[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 839, H.R. 1809, H.R. 2293,
AND H.R. 2316
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND
FISHERIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, April 8, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-17
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-068 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, VA, Vice Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member
Tom McClintock, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Joe Neguse, CO
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Doug LaMalfa, CA Melanie Stansbury, NM
Daniel Webster, FL Val Hoyle, OR
Russ Fulcher, ID Seth Magaziner, RI
Pete Stauber, MN Jared Golden, ME
Tom Tiffany, WI Dave Min, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO Maxine Dexter, OR
Cliff Bentz, OR Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
Jen Kiggans, VA Emily Randall, WA
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Yassamin Ansari, AZ
Mike Collins, GA Sarah Elfreth, MD
Harriet M. Hageman, WY Adam Gray, CA
Mark Amodei, NV Luz Rivas, CA
Tim Walberg, MI Nydia Velazquez, NY
Mike Ezell, MS Debbie Dingell, MI
Celest Maloy, Utah Darren Soto, FL
Addison McDowell, NC Julia Brownley, CA
Jeff Crank, CO Vacancy
Nick Begich, AK
Jeff Hurd, CO
Mike Kennedy, UT
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
William Davis, Chief Counsel
Ana Unruh Cohen, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, WY, Chair
MIKE EZELL, MS, Vice Chair
VAL T. HOYLE, OR, Ranking Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Seth Magaziner, RI
Tom McClintock, CA Debbie Dingell, MI
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Doug LaMalfa, CA Jared Golden, ME
Daniel Webster, FL Dave Min, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO Sarah Elfreth, MD
Cliff Bentz, OR Adam Gray, CA
Jen Kiggans, VA Luz Rivas, CA
Tim Walberg, MI Darren Soto, FL
Mike Ezell, MS Julia Brownley, CA
Celeste Maloy, UT Joe Neguse, CO
Addison McDowell, NC Jared Huffman, CA, ex officio
Jeff Crank, CO
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
-----------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing Memo..................................................... v
Hearing held on Tuesday, April 8, 2025........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Hageman, Hon. Harriet, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wyoming........................................... 2
Hoyle, Hon. Val, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Oregon.................................................. 3
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Ezell, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Mississippi............................................. 6
Hurd, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado................................................ 7
Quigley, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois.......................................... 8
Arrington, Hon. Jodey, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 10
Statement of Witnesses:
McGlawn, Chris, President, Delta Cat Fisheries, Greenwood,
Mississippi................................................ 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Roley, John, Landowner, Lubbock County, Lubbock, Texas....... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Baker, Bryan, President, Board of Directors for Texas
Producers Cooperative, Sudan, Texas........................ 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Anderson, Mikk, Board Member and Colorado Volunteer State
Policy Chair, Ducks Unlimited, Aurora, Colorado............ 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Hoyle
Opposition to H.R. 839, Group Letter..................... 40
Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, Letter......... 42
Submissions for the Record by Representative Hurd
Wetlands Conservation and Access Improvement Act of 2025,
Group Letter........................................... 43
North American Wetlands Conservation Council, Group
Letter................................................. 7
Submissions for the Record by Representative Arrington
Dallas Morning News article, Why I Oppose the Muleshoe
Wildlife Refuge Expansion.............................. 44
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
To: Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members
From: Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries staff: Annick
Miller, ([email protected]), Doug Levine
([email protected]. gov), Kirby Struhar
([email protected]), and Thomas Shipman
([email protected]) x58331
Date: April 7, 2025
Subject: Legislative Hearing on H.R. 839, H.R. 1809, H.R. 2293, and
H.R. 2316
________________________________________________________________________
The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will hold a
legislative hearing on H.R. 839 (Rep. Arrington), to prohibit the
implementation of a Land Protection Plan at Muleshoe National Wildlife
Refuge; H.R. 1809 (Rep. Quigley), ``Great Lakes Fisheries Research
Reauthorization Act''; H.R. 2293 (Rep. Ezell) ``Cormorant Relief Act of
2025''; and H.R. 2316 (Rep. Hurd), ``Wetlands Conservation and Access
Improvement Act of 2025'' on Tuesday, April 8, 2025, at 10:15 a.m.
(EDT) in 1324 Longworth House Office Building.
Member offices are requested to notify Jackson Renfro
(jackson.renfro@ mail.house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, April 7, 2025,
if their Member intends to participate in the hearing.
I. KEY MESSAGES
House Republicans are holding a hearing on three bills
that promote good stewardship of taxpayer dollars and sound
management of vital wildlife habitats.
H.R. 839 would properly steward taxpayer dollars by
preventing the potential one-hundred-fold expansion of the
Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge in Texas. At a time when
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has billions of dollars
in deferred maintenance, the agency should focus on caring
for the lands it currently manages rather than expanding
the federal estate.
H.R. 2293 would provide necessary relief to fish farmers
who are experiencing severe depredation impacts due to
predatory double-crested cormorants.
H.R. 2316 would ensure the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act continues to be properly resourced and
conserve millions of acres of vital waterfowl habitat
around the nation.
II. WITNESSES
Panel I
Members of Congress TBD
Panel II
Mr. Bryan Baker, President, Board of Directors for Texas
Producers Cooperative, Sudan, Texas [H.R. 839]
Mr. Chris McGlawn, President, Delta Cat Fisheries,
Swiftown, Mississippi [H.R. 2293]
Mr. Mikk Anderson, Board Member and Colorado Volunteer
State Policy Chair, Ducks Unlimited, Aurora, Colorado [H.R.
2316]
Mr. John Roley, Landowner, Lubbock County, Lubbock, Texas
[H.R. 839]
(Minority Witness)
III. BACKGROUND
H.R. 839, (Rep. Arrington, R-TX), To prohibit the implementation of
a Land Protection Plan for Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge.
The National Wildlife Refuge System (System) is a network of U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) administered lands, submerged
lands, and waters that provide habitat for fish and wildlife resources
across the United States and U.S. territories.1 The System
is made up of 571 national wildlife refuges (refuges), 38 wetland
management districts, five marine national monuments, and 63 refuges
with wilderness areas.2 These units comprise nearly 900
million acres, with over 90 million acres of refuges located within the
50 states and the remaining acreage located within the U.S. territories
and insular areas.3 The System currently has a deferred
maintenance backlog of $2.65 billion.4
H.R. 839 would prohibit the implementation, administration, and
enforcement of the finalized land management plan for the Muleshoe
(Muleshoe) National Wildlife Refuge. On April 16, 2024, the Service
announced the expansion of four refuges to ``conserve habitat, protect
species and support recreation,'' as part of the Biden administration's
30 by 30 initiative, part of a radical environmental agenda that seeks
to lock up American lands and waters.5 Among the refuges
included in the expansions was Muleshoe, which currently comprises
6,440 acres of land along the West Texas and Eastern New Mexico border.
The refuge was established in 1935 and according to the Service, ``is
best known for hosting one of the largest concentrations of sandhill
cranes in North America.'' 6 The proposed expansion would
allow the refuge to purchase up to 700,000 acres of additional private
lands from willing sellers, growing the refuge to more than 100 times
its current size.7
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Under Service regulations for expanding a refuge, they must
first finalize a land protection plan.8 This land protection
plan includes provisions such as the reasons for expanding the refuge
and an Endangered Species Act Section 7 analysis. Also included is an
expansion area from which land can be purchased. In the case of
Muleshoe, the finalized land protection plan includes an acquisition
boundary of 7 million acres, the goal of which is to acquire 700,000 of
those acres.9 The method of purchase by the Service to
accomplish the goal of acquiring 700,000 acres would be by purchasing
property outright and adding to the federal estate or by using
conservation easements to restrict land uses on private property.
The potential addition of 700,000 acres of federal land will have
direct impacts on the areas surrounding Muleshoe. As with any federal
land acquisition, local tax revenues will be impacted, as lands under
the ownership of the federal government are not taxable. The Service is
required to help offset the loss in local tax revenue by making
payments to counties that equate to either 25 percent of the net
receipts of timber sales and grazing leases on the refuge or 0.75
percent of the adjusted purchase price of refuge lands.10 It
is also unclear how the Service plans to manage lands acquired to
expand Muleshoe, given the existing maintenance backlog currently
facing the System.
Several counties within the expansion area have passed resolutions
opposing the Service's decision, these include Lamb and Parmer Counties
in Texas, and Roosevelt, Lea and Chaves Counties in New
Mexico.11
H.R. 2293, (Rep. Ezell, R-MS), ``Cormorant Relief Act of 2025''
Double-crested cormorants (cormorants) are one of six cormorant
species that are native to North America, with their largest
concentration being in the Great Lakes region. Cormorants were listed
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) in 1972, as the abundance of
the species had decreased considerably due to the use of chemicals such
as dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT).12 Today,
however, the Service estimates the population of cormorants in the
continental U.S. and Canada to be between 871,001 and 1,031,757
birds.13
Cormorants' diet consists mostly of fish, eating on average a pound
of fish per day. According to the Service, ``[t]hey are opportunistic
and generalist feeders, preying on many species of fish by
concentrating on those that are easiest to catch.'' 14 This
can make commercial aquaculture facilities optimal feeding grounds for
cormorants, causing significant damage and economic harm to these
facilities. According to a 2021 study, economic losses to fish farms
from cormorants are estimated to be $64.7 million per year, including
the cost of non-lethal management techniques, and the revenue lost from
cormorant depredation.15
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In 1998, the Service created an Aquaculture Depredation Order
(Aquaculture Order) under the authorities provided in the
MBTA.16 The Aquaculture Order allowed the Department of
Agriculture's Animal and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS) Wildlife
Services to work with fish farmers to implement non-lethal and lethal
techniques to prevent cormorants from eating fish in commercial
aquaculture ponds. Fish farmers were required to report the number of
cormorants killed each year. The intent of the Aquaculture Order was to
reduce administrative costs for the Service and provide more timely
relief for fish farmers. The Aquaculture Order was renewed three times,
in 2003, 2009, and 2014 for five-year increments.17
In 2003, the Service also issued a Public Resource Depredation
Order (Public Order), which was intended to reduce the risks to public
resources from cormorants through both lethal and non-lethal
means.18 The Public Order was renewed three times, in 2003,
2008, and 2014,19 with its 2014 renewal triggering a lawsuit
from the organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
(PEER) on the grounds that the renewal violated the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).20 The Aquaculture Order was
also challenged in PEER's lawsuit. On May 25, 2016, Judge John D. Bates
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in PEER's
favor, concluding the Service violated NEPA by reissuing the Public
Order without an adequate Environmental Assessment (EA). Judge Bates
also vacated the Aquaculture Order for not having an adequate
EA.21
With the removal of the Aquaculture and Public Orders, the Service
created an individual permit system based on a Population Take Limit
(PTL) model. The PTL model is based upon nest counts and currently
allows an annual take of up to 121,504 cormorants.22 When
the Service issues a permit to take a cormorant, it indicates the
number of cormorants allowed to be taken under that permit.
H.R. 2316 (Rep. Hurd, R-CO), ``Wetlands Conservation and Access
Improvement Act of 2025''
The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson),
enacted in 1937, distributes federal aid to all 50 states and 5 U.S.
territories to carry out wildlife restoration, conservation, and hunter
education and safety programs. Revenue for Pittman-Robertson is
generated through an excise tax on all firearms, ammunition, and
archery equipment.23 The Service administers Pittman-
Robertson and allocates funding through three programs: the Wildlife
Restoration Program, the Basic Hunter Education and Safety Program, and
the Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Program. The Wildlife
Restoration Program aids in funding state fish and wildlife programs
and allocates funding for projects that restore, conserve, and enhance
native habitats. Through this program states may use funding to
purchase, restore, manage, and facilitate public access to wildlife
areas.24 The formula used for apportionment to each state is
one-third based on the total land area of the state and two-thirds
based on the population of each state.25
H.R. 2316 extends the period in which the interest accrued on
unallocated Pittman-Robertson funds can be used to supplement
congressional appropriations to the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act (NAWCA). This provision is set to expire on September
30, 2025.26 Without reauthorization of this provision, the
interest would be distributed to states and territories under the
current Pittman-Robertson apportionment formula. The Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which represents the states, is supportive
of H.R. 2316.27
NAWCA provides grants to projects that conserve wetland habitats
critical for migratory birds in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
According to the Service, over its nearly 40-year history NAWCA has
benefited nearly 34 million acres of wetland habitat for migratory
waterfowl through 3,300 individual projects.28 This success
is why Congress reauthorized NAWCA as a part of the America's
Conservation Enhancement (ACE) Reauthorization Act in December
2024.29
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
H.R. 1809 (Rep. Quigley, D-IL), ``Great Lakes Fishery Research
Reauthorization Act''
On December 20, 2019, President Trump signed the consolidated
appropriations bill for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020.30 Included in
this law was an authorization for the Director of the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) to establish the Great Lakes Fishery Research
Program (program).31 This program was established to conduct
``monitoring, assessment, science, and research, in support of the
binational fisheries within the Great Lakes Basin.'' 32 In
authorizing this program, Congress found that to support the diverse
ecosystem and economic engine of the Great Lakes, fisheries management
and research requires sound science and new technologies.33
The program carries out research, monitoring, and assessment of issues
like fish movement and behavior, deepwater ecosystem science, fish
habitat investigations, invasive species science, and how to leverage
existing and new technology, vessels, and other scientific tools to
help inform and serve fisheries managers.34
Fish in the Great Lakes region do not observe borders between the
two nations, which is why USGS partners with the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission (GLFC) to carry out this program.35 The GLFC was
first established in 1957 and facilitates management of the Great Lakes
between the United States and Canada.36 An example of
research carried under the program is USGS's extensive work to support
the management the invasive sea lamprey,37 which has been
present in the Great Lakes for decades. The program provides technical
assistance, research into technology to control this invasive species,
and assists with regulatory affairs.38 The science gained by
this research is used to support the tribal, commercial, and
recreational fisheries in the Great Lakes region. The latest studies
estimate the economic value of the Great Lakes fishery to be more than
$7 billion annually and show that it supports upwards of 75,000
jobs.39
P.L. 116-94 authorized this program through FY 2025 at $15 million
per year. H.R. 1809 would extend the authorization of this program for
another five years, until FY 2030, at existing authorization levels.
IV. MAJOR PROVISIONS & ANALYSIS
H.R. 839 (Rep. Arrington, R-TX), To prohibit the implementation of
a Land Protection Plan for Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge.
Prohibits the implementation of the 2024 Land Protection
Plan for the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge.
H.R. 1809 (Rep. Quigley, D-IL), ``Great Lakes Fishery Research
Reauthorization Act''
Reauthorizes the Great Lakes Fishery Research program at
currently authorized funding levels.
H.R. 2293 (Rep. Ezell, R-MS), ``Cormorant Relief Act of 2025''
Requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reinstate
the Aquaculture Depredation Order for double-crested
cormorants.
Adds additional states to the order and adds definitions
for ``Lake Manager'' and ``Pond Manager.''
H.R. 2316 (Rep. Hurd, R-CO), ``Wetlands Conservation and Access
Improvement Act of 2025''
Extends the authorization to direct the interest accrued
on unallocated Pittman Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act
funds to the North American Wetlands Conservation Act to
2033.
V. EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW
H.R. 1809
H.R. 2316
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 839, TO PROHIBIT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A
LAND PROTECTION PLAN FOR MULESHOE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE; H.R. 1809,
GREAT LAKES FISHERY RESEARCH REAUTHORIZATION ACT; H.R. 2293, CORMORANT
RELIEF ACT OF 2025; AND H.R. 2316, WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND ACCESS
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2025
----------
Tuesday, April 8, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Harriet
Hageman [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hageman, Radewagen, Webster,
Walberg, Ezell, Crank, Hoyle, Dingell, Min, Gray, and Huffman.
