that it will be completed in
the next year or so or we do nothing and watch the Yavapai
Ranch be subdivided and developed, and the communities of
Flagstaff, Williams, and Camp Verde and the summer camps lose
the opportunity to acquire the lands they need for their future
needs. The Forest Service also loses an opportunity to
consolidate a major parcel of land on the Prescott National
Forest. I think the choice is fairly obvious.
Other benefits of this legislation are numerous. It will
protect water flows in the Verde Valley, and the bill requires
that the lands the Yavapai Ranch acquires in the Cottonwood,
Clarkdale and Camp Verde area be subject to strict water use
limitations, including a prohibition on the construction of
golf courses.
To my knowledge, the water usage restrictions we are
imposing are precedent-setting in nature and, in my opinion,
should be viewed as a very progressive development. Of over
50,000 acres of private land in the Verde Valley and the
immediate surrounding tributary drainages, the 3,000 acres
covered by our water use restrictions are the only acres to
have such restrictions on them.
So I am somewhat puzzled by those who say this bill will
adversely impact water use. Quite to the contrary, by
protecting large acreages in the head waters of the Verde River
from subdivision development and by placing water use
restrictions on the national forest lands that become private,
this bill should have a major positive impact on future water
use.
H.R. 5513, while introduced late in the session is anything
but a rush job. In fact, officials of the Prescott National
Forest and Yavapai Ranch have been working on the details of
proposal for more than 3 years now and have been working
closely with my staff and Congressman Stump's staff for most of
that time as well.
In addition, the communities of Flagstaff, Williams,
Cottonwood, Clarkdale and Camp Verde have held numerous public
meetings on the proposal, and there have also been many public
workshops and other meetings sponsored by environmental groups
and others where the Forest Service has explained the proposal
to the public. So this has been a very open process, with major
newspaper coverage as well.
There is also a long list of organizations, local
governments, and other groups that support H.R. 5513, including
the city councils of Flagstaff, Williams, Camp Verde,
Cottonwood and Clarkdale, the Yavapai County Board of
Supervisors, the Salt River Project, Arizona Game and Fish
Department, Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, Greater Flagstaff
Economic Council, Williams Chamber of Commerce, Camp Verde
Chamber of Commerce, Cottonwood Chamber of Commerce, Grand
Canyon Trust, Sedona-Verde Valley Realtors, Wildlife
Conservation Council, Arizona Antelope Foundation, and last but
not least, the Arizona Mule Deer Association.
I ask unanimous consent to insert letters of endorsement
from these organizations into the record. Hearing no objection,
it is so ordered.
[The information has been retained in the Committee's
official files.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayworth follows:]
Statement of Hon. J.D. Hayworth, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona
Congressman Bob Stump and I have introduced this bill, H.R. 5513,
together with Congressman Flake, because it will achieve several
important goals.
First, it will consolidate 110 square miles of land at the northern
tip of the Prescott National Forest into solid Forest Service
ownership. This area on the Yavapai Ranch contains beautiful high
elevation ponderosa pine forestland, part of the upper watershed of the
Verde River, and a large area of critical habitat for pronghorn
antelope. It is also adjacent to the Juniper Mesa Wilderness Area. Both
the Forest Service and the Arizona Department of Game and Fish believe
the land consolidation is important to meet long term needs for the
protection of wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation''.and''.I would
stress, they have reviewed the lands to be exchanged and feel that the
lands the Forest Service is acquiring are far more valuable for
wildlife and recreation than the lands the Forest Service is giving up.
This exchange will also convey lands to the communities of Williams
and Flagstaff, and to 6 children's summer camps for their long term
use. There has not been a time in recent memory that I have been to
Flagstaff and haven't heard from the Mayor and City Council members
about the urgency of this exchange.
Now, we have heard from some residents of Arizona, and from some
outside organizations, that this land exchange should be processed
through normal administrative procedures. However, when we asked the
Forest Service about the time-frame of an administrative exchange, we
were told that it would likely take 7-8 years, if it were accomplished
at all. The cities of Flagstaff, Williams, and the Verde Valley, as
well as the youth camps involved in the exchange simply do not want to
have to wait so long for what would be at best an uncertain outcome,
given the appeals and lawsuits that seem to accompany almost everything
the Forest Service does recently.
So, it seems to me that we have two choices here. Either we
legislate this land exchange so that it will be completed in the next
year or so, or we do nothing and watch the Yavapai Ranch be subdivided
and developed, and the communities of Flagstaff, Williams and Camp
Verde, and the summer camps, lose the opportunity to acquire the lands
they need for their future needs. The Forest Service also loses an
opportunity to consolidate a major parcel of land on the Prescott
National Forest. I think the choice is clear.
Other benefits of this legislation are numerous. It will protect
water flows in the Verde Valley, and the bill requires that the lands
the Yavapai Ranch acquires in Cottonwood /Clarkdale and Camp Verde be
subject to strict water use limitations, including a prohibition on the
construction of golf courses. To my knowledge, the water use
restrictions we are imposing are precedent-setting in nature, and in my
opinion, should be viewed as a very progressive development. Of over
50,000 acres of private land in the Verde Valley and immediate
surrounding tributary drainages, the 3,000 acres covered by our water
use restrictions are the ONLY acres to have such restrictions on them.
So, I am somewhat puzzled by those who say this bill will adversely
impact water use. Quite to the contrary, by protecting large acreage in
the headwaters of the Verde River from subdivision and development, and
by placing water use restrictions on the National Forest lands that
become private, this bill should have a major positive impact on future
water use.
H.R. 5513, while introduced late is the session, is anything but a
rush job. In fact, officials of the Prescott National Forest and the
Yavapai Ranch have been working on the details of the proposal for more
than 3 years now, and have been working closely with my staff, and
Congressman Stump's staff, for most of that time. In addition, the
communities of Flagstaff, Williams, Cottonwood, Clarkdale and Camp
Verde have held numerous public meetings on the proposal, and there
have also been many public workshops and other meetings, sponsored by
environmental and others, where the Forest Service has explained the
proposal to the public. So this has been a very open process, with
major newspaper coverage as well.
There is also a long list of organizations, local governments and
other groups that support H.R. 5513, including the city councils of
Flagstaff, Williams, Camp Verde, Cottonwood, and Clarkdale, the Yavapai
County Board of Supervisors, Salt River Project, Arizona Game and Fish
Department,
Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, Greater Flagstaff Economic Council,
Williams Chamber of Commerce, Camp Verde Chamber of Commerce,
Cottonwood Chamber of Commerce, Grand Canyon Trust, Sedona-Verde Valley
Realtors, Wildlife Conservation Council, Arizona Antelope Foundation,
and the Arizona Mule Deer Association.
I ask unanimous consent to insert letters of endorsement from these
organizations into the record.
______
Mr. Hayworth. The Chair now welcomes our friend from
Washington State, the ranking minority member on the
Subcommittee, Mr. Inslee, for any opening statements he might
have.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAY INSLEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Inslee. Following that brilliance, I can't top it, so I
am going to just look forward to the testimony. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Mr. Hayworth. Well, thank you to the gentleman from
Washington State. We thank you for being here and the chance to
hear from our witnesses.
Now, I would like to introduce witnesses for our first
bill, H.R. 5513, which I have discussed. On panel one, we have
Mr. Tom Thompson, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
Department of Agriculture; Mr. Tony Gioia, Verde Valley,
Arizona; and Mr. Fred Ruskin, Manager, Yavapai Ranch Limited
Partnership.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind the
witnesses that under our Committee rules you must limit your
oral statements to 5 minutes, but your entire statement will
appear in the record.
It is my privilege now to welcome and recognize Mr.
Thompson for his opening remarks. Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF TOM THOMPSON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ON H.R. 5513
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to appear before you today. I am Tom Thompson, Deputy Chief of
the National Forest System, and I will present the
administration's views on H.R. 5513, the Yavapai Ranch Land
Exchange Refinement Act of 2002.
The administration supports the concept of a land exchange
with the Yavapai Ranch and has worked for a number of years to
craft administrative and legislative options to arrive at a
mutually beneficial exchange of approximately 55,000 acres of
Federal and non-Federal lands.
An exchange offers substantial benefits to both parties and
the public. The forests would benefit from simplified boundary
management and reduced administrative costs and acquisition of
lands adjacent to the Juniper Mesa Wilderness, which will have
significant forest, wildlife, and recreation values. The public
would benefit from the exchange of land for commercial and
residential growth and for community services. Overall, this
exchange could be beneficial in the public interest.
The administration will support this legislation if a
crucial change is made to the land valuation section of the
bill, Section 5(b)(3)(B)(i)(3). This provision requires the
appraiser to diminish the value of the Federal lands to the
Camp Verde and Cottonwood declarations entered into between the
Yavapai Ranch and the Salt River Project.
These declarations purport to restrict the use of water on
several Federal parcels and were negotiated without Federal
participation. The declarations' net effect on the value of the
Federal lands involved in the exchange would be substantially
negative.
For example, the typical number of units allowed for
residential purposes based on current zoning and market-based
indicators regarding the development of Federal parcels
indicates a range of four to six units per acre, whereas the
declarations would allow only one residential unit for two
acres.
This devaluation would result in the transfer of far more
Federal land to the owners of Yavapai Ranch and its related
limited liability corporation than would otherwise occur if the
market value of the Federal estate were fully and fairly
valued. As a result, the public would not receive fair value
for this transfer of public lands and would be irretrievably
damaged by this section. In addition, the administration is
concerned with the precedent that would be set by this bill
with regard to future management of private lands transferring
into Federal ownership.
While the Forest Service has worked with the Yavapai Ranch
to craft language that gives the Federal land managers more
authority to manage the land for public benefit, land
management will not be tied directly to the forest planning
process. This may foreclose future public participation and
management that would otherwise be available to the public and
the Forest Service through that process.
Although this legislative proposal deviates somewhat from
our standard administrative process, except for the proposed
devaluing of Federal lands affected by declarations, there are
adequate safeguards in this proposal to ensure that the
exchange will be of equal value and complement the involved
forest lands and resource management plans and overall is in
the public interest.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions which you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Statement of Tom Thompson, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest
Service, U.S. Department Of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Tom
Thompson, Deputy Chief for National Forest System. With me today is
Jerry Williams, Director of Fire and Aviation. I would like to present
the Administration's views on H.R. 5102--the Wildfire Response Act of
2002, H.R. 5185--the Wildfire Response Enhancement Act, and H.R. 5513--
the Yavapai Ranch Land Exchange Refinement Act of 2002.
Before discussing these bills I would like to take a few moments to
update you on the status of our aviation program. As you are well
aware, this has been an unusual fire season. Not only have we seen a
dramatic increase in fire intensity and loss of resources, but because
of the loss of human life, this has been a tragic year for our aviation
firefighting program.
The United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the
Department of the Interior administer a challenging aviation program to
support the national firefighting effort. We contract for 44 large
airtankers, over 100 exclusive use helicopters, and nearly 300 more
``call when needed'' helicopters. These aircraft are flown by highly
professional pilots and form the backbone of our airborne resources and
are more than adequate to meet our needs during a normal fire season.
However, the meaning of a ``normal'' fire season has changed with
the conditions of the forests, and in both 2000 and 2002 the military
provided a critical surge capacity. Occasionally, we may need to call
upon these resources under time sensitive conditions to meet urgent
requirements.
Chief Dale Bosworth and Kathleen Clarke, Director of the BLM,
decided we needed to step back and get an objective, outside view of
our program so they jointly commissioned a blue ribbon fact-finding
panel to determine the adequacy of our current aviation program.
This fact-finding panel includes some of the best minds in the fire
and aviation community. Included are a former Chairman of the NTSB
(National Transportation Safety Board), the State Forester of Texas,
and the previous Director of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
The panel is expected to issue its report by this November. The
report is expected to identify strengths, weaknesses, and failpoints
and provide information in five areas: safety, operational
effectiveness, costs, sustainability, and strategic guidance.
Using information from this comprehensive report, both Agencies
will be in a much better position to meet the complex short and long
term challenges of our firefighting and aviation program. We will share
the panel's findings, and our proposed actions, with you when they are
available.
H.R. 5102 - The Wildfire Response Act of 2002 and H.R. 5185--Wildfire
Response Enhancement Act
As you are well aware, the 2002 fire season was one of the most
devastating seasons in recent memory. Not only have we seen a dramatic
increase in fire intensity and loss of resources, but because of the
loss of human life, this has been a tragic year for our aviation
firefighting program. I want to thank the Committee for its support of
our ongoing efforts to continuously improve our wildland firefighting
capabilities.
