<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:43774.wais]
HEARING ON H.R. 1952 AND H.R. 1500 TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS
AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS, IN THE STATE OF UTAH AS
WILDERNESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-33
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
<snowflake>
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-774 CC WASHINGTON : 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
LINDA SMITH, Washington FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
Allen Freemyer, Counsel
Tod Hull, Professional Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held June 24, 1997....................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 6
Cook, Hon. Merrill, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 9
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni, a Delegate in Congress from the
Territory of American Samoa................................ 5
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland.......................................... 6
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Hinchey, Hon. Maurice, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York.......................................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Vento, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota......................................... 3
Statements of witnesses:
Harja, John A., Vice Chairman, Board of Trustees, Utah School
and Institutional Trust Lands Administration............... 26
Prepared statement....................................... 108
Johnson, Randy, County Commissioner, Emery County, Utah...... 21
Prepared statement....................................... 101
Judd, Joe, County Commissioner, Kane County, Utah............ 25
Prepared statement....................................... 105
Liston, Louise, County Commissioner, Garfield County, Utah... 23
Prepared statement....................................... 57
McIntosh, Heidi J., Legal Director, Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance................................................... 44
Prepared statement....................................... 126
Meadows, William H., President, The Wilderness Society....... 41
Prepared statement....................................... 112
Sease, Debbie, Legislative Director, Sierra Club............. 42
Prepared statement....................................... 119
Additional material supplied:
H.R. 1500 briefing paper..................................... 98
Text of H.R. 1952............................................ 59
Text of H.R. 1500............................................ 81
HEARING ON H.R. 1952 AND H.R. 1500, TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS
AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS, IN THE STATE OF UTAH AS
WILDERNESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1997
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National
Parks and Public Lands, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V.
Hansen (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Hansen. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public
Lands convenes to once again address the issue of Utah BLM
wilderness. We have proposals from Mr. Cannon and Mr. Hinchey
before us, and I commend these members for their hard work.
Although this has been a hotly contested issue over the
past 20 years in the State of Utah, and recently on a national
scale, it was this subcommittee that actually brought the issue
to the forefront last Congress.
The Utah Delegation, the Governor, the counties, and the
people of Utah entered a very long and arduous public process
to attempt to find a way to resolve this issue. Many have
wondered why I would be willing to engage in this debate once
again, given we have the same Administration, the same players
in the House and Senate.
We must undertake this issue again because it needs to be
solved for the State of Utah and for the benefit of the lands
we all want to protect. I am proud of the millions of acres of
wilderness I have helped designate in Utah and all over this
Nation. I firmly believe we need to protect the true wilderness
areas of southern Utah.
All of the issues in southern Utah that are gaining
national attention revolve around the wilderness issue. RS 2477
rights-of-way, the wilderness reinventory by Secretary Babbitt,
resource activities on public lands, and the designation of the
new monument all hinge on the designation of wilderness.
This process began over 20 years ago with the passage of
the 1976 Federal Land Policy Management Act. Since that time,
the professionals at the BLM spent over 15 years and over $10
million to study and inventory the BLM lands of Utah pursuant
to FLPMA. In 1991, the BLM recommended that 1.9 million acres
should be designated as wilderness of the 3.2 million acres
that are in Wilderness Study Areas.
Many, including Secretary Babbitt, disavow that entire
process, yet it has been upheld in Federal Court, and it is
this process under which these lands are currently protected.
This is the base from which we work, and certainly H.R. 1952
reflects the recommendations of the BLM. H.R. 1500, on the
other hand, represents an effort started by Wayne Owens to
protect 5.3 million acres--as you may recall, that was the
amount that Wayne had in his bill--that is supported by the
environmental community.
I would like to remind the Subcommittee that the counties
originally recommended approximately 1 million acres, and the
Utah Delegation doubled their suggestions last Congress. I
would also like to remind the Committee that the State
legislature did a 2-year exhaustive study--a very expensive
study, and they recommended 1.4 million acres.
At the same time, it has been made clear by the supporters
of H.R. 1500 that they will hold for 5.7 million acres, which
they are entitled to do. The formation of public policy
requires compromise, creative solutions, and doing what is
right for this country. I would encourage all those engaged in
this debate to work toward a solution as opposed to working
toward further polarization.
During the 104th Congress, the debate stepped outside the
bounds of the wilderness debate, and the rhetoric began to take
personal shots at those involved in the issues on both sides.
Mr. Hinchey and myself are colleagues. I respect his opinions,
and he has been a gentleman throughout this process. In fact,
Mr. Hinchey has authored a letter to the Utah press condemning
those who make personal attacks. I appreciate his efforts, and
this should always be above personal attacks on anyone.
I welcome our witnesses today. And I realize this is a
shorter notice than some would prefer, but I believe all sides
are adequately represented today. I hope we can hear testimony
that moves us toward a solution. Simply tearing apart another
proposal does little as far as educating the members and the
public. I hope we can focus on the lands we need to protect and
talk about positive ways to finally designate BLM wilderness in
Utah.
I have to say respectfully that I am just a little weary of
people saying we haven't given this adequate attention. I don't
know of an issue in my 38 years as an elected official that has
had more attention than this one. I don't want to put you all
to sleep, but I could tick off the numbers of Congressmen from
both the State of Utah and other States who have been to Utah
to look at these lands.
I am tired of going to every one of them. I have personally
been on every piece of this. I have looked at them. I have
tried to use the standard of what constitutes wilderness and
what does not. And hopefully we can come up with a compromise.
Our friend from Minnesota has to do a unanimous consent on
the floor, and if the gentleman from American Samoa would give
him the mike at this time, I would appreciate it.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
Statement of Hon. James V. Hansen, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Utah
The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
convenes to once again address the issue of Utah BLM
wilderness. We have proposals from Mr. Cannon and Mr. Hinchey
before us and I commend these Members for their hard work.
Although this has been a hotly contested issue over the past 20
years in the State of Utah, and recently on a national scale,
it was this Subcommittee that actually brought this issue to
the forefront last Congress. The Utah Delegation, the Governor,
the Counties and the people of Utah entered a very long and
arduous public process to attempt to find a way to resolve this
issue. After over 50 public meetings, thousands of personal and
written testimonies and three Congressional hearings, we were
still at an impasse over acreage and other issues. Many might
wonder why I would be willing to engage in this debate once
again given we have the same administration and the same
players in the House and Senate. We must undertake this issue
again because it needs to be solved for the State of Utah and
for the benefit of the lands we all want to protect. I am proud
of the millions of acres of wilderness I have helped designate
in Utah and all over this nation and I firmly believe we need
to protect the true wilderness areas of Southern Utah. All of
the issues in Southern Utah that are gaining national attention
revolve around the wilderness issue. RS 2477 rights-of-way, the
wilderness re-inventory by Secretary Babbitt, resource
activities on public lands and the designation of the new
Monument all hinge on the designation of wilderness.
This process began over 20 years ago with the passage of
the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Since that
time, the professionals at the BLM spent over 15 years and over
$10 million to study and inventory the BLM lands of Utah
pursuant to FLPMA. In 1991, the BLM recommended that 1.9
million acres should be designated as wilderness of the 3.2
million acres that are in wilderness study status. Many,
including Secretary Babbitt, disavow that entire process yet it
has been held up in Federal Court and it is the process under
which these lands are currently protected. This is the base
from which we work and certainly H.R. 1952 reflects the
recommendations of the BLM. H.R. 1500, on the other hand,
represents an effort started by Wayne Owens to protect 5.7
million acres that is supported by the environmental community.
I would like to remind the Subcommittee that the Counties
originally recommended approximately one million acres and the
Utah Delegation doubled their suggestions last Congress. At the
same time, it has been made clear by the supporters of H.R.
1500 that they will only settle for 5.7 million acres. The
formation of public policy requires compromise, creative
solutions and doing what is right for this country. I would
encourage all those engaged in this debate to work toward a
solution as opposed to working toward further polarization.
During the 104th Congress the debate stepped outside the
bounds of the wilderness debate and the rhetoric began to take
personal shots at those involved in this issue. Mr. Hinchey and
myself are colleagues, I respect his opinions and he has been a
gentleman throughout this process. In fact, Mr. Hinchey
authored a letter to the Utah press last year that condemned
personal attacks during this process. I appreciate his efforts
to keep this debate above a level that leads us to nowhere.
I welcome our witnesses today. I realize this was shorter
notice than some would prefer but I believe all sides are
adequately represented today and I hope we can hear testimony
that moves us toward a solution. Simply tearing apart another
proposal does little as far as educating the Members and the
public. I hope we can focus on the lands we need to protect and
talk about positive ways to finally designate BLM wilderness in
Utah.
[Text of H.R. 1952 may be found at end of hearing.]
[Text of H.R. 1500 may be found at end of hearing.]
[H.R. 1500 briefing paper may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I would gladly defer to my
good friend from Minnesota at this time.
Mr. Vento. Well, I thank the member for----
Mr. Hansen. We will recognize the gentleman from Minnesota.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE VENTO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Vento. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have listened
carefully to your remarks, and I hear a lot of positive words
this morn-
ing in terms of the consideration of these two bills. I note
that there is concern about the Administration not being
present to testify today and some of the Utah witnesses that
were not able to accommodate the schedule, although I note that
you sent the schedule out last week according to the rules and
so forth. But I think there is a desire to hear from the
Administration and perhaps some other witnesses on the matter.
I think it is especially important because the measure that
we have before us--a new measure, H.R. 1952, is not simply a
designation bill but a bill that attempts to consolidate land
in Utah by taking lands that would be within the wilderness--
State lands within the wilderness and consolidating or trading
them out. I think that that is the purpose of it.
Although I haven't studied this carefully, I will read the
testimony of our colleague that has introduced it. And I want
to welcome both of our colleagues, my colleague on the Banking
Committee, Mr. Chairman. Merrill has the duty of sitting in
front of me as I speak once in a while. On that committee
Merrill and I----
Mr. Cook. And it is a great pleasure.
Mr. Vento. His friendship and his tolerance of my
observations on financial institution matters, the last week
especially as we tried to finish up some work. But, Mr.
Chairman, my experience with this, as you have indicated, goes
back at the behest of a member from Utah; held hearings on land
consolidation and had the wisdom of the former Governor, Scott
Matheson, in terms of his efforts to consolidate land in Utah.
We held that hearing in Utah, and for one reason or another it
didn't work out.
But I think that in working together with you we have made
some good strides in terms of land consolidation which is
important. I have come to realize that the school section is
looked upon as being an important component, if not today, in
the future in terms of supporting the schools in Utah.
As a former educator and teacher--science teacher actually,
Mr. Chairman, I am especially impressed with the idea and the
concerns that people in Utah have with regards to appropriate
level of support for elementary and secondary education. I know
that today the amount of revenue raised from these is very
small compared to what the total dollars are that are invested
in Utah, but it makes a difference in terms of what happens to
kids.
So we obviously want to accord you and others that have
this mixture of public lands, whether it is in BLM or Forest
Service or happens to be in wilderness, the opportunity to
utilize that particular resource.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, one of the main controversies
here, as you know, goes back over a decade. We have been
working on this for almost 10 years, and I share your concern
about bringing it to a conclusion. And the fact is with the 22
million acres of land, only about 3.5 million were formally
studied. I think that most of us would--most thought that there
should have been a greater amount that was studied. That
particular controversy has carried through to the consideration
of bills on Utah and the wilderness designation.
A former member, of course, introduced a bill that had a
significantly greater number of acres. Mo Hinchey has picked up
on that particular view and has presented it. There is, as you
know, a lot of support and opposition to that bill, and, of
course, the recent designation--the monument designation by the
President has engendered greater polarization.
So I think, you know, all of us have to kind of slow things
down and pull it back together and go forward from where we
are. I would do my best if we can come to some agreement with
regards to wilderness and monument designation--whatever
modifications or changes to any of these bills.
I certainly want to work with you and Congressman Hinchey
and the other members of the Utah Delegation to put my
abilities and talent to work so that we can resolve this issue
and do a good job in terms of designation and park designation.
In order to do that though, we have to obviously sit down and
work and act in good faith.
And I think, Mr. Chairman, that your comments today and
some of the other actions that will take place will, of course,
lead us in that direction. And hearing from the Administration
and other witnesses--we have got a little time this year. I
hope that we indeed can do that.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I have to leave
shortly, but I wanted you all to know, the folks from Utah that
are here today and the members, of my continued interest in
this matter. And if I have to absent myself, it will only be,
Merrill, because I have to go over and do a banking bill. I
take care of everything green--the money and the land--and a
few red rocks.
Mr. Hansen. We will get you a few, Bruce. We thank the
gentleman from Minnesota for his comments. The gentleman from
American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega.
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr.
Chairman, as we saw in the 104th Congress, the consideration of
the Utah wilderness legislation can be quite controversial, to
say the least. And, Mr. Chairman, I know of your deep, personal
interest in this matter, and it is probably more than anyone
sitting on this panel has had, the experience of knowing just
about everything and anything there is dealing with wilderness
in Utah.
So I truly respect your opinion and your efforts in trying
to find some sense of resolution to this issue, as I am sure
also the case of our good friend and colleague from New York,
Congressman Hinchey, and his version of what should be
wilderness.
And I guess with this backdrop, Mr. Chairman, I have just a
little concern that perhaps if more notice or opportunity could
be given not only to the Administration but to other members of
the Committee, we could at least have had a chance to review
the proposed bill offered by our good friend from Utah,
Congressman Cannon.
And I certainly have the utmost respect for my friend from
Utah, but the short notice just did not give us a chance to
properly review the substance of the proposal. But I am sure
that this is the reason why we have a hearing, and I certainly
want to personally welcome both Congressman Cook and
Congressman Cannon for their presence and their testimony
before the subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working together with you
on this proposed version that we have now before the
subcommittee, and I sincerely hope that there will be a
resolution to this and hopefully also that there may be another
opportunity for a hearing concerning these two bills. And with
that in mind, I look forward to hearing the testimonies.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I appreciate the comments from the
gentleman from American Samoa, who is really a misplaced Utahan
as he went to BYU, which I won't hold against him at all. The
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest.
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too look forward
to the testimony from the witnesses today and will stay as long
as I can with our other duties around this great Nation's
capital. But I think, Mr. Chairman, this is a situation that
people can sit down across the table and resolve so that the
children in the State of Utah can get a good education, that
the area can be enjoyed as far as recreational purposes, and
wilderness areas are concerned from the people of Utah and from
the people around this great country.
And the people of Utah and the people of this country are
looking to us as representatives to sit down and figure out how
we can accommodate both of these things. It always boils down
to me, at any rate, when we are looking at issues that are
somehow directly or indirectly related to environmental issues,
it boils down to lung tissue and mortgage payments.
We all need lung tissue, and we all need to pay our bills.
And if we could sit down and talk about these things, I think
we would be able to come to a pretty good and reasonable
solution that we all could agree on. And I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for having this hearing.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman from Maryland. We are
pleased to have our two Congressmen from Utah, other than
myself, Congressman Merrill Cook from the Second District and
Congressman Chris Cannon from the Third District. Mr. Cannon is
the author of this bill, and, therefore, as the rules of our
Committee, we will hear from him first. Normally, we would hear
from Mr. Hinchey and then Merrill Cook. And if Mr. Hinchey
walks in, we will go in that direction. Chris, we will turn the
time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and fellow Committee
members. I am delighted to testify before you today on the
issue of Utah wilderness. I am particularly pleased to be
sitting at the witness table with my friend and colleague from
the Second District, Merrill Cook, and look forward to what he
has to say on this issue as well.
I represent Utah's Third Congressional District which is a
vast and sprawling area about the size of Ohio. My district
stretches from snowcapped mountains of the Wasatch front to the
red rock vistas of southern Utah. I have four national parks,
several national monuments, including a particularly large one
that has been in the press a bit over the past few months. We
also have several national forests.
I also represent the vast majority of the areas under
debate in this Utah wilderness bill. As this subcommittee
abundantly knows, wilderness has been, and is today, a terribly
divisive issue in Utah.
In fact, my first proposal on coming to Congress on this
issue was for a cooling off period whereby no legislation would
be introduced during this session. My thought was that the best
thing would be to do nothing to allow for discussion rather
than confrontation.
So why did I introduce H.R. 1952 last week? The answer can
be found in the title of my bill. It is the Utah Wilderness and
School Trust Lands Protection Act of 1997. I have explicitly
linked the issue of Utah wilderness and protection of Utah
school trust lands because the issues are inextricably
intertwined.
Acreage is not the focus of my bill. Protection of Utah
school children is. H.R. 1952 contains about 2.1 million acres
of wilderness. Frankly, I am not terribly wedded to the acreage
issue. It is not, in my mind, the most important at all. I
believe that the law and the science will guide us to a
reasonable conclusion about how much acreage and which acreage
should be included.
In my mind, wilderness designation should be based on those
two issues; that is, the law and the science. It may well be
that we need to have more acres than 2.1 million. I am
completely open to that possibility. Or it may be that we
should have considerably less. There are certainly some
arguments for that as well. But that is an issue that I hope we
debate rationally and calmly in the future.
School trust lands are worthy of immediate scrutiny. Utah
became a State in 1896, and the State, like most western
States, was divided into townships. A township is six miles by
six miles, and so every township would be divided in about 36
sections of a mile square.
In order to support Utah's schools, the Congress granted to
Utah, as it did with most western States, an endowment of
school trust lands in each township. And in Utah, that was four
sections for every township.
School trust lands were meant to be developed. The only way
the revenues can be generated is by some form of development,
whether by land sales, leasing, mining, timber, and development
of some other similar activity. And I am pleased to note that
that is acknowledged in at least the testimony that was
supplied in advance by some of our witnesses who oppose or who
wish to have a great deal more land set aside in Utah.
