SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
59–388 l
1999
H.R. 701, CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999, AND H.R. 798, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF THE RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE YEAR 2000 AND BEYOND
FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JUNE 12, 1999, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Serial No. 106–40
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
or
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
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
GEORGE MILLER, California
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
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
JAY INSLEE, Washington
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
RUSH D. HUNT, New Jersey
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
Field hearing held June 12, 1999
Statement of Members:
Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah, prepared statement of
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Represenative in Congress from the State of Utah, prepared statement of
Statement of Witnesses:
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Clarke, Kathleen, Executive Director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources; Courtland Nelson, Director of Utah Division of Parks and Recreation; John Kimball, Director of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Prepared statement of
Collins, Clark, Executive Director, BlueRibbon Coalition, Pocatello, Idaho
Prepared statement of
Additional material submitted by
Cowan, Caren, Executive Secretary, The New Mexico Cattle Growers Association
Fisher, Wendy, Utah Open Lands, Salt Lake City, Utah
Prepared statement of
Foutz, Ryan, Manager, Sportsman's Warehouse, Riverdale, Utah
Prepared statement of
Hall, Travis, Public Relations Manager, Browning Arms, Morgan, Utah
Prepared statement of
Henry, Karen, Wyoming Farm Bureau, Robertson, Wyoming
Prepared statement of
Hyde, George, Chief Operating Officer, Barnes Bullets, Inc., American Fork, Utah
Prepared statement of
Maughan, Dennis, Commissioner of Twin Falls County, Idaho
Peay, Don, Executive Director, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife of North Salt Lake, Utah
Prepared statement of
Priestley, Frank, President, Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, Pocatello, Idaho
Prepared statement of
Ramirez, Leslie W., Attorney, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
Robinson, Christopher F., Ensign Group, L.C, Salt Lake City, Utah
Smith, Bert, Ogden, Utah
Prepared statement of
Valentine, Robert, Brigham City, Utah
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Briefing Paper
Hage, Wayne, article, ''Property and War''
Grant, Fred, prepared statement of
State of Utah, Natural Resources, Conservation & Reinvestment Act of 1998
Text of H.R. 701
Text of H.R. 798
UTAH and CARA, Conservation & Reinvestment Act of 1999, State of Utah, Natural Resources
Washington State Farm Bureau, prepared statement of
Communications submitted:
Additional material submitted for the record by:
Baker, James Jay, Executive Director, NRA Institute for Legislative Action, prepared statement of
Bell, Gregory S., Mayor, Farmington City, Utah, prepared statement of
Letter to Mr. Hansen
Billings, Lewis K., Mayor, Mountainland, letter to Hon. Senator Robert Bennett
Callaghan, Mary, Chair, Salt Lake County Commission, letter to Mr. Hansen
Corradini, Deedee, President, The United States Conference of Mayors, letter to Mr. Young
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Cunningham, Sally S., Executive Director, National Council of Youth Sports, prepared statement of
Gordon, Gerald E., Chair, Utah Wildlife Federation, letter to Mr. Hansen
Hall, Andy, City Manager, Payson City, Utah, letter to Mr. Hansen
Hancock, Karla, Mayor, City of Moab, letter to Mr. Hansen
Harrop, Gary A. Mayor, North Ogden City, Utah, letter to Mr. Hansen
Heun, Tracy, Parks and Recreation Director, Clearfield City, prepared statement of
Letter to Mr. Young
Hill, Doug, Public Services Director, Murray City Corp., letter to Mr. Hansen
Letter to Mr. Young
Letter to Mr. Hansen
Howes, Jonathan B., Chairman, Parks and Recreation Authority, North Carolina, prepared statement of
Holmes, Roger, President, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Minnesota, prepared statement of
Kano, Mayor David T., prepared statement of
Letter to Mr. Hansen,
Kimball, John, Director, Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Wildlife Resources, State of Utah, prepared statement of
Hildebrandt, Konrad J., City Manager, Washington Terrace, letter to Mr. Hansen
Leavitt, Gov. Michael, Governor, State of Utah, prepared statement of
Peterson, Cary, Commissioner, State of Utah, letter to Mr. Hansen
Rose, Lorinda, Executive Director, Virgin River Land Preservation Assoc., prepared statement of
Stowell, Dennis E., Iron County, Utah, letter to Mr. Cook
Utah Recreation & Parks Association, letter to Mr. Hansen
Weeks, W. William, Executive Vice-President, The Nature Conservancy, prepared statement of
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 701, CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999, AND H.R. 798, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF THE RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE YEAR 2000 AND BEYOND
SATURDAY, JUNE 12, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Salt Lake City, Utah.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m. in the State Office Building, 1st Floor Auditorium, State Capitol, Salt Lake City, Utah, Hon. James Hansen, presiding.
Mr. HANSEN. [presiding] Good morning. We expect the young lady from Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth, to join us shortly and the two gentlemen from Utah to be with us. We understand they're both on their way. In fact, one just walked in the door, Representative Cook, we appreciate you coming up and joining us at this time.
Let me give an opening statement here and then we'll get into this hearing. We have a number of people who want to speak and we'll see what we can accommodate here. I want to thank the witnesses, the audience and Members of Congress for attending this field hearing. This is an Official Congressional Hearing of the House Resource Committee. I chair the Committee on Public Lands and National Parks and chairman Don Young has asked me to conduct this full Committee hearing.
The business before us includes H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 sponsored by Mr. Young of Alaska, and H.R. 798, the Permanent Protection of America Resources 2000 Act sponsored by Mr. Miller of California.
Some may not be aware of our procedure so let me take a second to explain this. The Committee has invited four panels of witnesses to testify on these two measures and these panels represent differing viewpoints. Each witness has prepared a written statement and will present a summary of that statement during their allocated five minutes time. There are lights on the witness table, you can see them there. It's just like a traffic light. Green means go, yellow means wrap it up, and red means stop. After each panel presents their testimony, each Member of Congress may ask questions of the witnesses. You will also be asked to give us questions back that we will send you in the mail and we would appreciate it if you would give us very comprehensive answers.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Committee received numerous requests for witnesses to appear today and unfortunately, time constraints limit the number we can accommodate. We'll try to do our best. However, for those wishing to have their voices heard on these matters they're invited to submit their comments in writing to the Resource Committee within ten days of this hearing. These comments will be made part of the official record and I encourage those interested to submit their views.
Lastly, there are some strong feelings on these issues and we invited some very opposing views to testify today. We respect each witness opinion. We respect your rights to voice those opinions and we expect the witnesses in the audience to do the same.
The issues before us, H.R. 701 and H.R. 708, both attempt to address the problem of Land and Water Conservation Funds being used for purposes not originally intended by Congress. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was developed to reinvest nonrenewable oil and gas revenues into conservation and recreation. The legislation before us reforms these past practices but each bill goes about this in a slightly different fashion. They are both technical measures and both have positive components and address some real problems.
I believe that Mr. Young and Mr. Miller have both come up with some very interesting ideas. They feel that it would benefit hunting, fishing, and wildlife in general. However, other people have different ideas. Moreover, outdoor and urban recreation demands are growing at incredible rates and this funding would greatly help satisfy these pressures. For example, the State of Utah under the Young bill would receive nearly $8 million for wildlife and other programs through state side LWCF and another $6.79 million through Federal LWCF or urban park and recreation. Thus the benefits could be great but Federal dollars rarely come without strings attached. We must ensure we are not being enticed with Federal dollars only to find out they come to us with mandates and actions that hurts our respective states.
I personally have not taken a position on either of these bills. That's one of the reasons that we're doing this here in Salt Lake, so that people in the west part can hear this. Congressional hearings have been held in Washington, DC, Alaska and Louisiana. There has been tremendous interest from all sides and I look forward to hearing from several witnesses from Utah. I would like to expressly thank my own mayor, Gregory Bell, who I haven't seen come in yet, of Farmington, Utah and the Director of Natural Resources for the State of Utah, Kathleen Clarke, who represents Governor Leavitt at this hearing.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Several of the other witnesses have been long-time friends of mine and served the people of Utah or have conducted business in our fine state and I welcome each of you.
Lastly, it is good that we have witnesses from other Rocky Mountain states that are with us at this time. I hope we'll end up with at least four members of the Committee, including myself, the young lady from Idaho has now arrived. We're grateful to Congressman Cook, we're in his district at this time, who also has an interest in this legislation. I will now call upon my colleagues for any opening remarks they may have. Are you ready, Mrs. Chenoweth, or do you want me to go with Mr. Simpson first? Mr. Simpson.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
The House Resources Committee will come to order.
I want to thank the witnesses, the audience, and Members of Congress for attending this field hearing today. This is an official Congressional hearing of the House Resources Committee that I have been asked to conduct on behalf of Chairman Don Young. The business before us includes H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 sponsored by Mr. Young of Alaska and H.R. 798, the Permanent Protection of America's Resources 2000 Act sponsored by Mr. Miller of California.
Some may not be aware of our procedures, so let me take a second to explain. The Committee has invited four panels of witnesses to testify on these two measures and these panels represent differing view points. Each witness has prepared a written statement and will present a summary of that statement during their allocated five minute time frame. There are lights at the witness table. Green means go, yellow means begin wrapping up and red means stop. After each panel presents their testimony, each Member of Congress may ask questions of the witnesses.
The Committee received numerous requests for witnesses to appear today and unfortunately time constraints limit the number we can accommodate. However, for those wishing to have their voice heard on these matters are invited to submit their comments in writing to the Resources Committee within ten days of this hearing. These comments will be made part of the official record and I encourage those interested to submit their views.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Lastly, there are some strong feelings on these issues and we have invited some very opposing views to testify today. We respect each witnesses opinion, we respect your rights to voice those opinions and we expect the witnesses and the audience to do the same.