Also present: Representatives Arrington, Hurd, and Quigley.
Ms. Hageman. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and
Fisheries will come to order.
Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome members,
witnesses, and our guests in the audience to today's hearing.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
Under Committee rule 4(f), any oral opening statements and
hearings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Member. I
therefore ask unanimous consent that all other members' opening
statements be made part of the hearing record if they are
submitted in accordance with Committee rule 3(o).
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that the Congressman from
Texas, Mr. Arrington, and the Congressman from Colorado, Mr.
Hurd, be allowed to participate in today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
We are here today to consider four legislative measures:
H.R. 839, to prohibit the implementation of a land protection
plan for Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge, sponsored by
Representative Arrington of Texas; H.R. 1809, the Great Lakes
Fishery Research Reauthorization Act, sponsored by
Representative Quigley of Illinois; the Cormorant Relief Act of
2025, sponsored by Representative Ezell of Mississippi; and
H.R. 2316, the Wetlands Conservation and Access Improvement
Act, sponsored by Representative Hurd of the State of Colorado.
I now recognize myself for a 5-minute opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. HARRIET HAGEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Ms. Hageman. Today the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and
Fisheries will examine four bills that will foster good
stewardship of taxpayer dollars, achieve better and more
effective conservation outcomes, and provide necessary relief
from predatory double-crested cormorants for aquacultural
producers.
Our first bill, sponsored by Congressman Arrington of
Texas, would prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from
implementing the Biden administration's land management plan
for the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge in west Texas and
eastern New Mexico. Under the auspices of the Biden
administration's misguided 30x30 land grab initiative, the plan
authorizes the Service to acquire up to 700,000 acres. This is
more than a hundredfold increase in the size of the refuge that
is currently 6,440 acres. If fully implemented, this one refuge
would be larger than the entire land mass of the State of Rhode
Island.
Importantly, the refuge system in this country currently
has over $2.6 billion in maintenance backlog needs. Yet, as is
typical for Washington, D.C., rather than dedicating resources
to address such maintenance needs, we had an administration
that sought to make it exponentially worse by grabbing even
more land under the Federal umbrella. Common sense says that,
until this backlog is resolved, the Service should not increase
its footprint by increasing the amount of land that it manages.
The second bill under consideration is the Cormorant Relief
Act, offered by Congressman Ezell of Mississippi, which would
require the Service to reinstate the aquaculture depredation
order for double-crested cormorants. This order was in place
from 1998 until 2016, when it was vacated by a judge in
response to yet another lawsuit.
Double-crested cormorants are a water bird that are most
common in the Great Lakes States and the southeast. They are
opportunistic and intelligent predators. And to the surprise of
absolutely no one, they often feed at aquaculture facilities
where fish are easy to catch--a free lunch, so to speak.
Through a variety of studies, it has been determined that
predation from double-crested cormorants costs the aquaculture
industry nearly $65 million annually in economic losses.
The bill would streamline the permitting process to take
double-crested cormorants while putting in place certain
safeguards and accountability measures to ensure the species
population health.
The third bill we are considering is the Wetland
Conservation and Access Improvement Act of 2025, offered by
Congressman Hurd of the State of Colorado. The bill would
extend the requirement in the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act, transferring the interest payments from
unallocated Pittman-Robertson funds to the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act, or NAWCA. NAWCA is one of the most
successful conservation programs administered by the Federal
Government. Nearly 34 million acres of wetland habitat across
North America for migratory waterfowl have benefited from NAWCA
projects.
It is important to note that transferring the accrued
interest does not take any money away from the Treasury. Under
Pittman-Robertson these monies would have instead been
allocated to States. The State fish and wildlife agencies
through the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, however,
are on record supporting this approach, further confirming its
viability and effectiveness.
Our fourth bill is the Great Lakes Fishery Research
Reauthorization Act, sponsored by Congressman Quigley from
Illinois. This bill would reauthorize the Great Lakes Fishery
Research Program which is administered by the U.S. Geological
Survey, or USGS. This program works in concert with the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission to conduct research to support the
binational fisheries within the Great Lakes Basin.
I will note that once again the minority has chosen to
ignore their own member's legislation, choosing instead to
identify a witness to oppose a Republican bill, rather than a
witness to testify as to the value of the Democrat bill before
us. This trend is not surprising. Less than half of the
legislative hearings last Congress had a witness expressing
support for a minority-sponsored bill.
With that I want to take the time to thank the witnesses
for being here today, and I look forward to a robust
conversation.
I now recognize Ranking Member Hoyle for her opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. VAL HOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Ms. Hoyle. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the
witnesses that came here today.
Today's agenda includes four bills that address
conservation efforts, wildlife management, and environmental
research. Some take important steps forward, while others
undermine science-based conservation and decision-making.
I also want to note that the Department of the Interior
chose not to participate in today's hearing. This limits our
ability to fully understand and assess the impact of these
bills which also hurts our ability to make the best possible
decisions.
H.R. 2293 restores a policy allowing unlimited removal of
double-crested cormorants. This policy was previously
overturned by a court. Americans deserve sensible tools that
help them manage predators like the double-crested cormorant
that threaten their livelihoods. These birds can cause problems
for aquaculture producers, so producers need to have lethal and
non-lethal options for managing them. However, I am not sure
what problem we are solving for here, especially when we don't
see evidence to say that the current permit system isn't
working.
I will note again it is hard to talk about this issue
without hearing from the Fish and Wildlife Service, which would
be responsible for implementing this bill. I hope my colleagues
will work with us to understand the agency's perspective on
whether there is a problem here, and allow a discussion based
on these facts and, if so, what an appropriate solution might
be.
Next is H.R. 839, which blocks the gradual expansion of
Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge in Texas. The Muleshoe
National Wildlife Refuge had a public process to determine a
new boundary area where the Fish and Wildlife Service can
purchase land from willing sellers. My concern is this bill
blocks landowners in that area from selling land or applying
for conservation easements.
It seems like government overreach to limit the ability of
a private property owner to sell their private property just
because it is for conservation purposes. I live across the
street from land that was sold to the McKenzie River Land Trust
to keep in conservation. The Siletz Tribe purchased 500 acres
down the road from me to keep it in conservation and grow
Indigenous plants. A willing buyer and a willing seller came to
a deal. That is how it should be. Why should Congress weigh in
and block that process? Again, I believe that is government
overreach.
H.R. 1809, introduced by Representative Quigley, provides
much-needed support to fisheries science by reauthorizing
funding for the United States Geological Survey's Great Lakes
Fishery Research Program to continue its research supporting
sustainable fisheries management like identifying and combating
invasive species like the Asian carp and sea lamprey,
conducting surveys for sports fish management, and monitoring
impacts of harmful algae blooms on fisheries resources. I hope
we can move this legislation forward quickly to markup and then
into law. It is bipartisan, and it is a good bill, it should
pass.
Finally, H.R. 2316 extends the Interest Transfer Authority
from the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Fund to the
North American Wetland Conservation Act Fund, helping to ensure
that more resources are available for conservation efforts.
NAWCA has strong bipartisan support. Since this program's
inception, $2.1 billion of NAWCA funding has resulted in over
4.3 billion additional investments in wetland conservation
projects across almost 32 million acres of habitat. I support
this bill and I would like to see it passed on the House floor.
I don't know what the Senate is going to do. We never know
what the Senate is going to do.
I appreciate all of our witnesses here today who will help
us understand the best ways to protect our wildlife, and why
investing in conservation is crucial for all Americans. I look
forward to the discussion.
And I yield back.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you very much. I will now introduce our
first panel.
Oh, excuse me. There you are.
Mr. Huffman. Good morning.
Ms. Hageman. Good morning.
I now recognize Ranking Member Huffman for his opening
statement. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Madam Chair, I
think you know that Democrats would love to have an additional
witness so that we could actually have our witnesses speak to
both the bills we support and, unfortunately, the bills that we
must oppose. But when we are limited to one witness, we are
kind of stuck. And so I would love it if you would go back to
the practice that I did when I chaired this Committee, which
was to reach out to the minority party and see if we could find
some joint witnesses, where you wouldn't have to be jammed into
this Hobson's choice. But until then, I guess we will have
snarky comments about, you know, which witnesses the Democrats
choose with their one lonely witness choice, and then I guess
we will respond in kind by pointing out that the Republicans
never want to call anyone from the administration to ever
testify at their hearings, which is also a problem. But gosh,
let's be better. Let's get beyond that kind of partisan stuff.
We have four bills on the agenda today, and I want to focus
on H.R. 839, a bill that, unfortunately, would block a
carefully developed, community-supported land protection plan
from the Fish and Wildlife Service for the Muleshoe National
Wildlife Refuge in west Texas. And before we hear a lot of
overheated rhetoric about land grabs, let's set some facts
here.
Fish and Wildlife Service cannot seize land. It cannot
pressure landowners. It may only acquire land, water, or other
interests from willing sellers. Full stop. There is no land
grab. That is a fiction designed to stir outrage, not an honest
reflection of reality.
But here we are. My Republican colleagues have brought
another bill rooted in the same old hollow narrative, where
every conservation effort is cast as a government overreach and
a conspiracy where public lands are treated like some kind of a
looming threat instead of an intergenerational legacy. And the
truth is just different. Mule Shoe Land Protection Plan is a
science-based, voluntary initiative that offers landowners a
new tool to manage their property while supporting
conservation, if they choose. It is the product of years of
research, listening sessions, and direct engagement with the
very people who live and work in the region.
And the plan doesn't restrict landowner rights. It expands
them. It gives landowners a choice to conserve habitat for
birds and wildlife, to be compensated for doing it, and to be
part of something larger than their own fence lines. That is
not a threat; it is a partnership, and it is exactly the kind
of win-win conservation we should be lifting up, the kind that
Republicans used to celebrate, and we shouldn't be tearing it
down here today.
That is especially true considering that the southern High
Plains ecosystem that Muleshoe aims to conserve is one of the
most threatened on the planet. Let's be clear. This isn't just
about one refuge. The bill is part of a broader campaign by
fringe organizations like American Stewards of Liberty, groups
that specialize in fearmongering, misinformation, and
dismantling environmental protections under the guise of
defending freedom. And I say to my colleagues and to the
communities watching, don't fall for it.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world's largest
network of lands and waters dedicated to conserving wildlife.
These refuges are not just lines on a map; they are vital
sanctuaries for migratory birds, endangered species, entire
ecosystems that sustain our air, water, and climate. And for
millions of Americans they are right next door.
Our wildlife refuges are also economic engines. Refuges
draw hunters, anglers, fishers, outdoor recreationalists,
photographers, bird watchers, and tourists. They support local
businesses, generate a lot of rural jobs, and increase county
revenues. Many even incorporate agriculture because
conservation and working lands don't have to be at odds. And
that is why national wildlife refuges have long enjoyed
bipartisan support. They are shaped by local voices, managed
with State and community input, and built on a model of
collaboration that works. Muleshoe is no exception. There
landowners, hunters, conservationists, and residents have come
together to protect a fragile and vital landscape. We are going
to hear from one of those voices today, and we should be
honoring that success, not politicizing and dismantling it. We
should be expanding staffing and investing in the future of
these places so that Americans, more Americans, can hunt, hike,
farm, and enjoy them.
So let's reject the fearmongering and the politics. Let's
stand with communities, and let's do our part to preserve our
Nation's special places for generations to come.
I yield back.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I will now introduce our first
panel.
As is typical with legislative hearings, the bills'
sponsors are recognized for 5 minutes each to discuss their
bills. I now recognize Congressman Ezell for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE EZELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
For far too long catfish farmers in Mississippi, in the
southeast region of the United States, have been plagued by the
burden of permits and processes implemented by big government
who bend the knee to radical environmental groups. These
environmental groups are either unaware of how their policies
affect the livelihood of everyday working-class Americans, or
simply they just don't care.
The double-breasted cormorant is a nuisance, plain and
simple. They eat up to a pound-and-a-half of fish a day, and
even the Fish and Wildlife Service has classified them as
opportunists and generalist feeders that prey on many species
of fish. Still, farmers must jump through hoops to prevent
these birds from eating their stock.
Aquaculture farmers have been struggling for years with the
importation of non-domestic catfish. Now, because of one single
liberal court ruling, our catfish community loses up to $64
million annually. This loss is in addition to the burden of
individual permits that is now in place of the national
depredation order that existed for over a decade.
My bill, H.R. 2293, the Cormorant Relief Act of 2025,
reinstates the aquaculture depredation order to double-crested
cormorants. This is nothing new. It is the same order that was
easily reinstated in 2003, 2009, and 2014.
Now, as a proud Mississippian, I am happy to welcome Mr.
Chris McGlawn, an award-winning catfish farmer and the
President of Catfish Farmers of Mississippi. Chris is a
wonderful representation of the State of Mississippi and
catfish farmers alike.
Chris, thank you for making the trip to Washington and
speaking here today on behalf of this bill, and I will have
some questions at my time.
And thank you, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I now recognize Congressman Hurd
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEFF HURD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Hurd. Chairman Hageman, thank you very much for
including my legislation, H.R. 2316, the Wetlands Conservation
Access Improvement Act in today's hearing.
I also want to thank the Committee staff for their support,
and my colleague, Representative Elfreth, for joining me in
leading this important bipartisan effort.
H.R. 2316 is a straightforward, targeted update to the
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. This is a landmark
1937 law that channels excise tax revenue from firearms,
ammunition, and archery equipment into wildlife restoration,
conservation, and hunter education.
The bill simply extends the timeline for when the interest
earned on these funds can be used to 2033, ensuring that more
dollars will be available to support wetlands and waterfowl
conservation projects through the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act. That interest has averaged nearly $11 million
a year since 2004, helping restore critical habitat and
supporting healthy migratory bird populations across North
America. This is a win for conservationists, and it is a win
for sportsmen.
American sportsmen have long been among our Nation's
greatest conservation advocates. This bill ensures their
contributions continue to make a lasting impact on the lands
and habitats that they care so deeply about.
In addition, Madam Chairwoman, I would ask for unanimous
consent to enter a letter from the North American Wetlands
Conservation Council and a letter signed by 13 sportsmen and
conservation groups in support of my legislation into the
record.
Ms. Hageman. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
March 31, 2025
Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Bruce Westerman,
Members of the North American Wetlands Conservation Council urge
you to support legislation (H.R. 2316) that would allow the investment
interest from the Pittman-Robertson Funds (P-R Funds) to continue to be
used for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund (NAWCF).
As a part of the funding for the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act (NAWCA), the earned interest from the investment of P-
R Funds is deposited into NAWCF annually. These funds are used in the
normal grant-making process for NAWCA. During the past 10 years, the
NAWCF has received an average of $30 million per year in earned
interest from the P-R Fund, though the actual amount fluctuates
annually. This critical provision of the Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act of 1937 (Pittman-Robertson Act) must be reauthorized
before it expires on September 30, 2025 (the sunset of the 10-year
authorization).
Under the Pittman-Robertson Act, excise taxes collected on certain
hunting equipment are deposited into the P-R Fund and are available,
without further appropriation, to States. The Pittman-Robertson Act
requires that interest earned on balances in that fund be used to
finance wetland conservation projects authorized under NAWCA. It is
important to note because the interest earnings are spent without
further appropriation, the Congressional Budget Office has historically
determined that enacting this legislation would have no net effect on
Federal spending and ``scores'' as revenue neutral. The interest from
the P-R Funds, when matched by our growing list of partners, creates an
additional $60 million annually, for a total of $90 million, in on-the-
ground meaningful and measurable wetlands conservation. Unlike the
yearly NAWCF appropriation, the Pittman-Robertson portion of the
funding cannot be allocated without this important reauthorization.
