[Senate Hearing 111-384]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-384
ORGAN MOUNTAINS-DESERT PEAKS
WILDERNESS ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON S. 1689 ORGAN MOUNTAINS-DESERT PEAKS WILDERNESS
ACT
__________
LAS CRUCES, NM, FEBRUARY 15, 2010
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-084 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bates, Jim, Resident, Las Cruces, NM............................. 48
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 1
Cadena, Michael M., Mayor, Town of Mesilla, NM................... 10
Cooper, Tom, Rancher and Former Chairman, People for Preserving
Our Western Heritage........................................... 22
Duarte-Benavidez, Leticia, Commissioner, District 5 and Past
Commission Chair, Dona Ana County Board of Commissioners....... 4
Dubois, Frank A., Former New Mexico Secretary of Agriculture,
1988-2003...................................................... 29
Esslinger, Gary, Treasurer-Manager, Elephant Butte Irrigation
District, Las Cruces, NM....................................... 18
Hummer, John L., Chair of the Board of Directors, Greater Las
Cruces Chamber of Commerce..................................... 25
Munoz, John P., Director Sitel, Hispano Chamber of Commerce, Las
Cruces, NM..................................................... 45
Thomas, Sharon, Mayor Pro Tem, Councilor, District 6, Las Cruces,
NM............................................................. 7
Small, Nathan P., Conservation Coordinator, New Mexico Wilderness
Alliance....................................................... 41
Teague, Hon. Harry, U.S. Representative From New Mexico.......... 17
Trevino, Rolando, Director, Engineering, Western Pipeline
Engineering Projects, El Paso Natural Gas...................... 52
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado..................... 2
APPENDIX
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 61
ORGAN MOUNTAINS-DESERT PEAKS WILDERNESS ACT
----------
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Las Cruces, New Mexico
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in the
Eastside Ballroom, Corbett Center, New Mexico State University,
Las Cruces, New Mexico, Hon. Jeff Bingaman, Chairman of the
Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
The Chairman. Why don't we get started here? Why don't we
get started, can people hear me in the back? Hello? Hello?
The Chairman. All right, we're ready to go here.
The Chairman. Thank you all very much for coming today, and
spending a beautiful Monday afternoon here focused on this
issue with us.
This is a official hearing of the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources and the purpose of it is to hear
testimony on S. 1689; that's a bill that Senator Udall and I
introduce to designate lands that are managed by the Bureau of
Land Management in the Organ Mountains and the Uvas and the
Robledo Mountains as wilderness area or as national
conservation areas.
Last October this same committee, the Senate Energy
Committee, held a hearing on this bill in Washington, DC. At
that time, the committee heard testimony from the Department of
Interior from the Dona Ana County Commissioner, Oscar Vasquez
Butler and Jerry Shickendanz. However, there were several
people who were interested in the issue who asked that we
consider having a second hearing here in Las Cruces to allow
additional views to be considered, and that's the purpose of
today's hearing.
We're fortunate to have 3 panels of very distinguished
witnesses today which can better help us to understand the very
diverse views on Federal land management here in Dona Ana
County.
Let me take a few minutes to just summarize how we arrived
at this point. The issue of how to best manage the public lands
in Southern New Mexico and in Dona Ana County has been an issue
that has been intensely discussed and debated for many years.
Beginning in the 1980s, the BLM began the formal process of
identifying wilderness study areas. In the early 1990s under
George W. Bush, President George W. Bush--no, excuse me, George
H.W. Bush, excuse me I had, left out an initial there--and his
Secretary of the Interior Manuel Dujan, they recommended
certain BLM lands in Dona Ana County for wilderness
designation.
Under the Wilderness Act, lands can only be formally
designated as wilderness by acts of Congress and that is, of
course, part of what is being considered in this legislation.
Legislation to address the protection of the Organ
Mountains and other areas was first raised by Senator Domenici
in 2005 when he circulated draft legislation to protect
existing wilderness study areas, also to authorize the sale of
BLM lands on the West Mesa.
Separately, conservation and sportsman's groups developed a
citizens' proposal that called for protection of a larger area
than was contemplated in Senator Domenici's proposal, and
subsequently the city of Las Cruces and Dona Ana County held
numerous local meetings and forwarded their findings to the
entire Congressional delegation.
Since then the County, the City, the Town of Mesilla and
the city of El Paso have all adopted resolutions supporting
wilderness designation in some areas.
Senator Udall and I have worked to develop a proposal that
tries to find an appropriate balance between allowing for
development opportunities while providing for the protection of
environmentally important public lands. This involved multiple
years of meetings with many parties interested in the issue.
Following those meetings, we modified many proposed wilderness
boundaries to address the issues that had been raised,
including the issues of border security, flood control,
development plans, military needs, access for ranchers,
sportsmen and the public, and we put together a paper that
identifies the changes that were made to the initial proposal,
and I believe that's been made available to many of you, if not
there are copies of that as you leave today.
It's my sense that there is community support in Dona Ana
County to provide additional protection for important public
lands in the County.
Before I call on Senator Udall for his comments, let me
take a few moments to thank the New Mexico State University
staff who were so helpful in allowing us to hold this hearing
here on campus this afternoon, especially Ben Woods, Ricardo
Rell, Aggie Saltman, and Rebecca Hawkiss for all of their hard
work to make this possible.
I'm informed that Congressman Teague is in Las Cruces today
and hopes to be here later in the afternoon. At this time, let
me call on Senator Udall for any comment he would like to make
before we call forward any of the witnesses.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Udall. Thank you very much Chairman Bingaman, and
thank you to all of you. It's wonderful to see such a large,
large crowd today.
Chairman Bingaman, I want to thank you for holding this
important field hearing and the communities of Dona Ana County
for welcoming us here today and I'd like to associate myself
also with your remarks which, I think, show the incredible
effort that your committee has made working with a local group
and working with everyone that has been out here and been
interested in the public lands with trying to build some
consensus around the proposal of public lands in Dona Ana.
It's wonderful to see such a large crowd of citizens
interested in the proposed Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks
Wilderness Act. I appreciate, very much, the efforts of Senator
Bingaman and his staff on the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee that made this hearing possible.
This is a great opportunity to hear directly from
representatives of the communities and the organizations that
are directly impacted by this legislation.
It's a pleasure to be in Las Cruces in the shadow of the
iconic Organ Mountains. The landscape of this area is unique
and beautiful and surely it's why many of you chose to live in
Dona Ana County.
S. 1689, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act,
seeks to preserve some of the natural beauty of this area into
perpetuity. This hearing is a welcome opportunity to further
examine the merits of the bill and to find areas for
improvement. I look forward to hearing from each of the
witnesses and appreciate their willingness to participate in
this important part of the legislative process. I want to thank
all of you--I had 15 or 20 minutes, here, to visit on the way
in, and just thank all of you for your comments on the way in.
So, with that, Senator Bingaman, I'll yield my time back,
and onto the hearing.
The Chairman. OK, let me just start by indicating that, as
I said before, we did have a hearing in Washington. We had the
Deputy Director of the Bureau of Land Management provide
testimony expressing the Administration position which, I'm
pleased to note was in support of the legislation. Because the
BLM has already provided testimony, we do not have a BLM
witness testifying today, but representatives from the BLM, New
Mexico State office are here to answer any questions that
arise, and we will decide whether and when to call on them,
depending upon what issues are raised.
I'd like to welcome Bill Childress, who is the Las Cruces
Office District Manager, here.
The Chairman. Tom Phillips is the Recreation, Cultural and
Wilderness Supervisor in the Las Cruces Office, and James
Sipple is the National Landscape Conservation System Program
Lead.
The Chairman. We appreciate them being here. Lisa Morrison,
is she also here? Yes, she is. We're very glad to have her.
The Chairman. As I say, they will not be testifying, but
they may be needed to answer questions if questions arise. I
also want to thank Linda Rondel who's the BLM State Director
here in New Mexico, she's been very helpful to us in the work
that's been done on this proposal, and we will include a copy
of the BLM's official testimony in the hearing record for this
hearing, as well.
Our first panel of witnesses includes local government
representatives. Let me just state who those witnesses are.
First is Commissioner Leticia Duarte-Benavidez, she's here
representing the Dona Ana County Commission.
The Chairman. Sharon Thomas, who is the Mayor Pro Tem for
the city of Las Cruces.
The Chairman. Mayor Michael Cadena who is the Mayor of the
Town of Mesilla, is here.
The Chairman. If they would all take chairs up here at the
witness table, we will get started.
We've asked all witnesses to try to summarize their
testimony and just give us 5 or 6 minutes of oral comments
about the important issues that they think we need to
understand that they draw from their comments.
Let me state, also, that I understand there are many people
who have strong views on this issue--some in favor of parts of
the legislation, some opposed to parts of the legislation.
Everyone who is here, and anyone in the sound of my voice, is
welcome to submit written comments to be included in the formal
hearing record. We'll keep that record open for the remainder
of this week. I think we will try to close the record as of the
close of business Friday, today being Monday I think that will
give people time enough to develop statements if they want to
submit something for the official record.
If you have a written statement, you can either give it to
us today, or you can bring it by Senator Udall's office, or you
can bring it by my office here in town. Another easy way to
submit testimony is to email it directly to the committee, this
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. That address would
be [email protected]. So, any of you that wanted to
do that through use of the internet are welcome to do that.
So, with that, let's begin the first panel and Leticia why
don't you go ahead and give us your views on this issue
representing the County and then we'll call on the 2 mayors.
STATEMENT OF LETICIA DUARTE-BENAVIDEZ, COMMISSIONER, DONA ANA
COUNTY, DISTRICT 5, NM
Ms. Duarte-Benavidez. Can you hear me?
The Chairman. You may want to hold--these microphones are
such that you may want to just take them out of the thing and
hold them right in front of your mouth. I think they work
better that way.
Ms. Duarte-Benavidez. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman Bingaman and Senator Udall for the
invitation to testify on S. 1689, the Organ Mountains Desert
Peaks Wilderness Act. Protecting our mountains has been a
community supported effort for many years, and this community
is everything to me.
I was born and raised in the Mesilla Valley. After
attending Mayfield High School, I went on to New Mexico State
University, and I graduated with a Bachelors Degree in Social
Work and an Associates Degree in Police Science. I worked at
Dona Ana County for 25 years. Upon retiring, I ran for, and was
elected to, the Dona Ana County Commission, representing
District 5.
Growing up, my family went on picnics in the Organ
Mountains. I recall the excitement that would take hold as we
left the valley, heading toward the towering peaks and cool
breezes awaiting above. I am pleased to note that, with passage
of S. 1689, families many generations from now will have that
same opportunity--to enjoy the small slice of solitude while
outside of the bustling Las Cruces metropolitan area.
In high school I joined Junior ROTC. One year, our
commanding colonel led our group on an exciting adventure up
and over Baylor Pass, beginning at Baylor Canyon Road. We all
certainly enjoyed the trip, especially the warm meals prepared
by our parents on the other side of the mountain in Aguirre
Springs Campground. Again, I note with pleasure that, when S.
1689 passes, this same experience will be preserved forever for
our young people who call this region home.
I took some time off in Albuquerque and while up there,
friends and I went hiking in the Sandia Mountains. Albuquerque
was then and remains today fortunate to have its mountains
receive wilderness protections.
Going back as far as 2004, the Dona Ana County Board of
Commissioners has formalized resolutions calling on Federal
protections for the Organ, Robledo, Dona Ana, Potrillo, and
Sierra de Las Uvas Mountains along with Broad Canyon. These
resolutions have been passed as legislative efforts began with
former Sen. Pete Domenici, and are now maturing under Senators
Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall.
Places to be protected in S. 1689 represent the natural
beauty that is loved by natives of Dona Ana County and which
has attracted thousands of new residents to Southern New
Mexico. The Dona Ana County Board of Commissioners has
consistently been supportive of these protective designations
that will preserve the area's beauty for coming generations.
The Dona Ana County Mountains NCA boundary has adjusted to
account for roads that will be necessary as our community
continues growing.
Similar adjustments along the proposed Weisner Road will
help meet our community's transportation needs far into the
future, while still protecting ample open spaces along the
apron of the Organ Mountains.
I know the legislation was altered to make room for larger
transmission corridors and petroleum pipelines in the southern
part of Dona Ana County was built in through boundary
modifications. Several flood control structures were excluded
to provide for unimpeded maintenance, and even larger
designation changes were made when proposed wilderness areas
were switched to national conservation areas. Many changes were
made for cattle ranching; huge swaths of land were excluded
from wilderness protection near the border for border security.
Much work has gone into this legislation. There have been
numerous public meetings. We've seen dozens of news articles
and the topic has been discussed at great length in the local
press. Tours, forums, and conferences have all come and gone.
Most importantly, Senator Bingaman's staff has held direct, in-
person meetings countless times with stakeholders, including
Dona Ana County. I am pleased that today's hearing will move us
an important step toward enactment of S. 1689, the Organ
Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act.
We believe the will of the people has been heard and the
compromises have led us to this point in the process have
crafted an outstanding proposal. I urge quickly Congressional
consideration of the proposed designations as soon as possible.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Duarte-Benavidez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Leticia Duarte-Benavidez, Commissioner, District
5 and Past Commission Chair, Dona Ana County Board of Commissioners
Thank you, Chairman Bingaman and Senator Udall for the invitation
to testify on S. 1689, the Organ Mountains Desert Peaks Wilderness Act.
Protecting our mountains has been a community supported effort for many
years, and this community is everything to me. I was born and raised in
the Mesilla Valley. After attending Mayfield High School, I went on to
New Mexico State University, and ultimately graduated with a Bachelors
Degree in Social Work and an Associates Degree in Police Science.
Directly after college I went to work helping the children of migrant
farm workers. I then moved to Dona Ana County, where I am proud to have
worked for over 25 years. Upon retiring, and at the urging of friends,
family, and coworkers, I ran for, and was elected to, the Dona Ana
County Commission, representing District 5.
Growing up, my family often went on picnics in the Organ Mountains.
I recall the excitement that would take hold as we left the valley,
heading toward the towering peaks and cool breezes waiting above. We
would walk in a little ways and then just enjoy the afternoon. I am
pleased to note that, with passage of S. 1689, families many
generations from now will have that same opportunity--to enjoy a small
slice of solitude while just outside of the bustling Las Cruces
metropolitan area.
In high school I joined Junior ROTC. One year, our commanding
colonel led our group on an exciting adventure--up and over Baylor
Pass, beginning at Baylor Canyon Road. We went in winter to avoid
rattlesnakes, but one couldn't avoid the incredible experience of
walking with friends and classmates, and the Colonel's huge St.
Bernard. I didn't take enough water that trip, and held the dog's leash
so it could help give me the extra oomph to make it through. We all
certainly enjoyed the trip--especially the warm meals prepared by our
parents on the other side of the mountain in Aguirre Springs
Campground. Again, I note with pleasure that, when S. 1689 passes, this
same experience will be preserved forever for our young people who call
this region home.
I will relate one last personal experience. During college, I took
some time off to live in Albuquerque. While up there, friends and I
went hiking in the Sandia Mountains. I know now that this area had just
been given wilderness protections. Those many years ago, my friends and
I admired Albuquerque far below, and were thankful that within such a
short reach we had the chance to escape just a little bit. Albuquerque
was then and remains today fortunate to have its mountains receive
wilderness protections.
As you may well imagine, the Dona Ana County Board of Commissioners
has high regard for our area mountains, and we have been carefully
watching the process by which wilderness legislation is being crafted.
Going back as far as 2004, the Dona Ana County Board of
Commissioners has formalized resolutions calling for federal
protections of the Organ, Robledo, Dona Ana, Potrillo, and Sierra de
Las Uvas Mountains along with Broad Canyon. These resolutions have been
passed as legislative efforts began with former Sen. Pete V. Domenici,
and are now maturing under Senators Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall. The
lands under consideration for wilderness and national conservation
areas are representative of the natural beauty that is so loved by
natives of Dona Ana County and which has attracted untold thousands of
new residents to southern New Mexico. The Dona Ana County Board of
Commissioners has consistently been supportive of these protective
designations that will preserve the area's beauty for coming
generations.
Protecting the natural beauty of our mountains is incredibly
important. So too is balancing our region's rapid growth and need for
community and regional planning to prosper with this growth. Because of
the vast number of stakeholders who had input into the Organ Mountains-
Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, this legislation helps here as well.
One example is Dona Ana Mountains NCA boundary. It was adjusted to
account for roads that will be necessary as our community continues
growing. Similar adjustments along the proposed Weisner Road will help
meet our community's transportation needs far into the future, while
still protecting ample open space along the ``apron'' of the Organ
Mountains.
I know of many examples where, because of outside input, the
legislation was altered. Room for larger transmission corridors and
petroleum pipelines in the southern part of Dona Ana County was built
in through boundary modifications. Several flood control structures
were excluded to provide for unimpeded maintenance, and even larger
designation changes were made when proposed wilderness areas were
switched to national conservation area. Many changes made for cattle
ranching infrastructure are also apparent, while huge swaths of land
were excluded from wilderness protections near the border to better
promote border security.
An extraordinary amount of work has gone into this legislation.
There have been numerous public meetings on weekends and weekdays, at
night and during the day. We've seen dozens of news articles and the
topic has been discussed at great length in the local press. Tours,
forums, and conferences have all come and gone. Most importantly,
Senator Bingaman's staff has held direct, in person meetings countless
times with stakeholders, including Dona Ana County. All of this points
to what I began with--protecting our mountains has enjoyed strong
community support over a number of years. I am pleased that today's
hearing will move us an important step forward toward enactment of S.
1689, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act.
We recognize that not every group is happy with all facets of the
proposed legislation. However, based on the years of public input that
are capped by today's hearing, we believe the will of the people has
been heard and the compromises that have led us to this point in the
process have crafted an outstanding proposal. I urge quick
Congressional consideration of the proposed designations as soon as
possible.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator Udall and I will
have some questions, but we'd like to hear from the other 2
witnesses first.
Sharon Thomas, Mayor Pro Tem, city of Las Cruces, thank you
for being here.
STATEMENT OF SHARON THOMAS, MAYOR PRO TEM, CITY OF LAS CRUCES,
DISTRICT 6, NM
Ms. Thomas. Thank you.
Good afternoon, it's my great pleasure to be here today. I
am the Las Cruces City Councilor for District 6 and also the
mayor pro tem.
My district is the east side of Las Cruces, closest to the
Organ Mountains. As you mentioned earlier, many of my
constituents have chosen to live in District 6 precisely
because of the proximity to the Organ Mountains and their ever-
changing drama and many of them are in the audience here today.
Consequently, the majority of residents in District 6
wholeheartedly support conservation of our natural areas
through Wilderness and National Conservation Area designations.
Of course, the entire city council has expressed overwhelming
support through our resolution which we passed unanimously in
support of this legislation.
Over the years, I have watched the effort to preserve not
only the Organ Mountains, but many of the natural areas in our
region--the Robledo's fossil trackways, the desert grasslands
in the Portillos, Broad Canyon's special riparian areas and
more.
In recent months, as the legislation has been fine tuned,
the staff members have worked long hours to ensure that the
designated lands--both Wilderness and National Conservation--
will also accommodate all users. A number of concerns of
special interest to the City have also been addressed and I'd
like to say a little bit about those.
Those of us who live on the east side of Las Cruces have
long feared that development might some day march up the side
of the Organ Mountains, destroying not only their majestic
grandeur but also the fragile ecological systems that exist
there. There is considerable agreement across the community
that we would like to see Weisner Road, near the base of the
mountains, eventually become the eastern edge of the city. In
the current draft of this legislation, the National
Conservation Area now begins just east of Weisner Road; thus
allowing for development on both sides of that road, but not
beyond that area.
Adequate right of way--as Commissioner Benavidez
mentioned--for the future utility infrastructure is also very
important. Future growth is always a concern. All of the
utility suppliers in the area have been contacted to make sure
that the areas we will need for future expansion will be
available when that time comes. Of course, we can not expect to
grow our city if we can't provide electricity, gas, and water,
and those concerns have been met.
Summer flooding is also a big problem in our area.
Sometimes people move here from the Midwest and they fill in
that big hole in their front yard that they didn't realize was
a retention pond. So, aside from that--but again, here, the
drafters of the legislation have been extremely accommodating.
They've removed or changed designation in Broad Canyon and
other areas so that structures used for flood control can be
constructed and maintained.
Finally, because we are in a border region, security is
also a concern. In the latest draft of the legislation, many
thousands of acres have now been made available for border
security operations.
These and other provisions in the current draft of this
legislation give both city officials and residents confidence
that the needs of our Border patrol have been met and we can
rest assured that our safety concerns are being addressed.
Currently, the city of Las Cruces and Dona Ana County are
working together on a regional comprehensive plan. In the
public input meetings that have gone on over the last couple of
years, residents have expressed very high interest in the
preservation of open space and agriculture and ranching areas.
For these people, the wilderness and the NCA designation of our
most precious natural areas will be widely celebrated. In
addition, we appreciate the efforts to allow grazing to
continue on those lands that are already designated Wilderness
Study Areas and have been for some time.
Natives, newcomers and visitors to our area often choose to
hike the Organs, explore the trackways of the Robledos--now a
National Monument--or investigate the unusual beauty of Broad
Canyon. The preservation of these areas ensures future access
for generations to come, contributes to the popularity of our
city as a location for retirees, helps us preserve cultural and
historical features, and is an important factor in our area's
economic well being.
In the city of Las Cruces, there is broad support for the
preservation of our natural areas and we are very grateful to
our senators for their leadership on the Organ Mountains--
Desert Peaks Wilderness Act. They and their staffs have shown
an astonishing commitment to their responsibility to respond to
the concerns of all the stakeholders in the region. I believe
you have found an appropriate balance.
I urge you to move forward with all possible haste so that
we can preserve our iconic landscapes, protect our recreational
and cultural resources, manage our watersheds, ensure the
safety of the border, and continue to grow our economy.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about
this historic legislation.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thomas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sharon Thomas, Mayor Pro Tem, Councilor, District
6, Las Cruces, NM
Good Afternoon, Honored Chair and Committee Members
It's my great pleasure to be here at Sen. Bingaman's invitation to
participate in this hearing. I am the Las Cruces City Councilor for
District 6 and, also, the mayor pro tem. I'm honored to represent the
City of Las Cruces and our over 90,000 residents.
My district is the area that lies along the east side of Las
Cruces, closest to the Organ Mountains. Residents in my district are
passionate about their love of the Organ Mountains. Many of my
constituents have chosen to live in District 6 precisely because of the
proximity to the Organ Mountains and their ever-changing drama, one of
New Mexico's top natural wonders. Consequently, the majority of
residents in District 6 whole-heartedly support conservation of our
natural areas through Wilderness and National Conservation Area
designations. And, of course, we have overwhelming support from our
city council members who have unanimously passed a resolution in
support of this legislation.
I also have a special link to those mountains. I first came to Las
Cruces in the early 1990s when our son was in graduate school at New
Mexico State University. I can clearly recall the sweeping grandeur of
the Mesilla Valley that came into view as we came over the San Agustin
Pass and into the valley below.
A few years later, when our son and his girlfriend were nearly
finished with their education at New Mexico State University, they
decided to open a cafe in Las Cruces. Because of our love of the Organ
Mountains and the gorgeous purple/red color they turn when the sun is
setting in the west, we named our restaurant and coffee bar, the Red
Mountain Cafe. Due to my husband's role in the local arts community
(he's a poet), the Red Mountain Cafe became a gathering place for
artists and writers and musicians. The walls were soon adorned with
photos and paintings of the red Organ Mountains. We even acquired a
tile mosaic of sunset on the Organs. We sold the cafe in 2003, but it
remained a local favorite until late last year when the third owner
finally closed the doors.
I have watched the slow but persistent movement of the effort to
preserve not only the Organ Mountains, but many of the other natural
areas in our region--the Robledo's fossil trackways, the desert
grasslands in the Portillo Mountains, Broad Canyon's special riparian
areas and more. I'm delighted to endorse and encourage passage and
Presidential signature of Senate 1689, the Organ Mountains--Desert
Peaks Wilderness Act.
In recent months, as the legislation has been fine tuned, the
stakeholders have worked long hours to ensure that the designated lands
(both Wilderness and National Conservation) will also accommodate
traditional ranching uses, border protection, law enforcement, and
recreational pursuits. In addition, for the city, a number of other
concerns have also been accommodated. I am particularly grateful to
Dara Parker for her constant attention to the needs of the City of Las
Cruces. Let me give you some examples.
Those of us who live on the east side of Las Cruces have long
feared that development might some day march up the side of the Organ
Mountains, destroying not only their majestic grandeur but, also, the
fragile ecological systems that exist there. There is considerable
agreement across the community that we would like to see Weisner Road,
near the base of the mountains, eventually become the eastern edge of
the city. In the current draft of this legislation, the National
Conservation Area now begins east of Weisner Road; thus allowing for
development on both sides of that road, but not beyond that area.
Adequate right of way for future utility infrastructure to support
future growth was also a concern. All the utility suppliers in the area
have been contacted to make sure the areas they will need for future
expansion will be available when that time comes. We cannot expect our
city to grow if we cannot provide electricity, gas, and water. The
drafters of this legislation made sure they understood the needs of
these utility providers and made changes accordingly. In one case, some
land was even withdrawn to make sure that future Right of Way needs can
be met.
Although Las Cruces is a high desert community, flooding during the
summer rains is a constant problem (much to the surprise of newcomers
who sometimes fill in that strange hole in their front yard, not
realizing that it's a water retention pond). The City has gone to great
lengths to map and increase understanding of the watershed of the
entire region and its effect on our city. Again, the drafters of this
legislation have been extremely accommodating. The section of land
around the Broad Canyon dam has been removed from consideration so that
future expansion of that dam can occur should that become necessary. In
addition, some areas of Broad Canyon have been designated National
Conservation Areas (NCA) so that the berms used for flood control can
be constructed and maintained. The NCA designation of the Organ
Mountains area also allows for flood control structures as necessary in
the future, though we, of course, hope that control can be achieved in
other places. The due diligence of the legislation drafters to make
sure all concerns are addressed has been considerable.
Finally, because we are in a border region, security is also a
concern. In the latest draft of the legislation, over 16,000 acres of
Wilderness Study Area (WSA) along the southern boundary of the West
Potrillo Mountains will be available for border security operations.
Another 8,000 acres south of the East Potrillo Mountains are also now
available for border enforcement activities. These and other provisions
in the current draft of this legislation give both city officials and
residents confidence that the needs of the Border patrol have been met
and we can rest assured that our safety concerns are being addressed.
Currently, the City of Las Cruces and Dona Ana County are working
together on a regional comprehensive plan for our area. This is the
first joint planning effort of its kind in the state of New Mexico. In
the public input meetings that occurred early in the process, residents
expressed very high interest in the preservation of open space and
agricultural and ranching areas in our region. Certainly the Wilderness
and NCA designation of our most precious natural areas will be widely
celebrated. In addition, efforts to allow grazing to continue on those
lands currently designated as Wilderness Study Areas is also much
appreciated. The current proposed legislation does allow access to
current ranching activities. I understand that language has been
changed to state that ``The Secretary shall [not may] permit grazing
within the conservation Areas, where established before the date of
enactment of this act.'' We appreciate that effort.
Natives and newcomers alike are drawn to our area because of the
natural beauty, the recreational opportunities, the cultural resources,
and the pleasant climate. Homes and businesses that offer a view of the
Organ Mountains, or the city lying in the agricultural valley, are
highly sought after. Visitors to our area often choose to hike in the
Organs, explore the trackways in the Robledos (now a National
Monument), or investigate the unusual beauty of Broad Canyon. The
preservation of these areas ensures future access for generations to
come, contributes to the popularity of our city as a location for
retirees, helps us preserve cultural and historical features, and is an
important factor in our area's economic well being.
In the City of Las Cruces, there is broad support for the
preservation of our natural areas and we are very grateful to our
senators for their leadership on the Organ Mountains--Desert Peaks
Wilderness Act. They and their staffs have shown an astonishing
commitment to their responsibility to respond to the concerns of all
the stakeholders in our region. The areas of conflict have been
resolved and we have now come to the time for action. I know I speak
for many of our citizens when I say that I wholeheartedly support this
legislation and urge you to move forward with all possible haste so
that we can preserve our iconic landscapes, protect our recreational
and cultural resources, manage our watersheds, ensure the safety of the
border, and continue to grow our economy.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about this
historic legislation.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, again, we will have some questions,
but first let's hear from Michael Cadena who is the Mayor of
the Town of Mesilla.
Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CADENA, MAYOR, TOWN OF MESILLA, NM
Mr. Cadena. Thank you, Senator Bingaman and Senator Udall
and certainly we want to recognize Senator Domenici for his
big, large part of all of this.
It's important to--we need to commend you for having this
hearing, it's important to hear from both the proponents and
the opponents, I'm sitting here right next to both of them and
we're just very lucky to be in a country where we can have this
debate and continue to move forward.
Mesilla has a long history of preserving agriculture and
open spaces, dating back to the 1840s. It's a very important
part of this valley and it needs to continue. In 1987 it became
a major portion of our comprehensive plan, to make sure that we
preserve our cultural land and open space, and again when we
updated this plan in 2004, that was a major component of it,
when we had similar meetings like this. It's very pleasing to
see this many people to turn out for this type of event where
they can express their opinion. This is no different.
The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act introduced
into the U.S. Senate is the culmination of 4 years of a lot of
hard work by a lot of people, a lot of meetings and a lot of
reasonable compromise by all included. Mesilla Resolution 2009-
06, adopted on September 28, 2009, endorses the Act. My
colleagues have gone into the specifics of that Act, so I'm not
going to get into that, but I will say that it praises the
foresight in moving to preserve natural and ecological values
for our families including watershed and air quality
protection.
It does on to recognize the potential economic benefits for
our community in the form of tourism dollars invested in
recreational activities and certainly with the tough economic
times that we're in, I truly believe that we can promote and
attract people to this area as part of a total--one part of a
package of getting people to come and visit the area and spend
tourism dollars and--not only in Mesilla, Las Cruces, but the
whole Valley, here. Part of that attraction is certainly the
Organ Mountains and the open spaces that we're trying to
promote.
Many of us have enjoyed the privileges of being able to
enjoy the views in going out to these areas and, as my
colleagues have talked about, the solitude and the great
feeling of these aesthetic places. It's important that, through
this Act, that we're able to preserve it for our children and
grandchildren and all future generations.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cadena follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael M. Cadena, Mayor, Town of Mesilla, NM
Senators Bingaman and Udall, other distinguished legislators and
guests. My name is Michael Cadena, and I am the Mayor of the Town of
Mesilla.
Mesilla has a solid history of support for preservation of open-
space. For example, our citizen-driven 2004 Comprehensive Plan includes
cluster housing design for new subdivisions on farmland, a concept
which was later put into an ordinance. The Master Plan also calls for
regional planning with local governments and private organizations to
conserve agriculture and to establish an interconnected trail system,
planning work which Mesilla continues today by participating in our
local Metropolitan Planning Organization.
