[Senate Hearing 108-196]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-196
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS FOR TIMBER; LAND EXCHANGE IN ARIZONA; PAYMENT IN
LIEU OF TAXES PROGRAM; AND VALLES CALDERA PRESERVATION ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 432
TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE TO CONDUCT AND SUPPORT RESEARCH INTO ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS
FOR TIMBER PRODUCED FROM PUBLIC LANDS AND LANDS WITHDRAWN FROM THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN FOR THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
S. 511
TO PROVIDE PERMANENT FUNDING FOR THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES PROGRAM,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
S. 849
TO PROVIDE FOR A LAND EXCHANGE IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA BETWEEN THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND YAVAPAI RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
S. 1582
TO AMEND THE VALLES CALDERA PRESERVATION ACT TO IMPROVE THE
PRESERVATION OF THE VALLES CALDERA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
SEPTEMBER 11, 2003
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
90-578 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.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
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman
CONRAD BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairmaa
GORDON SMITH, Oregon RON WYDEN, Oregon
JON KYL, Arizona DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri EVAN BAYH, Indiana
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Frank Gladics, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 5
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 1
Ellis, Jeffrey P., Ph.D., Consultant in Chemicals and Plastics
Technology, Plantation, FL..................................... 26
Gioia, Tony, Council Member, Camp Verde, AZ...................... 11
Kearney, Chris, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and
International Affairs, Department of the Interior.............. 21
Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Arizona......................... 1
McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arizona..................... 3
Mendoza, Harry, Commissioner, McKinley County, NM................ 30
Rey, Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment,
Department of Agriculture, accompanied by Tina Terrell, Forest
Service........................................................ 14
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 5
Wells, Dennis, Manager, City of Williams, AZ..................... 7
APPENDIX
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 35
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS FOR TIMBER; LAND EXCHANGE IN ARIZONA; PAYMENT IN
LIEU OF TAXES PROGRAM; AND VALLES CALDERA PRESERVATION ACT
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry Craig
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Good afternoon, everyone. The Subcommittee
on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources will be convened.
We've got some time-sensitivity this afternoon. The two
Senators from Arizona--the Senator from Wyoming, are needing to
catch aircraft, and so we're going to adjust the agenda a
little bit. To do so, I'll withhold my opening statement until
Senator Kyl and Senator McCain have made their opening
statements, and then I would ask Under Secretary Mark Rey to
come forward with Dennis Wells and Tony Gioia to discuss with
us the primary issue that the Arizonans are focused on at this
hearing, S. 849, which would provide a land exchange in the
State of Arizona between the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership.
So, with that, let me turn first to my colleague from
Arizona, Jon Kyl, for his comments, and then we'll move on.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator Kyl. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. What I'm
going to do is submit my statement for the record and simply
give about 60 seconds of background.
And then I'd like to yield to Senator McCain, who will have
a statement that I'm sure expresses our views with respect to
the Yavapai land exchange, simply to say that this is a very
large land exchange and would be very difficult to accomplish
administratively. That's why folks came to both Senator McCain
and me asking for help in getting it done legislatively. There
are about 35,000 acres of private land, a lot of it
checkerboarded. You've got some ponderosa pines of, I think,
over 200 or 300 years, and juniper over 500 years old. The land
wraps around a juniper wilderness area, and, therefore, would
be a sound thing for us to do, both from a management
perspective of the Prescott National Forest, as well as
environmentally sound. And, of course, the Forest Service has
land that it would like to exchange that would help the city of
Williams, that would help the city of Flagstaff, and then some
additional land that has some commercially develop-able
potential.
So all the elements are there for a good exchange. I want
to thank Mark Rey and the Forest Service people for being very
cooperative and trying to work out a lot of problems. The bill
is probably not perfect. There are a few things that still need
to be looked at. Senator McCain, I know, wants to hold some
meetings in Arizona with people who are affected, and then
hopefully come back to the committee and take whatever action
is appropriate at that time.
When we get to the witnesses, I would like to also say a
word or two about at least one of the witnesses from Arizona
who is here.
But I hope that the committee will be able to eventually
act positively on this land exchange proposal.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kyl follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon Kyl, U.S. Senator From Arizona
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on S. 849, the
Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003. This bill,
which I introduced with Senator McCain, facilitates a large and very
complex land exchange in Arizona. This work is the product of months of
discussions between the Forest Service, community groups, local
officials, and other stakeholders. It will allow communities to
accommodate growth and improve the management of our forests; it will
also yield many environmental benefits to the public.
This bill will protect some of Arizona's most beautiful ponderosa
pine forests from future development by placing approximately 35,000
acres of private land into public use: It consolidates a 110 square
mile area in the Prescott National Forest near the existing Juniper
Mesa Wilderness under Forest Service ownership, to preserve the area in
its natural state and prevent its subdivision. This land has old growth
ponderosa pine that is at least 250 years old and juniper that is 500
years old or older. Consolidation will preserve the area for watershed
management, wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation. Without
consolidation, these tracts would be open to future development. I am
pleased that this bill will preserve them for future generations.
This bill significantly improves management of the Prescott
National Forest. The existing checkerboard ownership pattern in the
Prescott makes management and access difficult. The exchange improves
management of the forest by consolidating this land, and allowing the
Forest Service to effectively apply forest-restoration treatments
designed to improve forest health and reduce hazardous fuels. In turn,
better management will help decrease the fire risk in Arizona's
forests. The importance of improved management and efficient
restoration treatments cannot be overstated given last year's
devastating Rodeo-Chediski fire.
In addition to protecting Arizona's natural resources, this bill
allows several Northern Arizona communities to accommodate future
growth and economic development, and to meet other municipal needs. The
exchange will allow the cities of Williams and Flagstaff to expand
their airports and water-treatment facilities, and develop town parks
and recreation areas. The town of Camp Verde will have the opportunity
to acquire lands for view shed protection. Several youth organizations
throughout northern Arizona will be able to acquire land for their
camps.
This land exchange is supported and endorsed by many
municipalities, religious institution's, environmental groups, and
other non-governmental organizations in Arizona. Experts from the
Arizona Game and Fish Department have reviewed the lands to be
exchanged and strongly support the proposal. I have received hundreds
of letters and petitions from residents expressing support for it. This
exchange is extremely important to the residents of Arizona.
Mr. Chairman, this land exchange is a unique opportunity to protect
Arizona's natural resources while accommodating the tremendous growth
that my state is experiencing. This bill is good for the state of
Arizona and I plan to work with my colleagues to ensure that we pass
this important legislation.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Jon.
Senator Thomas, you are time sensitive? You're okay for a
few moments, okay?
Well, then let us turn to the senior Senator from Arizona,
John McCain for his testimony.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had an hour-long opening statement, if that----
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Well, for the sake of everyone----
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig [continuing]. And I'm primarily referring to
their backsides--how about cutting that a few minutes?
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ARIZONA
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity, and I will be brief, although this
is a very complex--as my colleague, Senator Kyl, said, this is
a very complex and perhaps the most challenging land issue that
I have ever been involved in, and I've been involved in
numerous wilderness bills and other acts of legislation that
affected my State. But this is probably the most complex; and,
frankly, still with issues unresolved, issue that I've been
involved in.
And, as Senator Kyl mentioned, it's 170 square miles of
private and Federal forest lands in Arizona. It's of
significance, not only because of its size, but because of the
diverse nature of the lands involved, from literally all over
the northern part of the State, the range of environmental and
economic interests represented, and the associated benefits for
Arizona's citizens and the American public, including the
cities of Flagstaff and Williams, who very badly need
additional lands in order to account for their growth and
expansion.
There are serious water issues that have been raised. There
are serious land issues that have been raised by the State, and
land conservation issues, as well.
Senator Kyl and I have spent far more time and effort than
I had ever anticipated examining this complex land exchange
procedures and the issues associated with it. My support to
facilitate the land exchange is contingent on the knowledge
that the transaction represents a fair and equal value exchange
which represents the interests of Arizona citizens and
taxpayers. And obviously, Mr. Chairman, it must conform to
standard appraisal practice in established Federal land
exchange procedures, secure fair market value for the Federal
land, and allow consideration of the views of Arizona citizens
affected by the exchange.
According to extensive documented communication with the
Forest Service, the bill conforms to standard land exchange
practices and established procedures. I believe the exchange
will yield appreciable benefits to the public through the
consolidation of national forest land to the communities of
Flagstaff and Williams, in terms of economic and other
opportunities, to a number of private camps, and to the
communities of Clarkdale and Camp Verde. In particular, the
public will benefit from the increased protection of the
juniper wilderness area and the streamlined management of
consolidated forest and range lands. The communities of
Flagstaff and Williams and the private camps have expressed
their strong desire to acquire lands involved, for various
beneficial purposes.
Benefits that will accrue to the Verde Valley Communities
are less certain, particularly concerns regarding the
availability of adequate water supplies to sustain new
development of the 3,000 acres included in the Verde Valley.
This bill restricts water usage on the two Verde Valley parcels
to 850-acre feet per year as a responsible and necessary
measure in a water-scarce area. However, current information
indicates that groundwater supplies may be more limited than we
originally understood. In addition, the Arizona Department of
Water Resources has recently indicated that there are problems
with the State enforcement of the conservation easements
restricting water use.
I'm very grateful to have the involvement and background
and knowledge of Senator Kyl on this water aspect of it. As the
chairman is probably aware, he once was heavily involved in all
the water issues affecting our State.
The information to be presented today on the range of
benefits and effects of the land exchange warrants careful
examination. As Senator Kyl mentioned, we intend, as this
process moves forward, to be in consultation with the people,
especially in the Verde Valley, where the controversy
concerning this bill.
I look forward to reading the testimony from the Forest
Service and the Arizona witnesses, Mr. Dennis Wells, an old
friend, and Mr. Tony Gioia.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. As I mentioned, this is
very, very complex. There are still some issues that need to be
ironed out, but I do think it's appropriate to move this
process forward with this hearing at this time.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Senator, thank you very much for that
testimony.
Are there any questions of any of our colleagues to Senator
McCain or Kyl, for that matter?
[No response.]
Senator Craig. Well, if not, we thank you very much. We
will stay on this issue so that we don't conflict the record,
and we'll ask Under Secretary of Natural Resources and the
Environment for U.S. Department of Agriculture, Mark Rey, to
come forward. We'll also ask Dennis Wells, city manager of
Williams, Arizona, and Tony Gioia, council member from Camp
Verde, Arizona, to come forward and be seated at the table.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to assure
you, on the part of Senator Kyl and myself, this land will all
be cleared for forest fire protection in case of passage.
Senator Craig. Yes.
Senator McCain. We thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
While these folks are being seated, why don't I turn to the
ranking member of the full committee, Senator Bingaman, of New
Mexico, for any opening comments he would wish to make on this
or any other issue.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me talk about two of the bills. First, thank you for
having the hearing today. I think it's very timely. I wanted to
speak very briefly about S. 511, which is a bill to ensure that
the fully authorized amount of the Payment in Lieu of Taxes
program is made available to the States each year, removing
that program from the appropriations process, where it's been
now forever. As you know and as all of us from the West know,
this is an extremely important program for the States that have
a great deal of Federal land. Our local government entities
there, particularly counties, are very dependent upon these
PILT payments. They represent only a partial compensation for
the loss of the tax base that's involved when the Federal
Government owns a substantial amount of land in the county, but
it's a very important source of funds for the local government
entities.
The PILT program has never been funded at its fully
authorized level. This bill would ensure that it is funded at
that level. I hope very much we can move ahead on that
legislation successfully.
Let me just point out that our witness today on S. 511 is
county commissioner Harry Mendoza, from McKinley County, New
Mexico, in our State. We're very proud of the work he's done.
He's here representing the National Association of Counties.
He's one of two county commissioners in the country who were
recognized by the National Association of Counties with their
2003 Caucus Courthouse Award for the good work he's done in
bringing about an expansion of the courthouse in McKinley
County. I've had the good fortune to work with him on many
issues, and can attest to his great public service. I'm very
pleased that he is here.
The second bill I just wanted to say a word about is S.
1582. This simply makes some technical changes to the Valles
Caldera National Preserve legislation that we passed a few
years ago. Senator Domenici and I were both strongly in support
of that, and I think we both strongly support these clarifying
and technical amendments. Those are also on your list of bills
to be considered today.
I appreciate you allowing this hearing on both of those
pieces of legislation. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Senator Bingaman, thank you very much.
Now let me turn to my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Craig
Thomas. He has a time-sensitive schedule today, also.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
Thank you for having this hearing.
I'm specifically here to comment on the Payment in Lieu of
Taxes program. Certainly, we've been very supportive of that.
We helped increase the authorization when I was in the House.
I've spearheaded efforts now to keep it up through the fiscal
year 2004. So, obviously, the support in counties and so on for
this money is legitimate and is very necessary.
However, I think it's important to take a look at the costs
and the implications of this becoming an entitlement. As we're
going through appropriations, it points out the fact that
entitlements are fairly easy to set. You don't have to balance
the rest of the budget and these other kinds of things. So it
would cost nearly $4 billion over the next 12 years, in
addition. So I think we have to really take a look at that,
particularly. It would require us to find some additional
sources of funding, take it away from something else or else
raise taxes. So we need to take a long look at it.
The point I wanted to make, however, is that I think
there's another aspect of it that we ought to look at. Fifty
percent of Wyoming belongs to the Federal Government. And they
were concerned about adding more Federal land in our State.
Over the past 8 years, there's been 130-million-acre increase
in the number of acres that qualify for PILT payments,
representing a 25 percent growth in land eligible. Currently,
614 million acres are eligible for PILT payments, and the
Federal Government continues to acquire land. The State of
Montana legislature, interestingly enough, passed a law to
prohibit the sale of State lands to the Federal Government.
So I think we need to take a look at that and put a little
sense in it. I've had a bill, as some of you are aware, for a
good long time that says No Net Loss of Private Lands Act,
which would limit Federal land acquisition in States where the
Federal Government owns more than 25 percent of the land. When
the Government purchased a hundred acres, it would be require
to dispose of a similar amount so that there's no net gain.
This would not inhibit, of course, acquiring pristine or
special areas. But I do think that as we see this PILT demand
go up, we not only need to look at the funding, but we also
need to look at the amount of acres that are continuing to go
in there.
And it works. We just did a thing in the Big Horn National
Forest, where we provided Federal protection to a unique area
and released planned Federal land to the private sector in
another side. So we can do this.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope as we go forward with this, we not
only take a look at the funding available for PILT, but also
the requirements of funding, in terms of additional Federal
land, most of which--much of which, particularly BLM land, does
not have any particular significance, and it could well be
traded off for some of the other kinds of things.
So, thank you very much, sir.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thomas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Craig Thomas, U.S. Senator From Wyoming
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you having this hearing and I
wanted to be here to specifically discuss S. 511, which would provide
permanent funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program.
As you know, I am a supporter of PILT and have spear-headed efforts
to increase PILT funding, including for Fiscal Year 2004. This program
helps fund county governments for lost property taxes due to the
presence of federal lands. In states like Wyoming, PILT funding is
vital, as roughly half our land is owned by the federal government.
However, it is important to look at the costs and implications of
creating a new entitlement.
Estimates indicate that creating a PILT entitlement would cost
nearly $4 billion over a 12 year period. As a fiscally conservative
member, I am concerned about the budget and our current spending,
particularly with ongoing focus on defense and homeland security.
Clearly, S. 511 will require us to find possible funding sources, which
include increasing taxes or making cuts to other programs. Before such
actions are taken, I strongly believe we have to look at our entire
public lands system and address other concerns before moving forward.
As I mentioned, since 50 percent of Wyoming is already owned by the
government, I am generally not in favor of adding more federally-owned
land to our state. Over past 8 years, there has been a 130 million acre
increase in the number of acres that qualify for PILT payments, which
represented a 25 percent growth in lands eligible for PILT payments.