Other western States have been able to use their trust
lands to generate substantial revenues for their schools. So,
for instance, in New Mexico, they have a trust with $3.9
billion generating an income to New Mexico schools of about
$275 million.
Our neighboring State of Wyoming uses its school trust
lands to generate in excess of $110 million a year for Wyoming
schools. Yet, Utah has struggled to generate revenue for the
school trust lands, mostly because of the effect of Federal
land management decisions on those school trust areas.
The fundamental problem is the Federal Government is very
good at making land designations, a monument, a national
forest, or a national park, but very poor at remembering
afterwards to take care of school trust lands. The fact is that
Federal land designations have the effect of harming the value
of school trust lands that are so encompassed.
Restrictive land designations such as wilderness have the
effect of trapping school trust lands and sections by
restricting access, precluding economic development, and often
simply discouraging potential entrepreneurs from seriously
considering any form of economic activity.
My guiding principle on the issue of wilderness is simple.
Wilderness designation should not come at the expense of Utah
schools. Within the 2.1 million acres of my proposed wilderness
are about 140,000 acres of school trust lands. My bill ensures
that Utah's 473,000 students and 22,000 teachers are not hit in
the pocketbook by preserving the full value of all school trust
lands impacted by the wilderness designation.
H.R. 1952 contains three provisions. First, any new
wilderness areas officially transferred to the National
Wilderness Preservation System--that is before any new
wilderness areas are transferred the included school trust
lands must first, repeat first be exchanged for other lands.
This is a precondition, not an afterthought.
Second, my bill allows Utah School Trust Lands
Administration to pick unappropriated lands for trades rather
than rely on the Department of the Interior to come forth with
a possible land trade package. The Secretary of Interior can
object to lands selected but only on the narrow question of
valuation. Thus, disputes over trades will be narrower and more
focused than under the current practice.
Third, my bill creates authorization authority to reimburse
Utah School Trust Lands Administration for their costs in
conducting an exchange. This is an important point. Exchanges
with the Federal Government are extremely expensive. Appraisals
cost money. Planning costs money. The ever-present litigation
over valuation-related issues adds a hefty tag. All these are
probably necessary expenses, but these are expenses that when
triggered by Federal action should be borne by the Federal
Government, not Utah school children.
Let me briefly contrast the school trust land language in
my bill with the language of H.R. 1500 by my colleague from New
York. H.R. 1500, by designating 5.7 million acres as
wilderness, would impact the value of about 630,000 acres of
Utah school trust lands. This 630,000 acres is a considerable
amount of land. It is an area roughly a third the size of
Connecticut.
Certainly, this is an issue that should be of some concern
to the subcommittee, but it is not an issue of concern in H.R.
1500. In fact, there is not one word about protecting Utah
school trust lands in H.R. 1500. This is simply unacceptable.
Federal land protection must not come at the expense of
education in my State. That is why I would encourage the
subcommittee to analyze both of our bills side by side. I
strongly believe that H.R. 1952 does a better job in balancing
the competing interests of our environment, local economic
development, and protection of Utah schools. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Cannon. I appreciate your
testimony. We will turn to our friend from the Second District,
the Honorable Merrill Cook. Merrill?
STATEMENT OF HON. MERRILL COOK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Cook. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other members
of the Committee. I very much appreciate this opportunity to
testify for a few minutes about a very, very important issue
and an issue that has been debated and argued over and fought
over for many, many years--several decades.
And I think the Salt Lake District that I represent, the
Second District--the debate has been no more intense anywhere
else in this country because people feel very strongly about
wilderness, about the process by which wilderness is created,
about our new monument, and about education and the school
trust lands. And I really wanted to come here to endorse the
concepts behind H.R. 1952.
I don't necessarily agree with the acreage that is listed
in 1952, and I don't agree with the acreages that are listed in
H.R. 1500. But I am very appreciative that both of these bills
have come forward, and I have to say I have been very impressed
with Mr. Hinchey's real concern about the lands in Utah, his
interest, and his I think decent and honorable spirit of
approaching it.
And I was also impressed that in the heat of a campaign
last year he wrote a letter to the largest newspaper in my
district and expressed his goodwill toward the Chairman of this
Committee and toward the whole process. So although I may
disagree with both Mr. Hinchey and Mr. Cannon in terms of the
total number of acres that are contained in their bill, I
really do applaud the process.
But I have to say that H.R. 1952 that has been introduced
by my colleague from the Third District in Utah at least talks
about some very important issues, links, and things that Mr.
Hinchey's bill simply does not do. We have to be able to solve
or resolve to whatever extent possible this whole question of
school trust lands as we designate wilderness.
Now, just yesterday I made the point that over 176,000
acres of school trust lands are contained within the national
monument that was created last year, and I think it is closer
to 500,000 to 600,000 acres of school trust lands that are
contained within the designations that would be if H.R. 1500
were passed into law, and obviously a lot less but I think
something over 250,000 or around 200,000 acres if H.R. 1952 is
enacted.
So the point is whether it be 200,000 or 500,000 acres of
school trust lands, this question, as my colleague, Chris
Cannon has indicated, really has to be taken into account and
resolved in some manner. And I think the exchange approach
where trust officials in the State of Utah have some say, that
it is not just totally decided by the BLM, the Interior
Department, that at least--and it may have to be worked out by
both--I acknowledge that--but some kind of an exchange process
so that we can consolidate the lands. It is very important.
I notice that Mr. Vento indicated that this was going to be
a whole new--opening up a whole new area. But I think this goes
to the heart of what a proper and reasonable wilderness
designation may turn out to be. If we could solve the questions
or have answers in this bill to school trust lands, to other
private property rights, to the status of roads that have been
there for decades in many cases, to the other questions that
are always coming up, then it will be a wonderful thing for the
people of Utah to bring closure.
And I submit that the total number of acres is totally
dependent upon how those questions are answered. In other
words, if there could be absolutely no exchange of school State
trust lands, then I really couldn't in good conscience vote for
any additional wilderness designation on the Utah BLM lands. I
just could not vote for a bill that would absolutely ignore the
school trust lands issue, even if it were a proposal of half a
million acres less than what have already been supported by
members of the Utah Delegation.
So that is how strongly I feel, but on the other hand, I
feel that the acreages that were determined years ago during
the Wilderness Study Area phases of this might well be a
reasonable number if we can get the exchanges and the
protection of the property rights and the road questions and
all the other things resolved.
Because the bottom line, and I will finish my statement
with this point, the people of the Salt Lake Valley that I
represent, they want wilderness designations but they also want
jobs. They want lung tissue, and they want to be able to make
their mortgage payments, as Mr. Gilchrest has stated in his
opening statement. They want the balance. That is in the nature
of the people of the State of Utah. It is in the nature of the
people of my district to want a balance.
And I just happen to believe very strongly that no
resolution of this issue will ever take place without it taking
place in a bipartisan manner. I will just say now I don't
think, unless Mr. Hansen and Mr. Cannon and Mr. Vento and
others that I think have been very moderate and reasonable in
this whole debate--unless they can agree, and, yes, I will
include Mr. Miller--unless all of you can agree, I don't think
this will ever happen.
And I do think there is an opportunity for compromise, and
I think that is what we ought to look for. We ought to make the
linkages that the Chris Cannon bill talks very clearly about,
and we ought to get on--we ought to solve it in the 105th
Congress because I don't think it is useful for the people of
the State of Utah, indeed for this country, to keep punting
this question into the 106th Congress, 107th Congress as it has
been punted into the 105th Congress by previous Congresses.
Again, I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to
make this statement.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Cook. I appreciate your
comments. Questions for our colleagues? Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris, can you
explain a little bit how New Mexico ended up with a $3.9
billion trust earning $275 million for their school children--
apparently, I mean, because of this part of the whole deal with
the Federal lands involvement here? But I am just curious how
New Mexico ended up with this. Because of the rich mineral
resources they have?
Mr. Cannon. My understanding is minerals, oil, and gas are
the basis for those funds. Those were, as I believe, areas
which were more easily developed in earlier stages than Utah's.
Utah's tend to be coal. There is difficulty of transportation
with coal.
The oil and gas on our trust lands are deeper, and we have
methane beds, other things that are of value, other minerals
which are now, after we have developed much of our world, more
economically viable. And, therefore, I think we are at a point
where those trust lands could produce serious amounts of
revenue for the State school trust fund.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You also indicated earlier that there is
approximately 630,000 acres of school trust lands. Has there
been any appraisal done of this 630,000 acres? That is a lot.
Mr. Cannon. That is a lot. The 630,000 is the amount of
acreage of school trust lands in the 5.7 million acre proposal.
Much of that has not been appraised. Much of it has been used
for grazing and for other purposes but producing minimal
revenues generally.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you think that maybe we ought to look
into that a little more? I mean, have these trust lands--the
school trust lands--have they been actually been located or----
Mr. Cannon. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. [continuing] or have they been
recognized?
Mr. Cannon. We should make it available to you--a little
map of Utah that has distinguishing----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Now, was this done by the BLM or the
Department of the Interior, or what Federal agency was involved
in that?
Mr. Cannon. They were designated at statehood and were
designated by a description, and subsequently most of them have
actually been surveyed so we know where they are. But when you
lay out a grid of a survey of Utah, you can see all of them.
You can tell where they are. Some of them have been
consolidated. It has been a long time, but some of them have
been consolidated out of the national forests, for instance,
into larger blocks of land.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Have there been any major changes made of
these school trust lands since statehood--I mean, transfers,
purchases, anything to affect the value of these 630,000 acres
when they were first recognized?
Mr. Cannon. They have actually been managed by the State
agency, the School and Institutional Trust Land Administration.
The major changes that has happened with those lands has
happened--this probably goes back to the time that the national
forests were designated, when blocks of those trust lands were
exchanged out.
So we know the lands. They are identified. They are
managed. They are leased out for various activities, mostly
grazing. But there are clearly some mineral development. For
instance, Conoco is doing its current drilling within the
monument on a school trust land section.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Now, I assume that the State of Utah does
have a trust fund per se for school systems similar to New
Mexico. What is the current value now of your school trust
fund, if there is any?
Mr. Cannon. The current value of that trust is about $100
million, and I have for you a map that has the State mostly in
yellow with some other distinguishing colors. And the solid
colored kind of dots indicate the State trust lands.
Mr. Faleomavaega. If you know, the Department of the
Interior cannot even account for some $2 billion that are
supposedly held in trust for the American Indians. How do you
suppose they are going to be able to account for what you are
suggesting here?
Mr. Cannon. Oh, the $100 million is held by the State, of
course, and we have great confidence in our administrators of
that fund. Is your question how are they going to account for
the acres of land we are talking about in a trade?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. I will tell you that they may misplace funds
for Indian Trusts, but we have been through hell just trying to
get a single section traded out of an expansion area we
proposed for Arches National Park. It has taken us 6 months of
the most incredible quibbling you can imagine. When you are
quibbling about trades, you are talking about particulars, and
in particulars they are persistent.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would think that this is such a major
issue in and of itself, just the total examination of Utah's--
the school trust lands, just to examine it closely and how BLM
and other Federal agencies--and I am sure my good friend, the
Chairman, is very much aware of this issue, but I think it
needs to be brought out certainly for the members of the
subcommittee to understand it a little better because I think
your points are well taken--the fact that other states do
benefit quite well from it, except the State of Utah.
And I am curious as to why the BLM or whatever agency
responsible has not been responsive to the needs, not only of
the school children in Utah, but to see that there is some
balance in terms of how it deals with the issues affecting the
State of New Mexico. I mean, they are benefiting from it quite
generously, and I am just curious why Utah does not get a
similar type of package, if you might explain it in those
terms.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. I think that is truly worth an
investigation. If I might just add one example that will give
some poignancy to the issue, Arches National Park was made a
monument in the 1950's. It incorporates certain trust lands. We
have been trying to trade those lands out since the 1950's. In
1993 in the 103d Congress, we actually passed a law requiring
the trade of those lands and since they have made no progress.
So it is a difficult issue and one that is well worth
considering.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's
comments--point out that New Mexico was a little smarter than
we were in the 50's and 60's. They made the trades before all
these laws came along putting us in a position where we are not
able to do it.
And they really make some money on their trust lands, where
we get almost minuscule. But we do have an expert that is going
to be part of our panel. Mr. John Harja is the expert on school
trust lands and can refer to it. The gentleman from Maryland,
Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just ask
one maybe oversimplistic question. In the process of developing
this legislation, is it possible--I mean, you have identified
the specific areas that you wanted designated wilderness, I
would guess, in your bill.
Mr. Hinchey, I suppose, has designated his acreage and both
are based on what I would assume is reasonable science, what
fits the criteria and so on. Can we then sit down and look at
the trust land and up here decide which will be traded out and
create a timeframe for that? Is that possible?
Mr. Cannon. I think that is possible, but I don't think it
would even be appropriate for this Committee to do it
unilaterally because even those of us like the Chairman who
spent a large portion of his life traveling this area, flying
over it and landing over it, knows the particulars of the
ground well enough to do that unilaterally. I think we need to
draw the BLM into the process.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, I guess if we drew them into this
process with this legislation, we wouldn't have enough time to
pass the legislation if that was a part of it.
Mr. Cannon. That is where it comes down to the real rub of
the problem. But if we give them clarity on what to do, which
is what I have tried to do in my legislation--and I am not
wedded to this particular process--we just think that the BLM
has to be given an incentive to act instead of its inherent
incentive to defer.
And so, yes, these are issues that they know well, and, in
fact, the other participants--wilderness alliances have said
these are important issues. They have done a great deal of
inventorying of the land in Utah. If the various parties that
were involved or knowledgeable decided to come forward and
participate in the process that would protect Utah's schools,
we could probably resolve this issue fairly quickly.
Mr. Gilchrest. What are the incentives in this bill that
you have provided for that effort?
Mr. Cannon. In the first place, the wilderness designation
would not take effect until after the trades were made. Second,
it has cost a lot of money to a relatively small fund to go
through the appraisal and even litigation process over these
issues. We think that that bill ought to be borne by the
Federal Government.
And then the third issue, which is probably the most
controversial and the one we are not tied to particularly,
which is essentially that the Utah trust lands would make a
selection, and then BLM would have to respond but narrowly as
to the valuation. ``OK. You are trading. You are proposing 20
sections here for 20 sections there, but these 20 sections are
richer in minerals and, therefore, more valuable.'' In that
circumstance, what I hope we create is a dynamic whereby we
actually move forward and get some reasonable trades fairly
quickly.
Mr. Gilchrest. Given what needs to be done in your
experience in this issue--Mr. Cook can respond to this as
well--do you have some idea if this process is--you provide the
incentive. I would also imagine maybe the Utah Delegation can
provide the arena under which this can be debated and discussed
with BLM, with other groups that have an interest in this area.
What would be your guess as to a reasonable timeframe to
accomplish this task?
Mr. Cannon. I believe that that could be accomplished in
rather a short timeframe if the various parties would come to
the table. And, frankly, we are anxious to work with the
various groups. We have talked to them about this. All of them
have at least given lip service to the importance of trust
lands.
If the various groups out there that are concerned about
wilderness would come forward with their understanding--and,
remember, nobody has the resources the BLM has, but we have a
sense among us--we could probably sit down with BLM officials
fairly quickly and come up with some trades that would make
everyone happy I think, unless the objective is to not have
trades.
Because if you are taking a 5.7 million acre wilderness
area and you add to that the 630,000 acres, you are at 6.3
million acres of virtual wilderness even though you have locked
up those rights. And if the goal is 6.3 million acres, we will
never have a resolution. But if the goal is to protect Utah
school children, it could be done fairly quickly.
Mr. Cook. Mr. Gilchrest, if I could just comment, I don't
believe it would be possible to effectuate trades of the school
trust lands or the exchanges prior to passing a wilderness
bill. But I think it is very possible to set a process or a
mechanism into place in the wilderness bill to begin that
process on some kind of a reasonable basis that includes the
Utah State Trust Lands Administration.
I think the concern in the State of Utah is that, number 1,
we get exchanges on this because for one thing they were
promised in terms of--at least in the context of the creation
of the national monument last year.
But, second, that it not be a unilateral decision of the
Bureau of Land Management or the Interior Department, that Utah
trust lands administrators that have been effective in being
able to bring in revenue, although it is very limited in the
State of Utah, from a real patchwork quilt situation and a
trust law situation that is working less effectively in Utah
than almost any other State of the Union, if there could be
some assurance in the bill that the Utah State Trust Lands
Administration can be included along with the Department of
Interior in an exchange process.
Then I don't think it is at all necessary and I don't think
it would be wise to expect that all those rather complicated
valuations and exchanges take place before there is a
settlement or a resolution on the wilderness question.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. Maybe some of that can
be put into the report language--that direction. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest. The gentleman from
Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions, but I
would say this. I have the privilege of representing about half
of the Great Smokey Mountains National Park, and this is the
most heavily visited national park in the country with about
four times the number of visitors of any other park.
And most people who come there are awed by the size and the
grandeur of the Smokies. Yet, it is less than a third the size
of this 1.8 million acres. It is less than 600,000 acres. And
somehow I am amazed that in this debate that we have gotten to
the point where we think 1.8 million acres is not much land. It
is a staggering amount of land. And to think of 5.7 million
acres--I mean, that is almost incomprehensible. It is
unbelievable.
And I am just not sure that a lot of people realize how
much or how huge 1.8 million acres is. It is really amazing
what we are talking about when you think that that is three
times the size of the most heavily visited national park in
this country. And I just thought I would make that observation
for the record. I don't have any questions.
Mr. Hansen. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. The
gentlelady from Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no comments
or questions.
