[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVIEWING THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY'S PROHIBITION ON HOUSEBOATS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 23, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-167
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-169 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Columbia
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TED LIEU, California
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
KEN BUCK, Colorado STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MARK WALKER, North Carolina MARK DeSAULNIER, California
ROD BLUM, Iowa BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
JODY B. HICE, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Jennifer Hemingway, Staff Director
Andrew Dockham, General Counsel
Mary Doocy, Counsel
Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Government Operations
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman
JIM JORDAN, Ohio GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia,
TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair Ranking Minority Member
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina Columbia
KEN BUCK, Colorado WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 23, 2016............................... 1
WITNESSES
Mr. William (Bill) D. Johnson, President and CEO, Tennessee
Valley Authority
Oral Statement............................................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 7
Ms. Laura Sneed, Founder, Fontana Families for Floating Houses
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
Mr. David Monteith, Vice Chairman, Swain County Board of
Commissioners
Oral Statement............................................... 71
Written Statement............................................ 73
Mr. Michael T. Wilks, President, Tennessee Valley Floating Home
Alliance
Oral Statement............................................... 75
Written Statement............................................ 79
Mr. Michael Butler, Chief Executive Officer, Tennessee Wildlife
Federation
Oral Statement............................................... 117
Written Statement............................................ 119
APPENDIX
Response from Mr. Johnson TVA to Questions for the Record........ 150
REVIEWING THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY'S PROHIBITION ON HOUSEBOATS
----------
Friday, September 23, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Operations,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:34 a.m., in
Room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Meadows, Jordan, Walberg, Buck,
Grothman, Connolly, Maloney, and Plaskett.
Mr. Meadows. The Subcommittee on Government Operations will
come to order. And without objection, the chair is authorized
to declare a recess at any time.
I want to start out by saying good morning and welcome, and
thanking my colleagues. This is one of those days where when
the schedule was changed, obviously, Mr. Walberg, who is the
vice chair of the subcommittee, and Mr. Connolly, who is the
ranking member of this subcommittee, adjusted their schedules
to remain here, and so on behalf of myself and all those that I
represent, I want to acknowledge that, and I thank you.
I also want to make a welcome to all those that not only
have traveled so far and are here today to testify and come and
be here on this important issue, but those on a Webcast, that
we probably had more calls about how to view this particular
hearing than others that would maybe make the headlines of The
Washington Post. So it is refreshing to see that so many people
are wanting to get involved.
The Tennessee Valley Authority, or the TVA as it's known,
is a Federal corporate agency of the United States, and in May
of this year, the board of directors of TVA actually proposed a
policy to prohibit all new floating homes on the 49 reservoirs
in the seven southeastern States. This proposed policy also
required the removal of all floating homes after a 30-year
sunset provision. For the hardworking homeowners in the TVA's
jurisdiction of Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, this proposed policy would
be devastating.
Now, I've said this before and I will say it again, this is
yet another example of the Federal Government getting involved
without seriously evaluating the consequences placed on
taxpaying families. And as we will hear in testimony today,
those impacted, some of whom have lived on these reservoirs for
generations, feel genuinely outraged and misled. For example,
many were promised in 1978, when TVA put forth a rule that it
would subsequently really never enforce for nearly 40 years,
that existing houseboats would be grandfathered in, and yet,
here we are today. Those that are owners of the grandfathered
houseboats are being told to start packing their bags. What's
more, the number of floating homes that have increased over the
decades and the homeowners in the Tennessee Valley have
invested tens of thousands, and, indeed, tens of millions of
dollars into new or existing floating homes.
You know, in my home State of North Carolina, hundreds of
families will be forced to move from their homes, many of whom
who have enjoyed those and lived there for years and years and
years, if not decades. This policy would be also detrimental
financially to the impact on the region, and will become nearly
impossible for those families, now that we have this sunset
provision, to sell their floating homes when you look at it,
not to mention the fact that it will dampen the thriving
houseboat tourism communities that are in many of some of the
most difficult, economically-challenged areas in the southeast.
Today, we will also hear whether or not those purported
improvements, the removal of the houseboats, will have on the
environment, and is that accurate and is this an infringement
that's worth taking on to invade the personal liberties and
freedoms to live where one chooses?
Instead of focusing on this policy, the TVA, in my opinion,
should focus its energies on its critical priorities. I don't
know that I've ever been more clear in my position to
leadership of an agency or subagency, or in this case, a
Federal corporation, in terms of my disapproval of a particular
decision than this. For example, providing electricity for
businesses and customers and the local power distributors of
some 9 million people in the southeast, instead of displacing
the homeowners, perhaps TVA should focus on its current efforts
to sell a nuclear plant, which, by some public accounts, is
being sold for $36 million after investing $5 billion. $5
billion, and you're going to sell it for $36 million. Or
perhaps you need to look at continuing to work on the cleanup
of the Kingston plant coal ash dump that actually contaminated
drinking water of over a million people.
So I guess my concern here today is, what is the priority?
Is the priority affecting the property rights of so many people
that are here and watching, or is it what TVA was originally
designed for, and that was, to produce energy and to do flood
control?
So I'm anxious to hear some of the testimony today. I look
forward to, what I would say, a robust discussion as we look to
hopefully resolve this particular issue. And again, I thank the
witnesses for their participation.
And I recognize the ranking member for his opening
statement.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
your concern about this very discrete issue, and for the
remove--on the subject of the removal of all nonnavigable
houseboats and floating houses from the reservoirs within the
jurisdiction of the TVA 30 years from now.
Most are familiar with the TVA, which, by the way, was a
great success story of government investment in an
underperforming region during very difficult economic times,
and, by and large, a great success story about what--the power
of government to do good, and to stimulate economic activity
and create jobs, and rescue a region that otherwise would have
been left behind.
And I think--I think it's important, in an era where all
too often, we hear rhetoric about the hobnail booted government
on our necks, and government can't do anything right, that's
not true, and it's not true in a very important part of the
country, part of which encompasses my State of Virginia.
TVA is now a self-funded agency, supplying 9 million
Americans and businesses with low cost electricity across seven
southeastern States. The agency has a long history of
supporting the economic development and prosperity of residents
and businesses in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, areas where, at least
if I had my chance, I'd be reminding people about the good
government can actually do. Don't get too carried away with
that smaller government thing, because that's not how your
region advanced.
And it attracts $7.8 billion of direct investment alone
last year. I think that's a pretty important and impressive
track record.
Today's hearing on floating houses highlights a lesser-
known responsibility of the TVA. In 1933, when Congress created
the agency, it provided TVA with broad jurisdiction to regulate
obstructions that affect navigation, flood control of public
lands across, along, or in the Tennessee River or any of its
tributaries.
Privately-owned nonnavigable houseboats and floating houses
have been located on agency reservoirs since at least the
1950s. And despite a ban on new construction since the 1970s,
these structures have proliferated, numbering over 1,800, with
only half of them holding a permit, according to TVA.
Now, many have asked why TVA has not enforced its own
prohibition for nearly 40 years, but Mr. Chairman, I'm
encouraged that since his appointment in 2012, Mr. Johnson,
TVA's CEO, has acknowledged the problem and has now moved to
try to address what he perceives as a problem.
The new rule would impose an eventual ban on existing
nonnavigable houseboats and floating homes in 30 years. It
would also require new environmental and safety standards until
that time. I guess I would propound two principles from my
perspective. One is, that the status quo's unacceptable. There
are inherent safety problems, inherent pollution problems. You
know, people--we have to strike a balance, but--that's the
second point, we have to strike a balance. There are people who
live and are where they are, and we've got to take that into
account and we've got to be sensitive, as you indicated, Mr.
Chairman, to their plight, their condition, their assumption
that they were grandfathered in. And on the other hand, we also
have a broader responsibility to the public that, you know, you
don't get an ear infection when you go in the lake or the river
because of uncontrolled waste coming from these structures; you
don't put yourself at risk of electrical shock because we're
not being as careful as we could be about how wiring is
connected to these structures.
So, you know, we have a genuine challenge, but I think we
have to proceed in a balanced way, and I think we--certainly
the chairman has done, I think, an eloquent job of advocating
for those who will be affected directly, and that's not a
trivial matter.
And so I look forward to this hearing, Mr. Chairman,
especially to hear from the TVA about how are they approaching
that balance, how are we making sure that we are caring for all
of our citizens, including those who will be directly affected
some time over the next 30 years by this rule, and the
challenges you face in trying to implement that. So I'm glad
we're--I'm glad we're having a hearing that tries to do both,
look at the rule as objectively as we can, but also advocate on
behalf of our constituents, who certainly will be affected,
some of them very adversely by this rule, when and if it goes
into effect.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman. And I will make an open
invitation that the next hearing will actually be a site
hearing on one of these beautiful reservoirs. How about that?
We'll look at that.
So I'd like to hold the record open. We'll hold it open for
5 legislative days for any member who would like to submit a
written statement.
We'll now recognize our panel of witnesses. I'm pleased to
welcome Mr. William Johnson, the President and CEO of the
Tennessee Valley Authority. Welcome, Mr. Johnson; Ms. Laura
Sneed, founder of the Fontana Families for Floating Houses. Ms.
Sneed, welcome; Mr. David Monteith, the vice chairman of the
Swain County Board of Commissioners, welcome, Commissioner; Mr.
Michael Wilks, president of the Tennessee Valley Floating Home
Alliance. Welcome, Mr. Wilks; and Mr. Michael Butler, chief
executive officer of the Tennessee Wildlife Federation.
Welcome, Mr. Butler. Welcome to you all.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
before they testify, so if you would please rise and raise your
right hand.
You can tell a lot about an individual by his phone ring,
so----
Do you----
Mr. Johnson. It wasn't me.
Mr. Meadows. No. I know it wasn't.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
All right. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have
answered in the affirmative. We thank you.
In order to allow time for discussion, I would ask that you
try to please limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes, but your
entire written statement will be made part of the record.
So, Mr. Johnson, we'll recognize you for 5 minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM (BILL) D. JOHNSON
Mr. Johnson. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly,
members of the committee, good morning. I'm Bill Johnson, the
president and CEO of the Tennessee Valley Authority, and I
appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning to talk
about this policy.
I've been in TVA about 4 years. Prior to that, I was in the
utility business for many decades in North Carolina, and I have
a great fondness for that State and the people who live there.
Still consider myself a Tar Heel.
You know, TVA is a unique organization. In many respects,
it's like a traditional investor-owned utility, but it has some
differentiating responsibilities. Our statutory mission has
three priorities: the first is, deliver affordable, reliable
power; to create sustainable economic growth; and then to
steward our region's natural and cultural resources. And over
the last 83 years, we've had a number of legacy issues that
we've had to deal with, and the TVA board is starting to deal
with those issues.
The issue of floating homes didn't develop overnight, it
can't be fixed overnight, but TVA and the TVA board have a
responsibility to deal with issues like this.
So a little bit about TVA. We provide electricity to more
than 9 million people in seven States, including the chair and
the ranking member's home States. We receive no taxpayer
funding, but we do make tax equivalent payments, and last year,
we provided about $1.5 million in equivalent payments to Swain
and Graham County.
Now, we never actually encouraged the construction of
floating homes or nonnavigable houseboats. What we did do in
the 1970s was recognize the fact that we had them. We
grandfathered existing structures after the fact by issuing
about 900 permits, so these structures didn't have to be
removed immediately. We also, at times, prohibited new
structures. We did this in the form of a regulation that has
been published in the Code of Federal Regulations since 1978.
These permits gave no right to remain on the reservoir in
perpetuity, and TVA believed these structures would actually
disappear over time. And I don't know how that assumption was
made, but it was obviously an incorrect assumption.
Many of the 1970-era structures have been now transferred
to new owners or modified. And the problem was compounded by
inconsistent or lax enforcement of the TVA policy, with the
result that the number of floating homes actually doubled.