Currently, 614 million acres are eligible for the PILT program, and the
federal government continues to acquire land. For those of us in the
West, we know all too well that the federal government isn't always the
best neighbor. In fact, the State of Montana recently passed a law to
prohibit the sale of state lands to the federal government. Congress
must instill some common sense and restraint in federal land
acquisitions before creating an entitlement based on an ever-growing
federal estate.
Earlier this year, I introduced the ``No-Net-Loss of Private Lands
Act'' which would limit additional federal land acquisitions in states
where the federal government owns 25 percent or more of land. When the
government purchases 100 acres or more, this bill would require the
government to relinquish land of equal value it back into private
ownership in the same state where the acquisition occurs. I want to
emphasize that the bill would do nothing to limit ability to acquire
pristine and special areas in the future. Through land exchanges, I
have seen how well the concept of ``No Net Loss of Private Lands''
actually works. For example, in an area near the Big Horn National
Forest, I worked closely with county commissioners to successfully
provide protection for a unique area through federal acquisition, while
releasing planned federal land relinquishments for the benefit of the
neighboring county. Land exchanges can promote cooperation between the
federal, state, and local levels of government.
I hope this Committee will consider concepts included in the ``No
Net Loss of Private Lands'' bill when discussing the PILT program,
particularly before any action is created to provide permanent funding
to compensate for federal government's insatiable appetite for
additional land.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses.
Senator Craig. Senator, thank you very much. Obviously,
PILT, for all us in public-land States, is a very valuable and
important resource and form of revenue for our local counties.
And I appreciate all of our efforts in that area.
Now we're going to turn to our panelists. I am going to
turn to our two citizens of Arizona first, because Secretary
Rey will remain at the table for other issues that he's here to
testify on. So we'll move in that direction. I think if we were
to do this as a contest of who had traveled the furthest,
gentlemen, you would be the winner and should ultimately be the
first in line.
So, with that, let me turn first to Dennis Wells, the city
manager from Williams, Arizona, for your testimony.
Dennis.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS WELLS, MANAGER,
CITY OF WILLIAMS, AZ
Mr. Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. My name is Dennis Wells. I am the city manager
for the city of Williams, which is located 30 miles west of
Flagstaff, north-central Arizona.
My previous public service includes 18 years as a member of
the Coconino County Board of Supervisors, Flagstaff, nearly 5
years with the Arizona State Land Department, first as deputy
State land commissioner and then as land commissioner, and,
most recently, as town manager for the city of Williams.
I'm here today representing five cities and towns:
Flagstaff, Camp Verde, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, and Williams, all
of which have land parcels involved in the Yavapai Ranch land
exchange.
What I would like to do, and in the interest of time, is
simply to speak from personal experience. The first hat I would
like to put on is my hat as the city manager.
Williams is in a water crisis. I am fortunate in that I'm
able to follow through on some of the things my granddad
started back in 1913, when he first came to Williams, and all
through the years he and my father fought to assure water
adequacy and water development for the Williams area.
Williams has been dependent upon surface water throughout
its history. Just recently, we began to drill deep water wells,
some of them approaching 4,000 feet deep into our aquifer red
limestone. My reason for stating this is that I believe, as a
city manager, that not only Williams, but the other cities
involved, have some immediate and very pressing needs which
this land exchange will help to address. Williams is in a water
crisis. We need water wells. We need some additional water
wells to assure the water future of the Williams area. Williams
is one of the last untouched or relatively sleeper communities,
if you will, on the Mogollon Rim, and we know that growth is
coming, the growth demand is there, and we need water to
accommodate those needs, not only for the town, but for the
country residents in the area, as well.
Williams also has a wastewater plant we need to build.
We're not in ADEQ standards currently. We have an airport
expansion which this land exchange will help us to accommodate.
And we have a new water filtration plant, which we need to
actually double the water capacity of. So, you know, we have
some very immediate and pressing needs; the water crisis, of
course, being the number-one.
City of Flagstaff, some very needy transportation needs.
They need to expand their airport. They need additional runway
length, and they need a second runway. Flagstaff has been
basically saddled with an inadequate airport for a number of
years. Any of you who have flown in and out of Flagstaff
understand what I'm talking about. It's difficult and very
costly to get in and out of Flagstaff by airplane. It is the
capital of northern Arizona.
These infrastructure choices and options for all five
cities and towns, I believe are very important. I think there's
an immediate need. If this exchange, for instance, were to go
to an administrative process, I believe it would not happen.
And certainly these immediate and pressing needs would not be
addressed.
Switching hats, I'd like to talk a little bit as a former
State land commissioner. The checkerboard pattern, which I
believe is somewhat--we used to call it ``smallpox'' at the
Land Department, because it is really--it's a pox on the land.
The checkerboard pattern is negative in a number of ways. And
here we have an opportunity to consolidate a large piece of
checkerboard land in North Arizona some 110-plus square miles
in size. You can imagine a city planned and developed in a
checkerboard pattern, where every other section was developed
and then undeveloped. Can you imagine a park that was in a
checkerboard pattern? You know, there are many, many negative
factors involved with trying to manage a checkerboard pattern
of land.
This is another reason that we need to get this exchange
going. The Yavapai Ranch, of which I've been familiar with for
about 20 years now and visited many times, is a very unique and
beautiful location. It does not need to be developed as a
wildcat-style development on this checkerboard pattern, which
will certainly have a very deleterious and negative impact on
it into the future. So for that reason, I would say, in looking
from the State perspective and from my experience as State land
commissioner, we need this trade.
Hat number three, which I would like to don, is really from
the longest period of time in my public career, my 23 years in
public life, and that is 18 years as a Coconino County
supervisor working out of Flagstaff.
You know, Congress has some enormous issues to deal with
here. You're dealing with billions of dollars, you're dealing
with a war on terrorism, how do you rebuild Iraq, $80-plus-
billion, enormous issues. Local government, on the other hand,
deals with on-the-ground issues that are closest to the
citizens and the people that are in on the countryside. And,
you know, that's my love. Local government is my love. And I
can tell you that the Yavapai Ranch land exchange will give
these local communities the opportunity and the options to do
what they need to do to supply the infrastructure they need to
address water needs, transportation needs, schools, hospitals,
many, many different impacts into the future. So, in my eyes,
the Yavapai Ranch land exchange is certainly going to go down
as a big piece of Arizona history and a very positive move by
this congressional body.
And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I believe I'd like to
conclude my statements.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wells follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dennis Wells, Manager, City of Williams, AZ
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Dennis Wells, and I am the City Manager for the City of
Williams, which is located on historic Route 66 in north central
Arizona. My previous public service includes 18 years as a member of
the Coconino County Board of Supervisors and nearly 5 years with the
Arizona State Land Department as the Deputy Commissioner, and then
State Land Commissioner.
I am a third-generation native of Williams, Arizona. My great-
grandfather first traveled to Northern Arizona in the late 1800's as a
surveyor with the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe railway for a rail line
along the 35th parallel. My grandfather, Frank Wells, settled in
Williams in 1913, one year after statehood. He acquired the Williams
Grand Canyon News; the local newspaper is still owned and managed by a
member of the Wells family.
I am here today as a representative of five Cities and Towns:
Flagstaff, Camp Verde, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, and Williams; all of
which have land parcels involved in the Yavapai Ranch land exchange
exchange, and all of which have strongly endorsed the land exchange
proposal. I also bring letters of support from the elected officials of
Prescott, Prescott Valley, Chino Valley, and the Coconino County Board
of Supervisors, all of which are interested in seeing the land exchange
move forward due to the very significant land and watershed protections
it will achieve by consolidating National Forest ownership on the
Yavapai Ranch.
Until recently, the City of Williams relied completely on surface
water supplies to service the community. Water crises came and went,
yet the community was always able to survive through conservation and
very wise use of the water which was available. However, the current
drought cycle, which some have called the worst drought in the past
300-500 years, has severely challenged Williams and its northern
Arizona neighbors. Surface water reservoirs in Williams are currently
at a minimal 8% of capacity, I repeat, only 8% of capacity, and were as
low as 4% as recently as the summer of 2002.
The City of Flagstaff is facing similar water challenges.
I begin my testimony with this emphasis on water to share with you
the profound awareness of the importance of wise water management by
the elected officials and managers of the five cities and towns
involved in S. 849. All five of these cities and towns strongly support
the passage and early implementation of the legislation because they
believe that this trade will have a net-positive impact on our future
water resources and municipal water programs.
For the City of Williams, this land exchange will provide new land
for important deep well drilling sites which are currently on Forest
Service land. We need to acquire the Forest Service land because it is
extremely complicated and time consuming to secure permits and other
authorizations to drill and administer wells for municipal use on
public land. And frankly, we hear from the Forest Service that they
would prefer to get out of these types of permitting and administrative
functions. The future of Williams and surrounding environs depends on
the privatization of these parcels so we can expeditiously begin these
efforts to augment our water supplies. Williams will also benefit by
acquiring the land for our water filtration plant and a wastewater
treatment plant expansion. Similarly, in Flagstaff, one of the parcels
that will be conveyed to the City is the current site of their
municipal water treatment plant.
The Cities and Towns of Camp Verde, Cottonwood and Clarkdale
support this land exchange because it preserves a 50,000 acre area in
the upper Verde River watershed from future development. Rather than
threatening the Verde Valley's scarce water resources, consolidating
these pristine lands on the Yavapai Ranch into Forest Service ownership
shields a possible recharge area of the upper Verde River. In addition,
residential and commercial development on the exchange parcels in or
near these cities and towns will be subject to new water conservation
and land use restrictions, and local community planning standards.
Water from current sources has already been identified for the parcels
in this trade that would eventually be developed.
I have stressed the benefits of this land exchange in terms of
watershed management, water supply, and water conservation, but there
are other conservation, economic and growth management benefits for our
citizens and municipalities.
This land exchange will create a block of more than 70,000 acres of
unfragmented wildlife habitat. As the Arizona Department of Game and
Fish has indicated, these Yavapai Ranch lands are prime big game
habitat for populations of pronghorn antelope, elk, deer, turkey and
mountain lion. The Yavapai Ranch lands also include the largest stand
of privately owned Ponderosa Pine in Arizona, as well as Alligator
Juniper trees that are more than 850 years old. Consolidation of these
checkerboard lands will preserve thousands of acres for open space,
recreation, hunting, and other wilderness activities. As a former State
Land Commissioner, I can attest that preserving large blocks of
pristine land is important to our way of life, and to our tourism based
economies.
Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not emphasize the
significant economic benefits from this land exchange.
The Cities and Towns of Flagstaff, Williams, Camp Verde, Cottonwood
and Clarkdale also value the tax impacts and economic development
benefits of the Northern Arizona Land Exchange Act of 2003. Through
this exchange, lands adjacent to the Flagstaff and Williams airports
will be passed through to these cities for future runway extensions and
other airport improvements. Airport improvements are vital to northern
Arizona's tourism-based economies as well as for business attraction,
retention and expansion. Acquiring ownership of these lands will enable
the cities to use federal matching grants for airport improvements and
minimize general fund expenditures.
Business park and commercial development are planned for some of
the Flagstaff, Williams and Camp Verde parcels. The business park
expansion at Flagstaff's Pulliam Airport will provide a new land base
for a future high-tech employment center. In addition, this trade will
privatize land along Interstate 17 for commercial development in Camp
Verde. The new tax revenues from this commercial development are
critically needed in Camp Verde, a rapidly growing bedroom community.
The exchange parcels in Camp Verde will also accommodate an emergency
response facility with fire, hazmat, and emergency medical services,
essential for rapid response along rural stretches of Interstate 17.
The Camp Verde parcel is already-impacted land along the interstate and
highway 260, land that is located far above and away from the scenic
and fragile lands along the Verde River bottom making it a logical
place to accommodate future growth. And I note that the Yavapai Ranch
partnership has committed in writing to keeping the land it acquires
east of I-17 as open space. This view shed preservation is another
reason the City strongly supports the exchange.
Mr. Chairman, Flagstaff, Williams and the cities and towns of the
Verde Valley are among the fastest growing communities in Arizona. The
parcels included in S. 849 were carefully determined through
negotiations between the Yavapai Ranch Partnership and each of the
Cities, Towns, and Youth Camps involved. The parcels and land uses
outlined in this exchange have been incorporated into community plans
and ratified by our citizens. For example: this land exchange will
allow Flagstaff to fulfill components of its Regional Land Use and
Transportation Plan. Williams will have access to land to fulfill its
comprehensive water program. Development near Clarkdale will be aligned
with the Town's General Plan, and all real estate developments on the
land acquired near Camp Verde and Clarkdale will be subject to new
Water Declarations for water use restrictions, limitations, and
conservation measures.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the land exchange embodied in S. 849 will
advance and improve the quality of life for northern Arizona citizens,
while at the same time protecting rare natural resources and
consolidating a 110 square mile block of the type of pristine land that
makes Arizona such a special place to live, work and vacation. I
believe this land exchange is a ``win-win'' for all concerned.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you for inviting me to speak
today. I would be happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee might
have.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Dennis. We'll now turn
to Tony Gioia, council member, Camp Verde.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF TONY GIOIA, COUNCIL MEMBER,
CAMP VERDE, AZ
Mr. Gioia. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify on S. 849.
I am a council member of the town of Camp Verde, and here
today with me is David Leibforth, council member of the town of
Clarkdale, the two parcels most impacted in the Verde Valley by
this exchange.
I speak as a private citizen representing thousands of
concerned residents and many elected officials in the Verde
Valley who have funded our trip.
I carry thousands of signatures in opposition to the
inclusion of the Camp Verde and Clarkdale parcels in this
trade. The decision to legislate the trade has deprived the
people who own the public lands of full participation. The
proponent, Mr. Ruskin, would be given over 21,000 acres,
including 3,020 acres of public lands in the Verde Valley for
development. Over 47,800 acres of private lands are already
available for our growth in the Verde Valley. We certainly do
not lack private land. What we do lack, as others do, are the
water rights and resources to support and sustain our growth.
Camp Verde and Clarkdale are at only 20 percent buildout. We
must find the water before more public lands are privatized,
not after.
My involvement with water issues includes co-chairman of
Yavapai County Water Advisory Board and chairman of the Middle
Verde River Planning Committee formed to implement Arizona
Department of Water Resources Rural Watershed Initiative. This
was conceived to protect and enhance watersheds. I also
actively participate in numerous other regional local planning
entities.
Records of dried-up wells and declining groundwater levels
are included in my submittal, along with the Department of the
Interior's map of potential water-supply crises of 2025. The
Verde Valley is identified as an area where, quote, ``existing
supplies are not adequate to meet water demands for people, for
farms, and for the environment.''
The Verde Valley water supply is also threatened by
litigation with the Salt River Project over subsurface water
rights. Because water quantity and water quality are closely
linked, we face such issues as arsenic concentration, e-coli
contamination, and other threats to a safe water supply. Due to
unacceptable arsenic levels, Camp Verde Water Company has
closed eight of twelve wells in the town side. They now
concentrate operations 7 miles outside of the town center. Like
much of the arid West, our cities are having to look far afield
just to find water to sustain present development. We would
even consider projects to bring Colorado River water by
pipeline from perhaps hundreds of miles away, were it feasible.
The Verde Valley so-called ``conservation easements'' in this
bill will actually allow, as you've heard, 850 acre feet per
year--that is well over a quarter-billion gallons--to be drawn
from lands which currently function as part of our watershed.
Watershed protection has always been a major goal of the
National Forests, since its inception in 1891. These easements
will result in an additional water burden in our area to supply
10,200 persons. To put it in perspective, that's more than the
entire current population of Camp Verde.
Of particular concern is a gaping loophole in the bill,
which apparently exempts municipal and private water companies
from any water-use restrictions.
A recent U.S. Geological Survey fact sheet states that the
present and future water situation in our valley is largely
unknown. It poses fundamental questions concerning our
hydrologic system relative to recharge, flow boundaries,
sources of base flow, and the effects of current and future
human water use.