Mr. Hansen. We thank our colleagues for their comments and
invite them to join us on the dais. I see we have been joined
by our friend from New York, Mr. Hinchey, who is the sponsor of
one of the bills under consideration. So I think it would be
proper, Mr. Hinchey, if we turned the time to you for your
opening statement or whatever comments you would like to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAURICE HINCHEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Hinchey. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
very much appreciate that consideration, and please let me
extend to you and to others my apologies for not being here
earlier. You have indicated, Mr. Chairman, on several occasions
that it has been your intention for some time to hold hearings
on the legislation affecting Utah wilderness.
As the sponsor of one of the two bills before us today, I
certainly understand and very much appreciate that. You and I
have worked together on this legislation now from different
perspectives, of course, but in a very cooperative and friendly
way, and I am very obliged to you for your attitude and the way
that you have conducted your attention to this particular
initiative.
So, nevertheless, there continues to be large differences
between the two particular bills that are before the
subcommittee. And I know that we are both well aware of the
barriers to settling this matter anytime in the near future.
Since we debated the issue at length in the last Congress,
my remarks about my own bill will be very brief. I have always
been a strong supporter of protecting wilderness and was, in
fact, the leading advocate for protecting State wilderness
lands in New York in my former role as a member of the New York
State Legislature.
I believe that one of the things that all of us who are
here today agree on is that we are not making any new
wilderness areas, and that the amount of wilderness remaining
in the United States has declined sharply in the last century
and will continue to decline if we do not protect what we have.
To paraphrase former President George Bush, he said, ``My goal
is no net loss of wilderness.''
The lands that would be designated as wilderness in my bill
have been surveyed thoroughly by the people of Utah who share
the goal that is expressed in that legislation. Most of last
year's debate focused on whether the lands included in my bill
were truly wild or not.
I have always said that I am willing to alter the bill, if
it is actively considered, on the basis of new information that
shows convincingly that some of the lands in my bill do not
qualify as wilderness. Or if lands that are not in the bill do
qualify, we are perfectly willing to modify the bill based upon
that new, solid information.
Probably the best way to resolve this issue that is
available to us would be to allow the Department of the
Interior to proceed with the reinventory that you, Mr.
Chairman, first suggested I believe it was last year.
I was pleased to see that Mr. Cannon's bill made several
changes from the bill we considered in this subcommittee last
year. I was especially encouraged by the deletion of language
that would have allowed various kinds of development in
designated wilderness areas. Perhaps that can be the first step
toward eventual agreement on the Utah wilderness question. Even
if we have a very long way still to go, that first step would
be very good news indeed.
I believe it is particularly important today for me to
address the issue of school trust lands, since my position on
this has apparently been misunderstood several times this year.
I have seen some individuals quoted as saying that my bill does
not provide for any exchange of the school trust lands that
would be enclosed under the legislation that I have introduced.
That, of course, is simply not true.
My bill does provide for such an exchange under the terms
of the Federal Land Policy Management Act, as is appropriate.
What it does not do is prejudice any such exchange in advance.
It says that any such exchange should take place on the same
terms and under the same rules as the many exchanges that have
taken place in other States since the Federal Land Policy
Management Act was enacted.
I can well understand the interest of my colleagues in
expediting land exchanges. However, I have been disturbed by
the suggestions that some have made that my bill somehow stands
in the way of land exchanges. There is simply no truth to that
at all.
One of the first bills our subcommittee considered when I
first came to Congress several years ago was a bill authorizing
land exchanges in Utah, and, of course, I supported that bill.
I understand that the Department of the Interior and the State
of Utah have reached agreement on about half of those
exchanges.
But if there are people who are concerned about delays and
already authorized exchanges or the possibility of delays in
future exchanges, I think that what we ought to do is to
expedite the inventory and proceed with the exchange of
information so that those exchanges can take place more
rapidly.
Just 2 months ago, Secretary Babbitt, while testifying on
the establishment of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument, commented that his State exchanged 2 million acres
with the Federal Government during his tenure as Governor.
It is my understanding that all of those exchanges took
place under the rules established under the Federal Land Policy
Management Act and did not require legislation establishing new
rules or a new process. The same thing has happened in a number
of other States.
It is my understanding that most of the trust lands that
would be enclosed and exchanged under Mr. Cannon's bill and
under my bill are not currently producing revenue for the Utah
schools, and that large portions of them would be unlikely to
produce revenue anytime in the near future.
According to testimony we have heard in the past, all the
trust lands--that is, every single trust land throughout the
State of Utah, not just those affected by either of these two
bills--produce less than 1 percent of Utah's total school
revenues. So I think it is unfair to suggest that any
wilderness legislation is depriving Utah's school children of
the education they deserve.
As I said, however, I share the concerns of all those
people who want to see land exchanges expedited, but those
exchanges won't take place until the larger question of
wilderness designation is settled. That, in turn, won't happen
until we move closer to an agreement of what lands qualify for
wilderness designation. So I would strongly urge anyone who
wants to see the lands in question exchanged, let the
reinventory go forward, as you have suggested, Mr. Chairman,
and as we all support.
And, again, I want to express to you my deep respect and
even admiration, Mr. Chairman, about the way that you have
conducted these proceedings up to this point. And I look
forward to the opportunity to continue to work with you to try
to bring about some equitable, just, and fair resolution to
this problem.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Hinchey follows:]
Statement of Hon. Maurice D. Hinchey, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York
Mr. Chairman, you have indicated on several occasions that
it is your intention to hold hearings on Utah Wilderness
legislation in this Congress, and go no further than that. As
the sponsor of one of the two bills before us today, I
certainly understand and appreciate that. There continue to be
large differences between the two bills, and I know we are both
well aware of the barriers to settling this matter in the near
future.
Since we debated the issue at length in the last Congress,
my remarks about my own bill will be brief. I have always been
a strong supporter of protecting wilderness, and was the
leading advocate for protecting state lands as permanent
wilderness during my years in the New York State Assembly. I
believe that one of the things that all of us who are here
today agree on is that we are not making new wilderness, and
that the amount of wilderness remaining in the United States
has declined sharply in the last century, and will continue to
decline if we do not protect what we have. To paraphrase former
President Bush, my goal is ``no net loss of wilderness.''
The lands that would be designated as wilderness in my bill
have been surveyed thoroughly by citizens of Utah who share
that goal. Much of last year's debate focused on whether the
lands included in my bill were truly wild or not. I have always
said I'm wiling to alter the bill--if it is actively
considered--on the basis of new information that shows
convincingly that some of the lands in my bill do not qualify
as wilderness, or if lands that are not in my bill do qualify.
Probably the best way to resolve this issue that is available
to us today would be to allow the Department of Interior to
proceed with the reinventory that you first suggested last
year, Mr. Chairman.
I was pleased to see that Mr. Cannon's bill made several
changes from the bill we considered in this Subcommittee last
year. I was especially encouraged by the deletion of language
that would have allowed various kinds of development in des-
ignated wilderness areas. Perhaps that can be the first step
toward eventual agreement on the Utah wilderness question. Even
if we have a very long way still to go, that first step would
be good news.
I believe it is particularly important today for me to
address the issue of school trust lands, since my position on
this has been misrepresented several times this year. I have
seen some individuals quoted as saying that my bill does not
provide for any exchange of the school trust lands that would
be enclosed under my bill. That is not true. My bill does
provide for such an exchange under the terms of FLIPMA (Federal
Land Policy Management Act). What it does not do is prejudice
any such exchange in advance. It says that any such exchange
should take place on the same terms and under the same rules as
the many exchanges that have taken place in other states since
FLIPMA was enacted.
I can well understand the interest of my colleagues from
Utah and the people of Utah in expediting land exchanges.
However, I have been disturbed by the suggestions some have
made that my bill somehow stands in the way of land exchanges.
There is no truth to that. One of the first bills our
Subcommittee considered when I came to Congress in 1993 was a
bill authorizing land exchanges in Utah, and I supported it. I
understand that the Department of Interior and the State of
Utah have reached agreement on about half of those exchanges.
But if Utahns are concerned about delays in already
authorized exchanges, or the possibility of delays in future
exchanges, it is not up to me or supporters of my bill to
respond to that issue. I am sorry that this hearing was
announced and organized so rapidly that the Department of
Interior was unable to appear. The Department--and only the
Department--can comment on why land exchanges have not
proceeded more rapidly in Utah.
Just 2 months ago, Secretary Babbitt (while testifying on
the establishment of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument) commented that his state exchanged 2 million acres
with the Federal Government during his tenure as Governor. It
is my understanding that all of those exchanges took place
under the rules established in FLPMA, and did not require
legislation establishing new rules or a new process. The same
thing has happened in other states.
It is my understanding that most of the trust lands that
would be enclosed and exchanged under Mr. Cannon's bill and
under my bill are not currently producing revenue for the Utah
schools, and that large portions of them would be unlikely to
produce revenue in the future. According to testimony we have
heard in the past, all the trust lands throughout the state--
not just those affected by either of these bills--produce less
than 1 percent of Utah's total school revenues. So I think it
is very unfair to suggest that any wilderness legislation is
depriving Utah's school children of the education they deserve.
As I said, however, I share the concerns of Utahns who want
to see land exchanges expedited. But those exchanges won't take
place until the larger question of wilderness designation is
settled. That in turn won't happen until we move closer to an
agreement on what lands qualify for wilderness designation. So
I would strongly urge anyone who wants to see the lands in
question exchanged to let the reinventory go forward.
Mr. Hansen. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Let me
point out to the members who have arrived after we started, we
are looking at H.R. 1952 by Mr. Cannon and H.R. 1500 by Mr.
Hinchey. And I have recognized everyone but the gentlelady from
Virgin Islands. I appreciate you being here.
Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no
questions or opening comments.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you; I appreciate your statements. To my
good friend from New York, let me not take issue with you on
anything but just point out that I think it was Mr. Babbitt who
wanted to do the reinventory. And I won't go through the litany
of how that occurred unless you want me to, but a very
interesting goal.
And as I said in my opening remarks, the Federal District
Court in the State of Utah said he didn't have the right to do
that. I don't know the status of the appeal or what is going
on, but we will see what comes out of that interesting issue.
We have two panels we want to have before us at this
particular time. The first panel is composed of, if I can put
my hand on it, three county commissioners from the State of
Utah, Mr. Randy Johnson, County Commissioner from Emery County,
Utah; Louise Liston, County Commissioner of Garfield County;
and Joe Judd, County Commissioner of Kane County.
They will be joined by John A. Harja, Vice Chairman of the
Board of Trustees of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration. If we could ask those folks to come up, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Chairman, while they are coming up, can
I ask Mr. Hinchey a very quick question?
Mr. Hansen. I will recognize the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Cannon--and I don't want to
speak for Mr. Cannon--said he wasn't wedded to the number of
acres designated as wilderness--1 million, 2 million, even 5
million. But prior to designation of wilderness, he had three
issues--three key provisions--I am not sure if you are familiar
with those three key provisions--dealing with the exchange of
school trust lands.
And you don't have to answer it now, but I think it would
be interesting to see what you consider based on your
understanding of your bill if you would consider Mr. Cannon's
three key provisions prior to designating 5.7 million acres, if
they could be included, let us say, in your legislation?
The first one is before any land can be transferred, the
school trust lands must first be exchanged; number 2, Utah
School Trust Lands Administration would pick the unappropriated
lands for trades rather than the Department of Interior; and,
third, authorization authority to reimburse the School Trust
Land Administration for their cost in conducting an exchange.
If you are not familiar with them now, I would just be
interested down the road what you think of those criteria prior
to any designated wilderness.
Mr. Hinchey. If the gentleman would yield?
Mr. Hansen. Does the gentleman yield?
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
Mr. Hinchey. Let me say, Mr. Gilchrest, that I very much
appreciate the gentleman from Maryland's interest in this issue
and his raising those particular points. I am, of course,
willing to consider any suggestion that is made by any member
of this subcommittee on this particular issue, particularly
suggestions, of course, made by either Mr. Cannon or by our
Chairman.
I am not in a position at this moment to give you an answer
as to the specifics of each of those questions, but let me just
say that I do not regard the issue of the school trust lands as
an insoluble issue at all. First of all, it constitutes only a
fractional part of this particular question.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, all of the school
trust lands right now at this particular moment provide less
than 1 percent of all the revenue that is provided from the
State to the school districts in Utah and, therefore, to the
education of the children of Utah.
So I do not regard this as a major aspect of this
particular problem. However, to the extent that it is a
significant issue, and it is an issue that has to be addressed,
I am open to any suggestions and will consult and work with
anyone to try to reach a reasonable solution.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from American Samoa has asked the
gentleman from Maryland to yield.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
just want to share with the gentleman the fact that in 1993 we
did pass specifically a Federal law called the Utah School and
Lands Improvement Act addressing this very issue. And I want to
share with the gentleman the information.
Basically, the information that I am given is that 3.6
million acres of total land--school trust lands--1.5 million
acres is State owned school trust lands. And I think what is at
issue here is the fact that there are 630,000 acres that are
within currently the Federal land. This is what we are--I think
this is the concern that Congressman Cannon has indicated
earlier.
And I also want to share with the gentleman the fact that
in the Hinchey version of the bill, it does address school
trust lands to the effect that he suggests that the FLPMA and
the Wilderness Act be the administering agencies of this
630,000 acres that is at question. So I think from what I hear
from my good friend from New York, we are open. We are willing
to work what could be a solution to the problems that we are
facing.
But I want to remind my good friend that 1.5 million acres
of this is State owned already--trusts--and maybe this is where
the exchange or maybe the lack of exchange on the part of BLM
as well as with the State of Utah--maybe this is what we need
to focus on.
Mr. Hansen. Let me comment that we have some real good
experts on this issue that are going to speak to this in just a
moment, and we are going to run out of time for the use of this
room, which concerns me greatly because we have another panel
after this panel. And so if the members could hold on to their
questions, Mr. John Harja is considered the expert.
And, John, with that in mind, I have set you up, and we
expect you to respond to all of these things you have heard up
here on the dais when the mike comes to you. But we are not
going to start with you. We are going to start with Randy
Johnson, and these folks have been before this committee so
many times I start calling them members.
But, anyway, they all know the rules, and from this point
on, I am going to hold both the witnesses and the members to
the 5-minute rule just in the interest of time. As you know, it
is just like a traffic light in front of you; green, you go;
yellow, you wind up; and red, don't run it--too far, anyway.
But if you have got something burning in your bosom you have
just got to say on any panel that is here, I normally will
listen to that. So, Mr. Johnson, let us start with you, and we
appreciate all of our witnesses being here on both of our
panels. Mr. Johnson, the time is yours for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RANDY JOHNSON, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, EMERY COUNTY,
UTAH
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, sir. So you are telling us to pay
attention to this the way we pay attention to traffic lights in
Utah. I understand that.
Mr. Hansen. I want every witness to pull the mike up close
to them. I always get in trouble when I ask witnesses to
repeat. People think I am trying to cut them off and I am not
so pull them up real close.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. On behalf of rural Utah's public
lands counties, I want to thank you for holding this hearing
today. The BLM issue in Utah has been in the works since BLM
first began to inventory lands during the Carter
Administration. The level of debate continues on a fevered
pitch, and I believe it is long past time to act to bring the
warring factions together.
I am particularly grateful to Congressman Cannon for
jumping into the fray and taking a strong leadership role.
Specifically, the Cannon bill's emphasis on resolving the State
school trust land impasse prior to the wilderness bill is well
worth considering, and we can never truly have resolution until
both trust lands and the road issues are resolved.
In regards to wilderness, it is my belief that Utah's
counties have acted from the beginning in good faith. Our
Governor and congressional delegation asked us to conduct
honest inventories of the land in each of our counties and to
make recommendations following the parameters of the 1964
Wilderness Act.
We responded by conducting careful inventories and
recommending those lands which truly met the 1964 Act
requirements of possessing outstanding solitude, of being
untrammeled by man, where man is a visitor who does not remain,
and shall be roadless.
Based on that criteria, just over 1 million acres of BLM
land in Utah qualified. Even so, we recognize the political
reality and have very reluctantly agreed to the congressional
delegation's request to bring this figure to approximately 2
million acres.
Congressman Cannon's bill reflects that reality. Wilderness
designations in areas which do not qualify under the 1964 Act
is, in fact, a luxury which rural economies cannot afford and
which is not in keeping with the intent of the 1964 bill.
In all candor, Mr. Chairman, it would be nice if Congress
would follow the written definition of wilderness which
Congress itself created. However, if the sentiment of the
Congress in 1997 is to change that definition, then it should
do so in order that this process may remain intellectually
honest.
Is Congress moving into the business of creating
wilderness? That is what we are doing with H.R. 1500. Those who
tell us that once lost wilderness can never be regained are now
telling us that if we close this road or that road, nature will
eventually reclaim it. That is not what the Wilderness Act
intended, and it is not right, nor is it necessary. Have we
learned nothing in 30 years? Must we always begin our arguments
as though it were 1970?
I ask you to settle this issue by passing legislation
setting aside those lands which do actually qualify as
wilderness and then remain vigilant to ensure that the
remaining lands are protected through FLPMA and NEPA and other
Federal laws intended to guard our public lands.
Environmental groups have arbitrarily chosen to ``tithe''
Utah; that is, to take approximately 10 percent of the land
area of the State and offer it up as wilderness. These so-
called great defenders of the 1964 Wilderness Act have chosen
to completely ignore it and to rely upon some arbitrary tithed
number of 5.7 million acres, better known as H.R. 1500 or Mr.
Hinchey's bill.
To make matters worse, this Administration has chosen, with
a wink and a nod, to instruct public land managers in the field
to manage BLM lands in Utah at that 5.7 million acre level.