Furthermore, in 2024, the Association of State Fish and Wildlife
Agencies passed a resolution supporting the continued flow of this
interest into the NAWCF rather than to their states through the
apportionment process.
Please find below signatures from non-federal Council members
thanking you, in advance, for your consideration and support.
Sincerely,
Ms. Judith Camuso,
Commissioner,
Maine Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife
Mr. Mark W. Elsbree, Senior VP,
Western Region,
The Conservation Fund Wildlife
Ms. Wendy Jackson,
Land Trust Alliance
Mr. Marshall Johnson, Chief
Conservation Officer,
National Audubon Society
Mr. Ronald Leathers, Jr.,
Chief Conservation Officer,
Pheasants Forever
Dr. Kelly Straka, Director Fish
and Wildlife, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources
Dr. Karen Waldrop, Chief
Conservation Officer,
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
Mr. Jeb Williams, Vice Chair and
Director, North Dakota Game and
Fish Department
______
Mr. Hurd. Thank you. I look forward to hearing from our
witness, Mr. Anderson, today and working with all of you to
advance this common-sense legislation through the Committee
process.
And with that I yield back.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I now recognize Congressman Quigley
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Hageman. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE QUIGLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Quigley. Thank you for having me and for considering
the bill, the Great Lakes Fishery Research Reauthorization Act.
First I would like to thank my colleague, Representative
Bill Huizenga, for his work on this bill and other issues
important to the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes are a natural wonder of the world in every
sense: they contain 20 percent of the world's fresh water; 40
million people in the U.S. and Canada rely on the Great Lakes
for clean drinking water. But to get to the real issues at
hand, we are here today to talk about the Great Lakes
fisheries. The total value of commercial, recreational, and
tribal fishing in the Great Lakes is at least $5 billion. The
industry supports an estimated 75,000 jobs across the region.
Research into the Great Lakes fishery provides us with data
and information necessary to manage fish populations, conduct
habitat maintenance, roll out educational programs, and more.
For the last 5 years this authorized program has provided funds
for the U.S. Geological Survey and, more specifically, the
Great Lakes Science Center to conduct scientific research and
invest in new technology.
My bill is a flat reauthorization of this program at 15
million per year through 2030. Researchers across the region
rely on this data collected over decades to analyze trends, and
reauthorizing this program will allow the Great Lakes Science
Center to continue its research and provide data sets that are
stable and reliable into the future.
To underscore the importance of this program, I thought I
would bring an illustration of the problem.
[Slide]
Mr. Quigley. You may have noticed the poster behind me.
This is a sea lamprey. If this graphic doesn't convince you
that we don't want these suckers in the Great Lakes, I am not
sure what will. Their suction cup clamps on to our native fish
and feeds on them, kind of like a giant great leech. One sea
lamprey can kill 40 pounds of Great Lakes fish over a 12 to 18-
month feeding period. And that is just one of the threats that
we are currently up against.
In the 1950s the U.S. and Canada established the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission to shore up our shared fisheries.
Decades of over-fishing, invasive species like the sea lamprey,
and human impact on the lakes threatened the over 130 native
species. There are over 20 fish species that have gone extinct
in the Great Lakes over the last 2 centuries, and 61 species
are currently threatened or endangered. For all those in the
region who depend on the fishery for food, livelihood and
sport, it is critical that we continue to monitor the Great
Lakes and our native fish species.
Before this program was authorized 5 years ago, the USGS
had pieced together funding from many different buckets to
support this research. USGS and the Great Lakes Science Center
had lagged far behind their peers in introducing 21st century
technology to properly and effectively monitor the lakes. This
patchwork funding model led to instability in the research
programs and pulled resources from other programs. The Great
Lakes Science Center is the only agency that conducts multi-
jurisdictional, lake-wide scientific assessments, and it is
crucial to protect and preserve this incredible resource and
economic driver.
The Great Lakes Science Center has field operations in five
of the eight Great Lakes states. It owns and operates a fleet
of large research vessels that monitor the lakes and the
fishery to ensure these crucial ecosystems stay healthy and
productive. This bipartisan bill is about supporting the
science needed to protect, sustain, and improve the
economically indispensable and ecologically unique Great Lakes
fishery.
Madam Chair, it has been talked about, the conflicts we
have and disagreements we have. But there are so many reasons
that we need to maintain the fishery for economic reasons, job
reasons, natural reasons. These are the common grounds that we
need to work with together, because they are important for
reasons that we all care about. And I truly thank you for the
time today.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, and thank you for joining us. These
are important issues.
I now recognize Congressman Arrington for 5 minutes.
Thank you for joining us today.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JODEY ARRINGTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Arrington. I thank the Chairlady and Ranking Member for
the opportunity to waive on to this Committee. I am a little
out of breath because I am out of shape, for the record.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Arrington. And we Ways and Means guys don't move around
as much as you all do.
I am honored to be in the presence of two great men from
west Texas, and to have a little slice of God's country right
here in the Nation's capital. And so I give a hearty welcome to
fourth-generation farmer, Mr. Bryan Baker and Mr. John Roley,
who is a successful car dealer. Both of them love this country,
both of them are proud, rural Americans, but they are on
different sides of this issue, Madam Chair, and that is
healthy. I mean, this is what this process is all for, robust
debate and this democratic process.
But private property rights, I think we all would agree, is
a cornerstone of our free society and central to the free
enterprise system that has blessed our Nation with unparalleled
prosperity. Here is my point, and here is my position on this
for the people of west Texas who I represent, recognizing there
are different views: the Federal Government, as my dad would
put it, needs more public land like I need another hole in my
head.
This 30x30 initiative, where we somehow think it is a good
idea for the Federal Government to own a third of the land in
these great United States, after all we have witnessed and
experienced over the recent years where the levers of power in
this city have been weaponized against landowners from the
1,500 miles of rivers because of some endangered species, where
by now those waters are not able to be utilized for irrigation
to feed and clothe American people. I have seen the Mexican
mussel listed so that Texas couldn't put buoy barriers to
defend itself when their Federal Government failed to do its
job to provide for a common defense. I could go through a
litany of grievances from Waters of the U.S. and down the line
where the Federal Government infringed, I believe, on our
liberties.
But as the Budget Chairman, we are $36 trillion in debt. We
have world war levels of indebtedness. We are $2 trillion
borrowing on the backs of our children every year, and we are
paying now more in interest than we spend in all of national
defense. And somehow we think we need to spend more money on
behalf of the taxpayers to buy up more land that we don't
manage. We don't manage the land we have well, Madam Chair, and
that causes problems.
And so there are, as I said, a litany of reasons why I
think it is a bad idea. I think our private property owners
like Mr. Roley and everybody else should be able to buy
whatever property they want and transact how they please with
their money. But I am a fiduciary of tax dollars on behalf of
the United States citizens from every State in the Union, and I
think it is tremendously wasteful and unnecessary to use it to
buy up more Federal lands.
So that is my strong position. A 10,000 percent increase in
a wildlife refuge on the plains of west Texas, 10,000 percent
increase? Like a hole in our head.
I yield.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Arrington. I understand your
position. I come from a State where 48 percent of the surface
estate is owned by the Federal Government. Last year we had
catastrophic forest fires, losing a total, between the forest
fires and prairie fires, over 800,000 acres. We need a Federal
Government that is more responsive and responsible in managing
the resources they already have, not adding to that. So I
appreciate your perspective here today.
I want to thank the members for your testimony, and I am
now going to introduce our second panel.
Mr. Chris McGlawn, President of Delta Cat Fisheries in
Greenwood, Mississippi.
Mr. John Roley, a landowner in Lubbock, Texas.
Mr. Bryan Baker, President of the Board of Directors for
the Texas Producers Cooperative in Sudan, Texas.
And Mr. Mikk Anderson, a Board Member and Colorado
Volunteer State Policy Chair of Ducks Unlimited in Aurora.
Let me remind the witnesses that, under Committee rules,
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony please press the button on the
microphone.
And we use timing lights. When you begin the light will
turn green. When you have 1 minute left it will turn yellow,
and at the end of the 5 minutes the light will turn red and I
will ask you to please complete your statement.
I will also allow all witnesses to testify before the
members begin their questions.
I now recognize Mr. McGlawn for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS McGLAWN, PRESIDENT, DELTA CAT FISHERIES,
GREENWOOD, MISSISSIPPI
Mr. McGlawn. Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today in support of H.R. 2293, the Cormorant Relief Act
of 2025.
As a lifelong catfish farmer I have firsthand experience
with the challenges faced by catfish farmers, particularly the
economic and operational burden imposed by double-crested
cormorants.
I also want to thank Representative Ezell, Representative
Thompson, and the other sponsors of this bill for bringing
forward this common-sense approach to helping fish farmers
while also helping the Fish and Wildlife Service better manage
healthy migratory bird population.
Our family catfish farm of 450 acres is located in
Humphreys County, Mississippi. We are truly a family operation,
with my wife and my two children working along with me. It is
more than just a job for us; it is our life. I can say with
confidence that this is much of the same throughout the catfish
country.
The current system of individual depredation permits is
inefficient, costly, and fails to provide timely relief to
farmers. Restoring the national depredation order would allow
for better management of bird problems, reduce financial strain
on both farmers and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Catfish farming is an economically intensive endeavor. This
bill will restore a more efficient approach to managing bird
depredation of fish farms.
Catfish farming is a capital-intensive industry, requiring
significant investment in infrastructure, feed, labor, and
disease management. The average cost of production for farm-
raised catfish averages around $1.10 a pound, depending on
factors such as feed prices, water management, and labor costs.
Feed alone accounts for 50 percent of total production cost.
Additionally, labor cost, water quality management, disease
prevention, and bird harassment create additional cost.
Despite these high costs, catfish farmers must compete in a
volatile market where price fluctuates, import of seafood
competition and regulatory hurdles impact profitability. The
added burden of cormorant depredation further strains farm
operations, making it imperative to implement cost-effective
bird management strategies.
Beyond financial constraints, catfish farmers face numerous
operational challenges. Maintaining optimum oxygen levels
requires constant monitoring and investment both day and night.
Rising commodity prices impact feed affordability, making cost
reduction strategies essential.
And finally, bird depredation is a constant challenge on
catfish farms, including my own. These birds can consume up to
a pound-and-a-half of fish per day, which could be anywhere
from 10 to 30 fish per day. Cormorants typically fly in large
groups of 50 to 200 birds per flock. Without constant pressure
and harassment, we could lose thousands of catfish in just a
few short days. This leads to millions of dollars in both
losses and increased costs associated with harassing birds
annually.
In addition, disease outbreak spreads rapidly and are often
complicated by wild bird activity on catfish farm. The average
catfish farm spends $285 per acre on harassment measures,
including labor, vehicle expense, and infrastructure
maintenance. The cost to the catfish industry related to the
bird depredation can be as high as $64 million annually.
Despite these efforts, harassment alone does not completely
resolve the problem. Under the current system of individual
permits, each catfish farmer is required to make an application
to the Fish and Wildlife Service for an individual permit to
take a certain number of cormorants. Fish and Wildlife Service
must administer and approve or deny each application with
varying numbers of take birds. This creates a patchwork of
guessing by Fish and Wildlife Service, where the main problems
will occur in a given year. For example, I might not have as
much of a challenge with cormorants next year, but my neighbor
a few miles down the road could be covered up with birds. He
won't have enough to take under his permit, while I have more
than I need.
Individual permits also require unneeded inefficiencies for
Fish and Wildlife Service in administering thousands of
individual permits, as opposed to a national order which allows
for the same monitoring and protection of the overall health of
the cormorant population while allowing Fish and Wildlife
Services to use limited resources in critical areas. Under a
national depredation order, farmers are still required to keep
track of take numbers, and Fish and Wildlife Service must work
with USDA wildlife services to adequate population number of
cormorants to ensure no harm comes to the overall health of the
species.
It is important to note, as part of this application
process, farmers are required to have in place an approved bird
harassment plan. We rely on harassment techniques such as noise
cannons, pyrotechnics, and constant patrol to deter cormorants.
This will not change under our national depredation order. It
will always be a last resort to take a problem bird.
More than 85 percent of U.S. seafood is imported. The
seafood trade deficit is the $25 billion annually. Domestic
aquaculture needs all the assistance we can get. This bill does
not have anything to do with trade, but it does fix an unneeded
layer of regulation of U.S. catfish farmers. The Cormorant
Relief Tax presents a common-sense solution to challenges faced
by catfish farmers and other farmers throughout the U.S.
By restoring a national depredation order, producers can
reduce operational costs, improve disease control, and enhance
farm sustainability. I urge the Committee to support this
legislation, ensure that farmers have the tools necessary to
safeguard their livelihood and strengthen the U.S. seafood
industry.
Thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions from
the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGlawn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris McGlawn, President,
Catfish Farmers of Mississippi
Introduction
Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support
of H.R. 2293, The Cormorant Relief Act of 2025. I also want to thank
Rep. Ezell, Rep. Thompson and the other sponsors of this bill for
bringing forward this commonsense approach to helping fish farmers
while also helping U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) better manage
healthy migratory bird populations.
As a lifelong catfish farmer, I have firsthand experience with the
challenges faced by catfish farmers, particularly the economic and
operational burdens imposed by double-crested cormorants. Our family
catfish farm of about 450 acres is located in LeFlore County, MS. We
are truly a family operation with my wife and two children working
together on the farm. It is more than a job for us, it is our life. I
can say with confidence that this is much the same throughout catfish
country.
The current system of individual depredation permits is inefficient
and fails to provide timely relief to farmers. Restoring a national
depredation order would allow for better management of problem birds,
reducing financial strain on both farmers and the FWS. Catfish farming
is an economically intensive endeavor. This bill would restore a more
efficient approach to managing bird depredation on fish farms.
The Economic Realities and Challenges of Catfish Farming
Catfish farming is a capital-intensive industry, requiring
significant investment in infrastructure, feed, labor, and disease
management. The average cost of production for farm-raised catfish
averages around $1.10 per pound or $10,000 per water acre, depending on
factors such as feed prices, water management, and labor costs.
Despite these high costs, catfish farmers must compete in a
volatile market where price fluctuations, imported seafood competition,
and regulatory hurdles impact profitability. The added burden of
cormorant depredation further strains farm operations, making it
imperative to implement cost-effective bird management strategies.
Beyond financial constraints, catfish farmers face numerous
operational challenges. Maintaining optimal oxygen levels, pH balance,
and ammonia control require constant monitoring and investment both day
and night. Rising commodity prices impact feed affordability, making
cost reduction strategies essential.
Bird depredation is a constant challenge and cost on catfish farms,
including my own. These birds consume up to 1.5/lb. of fish or 10-30
fish per day. Cormorants fly in large groups of 50-200 birds per flock.
Without constant pressure and harassment we can lose thousands of
catfish in just a few short days. This leads to millions of dollars in
both losses and increased costs associated with harassing birds
annually. In addition, cormorants cause disease outbreaks on farms that
spread rapidly and can wipe out an entire pond.
The average catfish farmer spends $285 per acre on harassment
measures, including labor, vehicle expenses, and infrastructure
maintenance. The cost to the catfish industry related to bird
depredation can be as high as $65 million annually. Despite these
efforts, harassment alone does not completely resolve the problem.
Individual Permits vs. National Order
Under the current system of individual permits, each catfish farmer
is required to apply to FWS for an annual individual permit to take a
certain number of cormorants. FWS must administer and approve or deny
each application with varying take numbers, based in large part to
previous year's data. This creates a patchwork of guessing by FWS on
where the main problems will occur each year. For example, I might not
have much of a challenge with cormorants next year but my neighbor a
few miles away may experience constant bird pressure on his farm. He
won't have enough take under his permit while I have much more than I
need.