Several years ago, we got very concerned about some
environmental and operational problems with these houses, and
also about the proliferation of them. We actually found some
marketing data about a 200 floating-home subdivision to be
built right in Knoxville, Tennessee, and we saw a couple of
things like this, so we began a thorough policy review, public
input process under the National Environmental Policy Act, and
we identified, we had about 1,800, I think 1,836 exactly,
floating houses on the reservoirs. We took great care to
consider all perspectives during the public input process. A
lot of people urged us to remove the houses immediately. They
argued that if a citizen built a house in a national forest or
a hunting lodge in a national park, these would be removed
immediately.
Others expressed concern about safety and environmental
issues, gray water, anchoring, electrical connections.
Structure owners and marina operators were generally receptive
to better regulation, but obviously wanted the structures to
remain.
We estimated in the NEPA process that if we did nothing,
the number of floating houses would, again, double over the
next 30 years. We got input from the Federal Advisory Committee
on Natural Resources, FACNR, which has a gubernatorial
appointment from each of the States we are in. That board
advised a 20-year sunset period. So I think there's a general
consensus by all parties that health, safety, and environmental
standards have to improve for these houses. So after the
review, the TVA board approved a policy to establish new safety
and environmental standards for existing structures.
As had been noted, the policy also prohibits new floating
houses, which technically have been prohibited since 1978. It
requires all floating houses to be removed from the reservoirs
within 30 years. So we believe the extensive sunset period
helps mitigate, helps balance the impact on the floating
homeowners. I do want to note that concerns that Chairman
Meadows expressed actually helped move that sunset from 20 to
30 years.
For us, alternatives to the sunset provision imply
indefinite personal property rights for a select few on a
public resource. And neither TVA nor the TVA board believe it
has the authority to create personal property rights in
publicly-owned resources, and we think the Congress is really
the only body that has the right to do that.
So with that, I'll look forward to answering your
questions. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Ms. Sneed, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LAURA SNEED
Ms. Sneed. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
want to thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective
on the impact of TVA's decision to sunset floating homes. I'm
Laura Sneed, and I'm the cofounder of Fontana Families for
Floating Houses, and I'm also a member of the Tennessee Valley
Floating Home Alliance. I'm also a wife and a full-time working
mother of two boys and two grown step-children.
Prior to moving to Cherokee, North Carolina, I grew up in
Minnesota with memories of time spent at the lake. All I wanted
was for my children and future grandchildren to have similar
life experiences, and floating homes allowed us to do that.
As we were an expanding family, my husband, Eric, and I
purchased two modest grandfathered pre-1978 nonnavigable
houseboats on Fontana Lake. In February 2006, the TVA announced
they were recommending a 20-year sunset provision based on
their recently completed Environmental Impact Statement. This
was an involuntary removal of 1,836 floating homes from the TVA
reservoirs, and included the 918 previously grandfathered
homes. I was completely shocked and devastated, as I never
expected my family would lose our homes. Ultimately, the TVA
board voted for a 30-year sunset, but the financial and
emotional impacts have been felt immediately.
This decision has created pain and anxiety from so many
U.S. citizens with varying income levels, races, ages, and
political party affiliations. These homeowners are not only
from North Carolina and Tennessee, but also travel from
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. On Fontana Lake,
many homeowners are also enrolled members of the eastern band
of Cherokee Indians, including my husband and my children.
As responsible homeowners and frequent users of the lake,
most of us are not against reasonable regulations. The majority
of homeowners are worried about the proposed annual fee of
$0.50 per square foot for nongrandfathered and modified homes.
If the fees were to apply to our homes, there would be a 50
percent increase in our costs to legally moor them.
According to the TVA, up to 20 to 30 percent of the homes
will be removed after these go into effect. That's up to 550
families who are going to lose their American dream.
The sunset will also have a negative impact on all our
local economies, and may destroy the family-run businesses of
our marinas. According to the Alarka boat dock owner, Tony
Sherrill, homeowners make up to 50 percent of his revenue.
When one couples the loss of income with the extreme annual
drawdown of Fontana, which puts the marinas and homes actually
on the ground for several months, they may not be able to
diversify and survive. Without the marinas, the already-limited
lake access will significantly decrease, and that will be a
huge detriment to the public.
The TVA has cited concerns in their EIS justifying the
removal, including homes moored on the marinas and electrical
and water quality issues. In reality, only about two homes are
not moored in the marina limits. At Fontana, homeowners don't
have shore power. We do, however, pay monthly mooring fees and
have contracts to pump our raw sewage. Ironically, the TVA did
not conduct or include any water quality studies in their
report. Fortunately, in 2006, an extensive study was performed
on Fontana showing that the water quality was generally
excellent. As a steward and user of the lake, I care deeply
about our environment. And as a protective mother, I would
never allow my babies to swim in the lake if it was not safe.
The most recent concern raised by the TVA officials involve
the private use of a public resource. This implies the
ownership of a floating home is somehow a social concern of
fairness driven by privilege. In Swain County, there are 171
houseboats with a taxable value of $3.5 million. That averages
out to less than $21,000 per home, which is less than a brand-
new pontoon boat. Technically, everyone who uses the lake is
privately using a public resource. Should the TVA also ban
boats, as everyone cannot afford one? We worked hard and bought
our homes. Should we all lose them because someone else didn't
get the exact same opportunities? We know life isn't fair, but
everyone is just trying to live the American dream. If
everything in this country was regulated in an effort to
balance wealth and property, we'd be another failed communist
State, which is not the principles this Nation was founded on.
The TVA also claimed that they're sunsetting floating homes
in the interests of the people. Prior to the TVA board meeting,
we started an iPetition that received over 3,700 signatures and
900 comments. In addition to public support, Congressman
Meadows, and Senators Burr and Tillis, have introduced
legislation to allow them to stay. Seven Congressmen and women
from Tennessee sent the TVA a joint letter in favor of the
homes. The eastern band of Cherokee Indians, the Tennessee
State legislature, and numerous local counties have all passed
resolutions opposing the TVA's sunset. The TVA board has chosen
to ignore all of these public officials, in spite of the fact
they are voted in by the people and serve the interests of the
people.
In conclusion, the recent actions of the TVA board are a
clear example of government overreach that will have a negative
impact on our local economies, small businesses, and American
families. My family followed the rules, paid the fees, have our
permits, and brought our homes up to decent standards, yet we
too are being unfairly punished and going to lose something we
legally have the right to own.
Although the TVA is a government entity, I ask, who is
overseeing their actions and who is holding them accountable?
The TVA reservoirs are built for the people of the United
States, and as citizens served by that mission, we just want to
continue to enjoy them as we have done for decades.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Sneed follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Ms. Sneed.
Commissioner Monteith, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID MONTEITH
Mr. Monteith. Congressman Meadows, committee members, thank
you for the opportunity to letting us come today and testify of
how important houseboats are on Fontana Lake. I would like to
thank you, Congressman Meadows, for this opportunity,
especially. This is very, very devastating to Swain County if
we have to lose these.
Ladies and gentlemen, my name is David Monteith. I'm a
Swain County Commissioner. I'm here today to let you know how
the removal of houseboats from Fontana lake would affect the
health of Swain County and Graham County. I also chair the
Fontana Lake Waste Recovery, which wrote the ordinance not only
for Swain County, but for seven States for TVA. I also went
with TVA and presented to 47 other States this ordinance to
make this work everywhere, because it does work.
Fecal coliform went from over 12,000--or 1,200, down to
less than 35. But in 1943--we're going to talk about in 1943, a
national park was added to Swain County. This took an
additional 44,000 acres of land. Over 3,000 citizens then lost
their homes. Today 86 percent of Federal land is--is owned by
the Federal Government. Only 14 percent is taxable for Swain
County. Folks, that's hard to exist and work with with a 14
percent, and taking these houseboats off the lake would be
devastating for that.
In the midst of World War II, TVA took more than 11,000
acres of land from Swain County and Graham County to build
Fontana Lake. It was to be helped to use as a war effort. The
people of Swain County were told the power was needed to help
end the war and to build a bomb which would help end the war,
yet the Swain County citizens were forced to leave their lands.
Legal actions was taken that said they have to do so. If
they don't want to, they've still got to do so, they will take
and condemn land, but we have Judge Yates Webb held in the
district court back in the 1950s, that this was illegal,
against the Constitution of the United States, to take and
condemn land, but we lost schools, we lost cemeteries, we lost
Simmons grave, we lost settlements, churches, post offices,
hotels, boarding houses, grocery stores, train depots, side
tracks, ferries, hunting lodges, doctors, midwives, hospitals,
blacksmith shop, orchards, grist mills, gas stations, sawmills,
spice dens.
These are things that Swain County lost. And, again, we
lost because of not only the TVA part of this, an additional
44,000 acres, we had already lost from the first national park
the same thing again. We lost over 6,000 people because of
what's going on today, and we just--we need--enough is enough.
It don't need to be continued.
As you plainly see, the efforts for changing have been
served. Houseboat owners are asked to be forced off. This would
lose Swain County over $3 million of valuation, $12,000 just to
the economy of Swain County. And that, again, is devastating
when you only have a 14 percent tax base to work with. If Swain
County loses houseboats on Fontana Lake, we will lose, as I
said, $12,000 in taxes and over $3 million in valuation. And
that don't count the other side of the lake, Graham County.
They will double the same thing that we do. So that's how much
the western North Carolina area will lose. 86 percent, as I've
said, of Swain County is Federal land.
Fontana Lake Waste Recovery has cleaned the human waste out
of Fontana Lake. We have brought it down from 1,400 CC's down
to less than 35. This was written because, you know, local
doctors told us how filthy Fontana Lake was because of
houseboats, but there was nothing there to enforce it, so we
wrote an ordinance to make it enforceable and got houseboat
owners involved in doing just this one thing, and it's brought
it down to less than 35. So that's how clean the lake is today,
and we're very proud of it. TVA's proud of it, because they
adopted it to other States and other lakes, so they know the
effects of what has happened to Swain County.
So I do appreciate the consideration of this committee to
help us to keep Fontana Lake clean; not only Fontana Lake, but
other communities. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Monteith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Commissioner.
Mr. Wilks, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL T. WILKS
Mr. Wilks. Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the
committee, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor and a privilege
to sit here before you this morning representing the Tennessee
Valley Floating Home Alliance. We're a group of floating
homeowners, marina operators, renters, and people who enjoy the
recreational resources of the Tennessee reservoirs.
On May 5th, 2016, the TVA officials recommended the so-
called alternative V2 to the TVA board of directors for
adoption from among several other options outlined in the
Environmental Impact Statement. TVA commissioned for the
purpose of dealing with floating homes--the floating home
issue. Under alternative V2, TVA would approve existing
floating houses that met new minimum standards and would allow
for the mooring with permitted--within permitted harbor limits,
but also would establish a future sunset date, at which time
all existing floating homes must be forcibly removed from the
TVA reservoirs, including previously permitted nonnavigables.
Based on its officials' recommendation, the TVA board
adopted alternative V2, but in doing so, extended the sunset
period from 20 to 30 years.
Why now, after almost 40 years of inactivity, did the TVA
want to take such a Draconian approach to the issue? Why harm
the people who believed that they were in compliance? Why harm
local economies that rely on tourism dollars? Why not regulate
and allow marina owners, who the TVA has entrusted to be
stewards of the harbors, to monitor these structures? Why
hasn't the TVA done its job?
