[Senate Hearing 107-373]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-373
MISCELLANEOUS LAND BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 691 S. 1451
S. 1028 H.R. 223
S. 1240
__________
NOVEMBER 27, 2001
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
78-597 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
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 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BOB GRAHAM, Florida DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
RON WYDEN, Oregon LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
EVAN BAYH, Indiana RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CONRAD BURNS, Montana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GORDON SMITH, Oregon
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Brian P. Malnak, Republican Staff Director
James P. Beirne, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota CONRAD BURNS, Montana
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
EVAN BAYH, Indiana GORDON SMITH, Oregon
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
Jeff Bingaman and Frank H. Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Kira Finkler, Counsel
Jeff Mow, Bevinetto Fellow
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah.................. 6
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 2
Fulton, Tom, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals
Management, Department of the Interior......................... 11
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota................ 2
Kimbell, Abigail, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 13
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada....................... 3
Todd, Larry, Director of Operations, Bureau of Reclamation....... 15
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Representative from Colorado.............. 8
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon........................ 1
APPENDIX
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 21
MISCELLANEOUS LAND BILLS
----------
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. The subcommittee will come to order. This
subcommittee has put a special focus on trying to approach
issues relating to the forests and public lands in a fashion
that brings people together. Again and again we have seen that
if you get people to set aside some of their old views and some
of their old theories about how work was done in the past you
could make remarkable advances.
Senator Craig and I are especially proud of the fact that
we were able, with the help of colleagues, to rewrite the
system for paying for schools and roads in resource-dependent
communities, and we would like this session to also build on
approaches with respect to forestry that help define the common
ground and help to bring people together.
This afternoon, we will have a chance to receive testimony
on several public lands and national forest bills that do
exactly that. S. 691 would convey approximately 24 acres of
national forest system lands located within the Lake Tahoe
Basin Management Unit in Nevada to the Secretary of the
Interior; H.R. 223 would amend the Clear Creek County, Colorado
Public Lands Transfer Act of 1993 to provide additional time
for the county to dispose of certain lands transferred to it;
S. 1028, the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal Land Conveyance
Act; S. 1451, to convey approximately 2,800 acres of public
land to Clark County, Nevada, for use as a shooting range; S.
1240, to authorize the land exchange and construction of an
interagency administrative and visitor facility at the entrance
to American Fork Canyon in Utah.
We want to welcome our witnesses today, particularly our
colleagues. We also want to note that John Cooper, Secretary of
Game, Fish, and Parks for the State of South Dakota was
scheduled to testify as a witness, but due to a blizzard that
shut down his airport he is not going to be with us today. His
written statement will be made a part of the official record.
We have three colleagues who all have a great interest in
Western and public lands issues, and first we want to recognize
a distinguished member of the Democratic leadership who is
here, Senator Harry Reid, who we worked with often over the
years and appreciate the constructive way he tackles these
issues, and Senator Reid, we welcome you for any comments you
would like to make.
[A prepared statement from Senators Craig and Johnson
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Larry E. Craig, U.S. Senator From Idaho
I would like to thank Chairman Wyden for holding this hearing to
begin addressing the backlog of proposed legislation facing this
Subcommittee. I particularly appreciate the commitment made, to my
staff, to hold a hearing on S. 198, the Harmful Nonnative Weed Control
Act of 2000, early next year.
Like most of the five bills that we will be reviewing today, S. 198
is critically needed to help local government deal with a scourge of
non-native weeds on both private, as well as public land. Dealing with
these weeds are costing the local governments hundreds of millions of
dollars each year. S. 198 will provide assistance to eligible weed
management entities in carrying out projects to control and eradicate
harmful, non-native weeds on public and private lands. It will help
leverage additional funding from a variety of public and private
sources to control or eradicate weeds through local stakeholders. And
most importantly promote healthy, diverse, and desirable plant
communities by abating the threat posed by harmful, non-native weeds.
While I do have some questions on several of the bills we will be
covering in today's hearing, I will be submitting them to our witnesses
for their written responses.
Again, thank you Chairman Wyden for getting on with the business of
this Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator From South Dakota
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are taking the time to consider
S. 1028, the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal Land Conveyance Act of
2001. John Cooper, the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of
Game, Fish and Parks has worked extensively on this bill and was
supposed to testify in support of it today, but is unable to attend
because of the blizzard that hit the state yesterday. Despite his
absence, I want to congratulate him on his efforts and for working with
Senator Daschle and myself to craft this legislation for his service to
South Dakota. Secretary Cooper works tirelessly as a steward of the
land and the environment in South Dakota and is to be commended for his
work. Senator Daschle has worked extensively to develop a consensus on
this issue and I would like to commend him for his leadership.
S. 1028 is the product of more than three years of discussion with
local landowners, the South Dakota Water Congress, the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, local legislators, representatives of South Dakota
sportsmen groups and other affected citizens.
S. 1028 would convey certain parcels of Federal land from the
failed Oahe project to the Commission of Schools and Public Lands and
the Department of Game, Fish and Parks of the State of South Dakota.
The conveyance of land would serve several purposes, including the
mitigation of lost wildlife habitat. The bill would ensure that the
current preferential leaseholders shall have an option to purchase the
parcels from the Commission.
The Oahe Unit was originally approved as part of an overall plan
for water development in the Missouri River Basin that was incorporated
in the Flood Control Act of 1944. The initial stage of the project
included a system of main canals, such as the Pierre Canal, running
east from the Oahe Reservoir, and the establishment of regulating
reservoirs, including the Blunt Dam and Reservoir, located
approximately 35 miles east of Pierre, South Dakota.
A total of 17,878 acres of land were acquired from willing sellers
for the proposed Blunt Reservoir feature during the 1970's. Additional
land was acquired for the Pierre Canal feature. After the growth of
opposition to the project, construction on the Oahe unit was in 1977.
Subsequently, Congress stopped providing funds for the project.
In response to this situation, the Bureau of Reclamation gave to
those persons, and their descendants, who willingly had sold their
lands to the project the right to lease those lands and use them as
they had in the past until they were needed by the Federal Government
for project purposes. From 1978 to the present, the Bureau of
Reclamation has administered these lands on a preference lease basis
for those original landowners or their descendants, and on a non-
preferential basis for lands under lease to persons who had not
previously owned or controlled the land.
Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation administers 12,978 acres as
preferential leases and 4,304 acres as non-preferential leases in the
Blunt Reservoir. However, the lands are not currently in their original
condition. Various stockpiled materials, fences, access roads, road
detours, and other items left by the Bureau remain on the land. The
Bureau conducts minimum maintenance on these facilities and, in FY
2002, budgeted $90,000 for operation and maintenance activities, and
$65,000 for resource management activities on the Oahe Unit.
Moreover, the Oahe project was a part of the overall Pick-Sloan
Missouri Basin program, which included four major dams across the
Missouri River that caused the loss of approximately 221,000 acres of
fertile, wooded bottomland that was productive wildlife habitat. Under
the provisions of the Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, the State of
South Dakota has developed a plan to mitigate a part of this lost
wildlife habitat. By transferring the non-preferential lease lands to
the SD Department of Game, Fish and Parks, S. 1028 would satisfy, in
part, this habitat mitigation obligation.
Mr. Chairman, this a balanced bill that has been introduced after
long discussion between the interested parties and the state of South
Dakota. The bill would address the concerns of those who have been
affected for a generation by the Oahe project while protecting wildlife
in the area. I urge the Committee and the Senate to pass S. 1028.
STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEVADA
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. There are
two issues which I am here to talk about today. One is bill S.
691, which would convey 24.3 acres of land to the Washoe Tribe
of Nevada and California.
This bill, which is sponsored by not only me but Senator
Ensign, conveys a small parcel of land from the Lake Tahoe
Basin Management Unit of the Forest Service to the Secretary of
the Interior to be held in trust for the Washoe Tribe. They
would use this for noncommercial, traditional tribal purposes.
Mr. Chairman, this is something that the tribe feels very
strongly about. When the President came to do the summit in
Lake Tahoe 4 years ago, this was a commitment made to the
tribe. No one disagrees with this. It is something that should
be done.
Keep in mind that the Washoe Tribe in generations past,
this lake was their lake, and now we are going to give them
24.3 acres to allow them to do some things that will not only
be good for them but also the lake, and the tribal chairman,
Brian Wallis, has been back here I do not know how many times
on this single piece of legislation. This is important, Mr.
Chairman, for a spiritual purpose for the Washoe Tribe.