Individual permits also require unneeded inefficiencies for FWS in
administering thousands of individual permits. A national order allows
for the same monitoring and protection of the overall health of the
cormorant population while targeting limited FWS resources in more
critical areas. Under a depredation order, farmers are still required
to keep accurate take numbers and FWS must work with USDA Wildlife
Services to keep adequate population numbers for cormorants to ensure
no harm comes to the overall health of the species.
It is important to note, as part of the application process,
farmers are required to have in place an approved bird harassment plan.
Farmers rely on harassment techniques such as noise cannons,
pyrotechnics, and constant patrols to deter cormorants. This will not
change under a depredation order. It is always a last resort to take
problem birds.
A national depredation order would allow for targeted removal of
problem birds, significantly reducing costs and improving management
efficiency. By eliminating bureaucratic delays associated with
individual permits, farmers could respond immediately to bird threats
protecting their fish and reducing disease transmission that can create
additional losses.
Conclusion
This bill is a win-win for both farmers and FWS. The Cormorant
Relief Act presents a common-sense solution to the challenges faced by
catfish farmers and other fish farmers throughout the U.S. By restoring
a national depredation order, producers can reduce operational costs,
improve disease control, and enhance farm sustainability. I urge the
Committee to support this legislation, ensuring that farmers have the
tools necessary to safeguard their livelihoods and strengthen the U.S.
seafood industry.
Thank you for your time. I welcome any questions from the
Committee.
______
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. McGlawn. I now recognize Mr.
Roley for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN ROLEY, LANDOWNER, LUBBOCK COUNTY, LUBBOCK,
TEXAS
Mr. Roley. Madam Chair, Ms. Ranking Member, and members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity for allowing me to
be here today. It is my honor.
My name is John Roley. I worked in the Littlefield, Texas
area for more than 45 years. I was a successful car dealer, and
I am an active rancher in the Littlefield area. I own 3,800
acres of land in Hockley, Bailey and Lamb County, Texas, and
have always been a thoughtful steward of the land. For example,
I was recently recognized as a Lone Star Land Steward for my
work I have done on my Little Las Vegas property, where I have
restored nearly 1,400 acres back to native habitats which have
helped the local species flourish there. I have made efforts to
make my land accessible for hunting and for educational
activities.
My 2,200-acre Little Las Vegas Ranch sits on the eastern
edge of the Yellow House Draw, an area described by Francisco
Coronado in 1542 as the Casa Amarillas, due to the low yellow
hills. The property is home to numerous quail, Texas horned
lizards, mule deer, and whitetail deer. The property is grazed
on an as-needed basis through our periodic droughts, and is
leased for hunting.
The first 380 acres I acquired were planted back to native
grasses and wildflowers with funds intended to help preserve
the lesser prairie chicken population in the area. Since then,
additional restoration of old crop lands have resulted in the
establishment of more than 1,000 acres of native habitat across
the landscape. In addition, the restoration of multiple playa
lakes, or playa wetlands, on the property has enhanced its
usability for ducks, cranes, geese, and migrating birds.
The ranch has undertaken multiple efforts to make the
property more suitable for wildlife, and by allowing 4H groups
access, Littlefield Independent School outdoor education
opportunities, and an all women's and new hunter dove hunt. In
addition, the ranch allows access for dove trapping and banding
conducted by Texas Wildlife Department.
I am also a Republican, a strong, staunch advocate of
private property rights. In my mind no one, and particularly
not the Federal Government, should have the right to tell me
what property I can sell or cannot sell. It is a fundamental
part of our rights in America to retain freedom to do with the
land as we see fit. Whether it is I sell it for conservation or
development, landowners should be free to use or develop their
property as they see fit and should not be told by another
party that I may sell or give an interest in my land if I so
choose. That is important to me, being an American, being what
American is all about. And frankly, it is why I am here today
to oppose H.R. 839 that would prohibit the implementation of
the land protection plan for the Muleshoe National Wildlife
Refuge.
After going through a public process and consulting with
partners nearly a year ago, the Service released its final
findings. The updated plan made for a significantly larger
boundary for the Service, aiming to conserve 700,000 acres.
This broad landscape approach enables the Service to work with
landowners on a voluntary basis and address the significant
changes of habitat fragmentation and other impacts across the
landscape of the southern High Plains. The land is to protect
the beautiful animals like the sandhill crane and pronghorn.
Congress should not be in the business of telling
landowners to whom they can sell or donate their land to. If I
want to sell my land to an oil company, a developer, or the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that is my right to. This bill
would unfairly restrict that. The rights of other Americans to
exercise the control over their lands, I believe, is a bad
policy, and would represent an infringement on my property
rights.
The thing that is so critical on this, it is volunteer, and
you can do an easement or you can sell it. You don't have to go
all in. There are a lot of attributes to this land, and I
believe that is that is why I am for it. You can make your own
decision. That is what I am all about. Thank you so very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roley follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Roley
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member and members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing today.
My name is John Roley, and I worked in the Littlefield area of
Texas for more than 45 years. I had a successful career in the
automotive industry and am an active rancher in the Littlefield area.
I own 3,800 acres of land in Hockley, Bailey and Lamb County Texas,
and have always been a thoughtful steward of the land. For example, I
was recently recognized as a Lone Star Land Steward for the work I have
done on my Little Las Vegas Ranch property where I have restored nearly
1,400 acres back to native habitats which have helped local species
flourish there, and I've made efforts to make the land accessible for
hunting and educational activities.
My 2,200-acre Little Las Vegas Ranch sits on the eastern edge of
the Yellowhouse Draw, an area described by Francisco de Coronado in
1542 as the ``Casa de Amarillos'' due to the low yellow hills. The
property is home to numerous quail, Texas horned lizards, mule deer and
white-tailed deer. The property is grazed on an as needed basis to
manage the periodic regional droughts and is leased for hunting. The
first 380 acres acquired were planted back to native grasses and
wildflowers with funds intended to help preserve the lesser prairie
chicken population in the area.
Since then, additional restoration on old crop fields has resulted
in the re-establishment of more than 1,000 acres of native habitat
across the landscape. In addition, the restoration of multiple playa
wetlands on the property has enhanced its usability for ducks, cranes,
geese and other migrating birds. The ranch has undertaken multiple
efforts to make the property more suitable for wildlife while also
allowing access to 4-H groups, Littlefield Independent School District
outdoor education opportunities and an all-women's and new hunter dove
hunt. In addition, the ranch allows access for dove trapping and
banding conducted by TPWD.
I am also a Republican, a Trump supporter and staunch advocate of
private property rights. In my mind, no one, and particularly not the
federal government, should have the right to tell a private property
owner who they can or cannot sell their land to. It is a fundamental
part of our property rights system in America to retain the freedom to
do with my land as I see fit. Whether that is to sell it for
conservation or development. Landowners should be free to use or
develop their property as they see fit and should not be told by any
other party who to I may sell or given an interest in my land to, if I
so choose. That's an important part of what being an American is about.
And frankly that is why I am here today to oppose the bill HR 839
that would prohibit the implementation of the Land Protection Plan for
the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge. After going through a public
process and consulting with partners, nearly one year ago the Service
released the final Land Protection Plan for the refuge.
The updated plan made a significantly larger acquisition boundary
for the Service, aiming to help conserve up to 700,000 acres of land.
This broader, landscape approach enables the Service to work with
landowners on a voluntary basis to address the significant challenges
of habitat fragmentation and other impacts across the landscape in the
Southern High Plains. This plan will also help protect important and
beautiful animals like the sandhill crane and pronghorn.
Most important of all, the plan also respects the rights of private
property owners within the new acquisition boundary. The Service has
been very clear that any acquisitions of private lands for ownership or
easement purposes would be on a voluntary basis with willing sellers.
As a landowner, I see this as an opportunity, not a threat, to support
the maintenance of these lands, places and species that I care so
deeply about.
H.R. 839 would restrict my ability to donate, either the fee or an
easement interest, my property to the Fish and Wildlife Service. This
bill impedes my ability to take action to be a positive part of
conservation across the Southern High Plains. And more importantly,
this bill infringes on my right as a landowning American to sell or
donate my property to whomever I please.
Congress should not be in the business of telling landowners to
whom they can or cannot sell or donate their land. If I wanted to
donate or sell my land to an oil company, a developer, or to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, that is my right to do so. This bill would
unfairly restrict that right, and the rights of other Americans to
exercise their own control over their own lands. I believe this bill is
bad policy and, if enacted, would represent an infringement on my
rights as a property owner.
______
Ms. Hageman. Thank you for your testimony. I now recognize
Mr. Baker for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRYAN BAKER, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR
TEXAS PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE, SUDAN, TEXAS
Mr. Baker. Good morning, Chairwoman Hageman, Ranking Member
Hoyle, distinguished members. I would like to begin by thanking
you for allowing me to testify on behalf of H.R. 839,
introduced by Representative Arrington, and to share my story
with you today.
My name is Bryan Baker. I live in the west Texas panhandle
in a small town called Sudan, Texas, and I am a fourth-
generation cotton farmer. After graduating from Texas Tech
University with a degree in agricultural economics, I moved
back home and started farming with my dad and granddad. I farm
around 3,500 acres and I still farm some land that my great-
granddad broke out of natural grass in the early 1900s. I am
very proud to still be able to work that land. I have two step-
kids, Libby and Austin, and I am very honored to be part of
their lives.
In addition to being a farmer, I also serve on several
boards, including the Board of Directors for Texas Producers
Cooperative Gin, or TPC, where I have been the Board President
since 2016. TPC represents 492 patron farmers, and I am their
voice today, as well. TPC consists of two cotton ginning
plants, an insurance company with two locations, a fertilizer
chemical agronomy division. We have a fully stocked farm supply
store, a tire shop, a mechanic's shop, fuel division, and even
a barber shop. TPC employs 43 full-time employees, and we add
48 seasonal employees during our cotton harvest time. Many of
these seasonal employees are lower-income individuals, and are
dependent on this seasonal work, which for several makes up the
majority of their annual income.
Texas Producers Co-op, on average, returns $2 to $2.5
million to our patrons in the form of a dividend. Most of that
profit is coming from local cotton, being gin. Most of these
funds, which are returned to the producers, remain in our local
community and are the lifeblood of our area. When farmers
thrive, the economy thrives.
The footprint of TPC's patrons extends approximately 60
miles in all directions from Sudan, with a large portion
falling into the Biden administration's 30x30 land acquisition
plan. As shown in the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge Land
Protection Plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved a
plan that would use taxpayer money to acquire an estimated
700,000 acres of west Texas land.
If some or all of these 700,000 acres are removed from the
farming production, an area roughly the size of the State of
Rhode Island, it will cause a ripple effect that will be
irreversible, as these acres will be permanently removed from
production. This ripple effect will not only be devastating to
the farmers and employees of Texas Producers Co-op, but also
the many local businesses, including banks, grocery stores, and
restaurants.
Local schools, the heartbeat of these small towns, will
also be impacted. Sudan Independent School District, a national
Blue Ribbon school, is one of the schools that falls under this
land grab. Sudan ISD has one of the largest school districts in
the South Plains, and it covers approximately 583 square miles.
There are currently around 450 students, 46 teachers, and 79
total staff employed. According to Scott Harrell, Sudan ISD
Superintendent, Sudan ISD has an annual revenue of a little
more than $7,362,000, and spends approximately $17,000 per
student. With 700,000 acres potentially being vacated from
private landowners and taxpayers, there will be multiple
economic losses, including the reduction in the number of
teachers, bus drivers, and staff, as fewer children be enrolled
in the local schools. After all, there will be nobody left to
live and farm on these lost acres.
My family has called Sudan home for over 100 years, so
there is an emotional aspect to this expansion for me. My
mother taught fourth grade for 40 years in Sudan. My sister has
taught second grade in Sudan for 20 years. I have two nephews,
Cal and Nick, who attend Sudan ISD today, and I am fighting for
them to always have a place to come home to and be able to call
it home.
Congressman Arrington understands the destructive impact
this plan will have not only on Sudan and our region, but on
Texas and the entire United States. Because if a 700,000-acre
land expansion is allowed to happen in Texas, where the entire
State is over 95 percent privately owned, it can happen
anywhere.
I am very honored to be here today, and this is why I
support H.R. 839, to defend the way of life that I and
thousands of hard-working west Texans call home. I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bryan Baker, President, Board of Directors for
Texas Producers Cooperative, Sudan, Texas
Good morning, Chairwoman Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle,
distinguished members,
I would like to begin by thanking you for allowing me to testify on
behalf of H.R. 839, introduced by Representative Arrington, and to
share my story here today. My name is Bryan Baker. I live in the West
Texas Panhandle in a small town called Sudan, TX, and I am a fourth-
generation cotton farmer. I have lived in Sudan my entire life, except
for the few years I spent at Texas Tech University, where I received a
bachelor's degree in Agricultural Economics and Applied Sciences. After
graduating from Texas Tech, I moved back home and started farming with
my dad and granddad. I farm around 3,500 acres and still farm some land
that my great granddad broke out of the shortgrass prairie of blue
grama and buffalo grass in the early 1900s. I am very proud to be still
able to work that land. I have two step kids, Libby and Austin, and I
am very proud to be a part of their lives.
In addition to being a farmer, I also serve on several boards,
including the board of directors for Texas Producers Cooperative Gin
(TPC), where I have been the board president since 2016. TPC represents
492 patron farmers, and I am their voice today as well. TPC has several
businesses to serve its farmers, helping them remain competitive in
today's challenging economic environment. It consists of two cotton
ginning plants--one located in Sudan, TX, and the other in Amherst, TX.
TPC owns an insurance company that serves its patrons at two locations.
The first in Sudan and the other in Littlefield, TX. TPC has a
fertilizer and chemical sales division that is fully staffed with
agronomic advisors to provide the latest information on use rates and
the efficacy of products on the market. This best-in-class agronomy
enables our patrons to make informed decisions for their fields and
crops, becoming outstanding stewards of their land. TPC also features a
fully stocked farm supply store, a tire repair and sales division, a
mechanic shop, a fuel sales division, and even a barber shop.
TPC employs 43 full-time employees, and we add 48 seasonal
employees during our cotton harvest time, who provide the labor for the
cotton ginning plants. Many of these seasonal employees are lower-
income individuals and are dependent on this seasonal work, which for
several makes up the majority of their annual income. This seasonal
work typically happens between October and late January.
TPC, on average, returns $2.0-$2.5 million to our patrons in the
form of a dividend, based on the profit of the various businesses. Most
of that profit is coming from local cotton ginning plants processing
our patrons' cotton. Most of these funds, which are returned to the
producers, remain in our local community and are the lifeblood of our
area. When farmers thrive, the local economy thrives.
The footprint of the TPC's patrons extends approximately 60 miles
in all directions from Sudan, with a large portion falling into the
Biden Administration's 30x30 land acquisition plan. As shown in the
Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge Land Protection Plan, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service approved a plan that would use taxpayer money to
acquire an estimated 700,000 acres of West Texas land. It is clear how
this overreach by the Federal Government and its intended land grab
would be detrimental to Texas farmers and ranchers, in addition to our
entire local economy.
If some or all these 700,000 acres are removed from farming
production, an area roughly the size of the state of Rhode Island, it
will cause a ripple effect that will be irreversible, as these acres
will be permanently removed from production. This ripple effect will
not only be devastating to the farmers and employees of Texas Producers
Cooperative, but also to many other local businesses, including banks,
grocery stores, and restaurants.