Based on inaccuracies and exaggerations, the TVA painted a
picture to the public that floating homeowners represented a
basket of deplorables, squatters, polluters, and those taking
the waters as their own, all to justify the removal of floating
homes. TVA officials failed to inform the public and, to some
extent, the board, that 98 percent of all floating homes are
moored within the confines of marina harbors in waters leased
by the TVA. Floating homes do not represent an unacceptable
taking of public waters for private use, as TVA actually leases
these waters, in which these vast majority of floating homes
are moored, to marina owners. Marina owners pay TVA a fee to
lease these waters, and floating homeowners, in turn, pay
marina owners to sublease a mooring space. In order to be
moored in a marina harbor, floating homeowners must contract
with either the marina owner itself, or a qualified wastewater
disposal company for the proper disposal of wastewater.
The TVFHA represents many stakeholders in this issue, not
only from Tennessee and North Carolina, but also from States
such as Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Florida, Arizona,
Kentucky, and Virginia. Floating homeowners travel to
reservoirs for weekends, or a week or two of vacation.
Many local people believe that the TVA would do nothing as
usual. The TVA makes rules that they never follow or enforce,
was the sentiment of many. The TVA was mandating this forced
removal, and this time the TVA apparently meant it.
In an April 2016 meeting of the TVA Regional Resource
Stewardship Council, Ms. Rebecca Tolene, TVA vice president of
natural resources, stated that she was, quote unquote,
``hellbent on removing floating houses.'' During the scoping
process involved in the EIS, there were many comments related
to the inconsistencies of the TVA. Marina operators, like
Debbie Samples, stated on a June 24, 2014 public meeting that
she spoke to a TVA official around 1997 and was told it was
okay to build a floating home in her marina, and that the TVA
was going to allow marinas to do what they wanted within the
harbors. There's many--there are stories like Maryanne and Tom
Lefker, who built a floating home after talking with a TVA
official, who led them to believe that the TVA was not
regulating these structures anymore. Others reiterated hearing
the same sentiments from the TVA.
Now these owners and others are to be levied fees, and at
the end of 30 years, would be required to pay for the forced
removal of their floating home from the lake.
Marina owners stand to lose 40 percent or more of their
revenues, which will be difficult to recover, forcing many to
close.
Revenues to counties in Tennessee would suffer
significantly from the sunset. Campbell County, with 11
marinas, which collectively generate an estimated $33 million
of the total 54.24 million in tourism dollars spent in the
county. Personal estimates of over $8,000 per year for basic
floating home costs, which over a conservative estimate number
of 400 units, brings $3.2 million to the Campbell County
economy alone.
This is an exclusive--this is exclusive of the purchase of
fuel, groceries, dining, and other items. Tourism is the only
growth industry in the region since 2008, and now jobs would be
lost. Campbell County Mayor E.L. Morton states, ``This is a
slap in the face to the citizens of the county, which has lost
jobs in the mining industry as a result of the TVA not buying
coal mined in the region.''
Our family made a choice to purchase a floating home on
Norris Reservoir because of the cleanliness of the water, the
beauty of the mountains, and the heritage and the friendliness
of its people, bringing truth to the term ``southern
hospitality.'' This is not the only story of its kind, as
evidenced in the public comment sections at two TVA board
meetings, letters to State and Federal legislators, and over
600 comments in a petition presented to the TVA.
While some on the TVA board believe that the additional
time the board granted to floating homeowners would
significantly mitigate the lost value suffered by owners, the
real impact is today. TVA staff has belabored the point of
floating homes, not unlike boats, depreciate in value over
time, but if they are well-maintained or improved, they are
likely to maintain or increase their value. Those that have
sold have done so at values often below cost. Retirees like
Janet and Gary Benzinger or Ray and Hazel Beal, a retired
couple in their 80s, either lost thousands of dollars on the
sale, or couldn't sell it at all.
TVA staff wrongly assumed that these structures were built
and handed down for generations into perpetuity. Our findings
show that these structures are bought and sold on an average of
5 to 8 years as financial demands and family situations change.
Marina owners have commented in meetings with the TVA that
they have complied with the regulations regarding sewage and
blackwater. Marinas or private contractors that pump out these
vessels required by the TVA to keep records, including gallons
pumped and where the waste is disposed of. These records are
rarely, if ever, inspected by the TVA.
After approximately 40 years of what has been essentially
regulatory neglect and often conflicting regulatory guidance
from various TVA officials, the TVA apparently made the
internal decision that it would be easier to force off all
floating homes from the lakes than to create fair, regulatory
policies and maintain effective compliance programs to enforce
them, and if floating homeowners, marina owners, local
governments lost tens of millions of dollars in uncompensated
home value and tax revenue in the process, it was no concern to
the TVA.
Apparently, in an effort to build its case for the
decision, the TVA commissioned an EIS that was heavy on
conclusions to justify the removal of floating homes, but light
on the research to back up those conclusions. For example, the
EIS concluded that floating homes hurt the water quality of TVA
lakes, but did not include any real research to back up those
conclusions, and, in fact, left out water quality research that
showed excellent water quality on Fontana Lake.
Those not from the Tennessee Valley are unaware of the
contradictions that TVA has created. Is the TVA a government
agency or a private corporation responsible for driving profits
from the sale of electricity? They're also unaware that the
board is comprised of presidential appointees and that millions
of dollars in salaries are paid to the executives of this
Federal corporation.
The board realized that it had a real decision to make,
which required more thought than usually needed. They didn't
fathom that over 50 floating homeowners, marina owners, and
others would travel some 8 hours to State the position that the
vast majority of floating homes are not as they are described
in the EIS. We give much credit to Chairman Joe Ritch, and
especially Directors Michael McWherter and Marilyn Brown, for
their attention. Directors McWherter and Brown held a position
of holding off a decision, and directing the staff to further
investigate the matter. This would allow time to correct the
admitted blundering the TVA had done in the past.
We can all agree that there needs to be a registration or
inventory of existing structures, including mooring systems,
waterlines, electric cables in the various marinas. There needs
to be--this needs to be done in conjunction with the marinas
and organizations such as the TVFHA. Concise and sensible
safety requirements must be developed, including a plan for
future recreational use of structures like these.
Where we have a difficulty in reaching a meeting of the
minds of the TVA is in the notion that floating homes represent
an unresponsive, unacceptable private taking of public waters.
You see, marinas on Norris Reservoir represent only 1.9 percent
of the total surface area of the reservoir.
At the suggestion of the board, we and other groups have
met with the staff to work on proposed regulations and develop
a plan moving forward. The TVA recognizes the TVFHA as a voice
and a mechanism to communicate new requirements and work
towards better stewardship. We have asked the TVA to be
included as a representative from our organization on the RRSC,
so there can be a fair and balanced discussion on stewardship
matters. We have also committed to an ambassador program with
marinas and homeowners to help communicate the standards and
assist in the registration and compliance measures, thus
reducing costs for the TVA.
The TVA has an opportunity to turn its negative perception
into a positive means for persons of the United States to
utilize the resources in a positive and sustainable manner
without removing those structures within compliance. Like the
floating home associations in California and Washington, where
floating homeowners and their government regulators have
learned how to peacefully co-exist, there is an opportunity to
work together here in a nonpartisan manner if the TVA would
just avail itself of it.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Wilks follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Wilks.
Mr. Butler, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. BUTLER
Mr. Butler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Connolly, and members of the committee for allowing me to
address this important issue. I've spent a large portion of my
life on the reservoirs that TVA manages, traveling across the
entire river valley, and spending a lot of time on most of the
reservoirs out of the 49, witnessing firsthand the importance
of the public resources and the values they bring to the entire
State of Tennessee, where I live.
In my capacity as CEO of the Tennessee Wildlife Federation,
I have sat across the table from TVA and challenged them hard
on taking care of our public resources, but I've also sat on
the same side of the table with them in helping them accomplish
the same.
The issue of nonnavigable floating houses on public
reservoirs is not new, as well spoken here by the other
testimony. We find that in 1971, the first prohibition was
placed on new, nonnavigable floating houses in the Federal
Register. But what's remarkable to us is that out of the 1,836
floating homes on the reservoirs, 930 of them occurred after
the second prohibition was placed on the construction and
location of these on our public reservoirs.
Today we are here to review a new prohibition on floating
houses once again. This new chapter builds on previous ones,
apparently catalyzed by discussions of plans to insight entire
new subdivisions of floating homes on our public reservoirs.
The public reservoir system in Tennessee is the backbone
and attraction of a strong outdoor recreation economy, and
their conservation is why we support the recently approved TVA
board policy.
Public resources only have value inasmuch as they are
available to the public. What makes this possible is rational
use provided by law, and TVA manages these public resources
under Section 26(a) of the TVA Act. As such, we believe these
public resources should not be made--should not be impeded or
made de facto private property by allowing permanent floating
houses on public waters. Floating houses exclude the public
from being able to utilize the water they occupy in particular,
and can negatively impact public uses of the larger public
reservoirs as a whole.
While some argue against this policy, saying that these
structures help the local economy, which they do, the reality
of the economic impacts of floating houses is much more dynamic
than just that simple analysis. As stated in the 2016 EIS,
floating houses may work to depress shoreline property values
and negatively impact surface recreational opportunities. Add
to this that floating houses are being used as rental
properties, and this further exacerbates these negative
impacts.
Generally speaking, our federation is not opposed to
businesses operating on public waters or lands, as long as the
activities or services being offered do not degrade the natural
resources involved, and that they do not exclude other
legitimate uses of these public resources. In our opinion,
floating houses do not pass either of these tests.
Waste, navigation, and electrical safety issues as stated
are also well-identified concerns. I cite the recently
completed EIS again, which says, ``An increase in the number of
floating homes is expected to exacerbate water pollution
problems, adding to the cumulative wastewater loading to
surface waters.'' Leaking of human and household waste into
public reservoirs is a hazard to aquatic life and recreational
users as well.
Who is responsible for this compliance? And if the new
policy is removed, is this removal effectively an unfunded
mandate to the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation to enforce these measures?
So while some will argue that wastewater and electrical
safety can be regulated, the sheer fact that hundreds of these
structures have been placed on our public reservoirs without
permitting or oversight over a handful of decades in direct
violation of Federal rules makes a clear statement that the
rules and standards designed to protect the public's interest,
and these resources are not being followed. What evidence do we
have that this will change? If past history is a predictor of
future performance, it won't.
Lastly, and of great importance to millions who love to
fish our public reservoirs, we believe the presence of floating
houses diminishes the experience of and deters use by anglers
who seek to use these public waters and fisheries resources,
especially when they are occupied. In Tennessee, these anglers
have a constitutional right to hunt and fish. And with allowing
de facto private ownership of these reservoirs, it is arguable
that this is in direct conflict with these activities and
arguably this right.
We believe that no citizen should have a presumption of
ownership of public waters, especially when it comes at the
expense of other citizens with equal claim to ownership and
use. There are good reasons why we cannot build a home in a
national park, and there are equally good reasons why these
structures were prohibited and regulated starting in 1971.
I would like to close by noting that we believe this policy
is squarely aligned with TVA's 26(a) authority. This is a tough
issue, no doubt, but we find that TVA addressed it
comprehensively and professionally, choosing a policy that
protects the greatest public interest and our public
reservoirs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Connolly, for
this opportunity.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Butler follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Butler, for your testimony. And
I would be remiss if I didn't recognize your daughter, who is
here out of school for a civics lesson, so I want to recognize
her.
Mr. Butler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meadows. And we'll give you that letter that you
requested so that it's an excused absence.
Mr. Butler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. The chair recognizes the vice chair of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I assume you'll also
give a selfie opportunity with the young lady to make sure that
it's accurate.
I appreciate the panel being here today. I must admit, as
a--when I left high school and majored in forestry and land
management, I didn't end up in that field, but I love the
outdoors, love stewardship of our resources, but I also--I
also, as a patriotic citizen, understand that this country is
ours, including the waterways. And too often, we get a mind-set
that appears that government will control that, it's government
lands that we give, at times, back to the use of people. I
don't like that idea at all.