The issues before us, H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 both attempt to address the problem of Land and Water Conservation Funds being used for purposes not originally intended by Congress. The LWCF was developed to reinvest nonrenewable oil and gas revenues into conservation and recreation. The legislation before us reforms these past practices but each bill goes about this in a slightly different fashion. These are both technical measures and both have positive components that address real problems. I believe that Mr. Young and Mr. Miller both have good ideas. The benefits to hunting, fishing and wildlife in general could be tremendous. Moreover, outdoor and urban recreation demands are growing at incredible rates and this funding would greatly help satisfy these pressures. For example, the State of Utah under the Young bill would receive nearly $8 million for wildlife and other programs through state side LWCF and another $6.79 million through Federal LWCF for urban parks and recreation. Thus, the benefits could be great but Federal dollars rarely come without strings attached. We must insure we are not being enticed with Federal dollars only to find out they come to us with mandates and actions that hurt the State.
I personally have not taken a position on either of these bills and that is the reason for this hearing process. Congressional hearings have been held in Washington DC, Alaska and Louisiana. There has been tremendous interest from all sides and I look forward to hearing from several witnesses from Utah. I would specifically like to welcome my Mayor, Greg Bell, Mayor of Farmington, Utah and the Director of Natural Resources for the State of Utah, Kathleen Clarke who represents Governor Leavitt at this hearing. Several of the other witnesses have been long time friends, served the people of Utah or have conducted businesses in our fine state and I welcome each of you. Lastly, it is good that we have witnesses from other Rocky Mountain states to hear their perspectives.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Welcome to Salt Lake for our Members of Congress who are visiting and I will recognize each Member for an opening statement.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I don't have an opening statement but I do want to thank you for holding this hearing. Like you, I have not officially taken a position on this legislation either on either one of these. I am here to learn and to listen to the people that are here to present testimony on this important area of legislation.
I have some concern, as I look at the book in front of you called The Utah Fishing Guide, that most of the maps in the Utah Fishing Guide are of Idaho and that does cause me some concern.
Mr. HANSEN. This book was just given to me and I have to say I'm really looking forward to looking at it. I have this problem. I get an itch in my right hand and the only thing that will cure it, according to my dermatologist, is a fly rod.
Mr. SIMPSON. I understand that itch. Many of us have that itch.
Mr. HANSEN. You have that same itch.
Mr. SIMPSON. Occasionally, yes. But I do appreciate you holding this hearing here and I look forward to listening to the witnesses.
Mr. HANSEN. The young lady from Idaho.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to apologize to you for my tardiness and I would like to ask your permission for my staff to sit up here with us without the suits and the formal requirements of staff.
Mr. HANSEN. Not an objection. So ordered.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. Missed flights, missed connections, no sleep, no breakfast, no luggage, so please forgive me but I am ready for this hearing. And Mr. Chairman, I have taken a position on this bill. It is no secret I am adamantly opposed to the bill and have advised the chairman as such before I started working to see us redirect our goals. The freshman class of the 104th Congress is still referred to in the media by many people as that feisty freshman class of the 104th Congress and I can tell you we still fight with the same feistiness for the rights of private ownership.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, as I study this bill, the more I study it, the more I realize that this bill again represents the transfer of wealth from the private sector to the public sector. And it's something that I have always been opposed to and it's no secret I'm opposed to this.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to also ask officially for the record if, because so many people were unable to testify and although your generosity extended to me allowed for one more witness, that witness had already made previous commitments and was unable to come by the time I got back to him. But the Wyoming Cattlemen, the Wyoming Farm Bureau, the Oregon Cattlemen, the Washington Cattlemen, Washington Farm Bureau, Mr. Cushman, various other people who asked to testify were denied, not by you, Mr. Chairman, but by some process behind this system were denied the ability to be heard today and so I would again like to ask for the record if we could hold another hearing in the west, either in California or in Oregon or Washington.
Since both representatives are here from Idaho, I know that's futile to ask for a hearing in Idaho. But I would again like to make that recommendation because when we took the majority, we were going to do things differently. We were going to have open hearings so everyone could be heard. And I know that's what your concern is, Mr. Chairman, and so I would like to make that appeal to you and to Mr. Young for the record. Thank you very much.
Mr. HANSEN. Appreciate the young lady's comments. I'm sure we want to have hearings from the public. That's one of the reasons we do these things and we hope that we're representing the public when we act upon legislation. I will make a point to discuss that with Chairman Young and see what he has to say and maybe the three of us or the members of the Committee can get together and determine how we want to play this.
You mentioned staff. I want to thank all the members of staff who have come out. I know it's always a—it's kind of a chore to do that and they're always so good about it. We appreciate that. Mr. Healey is here from the minority staff. Rick, if you feel that you're inclined to come up here to verbally abuse us or anything else, by all means come on up. Mr. Freemire, our chief counsel and head of the Committee of Public Lands and Parks is sitting to my right and others I probably missed but appreciate all of them for taking the time to be with. Deb, we appreciate you being with us.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The gentleman from the second district in Utah, thank you for allowing us to come into your district, Mr. Cook. We'll turn the time to you for any statement you may have.
Mr. COOK. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted that you and Mike Simpson and Helen Chenoweth and Alan Freemire and Chris Cannon, who will be here I think in a few minutes, are here in the second district to hold this very important hearing.
Although I'm not a member of the Resources Committee, I really do appreciate, Congressman Hansen, the chairman's gracious invitation to join you today. Unfortunately, I do have a prior engagement with a group of veterans downtown in about half an hour and I won't be able to stay for very long. However, I will be reviewing the Committee record and I'm sure that I can rely on Chairman Hansen to keep me abreast of anything additional that happens here today. The question of how to distribute land and water conservation funds is a very important issue. A concern of mine is that Utah makes sure it gets its fair share. Under H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, the majority of funds from offshore oil revenues will be going to the coastal states such as Louisiana, Texas and Alaska that generate that oil for the country. As a representative from Utah, I find this somewhat disturbing because Utah is a well-known supplier of coal to the country and yet these revenues are taken by the Federal Government and Utah is given no preference with these funds. Now, if full Federal funding is to occur, I think that every state should benefit from the revenues from offshore oil and gas just as the entire country benefits from the revenues that Utah's coal creates.
Utah, I believe, would benefit from some of the programs in this Act but I, like Helen Chenoweth, also have some reservations about parts of the proposals. So like the others here, I've pretty well not made up my mind yet but I'm very interested in the testimony in this hearing today as a way to help me decide exactly how I'm going to vote on this.
Conservation programs, both for land and water, educational efforts and revitalization of existing lands would improve the many outdoor areas and programs already enjoyed by Utahns. I believe this should be done effectively and unobtrusively so it does not damage our state's economy, does not spoil the outdoor experience for those who appreciate it so much. Utah's open space, particularly on the Wasatch Front, is a cherished commodity. We should do everything in our power to ensure that it's not lost.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I'd like to take this opportunity to point out I think the great activism and leadership that Chairman Hansen's son, Joe, particularly has shown in this area. His commitment to Utah's open space is unrelenting and should be supported, I think, when a chance arises through local and not Federal control.
Finally, I'd like to voice my concern that we must be careful not to increase the system already mired in bureaucracy. The healthy Utah lands and programs must outweigh the headache of more government oversight in the administration. We must assure that taxes will not have to be raised even the slightest to pay for these improvements to our lands. Thank you and I apologize again for having to leave this hearing early.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Cook. I ask unanimous consent that all the letters that we've received, both for and against these two measures, be included in the record. I have a group here from a number of governors, the National Rifle Association, a number of cities and counties and organizations in support. I know there's a number in opposition that we've also received.
We'll start this hearing with Kathleen Clarke, executive director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources. She's here representing the governor of the State of Utah. She's accompanied by Mr. Courtland Nelson, director of Utah Division of Parks and Recreation and Mr. John Kimball, director of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN CLARKE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES; COURTLAND NELSON, DIRECTOR OF UTAH DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION; JOHN KIMBALL, DIRECTOR OF UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES
Mrs. CLARKE. On behalf of Governor Michael Leavitt we'd like to welcome you to the state of Utah today and thank you, Congressman Hansen and representatives, for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999, the most important national legislation for wildlife conservation, open space and state parks and recreation to reach the floor of Congress in our generation. The Utah Department of Natural Resources stands united in (inaudible) and many local elected officials and representatives of wildlife and outdoor recreation organizations from across Utah in our whole-hearted support of this landmark legislation. Let me give you a few of the reasons why we so support it.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Wildlife-related recreation is in high demand by the citizens of our state as evidenced by a recent study by Utah State University called the Cranitch Report. This was a report that measured public attitudes toward wildlife and wildlife-related recreation in Utah and according to the report, let me quote, ''Utahns are highly interested in the state's fish and wildlife resources. Clearly, Utahns place substantial value on the state's wildlife resources and view the protection and enhancement of those resources as important to the quality of life enjoyed by residents of the state.''
I want to emphasize here that wildlife-related recreation now takes many forms, from traditional activities such as hunting and fishing, to nonconsumptive activities such as bird watching and photography. Our mandate from the people of Utah is clear. Yet for too long the funding necessary to manage many species of wildlife and to preserve critical wildlife habitat has been simply unavailable. The same may be said of our state parks and open space initiatives throughout Utah.
Recreation needs have dramatically increased in the past 20 years. An average annual population increase of 2 percent has fueled the demand for more outdoor recreation opportunities and burgeoning urban growth centers from Logan to St. George and as open space disappears and with it wildlife and outdoor opportunity, there is great concern about preserving our quality of life here in Utah, about ensuring the social, economic and yes, even spiritual values that we all draw from direct contact with our natural world. Sadly, funding for parks and recreation facilities and from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund has been virtually nonexistent over the last several years. At the same time, our unprecedented population growth has created an even greater need for parks, open space and recreation opportunity.
Since 1964 Utah has received nearly $40 million in land and water conservation funding and this has funded over 400 state parks and recreation projects. Nearly 70 percent of those funds have gone directly to cities and counties for them to design and provide close-to-home recreation opportunities. Some of these include the Dimple Dell Regional Park, Sugarhouse Park, Shepard Lane Park and other regional and neighborhood parks throughout the state.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The fund has also been essential to the development of Utah's state park system and with those funds we have been able to develop such parks as Antelope Island, Bear Lake, Willard Bay, Utah Lake, Wasatch Mountain, Dead Horse Point, Snow Canyon and many others. Unfortunately, in recent years several opportunities to enhance or broaden our parks network have slipped away. Many of our parks and recreation facilities are obsolete. Age and overuse have taken their toll on many of our premier parks. How will CARA help solve these problems? Of course you're all familiar with the three types of CARA and I will briefly for you discuss how they would impact us.