I now turn to H.R. 5102, which would give the Secretaries of
Agriculture and Interior expedited authority to utilize military
aircraft and attendant personnel to fight wildfires without first
comparing costs of procuring the same services from a commercial
enterprise as currently required by the Economy Act, and H.R. 5185,
legislation that is somewhat broader than H.R. 5102, which would give
us the option to use military resources without making the
determination that commercial sources were unavailable.
We appreciate the Committee's desire to ensure the Department is
vested with the flexibility needed to access cost-effective quality
sources in a timely manner, including in emergency situations. We
believe that sufficient flexibility currently exists under the Economy
Act to achieve the objectives of this legislation and, for this reason,
cannot support the legislative changes proposed by these bills.
H.R. 5513 - the Yavapai Ranch Land Exchange Refinement Act of 2002
The Administration supports the concept of a land exchange with the
Yavapai Ranch and has worked for a number of years to craft
administrative and legislative options to arrive at a mutually
beneficial exchange of approximately 55,000 acres of federal and non-
federal lands.
An exchange offers substantial benefits to both parties and the
public. The Forest would benefit from simplified boundary management
and reduced administrative costs and the acquisition of lands adjacent
to the Juniper Mesa Wilderness, which have significant forest,
wildlife, and recreation values. The public would benefit from the
addition of land for commercial and residential growth and for
community services. Overall, this exchange could be beneficial and in
the public interest.
The Administration will support this legislation if a crucial
change is made to the land valuation section of the bill. Section
5(b)(3)(B)(i)(III) requires the appraiser to diminish the value of the
federal lands due to the Camp Verde and Cottonwood declarations entered
into between the Yavapai Ranch and the Salt River Project.
These declarations purport to restrict the use of water on several
federal parcels and were negotiated without federal participation. The
declarations'' net effect on the value of the federal lands involved in
the exchange would be substantially negative. For example, the typical
number of units allowed for residential purposes based on current
zoning and market-based indicators regarding the development of the
Federals parcel indicates a range from 4 to 6 units per acre, whereas
the declarations would allow only one residential unit for two acres.
This devaluation would result in the transfer of far more federal
land to the owners of the Yavapai Ranch and its related limited
liability corporation than would otherwise occur if the market value of
the federal estate were fully and fairly valued. As a result, the
public would not receive fair value for this transfer of public lands
and would be irretrievably damaged by this section.
In addition, the Administration is concerned with the precedent
that would be set by this bill with regard to the future management of
private lands transferring into federal ownership. While the Forest
Service has worked with the Yavapai Ranch to craft language that gives
federal land managers more authority to manage the land for the public
benefit, land management will not be tied directly to the forest
planning process. This may foreclose future public participation and
management actions that would otherwise be available to the public and
Forest Service through that process.
Although this legislative proposal deviates somewhat from our
standard administrative process, except for the proposed, ``devaluing
of the federal lands affected by the Declarations,'' there are adequate
safeguards in this proposal to ensure that the exchange will be of
equal value and complement the involved Forest lands and resource
management plans, and overall, is in the public interest.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Thompson, we thank you for that opening
statement.
The Chair would also welcome the gentleman from California
and the gentlelady from Minnesota to the dais and we thank you
for that.
The Chair should also issue an apology to my friend from
the Verde Valley.
Tony, I believe I mispronounced your last name. It is
Gioia, right?
Mr. Gioia. That happens all the time.
Mr. Hayworth. Well, forgive me for that. I don't know why I
transposed an ``l'' in there, but, Tony, we welcome you here
today and look forward to your testimony. You are now
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TONY GIOIA, VERDE VALLEY, ARIZONA
Mr. Gioia. I appreciate that. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
members of the Committee. Thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to testify against H.R. 5513, the proposed Yavapai
Ranch Land Exchange.
My name is Tony Gioia. I am Vice Mayor of the Town of Camp
Verde, Arizona. Today, I speak as a private citizen
representing thousands of concerned residents and a number of
elected officials in the Verde Valley.
I am deeply involved in water supply issues in my region. I
am co-chairman of the Yavapai County Water Advisory Board and
Chair of the Middle Verde River Planning Committee, a group
formed to implement the Arizona Department of Water Resources
Rural Watershed Initiative. I also participate in many other
planning intergovernmental entities.
I have with me copies of letters right here sent to the
Arizona delegation and other Members of Congress from citizens
and elected officials in the Verde Valley who are opposed to
the trading away of these public lands in our area. I also have
a large number of petitions signed to that effect, along with a
media survey which shows 94 percent of the respondents opposed
the Verde portions of the trade.
In 1998, citizens in the Verde Valley began to hear about a
land exchange proposed that would privatize national forest
lands near the towns of Camp Verde, Clarkdale, and Cottonwood.
When we inquired with both the Forest Service and the
proponent, Mr. Ruskin, we learned that the exchange would not
go through the normal agency process, but through legislation.
The bill has since been put together by Mr. Ruskin's lobbyist
and negotiated with a Member of Congress who does not represent
our particular district.
Of the 20,000-plus acres of land Mr. Ruskin would get in
the trade, he would receive more than 3,000 of acres of
national forest land in the Verde Valley for residential and
commercial development. In the Camp Verde area alone, there
have already been thousands of acres of private land that
remain undeveloped. We are faced with a crisis over ensuring
sustainable growth on the existing land base and this project
would only exacerbate that difficulty.
Water supply is an extremely serious problem in the Verde
Valley, where increased development has over-taxed groundwater
supplies and dried up many residential wells. The Verde Valley
is also engaged in a legal battle with Salt River Project over
surface water supplies.
Water supply and water quality are closely linked, so we
also face such issues as arsenic concentration, E. coli
contamination, and other threats to a safe water supply. Like
much of the arid West, our towns are having to look far afield
just to find water to sustain present development and are even
considering projects to bring Colorado River water by pipeline
from perhaps hundreds of miles away. It has been done before.
The U.S. Geological Survey recently released a fact sheet
on the hydrogeology of the Verde River watershed as part of an
investigation under the Rural Watershed Initiative. This paper,
submitted to the record along with other materials on water,
acknowledges that the present and water situation in our valley
is largely unknown. It poses seven fundamental questions that
must be answered concerning our hydrogeologic system, including
questions regarding recharge, flow boundaries, sources of base
flow, and the effects of human water use now and in the future.
The Verde Valley parcels that would go to Mr. Ruskin sit on
top of what is called the Verde Fault, from which water is
already being drawn by the Camp Verde Water Company and the
Cottonwood Waterworks. As a further indication of our lack of
certainly about water supply, it is believed that the Fault in
some cases acts as a dam and in other cases a pipeline for
groundwater flow. In any case, evidence suggests that
groundwater recharge is insufficient to meet existing needs in
the area.
Another basis for so many citizens' opposition to this
proposal has been the circumvention of the National
Environmental Policy Act. We badly need the environmental
analysis that comes with NEPA to understand the potential
impacts on water supply and all of the environmental
consequences to the vast area of the exchange.
The aspect of NEPA that would be especially worthwhile in
this case is the requirement that alternatives for a project be
considered. No one disputes the benefits of consolidating
public ownership in the checkerboard lands of the Prescott
National Forest, but there is substantial controversy over
almost every other aspect of the trade.
Surely, there are alternatives that could provide some of
the public benefit of this exchange and also profit Mr. Ruskin.
Instead, we are offered an all-or-nothing proposition, with
potentially devastating impacts to our community.
In conclusion, we ask, as we have for 4 years, that the
exchange go through only the administrative process and in
pursuance of the public interest above all else. Should the
legislation proceed, we implore you, remove from this proposal
all national forest lands in the Verde Valley.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gioia follows:]
[Attachments to Mr. Gioia's statement have been retained in
the Committee's official files.]
Statement of Tony Gioia, Resident, Camp Verde, Arizona
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you
for allowing me the opportunity to testify against HR 5513, the
proposed Yavapai Ranch Land Exchange.
My name is Tony Gioia. I am vice-mayor of the town of Camp Verde,
Arizona. Today I speak as a private citizen, representing thousands of
concerned residents and a number of elected officials in the Verde
Valley. I am deeply involved in water supply issues in my region. I am
Co-chair of the Yavapai County Water Advisory Board and Chair of the
Middle Verde River Planning Committee, a group formed to implement the
Arizona Department of Water Resources Rural Watershed Initiative. I
also participate in many other planning entities.
In 1998, citizens in the Verde Valley began to hear about a land
exchange proposal that would privatize national forest land near the
towns of Camp Verde, Clarkdale, and Cottonwood. When we inquired with
both the Forest Service and the proponent, Mr. Ruskin, we learned that
the exchange would not go through the normal agency process, but
through legislation. The bill has since been put together by Mr.
Ruskin's lobbyist and negotiated with a member of Congress who does not
even represent our district.
Of the 20,000+ acres of land Mr. Ruskin would get in the trade, he
would receive more than 3,000 acres of national forest land in the
Verde Valley for residential and commercial development. In the Camp
Verde area alone, there are already thousands of acres of private land
that remain undeveloped. We are faced with a crisis over ensuring
sustainable growth on the existing land base, and this project would
only exacerbate that difficulty.
Water supply is an extremely serious problem in the Verde Valley,
where increased development has overtaxed groundwater supplies and
dried up many residential wells. The Verde Valley is also engaged in a
legal battle with the Salt River Project over surface water supplies.
Water supply and water quality are closely linked, so we also face such
issues as arsenic concentration, e-coli contamination, and other
threats to a safe water supply. Like much of the arid West, our towns
are having to look far afield just to find water to sustain present
development and are even considering projects to bring Colorado River
water by pipeline from perhaps hundreds of miles away.
The US Geological Survey recently released a fact sheet on the
hydrogeology of the Verde River watershed as part of an investigation
under the Rural Watershed Initiative. This paper (submitted to the
record along with other materials on water) acknowledges that the
present and future water situation in our valley is largely unknown. It
poses seven fundamental questions that must be answered concerning our
hydrogeologic system, including questions regarding recharge, flow
boundaries, sources of base flow, and the effects of human water use
now and in the future.
The Verde Valley parcels that would go to Mr. Ruskin sit on top of
what is called the Verde Fault, from which water is already being drawn
by Camp Verde Water Company and the Cottonwood Waterworks. As a further
indication of our lack of certainty about water supply, it is believed
that the Fault in some cases acts as a dam and in other cases a
``pipeline'' for groundwater flow. In any case, evidence suggests that
groundwater recharge is insufficient to meet existing needs in the
area.
Another basis for so many citizens'' opposition to this proposal
has been the circumvention of the National Environmental Policy Act. We
badly need the environmental analysis that comes with NEPA to
understand the potential impacts on water supply and all of the
environmental consequences to the vast area of this exchange.
The aspect of NEPA that would be especially worthwhile in this case
is the requirement that alternatives for a project be considered. No
one disputes the benefit of consolidating public ownership in the
checkerboard lands of the Prescott National Forest, but there is
substantial controversy over almost every other aspect of the trade.
Surely there are alternatives that could provide some of the public
benefits of this exchange and also profit Mr. Ruskin. Instead, we are
offered an all-or-nothing proposition with potentially devastating
impacts to our communities.
In conclusion, we ask, as we have for four years, that the exchange
go forward only through the administrative process and in pursuance of
the public interest above all else. Should the legislation proceed, we
implore you to remove from this proposal all national forest lands in
the Verde Valley.
______
Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, Mr. Gioia. As you cited the
different pieces of correspondence in the petitions, would you
like those included in the record?
Mr. Gioia. Yes, I would.
Mr. Hayworth. I therefore at this point ask unanimous
consent to include that as part of your testimony. There is no
objection, so that will be included along with your testimony
and we thank you for being here.
[The information has been retained in the Committee's
official files.]
Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Ruskin?
STATEMENT OF FRED RUSKIN, MANAGER, YAVAPAI RANCH LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP
Mr. Ruskin. Chairman Hayworth and members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Fred Ruskin. My family owns the
Yavapai Ranch. Ours is a family owned ranch. I have personally
run the ranch since my father died in 1981. We don't have other
investments, other businesses, a Keogh plan, a lot of stocks.
We just have this ranch.
