SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
52–104 l
1998
HEARING ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
OCTOBER 26, 1998, CLOVIS, NEW MEXICO
Serial No. 105–118
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
GEORGE MILLER, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
SAM FARR, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held October 26, 1998
Statement of Witnesses:
Bradley, Hon. Walter, Lieutenant Governor, State of New Mexico, Santa Fe, New Mexico, as read by Mr. Dennis Roche
Prepared statement of
Budd-Falen, Ms. Karen, Counsel, New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, Cheyenne, Wyoming
Prepared statement of
Cowan, Caren, New Mexico Cattle Growers
Crook, Anna Marie, State Representative
Derrick, Lewis
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Eppers, Bud, Chairman, New Mexico Public Lands Council, Roswell, New Mexico
Prepared statement of
Fowler, Dr. John, Professor of Agricultural Economics, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico
Prepared statement of
Frost, Bob, President, New Mexico Cattle Growers Association
Hahn, Carl
Ingle, Hon. Stuart, New Mexico State Senator, Portales, New Mexico
Lombardi, Sharon, Executive Director of Dairy Producers of New Mexico
Mallory, Bobbie, State Representative
Mitchell, Karen
Moore, Bill, New Mexico Department of Agriculture, Las Cruces, New Mexico
Prepared statement of
Pacheco, Manuel, Northern New Mexico Stockmen's Association, Taos, New Mexico
Prepared statement of
Pattison, Mr. Hoyt, New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Clovis, New Mexico
Prepared statement of
Payne, Tom
Williams, John C., General Manager, Canadian River Municipal Water Authority
HEARING ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1998
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Clovis, New Mexico.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m. in the Clovis Room, Holiday Inn, 2700 East Mabry Drive, Clovis, New Mexico, Hon. Richard Pombo presiding.
Mr. REDMOND. [presiding] I would like to begin by thanking all of the folks here on the east side of the state for coming out and some folks up from the south for the endangered species hearing today, and I want to welcome all of you to Clovis, if you're not originally from the Clovis area.
And I want to recognize folks that are in the audience with us today. We have State Representative Anna Crook of the 64th District. And we also have State Rep Bobbie Mallory in District 67.
And am I overlooking anyone? Do we have any mayors or county commissioners?
Mr. SCHULER. I'm John Schuler, Clovis City Commissioner.
Mr. REDMOND. John, good to have you with us. And any other elected officials?
Well, I want to thank the elected officials for coming because the Endangered Species Act has an impact, not only on the farms and ranches and businesses, but it also has an impact on—on where you are as an elected official and how you exercise—you execute your responsibilities as elected officials, so I want to thank you all for—for coming.
And we also have Brian Thomas. Brian works for Congressman Mac Thornberry.
And—but, anyway, without—without any further delays, I'm going to welcome Congressman Richard Pombo, my colleague from California, who has held almost 30 hearings across the—across the country.
It's inevitable that there will be changes coming with the Endangered Species Act. There—You know, basically, people across the country are finding problems with it, the way that it's implemented on a regulatory basis. And I think it's always important, for those of us that represent you in Washington, that we come out to the field and we hear what you want us to say and do and write in our bills in Washington, DC. That's what representative government is all about; and, so, we're here listening to the people of the east side.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We received some criticism about having the hearing over here and—from some folks in Santa Fe. And, you know, my response was, ''What is wrong with hearing from the people from the east side? They have a voice, and they're American citizens, and they're taxpayers and have every right to be heard.''
So, I'll turn it over to Congressman Pombo.
Mr. POMBO. The Committee on Resources will come to order. The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on the Endangered Species Act. We will limit the opening statements of the members of the Committee so that we can get to the testimony from our witnesses here today.
I would like to thank Congressman Redmond and those of you here for the opportunity to bring the House Resources Committee to the State of New Mexico. I look forward to listening and learning more from you about how the Endangered Species Act is being implemented and in force in the southwestern region of the United States.
The chairman of the Committee, Congressman Don Young, the Congressman from the State of Alaska, sends his best regards and his regrets that he could not be here today. He asked me to chair this field hearing for him.
In 1995, when a new majority claimed Congress, I, along with some of you in this room, had great expectations that we would be able to amend the Endangered Species Act and implement common sense approaches to species protection similar to those that the 1973 Act envisioned when they originally adopted the law.
Congress believed that this law would be used to prevent the extinction of species. It never dreamed that it would be turned into a tool used by a small minority of people to impose Federal land and water use controls on rural America. Congress could never have foreseen the resulting widespread rural economic and social dislocations caused by such manipulation of the 1973 law.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Some of the individuals that claim to be guardians of our environment turned down this Committee's offer to testify today. The staffs of this Committee and Congressman Redmond worked hard to get witnesses from the conservation community for the hearing. Written invitations and followup phone conversations were sent to the Forest Guardians, the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, The National Audubon Society, and The Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund. Curiously, none of these groups has provided witnesses for today's hearing.
Nevertheless, I fully expect harsh criticism by some for not having a balanced hearing. Let the record state that this Committee made every attempt to provide all possible interested parties with the opportunity of coming before it today.
But this lack of response is not a total surprise. For the last 4 years, those of us on this Committee have worked to draft legislation in a common sense approach that would protect species and the rights of our citizens. Unfortunately, instead of sitting down with Congress to discuss the future of protecting the nation's species, the Clinton Administration has chosen to stand in the way of genuine efforts that would have brought about change.
The ESA has been law since 1973. Currently, there are over 1,100 domestic species protected under the law. The time is long overdue for the administration to work cooperatively with Congress to fix the ESA. It is outdated and many people believe broken. It is broken for the people, and it is broken for wildlife. It only succeeds at punishing those who do the most to provide habitat for wildlife—rural America.
We are here this morning to listen to your ideas on what we can do to improve the current Endangered Species Act. I strongly believe that as this country begins to enter the 21st century, we must find a more balanced way to accomplish the goals of this outdated species protection act. Surely we can reduce the regulatory burdens of average Americans, small businesses, and state and local governments while still protecting our natural resources.
I expect today's hearing to assist in this endeavor. As Congressman Redmond mentioned, I have had close to 30 hearings on the Endangered Species Act over the past 4 years. About half of those have been field hearings. The effort that we have made is to bring Congress to the people and to listen to those who normally don't have an opportunity to testify before Congress.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When we are back in Washington, DC, we listen to the folks that have professional lobbyists, to the folks that have staff attorneys. They have access to us, they have access to the Committees, and they testify on a consistent basis. The folks that don't have that opportunity are the people who live out here and work for a living and don't have the opportunity to run to Washington and testify before a hearing every chance. So we have made a very real effort to reach out to rural America and to the folks that have not had an opportunity to testify in the past.
As well, there has been some criticism on this particular hearing about the—the lack of scientists and—and others that are testifying here today. I can tell you that this Committee has heard from over 50 scientists, biologists, professors, folks that are self-proclaimed experts on the Endangered Species Act. Some have testified to status quo. Others have testified that they would like to see changes. But there has been no lack of input from the scientific community into the problems that currently exist with the Endangered Species Act and possible changes that they would like to see made in that.
With that, I would like to offer Congressman Redmond a chance to say any additional comments he has at this point. I would like to call up our first panel to testify. The Honorable Walter Bradley, who I believe his designee is going to testify, Honorable Stuart Ingle, Mr. Hoyt Pattison, and Mrs. Karen—Karen Budd-Falen, if you would join us up here at the witness table.
I would like to thank you for joining us today. Committee rules allow you 5 minutes for an oral presentation each. The oral presentation is basically the part that you summarize from your full testimony. Your full testimony will be included in the record. But if you could try to limit it to 5 minutes, we would appreciate that.
If you're not familiar with the lights that are in front of you, green means go, yellow means hurry up, and red means stop, similar to your traffic lights.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, if you would like to begin, identify yourself for the record, and you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER BRADLEY, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO, AS READ BY MR. DENNIS ROCHE
Mr. ROCHE. My name is Dennis Roche. I'm here presenting the testimony of Lieutenant Governor Walter Bradley from the State of New Mexico.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you. Welcome.
Mr. ROCHE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Redmond and welcome to New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I also thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the executive branch of the State of New Mexico. I will keep my testimony short and straight to the point.
I have been Lieutenant Governor of New Mexico for 3 years and 11 months. As an ombudsman for New Mexico, I have been overwhelmed with the amount of constituent concerns I've received pertaining to the infringement and unbalance the Endangered Species Act has on private property rights, state sovereignty, and states' waters.
The purpose of this testimony is to provide the concerns that the executive branch of New Mexico has with the Endangered Species Act. As you are all aware, New Mexico has been negatively impacted by the abuse and misuse of the ESA. For example, payment in lieu of taxes revenues, or PILT, generated from the use of U.S. Forest Service resources have been dramatically reduced. I don't have to explain to this Committee the critical need for these revenues to local governments for infrastructure purposes.
Payments to counties have been affected by decisions relating to the spotted owl. Recently legislation was proposed to overcome this impact and stabilize payment to the states. Mr. Chairman, rural New Mexico is being hit hard, and hardworking families who have been lawfully making a living off the land for generations are being devastated. It won't be too long before urban areas become aware and are affected by the ESA.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As Lieutenant Governor, I have a responsibility to the taxpayers of New Mexico. These people are concerned with what is occurring in our state. Let me make it clear. I am not against preserving a clean environment. I like to have clean water to drink. I enjoy the scenery when I travel throughout the state. I want children who are our future to enjoy what I have enjoyed.
However, I believe that there are—that there needs to be a balance in the ESA, and decisions must be based on best available scientific data, not on unquestionable data or no data, as what appears to be happening today.
As I stated earlier, private property rights, state sovereignty, and water are major concerns to the New Mexico executive branch. As for private property rights, the ESA allows Federal Government or citizen litigants to take property owners to court without evidence that these actions will cause a taking. The current ESA has no provisions for takings.