Title II would provide a stable source of funding for a variety of purposes. It would allow us to begin the daunting task of rebuilding our obsolete infrastructure and making needed capital improvements to our state park system to meet the demands of a growing population. CARA would supply matching funds for cooperative state and local projects. It would help us with existing outdoor recreation experiences by allowing us to enhance them in building trails and preserving natural corridors and working cooperatively. It would also provide funding to develop major trails and many other amenities.
Title III of the legislation would provide for comprehensive approach to wildlife conservation funding and provide funding to address those species that are not fished or hunted. The revenues could be used for conservation easements which would leave land in private ownership, mostly farms and ranches, while it would preserve the critical habitat for wildlife. It would pay for wildlife education programs, provide matching funds for communities to develop their own projects and programs to support these objectives. It should be noted that rather than purchase lands, we need to seek conservation easements, leases or cooperative which are the preferred option. Working cooperatively with the Utah Department of Natural Resources, willing land owners may (inaudible) to wildlife habitat while continuing to produce important commodities on their properties. My time is up so——
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. No. Finish your statement.
Mrs. CLARKE. Okay. Today fewer than 7 percent of Utah's over 700 resident wildlife species have a steady reliable funding base to support their management. Passage of CARA will be a conservation milestone in Utah and the nation for maintaining wildlife diversity and for keeping many species off the endangered species list. The results of a survey conducted again by Utah State University indicate that Utah statesmen were highly supportive of funding programs to manage the wildlife diversity. Furthermore, given a number of choices, they overwhelmingly preferred having these programs paid for by assessments on energy development.
The message is clear. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 is exactly what the people want. A broad variety of outdoor recreation needs were documented during Governor Leavitt's recent Utah Great Outdoors Conference. Representatives from every planning district in the state expressed critical needs for reliable and stable funding to keep pace with Utah's expanding population of outdoor active people. They also identified the need to replace facilities that are being used in new and more impacting ways and to maintain critical habitat for wildlife.
What would CARA ultimately mean for Utah and the nation? It will provide for protection and restoration of our coastal habitats. It will cause land and water conservation activities, providing essential recreation opportunities for our citizens and provide for our consistent and dedicated plan to conserve our precious fish and wildlife resources. All of this will mean that we can maintain our quality of life as our cities and towns experience great economic growth.
Passage of CARA would recommit Congress and this nation to the principle that a part of the revenues earned from depletion of nonrenewable offshore oil and gas reserves should be reinvested in permanent assets that will serve the conservation and recreation needs of all the home owners.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congressman Hansen and members of this Committee, we stand at a crossroads, faced with an unprecedented opportunity to preserve and enhance our natural resources for generations to come. We encourage you to aggressively work to enact legislation for the sake of our children because if our children lose touch with their natural world, if they don't have a place under the sun to play, if they care more about video games and the Internet than they do about the wildlife and the outdoors, then our precious natural resources will be in trouble and so will our children.
Thank you for your time. And I would be happy to take questions and with your indulgence would invite these two gentlemen to join me in answering your questions since they are the program managers that will be directly responsible for the oversight implementation of the state's acquisitions (inaudible).
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Nelson, anything you'd like to add to Kathleen Clarke's statement? Mr. Kimball, anything you'd like to add? Questions for this panel. The young lady from Idaho is recognized for five minutes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get into my questioning, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record about 2,000 survey questionnaires that Mr. Cushman has accumulated on this issue. Secondly, the testimony of the Washington Farm Bureau, a letter in opposition for the record. Thirdly, the testimony of Fred Grant, who is a constitutional attorney. We were not able to get him on the program. And a publication by Mr. Wayne Hage entitled ''Property and War'' which may clearly explain why this transfer is occurring in this day and age.
Mr. HANSEN. Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered.
[The 2,000 Survey Questionnaires will be kept on file at the Committee office in 1324 Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC]
H.R. 701—ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM MAY 3 THROUGH JUNE 11, 1999
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Wentz, Alan
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
Gordon, Gerald E.
Utah Wildlife Federation
Carpenter, L. Steven
Utah Recreation & Parks Association
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Pfeiffer, Donald G.
Washington, IA
[The Washington Farm Bureau letter may be found at the end of the hearing.]
[The statement of Fred Grant and The Wayne Hage Article, ''Property and War'' follows:]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Clarke, I wanted to ask you, Utah has a——
Mr. HANSEN. We ought to get that mike a little closer, if you would, Mrs. Chenoweth, so that they can pick it up over here.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much. Mrs. Clarke, I wanted to ask you, Utah now has about 65 percent of its land base in Federal ownership and you are supporting more of that in the Open Spaces Title II element of this bill. How much does Utah have to give? Is it 70 percent, 80 percent? Where are you going to draw the line?
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CLARKE. I think our primary interest in supporting this bill is the state side funding that would come to us to allow us to utilize monies for development of local recreation initiatives. Funding that traditionally has been used on the Federal side has only been used in this state at the will and desires of the people. It's always had a congressional sponsor and been strongly supported for very specific reasons. So we have not experienced abuses in the dealing of Federal money on this.
And there may have been some very appropriate uses. We have received money from this to help deal with the endangered species in Washington County. We have a habitat conservation program down there and without the Federal funding, that would have been a tremendous burden on that community down there to deal with that endangered species and funding has come from the Federal sides of that program. So there have been very appropriate uses.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mrs. Clarke. How much of a percentage are you willing to give up of Utah to the Federal Government? Is it 65 percent, 70, 75? Where are you going to draw the line? Where is the state going to stand up and say we've had enough?
Mrs. CLARKE. I think we need to draw that line on individual specifics. Like I say, there are instances where we have welcomed some Federal participation and Federal funding but our focus really is on getting the acquisition, the opportunity to deal with the state side issues. It may be these gentlemen would like to add something from their perspective as they've dealt with that Federal piece.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think it's important to have an end goal in mind. How much is the state willing to give up to the Federal Government? It's at 65 percent now. Are you willing to draw the line at 70 percent or 75 or 80 or 85? Where does it stop?
Mrs. CLARKE. I don't think any of us want to see an increase in Federal ownership of land in this state.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Could you help define for me what open space means?
Mr. KIMBALL. Yes, ma'am. I think from a wildlife standpoint at least, open space is basically wildlife habitat and it's to some extent difficult to call it open space because many of the critical habitats in our state are really surrounded by public land, as you pointed out, but open space is critical for wildlife for the same reasons it was critical for pioneers that moved here. They settled on these lands and they developed these lands and currently those lands support vital elements of wildlife resources and our desire, really from a wildlife standpoint, is to maintain the uses of those lands and the wildlife populations that they support right now.
You were talking about Federal ownership and I think from a wildlife standpoint we're not interested in even state ownership of these lands. We're simply interested in trying to maintain these lands in the situation or condition that allow them to support wildlife populations.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Kimball—if the chairman will just allow me one more question. By definition in this bill, wildlife is termed and defined and wildlife associated recreation is defined as that which can meet the demand for outdoor activities associated with wildlife including but not limited to hunting, fishing, restoration of wildlife viewing areas, observation towers, blinds, platforms, land and water trails, wildlife conservation, education and it also includes game and nongame wildlife. I mean, it could be anything, plant or animal or anything that appears on private property or Federal property or state property. So you see, we're not drawing the boundaries very well in terms of where this ends and what the boundaries of this bill really are. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson, is recognized for five minutes.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony here today. And let me tell you where I'm coming from and some of the reasons that I haven't taken a position on this bill yet. On the one hand I see the advantages of this having served on a local city council and used Land and Water Conservation Funds and made communities more livable by providing recreational facilities for the youth and adults in those communities. I think those Land and Water Conservation Funds are very important and I would like to see those funds replenished. This legislation obviously would put money back into those sorts of activities.
And I think that we have to have livable communities, means we have to have recreational facilities available for both our youth and our adults and we need to upgrade in Idaho, as I'm sure in Utah, our parks. We have insufficient funding to maintain the current park system we have, let alone expand it for the use of the people around this state. Oftentimes people in Idaho cannot even get a reservation in a state park because of the unavailability of spaces. You call January 1st and by the end of the day, they're filled up for the rest of the year. And so the people of Idaho really need those recreational opportunities and recreational spaces.
On the other side there's a great deal of concern about, as was just mentioned by the other congressman from Idaho, about private property rights and Federal ownership and more ownership of Federal land. Would you support or could you see an amendment to this being beneficial which would be a no net gain type of amendment which if the state or the Federal Government were to purchase land, private land and take it off the tax rolls, that it would have to give up land currently owned by the Federal Government so that in the state there would effectively be a no net gain?
Mrs. CLARKE. Mr. Nelson asked in he could respond to this question, so I defer.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, Representative Simpson, I think that is a working title that has lots of value. We have that same situation in Utah right now with our land acquisition within the state government. And while it is sometimes hard to pin down exactly the formula which should be used for that and under what conditions, I think we have been successful in achieving that goal and objective. As to whether that would work with the Federal Government or not, I think it would be a concept that could be massaged and could seek the support of some Federal agencies who are those most directly impacted (inaudible).
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Most of our acquisition on the state side comes from those local communities, five, 10, 15, 20 acres. None of us deal anymore without partnerships. And my personal experience here in Arizona as the director, almost every acquisition involves a willing seller who is very interested in us taking over their property at a fair market value or at a compensated value below that for tax purposes and they in fact are bringing to us opportunities. How that particular scenario fits into a no net loss for a state agency, we have been able to work that out and I would think that would have some potential with the Federal Government in the vast (inaudible).
The difference, and I would think Mr. Kimball may want to speak about this federally, is that the critical lands for play, for the wildlife habitat, are those that everybody seeks for the most part, as opposed to let's say some desert environment or some hard to access areas that the Federal Government would own and may not have for the near future any good public recreation or wildlife use.
Mr. SIMPSON. You mentioned that yours at the state level it's a willing seller/willing buyer provision.
