[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 54 (Tuesday, May 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2803-H2806]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               FEDERAL LANDS AND WATER ISSUES IN THE WEST

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riley). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, my district is the Third Congressional 
District of the State of Colorado. This is a very unique district. 
First of all, geographically, this district is actually larger than the 
State of Florida. There is the State of Florida. My district, here, is 
the State of Colorado. The district that I represent goes from north to 
south, about like that. This land mass here, or the Third Congressional 
District, this is geographically larger than the State of Florida.
  This evening I want to visit a little while on government lands; the 
mass of government lands in the West, what the difference is between 
land in the East and land in the West, what the historical perspective 
is of how that land was settled under the Manifest Destiny; and then I 
want to move on to the subject and discuss water in the West, because 
water in the West is clearly much more complicated than water issues in 
the East, and an entirely different type of system has been devised to 
address the uniqueness of water in the West.
  So let us start first of all with some statistics. The Federal 
Government owns about 688 million acres of land. Now, a lot of 
homeowners out there may have a home on a quarter of an acre of land. 
Imagine 688 million acres. That is what the Federal Government owns. 
And 95 percent, 95 percent, of that 688 million acres is in the West.
  This map that I have up here is titled ``Government Lands.'' Take a 
look at the difference between the western half of the United States 
and the eastern half of the United States. Take a look.
  And we should not include Alaska, which on this map, by the way, is 
shown on half the scale as the other States. So Alaska really would be 
twice that size.
  Now, the key to this land ownership out here is what we would call 
multiple use. Now, Colorado is not unlike that. In Colorado, as you can 
see from my district, there are about 20 million acres, 20 million 
acres in the Congressional District that I represent, that is owned by 
the Federal Government.
  Now, the historical perspective of how this land mass came about was 
really driven through the Manifest Destiny. We began the acquisition of 
our lands under that idea to stretch the scope of the Nation. We wanted 
to go from the Atlantic out to the Pacific. And the district that I 
represent actually came through several different things. One was the 
Louisiana Purchase, and that occurred in 1803; the secession from 
Mexico, which occurred in 1848; and the purchase from Texas in 1850. So 
there is a good portion of the district that I represent that actually 
used to belong to the country of Mexico. So the Louisiana Purchase, 
secession from Mexico, and the purchase from Texas is how a lot of this 
land was acquired by the United States.
  Now, let me step back for a moment. What the agenda was of the 
government in Washington, D.C. was to go west, young man, go west. They 
wanted to get into this new land that was acquired through the 
Louisiana Purchase. They wanted civilization to go out into the West 
and make it one large unified country. Well, what they did is they did 
several things. They had the Homestead Act. In the areas like Nebraska, 
Kansas, and Missouri, there was lots of very, very fertile farmland. 
And the government decided the best way to persuade people to go out to 
these States was to give them land grants, or let them homestead; i.e. 
if people would go out there, if they would work the land for a certain 
period of time, the government would actually deed the land to them. 
Maybe 160 acres. Maybe 320 acres.
  And that actually, in these States which are very, very fertile, was 
enough to make a living off of. A family could have a farm off 160 
acres. They could farm 320 acres and support a family back then. But 
what they discovered, first of all, was not a lot of settlers wanted to 
go up in the mountain terrain of the West. The snows were very, very 
difficult. The winters were very, very harsh.
  And furthermore, the government discovered that when people went to 
the West, they could not do it on 160 acres. In fact, 160 acres in some 
areas of the district that I represent, one can hardly run one cow on 
it. The government believed that they really could not politically give 
away the thousands of acres that would be necessary for a rancher or a 
farm family or the settlers to make a living. So what they decided, 
since there was such a large mass of Federal land, was to go ahead and 
retain the ownership of this Federal land, keep the ownership in the 
government's hands but under the doctrine of multiple use.
  What is multiple use? Multiple use is simply best defined by a sign 
that was