This lake has long been part of the civilization and
culture of the Washoe Tribe. It is fundamental, Chairman Wallis
says, and I believe him, to who they are as a people, so I
would hope that this committee would give swift approval of
this.
The second bill, Mr. Chairman, the State of Nevada is 87
percent owned by the Federal Government. No State in the Union
has anywhere comparable to that. Eighty-seven percent of the
State of Nevada is owned by the Federal Government. Las Vegas
had this tremendous growth, now is about 1\1/2\ million people.
The things that happen their traditionally are, people go out
and shoot. Law enforcement has a shooting range. There were
various places that people could go just for recreational
purposes. You cannot do that any more. You wind up shooting
people. It is a heavily urbanized area. Nevada is the most
urban State in America. Ninety percent of the people of Nevada
live in two metropolitan areas, Reno and Las Vegas, and this
land that we ask be conveyed has the approval of everyone. It
has the approval of the environmental community, it has the
approval of the shooters, the sportsmen. There is no one that
opposes this. It is a unique thing for Nevada and maybe other
places we have so many people agreeing this will be the right
thing to do.
This would be for recreation, education, competitive
marksmanship events, and training related to firearms. Firearms
training facilities would be owned and operated by Clark
County.
I would hope that this is something the committee would
recognize would be of great public benefit by creating a safe,
centralized location for this important purpose. It will
enhance public safety by reducing indiscriminate shooting. The
facility will also provide economic incentives to Las Vegas in
the form of jobs and support services.
Senator Wyden. I think you have done an excellent job, you
and your constituents, in working together to find that common
ground. Before you came in we talked about the work that
Senator Craig and I have prioritized in terms of trying to find
these approaches that illustrate that you can have multiple
uses co-existing side by side.
I am going to support your bill very strongly. I want to
recognize our colleagues, if they have any questions for
Senator Reid, because I know his schedule is tight, and after
we have questioning for Senator Reid we will go to our other
colleagues. Conrad, do you or Craig have questions?
Senator Burns. Just on the land, Senator Reid, around Lake
Tahoe, to the Washoe Tribe. Did they offer any other land for
trade for that area, land of lesser value, maybe?
Senator Reid. I say, Senator Burns, the Washoe Tribe is not
one of the tribes in Nevada that has huge amounts of land. They
have very limited land anyway, so the answer is no. This land,
if you were going to sell it, it would probably be worth some
money, but of course we are not selling land around the lake,
and as I indicated in my testimony earlier, this is something
that no one opposes.
The development community around Lake Tahoe thinks this
would be good for the lake. The State of Nevada, the Governor
supports this. The State legislature supports it. Senator
Ensign supports it, and the Democratic and Republican House
member in the House of Representatives supports this.
Senator Burns. The 23 acres is all on the Nevada side of
the lake?
Senator Reid. Yes, it is.
Senator Burns. I have no other questions.
Senator Wyden. Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. You mentioned in your testimony
that this is religious and cultural, spiritual. There are some
other propositions to dispose of lands that are belonging to
churches or this and that. Does this sort of set a precedent?
What if you transferred everything that had a cultural purpose
to it to whoever?
Senator Reid. I would say, Senator Thomas, this is such a
unique place, and the transfer of the land is to a people that
believe very fervently in their ancestral rights to this land,
and I would say that during our entire efforts, and they have
been bipartisan in nature, to do something to rehabilitate that
lake, the Washoe Tribe, which is the only one that has any
rights whatsoever as far as Indians to this land, have not, in
any way, stood in our way of doing all the things that need to
be done, as happens in other things I have tried to do where
Native Americans are involved.
Here, they have been with us shoulder to shoulder. They
have helped us, and this in effect was an effort--I will not
say it is a compromise, because they have not been greedy in
asking for a lot of things, but it was felt that there should
be a small area of this lake, which is 74 miles around this
lake, to set aside 24.3 acres to indicate to people who come to
that lake that there was a time in the past where the Indians
controlled this, and people would be able to come to this
facility and there would be exhibits and other things that the
Indians would do there to show the traveling public that the
Washoe Tribe at one time controlled this lake.
Senator Thomas. And I have no problem with it, but I am
sometimes concerned about the precedent. You could say the same
thing about Devil's Tower. You could say the same thing about
the Medicine Wheel and the Big Horn Mountains, that these are
spiritual things for the tribes, and therefore they ought to
have them, so I think it is something we ought to think about
from time to time.
Senator Reid. I appreciate that. I would just say this.
President Clinton made a commitment to this, and also the only
political appearance that President Bush made in the State of
Nevada during his campaign was at Lake Tahoe. It shows that he,
I guess, believes in quality, not quantity, because it was
enough to carry the State, but he recognized Lake Tahoe as
being a place that is a treasure of this country.
It is shared by Nevada and California, but I repeat,
President Bush came there, and he came there and the Washoe
Tribe was part of the delegation that welcomed him there, I
mean, so this is something--I have not personally spoken to the
President. Perhaps I should have, but I would almost bet
anything that he would favor this.
Senator Thomas. If he was there and President Clinton was
there it is spiritual land, certainly.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. But you know--and I do not mean to be
argumentative, but the very thing you are saying is that this
is something the American people--well, if it is the American
people, it is just an idea that we ought to keep in mind.
Senator Reid. I would say to you, Senator Thomas, I
understand the point you are making, and if I thought in any
way they were being gluttonous in trying to take too much of
the 74 miles around that lake, I would be the first to speak
out against it, but this is just a tiny speck, I think a tiny
speck to show them respect.
Senator Thomas. I understand. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Senator, I have a follow-up question. How
much shoreline is in that 23 acres?
Senator Reid. You know, I cannot tell you. It is a very
little, just a very small amount. I have been there at the
site. I can tell you it is not very much.
Senator Burns. Thank you.
Senator Reid. We will make sure that that is part of the
record, but it is just a--maybe, I would say, frontage, less
than an acre probably, but I would have to get you that exact
information.
Senator Wyden. Senator Reid, we will work very closely with
you and our colleagues to move this package just as
expeditiously as we possibly can. I think you have done yeoman
work with all the stakeholders trying to build a consensus
approach. All of us from States in the West, where the Federal
Government owns more than 50 percent of the land, know that
that is a big challenge. I think you have done an excellent
job, and unless you have anything further, we will excuse you.
Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Thank you.
It is very good to have our colleague Senator Bennett. It
is always a pleasure to be able to work with you, and why don't
you proceed in any way you would like, Bob.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, U.S. SENATOR
FROM UTAH
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate being back here. I keep hoping for the time when I
can come back on the committee as a third A, but it is popular
enough that everybody else keeps filling up before it comes
back to me.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, I introduced S. 1240 last July.
Let me give you a little bit of background for this. Its
purpose is to help both the National Park Service and the U.S.
Forest Service serve the public better at the facility at the
mouth of American Fork Canyon in Highland, Utah. This facility
would serve both agencies, because it would serve both the
Timpanogos Cave National Monument, which is a unit of the
National Park Service, and the Uinta National Forest Pleasant
Grove Ranger District, which is a unit of the Forest Service,
and both services are currently housed in substandard
facilities.
There was a visitor's center at Timpanogos Cave, which was
destroyed by fire in 1991, and they moved into a trailer in
1992 as temporary quarters, and just as we know there is
nothing more permanent than a temporary Government agency,
there are few things as permanent as a temporary Government
facility, and we are now coming up 10 years with that trailer,
and it is still being used. There are approximately 150,000
people a year that go visit the cave. The trailer is easily
overrun on many days of high visitation.
In addition, it has been damaged by rockfall. There are
some significant maintenance and public safety issues, and it
is time to retire the trailer.
Now, the Pleasant Grove Ranger District is located in a
1950's era building that was not designed for today's staffing
requirements. This is half a century old now, cannot meet the
communications and computing needs of the Forest Service, and
we have an opportunity to combine these two in a single
facility, which will mean better agency cooperation and
coordination to serve the public better, and it will save some
tax dollars all the way around.
So that is the genesis of the bill. In order to construct
the new facility we have to acquire 36 acres that are currently
in private hands that are on the parcel at the key place where
the facility needs to be, and so we propose a land swap, buying
these acres with other acres rather than with Federal dollars.
The land valuation will conform with the uniform appraisal
standards for Federal land acquisition. It is subject to
approval by the Secretary of Agriculture to make sure nobody
gets unduly rich on this. The Department of the Interior is
instructed to construct the new facility and would be
responsible for all associated costs.