Language should be incorporated to allow property owners to enter into agreements with the Secretary of Interior identifying activities and any potential takings. Also, property owners should be compensated as required by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The encroachment of state sovereignty is also a major concern. Under the current ESA, states are often excluded from the listing process even though within state's borders there may be threatened and endangered species. As for the development of recovery plans, states have no role. States should be recognized and allowed to participate in all plans or activities such as recovery plans.
Water in western states and specifically in New Mexico is critical. Nowhere in the ESA does it acknowledge state law regulation, rules, or any interstate compact covering the appropriation, use, or diversion of waters.
Presently in New Mexico the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation are proposing an environmental impact statement. The purpose of this EIS is to comply with the ESA for the Upper Rio Grande Basin and it's rivers.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, New Mexico receives approximately 80 percent of its water from this area. New Mexico is currently seeking a Joint-Lead status as allowed under the National Environmental Protection Act. Because this Act, or NEPA, is being implemented, and only because of this, an economic impact analysis is required as well as the impacts on the human environment.
I would like the Resources Committee to know that New Mexico fully intends to become involved in this process. By becoming involved, the state will make sure that all data being analyzed will be sound. The question now is, what are some of the solutions to the concerns that have been identified?
First of all, if any amendments to the ESA are going to take place, all states must be an integral player. It is our belief that states are more aware and knowledgeable of how to manage resources, species and habitat. The ESA should not act as a tool for zoning and land use.
Second, state water laws, compacts, diversions and appropriations are being ignored. Language must be incorporated into the ESA acknowledging states' requirements and sovereignty regarding water.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, New Mexico met with these Federal entities on October 16th, 1998. An article was brought to their attention that came out of the Albuquerque Journal a couple of weeks ago.
And stop here.
Mr. POMBO. No, go ahead and continue.
Mr. ROCHE. Thank you.
An article was brought to their attention that came out of the Albuquerque Journal several weeks ago. The title of the article is ''Forum May Not Stop River Compact Suits.'' In this article, Forest Guardians' Executive Director, John Talberth, states, ''Based on what I've heard today, there are certain aspects of litigation I think we should go forward with more quickly.'' The Federal response to this article at the meeting was that they all had resolved—they had resolved all issues with the Forest Guardians.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, New Mexico has been there and has seen it. The Federal agencies meet with the environmental organization, cut deals, and then go out and do Environmental Impact Statements after the fact. As a result, the human environment is significantly impacted as well as the economy at both the state and local level.
Environmental extremists, Mr. Chairman, are actually targeting operations of Federal dams, irrigation works, and a lot more in western states. And as I stated earlier, only because NEPA is being implemented will an economic impact analysis be conducted as well as an analysis on the human environment.
The ESA should include provisions in addressing and analyzing the human environment and economic impacts. However, another provision should be added stating that decisions made should minimize the human environment and economy.
The ESA must acknowledge state sovereignty, responsibility and obligation on water laws, rights and compacts. I believe that an impact analysis on the economy and human environment should be required under the ESA. We have got to find a balance between protecting species, habitat, our economy, and most importantly human beings.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, to allow the executive branch of New Mexico to address their concerns here this morning.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Bradley may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Ingle?
STATEMENT OF HON. STUART INGLE, NEW MEXICO STATE SENATOR, PORTALES, NEW MEXICO
Mr. INGLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you will look at—notice my testimony here, I double-spaced it, and it's only, just barely, slightly over three pages because I know you get a lot to read and so do I.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'll just speak off the cuff a little bit about some of the problems I think we have, and we've got a lot of folks here in the audience that are in—are in and share those problems.
You know, in New Mexico, we are a state that in many instances——
Mr. REDMOND. Use the mike.
Mr. INGLE. Is this better?
In New Mexico, we are a state that has varying types of climates. We have a—we have a lot of forests in New Mexico. We have a desert region. We have some regions that are even more desert like.
The thing about environmental laws that I have noticed, like many laws that are written, you have a law that is written and then the—and then the department makes regulations that are actually—actually, basically, the law itself. It's difficult, I know, for Congress to pass very specific laws, but I think we need to be careful, as we do in the state—in the state legislature, of trying to pass laws where regulations can basically not just be written solely and as something that can dictate all policies and all laws.
I think we need to look at the environmental things by region. There are certain regions of the United States that may have certain environmental situations, but the regulation very often is used and will make things a very difficult situation in a group of states where the regulation wasn't even meant to exist.
We've got people here that have farmed and ranched in New Mexico for generations, people here from Taos, New Mexico, who have been there for many years. They have not abused that land. They never intend to abuse the land. The land is the only asset they have, and they will continue to take care of this land.
And I think very often people in the environmental situation often think that landowners are about abusing things, abusing the land and abusing the animals and taking advantage of everything that is wonderful in nature. Well, you can't do that anymore, if you ever did.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I know years ago the—all the Buffalo population of the United States was, you know, done away with in 20 years. Well, we don't have that situation anymore. Nothing in the United States, I believe, faces that kind of just wholesale slaughter or things being done away with.
We have people in the United States and generations of people that want to look and keep things well for the next generation, for their children, because beauty is something we all look at very closely and very deeply now. And I don't think it's anything that we're going to do away with by carelessness.
But laws and regulations also often mean the loss of land, the loss of any profitability the land has; and, yet, the man that has the land and his family get nothing. Because by the time everything is decided, he has been without the use of his land so long that it just basically has no value. It has no saveability except to someone for a useless industry, and they often don't have any money for that.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I—I think these are things primarily that we just need to try to watch for. And I understand, Mr. Pombo, you're in the farming and ranching industry yourself, and you're certainly aware that it's not exactly a cup of tea right now. And many people here are in that, too.
You know, in this state we've suffered a tremendous amount of drought in this area. We also make so much grain in the United States anymore that it sells for 1949 prices, and those are things you can't fix by law or regulation.
But when you have laws and regulations that are just put into effect without the real knowledge and caring about the people that are in the industry, those are the things that we need to watch for. And as you said, those people are never in Washington to testify. They're out trying to make a living.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you very much.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. POMBO. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ingle may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Pattison?
STATEMENT OF MR. HOYT PATTISON, NEW MEXICO INTERSTATE STREAM COMMISSION, CLOVIS, NEW MEXICO
Mr. PATTISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Pombo and Congressman Redmond. We're proud to have you here today, and it's a pleasure and an opportunity to appear before you up here as a representative for Mr. Richard Cheney, who is the chairman of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission.
I am also a member of the Interstate Stream Commission. I'm a farmer and an engineer. I live north of Clovis, right here in Curry County. I would like to call your attention to some of the history of the Endangered Species Act that perhaps will be of interest to you and the other members of the Committee.
When the Endangered Species Act was passed and signed into law in 1973, a House report observed that, quote, There are 375 species of animals imminently threatened throughout the world. The report specifically observed, ''It is beyond our capability to acquire all the habitat which is important to those species without at the same time dismantling our own civilization.''
Those were prophetic words. Now there are over a thousand species alone right here in the United States, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that—and these include 33 insect species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other Federal bureaucracies seem intent on dismantling our civilization by way of this law.
The—as currently written, the Endangered Species Act allows application of sloppy science to bad law, endangering state's rights and private property rights, flying in the face of the Constitutional guarantees.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To be specific, right here in eastern New Mexico, we have the Pecos River and the Pecos bluntnose shiner which is supposedly an endangered species. The Bureau of Reclamation has threatened to take over the operation of Sumner Dam in the Pecos river between that and Carlsbad so that 35 cubic feet per second of water can be released at certain times during the year to provide habitat for the Pecos bluntnose shiner.
This, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, will take out of use, through evaporation and seepage, 3,000 acre feet. Now, this will impact greatly the delivery of water to Texas that New Mexico is obligated by the Pecos Compact and U.S. Supreme Court to deliver to Texas every year. And if we fail to do so, the—a priority call must be instituted on the Pecos River and this, if carried to its extreme extent, could impact that area of the State of New Mexico and its economy over $200 million because of this priority call.
If we take 3,000 acre feet out of our deliveries to the state line, we could conceivably be in a deficit position and not have delivered to Texas the water required by this compact.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, you have a copy of the written testimony. The other part that I would like to touch on has to do with the San Juan River and a similar situation there where the State of New Mexico is going to be required to expend $2 million out of a total of $172 million that is embodied in a bill presently in the U.S. Senate. I don't believe it has been passed; and, hopefully, it won't be. But that will require recovery of species that were poisoned by the same people that are trying to recover them at this present time in the 1960's.
I would like to touch on one other item. It has been said that here in eastern New Mexico we don't have any endangered species problems, only fear and apprehension and anger. Well, that's absolutely probably true; but, it's not true that we don't have any endangered species problem.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of those has to do with the black-tailed prairie dog. We have these in—by the thousands in this part of the state, and they have been asked by certain environmental groups to be declared threatened. There is not any way, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, that this animal is a threatened or even endangered species. They exist right now, here today, right here in the city of Clovis and probably in every municipality in the State of New Mexico.
The only reason they don't cover the 250 million acres that was originally their habitat, as is pointed out in the article in the Albuquerque Journal on August 1 of 1998 is that this area grows wheat and feed and corn and livestock, and feeds are an issue. Therefore, it is an absurdity that this is an endangered specie.
Mr. Chairman, what do we do about this? Do they just go ahead and unfettered declare the prairie dog to be an endangered species? What recourse do we have? The playing field needs to be balanced if you folks choose to reauthorize an Endangered Species Act.
Thank you.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Pattison.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pattison may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. POMBO. Mrs. Budd-Falen?
STATEMENT OF MS. KAREN BUDD-FALEN, COUNSEL, NEW MEXICO CATTLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION, CHEYENNE, WYOMING
Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Thank you. My name is Karen Budd-Falen. I am both a fifth generation rancher and an attorney who is this—today is representing the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association.