The Town's first direct involvement in what is now called ``The
Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act'' was a meeting in November
2005, with a federal congressional delegation, led by former Senator
Pete Domenici of New Mexico. The talk was about a proposal to designate
permanent wilderness areas in Dona Ana County. A January 10, 2006,
letter signed by the Mayor and a Resolution,* dated February 13, 2006,
followed the November meeting. They describe Mesilla's position in
support of the initial proposal and include the request that Broad
Canyon and the East Potrillo Mountains be included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Documents have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mesilla's involvement continued in a series of meetings,
facilitated by City of Las Cruces' staff, with all interested parties
present. These meetings began the process of bringing together the
proponents and the opponents of federal wilderness legislation. The
Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, introduced into the United
States Senate on September 17, 2009, is the culmination of over four
years of meetings and hard work by a lot of people to bring all parties
to the table and to emerge with appropriate and reasonable compromises.
Mesilla's Resolution, 2009-26, adopted on September 28, 2009, endorses
the Act. It praises the foresight in moving to preserve natural and
ecological values for our families, including watershed and air quality
protection. It goes on to recognize the potential economic benefits for
our community in the form of tourism dollars invested in recreational
activities.
Throughout the four and a half years of consideration of Wilderness
and National Conservation Area designations in Dona Ana County,
Senators Bingaman and Udall have taken extraordinary measures to gather
and incorporate the views and needs of those on both sides of
Wilderness designation; and there has been no lack of community
participation. It is time now to act, to move forward and pass The
Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Let me ask a few questions and then I'm sure Senator Udall
will have some questions, as well.
Let me start with you, Commissioner Duarte-Benavidez, about
the issue of flood protection. One of the concerns that's been
raised, and I think will probably be raised by other witnesses
today relates to whether or not there is adequate flood
protection, adequate opportunity to maintain flood protection
structures, dams that might have been built before. Can you
tell us anything about what the County's plans are to install
additional flood control structures in the coming years, and
whether or not those plans would be able to go forward even if
this legislation became law?
Ms. Duarte-Benavidez. Yes, sir.
Presently we are planning on flood protection on the East
and the West Mesas, and also in the wilderness and the NCA
Districts, but it's presently just in the planning stage at
this point, we're trying to get as much input from the public,
and we are looking at those areas, right now, for flood.
But unfortunately, or fortunately, we are just at the
planning stage at this point right now.
The Chairman. OK.
Let me ask Mayor Thomas, one of the issues--and you
somewhat addressed this in your earlier comments--but one of
the issues is whether or not this legislation would have the
effect of limiting the future growth of the community of Las
Cruces. I gather from what you said that you do not think it
would have that effect, and I'd just ask you to elaborate on
that, if that is your view, or correct me if it's not your
view.
Ms. Thomas. Thank you.
No, I don't see that it will limit our growth. You know,
one of our concerns, as I mentioned, was whether or not we
would be able to get utilities as we need, increase gas and
water and electricity and those sorts of things and your office
has been very good about working with the city and working with
our Assistant City Manager trying to predict what those needs
are going to be and if there need to be larger right of ways
left, you know, for, say, for future gas lines and those sorts
of things. So, we're quite comfortable with that.
I would add, about the flood, too, that the City has mapped
our entire watershed and looked very carefully at where we need
to put in structures to deal with the flooding. We're currently
building a very large retention pond and again, your office has
worked with our City Manager and Assistant City Manager and
planners, and so they have paid attention to all of our
concerns, both having to do with flood control and with future
growth.
The Chairman. Let me just ask, Mayor Cadena, you indicated
the priority that Mesilla--the Town of Mesilla has put on
agricultural open space. How do you see--do you see anything in
this legislation that would contradict that or make that
difficult for you to carry out with that set of plans, whatever
planning you've done there, in the Town of Mesilla?
Mr. Cadena. No, not at all, I just--my emphasis is that
primary in Mesilla, our open spaces are our cultural land but
recently we--2 years ago there was a petition to annex, and we
have started to move up the West Mesa--so I see some potential
to potentially have some open space in that area, as well.
The Chairman. But none of the open space that you
anticipate there is affected by what's being proposed here, as
I understand it, is that right?
Mr. Cadena. That's right, not directly.
The Chairman. OK.
Let me defer to Senator Udall for any questions he has.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Chairman Bingaman.
I want to thank the witnesses on Panel I for doing such a
good job, here.
Let me follow-up on one thing that Senator Bingaman delved
into a little bit, and I'd like to hear from all 3 of you on
this. He asked about the future growth of Las Cruces, and the
growth in Dona Ana County, and one of the important things when
you develop a proposal like this is make sure that there is the
ability to adequately have the community grow while at the same
time protect the things that people feel are special treasures.
What I'm wondering is--and my understanding, the Organ
Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act is complimentary of the
County's long-term development plans. I would ask--how are each
of you involved in these plans, could you describe what the
County and City are doing to develop Vision 2040? What impact,
if any, this legislation would have on the plan, looking down
the road as you're doing on your long-term planning there?
Please?
Ms. Duarte-Benavidez. I always believe that the people that
live in the community should get involved. One of the biggest
things that I would like to do is have participation in the
community for every single District.
Dona Ana County is unique because it's just not rural,
there's a lot of little clusters of communities out there, and
we need participation by the residents to see what they want in
their little towns on Vision 2040. That's what--I'm hoping to
bring in more people to participate in this and hopefully we
can hear their ideas and whatever they need for their
community.
Because outside of the County--I mean, outside of the City
limits is very different to how it is inside of the City. So
that's my biggest--I would like the community participation at
this point, thank you.
Ms. Thomas. Thank you for that question, Senator Udall.
I've been very involved with the Vision 2040 work from the
beginning, I've gone to most of the public meetings, I've read
all of the drafts--we're about to get a brand-new draft any day
now that should be our final, or next-to-last draft, an
ultimate draft.
One of the things that the land-use patterns in Vision 2040
suggest is that if we project our growth between now and 2040,
the City already has adequate land to accommodate all of that
growth. So, we're not looking at much more annexation in that
period of time.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, saving the Organ Mountains,
protecting open space, protecting the agricultural lands around
Mesilla, those were brought up at practically every public
meeting as very important goals for the people in this
community. So, I think that we've had a considerable public
discussion.
I've also been involved in a number of private groups that
have been meeting now, for months, just so we can start to be
on the same page before we move to the last steps of Vision
2040. I think we're close to being there, and as you said, your
bill certainly compliments what we're trying to do with Vision
2040.
Mr. Cadena. Yes, Mesilla is right smack dab in the middle
of this plan, this 2040 Plan so we're definitely participating
in those discussions. Also, I need to indicate with in-fill and
other areas that have been designated for development and the
wise use of cluster subdivisions and those kind of innovative
building, there's plenty of area to build for many, many years
to come. We're not at all trying to be inclusive here, it's
just about planning to put people in the right places. That's
what this 2040 Vision is about.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
This I'm going to direct more, Commissioner, to you, but if
either of the Mayors want to comment, I'd also like to hear
their comments on border security.
A few of the testimonies that we will hear today touch on
the concerns of border security. From your perspective, what is
the current status of border security in the County, what are
their needs, what are the needs that are not being met? Do you
believe that the accommodations worked out in this bill and in
the ongoing MOA, the Memorandum of Understanding between the
Federal Government managers and border security are adequate
for protecting the communities that you represent?
Ms. Duarte-Benavidez. Thank you.
You know, there's a big problem in Juarez right now, and
there's a lot of people being killed. They made a statement
that more people have been killed in Juarez than in
Afghanistan. So, we have a very big problem in this area, and
we need the participation of all law enforcement areas in the
border--whether it be the police, the sheriff, the
immigration--and I believe that working in unison, together,
and bringing more funds to this area will really help a lot.
You need to know the area, you need to know the culture in
order for--to understand what's going on. I believe that more
funding, for Federal funds, is necessary to protect the
residents of Dona Ana County.
Thank you.
Ms. Thomas. Yes, I'd like to comment on that, as well.
I understand from some of the earlier testimony that I've
read that in terms of crossing problems at the border that
Arizona has a lot more than we have and Texas has less, fewer
incidences. What I understand from this legislation is that
because more land has been released now to be used--I believe
close to 40,000 acres to be used for border patrol, so there's
access for the border patrol--then, and because a lot of that
land has been in a wilderness study area for many years, so
actually it seems to me that this legislation gives more
flexibility and more access and so that makes me feel
considerably better about that.
I would also mention that yes, there's a huge problem in
Juarez. But El Paso, for its size, is one of the safest cities
in the United States. So, we have this odd congruence here at
the border. So I think we're doing a pretty good job on our
side of the border. That doesn't mean we don't have great
empathy for our neighbors to the south who are really suffering
and we need to offer support whenever we can.
But, our border is pretty much in the middle, and I don't
see that this legislation's going to change it, and I in fact,
see that it's probably going to add more flexibility for Border
Patrol.
Mr. Cadena. Certainly I'm no expert on border security, but
I will tell you with all of the resources that Congress has put
forward, the agencies are working together, there's more people
visible, it seems to be a safer place and I think it's just--
certainly with all of the experts--expertise in this room that
we can work together on that part of the bill to make it
feasible and safe at the same time.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mayor.
Just my final question here and Commission, it comes from
what you've said in your opening testimony, I think you used
the term--and that's what I want to ask all 3 of you--your
sense, because you're local elected officials, you're here in
the community. You, I think, used the term, you said it--
reflecting on the proposal that's out there, the bill that both
of us are signed on to, ``the will of the people has been
heard.''
Now, could you just reflect a little bit on what you've
heard over the years, I know Mayor Cadena has talked about
going back and having meetings since 2005 and there's been a
lot going on out here. Could you reflect just a little bit on
the will of the people and what you've heard in terms of the
proposal that's on the table, here?
Ms. Duarte-Benavidez. Thank you.
Yes, when I was campaigning, I ran into a lot of people who
were stressing that we need to protect our area from
development. They don't want it to happen like it did in
Phoenix where they have houses all the way up to the mountains,
or--you could just go look at El Paso and see the houses built
all the way up to the mountains. People need a place for--to go
out and enjoy themselves. There's a lot of areas in the United
States that are so beautiful that have been protected because
of you. Otherwise, there's just people that would like to put a
restaurant up there in the mountain that, you know, that
reflects like, ``Eat Here.''
But we can't do that, we need to--we need to really keep
the mountains as beautiful as possible, because if you look at
the Organ Mountains, they change every day. You look at them
and they're different colors, different--and you know, there's
times where you say, ``I never saw that before.'' So, it's the
people who come and say, ``We want to keep this, this is why we
moved here. This is the reason why we're here, we love this
place.'' We need to keep the Organ Mountains as pristine and as
beautiful as possible.
Thank you.
Ms. Thomas. As I pointed out, my District lies all along
the Eastern edge of the city of Las Cruces, so many, many
people in my District move there because they enjoy the Organ
Mountains and as Commissioner Benavidez said, you know, they
don't want to see houses marching up the side or restaurants up
on the top. So, that's certainly what I hear all the time. I
would say a third of my emails and conversations have to do
with the open space, wildlife corridors and protecting our
natural areas. So, it's very, very well supported in my
District.
I guess I could add, finally, that I ran for reelection in
November and I was reelected, so that's the best evidence of
support I can give you.
Mr. Cadena. Only to add to that, we have a great view of
the Organ Mountains from Mesilla, but I can tell you that the
great majority of people from Mesilla and this whole Mesilla
Valley are in support of this bill.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, and thank you for your
service to your communities. Thank you.
Ms. Duarte-Benavidez. Thank you.
Ms. Thomas. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you all very much for coming and
testifying today, we appreciate it very much. Why don't we go
ahead and do panel No. 2 at this point.
So, let me introduce them and they can come forward as I
introduce them.
Gary Esslinger is here as the Treasurer and General Manager
of Elephant Butte Irrigation District, Frank DuBois is a
Consultant with People for Preserving our Western Heritage, we
welcome him. John Hummer is here, the Chair of the Board of
Directors with the Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce and
Tom Cooper who is an owner, a grazing permittee with Cooper and
Company.
Representative Teague is here, we're glad to have you here.
Representative Teague. Thank you.
The Chairman. Frank, I mispronounced your name, it's
DuBois, excuse me.
Mr. DuBois. That's quite all right.
The Chairman. Why don't we start, let me just first of all
defer to Representative Teague, if he wanted to make any
statement or if he wanted to hear from these witnesses first,
whatever his preference is.
Representative Teague. If I could, yes.
The Chairman. You can go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY TEAGUE, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW
MEXICO
Representative Teague. Thank you. Thank all of you all for
being here. Thank you Senator Bingaman, Senator Udall for
bringing this hearing to Las Cruces. It's an important
opportunity for residents of Dona Ana County to share their
opinions on the proposed wilderness legislation. This is part
of what has been a long and deliberate process led by Senator
Bingaman, and this field hearing today shows his commitment to
having all sides share--have their voices heard on this
important issue.
I think this is a good way of doing business, and I want to
thank Senator Bingaman, the Chairman of this hearing, for doing
this.
Back during my campaign for Congress, I said I would
support efforts to conserve the public lands of this county and
oppose radical proposals to sell off public lands to private
interests. This has not changed.
When I was elected, I made the commitment to be a
Congressman who would stay in touch, listen to all sides of the
debate and work to represent the interests of all of my
constituents. My approach to the wilderness designation we are
discussing today is the same as my approach to representing
this District--I did not assume that I already knew the best
answer.
Instead, over the course of the last year, I sat down many
times with people who cared about this issue and I did a lot
more listening than talking, because I think we need to get
this right. Ultimately, no one group will be--or should be--to
get everything out of this process that they want. But in the
end, what we do must be right for Dona Ana County and right for
this Nation.
I have a few questions during this process that probably
will be answered that include, you know, during these tough
economic times when we must both create jobs now and set up for
future economic growth, how does the preservation of our public
lands benefit Dona Ana County economically? How does it promote
tourism, investment and job creation?
Hunting and fishing is a treasured part of the lives of
thousands of New Mexico families, including mine. I believe
maintaining habitat is just as important to maintaining our
hunting and fishing traditions as is the Second Amendment. So,
how do sportsmen feel about proposals to preserve our public
lands?
When I was a County Commissioner, and now as a Congressman,
I worked to develop our public infrastructure to create jobs
and build our economy. How would a wilderness designation
affect the future development of infrastructure to serve the
public safety and economy of Dona Ana County?
Also, I believe that we as a Nation must establish and
maintain operational control of our borders. We must be able to
stop the illegal smuggling of drugs, guns and people. So, how
would a wilderness designation affect the ability of the border
patrol to do its job and protect our borders?
Ladies and gentlemen, we all know the public lands of Dona
Ana County are critically important to our economy and way of
life in Southern New Mexico. Our open spaces provide residents
with a unique quality of life. The peaks of the Organ Mountains
define Las Cruces just as the Empire State Building defines New
York City and Cowboys Stadium defines Dallas.
You can't drive through Las Cruces without seeing many
businesses decorated with images of the Organs, and it's hard
to get through a conversation about Las Cruces without hearing
about the beauty of the city.
In many ways, the Organs and open spaces of Dona Ana County
are the goose that lays the golden economic egg. I think we
better tend carefully to that goose.
Let us remember that our open space----
Representative Teague [continuing]. Let us remember that
our open spaces are public lands.
Representative Teague. They belong to the people of the
county and the people of this country. I believe they should be
preserved for the people of this country and the people of this
County.
I do have questions about the wilderness proposal, that's
just part of the process, and that's why I look forward to the
rest of this hearing and to continuing to work with all
interested parties to craft a future for the public lands of
Dona Ana County that will, first, keep us safe, second,
preserve and enhance the quality of life and third, increase
tourism, jobs and economic investment in the area.
Once again, thank you all for being here today, thank you
for listening to me.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you for taking
time to participate in our hearing, we very much appreciate
having you here.
Let's start, Gary, why don't you go right ahead, why don't
we use the same basic format we did in the first panel and each
of you take 5 or 6 minutes and tell us the main points you
think we need to understand and then I'm sure we'll have
questions after we hear from all of you.
So, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF GARY ESSLINGER, TREASURER-MANAGER, ELEPHANT BUTTE
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, LAS CRUCES, NM
Mr. Esslinger. Thank you for this opportunity to present my
testimony today. I am Gary Esslinger, Treasurer-Manager of the
Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID). I want to emphasize
that even though EBID's primary charge is delivering water to
90,640 acres in Dona Ana and Sierra Counties, we do much more
than that.
The outflow from EBID flood control dams and other city,
county and private dams in the area, coupled with direct storm
runoff from dozens of uncontrolled arroyos, runs into our canal
and drainage designed for irrigation purposes, but they were
designed to convey high storm flows such as the catastrophic
events of 2006 and 2008.
EBID continuously looks for opportunities to better manage
storm water. Our main concern is to protect life, farmland and
the irrigation system. Thereafter it is to harness the wild
storm water to be put to beneficial use in Southern New Mexico.
The historic Operating Agreement between the United States, and
the Texas and New Mexico Irrigation Districts allows EBID to
capture storm water within our system and place it to
beneficial use without any obligation to deliver that water to
Texas by directly and indirectly recharging our aquifers which
will benefit everyone.
EBID sponsors and operates 33 flood control dams that were
built about 60 years ago to protect ag land, with a 50 year
storm event design life, seven of which of these dams sit
between the Dona Ana County exit and I-10 interchange. They
have lost capacity due to sediment and accumulation and design
life, making them more likely to spill or breach. These dams
were not designed to protect a concentrated population such as
we have in and around Las Cruces.
We appreciate the efforts of all parties, and especially
Senator Bingaman, you and your staff for working with EBID to
exclude our existing dams from the wilderness area. However,
flood control is not a stagnant process. It is clear that as
Southern New Mexico continues to grow, we will need to address
flood management and develop best management practices for our
watersheds before we can consider wilderness area designation.
Climate change is a moving target with much uncertainty.
For example, the east Mesa of Las Cruces is criss-crossed
with arroyos that originate in the Organ Mountains and drain
into the valley floor. Yet today, we assume under false
pretense that existing flood control structures are adequate,
and that we will be protecting residential and commercial
developments below.
What happened in Hatch and El Paso will happen here. A
comprehensive storm water plan must, out of necessity, start as
high up in the watershed as possible or it will be impossible
to plan for new improvements in the future.
Sediment and debris loads in the storm water runoff, which
I refer to as the first flush, are major problems in our
watershed regions. Historically, these watersheds are not in
their natural condition which would have been desert
grasslands. Instead they have been overtaken by invasive brush
species and changed to desert shrub land. The change will not
reverse itself either naturally, or by over protecting it. We
will need to be responsible and develop a sustainable storm
water management plan, and this necessarily must start at the
top of the watershed. The process would be hindered, if not
prohibited, by the proposed wilderness designation.
As a manager charged with the management of water
resources, climate change and the affect on our water supply is
at the top of my list. The current economic crisis, our
inadequate flood control system and a community apathy toward
comprehensive flood protection will present an even bigger
threat to life and property than it has in the past, and our
lack of flood control infrastructure and proper watershed
protection will prevent us from capturing and using a new
source of water supply in southern New Mexico. I call this the
``Hydro-illogical'' cycle.
As climate change continues to affect the snowmelt runoff
coming into Elephant Butte Reservoir, our reliance on the use
of storm water needs to increase to take up the slack. In order
to capture and use this water, we need flood control capacity
and watershed management. I believe this is the ``new water''
for Southern New Mexico.
I think there is a lot of common ground between the groups
in favor of wilderness designation and EBID. We all want to see
the watershed and wilderness area protected from further
impairment, safety of our communities and the long-term
sustainability of our water supply. We recognize the threats
posed by a changing climate, and we know that we must adapt to
it together. As the major water provider in Southern New
Mexico, EBID recognizes that in order to accomplish these
goals, we need access to these critical watersheds for
restoration and storm water management. With respect to S. 1689
we all need to make sure that Southern New Mexico has the
ability to safely manage and wisely use the water resources
that originate in these areas.
Let us keep our options open. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Esslinger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary Esslinger, Treasurer-Manager, Elephant Butte
Irrigation District, Las Cruces, NM
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today. I am Gary
Esslinger, Treasurer-Manager of the Elephant Butte Irrigation District
(EBID) and I'd like to talk to you about a ticking time bomb that must
be defused. Imagine urban and valley-wide flooding as a result of an
explosion not unlike what hit Hatch and El Paso in 2006, or Leasburg in
2006 and 2008, that will eventually target the Organ Mountains and the
east and west mesas. The detonation will be a torrent of runoff water
and debris running off the watersheds that will wind up surrounding Las
Cruces and inundating the valley floor. The meteorologists will hold
the match and will tell you that in 2006, three of the 16 maximum
precipitation events on record occurred within five weeks of each other
by a climate change enhanced micro storm burst and it could happen more
frequently than before. Old timers, who have witnessed decades of local
weather, will tell you that they have never seen anything like the 2006
storms. The high desert watersheds that S. 1689 is intended to protect
will continue to be at risk, and we will be missing a golden
opportunity to be proactive and exploit the use of storm water to
replenish our dwindling water supply in this area.
I want to emphasize that even though EBID's primary charge is
delivering water to 90,640 acres in Dona Ana and Sierra Counties, we do
much more than deliver water to 8,500 constituents. The outflow from
EBID flood control dams and other city, county and private dams in the
area, coupled with direct storm runoff from dozens of uncontrolled
arroyos, runs into our canal and drainage system, which was designed
for delivering irrigation water and removing subsurface drainage, not
conveying high storm flows such as the events of 2006 and 2008 .
EBID continuously looks for opportunities to better manage storm
water. Our main concern is to protect life, farmland and the irrigation
system. Thereafter it is to harness this wild storm water to be put to
beneficial use in Southern New Mexico. The historic Operating Agreement
between the United States, and the Texas and New Mexico Irrigation
Districts allows EBID to capture storm water within New Mexico and
place it to beneficial use without any obligation to deliver that water
to Texas. These are among the reasons why I wanted to take this
opportunity to voice some concerns EBID has regarding the designation
of thousands of acres of watershed lands as wilderness areas.
The old Soil Conservation Service (SCS) PL566 dams that EBID
sponsors and operates were built about 60 years ago, with a 50 year
storm event design life, seven of which sit between Dona Ana and the I-
25/I-10 exchangs. They have lost capacity due to sediment accumulation
and design life, making them more likely to spill or breach. These dams
were not designed to protect a concentrated population with new
drainage standard designs for 100 year storm events above and below
them.
We appreciate the efforts of all parties involved as well as
Senator Bingaman and his staff for working with EBID to exclude our
existing dams from the wilderness area, so we can continue to maintain
and, hopefully, upgrade them. However, flood control is not a stagnant
process. It is clear that as Southern New Mexico continues to grow, we
will need more flood control structures and to develop best management
practices for our watersheds. These structures and plans, have not been
designed or sited, and therefore, not considered in the wilderness area
designation because of the uncertainity directed by climate change.
Let me give you specific examples. Coming from the Robledo
Mountains and the Broad Canyon area to the Northwest of Las Cruces,
there are three uncontrolled arroyos--Foster, Faulkner, and Chandler.
These wild arroyos discharge into the Rio Grande above Leasburg Dam and
have historically produced very large flows, particularly in the summer
monsoon season. In 2006, for example, a flood coming out of Faulkner
Canyon knocked a train off the tracks on the opposite side of the Rio
Grande. These three arroyos present a serious downstream flooding
hazard. Perhaps more of a problem is the load of sediment and debris
the arroyos bring which choke off the flow of the Rio Grande below
Seldon Canyon and could bury the federal owned diversion dam intakes
further downstream. In my 30 years of experience with EBID, I have
witnessed sediment plugs in the Rio Grande from these and other arroyos
backing the flows from El Paso all the way up into the Rincon Valley,
causing flooding, damaging property and crops, and yet I call EBID a
``First Responder'' to the rescue when this occurs.
The East Mesa above Las Cruces is crisscrossed with arroyos that
originate in the Organ Mountains and drain onto the valley floor. Yet
today, we assume under false pretense that existing flood control
structures are adequate and will be protecting residential and
commercial developments below. A comprehensive storm water plan must,
out of necessity, start as high up in the watershed as possible or it
will be impossible to plan for new improvements in the future.
In both of these examples, sediment and debris loads in the storm
water runoff, which I refer to as the first flush, are major problems
in these watershed regions. Historically, these watersheds are not in
their natural condition which would have been desert grasslands.
Instead they have been overtaken by brush species and changed to desert
shrub land, with much higher runoff and erosion potential over time.
The change will not reverse itself either naturally, or by over
protecting it, and the high erosion capability of the shrub land will
cause ongoing degradation to our watersheds. Mechanical or chemical
brush removal, soil amendments, and reseeding are necessary to reverse
the dominance of desert shrubs, slow and reduce the runoff, and styme
the erosion rate. This is a first step to responsible and sustainable
storm water management, and necessarily must start at the top of the
watershed. This process would be hindered if not prohibited by the
proposed wilderness designation.
As a manager charged with the management of water resources,
climate change and the affect on our water supply is at the top of my
list. The forecasting of regional climate models and data has led me to
one conclusion. Southern New Mexico can no longer rely on receiving its
renewable water supply exclusively from snowpack in Colorado. We are
experiencing a shift towards a drier climate, punctuated by more
extreme drought and more frequent flood episodes below Elephant Butte
Reservoir. Are we prepared for this shift? I say we are not. The
current economic crisis, our inadequate flood control system, and
community apathy will present an even bigger threat to life and
property than it has in the past, and our lack of flood control
infrastructure and proper watershed protection will prevent us from
capturing and using a new source of water supply in southern New
Mexico. I call this the `Hydro-illogical' cycle.
As previously mentioned, the new Operating Agreement in the Rio
Grande Project allows EBID to capture and place to beneficial use all
the storm water we can utilize. EBID has already initiated operations
which divert storm water into our system which directly and indirectly
recharges our groundwater system and this benefits all groundwater
pumpers in the valley. Slowing the runoff and utilizing mountain front
recharge zones is absolutely critical in this groundwater recharge
approach. As climate change continues to affect the snowmelt runoff
coming into Elephant Butte Reservoir, our reliance on the use of storm
water needs to increase to take up the slack. In order to capture and
use this water, we need flood control capacity and watershed
management, starting from the top of the watershed down to the valley
floor. I believe this is the `new water' for the arid southwest.
I think there is a lot of common ground between the groups in favor
of wilderness designation and EBID, and once again thank you, Senator
Bingaman and your staff. We all want to see the watershed and
wilderness area protected from further impairment. We both want to
ensure the safety of our communities and the long-term sustainability
of our water supply so we can enjoy the historic cultural and social-
econo9mic value of this region. We recognize the threats posed by a
changing climate, and we know that we must adapt to it together. As the
major water provider in Southern New Mexico, EBID recognizes that in
order to accomplish these goals, we will need access to these critical
watersheds for restoration and storm water management. S. 1689 needs to
make sure that Southern New Mexico has the ability to safely manage and
wisely use the water resources that originate in these areas.
Hatch, El Paso, and Juarez are still digging out from the 2006
floods while our spectacular mountains still tower majestically along
the skyline, as if waiting in anticipation for the next epic storm to
hit. Let's not idly wait for it, and let's keep our options open in
these critical mountain and high desert watersheds, particularly with
respect to S. 1689. Thank you for this opportunity to speak and I stand
for questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Why don't we just go right on down the
table, there, Mr. Cooper, why don't you go right ahead?
STATEMENT OF TOM COOPER, RANCHER AND FORMER CHAIRMAN, PEOPLE
FOR PRESERVING OUR WESTERN HERITAGE
Mr. Cooper. Thank you.
The Chairman. You may want to just hold this in one hand,
it's probably the best way to be heard.
Mr. Cooper. I wish to thank the committee for holding this
hearing and for the invitation to participate.
None of the grazing allotments in 500,000-acre Gila
Wilderness are active today. Livestock and ranching families
have been eliminated. If those families could have made it
work, they would still be ranging, supporting their families
and local communities and providing beef for Americans. Their
ranches were destroyed by the legislation and anti-grazing
activism which followed. This scenario could be repeated in
Dona Ana and Luna Counties under S. 1689. Ranchers, employees,
round-up crews and suppliers would be out of work or otherwise
severely impacted.
We participated with representatives of seven other groups
in regional land management, a community response, which was
sponsored by the City and the County. The stakeholder committee
met twice weekly for 3 months. The announced purpose was to
reach a consensus for the citizen's wilderness proposal. That
did not happen. In its final act, the 16 committee members
voted for wilderness on 55,500 acres, or 21 percent, of the
259,000 acres of wilderness now in S. 1689. In terms of
acreage, withdrawal received more votes than wilderness.
Later in 2007, we proposed an alternative plan to designate
the eight existing wilderness study areas as rangeland
preservation areas--to withdraw the areas from disposal by sale
or exchange and from leasing for oil and gas or mining activity
similar to the Valle Vidal Act of 2006. That act was supported
by Senator Bingaman and Representative Udall. Our proposal was
prompted by the Valle Vidal Act and the support for the
withdrawal feature in the Stakeholder Committee.
Environmentalists state that wilderness is the gold
standard of preservation. In reality, preservation practices
such as brush control, erosion control, flood control and
projects to improve water distribution and forage utilization
for wild stock and wildlife are prevented in wilderness. BLM,
NRCS, New Mexico Association of Soil and Water Conservation
Districts and the ranchers are cooperating in a program to
implement all of these practices. Through Restore New Mexico,
brush encroachment has been halted on hundreds of thousands of
acres of New Mexico rangelands. Those lands are, again,
productive and beautiful.
Sadly, brush encroachment with increased run-off and soil
erosion will continue on the lands in S. 1689 subject to the
gold standard of preservation. Maps of the areas in S. 1689
provided to us reflect only the boundaries and a few cherry
stems. We had previously provided maps reflecting extensive
improvements to Congressional staff, as requested. We were
told, regarding the blank S. 1689 maps provided to us that we
would need to get with BLM regarding improvements and access
roads. It has been represented that we will have access to
wells, troughs and corrals. No specific representation has been
made regarding frequency of access.
In addition, roads along fence lines and roads to dirt
tanks which we use to haul materials and check our cattle and
deliver salt, mineral and protein supplements--and other
roads--are also essential to our operations. We have
requested--but have not received--detailed maps of S. 1689, or
computer data files to allow us to produce detailed maps.
If wilderness is to be designated, we ask that the
legislation include complete maps reflecting roads and
improvements and wording allowing ranchers necessary access and
frequency of use. Inclusion in the Act would also limit the
expected challenges to ranchers' permit applications and to
BLM's management decisions.
In response to a statement by a rancher that he needs to
make the rounds of his pipelines and water facilities, make
repairs and check and feed his cattle 2 or 3 times weekly and
inquiring if that frequency will be allowed in wilderness, BLM
personnel stated that it might not be allowed weekly, perhaps
not even every 2 weeks. BLM might well have added, ``Goodbye,
ranchers.''