There is a major opposition to circumvention of the
National Environmental Protection Policy Act. Surely the
largest and most complex trade proposal in Arizona history
merits impact analysis. There is substantial controversy over
many provisions of this proposal. The granting of extensive in-
holdings, 5 square miles abutting the Juniper Mesa Wilderness,
and the granting of water rights on the public lands, along
with three 40-acre easements, to the proponent are obviously
inconsistent with U.S. Forest Service land trade guidelines.
There is an additional 6 square miles of private property that
will be left in that checkerboard State abutting the Juniper
Mesa Wilderness.
The land values in the checkerboard area were established
in 1999 at $1,925 per acre. In contrast, a .64 acre parcel
adjacent to the Camp Verde trade parcel sold for $750,000 in
2002. This begs the question of how equity can be reached.
We ask that the exchange go forward only with public input
and appropriate impact studies. In pursuance of the public
interest above all else, we implore you to remove all Verde
Valley lands from this proposal. Please review the materials we
have submitted before you would act on this, and we thank you
very much. And I welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gioia follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tony Gioia, Council Member, Camp Verde, AZ
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for providing
us the opportunity to testify on Senate bill 849, the ``Northern AZ
National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003''.
My name is Tony Gioia. I am a Councilmember of the town of Camp
Verde, Arizona. I am here today with David Leibforth, Councilmember of
the Town of Clarkdale. Today, I speak as a private citizen,
representing thousands of concerned residents and many elected
officials in the Verde Valley. They have funded our trip here to
testify on their behalf before this body. This five minutes is one of
the few opportunities provided to have their voices heard on this
issue.
Through letters and petitions, thousands of our region's citizens,
including many public officials, have expressed strong opposition to
the inclusion of the Clarkdale and Camp Verde parcels in this trade
proposal. In 1998, citizens in the Verde Valley heard about a land
exchange proposal to privatize national forest land near the towns of
Camp Verde, Clarkdale, and Cottonwood. We learned that the exchange
would not go through the normal agency process, but through
legislation. The bill has been drafted by the proponent (Fred Ruskin)
and his lobbyists. Negotiations with the Forest Service and Legislators
followed. It amazes us that the public, who own these lands, have not
been invited to participate in drafting the proposal. The local
public's voice should be among the strongest.
Among the over 21,000 acres of land Mr. Ruskin would be given in
the trade, he would receive more than 3,000 acres of public land in the
Camp Verde and Clarkdale area for residential and commercial
development. Over 47,800 acres of private lands are already available
for growth in the Verde Valley. We certainly do not lack private lands
for potential development. What we do lack are the water rights and
resources to support and sustain growth. Camp Verde and Clarkdale are
at only 20% build-out! We must find the water before more public lands
are privatized, not after! My involvement with water resource issues
includes Co-chairman of the Yavapai County Water Advisory Board, a
letter from which is enclosed in your packet.* Chair of the Middle
Verde River Planning Committee, formed to implement the Arizona
Department of Water Resources ``Rural Watershed Initiative'', conceived
to protect and enhance watersheds. I also actively participate in
numerous other regional and local planning entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All attachments have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some records of dried-up wells and ground water supplies are
included in my submittal along with the Department of the Interior's
map of ``Potential Water Supply Crises by 2025''. The map depicts the
Verde Valley as an area where ``existing supplies are not adequate to
meet water demands for people, for farms and for the environment.'' The
Verde Valley is also engaged in litigation with the Salt River Project
over subsurface water rights. Because water quantity and water quality
are closely linked, we face such issues as arsenic concentration, e-
coli contamination, and other threats to a safe water supply. In the
recent past, Camp Verde Water Company has had to close 8 of it's 12
wells due to arsenic levels. Like much of the arid West, our towns are
having to look far afield just to find water to sustain present
development--and we would even consider projects to bring Colorado
River water by pipeline from perhaps hundreds of miles away were it
feasible.
The Verde Valley ``water restrictions'' in this bill will allow 850
acre feet per year (well over 1/4 billion gallons). Allowing the common
planned area development standard of four families per acre foot, with
an average family of three, these restrictions would impose an
additional water burden to supply 10,200 persons on the newly
privatized public lands which presently contribute to our watershed.
This number of people is equivalent to the entire current population of
Camp Verde. Of particular concern is a gapping loophole in the bill
which exempts municipal or private water companies from any water use
restrictions.
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 future water situation in our valley is largely unknown.
The USGS 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 Public Land parcels that would transfer to Mr.
Ruskin sit on the Verde Fault, from which water is already being drawn
by Camp Verde Water Company and the Cottonwood Waterworks. The Verde
Fault apparently acts as a groundwater dam in some areas and as a
pipeline in others. There is strong evidence that groundwater recharge
is insufficient to meet existing needs in the area.
A major basis for so much strong public opposition to this proposal
has been the circumvention of the National Environmental Policy Act.
This, the largest land trade proposal in Arizona's history, must
include the environmental analysis that comes with NEPA to understand
the potential impacts on water supplies and the other potential
consequences to the vast area this exchange would effect.
The aspect of NEPA that would be especially worthwhile in this case
is the requirement that alternatives for a project be considered.
Perhaps there are benefits to consolidating public ownership in the
checkerboard lands of the Prescott National Forest and to the
protection of the Juniper Mesa wilderness, but there is substantial
controversy over many other provisions of this proposal. The granting
of extensive inholdings (5 square miles) abutting the Juniper Mesa
Wilderness and the granting of water rights and 40 acre easements to
the proponent are obviously inconsistent with U.S. Forest Service land
trade guidelines.
Surely, there are alternatives that could benefit the public and
the proponent. 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 public process with appropriate impact
studies and in pursuance of the public interest above all else. Should
the legislation proceed, we implore you to remove from this proposal
inclusion of all U.S. National Forest lands in the Verde Valley. I
thank you and welcome any questions.
Senator Craig. Mr. Gioia, thank you very much for your
testimony.
And before we ask questions of you, let me turn to our
Under Secretary of Natural Resources and the Environment, Mark
Rey.
STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
ACCOMPANIED BY TINA TERRELL, FOREST SERVICE
Mr. Rey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Senator
Kyl.
Appearing with me, on my left, is Tina Terrell of the
Forest Service, who has worked on this exchange and on the
legislation and may assist me in responding to your questions.
The Department supports the exchange of land between the
Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership and Northern Yavapai, LLC,
and the Forest Service. We view the exchanged, looked at in its
entirety, to be in the public interest. The benefits of the
exchange and the legislation are outlined in my testimony,
which I'll submit for the record.
The exchange would consolidate the largest remaining
checkerboard ownership in Arizona and simplify significantly
the management of Federal lands. We do have a few concerns
related to the partial deletion order and enforcement
provisions associated with the conservation easements, and
would be happy to work with the committee and the bill's
authors to make what I think will amount to technical
adjustments to the language in the bill, as introduced.
With that, I would be happy to respond to any of your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Rey, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to present the Administration's views on S. 432--the Public
Lands Production Research Act of 2002, S. 849--the Northern Arizona
National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003, and S. 1582--the Valles
Caldera Preservation Trust Act. The Department does not oppose S. 432
and supports the concept of the land exchange embodied within S. 849.
The Administration would have no objection to S. 1582, if amended, to
address concerns regarding the Federal competitive service,
firefighting expenditures and the permanent Judgment Fund.
S. 432--THE PUBLIC LANDS PRODUCTION RESEARCH ACT OF 2003
S. 432 requires the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to
conduct and develop a research program into alternative wood
preservative treatments for timber produced from public lands and lands
withdrawn from the public domain for the National Forest System. This
research program would include the use of silver-based biocides using
silver produced from patented and unpatented mining claims. S. 432
provides that the research program may be implemented through contracts
with public or private laboratories or research institutes with
experience in the treatment of such products. The Department does not
oppose S. 432.
The Forest Service has the largest forestry research organization
in the world and is a national and international leader in forest
conservation. Research conducted at our research stations and
laboratories contributes to the advancement of science, and the
conservation of many of our Nation's most valuable natural resources.
Forest Service scientists carry out basic and applied research to
study biological, physical, and social sciences related to very diverse
forests and rangelands. We produce information and technology to help
manufacturers, mills, and small business operators become more
efficient and friendly to the environment. We produce information and
technology that can lead to improvements in forest conditions through
the use of wood and fiber resources which are more diverse in species
and size classes. Increasingly, new construction utilizes wood products
engineered to specified sizes, shapes, and properties, requiring new
technologies and knowledge of wood and other materials. Researching the
use of silver-based biocides will help us evaluate organic and non-
petroleum adhesives for wood products which could provide new ways of
making larger materials from smaller timber resources.
A few examples of silver compounds research conducted by Forest
Service scientists include:
Currently conducting a feasibility assessment of silver
compounds as a preservative for southern pine;
Comparing six silver compounds in laboratory tests for
inhibition of fungal wood decay and Eastern subterranean
termite damage;
Testing leach to demonstrate that silver containing
compounds bind to the woody substrate and can inhibit leaching
of boron.
We commend the Chairman for recognizing the importance of research
in this area. To our knowledge, the bill does not authorize any
activity not already authorized under current law. USDA could designate
this area of research as a high priority within existing authorities to
address research priorities based upon resource issues across the
Nation. The bill's legislative direction could require USDA to limit
other high-priority programs or projects that may rely upon the same
limited funding source.
S. 849--THE NORTHERN ARIZONA NATIONAL FOREST LAND EXCHANGE ACT OF 2003
The Department supports the concept of a land exchange between
Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership, the Northern Yavapai, L.L.C. and the
Forest Service, which would consolidate the largest remaining
checkerboard ownership in Arizona. We do however, have some concerns
related to the parcel deletion order and enforcement provisions
associated with the conservation easements and would like to work with
the committee on some clarifications.
S. 849 would authorize the exchange of approximately 55,000 acres
of Federal and non-Federal land in the State of Arizona between the
Secretary of Agriculture and Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership. Pass-
through provisions allow for some of the Federal land acquired by
Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership and the Northern Yavapai L.L.C. to be
reconveyed to the cities of Flagstaff, Williams, and Camp Verde,
Arizona, or to summer organizational camps identified in the bill.
This exchange can offer substantial benefits to all parties
involved. The Forest units involved would benefit from simplified
boundary management, reduced administrative costs, and the acquisition
of lands adjacent to the Juniper Mesa Wilderness, which has significant
forest, wildlife, and recreation values. Consolidating 110 square miles
into solid Forest Service ownership is a significant gain from both
administrative and resource standpoints.
The Department has suggestions to improve one section in the bill.
Section 4 in S. 849 establishes conservation easements on the Camp
Verde and Cottonwood parcels. These parcels are located on the Prescott
National Forest. S. 849 needs greater detail concerning: (1) how a
memorandum of understanding with the State of Arizona will be developed
to enforce the conservation easements; (2) when the memorandum will
take effect and for how long; and (3) how the Federal Government will
be removed from liability. We would be happy to work with the committee
and the bill authors to provide additional details.
In addition, the Department is concerned that the evaluation of the
Federal parcels due to the conservation easements could 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, but the Federal government will hold these conservation
easements in perpetuity.
S. 1582--VALLES CALDERA PRESERVATION ACT OF 2003
S. 1582, introduced by Senators Domenici and Bingaman, would make
modifications to Public Law 106-248, the Valles Caldera Preservation
Act. The Administration would have no objection to S. 1582, if amended,
to address concerns regarding the Federal competitive service,
firefighting expenditures and the permanent Judgment Fund.
The Valles Caldera National Preserve located in central New Mexico
is a unique landmass, with nationally important scientific, cultural,
historic, recreational, ecological, wildlife, and fisheries values. In
passing the Valles Caldera Preservation Act in 2000, Congress
recognized those values and established the National Preserve as an
experiment in public land administration that incorporates elements of
public and private administration so as to promote long-term financial
stability consistent with the protection of the natural resources and
the sustained yield for timber production, and domesticated livestock
grazing. Under the terms and conditions of the 2000 Act, Secretary of
Agriculture Ann Veneman authorized the Valles Caldera Trust to assume
management of the National Preserve in August 2002. The Trust,
comprised of 9 members appointed by the President, now oversees the
management of the Preserve.
S. 1582 would:
direct Federal agencies to classify rates of compensation
and classification of Trust employees so that these employees
are not precluded from consideration for Federal competitive
service based on their current employment;
allow the Board of Trustees to designate any Trust employees
to solicit donations (under current law, only the Trustees may
solicit donations);
allow the Board of Trustees to set the compensation of the
chair, subject to certain limitations;
clarify that the prohibition against the disposal of real
property by the Trust does not include the sale or other
disposal of forage, forest products or marketable renewable
resources;
allow the Trust, subject to the laws applicable to
Government corporations, to determine the character and
necessity for any obligations and expenditures of the Trust and
the manner in which expenditures and obligations shall be
incurred, allowed, and paid;
authorize the Trust to utilize the permanent judgment
appropriation provided under section 1304 of title 31, U.S.C.,
for a claim, judgment, or settlement against the Trust; and
direct the Secretary to provide, to the extent generally
authorized at other units of the National Forest System, fire
suppression and rehabilitation services and wildland fire
severity funding for extraordinary preparedness. (The Secretary
of Agriculture currently may provide pre-suppression,
suppression and rehabilitation services at the request of the
Trust, subject to reimbursement.)
The Administration has several concerns with S. 1582.
First, it should limit the number of Trust employees that may
accept gifts in order to minimize the potential for fraud, conflicts of
interest, or other ethical concerns.
Second, we have been advised that the Department of Justice opposes
section 2(e) of the bill, regarding the eligibility of the Trust to pay
claims, judgments, and settlements from the permanent judgment
appropriation at 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1304 (the ``Judgment Fund''). In
general, government corporations like the Trust should pay judgments
and settlements out of their own funds. Because the Trust is an
autonomous corporation with its own funds and an entity whose
liabilities are properly charged to corporate funds, it is appropriate
for the Trust to continue to satisfy judgments and settlements against
it out of Trust funds.
Third, OPM advises that Section 2 (a) of the bill would extend to
excepted service employees of the Trust a preferential opportunity to
apply for competitive service positions elsewhere that are not open to
Federal employees generally, thereby creating an inequity between Trust
employees and excepted service employees throughout Government who have
no such opportunity.
Fourth, complex or large fires can require the expenditure of
extensive fire fighting and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation
resources. However, the bill provides no limitation, by time or amount,
to the funds that could be provided to the Trust under these proposed
authorities. The original act provides an expectation that the Trust
should work toward the goal of financial sustainability. We assume S.
1582 continues that expectation with regard to fire suppression. The
measure could be improved with the inclusion of language to establish
limits of duration and funding for expenditures associated with
firefighting together with appropriate levels of reimbursement.
In addition, the intent of Sec. 4(b)(2) for the Secretary to
provide ``rehabilitation'' needs to be clarified as to whether the
intent is for the Secretary to provide emergency stabilization or
rehabilitation. These are two different programs. Emergency
stabilization funds come from the wildland fire emergency operations
account and are meant to protect persons, property and resources
immediately after a large and damaging wildfire. Rehabilitation
activities are longer term and are conducted through other ongoing
management activities funded under different program appropriations. We
believe that the bill should focus solely upon emergency stabilization
activities on the Preserve, subject to the same time and amount
limitations discussed earlier related to firefighting.
In addition, section 4(b)(2) would delete the current authority for
the Secretary to provide the Trust presuppression activities subject to
reimbursement. We believe it is appropriate for presuppression and
rehabilitation activities to be provided by the Forest Service, under a
cooperative agreement, with reimbursement by the Trust.
This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any
questions that you may have.
Senator Craig. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.
Let me turn first to my colleague from Arizona, who needs
to leave in a few moments, to let him do the first round of
questions, and then I'll follow.
Senator Kyl. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was going
to introduce my old friend, Dennis Wells. I've just recently
gotten to know Mr. Gioia. But since they were introduced
otherwise, I'll just ask that Mr. Wells' fellowship for State
and local executives at Harvard not be used against him on this
Committee.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. It will be dutifully noted.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kyl. Yeah. He thought it important to get a
perspective from the other side, but----
Senator Craig. All right.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kyl. He has a long history of involvement in land
and water issues in Arizona, and I did want to make that point.