Legally, BLM can only manage 3.2 million acres of BLM land in
Utah, the amount the FLPMA process produced as an accurate
figure for Wilderness Study Areas as wilderness.
The deck is stacked against advocates of multiple use
because until Congress finally acts, these lands will continue
to be managed as wilderness. Environmental groups, therefore,
cannot lose and have absolutely no incentive to negotiate.
As the stalemate continues, lands can neither be protected
as wilderness, nor managed and perhaps developed for their
natural resource potential. Only to the extent that the
development on public land occurs will royalties to the Federal
Treasury be paid.
Let me say that another way. Lands that do not merit
wilderness status but which contain leasable minerals can, and
I believe should, be developed following the strict
environmental laws of the land. When this happens, everyone
wins--taxpayers win.
Deserving lands can be protected and lands rich in God-
given natural resources can be developed and then reclaimed in
accordance with the environmental laws of the land. Isn't that
how it should be, rather than our continuing in a never-ending
stalemate?
I am out of time. I believe and in my opinion we have come
the full cycle in this longstanding battle. The protectors have
become the defectors. And in an effort to perpetuate
themselves, the land, and the multitude of protections which
exist for the benefit of that land are secondary to the war
itself. Keeping the contention alive ensures their continued
existence and the work of 30 years is ignored and a continued
flood of misinformation and rhetoric.
We must dispel once and for all the idea upon which some of
them have built their empires that it is wilderness or
degradation, wilderness or bulldozers, wilderness or reckless
strip mining. We want to and are anxious to protect this land
but wish to do so under the laws that exist in a sensible
manner. And we would hope that you will bring this to
resolution so that we may do so. Thank you very much.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Johnson may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. We will now
turn to the Commissioner from Garfield County, who I would also
like to point out to the panel is also an expert on school
trust land. In fact, she sits on the School Trust Land Board,
and so besides John Harja, you can ask Louise Liston anything
about it, and she will give you the correct answer; at least
that is how I found it working with her over the years. Having
set you up now, Commissioner, we will turn the time to you.
STATEMENT OF LOUISE LISTON, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, GARFIELD
COUNTY, UTAH
Ms. Liston. Thank you, I guess. I appreciate your concern
and also your support, Mr. Chairman. And I wish to express my
gratitude to you for holding yet another hearing on this
wilderness issue in your subcommittee today.
I would also feel remiss if I did not thank Congressman
Cannon. He has proven to be a tireless worker on the monument
issue and with the introduction of H.R. 1952. He now puts
before the Congress of the United States legislation which the
people of rural Utah can, with some reservations, live with.
Mr. Chairman, let me say this about BLM wilderness. We the
people of southern Utah want the issue resolved, but we are not
now, nor will we ever be, willing to agree to legislation that
destroys our livelihoods and way of life simply because we are
tired of the conflict.
All of the issues--BLM wilderness, the new national
monument, RS 2477 roads, State school trust lands, actual
development of coal, oil, gas, and other mineral reserves on
public lands--all of these issues must be taken into account
and resolved equitably before we will consider the controversy
settled.
We have always been willing to participate in the public
process and have played by the rules. We regret that the
President of the United States and his Secretary of the
Department of Interior have not. To now consider adding
millions of new acres of BLM wilderness in our counties without
taking all of these issues into account would be unconscionable
for us.
Without beating around the bush, we hear that there is talk
of using this 2.1 million acre wilderness bill as a starting
point and split the difference with advocates of H.R. 1500 at
around 3.2 million acres. We hear that because some are tired
of dealing with the issue, a 3.2 million acre bill sounds
appealing because it would placate environmental groups. The
fact is, Mr. Chairman, Secretary Babbit is, as Commissioner
Johnson has said, illegally managing 5.7 million acres of BLM
lands in Utah now as de facto wilderness.
It may be politically expedient to cut a deal at 3.2
million acres, but on the land where we live, that amount of
wilderness, on top of the restrictions imposed by the creation
of a 1.7 million acre national monument, on top of the
restrictions imposed on us by four adversarial lawsuits over RS
2477 rights-of-way, will effectively place us into a permanent
position of servitude.
Rural Utahans are aware that only about 1 million acres of
land in the State qualify for wilderness under the definition
of the 1964 Act. We have agreed to double that amount for
political reasons. If Congress chooses to raise the acreage
total to 3.2 million acres or higher and ignores the 1964
Wilderness Act criteria entirely, then it is time to amend the
Wilderness Act to conform to reality.
If not, then Congress should adhere to the laws it passes
and be honest with the American people. Please don't ask us to
call something wilderness that does not fit wilderness
criteria. If members of this Committee are going to change the
rules, then I recommend that Congress should first consider
changing the 1964 law.
Look at reality one more time. Sixty-seven percent of Utah
is federally owned. The lands being managed as Wilderness Study
Areas now constitute over 20 percent of the Federal lands in
the State. All told, 40 percent of the Federal lands in Utah,
not including Indian reservations and military restricted
areas, are effectively off limits to multiple uses.
An additional 13 percent of the lands in Utah are State
school trust lands. Please understand these school trust lands
are restricted to whatever use is deemed appropriate by the
surrounding Federal land manager. That is why we only have less
than 1 percent of the uniform school fund is generated by our
school trust lands. We are locked into a sea of Federal lands,
and we are islands in that sea.
While I am hopeful enactment of Congressman Cannon's bill
means educational interests in Utah may finally receive the
attention they deserve and actual exchanges take place, let me
point out something many Members of Congress and many
environmental groups absolutely do not want to hear.
That is, in order for any Federal-State land exchange to
mean anything, school trust lands have to be explored and
developed. Some courageous company or companies may invest
capital in a coal-mining project or an oil-drilling operation
and may actually develop the resource in order for any money to
go to the school children of Utah. Let me say that another way.
It is the royalties paid as a result of natural resource
extraction which will fill the coffers of the State school
trust.
As of today, less than 1 percent of the State school budget
is derived from such development. Utah spends a higher
percentage of its State budget, 80 percent, on education,
higher than any other State. At the same time, Utah is dead
last, 50th in per capita spending on education, in large part
because it cannot tax its people any more without driving
individuals and industry out of the State. If school trust
lands are to contribute in a meaningful way, development must
occur.
For those environmentalists who are now going ballistic,
please know that all of the applicable environmental laws
governing development on public lands--all of them still apply.
So let me conclude by saying Garfield County supports
Congressman Cannon's bill as the one which comes closest to
portraying things the way they actually are on the land. It
contains more wilderness than the 1964 Act definition allows,
but we believe we can survive under the terms.
If I have been blunt in my testimony then, Mr. Chairman, I
plead guilty. This is the way things really are. You know it
and I know it. What we seem to be dealing with in the Utah
wilderness debate is an endless parade of dancing around the
truth, and I, for one, am tired of it. I stand ready to help
you pass this legislation in any way that I can. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Liston may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Commissioner. I hope the members of
the Committee when you look at these three commissioners down
there realize that they represent the majority of land in both
those bills right there. And so I am talking about somebody on
the ground. We are honored to have Commissioner Joe Judd from
Kane County with us. Joe, we will turn the time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOE JUDD, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, KANE COUNTY, UTAH
Mr. Judd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the people
of Kane County, I would like to express my gratitude for your
holding these hearings. It seems like old home week, we have
been here so many times.
I would like also to add my thanks to the Committee and to
Congressman Cannon for what he said this morning in trying to
resolve the issues of both Kane and Garfield Counties and
making those things his first order of business in the
Congress. Congressman Cannon is off to a good start with both
his actions and a great blessing that we receive on the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument and hopefully with these
BLM issues also.
Mr. Chairman, we are down where the rubber meets the road
regarding this wilderness issue. We would like to have them
resolved. We would also like to have this new monument issue
resolved, as well as the RS 2477 issues, as well as State
school trust lands, actual development of coal and gas and
other mineral reserves on public lands. All of these issues
must be taken into account and resolved equitably before we can
consider the controversy settled.
We have always been willing to participate in a public
process and have enjoyed, if not been anxious, to play by the
rules. To now consider adding more and millions of acres to the
BLM wilderness to our county without taking any of these things
into consideration is really unconscionable to us.
The people of southern Utah are aware that about a million
acres of the land still qualify as wilderness in the definition
of the 1964 Act. We have agreed to double that to try to make
this a political compromise, to make it work in our counties.
We have entered into a partnership with the BLM trying to make
the new monument work in our counties. Please don't ask us to
do something that is entirely unreasonable.
Kane County cannot live with a political solution that
ignores the 1964 Wilderness Act criteria and simply should try
and get the bill passed. We have also made an opportunity known
to those who are willing to listen that there are certain
special interest groups that have made a lot of money trying to
keep this controversy alive.
In Kane County, the combined impacts of the new national
monument, with the additional BLM wilderness of about 2.1
million acres, and the problems that RS 2477 puts before us
nearly puts us out of business. It is already clear the Federal
Government wants to relegate southern Utah's economy to a
seasonal economy based on tourism. And, again, if pumping gas
and selling hamburgers and making beds could get it done, we
would have had it done a long time ago. It just doesn't work.
Our ability to provide for ourselves has been taken
regardless of what happens with this bill. We are the ones who
must provide the services to all of the visitors who will come
and are already coming to the national monument. Adding the BLM
wilderness within the monument is legislative overkill, and it
makes it doubly tough for us to provide the services we are
mandated by law to provide.
Again, let me consider the realities before you stick it to
us one more time. Our people have been beaten over the head by
the Fed-
eral Government so many times I marvel at their ability to be
able to take it and get up again. We no longer control our own
destiny so at least help us minimize the future pain and
provide us with the means to make every harsh socioeconomic
climate in our communities from where I come.
Finally, let me add my support to Congressman Cannon's bill
from Kane County and place his resolving the issues of the
school trust lands. We in Kane County have already lost and are
willing to stand many more losses if these resolutions will
come to fruition.
The opportunity for the school trust lands to gain monetary
value, along with the Counties of Kane and Garfield, were taken
from us with the Andalex Smokey Hollow Mine project. That would
have been worth some $600 million to the school trust land over
the life span of the mine.
That illustrates the project point, however, for any future
exchange. The point is that it is not the exchange of the lands
between the State and the Federal Government alone which
provides revenues for the school children of Utah. It is the
development and actual mining, drilling, or some other
extractive activity by royalty-paying companies which brings
money into the State school trust.
Pro education environmentalists can't have it both ways.
Either we develop the lands and put the money into the hands of
the school children and their teachers, or we remain purists
and leave the school trust lands undeveloped.
This bill addresses the issue of education, while
Congressman Hinchey's bill does not. Congressman Hinchey and
his supporters should consider the realities I have just
mentioned, unless they really don't care about the Utah school
kids and the teachers' salaries.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to be able to
testify and especially to be on a panel with the colleagues
such as Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Liston and along
with John Harja. I appreciate this very much. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Judd may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Duncan. [presiding] Thank you very much, Commissioner
Judd, for being with us again. It is an honor to have you, and
it is also a privilege to have with us the next witness, Mr.
John A. Harja, who is the Vice Chairman of the Board of
Trustees for the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration. Mr. Harja.
STATEMENT OF JOHN A. HARJA, VICE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
UTAH SCHOOL AND INSTITUTIONAL TRUST LANDS ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Harja. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is amazing to me to
sit here today as Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees and
listen to all the fine Congresspeople mention school trust
lands. I came here in 1992 to push a bill that was enacted,
thank you, and nobody knew what they were. So it is fun to sit
here and be able to talk school trust lands.
I am just going to toss my comments out and try to respond
to some of the things that have been said. The education budget
in the State of Utah in 1996 was $1.5 billion. Less than 1
percent of that is still a lot of money.
The population of Utah is just over 2 million people. The
population under 18 is 34.6 percent, which is first in the
Nation. We have a lot of kids. Everybody knows that in Utah.
The average teacher's salary was approximately $31,000, 43rd in
the Nation. The State and local education spending per $1,000
of personal income was $90, 3rd in the Nation.
That is our situation. The taxes that are collected on
education are very high. There are a lot of kids. The education
system is busy. School trust lands are a portion of that. They
are a small portion now, but they are a portion.
The State of New Mexico was mentioned, how so much money
could be in that fund. It is a matter of history. It is a
matter of luck. It is a matter of good work. The Spanish land
grants in New Mexico caused lands to be moved--the school trust
lands--immediately on statehood. They didn't have to wait till
1997. They were just moved.
And then it turns out oil and gas was discovered at shallow
depths immediately, and a lot of money was funneled into that
fund right away. And they have a large one, and it generates
around 25 percent of their education budget.
Utah didn't have that luck. Our lands are still scattered.
And, as the Congressman mentioned, a lot of our resources are
deeper, harder to get to, more remote, and all the things that
are mentioned.
We have not had an exchange in Utah in 30 years, nor do we
have any under agreement today. The last ones that occurred
were basically Canyonlands National Park that occurred in the
1960's. And everybody just got together and said we need to
move these, these lands are approximate equivalent value, and
they moved them. It was done.
Mr. Babbitt mentioned, when I was here last on the
monument, that a whole bunch of appraisals have been done and
there are agreement on many of them. I am going to tell you
that is false. At this point in time, we have maybe 12 tracts
out of 550 where the values on both sides appear to be the
same.
That is, both sides look at the value and say we can live
with that. That is as far as we have gotten. It isn't to say we
are not going to get any further. We are going to get this
thing done. We are committed to it. It is a long, expensive
process.
Mr. Babbitt mentioned 2 million acres in Arizona. I don't
want to dispute the Secretary. Our information indicates it is
more like a million acres. And, frankly, if you give us the
kind of flexibility for the BLM that they had in Arizona, we
will get this done tomorrow. That is what it takes. In Utah,
the flexibility to look at appraisals in the sense of the
uniform nationwide standards is not there.
In fact, if I can really tell you some things here, it is
our view the Federal Government is purposefully exerting
influence on appraisers to come in at low values. I was at a
conference yesterday. Appraisers were getting together to talk
about appraisals in terms of remote areas, wilderness, national
parks.
And a gentleman from the United States Forest Service sat
down on the panel and said, ``These are the rules. If you don't
play it by our rules, which are restrictive rules and which do
not allow for appraisals that look at conservation as the
highest and best use, you will not do business with us.'' This
was an overt threat to these folks and their economic
stability. There was no question about it.
Why should that matter? The industry is moving that way.
The markets are moving that way. In this country, we believe in
capitalism. The markets are moving toward--if there are buyers
and sellers, that represents the markets. The Federal
Government agencies do not like this. They are attempting to
stop it. It makes sense. It is going to cost them money
perhaps. But if they are going to influence the market like
that, they are not going to find a lot of people playing.
So, in our view, I have a fiduciary duty as a member of the
Board. I have to look for a fair sense of equal value. I don't
find that I get it from the current appraisal techniques. It is
hard fought, and we will fight it. We are probably going to
have to go to the judiciary to reach conclusion but we will do
that because we want to get this done.
Therefore, I appreciate Mr. Cannon putting in this bill
some other ideas that basically come from Project Bold and from
the whole sense of if it was taken before, you get something
else instead. We would just say we appreciate the idea that
wilderness will not be declared until those exchanges are done.
You could add that to any number of the other issues. I don't
care.
But in terms of us, if you take it, we want something else.
We are not going to say that we have low potential minerals, or
we are going to take a producing oil field. We want equal value
or approximately equal value. But give us something else and
give us a fair process to get there. Mr. Babbitt apparently
used swapping low potential lands for low potential lands--
mineral potential. We will live with that. That is fine.
And the other thing we need have is keep the Feds at the
table, and that is what FLPMA does not do. The Feds feel free
anytime that they think they are not getting their way, they
will walk away from the table, and all the work that goes into
that exchange is tossed down the tubes. You need to keep them
at the table. So with that, Mr. Chairman, my time is up, and I
hope I am the expert you expected. But, if not, I can answer
questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Harja may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. [presiding] Well, thank you very much;
appreciate your comments. We will recognize the members of the
Committee and our two colleagues from Utah for 5 minutes each.
We will start with the gentleman from American Samoa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you and I do appreciate the
testimonies borne by the commissioners from these several
counties representing the State of Utah. You probably heard
earlier our dialog with Congressman Cannon and Congressman
Cook, and I think I have had the privilege of also hearing your
testimonies from previous hearings.
My understanding is that there is currently a total of 3.6
million acres in the whole State of Utah that are school trust
lands. How much acreage of that do you feel should be exchanged
if there is--my understanding is that 1.5 million is State
owned?
Is the problem here in the fact that some of these school
trust lands really have no value, or is it because it is not
situated in such a way that it could get the best monetary
value for it if an exchange does take place with these Federal
agencies?
Mr. Harja. Mr. Congressman, there are 3.7 million acres of
school trust lands and an additional 1 million acres of
mineral-only lands in the State of Utah. They are school trust
lands. They are scattered. If you look at your map, they are
scattered like buckshot over the State.
There is no question that we are dependent upon the
resource activities for the vast majority of our money. We make
about $18 million a year right now. That is going up
dramatically. Most of that is minerals. If the surrounding
Federal lands are not available, there is not a lot we can do
about it.
If you look at the revenues in the Wilderness Study Areas
over the 15 years that they have been Wilderness Study Areas,
they have declined--the revenues to the school trust because
industry is not willing and can't to get the surrounding
Federal lands. So it is a matter, as I said, like in New
Mexico, a little bit of luck and a little bit of where you are.
A lot of our lands that have been blocked up are near
cities, the city of St. George. And we are doing good things
with those lands now, and a lot of our money is starting to
come from those lands. We would love to move, but we need to
move into those kind of areas. So it isn't that they have low
value necessarily. It is, as the commissioners pointed out, we
need the opportunity to get to development to find out what is
really there.