The huge wilderness and NCA designations in S. 1689, the
so-called ``citizens proposal'' came from organizations outside
of our area, The Wilderness Society, and some founding members
of NMWA advocate removal of all livestock from public lands
everywhere. A former Board member of NMWA advised us that they
view wilderness designations as the first step to eliminate
livestock and the ranchers.
Under S. 1689, I would be forced to operate my ranch under
different management plans for 3 separate wilderness areas for
the Desert Peak NCA and for areas remaining in multiple use.
The Hopkins Ranch in the Organ Mountains would be in similar
circumstances, as would Williams Ranches in the Potrillo
Mountains, and others. This would be a threat to the very
existence of our ranches, and an administrative nightmare for
BLM and the ranchers, requiring an inordinate amount of time
creating and implementing management plans dealing with
ranchers' permit applications to make repairs or improvements
with public comment periods responding to comments and legal
challenges, et cetera.
None of my ranch was recommended for wilderness in the 1991
Interior Department Record of Decision or by the Stakeholder
Committee. Interior determined the Robledo and Las Uvas
Mountains Wilderness Study Areas--which lie partly on my
ranch--are not suitable for wilderness and recommended they be
returned to multiple use. The Broad Canyon area was found
unsuitable for further study prior to 1991. Further, my entire
ranch has strong potential for capture and conversion of flood
waters to beneficial public use. S. 1689 would eliminate or
severely diminish that potential.
The vote of the Stakeholder Committee and the thousands of
employees and members of the 800 businesses and organizations
which are members of the Coalition for Western Heritage and
Open Space point to widespread opposition to S. 1689. We
request that our community's serious concerns regarding grazing
management, public access, national security, illegal
immigration, human and drug smuggling, flood control and water
capture be fully addressed before further consideration of this
legislation.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooper follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Cooper, Rancher and Former Chairman, People
for Preserving Our Western Heritage
I wish to thank the Committee for holding this hearing, and for the
invitation to participate.
None of the grazing allotments in the 500,000-acre Gila Wilderness
are active today. Livestock and ranching families have been eliminated.
If those families could have made it work, they would still be
ranching, supporting their families and local communities, and
providing beef for Americans. Their ranches were destroyed by the
legislation and anti-grazing activism which followed. This scenario
could be repeated in Dona Ana and Luna counties under S1689. Ranchers,
employees, roundup crews, and suppliers would be out of work or
otherwise severely impacted.
We participated with representatives of seven other groups, in
``Regional Land Management: A Community Response'', which was sponsored
by the City and County. The Stakeholder Committee met twice weekly for
three months. The announced purpose was to reach a consensus for the
Citizens' Wilderness Proposal. That did not happen. In its final act,
the 16 committee members voted for Wilderness on 55,550 acres (21%!) of
the 259,050 acres of Wilderness now in S1689. In terms of acreages,
withdrawal received more votes than Wilderness.
Later, in the Spring of 2007, we proposed an alternative plan to
designate the 8 existing Wilderness Study Areas as Rangeland
Preservation Areas, to withdraw the areas from disposal by sale or
exchange, and from leasing for oil and gas or mining activity, similar
to the Valle Vidal Act of 2006. That act was supported by Senator
Bingaman and Representative Udall. Our proposal was prompted by the
Valle Vidal Act and support for the withdrawal feature in the
Stakeholder Committee.
Environmentalists state that Wilderness is the ``gold standard'' of
preservation. In reality, preservation practices such as brush control,
erosion control, flood control, and projects to improve water
distribution and forage utilization for livestock and wildlife are
prevented in Wilderness. BLM, NRCS, NM Assn. of Soil and Water
Conservation Districts and the ranchers are cooperating in a program to
implement all of these practices. Through ``Restore New Mexico'', brush
encroachment has been halted on hundreds of thousands of acres of NM
rangelands. Those lands are again productive and beautiful! Sadly,
brush encroachment with increased runoff and soil erosion will continue
on the lands in S1689 subject to the ``gold standard'' of preservation!
Maps of the areas in S1689 provided to us reflect only the
boundaries, and a few ``cherry stems''. We had previously provided maps
reflecting extensive improvements to congressional staff, as requested.
We were told regarding the blank S1689 maps provided to us that we
would need to get with BLM regarding improvements and access roads. It
has been represented that we will have access to wells, troughs, and
corrals. No specific representation has been made regarding frequency
of access. In addition, roads along fence lines and roads to dirt tanks
which we use to haul materials and check our cattle and deliver salt,
mineral, and protein supplements, and other roads, are also essential
to our operations. We have requested, but have not received detailed
maps of S1689 or computer data files to allow us to produce detailed
maps.
If Wilderness is to be designated, we ask that the legislation
include complete maps reflecting roads and the improvements and wording
allowing ranchers necessary access and frequency of use. Inclusion in
the Act would also limit the expected challenges to ranchers' permit
applications and to BLM's management decisions.
In response to a statement by a rancher that he needs to make the
rounds of his pipelines and water facilities, make repairs, and check
and feed his cattle 2 or 3 times weekly, and inquiring if that
frequency will be allowed in Wilderness, BLM personnel stated that it
might not be allowed weekly, perhaps not even every two weeks! BLM
might well have added ``Goodbye, ranchers''.
The huge Wilderness and NCA designations in S 1689, the so-called
Citizens' Proposal, came from organizations outside our area, the
Wilderness Society and NM Wilderness Alliance. The Wilderness Society
and some founding members of NMWA advocate removal of all livestock
from public lands everywhere. A former board member of NMWA advised us
that they view Wilderness designations as the first step to eliminate
the livestock and the ranchers.
Under S1689, I would be forced to operate my ranch under different
management plans for 3 separate Wilderness areas, for the Desert Peaks
NCA, and for areas remaining in multiple-use. The Hopkins Ranch in the
Organ Mountains would be in similar circumstances, as would Williams
Ranches in the Potrillo Mountains, and others. This would be a threat
to the very existence of our ranches, and an administrative nightmare
for BLM and the ranchers, requiring an inordinate amount of time
creating and implementing management plans, dealing with ranchers'
permit applications to make repairs or improvements, with public
comment periods, responding to comments and legal challenges, etc.
None of my ranch was recommended for Wilderness in the 1991
Interior Department Record of Decision or by the Stakeholder Committee.
Interior determined the Robledo and Las Uvas Mts Wilderness Study
Areas, which lie partly on my ranch, are not suitable for Wilderness
and recommended they be returned to multiple-use. The Broad Canyon area
was found unsuitable for further study prior to 1991. Further, my
entire ranch has strong potential for capture and conversion of flood
waters to beneficial public use. S1689 would eliminate or severely
diminish that potential.
The vote of the Stakeholder Committee and the thousands of
employees and members of the 800 businesses and organizations which are
members of the Coalition for Western Heritage and Open Space point to
widespread opposition to S1689. We request that our community's serious
concerns regarding grazing management, public access, national
security, illegal immigration, human and drug smuggling, flood control
and water capture be fully addressed before further consideration of
this legislation.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I'm told that Mr. DuBois would like to be last, and if that
is the preference, Mr. John Hummer, why don't you go right
ahead and we'll hear from you next.
STATEMENT OF JOHN L. HUMMER, CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
GREATER LAS CRUCES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Mr. Hummer. Thank you.
Senator Bingaman, Senator Udall, Members of the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and citizens of Dona
Ana County, thank you for allowing me to sit on the panel
today.
My name is John Hummer and I am here representing The
Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce, which represents
approximately 100 small and large businesses throughout our
community.
In our October 20th, 2009 letter, signed by me as the 2009
Chairman, and unanimously approved by our Board of Directors,
we set forth an outline of responses to S. 1689. In that
letter, full support for wilderness designation of the Organ
Mountains was strongly endorsed and you have our full support
on that part of the legislation. The Organ Mountains have long
been the focus of protection by this community.
The letter went on to detail our position and concerns on
the other areas based on national security, economic demands,
and the recognition of historical access for the community.
Although not limited to, but where the Chamber disagreed with
your legislation, were the protective measures of the Potrillo
Mountain complex. The scoping process, we believe, did not
adequately address the dangers of wilderness designation near
the border. Throughout this debate, the reference to the 2006
MOU has been held out to solve access problems for the Border
Patrol. None other than Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet
Napolitano, discounted this very contention. In Napolitano's
October 2, 2009 written testimony to the ranking member of the
House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands,
2 major points were revealed.
First, Ms. Napolitano wrote, ``While the USBP recognized
the importance and value of wilderness area designations, they
can have a significant impact on USBP operations . . .''
Second, her report revealed the failings of the 2006 MOU in
practice in the field. She wrote in reference to the document,
``. . . along the southwest border it (the MOU) can be
detrimental to the most effective accomplishment of the (USBP)
mission.''
The fact remains when Federal Wilderness is designated full
Border Patrol authority and access is terminated, which means
minimal flexibility. That is unacceptable in this County.
Mr. Hummer. The issues of the Potrillo Mountain complex are
too varied and dangerous to consider wilderness designation.
Protection, absolutely, yes--but not wilderness designation.
Please consider NCA for this area. The border buffer that has
been placed in the current legislation has been discounted by
many experts in border security.
The conclusions that the Chamber reached after research
have become even more convincing in written testimony that
would have been presented today by the National Association of
Former Border Patrol Officers if they had been invited to
speak. If given the opportunity they would have stated the
following: One, The presence of any wilderness on or near the
Mexican border is a danger to the security of the United
States. Two, designated Federal Wilderness is not causative in
establishment and expansion of entry corridors. Third, the
Potrillo Mountain complex has the same characteristics of
threat potential as does Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument,
the most dangerous park in the United States. Fourth, the strip
or buffer between the southern extension of wilderness and the
Potrillo complex and the border is inadequate for the Border
Patrol to meet Congressional demands for national security. CBP
can not be expected to interdict and apprehend illegals within
the narrow strip from the border north to Highway 9 nor can
they be expected to do the same thing in the same narrow
corridor being considered north of Highway 9. If they could,
they would be doing it right now. Fifth, CBP is restricted from
maintaining a full presence on the ground and with technical
hardware because of Federal land designation constraints in the
entire Broad Canyon complex, the threat will automatically be
extended northward exposing the village of Hatch and Highway
26.
The Village of Hatch has been aware of this warning, but
they are not here today to defend their position or their
concerns. In order for you to enjoy the support of the Las
Cruces Chamber Board of Directors, you must not violate the
trust we place upon your body to assure our community that you
are considering these facts and other staggering issues that
are just now coming to light on the Arizona border. All other
factors pale to the consequences of your actions in this
regard. However, I must also add that we remain steadfast in
our insistence to not encumber this community's access to the
greater Broad Canyon complex.
In particular, Mr. Esslinger's testimony regarding flooding
and water retention is precisely why wilderness designations
and other restricted designations in and around large and
growing population centers, municipalities and villages have
potential life-threatening and costly consequences, and are
therefore considered by many as damaging policy.
In summary, our organization will adhere to the letter of
submitted testimony in October, so long as we can be assured
that recent developments of national security, flood control
and new water sourcing opportunities are recognized and dealt
with in a manner that responsibly protects our community.
Thank you, Senators, for your time, Congressman Teague, all
of you for your careful consideration, and for your leadership
in this most important matter.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hummer follows:]
Prepared Statement of John L. Hummer, Chair of the Board of Directors,
Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce
Senator Bingaman, Senator Udall, Members of the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, invited Panel members, and citizens of
Dona Ana County thank you for allowing me to sit on this panel today.
My name is John Hummer and I am here representing The Greater Las
Cruces Chamber of Commerce, which represents approximately 1,000
businesses who employ and create opportunities for tens of thousands of
families. I am here because of the concern that portions of Senate Bill
1689 present to those I represent.
In the letter from the Chamber, dated October 20th, 2009, signed by
me as the 2009 Chairman, and unanimously approved by the chamber's
board of directors, we set forth an outline of responses to the bill
that you crafted and submitted. In that letter, support for wilderness
designation of the Organ Mountains was strongly endorsed. The Organ
Mountains have been the focus of protection by this community, its
leadership, and the social and economic underpinnings of its citizens.
The testimony went on to detail our position on the other areas
based on national security, economic demands, and the recognition of
historical access for the community. Although not limited to, but where
the Chamber disagreed with your legislation, were the protective
measures of the Potrillo Mountain complex. The scoping process did not
adequately address the danger of designating federal wilderness on the
border. Throughout this debate, the reference to the 2006 MOU has been
held out to solve access problems for the Border Patrol. In oral and or
written testimony to Congress this past summer, none other than
Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, discounted that
contention. In a Napolitano letter dated October 2, 2009 to the Ranking
Member of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public
Lands, two major points were revealed. First, Ms. Napolitano wrote,
``While the USBP recognized the importance and value of wilderness area
designations, they can have a significant impact on USBP operations . .
.'' Secondly, her report revealed the failings of the 2006 MOU in
practice in the field. She wrote in reference to the document, ``. . .
along the southwest border it (the MOU) can be detrimental to the most
effective accomplishment of the (USBP) mission.''
Notwithstanding the disclosure by Ms. Napolitano of the
shortcomings of depending on a side agreement for access, we must be
pragmatic about the legality of that document. If ever an environmental
group challenges that document for any reason as being contravention of
the statute you propose, any judge would have no alternative but to
throw that MOU out. We cannot justify to American citizens that their
safety and the national security of their nation is predicated on some
document that allows conditional access to interdict and apprehend
illegal drug and human smugglers in order to designate federal
wilderness. The fact is when Federal Wilderness is designated full
Border Patrol authority and access is terminated. That is unacceptable
in this county.
The issues of the Potrillo Mountain complex are too varied and
dangerous to consider wilderness designation. Protection, yes . . . but
not wilderness. The border buffer that has been placed in the current
legislation has been discounted by experts in border security.
The conclusions that the Chamber reached have become even more
convincing in written testimony that would have been presented by the
National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers if they had been
given the opportunity to speak today. From more than 5,000 man years of
experience with border matters, NAFBPO succinctly sets out the risks to
our community and our nation with S.1689 if it goes forward in its
present form.
From that written testimony, we are warned as follows:
1. The presence of any wilderness on the Mexican border is a
danger to the security of the United States.
2. Designated Federal Wilderness is not causative in the
intent of illegals to enter the United States, but it is
causative in the establishment and expansion of entry
corridors.
3. The Potrillo Mountain complex has the same characteristics
of threat potential to the United States as does Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument, the most dangerous park in the
system.
4. CBP cannot be expected to interdict and apprehend illegals
within the narrow strip from the border north to Highway 9 nor
can they be expected to do the same thing in the same narrow
corridor being considered north of Highway 9. If they could,
they would be doing it now.
5. If CBP is restricted from maintaining a full presence on
the ground and with technical hardware because of federal land
designation constraints in the entire Broad Canyon complex, the
threat will automatically be extended northward exposing the
village of Hatch and Highway 26.
That testimony goes on to detail how northward expansion of
national security threats will take place if the Potrillos are
designated Federal Wilderness. Such threats will become most pronounced
in the Corralitos/ Broad Canyon corridor flanked by the Robledo and Las
Uvas Mountains. The village of Hatch has been aware of this warning,
but they are not here today to defend their position and their
concerns.
In order for you to enjoy the support of the Las Cruces Chamber,
you must not violate the trust we place upon your body to assure our
community that you are considering these facts and others that are
coming to light on the Arizona border. All other factors pale to the
consequences of your actions in this regard, but I must also add that
we remain steadfast in our insistence to not encumber this community's
access to the greater Broad Canyon complex. In our letter, we set forth
the economic aspects of what Broad Canyon means for our future in terms
of flood control devices, rail and utility line rights-of-way, and
historical community back country access. Each of those issues are
large enough that you must drop all NCA considerations and allow the
Multiple Use Management alternative that was determined by BLM
scientific based studies authorized and required by the 1976 Federal
Lands Protection and Management Act. From that process, we were all
promised that wilderness designation would be based on agency adherence
to fidelity issues of the original act, not what some organization
conjures up as a proxy to wilderness.
In recent days, developments regarding the Broad Canyon complex,
the East Side NCA, and the El Paso/ EBID settlement allowing the
capture and beneficial use of flood water have taken on new importance.
In short, any legislation cannot limit access to current dams, future
dams, or devices that are intended to protect the property, health and
welfare of our citizenry. This information is being assimilated and
studied by an ad hoc committee made up of various bodies that are
responsible for flood control and public safety. The results of their
work must be reviewed and studied before any lands within the scope of
a future project are reclassified. The drainage and flooding issues
that Mr. Esslinger with EBID has testified to and associated with,
specifically, the Broad Canyon Area and Organ Mountain NCA, are
PRECISELY WHY wilderness designations and other restrictive
designations in and around large and growing population centers,
municipalities and villages, have potential life threatening and costly
consequences and are therefore considered damaging policy.
In summary, our organization conditionally adheres to the letter of
submitted testimony, so long as the recent developments of national
security, flood control and new water sourcing opportunities are
recognized and dealt with in a manner that protects the community.
Thank you for your time, for your careful consideration, and for
your leadership in this important matter.
ATTACHMENT
As mentioned during my oral testimony at yesterday's field hearing
at New Mexico State University, I wanted to follow up with additional
written testimony as it pertains to border / national security concerns
with the Potrillo Mountain Complex.
The question was asked whether or not I, or the organization I
represented, believed that efforts were made by Senator Bingaman's
staff to seek compromise with active border patrol officers? Here are
some important points that I would like to add to my testimony:
Yes, we do believe that conversations were held between
certain active duty border patrol agents and the Senator's
staff;
Our concern pertains to how the conversation and questions
were framed;
Were the active border patrol agents asked, ``Given a
choice, with a primary consideration for national security,
would you prefer an NCA or multiple use designation for the
Potrillo Mountain Complex over Wilderness Designation?'' Or was
the question framed in the context that Wilderness will be
designated. Therefore, how much additional land would you like
to have as non-Wilderness? This is an important distinction.
The absence of public testimony by the Active United States
Border Patrol agency causes great concern. As such, we
respectfully request that an official statement be obtained and
released from the US Border Patrol agency as it pertains to
their land designation preference for this large swath of land
in the Potrillo Mountain Complex.
Furthermore, we encourage each of you to seriously consider
the written and submitted testimony and recommendations by the
Federal Retired Border Patrol Officers. This organization
represents years of experience, non-biased perspectives and
recommendations for the security of our nation.
Thank you for your consideration with this most important aspect of
S.B. 1689.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Frank, go right ahead, please.
STATEMENT OF FRANK A. DUBOIS, FORMER NEW MEXICO SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE, 1988-2003
Mr. DuBois. Thank you.
Perhaps I should clarify that my testimony today is my own,
and shouldn't be attributed to any organization. I've acted as
an advisor to the Western Heritage Group, but I'm here today on
my own.
I also hope that you'll pitch me a little slack, I can't
get my wheelchair all the way under this table, so trying to
sit up and hold the microphone there may be a few breaks in
there, if that's OK.
The other thing I'll tell you is please don't feel bad
about my last name, DuBois. I had a football coach in high
school who called me ``Dubious'' so please don't worry about
that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DuBois. In my testimony today I will address 3 issues:
The grazing language in the existing bill for National
Conservation Areas, public access and the need for a land
designation other than Wilderness.
The grazing language with respect to NCAs in the current
bill really discriminates against the ranching community and
could disable their ability to continue ranching. In my written
testimony I give you 3 different fixes for that that I would
like to just briefly discuss.
As a result of ``production of forage for livestock
grazing'' not being listed in Purposes section and you combine
that with the consistency language, any time the BLM would seek
to conserve, protect or enhance any of the 10 uses listed, and
there is a potential conflict with a grazing practice, grazing
will either be diminished or eliminated. Any time a rancher
seeks to implement a new grazing practice and there is a
potential conflict, the practice will not be allowed.
Current grazing practices will be disallowed if there is a
conflict. So, in this instance, if you would list ``the
production of forage for livestock grazing'' in the purposes
section, that would solve that problem and really, all the
ranching community is requesting is to be put on an equal
footing with the other 10 uses that are listed.
Mr. DuBois. The second proposal, I provide you with just
some generic grazing language that would drop the ``where
established'' and the ``consistency'' language. I dropped the
where established language because no such language restricts
other uses such as wildlife or recreation, so why single out
grazing for this restriction?
The ``consistency'' language, removing it would become more
important if you don't list grazing in the Purposes section. If
you do list grazing in the Purposes section, then the
``consistency'' language would be redundant.
The third proposal, or fix, that I presented is taken from
your bill, S. 874, in the section dealing with Nuts and
Firewood, and that's your Northern New Mexico bill. In that
bill, you provide exemptions for certain practices by the
pinion nut and firewood harvesters in the area. So this third
proposal would basically ask that you make similar exemptions
for the traditional practices of ranchers in Southern New
Mexico.
In addition I have some questions I posed to the committee
about the ``where established'' language in Section 4. We
really hope the committee will look at this and give us some
answers. For instance, is this ``where established,'' is it
applied on an allotment basis, on an acreage basis or some
other criteria? What impact does the ``where established''
language have on permitted numbers of livestock? Can permitted
numbers be increased in a National Conservation Area under this
language?
So, what we're really seeking here is a clear statement
from the committee on what Congressional intent is when you use
that phrase ``where established''?
The other thing is, I have not addressed the Grazing
Guidelines for wilderness areas, but suggest you look at
previous testimony that is submitted by several groups
including the New Mexico Federal Lands Council which
demonstrates the inadequacy of those grazing guidelines in
desert ecosystems.
The next issue is public access. Public access for hunters
and campers and ranchers and hang gliders and law enforcement
and other specific users has already been addressed by others
and so I would just like to address access from the standpoint
of the general public.
If you review the Federal land status in Dona Ana County,
and the status of Federal lands within a leisurely 1 hour drive
from Las Cruces, you will find over 4 million acres of Federal
land with either no public access or restricted access.
Given that figure of 4 million acres where the general
public is mostly excluded, I really must question the
appropriateness of restricting access on another 560 square
miles, or 358,000 acres.
Mr. DuBois. So, what I'm suggesting, or what I'm hoping is
that you will take into consideration the total Federal land
mass in the Las Cruces area with this issue of public access in
mind as you consider various land use designations.
Finally, a designation other than wilderness. The land use
pattern in Dona Ana County, a valley floor of private lands
surrounded by various types of Federal land and other public
lands is not unique to the West. As the Senator well knows,
this particular land-use pattern and setup is all over the
Western United States. We know that population growth combined
with public pressure to retain privately held farmland and
other open spaces and the public desire for additional
recreational opportunities will continue to impact Federal
land.
When you add into the mix the significant decline in
Wilderness visitations, I and many others believe a new land
use designation is needed which will protect certain lands from
development, but still allow for public access and enjoyment of
these lands.
Mr. DuBois. Some have called this--if you look at the
literature--some have called this wilderness ``light,'' others
wilderness ``without the big `W''' and there's been several
names and attempts to try to describe this. But a land
designation of this type should be considered by this committee
for certain parcels in S. 1689 and for other legislation which
may impact land use patterns in all of our Western communities.
The time has come for Congress to step forward with a new land
use designation that responds to both the national concern for
protecting Federal lands and local concerns for development,
recreation and traditional or cultural uses.
Senator, I know that you're very aware that Senator Clinton
P. Anderson chaired this very committee that I am testifying
before today and that you now chair. He took a leadership
position in the 8-year struggle to get the Wilderness Act
passed. What I and others are requesting is that you continue
with that tradition of leadership and take on the task of
finding this new land use designation that would meet the needs
of a modern populace.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DuBois follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frank A. DuBois, Former New Mexico Secretary of
Agriculture, 1988-2003
In my testimony today I will address three issues.
1. The grazing language for National Conservation Areas.
2. Public access
3. The need for a land designation other than Wilderness.
GRAZING LANGUAGE FOR NCA'S
Three Proposed Fixes
``The production of forage for livestock grazing'' included
in Purposes section
The Secretary shall permit grazing within the Conservation
Area subject to all applicable laws (including regulations) and
Executive orders; and
Nothing in this Act precludes the use of motorized vehicles
or mechanical equipment for the construction or maintenance of
range improvements or the performance of standard ranching
operations.
Discussion
As a result of the production of forage for livestock grazing not
being listed in the Purposes section and the consistency language, any
time the agency seeks to conserve, protect and enhance any of the 10
uses listed and there is a potential conflict with a grazing practice,
grazing will be either diminished or eliminated. Any time the rancher
seeks to implement a new grazing practice and there is a potential
conflict, that practice will not be allowed. Current grazing practices
will be disallowed if there is a conflict. The ranching community is
simply asking to be put on an equal footing with the other 10 uses.
This will allow the agency to balance all the uses in determining a
final action and protect the agency and the rancher from potential
lawsuits.
The second proposal drops the ``where established'' language. No
such language restricts the other uses such as wildlife or recreation,
so why single out grazing for this restriction? This part of our
proposal also drops the ``consistent'' language. This would be become
more important if livestock grazing is not listed in the Purposes
section and ``consistent'' language is probably redundant if it is
listed.
The third proposal is taken from the Nuts and Firewood section of
S.874 as introduced by Senator Bingaman. It would allow ranchers to
continue using traditional methods of maintaining range improvements
such as fencing, windmills, dirt tanks, pipelines, etc. It would also
allow the use of vehicles to disperse feed and salt, rescue sick
livestock, conduct visual inspections of livestock and range conditions
and other such standard ranching activities.
In addition I have some questions on the ``where established''
language in Section 4. Is this applied on an allotment by allotment
basis, on an acreage basis or some other criteria? What impact does the
``where established'' language have on permitted numbers of livestock?
Can permitted numbers be increased in a National Conservation Area
under this language? In other words, I'm seeking a clear enunciation of
Congressional intent with respect to the ``where established'' language
and I hope the Committee will provide that.
I have not addressed the Grazing Guidelines for wilderness areas,
but suggest you review the previous testimony presented by People For
Preserving Our Western Heritage and the New Mexico Federal Lands
Council which demonstrates the inadequacy of these guidelines for the
desert ecosystem.
PUBLIC ACCESS
The issue of access for hunters, campers, ranchers, hang gliders
and other specific users I'm sure has been covered by others and I
would like to address access from the standpoint of the general public.
If you review the federal land status in Dona Ana County, and the
status of federal lands within a leisurely one hour drive from Las
Cruces, you will find over 4 million acres of federal land with either
no public access or restricted public access.
Given the astounding figure of over 4 million acres where the
general public is mostly excluded, I really must question the
appropriateness of restricting public access on another 560 square
miles, or 358,000 acres. Please take in consideration the total federal
land mass in the Las Cruces area with this issue of public access in
mind as you consider various land use designations.
A DESIGNATION OTHER THAN WILDERNESS
The land use pattern in Dona Ana County, a valley floor of private
lands surrounded by various types of Federal land, is not unique to the
west. Population growth combined with public pressure to retain
privately held farmland and other open spaces and the public desire for
additional recreational opportunities will continue to impact Federal
land. When you add into the mix the significant decline in Wilderness
visitations, I and many others believe a new land use designation is
needed which will protect certain lands from development, but still
allow for public access and enjoyment. Some have called this wilderness
``light'', others wilderness ``without the big `W' ``. A land
management designation of this type should be considered by this
Committee for certain parcels in S. 1689 and for other legislation
which may impact land use patterns in our western communities. The time
has come for Congress to step forward with a new land use designation
that responds to both national concerns for protecting Federal lands
and local concerns for development, recreation and traditional or
cultural uses.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
Let me thank all of the witnesses on this panel, this has
been very well-prepared and constructive testimony. Let me ask
a few questions and then I'm sure Senator Udall will have a
few, and Congressman Teague may have a few, as well, so let me
start.
Let me ask you first, Gary, are there specific plans to
construct new flood control projects in the Organ Mountains or
dealing with the watershed coming out of the Organ Mountains,
that you're aware of?
Mr. Esslinger. I'm not aware of any new. I know that the
city of Las Cruces is developing some ponds and clearly there
are drainage plans in place.
But, part of the problem, Senator, is EBID is not privy,
many times, to the development on the East Mesa, and why? We're
farmers in the Valley. But clearly, the water that runs off
those watersheds impact us and actually drown out the Valley
floor. So it's imperative that something greater than even
Vision 2040 that doesn't adequately address flood control and
water--water, in general, supply, aquifer health, all of those
issues--it's not there. There should be some comprehensive plan
between County, City, Dona Ana County Flood Control, the
Federal agencies, EBID, Soil and Water Conservation Districts,
and everyone before we even attempt to think about a wilderness
area, we need to first of all address our water supply and our
flood protection.
I just feel--I've been a witness to the Hatch incident, I
was in El Paso when--waist-deep water--and people, homes were
devastated. Yet they still had a beautiful picture of the
Franklin Mountains. It just doesn't make sense.
The Chairman. Let me just ask, are you suggesting that we
put on hold any consideration of wilderness designation until
this larger analysis or study is done? But, you say there is no
study underway, or planned, that you're aware of?
Mr. Esslinger. I'm not aware of a comprehensive plan,
Senator. I really believe that this community, these sides
should not be split, we should be working on this together, and
unfortunately there are too many pieces of the pie. Everybody
wants what they want for their city or their county, but no one
really cares about the whole region, and that's what's
important; that's the apathy I see. That's the ``hydro-
illogical'' cycle that's here, in this Valley, and across the
West.
The Chairman. Let me ask John Hummer about the border
issues. My understanding is currently there is land down near
the border that is being managed as wilderness study area,
which would then--would be released from that designation so
that it could be used more generally as part of this bill. Is
it your thought that the current wilderness study area
designation of that land near the border is causing a security
problem there now that needs addressing?
Mr. Hummer. Senator, it--I will speak on behalf of the
research and testimony that we--we received as a Chamber
through the committee that was researching this issue, that the
Retired Border Patrol Officers spoke to the fact that the
buffer issue that was put in place, as you said, from their
experience, years in the field, they felt that that would not
prevent the attraction and the opening up of an area similar to
what happened in Organ Pipe.
Now, the opposition would say that, ``Well, Organ Pipe is
directly on the border.'' But the fact is that even based on
testimony from the officers, is that when you protect that much
land from routine surveillance, even with that buffer, that
nine--it's one mile at one point, I believe, and nine miles at
the widest, if I remember correctly--that again, from their
testimony, it just becomes a vacuum and an opportunity for a
new flow, a new area of flow for illegal activity.
Again, it's----
The Chairman. I'm right, am I not, that the level of
illegal activity in the last several years has dropped pretty
dramatically from 2005? Because of additional Border Patrol
personnel, because of fencing, because of vehicle barriers?
Obviously, the economic recession has been a factor?
Mr. Hummer. Correct, yeah, a lot of different theories and
you just mentioned them all. Sometimes the fence, that people
say, ``Oh, the fence, really all it does is push the activity
away from where the fence is and up to another area,'' so
unless that fence and surveillance is failsafe, any opening
will create an opportunity. But, you mentioned all of the
factors to that. Again, we're just relaying what--the testimony
we heard and the evidence from Oregon Pipe, which is pretty
staggering when you look at that data. It's--and we're still
for protection. I don't want--we don't want the community to
think, ``Oh, the Chamber wants that just for--it's concerned
about development.'' We agree with the full protection from
non-development, but there's other designations, NCA, that
would not jeopardize border security.