And I, again, want to reiterate that the Forest Service has
been very, very helpful to us. As both of the other witnesses
have noted, and as Senator McCain said, this is huge and
there's a lot of complexity to it and just a lot of issues. And
as soon as you think you have them all solved, somebody else
comes forward with another question, and you work through that.
And I think, actually, this is not a problem with this
exchange; it is an indication of how we can solve these
problems. We could have never done it without the help of the
Forest Service. They've been very candid. There were certain
issues that they were concerned about. We worked through some
solutions with them. And I think there are a couple of things
that we still have to iron out, although, hopefully, as Mark
Rey said, they will be technical in nature.
The bill that's introduced here in the Senate is not a bill
that is 100 percent, I think, supported by the Ruskin Family.
It is supported by the Forest Service, with some caveats. And I
think that is also true for other people in the region, because
it is so complex. But I think that very fact, as I said,
indicates a strength here, not a weakness. And in the meetings
that Senator McCain and I hope to have with--and there have
been many meetings so far; don't get the impression that there
haven't been meetings--but in the meetings that we plan to
have, we'll hope to hear additional comments, and if there are
additional things we need to do to bring those suggestions to
you so that the Committee won't have to do all of this work by
itself. Hopefully we will have done that work for the
committee.
I don't have any specific questions of either of the two
witnesses, but I would like, in the interest of time--I think
they both--I know Mr. Gioia has some questions that he would
like to have answered. What I'd like to do is submit those
questions for the record to the people who can appropriately
answer them. I think that'll provide the record that we need.
And subject to that, I think I wouldn't have any additional
comments, unless any of the other witnesses wanted to make a
point.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Let me move through some questions.
Senator Kyl. Oh, can I just say one other thing?
Senator Craig. Yes. Please do.
Senator Kyl. The word ``camps'' was mentioned earlier, and
I wanted to explain what that is. There are a variety of camps.
There's a camp for kids, for example, that is involved in this,
and that's what that was referring to. There's a town called
Camp Verde. But Young Life, for example--I think some of us are
familiar with Young Life--and they're very strongly in support
of this, because they have a camp that's involved in the land
exchange.
So it's not just municipalities who will have airport
needs, water needs, and so on met by this land exchange, or the
benefit to the forest of being properly managed. There are some
other interests who are strongly supportive because of the
value to them, as well.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Jon.
Mark, how long would it take you to undertake a normal
administrative exchange process on an exchange as complicated
as this if it were not legislated? What would be your
guessimate as to the time it would take to facilitate something
of this kind by the Forest Service?
Mr. Rey. Probably to get to a final exchange, somewhere in
the neighborhood of 7 years. And any appeals for administrative
decisions and litigation would follow that period.
Senator Craig. Okay.
Mr. Gioia, you've heard the testimony of Senator McCain,
Under Secretary of Agriculture, and Mr. Wells. Understanding
the concerns you've raised in your written and oral testimony,
will the people you represent be better off if this exchange
falls through? And I don't know what the plans of the current
owners of the Yavapai Ranch are, but if their plans were to
develop into subdivisions, what would be your reaction to that
now that you have the perspective you have on the land and the
property surrounding your interests?
Mr. Gioia. I don't think necessarily that the constituents
in the Verde Valley would be better served if the entire
proposal falls through. It does have fine points to it;
however, the desire for certain entities to acquire Forest
Service lands, public lands, are enabled through the Town Site
Act, so it's not a total loss for Flagstaff, Williams, the
Prescott area. Camps could also be part of that, and those
turned over through the agencies involved in the Town Site Act.
For the Verde Valley, it is hard to convey to you the water
situation. It's equally hard to convey to the public in the
Verde Valley when they turn on the tap and water does come out.
However, one council member, Diane Jones, wrote to the members
of this committee and discussed how one morning, for a day and
a half, the water didn't come out of the tap. The sand had--the
water company that she subscribes to, sand had destroyed their
pumps, and those pumps, of course, had to be replaced. Recharge
time for those well areas had to be allowed. And it shows how
fragile our water resources are.
To stick to your question about whether this proposal can
follow through and assist--to convolute your question a little
bit; I apologize--but assist those other persons who might
benefit from this, I think it is possible. And I believe that
through, for one, the checkerboard area, the original proposal
that Mr. Ruskin brought to me and other representatives of the
Verde Valley originally had the line that separates the upper
portion which would become private property, and the lower
portion which was intended to protect the wilderness was south
by a good number of square miles. If the majority of this trade
took place within the checkerboard area and still leaving the
financial equality or equity for the trade portions to include
Flagstaff, Williams, and the camps, I think it's perfectly
possible. And I think the problems that the Verde Valley
certainly have--and, as I said, we are working through science
to solve those problems--but if there is water that has been
found recently, it's not potable.
We have--each individual town has tried different things to
improve their water sources. Cottonwood has gone to Cornville,
which is a bit on the plateau and out of the Verde Valley to an
extent, to acquire some more water, to buy land and pipe that
water down to Cottonwood.
We have a severe water problem. I think it would only
exacerbate that problem.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much for that
testimony.
Now let me turn to you, Mr. Wells.
There's been suggestions that Congress not legislate this
land exchange, but rather that it be processed through the
Forest Service's administrative channels, and I think you've
heard Mr. Gioia refer to other methods by which cities or
communities can gain additional public lands for growth and
expansion purposes. And I think you've just heard also from
Secretary Rey--I understand it at a minimum of four and
possibly as much as seven or eight, assuming that there would
be the potential for possible appeals and litigation, which is
always the character of that type of activity. How do the
cities and towns you represent feel about waiting for the
exchange to go through the normal administrative process?
Mr. Wells. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to say
that I believe a wait of 7 years, I believe Mr. Rey alluded to,
would basically--first of all, I think it would kill the
exchange. I don't believe, having looked at exchanges that have
gone through in the past, the a number of moving parts on this
one, the complexity and size of it, I don't believe this
exchange would be able to be accomplished in an administrative
fashion. I think there's simply too many moving parts.
But to answer your question, sir, I would say that the wait
is simply too much--it's definitely too much for us. We have 8
percent in our water reservoirs and one producing water well.
We need drilling sites that are currently on public land. We
need those in private hands to where we can utilize them, get
the permits quickly, and not have the burdensome and
troublesome process of attempting to drill on public land.
I would like to say, there are a number of other needs that
we have--the waste-water plant, the water plant. And simply to
finish answering your question, I think legislative versus
administrative, we all need to look at the support that this
proposal has. And I don't know that that support would
necessarily be willing to carry through for 7, 8, 10 years. I
just don't see--I see there's too much complexity, sir.
Senator Craig. Well, gentlemen, thank you very much.
Both of my colleagues, Senator McCain and Senator Kyl have
spoken to me about the complexity of this issue and the reality
that not everyone is satisfied or pleased about it. We'll make
every effort, working with our Arizona colleagues, to resolve
any disputes that are there as we work our way through this
legislation.
So we thank you all very much for your testimony. Any
additional information you wish to supply the Committee that
might be informational in helping us shape this legislation
would also be appreciated.
Thank you very much.
Secretary Rey, if you will stay, we'll proceed forward.
We have obvious consideration today of several pieces of
legislation--the one that you've just heard spoken to, S. 849,
Senator Bingaman spoke to S. 511, which would provide permanent
funding for Payment in Lieu of Taxes for other purposes. We're
considering testimony on S. 432, a bill to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to
conduct and support research into alternative treatments for
timber produced from public lands and land withdrawals from the
public domain for the national forest and other purposes. Also
to review, as Senator Bingaman mentioned, S. 1582, an amendment
to the Valles Caldera Preservation Act to improve the
preservation of the Valles Caldera.
So, with that, we've been joined by Chris Kearney, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Policy Management and Budget, United
States Department of the Interior. Chris, we'll turn to you for
your testimony on the legislation you've come to testify on,
and then we'll return to Secretary Rey.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRIS KEARNEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. Kearney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
giving me the opportunity to testify today before S. 511, a
bill to make the Bureau of Land Management's Payment in Lieu of
Taxes program and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Revenue
Sharing program mandatory.
A hearing on PILT took place last year on May 9 before this
subcommittee, and our position on this bill remains, as it was
then, unchanged. We strongly support the PILT and RRS programs,
and view them as high priorities, but we are strongly opposed
to S. 511, because it would force the Federal Government to
either raise taxes or cut into other programs that are integral
to the President's budget and important to the American people.
We do believe that our 2004 budget request demonstrates our
commitment to PILT. The administration requested $165 million
in fiscal year 2003 and $200 million in fiscal year 2004, an
increase of $35 million. In addition, while the total amount
requested for all programs by the Department for 2004 represent
a 3.3 percent increase from prior years, the request for PILT
is more than 21 percent over last year's request for this
important program, reflecting our continued commitment and
obligation to the PILT program, even in the context of other
significant budget priorities.
I might also add that since fiscal year 2001, our budget
requests for PILT have increased a total of 48 percent, and
that request is only outstripped, in percentage terms, by the
programs of the Office of the Special Trustee.
While we recognize the importance of the PILT program,
though, it should not be viewed in isolation from other
departmental and Federal programs that bring, or will bring,
benefits to the counties in the future. Examples include
funding provided for rural fire assistance and our efforts to
work with gateway communities.
Let me speak just for a moment on the section of the bill
that relates to the formula. Section 2 of the bill would amend
the funding formula for PILT by replacing the present
limitation of $135.07 times the population with $265.68 times
the population and amending the table at the end of the section
to reflect corresponding increased or decreased amounts for
each population level.
The administration appreciates the bill's intent to help
compensate those counties with high public land acreage and low
population. Given the complexity of the PILT formula and the
intent of the program to compensate counties for the inability
to collect property taxes on Federal lands, we must be careful
to ensure that the compensation formula compensates those
counties fairly and does not result in counties actually
receiving payments that are substantially different than they
would otherwise receive in order to achieve tax equivalency.
Accordingly, we need to further examine this issue to
determine the effect of increasing the population multiplier
value over all counties, collectively. We're also concerned
that this proposed change would increase the overall PILT
authorization level significantly and, thereby, increase the
cost of the bill even further. This council is in favor of a
more systematic evaluation of how to address issues with PILT
formula within the current authorization levels.
We support protections for local government against the
loss of property tax revenue when private lands are acquired by
a Federal agency.
Now, the administration recognizes that PILT payments are
important to local governments and sometimes comprises a
significant portion of their operating budget. The PILT monies
have been used for critical functions, such as local search-
and-rescue operations, road maintenance, law enforcement,
schools, and emergency services. These expenditures often
support the activities of people from around the country who
visit or recreate on Federal lands.
The Department looks forward to continuing to work
cooperatively with communities on these important issues.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I'd be happy to
answer any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kearney follows:]
Statement of Chris Kearney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and
International Affairs, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to testify today on S. 511, a bill to make the Bureau of
Land Management's (BLM) Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Refuge Revenue Sharing (RRS)
Program mandatory. A hearing on PILT took place last year on May 9,
2002, before this Subcommittee. Our position on this bill remains
unchanged. The Administration strongly supports the PILT and RRS
programs and views them as high priorities, but the Administration is
strongly opposed to S. 511 because it would force the Federal
Government to either raise taxes or cut into other programs that are
integral to the President's budget and important for the American
people.
BACKGROUND
The PILT Act (P.L. 94-565) was passed by Congress in 1976 to
provide payments to local governments in counties where certain Federal
lands are located within their boundaries. PILT is based on the concept
that these local governments incur costs associated with maintaining
infrastructure on Federal lands within their boundaries but are unable
to collect taxes on these lands; thus, they need to be compensated for
these losses in tax revenues. The payments are made to local
governments in lieu of tax revenues and to supplement other Federal
land receipts shared with local governments. The amounts available for
payments to local governments require annual appropriation by Congress.
In the past, the BLM has allocated payments according to the formula in
the PILT Act. The formula takes into account the population within an
affected unit of local government, the number of acres of eligible
Federal land, and the amount of certain Federal land payments received
by the county in the preceding year. These payments are other Federal
revenues (such as receipts from mineral leasing, livestock grazing, and
timber harvesting) that the Federal Government transfers to the
counties. In recognition of the fact that this program is multi-bureau
in nature, beginning in FY 2004, funding and management of PILT will be
administered at the Department level.
The President's FY 2004 budget request demonstrates our commitment
to PILT. The Administration requested $165 million in FY 2003 for PILT,
and $200 million in FY 2004, an increase of $35 million. Furthermore,
while the total amount requested for all programs by the Department for
FY 2004 represents a 3.3 percent increase from the prior year, the
request for PILT is more than 21 percent over last year's request for
this important program, reflecting our continued commitment and
obligation to the PILT program even in the context of other significant
budget priorities. While we recognize the importance of the PILT
program, it should not be viewed in isolation from other departmental
and Federal programs that bring or will bring benefits to counties in
the future. Examples include funding provided for rural fire assistance
and our efforts to work with Gateway Communities to increase tourism
opportunities.
This year, some counties received slightly reduced PILT payments to
adjust for increased revenue received during the previous fiscal year
under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.
This Act provides payments to compensate certain counties for declining
timber receipts. The combination of PILT payments and payments under
the Secure Rural Schools Act, however, will result in a higher overall
payment to affected counties.
RRS (16 U.S.C. 715s), as amended, was enacted in 1935. It
authorizes payments to be made to offset tax losses to counties in
which the FWS fee and withdrawn public domain lands are located. The
original Act provided for 25 percent of the net receipts from revenues
from the sale or other disposition of products on refuge lands to be
paid to counties. The Act was amended in 1964 to make it more like the
PILT program. The new provisions distinguished between acquired lands
that are purchased by the FWS and lands that are withdrawn from the
public domain for administration by the FWS. For fee lands, the
counties received 3/4 of 1 percent of the adjusted value of the land or
25 percent of the net receipts, whichever was greater, with the value
of the land to be reappraised every 5 years. They continued to receive
25 percent of the net receipts collected on the withdrawn public domain
lands in their county.
The RRS was amended again in 1978 in order to provide payments that
better reflected market land values to counties with land administered
by the FWS within their boundaries. The method used to determine the
adjusted cost of the land acquired during the depression years of the
1930's (using agricultural land indices) resulted in continuing low
land values compared to the land prices that existed in 1978. Also,
other lands that were purchased during periods of inflated land values
were found to be overvalued. The Congress decided that the payments did
not adequately reflect current tax values of the property. It also
recognized that national wildlife refuges are established first and
foremost for the protection and enhancement of wildlife and that many
produce little or no income that could be shared with the local county.
In the 1978 amendments, Congress chose to distinguish between lands
acquired in fee and lands withdrawn from the public domain, by
recognizing that the financial impact on counties tends to be greater
when lands are directly withdrawn from the tax rolls, rather than when
the refuge unit is created out of the public domain and has never been
subject to a property tax. The formula adopted then, and still in
effect, allows the FWS to pay counties containing lands acquired in fee
the greater of 75 cents per acre. 3/4 of 1 percent of the fair market
value of the land, or 25 percent of the net receipts collected from the
area. If receipts are insufficient to satisfy these payments,
appropriations are authorized to make up the difference.
Counties can use funds for any government purpose and pass through
the funds to lesser units of local government within the county that
experience a reduction of real property taxes as a result of the
existence of FWS fee lands within their boundaries. Counties with FWS
lands that are withdrawn from the public domain continue to receive 25
percent of the receipts collected from the area and are paid under the
provisions of the PILT Act.
Section 2 would amend the funding formula for PILT found in 31
U.S.C. 6903(c)(2) by replacing the present limitation of ``$135.07
times the population'' with ``$265.68 times the population'' and
amending the table at the end of the section to reflect corresponding
increased or deceased amounts for each population level. The
Administration appreciates the bill's intent to help compensate those
counties with high public land acreage and low population. Given the
complexity of the PILT formula and the intent of the program to
compensate counties for the inability to collect property taxes on
Federal lands, we must be careful to ensure that the compensation
formula compensates counties fairly and does not result in counties
actually receiving payments that are substantially different than they
otherwise would receive in order to achieve tax equivalency.