As you can see from the existing land ownership may
attached to my testimony, we own approximately 50,000 acres,
around 85 square miles outright, mingled in this checkerboard
fashion with national forest land. Our ranch represents better
than 90 percent of all the undeveloped private lands in all the
national forests in Arizona.
As I said, this ranch represents my family's only major
financial asset. It has been obvious for some time that it
wasn't feasible to tie up this increasingly valuable piece of
land just to run cattle on it. The recent drought in Arizona
has made the cattle business even less attractive, while the
growth of the surrounding area has made the ranch even more
desirable for development.
We now have land on two sides of the ranch being subdivided
as a I speak, for what would be the largest private development
in northern Arizona. A city bigger than Prescott is planned for
the third side of the ranch.
We have been working on an exchange with the Forest Service
for a long time. I have been working on this exchange for
better than 6 years, and working virtually full-time on it for
the last 3 years. I am here to ask your assistance with this
land exchange today because, as you heard from Congressman
Hayworth, there is no reasonable timeframe in which the Forest
Service could accomplish this exchange by any other mechanism.
It has been taking the 7 or 8 years mentioned in Arizona to
do a 50-acre exchange. This is a 55,000-acre exchange taking
place in 2 counties, 5 cities, and three national forests. My
family obviously can't continue to commit the time and
resources to this thing for a process that might never happen.
I would also point out to you that virtually all the large
checkerboard exchanges done in the last few years were done
through the congressional mechanism. It is disingenuous to say
that the exchange should be done in another fashion, when this
other method has clearly not been successful.
Mr. Chairman, the exchange you have before you today would
trade better than 35,000 of our acres, over 70 percent of the
land which we own, to the Forest Service. From an ecological
and recreational point of view, this 35,000 acres is clearly
the most desirable part of the ranch, and I will refer you to
the pictures being passed around and in your folder.
The part the Forest Service will get contains the ponderosa
pine forest on the ranch, which is the largest one remaining in
private hands in the State; one of the last untouched valleys
for antelope adjacent to the existing Juniper Mesa Wilderness
Area, and it is the high-elevation land providing better
opportunities for public recreation in the hot summer months.
It will importantly reduce the developable land base in the
Verde River watershed by better than 20 square miles. The Verde
is the last free-flowing year-around river in north central
Arizona.
In return for the 35,000 we give to the Forest Service, we
get 15,000 acres of lower-elevation land and then land around
the communities of Williams, Flagstaff, Cottonwood, Clarkdale,
Camp Verde, and Prescott. More than half of the land we get off
the ranch is not for my family. Rather, it will be to reconvey
to the municipal governments for airports, water plants, sewer
facilities, recreation, parks, open spaces, or to children's
summer camps that currently use these areas. All of these
communities and summer camps have repeatedly stated their need
for the exchange to be completed in the near future, not 7, 10
years from now.
We think that these pass-through conveyances are an
excellent way for the Forest Service to acquire as much of my
family's land as possible, while giving the public land that is
of lesser ecological value because it is already occupied by
airports, water treatment plans, and the like. All national
forest land clearly has value, but it does not all have equal
value. Again, the pictures tell the whole story. The forest is
acquiring pristine forests and meadows in exchange for land
around cities that is already heavily impacted.
I have spent an awful lot of time putting together a very
broad coalition supporting this trade. We now have the support
of every city in Arizona that is part of this trade, all of the
local chambers of commerce, Game and Fish, many hunter and
sportsmen group, many influential environmental leaders. I
don't say that this is a perfect trade, but it is absolutely
the best trade that I can make.
More than 25 years ago, my father promised the Forest
Service that he would give them an opportunity to do a land
exchange before he developed the land on our ranch. This is
that opportunity.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruskin follows:]
Statement of Fred Ruskin, Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership
Chairman McInnis and Members of the Subcommittee,
My name is Fred Ruskin and my family owns the Yavapai Ranch. Ours
is a family owned business, which I have personally run since my dad
died in 1981. We don't own other investments, other businesses, a Keogh
plan, lots of stocks just this ranch.
As you can see from the ``existing land ownership'' map attached at
the end of my testimony, the Yavapai Ranch contains approximately
50,000 acres of our private land, intermingled with 50,000 acres of the
Prescott National Forest in a ``checkerboard'' ownership pattern. All
the white squares inside the heavy black line on the map is our land,
whereas the green land belongs to the Forest Service The 6 sections you
see in yellow are owned by outside interests. The second map shows
proposed land ownership after the trade. The three white inclusions are
already developed parcels, one of which I live on.
As I said, the Yavapai Ranch lands represent my family's only
financial asset. It has been obvious for some time that it was not
feasible to tie up this increasingly valuable piece of land just to run
cattle on it. The recent severe drought in Arizona have made the cattle
business even less attractive, while the growth of the surrounding area
has made the ranch even more desirable for development. We now have
land on two sides of the ranch being subdivided, and what will be the
largest development in Northern Arizona is planned for the third side.
We have been discussing an exchange with the Forest Service for a
long time. I have been working on this exchange for six years, and
working virtually full time on it for the last three years.
I am here today to seek your assistance with our land exchange,
because the Forest Service has indicated to us, and to Congressmen
Hayworth and Stump, that it will take 7-8 years..., I repeat, 7-8
years... to finish an exchange by administrative means. That is
probably optimistic; it has been taking the Forest Service almost that
long to do a fifty acre exchanges in Arizona--this is a fifty-five
thousand acre exchange. My family simply cannot continue to commit time
and resources to a process that might not ever happen. And virtually
all of the large checkerboard or intermingled land exchanges that have
been done by the Forest Service in the past have been legislated by
Congress even for such large landowners as Plum Creek Timber,
Burlington Northern, Big Sky Lumber, Weyerhaeuser, and Potlach .So for
these reasons we need your help.
Mr. Chairman, in the exchange that is before you today in H.R.
5513, we will trade 35,000 acres, or almost 70% of the land we own, to
the Forest Service. From an ecological and recreational standpoint,
that 35,000 acres is the most desirable part of the ranch because:
it contains all the ponderosa pine forest on the ranch
which is the largest ponderosa pine forest still remaining in private
ownership in Arizona;
it has one of the last untouched valleys in our area
providing quality antelope range, which the Arizona Department of Game
and Fish strongly advocates for public ownership;
It is located immediately adjacent to the existing
Juniper Mesa Wilderness Area, which was established by Congress in
l984;
It lies at higher elevation, and therefore, provides
better opportunities for public recreation in the hot summer months;
and
it will reduce the developable land base in the Verde
River watershed by roughly 25,000 acres, which would be a major
protection for this most important, free flowing river.
In return for the 35,000 acres we will convey to the Forest
Service, we will receive 15,300 acres of lower elevation lands near our
ranch headquarters and outlying buildings, plus approximately 5,900
acres in or near the communities of Williams, Flagstaff, Cottonwood,
Clarkdale, Camp Verde and Prescott.
More than half of the acreage we receive in those communities will
not be retained by us. Rather, these areas will instead be re-conveyed,
either to municipal governments for airport, water, and sewer
facilities, recreation, park, open space or other public uses, or to
the children's summer camps that currently use these areas. All of
these communities and summer camps have repeatedly stated their need
for the exchange to be completed in the near future not in 7-8 years.
Both we and the Forest Service concur that the so-called ``pass-
through'' conveyances of H.R. 5513 are an excellent way for the Forest
Service to acquire as much of our family's land as possible in trade
for Forest Service land that is of lesser value to the general public
because it is already occupied by airports, water treatment plants,
summer camps and the like. All National Forest land has value to the
public, but it does not all have equal value. This is for the public
the most obviously beneficial trade imaginable: The Forest is acquiring
pristine forest and meadows in exchange for land around cities that is
already heavily impacted by use and/or location.
My final point, Mr. Chairman, is that this exchange has been, and
will continue to be, a cooperative venture with the Forest Service.
Before this exchange is completed, we will perform: 1) formal
appraisals in full compliance with the U.S. Department of Justice
standards that were just revised in 2000; 2) all required threatened
and endangered species, cultural and historic resource, hazardous
materials, and wetlands and floodplains analyses; and 3) traditional
title reviews and analyses, which must be approved by the Forest
Service. In addition, if the Forest Service determines that it cannot
give us certain lands because they have values protected by Federal law
that cannot be mitigated, such as T&E species, or uncommon cultural
artifacts or sites, the lands in question will drop out of the
exchange. So, there is no danger that the United States will lose lands
with unique resources. And, as I have already mentioned, we, the Forest
Service, and the Arizona Department of Fish and Game believe that the
lands the Forest Service will acquire have much better environmental
and recreational values than the lands the Forest Service will give up.
Finally, as requested by several conservation organizations, the bill
contains language in Section 7 to insure that the land acquired by the
Forest Service will be permanently managed to maintain its existing
natural character and values
We have put together a very broad coalition supporting this trade.
We now have the support of every city that is a part of the trade, all
of the local chambers of commerce, The Arizona Department of Game and
Fish, many hunter and sportsmen groups, and many influential
environmental leaders in Northern Arizona.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing on a matter
that is of utmost importance to my family, and to the people and
communities of Arizona. I wish that the economics of ranching were
better than they are, that Arizona had not grown as it has, and that we
could have afforded to maintain the status quo but that is not the
reality of the situation today. So, I believe this exchange is in the
best interest not only of my family but also of the land and people of
Arizona.
More than twenty five years ago my father promised the Forest
Service that he would give them an opportunity to do a land exchange
before he developed the land on our ranch. This is that opportunity.
That concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any
questions the Subcommittee might have.
______
[Maps attached to Mr. Ruskin's statement follow; additional
attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2315.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2315.002
Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Ruskin, we thank you very much for that
testimony.
Mr. Thompson, I have several questions concerning the
zoning ordinances you mentioned in your testimony. I have right
here a copy of the Planning and Zoning Ordinance of Camp Verde
from the Yavapai County website. If you could, please, sir, I
would like to have you read the highlighted portion at the
bottom of the page. It comes from Section 109(d)(3) and
subsection (A). You can read it. It is highlighted right down
at the bottom of that page there, Section 109(d)(3), Part (A).
Mr. Thompson. Where it says ``District Provisions?''
Mr. Hayworth. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Thompson. OK. (A), it says ``Notwithstanding any other
provision of this ordinance, including any density designation,
no lot or parcel zoned RCU shall have a density less than two
acres.''
Mr. Hayworth. Thank you. I think that is important to get
in the record because we need to move from there. As your
testimony states, certain so-called market-based indicators
suggest that the zoning and density might be changed in the
future and would be much higher than that, perhaps four to six
units per acre.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but in the testimony you
have presented for the record, your market-based indicators
suggest that the zoning in Camp Verde will be changed by the
town council to be 8 to 12 times more than under current
zoning, and 12 to 18 times higher in Cottonwood-Clarkdale. So
it seems you are assuming that both town councils will engage
in a massive up-zoning of the lands after they have privatized.
I guess there are several questions innate in this. No. 1,
why would the towns do that? How can you predict what any town
government is likely to do in the future? And as you ponder
that, allow me to read from the Uniform Appraisals Standards
for Federal Land Acquisitions, which are the appraisal
standards required for all Forest Service land transactions and
which were recently updated by the Department of Justice in
December of 2000.
Let me quote for you: ``Under no circumstances can a
property be valued as if it were already zoned for a higher
use. The property must be valued only in light of the
probability of obtaining a rezoning,'' end of quote.
So the question at this juncture is have you consulted with
the towns of Camp Verde and Clarkdale as to whether they might
change the zoning in the future?
Mr. Thompson. I assume that we have, but I don't know that
for sure.
Mr. Hayworth. So to the best of your knowledge, you don't
know?
Mr. Thompson. That is true.
Mr. Hayworth. But there is an assumption. The Chair would
ask if you can review written correspondence and get back to
us. I think that is important.
Have they given you any indication that they might up-zone
the lands in question?
Mr. Thompson. I don't know that for sure.
Mr. Hayworth. OK.
Mr. Thompson. We can get back to you with a definite answer
to the question.
Mr. Hayworth. You may be familiar with the Growing Smarter
Initiative which changed the Arizona zoning law in 1998 and
2000 and made it much more difficult to do these up-zonings.
Are you familiar with that?
Mr. Thompson. Generally.
Mr. Hayworth. Well, I can tell you those of us in
representative jobs hear a lot about it. Under that initiative,
if an up-zoning of land is to occur after the year 2000, the
local government must not only change the zoning, but must
first change the town's general plan to allow the up-zoning, or
the town must approve the up-zoning by a two-thirds vote or
super-majority.