The Chairman. Let me ask Frank a question, here, about
the--I'm just unclear as to what are the areas that you believe
the public is currently able to access through motorized access
that would be shut off under this legislation?
Mr. DuBois. It's the--by definition. The Wilderness Act
says, ``There are no motorized vehicles and no mechanical
equipment.'' So that any Federal land that's designated as
wilderness, there would no longer be motorized access. If a
person wanted to take his family camping, they could drive up
to the edge of the wilderness, but they could not take their
vehicle into the wilderness.
The same thing would be true of the hunting community, they
could drive up to the edge of the wilderness, but they could
not enter into the wilderness. So, that's what I meant.
The Chairman. Right.
Mr. DuBois. May--I wonder if--would you grant me the
latitude to respond so some of the other questions you posed?
The Chairman. Sure, go right ahead.
Mr. DuBois. On the issue of flood control and the, you
know, it's been made clear to me that the County and the City
and the general public is way behind on the whole issue of
flood control and the danger to the community. I don't think it
would be correct--you know, I know this committee is not going
to listen and say that, ``We're going to hold off on any
legislation until the local folks get their stuff together and
address this issue.''
However, as I'm sure you're aware, there's been 26
exceptions made via legislation to the Wilderness Act since its
passage. I think you should consider, and the committee should
consider making an exception so that in the NCAs or any other
areas that you designate, you put in specific language that
allows for the access, for the maintenance of existing
structures, and allow access for the construction and
maintenance of new structures. I think if you had language like
that in the bill, it would resolve a lot of these flood control
issues.
On the WSA issue and border security, the issue there, is,
the Border Patrol and the Bureau of Land Management have worked
together, as long as these areas are wilderness study areas to
give the Border Patrol access to be able to comply with most of
their mission.
The issue is not Border Patrol in Wilderness Study Areas,
the issue is Border Patrol in Wilderness Areas. There are many
things that the Border Patrol can do right now in Wilderness
Study Areas that they would then be prevented from doing in a
Wilderness Area. So that's the issue, there.
As far as the number of Border Patrol interdictions and the
declining number of illegal immigrants, et cetera, coming
across the border, the data says that is correct. But the same
data also says that the Border Patrol interdictions for drug
traffickers is up, not down. That was----
The Chairman. I think that's--that's a--it's good news that
they're interdicting the drug traffickers.
Let me call on Senator Udall for his questions.
Senator Udall. I also want to thank this panel for being
very specific at this point in land, very constructive. I think
at this point in legislation, it's important to hear--as Mr.
Hummer, you've done in your letter, very specific proposals and
put them out there.
So, Gary, let me start with you. The--and you use the term,
Gary, you know, when you talk about better use of high storm
water flows that will potentially be the result of climate
change and replenish the County's water supply. I think you
said in your oral testimony, startup as high as possible in the
watershed.
So, what I'm wondering, could you go into more detail as to
how you would propose to do this and where the potential areas
for such entrapment of runoff?
Mr. Esslinger. Senator Udall, I wish I could; that's the
problem. Climate change is a moving target, and clearly what
would happen behind us to the east on the Organ Mountains could
be completely different than what we saw in Hatch or down in El
Paso, only because the microbursts at that time came across and
hit in a specific area over and over again.
I certainly think that, as Frank said, there's a way that
we should get all of the agencies together and then come about
and talk about it. Weisner Road may be that buffer that the
councilwoman spoke of. But below that, there may need--be need
to put 3 or 4 more different and smaller retention dams in
place below that.
You have to understand that Tortugas drainage, which is
this drainage right here that comes right through this
University is 13,000 acres, 20 square miles. It all dumps into
1 drainage--2 flood control dams that were built for 50-year
storm events. They just won't handle the water like the core
dam will. If you don't plan up there far enough up, then it's
going to be difficult to know what we're going to have as
impact down below. That's throughout this Valley.
West Mesa flooding at Pacacho, Summer Park in Acra, all
were devastating floods in 2006. So certainly, that terrain is
complete different from the terrain here to the east of us.
But we have to look at it comprehensively and study it.
That's my answer.
Senator Udall. Has your organization, have you done that?
Then, have you moved forward with the effort which, as you
heard in the first panel, they're working on Vision 2040, which
is a plan for the City and County down here; have you
approached them with recommendations and suggestions? I mean,
are you--the reason I was asking about these potential
entrapments, I mean, if you've studied them--are you plugging
them in with the City and County in the plan they have going?
Mr. Esslinger. No, sir.
Senator Udall. OK, well that's--no, that's a good--that's
the answer--I wanted a direct answer to the question. Please,
go ahead if you want to elaborate on it.
Mr. Esslinger. Senator, I was appointed at one time to be
on the Advisory Committee to the Vision 2040 and I was asked to
step down and they elected someone from the Farm Bureau to
represent agriculture because I was too biased about water.
Mr. Esslinger. Water creates a lot of hurdles in this
Valley, but we've lived through them. This is what's so unique
about Mesilla and Rincon Valleys and the Rio Grande Project.
Our forefathers planned very well what we were to do with our
water, and now we've even improved on it to where not all of
our water has to go to Texas, either. So that's pretty good
planning.
The point that I'm trying to say right now is, though, we
have all of these groups--County, Flood Control, Federal
agencies--but we don't get in the room and talk about it
sensibly, we talk about it independently, and that's the
problem.
Senator Udall. OK, thank you.
Senator Udall. Now, Mr. Cooper--Mr. Cooper and Mr. DuBois,
both of mentioned wilderness. I think Clint Anderson's name was
mentioned which--who many of you know was a national leader on
wilderness and as you said, led the committee that Senator
Bingaman chairs and led on the Wilderness Bill, created
wilderness and he was very aggressive about that. I think that,
in looking at this, that Senator Bingaman--and one of the
things that Clint Anderson did is he preserved, you know, the
big compromise in wilderness had to do with the preservation of
grazing in wilderness areas. That was the--the cattlemen said,
``If you're going to do this, we can go along with it,'' and
that's what allowed him to move forward and do that.
Senator Bingaman, in his committee, following on the heels
of that, have taken the ``may'' language in the bill and said
``shall''--``shall.'' They've inserted that language after
hearing your comments. I'm wondering, isn't that a big step
toward moving toward the kind of compromise we need to see in
this legislation?
Mr. DuBois. To be perfectly honest with you, changing the
language from ``may'' to ``shall'' means absolutely nothing.
Senator Udall. I would beg to disagree. But please go
ahead, but there's a huge difference in the law between a
discretionary act and an act where you say ``shall'' where you
instruct an agency to do something.
Mr. DuBois. I totally agree with that.
Senator Udall. But that's, you know--
Mr. DuBois. I totally agree with that.
Senator Udall. Yes, yes.
Mr. DuBois. But what I'm saying is, ``shall issue a
permit,'' that permit, as a result of the area going into NCA,
that permit could be for 10 cows instead of 100 cows and you're
still in compliance with the law because you have issued a
permit, but the end result is an economic unit that can no
longer be survived by that ranching family. So, that's why I
made the statement that I did. I understand the difference in
the law, what I'm talking about is the practical impact on the
ranching community in these areas if that language becomes law,
yet it doesn't make that much difference.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Mr. Cooper, would you like to respond to that? To that
question?
Mr. Cooper. I totally agree with Frank, you know, we
recognize as much as anybody the language that's in the
Wilderness Act itself that allows livestock grazing to
continue, but it's all of these forces that are brought on us,
the restrictions allowing the outside forces, environmental
issues and so forth to come in and affect our operations--maybe
shut us down or cut us down, whatever--that eventually put
grazing out of business in wilderness.
There are ranches for sale today in Luna County which are
involved Wilderness Study Areas for which there are no buyers,
because they figure you guys are headed there next. They
won't--nobody wants them because of all of the threats that
they won't make it there.
Mr. DuBois. Senator, I addressed the issue in NCAs, could I
be given the opportunity to respond to your question about
grazing and wilderness?
Senator Udall. Yes, well, they--yes. Let me just----
Mr. DuBois. Sure.
Senator Udall [continuing]. Point out from both of your 2
answers. Congress has specifically stated that wilderness can
not be used to reduce animal unit months. So, I mean, that's in
the law. That's in the law. So, I think some of what you're
saying has already been dealt with as far as a legal
instruction to these Federal agencies. But please, go ahead,
Frank.
Mr. DuBois. The issue of grazing and wilderness as compared
to the NCAs and the desert ecosystem down here, the grazing and
wilderness, that language that was put in, in the original--I
believe it was the Colorado Wilderness Act--those grazing
guidelines were put in that Act, and since then, each State's
Congressional delegation, when they've delegated wilderness,
have included, by reference, in the legislation, those grazing
guidelines. But those grazing guidelines were drafted when most
of the wilderness was in high country. They addressed issues in
the high country where there's seasonal grazing, and in many of
those high country areas, there are natural waters, and there
are natural boundaries. So, you don't have the water issue that
much, you don't have the fencing issue that much, and the
grazing is only seasonal in nature.
If you move to the desert ecosystem and what's being
proposed down here, you have an instance where you don't have
natural water, you don't have natural boundaries and it's year-
round grazing, it's not just seasonal--it determines their
entire income, not just part of their income.
So, our concern is those guidelines that were set up for
wilderness in the high country will not work in a desert
ecosystem. That's what our primary concern is, as far as
grazing and wilderness.
Senator Udall. Yes. Thank you very much.
Chairman Bingaman, I hope that we have a chance as we move
along to maybe have our BLM Resource witnesses possibly answer
some of the issues that have been raised here, because I think
they're out there, on the ground, dealing with this every day.
Mr. Hummer, I'm going to just be very, very brief,
because--but I--to me, you're quoting a border organization,
I'm not sure who the organization is, the National Association
of Former Border Patrol Officers, I mean, I enormously respect
border officers that have serve the country, but what Senator
Bingaman and his staff, I think, have done here and what we've
done in working with this legislation, is reach out to the
Border Patrol, the people that are on the ground, that are
working there right now. This proposal's been change
dramatically--taken areas out of Wilderness Study in order to
put a buffer there--in accordance with their wishes and what
they want. I don't see any acknowledgement of that. Maybe I've
missed it in your letter, but there has been this real----
Senator Udall. No, seriously--there has been this real
working effort, do you acknowledge that?
Mr. Hummer. Yes.
Senator Udall. There has been a real attempt to try to deal
with the realities in working with the Border Patrol and having
an understanding with them.
Mr. Hummer. Yes, that's a fair statement. I actually had
information in my testimony but to get under 5 minutes I cut
out some additional commentary on my written testimony that's
submitted; I did address that issue.
Yes, and we--Dara Parker, the Senator's staff member--we
spoke at the time that this was going on and actually said,
``We would like to be able to hear from current Border Patrol,
active duty Border Patrol agents,'' they can not do that. They
can not--they were not able to go public. I think you all know
that they, typically they don't do that. So, we were not able
to get firsthand information from that.
I can sit up here and say, anecdotally that there's active
Border Patrol agents that feel the same way that we do on our
testimony, but they're not going to be able to come public on
that and say that.
So, do I believe that Dara met with some folks? Yes, I do.
Is that representative of the whole Border Patrol? We don't
know. We don't know that. So, that's my response to that.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Thank you to all of this panel, you've been very helpful.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Congressman Teague, go right ahead.
Congressman Teague. Yes, thank you.
Once again, I want to thank everyone that's here today for
taking time to come to this. I especially want to thank the
panel; I appreciate your qualified and honest answers, you
know, to the questions that have been asked. One of the things
about going last is that most of the questions on my list have
already been asked, and so I won't ask you all about them
again.
But, Mr. Esslinger, I wanted to talk to you because I think
you deal with something that's very important and you have an
immense responsibility to control the floods and everything,
but how can we work together to craft a proposal that protects
our public lands and allows for future public infrastructure
improvements and at the same time, you know, I think some of
the things that you've brought up that's so very important is
the potential to flood homes and businesses and I just wanted
to know how you felt we could work together, because I wanted
to try to get you the tools that you think we need to prevent
that from happening.
Mr. Esslinger. Thank you, Congressman. Right now there is,
in the works, a planning group that I'm very excited to be a
party to, but it was organized by the Dona Ana Soil and Water
Conservation District. They came to me and said, ``Do you want
to be a party to this?'' I said, ``Yes,'' and I said--I asked,
``What are you going to try to do?'' They said, ``We want to
try to do a regional water authority, develop a regional water
authority.'' Something similar on the lines of a MAFGA in
Albuquerque, or even one that was formed here in Las Cruces
years ago called the Las Cruces Metropolitan.
The problem with that is, it only reaches the area of the
City limits, so the County was left out of any sort of flood
planning. We need to get beyond that barrier, and maybe that's
where you can help us, develop something that says all of these
entities that have different revenue streams, have different
bonding abilities could come together and we could do something
more regionally than trying to do it piecemeal. Certainly I
would hope that you could support us in that effort.
We've developed a task force called Swim or Sink. I don't
know what that acronym is going to spell out, but it sounds
good, because certainly we're in this boat together. I don't
want that goose that you want, cooked.
Congressman Teague. Thank you. Thank you for that. I don't
think any of that wants that goose cooked, we want to take care
of that goose.
Let's see, this next question could be for Mr. DuBois or
Mr. Cooper, either one or actually for both of you, you know.
As I said earlier in my opening statement, you know, I'm
opposed to selling public land off to private interests. I
think that, you know, and whatever capacity we keep it for, I
think it's the public land and we should keep it for public
land.
Congressman Teague. But do you all believe we should sell
public land off to private interests, and do you think any of
the land in this designation that we're talking about today,
should any of that be sold off to private interests?
Mr. Cooper. The answer to that is no. We do not feel like
any of the lands that are in S. 1689 should be sold to private
interests and developed. Our, you know, I spoke earlier of what
we proposed for withdrawal from sale or exchange of all of the
wilderness study areas, and that would have prevented sale.
Mr. Cooper. We do think that, you know, the State and the
Federal Government have an obligation to provide areas for this
city to grow. It's going to have to grow out of the Valley and
on State and Federal lands, but I don't think it would need to
encroach on any of the areas that we're talking about.
Frank?
Mr. DuBois. If you look at--let me just say, briefly, up
front, I think the issue in Dona Ana County is not whether or
not to protect these lands, the issue is what mechanism do you
use to protect them. That's the real disagreement among the
group.
Mr. DuBois. The proposal that was put forward by people for
Preserving our Western Heritage withdrew all of these lands
from disposal, so that they could never be sold or exchanged.
They would remain in Federal ownership in perpetuity. So that
is really not an issue. Like I said, the issue is not
protection versus no protection, but how we protect these
lands.
Congressman Teague. Thank you, thank both of you and I'm
really glad to hear your answers, as I said earlier, at least
we're on the same page, we want to protect the lands, we just
have different ideas of how to do it. So, I mean, I think that
pretty much speaks for everybody in here. I appreciate you
all's honest statements on that.
John, you know, I really appreciate your commitment to the
security in the border and stuff like that because that's
pretty important to me, but what changes do you believe that we
need to make to the wilderness proposal to help ensure
protection to the borders and what else do you think we need to
do to protect our border? I mean, more agents, more--anything
that you might think?
Mr. Hummer. Congressman, our belief is--and my personal
belief, too, is--similar to what Frank had mentioned, it's not
about protection, we agree with that, protecting the Potrillo
Complex from development, but switching the designation for
something other than wilderness--NCA can provide protection, as
well.
I guess our position is, why even risk what could happen,
based on testimony from people that are far more knowledgeable
in the field of border security than myself and the Chamber and
the--right next door, in Arizona, I mean, the evidence is
overwhelming and again, people are arguing on the margins
saying, ``Well, it's right up to the border, you know, we have
a buffer,'' testimony after testimony from experts have
commented on what's going on in Arizona saying, ``This small
buffer, it doesn't prevent the attraction of illegal activity
that can occur,'' so why risk it? That's kind of our question
we're putting forth and, protect it--yes. But not with
wilderness NCA.
Other questions, I think everybody in Southern New Mexico
would support added funding for Border Patrol Agents for new
types of technology, surveillance, aerial, unmanned aerial, the
more investment the better that you all could help not only the
Nation but New Mexico, I think everybody shares that, that
goal.
Congressman Teague. OK, thank you. Once again, thank the
panel for the good, honest answers and thank all of you for
being here.
The Chairman. Yes, let me thank this panel also, and I
think it's been very constructive testimony.
We've had 2 panels, we have a third panel with four
additional witnesses to come make their testimony. We'll take
about a 10-minute break and then start again about 4:30 p.m.
[Recessed.]
The Chairman. OK, why don't we get started again? Would
everybody who wants to be here for the last panel please take a
seat? Otherwise, go outside.
The Chairman. All right. As we say in the Senate, please
take your conversations to the cloakroom.
The Chairman. Move outside if you would rather continue
your conversation. We appreciate everyone's staying behind, I
know it's getting late in the afternoon.
Let me just introduce this panel and then we will hear from
them, first we will hear from Nathan Small who is the
Conservation Coordinator with the New Mexico Wilderness
Alliance.
The Chairman. Next we will hear--Nathan, you obviously
brought your cheering squad.
Next is John Munoz, who is a Board Member with the Hispano
Chamber of Commerce in de Las Cruces, we appreciate you being
here.
The Chairman. Next is Mr. Jim Bates who is a Board Member
with the Dona Ana County Associated Sportsmen.
The Chairman. Finally Rolando Trevino, who is the Director
of Engineering with the Western Pipeline Engineering Projects
for El Paso Natural Gas. Thank you all for being here.
The Chairman. Nathan, why don't you start? Please.
STATEMENT OF NATHAN P. SMALL, CONSERVATION COORDINATOR, NEW
MEXICO WILDERNESS ALLIANCE
Mr. Small. Yes, sir.
Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator Bingaman and Senator
Udall for inviting me here to say a few words on the Organ
Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, S. 1689. We are all
close to something incredibly special. Permanently protecting
natural lands and treasures like the Organ Mountains, Broad
Canyon, the Potrillos, and more. We are here because of hard
work, cooperation, compromise, and commitment.
It's been asked for decades--what will happen to our
magnificent mountains? First called Los Organos by the early
Spaniards, the Organ Mountains have to come to define our
region and inspire our community. In too many other
communities, such nearby natural treasures have been overrun.
We do not want to see that happen here. Almost 80 percent of
the lands to be protected as wilderness in S. 1689 are now
temporarily protected as wilderness study areas. In most cases,
this designation has been there for over 2o decades, so we have
a very good start--temporary wilderness study areas, knowing
what goes on in them and being comfortable with the management
schemes. We have a good start.
To permanently protect these mountains requires an act of
Congress, and we have to work together. I am honored to have
been part of groups that worked to identify and then overcome
challenges. Local agreements with sportsmen, and I am proud to
be a hunter, ironed out longstanding vehicular access issues.
Even the Las Cruces Homebuilder's Association supported this
exact proposal, even larger, in fact, before undoing that
agreement.
Many issues needed much more attention to resolve. Senator
Bingaman, you and your staff have done a masterful job of
gathering input, working with all stakeholders and building an
incredibly balanced bill. This legislation made changes to
proactively deal with any problems including, excluding all
corrals and drinkers for cattle ranching, excluding over 16,000
of Wilderness Study Area to better address border security.
In addition, existing agreements with Border Patrol to use
vehicles in pursuit without any need for permission entering
Wilderness Areas in pursuit of suspects all contribute to the
balance in this bill.
To be sure, changes were made. To be sure, also, most
changes have taken away lands from conservation designations.
For border security, cattle ranching, flood control and
community growth, these changes came through the diligent work
of our community, and especially your staff, and Senator Udall
and they should be supported.
The buffer along the southern part of the Potrillos is a
number of miles in length, expanded under your proposed
legislation which I think we can all agree, improves the
situation on the ground today, allows for total placement of
infrastructure within this miles-wide strip that is much larger
than others that have been held up as examples in Arizona, and
so I think as one of the many benefits you all have
accomplished.
Supporters desires have been clear at every turn. Hundreds
of concerned citizens attended a November 2006 meeting at the
Farm and Ranch Heritage Museum to support wilderness.
In June 2008, hundreds more came to oppose efforts that
would have sold sell-out protections in the Organ Mountains and
sold off massive amounts of local, open space, public lands.
When S. 1689 was introduced, editorials, local government
resolutions of support and thankful phone calls all poured in.
Senators, by introducing the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks
Wilderness Act, you have acknowledged the overwhelming desire
of our community members to ensure that a piece of our beloved
wild treasures will be here for their grandchildren and beyond.
Hundreds are here today to support your efforts. When S. 1689
passes and is signed into law, future generations will be
forever grateful that you had the vision and commitment to make
this conservation measure a reality.
I would like to read a quick email. I think we get--rightly
so--focused on scoring away all of the details, and again, I
believe a masterful job has been done with that. But there are
also these intangible issues. I grew up, learned how to hunt
from my grandfather and now I'll read you an email from a
grandmother in this community.
Over the age of 80, she took a walk into Valles Canyon to
see the incredible petroglyphs that stand there on public land.
It took an extra long time to go down and come back, but it was
a wonderful trip for all. Her name is Marnie Levril, this is
Marnie's email. ``I just got your message about the meeting on
February 15, oh how I would like to be there. But I fell and
broke my hip--I know, 'tis the pits, but it happened--and I'm
in Good Samaritan Healthcare Center,'' she has since returned
home, ``Getting physical therapy and can't make it. I hope
there is a big crowd. Please add my voice to others, if you
can, who wish they could be there to speak up but can't make it
in person. Mine is a heartfelt message that we need to hold on
to all of the wilderness we can. When it is gone, it is gone
forever. Now is the time to take the step that will ensure
future discovery trips, once in a lifetime experiences for new
hikers, and other wilderness experiences for those who come
after us.''
Powerful email, thank you Senators. I thank you all in the
crowd, everyone who has come out today. It is a very important
issue and preserving these lands so that we can continue to
have the gem that defines our region where we can take future
generations and go ourselves is an incredibly worthy goal.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Small follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nathan P. Small, Conservation Coordinator, New
Mexico Wilderness Alliance
The Organ Mountains Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, S. 1689, is
strong, community inspired legislation. It has been built through the
hard work of many different stakeholders, and also through the guidance
of good leadership--both on the local and national levels. On behalf of
the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, I am proud to endorse this
important legislation that was developed over many years and with an
impressive amount of public input. In my testimony, I will touch on
just some of the bill's many merits.
The most important aspect of S. 1689 is that it protects special
public lands that are worthy of Wilderness designation. The magnificent
Organ Mountains are the dramatic backdrop for Las Cruces, NM's second
largest city. Midway up their steep slopes, you can find clear streams
flowing past Ponderosa Pine trees, while far below urban life sends
residents scrambling through the day. Across the Rio Grande and to the
west rise the Robledo Mountains, home to the newly minted Prehistoric
Trackways National Monument. This Monument celebrates Pre-Cambrian
tracks that are among the most scientifically important examples in the
world. The Robledos hold many other natural treasures, as attested to
during a recent camping trip where hikers saw 12 mule deer within two
hours of leaving their vehicle. Immediately north and west of the
Robledo Mountains begins the Broad Canyon Country. Flat topped bajadas
are cut by winding canyons. In places the canyons narrow, and rock
walls rise on either side. Native American petroglyphs grace these
hidden halls, and riparian areas where tinajas trap precious water.
Farther north are the peaks of the Sierra de Las Uvas Mountains.
Containing equal measures of rolling grasslands and rugged lava rock
ridges, these mountains shelter many plant and animal species and reach
above 6000 feet in elevation. South of the Sierra de Las Uvas rise the
Potrillo Mountains complex--a large and diverse mosaic that contains
lava flows teeming with barrel cactus and soaptree yuccas, with the
fresh rootings left by javelina herds following twisting grass filled
draws in between jagged lava cliffs. Also in the Potrillo Mountains
complex stretch a chain of cinder cone mountains. The towering summits
of Mt. Cox and Mt. Riley overlook the region, towering above the
symmetrical slopes of the East Potrillo Mountains.
Most of these lands have, for decades, been classified as
Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
We must turn our gazes backward and tip our hats in appreciation for
the foresight shown by BLM in Dona Ana County in the mid 1980's, when
most of the WSA's were identified. Portions of the Potrillo Mountains,
Sierra de Las Uvas Mountains, Robledo and Organ Mountains all received
interim protections as WSA's. While public lands designated as WSAs
receive special management by the BLM, they do not have the gold
standard of protection that Wilderness designation provides.
Other lands included in S. 1689--Broad Canyon and the East Potrillo
Mountains--do not currently enjoy interim WSA protection. Fortunately,
Broad Canyon's hidden riparian areas, sweeping grasslands, beautiful
petroglyph-pocked cliffs, and stunning diversity of plant and animal
species remain true to the 1964 Wilderness Act's key criteria. The
Broad Canyon Country does possess, ``outstanding opportunities for
solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation at least five
thousand acres of land [and containing] ecological, geological, or
other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical
value'', in accordance with the 1964 Wilderness Act. The craggy summits
and quiet canyons in the rugged East Potrillo Mountains also meet these
qualifications. Thus, both areas richly deserve the Wilderness
protections now offered to them in S. 1689.
Many citizens, some who were members of conservation organizations
and others who were not, have long sought protections for Broad Canyon,
the East Potrillo Mountains, and even other areas not included in S.
1689. They worked to rectify the oversights that excluded them from the
original WSA interim protections. We owe these citizens a debt of
gratitude for their long hours, tireless dedication, and lasting
commitment to conservation. The New Mexico Wilderness Alliance (NMWA)
is proud to have played an important role in documenting and validating
both the values and boundaries that furthered discussions and fine
tuned map proposals for protecting Broad Canyon and the East Potrillo
Mountains.
These passionate advocates were far from the only community members
interested in protecting our County's natural lands. Local sportsmen,
part of a long line that stretches back to some of America's first and
most important conservationists, have spent generations pursuing game
or just a good photograph in local wild lands. In the spirit of
cooperation, local sportsmen leaders sat down and helped develop
proposals and ideas to protect vast amounts of high quality roadless
habitat while also identifying sufficient vehicular access for people
and even quail hunting dogs that can quickly tire during a day's
hunting. These agreements took time to accomplish, but once made have
held fast.
To your credit, S. 1689 reflects many such community proposed
compromises, and it is stronger for this fact.
There are many groups who have worked together to build a strong
foundation for S. 1689. Many of the most active share a strong service
and stewardship ethic that shows itself time and again in work to
restore and improve public lands.
Again, take the example of the many local sportsmen organizations.
The Dona Ana County Associated Sportsmen, Quail Unlimited, Southwest
Consolidated Sportsmen, Wild Turkey Sportsmen's Association and New
Mexico Wildlife Federation--to name a few--have literally spent tens of
thousands of dollars on habitat improvement projects, while
volunteering untold amounts of time. The Back Country Horsemen helped
build the Soledad Canyon Trail in the proposed Organ Mountains National
Conservation Area, and the NM Wilderness Alliance has worked on local
erosion control projects among others. Around the community school
teachers have taken classes out to Aguirre Springs, and there are
numerous hiking clubs who take regular trips into proposed Wilderness
areas.
The strength of S. 1689, the Organ Mountains Desert Peaks
Wilderness Act are the many groups and individuals who helped craft it
and now support it. We are a community that is connected to our nearby
natural treasures--public lands like the Organ Mountains and Broad
Canyon. Permanently protecting this connection is critical to our
community's future well being.
Harnessing the community energy and passion would never have been
possible without the outstanding leadership of Senator Jeff Bingaman
and his staff. To his credit, Senator Pete V. Domenici helped begin
this conversation in 2004. However, Senator Bingaman and his staff have
come in and completed a painstaking process of stakeholder input, on
the ground verification, and boundary adjustment to reach this moment.
Senator Udall and his staff also played a very positive role in
finalizing the legislation. Both Senators are to be commended for their
commitment to using local input in crafting this legislation.
To be sure, conservationists have had to accept hard decisions. One
such decision would release over 16,000 acres of land along the
southern boundary of the West Potrillo Mountains WSA. Another would
change the designation for the majority of Broad Canyon from Wilderness
to NCA. However, Senator Bingaman and Senator Udall offered robust
justification for the changes. On the challenges of flood control and
border security we are all aware of the need for common ground, and
being part of this community only makes the need for well balanced
approaches more important.
One area where we have not had to compromise is on the numerous
boundary adjustments made for grazing permittes. Going back to the
original 1964 Wilderness Act, and fine tuned with the release of the
1990 Congressional Grazing Guidelines, it is clear that Wilderness
designation and ranching can and do coexist. We support that
coexistence.
Objections to S.1689 have been raised. Most have focused on the
coexistence of Wilderness designation and ranching. On this subject, to
again be perfectly clear, we support the proper application of the
original Wilderness Act and the Congressional Grazing Guidelines, which
work together to ensure grazing where an existing use can smoothly
continue after Wilderness designation. Some other objections, focused
around border security and flood control, would be proactively
addressed through this legislation, and in fact help improve the
current situation on the ground. It is not necessary to take up each
objection in this testimony. Some objections simply eclipse the
imagination, such as the once heard contention that Wilderness
designation would restrict air travel to the Las Cruces airport.
However, one other that should be addressed is the contention that
Search and Rescue operations, using mechanized vehicles or helicopters,
cannot take place in designated Wilderness areas. In December 2006,
James Newberry, then the NM State Search and Rescue Resource Officer,
clearly stated that Search and Rescue missions in response to life and
limb situations in Wilderness areas could and did use mechanized
vehicles in their efforts, when necessary and feasible due to terrain
limitations.
Before concluding, please allow me to briefly relate my story. It
began and continues in the Land of Enchantment. I grew up with a
connection to the land. My grandfather would take me hunting, wood
gathering, horse-back riding and exploring on Mt. Taylor, near Grants.
While attending the College of Wooster in Ohio, I began rediscovering a
passion for the land and especially for taking others out into nature.
After graduation, I quickly returned home. Since moving to Las Cruces,
I feel incredibly fortunate to have helped lead dozens of trips into
proposed Wilderness and NCA lands. The youngest participant, who was
all of three months old at the time, was carried by her mother on a
Mother's Day Hike into Soledad Canyon in the Organ Mountains. Our
oldest participant was in her 80's, and made the trip to view the
magnificent petroglyphs of Valles Canyon in the Broad Canyon Country. I
have been fortunate to pursue game in S. 1689's proposed Wilderness
areas and ride my horse through its sweeping grasslands. Like so many
other residents and visitors alike, I love local natural treasures like
the Organ Mountains, Broad Canyon, the Potrillos and the Robledos.
Our community is ready for the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks
Wilderness Act to be passed into law. Thank you Senators for crafting
this legislation and listening to the community while doing so. Thank
you also for introducing it in Congress, and I look forward to thanking
our entire delegation for helping pass S. 1689 on to the President.