Accordingly, we need to further examine this issue to determine the
effect of increasing the population multiplier value over all counties
collectively. We are also concerned that this proposed change would
increase overall PILT authorization levels significantly, thereby
increasing the cost of the bill even further. Again, this counsel is in
favor of a more systematic evaluation of how to address issues with the
PILT formula within the current authorization levels.
We continue to engage in discussions with the National Association
of Counties concerning issues associated with the allocation formula
and we believe those issues should be addressed before considering such
a significant action as converting these payments to permanent
mandatory payments, or making any changes to the formula. I would like
to note that many of the same concerns we have previously expressed
regarding PILT funding hold true for RRS funding as well.
Although the Administration supports the purpose of S. 511, we must
oppose it for the same reasons that we opposed a similar bill last year
in the 107th Congress. We support protections for local governments
against the loss of property tax revenue when private lands are
acquired by a Federal agency. However, the Administration is strongly
opposed to creating a new mandatory spending category to fund the PILT
program because it would force the Federal government either to raise
taxes or cut into other programs that are integral to the President's
budget and important to the American public.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recognizes that PILT and RRS payments are
important to local governments, sometimes compromising a significant
portion of their operating budgets. The PILT and RRS monies have been
used for critical functions such as local search and rescue operations,
road maintenance, law enforcement, schools, and emergency services.
These expenditures often support the activities of people from around
the country who visit or recreate on Federal lands. The Department
looks forward to continuing to work cooperatively with the communities
on these important issues.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you or the other members may have.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much.
Now let me turn to Mark Rey.
Mr. Rey. I'll be offering testimony on S. 432 and S. 1582,
and I'll be very brief and submit the entirety of my testimony
on these two bills for the record.
S. 432 requires the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior to conduct and develop a research program into
alternative wood preservative treatments for timber produced
from public lands and lands withdrawn from the public domain
for the national forest system. The Department has no
objections to S. 432.
S. 1582, introduced by Senators Domenici and Bingaman,
would make modifications to Public Law 106-248, the Valles
Caldera Preservation Act. The administration has no objection
to S. 1582, if amended to address concerns regarding the
Federal Competitive Service, firefighting expenditures, and the
use of the Permanent Judgment Fund. Our views on each of those
three matters is included in my statement for the record.
I'd be happy to respond to any questions that you have.
Senator Craig. That is amazingly brief.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rey. I've been practicing it.
Senator Craig. And I was going to say, and coming from you
that is even more amazing.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. No.
Mr. Rey. I've found on this side of the dais, the less I
say, the less trouble I get in.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. There does seem to be a corresponding
relationship.
Gentlemen, thank you all for your testimony.
Chris, I see that you drew the short straw again. And I say
that, because I'm told that the legislative sponsors have a new
population payment formula table--I think you've addressed that
some--that they plan to offer as an amendment now to this bill.
Apparently, the table in the bill that was introduced would
significantly increase the overall cost of the program. I've
been told that the new table is more revenue-neutral.
If my staff provides you with a new table, how long will it
take you to--you and your staff--to run a program to ensure
that the new table has some revenue-neutrality to it?
Mr. Kearney. Senator, in all candor, I don't know precisely
how long it would take, but I think it is something that we
would certainly make a priority to do and respond to you just
as quickly as we can, in ensuring accuracy and completeness.
Senator Craig. Well, we're all sensitive to PILT, and those
of us who come from large public-land States certainly agree
with your testimony that in many instances, in the most rural
of counties, it's become a substantial portion of their budget.
And I view it as a responsible participation on the part of our
government when we do expect services, law enforcement, and a
variety of other things from the local counties. And yet our
presence there pays no taxes.
Would the administration be more comfortable with this
legislation if we added a no-net-gain-in-Federal-lands
provision for States that have more than 25 percent of their
States in Federal land?
Mr. Kearney. Senator, in all honesty, I don't believe it
would answer--it wouldn't address our concerns about the bill.
But I do want to take a moment to make the point that, from the
administration's perspective, the concerns that underlie that
question, and some points that Senator Thomas made earlier,
reflect a concern on the part of members and your constituents
that we understand and share in many instances. That is that
impacts on Federal lands and local communities and people who
come on those lands are the sort of thing that we have--we need
to look at a number of ways to address that, and not only the
issues of dollars, but what we do in terms of carefully
selecting the lands we acquire, the reasons, the mechanisms,
and all manner of tools that we may have at our disposal to
address some of those impacts through things such as gateway
communities, initiatives that we're looking at, and a variety
of other tools and issues and better cooperation that we, as
Federal managers, can undertake in our efforts and interactions
with the counties. So we recognize the concern that's reflected
there, and we're actively trying to address it, and we agree
with those concerned.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Mark, if this bill is passed--and I'm speaking of S. 432--
is there some work that you could have the Forest Products
Laboratory, in Madison, Wisconsin, start to develop a silver
biocide research program this next year?
Mr. Rey. Yes. I think with this additional authorization,
we could look into having the Forest Products Lab develop a
research--a prospectus for some of the work that the bills
calls for.
Senator Craig. Are there any Forest Service research
programs currently examining other substitutes for the arsenic-
based wood preservatives?
Mr. Rey. There are. Primarily at the Forest Products Lab in
Madison. I can provide for the record a synopsis of the ongoing
research.
Senator Craig. Okay.
I know you were involved in the development of the original
Caldera Trust Preservation Act, and I want to know if the
administration will support legislation if we make some of the
technical changes you have called for in this testimony.
Mr. Rey. Yes. I think, with the changes in the areas I've
identified, the administration would support the legislation.
Senator Craig. Well, if you could get us the specific
language changes and get them to our staff here, that will
facilitate for the two New Mexican legislators.
Mr. Rey. We will do that. We will poll our sister agencies.
Some of the concerns are registered by both the Office of
Personnel Management and the Department of Justice.
Senator Craig. Okay.
Well, gentlemen, thank you. I believe that concludes any
questions, additional questions I have. So we thank you for
being here.
Mr. Kearney. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Rey. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Now I'd ask Dr. Jeffrey Ellis, consultant in
chemicals and plastics technology, from Plantation, Florida,
and also Harry Mendoza, commissioner of McKinley County,
Gallup, New Mexico, to please come forward.
Dr. Ellis, we're having a discussion as to where
Plantation, Florida, is.
Dr. Ellis. It's right near Fort Lauderdale.
Senator Craig. All right. Thank you very much.
Well, Dr. Ellis, please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY P. ELLIS, Ph.D., CONSULTANT IN CHEMICALS
AND PLASTICS TECHNOLOGY, PLANTATION, FL
Dr. Ellis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, for inviting me to testify today.
I'm honored to address you on S. 432, Public Lands
Production Research Act of 2003, a measure that would direct
the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to develop a
program of research into alternative treatments using silver
biocides for timber and timber products from public lands.
For 25 years, I've been an independent laboratory research
and market research consultant in chemicals and plastics
technology. I have done work in a number of applications,
ranging from medical devices and medical packaging to high-
performance plastic composites and, more germane, on biocide
materials for architectural products.
In 2000, while doing market research in silver biocides I
became interested in silver's potential application in a wide
range of consumer products, including lumber for residential
and commercial use. As a result, I am currently undertaking a
research program at Florida International University to
evaluate silver-based biocides as preservatives for wood.
The legislation you're considering today is extremely
timely and offers great promise for both of America's forest
product and mining industries. It will offer consumers of
pressure-treated wood safe and environmentally sound products.
As you're aware, the Environmental Protection Agency has
reached agreement with manufacturers of wood preservative
chemicals to phase out chromated copper arsenate as of the end
of this year. This transition affects all consumer uses,
including things used by children, especially play structures,
decks, picnic tables, and other products that are used in
homes, public parks, and public marinas.
Beginning January 2004, the EPA will not allow CCA products
to be sold for residential use, and retailers of preserved wood
are going to comply with this. Because of increased resistance
to rot and infestation, preservative-treated wood has been
widely used for residential applications for many years. CCA
has been used, in particular, since the 1970's, and has been
effective and economical. But lately, there's been concerns
about leaching, in particular of arsenic, into ground and
water. This technology, thus, is facing today a required
replacement, and the wood industry faces the challenge of
finding suitable alternative preservatives.
Silver offers that potential solution, and silver has many
unique properties. Most important, it is a natural bacteriocide
and algaecide and, in some cases, a proven fungicide. Silver
biocide are also effective in small quantities offered parts
per million by weight. And despite the relatively high price of
silver, the overall cost advantages are recognized by
industrial manufacturers. It's used in steel for architectural
materials. It's also going to be used, in particular, for
architectural materials to prevent sick-building syndrome.
It's also--my own research indicates that, for water
purification, silver is growing rapidly, and it's also going to
be increasingly used, if the research proves positive, perhaps
for needed infrastructure products such as railroad ties and
utility poles, although those are not currently under the EPA
ban.
There is enough silver capacity in the United States to
meet the needs of the woods preservation. Certainly, the
American Wood Preservatives Association will be having tests
that I am going to look into to make sure that the preserved
wood will not leach and that the wood will have resistance to
fungi, insects, and other wood-destroying organisms, and that
the performance in the soil, air, and freshwater marine
environments will meet the public's needs. This will be a major
benefit for both the domestic mining and forest-products
industries should this research program prove successful.
The United States, of course, has a rich and robust history
of silver mining, and there could be many benefits to consumers
and industrial consumers for preserved wood.
I'd like to thank you for taking the time to listen to me
today and for inviting me to appear before you to share my
views on this legislation. I'd be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ellis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey R. Ellis, Ph.D., Consultant in Chemicals
and Plastics Technology, Plantation, FL
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: I am honored to have
been asked to address you today as you consider, S. 432, The Public
Lands Production Research Act of 2003, a measure which would direct the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to develop a program of
research into alternative treatments, including the use of silver-based
biocides, for timber and timber products from public lands.
For the past 25 years, I have been an independent laboratory
research and market consultant in the areas of chemicals and plastics
technology. As a scientist, my work has covered a range of industries
and applications, from medical devices and packaging to high
performance plastic composites to evaluations of biocide materials in
tile grouts and dressings.
In 2000, while doing market research on silver-based biocides, I
became interested in silver's potential application in a wide-range of
consumer products, including lumber for residential and commercial use.
As a result, presently I am undertaking a research program to evaluate
commercial silver-based biocides for wood products at Florida
International University (Miami, FL), where I am an adjunct professor
of chemistry and environmental sciences.
The legislation you are considering today is exceedingly timely and
potentially offers great promise to America's forest product and mining
industries. More importantly, it will offer consumers of pressure
treated wood products a safe and environmentally sound alternative.
Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), manufacturers
of treated wood, and manufacturers of wood preservative chemicals,
negotiated an agreement to phase out the use of chromated copper
arsenate (CCA)-based wood preservatives in pressure-treated wood by
December 31, 2003. This transition affects virtually all residential
uses of wood treated with CCA, including wood used in play structures,
decks, picnic tables, landscaping timbers, residential fencing, patios
and walkways/boardwalks.
Beginning January 1, 2004, the EPA will not allow any CCA products
in these residential uses. Retailers such as Home Depot and Lowe's have
announced they would stop selling lumber treated with the CCA-based
preservative in concert with the EPA announcement.
Because of its increased resistance to rot and infestation,
preservative-treated wood has been widely used for many residential
applications, including decks, outdoor furniture, wood foundations, and
a host of other purposes. Since the 1970's, CCA, the most commonly used
preservative, has been effective and economical, but it has generated
concerns over possible health risks from exposure or leaching.
That technology is facing required replacement today, and the wood
industry faces the challenge of finding suitable, safe, alternative
wood-preserving agents. Silver offers the potential solution. Silver
has many unique properties. Most important in this case, it is a
natural bacteriocide and algaecide.
Silver biocide activity is effective in small quantities, often in
parts per million by weight, and despite the relatively high price of
silver compared to other biocides, its efficiency and overall cost
advantages are increasingly recognized by industrial manufacturers.
Silver has been a useful biocide since ancient times. Today, silver
is used in an ever-increaslng number of applications, including water
purification systems in hospitals, swimming pools, and domestic
households. For example, silver-based antibacterial toothbrushes,
hairbrushes and other cosmetic accessories, are being marketed. Socks
with silver-coated nylon threads that resist bacteria growth are on the
market as are sandals that in the sole incorporate silver chemicals
that kill bacteria that cause foot odor. Even steel companies are
coating their stainless steel products with silver to prevent bacteria
growth. The metal is then used in kitchen appliances and air
conditioning equipment.
Increasingly, we are seeing silver's bactericidal properties being
employed in amazing new uses. For example, a washing machine that uses
the antibiotic properties of silver instead of hot water to disinfect
clothing is on the market. Also, silver antimicrobial compounds have
been incorporated into the construction of hospitals. The
antimicrobial-silver coated steels will be used mainly in the hospitals
air handling ductwork and may be expanded to other applications such as
stainless steel door hardware, push plates and light switch plates. In
addition, silver-coated medical catheters can reduce urinary-tract
infections by as much as 58 percent, according to recent studies. This
finding is significant, because urinary-tract infections account for
more than 40 percent of all infections suffered by hospital patients,
according to the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta.
My own research indicates that for water purification, the use of
silver is expected to rise from 5.3 to 8.1 million troy ounces between
the years 2000-2006. Use of silver as a biocide in other products, most
notably, in automotive textiles and skins, roofing tiles, sanitary
coatings and consumer products such as housewares is expected to
increase from 0.4 to 2.9 million troy ounces in the same time frame.
Silver is also a leading candidate for the prevention of ``sick
building'' syndrome that is generated by toxic molds.
The use of silver to replace CCA for wood preservation is a major
new opportunity for this environmentally benign metal. For North
American markets (55 percent of which are in decks, fences, playground
structures, and other consumer products), the use of silver for this
purpose could be as much as 80 million troy ounces. European markets,
which are likely to replace other environmentally suspect wood
preservation chemicals such as creosote and pentachlorophenol, could
add another 50 million troy ounces of silver offtake annually.
The following chart, taken from World Silver Survey 2003, published
by the Silver Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based industry association,
outlines the silver supply and demand figures for 2001 and 2002. As you
will see, current mine supply is insufficient to meet the many use
demands for silver, which chiefly are targeted toward jewelry,
industrial applications and photography. To meet these demands, silver
is drawn down from above-ground stocks and through recycling. It is
important to note that 70 percent of silver production comes as a
byproduct of base metal and gold mining. Notwithstanding, the United
States silver mining industry is prepared to meet the demands in the
event silver is approved for use in treating wood.
WORLD SILVER SUPPLY AND DEMAND
[Million ounces--totals may not add due to rounding]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supply 2001 2002
Mine Production............................... 589.2 585.9
Net Government Sales.......................... 87.2 71.3
Old Silver Scrap.............................. 182.7 184.9
Producer Hedging.............................. 18.9 ----
Implied Net Disinvestment..................... ---- 20.9
Total Supply.............................. 878.0 863.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demand 2001 2002
Fabrication:
Industrial Applications..................... 338.1 342.4
Photography................................. 213.9 205.3
Jewelry & Silverware........................ 286.0 259.2
Coins and Medals............................ 30.5 31.3
Total Fabrication......................... 868.5 838.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Government Purchases...................... ---- ----
Producer Hedging.............................. ---- 24.8
Implied Net Disinvestment..................... 9.5 ----
Total Demand.............................. 878.0 863.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, the research contemplated in S. 432, The Public
Lands Production Research Act of 2003, is urgently needed to assist the
timber industry in meeting this challenge in a timely fashion. At the
present, research is needed first to establish that silver will meet
the performance requirements of the American Wood Preservers
Association and to acquire the data that will be necessary to register
the best candidate silver biocides under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. This research will include: 1)
measurements of performance in air, soil and in freshwater and marine
environments; 2) resistance to fungi, insects, and other wood
destroying organisms; and 3) leaching and toxicology studies.