Local schools, the heartbeat of these small towns, will also be
impacted. Sudan Independent School District, a National Blue Ribbon
School, is one of the schools that fall under this land grab. Sudan ISD
has one of the largest school districts in the South Plains and covers
approximately 583 square miles. There are currently around 450
students, 46 teachers, and 79 total staff employed. According to Scott
Harrell, Sudan ISD Superintendent, Sudan ISD has an annual revenue of
$7,362,385 and spends approximately $17,000 per student. This school's
annual revenue can be broken down by source as follows: 76.3% from
local property taxes, 19.9% from state funds, and 3.8% from Federal
funds. There are three counties inside the school district: Lamb,
Bailey, and Cochran counties.
The total tax base value for all three counties within the school
district is $644,662,980, which serves as the basis for all
calculations used by the TEA (Texas Education Agency) to determine the
compressed tax rate. Two taxes are assessed: M&O (Maintenance and
Operations), which covers the maintenance and daily operations of the
school, and I&S (Interests and Sinking), which is used to pay off any
bond loans. On the I&S side, this tax is based solely on the taxable
value within the school district. If this land is converted into
government-owned property and removed from the tax roll, the school has
no choice but to raise the I&S tax rate to make the yearly bond
payment. This burden then falls on the remaining farms and ranches
outside of the targeted area but still within the school district. The
Agricultural Property Valuation of the portion of the Sudan School
District in each county is broken down as follows:
Lamb County: $54.8 million
Bailey County: $80.7 million
Cochran County: $9.5 million
With 700,000 acres potentially being vacated from private
landowners and taxpayers, there will be multiple economic losses,
including a reduction in the number of teachers, bus drivers, and
staff, as fewer children will be available to be picked up in these
acres and fewer children will be enrolled in local schools. After all,
there would be nobody left to live and farm on these lost acres.
The Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge, as of today, comprises of
6,440 acres, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
proposed 30x30 plan aims to deliver conservation of up to 700,000
acres, an over 10,000% increase of acreage compared to the current
refuge land area. In my opinion, the Muleshoe Wildlife Refuge, as it
stands today, is understaffed and undermanaged, and likely will get
worse if its size were to increase by 10,000%.
When the Interior Department announced the expansion of this
National Wildlife Refuge, it claimed that the plans were developed,
informed, and ultimately supported by input from local landowners
through a public process. To my knowledge, Sudan ISD, Texas Producers
Cooperative, I, nor any of my fellow farmers and ranchers, were ever
contacted or asked for input. On the contrary, there have been multiple
town hall meetings on this proposal after the plan was finalized and
made public, and the overwhelming majority of the people who attended
these meetings have been strongly opposed to this expansion.
Since the Muleshoe Wildlife Refuge was established in 1935 by an
executive order from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, conservationists
and farmers have co-existed through multiple National Resources
Conservation Services (NRCS) programs such as the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) and Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).
Farmers and ranchers are amazing stewards of the land and many of us,
including myself, are avid outdoors men. I have fishing licenses in 4
states and hunting licenses in 3 states, so I appreciate the outdoors,
and I do appreciate the work that U.S. Fish and Wildlife does to
preserve these resources for generations to come. I am not against
conservation programs that make sense, but I am against those like the
Muleshoe plan that will cause economic devastation to an entire region
and permanently alter the way of life for the hundreds of families that
call this place home.
My family has called Sudan home for over 100 years, so there is an
emotional aspect to this expansion for me. My mother taught 4th grade
for 40 years in Sudan and my sister has taught 2nd grade in Sudan for
20 years. I have two nephews, Cal and Nick, who attend Sudan ISD today
and I am fighting for them to always have a place to come back to and
be able to call it home. Congressman Arrington is from Plainview, TX,
which as the ``crow flies'', is only about 45 miles from Sudan. He
understands the destructive impact this plan will have not only on
Sudan and our region, but on Texas and on the entire United States,
because if a 10,000% expansion is allowed to happen in Texas, where the
entire state is over 95% privately owned, then it can happen anywhere.
That is why I am here today and why I support H.R. 839, to defend
the way of life for the place that I and thousands of hard-working West
Texans call home.
______
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Baker. I now recognize Mr.
Anderson for 5 minutes of testimony.
STATEMENT OF MIKK ANDERSON, BOARD MEMBER AND COLORADO VOLUNTEER
STATE POLICY CHAIR, DUCKS UNLIMITED, AURORA, COLORADO
Mr. Anderson. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My name is
Mikk Anderson. I am from Aurora, Colorado, which, for those of
you who don't know, is about 4 hours south of Madam Chair's and
about 3 hours east of Mr. Hurd's. So we are all in the same
beautiful Rocky Mountain area.
I am a retired professional water resources engineer,
recently retired, still trying to adjust to that; a 30-year
volunteer for Ducks Unlimited. I am on the board of directors
for that organization, as well as their conservation program's
advisory committee and their public policy committee.
Currently, I am the State Public Policy Chair for the State of
Colorado.
And I thought, as I was trying to prepare my remarks, I
thought, well, if I was sitting in your seats, what would I
need to know about this bill, and why would I want to listen to
me talk about it? But I think that one of the questions I would
ask is, you know, what is really being asked here? What am I
being asked to vote for? And as was eloquently described by Mr.
Hurd, this is not something new. This is a reauthorization. We
know what these funds do. We know how they work. We merely want
to reauthorize this to extend it to 2033.
So we are not talking about unintended consequences. We
know what is going to happen. We know how it is going to
happen. And importantly, we know how we are going to pay for
it. In my written remarks I talked about the fact that
sportsmen almost 100 years ago advocated for Pittman-Robertson
tax. A little strange feeling these days, but we advocated for
it so we would have the money to make the kind of improvements
that were necessary for our wildlife and for that habitat, and
we want to continue doing that. And the interest from this Fund
from the sportsmen's organizations and purchases would go to
NAWCA.
And why NAWCA? Well, NAWCA is also not new. It is a very
effective program at habitat for wetlands. Well, why wetlands?
Wetlands are incredibly complex locations of ecology that have
a lot of diversity. But obviously, Ducks Unlimited, we are
interested in the waterfowl. They have to have wetlands. But
wetlands are so much more.
And I would like to just comment just briefly on that, that
besides the wildlife, wetlands are huge impacts on water
quality. They trap sediment, they trap nutrients, they keep
those from going down into our surface waters and aquifer. They
delay runoff to reduce flooding effects, and all without having
to be managed or operated by someone. It is just the natural
process.
The wildlife is more than just waterfowl. Ninety percent of
the birds that migrate use wetlands at some point in their
life. They may not nest there, they may not winter there, but
they use it in migration. If you were in Colorado right now, I
could take you out and show you a huge variety of birds that
won't be there a week or maybe a month from now. They will be
migrated off into somewhere else. But they need those wetlands
right now to make their migration successful. That is what
NAWCA is doing. It is making wetlands.
The people who are in this panel because of the fisheries
issues need to understand that there is a great amount of
science coming out right now that coastal wetlands, in
particular, are crucial to our fisheries for rearing the small
fish and shellfish on the Gulf Coast. Those wetlands there
protect against hurricane storm damage, and in the process are
just these great nurseries for a wide variety of fish.
Those of the members who are on the West Coast, they are
discovering that that is part of the problem with salmon not
being produced, is the fact that they haven't had the coastal
wetlands to rear in before going out to the ocean. They go out
too small, they are too vulnerable. If they have a wetland,
rather than just being flushed out, they are larger and they
come back bigger.
And then there is a huge amount of recreation that occurs
in wetlands now. That is also an advantage of what is being
funded by NAWCA.
I mean, really what we are talking about is funding NAWCA.
And NAWCA, as a program, is fantastic in the sense that it is
such an efficient and effective program, so if I was in your
shoes and deciding whether or not to vote for this, I am not
voting just for more waterfowl, I am voting for all those other
aspects, as well. And I would encourage you to consider that
when you consider your vote.
So Madam Chair, thank you very much for this opportunity. I
appreciate that, and I look forward to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mikk Anderson, Ducks Unlimited Board Member,
Aurora, Colorado
Madame Chair, Ranking Member Hoyle, and Members of the Committee--
thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of Representatives
Hurd and Elfreth's Wetlands Conservation and Access Improvement Act of
2025, H.R. 2316.
My name is Mikk Anderson, and I hail from Aurora, Colorado. I am a
30-year member, supporter, and board member of Ducks Unlimited, the
world leader in waterfowl and wetlands conservation. It is an honor to
represent Ducks Unlimited, and our one million supporters across the
United States, to talk about the importance of preserving America's
wetland habitat through interest investment into the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act, referred to as NAWCA.
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.'s (DU) mission is to restore, conserve and
protect wetlands to fill the skies with waterfowl today, tomorrow and
forever. We have been working toward this mission since our founding in
1937 and have conserved more than 18 million acres of habitat across
North America. DU boasts 1 million supporters across the country and
850 staff operating in all 50 states. We have sister organizations in
Canada and Mexico that provide critical links to a duck's long journey
from the frigid breeding grounds of the Boreal Forest to the steamy
floodplains of the Sea of Cortez. Ducks cannot distinguish between our
borders, so neither does our work.
I have been a DU volunteer since 1994, and a hunter and outdoorsman
all my life. Professionally, I am the Executive Vice President at
RESIGHT Holdings, LLC, completing real estate transactions and managing
environmental projects to create value from environmentally impaired
real estate assets. Before that, I spent 20 years with national
engineering consulting firms focusing on water and wastewater
infrastructure development.
During my time with Ducks Unlimited I have witnessed the
transformative work that occurs when hunters and conservation
organizations collaborate with federal government and state governments
to restore wetlands and other habitat to benefit waterfowl. In my home
state of Colorado, and across the United States, the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act and the Pittman-Robertson Act have achieved
tremendous success on the ground for both habitat and game species.
These laws are the cornerstone for funding wetland conservation and
connecting people with the outdoors and wildlife. These funds have
enabled Ducks Unlimited to work hand-in-hand with private landowners,
farmers and ranchers, Tribes, conservation partners, and local
government agencies to achieve these ends, and this bill, H.R. 2316, is
the next step in the long journey we have been on for nearly 100 years.
The Wetlands Conservation and Access Improvement Act of 2025, H.R.
2316, reauthorizes the Pittman-Robertson Act's interest allocated to
the NAWCA and empowers partner organizations like Ducks Unlimited to
multiply those dollars to deliver vital projects that help ensure
healthy populations of many animal species, not just waterfowl. This
partnership between the users, states, firearms industry, and federal
government was established through P-R almost a century ago,
recognizing the critical role each play in wildlife restoration.
Congress has, and must, continue to recognize the incredibly important
force America's hunters and outdoorsmen and women play in protecting
wildlife, and waterfowl.
Hunters and anglers have paid for conservation, ensuring that our
country was taken from the brink of wildlife decimation in the early
1900's, to a renaissance of wildlife abundance today. In the late
1800's, the country's original conservationists sounded the alarm on
the near extinction of America's iconic species like the buffalo,
white-tailed deer and wood duck. By the early 1900's, as a society we
began to understand the collective need to act in order to protect the
last vestiges of wild America, and the keystone species that rely on
this habitat. From the beginning, hunters were the first to raise their
hands to fix this problem. In 1937, a Senator from Nevada and a
Congressman from Virginia worked with hunters to create a new system to
fund wildlife and habitat restoration work, paid for by the hunters
themselves. Later that year, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed
into law the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, more commonly
referred to as the Pittman-Robertson Act, in honor of the two visionary
Members of Congress that brought it to the President's desk.
The Pittman-Robertson Act (P-R) collects an 11% excise tax on
sporting arms and ammunition (including archery equipment) that is
placed in a trust fund. The logic being that the more sporting arms and
ammunition bought by hunters as they take to the field, the more money
would be raised for the conservation of the very species they were
pursuing. The fund then distributes the money each year to each state
fish and wildlife agency, ensuring local control of these monies. The
states themselves provide a 25% match of funds that they receive from
P-R, again ensuring that everyone has skin in the game. The amount each
state receives is based on a formula that accounts for how large a
state is geographically, and critically, how many hunting licenses are
sold. The higher the number, the more money a state receives. Since its
inception in 1937, P-R has generated more than $17 billion for the
Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund.\1\ The passage of the Pittman-
Robertson Act shifted the paradigm of how conservation was conducted,
and how hunters led the charge. This created the ``user pays-public
benefits'' model, which has been a key component of the North American
Model of Wildlife Conservation. This model is unique to North America
and has been singularly responsible for stopping many iconic species
from being relegated to the annals of history at the turn of the last
century, to now flourishing in numbers that have not been seen in
generations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Campbell, Elena. ``Funding Sources.'' Partner with a Payer,
March 25, 2025. https://partnerwithapayer.org/ funding-sources/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decades later, in an effort to stem the loss of wetlands and
waterfowl habitat, hunters who had been funding habitat conservation
advocated for a program specific to wetlands and waterfowl restoration.
In 1989, then-president George H.W. Bush signed into law the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA), which again saw a seismic
shift in how conservation is done in America. Leaning on the scientific
research from federal and state agencies, and the conservation
community, the North American Waterfowl Management plan was born,
helping inform the creation of NAWCA. This program focuses funding on
the most critical wetland habitats across the country, ensuring that
waterfowl populations directly benefit. The vast majority of NAWCA
dollars go to hunting lands and supporting public hunting
opportunities. NAWCA has a unique model for how grants are adjudicated
and awarded. The Migratory Bird Conservation Committee, a committee
made up of two Senators and two Representatives, one from each party,
and the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture and the Environmental
Protection Agency Administrator, reviews all grant applications to
ensure only the highest quality projects, those specifically benefiting
waterfowl and the hunters that pursue them, will be approved. This
system provides a rare level of Congressional and Administrative
oversight, inserting a high level of fidelity into the process. Each
dollar granted through NAWCA requires at least one dollar of match from
grantees. Because of how competitive the program is, match
contributions are typically two, three or four times what the federal
government provides. This model has made NAWCA one of the most
economically efficient conservation programs Congress funds, providing
the biggest bang for the buck for the American taxpayer. Since the
program's creation in 1989, NAWCA has granted $2.1 billion, resulting
in a further $4.3 billion in matching partner money, funding 3,300
projects and conservating more than 32 million acres of wetland
habitat! \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``NAWCA--North American Wetlands Conservation Act: Ducks
Unlimited.'' View State Page. Accessed April 2, 2025. https://
www.ducks.org/conservation/public-policy/nawca-north-american-
wetlands-conservation-act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 years ago, the Pittman-Robertson Fund began generating record
levels of funding. Because the dollar amounts are so large and the time
delay for their allocation to the states, P-R allows the Secretary of
the Treasury to invest a portion of the fund's revenue that is not
needed by the states in any given year in interest-bearing U.S.
treasuries.\3\ Since 2004, this interest has been allocated to the
NAWCA fund because of the continued need of funding for wetlands
restoration, and because of its unique governance model. These interest
payments have generated an average of at least $10 million per year for
wetlands conservation. This supplemental funding has provided a boon to
NAWCA, as project grant applications and demand for funding has
skyrocketed. This interest mechanism has a timespan, and it does
require reauthorization from time to time. In its current phase, this
interest payment expires in 2026. Thanks to Representative Hurd and
Representative Elfreth's leadership in identifying this impending
issue, H.R. 2316 will ensure P-R interest will continue until 2033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Irby, Lisa. ``Celebrating 80 Years of the Pittman-Robertson
Act: Ducks Unlimited.'' Ducks Unlimited. Accessed April 2, 2025.
https://www.ducks.org/newsroom/celebrating-80-years-of-the-pittman-
robertson-
act#::text=An%20amendment%20to%20the%20Pittman,million%20per%20
year%20since%202004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sending additional revenue generated by hunter's initial investment
from P-R to NAWCA is representative of the legacy of a mutually
beneficial relationship between hunters, the state wildlife agencies
and the firearm and ammunition manufacturers. For example, to access
any of P-R's federal funding, states must guarantee that license fees
paid by hunters will be used only to administer state fish and wildlife
departments. In addition to directly providing money for critical
wildlife conservation and habitat restoration, P-R and its interest to
NAWCA ensures that fees paid by hunters are not diverted by states for
other uses that do not benefit hunters and the wildlife they pursue.