Then it can be signed into law, forever protecting some of Southern New
Mexico's most magnificent public lands.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Munoz, please go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF JOHN P. MUNOZ, DIRECTOR SITEL, BOARD MEMBER,
HISPANO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, LAS CRUCES, NM
Mr. Munoz. Chairman Bingaman and Senator Udall, Congressman
Teague, thank you very much for this opportunity to testify in
support of S. 1689. My name is John Munoz and I am the Director
of Sitel Las cruces. Officially, I'm known as Mr. Sitel, but my
name for the record is Munoz, so thank you very much.
We started this group here 4 years ago with 3employees. Now
we employ over 500 residents and are a multi-million dollar
award-winning operation. I also proudly serve on the Board of
Directors for the Hispano Chamber of Commerce. The mission of
Chamber of Commerce is to advocate for economic development,
education, cultural awareness, and community service. Our
Chamber, made up of over 300 small, medium and large businesses
carefully and closely reviewed the potential of S. 1689.
It is clear to us that protecting these precious lands is
good for business, good for the environment, and good for our
community. While there are many reasons to support swift
passage of S. 1689, I wish to focus my remarks on the economic
justifications for doing so.
Our community is vibrant and growing. We have higher than
the national average rates of population growth, in-migration,
and employment. There are many factors which contribute to our
overall growth and economic strength. We have an outstanding
Land Grant University with NMSU on-campus today, large Federal
installations in White Sands Missile Range, the Goddard NASA
Test Facility, and phenomenal growth in DACC Community College
and our ability to attract and draw people and businesses at a
rapid rate. One of these reasons is the Organ Mountains. With
rooms to grow, many newcomers settle here in large part because
of our high quality of life. AARP recently cited hiking and
camping in the Organ Mountains as one of the main draws that
put Las Cruces near the top of communities for Baby Boomers to
retire. Choosing to relocate to a community because of the
quality of life is known as ``amenity migration'' a phrase made
popular by recent economic studies.
As my own example will show, employers are on the lookout
for high quality of life areas for their employees--employees
like mine who range from 18.5 to 79 years of age.
The Hispano Chamber and others recently sponsored a
Wilderness Economic Conference. This Conference drew in over
100 people from Las Cruces and surrounding communities on a
cold, snowy Saturday morning, and Las Crucens do not like to
drive in the snow, so I think that hat conference was a huge
success.
Much information was shared on the potential of the
economic opportunities. According to an outdoor industry
association study, outdoor recreation contributes roughly $730
billion to the U.S. economy annually and about $3.8 billion to
New Mexico's economy. It makes sense that visitors to our
community--whether bicycling, camping, hunting or wildlife
watching--will buy foods and supplies and possibly stay at one
of our hotels.
DACC College is pioneering a program to develop and support
local tourism initiatives with the focus on eco-tourism
connected to local public lands. Led by their dynamic
President, Dr. Margie Wetta, DACC has seen a tremendous
enrollment growth and is one of the top colleges in this
region.
Their interest in leveraging economic gain and local jobs
from lands included in S. 1689 is a testament to our
community's hunger for economic growth through conservation.
You know, 4 years ago when we were looking at sites and I
was asked what I thought of Las Cruces and would I be willing
to move here, I knew very little about this area. A few years
ago, my dad convinced me as I was driving back home to Texas to
take the scenic route. I did, but I started late, so I--and I
want to phrase this carefully--I stopped to go to the bathroom,
get gas for my car, it was dark, so I really didn't see
anything except the gas station. So, I moved on.
Years later, during the day, when I was flown over here and
asked to look at the area, I was surprised and amazed. I saw
the beautiful Organ Mountains, and I was just awed. The next
step was to convince my wife. Shortly after that, we flew my
son and my wife over. It was a rough start, especially leaving
El Paso and passing through the dairy farms and the distinct
and impressionable smell where I got ``the look'' from my wife.
I kept focused, kept straight on the Las Cruces.
Eventually, we got to Las Cruces, a little time passed, my
son and wife, for the first time saw a stunning sunset in those
beautiful and pristine and majestic Organ Mountains. They were
hooked.
Obviously, we made a financial and business decision on
labor markets, weather, real estate, however there were other
cities that had similar indicators, some perhaps slightly
better. But I can't put a number or a measure to it, but the
Organ Mountains and these wildlands really made an impression
on me, and especially, as well, the people of Las Cruces.
That's what sealed the deal for me. So I thought, this was a
place where I would want to relocate and raise my family.
My personal experience and my business experience tell me
that S. 1689 is right for Southern New Mexico. When
conservationists and Chambers of Commerce can work together for
the betterment of the community, that is a very good thing.
Thank you for your time, Senators.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Munoz follows:]
Prepared Statement of John P. Munoz, Director Sitel, Board Member,
Hispano Chamber of Commerce, Las Cruces, NM
Chairman Bingaman and Senator Udall, thank you very much for this
opportunity to testify in support of S.1689, the Organ Mountains-Desert
Peaks Wilderness Act of 2009. My name is John Munoz, and I am the
Director of Sitel Las Cruces. We started this group here four years ago
with three employees. Now we employ over 500 residents and are a multi-
million dollar award-winning operation. I also proudly serve on the
Board of Directors for the Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las Cruces.
The mission of the Hispano Chamber of Commerce is to advocate for
economic development, education, community service, and cultural
awareness.
Our organization made up of over 300 small medium and large
businesses carefully and closely reviewed the potential of S.1689. It
is clear to us that protecting these precious lands is good for
business, good for the environment, and good for our community. While
there are many reasons to support swift passage of S. 1689, I wish to
focus my remarks on the economic justifications for doing so.
Our community is vibrant and growing. We have higher than the
national average rates of population growth, in-migration, and
employment. There are many factors which contribute to our overall
continued economic strength. We have an outstanding Land Grant
University with NMSU, large federal installations in White Sands
Missile Range, the Goddard NASA Test Facility, and our ability to
attract and draw people and businesses at a rapid rate. And we also
have abundant, and in many cases visually striking and easily
accessible public lands.
Foremost among these are the iconic Organ Mountains. Appearing on
numerous business marquees, shop signs, and mastheads--the Organs are a
clear defining characteristic of our community. They are part of our
identity in Southern New Mexico. Las Cruces retains room to grow, but
we count ourselves lucky to have the Organs and their foothills as a
place where full scale development will abut but not invade.
Many newcomers settle here in large part because of our high
quality of life. A key component of that quality of life is the open
natural public lands surrounding our community. AARP recently cited
``hiking and camping in the Organ Mountains'', as one of the main draws
that put Las Cruces near the top of communities for Baby Boomers to
retire. As you will see, my own settlement story is intimately
connected to the Organ Mountains.
Choosing to relocate to a community because of its quality of life
is known as Amenity Migration, a phrase made popular by recent economic
studies. These amenities--scenery, recreation, clean air and water--are
not only important to retirees. As my own example will show, employers
are on the lookout for high quality of life areas--for our employees to
raise their families. With our close proximity to the El Paso airport,
a burgeoning alternative energy industry, and an increasingly
technology and research focused University, conditions are ideal to
spur strong and sustained economic growth.
Across the West, counties with protected public lands outperform
their peers on economic performance indicators than those without
protected public lands. A key ingredient in this equation is having a
good transportation infrastructure, and being close to an airport. The
presence of a University is also important. Let's look at Las Cruces,
and Dona Ana County. With our two interstates--I-10 and I-25--along
with the nearby El Paso International Airport and New Mexico State
University, our community meets all of these important criteria. And,
although we currently lack permanently protected public lands, we do
have temporarily protected Wilderness Study Areas. After these areas
were given interim protections, our population and per-capita income
continued growing, according to a 2005 Sonoran Institute study. By
moving ahead now with S. 1689 to permanently protect our wilderness
areas, and with a committed branding effort already taking shape, our
community stands poised to reap economic gain from the Organ Mountains-
Desert Peaks Wilderness Act.
The Hispano Chamber and others recently sponsored the Wilderness
Economics conference. This conference drew in over 100 people from Las
Cruces and surrounding communities on a cold snowy Saturday morning.
Much information was shared on potential economic opportunities.
According to the Outdoor Industry Association Study outdoor recreation
contributes roughly $730 billion dollars to the US economy annually and
$3.8 billion to New Mexico's economy. It makes sense that visitors to
our community whether bicycling, camping, hunting, or wildlife watching
will buy food and supplies and possibly stay in one of our local
hotels.
Dona Ana Community College is tasked with workforce training and
rapid educational improvement. DACC is pioneering a program to develop
and support local tourism initiatives with a focus on ecotourism
connected to local public lands. Led by their dynamic President, Dr.
Margie Huerta, DACC has seen tremendous enrollment growth and is seen
as one of the top regional Community Colleges. Their interest in
leveraging economic gain and local jobs from lands included in S. 1689
is testament to our community's hunger for economic growth through
conservation.
I realize this isn't the magic bullet for jobs. While many across
our great nation are struggling or have been impacted by the recent
economic downturn, I would think creating some jobs would be the right
thing to do.
As mentioned my story is connected to the Organ Mountains. When we
were looking at sites I was asked what I thought of Las Cruces and
would I be willing to move here and start-up Sitel Las Cruces. I knew
very little about this area. On a long trip years ago, I stopped in Las
Cruces to fill-up my car and go to the bathroom. I was tired and it was
dark so I didn't get to see much. I was completely surprised when years
later I came into Las Cruces and saw the Organ Mountains and these
magnificent wild lands. Convincing my wife was the next step. Shortly
after my visit we flew over here. It was a rough start after leaving El
Paso and passing by the dairy farms and that interesting and
impressionable smell.
However, once we entered Las Cruces and my wife and son experienced
their first stunning sun-set and the ever so pristine and majestic
Organs.
Obviously we made a financial and business decision based on labor
market, weather, and real-estate; however, there we other city sites
with similar indicators a couple slightly better. I can't measure or
put a number to it but the impression of the Organs and these lands
help seal the deal for me. This was the place I wanted to relocate and
raise my family.
My personal experience and my business experience tell me S.1689 is
right for Southern New Mexico. And, when conservationist and chambers
of commerce can work together for the betterment of their community
again, that is a very good thing.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Bates? We're glad to hear from you, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF JIM BATES, RESIDENT, LAS CRUCES, NM
Mr. Bates. Can everybody hear me?
Thank you, Senators and Congressman. I remember you from a
quail hunt, I believe, Congressman Teague. I won't tell that
story.
Congressman Teague. Please don't.
Mr. Bates. My name is Jim Bates----
The Chairman. He didn't shoot anyone, did he?
Mr. Bates. There was a lot of conversation about that, I
think, the incident you're referring to, there, so--but no, he
didn't.
Anyhow, my name is Jim Bates. I am here in Las Cruces, I've
lived here since 1965. You might ask what I'm doing up here on
the panel, I don't know either, but I'll give you some
background information.
I graduated from Las Cruces High School and New Mexico
State University with a degree in Wildlife Science. I have been
a building contractor in this community for the last 32 years,
professionally I'm a member of the building industry's
Association of Southern New Mexico, which was formally known as
the Las Cruces Homebuilder's Association and I have served on
its Board of Directors and have served as Chairman of the
Remodeler's Council for them.
One of the reasons I'm up here is because I'm actively
involved with many local, State and national conservation
organizations, including the National Wild Turkey Federation,
the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, the Rocky Mountain Elk
Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Quail Unlimited, Southwest
Consolidated Sportsmen, Dona Ana County Associated Sportsmen
and Wild Turkey Sportsmen's Association. I either hold or have
held leadership positions in all of these. Anybody wants to go
debate that with my wife, please feel free to do so, as to the
merits of that.
These organizations represent the interests of thousands of
sportsmen and conservationists in this area and throughout the
State. Because of my extensive involvement with these groups, I
believe I have a good understanding of the issues and concerns
of their members. Make no mistake, however, by assuming that my
comments represent all sportsmen or sportsmen's groups
concerned with this issue. They do not. Based on my personal
assessment, and that of many others I've spoken with, I do
believe that they represent the position of a strong majority
of those sportsmen to be affected by the outcome of this
process.
I am very familiar with the areas being considered for
protection. I have spent many days of my life exploring these
areas. I have driven most, if not all, of the existing roads in
these areas, and have hiked and/or hunted almost every ``nook
and cranny'' to be found there.
I have also been actively involved in the community
discussion and debate that has taken place regarding this
proposal, not only in recent years but over the 2 decades since
the establishment of the wilderness study areas, as well. I
have a firm foundation for conveying information about these
areas that may be of importance in discussion of the proposed
legislation.
I believe I can accurately state that the wilderness
proposal, in its initial form and wording, would likely not
have received support from the majority of sportsmen's groups.
However, the process of debate and compromise that occurred
during the community forums and meetings that took place has
alleviated our concerns and brought us to a point of being
strong supporters of the legislation.
From my perspective, every effort has been made to appease
those individuals and groups that have participated in the
process. Very real compromises and concessions have been made.
Concerns have been expressed about the elimination of roads and
access in these areas. About how livelihoods would be impacted
and about how the public good and public safety would be
jeopardized. Those of us that support the wilderness proposal
recognize these concerns and much effort had been taken to
address them, just as similar efforts were made to address the
concerns of sportsmen and other recreational users that have
come to support this legislation.
We recognize that others oppose this legislation and have
had valid issues and concerns. It is unfortunate that the
spirit of compromise that has worked so well to bring us to
where we are today has not been able to satisfy their
misgivings with the wilderness proposal.
I have personally discussed various aspects of the proposal
with some of the individuals involved, and my perception is
that these individuals are well-meaning folks with a general
distrust of the government and its intervention into their
lives. I would submit to you that such distrust is not grounds
for the dismissal of this process, of this legislation, or the
future well-being of these unique and fragile areas that this
legislation will protect.
Having said that, trust is a 2-edged sword. We, as
citizens, landowners, businessmen, sportsmen, and other
recreational users, have put our faith in the government on the
line to do what is right with these areas. Compromises have
been made and stipulations have been agreed upon in the name of
good faith among all the entities involved here. We expect
these agreements to be adhered to and the rights and privileges
of all the stakeholders, as designated in this wilderness
legislation, to be maintained in perpetuity.
Finally, we are all aware of the growth that is occurring
in this region, and as such, we should have the vision to
realize the impacts that growth will have on the area and its
inhabitants, both human and otherwise. We have been granted the
wisdom, foresight, and opportunity to take measures to ensure
that the natural treasures that surround us, and the plant and
animal communities that reside in them, will not be lost.
It has been said the wilderness designation is the ``gold
standard'' for protecting places and insuring future
generations have the opportunity to enjoy them. Let us not
waste this opportunity to achieve that standard.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bates follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Bates, Resident, Las Cruces, NM
My name is James (Jim) Bradley Bates. I am a Las Cruces resident
and have lived here since 1965. I graduated from Las Cruces High School
in 1969 and received a degree in Wildlife Science from New Mexico State
University in 1973. I received my journeyman carpenters certification
from the Carpenters Union in 1978 and became a licensed General
Contractor in the state of New Mexico shortly thereafter. I have worked
in the Las Cruces area as a general contractor in the building industry
since that time.
I believe I was chosen to speak towards the proposed wilderness
legislation as a result of my familiarity of the areas in question over
the last four decades, and also because of my involvement with many
conservation and sportsmen's groups in the community and state. I am
currently the NM state chapter president for the National Wild Turkey
Federation and chairman of the Mesilla Valley Longbeards chapter of
NWTF. I currently represent the NWTF on the Southwest Consolidated
Sportsmen (SCS) steering committee. I have also served as chairman of
SCS. In addition, I am on the Board of Directors of the Dona Ana County
Associated Sportsmen and the Wild Turkey Sportsmen's Association and
have served as president of those organizations, as well. I have also
served as chairman of the local Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Mule
Deer Foundation banquet and fundraising committees, and have served on
the banquet/fundraising committee for Ducks Unlimited. I am a member of
the local Quail Unlimited chapter and the New Mexico Wildlife
Federation. These organizations represent the interests of thousands of
sportsmen and conservationists in this area and throughout the state.
Because of my extensive involvement with these groups, I believe I
have a good understanding of the issues and concerns of their members.
Hopefully, I will be able to adequately represent the prevailing
attitudes and sentiments of these groups in this forum. Make no
mistake, however, by assuming that my statements and/or comments
represent all sportsmen or sportsmen's groups concerned with this
issue. They do not. Based on my personal assessment, I do believe that
they represent the position of a strong majority of those sportsmen to
be affected by the outcome of this process.
As previously stated, I am very familiar with the areas being
considered for protection. I have spent many days of my life exploring
and recreating in these areas. I have driven most, if not all, of the
existing roads in these areas, and have hiked and/or hunted almost
every ``nook and cranny'' to be found there. As such, I believe I have
a firm foundation for conveying information about these areas that may
be of importance in the discussion of the proposed legislation.
I have also been actively involved in the process of considering
the fate of the areas of concern, not only from the community
discussion and debate that has taken place in the last several years,
but from a much longer perspective that began
[email protected], & [email protected]
[email protected] two decades ago with the
establishment of the wilderness study areas. The wilderness issue in
question has been discussed in many conservation and sportsmen's forums
well prior to that occurring in the last few years. Those discussions
included many concerns about the future designation of wilderness for
these areas, and in fact, I can confidently state that the wilderness
proposal, in its initial form and wording, would likely not have
received support from the majority of these groups. The fact is,
though, that the process of debate and compromise that occurred during
the community forums and meetings that took place has alleviated our
concerns and, in turn, brought us to the point of being strong
supporters of the legislation.
From my perspective, every effort has been made to appease those
individuals and groups that have participated in the process. Very real
compromises and concessions have been made. Existing roads that were
proposed to be eliminated have been left intact, both to the benefit of
the ranching interests, and also to provide reasonable access to the
wilderness areas for recreational users. In reality, very few ``legal''
roads within the proposed boundaries will be closed, and the ones that
will be closed are, in general, currently open only to those possessing
off-road-vehicle type capabilities. Once again, though, the number and
length of the roads that will closed as a result of the passage of this
legislation is insignificant.
Certain off-highway vehicle (OHV) users have stated that wilderness
designation will impact their recreational privileges in these areas.
The fact is that their privileges will be no more affected than those
of the general public. Knowledgeable public land users in Dona Ana
County are already aware that all motorized off-road vehicle use is
currently prohibited except on designated roads. Furthermore, hundreds
of miles of legal roads exist on hundreds of thousands of acres
throughout the county in areas similar to those under consideration for
wilderness designation,....roads that will not be impacted by this
legislation. The idea that this wilderness designation will
significantly impact OHV recreational uses is unfounded.
Similarly, concern has been expressed about the ability of law
enforcement officials to effectively carry out their duties as a result
of potential wilderness designation, especially in the West Potrillo
Wilderness complex. My understanding of this concern is that it regards
the flow of illegal traffic and activities in a generally northern
direction from the Mexican border. Currently, to my knowledge, there is
only one legally designated road that runs north through the proposed
wilderness complex that will be closed as a result of the legislation.
This road is a very rough, often washed-out, two-track trail that runs
approximately two-thirds the length of the West Potrillo Mountains. The
southern two thirds of this jeep trail would be closed as part of the
wilderness. At this time, anybody can legally drive that road.
Therefore, law enforcement has no concrete reason to suspect illegal
activity is occurring if the road is driven. However, if that road is
closed, any motorized vehicle activity on that road will be illegal and
hence, cause for investigation. The closure of that road, if anything,
will make law enforcement easier, not more difficult. Remember, there
is no legal off-road vehicle use on public lands now. Therefore, any
evidence of motorized vehicle use along the southern wilderness
boundary will be cause for investigation, and that investigation will
be allowed to take place, as I understand it, within the provisions of
the wilderness legislation.
Finally, the argument has been made that certain works for the
public good and safety will be inhibited by wilderness designation for
these areas. Specifically, flood control has been mentioned. This
concern is laudable, and if it indeed a real issue, it should be
addressed. However, many of us, sportsmen or not, question the validity
of this argument against wilderness, as well. The fundamental question
to be asked is, ``Where are these areas of concern, and how are they
impacted by wilderness designation?'' If there are real issues
regarding public good and safety, let's identify and address them. Let
us not use them as a justification for condemning this wilderness
legislation.
We recognize that others oppose this legislation and have had valid
issues and concerns, as well. It is unfortunate that the spirit of
compromise that has worked so well to bring us to where we are today,
has not been able to satisfy their misgivings with the wilderness
designations. I have personally discussed various aspects of the
proposal with some of the individuals involved, and my perception is
that these individuals are well-meaning folks with a general distrust
of the government and its intervention into their lives. I would submit
to you that such distrust is not grounds for the dismissal of this
process, this legislation, or the future well-being of these unique and
fragile areas and their natural inhabitants that truly deserve the
protection that this legislation will provide.
Having said that, trust is a two-edged sword. We, as citizens,
landowners, businessmen, sportsmen, and other recreational users, have
put on faith in the government on the line to do what is right with
these areas. Compromises have been made and stipulations have been
agreed upon in the name of good faith among all the entities involved
here. We expect these agreements to be adhered to and the rights and
privileges of all the stakeholders, as designated in this wilderness
legislation to be maintained in perpetuity.
Finally, we are all aware of the growth that is occurring in this
region, and we should have the vision to realize the impacts that
growth will have on the area and its inhabitants, both human and
otherwise. We have been granted the wisdom, foresight, and opportunity
to take measures to insure that the natural treasures that surround us,
and the plant and animal communities that reside in them, will not be
lost. It has been said the wilderness designation is the ``gold
standard'' for protecting places and insuring future generations have
the opportunity to enjoy them. Let us not waste this opportunity for
gold.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Next we have Rolando Trevino, who is with El Paso Natural
Gas. Go right ahead, please.
STATEMENT OF ROLANDO TREVINO, DIRECTOR, ENGINEERING, WESTERN
PIPELINE ENGINEERING PROJECTS, EL PASO NATURAL GAS
Mr. Trevino. OK, before I start my remarks, I have to say
that I'm somewhat jealous of the other panel members. It
appears that they have many, many friends in the audience, and
I regret, I have but one co-worker and one employee in the
audience, if they're still here, this afternoon. But I will
persevere.
Mr. Trevino. Good afternoon, Chairman Bingaman, Senator
Udall, Congressman Teague, and thank you for the opportunity to
testify today before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee regarding S. 1689, The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks
Wilderness Act. My name is Rolando Trevino. I am Director of
Engineering Projects for El Paso Corporation's Western Pipeline
group.
El Paso Corporation is organized around 2 businesses--
pipelines and exploration and production. We own North
America's largest interstate natural gas pipeline, some 42,000
miles, transporting more than a quarter of the natural gas
consumed in the country each day.
Our E&P operation ranks in the top 10 domestic independent
producers, operating in high-quality basins across the United
States. In New Mexico, El Paso Exploration & Production Company
operates more than 1,000 natural gas wells in the Raton Basin,
and is a non-operating working interest owner in hundreds more
wells in the San Juan Basin.
El Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG), one of El Paso's
Western Pipelines, owns and operates a system of natural gas
pipelines that brings gas from the Permian Basin in Texas and
the San Juan Basin in New Mexico and Colorado to West Texas,
New Mexico, Nevada, California and Arizona. In New Mexico, El
Paso Natural Gas owns and operates 2,788 miles of pipe.
Today, I am here to testify about how working with Senator
Bingaman's office we have been able to reach an agreement
allowing the conservation area created by S. 1689, The Organ
Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, which would designate
public land in Dona Ana County as Wilderness and National
Conservation Areas and our pipeline system to co-exist in the
best interest of both projects.
In particular, we appreciate how the Senator's staff
initially reached out to us to gather input. We know Senator
Bingaman is committed to energy production as well as the
environment and we appreciate his willingness to work with us
to ensure that we are able to continue to deliver a reliable
source of natural gas to his constituents in New Mexico and
customers in the surrounding states of Colorado, Texas, Nevada,
California and Arizona. For the past several months we have
been working closely with the Senator and his staff to achieve
this goal. I am pleased to be able to testify today that we
have been able to reach an agreement to ensure not only that
our pipelines are outside the conservation area but also that
the Senator and his staff continue to work with us to ensure
that we would be able to do any additional work on the pipeline
that is necessary and undergo a process known as looping.
Although no final map has been produced at this point, we
are attaching a map which will generally shows our
understanding of the agreement we reached establishing a
southern boundary for the conservation area that is
sufficiently north of our pipeline facilities to ensure that we
can engage in our activities to operate and maintain our
facilities and to adequately serve our customers.
We have marked on the map to demonstrate the location and
we look forward to continue working with staff to ensure that
the final boundary will be consistent with our discussions. I
ask that this map be entered into the record for today's
hearing.
Thank you for opportunity to testify and I look forward to
answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Trevino follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rolando Trevino, Director, Engineering, Western
Pipeline Engineering Projects, El Paso Natural Gas
Good Afternoon, Chairman Bingaman and Senator Udall and thank you
for the opportunity to testify today before the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee regarding S. 1689, The Organ Mountains-
Desert Peaks Wilderness Act. My name is Rolando I. Trevino. I am the
Director of Engineering Projects for El Paso Corporation's Western
Pipeline group.
El Paso Corporation is organized around two core businesses--
pipelines and exploration and production. We own North America's
largest interstate natural gas pipeline system--approximately 42,000
miles--transporting more than a quarter of the natural gas consumed in
the country each day. Our E&P operation ranks in the top 10 domestic
independent producers, operating in high-quality basins across the
United States. In New Mexico, El Paso Exploration & Production Company
operates more than 1,000 natural gas wells in the Raton Basin, and is a
non-operating working interest owner in hundreds more wells in the San
Juan Basin.
El Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG), one of El Paso's Western
Pipelines, owns and operates a system of natural gas pipelines that
brings gas from the Permian Basin in Texas and the San Juan Basin in
New Mexico and Colorado to West Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, California
and Arizona. In New Mexico, El Paso Natural Gas owns and operates 2788
miles of pipe.
Today, I am here to testify about how working with Senator
Bingaman's office we have been able to reach an agreement allowing the
conservation area created by S. 1689, The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks
Wilderness Act, which would designate public land in Dona Ana County as
Wilderness and National Conservation Areas and our pipeline system to
co-exist in the best interest of both projects. In particular, we
appreciate how the Senator's staff initially reached out to us to
gather input. We know Senator Bingaman is committed to energy
production as well as the environment and we appreciate his willingness
to work with us to ensure that we are able to continue to deliver a
reliable source of natural gas to his constituents in New Mexico and
customers in the surrounding states of Colorado, Texas, Nevada,
California and Arizona.
For the past several months we have been working closely with the
Senator and his staff to achieve this goal. I am pleased to be able to
testify today that we have been able to reach an agreement to ensure
not only that our pipelines are outside the conservation area but also
that the Senator and his staff continued to work with us to ensure that
we would be able to do any additional work on the pipeline if necessary
or undergo a process known as looping. Although no final map has been
produced at this point, we are attaching a map which generally shows
our understanding of the agreement we reached establishing a southern
boundary for the conservation area that is sufficiently north of our
pipeline facilities to ensure that we can engage in activities
necessary to operate and maintain our facilities and to adequately
serve our customers. We have placed a black line on the map to
demonstrate this location and we look forward to continue working with
staff to ensure that the final boundary will be consistent with our
discussions. I ask that this map be entered into the record for today's
hearing.
Thank you for opportunity to testify and I look forward to
answering any questions.
The Chairman. We will include that map and all of the
testimony--the full testimony--of all witnesses, this panel and
the previous 2 panels.
Let me just ask one or 2 questions, here.
Mr. Bates, one of the points that was made by the previous
panel was that the designations of areas as wilderness would be
a hindrance to the ability of folks to get out and picnic and
hunt and otherwise enjoy the areas that we've contemplating
enhanced protection for in this legislation. What's your
reaction on that? What's your thinking?
Mr. Bates. I think the point that needs to be made
initially is that these areas were designated as potential
wilderness areas because they were lacking many, or extensive,
road systems within them to begin with. You know, some of
these, specifically the West Potrillo Mountains area they're--
even though there are some roads being deleted from use in
that, there are actually very few roads that transect that area
now. So, the number of roads that would be affected by that is
minimal, in my opinion. Also in the other areas.
In terms of the use of the areas by people that want to go
there for recreational purposes, the--one of the things in the
compromise process that sportsmen approached the other
stakeholders about, was making sure that adequate access was
left for people to get to these areas for recreational
purposes. There was significant compromise made regarding that.
I am of the opinion that anybody that wants to go out there
to hunt, camp, hike, whatever, will be able to get to adequate
locations to have a quality experience there, but we still have
the opportunity to maintain the qualities and, you know, the
scenic values and all of those things that we're trying to
achieve with this legislation.
The Chairman. You're referring, I guess, to some of the
accommodation that has been made in cherry stem provisions
where we basically are taking some of the roads that are going
to be maintained and accessible to the public and taking those
out of wilderness designation and widening the area around
them. Is that the reference you're making?
Mr. Bates. Kind of, yes.
The Chairman. Would you be more specific about what you're
saying?
Mr. Bates. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question. The
question is--clarify it just a little more for me, you want to
know how this impacting recreational opportunities for people?
The Chairman. Yes, I'm wondering, if I'm just a general
member of the public and I want to go out and hunt in some of
these areas, and I get a hunting license to do so and all,
you're satisfied that my ability to do that is protected?
Mr. Bates. Not only am I satisfied that it's protected, but
I think for that specific instance that over time, hunters and
outdoorsmen and sportsmen will find that this, the wilderness
designation will actually be a big benefit to them.
The Chairman. Senator Udall?
Senator Udall. They're--I guess in a sense when you're the
last panel, you've been sitting here listening to a lot of the
testimony--there was testimony on grazing, there was testimony
on border security, testimony on some of the things Chairman
Bingaman just asked. Just as an opening question, I just wanted
to give any of you an opportunity to comment on things you
might have heard that you either agree or disagree with. Talk
about it in the context--and Nathan, you mentioned the idea of
working as a coalition, this panel is a good example of
building a coalition, grassroots support--how long have you
been working on this? How long have you spent toiling in the
vineyards to get these kinds of things done? Could you please?
Mr. Small. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator Udall, Congressman
Teague, Chairman Bingaman.
I think we have to acknowledge folks like Jim Bates, here,
who were involved in discussions decades ago on how to get
these areas protected, and to move from the temporary
wilderness study area designation, so you have, literally,
hundreds of folks in the community who this has been a
significant part of their life for decades.
However, in efforts--I think you started to see a coalition
coalesce and come together beginning in 2005. They were very--
there was proposals from former Senator Domenici that kind of
opened the discussion on this. What you saw, some ideas--
especially in terms of the sell-off of public lands--were not
well-received. However as you see here today, from all
perspectives, protecting lands is very important to this
community and so you started to get groups coming together.
Very early on there was strong business support for the
idea, what you see on business marquees, the Organ Mountains, a
way to make sure that that continues on into the future. Public
meetings were held, and I think it's very clear that the
turnout often surprised everyone. Where literally hundreds of
folks would spend time--similar to today--to come out and be a
part of this.