So it seems like a fairly straightforward thing to me, and
I commend it to the committee's consideration.
Senator Wyden. Senator Bennett, I think this is a very
constructive and very useful piece of legislation. It is not
all that dissimilar to a bill that Senator Smith and I did the
last session. I am going to support it very strongly and help
us move it ahead quickly, and let again recognize our
colleagues, Senator Burns and Senator Thomas. No questions?
Bob, anything you want to add further?
Senator Bennett. No, sir. I appreciate your consideration.
Senator Wyden. We will look forward to moving it quickly.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bennett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert F. Bennett, U.S. Senator From Utah
Good afternoon. I thank the committee for holding this hearing
today. Earlier this year, I introduced S. 1240, the Timpanogos
Interagency Land Exchange Act of 2001. The goal of my legislation is to
help both the National Park Service and the United States Forest
Service serve the public better through the construction of a new
interagency administrative office and visitor center at the mouth of
American Fork Canyon in Highland, Utah.
This new facility will serve both the Timpanogos Cave National
Monument, a unit of the National Park Service, and the Uinta National
Forest Pleasant Grove Ranger District, a unit of the United States
Forest Service. Both agencies are currently located in substandard
facilities. The visitor center of the Timpanogos Cave National Monument
was destroyed by a fire in 1991. In 1992, as a temporary measure, the
National Park Service began use of a trailer approximately 20 feet by
60 feet in size. This trailer still serves as the visitor center today.
Annual visitation exceeds 125,000 people and the trailer is easily
overrun on days of high visitation. Additionally, the trailer has been
damaged by rock fall, which presents significant maintenance and public
safety issues. The Pleasant Grove Ranger District is located in a
1950's era building that was not designed for today's staffing
requirements and cannot meet the communication and computing needs of
the Forest Service. The opportunity to house both of these agencies in
the same facility will foster better interagency coordination and
cooperation, serve the public better, and generate cost savings.
In order to construct the new interagency facility, the Forest
Service has identified several parcels, mostly administrative sites,
totaling 266 acres that it will exchange for a 36 acre privately owned
parcel at the mouth of American Fork Canyon in Highland, Utah. This 36
acre parcel will become the site for the new interagency facility. The
Forest Service lands do not possess any outstanding resource values and
are adjacent to private land. Land valuation will conform with the
``Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition'' and is
subject to approval by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Department of
the Interior is instructed to construct the new facility and is
responsible for all associated costs.
I believe this is simple legislation that will benefit the public
greatly. It is my hope that the committee will approve this legislation
at its earliest opportunity. Again, I thank the committee for holding
this hearing today.
Senator Wyden. Thanks for coming.
We are really pleased to have Congressman Mark Udall here
as well. He also has worked extensively on public lands issues,
and we appreciate your involvement the last session with the
county payments bill among other things that are important to
this committee, and welcome, Mark. We will make your prepared
remarks part of the record, and you just proceed in any way you
like.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLORADO
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I did want to
acknowledge the good work you did over here on the school
receipts funding issue, and I appreciate the flexibility you
put back in the House bill so the various counties could
respond to the needs that they see in front of them.
If I could, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
include my statement in the record.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Udall. In addition, I have a letter from the county
commissioners who have requested this legislation, if I could
include their letter in the record.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Udall. I appreciate it, and I would note for this
committee that the county commissioners have a committee
composed of three members, one Independent, one Democrat, and
one Republican, which mirrors this committee's composition as
well.
Senator Burns. Which one is chairman?
Mr. Udall. It rotates, Senator Burns. It rotates.
Senator Burns. I had a deal like that once.
Mr. Udall. The bill is a simple amendment to the Clear
Creek Land Transfer Act of 1993, and Mr. Chairman, what it
would do is provide the county with an additional 10 years to
provide for the distribution of lands that the BLM owned in the
county, many of them inches in measurement, and the exciting
thing about this, to pick up on your initial comments, is that
the BLM is working in concert with the county, and the county
is actually the real estate agent, if you will, for the BLM, so
any net receipts from the sale of these lands by the county
returns to the Federal Treasury.
The county has worked very hard to move these lands, but
they came to me and said, we need a little bit more time to
deal with the mining claims and to deal with all the other
aspects that are involved with the sale of these lands, so this
would set May 19, 2015 as the new deadline for the county to
either transfer or retain these lands, and I hope the committee
can support this legislation. It passed out of the House
unanimously a couple of months ago.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I am certainly willing and able to
answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall and referenced letter
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Udall, U.S. Representative
From Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing on
my bill.
I introduced the bill at the request of the Commissioners of Clear
Creek County, one of the counties in the District I represent. Attached
to my testimony is a letter from the Commissioners regarding the bill
and why they are seeking its enactment. I would like to submit that
letter for the hearing record.
A similar bill was passed by the House last year, but time ran out
before the action on it could be completed before the end of the 106th
Congress. So I am particularly glad that you are considering it today.
The bill amends section 5 of the Clear Creek Land Transfer Act of
1993. The effect of the amendment would be to allow Clear Creek County
additional time to determine the future disposition of some former
Federal land that was transferred to the county under that section of
the 1993 Act.
The 1993 Act was originally proposed by my predecessor,
Representative David Skaggs.
Its purpose was to clarify Federal land ownership questions in
Clear Creek County, while helping to complete consolidation of Bureau
of Land Management administration in eastern Colorado, and assisting
with protecting open space and preserving historic sites. Let me
briefly outline the background and the effect of the bill.
In the course of its planning, the Bureau of Land Management has
determined that it would be appropriate and desirable to dispose of
most of the lands in northeastern Colorado for which it is responsible.
The 1993 Act advanced that purpose by transferring land in Clear Creek
County from the BLM to the Forest Service, the State of Colorado, the
County, and the towns of Georgetown and Silver Plume.
Even without the 1993 legislation, of course, BLM could have sold
all these lands, and the local governments could have applied for
parcels under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act.
However, before transferring the lands BLM would first have had to
complete detailed boundary surveys. And since these lands included many
small, odd-shaped parcels--some measured in inches--BLM estimated that
boundary surveys would have taken at least another 15 years to
complete, and could have cost as much as $18 million--even though the
estimated market value of these lands was only $3 million.
In other words, because the administrative costs were expected to
be so much higher than the value of these lands, their disposal under
existing law probably could never have been completed.
And this would have been the worst of all outcomes, because, after
reaching the conclusion that these lands should be transferred, BLM in
effect stopped managing them--to the extent that they could have been
managed at all. They were effectively abandoned property--potentially
attracting all of the problems that befall property left untended and
ignored.
The 1993 Act responded to that situation. Under it, about 3,500
acres of BLM land in Clear Creek County were transferred to the Arapaho
National Forest. Another 3,200 acres of land were transferred to the
State of Colorado, the county, and the towns of Georgetown and Silver
Plume. And, finally, the rest of the BLM lands in Clear Creek County
were transferred to the County.
My bill deals only with the lands transferred to the County.
Under the 1993 Act, some of these lands will be retained by local
governments for recreation and public purposes. The county is
authorized to sell the rest, but under conditions that in effect mean
that the county will act as the BLM's sales agent, because the 1993 Act
provides that the Federal Government will receive any net receipts from
the sale of these lands by the county.
Under the 1993 Act, the county has until May 19, 2004 to resolve
questions related to rights-of-way, mining claims, and trespass
situations on the lands that have been transferred to it and then to
decide which parcels to transfer and which to retain.
While the County has completed the conveyance of some of these
lands, they still have several thousand acres to dispose of.
The County is working on completing the job, and the letter from
the Commissioners outlines the progress they have made. However, they
have found that the process is taking longer than they anticipated, and
that an extension of time would be helpful to a successful conclusion.
My bill responds to that request by providing that extension. It
would set May 19, 2015 as the new deadline for the County to either
transfer or retain these lands. The County Commissioners have indicated
to me that they are confident that this will be sufficient time for
them to resolve the matter.
That is all that is involved and all that the bill would do. There
is no controversy associated with the legislation, and I urge the
committee to order it favorably reported for action by the Senate.
Clear Creek County,
Georgetown, CO, November 20, 2001.
United States Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Dirksen Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senate Committee Members: We are writing in regards to the
House Bill H.R. 223 to amend the Clear Creek County Public Lands
Transfer Act. This bill would allow us additional time to determine the
future disposition of approximately 6,000 acres of land. This extension
of time would allow us to resolve issues related to rights-of-way,
mining claims, and trespass situations. Our County has worked
diligently to distribute the lands as quickly as possible. However, we
have encountered problems with these related issues as well as high
staff turnover which has hindered our ability to dispense of the land
faster.