Mrs. CLARKE. Always.
Mr. SIMPSON. It's my understanding under this provision, under this statute, that the Federal Government would not be able to condemn land. It would have to be willing seller/willing buyer; is that as you understand it?
Mr. NELSON. That is the case. We haven't used the eminent domain type thing one time in 25 years and I would never propose that in this day and age. As I said, for the most part my experience has been completely the opposite. This was the case down in St. George with our habitat conservation but we have been scrambling to meet the needs of these land owners (inaudible).
Mrs. CLARKE. That philosophy is consistent throughout the department. We never want to be heavy handed. There's some wonderful programs in wildlife where we're working on conservation easements but always the goal is to leave the land in private ownership. We have a state private property ombudsman. We may be one of the only states in the country that has that because of our commitment to private property rights. That person is housed and totally supported in my department and we often consult them to make sure we are not treading on private property rights.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SIMPSON. Well, I compliment you for that.
Mr. KIMBALL. I would just second what Courtland said and that's the fact that our interest is in maintaining wildlife habitat. It's not in owning or managing lands and we feel like the traditional uses that are there are currently supporting the wildlife habitats that we're interested in maintaining. So it's working with those traditional occupants of those lands and the industry that supports them that keeps them there. That's where our interest is.
Mr. SIMPSON. Again, I thank you for your testimony.
Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from the second district in Utah, if you have questions we'll recognize you five minutes.
Mr. COOK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I really want to commend this first panel. I know Ms. Clarke, Mr. Kimball and Mr. Nelson have worked hard and presented, I'm sure, the view of the governor of the state as you visit us in our offices in Washington and your help with regard to some of these amendments to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act have been very, very helpful and I want to commend you for your work.
I did want to ask you, Kathleen, specifically, for the people that live in the Salt Lake Valley, my congressional district is actually one of the most—it's not only by far the most urban congressional districts in the state but even in all of the western United States, one of the most urban congressional districts and I think people in Salt Lake really do appreciate the open space. I think they appreciate these opportunities. And could you kind of describe specifically for Salt Lake folks that are kind of bottled up in tight quarters most of their living experiences, what some of the programs that would affect some of the parks, that are close by, that are close here right to Salt Lake, and if you could even comment on maybe some of the educational impacts of the bill.
Mrs. CLARKE. I have here a list. Let me just read you a few of the projects that of right now where we have requests for funding through this program for Salt Lake. The Boys and Girls Club Park, which is a playground and volleyball courts. Environmental Center, Interpretive and Education in Landscaping Center, the Jordan River Parkway, monies for land acquisition and trail development along that corridor, a sports field facility which is for kids to play ball, just good wholesome recreation opportunity. The Lodestone Park, which would be for picnicking, playgrounds and some rest rooms. Again, the Dimple Dell, the Seventh East Park, which would be picnicking, sports again, and play field. Hidden Valley trailhead, the Bingham Creek Pedestrian and Bicycle Trail.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So you see in there a whole array of different kinds of things, some that are an interpretive opportunity, an educational opportunity, some for just recreation, wholesome activities for kids, others that would be more serene and a place to go walk, to think, to retreat from the city. I'm going to let Courtland speak to the list of projects in a broader context all over the state.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman and Representative Cook, I think it's two components to be answered. One that Kathy gave, that there is a strong need in the Wasatch Front and in the urban areas to provide that close-to-home recreational opportunity. While we speak of Yellowstones and Yosemites and Grand Canyons, many of us have life experiences that are close to home. Part of it sticks with us forever, whether it's a young family with their kids out enjoying the open space in the playground or a hike along the Jordan River or in the case of Idaho, some of the wonderful things you've done with your trails in Boise and in the Ketchum area and exists along the Colorado, along the Platte.
Those are wonderful opportunities where the Federal money matches the local money for the improvements and those close-to-home opportunities because there are many people in these urban cities who cannot get out to southern Utah or up to the Uintahs to have that recreation.
I think also, particularly in your district, Representative Cook, we in the state parks and the Federal recreation areas are the playgrounds for your citizens. Every Friday night the highways are full with people during the summer months, and more and more in the spring and the fall, who are heading to eastern Utah, southern Utah and expecting some basic recreation facilities, whether it's for wildlife opportunities, whether it is for boating or hiking, they play where we provide facilities and then come back to your district to live their lives. So I think there's two answers to that question.
If I may address your attention to this map here, and I will pick up and pass it. The recommended projects for John's wildlife programs, as well as for the suggested grants that we have received from potential applicants should CARA pass. That will give you a good feel for the geographic distribution for these projects.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, if I could take one more minute, I'd like to ask Mr. Kimball to comment on some of the urban initiatives of the Division of Wildlife Resources.
Mr. KIMBALL. I appreciate that. I would have tried to butt in anyway. We're really interested—as you know, there are two components to Title III that address specifically wildlife recreation and wildlife education and Kathleen said in the end of her statement that we need to make sure that there is a connection between our urban citizens and the wildlife resources of this state. We expect these future citizens to really support wildlife programs and that connection's important for our agency.
Just about a month ago in Representative Hansen's district in Davis County we partnered with Davis County and a number of other people in a bird festival to talk about wetlands and wetland values and Davis County felt like I think it was an extremely successful partnership. Two weeks ago about, director Clarke participated in an urban fishing sort of ribbon cutting program at Farmington Pond where we've partnered with local sportsmen's groups to develop a fishing pier into a pond, a handicapped access fishing pier for urban fishing.
I also have a residence down here in the mouth of City Creek. I spend a great deal of my time when I'm not working, walking up City Creek just to get away from my work, quite honestly. And I think that's important. And those of you that were here last night and saw the news would perhaps note that I think it's the University of Utah that's voting on Monday whether or not to consider a conservation donation of foothill range. It's an important component for us in this urban area.
Mr. COOK. I want to thank you. I would also like to ask the chairman for unanimous consent for one additional minute just to ask another follow-up question of this panel.
Mr. HANSEN. No objection. So ordered.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COOK. One of the concern—I appreciate, because I think there are many programs, as I said in my opening statement, that would really be of benefit to us here. One of the concerns I share with my colleague from Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth, is that do you think could be a problem in either of these bills of adding to the Federal bureaucracy of our land management and is there any chances that taxes would have to be increased as a result if these bills are enacted?
Mrs. CLARKE. On the face of the bill I do not read that. John, did you want to say something?
Mr. KIMBALL. From the Title III component it simply partners into an existing Pittman-Robertson program that quite honestly, Federal Governments and states have used for almost 50 years. It's that very program that's rebuilt in many cases wildlife populations, of the game wildlife populations, and that component simply fits into that. It's one of the things that as a state director, I really appreciate the fact that it uses a system that I'm already comfortable with and as I understand, there is no tax addition, it's a distribution, a redistribution tax.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, Representative Cook, I wanted to add that as I read H.R. 707 there is also a requirement that payment in lieu of taxes, the bill is increased and an interest from the fund goes to the counties that have Federal land.
Mr. COOK. Thank you very much.
Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mrs. Clarke, if you had your druthers on this, which one of these bills would you prefer, H.R. 701, H.R. 798?
Mrs. CLARKE. We support H.R. 701. The only element of H.R. 798 we would love to see incorporated is a funding stream to support the Forest Legacy Program which has been an important source of funding for the State of Utah. We have a state option on that money so that we can get money directed to the state. The land that we deal with under the Forest Legacy Program in Utah does not go to the Federal Government. It stays in private hands for the conservation needs with the option of either the state or private interest holding that conservation easement. So we would love to see an amendment and would certainly support one but in general we support H.R. 701.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Would the state support running the state side funds through the state legislature to authorize these state projects?
Mrs. CLARKE. I'm going to invite these two gentlemen to respond since they would be the ones directly responsible for the management of those funds.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, on the state parks side of the state fund we are required to bring all of our capital projects through two committees. They have to approve those before those monies could be spent. And of course there is a state requirement for that that I would have to work in achieving. So on the state side, which historically has amounted to 31 percent (inaudible). That occurs nationally. It gets more cumbersome if you require the locals to also go through a state approval process in order to (inaudible). I think the (inaudible) value to the west that I think runs headlong into some of the things we're dealing with local control and to have local agencies have to go through another bureaucratic exercise in order to match those state funds I think would be duplicitous.
We have a citizen board in our case in Utah and I believe that's the case in Arizona and Colorado, I'm not sure about Idaho, that has—they review the grant applications, they rank them and they make those awards and that goes to my state parks board who again rate them and rank them and those go out to the citizens so you have two levels of citizen board evaluation based on staff evaluations but these also add some integrity to the system.
Mr. KIMBALL. The legislation, as I understand it, calls for a public process to help develop, in the wildlife programs anyway, the programs that we'll implement and I guess I can assure you that our state legislature, who authorizes my spending feel, I think, like they have pretty good oversight on what our agency does and what our agency doesn't do. They don't direct the funding as you've indicated but they do direct where I'm allowed to spend money and I would assume that that's the level of oversight that they'd be comfortable with.
Mr. HANSEN. I see from your booklet that there's apparently pretty good support for this issue in the State of Utah executive branch. The legislative branch, where are they coming from? Have you heard anything from those folks? What about county commissioners and mayors, people like that?
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CLARKE. I believe the mayors of the Utah League of Cities and Towns is fully behind this. We have many of our cities that have supported it. There have been some concerns raised about private property issues. We believe that they can all be accommodated and addressed within the context of the bill and that this would not be abusive in any way regarding those private property rights. But we think there's overwhelming support as indicated by that lengthy list of people who have rallied around and see the great benefits of having this funding available to the communities and to the state to use in all of these objectives we've discussed.
Mr. HANSEN. The president of the senate or speaker of the house, have they taken a stand on this?
Mr. NELSON. I'm not aware of them taking a stand but I can say that last year in our legislative session particularly dealing with wildlife habitat and wildlife habitat issues, we spent a lot of time talking about how we would fund the protection of wildlife not only from the standpoint of preserving wildlife values on private lands but mechanisms to do that and I think our legislature was extremely comfortable with the concept of conservation easements and working with conservation easements to secure wildlife conservation on private lands.