And a lot of these studies that go on about it is not
economic or not are nice, but as any mining engineer can tell
you, you don't know what is there until you gut it out of the
ground. And that is where the money comes from, and that is
where the trust needs to head toward.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And one of the problems, as I recall from
Commissioner Liston, your county is very much rural; rural in
the sense that you are scattered out all over the State, and
you are talking about farmlands, ranchers populationwise in
your county is very limited, I suppose, compared to West Jordan
or Granite County, if there is such a county--is there a
Granite County? School district--Granite.
So populationwise, you are very, you know, hard-ridden in
that sense that because of the rural area, you don't have much
population as a tax base. And so because of that, it makes it
very difficult even to support a school system that you have in
your county.
Ms. Liston. That is very true. We have less than 2 percent
of the land base that is actually taxable. Ninety-eight percent
is State and federally owned. And so it is virtually
impossible, and yet we handle the services for close to 3
million visitors a year with a population of 4,000 people.
And if you don't think that handling those visitors
detracts from the law enforcement and the fire protection and
so on in our local communities, guess again, because we suffer
when tourism starts. Because when those visitors come, then it
takes away from our local services. And we do suffer in many
ways.
One thing I wanted to address with your other question was
ingress and egress. I mean, when you develop, you have to have
a way to get in and a way to get out. And when you try to do
that over Federal lands nowadays, you are talking about an
impossibility in many instances of doing that, especially if
you are talking about wilderness areas. And although the State
does have case law that says that they can have access to their
school trust lands, it is still a major battle to get that
done.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from Idaho.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to direct
my question to Mr. Johnson. You quoted the 1964 Wilderness Act,
that the wilderness must possess outstanding solitude, of being
untrammelled by man, where man is a visitor who does not
remain. Within that frame of reference, you stated that only 1
million acres of BLM land qualifies. Would you mind expanding
on that for the record?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, I would be happy to do that. The
commissioners, in their mandate from the delegation members and
the Governor, went out and reexamined those lands that had been
set aside, those Wilderness Study Areas, as well as lands in
H.R. 1500, which had the potential to qualify as wilderness
under what would become the Utah Wilderness bill of a year ago,
as you recall.
And we examined those lands for conflicts and for man's
imprints, and the 1 million acre recommendation that we gave
back to the delegation was based on those lands that we could
identify that had none of those conflicts, that were
specifically spelled out in the 1964 Wilderness Act.
In other words, there were no roads or ways. We didn't get
into the argument is that a way or a road. We simply identified
an imprint of man, and we excluded that area. And we pulled
those acreages back to those areas which were genuinely
pristine in every way, and that is where that 1 million acre
recommendation from the counties came from.
The lands that would be within this 2 million acre package
are certainly beautiful and deserve protection, and many of the
lands outside of that deserve protection. But what we are
saying is that there are so many levels of Federal law that
protect those lands now that wilderness is not necessarily the
appropriate application in all of those situations. And our
initial 1 million acre recommendation was simply drawing back
to the exact specific wording of that bill.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In the description of the lands that will
be set aside in 1952, there are several pages of different
sections of lands. Do you believe that all the lands that would
fall under the 1964 description have been addressed in this
bill? I mean, I have heard those of you who are commissioners
express concern that this is going to go on and on and on and
on. And I appreciate your tying it back to the original 1964
Act.
Mr. Johnson. So your question is have we addressed all of
the lands? Yes, ma'am, we certainly have. We have walked those
lands, driven those lands, flown over those lands a multitude
of times, and have used our satellite locators to be sure that
we identified the roads and the conflicts. And we have
addressed all of those lands, as a matter of fact.
And we feel comfortable in recommending those lands for
wilderness status even though, in our opinion, wilderness is
not protection. We believe that there are far better ways to
protect land and to manage it than wilderness, but we are
comfortable with making that kind of a recommendation and feel
that we have adequately scoured those lands for those imprints.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So would you be comfortable then in adding
after the descriptions--I had it right here before me--where it
says in the release language--yes, in the release language that
all other lands shall be released for multiple use under FLPMA
and the other references that are made here with language that
says hereinafter and forevermore which States that ends it?
Mr. Johnson. We would not only be comfortable, that would
be our strong preference. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I also wanted to ask Mr. Harja, is there a
national indicator by which we can establish equivalent value?
Mr. Harja. The standards are set by the various appraisal
groups. There are standards of what constitutes an appraisal.
There are standards of what is fair market value. That is what
we use.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And what are the names of those standards?
Is it a western standard?
Mr. Harja. No. It is the Appraisal Institute and the other
nationwide groups of groups of appraisers. It is an industry
group. They set the criteria for themselves on what constitutes
an appraisal and what has to be in an appraisal.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So if the equivalent value were also hooked
to a national indicator----
Mr. Harja. That would be fine with us.
Mrs. Chenoweth. [continuing] do you think that would be
fair?
Mr. Harja. I think it is already sufficiently hooked to it.
It is fine. It is just that the Federal Government is
attempting to say what is a market and what isn't.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In the language of the law where it states
the State of Utah shall be entitled to select unappropriated
public lands of equivalent value, if there was an indicator
hooked to that?
Mr. Harja. If the Congress could say in terms of mineral
potential--if the United States Geological Survey says this
area is low potential and this area is low potential for
whatever, we would be happy to swap within that standard or
high potential. I don't want to indicate to you we want to take
a low potential the State owns and trade into high. That is not
fair.
Mrs. Chenoweth. No.
Mr. Harja. We just want to go across. That would work.
Mrs. Chenoweth. That is right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from New York.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to express my appreciation to the panel of witnesses for their
being here today and for bringing to the subcommittee their
particular perspective on this issue. It is very important to
us and very en-
lightening to hear your perspective on it. And I very much
appreciate you taking the trouble to do so.
I just want to ask a couple of questions of Mr. Harja, if I
may, with regard to the school trust situation. First of all,
could you tell me roughly what percentage of all the lands
owned by the school trust would be encumbered by either of the
two bills that are the subject of this hearing?
Mr. Harja. Well, in H.R. 1500, I have been told it would be
anywhere from 650 to 700,000 acres. The total acreage we own is
3.7 million. I can't do the math right in my head but----
Mr. Hinchey. And with the other bill?
Mr. Harja. It would be around 200,000 acres approximately.
Mr. Hinchey. Now, you say you have been told. Can you tell
us what authority that is who gave you that information?
Mr. Harja. The 600,000 acre figure I took out of the
``Wilderness at the Edge'' book. The 200,000 acres----
Mr. Hinchey. And the 200,000 acre figure?
Mr. Harja. Is just an approximate looking at the map and
counting.
Mr. Hinchey. So that is not an accurate figure?
Mr. Harja. No, no.
Mr. Hinchey. It is just a rough approximation. Is it
possible to arrive at a more accurate figure?
Mr. Harja. Certainly, if we knew the boundaries of all of
them exactly, we would simply go and do a GIS map and count.
And then we would go through our records, which are automated
now, and add them up.
Mr. Hinchey. OK. It might be interesting for us to have
that figure if it is not too inconvenient for you or too
difficult for you to arrive at it.
Mr. Harja. No, it is not. In fact, when the monument was
declared, we immediately set to work, and that is how we
focused in on 176,000 acres of trust lands in the monument.
Mr. Hinchey. OK. So you will provide the committee with
that number when you can come up with it?
Mr. Harja. Yes, sir, I will do that. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hinchey. I appreciate that very much. Can you tell us
how much revenue all of the remaining school trust lands that
are producing today--how much they are producing today? I am
referring to income derived from the lands themselves, not from
financial assets of the trust.
Mr. Harja. The annual income stream this last year was $16
million, and next year we are projecting $18 to $19 million.
Mr. Hinchey. Sixteen and next year $18--$19?
Mr. Harja. Yes.
Mr. Hinchey. And that represents then 1 percent of the
amount of money----
Mr. Harja. No, sir. That money is put in the permanent
fund, and the interest off the permanent fund less an inflation
factor represents the 1 percent.
Mr. Hinchey. OK. Thank you very much. Earlier this year,
the school trust took an ad in ``Roll Call,'' sort of the Hill
magazine around here--newspaper, which criticized H.R. 1500.
Subsequently, Mr. Terry and other representatives of the school
trust came to Washington and conducted a staff briefing. It was
rather sparsely attended, but, nevertheless, there was a staff
briefing in this building about the school trust problems.
At that briefing, Mr. Terry acknowledged that H.R. 1500 was
not actually causing any problems for the school trust now,
that it isn't likely to be considered in this Congress. That is
to say the bill is not likely to be considered in this
Congress, and that the problem of enclosed or encumbered trust
lands would exist even if that bill, H.R. 1500, had never been
introduced.
So I just have a couple of general questions with regard to
the lobbying effort that is taking place centered around H.R.
1500. H.R. 1500 has been around for 8 years. No action on it is
expected this year. What is the cause of the lobbying effort at
this particular moment? What gives rise to it?
Mr. Harja. Congressman, you are right. It has been there
for 8 years. We have constantly said you need to put a trust
lands provision in the bill. We appreciate the language you
have now. We don't think it is sufficient. We felt we were
being ignored so we felt like we needed to come here and make a
statement, and that was the statement that was made.
Mr. Hinchey. You say the language in the bill now is
sufficient?
Mr. Harja. No, it is not.
Mr. Hinchey. Is not sufficient?
Mr. Harja. No.
Mr. Hinchey. OK. Well, I would be interested to hear from
you, you know, what language you thought--not at this moment,
but what language you thought would be sufficient. We would be
happy, of course, to take a look at that.
Mr. Harja. Congressman Cannon's language is a good start.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, I would like your perspective on it.
Mr. Harja. Congressman Cannon's language is a good start.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, if you want to present me with your
alternative, I would be happy to receive it. If you don't, that
is fine also.
Mr. Harja. I will do that.
Mr. Hinchey. What is the origin of the plan? Who conceived
of the lobbying plan? Was it developed solely by the people who
work for the school trust?
Mr. Harja. Yes.
Mr. Hinchey. Was Conoco involved in the plan in any way?
Mr. Harja. No.
Mr. Hinchey. They had no interest in it and were not
involved in it?
Mr. Harja. No, not a bit.
Mr. Hinchey. OK. There was a Utah newspaper which quoted
Mr. Terry as saying, ``I met with a member of my staff''--that
is, my staff--``earlier in April to explain the trust land
situation.'' That is the end of that quote.
In fact, a member of my staff attended Mr. Terry's briefing
when he was here at that time, and Mr. Terry seemed quite
surprised by his presence. At no time in the 4 years since I
introduced H.R. 1500 has any representative of the school trust
asked me to meet with them or meet with my staff.
Mr. Terry was further quoted in the paper as saying that I
may plan--the quote is, ``A plan to ignore trust land issues
altogether.'' That I think is, frankly, a misrepresentation of
the bill that I introduced, H.R. 1500. Mr. Terry and his
attorneys I think really know that--and also a
misrepresentation of what was said at that unrequested meeting.
My question is will someone, you or Mr. Terry, set the record
straight on that?
Mr. Harja. I would be happy to. I was here. It was in this
very room. As we explained, we felt we were being ignored, and
we were very happy to have your representative there. And he
indicated if we wanted to, we could come try to see you.
Our interest is fulfilled by this hearing. Almost every
single one of the Congresspersons and members here have spoken
of school trust lands. I certainly hope the next panel will
speak of them. We want to resolve this issue. We would like to
find a standard solution that works.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, we share that objective. I would like to
resolve the issue also. As I have indicated, the bill was
introduced 8 years ago before I got here. I would like to see
it resolved at some reasonable point in the future as quickly
as possible.
But I do want you to know, and I think you do know, that I
personally am available to you or anyone else who wishes to
meet with me on this particular subject. My staff is available
to you under the same circumstances; that is, we are always
available to you. No one had contacted us. Therefore, there was
no way for us to know that there was anyone who thought they
were being ignored.
And I just want to assure you that we have no intention of
ignoring you, have not ignored you in the past, will not ignore
you in the future. Any concerns that you want to bring to our
attention, we will be happy to look at them and to consider
them in great detail.
Mr. Harja. I will try to see you very soon and explain our
concerns to you.
Mr. Hinchey. OK. Thanks very much. I appreciate it.
Ms. Liston. Could I just please----
Mr. Hansen. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. Louise--I am not sure if I should call you
Louise or Mrs. or Commissioner.
Ms. Liston. Whatever.
Mr. Cannon. My dear friend, you have a comment. Would you
like to make that?
Ms. Liston. I just wanted to point out that one of the
reasons for the renewed interest was that 2 years ago the
school trust board was replaced by a new administration which
is called the School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration. And a seven-member board was created, and that
was done for the purpose of doing a better job of bringing
revenues into the school trust fund. And we have been working
very hard at doing that the last 2 years, and I think that
probably generated a lot of the interest that has gone on.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you. I certainly understand the
underlying motive for which that action swings in that case,
and I thank you.
Mr. Cannon. Mr. Harja, could you tell us a little bit about
the recent exchange of school trust lands in Arches, what the
process was, how long it took, and what some of the pressures
there were?
Mr. Harja. You are referring to the exchange involved in
your proposal to add----
Mr. Cannon. To expand the Arches, yes.
Mr. Harja. Not the other exchange. We are engaged in
another exchange.
Mr. Cannon. If you could talk about both of those, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Harja. There are school trust lands in Arches that were
captured when it was a national monument and then became a
national park. They have been there for decades. A number of
years ago, about 8 years ago, we went down there to talk to the
Park Service personnel about doing something about them. And
the Park Service personnel said, ``We don't want to do anything
about them. They are already ours.'' So that was an initiation
of an attempt to exchange.
Mr. Cannon. Did you say the Park Service said, ``We don't
want to exchange them. They are already ours''?
Mr. Harja. That is correct. It was a seasonal----
Mr. Cannon. By that you mean because they are incorporated
within the park----
Mr. Harja. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. [continuing] they had the benefit of those
school trust lands without paying for it?
Mr. Harja. That is what they said. The leadership of that
park subsequently recanted that statement. However, what it
represents is a feeling that this was not a problem. This was
about eight--nine years ago. That is why I am so pleased here
today that people are paying attention to the issue.
In an attempt to exchange in a fair market value sense, an
equal-value-for-equal-value exchange was passed by this
Congress in 1993, and we have been at it ever since. We have
been appraising. We are now to the point we have, in fact, had
a first meeting where we are arm wrestling the Feds over what
the real value is. This is a negotiation, and we hope to
conclude that soon. We may have to go to the judicial and ask
for their advice.
The more recent effort of the Congressman is to add a
little bit to the park. There is one section inside it. And,
once again, the BLM is looking very carefully in much too much
detail and stalling in the sense of figuring out what the value
is, and we just simply want to swap it. You take this one, and
we will take that one over there. It is equivalent value--
minerals--and all that sort of thing, and nothing ever seems to
get done. And that is why you need to keep them at the table.
Mr. Cannon. There is a fairly high incentive to make this
recent trade where we would be expanding the park because that
is not part of the park inventory right now, but the current
park leadership wants that expansion to happen. Is that the
reason we were able to actually consummate a trade?
Mr. Harja. Yes, sir. The exchange is not consummated yet as
far as I can tell.
Mr. Cannon. But that is why we have gotten close to it?
Mr. Harja. We are getting as close as any other. We are
also extremely close to an exchange of desert tortoise land
near St. George. But, once again, as the appraisals are
becoming done, a Federal review appraiser interfered in the
process, and that stalls things even more.
Mr. Cannon. Maybe we ought to have a hearing where we ask
those questions of the appraisers and their hierarchy. Just one
final question. Mr. Hinchey's bill refers to FLPMA as the
exchange mechanism. The bulk of what you are saying, the thrust
of your testimony is that that does not work. Is that correct?
Mr. Harja. The structure is there or the structure should
work. What we find in practice is that it becomes bogged down,
and, ``If you don't do it our way, we won't play. We will take
our marbles and run,'' they being the Feds. And we need to keep
them at the table, and we need a serious way to resolve
values--differences in value. And that is the subset of the
same problem.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Harja. Commissioner Liston, you
mentioned that my bill actually incorporates more land than
would be justified by your understanding of the law and the
description of what would be encompassed by that. And then you
said that for political reasons, you have been willing to go
with a larger amount of land.
And, Commissioner Judd, you reiterated those same concepts,
and both suggested that the amount of land that would be
susceptible to wilderness designation based upon your
understanding of the law would be in the ballpark of a million
acres, which is much less than what I have even proposed here.
Let me be very clear about my view of the 2.1 million acres
that we proposed. As you are aware, we had lots of discussions
about what made sense to do. This is essentially the bill--it
is the bill that was proposed by the delegation before. There
have been some serious changes.
In the meantime, we now have a monument. It is my view that
a monument precludes wilderness designation. I think that was
also the idea or the opinion of some of the lawyers involved in
considering the monument. That would take about 325,000 acres
out. I think the 300,000 acres that was included at the last
minute moved by Enid Green was not well considered and needs to
be considered.
When I say that I believe we need to look at the law and
the science, by that I mean we don't necessarily think we will
end up with 2.1 million acres. It may be significantly less if
the law described drives that. It may be more if, in fact, our
opinions differ to what applies, and we make a legal conclusion
that more would apply.
Let me also add that I think in that discussion we used the
term science. You know, we are saying what is the area
regardless of the law that should be preserved because you have
a delicate ecosystem? And as we look at the science, we may
find that there are areas where you have had incursions of man
that still should be called wilderness. And in those cases, we
have to look at a compromise.
This is a complex issue that we will have to deal with in a
complex manner, and that may mean that we will have to reclaim
some of those incursions of mankind, and that is the intent of
the bill. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. I don't quite understand, Mr. Harja, the
problem of the Federal agency's refusal to recognize values for
conservation purposes and what problem that creates for the
school exchange. Explain that a little further please.