[[Page H2804]]

on all the Federal lands when I grew up, and that sign said welcome, 
you are now entering, for example, White River National Forest, a land 
of many uses. They wanted this to be a land of many uses.
  Unfortunately, in the last two decades, we have seen people who 
really, in my opinion, do not know this land, have tried to take away 
the land of many uses concept and put on a sign that says no 
trespassing.
  Now, I am not speaking from inexperience. My family actually settled 
in Colorado, down about right there, 1872, up in Boulder. I was born 
over here on the western slope. So since 1872, and I am proud of the 
fact I have two daughters that are pioneer daughters, meaning that our 
family was here before the State of Colorado became a State.
  My wife's family, they are up here. They have a ranch. It is 115 
years old. Right up there. David and Sue Ann Smith. They still run it. 
Cattle operation. Takes a lot of land to run a cattle operation.
  But what has happened on this multiple use concept is, first of all, 
especially for my colleagues who are from the East, understand that 
multiple use is critical for our life-style out there. And when we 
mention multiple use, or use of the Federal lands, a lot of my 
colleagues say, well, we are talking about grazing, cattle grazing; we 
are talking about ski areas. But the picture is much, much broader and 
much, much more critical than that, although we certainly should not 
downplay the critical importance of tourism in Colorado and the 
fundamental foundation of ranching as it is to the West.
  But the fact is multiple use has many uses. First of all, water. In 
my particular district, the district that I represent, water is either 
stored upon Federal land, it runs across Federal land, or originates on 
Federal land. In order for the populations in my particular district to 
get water, we have to depend upon multiple use, or the lands of many 
uses on the Federal lands, to do that.
  If we were to shut off the Federal lands, as many people would like 
to do, we would shut off the water supply to the population that has 
elected me to represent them back here in Washington, D.C. Not just 
water supply. Radio towers. A lot of my colleagues in the East take for 
granted, for example, States that have very, very little Federal land, 
take for granted the fact that they can have a cellular telephone 
tower, or they can have a radio tower or the power lines.