Mr. HANSEN. I've noticed that you've already addressed Title II and Title III, which I wanted to ask about and also private property interests that you've talked about, and I won't ask you but I'd like you to respond, if you would, when you did have the land conservation fund or when it was to be fully funded how was the money spent in Utah. I guess that's in your booklet also.
Mrs. CLARKE. It is.
Mr. HANSEN. And I've looked at your list of what you anticipate you will do from later on so I see my time is up. We've now been joined by the congressman from the Third Congressional District, a member of the Committee and, Mr. Cannon, if you have any opening statement or anything you'd like to ask these witnesses, we'll recognize you for five minutes.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd ask unanimous consent to have my opening statement just included in the record.
Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. So ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cannon follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Thank you Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to welcome our colleagues to our beautiful state. I am honored to host our Committee. Also, I would like to welcome our panelists and extend my appreciation to them for taking time on a Saturday morning to discuss this important legislation. I know our Chairman, Mr. Young, has worked very hard and diligently on this legislation and he is very proud of it. I also understand many groups have some concerns with various issues contained in the legislation. I hope that our discussion today will provide some insight into those concerns and provide a helpful dialogue to address any outstanding matters. I am anxious to let our panelists begin their remarks, so I will try to keep my comments brief.
Many of our panelists this morning will highlight the benefits of H.R. 701. While I recognize H.R. 701, provides some great benefits for the states, including Utah, I would like to note that I understand this legislation is not without fault. There are many individuals who are concerned that this bill encourages the acquisition, by the Federal Government or states, of more land. I suspect that some of our witnesses this morning will touch on those concerns.
H.R. 701 would establish a new formula and procedure to distribute funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Historically, the Secretary of the Interior has been appropriated roughly $270 million annually for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands throughout the United States. In the past, these acquisitions have occurred without any accountability or consideration of property rights or existing Federal areas. I would like to commend the Chairman for including language in H.R. 701 which adds significant private property protection and Congressional oversight to the process.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I know we have a full morning ahead of us and I am eager to hear from the knowledgeable individuals before us today. I suspect we will have a good discussion and I look forward to examining all aspects of the legislation.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CANNON. I want to apologize for being here a little late. We committed to a parade in Springville before this hearing was set and I appreciate the chairman's willingness to defer this hearing for an hour and still it was impossible for me to get here on time. I apologize.
I want to thank the panelists in particular for being here. We've actually spent some time privately talking about these issues. And let me point out that the booklet which I think you're referring to is the booklet that members of the panel have given me in the past and I think that's a remarkably thoughtful and thorough book and so at this point and given the number of panelists I think we're going to have today, I think I'll yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Do any members of the Committee have additional questions for the panel? Mrs. Chenoweth recognized for five minutes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, this won't take five minutes but I wanted to let Mrs. Clarke know that I am very, very supportive of restoring the Land and Water Conservation Funding system as it was passed in 1965, which is a far better formula for the states than what is laid out in H.R. 701. I have been working with Yvonne Farrell from my state. I enjoy the green belt with my children and grandchildren. While I don't believe that this is a basic function for the Federal Government, it's part of our life today.
And, for the record, I have said on and off the record and I'll say it again, I think we made a serious mistake in 1995 when we took funding away from the states while not at the same time taking funding away from the Federal Government. There is nothing that can really help families more than to be able to pray together and play together. Yvonne Farrell made that point to me when I spent a day with her mountain biking and biking on the green belt. When we have parks and recreational areas close to homes where parents really know where their children are playing, it does make a difference.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My concern, as you know, is of the expansion of Federal ownership. Secondly, my concern in this bill is that this bill would require a partnership with the Secretary of Interior having all final say on what kind of program that you would implement and it would require 50 percent matching funds. It allows for local units of government to go around the governor and form a partnership with the Federal Government and of course it increases overall Federal spending. But, like I say, we made a mistake in 1995. We must correct that mistake and bring that funding back to the states. So within that frame of reference I'm very supportive of doing that.
Mrs. CLARKE. I appreciate hearing that and it sounds to me like we have a lot in common in terms of what our interests are. Our primary interest here today as I stated is to see that mechanism back in place. We acknowledge there are some concerns on the Federal funding side and trust that you will deal with those appropriately. I want to tell you I appreciate the values that I think we all embrace regarding the need for recreation, for wholesome recreation close to home, as well as for protection of our wildlife interests and values that are out there.
We like the context of the bill. It allows for local governments, however, to design some of their own recreational needs. It fits into some local solutions to some of our compelling needs, creates partnerships that we want to support. And as a single mother with three sons, let me just add a personal note and say that, you know, I don't take my boys fishing or take them camping but I really enjoy those things that are close to home, things that are easy for me to access. I'm a busy woman and I'm very grateful that there have been things close to home for us to do together as a family. And I echo what has been said, we need to pray and play together. And we are just anxious to have funding available to help us accommodate the compelling demands of our citizens to continue to enjoy those types of opportunities.
With growth moving ahead in this state as it is, and we're looking at doubling our population before 2020, we're just overwhelmed with needs to repair and restore facilities that are falling apart now as well as to look to the future as to how we're going to accommodate the increasing demands for those types of opportunities.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We would love to see this legislation or a formula for the state to get back into the funding picture enacted by this legislation or by this legislature and encourage you to consider it. Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We appreciate Kathleen Clarke, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Kimball for their testimony and we will excuse this panel. And I don't see Mayor Bell coming in so we'll call on the second panel. Mr. Bert Smith of Ogden, Utah, Mr. Robert Valentine of Brigham City, Utah, Mr. Don Peay, executive director, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife of North Salt Lake, Utah, Mr. Travis Hall, public relations manager of Browning Arms in Morgan, Utah. If they would come up, we'd appreciate it. We appreciate the panel being here. Mr. Smith, if you would like to go first, sir, we'd appreciate hearing from you. If you'd pull that mike over, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF BERT SMITH, OGDEN, UTAH
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could you find something to tape that on that board? It's an important map. Distinguished congressmen, I appreciate being able to say my piece here about this bill. I'm Bert Smith, president of the National Federal Land Conference, an organization designed to protect private property. Our office is located in Bountiful, Utah. My home address is a ranch in Nevada and a townhouse in Ogden, Utah and a business in Ogden, Utah, as my papers will describe.
I'm a member of the Nevada Cattle Association and a member of the board of directors. I'm a member of the Utah Cattle Association and the New Mexico Cattle Association. I have property in all those states.
I'm well acquainted with the public land issue, probably as well as any witness you will ever have because I'm known in my own circles, not very widely because I'm only a country bumpkin, but I'm known as Mr. Sagebrush Rebellion and I continue to fly that flag. It's an important flag to me because we stand for no net loss of the private property and Mr. Chairman, as you well know that was an important issue at one time and even Senator Hatch, wanted to pass the bill in that respect.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have a business that is widely known as an agri-business and we do business with all of the livestock people in the west. It's not just a country store, it's a world country store because we have visitors from all over the world come there. It's quite a museum piece and we have anything you want, if we can find it and we have a big sign that says that. And another big sign that says Holy cow, what a great store. So we're not sober all the time. We make fun of ourselves and the public love it. It's a menagerie but it's not small.
And we enjoy our ranch people and they come there to buy wholesale and retail. We do wholesale in seven states. We sell as many as 2,000 saddles a year. We're the second largest horseshoe dealer in the United States. We're the largest Wrangler jean dealer in Utah.
To go on, I have some substantial land holdings in Nevada and Arizona and New Mexico. I am an in holder. The government surrounds me. And the reason I want this map up there is you're well acquainted that the black is federally owned. I mean Nevada is all Federal land outside of Reno and Las Vegas, a few of the bigger cities, are in holders.
You'll notice there that the gray snake that runs across there is 40 miles wide, that represents the railroad. I mean every other section is in holding by the railroad. They're the money out there trying to push this thing through. They would love to sell some of their mountaintops that they've got as the largest land grant in the history of the world. They'd like to sell that and some of the oil companies feel the same way. In Reno there is a big influence from the oil companies on this bill.
We're deeply disappointed in Representative Don Young and other good Republicans who would sponsor such a bill. Buy up more land to be held in the tight iron grip of the Federal Government.
Bill H.R. 701 has so many golden threads woven into a blanket of untruths that it's misleading. This sounds like a motherhood bill and it opens the door that would let Clinton/Gore walk in or drive a truck through that door if we let that crack open. They have some real money spent on bills out there that they would like to buy up everything. This is a very dangerous door opener. There is one thing that we all agree that——
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman——
Mr. HANSEN. The young lady from Idaho.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. Smith additional time of three minutes.
Mr. HANSEN. Hearing none—what do you need, Mr. Smith, three more minutes? You have three more minutes.
Mr. SMITH. Well, I'll sum it down.
Mr. HANSEN. So ordered. Debbie, could you give him three more minutes?
Mr. SMITH. I'm known as a talker so I apologize for taking——
Mr. HANSEN. I think you're doing fine.
Mr. SMITH. The bill violates Article 1, Section 8 and the government should be held to the limited ownership of land. I would like to submit as my witness a book that cost a quarter of a million dollars in legal research, ''How the West was Lost.'' This will undo the sweetheart deals the Federal Government has been delving in for a hundred years.
Mr. HANSEN. Is there objection to the book being submitted into the record? Hearing none, so ordered.
Mr. SMITH. And also ''The Golden Fleece'' is the one that's been out for a long time. It has a lot of wonderful information on this subject of why the Federal Government shouldn't be in the land business. And the Federal Government owns 42 percent of the United States, 92 percent of Nevada. How much is enough? The question has been asked here today, how much more do they want? Do they want it all? That would be total socialism if they had it all. Are we going to be a free country or are we going to give it up? That's the question I'd like to ask. Thank you.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. And all of the information you've given us, we'll include that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
STATEMENT OF BERT N. SMITH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERAL LANDS CONFERENCE
Dear Sir/Maam,
I am Bert N. Smith, President of the National Federal Lands Conference, an organization used to protect private property rights, which is located in Bountiful, Utah.
