<DOC>
[105 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:49520.wais]
S. Hrg. 105-727
MONTANA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ACT OF 1998
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
ON
S. 1913
A BILL TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO SELL LEASEHOLDS AT
THE CANYON FERRY RESERVOIR IN THE STATE OF MONTANA AND TO ESTABLISH A
TRUST AND FUND FOR THE CONSERVATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF PUBLIC HUNTING AND FISHING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE STATE
FEBRUARY 17, 1998--HELENA, MONTANA
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
<snowflake>
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-520 cc WASHINGTON : 1998
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office,
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BARBARA BOXER, California
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado RON WYDEN, Oregon
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
JUNE 7, 1998--HELENA, MONTANA
Page
OPENING STATEMENT
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 1
WITNESSES
Orsello, William, Montana Wildlife Federation.................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Robinson, Robert J., Canyon Ferry Recreation Association......... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Trenk, Peggy, on behalf of Hon. Rick Hill, U.S. Representative
from the State of Montana...................................... 4
Prepared statement of Representative Hill.................... 53
Vashro, Michael, Prickly Pear Sportsmen.......................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 59
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
S. 1913, Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act.............. 42
Letters:
Alexander, Gil R............................................. 64
Ammon, George A.............................................. 67
Blacker, John and Julie...................................... 64
Carroll, Robert E............................................ 64
Crowe, Guy and Betty......................................... 66
Erving, Dan.................................................. 65
Statements:
Alexander, Gil, Canyon Ferry Reservoir leaseholder........... 37
Beneventi, Mary, Canyon Ferry Reservoir leaseholder.......... 29
Bishop, Mike, Helena, MT..................................... 29
Blacker, John, Canyon Ferry Reservoir leaseholder............ 39
Blacker, Julie, Canyon Ferry Reservoir leaseholder........... 21
Blanford, Lisa, Canyon Ferry Reservoir leaseholder........... 22
Budewitz, Tom, Broadwater County Commissioner................ 25
Eggum, Lyle, Canyon Ferry Reservoir leaseholder.............. 30
Foreman, Dorothy, Billings, MT............................... 22
Frasier, Stan, Montana Wildlife Federation................... 32
Grant, John, Canyon Ferry Reservoir leaseholder.............. 28
Griffith, Mike, Lewis and Clark County Commissioner.......... 35
Harper, Hal, Montanta State Representative................... 23
Helfert, Lanny............................................... 19
Janecke, Bill, Anaconda, MT.................................. 29
Kretchmer, Dwayne, Havre, MT................................. 22
LaRock, Larry................................................ 20
Larson, John, Canyon Ferry Recreation Association............ 39
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior................................. 61
Masolo, Gay Ann, Montana State Representative................ 24
McCarthy, Charlie............................................ 21
McCullough, Steve, Broadwater County Commissioner............ 32
Pyfer, Clark, Canyon Ferry Reservoir leaseholder............. 33
Rothschiller, Margery, Great Falls, MT....................... 23
Sedlock, Mike................................................ 30
Simons, Bill, Helena, MT..................................... 35
Trumly, Bill, Butte, MT...................................... 34
Wilson, John, Trout Unlimited................................ 38
MONTANA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ACT OF 1998
----------
SUNDAY, JUNE 7, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Helena, Montana.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:00 noon in the
Judicial Room, Colonial Inn, 2301 Colonial Drive, Helena
Montana, Hon. Max Baucus, presiding.
Present: Senator Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Good morning, everybody. I apologize for
having the hearing on a Sunday. On the other hand, maybe we're
blessed, because it's raining; which means the turnout is
probably a little bit greater than it otherwise might be. It
means we have the opportunity to have an even more engaging
discussion on the Canyon Ferry project.
I appreciate your taking the time. This is a hearing on a
bill that I've introduced, cosponsored by Senator Burns, S.
1913, called the Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. I
apologize on behalf of Conrad and Rick that they're unable to
be here today. I know they wanted to attend, but their
schedules prevent their participating today.
We, however, have a court reporter/stenographer. Cheryl
Romsa very ably is taking a record of the entire hearing. This
is an official public hearing of the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works. Everything will be on the record.
I'll report to Conrad and Rick about what I've picked up at the
hearing today. I know each of you will, too, in the ways that
you feel most appropriate. Of course, they'll have access to
the record.
Peggy Trenk, who works for Representative Rick Hill, is
here. When I finish my brief introductory remarks, Peggy will
give a statement on behalf of Congressman Hill.
Some preliminary matters--the testimony of each witness
will be made part of the record. I suspect that some of the
witnesses will have more extended printed written testimony
that will be part of the record. But I'm going to ask that the
first panel of witnesses to confine their remarks to about 5
minutes each. If you go a few minutes over, that's no big deal.
When you're finished, I'll ask some questions. We want this to
be quite informational, so if some of you have some questions
of each other, too, feel free to ask those as well.
At the conclusion of that portion of the hearing, then I'll
turn it over to all or any of you who wish to speak. There's a
sign-up sheet in the back of the room. I'd like each of you who
wish to speak to sign up there so that we can have a list of
all those who do wish to speak. Holly Luck, from my office--a
lot of you know Holly--will be giving the names of the people
that are on the list, just announcing the names. When she
mentions your name, go to the microphone and speak.
Each of you who speaks in that portion of the hearing
should confine your remarks to about 2 minutes to leave time
for others. We want to be fair to everybody.
We're very honored to have with us here today witnesses who
are very involved in the issue: Bob Robinson, of the Canyon
Ferry Recreation Association. He's front and center here. Next
to him, Mike Vashro, with the Prickly Pear Sportsmen's
Association. He's seated at my left. Bill Orsello, with the
Montana Wildlife Federation, is seated at my right. When
they've finished, each of you who wishes to speak can line up
there at the microphone and say what's on your mind.