To date, our County Lands Department has completed and is planning
for the following distributions:
Approximately 2,000+ acres of land has been successfully
distributed.
Approximately 1,500+ acres of land is planned to be managed
and distributed to the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the
Big Horn Sheep Society respectively.
Approximately 2,500+ acres of land remains to be distributed
due to rights-of-way, mining, and trespass issues.
As you may know, the bill passed twice in the U.S. House of
Representatives unanimously. We have been informed that this bill will
be presented to your committee for a hearing on November 27, 2001.
There appears to be no opposition or controversy surrounding the bill
and we hope that your committee will support this bill. This extension
would assist us in concluding the distribution of the land. Thank you
and we look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners,
Robert J. Poirot, Chairman,
Jo Ann Sorensen, Commissioner,
Fabyan Watrous, Commissioner.
Senator Wyden. Mark, thank you, and I think this is another
instance of building a good consensus, sort of home grown
driven kind of concept with respect to the public lands. I
commend you for it, and the work you and your constituents have
done. I will support this bill as well, and I recognize my
colleagues for any questions.
Senator Burns. I have only one question. It looks like with
a split commission like this are you sure 20 years is enough to
get it done?
Mr. Udall. Senator, they are very interested in results and
a pragmatic approach to problem-solving. I think they actually
trade off which one is the independent and which one is the
Democrat and which one is the Republican. It is one of those
kind of counties.
Senator Burns. I want to know why it takes 20 years to get
it done when you can do it in half a day.
Mr. Udall. Many of these small parcels have a lot of
unresolved questions surrounding them. As I mentioned, some of
them are literally inches, in some cases measured in yards, and
they are working with their small, if you will, county
administrative situation, and they wanted to do it right, and
they just felt they needed a little bit more time.
Senator Burns. I do not have any more questions.
Senator Wyden. Okay. We will try to work to move this as
quickly as possible, and thanks for coming over, and I look
forward to working with you all.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, thank the committee.
Senator Wyden. Our next panel, speaking for the
administration, Tom Fulton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Lands and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior,
Abigail Kimbell, Acting Associate Deputy Chief for the U.S.
Forest Service, Larry Todd, Director of Operations, Bureau of
Reclamation.
Okay, gentlemen, Ms. Kimbell, thank you for coming and
working with the subcommittee on this. We will make your
prepared remarks a part of the record in their entirety, and I
want to begin with you, Mr. Fulton.
STATEMENT OF TOM FULTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LAND
AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Fulton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Thomas. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the two
bills that I am testifying on H.R. 223, that Congressman Udall
introduced, the Clear Creek County, Colorado Public Lands
Transfer Act, and Senator Reid's bill, S. 1451, which provides
for the conveyance of public lands in Clark County, Nevada, for
use as a shooting range.
The Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the
Interior and the administration support H.R. 223 and S. 1451,
1451 with some suggested changes that I will outline in my
testimony. I will address both of these bills individually.
H.R. 223 amends section 5 of an Act of 1993, which
transferred lands of the Bureau of Land Management to Clear
Creek County, and the act has achieved the goal of
consolidating BLM lands in Colorado, transferring 14,000 acres
to Clear Creek County to the Sounds of Georgetown and Silver
Plume. The bill introduced by Congressman Udall applies to only
7,003 acres transferred to Clear Creek County.
The 1993 Act provides that after the county prepared a
comprehensive land use plan it might in turn resell some of
those lands. The administration recognizes that the county has
not yet completed the land use planning of the acreage and
needs a statutory extension, and that extension would be
accomplished under H.R. 223. The extension would be May 19,
2015.
I agree with the Congressman's view that the complexity of
the fragmented county land ownership patterns, which are
intermingled with patented mining claims, require more time and
effort than initially anticipated, and we are glad to acquiesce
to the county's request for an extension.
S. 1451 regards the conveyance of public lands in Clark
County, Nevada, for use as a shooting range. It provides the
Secretary of the Interior with special disposal authority to
convey 2,888 acres of BLM-administered lands to the county for
the establishment of a centralized shooting facility.
The Bureau of Land Management has the authority under the
Recreation and Public Purposes Act to convey BLM-managed lands
to local governments without compensation for recreation and
public purposes. However, it is my understand that we are
limited, the BLM is limited in that transfer to 640 acres.
Therefore, legislation would be required to transfer land
greater than the 640 acres for this public and recreational
purpose. Because the land will be used as a target range both
for recreational purposes and for training of law enforcement
officers, that limitation applies.
We would like to suggest a few changes to this bill to
improve the administration if enacted, and we would be pleased
to work with the committee to address those concerns.
Conveyance of the lands would result in certain administrative
costs such as resurvey which would be likely required, since
the area would have common property boundaries with other land
ownerships that could create use conflicts without a specific,
defined property boundary. For this reason, we suggest the bill
be amended to include language providing compensation by Clark
County to the BLM for survey costs and other administrative
costs related to preparation of transfer of title.
Additionally, the United States must avoid potential for
hazardous waste liability from any property that reverts to the
United States. We suggest an amendment that Clark County be
required to clean up any hazardous waste or other contamination
prior to the possible reversion to the United States.
That concludes my statement. I would be glad to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fulton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Fulton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land
and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear here today to testify on two bills: H.R. 223, a
bill to amend the Clear Creek County, Colorado, Public Lands Transfer
Act of 1993; and S. 1451, to provide for the conveyance of certain
public lands in Clark County, Nevada for use as a shooting range. The
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) supports H.R. 223 and S. 1451 with
suggested changes. I would like to address each of these bills
individually.
H.R. 223--a Bill To Amend the Clear Creek County, Colorado, Public
Lands Transfer Act of 1993
H.R. 223 amends section 5 of the Clear Creek County, Colorado,
Public Lands Transfer Act of 1993 by extending until May 19, 2015, the
time allowed Clear Creek County to sell certain lands that it received
from the BLM under the 1993 Act.
The 1993 Act helped achieve the goal of consolidating BLM
administration in eastern Colorado by transferring approximately 14,000
acres of land from the BLM to the U.S. Forest Service, to the State of
Colorado, to Clear Creek County, and to the towns of Georgetown and
Silver Plume.
H.R. 223 applies only to 7,300 acres that were transferred to Clear
Creek County. The 1993 Act provides that, after the county prepares a
comprehensive land use plan, the county may in turn resell some of
those lands. The BLM recognizes that Clear Creek County has not
completed the land use planning of the acreage conveyed by the United
States and needs a statutory extension. Under H.R. 223, the new
deadline would be May 19, 2015.
The complexity of the fragmented county land ownership,
intermingled with patented mining claims, requires much more time and
effort than was initially anticipated, and will require most--if not
all--of the ten-year extension. We understand that Clear Creek County
will be able to complete the conveyance of these remaining lands with
this extension of time and therefore we support this bill.
S. 1451--Conveyance of Public Lands to Clark County, Nevada for Use as
a Shooting Range
S. 1451 provides the Secretary of the Interior with special
disposal authority to convey 2,880 acres of BLM administered lands in
Clark County, Nevada, to the County for the establishment of a
centralized shooting facility in the Las Vegas valley.
In the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP), Congress
recognized the benefit of conveying BLM-managed public lands to local
governments without compensation for recreation and public purposes.
Under the R&PP the Secretary can convey up to 6,400 acres of public
lands to a political subdivision of a State without compensation for
recreation purposes. The R&PP limits conveyances for public purposes
other than recreation to 640 acres. Because this land will be used as a
target range both for recreational purposes and for training of law
local law enforcement officers, the 640 acre limitation appears to
apply and this legislation is needed.
We would like to suggest a few changes to this legislation to
improve the administration of this bill if enacted and would be pleased
to work with the committee to address these concerns.
The conveyance of these lands by the BLM will result in certain
administrative costs. For example, a resurvey will likely be required
since the area would have common property boundaries with other land
ownerships that could create use conflicts without a specific defined
property boundary. For this reason we suggest that the bill be amended
to include language providing compensation by Clark County to the BLM
for survey costs and other administrative costs related to the
preparation of patents and transfer of title.
Additionally, the United States must avoid the potential for
hazardous waste liability from any property that reverts to the United
States under Section 1 (e) (2) of the bill. We suggest an amendment
that Clark County be required to clean up any hazardous waste
contamination prior to reversion to the United States.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Senator Wyden. Thank you. Ms. Kimbell. Let us get you one
of those microphones.
STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL KIMBELL, ACTING ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF,
FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Kimbell. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today, and I am suffering from a bit of a cold, so I
apologize ahead of time if I have to stop to clear my throat.
I am testifying today on S. 691 and S. 1240. The Department
of Agriculture supports and is facilitating the use of the
Washoe Tribe of their historical lands for most of the purposes
identified in S. 691. However, the administration has not
completed its review of this bill. Once its review is
completed, we will provide the committee with a formal position
on the bill.
The Department supports S. 1240 with a few minor technical
corrections, and would like to thank Senator Bennett for
introducing this bill. S. 1240 will authorize the acquisition
of land much needed for administrative and visitor facilities
at the gateway to the popular recreation destinations in
American Fork Canyon, Utah.
More specifically, on S. 691, the administration has not
completed its review. We recognize that American Indians
certainly have special religious and cultural ties to large
areas of Federal lands, and we recognize moral and legal
responsibilities to provide access and use for religious and
cultural purposes. These responsibilities are addressed in
several Federal laws, including the American Indian Religious
Freedom Act, the Archeological Resources Protection Act, and
others.
At present, the Washoe Tribe holds a special use permit
with the Forest Service for most of the uses described in
section 1(b)(2). These uses have been analyzed and approved
through our special use permitting process, and appear to meet
the needs of the tribe. In addition, consideration of fair
market value for the conveyance and reversionary interests are
concerns identified by the Department in its preliminary review
of this bill.
We plan to conduct a more thorough review of the language
over the next few weeks, to consult with the Department of the
Interior, and explore additional options. Once that review is
completed, we would like to work with the committee and the
bill's sponsors to resolve concerns that our review might
identify.
Specifically to S. 1240, we would like to work with the
committee to address a few minor technical concerns with the
bill.
We look forward to working with you and other members of
the committee on these important issues, and this concludes my
testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kimbell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Abigail Kimbell, Acting Associate Deputy Chief,
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am Abigail Kimbell, Acting
Associate Deputy Chief for the National Forest System, USDA Forest
Service. I am testifying today on S. 691, a bill to direct the
Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain land in the Lake Tahoe Basin
Management Unit, Nevada, to the Secretary of the Interior, in trust for
the Washoe Indian Tribe of Nevada and California, and S. 1240, a bill
to provide for the acquisition of land and construction of an
interagency administrative and visitor facility at the entrance to
American Fork Canyon, Utah.
The Department supports and is facilitating the use by the Washoe
Tribe of their historical lands for the purposes identified in S. 691.
However, the Administration has not completed its review of the bill.
Once this review is completed, we will provide the Committee with a
formal position on the bill. Until that time, we strongly urge deferral
on further action.
The Department supports S. 1240 with a few minor technical
corrections and would like to thank Senator Bennett for introducing
this bill. S. 1240 will authorize the acquisition of land for much
needed administrative and visitor facilities at the gateway to popular
recreation destinations in American Fork Canyon, Utah.
S. 691--WASHOE TRIBE CONVEYANCE
S. 691 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey 24.3 acres of
national forest system land within the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
to the Secretary of the Interior to be held in trust for the Washoe
Indian Tribe of Nevada and California. The conveyance would be subject
to a reservation of a non-exclusive easement on a forest road to
continue public and administrative access to adjacent national forest
system land. In addition, the bill would grant vehicular access over a
forest road to the parcel by tribal members under certain
circumstances. The transfer would occur without consideration.
S. 691 limits the use of the land by the Washoe Tribe to
traditional and customary uses, prohibits permanent residential or
recreational development, prohibits commercial development, and
requires compliance with environmental standards. The bill provides for
reversion of the interest to the Secretary of Agriculture should the
tribe violate the use restrictions.
The Administration has not completed its review of S. 691. We
recognize that American Indians have special religious and cultural
ties to large areas of the Federal lands, and we recognize moral and
legal responsibilities to provide access and use for religious and
cultural purposes. These responsibilities are addressed in several
Federal laws including the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act and others.
At present, the Washoe Tribe holds a special use permit with the
Forest Service for the uses described in Section 1(b)(2). These uses
have been analyzed and approved through our special use permitting
process and appear to meet the needs of the Tribe. In addition,
consideration of fair market value for the conveyance and reversionary
interests are concerns identified by the Department in its preliminary
review of this bill. We plan to conduct a more thorough review of the
language over the next few weeks, to consult with the Department of the
Interior, and explore additional options. Once that review is
completed, we would like to work with the Committee and the bill's
sponsors to resolve concerns that our review might identify.
S. 1240--AMERICAN FORK CANYON LAND EXCHANGE
S. 1240 provides for the acquisition of land through an equal value
exchange in the State of Utah. Approximately 37 acres of private land
near the mouth of American Fork Canyon would be acquired for the
construction of administrative and visitor information facilities for
the Uinta National Forest and Timpanogos Cave National Monument. The
bill identifies five national forest properties in the State of Utah,
including bare land parcels and parcels with improvements, that would
be exchanged for the 37-acre private land parcel.
The bill requires separate appraisals for each property and
authorizes a cash equalization payment in excess of the amount
limitation under current law. If cash equalization payments are made to
the Secretary, S. 1240 allows the funds to be used to acquire
administrative sites within the State of Utah and national forest
system lands. S. 1240 also requires the Secretary of the Interior, upon
availability of funds, to construct a visitor and administrative
facility for the Uinta National Forest and Timpanogos Cave National
Monument on the acquired privately owned land.
We would like to work with the Committee to address a few, minor
technical concerns with the bill.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you and the other
members of the Committee on these important issues. This concludes my
testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Ms. Kimbell. We will have some in
just a moment.
Mr. Todd, welcome.
STATEMENT OF LARRY TODD, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION
Mr. Todd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Thomas. I
appreciate the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on S. 1028. Under the Pick-Sloan
Missouri Basin program the Oahe irrigation project in South
Dakota was authorized in 1968, but construction was terminated
in 1977. This was due to the lack of support from the local
conservation district. Construction was not resumed. The lands
were purchased from Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal features
in the 1970's.
Since construction was halted, where we could, Reclamation
has leased these lands back to the original owners as
preference leases. S. 1028, in general, directs the Secretary
to convey these lands to the Commission of Schools and Public
Lands of the State of South Dakota. This transfer is on
condition that the original landowners, who are the current
preferential leaseholders, have the option to purchase the
parcels from the commission.
The Department of the Interior believes in the concept of
S. 1028, which allows the original landowners to regain title
to these lands. S. 1028 directs the transfer of the project
land holdings with an estimated value of between $6 to almost
$8 million. This is based on a per-acre value of about 19,200
acres estimated at $300 to $400 per acre. However, without
appropriate compensation the administration opposes transfer of
reclamation project assets out of Federal ownership. Therefore,
the administration does not support the bill as written.
We would like to express our appreciation for the work done
by the sponsors to address a number of issues that have been
raised in the past, and we look forward to working with the
sponsors and the committee on the one remaining issue.
That concludes my testimony, and I would be glad to answer
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Todd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Larry Todd, Director of Operations,
Bureau of Reclamation
Good morning. My name is Larry Todd. I am Director of Operations
for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I appreciate the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior
(Department) on S. 1028, the ``Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal Land
Conveyance Act of 2001.''
S. 1028 directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to convey
certain parcels of land acquired for the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre
Canal--features of the Oahe Irrigation Project in South Dakota--to the
Commission of Schools and Public Lands of the State of South Dakota
(Commission) for the purpose of mitigating lost wildlife habitat, on
the condition that current preferential leaseholders (the original
owners of the acquired lands or their descendants) have the option to
purchase the parcels from the Commission.
The basic concept of S. 1028--to allow original landowners to
regain title to lands that Reclamation purchased in anticipation of a
project that was never built--is straightforward and equitable.
Further, the sponsors of S. 1028 have addressed a number of the
technical issues related to liability, land descriptions and
reimbursement of Federal implementation costs--that were raised in the
past. However, the Department has concerns with the bill, in particular
that it fails to adequately protect taxpayers' interests, as it directs
Reclamation to convey the lands to the State without any consideration
of the initial taxpayer investment they represent, and cannot support
the bill in its current form.