                              {time}  2215

  There are a lot of electrical power lines that the only way we can 
get electricity to the population that I represent depends on the 
amount for multiple use of Federal lands. Same thing with microwave. 
Same thing with cellular telephones. In fact, in the district that I 
represent, I am not sure that there is a highway out there that at some 
point is not dependent upon being able to cross Federal lands.
  Now, these Federal lands are massive. The Federal Government has 
designed a management technique to carry out the philosophy of multiple 
use, and that management technique involves several agencies. It 
involves, of course, the Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, the 
Bureau of Land Management, National Parks. And they are granted. These 
Federal agencies are given several different tools under which to 
manage this large mass of land.
  Now, the most obvious on this ranch, the most obvious lack of 
management is kind of a free-for-all. And frankly, when they settled 
the West many, many years ago, the government kind of let them go, free 
for all. ``Go out there, conquer the land.'' And of course, we did not 
have the environmental technology we have today, but there was a lot of 
damage done.
  In fact, some of our rivers in Colorado still run with some of the 
mineral that had seeped from the mining back in there. But as time went 
on, the government became a little better, a little smarter; and so did 
the population. And let me stress, so did the population. The people 
that know that land the best are not the governmental bureaucrats, they 
are not the government employees out there. The people that know that 
land the best are the people that grew up on that land. And there are a 
lot of great, long-time families that care about that land as much as 
they care about their children.
  Let us go back to the management tools. So we have got the free-for-
all over here, which clearly is an idiotic, frankly, management tool to 
use. It would never pass today and it should not pass as a management 
tool for today. And the other tool we have clear over on this extreme 
is the designation called ``wilderness areas.''
  Now, ``wilderness'' sounds very fuzzy. It is a very good word. I was 
in a town meeting, in fact, about a week ago and I asked the people 
there, ``How many people in this room do not like the word 
`wilderness?' '' Everybody likes the word ``wilderness.''
  But understand what it does. Basically, the word ``wilderness'' locks 
up the land. That is the designation of the ``no trespassing'' sign 
that I spoke of. There are appropriate areas in the West where the 
``wilderness'' designation, that is what they call it, the 
``wilderness'' designation is appropriate.
  For example, I have got a bill myself on the Spanish Peaks that I am 
a cosponsor on with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs). Spanish 
Peaks, we go clear to the very top of the peaks. It is an appropriate 
designation for wilderness. It is an appropriate area for, in essence, 
a lockout.
  But my colleagues will find many environmental groups, the national 
Sierra Group for example, that wants to drain Lake Powell, Earth First. 
They would like to take all of this Federal land or the biggest chunk 
of this Federal land and put it into wilderness areas. They now are 
trying to put big chunks of this land in wilderness areas, lock them 
out, keep the people out of it. Well, that is the most extreme tool.
  By the way, if we employ that tool of management, it is totally, 
totally inflexible and it cannot be changed except under the rarest of 
circumstances. And I cannot imagine, even if we were at war and we 
needed the resources off that, I cannot imagine getting the votes 
necessary that would unlock that wilderness area.
  So we have the wilderness area over here as a management tool. We 
have the free-for-all over here. And in between we have the Forest 
Service, National Parks, and the BLM that have a number of tools that 
they can utilize to manage these lands. And with the exception of the 
Federal Wilderness designation, every other tool that the Forest 
Service, for example, has or that the BLM has or National Parks has, 
has flexibility. Remember, wilderness has no flexibility. Once we are 
in it, we are locked in it forever. But the other management tools have 
flexibility.
  The reason they have flexibility is that, who knows what the future 
brings. We may find that the technology on how to handle the 
environment or what to do with the resources out there demands a 
different management tool than the one we have under it today. But 
because of our discovery of technology or better management tools, we 
think we should shift it over here or shift this one over here. We have 
got that flexibility.
  Now, I want to tell my colleagues, I know a lot of employees of the 
United States Forest Service. I know a lot of employees at the Bureau 
of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Park Services. If we allow 
them to do their job, I think they can do a pretty good job. They are a 
dedicated bunch of people.
  But, unfortunately, what happens out there is we have special-
interest groups, for example, the national Sierra Club, Earth First, 
and by the way, most of these are headquartered not in this area, they 
are headquartered back here in the East, primarily in Washington D.C., 
who come into this area and try and dictate, not compromise with common 
sense, but try and dictate the policies of their special interests on 
the management of these Federal lands. Frankly, they have been pretty 
successful. What kind of impact has it had? The kind of impact that it 
has is, it drives our ranching communities.
  I tell my colleagues, our ranching community is vital, not just for 
the State of Colorado, not for the cattle markets, not for the sheep 
markets, but for the wholesome style of living that that signifies. The 
West is what the United States is known for. And these families, and 
again look at my in-laws, David and Sue Ann Smith, we can still see the 
cabins where their

[[Page H2805]]

grandparents came and homesteaded in that area. And they are very 
dependent frankly upon multiple use of Federal land. So is everybody in 
Meeker, Colorado. So is everybody in Grand Junction. So are the skiers. 
It is very heavily depended upon.
  If we can allow the Federal employees to do their jobs and do them 
with a little anecdote of common sense, we can protect this land, we 
can live off this land, and we can preserve this land for everybody's 
use. But, please, do not be taken in by some of these special interest 
groups that are going to try and convince us, first of all, that there 
is gross abuse going on here on these Federal lands, that these Federal 
lands are being degraded.
  They can always find an example here and there. Gosh, I am a 
Catholic. We can look in the Catholic church and we can find an example 
of a bad person here or there in our religion. But that does not mean 
that we revamp the entire system. It is the same thing here.
  When somebody talks to us about going to Colorado or we need this 
wilderness area out here, ask them what the impact would be if we went 
to New York City and put a wilderness area in Central Park, or if we 
went out here on the Mall in Washington, D.C., and made the Mall a 
wilderness area, gave it a wilderness designation.