I am authorized to give testimony for the Coalition of Counties in Arizona and New Mexico.
I am a Utah Agri-business owner in both the retail and wholesale sectors.
I am a Nevada cattle rancher and a member of the Nevada Cattlemen's Board of Directors.
I am an inholder, (Owner of land surrounded by federally owned land).
H.R. 701 is a very dangerous bill that would give the Federal Government billions of taxpayers dollars to buy up private land and remove it from the counties tax base.
We are deeply disappointed that Rep. Don Young and other ''good'' Republicans would sponsor this bill. We are also disappointed that the bill is getting support from the National Governors Association and the National Association of Counties.
This bill, H.R. 701, has so many golden threads woven into a blanket of untruth that it has misled both the state and county organizations.
We do not need more government ownership of land. Government ownership of land is a violation of the very foundation of this free government, the right to own private property. Here are a few of the reasons that additional Federal ownership is unlawful and unneeded.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
1. This bill violates Article I Section 8. Five western states have passed laws and we need to reinforce them.
2. This bill violates Article IV Section 4. This guarantees that the state and the people are sovereign. The Federal Government should never have the power of eminent domain.
3. Exhibit #1. The Golden Fleece. Nevada is 90 percent owned by the Federal Government and 6 percent owned by the railroad. The railroads are the biggest inholders and have the most to gain by selling all of their unusable land. Also, the oil companies.
4. Exhibit #2. ''How the West was Lost,'' a complete document of how the Federal Government has completely manipulated laws and usurped the right of property ownership. Page 240 and 241 explains how the Federal Government violated the trust and kept the deed to the western land. Page 239 exposes a sweetheart law suit (Kleppe) that must be overturned. This book is a very complete and extensive legal document.
5. The Federal Government has caused almost all of the inholder disasters such as declaring private property critical petro clif areas. The people must pay tax and can't use the land.
I know of a man in Arizona whose rights rave been completely trampled upon. He has a subdivision on the Arizona strip that is approximately the size of St. George City. Appraisers have given it a worth of $20 million. The Federal Government has had it tied up for 15 years now, due to the idea that there are signs of desert tortoise. He pays thousands of dollars each year in taxes for land that he can't use or sell. This is just one example of the Federal Government abusing the property rights of citizens.
The number of property rights disasters that take place now is staggering. I fear that the number of abuses to property rights will become overwhelming if H.R. 701 is passed. It is an overwhelming problem now. H.R. 701 can not be supported by you or anyone else that loves or respects this country. The rights that we have here have been fought for for generations and these rights need to be preserved. H.R. 701 would destroy these rights and must not be supported.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Valentine, you're recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT VALENTINE, BRIGHAM CITY, UTAH
Mr. VALENTINE. Thank you, Congressman Hansen and members of this Committee. I appreciate the invitation and opportunity to testify in support of this legislation this morning, for both H.R. 701 and 798. I regard them as a major step in the direction of providing additional funding for the much needed use of Utah's recreational and wildlife advocates.
As you can see from my resume, I've been involved, intimately involved with wildlife management throughout my service as a wildlife board member for 10 years and I also served as Director of the Division of Wildlife Resources for a little over three years. Therefore, I feel qualified to talk about the wildlife management funding and their needs.
Through an appointment to and the continued service as the U.S. House of Representatives appointee to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, I've gained much valuable experience and understanding of the needs of the recreationalists in the state of Utah. With that very brief introduction, I'd like to continue my testimony.
Utah is not the unique state in the west. Our needs and objectives are common with other states throughout this portion of the country. In continued talks with various state directors and members of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, I was able to understand and conclude that funding the requirements and needs in Utah are not different from those in the surrounding states.
While serving as a city councilman and a county commissioner, I operated with a long-standing philosophy of use or pay. That's not been the situation in the state of Utah nor for that matter do I believe it's been the situation in many of the other western states.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The funding for wildlife management in the state of Utah is broken down quite generally as 65 percent coming from the sale of licenses and permits, 25 percent of their annual budget comes from Federal funds generated by Pittman-Robertson, Wallop-Breaux and Dingell-Johnson. The other 10 percent came from general fund appropriation and/or other sources within the state of Utah. As you can see, 85 to 95—85 to 90 percent of the funding for wildlife management within the state of Utah came directly from the sportsmen. This is a major imbalance.
The nonconsumptive community does not have an acceptable opportunity to contribute their fair share. Those individuals, particularly those in the last decade, have demonstrated a very passionate and strong feeling for wildlife and wildlife management and have taken a very active role in stating their management objectives in regard to wildlife management and what they would like to see done. I do not favor denying these people an opportunity to participate in that process. I think these two pieces of legislation go a long way toward addressing the need for additional funding here in the state of Utah.
As you probably heard many times in the past, as it relates to wildlife management, the Endangered Species Act has created many unfunded mandates the sportsmen in this state have been forced to fund because no other funding was available. Although the imbalance has improved somewhat in recent years, it's still an inadequate amount to conduct all of the required programs.
It does not require much stretch of the imagination to look at the Land and Water Conservation Funds as those generated through the general population and their purchase of patroling popular products. Therefore, this legislation, in my humble opinion, is a more balanced opportunity for funding of those unique wildlife management requirements that many of the nonconsumptive community feel very near and dear to them.
I think this legislation goes a long way in addressing this imbalance and I would encourage both houses of Congress to pass this very important critical legislation that is much needed by this state and other states throughout the country. As we address the continued and ever increasing needs for wildlife management and recreational opportunities, this can be the most beneficial legislation to resolve those concerns.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In closing, I thank you very much again for the opportunity and courtesy to continue to work toward passage of this legislation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Valentine follows:]
STATEMENT OF ROBERT G. VALENTINE, BRIGHAM CITY, UTAH
Thank you, Congressman Hansen. I appreciate the invitation and opportunity to testify in behalf of this legislation, both House Bill H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, as a major step in the direction of providing additional funding for the much needed use of Utah recreationalists and wildlife advocates. As you can see from my resume, I have been intimately involved with wildlife management through my service as a wildlife board member for ten years and also as I served as director of the Division of Wildlife Resources for a little over three years. Therefore, I feel qualified to talk about the wildlife management funding and their needs as well as through an appointment to and continued service as the U.S. House of Representatives appointee to the Utah Reclamation Mtigation and Conservation Commission. I have gained valuable experience and understanding of the needs of the recreationalists in the state of Utah. With that very brief introduction, I would like to continue my testimony.
Utah is not a unique state in the west. Our needs and objectives are common with the other states throughout this portion of the country. In continued talks with the various directors of the members of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, I was able to understand and conclude that the funding requirements and needs of Utah are not different. While serving as a city councilman and county commissioner, I operated with the long-standing philosophy of ''user pays.'' That has not been the situation in the state of Utah, nor for that matter do I believe it has been the situation in many of the other western states. The funding for wildlife management in the state of Utah is broken down quite generally as 65 percent came from the sale of licenses and permits, 25 percent of their annual budget came from Federal funds generated by Pittman-Robertson, Wallop-Breaux and Dingel-Johnson; the other 10 percent came from general fund appropriations and/or other sources within the state of Utah. As you can see, 85 to 90 percent of the funding for wildlife management within the state of Utah came directly from sportsmen. This is a major imbalance. The nonconsumptive community does not have an acceptable opportunity to contribute their fair share. These individuals, particularly in the last decade, have demonstrated a very passionate and strong feeling for wildlife and wildlife management and have taken a very active role in stating their management objectives in regard to wildlife management and what they would like to see done. I do not favor denying these people an opportunity to participate in that process. I think these two pieces of legislation go a long way toward addressing the need for additional funding here in the state of Utah.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you have probably heard many times in the past as it relates to wildlife management, the Endangered Species Act has created many unfunded mandates that the sportsman in this state have been forced to fund because no other funding was available. Although the imbalance has improved somewhat in recent years, it is still an inadequate amount to conduct all of the required programs. It does not require much stretch of the imagination to look at the Land and Water Conservation Funds as those generated through the general population and their purchase of petroleum products. Therefore, this legislation, in my humble opinion, is a more balanced opportunity for funding of those unique wildlife management requirements that many of the nonconsumptive community feel very near and dear to. I think this legislation goes a long way in addressing this imbalance and I would encourage both houses of Congress to pass this very important and critical legislation that is much needed by this state and other states throughout the country.
As we address the continued and ever-increasing needs for wildlife management and recreational opportunities, this can be the most beneficial legislation to resolve those concerns. In closing, I thank you very much again for the opportunity, and encourage you to continue to work toward passage of this legislation.
Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
Mr. VALENTINE. Mr. Peay.
STATEMENT OF DON PEAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SPORTSMEN FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE OF NORTH SALT LAKE, UTAH
Mr. PEAY. You have my written comments. I may vary from that just to reiterate points. I hate reading a prepared statement.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Incidentally, all the written comments that everyone will give will be included in the record and we appreciate you—we'll take your statement here but they'll all be included in.
Mr. PEAY. Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife is a very large sportsman group in the state. Several of you have attended our fund raisers and I would say we're probably 80 percent Republican except for the district of Mr. Cannon's in Price and that's a very democratic district but you know the support we have——
Mr. CANNON. And we love your sportsmen there, too, by the way.
Mr. PEAY. You saw 600 people come.
Mr. CANNON. That's right.
Mr. PEAY. We are mostly businessmen and we support limited government. We don't want any more government control than possible. But I would just have to say that public land is a great blessing because in Utah 95 percent of the private land says no trespassing, no hunting, no fishing, keep out. And so while we may be concerned about what the Federal Government does on Federal land, the verdict's already in on private land. We're locked out, period. That's where we recreate. That's where we hunt. That's where we fish is on public land. It's a great blessing to be able to go into the Grovant Wilderness of Wyoming or Hells Canyon in Idaho or any of these other western states. Public land is a great blessing.