In the letter you sent asking the New Mexico Cattle Growers to participate at this hearing, you asked if the Endangered Species Act was working and what affect it had on New Mexico. In addition to the effect that the Act has had on farmers and ranchers, it seems like the Endangered Species Act really is the litigation tool of choice for the environmentalists.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me give you one easy example. Between 1993 and 1998, 75 cases were filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Arizona solely involving the Endangered Species Act. Of those 75 cases, 67 were filed by environmental groups, mostly the Forest Guardians and the Southwest Center for Bio Diversity.
In just 5 years, when all those cases were said and done, the U.S. Government agreed to pay the environmental groups, either voluntarily or through stipulated settlements, over $5,329,659.50 in litigation fees and costs to environmental groups. This is in addition to the economic harm that it has caused New Mexico ranchers and farmers.
So, what is happening is the Federal Government, through the Equal Act and the Justice Act, is paying environmental groups to sue the Federal Government to stop land use.
Certainly if the Endangered Species Act were working and were working correctly, the Federal Government would be spending this $5 million on species protection rather than on paying attorney fees and costs to environmental groups to litigate over the Endangered Species Act.
That amount of litigation alone should show the Committee that the Endangered Species Act, in its current form, is not working. Otherwise, the Act would be implemented, and the species would be protected.
If you want to look at individual economic costs, let me give you an example. On behalf of the New Mexico Cattle Growers, I represented 19 grazing permittees on the Arizona and New Mexico border whose grazing allotments were being cut between 40 and 85 percent on a 1-year's—or on a year's reduction for the renewal of grazing permits because of Endangered Species Act concern.
So, the Forest Service wrote several environmental impact statements reviewed by the Fish and Wildlife Service under Section Seven of the Endangered Species Act, wherein between 40 and 85 percent of the grazing permits were cut, fences were agreed to be built around private water rights, and livestock was moved away from water in areas where there is not a lot of water. The—There were three counties that were specifically affected, two in Arizona and one in New Mexico.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to the loss of the ranchers, which were not calculated in the formulas, the county tried to determine if there was any economic loss to local governments. But the loss of those 19 ranches—or with reduction of those 19 ranches, the county, in and of itself, lost $10 million in economic loss the first year because of those reductions.
The county then went and looked at what happened to farmers and ranchers when their livelihoods were reduced between 40 and 85 percent. What the county found out is that the first thing that ranchers cut was medical costs. If you don't have enough money, the first thing you stop doing are going to doctors when you're sick.
The second thing that was lost for the ranchers in terms of their own economic livelihood was food and supplies. In this area, 60 percent of the money made by ranchers goes back into the ranch in terms of—of operation repairs such as maintenance of fences or hiring help or whatever. That's where the loss came from, was that 60 percent that the money put back into maintaining the Federal land.
A $10 million economic loss in three counties is a significant loss, and that was because of the Forest Service's decision to reduce those grazing allotments. The saddest thing in all of that was when you actually sat down and looked at the Forest Service documents making the reduction. The Forest Service documents listed a total of nine threatened or Endangered species that it claimed to be caring for which was the reason for the reduction.
But when you actually sat down and looked at the effects, either the species were extirpated, which means that there weren't any endangered species on the allotments, which happened with the Mexican gray wolf and with the jaguar, or the species that were present on the allotment, including Southwest willow flycatcher, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Mexican spotted owl, Apache trout, Loach minnow, razorback sucker, the Forest Service documentation themselves either said there was no adverse effect from livestock grazing on the species or that the effects occurred from something else.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, these ranchers suffered between a 40 and 85 percent reduction in their grazing permits and their cattle weren't affecting the species in the first place. That's the kind of real life stories that are being—that are occurring in New Mexico because of the Endangered Species Act.
Clearly, it's an Act that is broken and needs to be fixed by Congress.
Thank you.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Budd-Falen may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. POMBO. I thank all of you for your testimony. Mrs. Budd-Falen, in your testimony you talk about in excess of $5 million that was paid—paid out. Was that money used for habitat recovery or——
Ms. BUDD-FALEN. No, your Honor. That was litigation fees and costs paid directly to environmental groups. Not a drop of that money went to endangered species or protection of endangered species or recovery plans or anything. That was litigation money that went to lawyers.
Mr. POMBO. So, you're telling the Committee that all this money went to attorneys and none of it went to recovering habitat or recovering endangered species?
Ms. BUDD-FALEN. That's exactly what I'm telling the Committee. Those were—the fees and costs were filed in court documents and paid directly to the attorneys representing environmental groups.
Mr. POMBO. That is, according to your testimony, is in excess of a million dollars a year?
Ms. BUDD-FALEN. That is correct, Your Honor.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. POMBO. Not bad work if you can get it, huh?
Ms. BUDD-FALEN. I'm litigating on the wrong side.
Mr. REDMOND. No, you're not.
Ms. BUDD-FALEN. No, you're right. I am litigating on the right side.
Mr. POMBO. You mentioned the Forest Service allotments and grazing allotments, and you said that, in your testimony, that they had to fence off water rights, that they had to fence off access to water. I know a little bit about the cattle industry. If you don't have water, what is the rest of the ground worth?
Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Absolutely nothing. And the problem is, is what they're doing with the fencing decision, is they are fencing—this is a very dry area. There is only a few streams and rivers that run through the area. It's also very steep.
And, so, in terms of drilling water or putting a pump in a water source and pumping the water up a hill is incredibly expensive. And the Forest Service has told the permittees that they either build and maintain the fences, which are incredibly expensive, or they say you don't turn out your livestock.
And then they'll go to the permittees and say, ''Well, this benefits you because we're not kicking you off of your allotment. So, we're not eliminating your use of the allotment, but you don't have any water to put your cows on when your cows are in the allotment.''
And, so, they really are eliminating use. It just sounds better.
Mr. POMBO. Now, the Forest Service is building the fences or—or the cattlemen are expected to build the fences?
Ms. BUDD-FALEN. In some cases, the Forest Service is building. In some cases, they are telling the cattlemen, ''You don't have to build a fence; but, until the fence is built you cannot turn your cows into the pasture.''
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. POMBO. Are there any of the cattlemen that have gone ahead and built a fence?
Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Yes.
Mr. POMBO. There are?
Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Yes.
Mr. POMBO. And that—that fact was reflected in their lower rent then, right?
Ms. BUDD-FALEN. No.
Mr. POMBO. No?
Ms. BUDD-FALEN. No, the grazing fees that are paid by the cattle owner are paid regardless of who builds the fence. What happens, though, is it increases the maintenance cost, because in no case has the Forest Service or the environmental groups or anyone else pushing this decision agreed to do the maintenance on these fences.
And, so, the—the maintenance cost of 60 percent that the rancher pays to maintain the allotments already now increases because they have to pay them—they have to pay those additional costs. The Forest Service does not bear the brunt of any of these costs.
Mr. POMBO. The—All of you testified that there was questionable science that was used in some of these cases. Can any of you give me an example of what you would consider questionable science or that was used in any of these endangered species cases on a listing? Mr. Pattison?
Mr. PATTISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POMBO. Speak into the mike.
Mr. PATTISON. In the case of the poisoning of the fish in the San Juan River so that it would become a so-called blue ribbon trout fishing area in the 1960's, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the—I believe the New Mexico Game and Fish Department might have been in on it, too, they had decided at that time, through the science available to them, that that was a necessary action.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now the whole input of the $172 million that is trying to be used for recovery of these same species is counter to what was thought in 1973. And those—some of those species aren't even native to New Mexico. So, that is a perfect illustration of the lack of sound science in trying to recover those species.
Up in Colorado, those—some of those same species exist and can be further enhanced and propagated without the financial impact on New Mexico and Arizona and California that is brought about by this action on the San Juan.
Now, the sound science would indicate that a thorough investigation would have been made as to the total habitat of these varieties of fishes, and that a note would be made of the areas where they thrive now. But, because of the environmental actions of certain groups, they pick the spot on the river where they have been poisoned in the past and they say that, ''Well, they need to be recovered.'' So, that is a perfect illustration, I believe, of a lack of use of sound science.
Mr. POMBO. One of the criticisms that I've heard on the Endangered Species Act is that it is not implemented evenly across the country. There are some cases where it is much more aggressively implemented or that the recovery plans that are adopted are much more aggressive in certain parts of the country than there are in others.
You brought up the prairie dog as possibly being listed as endangered or threatened under the Act.
Mr. PATTISON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The black-tailed prairie dog has been a native of North America since who knows how long. And back before the vast prairies of the central United States were broken up and used for farming, its habitat included all of that area in particular spots.
And it has been said that there were 250 million acres and black-tailed—black-tailed prairie dogs inhabited almost all of this area, and now it's reduced to one million acres; therefore, it should be declared a threatened species.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, there isn't any way that their original habitat will ever be restored; or, if it were, the United States and a lot of the rest of the world would starve because of lack of wheat in the production—agricultural production of those vast acres.
Mr. POMBO. I would caution you when you say there is no way. If they implemented a recovery plan similar to what they've done in California with the California spotted owl and the Northern spotted owl, any area where you would find potential habitat for the prairie dog, you would have to stay out of it, develop a habitat recovery plan for that particular area.
I believe that, right now, any place in our forests which have been harvested for hundreds of years where there is a spotted owl nest, you can't build within a thousand feet of that nest. And if they had a similar recovery plan for your plains, you would not be able to go farm anywhere near that.
It may sound somewhat odd to you looking across it, but we thought it was very odd when they offered that to us for the recovery of the spotted owl in California, so——
Mr. PATTISON. Mr. Chairman, I believe that if that should occur and the black-tailed prairie dog were to be declared an endangered species, not just a threatened species, but an endangered species, and all of the farming through this vast area would be ordered to be shut down, that that would be probably the best thing that would have happened as far as the Endangered Species Act was concerned, because you would have Congress then seeing how impossible this Act is and it would be repealed. Because people would feel it firsthand in the grocery store.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Pattison.