  What would happen to it? Nobody gets to go on it. We want to preserve 
this for the future. Meaning no one has access to the National Mall. 
The country would not tolerate that for 2 seconds, and they should not 
tolerate that for 2 seconds.
  Well, we in the West face the same kind of challenges. Let the people 
in the West live as my colleagues do. Let us enjoy the historical 
perspective and listen to our opinions on what could help the land, how 
to preserve the land.
  Last week I had an opportunity to speak here and I named several 
ranchers. Bill Volbraught has got a ranch in Evergreen, Colorado. Al 
Stroobauts has a farm in Virginia, and he has a ranch in Colorado. The 
Smiths, they ranch up in Meeker. The Strangs, a former U.S. 
Congressman, ranches in Carbondale. His brother ranches up in Meeker.
  Go out and spend just a few minutes with these people. Go to Golden 
Bears Ranch out in the Glenwood Canyon, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 
near Aspen. A lot of my colleagues know where Aspen is. Spend a few 
minutes with these people. See how important the concept of multiple 
use is. But more important than that, see how important the management 
and love of that land pours out of their hearts.
  When they pick up a handful of soil, when they point out an elk, when 
they take us down and show us the stream, take us trout fishing, or 
show us how generation after generation has been raised through 4-H, 
calves or 4-H sheep or at the county fair, we will have a much, much 
better understanding of how important this area is and the ability to 
live in this area and the ability to have multiple use, how important 
that is for the entire United States.
  Let me move from Federal land ownership over to something that is 
important to all of us, and that is water. I think an interesting thing 
about water is to talk a little about how much water is necessary for 
each and every one of us to have on a daily basis.
  I bet none of my colleagues know that it takes a thousand gallons of 
water a day, a thousand gallons of water a day, to grow the necessary 
food to give each person in these Chambers three balanced meals. The 
average person, when they cook for those meals and drink, 2 gallons a 
day. A washing machine uses about 20 gallons per load, a dishwasher, 25 
gallons per load. Taking a shower, oh, 7 to 9 gallons per shower.
  Now, growing food, and by the way, growing foods is the biggest 
consumption of water in the country. Growing foods, to get one loaf of 
bread, this is a hard statistic to believe, to get one loaf of bread 
takes 150 gallons of water for one loaf of bread. One egg to produce, 
when that egg finally comes out, we have gone through 120 gallons of 
water. Quart of milk, 123 gallons of water. One pound of tomatoes, just 
to raise one pound of tomatoes, it takes 125 gallons of water. One 
pound of oranges, 47 pounds. And one pound of potatoes, 23 gallons.
  If we took 50 glasses of water, just to give a comparison, 44 glasses 
of that 50 glasses of water, so we own 50 glasses of water, 44 of those 
glasses have to go straight to agriculture. That is how critical water 
is for our food supply in this country. Three glasses of those 50 
glasses would be used by industry. Two glasses would be used by the 
major cities. And a half a glass of water is used in the country for 
the smaller population that we have.
  Now, water is critical. When we look around the world, we say the 
world has lots of water. Ninety-seven percent, 97 percent of the water 
in the world is salt water; less than 3 percent is pure water. Now, if 
we take a look at the map, and going back again, if we take a look here 
and we draw a line somewhere between Kansas and Missouri, so we go down 
about like this, that area right there, we will find that 73 percent of 
the stream flow, 73 percent of the water in the United States, is here 
in the East, 73 percent. So that line represents 73 percent.
  Over here we are going to find that 12.7 percent of the country's 
water supply is up here in the Pacific Northwest, and the remaining 13 
or 14 Western States over here have 14 percent. So about a percent per 
State. So 14 States only have 14 percent of the water supply.
  Now, in the East, one of their problems with water is how to get rid 
of it. In the West our problem is how do we save it. Take, for example, 
the State of Colorado. Colorado is a very arid State. Colorado is the 
highest State in the country. In fact, the district that I represent is 
the highest district in the country. It is a mountainous district. We 
have 54 mountains over 14,000 feet in my district.
  But in Colorado we do not get much rainfall. Where we get our water, 
and by the way they call the State of Colorado ``The Mother of All 
Rivers.'' Colorado, when we get our water, comes from the melting of 
the snow on the high peaks. Colorado is the only State in the lower 48, 
the only State where all of our free-flowing water goes out. We do not 
have water that flows into the State of Colorado. It is a critical 
issue.
  And the water we get, as I mentioned earlier, comes from the snow 
melt off the top of the mountain peaks. That is called the spring 
runoff. But the springs runoff only occurs for a period of time, about 
60 to 90 days; and during that 60-to-90-day period of time, if we do 
not store that water, we lose that water.
  Now, the beauty of water is it is the only natural resource that is 
renewable. For example, if we use a gallon of gasoline, it is gone 
forever once we burn it up. We use a gallon of water and a gallon of 
water up here in the mountain range, by the time a gallon of water 
leaves the headwaters there and gets down here, say, to the Utah 
border, that gallon of water has the equivalent of 6 gallons of water. 
And so on, it just goes.