I live in the beautiful Irish Hills area of Michigan,
beautiful waterways, lakes, and we have some houseboats on some
of those lakes. We also have residences that surround these
lakes that go right up to the water in times. We found ways the
deal with it. We found ways of taking septic systems out,
putting grinder pumps, pumping up to municipal sewage systems,
dealing at times with taking out wells and putting in public
water, but we tried to keep people on the lakes and using the
lakes as well.
We have a public entity here with the TVA. And, Mr.
Johnson, I appreciate the fact that you want to carry out
regulation appropriately, but the TVA has a staggering amount
of debt, which is a Federal Government corporation and
connected to the Federal deficit as well. Taking this into
account, wouldn't you consider compensation packages worth
millions of dollars for TVA executives excessive? We're talking
about the fact top executives at TVA being paid nearly 15 times
as much as the salary for President Obama and nearly 30 times
the salary of the U.S. Secretary of Energy. Is it really
necessary?
In context now, talking about controlling water resources
that, as Mr. Monteith explained, took away a lot of land, a lot
of resources, a lot of buildings and structures from people.
And while providing a service, certainly, yet the excessive
costs here, and we're talking about concerns about people
living on houseboats. So let me ask that question again.
Mr. Johnson. Sure. Well, actually the compensation of
people at TVA is specified in a Federal statute. It's in the
TVA Act, measures how it is to be constructed, and it was a
recognition in 2005 that TVA is actually the largest utility in
this country, I think. We operate seven nuclear plants. It is
like running a large IOU. And if you need to get the talent and
skills of people to do that, you need to pay them. And we make
about half or less of peers in private industry. So compared to
other government employees, we are better paid; compared to
industry, we are not.
Mr. Walberg. Well, you're not private industry.
Mr. Johnson. Right.
Mr. Walberg. You're government employees. And here we're
talking about families, families that have put up a houseboat
for a purpose in life that really comes with the reality of
life, liberty, and prosperity--or happiness, as it was put. And
we have regulatory agencies that continue to expand while being
in huge debt. And we're concerned about this particular issue,
and not finding a way to address the values and lifestyles of
these people.
Let me go to Ms. Sneed. In your testimony, you recount how
you followed the rules, you paid thousands of dollars in fees,
you received Section 26(a) permit from TVA. How'd you feel when
the board announced its policy to remove all floating homes
from the TVA reservoirs within 20 years, and now 30 years?
Ms. Sneed. Well, when I received my postcard in the mail, I
was kind of going through my mail, and I read it, and I was
just--just taken aback. And I was shocked, because, I mean, we
were--we did it--you know, we did it right. These houses--our
houses have been there probably since the 1950s, and the fact
that they're taking those away too, and just taking them all
away, it's just--it's devastating for us, and then getting to
know everyone else, you know, the people that aren't
grandfathered. It's hurting a lot of people. And at first, I
didn't even know what to do, and so it took us, like, a month
and a half to get going, but--you know, that we needed to fight
this, but I just--it was devastating. And, I mean, we've--
Fontana is kind of a cash, you know, lake, so our house values
are not as high as others. So we put a lot of money in our--
from our savings account into these houses, you know, to
replace the black floats and, you know, to make our sinks pump
into a septic tank and, you know, to make them, you know, more
environmentally friendly and safe for our children, because
there was a beaver that lived under our house and ate our
floor. And so to, you know, basically lose a lot of money from
your savings account and everything, it just--it was--it was
devastating.
Mr. Walberg. And future plans as well.
Ms. Sneed. Well, yeah. I mean, I wanted my kids to be able
to swim on the lake. You know, North Carolina is very different
than Minnesota. You can't just buy a cheap cabin and, you know,
bring your family up and just walk down to the lake. And, you
know, we looked at properties, but it's really expensive. It's
very limited on Fontana. Most of the land is either Forest
Service or national park. There are some private opportunities,
but they're very expensive compared to, you know, buying land
in Swain County normally, you might be able to buy, what, an
acre for $10,000. A quarter, half acre is $500,000 on the lake,
so it's not proportionate to what the people make in the area
and it's--so, I mean, the floating homes allow normal people to
actually use the lake.
Mr. Walberg. Okay. Mr. Wilks----
Mr. Wilks. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walberg. --you argue that floating homes do not
represent an unacceptable taking of public waters for private
use. Could you explain that further?
Mr. Wilks. The marinas are--pay a lease fee to the TVA.
Contrary to their accusation, or their assumptions out there
that--there's over 98 percent of these floating homes or these
structures are within marina confines. They've already leased
an area to a private entity, to a private marina.
Mr. Walberg. Define ``marina confines'' for me, if you
would. What's that look like?
Mr. Wilks. They're within a harbor or set harbor limits by
the TVA.
Mr. Walberg. And that's already leased to the owners of the
marina?
Mr. Wilks. Yes, it is, sir.
Mr. Walberg. So the marina really decided what they want to
do with their space, correct?
Mr. Wilks. Correct.
Mr. Walberg. And they've given that to floating homes----
Mr. Wilks. They've given----
Mr. Walberg. --houseboats.
Mr. Wilks. --some of that area to floating homes, some of
it to their own docks for, you know, private slips for----
Mr. Walberg. Fishing purposes.
Mr. Wilks. For fishing purposes, for, you know, storage of
boats, for storage of production houseboats. You know, they're
docked all along--or within those harbors.
Mr. Walberg. And so that's, you said, 90 percent----
Mr. Wilks. Yes.
Mr. Walberg. --generally speaking.
Mr. Wilks. Yes. Actually by TVA estimates, it was 98
percent.
Mr. Walberg. Of all----
Mr. Wilks. Roughly----
Mr. Walberg. 98 percent of leased property--98 percent of
the houseboats are on already leased property.
Mr. Wilks. Yes.
Mr. Walberg. That isn't taking away anything that wasn't
given by TVA already.
Mr. Wilks. Correct.
Mr. Walberg. Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this
hearing. This is illuminating for me to some degree, but I
appreciate your efforts to move forward on this and try to find
a suitable answer to make sure that resources are cared, we
want that, but also that personal choices and personal liberty
and the opportunity for doing something with your lifestyle on
remaining lands that aren't controlled somehow, some way, by
the Federal Government, that seems to be getting more and more,
that we're given these opportunities. So thank you.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend, the chairman, and I thank
him for this hearing.
I must take issue with Mr. Walberg. I mean, unlimited,
quote, ``personal liberty,'' you want to see where that can
lead, let's look at the Detroit River that poisoned the people
of Flint, Michigan. There is a role for Federal Government,
there is a role for government regulation. It protects people.
And I cannot abide the assertion of a philosophy that virtually
leads to unlimited pollution of waterways.
Mr. Walberg. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Connolly. Briefly.
Mr. Walberg. Briefly. I'm not asking----
Mr. Connolly. Only because I have 5 minutes. I'm sorry. I
didn't mean that to be rude.
Mr. Walberg. I'm not asking--I'm not asking for unlimited--
--
Mr. Connolly. Okay.
Mr. Walberg. --at all, but I'm asking for some type of
reasonable care for that personal liberty that we all believe
in. And I don't see this here, and especially when I see an
entity that is so huge in debt.
Mr. Connolly. All right.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Reclaiming my time, I say to my friend, I
agree with that. In fact, I said that in my opening statement.
I think is a matter--we have to strike a balance here between
that and the need to protect public waterways or semipublic
waterways, but I think we have to be careful in how we express
that, because, at least on our side of the aisle, we get off--I
mean, and the people you're trying to protect, if we frame it
in such stark terms, I think we lose support we otherwise might
get, because, certainly, this member with a strong
environmental record is not unsympathetic to the plight,
nonetheless, of the individuals who are affected here, who
thought they were making decisions that would be protected or
not challenged, and I'm totally sympathetic with that plight.
So anyway.
Ms. Sneed, I want to make sure I understand your testimony.
How long have you lived on this floating house?
Ms. Sneed. We bought the first house in 2014, and then the
second house we bought in 2015. So the first house, we actually
bought from a family that their real house burned down, and
they used it as an asset.
Mr. Connolly. All right. So you're relatively new?
Ms. Sneed. We are.
Mr. Connolly. And where did you come from?
Ms. Sneed. I'm from----
Mr. Connolly. Oh. You said Minnesota.
Ms. Sneed. From Minnesota. I met my husband working on a
project. He's from--he's from Cherokee, North Carolina, and----
Mr. Connolly. Okay.
Ms. Sneed. --married and moved down here.
Mr. Connolly. All right. Now, do you have a permit?
Ms. Sneed. We do. We have two.
Mr. Connolly. You do. Okay. Would you agree that anyone
who's on the lake, or the reservoir, ought to have a permit,
because that's what's required by law?
Ms. Sneed. We do. And so in North Carolina, the houses that
don't have TVA permits are registered as North Carolina boats,
and a lot of them have steering wheels and they can actually
drive them around. So in our first spot, the previous neighbor
actually would take theirs out and drive the lake like a
houseboat.
Mr. Connolly. So I understand, but I'm trying to get at
sort of--I was in local government, like Mr. Monteith. 14 years
I did re-zonings, a lot more than you probably have done in a
lifetime, because it's Fairfax County, right? So I did
thousands of re-zonings. And it is not up for opinion whether
the government has a right to insist on permitting and
licensing and certain regulations with respect to lot size and
what you can build and if you can build and sewer lines and all
that stuff. I mean, that's what we did for a living to protect
the public.
Ms. Sneed. Right.
Mr. Connolly. Now, sometimes opinions can clash about how
far government goes? And do you really need to be doing that?
And I found myself on both sides of that as a local elected
official. Sometimes I saw government at its worse, and
sometimes, thank God, I saw it at its best. And all I'm trying
to get at here is you certainly--because I don't want to
misconstrue your testimony. You agree that it is within the
purview of TVA to issue permits, that you--if you're going to
have a floating house, you've got to have a permit?
Ms. Sneed. Yes. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. Okay. And you heard Mr. Johnson's testimony
that unfortunately when they grandfathered it in, even those
that previously before you got onto the reservoir, that were
without a permit, they finally decided, let's make them all
legal and we'll grant 900-and-something permits and start over
so that nobody's illegal. That's our solution. In the past,
that's what they did. You heard that?
Ms. Sneed. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. And what happened?
Ms. Sneed. People continued to build, because it was not
regulated.
Mr. Connolly. That's right.
Ms. Sneed. But other people----
Mr. Connolly. Well, it was technically regulated, but they
didn't enforce it.
Ms. Sneed. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. Yeah. So we went from 900 to 1,800, which
would suggest that half the homes, floating homes were or are
illegal, that is to say, without a permit. Is that correct, Mr.
Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. That is, in fact, correct, yes.
Mr. Connolly. Okay. So a lot of your neighbors are there
illegally.
Ms. Sneed. Sort of, because they have--they're registered
as boats on our lake.
Mr. Connolly. So there's a sort of getting around the
permit requirement.
Ms. Sneed. I mean, they can drive them around as boats, so,
we chose to get permits.
Mr. Connolly. Right.
Ms. Sneed. Other people----
Mr. Connolly. But you--at least you know----
Ms. Sneed. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. --TVA, that is the governing authority here
under law----
Ms. Sneed. Uh-huh.
Mr. Connolly. --considers them illegal, right?
Ms. Sneed. We just went out of our way to make sure that--
--
Mr. Connolly. No. I know. You're clean with the Lord. Good,
good. All right. But I think you would agree as a citizen,
right, we can't have people exercising illegal options, right?
We all want to be within the law.
Ms. Sneed. Uh-huh.
Mr. Connolly. Okay. And within the law is our protection.
It's your protection. You're legal. I can't do anything.
Ms. Sneed. But they are taking us off.
Mr. Connolly. Hold that in abeyance. I'm talking about day-
to-day stuff. Whereas, if I operate outside the law, not only
am I at risk, but so is the public, because I may be leaking or
violating other things that you have gone to great trouble not
to do. You got--from what I understand from your testimony, you
have gone to great extent and expense to make sure that you are
an environmentally-sensitive floating home. So you're not
polluting the waterway you are situated in. Is that correct?