Mr. REDMOND. I have a few questions. My first question is to Senator Ingle. As an elected official who represents a large agricultural district and is a farmer yourself, what do you hear from your constituents about the Endangered Species Act?
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. INGLE. Basically, Congressman, what I hear is basically a lot of the things we've heard this morning. It seems to me that they're—we're concentrating—or the efforts are concentrated more on litigation than they are on actually conserving any of the species.
You know, there is ways that you can—you can conserve some species, if that's what—if that's indeed what the Act is designed to do, which it is. And there are—there is some merit to some of that. But it seems to me that the lawsuit or the litigation comes first, and then that is an effort then to basically eliminate any use that the—the owner had for the land, so basically that's the way that that Act was accomplished.
It doesn't—doesn't help the owner at all. It just seems—basically where his land is of no real use. Falen here on the end spoke, I thought, very well of what happens in the Forest Service lands. You can use the land if you do all this work on it; but, in desert areas and things like that, often you cannot—you—that's why it's a Forest Service, because basically much of this land can't actually be bought by private people that can make—make the actual land work and pay for itself. That's why we have so darn much of it in New Mexico, not only statewide but Federal.
But, by the same token, these folks have taken care of this land and made some use of it and paid taxes through their income and things from it. The Environmental Protection Act basically just eliminates the whole source of any income off anything.
And whether the species are there is not a litigation itself to stop the use of it, and that's the danger that I see in so much of this. And there is another example of the prairie dog thing. We're certainly not short of those little guys and never will be. They are—they are a survivor. Some animals in this—this—this state weren't.
We're spending a lot of money now trying to reintroduce a gray wolf in certain areas of the state. We're having an awful hard time. They've been out of circulation for so long, that it's a little bit tough to get over somebody bringing your food and having to hunt it down yourself.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And not that I'm against them being introduced, but there are certain species that have—have come through, you know, the growth of man, and we can't stop the growth of man here. So, basically, I think we need to look out more—and if we're going to preserve something, let's try to preserve it.
Let's not try to just let it stop and litigate everything that comes along. And then the litigation is—as all of us know, once the suit is filed it may be years before the—the action is actually taking place, and perhaps your case is thrown out, perhaps it's put off for another hearing and you've got another 2 years. But it's—I think those are the things we need to be very careful of.
Mr. REDMOND. OK. My next question is to Mr. Pattison. Environmentalist Sam Hitt recently said the Endangered Species Act had little impact in the Clovis area. Is this correct?
Mr. PATTISON. I believe that's probably because of the fact that Mr. Hitt has been here very little and doesn't know what our problems are. And if he were land commissioner, it would mean that he would have to be educated a great deal before he could take care of his office.
No, it's not correct. The prairie dog, and the reason I brought it up, is one of the endangered species, so-called, or threatened species that they haven't used any science at all. Not just false science or sloppy science, they haven't used any science at all in ascertaining the—the habits and the existence and the reproduction and so forth of this prairie dog.
You can see them right now today within the city limits of Clovis, and you can do the same thing in Albuquerque and Santa Fe and Las Cruces and almost, if not all, of the municipalities or villages in the State of New Mexico.
Mr. REDMOND. Thank you. For Ms. Budd-Falen, have you discovered any data which indicates that the livestock industry adversely affects the populations of the endangered species? You gave us an example of the economic impact in three counties, approximately $10 million. But the question here is, you know, is the livestock, are they adversely affecting the population of the endangered species?
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BUDD-FALEN. That's—to me, that's one of the most frustrating things about it. The environmentalist community makes this look like it's an either/or situation type, either humans or animal species; and that—that is absolutely not the case.
The case that I talked about over on the Arizona-New Mexico border, the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service jointly found that grazing had no effect on the list of threatened or endangered species that they were concerned about, no effect at all. This was grazing currently occurring on those allotments in the riparian area, cattle walking into the streams and taking a drink.
We had a court hearing on this several months ago. They testified that actually more harm came to the species from driving up and down the roads checking on the cattle than actually occurred by the cattle in the streams themselves.
And, so, it's not a question of cattle or endangered species or humans or endangered species. Species are resilient. Cattlemen can—can work and change. They don't have to have their livelihoods eliminated.
The facts are that on the species that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service were concerned about in Arizona and New Mexico, every single determination came out not likely for it to adversely affect the species.
Mr. REDMOND. I would like to make an assignment to each of those that are testifying this morning on Panel I. When Congress addresses the issue of the Endangered Species Act, it's inevitable that we'll have to be very clear in our definition of ''threatened'' and ''endangered.'' It's not just a matter of the—you know, the implementation of regulations. It's the—you know, what definition is being used for ''threatened'' and ''endangered.''
And I would like for each of those who testified to take a crack at it. If you were writing the law, how would you define ''threatened'' and ''endangered''?
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POMBO. I just had a couple more questions I wanted to ask. There was a recent statement that there is no straight-line connection between the Endangered Species Act and the livestock industry, and I was wanting to ask Ms. Budd-Falen about that statement and if she agrees with it.
Ms. BUDD-FALEN. I absolutely disagree with that statement. One of the straight-line impacts that I talked about was that when the grazing allotments in Arizona and New Mexico were reduced between 40 and 85 percent because of endangered species, that, in one single year, resulted in a $10 million loss to local economies and it resulted into a loss to the ranchers themselves, and what got cut was spending for medical, for medical supplies and for going to doctors.
That was a direct, straight-line impact from—from an Endangered Species Act decision to the ranchers and farmers themselves. So, I think that it is clear that there is a direct impact. I know that Sam Hitt's article talked about that there was no impact and that these people weren't affected. That's not true.
For example, I represent some other ranchers and farmers whose water rights, which have been declared private property in the State of New Mexico, have been directly taken. This is water for farms and for ranches. Most of these water rights were developed before the Federal lands were even created, back when Mexico still had this land and before the signing of the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty. These right have been directly taken from them because of the Endangered Species Act.
There has been no analysis of whether this taking has occurred, the costs, or any of that. We've recently filed suit to try, under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, to try to force the Federal Government to at least recognize the problem with taking—direct taking of private property under the ESA.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. POMBO. OK. Thank you. I want to thank the panel for your testimony. If there are any further questions for this panel, they will be presented to you in writing. And if you can answer those in writing for the Committee, they will become part of the official record, and I would appreciate that.
But thank you very much. You're excused.
I would like to call up the second panel, Dr. John Fowler, Mr. Bud Eppers, Mr. Manuel Pacheco, and Mr. Bill Moore.
Thank you very much. I think you heard the explanation of the 5-minute rule. I—if you're almost finished, I usually let you go ahead and finish. But if you could try to stick to that, I would appreciate it.
Dr. Fowler, if you're ready, you can begin.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN FOWLER, PROFESSOR OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY, LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO
Dr. FOWLER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguished Committee Members. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning.
I am a professor of Agricultural Economics at the New Mexico State University in the State of New Mexico, and I have responsibilities involving a team of scientists called the Range Improvement Task Force, and we have been working in this arena of resource management for many, many decades. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to share some of our experience with you and the Committee members this morning.
I am a strong supporter of the original intent of the Endangered Species Act. I believe that continuity of the genetic pool, bio diversity, and species richness are essential elements to long-term well being of our society and our productivity. However, that's where the support stops.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The application and implementation of the Endangered Species Act that we have seen in the State of New Mexico goes beyond any semblance of reasonableness, any semblance of common sense, and any semblance of professionalism. The hard-handedness of the agency assigned to implement this, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, their lack of experience in the field—in 20 years I have yet to find the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists in the field. We have yet to have them interact with the people they are directly impacting. This travesty needs to be corrected.
Private landowners, Mr. Chairman, are the key to the successful implementation and change of the Endangered Species Act. They are the individuals that understand where the species are. They are the individuals that understand how they move, how they interact with one another, and how coexistence can be implemented. And, yet, these people cringe at the very thought and mention of threatened and endangered species because of the way it's implemented on the ground. This has to be rectified, Mr. Chairman.
Another major area of the Endangered Species Act, this has become a dominant use policy. As soon as the mention of endangered species comes up, all other types of management are thrown to the side. All of our relevant legacy of data and information is cast aside. And the only principle that they used is that of the endangered species. It becomes the tail wagging the dog. Our management is cast aside and oftentimes without the proper scientific credibility.
We've been teaching for 20 years how sound biology, economics, and institutional constraints need to be equal legs on the triangle of management. Not a single spot of law, but an encompassing three-dimensional effort for management for the short term as well as the long term involving the people, the politics, and the physiology. This is lost with the Endangered Species Act.
The Endangered Species Act uses a principle called a precautionary principle. If there is any hint of endangered species, then by all means, before you find out about this species, remove and reclassify the species and change everything before you might have any impact.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A classic example is the snail darter. Years ago, in the Tennessee valley, Federal projects were stalled, prevented, local impacts were implemented, and then all of a sudden, lo' and behold, other populations were discovered, and the consequences were already done.
We have done this on 18 of the 22 species currently being nominated for a list that were presented by Secretary Babbitt. There were mistakes in science in 18 of the 22 classifications. This is inexcusable. The damage that was done was done a priori, it was done premature, and we have allowed this to happen.
I have presented in my testimony to you, Mr. Chairman, seven examples of the implementation of the Endangered Species Act in New Mexico. The analysis tries to—to show not only the direct impacts to the agricultural industries, but also the supporting infrastructure and how they are impact affected.
For the purpose of brevity, I would like to have this introduced for the record.
Mr. POMBO. Without objection, it will be included.