BACKGROUND
In preparation for building the Blunt Reservoir and the Pierre
Canal, Reclamation purchased approximately 19,200 acres of land between
1972 and 1977. In many cases, Reclamation leased the land back to the
seller. Currently, Reclamation is leasing some 13,000 acres of Blunt
Reservoir lands to 19 preferential leaseholders and about 1,100 acres
of Pierre Canal lands to 29 preferential leaseholders. Although not
reflected in title documents, the sellers expected they would be able
to purchase their lands back if they were not needed for the project.
Nearly three decades later, construction has not commenced for the
Blunt Reservoir, although some earth-moving has been done for the
Pierre Canal. Reclamation supports the conclusion that it is unlikely
this project will be built, and, therefore, Reclamation no longer needs
to hold title to the acquired lands. Under S. 1028, Reclamation's
interest in the more than 14,000 acres currently leased by preferential
leaseholders (the original landowners or their descendants) would be
conveyed to the South Dakota Commission of Schools and Public Lands, on
condition that the original landowners have the option to purchase it
back. If a preferential leaseholder declines to purchase the land, the
Commission is to convey the parcel to the South Dakota Department of
Game, Fish, and Parks for wildlife habitat mitigation. Reclamation's
interest in the 5,000 acres currently unleased or leased to other
parties would be conveyed to the State of South Dakota Department of
Game, Fish, and Parks to be used in mitigation of wildlife habitat lost
as a result of Pick-Sloan development.
VALUATION AND PAYMENT
S. 1028, as introduced, directs Reclamation to transfer land
holdings worth up to $4-$6 million to the South Dakota State Commission
of Schools and Public Lands without any payment from the State. The
Administration opposes such transfers of significant Reclamation
Project assets to non-Federal entities without compensation. In
general, such transfers should be for fair market value of the
property. S. 1028 would be subject to the Pay-As-You-Go requirements of
the Omnibus Budget Act of 1990.
I would like to express my appreciation for the work done by the
sponsors to address a number of technical issues that have been raised
in the past. We look forward to working with the sponsors and the
Committee to address the outstanding issue that remains.
I would be pleased to answer any questions. This concludes my
formal statement.
Senator Wyden. All right. I have a few questions, and then
I want to recognize my colleague as well.
Ms. Kimbell, when do you expect to complete your review of
S. 691? I think the question that I have is, given the fact
that the U.S. Senate has passed this bill already, it just did
not make it all the way through, it does not seem to me that
there is any new material to review. At least I cannot find any
new material to review. I think we want to get this done as
quickly as possible, and I would like to have you tell us for
the record when you expect to complete the review of S. 691.
Ms. Kimbell. We expect to complete the review within the
next 3 weeks, and there have been--certainly there was a change
in administration between the time the bill was last heard, and
as I understand it, this is the first time there has been a
hearing scheduled to address this bill.
Senator Wyden. All right. Is there anything that you
believe is new since the last time the Congress looked at this,
just your personal opinion?
Ms. Kimbell. I am not familiar with the bill that was
presented a year ago.
Senator Wyden. Okay. I hope that you will get up to speed
on it, because that is the point of having you come, is to be
familiar with issues like this.
Ms. Kimbell. Well, I am familiar with this bill, certainly,
but I am not familiar if there--I am not aware that there are
any changes or modifications from what was considered a year
ago.
Senator Wyden. That is our understanding, is there are no
changes or modifications, and that is why we would like to have
this done expeditiously, and if you have told us that it is
going to get done in 3 weeks, that is helpful, and please know
that we want to move ahead as quickly as we possibly can.
Another couple of questions for you is, S. 1240, the Utah
exchange, authorizes but does not require the Secretary to
enter into the land exchange. It is our understanding that you
will complete the NEPA process prior to completing the
exchange. If significant environmental resources are discovered
on the land during the NEPA analysis, would the Federal
Government retain those lands, or how would you proceed there?
Ms. Kimbell. Certainly, NEPA would be conducted to address
the proposed land exchange, and I am not sure, Senator, that I
understood the final part of your question.
Senator Wyden. I think what we want to know is, if
significant environmental resources are discovered on the land
during the NEPA analysis, what would be the Federal
Government's rights at that point with respect to retaining the
lands?
Ms. Kimbell. Well, certainly in working out the details of
the land exchange there could be lands that might be retained,
there could be restrictions applied to the uses of the land, as
needed to protect the identified resources.
Senator Wyden. And you would see informing the public
through the NEPA process about significant environmental
resources?
Ms. Kimbell. Certainly.
Senator Wyden. Okay. S. 1240 also exempts the unit rule
described in the uniform appraisal standards for Federal land
acquisitions in determining the value of the land. Could you
tell us what this is, and why it is exempted?
Ms. Kimbell. The unit rule is used as a way of combining a
set of properties and in a way discounts the values on a set of
properties if they are presented as a package. This bill
proposes to not use that unit rule, and to have each of the
individual parcels stand alone when they are valued.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Fulton, a question for you. In your
testimony, you requested S. 1451, conveying public lands to
Clark County, Nevada, be amended to require the county to
reimburse BLM for survey costs and other administrative costs
associated with the transfer. Any idea what the total costs
would be here?
Mr. Fulton. No, but I am sure we could get that information
for the county and for the committee.
Senator Wyden. Okay. Can we have that within the next 10
days for the record?
Mr. Fulton. Yes, I think so.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
One question for you, Mr. Todd. Regarding S. 1028, it is
our understanding the Bureau of Reclamation has never removed
various stockpiled materials that are brought in for the never-
finished construction for the dam and other facilities. Fences,
road detours, and other items remain on the land, and the
property would be conveyed in an as-is condition. Is there a
process envisaged whereby these lands eventually would be
cleaned up and restored to their original condition?
Mr. Todd. I believe that there are two classes of land that
we might be talking about here. One is the easements on Pierre
Canal, and to date there has been no maintenance or cleanup of
those, and that is something that we certainly would look at.
The other one is that they are as-is condition, and would
be transferred as-is, and the cleanup would then I believe go
to the State as that responsibility.
Senator Wyden. Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Fulton, in H.R. 223, what is the status
of the land now, when it was transferred? What is it?
Mr. Fulton. The land was transferred under 1993 law to the
county for their eventual disposal, and it is my understanding
that the concern has been the complexity of the land ownership
patterns.
Senator Thomas. What status is it? Is it a lease? Do they
own it? Do you own it? Who owns it?
Mr. Fulton. Well, BLM used to own it, and now the county
owns it.
Senator Thomas. They do?
Mr. Fulton. It is my understanding that that transfer is--
--
Senator Thomas. I thought one of their--then what
difference is it to you what they do with it, if they already
own it?
Mr. Fulton. Well, it's the clear title, the transfer of the
title from the BLM ownership to the county.
Senator Thomas. So they really do not own it.
Mr. Fulton. Right. The purpose of the law is to transfer
the title and getting the title searches completed is the
request of the extension.
Senator Thomas. So it is still BLM.
Mr. Fulton. It is still BLM, but under the provisions of
the law, we are in the process of transferring it.
Senator Thomas. It is a long process.
Mr. Fulton. It is a very long process.
Senator Thomas. You indicated, I believe, Mr. Todd, on S.
1028 that you did not support the bill.
Mr. Todd. Yes, that is correct, as it is written now.
Senator Thomas. Why not?
Mr. Todd. Mainly because there is no compensation given to
the Federal Government for the transfer of these lands to the
State.
Senator Thomas. I am not very familiar with it. How did it
become Federal land in the first place?
Mr. Todd. These lands were purchased through the
reclamation land purchase program under a project, so they were
purchased from the landowners in the area back in the 1970's.
Senator Thomas. Then when nothing happened, they were
leased back.
Mr. Todd. They were leased back, yes, that is correct.
Senator Thomas. I see, and now this proposal would transfer
them back to private ownership.
Mr. Todd. It would transfer them back to the State, and
then it would give those preferenced lessees an opportunity to
buy back those lands.
Senator Thomas. There would be no revenue to the BLM.
Mr. Todd. No revenue back to the United States, no.
Senator Thomas. Good reason to be opposed to it, I guess.
Ms. Kimbell, what are the arrangements now with the tribes
in terms of using these lands?
Ms. Kimbell. For the last 2 years the Washoe Tribe has had
a special use permit for the use of a 5-acre parcel that
includes beach front on Lake Tahoe for cultural and religious
purposes, and it includes a camp-out for up to 80 people with
some provisions for sanitation and some other things, and the
tribe applied for that and was granted a permit both for last
year and for this year.
Senator Thomas. But that was just 5 acres, and now you are
talking about 24, or something.
Ms. Kimbell. Correct.