Ms. Sneed. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Would that be a fair--okay.
So, now, Mr. Butler. Going to balance, I know you conceded
that this is a tough decision, but can't we find some middle
path between ``you're out of here in 30 years'' which instantly
has an impact on not only psychology, but on home values and
protecting a natural resource, which I agree with you, has to
be protected and it's the responsibility of TVA. And we heard
from Mr. Wilks. Part of the problem here is the inconsistency
of TVA's enforcement and that is as bad as a bad law.
If it is on the books and it's the law, it needs to be
enforced consistently so that everybody understands. The
expectations are uniform across the board. And TVA hasn't done
that, according to Mr. Wilks, and no one has gainsaid that
testimony. And I think that's a very fundamental problem.
Because, Mr. Johnson, one of the problems here is, once you're
gone, will your successor enforce this or care? Are we once
again going to be up in the air about what's expected, wink,
blink and what is the law and all that?
So all right, Mr. Butler, my time is up, but I would like
you to at least help address the balance because I didn't hear
a lot of sympathy in your testimony. I mean, I heard passionate
advocacy for the environment, which I share. But there are
human beings who are going to be affected here, most of whom,
through no fault of their own, find themselves caught in this
conundrum. And they may not want to leave. They may not--they
certainly don't want that cloud hanging over their heads of
uncertainty. And can't there be a middle way that allows us to
have an environmental solution while still allowing people to
stay in their homes, and exercise the personal liberty Mr.
Walberg talked about?
Mr. Butler. Well, we are certainly empathetic to the plight
of the folks that have invested their hard-earned dollars into
those structures. We would look at this in a couple of
different ways. One is, we find it remarkable that there would
be a presumption of permanent residency on public resources. In
other words, we understand that TVA didn't follow up on their
'78 policy and enforce it, per your points. But we also think
the citizens have a responsibility to make sure that they are
registered. When I buy a car, I have a responsibility to go get
it registered.
Mr. Connolly. We have established that, and Ms. Sneed
doesn't take any issue with that. She agrees. She has done
that.
Mr. Butler. But the problem is, Mr. Connolly, is that half
of these facilities ignored that and took no responsibility.
And if that is the historical context, we are concerned that
the future context could be similar. Now, having said that, we
responded in our testimony and in our response to TVA in their
EIS process, the NEPA process, around the alternatives that
they gave. There are other potential alternatives that could be
based around ownership of the bottom of the reservoirs, in our
opinion. Potentially, you could look at areas where flowage
easements were purchased. They are private property rights
arguably owned by individuals where TVA has the right to flood,
but they don't own the surface or subsurface right under the
water.
If you anchor to that, then there might be an argument made
that that could be a different situation, versus if there are
public lands underneath those waters that were taken in any
other manner. And I think you could find some potential
alternatives there, although we have not examined those, and we
have not discussed those with TVA.
Mr. Connolly. Well, I'm glad you clarified that because
when you started talking about the solution being at the bottom
of a reservoir, I got really nervous for Ms. Sneed and
everybody else.
All right. Thank you, and I hope your daughter got a bit of
a taste of the wondrous democracy we have and being able to
express our opinions and not worry about it. Mr. Chairman, over
to you. Thank you.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the ranking member. Commissioner
Monteith, did you want to comment? I saw you--you looked like
you wanted to jump in on that before I start my series of
questions. I will recognize myself for asking questions, but
I'll let you comment if you wanted to do so.
Mr. Monteith. TVA, they determined, first of all, how many
houseboats can be put in a harbor. You can't just go down and
throw in 10,000 in a harbor. They tell TVA, they tell the dock
owners how many they can put, and that's all they can put.
Okay. Also, the TVA law on houseboats, you know, they're
navigable, these are navigable laws are NC navigable laws that
they told you. You've got TVA numbers and you've got NC
numbers. Those NC numbers that Ms. Sneed talked about, they
have a motor on it, it can view 180 degrees. You can see it. It
can be moved around because, that's the way North Carolina law
requires it. The other ones at TVA don't. They stay put, solid.
But, again, how many is in a harbor is what it is. And TVA
determines what goes on that lake. And we abide by that, not
only with the harbor, but cleaning the lake up and keeping it
clean to where it is clean on that lake. I mean----
Mr. Meadows. All right.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. Go ahead. Sure. Go ahead.
Mr. Connolly. Just following up on what.
Mr. Meadows. I'll yield to you.
Mr. Connolly. Well, because we didn't give Mr. Monteith an
opportunity because I think it was pretty dramatic when you
said you brought the pollution levels down----
Mr. Monteith. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. --from 1,400 to 35.
Mr. Monteith. Yes, sir. Exactly right.
Mr. Connolly. And if the chairman is--I think we would love
to hear a little bit, how did you do that?
Mr. Monteith. We have done it because we got grants from
TVA, $90,000. We got in grants from Western Carolina University
at $20,000. We got grants from DENR of $340,000; grants from
RC&D, State again, of $345,000. We got these grants together.
We took that money and we bought Fontana Lake Waste Recovery,
because there was no ordinance enforcing the lake. We wrote the
ordinance so it could be enforced. Okay? We took the grant
money and we bought each boat dock a pump-out boat. We built
each boat dock a floating platform that would hold 1,000
gallons of waste. They could take their dock, go in, pump out
her houseboat and take it over and put it into the holding
tank, and then the State--or not the State, but the county
would come by on the banks and pick it up and haul it out, just
like a sewage on Bryson--in the county. That's what we done to
make the lake clean. That's why.
And not only that, but as I said, TVA sent me to other
States to present what we done so they can do the same thing,
and these other seven States are doing the same thing. We don't
have private land to where they are running sewer lines and
water lines and power lines under the lake. That's not on
Fontana Lake. It's Federal on one side, Forest Service, TVA and
you are in a harbor and limited to how many you can put in that
harbor and they mandate that to us. Okay. Did that clear that
up?
Mr. Connolly. It does. Thank you.
Mr. Monteith. Good deal.
Mr. Meadows. So thank you.
Mr. Butler, let me come to you, because you said you have
traveled on most of the 49 reservoirs. So you have enjoyed it.
You fished--I assumed you fished. Your testimony was that you
have enjoyed the reservoirs. Is that correct?
Mr. Butler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So in doing that and enjoying
those, when was the last time you were on Fontana?
Mr. Butler. It would have had to have been probably in the
late 1990s.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So you haven't been there for over
20 years?
Mr. Butler. Around there. Maybe a little less.
Mr. Meadows. But so you just prefer not to come to North
Carolina. That's okay. You're from Tennessee. I got that. So
you're enjoying the reservoirs in Tennessee?
Mr. Butler. Primarily, yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. I say to both of you, Virginia is gorgeous.
Mr. Meadows. Yeah. You ought to see Michigan. I can hear
it. We can see where this is going. So Mr. Butler, if you have
been enjoying it, and so at this point, you would say that
recreation on TVA reservoirs is pretty good. Right?
Mr. Butler. I think it is. I think we have some challenges.
Mr. Meadows. So let me ask you. Let me cut you off. I have
only got limited time. If it's good, how has the 1,826 floating
homes affected your enjoyment, your private enjoyment? Because
your testimony, your sworn testimony is you've enjoyed it.
Mr. Butler. Sure.
Mr. Meadows. And I want to know how these 1,826 floating
homes has affected your private enjoyment, Mr. Butler.
Mr. Butler. Well, they haven't, but I'm not here----
Mr. Meadows. Oh, okay. So they haven't. So then your
concern is not with the 1,826 boats that we have there, or
floating homes that we have there. It would be if we increased
it. Is that correct?
Mr. Butler. My concern is with the people I represent, with
the Wildlife Federation.
Mr. Meadows. Oh, okay. All right.
Mr. Butler. And their use of the reservoir.
Mr. Meadows. So it is not really about private enjoyment as
much as it is your official capacity?
Mr. Butler. Their private enjoyment.
Mr. Meadows. Oh. So you are saying you can enjoy it, but
they can't.
Mr. Butler. No. I'm saying that the private enjoyment of
those people that I represent, like the Tennessee Striped Bass
Association that recreates primarily on Norris Reservoir.
Mr. Meadows. All right. I'm a fisherman. I'm an angler. Do
you know where I catch most of the fish? Under docks and under
floating homes. Wouldn't you agree with that? You know, you are
a wildlife guy.
Mr. Butler. That's why in my testimony, I particularly
stated the impact of when they are occupied, because when they
are occupied, people don't like----
Mr. Meadows. Oh, you scare the fish away when they are
occupied?
Mr. Butler. No. They don't like--they don't like getting in
the personal space of the people that are on the docks.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Butler, this is sworn testimony, so I--how
many fish have you talked to?
Mr. Butler. Zero, sir.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So let me make a point. This is sworn
testimony, and here's what I'm asking you to do.
Mr. Butler. Sure.
Mr. Meadows. Let's identify the barriers to fixing this
problem, and let's dispense with the pontification of what may
or may not happen in the future. I'm willing--in fact, Mr.
Johnson, wouldn't you agree that I spoke to you and your chief
of staff on numerous occasions? You once, your chief of staff
on numerous occasions.
Mr. Johnson. That's more than accurate.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. All right.
Mr. Johnson. We've heard a lot from you.
Mr. Meadows. You've heard a lot from me. Did I not tell you
that I was willing to put in some reasonable restrictions in
permitting and actually find a process? In fact, I said we
ought to use Mr. Monteith's model and make that a requirement
for all of the reservoirs in terms of working that over; that I
wanted to find some common ground. Did I not tell you that?
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely you did.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So if we're looking, and Mr.
Butler's private enjoyment hasn't been affected to date. In
fact, I guess, Mr. Butler, since you're saying this is a
private taking--is that what you're saying? That was what your
sworn testimony was, this was a private taking? I heard that.
Mr. Butler. I don't know if I used that exact word, but
it's possible. Yes, we would say this is a private exclusion of
other public uses.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So would a marina be a private of
other public use?
Mr. Butler. If it goes through the processes that TVA----
Mr. Meadows. Would a dock, would a dock be? Because it is.
You know, here is the thing is, we are talking about floating
homes, and your testimony would be inconsistent if that was the
premise of what you are talking about because all of those
would be private takings of a public entity. Would they not? So
you're saying get rid of everything on the lake?
Mr. Butler. No, sir, we're not.
Mr. Meadows. Well, then, why make the decision----
Mr. Butler. Because these are being established as
residences----
Mr. Meadows. Oh, okay.
Mr. Butler. --versus day-use boats that are typically for--
--
Mr. Meadows. So how many people live there 365 days a year?
Mr. Butler. I have no idea.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. I can tell you, because I don't normally
ask questions that I don't know the answers for, and the answer
is zero. So it's not a residence. So are you saying that we
need to get rid of docks and marinas too? Is that your
testimony?
Mr. Butler. I definitely would believe that we need to be
smart about locating docks and marinas so they don't impede
upon these values that I mentioned in testimony.
Mr. Meadows. What values is that?
Mr. Butler. Access, navigation.
Mr. Meadows. All right. But we haven't heard any--Mr.
Johnson, in fact, I think in his testimony, has said that there
is not an access problem or a navigation problem. Isn't that
correct, Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. I don't believe I said that.
Mr. Meadows. Well, you have public statements to that
effect. So is there a navigation problem?
Mr. Johnson. Yes. There are, at some of these marinas,
navigation problems.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So let me ask you this: I want to
go here because is it harder to move around a floating home
that is stationary than a bass boat that is going 40 miles an
hour?
Mr. Johnson. I was not a physics student, but harder to
move a houseboat. They are moored.
Mr. Meadows. Is it easier to avoid a houseboat that is
stationary than a moving boat that's going 40 miles an hour?