There will be major benefits achieved for both the domestic mining
and forest products industries should silver based biocide research
prove successful. The United States enjoys a rich and robust history of
silver mining. Currently, the United States is the 4th largest silver
producing country in the world. Silver is relatively abundant in this
country, and our domestic industry can meet the needs of the wood
preservation industries. Both consumer and industrial customers
(manufacturers of needed infrastructure products such as utility poles
and railroad ties especially) for preserved wood products would benefit
from the continued availability of needed long-term environmentally
benign preserved wood.
Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the entire
Subcommittee for inviting me to appear before you today to share my
views on this important legislation.
Senator Craig. Doctor, thank you very much.
Before I ask questions of you and your fellow panelists,
let me turn to Harry Mendoza, commissioner of McKinley County,
in Gallup, New Mexico.
STATEMENT OF HARRY MENDOZA, COMMISSIONER,
McKINLEY COUNTY, NM
Mr. Mendoza. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the subcommittee.
My name is Harry Mendoza, and I'm a council commissioner in
McKinley County, New Mexico. I'm here today representing the
National Association of Counties, the New Mexico Association of
Counties, and my community in McKinley County. I thank you for
holding this hearing today.
And I also wish to thank my Senator, Jeff Bingaman, for
sponsoring S. 511, the PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing
Permanent Funding Act. It is landmark legislation and should be
enacted without delay.
Mr. Chairman, I am confident that members of the
subcommittee are all familiar with PILT. The program was
conceived in 1976 to offset costs incurred by counties for
services provided to Federal employees and their families and
to the users of public lands. These include education, solid-
waste disposal, law enforcement, search and rescue, healthcare,
environmental compliance, firefighting, and other important
community services.
I'm happy to note that seven of you recently joined 50 of
your Senate colleagues from across the political spectrum and
across the country in signing a letter to the Interior
appropriations, which shows your understanding of PILT to
America's public-land counties. In that letter, you signed for
moving PILT forward to its fully funding level. As you know,
NACO actively promoted the effort to secure those signatures
and will continue to seek enhanced funding in the course of the
fiscal year 2004 appropriations process. We thank you for your
strong support.
However, for the record, we view incremental appropriation
increases as a short-term stopgap measure. PILT is not just
another spending program in the Department of the Interior's
budget. It should not have to compete for funding with
worthwhile conservation programs administered by the
Department. The citizens of America's public-land counties
deserve to see PILT funded at its full authorization, and they
deserve it on a permanent basis.
Mr. Chairman, the people of the United States own over 14
percent of McKinley County. And since the passage of the PILT
Act in 1976, when the people, by an act of Congress,
acknowledged their fiscal obligation to the counties that
contained Federal lands, the payment has been delinquent year
after year. Since 1995, no Department of the Interior budget
has ever requested more than half of PILT's authorized amount,
and no Congress has ever appropriated more than two thirds of
its authorized amount.
Mr. Chairman, I used the word ``delinquent'' deliberately.
Under New Mexico law, the county is responsible for collecting
property taxes for itself and other taxing agencies within
McKinley County. It means that if a private-property owner
fails to pay the taxes due, the county treasurer must try to
collect it on behalf of the county and other local government
entities that depend on those revenues. If after 3 years, the
landowner still fails to pay his delinquent taxes, the State of
New Mexico takes over and sells it at public auction to settle
the debt. Why? Because all property owners have to pay their
fair share to support the basic functions of local government.
Why should the hardworking people of McKinley County have
to subsidize public services on Federal lands through higher
property taxes? It's unconscionable.
I believe that passage of S. 511 is a simple matter of
economic justice. It is unjust that a private landowner be
stripped of his property for failing to contribute to the
county treasury, when one of the county's richest and more
powerful landowners does the same with impunity year after
year. The Federal Government should pay the amount due in full
every year, with no questions asked.
Mr. Chairman, though we may differ on specific resource-
management issues, counties do not want to privatize the
Federal lands. NACO recognizes that our national forests,
national parks, BLM lands, and national wildlife refuges do,
indeed, belong to all Americans, and that all Americans have to
have a stake in their conservation for the generations to come.
The point is that with rights come responsibilities. We
believe that fully funding PILT is one such responsibility.
Thank you. That concludes my testimony.
Senator Craig. Commissioner, thank you very much.
I did my father a real disfavor once. I, as a young person,
helped him get elected county commissioner of Washington
County, in Idaho, which is about 35 percent federally owned. So
when I ran for Congress the first time, his first comment or
instruction to me was, ``Go back there and fully fund PILT.
Your government is delinquent in its taxes.'' So I have some
empathy for what you say and the reality of the PILT program
and our failure over the years to meet its full authorization
and formula reality.
I'm also frustrated because I'm one of those who seeks no
net loss of public lands, when many of those traditional
resources that were revenue-generating for large public-land
counties have either been denied or gone away. And many of our
Federal agencies encourage tourism and recreation today, in
part, as an alternative. But what they fail to recognize, that
the obligations of counties as it relates to law enforcement
and health and all of those other kinds of things for the many
who may come to visit, the Federal Government doesn't pay for
it. It's an obligation of the county, county government, and
county government responsibilities. So sometimes the burden is
even shifted more greatly to the county for its funding
purposes.
I understand that small and rural counties and the large
highly populated counties have agreed to support a new
population payment formula provided PILT is fully funded. If we
do not include the new formula in the final bill, will NACO and
others in the counties still be supportive of the legislation?
Mr. Mendoza. Yes, sir, I think they will.
Senator Craig. The studies I've seen strongly suggest local
taxes would provide sufficiently more money to counties if
these Federal lands were owned by private landowners. While I
hold no illusion that the Federal lands will be turned over to
the private landowners, did your organization or would your
organization consider a PILT compensation plan based on tax
equivalent rather than the current formula?
Mr. Mendoza. I can't answer that question.
Senator Craig. That's something we have always looked at as
a possible consideration. Would NACO support a no-net-gain-in-
Federal-lands provision to this bill or in the form if a
freestanding legislation if it were offered?
Mr. Mendoza. I think that they would, yes, sir.
Senator Craig. Finally, could you give me your best
estimate on the number of counties that receive PILT payments
that do not belong to NACO?
Mr. Mendoza. In McKinley County, 100 percent of the
counties belong to NACO.
Senator Craig. In New Mexico.
Mr. Mendoza. In New Mexico.
Senator Craig. You don't have that figure----
Mr. Mendoza. And they all receive PILT.
Senator Craig. You don't have that figure nationwide?
Mr. Mendoza. I have it. It's in part of the testimony. I
think you have it there.
Senator Craig. Al right. We'll leave it at that and search
it out. Thank you very much.
Dr. Ellis, are there other biocides that can substitute for
arsenic-based wood preservatives?
Dr. Ellis. Yes, there are, sir. Those would be currently
based largely on copper complex with ammonia or ammonia
derivatives.
Senator Craig. How effective are they as it relates to the
potential of silver?
Dr. Ellis. Right now, I don't have enough information to
answer that question. All I can tell you is that I have read,
and, through telephone research, I have learned that they have
to put quite a bit of copper and ammonia into the wood. It's
certainly much more expensive than the old CCA. I don't have
enough data on the use of silver at this time to find out if it
is effective.
Senator Craig. Is two years really a sufficient amount of
time to prove silver biocides can perform as a wood
preservative?
Dr. Ellis. Like everything else, sir, it depends on how
adequately the research program is funded. I am hoping, as I
speak, that the silver industry will give me some more money to
get the basic initial data done, especially looking at the big
unknown, which is the effectiveness of silver against insects.
Senator Craig. Your preliminary research indicates that
silver has substantial potential?
Dr. Ellis. Yes, it does, sir. It's being used in a number
of consumer and industrial products as a biocide. It's
effective in small enough amounts such that the cost of silver
is amortized by that factor. There is ample precedent of
silver's use against bacteria, against algae, and against
fungi. We still have to prove, of course, that the silver
chemicals would be effective against wood-destroying organisms
of those types; in addition, of course, to the insects.
Senator Craig. Well, Doctor, thank you very much.
Commissioner Mendoza, thank you for your traveling here and
your time, both of you.
Thank you.
The committee record will stay open for ten days for the
purpose of any additional information that may need to be
attached.
With that, the subcommittee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
City of Prescott,
Prescott, AZ, September 4, 2003.
Hon. Jon Kyl,
2200 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 120, Phoenix, AZ.
Dear Senator Kyl: I am writing to support you and Congressman
Renzi's efforts to complete the Forest Service land trade. This trade
will help protect Prescott's water resources and will help the church
and private camps around our city.
I understand that the components of Congressman Renzi's legislation
have some updated and favorable changes to Clarkdale and in the spirit
of our support for their needs, I would request that if possible you
use the wording of Renzi's legislature at your committee hearing on
September 11.
As always, thanks for all your help and we are looking forward to
seeing you in Prescott soon.
Sincerely,
Rowle P. Simmons,
Mayor.
______
Town of Camp Verde,
Camp Verde, AZ, September 5, 2003.
Hon. John McCain,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: You have a decision coming up on the Yavapai
Ranch Exchange in Arizona (Senate Bill 849.) You will be receiving many
letters of opposition to the Verde Valley portions of this trade. You
will be led to believe that the common public is virtually unaware of
this exchange and that there has not been local public input and review
of this trade. You will be told that the issue of water use has not
been adequately addressed.
I write you today, to humbly disagree and to say this is simply not
correct. I am the mayor of Camp Verde and have been on town council for
4\1/2\ years. In my tenure there has been numerous meetings both
publicly and privately with Mr. Ruskin, the Forest Service, elected
officials, Salt River Project and the public concerning this exchange.
Input has been given and received concerning all the issues. The trade
boundaries, the water restrictions and the desires of the community
have been properly addressed mutually between the parties.
This item was a main topic of our recent council elections. The
candidate's positions on this issue were clearly defined. The voters
elected three council members and myself as mayor by approximately a
70% to 30% margin. We now have both a council and a citizenry that
supports this exchange.
Please understand that we, the residents of Camp Verde, many of us
who go 3, 4, and 5 generations in the Verde Valley, love this valley
and have great appreciation for our home lands. We have not supported
this exchange without studied review and much thought given.
We need this exchange to go through to help us develop a sales tax
base along Interstate I-17 and Highway 260 to sufficiently meet the
need for services to our people. These lands will be traded someday to
someone as they are within our town boundaries and the Forest Service
has clearly stated that they do not have the federal budget backing
them to maintain lands within incorporated boundaries.
Mr. Ruskin comes from a long-time ranching family and he carries
the straight forward honesty and integrity that one can deeply
appreciate, especially when dealing with such an important issue.
Senators Kyl and McCain have studied this exchange, and recognize
that the greater good of this issue benefits the majority of people.
I urge you to support the Yavapai Land Exchange, and log this
letter and have it included in the record. Thank you for your
consideration of this matter and for the service you do for our
country.
Sincerely,
Mitch Dickinson,
Mayor.
______
City of Cottonwood,
Cottonwood, AZ, September 5, 2003.
Hon. Jon Kyl,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kyl: As Mayor of Cottonwood, I am writing to confirm
my commitment to the land exchange between the Forest Service and
Yavapai Ranch. Cottonwood has been working in support of this exchange
for a number of years, and although there has been some opposition, as
Mayor of Cottonwood, I stand firmly in favor of the concept.
Cottonwood stands to benefit a great deal from this exchange. The
economic development and tax revenue benefits of housing
diversification and business expansion will contribute to the overall
vibrancy of the Verde Valley. The newly privatized land will be subject
to the water conservation measures and use restrictions of the
Cottonwood Water Declaration, and will set a new standard for future
development in our area. Given the current drought in Arizona and the
concern for future water use, I believe this will have a significant
impact on saving water resources in the Verde Valley. This exchange
also represents a significant reduction in the number of homes that
could potentially be built if the Yavapai Ranch lands were developed.
In reviewing your legislation and the Renzi/Hayworth bill, I
believe that the modifications contained in Congressmen Renzi's and
Hayworth's legislation better serve our community needs. For that
reason, I am asking that you amend your legislation to include the
additional language of the House bill.
Please know that the vast majority of out citizens support your
efforts and authorization of this exchange. We in Cottonwood are
working for a strong community that will allow for our youth to stay in
our area after they finish school; for too many years they have had to
move away to find work. This legislation will give us another tool to
help them live and work in our community.
Thank you again for your efforts on our behalf.
Sincerely,
Ruben Jauregui,
Mayor.
______
City of Williams,
Williams, AZ, September 5, 2003.
Hon. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators McCain and Kyl: As Mayor of the City of Williams, I
am writing to request the quick enactment of the Northern Arizona
National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003. This exchange will help us
fulfill our municipal water program and provides significant economic
development opportunities for our community.
The Yavapai Ranch Land Exchange offers a key component currently
missing from the water equation in the Williams area. The exchange will
privatize land for key drilling sites; drilling on public land for
municipal use is very complicated and difficult due to many factors. It
is critical to the future of Williams and surrounding environs that
additional deep wells be drilled on what is now public land. Our
surface water reservoirs are currently at a minimal 8% of capacity and
were as low as 4% as recently as the summer of 2002. Williams began a
deep water well drilling program 4 years ago; to date we have drilled
five water wells of which only two are producing.
It is important to note the Yavapai Ranch Land Exchange benefits
the Williams area in more ways than one, as it does all of the
communities with land involved in the trade. The Exchange will free up
land for expansion of the Williams water filtration plant, a needed
waste water plant expansion planned for 2005-06, airport improvements,
city parks, a cemetery expansion and ownership of the original nine
holes of the city golf course. This exchange will also facilitate the
future operation of the Younglife Youth Camp, a new and important asset
to northern Arizona.
Your efforts on behalf of S. 849 will provide important quality of
life, economic and conservation benefits for all of Northern Arizona.
The exchange will protect rare natural resources and keep intact what
makes Arizona such a special place. Please accept the gratitude of our
city for your efforts to authorize this exchange.
Sincerely,
Ken Edes,
Mayor.
______
Town of Camp Verde,
Camp Verde, AZ, September 8, 2003.
Hon. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators McCain and Kyl: On behalf of the Town of Camp Verde,
I am writing to thank you for your efforts on behalf of S. 849 and the
September 11 hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and
Forests.
Representatives of Camp Verde have been working with the Forest
Service and Mr. Ruskin for five years in support of this trade. We are
hopeful for, and in need of a positive outcome. We have had numerous
public meetings and hearings to discuss this exchange and its benefits
to Camp Verde. Our recent city election confirmed the broad-based
support of our citizens for this exchange with pro-trade candidates
receiving nearly 70% of the vote.
As you are aware, Camp Verde is a bedroom community spread over 46
square miles. We have embraced growth throughout our history, but much
of our development has been low-density residential which does not
afford us the tax base to provide the necessary infrastructure and
services that our citizens require. In addition, our proximity to
Interstate 17 and Highway 260 require us to provide emergency response
services along these corridors. We desperately need the tax revenue
from commercial development along Interstate 17 and Highway 260. This
exchange will allow privatization of already impacted Forest Service
lands for commercial development as well as emergency services
including fire, hazmat and emergency medical. Camp Verde's economy
depends on the trade--commercial development along Interstate 17 is the
key to our future.
After review of both S. 849 and H.R. 2709, I am writing to request
that you incorporate the additions from the House version to your
legislation. In doing so, the issues that Camp Verde has with S. 849
will be resolved.
On another note, I would like to thank you, Senator McCain, for
your comments at the recent League of Cities and Towns conference. You
were right on target with your remarks on forest health and I
especially appreciated your answer to my question about this land
exchange.
Thank you again for your efforts on behalf of this legislation. I
look forward to having each of you visit Camp Verde in the near future.
Sincerely,
Mitch Dickinson,
Mayor.
______
League of Women Voters,
Sedona, AZ, September 8, 2003.
Members, Senate Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee: The League
of Women Voters has been following the Yavapai Ranch issue closely for
several years. Water concerns in the Verde Valley have been our primary
focus since 1999. Along with many other local voices, we have pressed
for an administrative review of this land exchange. As the largest
exchange in Arizona history, it is even more important that we examine
the potential impacts of this decision before the decision is reached,
including an environmental analysis under NEPA.