Dr. FOWLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Even with this analysis that we did, it did not include reductions in wealth. It did not include equity and capital losses associated with this Act. In addition, it does not include intangible losses associated with loss of way of life, loss of hope, despair, increased suicide, increased divorce. All these are the cumulative impacts of the Endangered Species Act that are being forced upon our citizens, Mr. Chairman.
We need a comprehensive cumulative analysis of this Act. In addition to those—the analysis on the separate seven species, I have also included a summary of the ideas developed by a multi-agency, multi-disciplinary team done in 1993, nearly 6 years ago, that speaks and addresses how do you get good science? How do you list a species? How do you develop a recovery plan before they're implemented?
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, procedurally, I believe these are just as germane today as they were in 1993, and I also would like to present that to the chairman as a matter of record. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fowler may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Eppers.
STATEMENT OF BUD EPPERS, CHAIRMAN, NEW MEXICO PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL, ROSWELL, NEW MEXICO
Mr. EPPERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we appreciate you bringing the Committee on Resources, the oversight hearing to New Mexico where you've already stated the people that are most affected have an opportunity to have input into the process.
I represent over 4,500 Federal and state trust land permittees throughout the State of New Mexico. We graze on intermingled private, state, and Federal land. Most all of our operations range from small to large family business livestock production operation.
In preparing this testimony, this Committee necessitates review of the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act since it was adopted and signed into law. Dr. Fowler already mentioned the snail darter. The desert tortoise is another example where a gold mining company desired to harvest the gold out of the hilly terrain on the California-Nevada border. A requirement for getting that permit to mine, they were forced to go and acquire private property and set up a desert tortoise research center before they could be given a permit to mine their gold.
In a 1,500 acre development location near Las Vegas, Nevada, they were required to physically remove all desert tortoises from their proposed development land, and they removed over 870 tortoises at a cost in excess of $40,000 per turtle.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Southwestern willow fly catcher, not listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but afforded protection by a Federal judge, threatens historical water and grazing rights throughout the southwest. Cattle grazing is being eliminated by fencing in riparian areas on forested land and BLM is quickly developing similar management practices.
The list goes on and on, and in every case there is not one shred of peer reviewed, scientific documentation supporting listing and protection.
Recently, the Fish and Wildlife Service told a staff person of Congressman Skeen that there were less than 400 pairs of the Southwestern willow flycatchers left in the entire world. This is absurd when recent studies indicate there is at least that many or more on the Gila River in southwestern New Mexico.
One of the things that you asked for was recommendations of how the Endangered Species Act might be amended or changed. I would like to offer several recommendations for consideration by the Committee as you consider reforming the ESA.
First, the ESA is not—cannot claim victory in restoring or preventing a single species from becoming extinct, and it should be repealed in its entirety. Its purpose at this time is to eliminate consumptive uses of the land for extortion of developers and miners.
The Committee should seriously consider whether the Federal Government should play a role in endangered species or let the states address identification, listing, habitat requirements, or reintroduction. With the exception of just a very few species, states have management responsibility for wildlife within their borders. Even in migratory species, the states could do a better job in management than the Federal Government and at a lower cost.
Congress should establish a blue ribbon committee of range, timber, and wildlife professionals from land grant universities. They should be charged with reviewing any and all available data on the current status of each species under Federal agency management. They should request and review all management techniques used to protect and restore species populations, and then they should report back to Congress with a progress report on each species with any recommendation for management changes to expedite recovery or withdraw the species from protection.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Federal agencies should only be given management responsibility for migratory species. Species that can walk or crawl across state boundaries should not be managed by other than state agencies in cooperation with the neighboring state.
Listing of a threatened or endangered species should only occur after substantial and verifiable and peer reviewed evidence exists. Land grant university scientists should concur unanimously.
Citizen suits should be prohibited. One of the worst travesties of the ESA is the ability of environmental groups to bring before a favorable judge a request for a listing, critical habitat designations, and management restrictions. The judiciary is not the proper setting for addressing the endangered species issues.
Conditions for listing should include mitigation of the impact on rural communities, economies, historic land uses, and management production on private, state trust, and Federal land.
And, by all means, to protect private property, Executive Order 12630 should be enacted into law with the Justice Department Implementation Guidelines serving as the regulations for compliance. General appropriation to the Endangered Species Act should be eliminated, and a possible funding source for federally listed species could be a voluntary contribution provided for on the individual income tax forms.
I appreciate and thank the Committee on Resources for coming to New Mexico and holding hearings on such an important issue.
And I would just like to call your attention, you've asked the question about the news release by Sam Hitt. I would just like to say that in eastern New Mexico alone there are a number of threatened or proposed species, the Pecos pup fish, the bluntnose shiner, the sand lizzard, Arkansas River shiner, lesser prairie chicken, black-tailed prairie dog, and Pecos sunflower. And if these—these species aren't important to eastern New Mexico, Mr. Hitt doesn't know what he is talking about.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eppers may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Pacheco?
STATEMENT OF MANUEL PACHECO, NORTHERN NEW MEXICO STOCKMEN'S ASSOCIATION, TAOS, NEW MEXICO
Mr. PACHECO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Redmond—Congressman Redmond.
I think that to fully understand my remarks you need to understand my roots and my background. I'm a descendant of the Pachecos that have been here since 1598, and on my mother's side, from the Ortizes that have been here since 1693. Historical records show that we've been in ranching since early 1700.
Besides ranching, I started working at varied businesses since I was 16 years old. I became a public schoolteacher, a central district school administrator. I did work for the agency for international development. I have been a consultant to some lawyers. I've organized many organizations, and I served my country in the U.S. Naval Forces. I've also served on the National Public Lands Council under Secretary of Interior, Manuel Lujan and President George Bush.
I am currently a board member of Northern New Mexico Stockman, also the P.A.J.E. Corporation, a New Mexico wide agricultural business related organization, and also vice president of El Llano Ditch in Colorado.
The Endangered Species Act, although well intended, has been a total failure. According to the National Wildlife Federation, in 25 years with billions of dollars spent, of 1,119 species listed, 6 species were delisted as recovered and 6 have become extinct.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Mexican wolf reintroduction has left no survivors but spent millions. The Southwestern willow flycatcher, probably the only scientific study with qualified biologists using U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocol, was done on the U-Bar Cow Ranch in the Gila River. In July 1994, it had a high of 64 pairs. In might be noted that in the west the only other pairs found were 38 in the Keru River in California in a county that has no cows.
From 1994 through 1998, along the Gila, they have counted up to 186 pairs, so they've been growing in numbers, all in cow country. Remember that.
Another difference found in this study is that the established literature that the Federal agencies have been following is contrary to what they state. The placement of nests have been high, the vegetation of preference different. Why then do they go and fence thousands of miles of river without any science being done as to its effect? What a waste of money.
The Carson National Forest spent a million dollars trying to locate Mexican spotted owls. They found one in the Jicarilla reservation. Imagine what that money could do if it was spent on resource improvement.
It must be said that among scientists and biologists there are differences in approaches to saving species. We, the Northern New Mexico Stockmen, believe that by saving species and improving range, you can do it by putting your money and your effort on the ground. Historically, our families have protected the area for over 400 years.
Those that do not subscribe to common sense take actions like those that happened in Vail, Colorado. In Colorado, the extremists started to burn out development. We're afraid—and I come from an area where there is five ski areas, and I've seen plans from this new Santa Fe ring—pretty soon you're not going to be able to go camp, recreate, ski, or use the lands that we have used before it was an idea of the United States, before there was a country of Mexico, and for 150 years under our country that we have fought, died, and served.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Why are we not equal at least to the plants and animals that they're trying to save? We have civil rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, under the Constitution of New Mexico, under the 14th and 5th Amendments of the United States Constitution. Why are they being taken away from us by radicals that take no risk?
Mr. POMBO. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pacheco may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Moore?
STATEMENT OF BILL MOORE, NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO
Mr. MOORE. Honorable Congressmen, let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity to provide my perspective on the Endangered Species Act. I would like to draw from my professional training and experience as a wildlife biologist and discuss with you briefly the lack of science that I am seeing personally in ESA implementation.
I would like to focus on the Southwestern willow flycatcher, a species which has already been mentioned a couple of times here today. In my professional opinion, the majority of the controversy over this species' protection and livestock grazing could be alleviated through more objective evaluation and application of the scientific information.
In addition, Federal agencies' failure to comply with procedural requirements of the ESA have contributed greatly to the current crisis facing New Mexico's livestock industry. This failure to comply with statutory responsibilities has forced Federal agencies into a reactionary mode, investing resources to address what should be frivolous lawsuits. In an effort to quickly attain procedural compliance with the ESA and stave off unfavorable court rulings, these agencies are implementing sweeping management actions which would not be necessary if a more proactive approach, i.e., timely attention, to these issues had been taken.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a final rule listing the flycatcher as endangered in 1995. The final rule not only provides Federal protection, but it is also supposed to justify the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to list the species. This justification is supposed to be based upon the best available scientific and commercial information available.
However, in my review of the final rule and the literature cited within it, I found errors in the way that the literature was represented. These errors are being incorporated into Federal land management decisions and also into litigation to the unjustified detriment of livestock producers. That's the first point I would like to make today.
A good example of this is the alleged relationship between livestock presence and cowbird brood parasitism. Just very quickly, brown-headed cowbirds have been shown to affect flycatcher populations. Nobody disputes that. The cowbird lays its eggs in nests of flycatchers and flycatchers end up raising baby cowbirds or no babies at all, essentially.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has taken the position that livestock presence is responsible for cowbird presence. In other words, if you remove all livestock, then the cowbirds are going to go away. And that line of reasoning is already being used in New Mexico to remove some livestock from some Federal permits.