Mr. Johnson. Typically, yes, but----
Mr. Meadows. Typically yes, what? It's easier to go around
a floating home.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, it's easier to avoid a standing object
than a moving object. Yes, but the anchorages of some of these
do pose navigation problems. I have some pictures here if you
would like to see.
Mr. Meadows. When was the last time you were on Fontana?
Mr. Johnson. Within the last 6 weeks.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. And so do you see any anchorage problems
on Fontana?
Mr. Johnson. I would say Fontana is probably the best in
terms of quality, environmental safety, anchorage. I think
that's----
Mr. Meadows. So why would the board not take what we are
doing in Fontana and make it applicable for the other 49
reservoirs as a good example of good regulation, like my good
friend from Virginia is talking about. Why would you not do
that?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I think that is part of the plan to do
that, which is to----
Mr. Meadows. You mean, in the next 30 years----
Mr. Johnson. That's right.
Mr. Meadows. --until we get rid of them?
Mr. Johnson. There are two points here. Yes, we need to
improve our enforcement of standards, set standards, health,
environmental standards. The reason I got interested in this a
couple of years ago is we had people in one of the reservoirs
get so sick from swimming in sewage that they had to go to the
hospital.
Mr. Meadows. Was that in Fontana?
Mr. Johnson. Wasn't Fontana.
Mr. Meadows. Didn't I request that we just exempt some of
the ones where you are not having problems? Didn't I tell you
that? Why don't we just exempt it if we are not having a
problem?
Mr. Johnson. My second point, which I actually do believe a
permanent right to be there, if we have no sunset ability, we
have created a permanent property right in public resources and
I'm not the only one who thinks this. Federal District Court in
Western North Carolina, the Honorable Woodrow Jones, said even
a single houseboat moored to Federal land interferes with the
government ownership rights.
Mr. Meadows. So are you saying this is Federal land? Is
that your testimony?
Mr. Johnson. Sure, it is.
Mr. Meadows. So what part of water is Federal land?
Mr. Johnson. Well, the land under----
Mr. Meadows. I only know of one person who walked on water.
Mr. Johnson. The land under it, certainly.
Mr. Meadows. Is it land or is it water?
Mr. Johnson. The land is Federal land. The water is
entrusted to the care of TVA under the TVA Act and, of course,
public owns the right.
Mr. Meadows. So what role does the EPA have in cleanliness?
Mr. Johnson. I'm not sure.
Mr. Meadows. Do they have any role on TVA waters?
Mr. Johnson. I think the water quality is a matter of State
law and State enforcement, I believe.
Mr. Meadows. Well, State and Federal. Okay. Okay, so, when
you look at that, are they monitoring the cleanliness of the
lake?
Mr. Johnson. I think everybody who draws water out of any
lake or any river monitors it routinely, yes.
Mr. Meadows. All right. And so is this environmental
problem on Fontana?
Mr. Johnson. As I said, Fontana has led the way here in
environmental standards and other things.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So was it your staff that
recommended to the board to take this action?
Mr. Johnson. Certainly, yes.
Mr. Meadows. All right. And they did that based on what?
Mr. Johnson. Two years of study, a number of public
hearings, comment periods.
Mr. Meadows. And they did that why? Why? I mean, you don't
just have a public hearing unless you have an outcry from the
public, generally speaking.
Mr. Johnson. Right.
Mr. Meadows. So how many complaints did you have?
Mr. Johnson. I can't tell you the number. We had a----
Mr. Meadows. Well, this is important to you, isn't it, Mr.
Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. It is important to me. It is really important.
Mr. Meadows. And you have got all kinds of staff here.
Mr. Johnson. Yeah.
Mr. Meadows. So do you not know how many complaints you
had?
Mr. Johnson. No, I can't----
Mr. Meadows. Can you get that to the committee?
Mr. Johnson. I'm sure we can.
Mr. Meadows. All right.
Mr. Johnson. But we had two issues. We had two issues.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Did you have over 3,700 complaints?
Mr. Johnson. I don't know.
Mr. Meadows. Because we've got a petition of over 3,700
people who say that they are going the other way.
Mr. Johnson. Yeah, and I have a survey----
Mr. Meadows. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Connolly. Again, I'm putting on my old local government
hat. I mean, and we are a big county. I have got 1.2 million
people I represented. Yeah. Bigger than seven States. But we
are a complaint-based system.
Mr. Johnson. Yeah.
Mr. Connolly. So you don't know how many complaints you got
about this?
Mr. Johnson. I'm sure somebody does. I don't particularly
know.
Mr. Connolly. Well, I think that's pretty material.
Mr. Johnson. Well----
Mr. Connolly. If it turns--bad policy decisions get made if
we overreact to a handful of complaints. If, on the other hand,
you have got lots of substantive complaints and concerns that
were expressed, and I know you had a fact-finding period.
Right?
Mr. Johnson. Right.
Mr. Connolly. But I think that's a pretty material figure
to get back to us on.
Mr. Johnson. Yeah.
Mr. Connolly. Because I'd hate to think that all of this is
about making three people happy.
Mr. Johnson. No. It's not about making three people happy.
Mr. Connolly. But that's the risk of what you've just done
in answering the chairman. You should know that answer.
Mr. Johnson. Right, well----
Mr. Connolly. --coming here, testifying before the United
States Congress.
Mr. Johnson. The second part of this, though, is the
proliferation of new floating homes that we are starting to see
in marketing materials from developers from other places. And
that's really the other factor here. As I said, if we do
nothing----
Mr. Meadows. So what you're saying is, is that your primary
concern is that we don't make it any worse than it is now. Is
that your sworn testimony?
Mr. Johnson. Well, one primary concern is that we don't
proliferate this. Another is that we have the right standard,
and the third is that we don't created private property rights
in public resources because we dont think we have the power to
do that.
Mr. Meadows. Which is it?
Mr. Johnson. All three.
Mr. Meadows. Because we can address two of those.
Mr. Johnson. Yeah.
Mr. Meadows. So are you saying that you don't want floating
homes on your lakes?
Mr. Johnson. I think the floating homes, for a reasonable
period, is good, but I think if you say they can never be
sunset; that this is a perpetual right, that is creating
personal property interest in public resources.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So you say it's not fair. Is that
what you're saying? You've had your vice president of natural
resources say it's not fair. I heard that. So is that your
testimony too, it's just not fair?
Mr. Johnson. No. My testimony is, it is not right.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So it's not right. Is it right to
condemn the property of landowners and Graham and Swain County,
and then take it and then try to manage it and make sure that
they kept--because, literally, what happened in Graham and
Swain County is you had patriotic Americans who said they were
going to give up their homes to allow you to produce energy to
win a war. And now all of a sudden, you're the fairness guru?
I mean, is that fair? You took their land. Now you're
trying to tell them to get off of what you took originally. Is
that fair?
Mr. Johnson. So I wasn't around when that happened.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Johnson, I know you weren't and neither
was I. But you read, don't you?
Mr. Johnson. Oh, yes, I read a lot.
Mr. Meadows. Did you condemn the land and did you take it?
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. Absolutely took it to help win
World War II. There's no question about that.
Mr. Meadows. And I'm glad we did. And you know what? The
people of Graham and Swain County are glad you did.
Mr. Johnson. Yeah.
Mr. Meadows. And all they want to do is get a little bit of
it back; all they want to do.
Now, here is what I want to ask you, Mr. Johnson: Is the
board, and are you willing to recommend to the board a
reasonable compromise where we can keep floating homes there?
Are you willing to do that? Yes or no?
Mr. Johnson. I'm willing to talk to them about that.
Mr. Meadows. That's not my question. That's a great----
Mr. Johnson. Well, that's my answer.
Mr. Meadows. I'm saying--no, I'm asking you a question and
it can be answered yes or no.
Mr. Johnson. Right.
Mr. Meadows. Are you and your staff willing to recommend to
the board a reasonable compromise that would allow floating
homes to remain?
Mr. Johnson. I say no. I think we have reached a reasonable
compromise.
Mr. Meadows. Well, why would you say that? I mean, if this
is such an unbelievable priority for TVA, why don't you get rid
of them tomorrow? If it's such an unbelievable--I mean----
Mr. Johnson. So we have the authority today to remove half
of them without----
Mr. Meadows. Okay. I have the authority today to do a lot
of things, too. And so I'm going to go to the gentleman from
Wisconsin, allow him to ask some questions. But we will come
back. Because here is what I'm concerned about, Mr. Johnson.
It's a double standard. It's a double standard. You know,
really, when we start to look at all of this, we want to talk
about fairness, and you are a federally mandated corporation.
Isn't that correct?
Mr. Johnson. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. So when you look at the TVA Act, what part of
it was actually in 1933, what, is that when the TVA----
Mr. Johnson. 1933.
Mr. Meadows. What part of that actually gave you the
authority to really manage this particular aspect? Because in
your opening testimony, it was interesting, you talked about
what we are supposed to do, power generation, and we are
supposed to manage natural resources. That was part of your
opening statement.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. That's not in the Act of 1933. It talked about
flood control and it talked about power generation. It talked
about fertilizer and weapons. And it talked about the
environment, but it was really about reforestation of really a
place that had all of their timber cut and it never
contemplated this. I mean, I have read it. I was up until 2
a.m. Reading the entire, every jot and tittle, so it's not in
there. And so your testimony is not in keeping with the TVA Act
of 1933.
Mr. Johnson. I actually think it is entirely consistent
with it under section 26(a).
Mr. Meadows. Well, we will agree to disagree. I'm going to
go to the gentleman from Wisconsin for 5 minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. We will give Ms. Sneed a chance to
say a little bit.
How much does your family currently pay in annual fees,
about?
Ms. Sneed. So between the taxes, the pump fees and mooring
fees, it's a little over $2,000 a year.
Mr. Grothman. And under their new rules, what do you think
it's going to be about?
Ms. Sneed. It's going to be a little over $3,000.
Mr. Grothman. So about a 50 percent increase in one shot?
Ms. Sneed. It is.
Mr. Grothman. Whew. That's a lot.
Ms. Sneed. For our family.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. How does that affect your family? A
lot, huh?
Ms. Sneed. It will, but not as much as some people. I mean,
there's some people that just have no money and this is--it's
going to kick them off the lake.
Mr. Grothman. Wow. You attended a meeting in August a
little while ago with a floating homeowners and the TVA. And
they revealed they will lose up to 20 to 30 percent of the
homes after the proposed regulations and fees go into effect.
Would that be 4- to 500 families? Is that--that many people are
going to leave, you think?
Ms. Sneed. Well, there's going to be the initial permitting
fees. I think it's either $250 or $500 depending--and they
still haven't published the regulations, so this is still what
we are trying to negotiate, too. But so there's that initial
permitting fee, and then there's going to be the annual fee.
So between the two, I mean, there's some families that just
don't have expendable income beyond what they already have that
will lose their homes. And then there's some homes that just
won't be able to come up to compliance. There are homes that
are abandoned and that they haven't been paying their mooring
fees and they are kind of just off to the side. So those need
to go. We agree with that. I mean, they have pictures of them.
But there are starving families that this will affect.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. My paper here says 360 to 550 families.
That's a lot of people.
Ms. Sneed. Correct.
Mr. Grothman. It is almost like a village. I have a lot of
villages that aren't that big in my district.
Kind of big stuff. Can you just give me in general how you
feel it impacts the sense of community that you have over
there?
Ms. Sneed. Yeah. The community on the lakes are, I guess,
of a time past. I, being from Minnesota had a condo in
northeast Minneapolis, and I couldn't even tell you the names
of my neighbors. But on Fontana, I mean, everyone--you just get
to know your neighbors. I don't know some of them yet, because
I haven't been to their houses. But, you know, like, our
neighbors lent us eggs. I was making meat loaf and they had
chickens. And like, you know, being a city girl it is like,
wow, you just--we even had a group of fishermen come up to our
boat and they needed a tool, and we happened to have it. And it
was just me and my baby at that time, so I was kind of a little
leery because they had a gun on their boat, but we--you know,
they just needed help. I gave them help. I gave them the tool
and they fixed it.