Because the administrative process has not occurred thus far, we
have observed the following frustrations mounting in the Verde Valley:
communities are bitterly divided within and between themselves;
hydrologists disagree on the potential impact on groundwater in the
Verde Valley; citizen groups organized around water issues cannot
arrive at a consensus, and lastly, rumors and misinformation abound in
the absence of a formal hearing process.
Further, there has been no resolution of contradictory issues, no
opportunity for hearing public concerns, and no opportunity for
addressing public concerns. As a region, we have been trying to deal
collaboratively with regional issues such as transportation, land use,
and water for 4 or 5 years. The region is being torn apart over this
exchange, setting us back in our regional efforts.
If not this time, please do not make us go through this unnecessary
anguish the next time a land exchange is proposed. The price is too
high. At the very least, the administrative process could alleviate
much of the frustration, and at best it could improve the conditions of
the exchange for the public good.
Please log this letter and include it in the record.
Yours truly,
Dorothy Hores,
LWV Program Chair.
______
Responsible Residents of the Red Rocks,
Sedona, AZ, September 8, 2003.
Members, Senate Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee: Our
organization has become very concerned as we have followed the issues
surrounding the land trade between the USFS and Yavapai Ranch, and in
particular S. 849. We have three major concerns with the bill as
written, two are substantive and one is procedural:
1. Delete the 2,200 acre Camp Verde and the 800 acre Clarkdale USFS
land from the proposed exchange. These 2 parcels are located in a part
of the Verde Valley already suffering from groundwater overdraft.
Groundwater is our sole source of water in the Verde Valley .
Hydrologists have estimated that Camp Verde, Cottonwood, Verde Villages
and Clarkdale are withdrawing water faster then the annual natural
recharge rate, even in normal years of rain fall.
2. Eliminate the 40 acre islands of land with water wells in the
Big Chino area proposed to be retained as private land in the block to
be traded to the USFS. If the USFS needs the private land to
consolidate the checkerboard ownership adjacent to Juniper Mesa, the
USFS should also get the water rights for that land.
3. Abandon the legislative process for the land exchange in favor
of the administrative process which utilizes public input and the NEPA
process with environmental impact analysis. The 1988 Amendment to the
Federal Land Exchange Act addresses standards for appraisals and the
public interest. Specifically, the Amendment requires consideration of
the needs of the state and local people, and an environmental analysis
under NEPA.
We are passionate about water resource management to stem the over-
commitment of our water resources and to ensure long-term
sustainability. We urge you to act on these recommendations and we look
forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Doris Baumgartner,
Chair of Responsible Residents of the Red Rocks.
______
Sedona, AZ, September 8, 2003.
To all Members, Senate Public Lands and Forest Subcommittee: I am
an architect living and working in the Verde Valley, one of the areas
affected by the Northern Arizona (Yavapai Ranch) Land Exchange as
proposed in S. 849. I am opposed to this trade for a number of reasons,
and feel strongly that at a bare minimum, the Verde Valley parcels
should be removed from the exchange. Contrary to much of the lobbying
propaganda paid for by the proponent of this trade, there is not local,
consensus that this is a good thing for the region. In reality, it will
probably have detrimental effects for the area in the long run.
We live in an area experiencing growth pressure on many of our
resources, the most significant of which is water. This trade will
increase water use in the area, despite the so-called water
restrictions or covenants attached to the trade. We are already mining
water in the region, and are several years away from definitive studies
that will truly show what sustainable water usage can be for our area.
Existing private land in the Verde Valley can allow our population to
triple, and there is no guarantee that there will be enough water for
those who already own property. It is not fair to existing property
owners to add 3,000 additional acres of developable land to the pool
until we know that we can handle the needs of those already here.
There are many other complex planning issues tied to a trade of
this magnitude, and these need to be analyzed thoroughly as would
happen in a NEPA process if this trade were going through
administrative channels rather than the legislative one you have in
front of you. There have been no public hearings on this trade in the
area, and any at this point after the legislation has been introduced
would be far too late and almost meaningless. There are no provisions
for any meaningful public review of and input on the yet to be
appraised values for this trade, to insure that the U.S. public would
be getting a good deal if the trade were to go through. At this point,
it appears that the whole package will be a real ``sweetheart'' deal
for Mr. Ruskin, the proponent of the trade; he has been willing to
spend hundreds of thousands of his own dollars lobbying to make this
happen. He has hired a former Yavapai County supervisor as his
lobbyist. This lobbyist also happens to be friends with some of the
local elected officials who have become supportive of the trade, and
who have wrongly been saying that their constituents are in agreement.
There has been no public forum in which to even discuss the issue
specifically.
I believe that this trade would not have a prayer of happening if
it were objectively analyzed in a conscientious administrative process,
and that is why the proponents have taken it out of the area to you for
a ``more efficient'' passage. They have claimed that trades this large
``need'' to be legislated because of the complexity. However, that is
exactly why they need a longer process and more scrutiny, to insure
that they are the best deal for the American taxpayer, and do not have
unintended negative planning effects for the regions in which they are
consummated.
Please reject this legislation; it smacks of special interests and
a whitewash of propaganda claiming a broad consensus that doesn't
really exist. My livelihood depends on sensible, well-planned growth.
This trade will actually hurt the regions ability to plan for and guide
growth in a good way. Send it back to us at the local level for a true
assessment of its merits.
Sincerely,
Max Licher.
______
Sedona, AZ, September 8, 2003.
Dear Senator: I am sending this short letter to you and those on
your Senate Public Lands and Forest Committee to help sited some light
on a very misguided and locally detrimental issue that is about to come
before you in hearing.
I am very opposed to the Senate Bill 849, the Yavapai Ranch Land
Exchange, which will definitely have major adverse impacts on our
immediate neighborhood, the Verde Valley. As an architect and a
professional in the fields of urban design and regional planning, I
would hope you can understand the importance and the hard reality of
the following issues. The two most important issues are Land and Water.
Land: We have more undeveloped private land in both Camp Verde and
Clarkdale than we could build out in the next 50+ years. What is our
limiting build-out factor?
Water: We don't have plenty of that. Clarkdale is currently at only
20% of it's potential build-out and this past summer experienced water
rationing of 50%. There are no other sources of water; our aquifer is
the only one there is, and as many others will tell you in their
letters, the wells are running dry, falling more than 200 feet in the
last 20 years. Camp Verde has 46 square miles of land in it's coffers
with 40% of that already in federal holdings, with less than 25% built
out. There is no need for more federal lands being turned into private
property than that already within city limits, already earmarked for
development. Neither Camp Verde nor Clarkdale need more land no matter
how convincing the rhetoric from uneducated town council members who
believe all growth is good growth. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
As a Professional in the field of architecture I am not anti-
growth, I am involved with it every day, it is my livelihood.
Coordinated regional planning in the Verde Valley is just beginning
with controlled and planned growth being understood by all local
planners as the key to continued economic growth and improved quality
of life. I will not have this livelihood, and in fact will experience
decreasing property values when there is no water to fill our drinking
glasses. Water studies by the USGS, local Haskell springs Watershed
Assoc., and the Verde River Water Users Assoc. are in progress but will
not be concluded for several more years and we need to wait for those
results before we add any more land to our developable land base.0
I ask that the Verde Valley parcels (Camp Verde and Clarkdale) be
removed from this proposed trade agreement between we the citizens of
Arizona and Mr. Ruskin. They are not necessary for the ``success'' of
this trade and in fact should be set aside as protected watershed
preservation resources. If it is not possible to remove these parcels,
then the entire trade should be placed into an Administrative process
(with public comment) and removed from any Legislation. This would only
be fair and democratic to the tens of thousands of residents that are
affected by this legislation, 90% of whom have never heard of the
proposed land trade. The process of land trading is not beneficial to
the general public or to federally protected lands, and is certainly
not going to be beneficial to the residents of the Verde Valley who
have not been involved in this process at all, had no public comment.
This is not the democratic process and the democratic process seems
to be rapidly eroding in our country as of late. Your help in restoring
our faith in such is requested. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Daniel Paduchowski.
______
Fain Land and Cattle Co.,
Prescott Valley, AZ, September 9, 2003.
Hon. Jon Kyl,
U.S. Senate, Hart Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003 (Bill S.
849), also known as the Yavapai Ranch-Ruskin Land Exchange
Dear Senator Kyl: I am the owner of 300 acres of land that will be
impacted by this exchange. The purpose of this correspondence is to
express our concern about S. 849, Northern Arizona National Forest Land
Exchange Act of 2003, as currently proposed. The addition of more than
3,000 acres of public lands to the existing deeded land base in the
Verde Valley may result in significantly lower property values for
deeded land.
Further, it is my understanding that ``conservation easements'' on
both parcels proposed to be deeded will reduce their appraised values.
Also, lack of legal access to one of the parcels, will adversely impact
the appraised value of that parcel. This in turn could have a negative
influence on the value of other privately-owned properties in the Verde
Valley. Therefore, due to the sheer size of the proposed exchange and
its potential adverse impact on the local economy, I request that both
of these parcels be deleted from the proposed land exchange. Nearby
property owners already have more land available for development to
meet the growth demographic of the Verde Valley for decades to come and
have been paying property taxes for the privilege of that ownership.
Please include this letter in the official record of the Senate hearing
on this bill, which is scheduled to be held on September 11, 2003
before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Your support of this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Yours very truly,
Norman W. Fain, II ``Bill Fain'',
President.
______
Prescott, AZ, September 9, 2003.
Senator Larry Craig,
Chair, Senate Public Lands & Forests Subcommittee, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: S. 849
First, we apologize for the lateness of this appeal. But
notification of this impending hearing arrived late, so time to respond
is limited (which may have been the plan all along).
Nevertheless, on September 11 the subcommittee will hear only five
minutes (bet Mr. Ruskin had more time than that to state his case) of
testimony from citizens of Verde Valley's River watershed where you are
about to legislate Arizona's largest land trade ever--the Ruskin Land
Trade, where Fred Ruskin, owner of Yavapai Ranch, intends to create a
community of 15,000 new households. In other words, a new city which
will draw from the already depleted Verde Valley headwaters. This new
city will also be guaranteed annual water usage beyond the current
output of designated wells which are not even on Mr. Ruskin's property.
Beside the fact Mr. Ruskin has avoided federally required hearings
and worked privately with Senators McCain, Renzi and Kyl to draft a
special law, please consider the following: Arizona's water resources
are limited even without the present 7 to 8 years of drought we are in.
Thousands of Arizona residents' water is supplied by wells, and in
recent years many of those wells have had to be drilled to even deeper
depths because of a drop in the underground reservoir.
Senator Craig, you, representing Idaho, should be more aware than
many of the serious water problems in the west.
Another point: Public input and thorough hearings were promised,
yet this land trade smacks of a back-room good of boy land swap that
throws public property, as well as the rights of Arizona citizens,
away. Only to favor one individual, not the majority of the voters.
NEPA was established to ensure due process, not to be ignored
because it takes too much time to find the truth of the matter.
We wish this letter to be logged and included in the record.
Hoping you will seriously ponder these issues,
Marvin and Geri E. Davis.
______
Sedona, AZ, September 9, 2003.
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
Dear Senators: I oppose S. 849, the Yavapai Ranch Land Trade, soon
to be decided upon. The plan ignores the people of the Verde Valley and
other areas of Central Arizona, while meeting the needs and
requirements of certain special interest groups.
Where is the water coming from for all of this? Please research the
official predictions concerning the ongoing drought and its imminent
impact on us and the Glen Canyon Dam.
I can't vote for anyone who would back S. 849. It's not in our best
interests.
Sincerely,
Robert Schmierer.
______
Groseta Ranches LLC,
Cottonwood, AZ, September 10, 2003.
Senator Jon Kyl,
U.S. Senate, Hart Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003 (S.
849), also known as the Yavapai Ranch-Ruskin Land Exchange
Dear Senator Kyl: I am writing this letter regarding S. 849 on
behalf of my family who are fourth generation Arizona ranchers in the
Camp Verde and Cottonwood areas.
As you are aware, almost the entire Camp Verde parcel (2,200 acres)
is on a part of our Verde Grazing Allotment. The 820-acre parcel
(Cottonwood/Clarkdale) adjoins our ranch in the Cottonwood area.
In a detailed memorandum we sent to your office in early July
outlining the nature and extent of our loss based on the current
proposal, we indicated the USFS calculated we will lose 47 Animal Units
of carrying capacity on our ranch. This constitutes an irreplaceable
loss of production capacity. The memorandum also indicates we will lose
valuable water rights, grazing rights and improvements. Moreover, the
value of my family's fee base property will be significantly devalued.
The IRS will include the value of these items in calculating taxable
gain for income tax purposes and in the gross estate for estate tax
purposes. For the federal government to now take the opposite position
and ignore the loss of this value by failing to compensate my family
for this ``taking'' would be grossly unfair.
In addition, please consider that the conversion of an additional
3,020 acres (2,200 + 820 = 3,020) of public lands into private lands
into the existing deeded land base in the Camp Verde and Cottonwood
areas will result in significant lower property values to existing
landowners who have owned their land for many years.
Also, after doing some extensive research, it is quite apparent
that the U.S. taxpayer will be ``fleeced'' if this bill is passed in
its present form. Having ``conservation easements'' in place (either
before or immediately after conveyance of title) on both parcels will
significantly reduce their appraised values. Having no legal access to
the Cottonwood/Clarkdale parcel, also will adversely impact the
appraised value of that parcel. With both parcels having significant
encumbrances adversely affecting their values. It will definitely
reduce the value of lands owned by the American people which is taken
into account in the exchange process.
Therefore, we respectfully request you include a provision for just
compensation to my family and look carefully at the valuation issues
that will work against the American people in this land exchange.
In closing, I request that this letter be included in the official
record of the Senate hearing on this bill, which is scheduled to be
held on September 11, 2003 before the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee.
Your support of this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Andy Groseta.
______
Statement of Fred Ruskin, Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership
Chairman Craig and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Fred
Ruskin and my family owns the Yavapai Ranch in Yavapai County, Arizona.
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 map attached to this statement, the Yavapai
Ranch contains approximately 55,000 acres of our private land,
intermingled with 55,000 acres of the Prescott National Forest in a
``checkerboard'' ownership pattern. All the white land inside the heavy
black line on the map is our land, whereas the green land (or grey if
you are looking at a photocopy of the map) belongs to the Forest
Service. Only the 6 sections you see in yellow are owned by outside
interests. Other than these, after the exchange is completed, the
Forest Service will own the land south and west of the orange line
shown on the map, except for the 3 already developed parcels outlined
in red, which we will keep, and 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 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, and what will be the
largest development in Northern Arizona is being discussed on 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 seven years, and
working virtually full time on it for the last four years.
We are seeking Congress' assistance in expediting this land
exchange because the Forest Service has indicated that it will take a
minimum of 4 years, and perhaps as much as 7-8 years, to finish an
exchange by administrative means. That is extremely optimistic; it has
been taking the Forest Service that long to do a fifty-acre exchange 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. 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 S. 849,
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. This
pristine antelope range is becoming more significant all the
time given the very rapid development that is pushing antelope
out of the Prescott area further to the south;
It is located immediately adjacent to the existing Juniper
Mesa Wilderness Area, which was established by Congress in
1984;
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 upper Verde
River watershed (also known as the ``Big Chino'') by roughly
25,000 acres, which would be a major protection of the
watershed 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, it will 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 very near future . . . not in 7-8 years.
Both we and the Forest Service concur that the reconveyances to
municipal governments and camps 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 and
camps that is already heavily impacted by use and/or location.
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 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 exchange to us a tract of federal land because it
includes habitat for an endangered species, archeological sites or
another resource protected by Federal law which cannot be mitigated,
the lands in question will be dropped from 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.