When I reviewed the scientific literature cited in the final rule, I found what could best be described as a correlation. Livestock and cowbirds both present in an area, and that's it. But somehow the Fish and Wildlife Service has turned that into a cause and effect relationship, i.e., cowbirds are present because livestock are present.
I believe this is a very fatal flaw in scientific research which leads to unsubstantiated and sometimes grossly erroneous conclusions. To put it in some less scientific terms, one could likely find a statistically significant relationship between increased ice cream sales and increased crime rates. However, I don't think anybody looking at the issue objectively would automatically conclude that increased ice cream sales resulted in an increase in crime rates; but, that's essentially what the Fish and Wildlife Service is doing in this particular situation.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My second point is that Federal agencies need some accountability. Special interest groups are having a field day suing agencies because these agencies, by their own admission, cannot meet the procedural requirements of the ESA. Why not?
Privately the Federal agencies blame one another. In the meantime, lawsuits continue to be filed and the only people who suffer any repercussions are the livestock producers who are dependent upon that Federal grazing permit to stay in business.
A good example of this is the Forest Service's decision earlier this year to remove livestock from a couple hundred miles of streams in western New Mexico and northern New Mexico. That decision was not made based upon recently collected field data indicating degraded riparian conditions. The decision was made because the Forest Service, by its own admission, was out of procedural compliance with the ESA, that is despite the fact that the Forest Service had over 3 years to come into compliance.
The Forest Service made that decision in order to avoid the possibility of a court injunction. There was no scientific data which led to that decision, no matter what you read in the newspapers.
Special interest groups are utilizing the ESA to create what has been described—let me back up. Litigation has got to be removed as the central driving force behind ESA implementation. Every Federal agency decision made in regards to the flycatcher, every single decision going back to the original petition to list has come about as a direct result of a lawsuit or the threat of a lawsuit.
As a result of being produced in a crisis mode, the biological integrity of decisions is suffering. Special interest groups are utilizing the ESA to create what has been described as a legal train wreck. These groups have been very explicit in stating their objective is to rid our public lands of all cattle grazing.
Unless Federal agencies somehow find a way to meet their requirements or the ESA sees some substantive changes, the present ESA and all of its procedural requirements has and will continue to be a very effective tool in achieving these groups' political—and I stress—not biological agenda.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the meantime, the ESA will continue to be used to achieve a political agenda, and we will continue to argue how ineffective the Act is at recovering species.
I know I've covered a lot of ground here very quickly; but, everything which I discussed is outlined in greater detail in my written testimony which I've already submitted to your staff. And, once again, I thank you for this opportunity.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. POMBO. Thank you for your testimony. I thank the entire panel. I would like to start with Dr. Fowler. To open up your testimony, you talked about your wish to preserve biodiversity and to use good science in the decisions that are being made. Do you believe that good science is being used in—in the current implementation of the Act?
Dr. FOWLER. That is explicitly accurate.
Mr. POMBO. What is driving it? Why would the agencies, which are required to use good science, that by their own admission claim that they are using the best available data, what—what would be driving them to use science that is not peer reviewed, that is not accurate, that may be biased or politicized?
Dr. FOWLER. Well, that's a very encompassing question, Mr. Congressman. We have in the west example after example of where moves are made before data recovery plans are completed, before the blueprint for recovery is being finished. Example after example of where they've jumped the gun either for political reasons, or as Mr. Moore has described, they've been forced with these actions.
We are seeing a transition from consumptive use to non-consumptive use. We are seeing where the—in the west, there are rights associated with water rights that are clouding the title of the Federal Government and the U.S. Forest Service lands, and Bureau of Land Management lands, and we are seeing where the easiest way, the most—quickest way to remove these clouds of title are through a surrogate such as endangered species so they will get in-stream water flows.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
They can retain water for endangered species at all levels of the river system, and that the Federal Government can retain these rights. I do believe there is some very, very clandestine motives that aren't immediately obvious to everybody, and that we are falling directly into this mood of transferring ownership from the private sector to the Federal sector.
Mr. POMBO. I've often believed that with the number of the species that I've seen, I've had the opportunity to go around the country quite extensively and look at some of the endangered species problems that they've had, and it appears that with a lot of the problems, that there are—there is another agenda associated with a particular listing.
Mr. Moore said something about removing cattle, and the other two gentlemen, by removing cattle from the public lands as being part of the agenda out west. We had people that have admitted that if it wasn't for the spotted owl, they would have had to have created one in order to get the loggers out of our forests.
Do you believe that the Federal Government, that the Endangered Species Act, the way it's being implemented today, is susceptible to that kind of manipulation of the Act?
Dr. FOWLER. Yes, sir, I do. Johanna Wald, Natural Resource Defense Council, I believe has testified on your Committee, if we cannot price livestock off the western range, we will policy or litigate them off. It's—you know, we are falling exactly into the line that has been prepared for us. This is not an accident.
Mr. POMBO. The—getting back to your original comment about bio diversity and the importance of maintaining bio diversity, I would assume that is part of your training, is to—to understand the importance of bio diversity in this country and, in fact, throughout the world.
Having said that, do you believe that there is any way that man can stop species from becoming extinct?
Dr. FOWLER. Yes, I do. I believe man has a direct impact on species, both negatively and positively. You know, it's no accident that 75 percent of endangered species are located on private land. Individuals, who through generations, know how to nurture species. They do not rape, pillage, and plunder in the short run if they're going to be there for generations.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It's common knowledge that a mid-seral state type is often more conducive to more species richness than all the way to an excellent condition. Trying to manage for the infinity is usually moving toward a single species. Whereas, if you'll keep in a lower seral state, you'll have more species richness, not only in vegetation, but also all the interrelationships between the animals, insects, arthropods, et cetera, that co-mingle.
So, attempting to go to excellent condition is the wrong move. We are going beyond the optimality position. And management, Mr. Chairman, is the key to success. People are the key to success. They're not the problem. They have the knowledge through time or those species wouldn't be there, and we just haven't recognized that.
We have to get back to the people who know how to work the land. And we are moving as fast away from that as possible, Mr. Chairman. And that is the wrong—absolutely the wrong direction.
Mr. POMBO. A final question that I would like to ask you, if we changed the incentives that are currently in the Act so that instead of the Endangered Species Act being seen as a negative by property owners and property managers, but instead as a positive, say that there were tax incentives for creating habitat, that there were awards and rewards that were available if you increase the amount of habitat and consequently the number of endangered species on your property, do you think that would be an effective tool in managing the recovery of endangered species versus the fear that many property owners have today?
Dr. FOWLER. I think that would be a major start forward, Mr. Chairman. The agricultural industry, No. 1, is—is a stable industry throughout the west. Other industries come and go, have peaks and troughs, but agriculture, in general, through time, has been a stable industry. And this industry responds to price. They have always and will always respond to price. That's the very nature of the individuals.
You give them a positive signal on a product, and they will produce it, and that includes endangered species. We have not given them the correct signal. As a matter of fact, we've given them the reverse signal.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. POMBO. Thank you. Mr. Redmond?
Mr. REDMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Fowler, a couple of questions on your—on your testimony. You said that in—And this is—Maybe I didn't—This is for clarification purposes. I'm not sure I understood this.
You said that in your 20 years, you've not seen a field worker from Fish and Wildlife out in the field dealing with the endangered species; is that correct?
Dr. FOWLER. That is correct.
Mr. REDMOND. Can you clarify—I mean, what—what—what do you mean ''out in the field''? Are you talking about out in the streams and the forests, or are you talking about at the university or in the field office? What—what do you mean by ''out in the field''?
Are you—are you indicating that they're sitting somewhere behind a desk in Santa Fe or in Washington making these decisions without coming out and physically being present in those communities? Can you describe that for me? I didn't——
Dr. FOWLER. Yes, sir.
Mr. REDMOND. I didn't clearly understand that.
Dr. FOWLER. Oftentimes, in my role as coordinator of the Range Improvement Task Force, we get on the ground with individuals on allotments in the forests, in the rangelands, in the riparian areas; and, during those times there is usually an interaction between the industry and the agency.
And the agencies that are represented there are the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. And it's their biologists that are on the ground. Those people then feed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and because of Section Seven of the Endangered Species Act, they have been put in the driver's seat as the only biologists of record.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You cannot get those people out of Albuquerque.
Mr. REDMOND. So—so, what you're saying is that we get the scientists from the university, we get the scientists from the Forest Service; but, the scientists who are directly responsible for the implementation through the Fish and Wildlife will not and have not historically been in the field?
Dr. FOWLER. That is correct, Mr. Congressman.
Mr. REDMOND. You spoke about data being cast aside. Can you describe the kind of data that you're speaking about?
Dr. FOWLER. I was referring to a case brought up earlier by the panel, Mr. Pattison, who was speaking to the Pecos bluntnose shiner. And, here, that species was studied starting in 1991, and they have been looking at the impacts of the current irrigation regime on the bluntnose shiner. And it was a 5-year study that was continued for three more.
And at the end of the 5 years, an additional two, 7 years, there was a tenfold recovery in these species itself. Rather than that being accepted as a positive success, what we're seeing now is a change to a recommendation for a continuous in-stream flow of 35 cubic feet per second for this fish when the last 7 years of data would contradict that need, as an example. After years of study, once again this agenda, Mr. Chairman, is not being met. And the data was cast aside.
Mr. REDMOND. Mr. Chairman, may I request that that data be entered into the record for this hearing?
Mr. POMBO. Without objection.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. REDMOND. Thank you. And I personally would also like to have a copy of that, Dr. Fowler, not only for the Committee, but also for my personal use, as well.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I just want to make one comment before—before I hand the microphone back. And there is terminology being used that I think that we need to very clearly delineate and understand what we're talking about.
One of the terms today was that there is good science and bad science. As one who holds a master's degree in philosophy and the focus of my research is philosophy of science, there is no such thing as good science or bad science. There is science.