And, you know, it is a really strong sense of community and
this event has actually brought a lot of people together. So
that's one good thing; meeting other people from other lakes
and then meeting people on our own lakes that would have taken
a while from different marinas.
Mr. Grothman. Neat stuff. I will ask Mr. Monteith a
question as well. They spelled your name is different on my
sheet than your thing, but I guess Monteith is the thing.
Okay. In your testimony, or in his testimony, TVA President
William Johnson testified that quote, ``TVA'' gives--``believes
giving compliant homeowners until 2046 to continue enjoying
their homes during the extensive sunset period helps mitigate
the impact on floating homeowners.''
As an affected homeowner, what do you feel about that
statement?
Mr. Monteith. It is devastating to the homeowner because,
you know, hypothetically, just say you own a home and you're
wanting to sell that home and nobody is wanting to buy that
home as you get older, because it's going to have to come off.
What is that homeowner going to do as he is up 60, 70, maybe 80
years old and their family and they want to get rid of that
home and they can't afford to? Do you know what is going to
happen to that home? Lightning is going to mysteriously hit
that home and it's going to burn and sink in the bottom of
Fontana Lake, and float all over the place. What are they going
to do? Who are they going to sue? A dead man? I mean, get
serious. You cannot do something like that. It don't even make
sense. That's what going to happen to them.
I mean, I'm just telling you. I mean, you know--let me come
back and add a statement if I can.
Mr. Grothman. Sure, absolutely. They said I should ask you
question. I said they're right.
Mr. Monteith. In the 1950s, in the 1960s, TVA had
houseboats all over Fontana Lake. They were not on what we call
the State side tied up in harbors. They were on Hazel Creek,
Eagle Creek, Forney Creek, Chambers Creek, tied up all over the
lake. What did the National Park Service and TVA do? They got
together and made them take them all off and take them all into
harbors. And you know, people complied with that, because they
said it's better to put them in harbors. The dock owners can
take care of them and they are not scattered all over the lake
to mess up the fishermen. And everybody was happy with that.
And that's been working well since that time.
And you know, and it works. And it's again, what I said,
limited to how many you can put on that lake. Because you can
only put, if you own a harbor, you can only put so many. The
only way you put another one is somebody has got to take it
off, sell it, or do whatever. And occasionally that happens,
and somebody new will put a new one in. But most of the time,
they do like Ms. Sneed did, they just buy one and remodel it,
and that's what they do.
Mr. Grothman. Okay, well, I'd like to thank Mr. Meadows for
holding this. I have got to go back to my other subcommittee,
but keep your thumb on them.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
We are going to go into a second round and actually--but I
will be very brief in light of my good friend from Virginia. I
do want to clear up a few things as we look at this.
One, Mr. Monteith, the proposals that you put forth to
clean the lakes up in North Carolina that is being used, would
you say that it's been effective?
Mr. Monteith. Very effective. Very, very effective.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Would you see any barriers to
allowing that to be used as a model for the other 48 reservoirs
other than Fontana? Any barriers?
Mr. Monteith. I think it should be used as a model.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Mr. Johnson, do you see any
barriers to being able to use that in any of your other 48
reservoirs?
Mr. Johnson. Just the execution and enforcement, but the
idea and the standards are good.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So if a county of jurisdiction was
willing to handle the enforcement of that policy, as Graham and
Swain County have both agreed to do on Fontana in our area, if
a county was willing to take on that responsibility from TVA,
do you not see that as a reasonable compromise because you have
a government entity willing to enforce regulations for the
health, safety, and welfare of the public, which they have as a
primary responsibility already. Do you not see that that is
something that TVA could actually transfer to the local
governments within the counties to maintain and protect?
Mr. Johnson. I will have to say a theoretical yes to that.
I really hadn't thought about that hard, but----
Mr. Meadows. Well, I suggested that originally. I said, you
know, if I have got Graham and Swain County willing to take on
the responsibility, let me just--Mr. Johnson, let me be clear.
They already do.
Mr. Johnson. Yeah.
Mr. Meadows. They already do. So how many game wardens do
you have on your lakes and reservoirs?
Mr. Johnson. We don't have game wardens.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. How many law enforcement officers do you
have on Fontana?
Mr. Johnson. Depending, time to time, a couple.
Mr. Meadows. When was the last time they were on Fontana?
Mr. Monteith. I have not seen them.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Monteith, have you seen----
Mr. Monteith. I have not saw them in years.
Mr. Meadows. In years. So are they just sleeping under a
tree, or are they going to some other reservoir?
Mr. Johnson. They are no longer in uniform so you might not
be able to see them because----
Mr. Meadows. Oh, so we have got undercover law enforcement
officers?
Mr. Johnson. They are not undercover. They are not
undercover. They just don't wear police uniforms.
Mr. Meadows. So how many citations have they given on
Fontana?
Mr. Johnson. I don't know, but they don't write health
citations. These are----
Mr. Meadows. So what do they do?
Mr. Johnson. Protect property. These are Federal----
Mr. Meadows. How do they do that without writing citations?
Mr. Johnson. I just said, they don't write health
citations.
Mr. Meadows. So how many citations have your law
enforcement guys written on Fontana in the last 4 years since
you've been there?
Mr. Johnson. I don't know, but we can find out.
Mr. Meadows. Well, you have got a staff. You've got your
chief of staff behind you. I'm sure he knows. You can turn
around and ask him. I'll give you time.
Mr. Johnson. You've dealt with him. I'm pretty sure he
doesn't know.
Mr. Meadows. He doesn't know?
Mr. Johnson. No, he won't know.
Mr. Meadows. Oh, he won't know.
Mr. Johnson. No.
Mr. Meadows. Are you telling him not to know, or are you--
--
Mr. Johnson. No. Oh, no, I don't have to tell him that.
Mr. Meadows. Okay.
Mr. Johnson. He legitimately doesn't know.
Mr. Meadows. So since, you know, we--Ms. Sneed was worried
about guns.
Mr. Connolly. I hope you understand how that just came
across?
Mr. Johnson. Yeah.
Mr. Connolly. I mean, if I said that to my chief of staff,
he would fire me. Don't ask him. He don't know.
Mr. Meadows. So Mr. Johnson, let me ask you this: What kind
of firearms do they carry?
Mr. Johnson. Nine-millimeter Glocks and carbines in their
vehicles.
Mr. Meadows. All right. And so they use those so they don't
write citations. They just use their firearms.
Mr. Johnson. They never use their firearms.
Mr. Meadows. So they just----
Mr. Johnson. I'm aware of no discharges of a weapon by a
TVA policeman in my time there.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. I think you're getting my point.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. My point is the--is the county not better
suited to manage the health, safety and welfare of the
reservoirs that are within their jurisdiction than you are?
Mr. Johnson. Well, and certainly, I should say this, most
of our property, the primary law enforcement is the local
sheriff.
Mr. Meadows. Oh, I know that. I talked to Sheriff Cochran
of Swain County.
Mr. Johnson. Right, so--yeah.
Mr. Meadows. He has already told me that. And so----
Mr. Johnson. Oh, yeah.
Mr. Meadows. --is it not a reasonable request that we do
this for the benefit of the floating homeowners? Or do you have
such a burr in your saddle that you want to get rid of them no
matter what, that a reasonable compromise is not something that
you are willing to look at?
Mr. Johnson. No. First of all, to the first question, is
this a good idea to have local enforcement? I think I said yes
to that. I would like to ponder the exact execution, but yes, I
do think that putting in standards, all of those things is
good. I, and the TVA board especially, thinks this idea of
permanence is just something they cannot do.
Mr. Meadows. But they got that recommendation from staff.
Mr. Johnson. Well, they got a whole bunch of
recommendations in the EIS.
Mr. Meadows. So have they heard from more people that are
in favor of floating homes or against floating homes?
Mr. Johnson. They have heard, in the public listening
sessions, they have heard from more people who are in favor of
floating homes. Survey----
Mr. Meadows. And in terms of the complaints and petitions,
have they heard from more people that are in favor of floating
homes or against it?
Mr. Johnson. Actually, in the comment period in the EIS, in
the comment period in the land policy, we heard from many, many
more who are opposed to any residential development.
Mr. Meadows. Well, that's because you have got your good
friend, Mr. Butler, from the Federation, that sends out a mass
email to all of their activists that say that they do that, or
are they actual local constituents?
Mr. Johnson. They are all people who live in the Tennessee
Valley.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So what you're saying is you got
more responses from that?
Mr. Johnson. Yeah.
Mr. Meadows. But yet, I asked you a question about how many
complaints you had originally, you couldn't answer that. But
you know, for a fact, your sworn testimony is this?
Mr. Johnson. Yeah. So I don't know exactly how many
complaints we have. I do know when we do surveys, when we do
EIS, when we do land policy, much stronger opposition to any
residential development on or around the water than support for
it.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So let me ask you this: What's your
primary responsibility and main mission at TVA? What's the
primary, the number one thing, if the--if I'm asking you a
number one thing, what would it be?
Mr. Johnson. I'd say we follow the statute. There are three
priorities in the statute.
Mr. Meadows. Of which managing natural resources is not one
of those. I've looked and I would challenge you to give that
statute to me. If you go to TVA.gov right now, you can look at
what your statutes are. Environmental is at the very last part.
What is the number one?
Mr. Johnson. Probably the number one is low-cost, reliable
electricity.
Mr. Meadows. Exactly. Why is that? Because in the TVA Act,
didn't it kind of stipulate that the CEO had to have some kind
of utility background?
Mr. Johnson. Yeah, sure.
Mr. Meadows. Yeah. And so that's your number one priority
focus. So why are we spending so such time on floating homes if
that's your number one--are you making a profit?
Mr. Johnson. No, we make no profit. We make no profit.
Mr. Meadows. So how much do you get paid?
Mr. Johnson. About $4.5 million a year.
Mr. Meadows. All right, with bonuses, and other things,
what's your total compensation?
Mr. Johnson. About $4.5----
Mr. Meadows. All right. So $4.5 million to make no money.
Are you losing money?
Mr. Johnson. No. No, we are actually in very good financial
shape. The cochairman said the debt is high----
Mr. Meadows. How many billions of dollars of unfunded
liabilities do you have for retirement?
Mr. Johnson. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 billion.
Mr. Meadows. So how can you say that you have $6 billion in
unfunded liabilities for retirement, and that you are in good
financial shape?
Mr. Johnson. We've taken the debt down $1 billion in the
last----
Mr. Meadows. I didn't say the progress.
Mr. Johnson. No, no----
Mr. Meadows. I'm saying, how can you say that?
Mr. Johnson. Well, because we are in good financial shape.
Mr. Meadows. Only because you have what? Could you sell
your company if you didn't have the backing of the Federal
Government?
So if you didn't have a $500 million credit line that just
got renewed 2 weeks ago, or a $1.6 billion credit line from the
Federal Government, could you sell your corporation to a
private entity?
Mr. Johnson. We couldn't, but you could.
Mr. Meadows. But assuming that President Obama and I agree
that that would be a good idea, because as you know, you
pointed it out to me, that he wants to do that. So assuming
that we both agree that that's a good idea, would somebody buy
it?
Mr. Johnson. Sure. He--the administration----
Mr. Meadows. Without--with the current liability?
Mr. Johnson. Sure. Every entity has unfunded liabilities
that go well into the future. Ours is no different than anybody
else's. And if you look at our financials----
Mr. Meadows. Well, it is different. I have looked at your
financials, Mr. Johnson. You know that I have.
Mr. Johnson. Sure.