Is there anything that gives you an indication that the
towns of Camp Verde and Clarkdale are willing to do that?
Mr. Thompson. Well, Mr. Chairman, the administration is not
opposed to the concept of these controls and declarations. It
is simply the fact that those declarations have the effect of
devaluing the Federal land. So it is not the declarations that
are of concern.
Mr. Hayworth. Well, as we go through the records and take a
look at the safeguards--and I understand the dynamism of
federalism, if you will, and I can understand the viewpoint
from the administration. But what we do in this role as
constitutional officers is try to reconcile the interests of
the Federal Government with the people of the State with whom
we are dealing.
As I understand it, the town of Camp Verde--the town
council says they have agreed with the Yavapai Ranch to down-
zone about one-third of the land it will acquire in the
exchange to an open-space category. So based on the letter I
have received from Camp Verde, it sounds like they are
contemplating a down-zoning, not going in the other direction.
Let me ask Mr. Gioia if he would support a major up-zoning
in Camp Verde as a city council member.
Mr. Gioia. As is likely evident by my appearance here
today, I personally would not. However, the consequences of the
political turmoil that have been caused by this trade--there
have been recalls, swings in the balance of majority/minority
repeatedly in the past few years since the introduction of this
trade. And I am confident that given the political atmosphere
of the week, a large-scale change in densities on that land is
attainable, depending on the majority hearing that issue at
that time.
Mr. Hayworth. And, Mr. Gioia, as you know, being an elected
official, although you come here in a private capacity, it is
impossible with any certainty to predict the outcome of city
council votes or going to initiatives. That is the reason we
have elections. That is why the first Tuesday following the
first Monday, all of our names will appear on a ballot, and
with no certainty can we predict that we will return.
My point is that it seems that we are getting some very
mixed signals, to say the least, from different folks in
different roles here and I wanted to bring that up as part of
the testimony today.
The Chair thanks the indulgence of other Members. Are there
any questions for the panel?
The gentleman from Washington State.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
My first question is the meaning of the word ``Yavapai.''
Does it have a meaning, or does anybody know?
Mr. Ruskin?
Mr. Ruskin. In the Indian languages of northern Arizona,
``pai'' means ``people.'' So we have many people, the
Havasupai, the people of the Havasu. ``Yava'' was their word
for the area north and east of where I am. The county is named
Yavapai and our ranch, one of the traditional ranches in
Yavapai County, has the name. It also appears in the name of
two of our Yavapai county Indian tribes, the Yavapais of
Prescott and the Yavapai Apaches of Camp Verde, sir.
Mr. Inslee. Great. Now, on more prosaic topics, I am sorry
my questions may express a lack of sophistication on this
issue. So I apologize, but I am trying to make sure I
understand it.
As I understand it, some local government agency has
imposed some land use restrictions that may or may not affect
the Federal lands subject to the transfer. Is that right, Mr.
Thompson, generally?
Mr. Thompson. Yes. It is our view that the declarations
basically, if imposed on the value of the Federal property
before the exchange, would have the effect of devaluing the
Federal property.
Mr. Inslee. Right, and which--
Mr. Thompson. And it is our position that imposing those
would, in essence, ask the American public to absorb that
market value effect on those conditions.
Mr. Inslee. And which agency, what local agency has imposed
this?
Mr. Thompson. It is an agreement between the ranch and the
Salt River Project.
Mr. Inslee. The what?
Mr. Thompson. Salt River.
Mr. Inslee. Salt River. Is that an irrigation district, or
what is that?
Mr. Thompson. A water control organization.
Mr. Inslee. It is a water control organization. Does that
water control organization have the right under their charter
to impose those restrictions on that property now held by the
Federal Government?
Mr. Thompson. As I understand, the declaration is between
the two. The Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture, was
not involved in those discussions.
Mr. Inslee. What I am trying to figure out is how can this
agency impose a legal restriction on the use of Federal
property without the permission of the owner of the property or
the power under the local legislation to simply impose a
restriction. Can someone explain that to me?
Mr. Thompson. Well, it doesn't impose it on the Federal
property as it is. It would be ultimately when it became
private property.
Mr. Inslee. I see, OK, so it is a covenant with the
prospective purchaser of the property. Is that correct, Mr.
Ruskin? Do I have that right?
Mr. Ruskin. Sir, the Salt River Project is a State agency,
a water district of the State of Arizona. They are the
guardians, in effect, or the enforcers of the agreement. As I
understand the legislation, sir, we are required to sign this
agreement with the Salt River Project representing the State,
which limits how much water can be used on the property.
Mr. Inslee. Would the Federal Government be subject to that
same requirement as the owner of the property?
Let me give you an example. If the Federal Government
wanted to build a camp there and put in ten residences per
acre, which would be more than this restriction, whatever
number that is, could the Salt River irrigation project stop
them from doing that without Federal consent?
Mr. Ruskin. Sir, I am, as you know, a rancher, not an
attorney, but my impression is that the Federal Government may
give away land subject to any number of encumbrances. They
could retain the mineral rights. In this case, they are
requiring that all of the water use not be transferred which
they now hold. So they are not bound by them now, but they
certainly can give the land away in stages or with
encumbrances.
Mr. Inslee. But right now--and we will ask other people
this question, too, but right now, could the Salt River agency
impose this restriction on the Federal land without the Federal
Government's permission? Do you know?
Mr. Ruskin. I do not, sir.
Mr. Inslee. I think that is kind of a critical question, at
least in my judgment, and the reason, it seems to me, at least
in my view--and I am open to thoughts on this because I haven't
thought through this--if a local government imposes a land use
restriction on land that is going to be transferred, in my
book, that should be part of the appraisal process because you
need to be subject to whatever land use restrictions apply.
However, if the prospective purchaser, if you will, simply
enters into an agreement, that is a much more difficult
situation for me because then what Mr. Thompson says is the
Federal Government is absorbing the diminution of value because
of essentially a private agreement, if you will, between an
agency and a private owner. That is a different issue.
So, Mr. Ruskin, can you tell me why did you make that
covenant with the Salt River agency?
Mr. Ruskin. Because we were told to do so by the
legislation itself and by our individual congressional
delegation. In my discussions with our congressional members
from Arizona, other than Mr. Colby's office--his district comes
nowhere near this area--virtually every other Congressman and
Senator believed that for this land to be transferred, the
Federal Government needed to impose limitations on growth in
the Verde Valley and how much water could be used in order to
protect the Verde River.
This was not something in any sense that I thought up, sir.
We were told to do it, and the legislation says in no uncertain
terms, before this transfer, you shall sign this covenant.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Gallegly?
Ms. McCollum?
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I am trying to figure a couple
things out. One is on your hand-outs--it is not really
numbered; it is to the council member. It is the town of Camp
Verde. It is on here. I can't give you a page. I am sorry.
Anyway, you have in here ``The Forest Service must give full
consideration that the exchange,'' and it goes on and on. And
then you go on to say, ``This increases the urban/forest
interface and will exacerbate management problems.''
So my question to the Forest Service is, are we, by going
forward with this land exchange, creating more urban/forest
interface, to your knowledge? Or if you don't have the
information, could you get back to the Committee?
Mr. Thompson. What are you reading from there? I am sorry.
Ms. McCollum. I am reading from a letter to Senator John
McCain, dated July 23, from the town of Camp Verde, on the
second page, second from the bottom paragraph, second to the
last sentence, and I am quoting the letter: ``This increases
urban/forest interface and will exacerbate management
problems.''
Mr. Thompson. I don't have the exact parameter of interface
that would be created or not created. Let me just say that from
the standpoint that we have 86 parcels of private land that
would be consolidated and there would be 3 parcels that would
remain after the exchange, in our view, that land exchange is
certainly in the public's interest to reduce the number of
interspersed parcels. So the urban interface--
Ms. McCollum. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chair, the reason I
bring this up is I have been listening to the gentlemen from
the West loud and clear and my concern and what I would like
more information on when we are doing these exchanges is
exactly to this point. I don't want to do anything that
increases urban/forest interface exchanges because we have
enough problems now with the budget that we have going on.
Mr. Chair, my next question--and I don't know if the Forest
Service can answer this or not--is the water issues. Is the
land that the Forest Service is exchanging out, is that where
the primary recharge of the water occurs? Are you giving up
recharge areas for water?
Mr. Thompson. That area that is being exchanged is the
checkerboard area, so it is every other section. I think our
sections are all the even sections and the private sections are
the odd sections. So it is all the same area where the major
part of the exchange is occurring.
Ms. McCollum. I asked a question. Do you know if the
primary exchange is where the water recharge takes place?
Mr. Thompson. My understanding is, yes, that is the case. I
mean, it is a very large area.
Ms. McCollum. So we are exchanging--I don't know if you are
answering my question or not. I don't think you can.
To the council member and to both gentlemen who are very
familiar with the area, I understand that there is a drought
and from a ranching perspective the Federal Government has
limited the amount of water that you can use.
Can you tell from an urban responsibility as a council
member your responsibility and the area's responsibility in
making sure there is enough potable water for the residents
that are currently there?
Mr. Gioia. As my responsibility in the area--and I have
taken that to great length in many intergovernmental groups and
worked with USGS--there is not only a drought, but a depletion.
We are living in a desert. It happens to be an emerald green
oasis in the desert, but that has largely to do with surface
water.
The question of Salt River Project having any dictation
over the area of the exchange in the Camp Verde and Clarkdale
area--the Department of Water Resources was given a map of the
holocene alluvium. That is where the adjudication claim, or
what SPR, Salt River Project, calls sub-flow--it is the water
that seeps into the sand and gravel from the river.
They are claiming that water is part of surface water
rights. That area is outside of these trade parcels. The trade
parcel questions are about groundwater. SRP does not lay claim,
as I understand from the map, and I am on the adjudication
Subcommittee for the Verde Valley, legal Subcommittee for the
Verde Valley.
As I understand it, dictation by SRP of lands that are not
even in question for adjudication is basically a farce. It is a
facade, and I thank those involved for making an attempt to
deal with our grave problem of a lack of water supply in the
Verde Valley. However, this particular attempt, these
covenants, allow any water company created for or supplying to
that area to circumvent these covenants. They dissolve.
It allows the proponent and the SRP to, upon mutual
agreement, dissolve these covenants. There are several ways
that these covenants can just disappear. So although I agree we
need certain measures to protect the minimal water sources that
we have, SRP being involved in writing these covenants I don't
feel is of any great strength to our efforts to protect our
water source, our very meager water source.
Mr. Ruskin. May I respond?
Ms. McCollum. Well, that is up to the Chair.
Mr. Hayworth. Oh, certainly, please.
Mr. Ruskin. I would not in any way pass myself off as a
water expert. Clearly, the knowledgeable people on the scene in
the Forest Service and in SRP--if you like them or not, they
are the State water district--believe that this trade as it is
constituted is an enormous saving of water because it severely
reduces the amount of land for development on the ranch, which
as it stands is one of the major contributors to the Verde
River. It is the watershed where the rainfall flows off and
replenishes the water supply that becomes the Verde River.
So they believe that if you decrease the amount of land for
development up above the head waters of the Verde, it would be
a huge gain in water as long as the small amount of land in the
Verde Valley itself is not allowed to use a large amount of
water, and this is what they have done.
It is like so much else in this trade, ma'am, a compromise.
You have heard from the Forest Service saying too strict
development on this land and it hurts our value. You have heard
Mr. Gioia say these are worthless; they are not nearly strong
enough.
As a layman, all I can tell you is the Forest Service and
the experts involved believe that the trade as it is
constituted would be a savings in water.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, if I could, just a follow on that.
Mr. Hayworth. Sure, go ahead.
Ms. McCollum. So there are restrictions on the water use
and if it goes into your use for ranching, it doesn't have the
high-impact development. What is the guarantee to the
municipalities, to the State, to the Federal Government that
when the times comes that your family no longer wants to be
involved in ranching that, in fact, that land not be plotted,
subdivided and put into a development? Is there a restriction
on you being able to do that? Does it revert back? What
happens?
Mr. Ruskin. Well, we are talking about two different pieces
of land, ma'am. On the ranch itself, if you will look at that
second map I gave you, the land that we block up we certainly
have the option to develop in future years.
Ms. McCollum. I agree with you.
Mr. Ruskin. But it is only a little more than a quarter of
our existing land. So three-quarters, and the higher-elevation
three-quarters, the attractive three-quarters or two-thirds,
whatever it is, goes to the Forest Service and is theirs
permanently.