Mr. Chairman, while the Yavapai Ranch partnership supports the
overall land exchange set forth in S. 849, we need to make it clear
that we cannot and do not support the open-ended cost sharing formula
set forth in subsection 6(d) of S. 849. There are two problems with
this open-ended cost-sharing provision:
First, the provisions would require our small, family-owned
business to match costs expended by the federal government; and
Second, most of the required expenses will be incurred by
the Forest Service as it brings its land, not ours, to a
``marketable title'' condition.
We simply do not have the financial ability to agree to a cost
sharing mechanism that would expose us to unknown and unquantified
costs.
We note that the language of H.R. 2907 which was recently
introduced into the U.S. House includes a provision that simply
incorporates into it the current Forest Service regulations (36 CFR
254.7), which require each party to ``bear their own costs of the
exchange''. These Forest Service regulations state: ``Those processes
and their costs which are the responsibility of the United States will
be borne by the Forest Service . . .''
In closing, Mr. Chairman, a very broad coalition supports this
trade. We now have the strong 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.
______
Statement of Joseph C. Donaldson, Mayor, City of Flagstaff, AZ
Chairman Craig, Ranking Member Wyden, members of the Subcommittee,
I am honored to testify in support of S. 849, the Northern Arizona
National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003. I am especially appreciative
Senator Kyl is here today and is a lead sponsor of this important
legislation along with Senator McCain. I also strongly support
Congressman Renzi's legislation, H.R. 2907, which is nearly identical
to the legislation that is the subject of this hearing.
The passage of the Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange
Act of 2003 is critical to the future economic vitality of the City of
Flagstaff. The proposed land exchange includes approximately 1,600
acres in the area around Flagstaff Pulliam Airport. The City, with
first right of acquisition for a portion of this acreage, will have the
opportunity to expand the municipal airport; protect the airport from
future encroachment; address airport safety concerns; expand the
existing business park; and acquire land for future regional park
development.
This expanded business park will allow Flagstaff to supplement its
tourist-based economy with more diversified business interests. The
addition of new businesses will provide the means with which Flagstaff
will attract better and higher-paying jobs to the city. Flagstaff has
little land available for immediate business park expansion, deterring
many companies from relocating to the area, which affects our ability
to expand our employment base. The 775-acre parcel retained by the
owner is also designated for business/light industrial use in the
Regional Plan.
The acquisition of land for future regional park development will
not only serve local and regional recreational needs but also act as a
buffer for residents along Lake Mary Road and the airport. One of the
many reasons people choose Flagstaff is for the recreational
opportunities it provides, such as hiking, biking, and skiing. The
addition of this regional park will enhance these opportunities.
I would be remiss if I didn't state that this legislation is not
only critically important to the City of Flagstaff, but also the
Northern Arizona region. It is my understanding the Forest Service
strongly supports this legislation, as it will consolidate lands within
the Prescott National Forest that are currently checkboarded. The
legislation also preserves old growth ponderosa and juniper from
encroachment or future development.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is the result of careful consultation with
cities, counties, the Forest Service, and affected constituents from
northern Arizona and is the product of years of intense negotiations.
The bill is strongly supported by the Flagstaff City Council and will
provide economic and environmental advantages for northern Arizona. I
urge you to strongly support S. 849 and expeditiously move this
legislation.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of the Northern
Arizona National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003.
______
Cornville, AZ, September 11, 2003.
Jennifer Owen,
Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Subject: S. 849
We're writing to oppose the passage of S. 849, a land exchange
between the Secretary of Agriculture and Yavapai Ranch Limited
Partnership, at least on the trade that affects the Verde Valley. Our
number one concern is already scarce water.
According to Paul Handverger, a hydrologist who lives in the area,
we might as well rename the Verde River the Ruskin Dry Wash if this
land trade goes through. We're also concerned that this bill is being
rushed through, bypassing the administrative process with scientific
impact studies and opportunity for public input that the Forest Service
normally uses for such trades. It's a sweetheart deal for Mr. Ruskin,
who gets to keep the water on the land he trades to the Forest Service.
In addition, Camp Verde will get to buy land from him for 15
percent above the appraised value. It may be a good deal for Flagstaff
and Williams, but it's a lousy one for the Verde Valley--just another
example of greed coming to the forefront and special influences. Please
vote NO on S. 849. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Helga Freund & Jack Morgenstern.
______
Town of Clarkdale,
Clarkdale, AZ, September 11, 2003.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Washington, DC.
I testify in opposition to S. 849, the proposed land exchange
between the U.S. Forest Service and a private landowner. The bill is
titled ``Northern Arizona National Lane Exchange Act of 2003.''
I am an elected member of the Clarkdale, Arizona Town Council.
Today, I speak as a private citizen representing thousands of concerned
residents and a number of other elected officials in our region. It is
through their financial contributions that my trip here was made
possible.
This proposed land exchange, as drafted, will have profound
negative impacts on Clarkdale and other parts of the Verde Valley.
These alone are serious enough to compel defeat of the bill, as
drafted, but there are numerous other provisions in the bill that
require deletion or serious revision.
CLARKDALLE CONCERNS
The 820+ acres of forest lands listed for exchange in Clarkdale are
accessible public lands available for protection of our watershed,
environmental buffers, and to provide opportunities for education,
recreation, and a multitude of other uses. Trading these lands for
inaccessible lands hundreds of miles away will deprive the public--us--
of the protection, purposes and uses for which these Clarkdale lands
were set aside as public lands originally.
These lands are an important part of our area's watershed. Our area
in general, and Clarkdale in particular, is critically short of water.
The privatization and development of this public land will only make
matters worse. We live in a desert!
The communities in our area are already mining water--that is,
removing it far faster than it can ever be replaced by nature. Further
development of any open land must not outpace our ability to supply and
sustain it.
Our area has no surface water rights (i.e., rivers or lakes)! We
are totally dependent on ground water. Well levels have been steadily
dropping these past several years, and many residents have had to
redrill their wells several times. The private water company that
supplies much of our area has redrilled without success. There is no
evidence that sufficient additional water resources exist. (See,
Attachment 1, de Welles; Attachment 2, Handverger) *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The attachments have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We live in a very arid region--a desert. Studies are underway to
determine the extent of our ground water resources. Until we have the
scientific evidence that sufficient water exists to support such
additional development as proposed on the Clarkdale 800 acres, we must
limit new growth to the private land already in existence. Creating
more private land subject to development and increasing demands on our
already limited water resources is certainly not in the public
interest.
Although Arizona is among the driest areas in the U.S., Arizona
State water laws have not kept pace with the State's growth. Towns may
not consider water availability when making development decisions.
State law prohibits it. The public gets very little protection from the
State on rural water issues. It is changing, but slowly. Our federal
lands offer some protection as water reservoirs. (See, Attachment 3,
Handverger)
The water restrictions in S. 849, as they relate to the Clarkdale
parcel, are completely insufficient and toothless, because they exceed
what are considered normal usage levels, and because there is no
certain provision that water usage levels will be monitored or
enforced. No date agency has the will or sufficient staff to do such
monitoring or enforcement, even if a provision in the bill would
require it. Further, S. 849's restrictions do not apply to private or
municipal water companies in any case.
Clarkdale is a small town of under 4,000 people. Residential
development of an additional 820 acres of newly privatized land will
burden the town's resources. It is a generally accepted fact that that
residential property tax revenue actually results in a net loss. The
services required to support this proposed development will strain the
town and is not in the public interest.
In Clarkdale's case, all of our residential property tax covers
only the cost of our fire department. Funds for all of the rest of our
town's expenditures must come from other sources. More residential
development will only increase the disparity. (See, Attachment 4, Fact
Sheet)
We are a growing but rural area. These public lands which remain to
us are vital and essential to preserve a character which our residents
highly value. Loss of these accessible public lands which serve as
watershed, viewshed and as buffers between developments and towns will
seriously compromise our natural and human environment.
The 820 acres defined in S. 849 are entirely within the town limits
of Clarkdale. None of this land is in Cottonwood, a neighboring town,
and any reference to Cottonwood should be removed from this bill.
AREA CONCERNS
A11 of the above points, as they relate to water and the public's
valuing and use of its public land, apply to the entire region of the
Verde Valley, including Camp Verde, the site of another parcel defined
in S. 849. Council member, Anthony Gioia, from Camp Verde has addressed
his community's concerns before this Committee.
Myth: There is enough water to supply development to these 3,000+
acres in the Verde Valley.
Fact. The area is already critically short of water. No scientist
or specialist on water issues has ever suggested there is sufficient
water here. Every hydrologist, geologist, etc., who has so far studied
this area opposes the inclusion of the Verde Valley (Clarkdale and Camp
Verde) parcels in any trade. They verify that we are already using
water faster than it can recharge. We are in an arid, water-poor area.
The impact of this proposed trade on the area water resources must be
determined before more public lands are privatized and developed. (See
Attachment 5, Hjalmarson)
Myth: The water restrictions in S. 849 protect the public from
excess water use.
Fact: The water use ``restrictions'' are unreasonably generous.
Further, there is no way to monitor, or verify, compliance on any of
the parcels in this proposed trade, including the wells on the public
land at Yavapai Ranch which will be retained by the proponent, Fred
Ruskin. Nor is there any mechanism for enforcement. There is no State
agency willing or able to monitor compliance. No monitoring will be
done. The public will not be protected.
Myth: The protection of the Juniper Mesa Wilderness and the
consolidation of the checkerboard lands is worth whatever it takes.
Fact: While both are worthy goals, S. 849 allows the proponent,
Fred Ruskin, to retain thousands of acres of inholdings which directly
abut the wilderness, and when developed will seriously impact it.
S. 849, as drafted, does not protect the Wilderness. If the purpose
of this proposed trade is to consolidate the checkerboard lands, no
long-term or permanent inholdings should be permitted. Inholdings of
thousands of acres are against U.S. Forest Service policy and against
the public interest. In addition, such inholdings are not necessary to
reach equity in the trade.
Myth: The Verde Valley (Clarkdale and Camp Verde) parcels are
necessary to reach equity for this proposed trade.
Fact: Equal value can he reached solely within the checkerboard
lands. U.S. Forest Service parcels outside the checkerboard proposed to
be traded and made available for purchase by a town or city for public
use or benefit could be included if the public supports such action.
The Verde Valley parcels are scheduled for private development. There
is little support outside the construction and construction-related
interests for their inclusion. These lands must be removed from the
trade until the potential impacts of their privatization can be
determined.
The goals of this proposed trade can be realized without including
the Verde Valley lands and jeopardizing the area's future.
Myth: Privatization of these thousands of acres of public lands and
their subsequent development will improve the area economy, provide
jobs, and increase the tax base.
Fact: The jobs will be temporary, of short duration, and most
likely be done primarily by contractors outside the area.
Residential property tax does not cover the town's cost of
providing services to these developments.
The commercial development planned for the Camp Verde parcel may
provide some minimum-wage jobs, some sales tax, and some new property
tax revenue, but at what cost to the other businesses in the town and
to the general public interest? What effect will the addition of large
amounts of newly privatized land have on the value of the private land
already available for growth?
This issue must be part of a scoping effort to study the possible
impacts of adding more than 3,000 acres of additional private land to
the Verde Valley area.
Myth: The development of newly-privatized public lands will provide
``affordable'' housing.
Fact: Using the ``affordable housing'' claim is disingenuous
because no such housing will ever likely materialize.
From the outset, these lands have been earmarked by the proponent,
Fred Ruskin, for ``higher end housing''. There is no agreement as to
what ``affordable'' housing is. Even multiple dwellings are not
affordable to a large segment of our population. There is little
incentive to build affordable housing because developers' profits on
such construction are less.
Myth: U.S. Forest Service lands near towns have become
``urbanized'' and so, have lost their value, and need too much
maintenance by the understaffed Forest Service.
Fact: The lands near development serve as essential habitat
watershed and environmental buffers. These lands are accessible; they
are vital for the preservation of the lifestyle and amenities that
public lands offer.
Since these lands are used, they do need maintenance. Citizen
volunteers can aid in this task. Such programs work well. Clarkdale
citizens have repeatedly offered the USFS such services, only to be
ignored. Nevertheless, Clarkdale citizens routinely clean up ``our''
forest lands without Forest Service cooperation or involvement.
These lands matter to us, and their loss would be a great one.
Their development will put the future of our groundwater resources in
serious jeopardy. How can their privatization for one person's
financial gain be defended as being in the public interest? The public
interest requires that our public lands be preserved for future
generations. The more densely populated an area becomes, the more
crucial our accessible public lands become.
Myth: The opponents of S. 849 are ``tree huggers'' ``no
growthers'', and ``short-sighted reactionaries.''
Fact: While the opponents are interested in preserving the
integrity of the environment, most favor the multiple-use concept on
our accessible public lands. We do want to preserve our rural
lifestyle, but that is not incompatible with reasonable, sustainable
growth on the already existing private properties.
There is enough existing private property to increase our current
population over 500%. The challenge is to grow wisely, as we develop--
and to protect--the resources needed to support that growth. We must
think long-term. Growth-for-greed may bring short-term gains, but what
will be the long-term effects on our resources, and our human and
natural environments?
Why haven't these issues been studied: why haven't they been
considered when drafting S. 849? The fast-tracking of this largest land
trade in Arizona's history cannot be defended as in the public
interest. U.S. Forest trade guidelines normally involve full impact
studies. At present, the potential impacts are unstudied and unknown.
We should not have to gamble on our area's future. (see Attachment 6,
Janecek, Attachment 7, Joens; Attachment 8, Wiley; Attachment 9,
Licher)
Myth: The public has been involved in this trade proposal and its
input has been considered in S. 849.
Fact: The people--the owners of this land--have been shut out,
ignored and generally treated as a nuisance from the outset. The U.S.
Forest Service did not do its job in involving the public: it delayed
any scoping process until the trade proposal was fast-tracked through
the legislative process.
The public was promised on-site hearings by our Congressional
delegation and the U.S. Forest Service, but these have never taken
place. The Forest Service, and especially the Congress, have been
heavily lobbied by Fred Ruskin's hired spokespeople. We, the public,
only wish we had access to the financial resources which would afford
us such access. While a few legislators have made an effort to be
available, we fear the decisions are in the hands of those who are not
familiar with the details of the proposal or the areas involved.
The NEPA process would assure us that the bill's provisions have
been studied, along with providing possible alternatives which would
better serve the public interest. Since these are public lands,
shouldn't the public and those agencies created to serve and protect us
let the process unfold based on science, reason and the public good?
Decisions of this magnitude should be based on a variety of sources
and a variety of information. The record of land trades between the
federal government and private persons has been mixed, at best. The
public has too often been seriously shortchanged, as the 2000 GAO
Report revealed. (See ``Land Exchanges Need to Reflect Appropriate
Value and Serve the Public Interest'', June 2000, GAO/RCED-00-73)
According to the GAO, the guidelines in place for land exchanges
are often ignored or circumvented. What is propelling this proposal
forward without the safeguards to protect the public? Why does S. 849
have no impact study requirements? If this proposed land trade can't
stand up to the scrutiny of the NEPA process, or some equivalent impact
analysis, how can it deserve to become law? Are the protections in the
NEPA process to be deemed irrelevant? These procedures to protect the
public and its resources exist for sound and just reasons. They should
be used, especially in our State's largest proposed land trade ever.
(See Attachment 10, Leibforth)
The people of Arizona and the United States deserve to have their
voices heard regarding actions affecting their property. They deserve
to have full access to all information and to the decisionmakers. They
deserve to have full implementation of the programs which are designed
to protect their interests. (See Attachment 11, League of Women Voters)
The people of Arizona and the United States do not deserve to have
their lands traded away, for expediency or as political pawns, to
enrich a few at the expense of the many. Such trades should not be made
for any reasons other than those defensible under the applicable
guidelines which are there to protect and advance the public interest.
S. 849 does not accomplish its purported aims. It does not properly
address the complex issues involved in this massive trade. It does not
represent appropriate input from the owners of these public lands. In
its current form, S. 849 is not worthy of passage into law because it
is not in the interests of the American people.
Respectfully submitted,
David W. Leibforth,
Councilor, Clarkdale, AZ.