The Latin word for science means certain knowledge, and what we have here is, we don't have bad science, we have ignoring science. We have people, professionals in the field, whether they're with Fish and Wildlife, whether they're with another agency, that are ignoring the data such as what Dr. Fowler is talking about here.
It is not scientific to discard data. That's not science. That is not a part of the scientific method, never has been, never will be. And so what we have is, we don't have bad science, we have people that are ignoring science.
And I would like to—and the reason I'm stating this on the record is that it's very important that we collect all data that is relative to the issue and we acknowledge that as relevant data that will bring us to the conclusion of science, the certain knowledge on these issues.
Mr. POMBO. I wanted to—I thought of another question I wanted to ask Dr. Fowler before I move on. In your testimony, you talked about, I believe you said, 22 species that have been mentioned recently by the secretary for delisting. We've had the opportunity, and I believe the figure is now up around 30, that depending on which press release you read, I think if you put them all together you're up around 30 now that have been proposed for delisting or down listing.
In doing an analysis of the species, I believe it was six of those species are extinct and should never have been put on the list. The vast majority of the species were errors and miscountings, things that were not species that got listed as separate species. I do not believe that there is a single species on the list that you can say was a recovery of the Endangered Species Act or as a result of the Endangered Species Act.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Do you have any information that would be contrary to that, because the Committee has looked into this, Committee staff has looked into this. And if you do have that, I would—I would like to have that.
Dr. FOWLER. I personally do not, Mr. Chairman. We do have a Ph.D., in wildlife biology, and I will inquire of him and make the information from him directly available to the Committee.
Mr. POMBO. Yeah, if—if you or the university or any of the—the other scientists that you work with have any information about any of those species that could be as a result of the Endangered Species Act, we would like to find a recovery where the Act actually worked so that we could use that as a model. And we have had a very difficult time finding any where they actually worked and a species was recovered because of anything that was done under the Endangered Species Act.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. POMBO. The—Mr. Moore, you—you seem fairly confident that livestock grazing and the Southwestern willow flycatchers can co-exist. Do you have any direct evidence of that, scientific evidence of that, that you could present to the Committee?
Mr. MOORE. Yeah, you're—you're basically looking at two controversies whenever you're talking about conflicts between livestock grazing and flycatcher viability. The first is the cowbird brood parasitism issue which I discussed briefly. In addition to the scientific data not supporting that relationship, we also have field data showing that where livestock and flycatchers were both present, cowbird brood parasitism rates were insignificant on the flycatcher populations.
The second prevailing assumption that's going through a lot of Federal documents right now is that livestock grazing will destroy flycatcher habitat. I would like to bring up an area that has already been brought up a couple of times; and, that's the U-Bar Ranch, which is a privately owned and privately managed ranch in western New Mexico.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This single ranch contains—Depending upon whose numbers you use, that ranch contains one-third to one-half of the known Southwestern willow flycatcher population in the world. In addition to that, this ranch also grazes several hundred head of livestock.
One thing that I found kind of interesting in a report that I read recently on this issue, a report done by Forest Service biologists who did a study last year and they looked at two areas in riparian habitat where flycatchers were nesting. One area, they excluded livestock grazing; another area, they didn't exclude livestock grazing.
There was no statistical significant—There was no statistically significant difference between those two populations. In fact, if you just look at the raw numbers, nesting success in the area where livestock were not excluded was actually 10 percent higher. But, like I say, that's not a statistically significant difference.
Mr. POMBO. You said that, in your testimony, that the science was gathered. Just for the record, who did this particular study?
Mr. MOORE. It would be Stoleson and Finch. I think it is Scott Stoleson and Deborah Finch, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Mr. POMBO. So, was it federally funded?
Mr. MOORE. Yes, that was a Federal study.
Mr. POMBO. And has Fish and Wildlife used that information in determining the proper recovery plan?
Mr. MOORE. No, that's—that goes back to something which Dr. Fowler mentioned, all of this—all these decisions are being made; yet, the Fish and Wildlife Service hasn't come out with a recovery plan yet for this species.
All these decisions are being made, individuals are being hurt, but nobody has sat down to take a look at the science and said, ''OK. What do we need to do to recover this species?'' That hasn't happened yet. The Fish and Wildlife——
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. POMBO. The enforcement actions aren't taking place?
Mr. MOORE. Yes, that's correct. The Fish and Wildlife Service has got a policy that states very explicitly that it will develop recovery plans for species within two and a half years of listing. Southwestern willow flycatcher recovery plan is already a year overdue, and it's probably going to be at least another year before we will even see a draft.
Mr. POMBO. You made another statement that I'm curious about. You said that on this particular ranch was one of two places of known populations of—of this particular flycatcher. When were they discovered on this particular ranch?
Mr. MOORE. There is is some studies going back from probably the mid-eighties that knew that those flycatchers were out there; but, they've not been intensively studied since probably about 1994 on.
Mr. POMBO. And have other scientists gone out to other ranches to see if they had populations of flycatchers?
Mr. MOORE. No, I don't think you're going to see that happening.
Mr. POMBO. I'm always curious when they say that these are the ''only known populations,'' because until they found them there, they didn't know they existed there. So, how do they know they're not somewhere else?
But it—I see that come up often in data that we get from reports from the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife, that these are the only known population and they're the only ones left in the world and so on. And I always wonder how they know that.
But, Mr. Eppers, in your testimony, you talk quite extensively about the states having jurisdiction in managing wildlife within their borders. Do you feel that the State of New Mexico is competent to handle endangered species recovery?
Mr. EPPERS. Well, I certainly do, Mr. Chairman, because they already have the mechanism in place. They have the conservation services division set up, state listed species. They're already involved in the management of endangered species in conjunction with the management of other—a multitude of other wildlife species, and I think that they could handle it much better than what the feds have demonstrated they can do up-to-date.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. POMBO. The way the Act is currently being implemented gives little or no opportunity for state involvement in the recovery of species, let alone private individuals involved in it.
And just for my own knowledge, amongst the cattlemen, amongst the property owners, are they typically more willing to work with the state officials or with Federal officials in terms of trying to recover these species in property management?
I know you had some state listed species, and, you know, there is some differences there. Amongst the general population, how is the feeling toward the state agencies? Is it generally positive or is it negative?
Mr. EPPERS. I think with any—anything related to endangered species you have a certain amount of fear from the landowners that an action can require them to lose their ability to manage their land.
But that has not been that prevalent within the state agency. They have been involved in working, I think to some degree, with landowners; and, at least we find them out in the field occasionally.
As Dr. Fowler has already indicated, you don't find the Fish and Wildlife Service out in the field. We can communicate with the Forest Service and BLM, State Game and Fish Department personnel; but, we don't have the opportunity to visit with the Fish and Wildlife Service or the—any of the other Federal agencies involved with endangered species.
Mr. POMBO. Amongst the other suggestions that—that you have made, you seem very confident that the current implementation of the Act has not worked and, in fact, should be repealed. Do you think that there is a need to have an Endangered Species Act to protect species?
Mr. EPPERS. I find it very hard to support the Endangered Species Act as it has been managed in the past and is presently being managed. I cannot see any relevance to the improvement of any species as a result of the Endangered Species Act. The species that they always refer to as being recovered or propagated under the Endangered Species Act have all occurred under other Federal Acts, not the Endangered Species Act, the bald eagle, alligators in Florida, et cetera, et cetera.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I—there again, I think that the people on the ground within the states have the ability to recognize if the species is threatened or endangered; and, if they do, they have the means and the availability, especially here in New Mexico with a Range Improvement Task Force team and the scientists that sit on that team to address and come up with a way to protect that species and enhance or recover the population.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you. I just—to finish up with this panel—You have additional—OK.
Mr. REDMOND. Mr. Moore, earlier Dr. Fowler was mentioning the precautionary principle. Based on the information that you have testified here this morning to, the—this—in this hearing, that the Southwestern willow flycatcher, based on the information that you have, has reproduced itself more in the presence of cattle as opposed to the absence of cattle; is that correct? Do I understand that correctly?
Mr. MOORE. Well——
Mr. REDMOND. I know you said it was a minor statistical deviation, but it's still a statistical deviation?
Mr. MOORE. Yeah, just looking at the raw numbers, I believe it was in the area where livestock were not excluded, nesting success was 61 percent. In the area where livestock was excluded, nesting success was 51 percent.
Mr. REDMOND. OK. So, what that does is, that calls into question the precautionary principle, because the precautionary principle says ''do not intervene,'' presupposing that if intervention should occur, the damage would be done. When, in this case, by not intervening, causes damage.
So, it brings into question the whole policy decision regarding the precautionary principle. Is that—would that be——
Mr. MOORE. I wouldn't dispute that a bit. As a matter of fact, I would agree with that 100 percent that there just—there seems to be this over—overriding, prevailing assumption that we have to take this better safe than sorry approach, whether or not science is directing our actions or not.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REDMOND. Right. And in this case, you know, the idea is, that if we touch it, it could get—it could be harmed; where, in reality, if we don't touch it, it will be harmed.
So, I think that as we discuss, Mr. Chairman, in the future however the Endangered Species Act, when it is amended—when it is amended that we take into consideration not only a clearly defined definition for threatened species and endangered species, but also the role of the precautionary principle policy, because we may be doing species harm by not intervening, and this is one example.
Oh, I've got one more for Mr. Eppers. You mentioned something about possible funding for Federal listed species could be voluntary contributions provided for on an individual basis on the income tax form. So, you could either vote, you know, to put the dollar in the Presidential election, or you could vote to save the willow flycatcher?
Mr. EPPERS. Certainly.
Mr. REDMOND. Well, I'm glad I have a choice. But I guess once the money goes into that fund, you're recommending something like price supports for spotted owls; is that—No, I mean, theoretically, you know, I think that one—one of the main problems I believe that we're having with the implementation and our desire to save endangered species is that we're taking a heavy-handed central government approach as opposed to an approach that, No. 1, honors the right to private property; No. 2, honors the inevitable market driving forces; and, you know, No. 3, that it is based on sound science and not faulty procedure.