So, yes, we can develop what is left, but it is a much
smaller piece. And, again, think of the numbers. We are giving
the Forest Service 35,000 acres on the ranch. We get back
15,000, more or less. So there is a net change of about 20,000
acres, 20,000 acres less of private land above the head waters
of the Verde. In the Verde Valley, we receive in the
neighborhood of 3,000 acres, and on that 3,000 acres there are
very strong limits on how much water can be used.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, coming from a State with a lot of
water and you coming from a State with little water, water is
important no matter where you live.
Mr. Hayworth. Well, that is certainly true.
Ms. McCollum. And I don't feel that I have enough
information to understand how the hydrology of all of this
works. But I do have a parliamentary question for you, Mr.
Chair.
Is this packet of information from--is it Gioia? Am I
saying your name right?
Mr. Gioia. Gioia.
Ms. McCollum. Gioia. Excuse me, sir.
Mr. Gioia. Thank you.
Ms. McCollum. Is this in for the record?
Mr. Hayworth. Oh, yes, I have included--everything he
brought for testimony has been included in the record.
Ms. McCollum. So the statement in here that I referenced
from the letter that was sent to Senator McCain is part of the
record?
Mr. Hayworth. Yes, and we made new letters that he brought
today, along with petition signatures, part of the record as
well.
Ms. McCollum. And, Mr. Chair, I think it would be
interesting for you and I to find out if we are, in fact,
having the Forest Service go back and look to see if we are
increasing the amount of urban interface.
Mr. Hayworth. To that point--and I thank the gentlelady for
her question--it seems the conundrum is this: This is the
typical checkerboard, we call it in the West, and under the
proposed exchange the land holdings are consolidated and thus
the exchange.
Living in Arizona and seeing the interest, if we take what
is checkerboarded now, I think under the definition of
interface you have more of the situation there now. But suppose
we don't have any land exchange and things are free to develop
as they--a family turns to development after not getting the
exchange done.
It seems to me you are going to have much greater interface
either with maintaining the current situation or seeing these
lands subdivided into private ownership because of the
challenge we are dealing with right there. Indeed, Arizona has
adopted Growing Smarter initiatives to try and work with this.
Part and parcel of what happens so often in the West,
because so much of our land is under Federal control--when we
try to work these exchanges, we are seeing more and more
exchanges coming for environmental and recreational concerns to
get land in the hands of the Federal Government, to consolidate
and, in fact, eliminate the notion of interface.
But that is my perception of the situation and, of course,
before we dismiss the panel I know we have a couple of more
questions. We will be happy to have a round two. And, of
course, all those who testify to us have 10 days to get back to
us in writing if we have some specific concerns for them where
they can follow up on that.
Let me offer a question. I know my friend from Washington
State may have questions and I am not sure if the gentleman
from California does.
Mr. Ruskin, what assurances do you have that you will pass
the lands that you have acquired in Williams and Flagstaff
through to the communities for their airport expansion and
other municipal uses? What would happen if you tried to keep
them for yourself?
Mr. Ruskin. Well, if you look at how the legislation is
written, sir, on these lands that are to be passed through, if
we do not have fixed, firm agreements before the legislation
closes with the parties that would acquire them, the current
lease-holders, we have the right to ask the Forest Service to
delete them from the trade. There is no way in the world my
family wishes to be a landlord for sewage plants, water
treatment plants, kids' summer camps and the like.
Clearly, they are currently zoned for their current use,
water plants, and in private hands they would be absolutely
useless, which is why under no circumstances would we indeed
accept them.
Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, Mr. Ruskin.
Mr. Gioia, the Chair would note that we have had a chance
to meet informally and we thank you for coming into the formal
setting to offer your testimony. I want to compliment you on
what are obviously sincere and heartfelt beliefs about future
land and water use in your valley. You have spent a great deal
of time both as an elected official and a volunteer with many
organizations working on matters of great importance to your
future and the future of your community.
We may disagree on some statements here about the way you
perceive the bill. I do know this: Whatever the future holds,
and should H.R. 5513 become law, I fully expect that you will
remain a watchdog on land and water issues in the Verde Valley,
and for that you have my respect and gratitude.
Mr. Gioia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, Mr. Gioia.
The gentleman from Washington State had a couple of
questions.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. Gioia, is the Federal land that is subject to the
transfer in a city jurisdiction or a county, or who would
typically be doing land use decisionmaking in there if it
wasn't private property?
Mr. Gioia. The Camp Verde portion borders on the Camp Verde
town limits and it is in the county. The Clarkdale is written
as Cottonwood portion. However, Clarkdale as extended its
borders to annex this particular land. The last Clarkdale
council was vehemently opposed to this and as a matter of
restricting growth on that land, they annexed that land.
Mr. Inslee. So if this land was now private property, in
part the county could be imposing land use restrictions, one of
the cities, then?
Mr. Gioia. Correct. The Camp Verde portion is only in small
part within the jurisdiction of Camp Verde.
Mr. Inslee. So if the Federal land was in private hands
today, what restrictions would there be by county or city
ordinance? Can you tell us? Can you predict, can you suggest
what would happen?
I guess the real question is would the restrictions imposed
by this private covenant be reflected in a public restriction
when and if they are in private hands?
Mr. Gioia. I actually also work for the county as co-
chairman of the Yavapai County Water Advisory Board, and we
deliberate and investigate suggestions for the county board of
supervisors. We have a good ear in County Supervisor Chip
Davis, who represents the Verde Valley, and I am afraid often
the balance is two to one.
So questions of development in that area would again be
unpredictable. Restrictions on water--the Yavapai Water
Advisory Board has been working on a regional water management
plan and we are still 2 1/2, 3 years out with our scientific
information.
Mr. Inslee. Mr. Ruskin, the dilemma, it seems to me, is you
sign a covenant that reduces the value of the Federal property,
but the covenant is something that is only temporary that the
parties can extinguish at a later date. And I am not sure about
the public interest in doing it. I obviously don't know the
circumstances of it.
Have you considered some type of agreement with the county
and/or city, once it goes into private ownership, to agree to a
public restriction? You could then tell the Federal Government
that immediately when it goes into private hands it will be
subject to a public restriction and therefore should be valued
accordingly. Is there any problem doing that if you have some
of us demonstrating concern about reducing the value because of
this private covenant?
Mr. Ruskin. Sir, to my knowledge, the water restrictions
proposed were based on and calculated on the existing county
and city zoning, which is in Camp Verde and Yavapai County a
house per two acres, as the Chairman had said, and in Clarkdale
a house per three acres. The water figures are predicated on
those. So the idea was clearly we are never going to go for
higher zoning. That is what it is. That is all the water there
is.
Yes, at their pleasure, the Salt River Project can change
it, but any change they make is not going to be for greater
water use on these parcels. Their job is to preserve water
flowing downstream into the Salt River Valley.
So, yes, we would be glad to in any way further strengthen
those. Such is the power and vigilance of the Salt River
Project in Arizona, and I don't think any rational rancher or
businessman in Arizona would ever make plans on changing these.
That is why the Salt River Project was left the enforcer of the
agreement by, I think, the congressional delegation.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. Hayworth. I thank the gentleman from Washington State.
I would like to thank the witnesses for their insights and
thank the Members for their questions. The Members may have
additional questions for the witnesses, and we would ask that
you please respond to those in writing. The hearing record will
be held open for 10 days for these responses.
So, thanks to all three of you gentlemen, especially those
who made the hardship duty of coming back to Washington from
beautiful Arizona.
Tony, Fred, thank you. Tom, as always, from the Forest
Service, we thank you for your comments as well.H.R. 5102 and
H.R. 5185
Mr. Hayworth. Now, it is my honor to introduce witnesses
for H.R. 5102 and 5185. On panel two, we have got our good
friend from California who joins us on the dais here,
Congressman Elton Gallegly, of the 23rd District of that great
State. We hope that Congressman Gibbons might be able to join
us. We know that we have his statement for the record. He is
from the 2nd District of Nevada.
Mr. Larry Hamilton, the Director of Fire and Aviation of
the Bureau of Land Management; the aforementioned Mr. Thompson
from the National Forest System, who is accompanied by Jerry
Williams, Director of Fire and Aviation of the U.S. Forest
Service; and Mr. Roy Resavage, the President of Helicopter
Association International.
Roy, I hope I didn't totally butcher your name, but the
Chair always is happy to be corrected at the important
junctures in the record.
With that in mind, let me first turn to the gentleman from
California, Mr. Gallegly, for any statement he might wish to
make.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELTON GALLEGLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really
appreciate the opportunity to discuss my legislation, the
Wildfire Response Enhancement Act, which is so important to the
health and safety of fire-risk communities.
Mr. Chairman, in 1993, as wildfires ravaged across my
district, bureaucratic foul-ups kept Air National Guard
firefighting tankers on the tarmac for crucial hours as the
fires advanced on several communities. Even though Air Guard
personnel were ready to go, U.S. Forest Service officials
refused to give the go-ahead because of the arcane Depression-
era Economy Act.
As you know, the Act restricts the use of Federal personnel
and resources until all commercially available resources have
been deployed. When time matters and lives and property are
endangered, this is totally unacceptable. That is why I
originally introduced the legislation in the 103rd Congress to
exempt firefighting efforts from the Economy Act.
In response to this year's record wildfires and two tragic
commercial C-130 tanker crashes, I have reintroduced this
legislation. Under my bill, the Secretaries of Interior and
Agriculture may call on firefighting resources if they make a
determination that those resources are necessary to properly
respond to a wildfire in a timely and effective manner.
My legislation's intent is not to harm the public safety
commercial aircraft industry, but rather to encourage the
departments to respond quickly to wildfires using the most
available and advanced equipment, even though all commercial
aircraft may not have been deployed.
Mr. Chairman, the time for changing the statute is very
clear. In emergency situations, we can no longer rely solely on
the aging fleet of commercially owned public safety aircraft,
especially when more advanced planes and resources are more
readily available.
As stated by a recent L.A. Times article entitled ``The
Test of Fire for Aging Aircraft,'' the commercially operated
planes are unlike anything else for the public safety. One
Forest Service employee was quoted saying the commercial fleet
was a flying museum. The article also stated that some planes
have gun turrets and cracked wood floors from World War II and
the Korean service. Most importantly, the editor of Aviation
Week magazine was quoted as saying the current system is
broken, the time has come to throw out the statutes.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that this article be made a part
of the record.
Mr. Hayworth. Without objection, so ordered.
[The article has been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
Mr. Gallegly. In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
add to the record a letter from Major General Paul Monroe,
Adjutant General of the California National Guard, supporting
the legislation.
Mr. Hayworth. Without objection.
[The letter has been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to saving
people's lives and property, we can't afford to bench our best
and most available firefighting resources. I urge that this
bill be given an opportunity to be considered before the
Resources Committee in the near future.
Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very, very
important issue, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallegly follows:]
Statement of Hon. Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
Thank you Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to discuss my
legislation, the Wildfire Response Enhancement Act, which is so
important to the health and safety of fire-risk communities.
Mr. Chairman, in 1993 as wildfires ravaged across my district,
bureaucratic foul-ups kept Air National Guard firefighting tankers on
the tarmac for crucial hours as the fires advanced on several
communities. Even though Air Guard personnel were ready to go, U.S.
Forest Service officials refused to give the go-ahead because of the
arcane Depression-era Economy Act. As you know, the Act restricts the
activation of federal personnel and resources until all commercially
available resources have been deployed. When time matters and lives and
property are endangered, this is unacceptable.
That is why I originally introduced legislation in the 103rd
Congress to exempt firefighting efforts from the Economy Act. In
response to this year's record wildfires and two tragic commercial C-
130 tanker crashes, I have reintroduced this legislation. Under my
bill, the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture may call on
firefighting resources if they make a determination that those
resources are necessary to properly respond to a wildfire in a timely
and effective manner. My legislation's intent is not to harm the public
safety commercial aircraft industry, but rather to encourage the
departments to respond quickly to wildfires using the most available
and advanced equipment, even though all commercial aircraft are not
deployed.
Mr. Chairman, the time for changing this statute is clear. In
emergency situations, we can no longer rely solely on the aging fleet
of commercially owned public safety aircraft, especially when more
advanced planes and resources are more readily available. As stated by
a recent LA Times article titled ``Test of Fire for Aging Aircraft,''
the commercially operated planes are unlike anything else used for
public safety. One Forest Service employee was quoted as saying the
commercial fleet was a ``Flying Museum.'' The article also stated that
some planes still have gun turrets and cracked wood flooring from World
War II and Korean service. Most importantly, the editor of Aviation
Week Magazine was quoted as saying ``The current system is broken . .