Senator Thomas. I guess my inquiry is, could you make an
arrangement with them that they could fulfill their needs
without a land transfer, without an ownership transfer?
Ms. Kimbell. Well, we believe we have been fulfilling the
requested needs by providing the special use permit, and
certainly we could look at other arrangements in the special
use permit.
Senator Thomas. Normally, I am advocate of disposing of
some Federal lands out in our country, but as I mentioned to
him before, there is a precedent issue here that is a little
bit troublesome.
Ms. Kimbell. And we would like to examine the bill further,
but there were some concerns.
Senator Thomas. I certainly think that some arrangements
ought to be made for the tribe to be able to use them. Whether
it requires a fee transfer or not is, I suppose, a question.
Thank you.
Ms. Kimbell. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague.
Let me just say to our panel, we are dealing with five
bills here, S. 691, H.R. 223, S. 1028, S. 1451, and S. 1240,
and in a nutshell, each of these bills moves Federal land into,
as far as I can tell, State, county, or private ownership, so
we ought to be able together, working in the administration and
Congress, Democrats and Republicans in this committee and
Congress, we ought to be able to work on these bills on a
bipartisan way and get them done.
I mean, much of this has already been accomplished through
a lot of efforts in local communities across the country. In
the case of one of Senator Reid's bills it has already passed
U.S. Senate once. Our final request is that you work with us so
that in a matter of weeks we can move these bills ahead. They
are all important, constructive approaches in the spirit that
Senator Craig and I have really called for in terms of trying
to address the issues before this subcommittee.
Do you all have anything you would like to add, or
otherwise we will excuse you and end the hearing.
Mr. Fulton. Thank you.
Mr. Todd. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. All right. The subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:14 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of John L. Cooper, Cabinet Secretary, Department of Game,
Fish and Parks, State of South Dakota
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is John L.
Cooper. I am the Cabinet Secretary for the State of South Dakota,
Department of Game, Fish and Parks. I want to thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony in strong support of S. 1028, which is
before you today.
In order to better understand the goals and objectives of S. 1028,
please allow me to present brief background information regarding the
history surrounding the status of the lands known as the ``Blunt
Reservoir'' and ``Pierre Canal'' lands.
S. 1028 is a culmination of more than 2 years of discussion with
local landowners, the South Dakota Water Congress, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, local legislators, representatives of South Dakota
sportsmen groups and affected local citizens and landowners. It lays
out a plan to convey certain parcels of land acquired for the Blunt
Reservoir and Pierre Canal features of the Oahe Irrigation Project,
South Dakota, to the Commission of School and Public Lands of the State
of South Dakota for the purpose of mitigating lost wildlife habitat and
provides the option to preferential leaseholders to purchase their
original parcels from the Commission.
The Oahe Unit was originally approved as part of the overall plan
for water development in the Missouri River Basin which was
incorporated in the Flood Control Act of 1944. Subsequently, Public Law
90-453, 90th Congress, dated August 3, 1968, authorized construction
and operation of the Initial Stage. The primary purposes of the Oahe
Unit as authorized was to provide for the irrigation of 190,000 acres
of farmland, conserve and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and promote
recreation and tourism along with other stated goals related to the
general plans set out in the Secretary of the Interior report dated
June 1965.
The project came to be known as the Oahe Irrigation Project and the
principal features of the initial stage of the project contained the
Oahe pumping plant located near Oahe Dam to pump water from the Oahe
Reservoir, a system of main canals, including the Pierre Canal, running
22 miles east from the Oahe Reservoir, and the establishment of
regulating reservoirs, including the Blunt Dam and Reservoir located
approximately 35 miles east of Pierre, South Dakota.
Under the Act of August 3, 1968, 42,155 acres were authorized to be
acquired by the Federal government in order to construct and operate
the Blunt Reservoir feature of the Oahe Irrigation Project. Land
acquisition for the proposed Blunt Reservoir feature began in 1972 and
continued through 1977. A total of 17,878 acres were actually acquired
from willing sellers.
The first land for the Pierre Canal feature was purchased in July
1975 and included the 1.3 miles of Reach 1B. An additional 21-mile
reach was acquired from 1976 through 1977, also from willing sellers.
Organized opposition to the Oahe Irrigation Project surfaced in
1973 and continued to build until a series of public meetings was held
in 1977 to determine if the project should continue. In late 1977, the
Oahe project was made a part of President Carter's Federal Water
Project review process.
The Oahe project construction was then halted on September 30,
1977, when Congress did not include funding in the FY1978
appropriations. Thus, all major construction contract activities ceased
and land acquisition was halted.
The Oahe Project remained an authorized water project with a bleak
future and minimal chances of being completed as authorized.
Consequently, the Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of
Reclamation, gave preference to those persons who had willingly sold
their lands to project acquisition the right for them and their
descendents to lease those lands and use them as they had in the past
until needed by the Federal government for project purposes. These
lands have come to be known as ``preferential lease lands.''
During the period from 1978 until the present, the Bureau of
Reclamation has administered these lands on a preference lease basis
for those original landowners or their descendants and nonpreferential
lease parcels for any lands under lease to persons who were not
preferential leaseholders. Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation
administers the Blunt Reservoir lands as 13,775 acres being
preferential leases and 5,462 acres being non-preferential leases. I
have previously provided your Subcommittee staff copies of GIS maps
noting both the location and the purchased acreage amounts acquired by
the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and currently managed as
``preferential'' and ``non-preferential'' lease lands.
As I noted previously, the Oahe Irrigation Project is directly
related to the overall project purposes of the Pick-Sloan Missouri
Basin program authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944. Under
this program, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed four major
dams across the Missouri River in South Dakota. The two largest
reservoirs formed by these dams, Oahe Reservoir and Sharpe Reservoir,
caused the loss of approximately 221,000 acres of fertile, wooded
bottomland which constituted some of the most productive, unique and
irreplaceable wildlife habitat in the State of South Dakota. This
included habitat for both game and non-game species, including several
species which are now listed as threatened or endangered. Meriwether
Lewis, while travelling up the Missouri River in 1804 on his famous
expedition, wrote in his diary, ``Song birds, game species and
furbearing animals abound here in numbers like none of the party has
ever seen. The bottomlands and cottonwood trees provide a shelter and
food for a great variety of species, all laying their claim to the
river bottom.''
Under the provisions of the Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, the
State of South Dakota has developed a plan to mitigate a part of this
lost wildlife habitat as authorized by Section 602 of Title VI of
Public Law 105-277, October 21, 1998 known as the Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and State of South Dakota Terrestrial
Wildlife Habitat Restoration Act. The State's habitat mitigation plan
has received the necessary approval and interim funding authorizations
under Sections 602 and 609 of Title VI.
The State's habitat mitigation plan requires the development of
approximately 27,000 acres of widlife habitat in South Dakota.
Transferring the 5,462 acres of non-preferential lease lands in the
Blunt Reservoir feature to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish
and Parks would constitute a significant step toward satisfying the
habitat mitigation goal as agreed upon by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the South Dakota
Department of Game, Fish and Parks.
Both the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal non-preferential lease
lands offer considerable opportunities for development of a natural
resource base which would benefit the general public and the local
economy. Located within a 15-30 minute drive of Pierre, these
productive lands offer management options for a multitude of wildlife
and recreational activities including aquatic, wetland, riparian and
upland habitat development. They would offer upland bird, waterfowl and
deer hunting in addition to hiking, biking, walking, camping and
watchable wildlife activities. Opportunities for water-based
recreation, such as canoeing and fishing, could be developed with
appropriate water management and small dam development. Several
sportsmen and conservation groups have expressed a strong interest in
partnering with my Department to develop this natural resource base.
I would like for the Subcommittee to note that as we developed this
legislation many meetings occurred among the local landowners, South
Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, business owners, local
legislators, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, as well as representatives of sportsmen groups. It became
apparent to all of us who worked on this issue that the best balance
for the local economy, tax base and wildlife mitigation issues would be
to allow the preferential leaseholders to have an option to purchase
the land from the Commission of School and Public Lands after the
preferential lease parcels are conveyed to the Commission. This option
will be available for a period of 10 years after the date of conveyance
to the Commission. During the interim period, the preferential
leaseholders shall be entitled to continue to lease from the
Commissioner under the same terms and conditions they have enjoyed with
the Bureau of Reclamation. If the preferential leaseholder fails to
purchase a parcel within the 10-year period, that parcel will be
conveyed to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks to be
credited toward the 27,000-acre habitat mitigation plan. Frankly, there
is an issue of ``fairness'' for the former owners of this land who
ended up having their farms and ranches placed into a sort of ``federal
limbo'' for the past 24 years.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the State of South Dakota, the Federal
government, the original landowners, the sportsmen and all wildlife
will benefit from this bill. It provides for a fair and just resolution
to the private property and environmental problems caused by the
construction and/or planned construction of the now defunct Oahe
Irrigation Project some 25 years ago. I believe we have waited long
enough to right some of the wrongs suffered by our landowners and our
wildlife resources. S. 1028 offers a great opportunity to settle a
variety of concerns and move forward with a plan to better the area for
both public and private interests.