There is no doubt that state wildlife agencies benefit from
reauthorizing P-R interest investment into NAWCA to conserve game and
non-game species alike. The ability to leverage P-R dollars with non-
federal resources demonstrates the wide-spread support for these
programs amongst the entire outdoor recreation and conservation
community. Strengthening NAWCA with P-R interest empowers non-profit
organizations like Ducks Unlimited to magnify public-private
partnerships for the common good, supporting hunting opportunities
across the country and benefiting the very sportsmen and women that pay
into these funds.
The year 1937 holds a special place in the heart of duck hunters
around the country as the founding year for both Ducks Unlimited and
the Pittman-Robertson Act. Both are institutions of American
conservation efforts and resulted in a unified call to action from
America's sportsmen and women. Since the 1930's, we have continued to
lead the way by footing the bill to restore and protect wildlife
habitat across the country. NAWCA was a natural progression of both P-R
and DU nearly 50 years later.
Since the advent of P-R, other similar funds were created using
this model, most notably the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act
of 1950, Together, Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson have generated
a more than $29 billion to restore, manage and monitor our nation's
fish and wildlife resources and improve access for outdoor activities
like hunting and fishing. State fish and wildlife agencies have
additionally contributed more than $9 billion in matching investments
throughout the program's history, multiplying the benefits to wildlife
and outdoorsmen and women alike. These funds have also supported
operations and maintenance of more than 800 target ranges and opening
of more than 36 million acres of land to hunting and angling.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ McCombie, Brian. ``Hunter-Backed Pittman-Robertson Act Provides
$1.3 Billion for 2025 Conservation Funding.'' NRA Hunters' Leadership
Forum. Accessed April 2, 2025. https://www.nrahlf.org/articles/2025/3/
20/hunter-backed-pittman-robertson-act-provides-13-billion-for-2025-
conservation-funding/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone with a deep and personal connection to the outdoors owes a
debt of gratitude to the hunters and conservation pioneers who laid the
groundwork for this harmonious relationship between P-R and NAWCA.
There should be no doubt that outdoor recreation, especially
waterfowling, is an essential part of the U.S. economy. In a 2024
report reviewing 2022 economic data, the Sportsmen's Alliance found
that recreation hunting and target shooting generated more than $106.2
billion in combined retail sales and contributed $133 billion to
economic growth.\5\ That data is substantial in the aggregate, but the
districts of members of this committee represent some of the strongest
in terms of economic contributions of their hunter constituents. In
Wyoming, 132,190 hunters spent $218 million on hunting-related
purchases.\6\ Of the statewide totals, Oregon's 4th congressional
district represented 63,060 hunters & $336 Million in spending.\7\ The
return on investment from the excise taxes on these transactions can be
felt most directly in the wild terraces of the West where I and members
of this committee call home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Hunting in America: An Economic Force for Conservation.
Produced for Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation by Southwick Associates
via Multistate Grant # F23AP00468 awarded by the Wildlife and Sport
Fish Restoration Programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024.
\6\ ``Hunting in America: An Economic Force for Conservation.''
Wyoming Economic Contributions--Hunting. Accessed April 2, 2025.
https://sportsmensalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/2024_
SAF_Hunt_Report_Page_090924.pdf.
\7\ ``Hunting in America: An Economic Force for Conservation.''
Oregon Economic Contributions--Hunting. Accessed April 2, 2025. https:/
/sportsmensalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/2024_
SAF_Hunt_Report_Page_090924.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Colorado alone, we received $24.9 million in 2025 from P-R
funds.1 NAWCA in turn has funded 49 projects with $26.5 in
federal monies and $75.8 million in partner match.8
Water 4 Colorado's San Luis Valley I & II is a great example of how
much further these projects can go with the compounding power of PR
interest and public-private match. Of the over $8 million total
investment in the project, $5.6 million came from partner
contributions. This project will protect, enhance, and restore over
10,000 acres of migratory bird habitat, including over 2,100 acres of
wetlands, on both public and private land. Flood-irrigated wetlands,
riparian areas, and uplands totaling 1,845 acres on important private
farm and ranchlands will be enhanced by modernizing irrigation
infrastructure. The San Luis Valley (SLV) is recognized as the most
important waterfowl production for the Mallard, Northern Pintail,
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Greater Sandhill Cranes.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``NAWCA Colorado State Fact Sheet.'' Ducks Unlimited, February
20, 2025. https://duckscdn.blob.core.windows.net/imagescontainer/
landing-pages/conservation/nawca/fact-sheets/nawca-national.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preserving this incredible model of wildlife conservation funding
benefits ALL Americans, not just hunters, and helps ensure sustainable
waterfowl habitat and populations for future generations. The nearly
1.5 million waterfowl hunters spend a collective 17 MILLION days in the
field and spend more than $1.3 billion on trip and gear expenses alone.
That economy is supported in large part by the investments made by
NAWCA to conserve waterfowl habitat in all parts of the country. This
nearly century of success has been almost entirely possible due to the
delicate structure of that ``users pay--public benefits'' system. And
while those hunters are paying for all that conservation, everyone that
enjoys waterfowl, wetlands and the outdoors benefits from their
investment.
We need to fortify the common-sense approach to funding in H.R.
2316 and empower partner organizations like Ducks Unlimited that
stretch these finite dollars to achieve more with less. Ducks
Unlimited's work and that of our partners will continue to focus on
educating everyone about the downstream benefits of P-R and NAWCA in
our communities and where our passions lay. This is made possible
through protecting incredible programs like P-R and NAWCA and your
support of them today and in the future. Madame Chair, Ranking Member,
Members of the Committee, thank you again for the invitation to testify
in support of H.R. 2316 and thank you for all you do to protect our
wetlands and waterfowl.
______
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Anderson, for your testimony.
I want to thank each of you for being here today and
providing us with this valuable information. I will now
recognize members for 5 minutes each for questioning, and I am
going to begin with myself.
Mr. Baker, some of my colleagues on this Committee seem to
believe that the only way to benefit any species or a variety
of species is for folks to sell their land to the Federal
Government. Do you believe that to be the case?
Mr. Baker. Thank you for the question.
Personally, no. I fall back that farmers are original
stewards. We take care of the land because we have a vested
interest in it. We want to leave it better than we found it. So
I think that farmers are better with that, as far as taking
care of that.
Ms. Hageman. Why would the Muleshoe expansion plan hurt
your community?
Mr. Baker. For some of the things I mentioned earlier.
Number one, our school district falls really large into that
expansion area, so there is going to be a reduction in kids
there. There is also the tax roll will be affected tremendously
if all these acres are taken out of production. So that is
going to be a larger impact and a higher tax rate for the
farmers that are left outside of this targeted area. They are
going to have to pay more. So it is going to cost them more, as
far as the tax roll goes, for one example.
The other example is our co-ops and our businesses are all
going to hurt from this because there is not going to be
anybody left out there to farm those acres.
Ms. Hageman. Well, and again, being from a State that has
such an enormous Federal footprint, I can tell you that those
concerns are valid, they are real. It has a huge impact. We
often talk about PILT, or Payment in Lieu of Taxes. I refer to
that as poverty in lieu of taxes or pennies in lieu of taxes.
It just simply does not make up for the economic addition that
is associated with private industry, private production,
private development.
And as I mentioned in my opening statement, the National
Wildlife Refuge System has a $2.65 billion deferred maintenance
backlog. Mr. Baker, as a private citizen living near the
existing Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge, do you agree that
the Service should focus on addressing this backlog, rather
than increasing the amount of land that it manages?
Mr. Baker. Yes, ma'am. I feel like, if they are going to
try to expand this out, it is going to, like I said, not only
hurt our tax base, but it is also going to hurt these local
schools and those businesses out there.
But I know that there is a thing called a wildlife refuge
fund, which is voted on by Congress. And that is when they are
allotted so much money to spend on their taxes. And I know last
year the Muleshoe Wildlife Refuge only paid $2,666 to the local
tax, while I have a friend that has a neighboring farm right
next to the refuge, he paid a little more than that. He paid
$1.65 an acre, whereas the Muleshoe Wildlife Refuge only paid
$0.41 an acre. So I see that only 25 percent of that tax base
is going to get paid the way it is if all this goes into a
wildlife refuge.
Ms. Hageman. You know, and I am a strong advocate for
private property rights. As a private attorney I worked for
landowners extensively, probably one of the biggest parts of my
practice. And while we have the right to buy and sell land, we
don't necessarily have the right for the Federal Government to
buy our land. And I think that that is one of the significant
issues we are dealing with here today.
Mr. McGlawn, I would like to turn to you now. And
Congressman Ezell's legislation would reinstate an aquaculture
depredation order that was vacated as a result of litigation
and a court order. Part of that litigation centered around
concerns that the continued use of depredation orders could
have a negative population level effect on the species. Can you
explain to the Committee the steps you would have to follow
under the depredation order to help ensure that there is not a
negative population level effect?
Mr. McGlawn. Yes, ma'am, and thank you.
So our first choice is to harass the bird, which would ride
around in the truck, try to just keep them out of the water. So
if that doesn't work, then we shoot a pyrotechnic, like a
flame, in the air. And if that doesn't work, then we have a
propane gun cannons that we use that just make a big, loud
sound.
So our first line of attack is just harassment, just to try
to get the bird off of our farm and back to a roost area, into
a lake or a break or anything close by. But, you know, when we
get to the last resort, lethal is the only way we can actually
get them off the farm at times.
Ms. Hageman. And what are the reporting requirements that
you have?
Mr. McGlawn. So we apply for the permit, and we make an
educated guess on how many birds we think we will take that
year. And then we just keep up with every bird we take, and we
have to turn it in.
Ms. Hageman. OK, I appreciate that. Thank you for your
responses and for your engagement.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Huffman for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Roley, I would like to start with you. Welcome. Thanks
for traveling to Washington to be part of this hearing and
providing your honest opinion of H.R. 839. And I am really
impressed with the way you have managed your property and the
thoughtfulness and stewardship that has gone into all of that.
You noted in your testimony that you have restored a lot of
property for conservation, and you have chosen to do that. Why
did you choose to prioritize conservation over other things you
could have done with your land?
Mr. Roley. I don't know. I mean, I grew up in the Midwest,
and everything was claimed. There was no wildlife. And I bought
my first place that we restored for the prairie chickens. It
was amazing to watch those little guys. And we planted the
grass that would be suitable for them, and did that, so we
could see improvement.
The best thing I did, the mule deer were migrating into our
area, and I ran water out, fresh water out every day for the
mule deer. And now the herds have gone from 3 to 29, 17,
whatever. We hunt with binoculars often, and my wife and I love
going out there. So it is nice, I like it. It is a passion.
Mr. Huffman. It sounds beautiful. I imagine that all of
that required a significant investment of your time and money,
and you decided not to lease the land for oil and gas, which
limits the potential income that you might generate from it. Is
that all correct?
Mr. Roley. We don't have oil and gas on that one. I have
got another farm that does have some oil wells.
Mr. Huffman. All right. Can the Muleshoe land protection
plan offer additional financial incentives to property owners
like you who want to use their land for conservation?
Mr. Roley. Well, the deal that I understand is the
easements. I have got a friend who is south of the refuge, and
he is a cattle farmer, and he is going to put some of his
pasture in the easements because he is not going to allow the
grass to get too low, because then you lose everything. And
they are good stewards of the land. It is good to have another
set of eyes look at your place. And so he is going to put a lot
of his property in an easement. He is not selling his land.
Mr. Huffman. Right.
Mr. Roley. They are not grabbing it, they are not stealing
it. He just wants the easement for the cattle, for doing what
he has been doing for years.
Mr. Huffman. So when we hear, as we just did, about 700,000
acres permanently removed from production, nobody would be left
to pay any taxes or go to schools or do anything like that,
that doesn't necessarily have to be the case at all under this
plan, right?
Mr. Roley. This easement, he still owns the land, he still
pays the property, he still puts the cattle on it.
Mr. Huffman. The kids still go to school?
Mr. Roley. Whatever you want to do.
Mr. Huffman. Yes.
Mr. Roley. He gets a little help, and he gets a little
money up front to help him improve the land. That is it.
Mr. Huffman. Does the conservation of your land have any
negative impacts on your neighbor's land?
Mr. Roley. Well, my neighbors kind of feel the same way I
do. Two of them do. And it has really been helpful. We have got
a really nice little area here. My property is 2,200 acres, and
my lady rancher next to me has got, I don't know, 450. And
between all of us, we have got a good significant place. They
need a range. Wildlife move. So they can't just have one little
place.
Mr. Huffman. Well, thank you very much. It does seem to me
that blocking this plan just because it might align with the
Biden administration's biodiversity initiative is shortsighted,
and a lot of the rhetoric and other assertions we have heard
today really don't bear much of a connection with reality. And
your testimony helps highlight the very sensible way in which
this plan could move forward in a way that works very well for
the community and private landowners. So thank you for that.
Mr. McGlawn, the Fish and Wildlife Service isn't testifying
here today, so I guess I have you, and I want to just ask you a
couple of yes-or-no questions about the Service's position on
H.R. 2293.
Has the Service ever denied one of your depredation permit
applications for managing cormorants? And believe me, I
understand why you would need to manage the cormorant, given
your line of work.
Mr. McGlawn. No, they have not ever denied one.
Mr. Huffman. OK, thank you. Have you talked with the
Service about your concerns with the current permit process?
Mr. McGlawn. We have.
Mr. Huffman. You have?
Mr. McGlawn. Yes.
Mr. Huffman. All right. Has the Service expressed recent
concerns about their ability to provide depredation permits? In
other words, under this administration do you expect that the
Service would continue to say yes when you need a depredation
permit?
Mr. McGlawn. We hope so, but I can't answer for them.
Mr. Huffman. Well, they have so far, right?
Mr. McGlawn. Yes, they have.
Mr. Huffman. Under both Republican and Democratic
administrations.
Mr. McGlawn. Correct.
Mr. Huffman. Yes. If timeliness of permits is the issue,
would a fully staffed migratory bird office help to speed up
those permit times? In other words, you need someone to answer
the phone when you call with a question; you need someone to
process your permit application when you submit it; it probably
helps to have actual people staffing the office. I am sort of
answering my own question, but would you agree with that?
Mr. McGlawn. I would agree.
Mr. Huffman. Yes, thank you.
Madam Chair, we are happy to try to work across the aisle
to figure out this issue, but without Fish and Wildlife
Service's testimony and proper oversight by Congress to ensure
the Migratory Bird Office is fully staffed, I don't know how we
can take this bill seriously. I hope the majority will work
with us to get answers to some of the basic questions before
moving the bill forward.
And with that I yield.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mrs.
Radewagen for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mrs. Radewagen. Talofa lava. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman
and Ranking Member, for holding this important hearing today,
and I want to thank the witnesses for being here.
Mr. McGlawn, the commercial tuna industry makes up roughly
85 percent of American Samoa's gross domestic product, and
serves as a main economic driver for American Samoans. While my
family and neighbors do not have to compete with double-crested
cormorants, many are familiar with the over-burdensome and
challenging regulations that hamper fishermen's ability to do
their jobs. When it comes to cormorant management, how would
increased flexibility benefit cities and towns like your
community in Mississippi?