.the time has come to throw out the statutes.'' Mr. Chairman, I would
ask that this article be allowed into the record.
In addition, I would also like to add into the record a letter from
Major General Paul Monroe, Adjutant General of the California National
Guard, supporting my legislation.
Mr. Chairman, when it comes to saving people's lives and property,
we can not afford to bench our best and most available firefighting
resources. I urge that this bill be given an opportunity to be
considered before the Resources Committee in the near future. Again, I
thank the Chairman.
______
Mr. Hayworth. We thank the gentleman from California.
We would turn now to those who join us dealing with some
scheduling situations. We understand that Mr. Hamilton,
Director of Fire and Aviation from the Bureau of Land
Management, would like to proceed.
Mr. Hamilton, we are happy to hear your testimony.
STATEMENT OF LARRY HAMILTON, DIRECTOR OF FIRE AND AVIATION,
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY LYNN FINDLEY,
MANAGER, NATIONAL AVIATION OFFICE, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Hamilton. Good afternoon, Chairman Hayworth and members
of the Committee. I am Larry Hamilton, Director of Fire and
Aviation for the Bureau of Land Management. With me today is
Lynn Findley, who is Manager of the BLM's National Aviation
Office, and we appreciate the opportunity to meet with you
today to discuss H.R. 5102 and H.R. 5185, legislation
addressing our acquisition of important aircraft goods and
services needed to fight wildland fires. I want to thank the
Committee for its support of the Department's ongoing efforts
to continuously improve our wildland firefighting capabilities.
As the members of the Committee know, the 2002 wildland
fire season has been long and challenging. It began earlier
than usual in the Southwest and southern Rockies, months ahead
of schedule. To date, over 6.67 million acres have burned, the
result of numerous conditions, including record severe drought
in many parts of the country.
Despite demanding, dangerous conditions, I am pleased to
report that our firefighters have been very successful this
season. With funding from Congress which the Department of the
Interior agencies used to hire and train additional
firefighters, purchase additional engines, and contract for
additional helicopters, our firefighters have been more
effective than ever, controlling over 99 percent of all fires
on initial attack.
Aviation support is among the most heavily relied upon
support we receive in our efforts to fight wildfires,
especially during this catastrophic fire season. In many
instances, aircraft assistance can and does make a critical
difference in controlling a fire upon initial attack. Aircraft
are essential in protecting homes and other valuable resources
because the water and fire retardant they release reduce the
intensity of fire, enabling ground crews to build fire lines
when it would otherwise be too hot and dangerous to do so.
Since 2000, increasing demands for specialized aviation
resources have resulted in shortages in some categories,
particularly large air tankers and helicopters for fire
suppression missions, including direct attack, firefighter
delivery to remote areas, and aerial resupply.
In 2002, three crashes within the federally contracted
aircraft industry involving aircraft engaged in wildland
firefighting work, one in California and two in Colorado,
caused even further shortages in aerial resources by grounding
the types of aircraft involved while investigations proceeded
to determine whether the causes of those crashes were
attributable to the aircraft.
The availability of National Guard and Reserve aircraft
fitted with the Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System filled
some of the void created by those losses and were of
inestimable value in mitigating the shortages. In the wake of
these terrible tragedies, a joint blue ribbon panel has been
established by the USDA Forest Service and the Department of
the Interior to review, among other things, safety management
in our aviation program. The panel is expected to release its
report by mid-November 2002.
The contributions of civilian contractors of both air
tankers and helicopters are significant. Private industry
provides the core of our airborne capability and has always
been up to the task. However, the air tanker industry will be
seriously challenged to continue uninterrupted the level of
service needed by the Department.
Newer-generation aircraft are not readily available and
will not be for some time., and the continued service of some
existing air tankers is in question. While the innovativeness
of these operators will eventually provide solutions, at least
in the immediate future there will continue to be a need for
additional capacity, such as that which might be provided by
the National Guard and Reserve MAFFS aircraft, helicopters,
crews, and support personnel.
H.R. 5102 provides an exemption to Section 1535(a)(4) of
Title 31 of the United States Code, which states that prior to
placing an order for goods or services within the same or
another Federal Agency, the head of the Federal agency must
decide that the ordered goods or services cannot be provided by
contract as conveniently or cheaply as a commercial enterprise.
We appreciate the sentiment underlying H.R. 5102 and
similar type changes that would be made by H.R. 5185, which is
to facilitate the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture's
access to the full range of available firefighting resources,
including those in the public sector. However, we believe that
sufficient flexibility currently exists under the Economy Act
to achieve the objectives of this legislation, and therefore we
cannot support these bills.
We will continue to examine ways to ensure that we have
timely access to additional private and public sector resources
where current contracts or inter-service support providers are
already operating at full capacity or the ability of existing
contractors or inter-service support providers to respond in a
life-threatening or significant loss of property situation is
in question.
We want to thank the Committee for its ongoing support of
our wildland firefighting efforts. Private industry has been
and will continue to be a valuable part of our efforts to fight
wildland fire. However, in certain emergency situations we have
augmented this capacity with cost-effective public resources.
I would be glad to answer any questions that the Committee
may have for me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamilton follows:]
Statement of Larry Hamilton, Director of Fire and Aviation, Bureau of
Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good Morning Chairman McInnis and Members of the Committee. I am
Larry Hamilton, Director of Fire and Aviation for the Bureau of Land
Management. With me today is Lynn Findley, Manager of the BLM's
National Aviation Office. I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you
today to discuss H.R. 5102 and H.R. 5185, legislation addressing our
acquisition of important aircraft, goods and services needed to fight
wildland fires. I want to thank the Committee for its support of the
Department's ongoing efforts to continuously improve our wildland
firefighting capabilities.
As members of the Committee know, the 2002 wildland fire season has
been long and challenging. It began earlier than usual, in the
Southwest and Southern Rockies, months ahead of schedule. To date, over
6.67 million acres have burned, the result of numerous conditions,
including record, severe drought in many parts of the country.
Despite demanding, dangerous conditions, I am pleased to report
that our firefighters have been very successful this season. With
funding from Congress which the Department of the Interior agencies
used to hire and train additional firefighters, and purchase additional
engines and contract for additional helicopters, our firefighters have
been more effective than ever, controlling over 99% of all fires on
initial attack.
Aviation support is among the most heavily relied upon support we
receive in our efforts to fight wildfires, especially during this
catastrophic fire season. In many instances, aircraft assistance can
and does make a critical difference in controlling a fire upon initial
attack. Aircraft are essential in protecting homes and other valuable
resources because the water and fire retardant they release reduce the
intensity of fire, enabling ground crews to build fire lines when it
would otherwise be too hot and dangerous to do so.
Since 2000, increasing demands for specialized aviation resources
have resulted in shortages in some categories, particularly large
airtankers and helicopters capable of fire suppression missions,
including direct attack, firefighter delivery to remote areas and
aerial resupply. In 2002, three crashes within the Federally contracted
aircraft industry involving aircraft engaged in wildland fire fighting
work, one in California and two in Colorado, caused even further
shortages in aerial resources by grounding the types of aircraft
involved while investigations proceeded to determine whether the causes
of those crashes were attributable to the aircraft. The availability of
National Guard and Reserve aircraft fitted with Modular Airborne Fire
Fighting System (MAFFS) filled some of the void created by these losses
and were of inestimable value in mitigating the shortages. In the wake
of these terrible tragedies, a joint Blue Ribbon Panel has been
established by the USDA Forest Service and the Department of the
Interior, to review, among other things, safety management in our
aviation program. The panel is expected to release its report by mid-
November, 2002.
The contributions of civilian contractors of both airtankers and
helicopters are significant. Private industry provides the core of our
airborne capability and has always been up to the task. However, the
airtanker industry will be seriously challenged to continue
uninterrupted the level of service needed by the Department. Newer
generation aircraft are not readily available and will not be for some
time, and the continued service of some existing air tankers is in
question. While the innovativeness of these operators will eventually
provide solutions, at least in the immediate future, there will
continue to be a need for additional capacity, such as that which might
be provided by the National Guard and Reserve MAFFS aircraft,
helicopters, crews, and support personnel.
H.R. 5102 provides an exemption to Section 1535 (a)(4) of Title 31
of the United States Codes which states that prior to placing an order
for goods or services within the same or another Federal agency, the
head of the Federal agency must decide that the ordered goods or
services cannot be provided by contract as conveniently or cheaply by a
commercial enterprise. We appreciate the sentiment underlying H.R.
5102, and similar type changes that would be made by H.R. 5185, which
is to facilitate the Departments of Interior and Agriculture's access
to the full range of available firefighting resources--including those
in the public sector. However, we believe that sufficient flexibility
currently exists under the Economy Act to achieve the objectives of
this legislation and, therefore, we cannot support these bills. We will
continue to examine ways to ensure that we have timely access to
additional private and public sector resources where current contracts
or inter-service support providers (i.e., public providers) are already
operating at full capacity or the ability of existing contractors or
inter-service support providers to respond in a life threatening or
significant loss of property situation is in question.
We thank the Committee for its ongoing support of our wildland
firefighting efforts. Private industry has been and will continue to be
a valuable part of our efforts to fight wildland fire. However, in
certain emergency situations, we have augmented this capacity with
cost-effective public resources. As stated earlier, we will continue to
examine ways to ensure that we have timely access to additional private
and public sector resources needed to fight wildland fires. We
appreciate the continued bipartisan support we have received from the
Congress, and we look forward to working with you as we improve the
processes used to support our firefighting efforts.
I will be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have for
me.
______
Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Hamilton, we thank you for the testimony.
The aforementioned Mr. Thompson, who joined us on the first
panel, thanks for sticking around. We look forward to your
testimony now.
STATEMENT OF TOM THOMPSON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY JERRY WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR OF FIRE
AND AVIATION, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ON H.R. 5102 AND H.R. 5185
Mr. Thompson. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this
opportunity to appear before you today. I am Tom Thompson,
Deputy Chief of the National Forest System. With me is Jerry
Williams, who is the Director of Fire and Aviation Management
for the Forest Service.
I would like to present the administration's views on H.R.
5102, the Wildfire Response Act of 2002, and 5185, which is the
Wildfire Response Enhancement Act. Before discussing these
bills, I would like to take a few moments to update you on the
status of our aviation program.
As you are well aware, this has been an unusual fire
season. Not only have we had and seen a dramatic increase in
fire intensity and loss of resources, but because of the loss
of human life this has been an extremely tragic year for our
aviation firefighting program.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the
Department of the Interior administer a challenging aviation
program to support the national firefighting effort. We
contract for 44 large air tankers, over 100 exclusive-use
helicopters, and nearly 300 more ``call when needed''
helicopters. These aircraft are flown by highly professional
pilots and form the backbone of our airborne resources and are
more than adequate to meet our needs during a normal fire
season.
However, the meaning of a ``normal'' fire season has
changed with the conditions of our forests, and in both 2000
and 2002 the military provided a critical surge capacity which
was needed. Occasionally, we may need to call upon these
resources under time-sensitive conditions to meet urgent
requirements.
Chief Dale Bosworth and Kathleen Clarke, Director of the
BLM, decided that we needed to step back and get an objective
outside view of our program. So they jointly commissioned a
blue ribbon fact-finding panel to determine the adequacy of our
current aviation program.
This fact-finding panel includes some of the best minds in
the fire and aviation community. Included are a former Chairman
of the National Transportation Safety Board, the State Forester
of Texas, and the previous Director of the Transportation
Safety Board of Canada. The panel is expected to issue its
report by this November. This report is expected to identify
strengths, weaknesses and fail points, and provide information
in five areas: safety, operational effectiveness, costs,
sustainability, and strategic guidance.
Using information from this comprehensive report, both
agencies will be in a much better position to meet the complex
short- and long-term challenges of our firefighting and
aviation program. We will share the panel's findings and our
proposed actions with you when they are available.
Let me move to H.R. 5102 and H.R. 5185 directly. As you are
well aware, the 2002 fire season was one of the most
devastating seasons in recent memory. Not only have we seen a
dramatic increase in fire intensity and loss of resources, but
because of the loss of human life it has been a tragic year.