Sportsmen, users, horsemen, I think is a very key
constituency and as folks--especially with the horsemen who get
into these areas and who value solitude, being able to close
with vehicular access, but also areas that are not overrun by
either development or motorized vehicles, had a very early and
important voice in this. So the natural pull of conservation,
its importance to the community, made a coalition that was many
years in the making, bear fruit.
That, I believe has included the hundreds of business
organizations, dozens of local--mostly local--organizations
that range from neighborhood groups to Chambers of Commerce.
That's all underlined by the citizen support that I think we've
seen today, even with some folks leaving, that stuck through.
So, I think that's a way--one thing that I think your
comment brings up an interesting point is the coalition, it
grew because compromise was made. There's always been a very, I
think, a yearning to find that agreement amongst all groups.
So when we look at things like the grazing guidelines which
I believe actually were developed in Arizona and apply to BLM
Wilderness Areas in Arizona were developed and oftentimes for
Desert Wilderness Study areas in Arizona to address specific
concerns that I think, while not identical, but are similar to
here--we have folks who yearn for that, to spread itself wider
in the community.
I think what we can see is that it met with much success.
Of course, there's never unanimity, even for whether the sky is
blue or some other color. But overall, the agreement that's
been reached, I'm very honored to have been a part of that. But
I think the individuals in this room today, many who could not
be here, and many of the panelists speak to the fact that it
covers a very wide, and deep and committed constituency.
Thank you.
Mr. Munoz: One of the things that I heard and I believe
possibly Congressman Teague kind of spurred this on or talked
about this, as far as job creation. You know, I know that,
first I want to say that during the break someone who I hadn't
seen in awhile came up to me and says, ``Wow, John, you look
really old.''
Mr. Munoz. I said, ``You know, it's been 2 rough years in
business. But we've persevered and we're doing well.''
The, you know, one of the things that I want to stress is
that, you know, I've heard, this isn't the magic bullet for
jobs. It may not be. However, there's so much potential to work
together to conserve and protect lands and to also emerge new
businesses and have entrepreneurs, you know, take what's made
this country great.
You know, magic bullet or not, you know, if this creates
some jobs, you know, we'll take it. In this economy where
people are struggling, where people have been affected by the
economic downturn, if it's not a magic bullet, if it's bows and
arrows, sticks and stones, we'll take that.
Mr. Bates. Senator, if I might address your original
question regarding some of the comments that were made
previously. I don't know where to start. I've got, you know,
I've heard the arguments about the flooding issues and--first
point to be made is we're not--those of us that are for this
proposal do not discount those concerns. I mean, we're
absolutely in unison with those folks in trying to resolve
those issues, if indeed they are real issues.
From my own standpoint, I've got some reservations about
whether some of those issues are, indeed, fact-based. For
instance--I'm just going to throw these out here because they
come to mind--is the flooding issue. You know, to me, to
resolve a flooding issue you put big dams, like has been done,
down here in the lower part of these arroyos to catch the water
that runs off from the mountains. I mean, that's been the
theory that has been used for decades and yet all of a sudden
that theory doesn't seem to be going to work. I question that.
The second thing is regarding the illegal traffic flow of
aliens, illegal aliens into the United States with mal-intent,
if you will, whatever it might be. You know, the statement is
made that--I get the impression that we've got this buffer zone
which apparently isn't big enough for some folks, and that once
these illegals reach the wilderness or the proposed wilderness
boundary that they're home free, that they've got a get out of
jail card. I mean, where does that come from? Does that mean we
can't apprehend them anymore if they get to the wilderness
boundary? I don't get that.
There was one other thing, what was it? Anyway, the whole
point is that I think--oh, I know what it is. I wanted to use a
cliche on this was, I see this whole thing, the--those that are
against the wilderness proposal as kind of like throwing the
baby out with the bath water type thing. We don't--we've got
this proposal, but because we have these few issues that we're
not willing to try to overcome with reason and compromise, that
we just want to discount the whole process and the whole
proposal for these wilderness areas and I just--I can't see
that, and I don't agree with it. I think that that's the point
to be made, here. Is that we can reconcile these things and
still do what these areas and the people here deserve.
Senator Udall. Mr. Trevino, could you also comment? This
covers a lot of lands where you have infrastructure. I mean, is
there anything that hurts the ability for you to provide the
oil and gas and other utility services to people as a result of
the passage of legislation like this?
Mr. Trevino. Let me see first, if I may, I'd like to
commend Chairman Bingaman for holding these meetings here in
the heart of where this issue matters, in Dona Ana County. Also
I'd like to commend everyone here in the audience. No matter
where you stand on this issue, I think it's amazing and truly
gratifying to see our democratic processes work, because I
think this is what this country's about. So, again, I commend
everyone here today.
As you said, Senator, I'm in the business of maintaining
and sometimes building energy infrastructure throughout not
only the Southwest, but our company does so literally coast to
coast. I think many of the issues that arise in that
environment and that arena is folks don't generally want
infrastructure in their backyard, the NIMBY complex, if you
will.
But, I think what I've learned in some 20 years of service
in the energy industry is that through collaboration, through
dialog, things can co-exist. I think that's that lesson that
can be learned here, today. Certainly there are a plethora of
issues that were all brought out today and are certainly
relevant, but I think through healthy dialog there is an end,
and it can work for everybody
Senator Udall. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
The Chairman. Congressman Teague, go right ahead.
Congressman Teague. Of all of the questions that came up
earlier today, I did want to ask, does anybody on this panel
have a comment to make about the border security?
Yes, we'll start with you, Nathan, and we'll just go down
the list.
Mr. Small. Thank you, Congressman Teague.
I believe as I expressed earlier, there is a very large
swath of land creating a buffer several miles on either side of
the divide with Highway 9 that would be created with this
legislation. If no legislation were to pass, we would be stuck
with the same situation today which, although in public
testimony, Border Patrol has testified that there are no huge
problems with illegal activities, I can think we all agree that
it would better to improve the situation.
As conservationists, I think there always comes a moment
when you realize you will never get everything that you want or
ask for. That moment has come with this legislation. I think
the exclusion of a significant amount of land based--as
Chairman Bingaman said, on recommendations from Border Patrol
itself--is to be commended and to be supported. By creating
that additional buffer on the north side of Highway 9, allowing
for the placement of infrastructure in various points at the
complete discretion of Border Patrol is a positive thing.
Again, Chairman, you are to be commended, you and your
staff on this. I think as conservationists we realize it is an
important issue and one which we support those action.
One area where we have not had to even, I think, swallow,
is when it comes to extra allowances for drinkers and for
corrals and other ranching infrastructure. We have said--and I
believe strongly--that ranching and wilderness can co-exist,
and that it is incumbent on everyone--including
conservationists--to help make that happen.
So, along with the border security issue, that is one that
has been proactively addressed with this legislation. Thank
you.
Congressman Teague. Mr. Munoz, do you have any comments
about the border security?
Mr. Munoz: No, I just want to echo Councilor Small's
comment about consensus. I mean, we go through that a lot in
business and I'm sure in your line of business, as well,
there's a lot of consensus. We pulled and spent time with our
members make sure we were doing the right thing when we wanted
to support this legislation as a Chamber. You know, initially
there were a lot of questions that were asked. We covered those
questions, we discussed with other business owners, other
community leaders, and then, you know, we come to a point
where, you know, there's--you know, where I would say 75 to 80
percent consensus on this. The fringes on the outside--and
again, we talked, I don't know if we would consider that the
cloakroom out there for Las Cruces, but outside, you know, I
was talking to someone--the person who called me older--and he
said, ``You know, it's really how we go about this. We both,
you know, both sides want--feel strongly about certain points
and we want to go about this in the way we think is the right
way.''
But we both agreed, again, I can say, that it's about
consensus. We both want the good thing for Las Cruces, for
Southern New Mexico, but it's how we get there. To wrap this
up, as Nathan was saying, we come to a point where it's
consensus and it's time to move forward with it.
Congressman Teague. OK, Mr. Bates.
Mr. Bates. Congressman, I think I kind of made my position
on that a little bit ago, but basically I don't think the
status of the problem is going to change whether or not that
area is called a wilderness or anything else. I think it's--the
problem exists, we have to deal with it, we have to find some
method of controlling the problem and taking care of it, but I
don't think it has anything to do with the wilderness or not,
personally.
Congressman Teague. Mr. Trevino.
Mr. Trevino. Congressman, I have nothing further to add on
that.
Congressman Teague. OK. One other question that I wanted to
ask, especially of Mr. Munoz, because of being with the Chamber
of Commerce, how did the Organ Mountains and the public lands,
you know, they provide a unique brand for Dona Ana County and
how does that brand benefit us economically, and how do you see
the economic benefit coming from that?
Mr. Munoz. You know, the branding has almost started
naturally already. I believe it was mentioned on many of the
marquees, mass heads, you have the Organ Mountains, in fact, on
our own internal letterhead I have a picture of the mountains
in the background and our site in front of it, and so we have
an internal employee newsletter that has that piece.
But I think that when we have that brand we're going to--we
have the ability and there's so much more potential now to
attract visitors, to attract companies who want to move here,
to attract retirees who will bring, you know, their income to
this area, and so I think that when you're talking about the
precious resource, which is the Organ Mountains, that's
something that we want to protect, something that we can market
and brand.
Seven hundred and thirty billion dollars nationally is a
lot. If New Mexico and Las Cruces can get a piece of that pie,
we'd love to have that here.
Congressman Teague. Yes, you do see that as a way to create
jobs by preserving our public lands and all of that as an
economic tool for Dona Ana County and Las Cruces?
Mr. Munoz. Yes, Congressman, yes. When we did the
conference on Wilderness of Economics, we started in other
areas, looked at Western States who had protected and
unprotected lands and, you know, the studies clearly show that
areas with protected lands do better on economic indicators.
Congressman Teague. Once again, I'd like to thank the
Senator Bingaman for hosting this and for allowing me to
participate and thank all of you all for coming, thank the
panel for their answers.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Let me make 2 more thank yous and then one more
announcement and then we'll stop.
First, we get credit for a lot of stuff in the Congress
that we never do, our staff does it, and we also get blame, but
usually we do the things we get blamed for.
At any rate, let me just mention Jorge Silva Bonjuelos has
worked very hard on this.
The Chairman. Dara Parker, Dara's worked very hard on this.
The Chairman. David Brooks, who is with our Energy
Committee staff, David has worked very hard on this.
The Chairman. I know that Senator Udall has staff that has
also worked very hard on this and Congressman Teague, as well.
The Chairman. We thank them very much for the hard work.
I want to thank all of you--I know that there are hundreds
of hours, thousands of hours of time represented in this room
of people who've worked on trying to get this right, and that's
what we're trying to do, that's the purpose of this hearing. We
want to move ahead with this, as Mr. Bates said, but we want to
do it in the best way we can and we think today's hearing will
help us in that regard.
Let me also just mention again, as I did at the beginning
of the hearing that anyone who would like to submit testimony
can do so, either get it to Tom Udall's office, here in Las
Cruces, get it to my office here in Las Cruces, Congressman
Teague, we get it to your office, you get it over to us, and
we'll put it in the record for this hearing. If you're unable
to do that, send it to us at [email protected] and
try to do that by the close of business Friday so that we can
get the complete testimony and have it to review.
But thank you all very much for being here, I think this
has been a good hearing, we appreciate it.
[Whereupon, at 5:24 p.m., the hearing was adjourned]
APPENDIX
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Beth Bardwell, Las Cruces, NM
Dear Senators:
I wanted to thank you for your recent Field Hearing on the Organ
Mts-Desert Peaks Wilderness legislation. I whole heartedly stand in
support of this legislation. I am a 15 year resident of Las Cruces and
the public lands that fall within the protected boundaries under this
legislation are beautiful and contain the values that inspired the
Wilderness Act many years ago. My family consists of two daughters,
aged 12 and 15, plus my husband. We regularly hike in the affected
public lands and will continue to do so after passage of this
legislation. We will have no problem accessing these public lands after
they receive Congressional recognition as wilderness or NCA. Those who
say the public will be unable to access them upon passage of this Act,
do not understand that there are many people, like my family, who
prefer to leave the motorized vehicles on the existing roads, and
travel by foot into these beautiful lands. I know if we protect these
public lands now, my grandchildren will have the same privilege I do
now to enjoy them.
If we do not have the courage and vision to protect these public
lands now, they will continue to be fragmented, altered for economic
development and private gain and potentially privatized. Of particular
beauty and value is the Broad Canyon area. It will connect the western
sky islands and upland Chihuahuan Desert Grasslands west of the Rio
Grande with those on the east providing a vast and protected corridor
for wildlife and ecosystem processes and function to continue
unaltered. Many of the grazing leases within the Broad Canyon complex
are now owned by New Mexico State Parks and complement their fee title
holding on the Rio Grande where riparian and wetland restoration is
underway.
I urge you to pass the legislation without further amendment and as
quickly as possible.
______
Statement of David B. Roewe, Executive Director, Building Industry
Association of Southern New Mexico
Dear Senator Bingaman
This is to advise you and the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources the BIA of SNM has endorsed the proposal of the
Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce on S.1689, as presented to your
committee on October 22, 2009 and February 15, 2010.
We join them in recommending two changes to your proposal:
1. The complete Potrillo Mountain Complex be removed from the
Wilderness category and instead be designated as a National
Conservation Area. Border security must be of high priority for
this entire area.
2. The entire Broad Canyon area be made free of any
legislative designations. For purposes of flood control and the
future growth of our community we must continue to have public
access to this area.
We also endorse their proposed language changes for National
Conservation Areas.
Please know the field hearing has heightened our concerns on border
security and flood control and we sincerely hope you will consider
these proposed changes as you contemplate S.1689.
We also request this letter be made part of the official hearing
record.
______
Statement of Bill Mattiace, Vice President of Governmental Affairs,
Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce
Senator Jeff Bingaman & Senator Tom Udall, I thank you for the time
spent on this Jeff Steinborn and Nathan Hill initiative for Wilderness
designation of land surrounding Las Cruces. My concern is raising the
land values in the city of Las Cruces, particularly thousands of acres
of land in the Steinborn Sonoma Ranch area of the East Mesa. Fact
check: Sonoran Institute Publication indicates that the land values and
economic boom to private land in cities where Wilderness designations
have been declared increse by 45%.
Organ Mountains deserve the Federal Wilderness protection,and maybe
the Robledo Range, but stop there!
Address the water shed concerns, the security concerns and the
ranching culture of New Mexico..I suggest you set aside the Robledos
and the Organ Mts now and until you collect appropiate data from the
water experts and current conditions from the Border Patrol..the 500
Friends of Jeff & Nathan will be happy and live happily ever after in
their homes at the base of the Organ Mountains.
______
Statement of Bob and Dona Hearn, Las Cruces, NM
Thanks to Senators Bingaman and Udall for sponsoring the
legislation holding the Wilderness Field Hearings in Las Cruces on Feb
15th. We would like to add these comments to the record.
The turnout was solidly in favor of the legislation--this is a
proposition strongly supported by the people of this region.
There are many issues around the edges of the bill, to ``fix up''
this or that. But there are no fatal flaws, and if we wait until all
the little issues are cleared up, the whole thing will never happen.
Let's get it done, then trim and adjust as necessary.
My wife and I live at the foot of the Organs, surrounded by BLM and
State Land which is all in a Wilderness Study Area, and all of which is
a working cattle ranch. The cattle are happy, the rancher is happy, and
the WSA status does not interfere with their operation--been there for
years.
We come from Phoenix and San Diego, and have seen how growth can
just gradually take over an area, without anyone quite realizing it.
Now both of those regions are overgrown, and most of the wonderful
natural areas have been paved over. We can make sure this doesn't
happen to all of our great areas of natural beauty by setting them
aside now, all at once, so the matter is settled.
There is plenty of land in Dona Ana County for development for as
far ahead as any planning can see--we can welcome all who want to come
live here with us, and still keep the beauties and advantages of our
natural heritage preserved.
Thanks again for your hard work on this project, and for your
consideration.
______
Statement of Cheryl Fallstead, Las Cruces, NM
I am writing in support of the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks
Wilderness Bill. I have lived in Las Cruces, New Mexico, for four years
and every day enjoy the beauty of the mountain areas surrounding the
city. I, along with hundreds of other wilderness supporters, attended
the field hearing on Feb. 15 and appreciated the opportunity to hear
from people expressing differing points of view. Based on my
understanding of the information presented, Senators Bingaman and Udall
have worked hard to incorporate factors into the bill that should held
to create a compromise that works for people who want to protect the
fragile ecosystems and allow access for recreation, while still
allowing ranchers who graze cattle in these areas to continue their
livelihoods. Many people expressed concern about border security, which
I believe is adequately addressed in the bill.
I also recently attended a seminar on how protected areas can
improve the local economy through wilderness tourism. I believe that
there is great potential for this area to provide tourism-related jobs
and hope that we can both grow our economy and protect our local
natural treasures.
While there may still be some final details to be ironed out so
that all sides will be satisfied with this bill, I urge passage of the
Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness bill in order to protect these
areas for generations to come.
______
Statement of David Beyer, Las Cruces, NM
As an avid outdoor enthusiast and lifelong ``desert rat'', I am
opposed to the wilderness being proposed in Dona Ana County for many
reasons.
First and foremost, to put wilderness areas so close to a populated
area such as Las Cruces would be unenforceable. Even if it were to be
fenced off, there is not enough law enforcement to be able to keep the
motor vehicles out of all the proposed areas. The only people it would
keep out are the law abiding citizens, which are currently the extended
eyes and ears of local law enforcement. These areas would become a
haven for illegal activity.
Having spent most of my 50+ years in Dona Ana County, I have
developed a tremendous affection for our beautiful desert. I enjoy
hiking, camping, hunting, and off-roading here, and take a lot of pride
in doing so responsibly, as do most of the people I know. It won't be
too many years from now that I may not be able to hike and hunt as I do
now, and designating these areas as a wilderness would mean the end of
my ability to enjoy and help with these lands. History has taught us
that the elders teach the new generations, and we owe it to our land to
be able to mentor our children and grandchildren in responsible
management of public lands. My fondest childhood memories are of trips
to the desert camping or hunting with my dad, who taught me to respect
it and not destroy it.
My father was able to enjoy our public land even in his latter
years because he was still able to drive his jeep out long after he
lost the ability to walk any distance. Please don't lock us out just
because of some physical infirmity that may beset us.
______
Statement of David Soules, Las Cruces, NM
Thank you for introducing the Organ Mountains--Desert Peaks
Wilderness Act. I am particularly impressed with the process you have
pursued to gain consensus among a very diverse community of interest
groups. I believe compromise is essential to a strong democracy, and I
commend you and your staff for the leadership you have demonstrated to
that end.
Please let me introduce myself. My name is David Soules, and I am a
lifetime resident of Las Cruces, New Mexico. Over the span of more than
50 years, I have grown to treasure the tremendous resource of wild
places surrounding Las Cruces. As a child, I can remember picnics at
the base of the Robledos and exploring ``Geronimo's Cave'' in what is
now part of the Trackways National Monument and La Cueva, at the base
of the Organ Mountains. As a youth, my brother and I raised steers; one
of those calves came from a ranch near Lookout Mountain in the
Robledos, and two from the Cox Ranch near what is now the Visitor
Center at Dripping Springs. We also delivered newspapers by horseback.
As a boy scout, we camped and hiked in the Dona Ana Mountains, and in
Fillmore Canyon in the Organs. As a teenager and young adult, my
friends and I often hiked in the Organs: near Aguirre Springs and
Sugarloaf, up Achenbach and Soledad Canyons, and on one occasion
through Rabbit Ears pass. For the last 40 years I have hunted, hiked,
and camped extensively in all of the areas encompassed by the Organ
Mountains and Desert Peaks Wilderness Act. I have driven on virtually
every road within these areas, and have extensive personal knowledge of
the terrain, topography, and wildlife. I am an active member of several
conservation organizations, and have been a proponent of permanent
protection of these areas for decades.
As we move ever closer to what I fervently hope will be long-term
protection of these national treasures, I would like to offer some
comments on what appear to be the primary concerns of those who remain
opposed to the current proposal. It seems the concerns fall into three
major categories: restricted vehicular access, border security, and
watershed management.
With regard to vehicular access, it is my understanding that just
to qualify for wilderness designation the areas in question must be
largely unaltered by man. Given that the boundaries of the proposed
wilderness areas have been modified during the scoping process to
preserve most of the existing vehicular access routes, I find the claim
that public access will be severely restricted to be simply untrue.
Further, for the group that wants to preserve western heritage, I heard
no discussion of using horses in that capacity. It sounded as though
preserving western heritage somehow meant unfettered access for
ranchers via pickup truck to all areas, even though the wilderness act
specifically allows reasonable vehicular access to maintain
improvements such as water structures and fences that were in place
prior to wilderness designation. I also find it noteworthy that local
and state horsemen organizations support the current proposal.
With regard to Border Security, I once again commend you and your
staff for modifying the existing proposal to provide an increased
buffer area near the United States--Mexico border in response to input
from actual border security personnel. Although detractors have
expressed the opinion that the lack of roads impedes security
operations, I have spoken with knowledgeable border security officials
with exactly the opposite view. Modern surveillance techniques are
quite effective at detection and interdiction of intruders in remote
regions. It is urban environments that often confound security
operations.
Lastly, with regard to proper watershed management, we have
certainly learned that most watershed problems are the direct result of
human intervention. What better remedy can there be than to minimize
human impact? All of the lands within the proposed wilderness and
national conservation areas are desert and desert mountain environments
that were shaped in recent geologic times by normally sparse rainfall
with occasional local flooding. That is literally what formed the
beautiful and multifaceted landscape that we all enjoy. To suggest that
we need to plan ahead for climate change by impounding what little
water that falls in this area as high as possible in the mountains
seems incredibly ill-conceived.
In closing, I heard loud and clear at the recent hearing in Las
Cruces that all groups support some form of protection for these lands.
In my view, the combination of Wilderness with buffer areas under
National Conservation Area status is an excellent approach for
achieving reasonable protection. I implore you to continue with your
efforts to move the Organ Mountains and Desert Peaks Wilderness Act
through the legislative process. As a result of your efforts, I have
seen the local community move from modest to overwhelming support as
the meaningful compromises have materialized, and I believe we are on
the brink of preserving something very special for future generations.
______
Statement of Eleanor Wootten, Gila, NM
Dear Senator Bingaman and Senator Udall,
First let me congratulate you on taking the time to have a field
hearing on this fantastic bill in Las Cruces last Monday. You conducted
the hearing extremely well, showing much patience at times. Your
questions were to the point and fair. Thank you.
Having worked in the background with my husband, Tom Wootten, for
many years on pushing having this bill come to pass, you need to know I
am totally in favor of it. We have long needed some protection for the
southern part of New Mexico. While I now live in the Gila area part
time and part time in Las Cruces, I was raised in Las Cruces for the
better part of my life having come there in 1946. I have seen many
changes in the county, most especially population growth, and worry
about the empty spaces filling in faster than they can be protected.
This bill offers protection for a least a big piece of the county. It
was long in coming and deserves to happen.
Thank you both from my heart.
______
Statement of Frank and Rosa Holguin
To: The Honorable Senators Bingaman and Udall
We would like to thank you for allowing comments on Senate Bill
1689.
My name is Frank Holguin and my wife Rosa and I ranch on the
Robledo Mountains. Ninety five percent of our grazing permit is part of
the proposed Robledo Mountain Wilderness in Senate Bill 1689.
My experience with wilderness came during my tenure as County
Extension Agriculture Agent. I served in Valencia County for 20 years
and during that time I developed good working relations with many of
the ranchers that had allotments on the Manzano Wilderness. As the
County Agent I facilitated and attended many meetings between the
ranchers and the Forest Service. Most of the meetings were very typical
in the sense that Forest Service was always concerned about the over
utilization of the forage and the ranchers always had concerns about
the Forest Service's inability to review and approve range improvements
that would help them comply with their grazing management plans. Many
of the range improvement applications would take months and years to be
reviewed and approved if they were approved at all, while cattle
numbers were being reduced sometimes temporarily or at times even
permanently.
The economic viability of most of the ranchers that were on
wilderness was a constant concern. As a result, many of the allotments
have been consolidated so that ranchers can keep and maintain
economically viable numbers of cattle and most of the community
allotments on the east of the Manzanos have all but disappeared.
Ranchers that were on the wilderness endured an unreasonable amount of
scrutiny and economic hardships in order to comply with wilderness
regulations. Ironically, public range land that was under multiple use
and private range land always seemed to be in as good or better
condition than wilderness or range land that had not had cattle on it
for 20 years. Many of the life long county residents felt that the
Manzano Mountains were better served and managed before wilderness.
In our opinion wilderness designation is not the best protection
option for public lands. I retired from Extension in 2006 and my wife
retired from teaching in 2008. We returned to the family farm and
ranch, and any wilderness designation is of great concern to our
family. Our permit has not had any range improvement approved since it
was made a Wilderness Study Area in the early 1980s, a situation that
has cut our grazing season in half. We are the third generation with
extended family and friends on both sides of the border and we are all
very aware of the border security problems, flood and irrigation water
concerns, and energy and economic growth issues that this county must
address in the near future. Wilderness protection designation will
negatively impact each of these important public policy issues. Please
consider other more reasonable protection designations that will
address many of the same protection and conservation concerns.
______
Statement of Gary Dickey, Del Norte, CO
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a third-generation rancher, farmer and outfitter in the San
Luis Valley, Colorado, and am writing to share my positive experiences
with grazing in wilderness. In short, the only problem with wilderness
is simply that there's not enough of it.
The absence of motorized vehicles where I graze in the Weminuche
Wilderness Area is helpful in that the use of off-road vehicles in
these remote areas tears up the landscape, scares our cattle, creates
unauthorized roads and dust problems while also destroying the
character of the landscape. Unfortunately, the boundaries in this and
many other wilderness areas are often not heeded, with motorized
vehicles going into restricted wilderness areas. To address this
problem, I believe it would be helpful to mark wilderness boundaries
better and then ensure that these borders are enforced.
Protecting our most unique and threatened areas as wilderness can
serve not only to protect these natural resources but also to maintain
traditional uses such as ranching, hunting and fishing. I believe that
the beautiful scenery, rural landscapes, abundant fish and wildlife,
agricultural heritage and opportunities for outdoor activities all
contribute to the high quality of life that we enjoy in rural Southern
Colorado, a quality of life that has been improved with wilderness
designation.
______
Statement of Gill Sorg, Las Cruces City Councillor, District 5
Dear Senators,
I ask you to pass this Act with all due haste. I have been working
for our Wilderness in Dona Ana County for over 4 years and others have
been for much longer. We have worked with several groups to compromise
yet some groups are unwilling to do so. Besides being Las Cruces City
Councilor, I have been an Audubon member since 2001, President of the
Mesilla Valley Audubon Chapter, a Biologist, Wildlife Biologist,
Wildlife Manager and conservationist for all my life. Only with
Wilderness designation can the wildlife and its habitat be preserved
for future generations. I choose to speak for the wildlife who cannot
speak for themselves. Without protection from motorized vehicles and
over grazing their habitat will deteriorate.
It's simple, pass the Act as you wrote it.
Thank you.
______
Statement of Greg Wright, Southern NM
Dear Senators Bingaman and Udall,
Thank you so much for taking the time to hear what all parties have
to say regarding the Organ Mountains Desert Peaks Wilderness Act this
week in Las Cruces. Be assured that many more supporting voices went
unheard, and many more founded reasons for protection went unaddressed.
Critics of the act referred to the proposed wilderness as
exclusion, but it's just the opposite. This desert ecosystem is
fragile, and as a wildlife biologist I have a firm understanding of the
disturbance tolerance of such places. As a hunter I also value areas
that provide as wild of an experience as possible, without the sounds
of motors or the smell of exhaust. Please know that I'm in full support
of your decision to save this rugged country--you're saving an
ecosystem, a sunset, and the spirit of adventure.
______
Statement of Howard Gross, Santa Fe, NM
Dear Members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee:
I am writing to share my comments about the Organ Mountains-Desert
Peaks Wilderness Act (OMDPWA) and my impressions of the Feb. 15 ENR
field hearing on this bill in Las Cruces, NM.
I fully support the OMDPWA as currently written. I think it is a
balanced piece of legislation that preserves our heritage for future
generations to enjoy while also accounting for the needs of many land
users. A lot of compromises have been made in this bill to accommodate
opposition. Its time to move it forward so that it can become law.
I was impressed with the large number of supporters of this bill
that showed up for the field hearing...around 500 people by my
estimated count. It was also interested to hear the objections about
the bill from its opponents. However, most of those arguments rang
hollow to me because most of the lands in the bill are already managed
as wilderness through their Wilderness Study Area (WSA) status. The
arguments about wilderness designation creating a corridor for illegal
immigration and smuggling seem particularly misleading because, again,
the Potrillos are already managed as wilderness through WSA status and
because of agreements between federal agencies that allows federal
agents to access wilderness under certain conditions.
Lastly, I believe that passage of the OMDPWA will be good for the
economy of Las Cruces. Studies from the Sonoran Institute have shown
that communities in close proximity to protected public lands outpace
similar cities without such proximity in many economic indicators.
Communities with protected lands are appealing as locations for
retirees, business relocation, and tourism. Personally, living in Santa
Fe I look for warmer locations in NM to visit during the winter to
escape the cold. In fact, my girlfriend and I spent $250 locally this
past weekend coming to Las Crucues to hike in the Organ Mountains, stay
at a hotel in town, buy gas, and eat in two wonderful restaurants . The
prospect of the OMDPWA becoming law elevates the Las Cruces region as a
priority destination for me for exploring newly protected wildlands.
Thanks for considering these comments.
______
Statement of Jerry Cochran, Cochran Ranch, Monte Vista, CO
To Whom It May Concern:
As a second-generation rancher who grazes on Wilderness lands, I
have seen how protecting our natural heritage requires responsible
stewardship on both private and public lands. I graze in the Weminuche
Wilderness Area and have found this a positive experience and helpful
to my ranching operation. Not having motorized vehicles where my cattle
graze is helpful because it doesn't disturb our cattle or wildlife.
We work hard to not over-graze and keep the allotment as healthy as
possible. Protecting our most unique and threatened areas as wilderness
can serve not only to protect these natural resources for future
generations but can also serve to maintain traditional uses such as
ranching, hunting and fishing.
In closing, I believe wilderness, when it includes local
stakeholders in the decision making process, works well not only for
preserving our rich natural heritage but for ensuring traditional uses
of our public lands, like ranching, hunting and fishing. I look forward
to following the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness legislation as
it works its way through Congress, and hopefully, to eventual passage.
______
Statement of Jim Graham, Sun & Earth Inc., Las Cruces, NM
This is a response to the issue of flood control in the proposed
wilderness areas of Southern NM by Professor Susan Bolton, a Civil
Engineering Graduate from NMSU and professor of surface hydrology at
the University of Washington.