Mr. Harja. We are engaged in an appraisal process.
Appraisals are for market value. There is a belief in this
country that there is a market now for the purchase of lands
for conservation purposes. There are groups we all know, the
Trust for Public Lands, Nature Conservancy, and others, who buy
land. Sometimes they go on to the Federal Government, sometimes
they don't.
The point is there is at least the appearance of a market.
Now, whether each individual transaction constitutes a
comparable is open to appraisers looking at them. What we see,
however, is that the Federal Government, led by the Department
of Justice, is attempting to squash that as a market and say
you cannot use those comparables at all.
And, in fact, a gentleman from Alaska at this conference
yesterday got up and said an RFP, request for proposal, has
been sent out by the Fish and Wildlife Service in Alaska, and
it says--and this is hearsay, of course--you have to ask him--
if you attempt to do this kind of appraisal or use those kind
of comparables, not only will we not hire you, but we will file
an ethical complaint against you with the Appraisal Institute.
I don't mind negotiating on each and every comparable about
what it is and getting down and hard about appraisals, but when
somebody is attempting to set the market, it is a problem. And
that is what we sense is happening.
Mr. Hansen. I would like to thank the panel.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hansen. Just one moment please. We would like to ask
the Commissioners from Garfield and Kane County, would you
describe the social impacts of the decrease of solid resource
production jobs leaving your counties?
Ms. Liston. I would be glad to go first on that because my
county has the highest unemployment rate in the State of Utah.
And that is we are a very rural county. Rural counties are
rural because they depend upon the land for making a living and
keeping their communities stable and their economies stable.
When you take away that option, you take away the option for
any community to survive.
And over the past few years, as long as I have been a
commissioner, which is 10 years, and many years before that,
resource development has decreased considerably each year. Two
sawmills in our county have been shut down that depended upon
resource development. Mines have been denied applications. We
have one of the largest known CO2 fields right next to
Escalante where I live, and that has been stopped. We had a
coal-generation plant back in about 5 years ago. That was
stopped.
I mean, everything that we have tried to do with the land
in my county has been stopped as far as natural resource
development is concerned. So economically we are strapped to
making a living on tourism. And although we love it and our
tourism industry is the largest employer in our county, it just
does not put food on the table in the winter months, and it is
a low-paying job that has no benefits attached to it. And it is
just not the kind of thing that generates a healthy economy.
Mr. Hansen. Well, what was the reason that Kaibab closed?
Ms. Liston. A number of reasons, one of them being appeals
from environmental groups. For the 5 years prior to when the
sawmills closed, every appeal but one--I mean, every timber
offering sale but one was appealed. And another was that they
were considering the Mexican spotted owl and habitat for the
Goshawk, some of those Endangered Species Act issues.
Mr. Hansen. Commissioner Judd?
Mr. Judd. Thank you, Congressman. We lost a uranium mining
operation right on the border of northern Arizona. Most of the
help came from my county, Kane County, which is just across the
county. It was about 200 jobs. As Commissioner Liston just
alluded to, the Goshawk and the spotted owl, never seen, but
suspected might live there some day, closed the sawmill there
at Freedonia and where our people were employed of about 700
jobs.
And then, of course, the beauty, the one that really was
the icing on the cake, after the EIS had gone on for about 6
years proving the fact that it could be mined in the Smokey
Hollow area, our coal mine, which would have employed about 900
people, also was denied. And so now, like Commissioner Liston,
we are at abeyance and hopefully that we will have an
opportunity to make a living with the tourist trade.
I might also add that the tourist trade provides something
for my county that has been a surprise. We began keeping
records of our Court cases, and we found that during the
tourist months, our Court cases became a spike. And now we are
asked by the State of Utah to provide another Courtroom that
will employ at least two more Judges just to take care of that
caseload. So we have really been impacted and don't look for
the tourism to be the solution to our problems.
Mr. Hansen. Did I miss something? Did you say that there
were two endangered species in your area that was never
verified----
Mr. Judd. It was a suspicion.
Mr. Hansen. [continuing] but now has got a threatened or
endangered habitat?
Mr. Judd. This Kaibab Forest was suspicioned to be the
habitat of an owl never seen.
Mr. Hansen. Did the Fish and Wildlife declare it a
threatened or endangered area?
Mr. Judd. That is right. They said that the area that was
studied was an area that might be inhabited some day because
they deemed the area to be a habitat that might support the
spotted owl. They had never seen one.
Mr. Hansen. You are not pulling our leg are you,
Commissioner?
Mr. Judd. I am not. I am not. And that is the last thing I
would want to do, Congressman.
Ms. Liston. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I think they called it
future protection--what did they call it? They had a name for
it--for future--I can't think of it--potential habitat or
something of those birds.
Mr. Hansen. I guess I will have to go back and read that
law. I thought I understood it. The gentleman from American
Samoa, you had additional questions?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Just one additional question, Mr.
Chairman. I wanted to ask Mr. Harja, is there a standard method
currently being instituted to establish land appraisals? The
meaning of my question--does the State of Utah have a different
method of appraising land valuations than that from BLM or
other Federal agencies?
Mr. Harja. No, sir. We want to use the same method as used
nationwide. We want to use the same standards. If there is a
market, we want to be able to use the market as comparables in
the appraisals.
Mr. Faleomavaega. My question is is there a difference? I
mean, are you applying the same method as the Federal agency of
land valuations?
Mr. Harja. We are trying to make sure that appraisers--all
of these are involving independent appraisers that are hired to
do this work--we are trying to make sure that the appraisers
can use whatever they believe to be a market. We do not believe
that the Federal Government is allowing that to happen.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Should the Congress spell out how these
appraisal methods ought to be done?
Mr. Harja. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. All right. Maybe this is something that
we can address here. I notice in your capacity as the Vice
Chairman of the Utah School, has there been any valuation done
of the 3.7 million acres of school trust lands?
Mr. Harja. There have not been appraisals done in every
single one of them, no. We only do appraisals when there is a
need. We have gone through and inventoried all of our lands and
have gotten them computerized and have set a book value for
purposes, and sometimes that is around just a book value of a
dollar an acre, which everybody knows what that is.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So let us say approximately for the three
commissioners here representing the three counties, can you
wing it--have any sense of what it might be for the three
counties that are represented here?
Mr. Harja. Emery County has got a lot of production on
trust lands. They have got some methane gas that is probably
worth a fair amount to them. Garfield County is all--not much
going on. And I don't know about Kane County right offhand.
There is not a lot going on down there right now because of the
monument and wilderness and other things.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So even currently there is a question on
the standard on how we go about appraising lands, I mean,
between the Federal and the State. And do you feel that we
should be a little more specific on how we should go about
making these valuations?
Mr. Harja. It seems to me if the Federal agencies, the
executive branch is interested in really looking at what
represents a market value and swapping value for value, which
is what FLPMA requires, they need to be a little more--they
need to be directed.
It is our view--this is just us talking--and others in the
appraisal world agree that they are attempting and are, in
fact, through their intimidation tactics getting away with
setting what a market is, rather than leaving it to the free
marketplace to determine what a market is. That is what we have
a concern about. If there is something that Congress can do, an
oversight hearing or set legislation, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, I certainly would welcome your
opinion on this and certainly would like to work closely with
Congressman Cannon to see how that might be resolved. And I
appreciate your response. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Cannon, do you have any further questions?
Let me just say my able legal staff has corrected me on what
Commissioner Judd said. We have endangered habitat for areas
where we have no fish, but we have a fossil fish, which I think
is maybe an extreme application of the law, but who am I to
say? I am not entirely in accord with the Endangered Species
Act. Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. Let me just followup, Mr. Chairman, on that and
see if I--I have heard the story about the Kaibab. And it seems
to me that you had a planning process down there, the Forest
Service doing its plan--a 5-year plan I believe. And it was in
the context of that that there was a lawsuit by environmental
groups that ended in requiring them either by agreement or
otherwise to look at habitat for the Goshawk and the Mexican
spotted owl. Is that not what happened there?
Mr. Judd. That is correct.
Mr. Cannon. So, in fact, you had a plan. That plan was
objected to by a lawsuit from environmental groups?
Mr. Judd. That is my understanding, Congressman.
Mr. Cannon. That is ultimately what ended up shutting off
the logging because they didn't have a plan. They couldn't
sell?
Mr. Judd. That was the triggering mechanism. There were
many things that took place after that situation arose, and it
was merely the triggering mechanism. It was the domino that
pushed that rest of it over.
Mr. Cannon. Do you recall which environmental groups
brought that lawsuit?
Mr. Judd. No, I do not.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. We appreciate the panel and your excellent
testimony you have given us. And we will excuse you at this
point. And we will ask our last panel if they will please come
forward; Mr. William H. Meadows, President of The Wilderness
Society; Debbie Sease, Legislative Director of the Sierra Club;
and Heidi J. McIntosh, Legal Director of the Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
presence with us and appreciate your patience more than
anything. Let me point out--I guess you all know the rules
here. Mr. Meadows, we will start with you. Is 5 minutes
sufficient? If you have to go over, by all means, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. MEADOWS, PRESIDENT, THE WILDERNESS
SOCIETY
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee. I am Bill Meadows, President of The Wilderness
Society, and I am pleased to come before you today to discuss a
matter of great significance to our Nation's natural resources
and public lands--the protection of the magnificent red rock
canyons and other public lands in Utah. And I am not going
ballistic.
With the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, the United
States set on a course, uncharted in the history of nations, to
preserve a few of the country's last remaining wildlands as
cultural and scientific enclaves and to protect their natural
ecological processes and values from encroaching an
indiscriminate development.
Thanks to the wisdom, foresight, and perseverance of many
dedicated individuals across this Nation, generations will
enjoy an enduring legacy of wilderness resources to provide
wildlife habitat, healthy soils and watersheds, primitive
recreation, solitude, cultural and historical resources, and
other scientific and ecological values.
The Wilderness Act established the National Wilderness
Preservation System now some 100 million acres in size and
containing wild places from all regions of the country. Some of
the wildest, most magnificent and most remote wildlands in the
lower 48 are in Utah, America's red rock wilderness.
``This is a region of the wildest desolation,'' wrote Major
John Wesley Powell. More than four-fifths of the State has been
fenced, farmed, dug up, raised into cities, criss-crossed by
roads, mined, and appropriated by the military, but some 6
million acres retain that wild splendor that Powell saw. The
wild public lands found in Utah harbor some of the largest and
finest desert, roadless areas to be found anywhere in the
world.
The Wilderness Society has been an active member of a broad
coalition of 150 conservation, wildlife, scientific, and
recreational organizations working to provide strong wilderness
protection for BLM lands in Utah. We were a leading advocate
for the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, and we have
fought to protect our Nation's wilderness resources and
wildlands since its founding in 1935.
We have offices in most regions of the country and a staff
of trained scientists, economists, and advocates. We work with
a wide variety of State, regional, and national organizations
to further the protection of Federal lands.
Our 300,000 members and supporters believe in the sound
management and protection of our Nation's public lands,
national parks, national forests, wildlife refuges, and
designated wilderness areas. They look to us to speak for these
lands and the many values they provide us.
Let me turn to H.R. 1500 and H.R. 1952. These could not be
two more different approaches to wilderness. One protects
wilderness, one does not. The Wilderness Society is proud to be
part of a coalition of 150 national, regional, and local
organizations that support the citizens wilderness proposal
contained in H.R. 1500 and sponsored by Mr. Hinchey called
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This bill, and its newly introduced Senate companion
legislation, Senate Bill 773, would provide protection for most
of the remaining wilderness resources on public lands managed
by the BLM in Utah. In addition, H.R. 1500 would maintain the
integrity of the wilderness system by continuing the important
wilderness protections afforded to designated areas by the
Wilderness Act of 1964.
The wilderness designations of H.R. 1500 are also widely
supported by the people of Utah. Nearly 70 percent of those
responding to Governor Leavitt's request for public comment
indicated their support for the acreage of wilderness
designations contained in H.R. 1500. In addition, when asked in
a recent independent poll does wilderness designation make an
area more or less appealing to you as a place to visit, 64
percent replied that wilderness designation makes a place more
appealing.
We oppose H.R. 1952, Representative Cannon's Utah bill,
because we believe that it actually makes no definite
wilderness designation. It fails to provide protection for
millions of acres of wilderness quality land. It ensures that
undesignated areas will never again be considered for
wilderness protection. And if by chance wilderness designations
were ever to be actually implemented, these areas would be
riddled by activities that are antithetical to wilderness.
Let me close by restating our interest in working with
Representative Cannon and members of this Committee in
addressing the issues of State trust lands. The Wilderness Act
of 1964 provides for and The Wilderness Society supports the
opportunity for State owned or privately owned land surrounded
by congressionally designated wilderness to be exchanged for
federally owned lands in the same State of approximately equal
value under authorities available to the Secretary. It is in
the bill. We are eager to work with you in resolving that
particular disagreement. Again, I want to thank the committee
for inviting me and The Wilderness Society to be present today.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Meadows may be found at end of
hearing.]
Chairman Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Meadows. Debbie Sease, we
will turn the time to you.
STATEMENT OF DEBBIE SEASE, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, SIERRA CLUB
Ms. Sease. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
testify before you again. I would like to just briefly
summarize my written statement. There are three issues I would
like to touch on with regard to H.R. 1500. The Sierra Club
vigorously supports this bill. It is a citizens proposal. It is
a bill that is based on a citizens proposal.
The reason citizens had to go out and put their own
proposal together on this stemmed in large part from the
failure of the Bureau of Land Management in the late 70's and
early 80's to do an adequate job on the inventory. I actually
personally toured much of the areas that are covered by this
bill with then State Director Gary Wicks.
And we stood in many, many areas where as far as the eye
could see it was wild country. It was beautiful country in many
cases. It was natural. It was largely unaffected by man, and
Mr. Wicks would say, ``We dropped this entire area because you
can't have outstanding solitude here. There is not enough
topographical relief.'' So the inventory itself was shrunk far
less than should have been considered.
The second point I wanted to make on H.R. 1500 is that it
protects large blocks of largely intact ecosystem. It has a
range of elevations of ecological communities and, where
possible, entire watersheds. And it is one of the things I
think is the strength of H.R. 1500 as a statewide wilderness
bill for BLM.
Finally, I wanted to turn to the comments that have been
raised this morning and previously about whether or not the
areas in H.R. 1500 qualify as wilderness. The issue of whether
or not areas are pure enough to be included in a wilderness
system is not a new issue. I think for as long as the
Wilderness Act has been around, this has been a subject of
debate.
The Forest Service during the Rare One and Rare Two process
spent a lot of time saying that areas should not be included in
the wilderness system because they weren't pure enough because
of the existence of an old two-track trail or stock watering
ponds or abandoned mines. In Utah national forest wilderness,
there are numerous examples of the same kinds of impacts that
we see in H.R. 1500. I have itemized some of those in my
statement.
I think if you look back to the crafters of the Wilderness
Act itself, some of the things that they said about this issue
are relevant here. Senator Mark Hatfield in 1973 said, ``I am
not a lawyer, but I do not think this language means there
cannot ever have been human activities within the area, as the
Forest Service seems to think or believe.''
Senator James Buckley, another Republican from New York,
said, ``The untrammeled-by-man criteria, in my view, reflects
an overly literal and narrow interpretation of the term
wilderness. It ignores the elucidative phrases which also
appear in Section 2[c] of the Wilderness Act, defining
candidate areas as those which are without permanent
improvements and with the imprint of man's work substantially
unnoticeable.''
During the debate on the Wilderness Act, Clinton P.
Anderson says that the Wilderness Act ``contains two
definitions of wilderness. The first sentence is a definition
of the pure wilderness area where the earth and its community
are untrammeled by man. It states the ideal. The second
sentence defines the meaning or nature of an area of wilderness
as used in the proposed Act. The substantial area retaining its
primeval character without permanent improvements which is to
be protected and managed so man's works are substantially
unnoticeable.''
And, finally, former Chairman of the Interior Committee,
Morris Udall, said, ``It would be nice to have our wilderness
preservation system absolutely pure and completely free of any
sign of the hand of man. But the fact is we are getting a late
start in this business of preserving America's wilderness. We
cannot have perfection.''
With regard to H.R. 1952, we have three general areas of
concern. One is the scope--the fact that far too little acreage
and too small an area is protected; second, a series of
management con-
cerns, which I have detailed in my written statement; and,
finally, the provision on State school exchanges.
With regard to the State school exchanges, there have been
numerous models in previous BLM wilderness bills to attempt to
expedite, to put some pressure on the Federal Government to
stay at the table. And those examples, in my view, have managed
to do so without unbalancing the playing field between the
State and Federal interests.
And I would urge the committee in looking to solutions for
the State school trust lands to look to some previous models,
whether it is the Arizona Wilderness bill, the California
Desert Protection Act. There were special provisions in the El
Malpais Monument and Wilderness Area in New Mexico, and I think
some of those are more fruitful models than what we see in H.R.
1952. That concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any
questions.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Sease may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
testimony and appreciate you being with us. Heidi McIntosh, you
are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HEIDI J. McINTOSH, LEGAL DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN UTAH
WILDERNESS ALLIANCE
Ms. McIntosh. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity today
to comment on H.R. 1952, as well as on H.R. 1500, America's Red
Rock Wilderness Act.
Mr. Hansen. Pull the mike just a tad closer please. Thank
you.
Ms. McIntosh. Is that better? I speak on behalf of the
25,000 SUWA members from throughout the country who cherish the
breathtaking wildlands of southern Utah. H.R. 1952 suffers from
numerous problems, but I will focus on two defects in the bill
today--its limited size and its fatally flawed process for the
exchange of school trust lands.