I want to thank the Committee for its support of all of our
ongoing efforts to continuously improve our wildland
firefighting capabilities. I know that without the support that
we have gotten, we would not have been able to control the
fires that we were, and we controlled a large, large number. I
think 99 percent of all the fires were controlled.
With regard to 5102, it would give the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior expedited authority to utilize
military aircraft and attendant personnel to fight wildfires
without first comparing costs of procuring the same services
from a commercial enterprise, as currently required by the
Economy Act.
H.R. 5185, legislation that is somewhat broader than 5102,
would give us the option to use military resources without
making the determination that commercial sources were
unavailable.
We certainly appreciate the Committee's desire to ensure
that the Department is vested with the flexibility needed to
assess cost-effective, quality sources in a timely manner,
including emergency situations. We believe, however, that there
is sufficient flexibility currently under the Economy Act to
achieve the objectives of this legislation, and for this reason
cannot support the legislative changes proposed by these bills.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer
questions.
Mr. Hayworth. We thank you, Mr. Thompson.
The Chair would ask the next witness for forgiveness for
addressing him in an informal fashion.
But, Roy, could you help me pronounce your last name?
Mr. Resavage. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is Roy Resavage. I am
the President of Helicopter Association International.
Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Resavage, aka Roy, your testimony is
welcome, as you are, in front of the Committee.
STATEMENT OF ROY RESAVAGE, PRESIDENT, HELICOPTER ASSOCIATION
INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Resavage. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman and Mr. Gallegly. I am honored to appear before you
today and express the views of Helicopter Association
International, HAI, concerning two bills, H.R. 5102 and H.R.
5185.
HAI is a not-for-profit professional trade association of
over 1,400 member organizations in the United States and
throughout the world. Member companies include operators of
civil helicopters, manufacturers, and peripheral industry
supporters. The majority of the members are small businessmen
and women, and a substantial number are engaged in
firefighting. HAI members safely operate more than 5,000
helicopters and approximately 2 million hours every year.
HAI takes exception with H.R. 5102's proposed authorization
for the use of military aircraft and personnel of the armed
forces to fight wildfires without first comparing the cost and
convenience of procuring the same services from a commercial
enterprise. H.R. 5185 expands the scope of these waivers by
extending the same relaxations to any Federal agency.
While HAI recognizes language in the bills require
congressional notice of the use of the exception to the Economy
Act and the reasons for the use of this exception, HAI is
concerned that the notice to Congress would be made after the
fact and that the measure could facilitate the immediate call-
up of military resources without any realistic oversight or
control.
It is our contention that the Federal Government's aerial
firefighting function is more adequately performed by a cost-
effective, professional industry within the United States
consisting of private sector companies. At present, an
excellent working relationship exists between HAI members and
other members of the firefighting industry with the U.S. Forest
Service; the National Interagency Fire Center, NIFC; the Office
of Aircraft Services, OAS; and the Bureau of Land Management,
BLM.
Protecting lives and assets of U.S. citizens is of the
utmost concern to HAI's firefighting members. However, any
increase in military or National Guard aerial firefighting
assets, and directing their use as an initial response
resulting from the passage of H.R. 5102 or H.R. 5185, would be
in direct competition with private enterprise. Firefighting is
not an inherently governmental function, nor is it a military
function. Current Federal policy does not advocate competition
between the Federal and the private sectors.
Tax-paying entities would be jeopardized by inappropriate
use of the relaxations being contemplated. Existing law permits
Federal goods and services to be used whenever, in the judgment
of the Federal agency head, the resources cannot be provided as
conveniently or cheaply by commercial contract. This
legislation does not improve the existing law.
National Guard components are already used in an adjunct
role during severe wildfire conditions. However, supplying
routine military or National Guard wildland firefighting aerial
resources is not appropriate. Wildland firefighters require an
identifiable and predictable fleet of aerial firefighting
aircraft that are not subject to higher priority tasking. One
need only look at the events of September 11 to see that
members of the National Guard may be called to duty elsewhere.
Aviators involved in wildland firefighting require
specialized training and repetitive teaming with the entire
firefighting community. Ad hoc participation in this high-risk
environment by pilots inexperienced in firefighting is
potentially dangerous and inefficient. The commercial industry
performing this specialized function has done so for over 40
years.
It is U.S. Forest policy that military aircraft are only
utilized when all reasonably available civilian aircraft are
being employed, with the exception of the National Guard, who
can be mobilized by Governors to respond to wildfires within
the boundaries of their individual States.
The Federal agencies in the trenches are placed in a
delicate position relative to this proposed legislation. They
can't appear indifferent to the unsolicited attempts to aid
them in their mission. However, we strongly believe that they
would support the continuation of the polices that are already
in place, and I believe you have already heard that today.
Current procedures provide the flexibility to respond
appropriately to increasing wildland fire requirements as
experienced this fire season. Congress and the public need to
know that the system is not broken or encumbered by outdated
laws. The current NIFC procedures already allow activation of
U.S. Air Force and Army National Guard, including reserve C-130
aircraft.
It is a matter of record that clear guidelines exist for
the deployment of Department of Defense components to assist in
forest and grassland firefighting emergencies. Determining that
military aviation is necessary is not a protracted, time-
consuming process. Sufficient lead time exists under current
procedures to determine whether resources are readily available
and to mobilize commercial as well as military assets.
During this fire season, NIFC has indicated to HAI that
more than sufficient civilian tankers were available during the
Hayman fire in Colorado. Even with the exemption proposed under
H.R. 5102 and 5185, the military would not have automatically
been called. NIFC currently has the tools and the statutory
authority necessary to assign aerial assets to fight wildfires.
Legislation is not required.
If an isolated incident occurred wherein no commercial
assets were available and military assets were not called upon,
HAI believes NIFC can administratively address this issue. Our
citizens need to know that they are receiving effective
firefighting services by professional firefighters who have
consistently demonstrated their courage and commitment to keep
them and their property safe from wildfires. They also need to
know that the brave men and women in the armed services and the
National Guard will be available and trained to defend us from
all enemies of our country and not have that essential mission
diluted by unnecessary tasking.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Resavage follows:]
Statement of Roy Resavage, President, Helicopter Association
International
Good morning Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Forests and Forest
Health Subcommittee. I am honored to appear before you today and
express the view of the Helicopter Association International (HAI)
concerning two bills, HR 5102, The Wildfire Response Act of 2002, and
HR 5185, the Wildfire Response Enhancement Act. I ask that you accept
my written testimony into the official record.
HAI is a not-for-profit, professional trade association of over
1400 member organizations in the United States and throughout the
world. Member companies include operators of civil helicopters,
manufacturers, and peripheral industry supporters. Many of the members
are small businessmen and women and many of them are engaged in
firefighting. HAI's members safely operate more than 5,000 helicopters
approximately two million hours each year.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize your cosponsorship of HR 5102, introduced
by your colleague, Mr. Hefley, a member of the full Committee. As you
are aware, HR 5102 is an exception to the Economy Act requirement to
allow activation of military resources for emergent situations such as
wildland fires, thereby expediting the process by which the Secretary
of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture may utilize military
aircraft to fight wildfires. Helicopter Association International is
concerned over authorization for the use of military aircraft and
personnel of the Armed Forces to fight wildfires without first
comparing the cost and convenience of procuring the same services from
a commercial enterprise. While HAI recognizes language in the bill
requiring Congressional notice of the use of the exception to the
Economy Act and the reasons for the use of the exception, HAI is
concerned that notice to Congress would be made after the fact and that
the measure would facilitate the immediate call up of military
resources at a higher cost when commercial resources were available to
meet firefighting needs.
HR 5185, introduced by Mr. Gallegly also of the full Committee,
seeks to remove a restriction on the authority of the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior to enter into agreements with any federal
agency to acquire goods and services directly related to improving or
using the wildfire fighting capability of those agencies.
The federal government's aerial firefighting function is more than
adequately performed by a cost effective, professional industry within
the United States consisting of private sector companies. At present,
an excellent working relationship exists between the HAI Government
Contracting Committee, HAI members, and the US Forest Service, The
Forest Service's National Interagency Fire Center Contracting Unit, and
the Office of Aircraft Services Contracting Unit. Protecting lives and
the homes and assets of US citizens is of the utmost concern to HAI's
government contracting committee members. However, any increase in
National Guard aerial firefighting assets and the directing of their
use as an initial response resulting from the passage of H.R. 5102 or
H. R. 5185 would be in direct competition with private enterprise.
Firefighting is not an inherently governmental function, nor a military
mission. Current federal policy does not advocate competition between
the federal and private sectors. Tax paying entities would be
jeopardized by such competition with helicopter operators. The proposed
legislation does not fix a system that is broken. Existing law permits
federal goods and services to be used whenever, in the judgment of the
federal agency head, the resources cannot be provided as conveniently
or cheaply by commercial contract. This legislation does not improve on
the existing law.
When tax-funded government agencies enter into business in direct
competition with commercial, tax-paying companies, it forces those
companies, particularly in the case of small businesses, to reduce the
size and scope of their operations, affecting employment and long-term
survivability of the businesses. Conversely, government competition
expands the size, scope and cost of government taking away the funding
of legitimate government functions.
The National Guard components are currently used in an adjunct role
during severe wildfire conditions. However, supplying routine National
Guard wildland firefighting aerial resources is not an appropriate role
for military assets. Wildland firefighters require an identifiable and
predictable fleet of aerial firefighting aircraft that are not subject
to higher priority tasking. One need only look at the events of
September 11th to see that the members of the National Guard may be
called to duty elsewhere. In addition, scarce training dollars and
assets could be better spent on other missions required by these
National Guard units. To be part of an integrated firefighting team,
all services of all participants must be available on a predictable and
reliable basis.
Aviators involved in wildland firefighting require specialized
training and repetitive teaming with the entire firefighting community.
Ad hoc participation in this high-risk environment by inexperienced
pilots is potentially dangerous and inefficient. The commercial
operators that perform this specialized function have done so for over
40 years. According to data provided to HAI by the US Forest Service
for the 2002 Fire Season, 554 Type I, II, and III helicopters
participated in the ``Call When Needed'' firefighting program.
Exclusive Use Type I and II helicopter contracts with the US Forest
Service for 2002 totaled 38. It is US Forest Service policy that
military aircraft are only utilized when all reasonably available
civilian aircraft are being used with the exception of the National
Guard who can be mobilized by the Governors of the individual states to
respond to wildfires within the boundaries of their individual states.
The principal mission of the National Interagency Coordination
Center at the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) is the cost
effective and timely coordination of land management agency emergency
response for wildland fire. The National Interagency Mobilization Guide
identifies standard procedures that guide the operations of multi-
agency logistical support activity throughout the coordination system.
HAI strongly believes that this hearing today is an appropriate
forum for the US Forest Service to advise Congress of how NIFC conducts
business and ensures the deployment of the best-suited ground and air
resources to a particular fire. Current procedures are effective in
responding to increasing wildland fire requirements, as experienced
this fire season. If additional aerial assets are required, a system is
already in place to utilize Canadian commercial aircraft. In this 2002
Fire Season none were activated. Congress and the public need to know
that the system is not ``broken'' or encumbered with ``outdated'' laws.
The current NIFC procedures already allow for activation of US Air
Force National Guard and Reserve C-130 aircraft. These aircraft are
equipped with the Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System (MAFFS)
dispensing unit to meet peak periods of wildland firefighting activity
when aerial firefighting requirements exceed existing commercial
assets. Clear guidelines for the employment of Department Of Defense
components to assist in forest and grassland fire emergencies exist. A
request for MAFFS is initiated by the National Interagency Fire Center
(NIFC) in consultation with the Director of Fire and Aviation
Management after determining that all suitable commercial assets are
committed to fires, initial attack, or cannot meet the time frame of
the region needing assistance.
This is not a protracted, time consuming process. Sufficient lead
time exists under current procedures to determine whether resources are
``readily available'' and mobilize commercial as well as military
assets. Less return in mission effectiveness than could be realized
using commercially contracted assets sometimes results when the MAFFs
units are activated because of the high number of support personnel the
military brings on scene. During this fire season, the National
Interagency Fire Center has indicated to me that plenty of civilian
tankers were available during the Hayman Fire in Colorado and that even
if the exemption proposed under HR 5102 and HR 5185 had been in effect,
the military would not have automatically been called.