My Governor, my Department and the various interests I represent
here today are hopeful that your Subcommittee will view S. 1028
favorably and see it as it was developed--a consensus piece of
legislation aimed at solving several long-term problems affecting
central South Dakota. Our goal is to strongly support a bill that will
allow meaningful wildlife habitat mitigation to begin, give some
certainty to local landowners who sacrificed their lands for a defunct
federal project they once supported, ensures the viability of the local
land base and tax base, and provides well maintained and managed
wildlife habitat and recreation areas which provide a variety of
outdoor experiences for our citizens and visitors.
On behalf of the State of South Dakota, I certainly urge your
support and passage of S. 1028. Thank you for the opportunity to
present my views before you today.
______
Statement of Darla Pollman Rogers, Meyer & Rogers, Pierre, SD
Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Darla Pollman Rogers. I am
an attorney in private practice in Pierre, South Dakota, and I
represent preferential leaseholders in the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre
Canal areas. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to you
on behalf of the preferential leaseholders.
The preferential leaseholders strongly support S. 1028. Since
becoming aware of legislative proposals concerning the Pierre Canal and
Blunt Reservoir lands, as a group the preferential leaseholders have
spent many hours negotiating for and providing input into S. 1028.
Please allow me to give you a brief background of the history
surrounding the long struggle this small group of landowners has had in
attempting to regain ownership of their land.
The Blunt Reservoir land and the Pierre Canal land were originally
part of the Oahe Unit, James Division, of the Oahe Irrigation Project
(hereinafter called the ``Oahe Project''), which was authorized as a
component of the Pick-Sloan Plan to provide multi-purpose use of the
Missouri River water in South Dakota. The Oahe Project was authorized
and funded by Congress nearly 30 years ago, but the project never
materialized. The government did, however, acquire land for the
project, and the Pierre Canal and Blunt Reservoir lands were among the
thousands of acres acquired by the federal government.
I use the word ``acquire'' because the circumstances of the
acquisitions were, at best, misleading. The landowners did not want to
give up land that was an integral part of their operations. They were
told, however, that they could sell their land to the Government
voluntarily, or it would be condemned. If they sold voluntarily, they
could lease the land back from the Bureau of Reclamation (which
administered and managed the land), at a lease rate that would not
increase, until the project was completed (thus the term
``preferential'' leaseholders). These landowners were also told that if
for some reason the project was not completed, they would be able to
purchase their land back at the same price they were paid for it.
You may ask how I know what representations were made to the
original landowners. I know because they have told me, and I know
because I was personally involved. My father, Leonard Pollman, was an
original landowner, and we are preferential leaseholders today. In
fact, my father's case is a good example of the unfulfilled promises
made to the original landowners at the time they gave up their land. My
father did not want to go through costly condemnation litigation, so he
reluctantly agreed to sell his land to the Government, after he was
told he could lease it back at the same lease rate until his land was
needed for the project. In the event the land was not used, he was told
he could buy it back for the same price for which he sold it. He asked
the representative from the Bureau to please put that assurance in
writing. Attached hereto as Exhibit A * is a copy of the written
``assurance'' of the Bureau representative, Arthur E. Mischke. The
original lease, dated December 19, 1973, was for $3,700.00. The
``maximum rate'' of $3,700.00 has steadily increased over the years,
and today is nearly double that amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Exhibits A and B have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar representations were made to other landowners at the time
of sale. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is another ``assurance'' made by
a Bureau representative to Duane and Barb Winkler, landowners in the
Blunt Reservoir area. As in the case of Mr. Pollman, the annual
leaseback rate has more than doubled over the years, yet their Land
Purchase Contract has not become null and void.
It is important to know the sincere and honest intentions of these
landowners. They did not wish to be uncooperative, but they wanted to
protect their interest in the land they were in essence being forced to
sell, for as long as possible.
That is still the intent of these same landowners today. After all
these years, they are still trying to reacquire their land. While most
of them have leased the land since the government acquired it, the
lease rates have not remained the same, but have increased dramatically
over the years. And to date, these landowners have still not had the
opportunity to buy back their land, as promised.
In 1981, deauthorization of the Oahe Project was considered by this
very committee. These same landowners testified at a hearing in front
of the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, United States Senate, as follows:
Their (the original landowners') position is that they should
have the first chance to buy back their land . . . This
dispositional scheme must be written into the deauthorization
legislation itself.
The landowners were supported in their position by the South Dakota
Legislature, which passed a Concurrent Resolution in 1980 favoring
disposing of the land acquired for the Oahe Project by first offering
it to the original landowners. Unfortunately, the matter was not
resolved in 1981.
The issue of deauthorization of the Oahe Project resurfaced again
in January 1998, in the form of S. 1341. The Secretary of the South
Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks sent a letter to the
preferential leaseholders (among others) concerning deauthorization of
the Pierre Canal and Blunt Reservoir features of the Oahe Project and
transferring those lands in Fee Title to the State of South Dakota for
wildlife mitigation. The landowners were invited to a public hearing in
late January 1998, and many landowners attended the meeting. They were
told, in essence, that acquisition of the Pierre Canal and Blunt
Reservoir by South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks was part of a much
larger effort to restore wildlife habitat that was destroyed by the
construction of the Missouri River Dam. The ultimate effect of S. 1341
would have been that these preferential leaseholders would have lost
their land, probably within a ten-year period.
So the struggle began all over again. The preferential leaseholders
had numerous meetings with each other, with Game, Fish and Parks and
with their South Dakota Congressional delegates. Senator Daschle
understood the long struggle of these landowners and their unique
situation and agreed to champion their cause. S. 1178 was the result of
said meetings, and it was introduced to you in October 1999. We
supported S. 1178, but unfortunately, it did not survive the political
process.
Since the defeat of S. 1178, the meetings among landowners, Game
Fish and Parks, South Dakota Congressional Delegates, the Commissioner
of School and Public Lands, and the Bureau of Reclamation have
continued. With Secretary John Cooper acting as facilitator, we stayed
in touch intermittently in 2000, and then held a series of working
sessions in 2001. The result of these efforts is before you today in S.
1028. In many respects, it is similar to S. 1178. Under S. 1028, the
Blunt Reservoir feature of the Oahe Project will be deauthorized. The
preferential lease land will be transferred to the South Dakota
Commission of School and Public Lands, and the preferential
leaseholders in the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal areas will have
the opportunity to buy back the land that was acquired from them for a
project that never materialized. Non-preferential lease parcels,
unleased parcels, and preferential lease parcels that are not
repurchased by the original landowner (or his or her descendants) are
conveyed to Game, Fish and Parks for the purposes of wildlife habitat
mitigation.
S. 1028, however, is a better bill than its predecessors, because
in this round of negotiations, the interested parties tried to resolve
all concerns and questions that were articulated with the introduction
of S. 1178. For example, the terms ``nonpreferential leaseholder'' and
``preferential leaseholder'' were redefined to make sure there are no
arguments or questions about who fits into the categories. The issue of
liability is addressed in S. 1028, to response to concerns raised by
the Bureau. The Bureau participated in the working sessions and
submitted the liability language included in the bill. Revisions were
made in response to concerns of county officials. Funding
clarifications were made in response to concerns of the Commissioner of
School and Public Lands. A perpetual easement along the Pierre Canal
land for future water development was added to appease water
development concerns.
S. 1028 is the end result of countless hours of drafting and
redrafting, which has come about as the result of input, negotiations,
and compromise of all parties directly affected by deauthorization of
the Blunt Reservoir feature of the Oahe Project. A true consensus has
been reached in this bill. My clients, this small group of preferential
leaseholders who have struggled all these years to have the opportunity
to repurchase their land, are in full support of S. 1028. It is an
appropriate resolution of a long-standing situation.
On behalf of the preferential leaseholders of the Blunt Reservoir
and Pierre Canal lands, I urge your support and passage of S. 1028.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.