Let me tell you just a few specific examples about what I've done the last 10 years. I was a businessman. I sold that business and got involved in the wildlife conservation business. The ranchers and the sportsmen in Utah were basically at war. There's too much wildlife. There's too many cows. And rather than let the Federal Government solve that solution, we decided to try to work together with the Farm Bureau, the cattlemen, the wool growers and we've done several projects involving millions of dollars where we either buy land or buy grazing permits or water rights and then we trade, swap, do various things in a win-win business, free market system as much as possible to solve problems.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And so we have a lot of ranchers who are our friends but frankly, there are a lot of ranchers who are going out of business and they call us and say, This is a better wildlife ranch than it is a cattle ranch, would you guys be interested in buying it? Mr. Hansen knows of the Wilcox ranch. They approach us, we don't go approach them. And so the challenge is as private groups it's hard to raise enough money to buy land and then turn it over to all the public that don't pay for that.
Just a quick example. When lands were settled in Utah, perhaps 4,000 private acres were settled to design access and control of 100,000 acres of public land. We had one place in Utah where half a million acres of public land was controlled by five families owning 20,000 acres. We were very excited in the Book Cliffs where there was a chance to buy these private lands to compensate these ranchers at fair market value and open up a half a million acres to public access to wildlife. So these are the benefits that can come through CARA funds if they're given as much local control as possible. We don't want the Federal Government in here trying to dictate but there is a need for funds to solve problems and we've done that successfully.
I'd just like to answer Ms. Chenoweth's question. I think 1 percent more in Utah. I think if we could acquire perhaps 200,000 acres of these highly leveraged ranches from willing sellers, that would solve a lot of problems with conflicts between wildlife and livestock and it would also open up access to millions of acres of public land that we've been locked out of. So it's not a great amount of land, it's just key strategic pieces of land.
And I also want to point out one other thing as we've dealt with many of these ranchers. When they say, Well, why can't you get money from the state or the Federal Government, we say, Well, some congressmen don't want us to do that. And they say, Well, isn't that violating our private property rights because we should be able to sell to any willing buyer. So that's a point. And these are direct comments from ranchers we've dealt with.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One other point of this legislation that we want to focus in on is there's been some discussion that this is an opportunity for the nonconsumptive people to contribute. It's really not a direct contribution. This is a royalty from offshore drilling. And we think strongly, as we've said, sportsmen have paid the bill for a long time. We would like to see funds from CARA go in to augment hunting and fishing programs which are lacking.
We always step up to the plate for license increases. The Utah Legislature passed a $6 habitat authorization license a couple years ago that generates $3 million a year to protect habitat. So sportsmen are always paying the bill. Now there's some free money and the other group wants all of it. We feel strongly that this money should go to augment hunting and fishing programs. And I think that—my time's running out.
You can read some comments of some ideas that we have specifically. But, as I say, in the last 10 years we've done this. We've solved problems. We've tried to do it through win-win business principles. And a lot of my people that support me are in the sporting goods industry and it's a $500 million industry in this state and this is a huge business that we need to protect. So 80 percent of us Republicans in our group think that CARA is a good concept. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peay follows:]
STATEMENT OF DONALD K. PEAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SPORTSMEN FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE
Dear Utah Delegation Members,
The organized sportsmen groups of Utah, strongly support the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), and offer some additional suggestions to create the best legislation possible for wildlife conservation.
For the past 100 years, sportsmen have carried the burden for ALL wildlife conservation. Literally billions of dollars have been invested. When hunting and fishing license fees are not enough, sportsmen support excise taxes such as Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux to generate billions more. Four years ago, the sportsmen of Utah requested the Utah legislature to create an additional habitat license that generates approximately $3 million additional dollars annually for habitat preservation in Utah. It is still not enough money, so sportsmen annually donate tens of millions more dollars to private organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, National Wild Turkey Federation and others.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last year, Congress considered passing an excise tax similar to Pittman-Robertson for non-hunting and non-fishing items (Teaming with Wildlife). The non-consumptive folks resisted this effort and the idea was defeated. These people absolutely refuse to directly pay for wildlife conservation, yet demand a huge voice in wildlife management.
CARA is an alternative funding source, and the funds are badly needed to protect wildlife habitat, as human populations continue to grow. Many groups feel that this ''free money'' should be used only or primarily for species that are not hunted or fished. We completely disagree: For decades sportsmen have funded millions of non-hunted species projects. Additional dollars are needed for species that are hunted and fished. When you protect habitat for species that are hunted and fished, you protect habitat for all species.
Perhaps one additional line should be added to legislation under intended uses, Title III, Section 302 to indicate:
''To augment existing hunting and fishing programs''
Core components of the Legislation
Because of the additional need to protect habitat for all species including those that are hunted and fished, we support CARA, H.R. 701. However, because of the historical funding for wildlife management, and the anti-hunting and anti-fishing agenda of some in the non-consumptive groups, we hope that the following core recommendations are in the legislation:
1. 100 percent of the control of how the money is spent is given to states
2. States retain title for all water, land and easements acquired with CARA money.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
3. A local public input process into how the CARA dollars should be spent.
4. Clearly indicate CARA dollars are for game and non-game species.
5. No Money—0 percent—of CARA dollars may be used to purchase lands and waters that would restrict hunting or fishing beyond normal limits established by the state wildlife commission. No money may be used to create non-hunting and non-fishing preserves.
6. 501 C 3 Wildlife Conservation organizations may obtain CARA dollars as part of on the ground or in the water matching funds for private wildlife conservation organization projects.
The best suggested use of CARA dollars in Utah:
Primary Uses
1. At least 50 percent of the CARA dollars in Utah go into securing winter range for large game species. The CUP project has hundreds of millions of dollars for wetlands and fisheries. The CRP program provides funding for upland game. Protecting Utah's big game winter range is Utah's greatest need, and is being most significantly impacted by human population growth. Securing big game winter range helps multitudes of other species.
2. Improve, enhance and rehabilitate existing Federal lands. There are millions of acres of Forest Service and BLM lands that could be greatly improved by the use of chaining, burning, re-seeding, and other habitat manipulation projects.
3. Acquisition of critical School and Institutional Trust Lands, that are being sold off in the thousands of acres on an annual basis in Utah.
4. Acquisition of water rights to protect in stream flows, wetlands, and riparian systems.
5. Acquisition of grazing permits from retiring ranchers. This will allow for resolving conflicts between wildlife and livestock on public lands.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secondary Uses
1. Perform studies and monitoring of species.
2. Hire more employees for specific species protection.
3. Law enforcement and education programs.
For the past 10 years, we have worked to protect wildlife populations, and to resolve conflicts between livestock and wildlife. There can be win/win solutions, as retiring ranchers are fairly compensated for their assets in a willing seller and willing buyer arrangement.
We appreciate your support of this critical piece of legislation to protect the industry of hunting and fishing, and the intrinsic value and quality of life associated with Utah's great wildlife heritage. However, if this legislation becomes nothing more than another Federal program, administered from Washington DC with bureaucracy and red tape, use the money to reduce the deficit.
Sincerely,
Donald K. Peay
Executive Director
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Peay. Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall is recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF TRAVIS HALL, PUBLIC RELATIONS MANAGER OF BROWNING ARMS IN MORGAN, UTAH
Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Resources. Let me first start out by saying that I apologize for the absence of our president Don Gobel. He was the person that was invited to testify today and had to go to Europe where the ownership of our company is but he felt that it was a very important topic that he has very much interest in so I'm here representing Browning.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My name is Travis Hall. I'm the public relations manager and I would like to thank you for this opportunity and I appear before you today with the strong support of Browning for H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999. Browning sincerely appreciates your efforts in bringing this conservation proposal to the table which will ensure the future of wildlife, the conservation of resources, and provide much in-demand recreational activities for our citizens resulting in economic growth to our communities.
Browning is also encouraged that many of the same needs were recognized in H.R. 798. As you know, the need for these programs in the states are significant. They enjoy wide public support and our children and their children will thank us for the commitment we make to ensure the conservation and vitalty of America's natural resources.
As many of you know, Browning is headquartered in Morgan, Utah. We are one of the largest manufacturers of sporting firearms as well as outdoor clothing, gun cases and accessories, archery equipment, footwear, knives, flashlights and gun safes. Browning employs over 120 people in Utah and sales top $200 million annually. Millions of people across the nation enjoy outdoor activities each year and the cost to manage the vast resources is enormous and has been funded largely by sportsmen and sportswomen.
Browning, through the Wildlife Restoration Act, or the Pittman-Robertson Act and the Federal Aid in Sports Fish Restoration Act, Dingell-Johnson and Wallop-Breaux has helped fund the management and restoration of fish and wildlife for over half century. These funds are the principal source of funds for state fish and wildlife programs. And I don't need to go into all of the details of what these funds aid in. For example, selection, acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation and maintenance of areas of land and water.
In addition, Browning has long supported local, national and international conservation organizations. These organizations, along with hunters and anglers for years have contributed to game species conservation. And I might point out that these game species conservation result in correlary benefits to nongame species from the conservation of habitat. These efforts that Browning is directly involved with through the Pittman-Robertson Act and the donations and the license fees that are charged to the sportsmen and anglers will greatly be enhanced by the additional funding to be provided by the Conservation and Reinvestment Act.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me give some reasons on why Browning supports H.R. 701. H.R. 701 commits the United States to a policy of dedicating revenues to securing the status of living renewable resources, conserving land and water resources, and providing outdoor activities for our cities and local communities through a permanent indefinite appropriation to fund state based programs.
H.R. 701 builds on the support the states have relied on for decades from our nations hunters and anglers to finance state fish and wildlife programs by broadening this funding support to a permanent indefinite appropriation from a general revenue source.
H.R. 701 focuses decisions on spending priorities at the local level where states and communities are in the best position to know what those needs and priorities are. We must facilitate local identification of issues and problem solving, not top down prescriptive solutions.
H.R. 701 allows states to work with private land owners in a nonregulatory manner to achieve their land management objectives consistent with good conservation for fish and wildlife.
And, finally, H.R. 701 builds on our citizens' strong sense of stewardship about their land by making them a part of the problem solving and implementation of solutions.