Hydrologically speaking there is no reason for upper
watershed storage if the lower watershed is undeveloped or
properly developed to well known standards of runoff control
and impervious area control. Most of the watershed draining the
Organ Mts are relatively small and dams on them would store
correspondingly small amounts of water. If EBID is that
concerned about flood control, why are they using one of their
current flood control areas for storage of spoil? Why are they
not demanding stricter controls on building and development
codes to prevent excess runoff for development. Those are far
less expensive and would do far more to lower the costs to
their members than would building new storage anywhere in the
watershed. Preserving natural watersheds, such as those found
in the Organ Mts. is one of the most agreed upon and
scientifically validated methods of sustaining groundwater
recharge and inexpensive downstream flood control. I know of no
reasons why ranchers would lose or need to cease grazing.
Susan Bolton, Ph.d., P.E.
______
Statement of Joel Hoffman, Las Cruces, NM
Dear Sir or Madam:
I was happy to support wilderness protection at the field hearing
on Monday for the proposal aimed at protecting local natural treasures
like the Organ Mountains, Broad Canyon, and the Potrillo Mountains.
More than 500 interested citizens attended, and as I listened to the
many voices, one thing was clear: community members want our precious
public lands protected so that New Mexicans can forever enjoy these
wild places.
I commend Senators Bingaman and Udall and Congressman Teague for
working hard to listen to the concerns of all community members. I feel
very confident that the proposed legislation can permanently preserve
our county's spectacular public lands while being flexible enough to
secure our border, accommodate ranching infrastructure needs, and meet
water conservation concerns. After years of discussion capped off by
this field hearing, now is the time to move this bill forward. During a
President's Day weekend devoted to honoring our nation as well as
Valentines Day celebrating our loved ones, this bill is timely: it
guarantees the permanent protection of our natural heritage and beauty
as a gift for our children and grandchildren. I can imagine no better
way to serve our community now and in future generations. Sincerely,
Joel Hoffman Las Cruces, New Mexico
______
Statement of John P. Bronson, Las Cruces, NM
I support the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, Senate
Bill 1689 .
I attended the Senate Field Hearing on Mon. Feb 15th. The Panelists
raised several issues which need to be addressed.
The statement that the NCAs would hurt border security is not
credible due to the distance between the current NCAs and the border.
Also the only source for that view is a single retired border patrol
officer.
Gary Esslinger of the Elephant Butte Irrigation District claimed
the the wilderness designation would hurt flood control. I live in the
Tortugas Drainage that he talked about. All of the flood control
infrastructure is in the downstream end of the drainage. This is
roughly 10 miles from the Organ Mountains Wilderness. There is no
evidence that the EBID has, or will ever, put flood control dams in the
mountains. This is a red herring.
The wilderness proposals have made many accommodations for
ranching, contrary to the statements of some of the panelists.
______
Statement of Judy Keeler, Animas, NM
To: The Honorable Senators Bingaman and Udall
First, I would like to thank you for taking testimony on Senate
Bill 1689 and for holding the hearing in Las Cruces, NM.
My family has lived and worked in southern New Mexico since the
1890's.
As a rancher and a descendent of a ranching family, we've had a lot
of experience with ``public lands'' and the federal land and wildlife
management agencies tasked with managing the wildlife and the federal
lands.
I've been forced to become some-what of an expert on the federal
laws that have changed the way our lands are being managed. Many of
these laws, i.e., Federal Land Management Policy Act, Endangered
Species Act and Wilderness Act were passed by Congress with the best of
intentions. However once the rules were promulgated by the federal
agencies tasked with administering these laws and regulations were
developed by the federal bureaucracies, somehow the good intentions
became onerous ``rules'' and ``regulations''.to those who must now
live, work and try to make a living under them.
Such is the case of the Wilderness Bill. The intent of the
Wilderness Bill was to protect roadless areas of 5000 acres or more. It
was also supposed to be an area that was ``untrammeled by man'', where
man himself was a visitor who did not remain.
According to this definition, BLM determined many proposed
wilderness areas did not fit the definition of wilderness and
recommended they not be included in the wilderness system. Eventually
these areas became known as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs).
Unfortunately, it was left up to Congress to make the final
determination on the status of these areas. They did not. So today we
have wilderness proponents again pushing for wilderness, but this time
they are expanding their demands as exemplified by the proposed
wilderness areas around Las Cruces.
Because the definition of wilderness and the process has been
convoluted through time, I believe the recommendations as proposed by
Frank DuBois and the People for Preserving our Western Heritage makes
the most sense.
It's time Congress come up with an alternative to wilderness that
includes clear language protecting grazing, allows ``mechanized'' uses
such as wheel chairs, various climbing equipment, chainsaws, hang
gliders, strollers, and bicycles and allows for future mineral
development, when done in an ecological sustainable manner.
The only area in Senate Bill 1689 that should be considered for
wilderness is the Oregon Mountains. None of the other areas belong in
the bill.
I am opposed to Senate Bill 1689 as it is currently written and ask
you to reconsider your bill based on the historical definition of
wilderness and the true intent of the Wilderness Act.
However, the best alternative would be to work with the People for
Preserving our Western Heritage and come up with another designation
for these areas we would all like to protect from subdivision and
development.
______
Statement of Marcy Scott, Las Cruces, NM
I attended the meeting held on Monday Feb.15th at NMSU in Las
Cruces, to show my enthusiastic support of the proposed Organ
Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness. I have also written individual
letters to our entire NM delegation in support of this legislation in
the past. While I appreciate some of the concerns that opponents
expressed at the meeting, I strongly feel that preserving these
precious parcels of land are vital for preserving our long-term
interests as a community. I remember hearing former Secretary of the
Interior Bruce Babbitt say several years ago that we Las Crucens must
be vigilant in ensuring that the iconic Organ Mountains be protected
from overzealous development, rather than see them compromised for
perpetuity as happened in Phoenix and some other western towns. I feel
the same way about the Robledo Mountains, the scenery of which drew us
to live here and beckons out my window each and every day. If we lose
these unique places, or allow them to be degraded beyond redemption,
they will be lost forever. I urge the Senators to take all steps
possible to complete work on this critical piece of legislation! Thank
you for your consideration.
______
Statement of Mary Jo Johns, Santa Teresa, NM
Honorable Jeff Bingaman,
I was in attendance at the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness
Act meeting held at New Mexico State University on February 8, 2010. At
the conclusion of the meeting I sat for a few minutes to reflect on the
statements that had been prepared and became sad because I didn't think
much had been accomplished for the effort that had been made.
Please, hear me out that my first thought was that most of us in
attendance all want preservation of our multi-purpose lands. But I got
a distinct feeling of a ``fear monger'' tactic used in scaring this
group of people into thinking that all 376,000 acres, to be designated
Wilderness, was going to be developed into something at which no one
wanted to look. The greatest percentage of comments was directed to
development at the base of the Organ Mountains and not wanting to
become another El Paso. In reality, Senator Bingaman, the Organ
Mountains Wilderness is a small part. The largest amount of land, Aden
Lava Flow and the Potrillo Mountains, is mainly used for grazing,
hunting, recreation and out of the publics' eye and well off any main
road.
Gary Eslinger and Frank DuBois plea to get all groups together so a
common understanding of the terminology and words used in ths proposal
is paramount. Could this plan become a NCA designation, allowing multi-
purpose use without the worry of over-development? What mechanisms will
be provided to protect the land from sale or exchange? It appears that
the ranchers have done a pretty good job in being good stewards so far
and wish to continue in its preservation.
I'm sure there has been much time afforded to the development of
this report by you and your staff, but I beseech you to reconsider a
``guick fix'' and give more time to this matter.
______
Statement of Natille H. Zimmerman, Las Cruces, NM
The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act: Thank you for
considering comments about this wonderful possibility that will need
your attention soon. As one who as long been concerned about our
natural environment and resources I am writing to ask your support for
the Organ Mountain-Desert Peaks Act. The review of this project has
been intense and prolonged; we are excited that it can now become a
reality. This designation would not only bring a favorable economic
improvement to our communities but would also enrich our spiritual
awareness of God's presence within our midst. Our natural areas must be
protected.
______
Statement of Don L. ``Bebo'' Lee, President, New Mexico Federal Lands
Council, Alamogordo, NM
On behalf of the membership of the New Mexico Federal Lands Council
(NMFLC) representing the grazing industry on federal and state trust
lands, thank you for holding a field hearing on this most important
issue to the land, the wildlife, the people, the custom and culture,
and the economy of Southern New Mexico. We greatly appreciate the fact
that both Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Senator Tom Udall took the time to
come to Las Cruces to participate in this hearing.
Thank you also for the opportunity to add additional testimony to
the record for S 1689. This issue has been one of deep concern to those
who will be most directly impacted.
While most would like to see some sort of designation to conserve
the natural wonders in the area, this sweeping wilderness designation
will not provide the appropriate balance between the needs of nature
and the people who habitat the area.
In addition to all the previous concerns that have been expressed
about the impact of a wilderness designation to the land itself as well
as the economic needs of the area, the hearing brought stronger light
some concerns.
Although there has been an adjustment made to the original
designation to provide a zone between the wilderness area for Border
Patrol, Homeland Security will be compromised. The restrictive nature
of the designation does not allow for any motorized or mechanical
operations. This designation severely limits access to the wilderness
area and does not afford continued security of the area. There will not
be any observance of the area on the ground, which undermines the
objectives of the Department of Homeland Security efforts and Customs
and Border Patrol duties. The agencies, much less the public, will not
have access to the area which in itself fosters many other issues. No
legal access to the area means that there enhanced possibility of
unlawful entry into the designated area. This designation is a payday
for illegal operations such as terrorism, drug and human smuggling and
a safe haven for law enforcement endeavors.
Another issue is that of watershed management. Since the wilderness
designation calls for limited access to the area, all watershed
management and upkeep will no longer be viable. The geography of the
land is conducive for runoff flows and, without management, the flood
plain is in great danger of severe flooding. All infrastructures on the
designated areas will fall into disrepair and eventually there will be
no sign of any human existence in the area.
The wilderness designation in Dona Ana County will also affect
livestock producers in the area. Since some of the areas already have
infrastructure such as roads, pipelines and utilities, they simply do
not qualify for wilderness status. The designation is to maintain a
pristine natural environment with no evidence of human interaction
whatsoever.
The Wilderness Act and other such laws were passed by Congress with
the great of intentions. However once the federal agencies tasked with
administering these laws promulgated rules and regulations, somehow the
good intentions became oppressive mandates to those have who been
stewards of the land for generations. Such is the case of the
Wilderness Bill. The intent of the Wilderness Bill was to protect
roadless areas of 5000 acres or more. It was also supposed to be an
area that was ``untrammeled by man'', where man himself was a visitor
who did not remain.
According to this definition, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
determined many proposed wilderness areas did not fit the criteria for
wilderness and recommended they not be included in the wilderness
system.
Eventually these areas became known as Wilderness Study Areas
(WSAs). Unfortunately, it was left up to Congress to make the final
determination on the status of these areas. They did not. So today we
have wilderness proponents again pushing for wilderness, but this time
they are expanding their demands as exemplified by the proposed
wilderness areas around Las Cruces.
Because the definition of wilderness and the process for its'
designation has been convoluted through time, I believe the
recommendations proposed by Frank DuBois and the People for Preserving
our Western Heritage makes the most sense for the protection and future
of all concerned.
It is time Congress come up with an alternative to wilderness that
includes multiple use and clear language protecting grazing, allows
``mechanized'' uses such as wheel chairs, various climbing equipment,
chainsaws, hang gliders, strollers, and bicycles and allows for future
mineral development, when done in an ecological sustainable manner.
The only area in S 1689 that should be considered for wilderness is
the Oregon Mountains. None of the other areas belong in the bill.
NMFLC opposes to Senate Bill 1689 as it is currently written and
respectfully request that the Committee reconsider this bill based on
the historical definition of wilderness and the true spirit and intent
of the Wilderness Act.
______
Statement of Obbie Dickey, Diamond D Bar Ranch, Del Norte, CO
To Whom It May Concern:
As a rancher and outfitter in San Luis Valley, Colorado, who grazes
in wilderness, I know first-hand the value that wilderness holds for
both conserving our natural resources for future generations and for
traditional uses like ranching, hunting and fishing. In short, grazing
in wilderness has worked well for my family.
I take my cattle up to the Trout C&H Allotment in the Weminuche
Wilderness Area several months a year during the grazing season. It is
always a relief that I don't have to deal with motorized vehicles in
this area. Elsewhere, motorized vehicles on our public lands can create
big problems for ranchers, hikers and sportsmen by creating new trails,
creating new trails, scaring cattle and stirring up lots of dust.
As a rancher and outfitter, I work to manage land not only for
economic benefit but also to protect air and water quality and provide
habitat for wildlife. The beautiful scenery, rural character of the
landscape and abundant wildlife all contribute to the high quality of
life that we enjoy here in San Luis Valley. It is why I am in favor of
protecting our most unique and threatened areas as wilderness, which
serves not only to protect these natural resources from motorized
vehicles and development but maintains important traditional uses such
as ranching, hunting and fishing.
In closing, I look forward to hearing more about the Organ
Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Bill as it works its way through
Congress.
______
Statement of Paul R. Turner
I attended the recent senate field hearing in Las Cruces and
carefully read the handout that was provided concerning changes made in
the proposed Act relative to border security and grazing. These changes
appear to address the majority of potential concerns about those issues
in a responsible, respectful manner. If there are other changes that
can address reasonable concerns, I have no problem with them being
addressed. However, I suspect that opponents of this legislation will
continue to oppose any proposed wilderness designations in southwestern
New Mexico as a means to delay legislation regardless of your efforts
to make the Act more acceptable. I urge my senators and congressmen to
push this legislation forward despite the delaying tactics being used
to derail any action. It is apparent to me that many opponents of this
proposed legislation are not truly willing to compromise their
positions and hope nothing is done to establish wilderness areas in
Dona Ana County.
I retired from New Mexico State University 6 years ago after 30
years of teaching and research in the Department of Fishery and
Wildlife Sciences. During that time I spent hundreds of days with my
NMSU students, members of my son's Boy Scout troop, friends and family
backpacking, fishing, hunting, and enjoying the scenic vistas and
wilderness areas of New Mexico. I recently backpacked into the Gila
Wilderness to fish for Gila trout and hope to continue hiking, fishing,
and hunting for many more years. I urge you to take timely action to
protect the scenic areas included in the proposed legislation so that
current residents and future visitors can continue to enjoy the unique
qualities that wilderness status will provide. My decision to remain in
Las Cruces after retirement stems from my love of the state and its
wilderness areas and scenic qualities. The designation of these
wilderness areas will make me proud to be a resident of Dona Ana County
and New Mexico. I truly believe this Act will add to the outdoor appeal
of this area.
Thank you for your tireless efforts.
______
Statement of Phil Harvey, Jr., Mesilla, NM
Dear Senators Bingaman, Udall, and the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources,
I am writing to oppose S.1689, The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks
Wilderness Act for the following reasons:
1. The proposed land does not meet the intent of the 1964
Wilderness Act, nor the definition of wilderness which is
``Untrammeled by the hand of man.'' There are roads, fences,
wells, corrals, dirt tanks, and many other signs of man on most
of the proposed wilderness areas. Man has been utilizing the
proposed wilderness areas for thousands of years, with heavier
usage ensuing when the Spaniards and Anglos settled the area.
2. Border security will be compromised by the designation of
these wilderness areas. Those of us that live near the Mexican
border are already under threat from illegals entering our
nation to smuggle humans, guns, drugs , and commit other
crimes. If the Border Patrol, Sheriff's Departments, or other
law enforcement are prohibited from patrolling these areas,
then this bill only serves to encourage and give confidence to
these criminals. One need only look at the trash and illegal
trafficking that is ongoing in the wilderness in Arizona, and
Organ Pipe National Monument in California to see what will
happen in our area of southern New Mexico. Our law enforcement
will be prohibited from making routine patrols in the
wilderness; they will be prohibited from having sensors, radio
transmitters, and microwave towers in the wilderness. The 1964
Wilderness Act prohibits permanent roads, temporary roads, the
use of motor vehicles or motorized equipment, the landing of
aircraft, the use of any mechanical transportation ( including
bicycles), and the building of any type of structures. At this
time, we certainly do not need to weaken and diminish the
effectiveness of our Border Patrol and law enforcement in
southern New Mexico.
3. Flood control and the management of water will be greatly
impaired if the proposed areas are declared wilderness. Without
significant concessions to allow the building of dams, flood
water dikes, diversions, and the maintenance of existing dams
and structures, it can be expected that more flooding of homes
and other property can be expected. Wilderness will make
planned projects for monitoring and capturing flood water
virtually impossible, and definitely more costly and difficult,
if it is done at all.
4. Livestock grazing permittees will be dealt a very harsh
blow if they cannot check and feed their cattle in an efficient
way, and the maintenance of wells, fences, dirt tanks, and
corrals will be made completely impractical, if not impossible.
Ranchers have been on most of the proposed wilderness areas for
many, many years, and have had viable economic entities in
their ranches. The development of water for livestock by
ranchers for livestock equally benefits wildlife, and were it
not for the ranchers, there would be no permanent water for
wildlife in almost all of these proposed wilderness areas.
Concessions such as saying ``grazing permits shall be issued''
for these areas do not give the ranches any certainty that
their permitted numbers of livestock will be allowed. When you
cut a rancher's permit by 90%, you have put him out of
business. A graphic example is the Gila Wilderness where U.S.
Government policies and environmentalist's lawsuits have
destroyed the livestock industry in the Wilderness.
5. There are alternatives to Wilderness designation that will
protect the lands in Dona Ana County. The Portrillos can be
protected in the same way that the Valle Vidal was protected.
The one-page bill that was supported by both Sen. Bingaman and
then Rep. Udall, simply withdraws the federal land from
disposal and the mining laws, but does not close the area to
vehicular access. This same principle can also be applied to
the Organ Mountains, and especially the area that is the
foothills directly west of the base of the mountain. The
beautiful views will be preserved, the wildlife will still have
water, families can drive up to campsites, the Border Patrol
can apprehend illegals and drug-runners, EBID can maintain
flood control structures to help avoid a more disastrous flood
than that which occurred in Hatch a few years ago, ranchers
will have a chance of staying in business (you know that un-
harvested grass finally loses it's root system and dies, and
poses a great fire threat!), and the State Trust lands within
the proposed Wilderness areas will continue to produce revenues
for education in the State of New Mexico.
Again, I urge the Committee to reject the Wilderness designation of
these thousands of acres in Dona Ana County, and to seek alternative,
equally effective means of protection. Thank you for this opportunity
to comment on S.1689.
______
Statement of Philip VanVeen, Democrat, NM
Although I am in favor of preservation, for the most part, I
noticed that the information about this Wilderness bill has been very
one-sided. I feel it is important for the public and for Public
Officials to fully understand both sides of this situation before
determining the best course of action. The information I am presenting
is for Dona Ana County only, but should be looked into for all Counties
in question. If you look at the current land use map you will notice
that Dona Ana County currently has one third of its land closed to the
public: WSMR, Ft. Bliss, WSNM and Jornada Experimental Range. Most of
that land is true Wilderness Territory as hikers and horses are also
forbidden on it.
One of my concerns is people like myself, who because of an injury
or for other reasons cannot hike great distances or on uneven ground
and would need better access than a Wilderness Designation currently
provides.
These areas currently have established BLM vehicle trails. Most of
these trails have existed for over 30 years and allow access to the
beauty that is New Mexico for a lot of people. It seems that these
trails have worked out well over the last 30 years. Please consider
keeping them open for use so ALL citizens can enjoy our wilderness
areas. I am a photographer and have no other way to capture this beauty
than to have access via established vehicle trails.
As I said in the beginning of this letter, I believe in
preservation, and I believe that the BLM does a good job of managing
our public lands but there is room for improvement. I am a firm
believer that the Organ Mountains define who we are as a community and
need to be protected, however we would be better served by a State Park
than a Wilderness bill. Currently we have two State Parks in the Organ
Mountains: Dripping Springs and Aguirre Springs. Why not combine them
with the rest of the area into one State Park. This would protect the
land while still allowing limited access to those who cannot hike the
rough untamed trails.
Thank you for your time and please consider keeping our Public
Lands available to the public.
______
Statement of Richard E. Jacobs, Las Cruces, NM
Honorable Senators,
I am a retired geologist/geophysicist with 30 years experience in
oil and gas exploration, and worked on the front lines where new oil
and gas fields are discovered. I have played a significant role in the
drilling of 41 oil and/or gas wells, and have a commercial success
ratio of 48%, well above the industry average. I am also a board member
of the Paleozoic Trackways Foundation, and participated in the efforts
to gain National Monument status for the Permian age mega-trackways
site located in the Robledo Mountains of Dona Ana County, NM, our
nation's newest National Monument. I am involved with the scientific
community in the area, and was granted the BLM's first research permit
for the Prehistoric Trackways National Monument.
Proposed wilderness areas in Dona Ana County, NM, also contain many
significant fossil and mineralogical sites. For example, a mummified
Pleistocene-age giant sloth was discovered many years ago by Boy Scouts
exploring a fumarole at Aden Crater. The sloth is now in residence at
the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. If that area had been
designated as a Wilderness Area at that time, it is likely that the
sloth would have remained undiscovered.
In conversations with Dr. Spencer Lucas, Ph.D., Curator for Geology
and Paleontology, New Mexico Museum of Natural History, Albuquerque,
NM, he pointed out that, in his experience, when an area is designated
as a wilderness, vehicular access stops. Having no vehicular access
severely impacts paleontological and geological research. Fossil
samples and geologic samples are often quite heavy, and transport to
research facilities at local universities or for display at museums can
be impossible without vehicular access in the field. Likewise,
scientific instruments like gravity meters, magneto-telluric
instruments, and induced potential instruments can be quite awkward and
heavy to carry into the field, and some require large batteries or
electrical generators, thereby limiting research.
The rugged lands contained within the S.B. 1689 Proposed Wilderness
Areas have large areas, such as the Aden Flow area and the Potrillo
Mountains, that need further scientific research. We know that the
Permian age petrified wood deposits recently discovered in the
Prehistoric Trackways National Monument extend northward into the
proposed Wilderness Area adjacent to the national monument, and it is
likely that the Permian trackways extend there as well.
Almost everyone agrees that the areas need protection from sale and
development. The form which the protection takes is the issue. Most
interests would be best served by the less restrictive National
Conservation Area designation. Thank you.
______
Statement of Robert G. Church, Las Cruces, NM
U. S. Senator Jeff Bingaman:
Thank you for hosting the hearing on Senate Bill 1689, ``The Organ
Mountain Desert Parks Wilderness Bill'' at the Corbett Center on the
NMSU campus on Monday February 15, 2010.
Information and testimony provided through your office or by others
is quite misleading to the general public. Although wording in the
Wilderness Act does provide for some motorized/mechanical
transportation and grazing; in reality, conditions and practices in the
field can and do present severe obstacles, which has lead to the final
exclusion of these practices in the Gila Wilderness (+500,000 acres,
only 150 miles from Las Cruces ). For example, there is now NO grazing
in the Gila Wilderness, and to my knowledge NO use of emergency
response (mechanized equipment) is allowed in this wilderness. There is
no reason to believe field practices in the proposed areas would
differ. The results will be similar to those found in the Gila
Wilderness; over time, through administrative practices, ranching/
grazing would be eliminated and no motorized travel/mechanized
equipment would be allowed.
Other issues which have not been adequately addressed concern
possible flooding and border security. Both of these major issues have
moved to the forefront in the past 2 years. I truly believe any
wilderness area near the border would be detrimental to our security.
Examples have been presented from areas in or adjacent to Dona Ana
County and areas in Arizona. However, these issues have been recklessly
dismissed by the comments like ``it cannot happen here'' or ``it's
different here.'' In my opinion, less movement by illegal's from Mexico
has been impacted just as much by our current recession (i.e.: lack of
low entry jobs) as the border fence construction and increased manpower
and surveillance. When you change the ``Rules of Engagement'' for the
military or the Border Patrol, it usually means more restrictions on
their tactics, resulting in less effective operations, more chance for
injuries or death and greater cost.
These unintended results are not truly representative of the action
that the citizens of Dona Ana County want to see. I am a firm believer
in the need for wilderness areas and the protection of special areas.
However, this bill, as proposed, encompasses too many small parcels,
scattered over Dona Ana County and will become an administrative
nightmare. The support of the citizens of Las Cruces appears to be
correctly centered on protection of the Organ Mountains and the
beautiful views of them. I suggest that the current bill be modified to
create an Organ Mountain Wilderness, and all the other areas be listed/
managed as National Conservation Areas.
You reconsideration of the true actions and results of this
proposed bill would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
______
Statement of Scott Eschenbrenner
As a concerned parent, citizens and sportsman, I have several
concerns regarding the Wilderness Act that is being considered by the
Senate.
As a concerned parent, I am worried about the drug related violence
that is 45 miles south of my home and the future ability for our
federal and local authorities to control this real threat to our every
day existence. Without the ability to operate and protect our borders,
I fear that illegal activities and potential terrorists will have an
unchecked passageway to our backyard.
As a concerned citizen in Dona Ana County, my concerns regarding
flood control and water management hit close to home during the 2006
floods. We need to insure future maintenance and possibly expansion of
flood control measures that will maintain the safety of the citizens
and property owners of Dona Ana County.
Finally, as a sportsman, I fear the loss of my ability to recreate
and enjoy our natural surroundings due to the loss of vehicular access
to these areas. I grew up with friends and family in these desert areas
and recently have enjoyed the quality time with my children on our
various hunting and off-roading adventures. This is time well spent and
not in front of a video game or TV. By denying us access to these
areas, I feel that we are limiting future recreational activities. I
have spent the last 30 years enjoying these areas that this bill wishes
to close and realize that should this wilderness legislation be enacted
it will prevent us from enjoying them in the same fashion as before.
In the 30 years of outdoor enjoyment, I have yet to see any signs
of serious neglect, willful destruction or waste of these natural
resources. To the contrary I have seen signs of sportsmen creating
habitat for wildlife, ranchers maintaining improvements and carrying
capacity, and off-road enthusiasts providing and maintaining areas for
those uses all cohabitating in the areas this bill wishes to close.
I feel that the protection of the Organ Mountains and the recently
discovered trackways are worth preserving but as for the remaining
275,000 acres of land that will be off limits to motorized traffic,
these areas do not appear to meet the 1964 Wilderness bills original
intent. I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns at the field
hearing yesterday and through this electronic message today. It appears
that there are other logical means with which to protect these lands,
similar to the legislation that was passed to protect the Valle Vidal,
which is truly a national treasure.
______
Statement of Thomas (Tom) C. Simpson, Las Cruces, NM
Dear Energy Committee US Senate:
I am extremely concerned with the contents of this Bill and opposed
to its passage with it's present content.
I am a native New Mexican that loves, enjoys and is proud of the
beauty and diversity of this great state.
I will be the first to agree that our Organ Mountains need to be
preserved for future generations, but disagree very strongly that the
remainder of the land proposed to be wilderness be so designated. I do
believe that a less restrictive designation would be more appropriate.
I have concerns about border safety on the proposed Portillo, Aden
Crater, White Thorn, Wilderness areas.
This would be a haven of refuge for the illegal activities that are
currently occurring and will continue to occur on our southern border.
The Uvas Mountains, Broad Canyon proposed wilderness raises some
serious concerns about flooding in the Rio Grande valley. Several large
arroyos like Broad Canyon, Faulkner canyon, Fuller Canyon.Placitas
Arroyos and others drain into the Rio Grande, Only one of these (Broad
Canyon) has any type of flood control and that is only to slow down the
initial surge of water. There are no provisions for storage of any of
this wild water so that it may be put to beneficial use. As the area
grows and water becomes more valuable there needs to be a method
developed that would allow this water to be stored and put to
beneficial use rather than sending the water to Texas. If these areas
are designated Wilderness it will forever prohibit any development of
these waters or provide safety to the residences and businesses of the
valley.
It is my belief that none of us can predict what our future will be
100 years from now. To forever restrict these lands as the Wilderness
designation does is not very wise. Yes, protect and do not develop
these lands but not put them off limit to 99.9% of our citizens and
endanger citizens and property in the process. In my view it would be
short sighted to restrict all of these lands as the Wilderness
designation does.
______
Statement of Tom Hutchinson, Dona Ana County Resident, Business Owner,
Captain, USNR, Retired Chairman of the Board, Citizens Bank of Las
Cruces, Past Chair of the Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce and
the Mesilla Valley Economic Development Alliance
Dear Members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
I want to thank Senator Bingaman, Udall and Congressman Teague for
conducting the Senate Energy Committee Field Hearing on Monday,
February 15, 2010, in Las Cruces, NM, regarding S1689.
One observation, and a very significant one for that matter, is
that both sides of the argument, those citizens who embrace all
elements of S1689, and those citizens who would like to see
modifications, all agree that the Organ Mountains be retained as a
Wilderness Area and all other areas of Dona Ana County considered in
S1689 be withdrawn from future development of any kind and retained as
public lands.
The larger concern is under what designation these other lands best
serve the public interest.
The three issues that seemed to generate the most discussion
centered around National Security and Wilderness designations on or in
close proximity to our National Border, the public safety issues
associated with access to lands for flood control and water capture
projects, and the historical use of lands.
As you know, when making decisions that have elements of risk,
whether concerning national security or public safety, in nearly all
cases, one cannot totally eliminate risk, but one can manage it.
In the case of the Potrillo Mountain Complex, although there
appears to be some concession in S1689 for a buffer between the Border
and the Potrillo Mountain Complex Wilderness area, the Wilderness area
is still dangerously close to the Border and raises the probability of
sheltering/fostering illegal activity and preventing law enforcement to
aggressively take action.
If we know, and Border Patrol Agents both active and retired tell
me so, that access and apprehension activity would be less hampered in
an areas other than a Wilderness designation, i.e. NCA, and we can
manage the risk better with a less restrictive designation, it would
seem the prudent and responsible decision to make is to designate the
Potrillo Mountain Complex as an NCA. As an NCA, we still preserve it,
and law enforcement has greater and more flexible access.
With regard to the Broad Canyon Area and Organ Mountain NCA, Gary
Esslinger with EBID, made an extremely compelling argument regarding
the public safety risk associated with limiting access and activity in
those areas associated with flood control and water capture. Again, if
we can manage the public safety risk by giving the Broad Canyon Area
and Organ Mountain NCA designations that can allow appropriate and
responsible access to effectively manage flood control and water
drainage challenges, then, with the proper designation, we can preserve
the area and give meaningful access to necessary agencies/groups to
manage water issues.
This is precisely why Wilderness designated areas in already remote
areas typically have very little border security or public safety
concerns. On the other hand, Wilderness designations in close proximity
to an international border or population centers raise credible
national security and public safety concerns.
Regarding historical land use, a large area of land was recently
designated Wilderness and NCA in Northern New Mexico by Congress and
signed into law by the President with the majority of that land
designated NCA to accommodate the historical activities associated with
gathering Pinon nuts among other things. Cannot the same argument be
made for the generations of Ranchers who have ranched these lands in
Dona Ana County since our Territorial days. Is not ranching who we are
in the Southwest and a big part of our culture. Do we want Wilderness
Designated Areas to take away this part of our history as well?