                              {time}  2230

  It is the only natural resource that is a renewable resource. It is a 
critical resource for us. But in the East, there is I think somewhat of 
a lack of perhaps understanding of how critical water storage is for us 
to have water outside that 60 to 90-day period of time that we 
experience the spring runoff. Colorado is a State that is the 
headwaters for four major rivers, the Arkansas, and the Arkansas flows 
on into Kansas, goes over to Kansas. Up here in Nebraska it is the 
Platte, and the Platte flows up that direction. We have a river that 
originates here and goes up into Nebraska, the Platte. We have the 
Arkansas that goes down here into Kansas, we have the Rio Grande that 
goes down here into New Mexico. And we have got the Colorado River. By 
the way the Colorado River is called the mother of rivers. The Colorado 
River supplies water for 18 or 19 different States and the country of 
Mexico. That river goes west, and flows into the State of Utah, 
eventually makes its way to the Pacific Ocean and down for the country 
of Mexico. In fact, out of Colorado, to show you how important that 
water and how important the snowfall is up there, 75 percent of the 
water in the Colorado River, which again goes about like this, 75 
percent of that water comes off those mountain peaks in the 
congressional district that I represent. As of late, we have seen a lot 
of effort, again by some special interest groups, who in my opinion do

[[Page H2806]]