So, I have no problem with recovering a species by using a market approach as opposed to a central government approach, and, so, you're—you're—you have created somewhat of a—of a hybrid here where, yes, it's partially market; but, yes, it's partially Federal.
And so my question is that if we were to have this check-off on our taxes and people who do not live on the land as you do, if they're so concerned about the species that you have to live with, that they should accept some responsibility and this would be a way that they could accept some of that responsibility.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In terms of implementation of that, we're basically looking at something like price supports for spotted owls; is that not correct?
Mr. EPPERS. Yes, it could be considered that, Congressman. And I—I just feel that—that if the people that really have an interest and a desire to protect endangered species want to participate in the process, they could contribute some funding toward that goal.
I think the abuse of the Act as it has been, the vast expenditure of funds that several of the panelists have already identified, really has not helped the endangered species. And if people knew how high the products that they are purchasing in the marketplace today have elevated just because of the Endangered Species Act, it would be quite frightening to them.
You look at our timber industry. It no longer hardly prevails in this country. We're importing our timber. We're importing our oil and gas. We are vast approaching importation of our food supplies.
And if we don't change this thing around, I really fear that—that we're going to be dependent—totally dependent on foreign sources for our necessary needs. And I just think that the people, that if they're really concerned about endangered species, they should put some money into the process.
And it may be a price support for spotted owls, but it—it certainly would help find out just how much public support there is, truly, out there for endangered species.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Pacheco?
Mr. PACHECO. Gentlemen, I support by some examples. I don't believe in Federal supports for the endangered species, per se. I think that people on the ground do a better job.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let's look at New Mexico and an example at the Gila Grande, the Caldero location that the government is trying to buy right now, and—and I support that. In New Mexico, at the turn of the century there was no elk. Today we have an overpopulation because people on the ground felt that that species needed to be in New Mexico.
Now the endangered species terrorists say that cows and others are doing damage to the streams, endangering other species. Basically, I showed people on tour at the Gila Caldera that the only ones that wallow in the river eating off the stream were the elk, and we saw groups of 50 to 100 elk in the streams eating off of the banks.
Where were the cows? And that's a cow ranch with over 7,000 head there. Thousands of yards away from the stream. They only go there to drink.
So, again, if you're going to use science, do it like John Fowler—and we've been on the ground together a lot—says, by being on the ground. A lot of people sit on the back and make decisions without ever going and visiting my place, and it's become a money-making, defrauding tool for these groups to pursue money by going after endangered species protection without no science.
Mr. POMBO. Let me ask you this then, in Mr. Eppers' testimony, he talks about, I believe it was in Las Vegas, a developer that paid $40,000 per turtle to relocate turtles. How many cattlemen in this area would give up grazing cattle for $40,000 turtles if they could raise turtles instead?
Mr. PACHECO. Let me—Let me put it in the context of the north central New Mexico. We've been harvesting a living in that area for 400 years. We've lived, we've raised families, we've existed and invited everybody to come, and they have and found the purest state of beautiful God's country. You couldn't change our way of living.
You know, we do other things, but cattle business is in our blood. It's—It's our tradition. It's our lifestyle, and we're going to do it till all of us die. I have a son that's in it. I have a grandson that's in it. My parents and grandparents were in it, and we're here to stay.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And we've seen a lot of Santa Fe raid proponents. Sam isn't here because he thought that I would question his motives. Not even the environmental community likes Sam because he is a radical.
Mr. POMBO. I say—I say about the $40,000 turtles half sarcastically. But we talked about incentives earlier, and I believe very strongly that if there were incentives within the Act for people to create habitat and create more endangered species on their property, that they would do it.
Mr. PACHECO. We're doing that now, Congressman. The New Mexico—North New Mexico Stockmen and our 2,500 members are cooperating with the conservation fund, the extension service, and the Forest service on top of Glorietta Mesa to improve the range which improves a habitat, and that's how the species will truly survive.
You know, the biggest threat to species is urbanization. If you congregate a lot of people in an area, species will go away. They're not dumb. If you protect and improve that range, the way we live, species will flourish.
You know, money isn't everything. I like the way I raised my children and where I raised them. And I think they're going to like the way they raise their children and their grandchildren. After all, we've been here for 225 years under Spain, 25 years under Mexico, and 150 years under the United States. We haven't changed much. But from the outside, people have tried to change us. It just didn't work.
Mr. POMBO. Well, I—I thank the panel very much for your testimony. It was very informative for me and for the Committee.
As we work toward making changes and trying to develop an Endangered Species Act that works for people as well as for wildlife, the testimony we've received here today will be very valuable in that effort.
I will excuse this panel. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our structured panels have completed their testimony and the questioning. At this point we will begin an open microphone session of ten witnesses who have already signed up to speak. Each witness will be given 2 minutes to speak. A yellow light will come on after 1 minute and a red light at 2 minutes.
I would like to now ask the first five witnesses to be ready to testify and come forward. Caren Cowan, Sharon Lombardi, Lewis Derrick, and John—John C. Williams, and Carl Hahn, if you would come up, please.
STATEMENT OF CAREN COWAN
Ms. COWAN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Redmond, my name is Caren Cowan. I work for the New Mexico Cattle Growers. I'm a native of the southwest and a private landowner and very concerned about where we're heading with the Endangered Species Act.
You expressed some concern this morning that the environmentalists didn't want to come to this hearing. I would submit to you that the environmentalists are in this room. The radicals didn't want to come to this hearing. So, we need to look at it from that perspective.
Those folks have an agenda which you've alluded here today. Mr. Hitt's own organization has said that cattle are exotic pests that have no place in the State of New Mexico. So, I think that pretty well outlines their agenda very rapidly.
And then they take that a little bit further. Yesterday morning I heard a lady on television talking about the—all the damage that was done in Vail, and it was referred to as eco-terrorism. And she said, ''Oh, no, that's not terrorism. Terrorism is when you hurt people. We were just vandalizing.'' I don't know how any—I don't understand that thought process.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But with that said, I stand before you on behalf of several people on the western side of the state. I talked to you earlier this morning about coming back and perhaps doing a hearing that they can get to. This was an awful long drive for them.
I would like to enter into the record letters that they sent over for your consideration today, and then there is one lady who is actually not a member of Cattle Growers right now, who can't afford to be, who owns a BLM permit over in the Grants area, which is in Congressman Redmond's district.
On the top of the stack that I'm about to give you is a letter that's not dated that she got from the Farmington resource district telling her that her permit has been cut in half. She can only graze from the 10th of October till the 5th of May because of the willow flycatcher.
This lady is single. She has got a family she is trying to raise. She has a sick grandchild. She actually called my office the first time from Ronald McDonald House because her grandchild was in—was hospitalized.
She doesn't know where she is supposed to go with her cows. She has had this permit for 50 years, and these are the questions that we need answered for our people.
Thank you so much for your time, and thank you for being here. We look forward to seeing you again.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you. Without objection it will be included in the record.
[The letters will be kept on file at the Committee Office in 1324 Longwoth Building, Washington, DC.]
Mr. POMBO. Sharon Lombardi?
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF SHARON LOMBARDI
Ms. LOMBARDI. Sharon Lombardi, Executive Director of Dairy Producers of New Mexico. We appreciate you being here, Mr. Chairman and Congressman. We know it's far from Washington and it gives us an opportunity to tell you how we feel.
Dairy Producers of New Mexico is an association of dairy producers in our state. We represent about 90 percent of all the milk produced in the State of New Mexico, and we now are No. 10 in the Nation in milk production.
We want to go on record to say that we are also concerned about the Endangered Species Act. We're concerned about how it impacts our state, our indigenous people, our industry, and our homes.
We know that we need to have a balance; and, this, I know, is going to be hard for Congress to come up with because I know how it is out there with so many people giving input. But we need to have a balance by using good, sound science or by not ignoring science, as our Congressman said, to ensure that we do protect our endangered species, but—but not—but not to take away our personal property rights.
As it was said earlier, it is not between livestock and endangered species or people between the endangered species.
Thank you.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you.
Lewis Derrick?
STATEMENT OF LEWIS DERRICK
Mr. DERRICK. My name is Lewis Derrick. I own a small ranch in southeastern New Mexico east of Dexter and also work for a larger ranch.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I guess there is no common sense in the Endangered Species Act, or that's my opinion. I have the prairie chicken. I have the sagebrush lizard on my property. Well, they say they have to have the cover for the chicken. Then you have to have the dunes—sand dunes that blow out or open for the lizard. They're either going to have to take my cattle off, or they're either going to have to let me overgraze it where I can make the—the sand dune lizard habitat.
I think if they're—the management of the spotted owl may be destroying 100 other species. Are you going to manage one species to destroy 1 or 200 more?
Another common sense approach is the bluntnose shiner and the Arkansas River shiner. Well, the Arkansas River shiner is endangered in the Canadian River. But it's abundant in the Pecos River. And in the Federal Register, it states that the Arkansas River shiner takes over the habitat of the Pecos bluntnose shiner. Well, why don't they take the Arkansas River shiner and put it up in the Canadian River and it won't be endangered there and then the Pecos bluntnose shiner can have its habitat?
Well, you go into the prairie dog. Well, they're worried about the black-tailed prairie dog, and then they introduce the black-foot ferret, another endangered species, and they predatorize on black-tailed prairie dogs. And then they want to introduce the wolf in the same area. It don't make any sense.
The—also, the Pecos pup fish, they habitize with other species of fish, and I just think there needs to be some common sense out there. And I might raise a prairie chicken for $40,000 a pair.
Thank you.
Mr. POMBO. John Williams?
STATEMEN