As a final note, I believe as effective as the field hearing was,
both sides of the argument could have benefited from understanding the
town of Hatch's perspective on S1689 as well as having a representative
from the Border Patrol, retired or active, comment on their
recommendations and experiences.
With regard to Hatch, they not only experienced a catastrophic
flood in 2006, but also chose to reverse their support entirely for the
``Citizens Proposal.'' It would have benefited all at the Hearing to
have understood first hand, why they reversed support.
With regard to the Border Patrol and Law Enforcement, the evidence
of illegal activity associated with the Border Wilderness Areas in
Arizona is scary. It seems there are those that want to ignore and
dismiss that this same activity could occur in New Mexico. Best case
scenario, even if the probability of what occurred along the Border in
Arizona was less in New Mexico, would it still not be wise and prudent
to establish an area designation that would give Border security the
best probability to succeed and further minimize risk.
In closing, as you deliberate, assess and evaluate S1689, I
respectfully request the Committee make the most responsible and common
sense decision(s) for the good of the general public, not just
Wilderness advocates.
______
Statement of Gary E. Thurm
Mark South, a former Forest Service employee who decades ago wrote
the guidelines for some of the wilderness designations in Arizona, now
thinks efforts to write new Wilderness into law go too far.
``Tell me, which is doing more damage to the environment: the
ranchers' fence or the people coming through, the trails, the litter,
the water bottles?'' he said. ``I think, with what we're seeing along
the border, trying to preserve anything beyond the laws existing now is
pointless. Is Wilderness needed? Yeah. But we need to ask how much is
too much?''
This is a great question and one that deserves an answer. I am not
sure of the answer, but see troubles in our country and the dynamic of
a free people suffering if we continue this course of stripping all
potential benefit from these lands from the people who care most about
protecting them, who live on the land, protect it as their own and
graze their livestock there. First, Wilderness is not a need, it is a
reality. It has been defined for us by our forefathers. It exists. It
is not created and changed to become wilderness, rather it just is. Our
government land, whether federal or state, must be managed, and managed
it is. Could it continue to be managed better by the stewards of the
range who have kept and managed those lands for the last two centuries?
I believe so.
My folks are stewards. They and their cowboys take care of many
acres of New Mexico rangeland. They take pride in what they do. A
majority of the ranch lands are owned by the federal government and are
managed by the ranchers in cooperation with BLM, with little or no aid
in day to day management from the BLM. It is critical that the rancher,
the land owner, the grazing permittee, be able to manage the land, in a
way that preserves its historic character. ``We the people'' do that
and do it well. We do not ask for monetary compensation, yet, have to
deal with Wilderness designations and restrictions, adding additional
controls by government to lands that are already pristine, well
managed, and not being developed for monetary gain. Also, there should
be some equality when it comes to the amount of land locked up under
Wilderness designation and land which remains open to all the citizens.
The federal lands are best managed by the people who have the tools
to manage that land and who have a vested interest. The land is a
precious commodity, just as water is in regions and communities all
over. Is this not our land? Have we not shed blood for it? Have we not
protected it? This land is our land and government needs to keep that
in mind when it comes to restricting its use beyond practical limits
that will not work long-term. S 1689, and the myriad of other bills to
come, come perilously close to restricting the lands to the point of
having no value to anyone. When that happens, all benefit and
meaningfitl management will cease. Illegal immigration and smuggling
operations will be the beneficiaries.
Many families have been on these lands for generations, and for the
most part have been good stewards. Wilderness has its place, but a lot
of our lands do not need that restriction. The sign that allows only
some people entrance, not all, if posted, should be posted with
caution. Our rights are inherent in the steps that were taken to have a
free country with limited government and rule. For our rights to be
taken without compensation is fracturing the tie that binds.
______
Statement of Gregory Z. Smith, Las Cruces, NM
Dear Senators Bingaman and Udall,
Thank you for coming to Las Cruces to conduct the hearing regarding
the Organ Mountains--Desert Peaks Wilderness Act. The Organ Mountains
are indeed iconic, and they do provide a natural focus for our
community. I wholeheartedly support passage of the Organ Mountains--
Desert Peaks Wilderness Act. Let me share my reasons:
Surpassing beauty
Healthy environment
Wildlife refuge
Hands-on education
Economic reality
In these distressing economic times, it might be a hard sell to
saylhat the value of natural beauty surpasses other considerations.
Nonetheless, l have to assert that the Organ Mountains are so stunning
we willingly ignore power poles, multi-storey hotels, and other
distractions to admire the force of nature that our mountains are That
is, when those man-made structures are in the foreground with the
mountains thrusting skyward miles in the distance. However, to allow
development or other visible activities closer to the mountains would
be to make man-made intrusions more insistent, much like allowing
someone to add an advertisement across the bottom of Leonardo da
Vinci's Mona Lisa. Nature has provided us with a masterpiece, and we
should have the wisdom to conserve it.
This desert environment recovers slowly from disturbances; thus,
particulate matter in the air and elements in the water almost
certainly increase when soil has been exposed. Erosion is more likely
to occur, and non-native plant life is better able to take root. While
nature left undisturbed may never be in absolutely complete balance, it
is more likely to be in an exaggerated state of unbalance when too much
is scraped and not enough is left wild. That eventually has to impact
human quality of life.
In a related way, the wild, nearly impossible to tame, areas in and
around the Organ Mountains provide home to creatures that cannot easily
coexist with human incursions into their habitats and migratory routes.
As intelligent, educated beings capable of more self determination than
the plants and animals in that area, it falls to us to make the
decisions that impact lives other than our own. We can be thoughtful
and globally minded when we make our choices.
Children especially, but all of us, learn from immersion, when we
are surrounded by the elements of an experience. While field trips to a
wilderness area can certainly provide such all encompassing
experiences, when the area is so visible, as with the Organ Mountains,
that experience becomes more of an ongoing, integrated part of every
life in the community. It is a learning opportunity of many dimensions
and with many lessons.
There is also an economic truth that must be acknowledged.
Development in the vicinity of the Organ Mountains is going to require
new, and likely more expensive, infrastructure. Transporting materials
and people to and from those more remote sites is going to be more
expensive, and it is going to increase the amount of time spent
commuting for eventual residents working and shopping in Las Cruces.
Let us make the right choice for the above and more reasons, and
let us preserve as much wilderness as can be preserved around our Organ
Mountains.
______
Las Cruces TEA Party,
Las Cruces, NM, February 18, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, 703 Hart Senate Office Bldg, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: The members of the Las Cruces TEA Party, as
citizens of Dona Ana County. appreciate your efforts and those of
Senator Udall in holding a field hearing in Las Cruces on February 15,
2010, to listen to the concerns and opinions of area residents on the
proposed bill, S1689 Organ Mountain-Desert Peaks Wilderness Bill. The
hearing room was packed with concerned citizens on both sides of the
issue. and the consensus of all present was that our mountains and our
desert lands need to be protected. The disagreement, however, is not
whether our lands need preservation and protection, but rather in the
method which should be used in protecting our lands.
We urge you to carefully read and study the testimonies given by
Mr. Gary Esslinger, Mr. Tom Cooper, Mr. John Hummer, and Mr. Frank
DuBois. These men are not opposed to protecting our land. But they are
opposed to the severe restrictions which would be placed upon the users
of the land should the bill pass and the designated areas become
wilderness. And we stand in support of these arguments. Here are our
major concerns:
1. It is our understanding that the maps provided to the
committee along with this proposed bill are incomplete. Please
Google a map of southern Dona Ana County. If you look at the
topographical map, the area indeed looks like only vast land
dotted with mountains and cinder cones. But look at a close-up.
You will see that there is a web of roads to service windmills,
drinkers, pipelines, hunters, and recreationists. The evidence
of human habitation and development is quite obvious. It does
not fit the Wilderness Act of 1964 definition of remote,
primeval, and pristine areas where ``the imprint of man's work
(is) substantially unnoticeable.''
2. We urge you to carefully read the testimonies of Mr. Gary
Esslinger and Mr. Joe Delk which address the issues concerning
flood control and capture of flood waters in the area. Future
growth of Las Cruces is dependent upon the availability of
water, whether it comes from under ground or from rains. People
who have not lived in this desert area simply do not realize
the ferocity and devastating damage that can be done by sudden
and unpredictable summer thunderstorms as evidenced by the
Hatch floods of 2006. Nor do they realize the scarcity of water
from underground sources. A wilderness designation would
prohibit future improvements to alleviate the water issues in
our community.
3. The issue of border security is perhaps the most urgent
concern of area residents. Consider the desecration of the land
and the security issues in southern Arizona in the Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument. A small ``buffer zone'' along the New
Mexico-Mexican border is not going to resolve the problem of
illegals crossing the border. The ranchers in the Potrillo
Desert Peaks area now work closely with border patrol in trying
to apprehend drug smugglers, gun runners, gangs and other
violators. Criminals will have vehicles, but law enforcement
will be restricted.
Ranchers are apprehensive about leaving their families
unprotected even now when the Border Patrol has unlimited
access to the area. If this is designated wilderness, law
enforcement will be severely limited. Our law enforcement
officers need the flexibility to patrol, not just pursue. Our
local sheriff has publicly stated he will not send his deputies
into the wilderness areas because of lack of radio
communications and without the use of motorized vehicles. The
number of Border Patrol officers assigned to this area is
inadequate now; yet President Obama recently declared that he
will be reducing the number of Border Patrol agents along the
southern New Mexico border.
Finally, we urge the committee to seriously consider the challenge
by Mr. Frank DuBois who asked Senator Bingaman to take the lead in
composing legislation which would preserve and protect our land without
the wilderness designation. Each of us wants to continue to admire the
grandeur of the majestic Organ Mountains, take our families there for
picnics; and watch the vermillion colors of a sunset on the landmark of
the Mesilla Valley. Each of us wants to be assured that ranchers can
continue to earn a livelihood on the west mesa area of the Potrillos.
And each of us wants to be secure in our homes knowing that the Border
Patrol and law enforcement are uninhibited in their efforts to patrol
and protect our country's southern border. A compromise can be reached
to allow for the undisturbed beauty of our Organ Mountains and the
continued use of our surrounding deserts without jeopardizing the
welfare, security and safety of our citizens
I request this letter and enclosures be made part of the official
hearing record on S.1689.
Respectfully,
Jerry Clark,
President.
______
Village of Hatch,
Hatch, NM, February 15, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Re: S.1689
Dear Senator Bingaman and committee members: The Village of Hatch,
New Mexico was not invited to offer testimony at your public hearing
addressing S.1689 on this, February 15, 2010. As such, it is important
that you and your committee accept this written testimony for the
purposes of assuring our village and it concerned residents that they
have been represented in this process. Be aware that the legislation as
it stands today is not a document that our community can accept or
support.
After endorsing the NMWA presentation of the pending legislation,
our village government investigated the scope of the proposal and came
away very concerned of whom and what was being proposed. To this day,
our concerns of public safety and security are not satisfied, and, in
fact, recent discovery of facts compound our position of nonsupport.
This village has three major objections. The first is border
security. Your efforts to pass this legislation have sidestepped the
real issues of border security. The silence that the Border Patrol has
continued to demonstrate reflects the political requirement that their
hierarchy must maintain in their duty to any current administration. To
use the BP's public silence to the threat of border security issues as
the assumption of public safety is unacceptable and dangerous. Federal
Wilderness to our south and in the line of the active corridor only
compounds the security threat that already exists for Hatch. Your
committee needs to understand what wilderness areas adjacent to Arizona
cities are creating. The Saguaro West nomination to the 10 most
dangerous parks in the nation is evidence of what such areas create
near community centers.
Starting in 2004, this village has been devastated by floods. It is
only a miracle that similar catastrophic rain events have not occurred
in areas downstream. When they do, and they will, towns and villages
downstream will be inundated similar to our tragedies. We are aware of
the testimonial response of EBID and their pleading for access to all
watersheds that empty into the Rio Grande. This village supports that
call to commence a comprehensive effort to curb flood event damage.
What is equally important is that you recognize the importance of the
EBID/ El Paso settlement that would also allow the capture and use of
those flood waters. The consequences are huge and it is your fiduciary
responsibility to support this county to that end.
Thirdly, the assumption that the county is in support of closing
back country access to the mechanized public is ludicrous. The support
that has clamored to that clarion call is not represented by the
majority of citizens in this village nor any other small village that
views the relationship with the access to our rural lands as a
birthright and a primary way of life. The fact that our citizenry
accesses the areas considered for wilderness is a large reason why the
results of the BP activities are so successful and our village is as
safe as it now is. If you orchestrate a closure of those areas, you
will create a void that will be filled with illicit activities. This
town cannot and will not support such a progressive, short sided,
politically correct boondoggle.
The Village Council and the Office of the Mayor which I occupy
request that our written testimony be recorded and a response returned.
This information will be shared with our village constituency and the
entire Village of Hatch will watch the progression of this matter
closely. It is with regret that we could not present this in testimony
orally.
Sincerely,
Judd Nordyke,
Mayor.
______
Statement of Joe Delk, Chairman, Dona Ana Soil and Water Conservation
District, Las Cruces, NM
The Dona Ana Soil and Water Conservation District (DASWCD) is
mandated by New Mexico law to control and prevent soil erosion, prevent
flood water and sediment damage, and further the conservation and
beneficial application of water. Senate Bill 1689 has serious
ramifications that could directly affect this board's ability to adhere
to that mandate.
The scope and breadth of DASWCD' s authority span nearly the
entirety of lands included in SB 1689. Included in the footprint of the
proposal are scores of reclamation dams that are now in excess of 40
years of age. Many of those dams have had no maintenance in years. The
DASWCD has taken an aggressive stance in addressing that problem, and
if NCA and for federal Wilderness designation hinders our ability or
the ability of this community to perform maintenance and improvement
strategies, a growing risk to residents downstream form those
structures is imminent. What happened to Hatch, NM starting in 2005,
will eventually occur in the entirety of the watershed expanse to the
north and south.
In the past several months, DASWCD has pursued the organization of
a coalition of organizations that share responsibilities for matters of
public health and safety. The effort was predicated on a number of
things not the least of which was recent year statutory changes that
have set forth requirements of upgrades on existing NM dams. The matter
of such dams in Dona Ana County is made more complicated by the various
ownership and delegated maintenance responsibilities. Dams that were
once relied upon to protect farmlands have become protection facilities
for residential development by default in that there were no other
structures constructed or identified to assure the higher degree of
protection necessary for downstream development.
The scope and the mix of authority and ownership make this a very
complicated undertaking. The matter is complicated further by the
eventual engineering and improvement requirements to bring this flood
control system into a fully functional and dynamic entity that has the
authority and financial capability of maintaining the proper and
statutory requirements of public health and safety.
One of the early expectations is that improved flood control and
monitoring system components may be necessary upslope from the river
channel and the valley floors. Such a requirement along with city
expansion will require moving upslope(s) to install and monitor
facilities. Any restriction imposed by wilderness and or NCA access
could prove to be not only unworkable, but life threatening.
The DASWCD is only one of several organizations that requested
Senator Bingaman to hold this public hearing. Since our board was not
invited to speak, it is imperative that the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee address and resolve the following issues before any
Congressional action is taken on S.1689.
1. The city of Las Cruces, along with other villages and
towns in the county will only continue to grow. It was learned
even this week that Las Cruces was ranked in the top 10 small
cities for retirement in all of America. Our city and county
planners must be able to plan for sensible growth. Any managed
growth cannot take place without knowing the limitations for
managing flood events upslope from that development. Any and
all NCA designation must be designed to allow protection of
citizenry and personal property from such events.
2. DASWCD, in its organizational endeavor to define the scope
of the noted project, has joined forces with several
organizations including the Dona Ana and Sierra County(ies)
Flood Commissions, Caballo Soil and Water Conservation District
and EBID to assure that the system improvements are
comprehensive and support the mission of the collaborating
organizations. Any management plan developed for an NCA must
include authority to support and promote the resulting
management plan of the participating organizations.
3. EBID, in its critical role as manager of waters delivered
from Elephant Butte, has taken on the role of managing and
maintaining many of the existing flood control dams. The EBID
settlement with El Paso, regarding the status of flood waters,
only compounds the requirement to incorporate any and all
changes in the greater storm water management infrastructure so
that such waters are routed into EBID facilities for the
purpose of putting such waters into beneficial use. This
situation complicates and yet elevates the opportunity for this
county to address what has become a new and unexpected water
supply and only amplifies the need for the county to (maintain
unfettered access to the entirety of the lower Rio Grande
Watershed for expansion of stormwater management.
4. This development places a fiduciary responsibility on the
honorable Senators of the State of New Mexico to fully support
this process of defining how this entire watershed system must
be addressed for the opportunity to assure public safety,
protection of property and. at the same time, enhance the long
term water supply of Dona Ana County.
5. All pending Wilderness and NCA designations of S.1689 must
reflect the need to allow this process to occur without
jeopardizing public safety and water enhancement opportunities
that have developed. An alternative designation is worthy of
consideration.
______
Statement of Bonnie Burn, President, League of Women Voters of Greater
Las Cruces, Las Cruces, NM
On behalf of members of the League of Women Voters of Greater Las
Cruces, I want to thank you, Senators Bingaman and Udall, for
sponsoring this important legislation for our area.
In the late 1990s, the League recognized the importance of
preserving the lands named in the Organ Mountains--Desert Peaks
Wilderness Act and convened a community meeting to identify those
areas. The space is already used for many purposes beyond recreation
and by many people. The Act you sponsor recognizes the importance of
this area.
At a meeting in August 2009, Dara Parker and John Silva, staff from
Senator Bingaman's office, gave an in-depth briefing about the areas
involved and the numerous interest groups with whom they met. It seems
as if all bases were covered.
In November 2009, the Hispano Chamber of Commerce and High Tech
Consortium sponsored an event entitled, ``Wilderness Economics:
Creating Jobs from Protected Lands,'' that was an opportunity for the
our community to learn about economic development strategies and
industries from representatives who already have first-hand experiences
with public areas such as Jackson Hole, Wyoming, located near
Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons. A regional analysis is proposed to
help us understand the economic variables of our local economy and how
public lands fit into them.
Among the eleven western states that have wilderness acreage, New
Mexico is number 10 with 1.6 million acres and California being number
1 with more than 15 million acres. The proposed federal bill will
increase the New Mexico acreage to over 2 million acres. It doesn't
change the position of New Mexico on this list, but it does show
progress.
Again, we thank you for sponsoring this legislation and support
your efforts through final passage.
As you know, the League is nonpartisan in that we do not support or
oppose candidates or political parties. We are, however, political when
we work on issues, such as this legislation, that can be resolved by
government action.
Thank you very much for your attention.
______
National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers,
February 15, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
RE: S.1689
Dear Senator Bingaman and Committee Members: It is with sincere
concern that the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers
(NAFBPO) submits this written testimony to you and to the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee. The purpose of this submission is to
provide insight and expert opinion relating to the risks and
operational difficulties that we believe the Department of Homeland
Security and the U.S. Border Patrol will encounter if Federal
Wilderness is designated in Dona Ana County along the New Mexico/
Mexican border, as proposed in S.1689 In every case where similar
legislation has been submitted, our organization has always called on
members and associates who have had actual field experience in the
geographic area impacted, and in their particular areas of expertise.
In this case, we rely on ranking retired officers who have the most
experience in the southwest United States where the largest influx of
illegal entries historically have occurred, and where many years of
experience has established the most effective deterrent and
apprehension strategies. This approach eliminates speculation and
hearsay.
The presence of any wilderness on the Mexican border is a danger to
the security of the United States. The Arizona border history is
finally being acknowledged and investigated. The mission demands of
land management agencies of the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and Department of the Interior (D01), and those of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection differ. The former requires the limitation of human
presence, while the latter requires an enhanced presence without
restriction or condition. This conflict among Federal Agencies results
in diminished success for both. It is a dilemma that offers few
remedies for improvement.
Designated Federal Wilderness is not causative in the intent of
illegals to enter the United States, but it is causative in the
establishment and expansion of illegal entry corridors. The lessons of
Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument, and Pajarita Wilderness must not be ignored. Once
established, such corridors, similar to those in place in those Federal
Wilderness areas, are guarded by alien smugglers with the most barbaric
means imaginable.
The Potrillo Mountain complex has the same characteristics of
threat potential to the United States as does Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument and the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge in
Arizona. New Mexico Highway 9 provides east/west access to the southern
extensions of the proposed wilderness boundary. The same sort of access
is provided by Mexican Highway 2 south of Cabeza Prieta and Organ Pipe.
It is along that access route that a whole new infrastructure of
service industries has sprung up supporting the human and drug
smuggling industry. Even with upgrades in surveillance equipment and
the addition of trained Border Patrol Agents, CBP will have
unacceptable restraints placed upon it because of access issues in
those Federal Wilderness areas. With such a vast expanse of open space,
the border cannot be adequately protected.
For that very reason, the strip or buffer between the southern
extension of wilderness in the Potrillo Complex and the border as
offered in S.1689 is simply inadequate for the Border Patrol to meet
Congressional demands for national security.
CBP cannot be limited to trying to interdict and apprehend illegals
within the narrow strip from the border north to Highway 9, nor can
they be expected to do the same thing in the narrow corridor being
considered north of Highway 9. If that would work, they would be doing
it now. Congress should recognize that imposing Wilderness protections
on an external boundary of the United States effectively re-draws the
line of defense to the nearest major east-west highway north from such
wilderness. In the case of 5.1689, the effective defense line becomes
Interstate highway 10 to the north. In Dona Ana County, such action
exposes the newly upgraded interstate rail line (which accommodates
approximately 80 trains per day) and the major interstate gas line on
the northern edge of that proposed wilderness area.
The fact that border wilderness areas have prompted the need of the
2006 MOU to allow conditional access for CBP should in itself alert all
interested parties to the danger that Border Wilderness areas create.
The MOU touted as the ultimate answer to enforcement has never been
tested in New Mexico, and has been a total failure when attempts were
made to apply it in Arizona. NAFBPO concurs with Homeland Security
Secretary, Janet Napolitano, that the 2006 MOU detailing Border Patrol
access to wilderness and WSA's impacts the efficacy of Border Patrol
operations negatively\1\. In fact, the NAFBPO position is that any MOU
will be disallowed in legal proceedings as being contravention to the
statute that you have introduced, unless it is elevated into the
law\2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter to Rob Bishop, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, October 2, 2009.
\2\ The 2006 MOU has never been used in NM. The document was the
result of open conflict between the various agencies of the DOI and the
BP for access into wilderness areas along the Arizona Border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The presence of Federal Wilderness in the Potrillo Mountains will
result in the northward expansion of Border related dangers. Years of
experience confirms that as these areas of easy access to the United
States are identified by those seeking illegal entry, a new corridor
will develop northward. This new northern corridor would be almost
impossible to control when surrounded by wilderness designation. The
risk of this extension is the result of geography north from the
Potrillos. When pressure is put on the I-10 corridor, response will be
that the pickup of human and drug cargo will be extended further north
into yet more soft entry corridor opportunities. The Corralitos/Broad
Canyon corridor offers a parallel North/South access route around Las
Cruces and north from I-10. This is already an active corridor that
compounds the difficulty of CBP interdiction and apprehension if
Federal Wilderness or NCA's are designated in the Robledos and Las Uvas
Mountains. The Organ Pipe experience has taught us that high points are
used for observation along an active smuggling corridor.
If CBP is restricted from maintaining a full presence on the ground
and with technical hardware because of Federal land designation
constraints in the greater Broad Canyon complex, the threat will
automatically be extended northward exposing the village of Hatch and
Highway 28. Those points run the risk of becoming an extension of the
virtual border. Along with these risks, the questions will inevitably
arise concerning Federal enforcement in interior locations where the
definition of ``border'' is not so well defined.
The forgoing is not an exercise in worst case planning. The
experiences on the Arizona border have demonstrated what happens when
Federal Wilderness and Federal Agencies collide in performing their
missions. Statistics in 2009 clearly demonstrate that illegal human
entry into the United States has declined. It is down in all Sectors,
yet deaths in Organ Pipe are up 40% in 2009 from similar date in 2007.
If Congress elects to enact S.1689, the results detailed and set forth
in this written testimony will almost certainly occur in New Mexico as
they have in Arizona. Citizens of southern New Mexico should be aware
of the consequences of such Congressional action. NAFBPO, with more
than 5,000 years of combined experience in the control of our Borders
urgently requests that the lands discussed in this written testimony
not be considered for Federal Wilderness protection, or that all
restrictions on enforcement by U.S. Customs and Border Protection be
removed.
Sincerely,
James S. Switzer,
Chairman.
______
Statement of the Wilderness Coaltion, Robledos-Las Uvas
Mountain Complex
THE BROAD CANYON WILDERNESS EXPERIENCE: NATURALNESS, SOLITUDE AND
PRIMITIVE RECREATION AMONG THE POOLS, RIMROCKS, AND PETROGLYPHS
In this section, we hope to provide the reader with a sense of what
it is like to take a good hike into Broad Canyon. Broad Canyon is
unique, yet represents much of what is best in many parts of the
Complex--the opportunity to experience naturalness, beauty, biological
variety, primitive recreation and solitude.
Broad Canyon is the major watershed in the Complex, and drains
about eighty percent of the wilderness into the Rio Grande River.
Because the water table is within a few feet of the surface year round,
the canyon supports such thriving trees and shrubs as ash, soapberry,
and desert willow as well as edible hackberries and barberries. All of
these species attain larger-than-normal sizes here.
Broad Canyon is impressive any time of the year, but especially so
in the summertime. During the summer, heavy rains in the Las Uvas
Mountains can bring flash floods down the canyon, with the water as
much as eight feet above the canyon bottom. Over the centuries the
water has eroded the canyon rocks into spectacular shapes, including
natural slides and pools in the slick rock. The pools remain for
several weeks after the heavy rain, each becoming a microcosm of
teeming aquatic life in which many small animals complete their life
cycles before the pools dry up. The larger animals--deer, racoon, and
others--come to these pools to drink. As the sun beats down on the
drying pools, beautiful ripple patterns appear in the exposed mud.
Eventually, the mud becomes hard-baked, preserving the ripple patterns
and the memory of the brief wet spell until the next rain. Now the
larger animals must move on to other parts of the Complex--the springs
or the river--to find the water they need.
The rimrock of Broad Canyon provides ideal nesting sites for birds
of prey, including hawks, owls, falcons and eagles. Mexican freetail
bats make their summer homes in the cracks of the canyon walls. Each
evening, hundreds of these bats may be seen leaving their roosts to
feed on the desert's insects.
Those who hike upper Broad Canyon are rewarded by the sight of many
excellent petroglyphs depicting people, fishes, and mammals. These are
thought to be Mogollon in origin, although archeologists tell us that
there may also be some Mimbres petroglyphs here. Even more petroglyphs
are to be found in Valles Canyon, which drains into Broad Canyon. Most
of us who visit this area regularly find that we discover a few new
petroglyphs each time. Yet much of this wilderness area awaits more
thorough exploration. We anticipate that many petroglyph sites remain
to be discovered in the Robledos/Las Uvas Mountains.
______
Statement of S.D. Schemnitz, Chairman, Southwest Consolidated Sportsmen
Thank you for organizing your Senate Bill 1649-Wilderness Field
Hearing attended by 600+ people (primarily supporters of your bill).
Briefly, I would like to introduce myself and elaborate on my
background and qualifications as a supporter of the Dona Ana County
wilderness proposal. My academic training includes B. S. degree in
wildlife-forestry, University of Michigan 1952, M.S. degree in
wildlife, University of Florida, 1954, Ph. D., Oklahoma State
University in wildlife, zoology, 1957. My 50+ years of involvement in
wildlife management includes employment as a state wildlife biologist
in Oklahoma, Florida, and Minnesota. My academic employment as a
wildlife teacher includes employment at Penn State, University of Maine
and New Mexico State University, with 100+ scientific publications,
etc. I have visited, hunted, camped, hiked, and fished in federal
wilderness areas in Maine, Colorado, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, Wyoming, Montana, and New Mexico.
I arrived in Las Cruces, New Mexico in 1975 to become the Head of a
newly formed Department of Fishery and Wildlife Science and retired as
an Emeritus Professor in 1997. Other related activities included
serving two terms (maximum allowed) as a member of the BLM RAC
(Resource Advisory Council). I have served for many years on the New
Mexico Wildlife Federation. Board of Directors. I have been Chairman,
Southwest Consolidated Sportmen (SCS), since its beginning, in 1987.
Other wildlife related groups I have actively been involved with as a
member include Southwestern New Mexico Chapter Quail Unlimited (QU),
Dona Ana County Associated Sportsmen, National Wild Turkey Federation,
Las Cruces Chapter, Ducks Unlimited, The Wildlife Society (Life
Member), New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, etc. Recently we recognized
the superb efforts of Dara Parker, your local aide for her
accomplishments and activities by keeping us informed by attending our
monthly meetings.
SCS has been supportive from the beginning to convert Wilderness
Study Areas (WSA) to permanent BLM wilderness and/or National
Conservation Areas. I have testified on numerous occasions at various
meetings and hearings.
I commend you for asking questions of the panelists to clarify and
elaborate on their statements. Senator Udall's comments on the
effectiveness of the Border Patrol's recent successful efforts to
intercept illegal aliens were appropriate and factual. My personal
experiences agree. I live three miles north of the small village of
Dona Ana. In the past numerous aliens would stop to fill their water
bottles and could be seen hiking northward along the Burlington
Northern railroad tracks across the road from my house. Now it is a
rarity to see these people as Border Patrol patrols have increased.
The buffer zone removed from wilderness designation along Highway 9
border will be helpful in apprehending illegals. Helicopter
surveillance, sensors etc. also will help.
Despite efforts of wilderness supporters to compromise on various
wilderness issues, the livestock and off highway vehicle interests (the
minority) continue to adamantly refuse to change their viewpoints.
I, and many others in the audience remain dubious of Frank Dubois'
lengthy discourse on the virtues of the livestock industry on public
federal lands and his total disregard to the economic benefits of
wilderness. A recent all day free public presentation on wilderness
economics at the N.M. Farm and Ranch Museum by western speakers
disputed most of his comments. His talk contained little new
information (e.g. the same old story-no suitable, feasible substitute
for federal wilderness, etc.).
Mr. Tom Cooper, a rancher in the Broad Canyon area, and speaker at
your hearing is well recognized by BLM personnel for his overgrazed and
eroded livestock leases. The key to flood control is improved
watersheds by conversion of shrub dominated landscapes to herbaceous
grassland (as exemplified by BLM's Restore New Mexico program). Restore
New Mexico can function in wilderness. Furthermore many upper
watersheds are in excellent condition and protecting them will
perpetuate their role in minimizing flood problems.
SCS members wholeheartedly support statements made by our
spokesman, Jim Bates, on the urgent need to support SB 1689. Please
expedite the introduction and passage of your wilderness legislation.
New Mexico should no longer be the western state with the smallest
percent of BLM wilderness. We appreciate your efforts on behalf of New
Mexico wilderness. The quality of life will continue for present and
future generations.