Commercial crews are more effective in a wide range of roles
because their primary job is to fight fires. Their aircraft represent a
known resource to the government firefighting agencies. Their equipment
is the best available and is certified in accordance with strict
federal standards of performance, providing firefighting services at
the best value to the government.
The National Interagency Fire Center currently has the tools and
statutory authority necessary to assign aerial assets to fight
wildfires. Legislation is not required. If an isolated incident
occurred wherein there were no commercial assets available and military
assets were not called upon, HAI believes that this can be addressed
administratively within the NIFC. Our citizens need to know they are
receiving effective firefighting services by professional firefighters
who have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt their courage and
commitment to keep them safe from wildfires. They also need to know
that the brave men and women in the Armed Services and National Guard
will be available and trained to defend us against all enemies of our
country, and not have that essential mission diluted by unneeded
tasking. Thank you.
______
Mr. Hayworth. We thank you for the testimony.
We move to the question phase and I would defer to my
friend from California for his questions.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Resavage, I want to preface my remarks by saying that I
certainly have no problem with for-profit organizations. It is
a part of the American way, it is what keeps our economy going,
and I think my record of 16 years here in voting for small
business and things to help the small businessman is a public
record that I am quite proud of.
You seem to really want to emphasize the fact that your
organization is a not-for-profit organization. Is that not
correct?
Mr. Resavage. Our organization is a not-for-profit
organization.
Mr. Gallegly. And your organization represents only
individuals that are not-for-profit, or are you paid in your
non-profit organization by people that are for-profit?
Mr. Resavage. No, sir. As I stated, we represent operators,
manufacturers, and all people involved in the peripheral
helicopter industry. So those individuals certainly are making
a profit, hopefully.
Mr. Gallegly. And they pay your salary and operating costs
as a non-profit from for-profit organizations?
Mr. Resavage. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Gallegly. And that is your interest and your purpose
for lobbying, is that correct?
Mr. Resavage. Our interest is representing our members,
yes, sir.
Mr. Gallegly. Which are, for all intents and purposes, for-
profit. This is just for the record.
Mr. Resavage. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gallegly. You tend to be a little deceiving that you
are here strictly as a member of a non-profit organization. I
just want to set the record straight on that.
Mr. Resavage. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hamilton, you made a couple of statements relative to
problems that took place this year with the couple tragic
accidents. Many of us saw these over and over again on national
television where wings were falling off of old--one was an old
C-130 in California, San Bernardino, if my memory serves me
correctly. As a result of that, it caused a time delay because
many airplanes were grounded that might have similar problems.
Is that not correct?
Mr. Hamilton. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Gallegly. How would you assess today's fleet of private
aircraft as compared to 10 years ago or 1993, for instance? Are
they better, are they worse, about the same, or is the fleet
just pretty much across the board aging each year?
Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir, I would say it is about the same.
As you are well aware, it is an aging fleet.
Mr. Gallegly. It can't be about the same if the airplanes
are 10 years older today than they were then. Or are the
airplanes about the same age today and they just move up and--
Mr. Hamilton. No, sir. What I meant to say was that we are
using the same kind of aircraft, but, yes, they are older
aircraft.
Mr. Gallegly. So, basically, what you have today is the
same fleet that you had 10 years ago, only with 10 years more
service on them?
Mr. Hamilton. That is correct.
Mr. Gallegly. Would it be safe to say that it is unlikely
that the air frames are more stable or even as stable today as
they would have been 10 years ago?
Mr. Hamilton. Well, that is why we are waiting to see what
kind of report we are going to get from the investigations that
are being done on the aircraft that went down. So we are
waiting to see whether that is going to end up being a metal
fatigue kind of problem or if there is some other kind of
problem.
Mr. Gallegly. Across the board, how would you compare
today's private fleet of aircraft with the C-130J models with
the new MAFFS units that are on line?
Mr. Hamilton. Well, the C-130Js are a much later model than
the C-130As that we had a problem with this year. The
difference in aircraft delivery is that the air tankers that we
use that are World War II-vintage type aircraft do a better job
in coverage and flying in rougher terrain because they drop
from their belly, versus a modular airborne firefighting unit
that slides into C-130's that have two pipes that come out the
end and don't get as good coverage and can't fly in as rough
terrain. So there is a difference in the delivery system.
Mr. Gallegly. For the record, are you familiar with the new
MAFFS unit and the new technology that is in the process of
being delivered, at least to 13 units that I know of in the
146?
Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir, and that is still being tested.
Mr. Gallegly. Is that the unit that are referring to or are
you referring to the obsolete MAFFS units that have been used
for many years?
Mr. Hamilton. I was referring to the obsolete units, sir.
Mr. Gallegly. OK, but you are aware that we have 13 new
units that are in the process of being readied as we speak?
Mr. Hamilton. Being tested, yes, sir.
Mr. Gallegly. Now, would you say that that technology is
still inferior to the technology of the belly drops of the
World War II DC-3s or whatever you are using?
Mr. Hamilton. I think that remains to be seen, sir, but
some of the preliminary information we have got is since they
eject the retardant out the side of the aircraft that there may
be some problems when they do drop because it has a tendency to
move the tail of the aircraft to the left or the right. And
when you are flying low in the situations that we are, that is
a concern.
Mr. Gallegly. I think your reference was that you believe
that the current flexibility is sufficient to handle all
emergencies as it relates to deployment. Are you familiar with
the 1993 fire in my district, in Southern California, that went
all the way from Ventura to Malibu and destroyed countless
homes? Are you familiar with that fire?
Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir, I am.
Mr. Gallegly. Are you familiar with the fact that we had C-
130's sitting on the tarmac watching property burn less than 2
miles from the airport, with the personnel sitting in the
cockpits all ready to go and they could not rotate?
Mr. Hamilton. No, sir, I am not familiar with that.
Mr. Gallegly. You are not familiar with that. I would
submit to you that I think that would be a very, very good
thing to go back and review because it was very frustrating,
because it was 24 hours on two different occasions in that week
while thousands and thousands of acres burned and communities
were destroyed. And we had firefighting equipment sitting on
the tarmac ready that could not be deployed because of this, as
I referred to, arcane statute. I would appeal to you to go back
and review that, and I could cite you other similar incidents.
With that situation taking place, would you say that the
flexibility was sufficient, given the bureaucratic foul-up at
that time, if, in fact, what I am telling you is correct?
Mr. Hamilton. Well, I have no reason to doubt that it is
absolutely correct, sir. I think the concern is that we need to
do a better job of planning and pre-positioning. And using this
year's example, which I am very familiar with, we could have
probably done a better job of deploying our resources.
But this fire season came very early and we had multiple
fires in different geographic areas, and we have a severity
funding process where we can actually pre-position aircraft and
if we did a better job of predicting where we are going to have
problems, then what we would be able to do is have commercial
aircraft deployed and that would give us access to military
aircraft.
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Chairman, I just have one additional
question. Actually, I have many more, but in view of the time,
and so on, I would like to submit some questions after this
final question for the record to all of the witnesses that we
could perhaps make a part of the record for the future.
The issue before us has to do not with competition. The
issue before us has to do with the issue of flexibility. Do you
not have confidence in the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of the Interior in making a decision and having some
added flexibility in there in the case of an emergency?
You say need help in pre-positioning, and so on and so
forth, and if there was ever a classic example this year of
being over-tasked or the demands on everyone being tested to
the end of lengths of their ability,--what would be wrong with
giving added flexibility so that we don't have the foul-ups of
having air tankers, C-130's--in my estimation, very fine
firefighting equipment, particularly the J models with new
MAFFS units--sitting on a tarmac as Rome burns and not being
able to be deployed?
What would be wrong with having added flexibility so that
that situation not be repeated? What would be wrong with that?
Mr. Hamilton. I don't think there would be anything wrong
with that, sir.
Mr. Gallegly. That is what this bill is all about, what it
represents, and what you testified that you oppose.
Mr. Hamilton. Well, that is because I think we have the
existing capability to do what you describe. We just haven't
done it very well or as well as we need to do it.
Mr. Gallegly. I think you made my case. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Hayworth. I thank the gentleman from California for his
questions.
The Chair would just address a couple of questions to Mr.
Thompson.
Mr. Thompson, it is my understanding that currently you
have 18 lead planes. What is the age of those aircraft?
Mr. Thompson. Let me have Mr. Williams answer that. I could
guess, but I think he could give you a better answer.
Mr. Hayworth. That is fine, Tom, and we thank you, Jerry,
for coming down today and we appreciate your answer.
Mr. Williams. They vary in age, but roughly 20 years old.
Mr. Hayworth. So the average age is basically 20 years?
Mr. Williams. That is approximately right.
Mr. Hayworth. Do you know when they will be replaced and by
what types of aircraft do you expect to have the replacements?
Mr. Williams. We are not sure yet. Again, we are waiting
for the findings of this blue ribbon panel to give us some
ideas on what strategic directions we head.
I think it is important in this debate to put some of this
in context. The air tankers that we use, 44 altogether--and
those are the ones that require lead planes--make up a
relatively small portion of the overall aviation force. With
100 exclusive-use helicopters, another 300 ``call when needed''
helicopters, and 54 single-engine air tankers, the emphasis for
us is on rapid initial attack.
Mr. Hayworth. I kind of draw an image analogous, although
it is perhaps somewhat inaccurate--I think about tugboats
pulling and pushing larger ships out, and I think, in a sense,
the lead planes basically have to serve that through the
wildlife/urban interface there as you are dealing with getting
the planes in position to dump the water, to dump the fuel
retardant. These things are essential to your operation.
Mr. Williams. That is correct. With the heavy-capacity air
tankers, they are. And, in fact, under some circumstances, not
all, but under some circumstances lead planes are required to
lead air tankers in.
Mr. Hayworth. I know my friend from California said he
wanted to put some questions in writing, but I would gladly
defer if he has any more at this juncture.
Mr. Gallegly. I appreciate the Chairman. I do have one
question for Mr. Williams as a result of one of the answers
that he gave you, Mr. Chairman.
You say that the aviation fleet on an overall basis would
be 20 years or newer, or an average of 20 years?
Mr. Williams. Speaking directly to lead planes.
Mr. Gallegly. Could you tell me, of the two tragedies that
we suffered this year, what the age of the aircraft were that
went down?
Mr. Williams. They were much older, but those were not lead
planes. They were air tankers, and I believe both of them were
something like 50 years.
Mr. Gallegly. So the two that we lost with life were
approximately 50 years old.
Now, could you explain to me the difference in lead planes
and the tankers that went in, because they are still out there
flying?
Mr. Williams. A lead plane is a much smaller aircraft for
us. It is a Baron or a King Air. Those are generally in the
commercial world two-engine. They would haul six passengers in
a commercial world.
Mr. Gallegly. But these are not the aircraft that are doing
the aerial drops.
Mr. Williams. No.
Mr. Gallegly. What we are talking about here really,
principally, are the aircraft that are doing aerial drops.
Mr. Williams. That is correct.
Mr. Gallegly. Now, what would be the average age of the
aircraft where we put firefighters in them and go out with
whatever the retardant is and do the drops? What is the average
age of that aircraft?
Mr. Williams. I believe that the air tanker fleet,
exclusive of smoke-jumper aircraft and all the rest, is
somewhere in the neighborhood of 46 years old.
Mr. Gallegly. OK, fine, and I think it is important for the
record because this is really the aircraft we are talking about
here. It is not the lead planes or the spotter planes or the
surveillance planes. It is the one where we are putting
firefighters in harm's way out protecting life and property.
And you would say for the record that that fleet is not an
average of 20, but an average of 45 to 50?
Mr. Williams. That is correct.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hayworth. I thank the gentleman from California and our
witnesses today. I think this has been a very useful hearing as
we have reviewed these respective pieces of legislation.
As I thank the witnesses on our second panel for their
insights, as well as the Members for their questions, we want
to again recognize that Members may have some additional
questions for the witnesses. Indeed, my friend from California
has made that point, and we would ask again that you would
please respond to these in writing. Our hearing record will be
open for 10 days for those responses.
On behalf of Chairman McInnis and the Subcommittee members,
I would like to take this time to thank Meredith Webster, the
Subcommittee's Forest Service Fellow, for all her hard work
during the past year. Meredith, we wish you well.
I would also like to thank James Swenson, our
Subcommittee's intern, for all the work he has done on H.R.
5102 and H.R. 5185. We know he will go on to great future
endeavors.
If there is no further business before the Subcommittee, I
again thank the panelists and our Subcommittee members, and the
Subcommittee is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
-