Mr. Meadows. So tell me about this nuclear plant that you
have invested $5 billion and you now have an offer, I guess, of
what, $38 million?
Mr. Johnson. We don't have an offer. We have a minimum bid
price.
Mr. Meadows. Minimum bid price. So you have no offers on it
at this point?
Mr. Johnson. The period to receive offers hasn't ended yet.
Mr. Meadows. So you have invested $5 billion and you are
wanting $38 million for it?
Mr. Johnson. So a little history. That plant was started in
1974.
Mr. Meadows. Don't need the history. I know the history. I
understand it started before your time. I don't need that. And
let me just--I'm trying to show that what you got here, is
you're focusing on 1,826 floating homes when you should be
focusing on something else.
Mr. Johnson. I will tell you, I'm entirely focused on
running TVA. And if you actually look at the record and look at
the last couple of years, you are going to see tremendous
improvement. I will put our performance up against any
utilities in the country. We have reduced our debt. We have
reduced or spending by 25 percent.
Mr. Meadows. I--you know, I'm an old utility guy and I
understand that. I understand where you were. I understand
where you are, and as I look at that, embarking on selling off
this asset that you have $5 billion invested in, and you are
going to sell it off, what is your return on investment?
Mr. Johnson. There is none. If you----
Mr. Meadows. Exactly. All right. So who is Scott Fiedler?
Is it Fiedler, or Fielder? Do you know him?
Mr. Johnson. I don't.
Mr. Meadows. Who is your spokesperson?
Mr. Johnson. Well, we have a bunch of them.
Mr. Meadows. Well, I have got a quote here from a Scott
Fiedler.
Mr. Johnson. Could be. We have----
Mr. Meadows. Does he work for you?
Mr. Johnson. If he is a spokesperson for us, he does. We
have a lot of spokespeople.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So he speaks for TVA?
Mr. Johnson. If he is one of ours, yes.
Mr. Meadows. Well, turn around and ask him if he is one of
yours.
Mr. Johnson. Is he one of ours?
Mr. Maierhoffer. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. He's one of ours.
Mr. Meadows. I'm glad your chief of staff knows something.
All right.
Mr. Connolly. Thank God.
Mr. Meadows. So let me ask you, here is what is concerning
me. Here's a quote from your spokesperson. And it has to do
with the $5 billion nuclear power plant that you are selling
off there that has, what, 1,600 acres along the river? Is that
correct?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. Sixteen hundred acres along the river.
Mr. Johnson. Yep.
Mr. Meadows. TVA says, it isn't particularly concerned
about what the purchaser does using the site for power
production or industrial manufacturing or recreation, or even
residential. It's not particularly concerned about it.
How do you reconcile not particularly concerned about what
happens with 1,600 acres along a river with being very
concerned with what happens with 1,826 floating homes on 49
reservoirs?
How do you reconcile the two?
Mr. Johnson. Yeah, so actually, the sale of that property,
which will be done in open bid, has a buffer along the river.
The property along the river is not going to be sold, to avoid
this very problem.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So what you're saying is that
you're not going to let them do anything with the river?
Mr. Johnson. Right. Keeping a buffer.
Mr. Meadows. But they can do all kinds of manufacturing
there, right?
Mr. Johnson. Sure. We hope they will.
Mr. Meadows. So in terms of the environment, are you going
to put restrictions on that?
Mr. Johnson. There are restrictions on that as a matter of
Federal and State law. We will enforce that.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. That's exactly my point. There are
restrictions on the waters of every single reservoir you have
that are Federal and state laws. Why do we need you?
Mr. Johnson. Well, we have a different reading of the
statute. But as I read the statute, we are responsible for the
Tennessee River and its tributaries.
Mr. Meadows. So your spokesman went on to say that really,
his primary goal was just to sell the property.
Mr. Johnson. We are holding----
Mr. Meadows. Was that accurate?
Mr. Johnson. Yeah. Well, what we are trying to do is to put
it to productive use since we are never going to build that
plant and never going to need the power from it, so if there is
a way to return it to productive use, that would be a good
idea.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Have you lobbied Members of
Congress and Senators up here as it relates to floating homes?
Mr. Johnson. No. We do not lobby.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Have you had meetings with Senators and
Congressmen as it relates to floating homes, other than me?
Mr. Johnson. I'm unaware of any. I think we have answered
some questions from various offices. I think that's the extent
of it.
Mr. Meadows. And so your sworn testimony here today, is
that you did not initiate any contact with any other Member of
Congress other than myself? Is that your sworn testimony?
Mr. Johnson. My testimony is----
Mr. Meadows. I would suggest that you check with your
government affairs folks.
Mr. Johnson. I'm about to. My testimony was I have not.
Mr. Meadows. Okay.
Mr. Johnson. So may I?
Mr. Meadows. I'm assuming that it is not you, so has anyone
done that?
Mr. Maierhoffer. No, we have had conversations.
Mr. Johnson. We have had conversations, but we certainly
haven't lobbied on it.
Mr. Meadows. Well, that is just a definition of lobby. I
mean, conversations are lobbying, and I mean, I'm not saying
you are federally a lobbyist.
Mr. Johnson. Right.
Mr. Meadows. But you have initiated responses, right?
Mr. Johnson. Well, my chief of staff says we haven't, and I
certainly don't know of any, but we have been asked questions,
obviously by members of the delegation.
Mr. Meadows. Sure. And so the members of the delegation,
are they supportive of your new policy?
Mr. Johnson. Some are not, and some are not involved.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So there's no one who is
supportive. There's some who are saying they are not go to take
a position, but the others are against it?
Mr. Johnson. I think that's fair, yeah.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So you don't care what Members of
Congress or Senators really have to say about this. Is that
correct?
Mr. Johnson. No, that's not correct at all. I do care.
Mr. Meadows. Well, you are saying that everybody is against
it.
Mr. Johnson. Yeah. The difference is I think you all are
engaged in serving your constituents, as you should. I think we
are on a little different mission here, which is public
resource stewardship.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Here is what I would like for you to get
back to this committee. In the priority of public resource
stewardship----
Mr. Johnson. Uh-huh.
Mr. Meadows. Give me the statutes which puts that at the
same priority as the rest of it. Now, on anything on TVA.gov,
does it give you the ability to revoke these permits?
Mr. Johnson. I think when the permits were issued, they
said there is no property right created here, so----
Mr. Meadows. Anything on TVA.gov?
Mr. Johnson. I don't think there is a specific revocation.
Mr. Meadows. I can tell you, there's not. I have read every
single word, and there is not anything, not one mention of
revoking anything. In fact, just the opposite. It says if you
get a permit, you got a permit. Now, in the 26(a) application
permit, I've looked at that, you have got some language there.
But in terms of notice to the public, there is nothing on your
Web site even today that would suggest you can do what you're
doing. In fact, it says that we are going to grandfather
everybody in from 1978 and before. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Johnson. Yeah. Correct.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So you're going to get some of
these things back. We have got a number of questions that are
there. I'm going to let the gentleman go. Here is my request of
all of you. You've been writing notes. You've got that. And
here's what I would ask you to do, and those that are watching
via Webcast. If there's questions that you have that weren't
asked, submit them to the committee. We will be glad to ask
those questions.
Mr. Johnson, I want to make it very clear. I am very
concerned that with the public outcry that I'm hearing, that
other Members of Congress are hearing, that you have seen, that
this was an arbitrary decision that was not based solely on the
number one priority that you have, to produce low cost energy
for the region, to create jobs. If anything, this is a jobs
killer. And what you've done is you've taken one priority to
make it higher than the other. And I'm discouraged that Mr.
Monteith has given you a solution, and your board is not even
willing to look at that, to use that. It seems to me to be very
poor decisionmaking when you have a solution that would address
it right here. You have a solution. And your testimony says
that Fontana is doing well, right?
Mr. Johnson. Yeah, I think I said that part of the solution
is good. It doesn't address the other issue of permanent
property rights and public resources.
Mr. Meadows. And so what in the statute gives you the
ability to control that?
Mr. Johnson. So we lean on 26(a) in the statute. We have
some other things. We will get you all of those statutory
references. But you know, we do a lot of stewardship things. We
are a Native Americans remains repatriation.
Mr. Meadows. Well, it's funny you mention that, because I
know that, and actually, I think you had promised some support
for the eastern ban, that you would get them support for a
piece of land in Tennessee, and yet, you haven't really
followed up on that, Mr. Johnson. No, they don't have the
letter. I checked this morning.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I will check when I get back.
Mr. Meadows. So you will get them the letter?
Mr. Johnson. Yep.
Mr. Meadows. All right.
Mr. Connolly. I would just, if I could parenthetically, Mr.
Chairman, I'm with you all the way, Mr. Johnson, on the
assertion that nobody has any permanent squatting rights on
public land. I'm sorry. You don't. And anyone who asserts
otherwise is wrong, and the implications of conceding that
across the country, I mean, so what, I get to build my dream
house on the rim of the Grand Canyon, or in the middle of
Yellowstone? I mean, where is that at? Public land is public
land. However, so let us stipulate that. And let's assert it
properly. But, meanwhile, we have got a human problem with
1,826 homes. Can we work out a solution, I think the chairman
is suggesting, stipulating your principle, without
unnecessarily discommoding and harming those individuals who
are there. They are here now. Is the only solution to make the
point about, no, you cannot exercise that right on public land,
we have to evict you. You all have to go away by X period in
history. And I think that's really the question here.
Mr. Johnson. Sure, I agree.
Mr. Connolly. And I share the chairman's frustration that
there has to be some kind of middle way that allows us to, you
know, assert that principle while also not harming innocent
people who were trying to be right with the law. Now, if they
are operating illegally, that's a different matter, and, Mr.
Monteith, I know you would share that, as you are sworn to
uphold the law, as am I, as is the chairman. And in local
government, that's what we have to do, right, but we also
exercise common judgment while we are doing it, and that's
really I think the challenge here. So, no one, I think, would
take issue with your assertion, but on the other hand, we got a
lot of Ms. Sneed here who, in good faith, have chosen a
lifestyle and a place to live to raise their families and don't
want to be evicted arbitrarily. And so we got to find a middle
way to make both work.
Mr. Johnson. If I can make one point here, and I agree with
that and this is hard. It was not arbitrary and capricious, it
was hard-thought and took a long time. At the end of the sunset
period, the youngest floating house that got a permit there be
70 years old. And the oldest will be 100. And so I don't know
what the period is that you can exert occupancy and some right,
but 70 years is a pretty long time. So it's not just 30 years.
It's, remember those permits were issued in 1978.
Mr. Connolly. I assure you it is not as long as you think.
Mr. Meadows. Yeah. All right, if--I want to thank all of
the witnesses, and I'm looking forward to the follow-up. I'm
looking forward to resolving this in a way that doesn't harm
the families that are here, doesn't harm the economy that we
see. And we didn't put a lot of emphasis on this, but I can
tell you there are marina owners, there are people that truly
make their living, and, Mr. Johnson, since you have been there,
you know, Graham and Swain County have been in the depression
for a long time. And so when we look at that, when we talk
about jobs, we are talking about, you know, some of the folks
that honestly in Graham County, the population doesn't grow
because there's no new jobs, and you are about to take some of
them away. And when that happens in my backyard, let me tell
you what you have experienced today is just the beginning.
Because I'm--and I have told you that personally and you know,
that.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meadows. And it is not a threat. I have got to stand up
for the people that I represent. And I don't own a floating
home, don't plan to own a floating home. They will get real
cheap, you know, as it gets closer, so I could probably buy, a
half dozen of them. So, you know, as we look at that, I guess
you all are going to compensate all of these floating homes
owners because you didn't enforce your own regulation, so when
you do that, you are going to actually compensate them, right?
Mr. Johnson. I doubt that that's the case.
Mr. Meadows. Yeah, I doubt it too. If there's no further
business before the committee, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]