Mr. McGlawn. Just being able to manage the population gives
us more survivability on our farm with our stocking. Right now
we are losing 5 to 10 percent of our crop every year just to
bird depredation. So that is less income for us, less income
for the community and everyone around.
Mrs. Radewagen. And in part of your testimony you
emphasized the importance of competing in a market where costs
of production can be high and there is fierce competition from
seafood importers. Can you tell us how improved cormorant
management would alleviate some of those concerns and
strengthen local economies?
Mr. McGlawn. It would. Like I said, we would have a better
survival rate on our farm, and it would increase our yields.
Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Hoyle
for 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Hoyle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, thank you all for coming here to testify today. It
is important that we hear from people who are experts and who
have real-life experience.
Mr. Roley, would you like to expand a little bit? Again,
like myself, it seems you believe that as a private property
owner it should be your choice to whom you sell your property.
And you spoke to the values of why you wanted to have your land
and conservation. But speak more to the values as a private
property owner to make the decision of who you should sell your
property to.
Mr. Roley. Well, I mean, no one helped me pay for the land.
No one helped me pay the taxes. So I am very adamant about I
will do what I want. It is my land, and that is what is going
to happen.
So, I don't know, we have all got the same feelings in one
way, shape, or another. But if someone wants to buy it from me
and then put it in conservation, who am I to tell them they
can't do that? I can't do that.
Ms. Hoyle. Thank you. Now I would like to ask a question of
Mr. Anderson.
I am a big fan of Ducks Unlimited and the work that you
have done across this country with wetlands. Specifically, I
have seen what has happened in Oregon, and it is really
important.
So wetland conservation often gets talked about in terms of
environmental impact, but it also has significant economic
benefits for local communities. Can you share how wetland
conservation boosts local economies?
Mr. Anderson. Yes, I would be glad to. There is a lot of
recreational activity that occurs around wetlands, and
particularly those that are enhanced in a way to increase
access like suggested in the title of the act. I am trying to
see if I can get access to some of my notes.
[Pause.]
Mr. Anderson. With the NAWCA program, it does require a
match, a local match, just so during the construction activity
associated with the improvements, that alone can bring a
significant amount of money, to the State or local location.
I think in Oregon itself, there has been almost $100
million worth of matching money that has been provided in
addition to the grant. Although I am not intimately familiar
with Oregon projects, in some of the other locations we often
attract much more than just a 50 percent match. I have
personally been involved in a program in Colorado that had a
match that exceeded 10 times the partner money compared to the
Federal money.
So many ways we see the NAWCA money acting like a seed
money for that activity. And then, once the project is
completed, a lot of times the water resource benefits, the
water quantity benefits that I talked about earlier, can yield
additional economic advantages, as well. In Colorado, as an
example, we use the NAWCA projects to, in essence, put wildlife
values on top of water resource projects. And in doing so we
have been able to enhance irrigation activity for increased
agricultural production in some cases. Also municipal water
supplies have benefited from the programs. And in doing so we
also, obviously, get the wildlife benefits associated with the
water use.
Ms. Hoyle. That is great, thanks. And very briefly, NAWCA
funds, which are supported by both Democrats and Republicans,
are crucial for supporting conservation efforts. But as we look
at efficiency and transparency, how does Ducks Unlimited, you
know, work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure the
NAWCA funds go to areas where conservation efforts will make
the biggest difference for wildlife, clean water, and
communities? Very briefly.
Mr. Anderson. Yes. One of the unique aspects of the NAWCA
program is the way that it is designed to function in that if
some locale wishes for a project, they have to put in a
proposal. A lot of times we at Ducks Unlimited create those
proposals in conjunction with our partners, and those proposals
then are all brought up here to Washington, D.C. for a
Committee which has two Representatives from the House, two
representatives from the Senate, and Secretaries of the
Interior and Agriculture, and the Administrator of the EPA. So
there is a tremendous amount of oversight in the beginning to
take a look at the proposals.
They are then ranked. They are ranked according to a
scoring technique which is aimed to try to maximize the dollars
put to the maximum benefits. And so every funding cycle goes
through that ranking process.
Ms. Hoyle. Right.
Mr. Anderson. It is a function of a well-known,
transparent, supported program.
Ms. Hoyle. Thank you very much, sir.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. And the Chair now recognizes Mr.
Ezell for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, we have
already vetted this bill from our friends across the aisle, and
this bill is bipartisan. I just don't understand why Mr.
Huffman refuses to acknowledge bills that are supported by both
parties. But with that I will move on.
Mr. McGlawn, in your testimony you touch on the economic
burden that the cormorants place on you and your family who
help run the farm. How have these cormorants impacted your
operations and livelihood over the years?
Mr. McGlawn. Thank you. This is my nineteenth crop, so I
have been doing this for a good while. So typically, we face 5,
10, sometimes even 15 percent loss to bird depredation. So if
you count that over basically 20 years of farming, I have given
up hundreds of thousands of dollars of fish that I have
purchased, put in the water, fed, kept alive, and had major
expenses in that I just do not have to sell at the end of the
year. So it is a huge economic loss to us.
Mr. Ezell. You also mentioned that the current system of
individual permits is inefficient and fails to provide timely
relief for you and other farmers. Can you please expand on the
benefits of a national order?
And how will the Cormorant Relief Act of 2025 help fish
farmers like yourself and protect your business?
Mr. McGlawn. Doing a national order would just simplify and
make it a lot more efficient. And just like we said, we have to
make an educated guess on how many birds to take that year, and
that is just an unknown. We just don't know what the population
is going to be in any given year. So like I said, I could have
more birds on my permit that I need, and my neighbor could be
out, or vice versa, and under a national order it would just be
just a lot better for our industry.
Mr. Ezell. What message would you like to convey to Members
of Congress about the urgency of passing this legislation?
And what will the repercussions be if the legislation is
not passed?
Mr. McGlawn. I think this bill is very important to get
passed. You know, even though the individual permits are better
than nothing and they seem to work, just because they work
doesn't mean they could not be better. And a national
depredation order would definitely be better overall for the
catfish industry.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
And, you know, we need to get this done. This is very
important not only to my State, but for the country. And you
know, like I say, we have bipartisan support for this, and
let's get this thing done.
So thank you for that, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, and I agree with you. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Gray for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Gray. Thank you, Chair and Ranking Member, for holding
this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for joining us
here today.
As most of you know, adequate water supplies are crucial
for wetlands, including both managing current conservation
efforts and flooding agricultural lands.
The region that I represent, the San Joaquin Valley,
produces over 40 percent of the Nation's fruit and vegetable
supply and over 90 percent of global production for a number of
crops. In the last half century the focus in our region has
largely been on conservation and habitat, and we have done very
little to grow our water supply. It is important to conserve
wetlands for the preservation of species in the region, while
considering the economic impacts such efforts entail. And when
I am often asked the three most important issues in my
district, the answer is water, water, and water.
You know, sufficient access to water supply has been our
biggest challenge for decades. And currently, farmers in my
district are losing real access to water that is critical to
the survival of the farms and to producing the very food that
Americans depend on. The reality is the Central Valley's
agriculture economy requires both access to water but also a
respect for wildlife. It is not really one or the other, and
too often that is a false choice put in front of us in these
jobs. I am committed to finding a balance where farmers have
the necessary water they need to sustain our thriving
agricultural community while both protecting wetlands and
wildlife.
My district is home to Grasslands Water District, which
delivers water to one of the largest wetlands in the Central
Valley. These wetlands are a key habitat for the migration of
waterfowl species and vital for their protection. For many
years, in collaboration with public and private partners
including Ducks Unlimited, the Grasslands Water District has
secured grant funding through the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act for the conservation of these vital wetlands.
However, additional funding is still needed to ensure long-term
conservation efforts.
Mr. Anderson, how does funding from the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Act ensure local partners like the
Grasslands Water District can secure necessary funding to
support these efforts in the Central Valley?
Mr. Anderson. Thank you for the question.
I actually know the grasslands, and that is a beautiful
spot, and it is pristine in many ways, one of the few wetlands
left in California that is actually pristine.
All the proposals to do some activity in the grasslands or
other wetlands in California have to go through the proposal
process. They have historically done very well in the proposal
process because of the critical nature of those wetlands
relative to the wildlife there.
But all of our NAWCA-funded activities are done in close
collaboration with other water users in the West because of the
nature that you describe of it being a scarce commodity. And it
is a collaborative process, not a combative process. And we
don't look at it as a win-lose process, but we look at it as a
win-win. And I think that the work we have done with NAWCA in
Grasslands is very typical and indicative of our approach in
that regard, that we see the farmers and ranchers as partners
in this process, not as opponents. So the concept is to
collaborate.
Mr. Gray. Thank you. My understanding is that the Trump
administration's Federal funding freeze has paused a number of
grants allocated through the Conservation Act. Have you heard
from organizations about their grant funding being paused?
Mr. Anderson. I am not intimately familiar with that, but
there have been some issues associated with uncertainty. My
apologies. There have been some uncertainties associated with
how the grant process is going to move forward, but I don't
have anything definitive to add to that right now.
Mr. Gray. Well, thank you.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to support funding avenues for State and Federal
conservation efforts, as well as advanced water infrastructure.
And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back my time.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes
Representative Crank for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Crank. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate that.
I am an outdoorsman and sportsman, and spent my life doing
that, and I am hoping my wife isn't listening to this, but I
have spent an awful lot of money on conservation through my
license fees.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Crank. But I think people don't understand the hunting
and recreation community contributes a lot to economic activity
at national, State, and local level. But according to a 2022
report by the Sportsmen's Alliance, hunters generated $45.2
billion in direct revenue, and that is more than the gross
domestic product of 121 countries. They also contributed nearly
$38 million per day in State, local, and Federal taxes. And in
Colorado alone, 722,370 hunters spent $1.6 billion on hunting-
related purchases, and a portion of that revenue supports
wildlife agencies and conservation efforts.
And the hunting industry doesn't just generate economic
value, it plays a critical role in conserving habitat and
supporting species restoration. Through the Pittman-Robertson
Act, hunters and shooters pay an excise tax on guns and
ammunition, and this money funds wildlife conservation, hunting
and shooting access, habitat restoration, hunter safety and
education programs. And recreational shooting accounts for
roughly 80 percent of the revenue in the Pittman-Robertson
fund.
However, when firearms, ammunition, or archery equipment
sales decline, so does funding for conservation. And of course,
the same principle applies to oil and gas revenue, where energy
production is restricted, funding for education, habitat
restoration, and local government also declines. Just a little
economic lesson for some. Many people don't realize that
sportsmen and women fund up to 80 percent, and in some cases,
some States, 100 percent of State fish and wildlife agency
budgets.
So there is a lot of lip service about supporting
conservation, and I hear it a lot. I get lectured about it a
lot. But the funding for conservation comes out of my wallet,
as a sportsman, and that is the reality. There is no group that
funds it like the hunting and shooting community does because
they can't. While other groups shy away from this
responsibility, the sporting community embraces it, and we are
proud of our role in protecting and managing America's natural
resources.
And I recently led a letter with my Republican colleagues
in Colorado, including Mr. Hurd, who sits next to me, opposing
Senate Bill 3 in Colorado, which threatens the Second Amendment
rights of law-abiding citizens. If signed into law, it would
have far-reaching impacts on our recreational shooting and
hunting communities. And if it is passed it will reduce firearm
sales, and that will inevitably lead to less revenue for the
Pittman-Robertson Fund, weakening the very conservation efforts
that bill sponsors claim to support in Colorado. I will ask Mr.
Anderson.
And thank you for joining us, Mr. Anderson, I know you are
very familiar with Colorado, and thank you for being here. To
see the continued growth in revenue in the Pittman-Robertson
account, is it important for the States and Federal Government
to implement policies that foster access to hunting, shooting,
and the equipment necessary to participate?
Mr. Anderson. Well, it is--in Colorado, I think Pittman-
Robertson funding itself is I think something like 40 percent
of the State budget for the parks and wildlife. It has a huge
impact on that. And as maybe you know, maybe you don't know,
the way it is distributed among the different States is by the
size of the State and by the number of active licenses in that
State. So the States that have more hunting licenses get more
Pittman-Robertson money.
So not only if you suppress the sales of guns, but if you
suppress the access and the ability of people to hunt in there,
and so they choose not to get a license, you continue to chip
away at your revenue sources from a State standpoint. And there
has been some discussion among the sporting community,
sportsmen's conservation communities, about how to potentially
replace those funds in the event that it happens, as you
describe our concern. But there is not a good, quick answer
existing there right now. So as sales go down, it would
definitely put pressure.
Mr. Crank. Thank you.
Thanks, Madam Chair.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. And the Chair now recognizes the
Chairman of the Natural Resource Committee, Mr. Westerman, for
5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the
witnesses for being here today.
I can relate to my friend from Colorado and I guess I could
kind of rephrase Tug McGraw's famous quote about how he spends
his money, but, you know, I spend 90 percent of my money on
guns, ammo, and fishing equipment, and the other 10 percent I
probably waste. But we all, I think, have a great appreciation
for the outdoors.
And I want to thank the other Congressman from Colorado,
Mr. Hurd, for his work on the Wetlands Conservation and
Improvement Act. We know that NAWCA is an incredibly important
program. It is very important to my home State of Arkansas,
where 100,000 duck hunters or waterfowl hunters come each year
to experience waterfowl hunting in our very pristine wetlands
habitat.
Mr. Anderson, I am not going to ask you to compare Colorado
and Arkansas duck hunting.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Westerman. But I would ask you to explain how
transferring the interest accrued on unobligated Pittman-
Robertson funds to NAWCA, how can that foster a cooperative and
beneficial relationship between States and the waterfowl
conservation community?
Mr. Anderson. Well, your Arkansas duck hunters come to our
State to hunt elk.
But in terms of NAWCA, to answer your question directly,
this bill is to augment the NAWCA funds from the Pittman-
Robertson Act trust fund. And every dollar that can go into the
NAWCA program is going to be beneficial, at least twice as much
because of the match requirements, probably more like three or
four times as much. And that enables us to work cooperatively
with all the interests, all the sportsmen's interests.
But as I explained, I don't think you were in the room, but
I know you know very well that NAWCA program requires a
proposal, the proposals are competitive. They are distributed
among the States as a function of the ranking system. Your
State continues to rank very well because of the nature of your
habitat there. But I think that the sportsmen's conservation
community is quite satisfied that the proposal process itself
does a very good job of distributing, by need, on the funds.
And so they put the improvements and investments in the areas
where they are going to do the most good for the species.
Mr. Westerman. My colleague, Congressman Ezell from
Mississippi, has also done work on a waterfowl issue with H.R.
2293, the Cormorant Relief Act, or also known as water turkeys
in Arkansas. I hear from a lot of constituents back home about
the destructive impact of the double-crested cormorants and how
the current permitting structure is unworkable and ineffective.
I have been up in the Great Lakes area with other Members of
Congress, and looked at the issue that cormorants create with
smallmouth fry and walleye fry, and it is like they go do
damage up there and then they migrate south and really make it
hard for our catfish and bait farmers to make a living.
Mr. McGlawn, can you explain to the Committee why the
current permitting structure is unworkable?
Mr. McGlawn. Thank you, and don't necessarily say that I
would say it is unworkable, it is just a little inefficient and
we could simplify it and just make it easier.
Where we have issues with it is, like I said, we don't know
the population numbers that are going to come down each year.
And it is not necessarily just the migratory population. We are
starting to get a resident population also. So we have these
cormorants, staying year-round on the farm, where typically, 15
years ago, it was from November all the way to May.