not understand how critical water storage is for our species, how 
important water storage is for our crops, how important our water 
storage is for our animals and the whole works. These people do not 
understand that. Some of these organizations, maybe even more 
frightening is they do understand it. Some of these special interest 
organizations cannot wait to take down a dam out in the West.
  First of all, we use those dams to store the water, as I mentioned 
earlier. Second, this statistic is probably, oh, 4 years old, so I do 
not know if it is still accurate today, I think it is, there is not a 
gold meadow fishing stream in Colorado that is not below a dam. The 
other thing is the hydroelectric power that comes off those dams is 
probably the cleanest type of power you can get. You go to some foreign 
country and they chuckle when they see that there are people in our 
country who want to do away with hydroelectric power. They say it is 
such a clean power.
  We know how to take care of these resources. We have got the National 
Sierra Club, the President of the National Sierra Club named as his top 
priority to drain Lake Powell. Lake Powell may not mean a lot to you 
here in the Chambers, but I can tell you it is a critical, critical 
water resource, not just for the power, not just for the recreation, 
not just for the drinking but for the environment as a whole. It is a 
critical body of water out in the West. We need your support. I need 
your support. This Nation needs your support, to understand how 
important and how critical water in the West has become and will 
remain, how just one little innocent bill that goes out of these 
Chambers addressing either multiple use on Federal lands or impacting 
the utilization of water in the West, how one little bill out of here 
can have a major, major impact on the life-styles of the people that 
settled the West.
  They have a saying in Colorado that water runs as thick as blood. 
That is true. We used to have a joke out there that you can mess around 
with a man as long as you leave his water alone and a couple of other 
things. Certainly water has risen to the top as a critical issue. Let 
me just recap, because our lesson really tonight or the discussion I 
wanted to have with my colleagues out here was Federal lands and why we 
feel in the West sometimes under siege by some of our colleagues here 
in the East. In fact, it is kind of interesting. You take a look at 
some of these so-called environmental ratings put out again by these 
special interest organizations. Take a look. This demonstrates pretty 
clearly to me the lack of understanding of some of these organizations 
of the lifestyle in the West, of the needs of the West. Take a look. 
You will find high environmental ratings over here. Once you come to 
the West, you will see noticeably lower environmental ratings by these 
special interest groups. My bet is most of the people putting those 
kind of charts together have never sat foot on a mountain in the 
district that I represent, have never sat down with a Mike Strang or a 
David Smith or a Bill Volbraught or an Al Stroobauts or Leslie 
Volbraught or Kit Strang or Sue Ann Smith and asked these people how 
important land is, how they take care of the land and would they mind 
just spending a few hours kind of shadowing them around the ranch so 
they have some kind of an appreciation of what goes on.
  The use of these Federal lands, the management of these Federal lands 
here is very, very important. I just ask that each of you this evening, 
before you criticize those of us in the West who feel that we are under 
attack, who constantly feel that we are being trampled upon because of 
a lack of understanding, I ask that you take a little time the next 
time one of these issues comes up and study the issue or come out to 
the West, not on a vacation to Aspen or Vail, although they are 
beautiful places to visit, they are in my district, but go out to a 
small little town like Silt, Colorado or Meeker, Colorado or maybe go 
out in the east to Sterling, Colorado and just visit with some of those 
people and see how a Federal policy in Washington, D.C. can devastate a 
lot of history, a lot of family and a lot of love for that land. The 
final thing I want to revisit very quickly is this water issue. 
Remember that most of the water in the country, you have already got 
here in the East. That in the West for us to have this water, we have 
to, one, manage it, and I think we do a pretty good job of it, two, we 
have to have water storage, and we need to use common sense. The way to 
build water storage projects today has changed from the way we built 
water projects 20 or 25 years ago. We have got more advanced 
technology. We know how to get a bigger bang for the buck. We know how 
to get a bigger bang for the environment. We know how to build these 
projects in such a way that we can minimize, in fact enhance.
  The days of mitigation of the environment are over. Now, when you 
have a project like a dam water storage project, you are not going to 
be expected just to mitigate the environmental impacts you have. We now 
expect you to enhance the environment, make it better. We can do that 
and we are doing that. But to my colleagues here, do not just 
automatically say any water storage project in the West must be pork, 
must be disastrous to the environment, because it is our lifeblood. 
When you come west of the Mississippi, that is our lifeblood. All of 
this region, we have got to have water.
  In conclusion, one of the people that I have enjoyed the most up here 
learning from, a fellow who is a tugboat captain, who has lived this 
land, who understands this land, who understands common sense and is 
under siege by the government ownership of land is the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young). Some of these special interest groups write him 
off, ``Oh, my gosh, he's terrible.'' But not many of them have ever 
been on a tugboat with him. Not many have ever been up to Alaska to see 
the kind of wilderness that he is so proud of. Not many of the critics 
have gone out there and visited with some of the natives or some of the 
people out in Alaska that live off the land. The same thing in my 
district, the same thing in Utah, in the district of Mr. Hansen. The 
same thing in a lot of others, Mr. Ensign in Nevada.
  I appreciate your time this evening. I will be back again. As long as 
I represent the Third Congressional District in this fine body, you can 
count on me standing up for the rights, not just of the citizens I 
represent but the rights of the future generations, so that they too, 
without having to be wealthy, they too can live on the land and enjoy 
the land that I have been privileged to do.

                          ____________________