Simply put, H.R. 1952 is deju vu all over again. We have
seen this bill before, minimal in acreage, leaving out places
that vividly embody the core characteristics of wilderness.
These places include the stunning coral pink sand dunes of
Moquith Mountain, Fish, Owl and Road Canyons in the Cedar Mesa
area, lower Muddy Creek, much of Labyrinth Canyon, the
serpentine canyons of the Paria, and other areas too numerous
to mention here.
The magnificence of Utah wilderness is no longer a secret
shared by Utahans and a few adventurers from around the globe.
Americans from every walk of life cherish the beauty of these
unique lands and are fully aware of the threats of this
wondrous region, whether from inadequate wilderness legislation
or from the blade of a bulldozer.
Last year, in a stunning show of grassroots outrage,
thousands of Americans from every corner of the country urged
their Senators and Representatives to reject the Utah
Delegation's paltry offer to extend protection to only 2.1
million acres. 5.7 million acres, not 1.8 or 2.1, was the
message here heard in the Capitol, and the bill was defeated.
Let me turn to the school trust problem, because we
recognize that it is a significant problem. We would like to
work with every-
one involved to resolve it. We support in principle the idea
that the school trust administration should be compensated
fairly for lands where economically viable development is
hampered by wilderness designation.
But first, some background. Without any restrictions
attributable to wilderness designations, Utah has not been able
to generate more than about 1 percent of the school budget from
these lands. These lands are not a significant source of school
funds under the best of circumstances.
Further, funding for public schools has traditionally come
from taxes distributed by the State legislature. In Utah, where
the government always runs in the black--there is money in the
bank--State legislators reach out to Utah's school children
with empty hands. Virtually no other State provides as little
funding to educate its children as Utah.
This is not to say that trust lands should not be used to
help finance State schools. They should, and we don't contest
that. But blaming wilderness protection and wilderness
supporters for lost education funding is a red herring that
deflects attention from the serious problems that we have
before us today--how to protect Utah wilderness.
Having said this, I reiterate that we support fair
compensation to the trust. However, this bill is not
acceptable. First, this bill postpones wilderness protection
until the exchange process is completed. It would hold
wilderness hostage to a State government and give control over
Federal lands most in need of protection to those least
interested in shielding it from development, to those with a
strong motive to hold out, delaying the process with exorbitant
claims, and all the while the lands with wilderness character
remain unprotected and vulnerable to exploitation. Never before
has wilderness protection been subject to this kind of State
control.
The bill is also unacceptable because it strips the
Secretary of his authority to resist unreasonable State demands
for Federal lands, demands that may well wreak havoc on public
lands management and result in exchanges that are not based on
equivalent value.
Further, after the exchange is accomplished, the BLM would
hold the former State section subject to existing leases and
permits. Thus, exchange places all the benefits in the hands of
the State and leaves the BLM holding the bag. It has to buy out
the State lands, pay for the exchange process itself, and may
yet again have to buy out the holders of the leases and permits
whose activity would threaten even the mere acreage that would
be protected under this bill. This bill would drain the Federal
Treasury of crucial tax dollars.
Let me say too in closing that we understand, as I said,
that the State school trust sections are a problem. They are a
problem for us. They are a problem for a trust land
administration. They are a problem for the Federal Government.
And we have gone to the Utah Delegation and to the Governor of
Utah to express our strong interest in trading out these lands
within the monument.
It would be a terrific idea to use the monument as a
laboratory to see how we may be able to effectuate an exchange
which is mutually beneficial for all the parties concerned. And
I hope that we can work together while these bills are pending.
There is a window of opportunity to see what we can accomplish
together, all parties sitting at the table as equal bargaining
parties. And I think that that is how it ought to progress
instead of using the hammer provisions of Mr. Cannon's bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[Prepared statement of Ms. McIntosh may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. We appreciate your comments. I don't
mean to take issue with anybody and be argumentative. I used to
be Speaker of the Utah House before I came here, and that made
me Chairman of the Executive Appropriations Committee. And I
just hope you realize that the biggest percent of money that
goes into the State goes to schools that comes out of our
school budget. We have the highest of any State in the Union.
We put more of our percent of money into schools than any
other State in the Union. I don't know how much more you can
push these folks. Yet, as Louise pointed out or Mr. Harja, per
student it is still the smallest. Now, the obvious thing there
is that there is more children than other people, and there is
no question about that. I won't argue that point. We have a lot
of children.
Also on your testimony where you point out that last year's
delegation bill went down in ringing defeat. I don't know where
I was. That was my bill that passed everyplace it went. It
passed the subcommittee. It passed Full Committee. It passed
the Senate. And if you would like to see the whip check, we had
231 votes over here. It takes 218 to pass. There are 57 in the
Senate.
I would agree, and more than happy to accept that, that the
President would veto it. And if that is considered ringing
defeat, fine. But as far as the delegation's bill, it could
easily have passed the House and the Senate. I don't know if it
can now. That is something we may find out, but I guess there
is a part of definition on that so I won't argue that point
with anybody.
Ms. McIntosh. My reference was to the fact that it did not
come out of the Senate and didn't become law but----
Mr. Hansen. I am sorry. I didn't hear.
Ms. McIntosh. My reference was to the fact that it did not
emerge from the Senate as law, but I don't want to argue with
you on that point either.
Mr. Hansen. It passed the Senate committee and passed over
here. I sponsored the bill. I can tell you that is what
happened. And we did an exhaustive whip check on it--very
exhausting whip check on it. So what is the benefit of getting
your head bashed in to send it down to Pennsylvania Avenue and
have it come back, and we couldn't override a veto. I would
agree with that if that constitutes a ringing defeat, but the
bill wasn't defeated. There was enough up here to pass it in
both places, and I don't mean to get into a semantic game, but
that is what really happened.
Mr. Meadows, you made a point, as did Heidi McIntosh, about
the polls, that the majority of people in Utah, in your
opinion, and the polls you quoted wanted the 5.7 million acres.
You know what I would be willing to do? I would be willing to
say let us put it on the ballot, have no binding effect in
Congress I am afraid to admit, and if 5.7 came out, I would
sponsor the bill.
And I would make that pledge and sign it. If zero came out,
I would sponsor the bill. If 1.4 came out, I would sponsor the
bill. I mean, I have been in the State for a long time. I have
38 years as an elected official from that State. I was Speaker
of the Utah House, the highest position in the legislature. I
think I have a good knowledge of that, and I also know every
pollster in that State. And I also know how they ask the
questions, and I have done my share of actuarial work in
polling. And I would be willing to take that pledge. I will
sponsor it----
Mr. Cannon. If the Chairman would yield, I would take that
pledge too.
Mr. Hansen. But I want you to take the same pledge, that
the President of The Wilderness Society would say whatever
comes out, we will stand behind it. Do you take that pledge?
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Chairman, these issues are very complex,
and I think when you survey the citizens of southern Utah, you
survey the citizens of Utah as a State, and you survey the
citizens of the United States as well, who actually have a
significant interest. These are national lands. They are not
simply Utah lands.
I think we need to have all of the information that we
possibly can have about people's attitudes, and I think that is
what we are doing here today is trying to exchange opinions,
trying to understand what different Representatives believe is
the correct way to go. We represent people who have strong
wilderness values.
We see a lot of support for those values within the State
of Utah, and the polling that we have seen indicates that
support. When you get down to specific acreage and specific
places, I am not certain the polling is that detailed. We would
have to be careful then orchestrating that kind of instrument.
We would be willing to explore that with you though.
Mr. Hansen. I don't argue what you are saying. I just read
your testimony and Heidi McIntosh's testimony where you both
made a rather big point, that the people in Utah wanted that. I
would concur with what you say. Other people have an interest
in it. And you could add to your discussion to me--you could
say will you make it a nationwide poll. Of course we couldn't.
I would do that if I could vote on all their stuff in every
one of their areas. With that in mind, I cannot understand why
you folks weren't in testifying on the Eastern Wilderness bill.
No one can tell me that Maine, Vermont, Georgia doesn't have
some gorgeous area that should be protected in wilderness.
Mr. Meadows. My understanding is The Wilderness Society's
Peter Kirby was here testifying on behalf of the Eastern
Wilderness bill.
Mr. Hansen. You are right and I stand corrected. And the
testimony was excellent testimony, and he should be commended
for it.
Mr. Meadows. He is very knowledgeable, and we have a lot of
respect for Peter's----
Mr. Hansen. I would hope that we don't say that tongue-in-
cheek on an Eastern Wilderness bill. There are plenty of areas,
and what really concerns me is the people I see come out to
Utah are the very wealthy. These are the people with money that
come out to see it.
Yet, I worry about the innercity kid that doesn't get to
enjoy that because being an old Scout master myself and taking
a lot of kids into the Uinta Mountains a few times, which is
one of the most pristine, gorgeous areas which is wilderness
with my name on it, I would just feel that some kids on the
East Coast and the East are missing out on a very good
experience. And having spent years in the East, not only in
this position but other positions, I know there are some
gorgeous, gorgeous areas. And I do appreciate that, and I
appreciate your comment.
Mr. Meadows. I am sorry that Mr. Duncan is no longer here.
I am from Tennessee, and I was very actively involved in
Eastern Wilderness bills 20 years ago.
Mr. Hansen. Well, I commend you for that because I would
hope to see the support of all three of your groups on
something that I consider a good piece of legislation. Back to
the poll, Heidi, what about you folks? Will you go along with
that?
Ms. McIntosh. Well, there is support for 5.7 million acres
of wilderness in Utah, as you know, and that poll is a 1995
poll that was conducted by Valley Research. And the plurality
of the people polled were in favor of 5.7 million acres, and
that is an important consideration, but it isn't the only
consideration. It is only part of the equation.
The lands that we are talking about today are public lands
that are owned by all Americans, and so while I think that Utah
opinion is important, Utahns can't determine the fate of land
that isn't owned by Utah. And so I would not be able to
accept----
Mr. Hansen. I am not arguing that. I am just going to your
statement. I am going to your statement.
Ms. McIntosh. I was responding to your question about----
Mr. Hansen. And your statement said that the majority of
people in Utah wanted this, and I am just merely laying that on
the table. If that is the question, let us do it that way. It
would make it easy for me, for Mr. Cannon, for Senator Hatch,
for Governor Leavitt, the whole nine yards. This would be a lot
easier for us to just stand up and say this is what the people
want, and we have all agreed that that is what we will do. But
I cannot say if we can do that.
Let me just go a minute longer seeing I haven't used all my
time before and say this. I would hope that--I am perfectly
aware that the 5,000 acres has caveats to it--no question about
that. You have probably seen down in Grand County where our
Indian friends are very upset about 3 areas of your 5.7
proposal in the canyons of Fish, Owl, and Road, that they feel
that they are really being subjected there because that is how
they get their firewood.
And in the old days, they used to drag in there and carry
it out with saws and axes. Now, they go in with pickup trucks
and chain saws--roads all through it--four or five areas like
that that I would hope that Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Cannon, and many
of you folks and the previous panel talked about that there is
probably a compromise here if everyone would get off their
rigidity and say where is there some give and take?
And I would hope that, if I may say to these three
organizations that are well represented here today, that you
would give some thought to some of those areas on a retail
basis. We are kind of talking wholesale today, and on a retail
basis, it would be my wish that you could work something out
working with these folks who were here before and others
because I really think this issue has polarized and become more
contentious than it ever should be. But I want to thank all
three of you for your attendance here today, and I will turn to
the gentleman from American Samoa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, the battle lines have been
drawn, the die is cast, we are crossing the River Kan, and
somewhere along the line I sincerely hope that we do find a
resolution to the issues brought about. I was just curious too,
Mr. Chairman, in asking Mr. Meadows and Ms. McIntosh, these
polls were taken in 1995. Do they still stand substantively, or
do you suppose that 2 years later there may have been a shift
or a change in sentiments of the people of Utah?
Ms. McIntosh. I suspect that there may have been a shift.
It is the most recent poll that was done on the issue, but
since 1984, our membership in Utah and nationwide has doubled,
and that was primarily because of the Utah wilderness issue and
the threat that people felt was imminent and threatening these
lands. And so, if anything, I would guess that there is a
little more support in Utah and elsewhere for wilderness than
what is reflected in this poll data.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I know the Chairman has always kindly
reminded me that since taking up this responsibility as the
Ranking Member that 67 percent of the State of Utah is owned by
the Federal Government, as opposed to our friends from the
eastern States that have literally no presence of the Federal
Government.
And I guess that is part of the frustrations that some of
our congressional delegations coming from western States like
Nevada, Utah, and Colorado--the presence of the Federal
Government can be a blessing. It can also be especially
frustrating for those who do represent the Utahans or the State
of Utah in that respect.
Because of that, and I suppose you might say that it is
just a constant intrusion of the Federal Government by way of
regulations, laws supposedly to help us dealing with
wilderness, dealing with the forestry, dealing with BLM. We
don't have that as much--the presence in the eastern States.
And I couldn't agree with you more. This is America. We all
have got to look at what is on the grand scale of things and
should be helpful.
But what do you suggest, Ms. McIntosh, to equalize this
imbalance--that I consider it an imbalance? Should every State
be considered maybe 50 percent owned by the Federal Government?
Maybe some of the State lands owned by New York or Vermont
ought to be put in some sense of balance so that there is no
inequality here.
I suppose if I were a Utahan and 67 percent of the State of
Utah owned by the Federal Government, would you share any sense
of sentiment and frustration that maybe the residents of Utah
do have and the fact that there is constantly an encroachment
or an infringement of Federal laws telling them what to do?
Ms. McIntosh. I think you will find a split of opinion on
that question. People who live in the West--I have lived in the
West for almost all my life, and I thank God every day that
there are Federal public lands in the West where you can go out
and just experience the sheer beauty and the solitude of those
lands. And sure those lands can and should be developed in some
places, but they need to be protected too.
And in trying to tie back to the reason that we are here
today, I think that we need to deal with the reality in that
most western States--the Federal Government owns a large chunk
of land. But let us try to make the most of it, and let us work
together to try to resolve this school trust situation. The
least we can do is sit around the table and try to negotiate as
equal bargaining partners some sort of solution that
consolidates the land to the benefit of all the parties.
Mr. Faleomavaega. This issue is not necessarily dealing
with wilderness, but I make an analogy in the fact that for the
past 30 years perhaps, the nuclear industry have been great
advocates of building nuclear reactors to provide electricity
for our country. And in doing so, we have got a whole bunch of
nuclear waste material sitting out there among the eastern
States, and they want to shift it to States like Nevada or
maybe even in Utah if there are some presence. Already there is
a lot of presence of that.
And if you were a resident of Nevada, would you appreciate
getting nuclear waste products from Tennessee and other States
for the simple fact that because we own 80 percent of Nevada
federally and then maybe even in Utah we should send some of
our nuclear wastes byproducts to Utah because we own 67 percent
of that State.
What would be your recommendation on how we might resolve
this multibillion dollar problem that we are going to be faced
with in the very--some very crucial weeks and months ahead,
that the 1.2 million residents of Nevada are going to be the
recipients of nuclear waste products that will be coming from
the eastern States?
Ms. McIntosh. Can I study that and get back to you later? I
am sorry. I know it is a complicated issue, and I don't have an
answer for you as I sit here today.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Meadows?
Mr. Meadows. Well, I will offer an opinion. You know, I
haven't studied this issue either. But I am not certain that
the issue is so much whether it should be stored on Federal,
private, or State lands. It seems to me that they are issues of
security, they are issues of stability, they are issues of
permanence.
I am not certain that Nevada is the right place to store
nuclear waste. You know, I think we all wish that we did not
have to deal with this problem. We do need to find a way to
stabilize and secure this waste. But I don't think it has to be
based on who has the most Federal lands, and, therefore, you
dump it in my backyard.
Ms. Sease. Well, again, I didn't come prepared to talk
about nuclear waste disposal, but the Sierra Club does have a
position against the Yucca Mountain legislation which would
place nuclear waste in the Nevada. And if you want details
about alternatives, I can certainly have somebody from my
energy team provide you with that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. No. I understand that, Ms. Sease. I was
just making an analogy on what we are talking about. This is
America, and we all ought to share--have a great sense of
responsibility to share equally in terms of some of the things
that come to bear and the resources that Utah has. Great. Let
us all share in the wealth, whether it be out in the wilderness
or the trees or whatever.
But when it comes to the junk stuff, all the other States
want to get rid of it, and let us send it to Utah as well since
it is easier for the Federal Government to make designations in
Nevada and Utah to store some of this waste. But I was only
making an analogy. I wasn't trying to solicit your expert
opinion on it.
But, you know, I have been dealing with nuclear issues now
for the past several years. Thanks to President Chirac, you
know, the great French government that many Americans did not
realize they detonated almost 200 atomic bombs in these islands
out there in Pacific, let alone the 66 detonations that we have
done in the Marshall Islands; one specifically, a hydrogen bomb
that was 1,000 more powerful than the bombs we dropped in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And surprisingly many people in America don't realize that
this is what we have done. And yet we put a stop to it because
we found that there was strontium 90 in milk products in
Wisconsin and Minnesota. So I just want to share those concerns
with you, but I do appreciate your testimonies.
I sincerely hope that--I certainly do take it in a
constructive way and hopefully that we might find a resolution
to this problem that has been gnawing at us now not only for
the residents of Utah, but certainly for our Nation. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to talk
for a moment about the polls because I think they are relevant.
The world should know that we love Valley Research, Inc.,
because they came out a couple weeks before my election and had
me 20 points down, and that certainly motivated my supporters
to get out and vote. Our internal polls were much different.