I might state that Browning is encouraged that H.R. 798 has provisions for funding to the states but that we strongly support H.R. 701. Let me conclude by saying sportsmen and sportswomen need help in funding the efforts to ensure the future of fish and wildlife in protecting their habitats. This is certainly one of the most important pieces of conservation legislation and Browning pledges its support and effort in working with you to enact this legislation this year to help preserve our natural resources.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
STATEMENT OF TRAVIS HALL, PUBLIC RELATIONS MANAGER, BROWNING
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee on Resources. My name is Travis Hall, Public Relations Manager at Browning. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today with the strong support of Browning for H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999.
Browning sincerely appreciates your efforts in bringing this conservation proposal to the table, which will ensure the future of wildlife, the conservation of resources and provide much in-demand recreational activities for our citizens, resulting in economic growth to our communities. Browning is also encouraged that many of the same needs were recognized in H.R. 798 the Permanent Protection for Americas Resources 2000 Act. As you know the need for these programs in the states are significant, they enjoy wide public support, and our children and their children will thank us for the commitment we make to ensure the conservation and vitality of America's natural resources.
Browning, which is headquartered in Morgan, Utah, is one of the largest manufacturers of sporting firearms as well as fine outdoor clothing, gun cases and accessories, archery equipment, footwear, knives, flashlights and safes. Browning employs over 120 people in Utah and sales top $200 million annually. Millions of people across the nation enjoy outdoor activities each year. The cost to manage the vast resources is enormous and has been funded largely by sportsmen and sportswomen. Browning, through the Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act) and the Federal Aid in Sports Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson and the Wallop-Breaux Amendment), has helped fund the management and restoration of fish and wildlife for over a half century. These funds are the principal source of funds for State fish and wildlife programs. These funds aid in the selection, acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, improvement and maintenance of areas of land and water that are feeding, resting and breeding places for fish and wildlife, and also aids in the research into problems of wildlife management. In addition, Browning has long supported local, national and international conservation organizations.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These organizations along with hunters and anglers for years have contributed to game species conservation, resulting in corollary benefits to non-game species from the conservation of habitat, etc. These efforts will be greatly enhanced by the additional funding to be provided by the Conservation and Reinvestment Act.
Mr. Chairman here are the reasons Browning supports H.R.701:
• H.R. 701 commits the United States to a policy of dedicating revenues to securing the status of living renewable resources, conserving land and water resources and providing outdoor activities for our cities and local communities, through a permanent, indefinite appropriation to fund state-based programs.
• H.R. 701 builds on the support the states have relied on for decades from our Nation's hunters and anglers to finance state fish and wildlife programs by broadening this funding support to a permanent, indefinite appropriation from a general revenue source.
• H.R. 701 focuses decisions on spending priorities at the local (not Washington) level, where states and communities are in the best position to know what those needs and priorities are. We must facilitate local identification of issues and problem solving, not top-down prescriptive solutions.
• H.R. 701 allows States to work with private landowners in a non-regulatory manner to achieve their land management objectives consistent with good conservation for fish and wildlife.
• H.R. 701 builds on our citizens' strong sense of stewardship about their land by making them a part of the problem solving and implementation of solutions.
Let me now briefly comment on H.R. 798. Browning is encouraged that H.R. 798 has provisions for funding to the states for State-based enhanced wildlife conservation. We are also encouraged that H.R. 798 seeks to use revenues under a permanent, indefinite appropriation. Both bills have similar objectives to provide funding for fish and wildlife.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman let me conclude my remarks by reiterating Brownings' support of H.R. 701. Sportsmen and sportswomen need help in funding the efforts to ensure the future of fish and wildlife and protect their habitats. This is certainly one of the most important pieces of conservation legislation and Browning pledges its' support and effort in working with you to enact this legislation this year to help preserve our natural resources.
Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Hall. From the three of you who testified in favor of this legislation, I would assume that the three of you come down on the side of H.R. 701; is that correct?
Mr. VALENTINE. Yes, sir.
Mr. HANSEN. We'll turn to the questions from the Committee. Mrs. Chenoweth, you're recognized for five minutes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, I want to thank you for your testimony and I would be interested in reading that first book that you put into the record, so I'll be in touch with you about that.
Mr. Peay, I wanted to thank you for being so decisive and focused in your testimony but I do want to say that I work on the Subcommittee for Forest and Forest Health in the Resources Committee and one of our biggest heartaches is that roads are now being closed for multiple use purposes and that includes hunting. Mr. Simpson just joined me and the Committee in a hearing in Idaho in the Targhee National Forest where the forest service has gone in and built not just berms, they called it berms, but 10- to 15-foot deep tank traps in order to stop access. The hunters and fishermen in my state, as well as people who have traditionally accessed the back country for berry picking and picnicking and camping and so forth are frustrated beyond belief because access to the back country is being closed.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, with that comment, I'd like to solicit the support of your organization in working with our Subcommittee in trying to keep access open to the back country on our federally controlled lands whether it's under the control of BLM or under the control of the forest service. I think we have a common ground here and that is to keep our back country open to hunters. That's our way of life. And with the gun control measures that are coming down the pike, with limited access for hunters, we can quickly see our way of life changing.
Mr. Valentine, I have studied your testimony and I've studied the suggestions that you have made to make improvements to H.R. 701, and I've got to say that three of them absolutely astounded me they were so good.
Number one is 100 percent control of how the money is spent would go to the states. Right now, the way the bill is put together the Secretary of Interior, in a top down system, has all final say over how the money is spent and how the state puts their plan together.
Secondly, you've recommended that the states retain all title to water, land and easements acquired with CARA money. Brilliant suggestion and I appreciate that.
And, thirdly, you suggested a local public input process on how CARA dollars will be spent. While that appears rather obliquely in the bill, I think it does need to be shorn up.
You also suggested that the 501-C-3 organizations, we call them the NGOs, nongovernment organizations, may obtain CARA dollars as part of the ground or water matching funds for private wildlife conservation organization projects and I wanted you make a note of what I'm going to refer to you because I'd like to get your input on this.
In Title II, Section 1006.A.1 it already provides for private nonprofit agencies or political subdivisions to be able to receive 70 percent matching funds from the Federal Government. However, it's interesting that the bill requires that the political subdivisions must report back as to how they spend their money to the secretary. They must report back to the Congress. However, that requirement is not in there for the 501-C-3s. So I think the 501-C-3s have gotten a pretty good deal there. But I want to thank you very much for your constructive comments.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. VALENTINE. Well, I would like to take credit for those, Congresswoman, but I think Mr. Peay made most of them.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Oh, did he? Well, let me direct my comment to him.
Mr. PEAY. We do have a lot of common ground, I think.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think we do. And those were, especially the first three, brilliant suggestions and I'd like to work with you on amendments to make sure that we get them into the bill. Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mrs. Chenoweth. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any specific questions for the panel. I just want to thank you for your testimony and you brought up some interesting points as a land owner. Good question. Shouldn't a land owner be able to sell their land to any willing buyer? I guess that's really the question here. As a land owner, I guess, Mr. Smith, you mentioned that you own land in Nevada and Utah and New Mexico. Should you be able to sell your land to a willing buyer.
Mr. SMITH. If I understand the question, do I have the right to sell my land to a willing buyer? Well, a willing seller and a willing buyer makes the deal. But in many cases we have the problem that the Federal Government causes the land values to be worthless by declaring some petroglyph or some endangered turtle species and then your land is worthless and you have no appraisal to sell and the government depreciates the value of your land below what it's worth.
For example, a $20 million subdivision, because it's infested with turtles, has been declared worthless because you can't use it to sell it. You pay $20,000 a year taxes on it.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SIMPSON. I agree that's really a problem with inholdings, too, in that they can restrict the use of your land and consequently decrease the value of it. And that is a concern that we ought to address somehow. But fundamentally, as a principle, it seems to me that as a land owner you ought to be able to sell your land to anyone who is willing to buy it, if you want to sell it. You can sell it now to the nature conservancy if you want to. You can sell it to Sierra Club if you want to. You could sell it to virtually any organization that had the right to buy it, that had a willingness to buy it and the money to buy it if you so chose to do it.
Mr. SMITH. I wouldn't in good conscience sell it to the Federal Government.
Mr. SIMPSON. And that would absolutely be your right as a land owner. But other land owners by preventing that, other land owners who may choose to do that would be prevented from doing that and should we by law prevent them from doing that if they so choose to do it of their own free will? Good fundamental question.
Mr. PEAY. I get asked that monthly.
Mr. SIMPSON. By individuals that want to sell their land.
Mr. PEAY. Uh-huh.
Mr. SIMPSON. The other thing that this—the conservation easements, the open space easement, the ability to use open space, today we are in Idaho developing—there's a program that's just beginning where they are trying to develop open spaces by paying ranchers/farmers to keep their land in ranch and farm land so that it's not developed into condos and so forth and so on to maintain those open spaces and the ability to keep some of these lands as open spaces and using that money to be able to do some of that and also to be able to use some of the money to purchase conservation easements and scenic easements in areas like the Sawtooth National Recreation area so that those aren't developed and degraded in future years is a very important aspect of this piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by pointing out that there were a few comments about Republicans and Democrats. This really is not a Republican/Democrat issue. It's actually, I believe, a fairly difficult Federal versus local issue and it's substantially complicated by our current practice in America. I just make the point that the current funding under LWCF would be $900 million for Federal acquisition without these bills. Historically, we've averaged about $300 million in Federal funding for that program and in recent years we've gotten to about $700 million so we've spent a lot of money in the Federal Government and the question is how do we do that.
Let me point out also that it's really not the fact of the matter wildlife versus cattle as Mr. Peay pointed out. Clearly there are a lot of alliances there but we do have substantial issues of our public lands use and our western lifestyle which is extraordinarily affected by the government.
When you have the Endangered Species Act, which I would suggest anybody who looks at a map and had the areas of the map enlarged based upon how many specialists the government has working on the endangered species program, you would see that the southwest is massively disproportionately represented in the heavier vegetated and lands that have greater wildlife on it and the northeast are desperately underrepresented on that map.
And, as a practical matter, I'm going to ask Mr. Smith here to comment on this in a moment, but it seems to me that when you have a Federal Government all the money the Federal Government has, numbers are quite mind boggling, in fact, that they actually become—they so dominate the market that you really don't have the kind of traditional buyer/seller relationship given all the weight that F