But we just need a national, you know, depredation order to
be able to take birds when necessary off the farm.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
And Mr. Baker, I quickly want to ask you, would you feel
pressured to sell your property if your neighbors began to sell
their lands to the Federal Government because of the
checkerboard effect it would create?
Mr. Baker. Yes, I could see where some panic selling might
take place. Maybe the decrease in the property value because of
this expansion of this might cause more tax to be paid for the
guys that are outside that circle. So yes, I could see
definitely some panic selling taking place out of that.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am out of time.
Ms. Hageman. Wonderful. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Webster for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Webster. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I only have
one question that I can think of. This is for Mr. McGlawn.
Aquaculture is important in my State, the State of Florida,
and an important industry, and a lot of things happen there
about that. And the problem is, as has been already said a
couple of times, the Federal intervention, especially with the
Endangered Species Act and misapplication of that, and improper
use of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, all of that kind of
hampers the growth of the industry. And can you tell me how
Representative Ezell's bill would streamline the permitting and
allow for growth in the industry?
Mr. McGlawn. Yes, sir, and thank you.
Basically, Fish and Wildlife Service would approve one
permit instead of thousands each year. So it would be time-
wise; they would be able to just simplify the process and make
it more efficient.
And if the permit is more available to us and easily
available to us, we can control the population of birds and,
you know, that is just more fish that we have to sell on the
farm every year. That is less fish that the birds are eating.
So that in turn will help the industry grow.
Mr. Webster. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. McGlawn. Thank you.
Ms. Hageman. Would you yield to the Chair the remainder of
your time? To me?
Mr. Webster. Yes.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I just wanted to send a message
from Representative Jodey Arrington, and he just wanted to make
sure that everyone understood that the critical habitat that he
is interested in preserving is the freedom-loving, rural
Americans; and the endangered species he is interested in
protecting are the farmers and ranchers. So I thought that that
was a message well worth providing to everyone here today.
And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Hurd for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Anderson, I know you said that you were recently
retired, but it looks like you are still hard at work, so thank
you for all that you and Ducks Unlimited do for sportsmen and
for conservation in our home State of Colorado, but beyond, as
well, and across the country. You said something in your
testimony I wanted to ask you about very quickly.
You said hunters and anglers have paid for conservation,
ensuring that our country was taken from the brink of wildlife
decimation in the early 1900s to a renaissance of wildlife
abundance today. Can you tell us what would be the impact if
Congress fails to reauthorize this authority? What would it
mean for wetlands?
Mr. Anderson. Thank you for the question.
The reality today is that we are still losing wetlands at a
pretty significant pace. A significant part of that is on the
Gulf, where we are having a lot of issues with erosion, but
also all across the country. Every State is losing wetlands.
The efforts of NAWCA and other programs that Ducks
Unlimited participates with, along with the other folks in the
conservation community that are interested in wetlands, we are
not overcoming that problem. We are just slowing it right now.
The less resources we have, the less effort we will be able to
expend to stem that tide. And these monies that we are talking
about in this bill are important.
Again, as I mentioned earlier, we have the ability in this
program to magnify the value of those funds. And in doing so we
can have a significant impact, more than just what appears to
be the value associated with this particular trust fund
interest itself. It gets multiplied. So from that standpoint,
it is a very substantial part of the effort that is going to go
on across this country towards wetlands. But without it, we are
just losing faster.
Mr. Hurd. Would it be fair to say that this legislation is
critical for wetlands across the country?
Mr. Anderson. We certainly feel it is.
Mr. Hurd. As you know, the Pittman-Robertson Act is funded
by excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. In our home State
of Colorado we have seen an increasing number of restrictions
on the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and these
policies and laws are making it harder for law-abiding citizens
to purchase firearms and ammunition, including hunting gear.
Given that this excise tax revenue funds programs like NAWCA,
do you believe Second Amendment restrictions could threaten the
long-term sustainability of conservation efforts that rely on
this model?
Mr. Anderson. I think significant restriction would
definitely damage it. Sportsmen and women have been willing
funders of conservation for 100 years, and anything that makes
those ranks smaller takes away the potential for that funding.
Mr. Hurd. Great. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Thank you to our
other witnesses.
Madam Chair, I yield the remainder of my time back to you.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Walberg for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
As one of the many hunters and anglers on this Committee, I
am pleased that we are considering legislation today that would
help preserve the wildlife habitat we all enjoy and we are all
stewards of.
Having the privilege of representing Michigan's 5th
district, which includes both Lake Erie and Lake Michigan as
bookends, I know the importance of the Pittman-Robertson
funding and the important role NAWCA plays in wildlife habitat
restoration, especially in wetlands. Sitting in a duck blind,
in fact, one that probably former Chairman and Representative
Dingell sat in, with friends and with family, watching the
sunrise over Lake Erie, for example, in spite of the presence
of cormorants to the extreme, is something that we want to pass
along to the generations to come as what we enjoy. In Michigan
alone, NAWCA has contributed over $23 million in funding,
matched with nearly $67 million in partner contributions to
conserve over 63,000 acres of habitat.
Mr. Anderson, in your written testimony you outlined the
significant impact that both Pittman-Robertson and NAWCA have
had on projects in Colorado, and the importance of ensuring
these funds are preserved but managed with common-sense
approach. Why is it important that we allow the unallocated
Pittman-Robertson funds to be used for NAWCA, and what would it
mean for hunters like those in my home State of Michigan?
Mr. Anderson. Thank you for that question.
Michigan is a very active spot for Ducks Unlimited and
NAWCA because of the opportunities that exist there with the
Great Lakes being a very critical, important historic migration
corridor. That is probably the birds that you have enjoyed in
that duck blind.
As I mentioned earlier, that every resource we can get
improves our ability to perform the job right now. And with the
amount of pressure on the resource for land, other land uses,
other water uses, also the pressure that is occurring because
of climate variability, it is a critical point right now to
have as much funding as is practical and available to try to
address those kind of challenges.
But Ducks Unlimited is very active in that Great Lakes area
right now, with--Ducks Unlimited is--with a significant amount
of NAWCA funding and other resources, as well, trying to answer
it on behalf of your constituents.
Mr. Walberg. Yes, and it is having some significant impact.
Mr. Anderson. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. I would like to quickly turn to the
Great Lakes Fishery Research Reauthorization Act.
This bipartisan legislation would reauthorize the Great
Lakes Fishery Research Program within the USGS. The program
helps support the important work done by the Great Lakes
Fisheries Commission, and provides critical research that helps
ensure States can implement sound fisheries management
practices. For example, the binational work has helped reduce
the destructive sea lamprey population in the Great Lakes.
So I thank the Chair for considering this legislation, and
her continued support for the Great Lakes.
I am willing to yield time back to the Chair.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you very much. I want to thank the
witnesses for your valuable time and testimony here today, and
also for the members for their participation and the questions.
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
those in writing if they are received. Under Committee rule 3,
members of the Committee must submit such questions to the
Subcommittee clerk by 5 p.m. Eastern on Friday, April 11, and
the hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for
these responses.
Without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Hoyle
Opposition to H.R. 839
April 7, 2025
Hon. Harriet Hageman, Chair
Hon. Val Hoyle, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chair Hageman and Ranking Member Hoyle,
On behalf of our 37 organizations and our combined millions of
members and supporters, we write to express our strong opposition to
H.R. 839, a bill introduced by Rep. Arrington that would prohibit the
implementation of the Land Protection Plan for Muleshoe National
Wildlife Refuge. This damaging bill will be the subject of a House
Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries
hearing on April 8, 2025. We request this letter be included in the
hearing record.
The Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge protects important habitats
in the Southern High Plains, including grasslands, playa wetlands, and
saline lakes. The oldest national wildlife refuge in Texas, Muleshoe
was established on October 24, 1935, by Executive Order No. 7214, ``for
the use . . . as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and
other wildlife . . . '' The refuge is home to a population of lesser
prairie-chicken listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), as well as sandhill crane, pronghorn, and hundreds of other
species. Protecting and expanding Muleshoe is crucial to help combat
the growing biodiversity crisis.
The Land Protection Plan targeted by H.R. 839 is a comprehensive
document developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to guide
the growth of the Refuge within an approved acquisition boundary. It
was finalized in April 2024 after 15 years of research, cooperation,
and planning. In this document, FWS proposed to establish a voluntary
land acquisition program to better protect the vulnerable species of
Muleshoe. Up to 700,000 acres of wildlife habitat could be added to the
Refuge, although progress toward that total is expected to proceed
slowly over many years.
Expansion of Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge is important for the
recovery of the lesser prairie-chicken, whose survival depends on
protection of its habitat. The species was once common throughout the
region. Today, however, 92% of its natural habitat has been lost and
its population has declined by 97%. Lesser prairie-chicken require
large, unfragmented areas of native grasslands to thrive. Each breeding
site, called a lek, encompasses up to 50,000 acres and must be
connected to other leks by intact habitat to maintain a healthy
population. The species faces extirpation in the region without
adequate conservation measures. Preventing further habitat loss and
fragmentation is key to eventually removing lesser prairie-chicken from
the endangered species list.
Rep. Arrington bases his opposition to the expansion of Muleshoe
National Wildlife Refuge on concerns that private landowners will be
forced to sell their property, face new regulations and that property
tax revenue for local communities will be reduced. Exploring these
concerns reveals that opposition to the expansion of the Refuge is
largely based on misinformation. Under the express terms of the Plan,
FWS will ``acquir[e] lands only from willing sellers'', so no landowner
is ever forced or pressured to sell. In any event, any such force or
pressure would be in violation of longstanding FWS land acquisition
policy and practice, see 341 FW 1 (Feb. 26, 1996) (``Policy and
Responsibilities--Land Acquisition''). Next, being within the
acquisition boundary imposes no new regulations on landowners and does
not restrict their property rights. Rather, it offers greater
flexibility, providing landowners with an opportunity to sell their
land at market value and permanently protect it as part of the Refuge
System. Finally, while FWS does not pay property taxes on refuge land,
lost revenue is offset through payments under the Refuge Revenue
Sharing Act and by the boost in local economic activity generated by
ecotourism.
If Rep. Arrington's bill becomes law, it could have long-lasting
consequences that undermine science-based management of our public
lands, the ability of the Refuge System to fulfill its statutory
mandate for strategic growth, and the recovery of ESA-listed species.
For these reasons, our organizations strongly oppose H.R. 839 and urge
you to do the same.
Sincerely,
American Bird Conservancy Large Carnivore Fund
Born Free USA Los Angeles Audubon Society
Californians for Western
Wilderness National Wildlife Refuge
Association
Center for Biological
Diversity New Hampshire Audubon
Christian Council of
Delmarva NY4WHALES
Coast Range Association Orleans Audubon Society
Creating Common Ground REI
Defenders of Wildlife Resource Renewal Institute
Endangered Habitats League Save the Manatee Club
Endangered Species
Coalition Species Unite
Environment America The Urban Wildlands Group
Environment Texas Turtle Island Restoration Network
Environmental Protection
Information Center--EPIC Voice for Animals
Fin and Fur Films Western Nebraska Resources
Council
FOUR PAWS USA Western Watersheds Project
Friends of the Earth Wray-Todd Ranch
Friends of the Sonoran
Desert Wyoming Untrapped
Heartwood Yaak Valley Forest Council
International Crane
Foundation
______
Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition
April 7, 2025
Hon. Harriet Hageman, Chair
Hon. Val Hoyle, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chair Hageman and Ranking Member Hoyle:
On behalf of the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, I write
in support of H.R. 1809, the Great Lakes Fishery Research
Reauthorization Act.
The Great Lakes Science Center (GLSC) is the biological research
center of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in the Great Lakes region
with a mission to advance scientific research and support the
restoration, enhancement, management, and protection of Great Lakes
fish and wildlife. The GLSC staff responds to the needs of federal
agencies, Great Lakes state and local governments, communities, and
Tribes. It provides critical biological and ecological data and
analysis that decisionmakers rely on to protect aquatic resources and
communities across the region.
The GLSC fisheries science program is foundational for fishery
management decisions on all five Great Lakes. After years of
underinvestment, the passage of a dedicated funding source under the
Great Lakes Fishery Research Authorization Act, included within the
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 (P.L. 116-94), served
as a critical catalyst for science in the region. It allowed the GLSC
to execute a comprehensive, multi-lake, freshwater fisheries science
program coordinating its work with other governments so that management
is cooperative, efficient, and effective.
This legislation will enable the GLSC to continue its work,
building upon its ongoing deep-water ecosystem science, shedding light
on biological and food web components, helping us better understand
fish movement and behavior, conducting fish habitat investigations, and
contribute to invasive species knowledge and management. Moreover, the
GLFRA will encourage the GLSC to integrate new technologies for
fisheries science into the basin's research and management structure.
All critical efforts to the long-term protection of the region's $5.1
billion a year recreational fishing economy.
The Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition supports H.R. 1809 and
encourages the subcommittee to move forward to marking up this
legislation as soon as practicable.
Please feel free to reach out to our Coalition's Senior Program
Manager, Alexis Lopez-Cepero, at [email protected] with any
questions,
Sincerely,
Laura Rubin,
Director
______
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Hurd
Wetlands Conservation and Access Improvement Act of 2025
April 7, 2025
Hon. Harriet Hageman, Chairwoman
Hon.Val Hoyle, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairwoman Hageman and Ranking Member Hoyle,
We, the undersigned sportsmen and other conservation organizations
representing millions of hunters, anglers, outdoor recreationists, and
businesses across the United States, thank you for holding a hearing on
H.R. 2316, the Wetlands Conservation and Access Improvement Act of
2025. This bipartisan bill will help conserve and protect wetlands
across the nation and is strongly supported by the undersigned.
The passage of the Pittman-Robertson Act in 1937 shifted the
paradigm of how conservation was approached, with hunters and
recreational shooters leading the charge by providing much-needed
funding to wildlife and their habitats through the redirection of
excise taxes on firearms and ammunition (later amended to include
archery equipment). This legacy of collaboration between sportsmen and
women, state wildlife agencies, and firearm, ammunition, and archery
equipment manufacturers was strengthened with the creation of the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) in 1989. Together, these
laws serve as critical resources to the foundation supporting our North
American Wildlife Conservation Model.
Funds secured through the Pittman-Robertson Act support wildlife
restoration, conservation, hunter education, and ultimately,
recreational access through efforts led by state game and fish
agencies. Because this transfer of funds from the federal government to
state agencies does not happen immediately, the Pittman-Robertson Act
allows the secretary of the Treasury to invest these funds in interest-
bearing U.S. treasuries. Consolidating this interest with NAWCA funds
enhances the effectiveness of both programs, which improve water
quality and quantity through wetland conservation and ensure robust
public access by enhancing our wild places.
H.R. 2316 will continue to allow Pittman-Robertson's interest
investment in NAWCA conservation through 2033. Your leadership on this
issue will ensure that funds captured through the Pittman-Robertson Act
for critical wildlife conservation and habitat restoration are invested
efficiently, providing the biggest bang for the buck for the American
taxpayer.
We stand ready to work with our industry partners to advance this
critical legislation and ensure its successful passage. We look forward
to assisting you and your staff with this critical legislation, which
will support the continued success of the North American Model of
Wildlife Conservation for the benefit of future generations.
Sincerely,
Association of Fish &
Wildlife Agencies Pheasants Forever
California Waterfowl
Association Quail Forever
Congressional Sportsmen's
Foundation Safari Club International
Delta Waterfowl The Conservation Fund
Ducks Unlimited Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership
National Shooting Sports
Foundation Wildlife Mississippi
National Wild Turkey
Federation
______
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Arrington
Dallas Morning News article, Why I Oppose the Muleshoe Wildlife
Refuge Expansion
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20250408/118118/HHRG-
119-II13-20250408-SD001.pdf
[all]