And let me just say that polling is a tricky thing. This
is, as you all have said, a complicated issue and citing polls
of people who don't understand the complications who like the
term wilderness. I mean, we believe in conquering the
wilderness, and then many of us believe in subduing it and
having dominion over it. Polls don't do that when you use the
naked term wilderness, and so I don't believe this an issue
that ought to be driven by public opinion.
Let me also say that I deeply appreciate the way, Mr.
Meadows, you have approached the discussion. We have differing
views it is clear, but you have been measured and thoughtful.
And let me say the same, Ms. Sease, that we probably have more
clear distinctions with the Sierra Club in Utah.
Your proposals to drain Lake Powell or your organization's
proposals to drain Lake Powell, and the attacks on sport
utility vehicles I think are ill-founded and don't do much good
for the environmental movement or the protectionist movement.
But, generally speaking, I think that, and especially in
your testimony today, this has been very pleasing and that
there has been a foundation I think from moving forward and
working together. We look forward to do that.
I tend to look at language to try and figure out where
people are coming from. And I think it has been very clear, Ms.
McIntosh, that SUWA has been on the extreme polar edge of this
debate. In looking through your testimony--in Mr. Meadows's
testimony, he talked about not going ballistic, and that was
about as rhetorical as that got, and that was saying we are not
on the extreme I thought.
But as I look through your testimony, you talk about on the
one hand you have got extreme words like cherishing the
breathtaking wildlands. You talk about lyrical language in the
Wilderness Act. On the other hand, my bill is deju vu all over
again, and you refer to it as paltry and stingy and meager. And
in another place you talk about vociferously opposing and
exorbitant and astronomical, words that tend to be extreme.
And, you know, frankly, I don't understand where SUWA is
coming from from a point of view of what they believe. I think
that I could sit down and talk with Mr. Meadows, and we
probably would come at least to a context for discussion. Can
you give me a little bit of background about yourself
personally? You know, you mentioned you were raised in the
West. What part of the West, what your beliefs are, what your
religion is possibly? An idea of where you derive your views
from that you are representing here?
Ms. McIntosh. That is a difficult question to summarize in
the time we have here. I am from Tucson, Arizona. I have always
enjoyed being in the wilderness. I have always enjoyed
observing wildlife, enjoying the quiet, the solitude. It has
been a major influence in my life. It is something that I think
is inherent in my character. I don't know if I can really
explain any better than that.
With respect to my testimony, I think it is beneficial for
everyone if we have a frank and honest discussion, and that is
how I phrased my written statements and my verbal statements
here today. It benefits you to know exactly how we feel about
this.
Now, while I was very descriptive in my testimony, I think
that we ought to sit down, and we ought to talk about this
issue that you have raised in your bill, which I think is an
important issue, and that is the exchange of trust lands. Let
us do it. Let us see what the possibilities are.
Mr. Cannon. Well, certainly SUWA has done a great deal of
inventorying of the State of Utah, I think more than perhaps
anyone else. You have actually pushed for more than the 5.7
million acres not publicly yet, I know. In that process, do you
think that you can identify 630,000 acres that we could talk
about exchanging that would be available for development and
commercialization?
Ms. McIntosh. Any acres that we have identified in our
proposal?
Mr. Cannon. The question is could you identify--because in
your organization you have a huge body of expertise. Could you
identify a large number of acres that you would be willing to
say these are appropriate, not in the wilderness areas
obviously, but in other areas--these are appropriate for
development, for commercialization, for oil and gas and mining
and those kind of things?
Ms. McIntosh. I think that we should try, but I think that
your question assumes that all of the school trust lands are
appropriate for the type of development you describe, and that
is not an accurate statement of the character of the school
trust lands.
As Mr. Harja mentioned, these weren't selected because they
are particularly valuable. They are scattered through the State
like buckshot. They are random sections, 4 out of every 36. So
not all of them have mineral or oil and gas value. But I think
that we could sit down and talk about where there would be
exchanges of equivalent value, and I suggest again that we do
that in the monument.
Mr. Cannon. I would like to pursue this a little bit in the
next round of questioning. I see my time is gone, but I
recognize that not all of the school trust lands have mining or
oil and gas or other kinds of those commercial-type revenues.
But there is a mandate to produce revenue off those lands, and
there are many ways to do that. And development doesn't mean
building condos. Obviously, the water situation doesn't support
that.
So the question is, and I would appreciate it if you would
consider for a moment, are there blocks of land or can SUWA
within its organization come up with blocks of land that it
could propose as consolidated trades for the scattered trust
lands? My time has expired, but I will come back to that.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not a member of
the subcommittee. I came just first to say that we in Colorado
share an awful lot in common with Utah having a great amount of
Federal involvement in ownership of public lands, as well as
management of the public lands. And certainly the outcome of
issues like this are of great concern to us, and we are very
interested in them.
A couple questions that I had deal with--I would like to
ask all three of you--with respect to this Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument and setting the 1.7 million acres
in that project. Did your organization support or oppose the
President in that particular designation?
Mr. Meadows. We very much supported the President in that
designation, and we are very interested in working with BLM as
it addresses the management options for that monument. So we
are much committed to that.
Ms. Sease. We also support the designation of the monument.
Ms. McIntosh. We also supported the designation of the
monument, and we too look forward to working toward developing
a good management plan for the monument.
Mr. Schaffer. The reason I asked that question is because I
was impressed, frankly, with your comments about your desire to
work with the Utah Delegation on the school lands issue. And
the reason I asked about the monument was to really inquire
into the depths of that sincerity.
This monument designation was not done with the support or
even the consultation of the State of Utah, the Utah officials.
It was announced in another State and I believe one of the most
unfortunate examples of cowardice in the Administration in the
way it went about that particular designation in an election
year from another State and, again, with the total absence of
any consideration for the values of the State of Utah.
Knowing now that you support that, I want to inquire--or
you supported that activity. I want to go a little further into
your concern and your willingness to work on the school lands
issue. Most western States have very similar arrangements with
how they fund local schools.
The 2.1 million acres that Mr. Cannon proposes includes
140,000 acres of school trust lands, and this is the defining
issue of the bill, I believe. You all said that you supported
H.R. 1500, which has 5.7 million acres of wilderness and
630,000 acres of Utah school trust lands.
And, again, you expressed your desire to work with the Utah
Delegation on the school lands issue. I am curious as to how
you worked or to what extent you consulted the Utah Delegation
before arriving at your decision to support H.R. 1500 and its
treatment of the school lands issue? Any one of you jump right
in.
Mr. Meadows. Let me make a couple of comments related to
that. First of all, I think we really are sincere in working on
the opportunities for exchange. As many of you know, Conoco Oil
Company is now inside the monument on State lands preparing to
drill exploratory wells.
They have asked for permission to do the same on Federal
lands. The Bureau of Land Management issued an environmental
assessment. We suspect that Conoco will move ahead, that BLM
will grant that, and Conoco will move ahead and do that
drilling sometime this summer.
We have been in discussion--all three of our organizations
have been in discussion with Conoco and with BLM trying to work
through a way in which we might be able to do a land exchange.
The question becomes value for value. It is a very difficult
issue, and it is not one that anyone is necessarily experienced
enough or has enough information or data about the place in
order to make those kinds of judgments, and that is what makes
it difficult.
I would offer that we are dealing with different acreages
and different values for each of those sections, in fact. It
isn't as if we have to find similar acreage. What we are trying
to find is similar value. So if we can find similar value
within the State of Utah and publicly owned lands for the trade
of the 600,000 school trust land acreage, then we would work to
do that. It doesn't necessarily mean it has to be 600,000
acres.
I would also go on to say that our organizations have
really focused our understanding of the land on what is inside
the monument and what is inside the wilderness areas that we
have researched. We are not as familiar, I suspect, with those
areas outside the monument or outside the wilderness areas. So
we don't have the expertise of all the lands in Utah but would
be eager to pursue that.
Mr. Schaffer. On the school land issue, which officials in
Utah have you dealt with to arrive at the decision that you
made to work with the officials in Utah? On the school lands
issue which ones or which individuals in the State--
representing the State did you work with before you came to the
conclusion to support H.R. 1500?
Mr. Meadows. Well, I have to admit that I came to The
Wilderness Society on December the 1st of 1996 so this decision
had already been made. I applauded it from a distance, but I
have not talked with any official within the State of Utah
about that particular issue.
Ms. Sease. Congressman Schaffer, the Sierra Club I think
has a long history of working in a number of States with both
the equivalent of the State school trust and with the
delegation to craft workable solutions to exchanges and
wilderness proposals.
I can certainly recall--in fact, I just sent off to our
archives two file drawers full of materials on a project in
Utah that was referred to as Project Bold. The fact that that
did not come to a successful resolution doesn't mean that we
didn't try to work cooperatively.
Most of the bills that have had a successful resolution on
the State school trust were not introduced with that exact
language initially. It was derived as one headed into the
closing years of negotiation over the bills.
Mr. Schaffer. Any elected officials that you can name that
you worked with or cooperated with in a similar sort of way on
this bill?
Ms. Sease. On this particular bill----
Mr. Schaffer. H.R. 1500 I mean.
Ms. Sease. On H.R. 1500, if you will look at it, it does
not have a detail section on State school trust lands.
Mr. Schaffer. It ignores it is my point.
Ms. Sease. And I think that if that language were to be
developed, certainly it would be appropriate for the sponsor of
the bill and for supporters of the bill to work very closely
with folks in Utah on that issue.
Mr. Hansen. The time of the gentleman--possibly, you asked
a kind of a tantalizing question about the monument in Utah.
You can well imagine yesterday there was a lawsuit filed by the
counties and the school trust, and we have done a lot of work
on that. We have had a hearing--a very exhaustive hearing on
it. We were also asked--we were going to subpoena the
information that was between the White House and the Interior
Department.
I think little by little most of the environmental
communities are coming to the same conclusion that they did,
the 1906 Antiquity Law doesn't offer anywhere near the
protection of the 1964 Wilderness Act, NEPA, and the 1976 FLPMA
Act. In fact, in the statement between Kathleen McGinty and
Secretary Babbitt, he states that.
They didn't bring that out, of course, and, therefore, to a
certain extent in both these bills that are being offered
today, they both have rather large chunks in the area that is
now the monument. You can ask the question did the effort of
the President extinguish the WSAs? Possibly; possibly not. But
we will find that out I am sure maybe a judicial question. I
would argue that it would.
Anyway, I think somebody really fouled up on it as far as
protecting an area as they surely didn't do it. They had better
protection under FLPMA than they ever got under this monument.
And that seems to be from every legal opinion we can get. That
seems to be the premise. I am not faulting anybody for doing
it. The President has that right.
I do think though that the Act has well outlived its
usefulness. It was there and at the time there was no way to
protect the Grand Canyon and Zions and all those beautiful
areas. Anyway, I think that someone shot themselves in the foot
on that one if I may say so. And now we are finding--we are
getting letters daily on that. Maybe you have gone through that
too in Colorado, but I say that as Chairman of the Committee.
I just want to thank you folks. We had excellent testimony
from all three of you; appreciate it very much. Now, let me add
that you are welcome in my office anytime. We are more than
happy to talk to you. Contrary to popular belief, there isn't
any ``them and us'' around here.
And we gain a lot from you folks, and so long as we keep it
civil, we are more than happy to talk to any folks. And, Mr.
Meadows, congratulations on your position now. I didn't realize
it had been so short. I hope that works out well for you.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. And with that, we thank you all, all who have
been here, and we will conclude this hearing with me banging
the gavel because there is another one that is going to start
in a little while in here.
[Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Louise Liston, County Commissioner, Garfield County, Utah
Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of the people of Garfield County, I wish to
express my gratitude to Chairman Hansen for his longstanding
leadership on the wilderness issue in Utah and for holding yet
another hearing on this issue in his subcommittee today. I
would also feel remiss if I did not thank Congressman Cannon
for fulfilling the promises he made to the people of Utah that
his first order of business as a Congressman would be to act to
redress our grievances due to the September 18, 1996
Presidential executive order creating the Grand Staircase
Escalante National Monument. Congressman Cannon has proved to
be a tireless worker on the Monument issue and with the
introduction of S. 1952, he now puts before the Congress of the
United States legislation which the people of rural Utah can--
on the whole--live with. It is refreshing to have someone
represent us who does not simply complain, but keeps their
promises by acting--Thank you for getting off to a good start
as our 3rd District Congressman.
Mr. Chairman, let me say this about BLM wilderness. We the
people of southern Utah are tired of it. We want the issue
resolved. But, we are not now, nor will we ever be willing to
agree to legislation that destroys our livelihood, simply
because we are tired of the conflict. All of the issues: BLM
wilderness, the new National Monument, RS 2477 roads, state
school trust lands, actual development of coal, oil, gas and
other mineral reserves on public lands; all of these issues
must be taken into account and resolved equitably before we
will consider the controversy settled. We have always been
willing to participate in the public process and have played by
the rules. We regret that the President of the United States
and his Secretary of the Interior have not. To now consider
adding millions of new acres of BLM wilderness in our counties
without taking all of these issues into account would be
unconscionable for us.
Without beating around the bush, we hear that some would
like to use this 2.1 million acre wilderness bill as a starting
point and split the difference with advocates of H.R. 1500 at
around 3.2 million acres. We hear that because some are tired
of dealing with the issue, a 3.2 million acre bill sounds
appealing because it would placate environmental groups, who
view the legal 3.2 million WSA limit as their bottom line. The
fact is, Mr. Chairman, Secretary Babbitt is illegally managing
BLM lands in Utah now as de facto 5.7 million acres, not the
legal limit of 3.2 million acres. It may be politically
expedient to cut a deal at 3.2 million acres, but on the land,
where we live, that amount of wilderness, on top of the
restrictions imposed by the creation of a 1.7 million acre
national Monument, on top of the restrictions imposed on us by
four adversarial lawsuits over RS 2477 rights-of-way, will
effectively place us into a permanent position of servitude.
Rural Utahns are aware that only about 1 million acres of
land in the state qualify for wilderness under the definition
of the 1964 Act. We have agreed to double that amount for
political reasons. If Congress chooses to raise the acreage
total to 3.2 million acres or higher and ignores the 1964
Wilderness Act criteria entirely, then it is time to amend the
Wilderness Act to conform to reality. If not, then Congress
should adhere to the laws it passes and be intellectually
honest with the American people. Please don't ask us to call
something wilderness that does not fit the criteria. If members
of this committee are going to change the rules, then I
recommend the Congress consider first changing the 1964 law.
Look at reality one more time. Sixty seven percent of Utah
is federally owned. The lands being managed as wilderness study
areas now constitute over 20 percent of the Federal lands in
the State. Existing Forest Service & BLM wilderness constitutes
another 5 percent of Federal lands. The National Park Service
Controls another 7 percent of the Federal lands, the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument (absent the 350,000 BLM
WSA acres) constitutes another 8 percent of the Federal land.
All told 40 percent of the Federal lands in Utah, not including
Indian Reservations and military restricted areas are
effectively off limits to multiple uses. Said another way, less
than half of the lands in Federal ownership are classified as
multiple use lands and available for economic development. An
additional 13 percent of the lands in Utah are state school
trust lands. I will talk more about them in a minute, but
please understand these school trust lands are restricted to
whatever use is deemed appropriate by the surrounding Federal
land manager. Unless these lands are blocked-up so they can be
developed, they are worthless to the state school trust and can
not generate revenue of any kind.
So let me conclude by saying Garfield county supports
Congressman Cannon's bill as the one which comes closest to
portraying things the way they actually are on the land. It
contains more wilderness than the 1964 Act definition allows,
but we believe we can survive under its terms.
Just as important, the Cannon bill takes a significant step
toward resolving the age-old impasse over Federal-state land
exchanges by allowing the trustees for the school system in
Utah to select unappropriated Federal lands within 2 years of
enactment and requires that the school trust provisions of the
bill must occur before any wilderness designations can take
place. H.R. 1500, Mr. Hinchey's bill, as in years past, fails
to address these critical issues.
While I am hopeful enactment of Congressman Cannon's bill
means educational interests in Utah may finally receive the
attention they deserve and actual exchanges take place, let me
point out something many Members of Congress and many
environmental groups absolutely do not want to hear. That is,
in order for any Federal-state land exchange to mean anything,
school trust lands have to be exploited, developed. Some
courageous company or companies must invest capital in a coal-
mining project, and oil drilling operation and actually develop
the resource in order for any money to go to the school
children of Utah. Let me say that another way. It is the
royalties paid as result of natural resource extraction, which
will fill the coffers of the state school trust.
As of today, June 24, 1997, less than 1 percent of the
state school budget in Utah is derived from such development.
Utah spends a higher percentage of its state budget (80
percent) on education than any other state. At the same time,
Utah is dead last, fiftieth in per capita spending on
education--in large part, because it can not tax its people any
more without driving individuals and industry out of the state.
If state school trust lands could begin to contribute in a
meaningful way, perhaps Utah could spend more on students, pay
its teachers better salaries, or even lower its already high
taxes. For that to happen, development must occur on state
lands.
For those environmentalists who are now going ballistic,
please know that all the applicable environmental laws
governing development on public lands: NEPA, FLPMA, SMCRA, ESA,
CWA, CAA--all of them still apply. If the objective of each of
these Acts is to simply stop all development however, then this
legislation can call for unlimited land exchanges and in lieu
selections and the outcome would still be meaningless. The
parties must act in good faith and allow natural resource
development to occur somewhere in Utah.
If I have been blunt in my testimony then, Mr. Chairman, I
plead guilty. This is the way things really are. You know it
and I know it. What we seem to be dealing with in the Utah
wilderness debate is an endless parade of dancing around the
truth, and I for one, am tired of it. I stand ready to help you
pass this legislation in any way that I can. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3774.072