I introduced this bill because I believe it will benefit
Montanans for generations to come; not just those of you who
are here and your immediate families, but also for our future
generations. I hope this bill presents a common sense solution
to a number of ongoing conflicts in our State.
As we know, the public is finding it more difficult to
access public lands. Private lands that once were accessible to
are now often posted ``no trespassing.'' While this problem
occurs throughout our State, it is also occurring in some
degree in Helena and in nearby areas.
Recreation, hunting and fishing have become ever more a
part of our State and local economies. Public access will help
restore one of the legs of our economy. It's critical,
therefore, that we maintain adequate access to our public lands
in areas such as the Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
In addition to the problems caused by access, growth in our
State has eliminated important fish and wildlife habitat. Some
areas that were once vibrant with fisheries or elk herds have
been negatively affected by development. Once again, given the
importance of hunting and fishing to our State and local
economies, we should make the investments today to ensure that
our children and our grandchildren can experience the great
hunting and fishing opportunities that we presently enjoy.
The Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1998 is
designed to address two problems--to improve access to public
lands and to conserve important fish and wildlife habitat. The
Act does this by creating two trusts to help acquire access to
public lands and to protect our State's hunting and fishing.
The first trust is a local fund, called the Canyon Ferry-
Missouri River Trust. As the name suggests, this trust would be
used to improve public access to Canyon Ferry Reservoir and
upstream along the Missouri River and to conserve fish and
wildlife in these areas. As more and more people use these
areas for hunting, fishing, and recreation, it's important that
we have the tools necessary to provide sufficient public access
to help conserve our fish and wildlife resources.
The second trust is a statewide fund, called the Montana
Hunter and Fisherman Access Fund. Like the local trust, this
fund would also be used to improve access to public lands and
to conserve fish and wildlife. But unlike the Canyon Ferry-
Missouri River Trust, this fund can be used throughout Montana.
What, you may ask, does this matter have to do with the
cabin sites at the Canyon Ferry Reservoir? The cabin sites are
the mechanism by which this bill will fund or pay for these
trusts. In Montana, we have a long tradition of exchanging
public lands with other lands that support our public values.
As one example of this, the members of the congressional
delegation and I have been working for the past year on the
Gallatin II land exchange, near Bozeman. That's an exchange
that trades Forest Service lands for critical wildlife lands.
S. 1913 is a land exchange process known as a land/trust
exchange. This is a process whereby public lands are used to
establish a land trust that in turn is used to acquire
additional lands for public use. In this case, the cabin sites
at Canyon Ferry are used to establish trusts to acquire other
lands that improve public access and conserve fish and wildlife
at Canyon Ferry Reservoir and throughout our State.
Currently, there are 265 cabin sites at Canyon Ferry
Reservoir. These sites are fully developed, with cabins, yards,
carports, fences, driveways. Although these cabins have
provided benefits to the families that have leased these sites
from the Federal Government over the last 40 years, the cabin
sites are not otherwise used by the public at large.
The lease arrangements between the cabin owners and the
Bureau of Reclamation have been a constant source of
frustration, as I'm sure all the cabin owners here today can
attest, over how high the lease payments should be. They drove
down the lake one day, and on the basis of that one little
cruise down the lake, they arrived at the high appraisal. All
of the owners have secured another appraisal, which I
understood took a couple of weeks and is very thorough and
comes out with a much more accurate number.
Two years ago, I brought out Mr. Dan Beard. Dan Beard, as
you know, was then the Commissioner of Reclamation. I brought
him to Canyon Ferry in an effort to help resolve this. I know
that some of you attended that meeting with Commissioner Beard.
While relations with the Bureau have improved since that time,
I think there's still many questions as to whether the Bureau
should be playing landlord for these 265 cabin sites.
Frankly, I don't think the current arrangement works. It
doesn't work for the current cabin site lessees, and I don't
think it works for the public. I think, therefore, that we
should to try to find a solution that solves that.
If we can find a proposal that consists of the following
objectives, then I think it's a proposal worth pursuing: first,
it should eliminate the current conflict between the cabin
owners and the Federal Government; second, maintain existing
public access to the reservoir and along the shoreline near the
cabin sites; next, improve access to public lands, both at the
reservoir and around the State; and finally, enhance hunting
and fishing. If we can do that, I think we'll come up with
something that's going to work.
That's what today's hearing is about, taking a look at the
bill that I've introduced with Senator Burns. I'm asking for
you to examine that bill, to examine it; and in addition to
express any concerns that you might have, so we can incorporate
them into the legislation.
The bottom line is that I believe that we have a good
opportunity to help our State. Because all of you are here and
your ideas and advice are going to really help shape this bill
into a good solution for Montana.
So with that, I'll turn to Peggy, who I think is going to
give a statement on behalf of Congressman Rick Hill.
STATEMENT OF PEGGY TRENK, ON BEHALF OF HON. RICK HILL, U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Ms. Trenk. I'd like to read from a letter because Rick
wasn't able to attend today, but appreciates the chance to
offer a few comments.
First, I'd like to thank Senator Baucus for holding this
important hearing. I would also like to thank the witnesses and
others gathered here today for their efforts to address this
important issue.
The Montana congressional delegation has agreed on the
value of selling 265 leases on Canyon Ferry. This sale would
allow current householders the opportunity for permanent
ownership, while paying fair market value to the benefit of the
taxpayer.
While we all share the common goal of providing more
funding for conservation, I believe it is very important that
we also make sure Lewis and Clark and Broadwater Counties have
a stronger say in how their backyard will be managed. For this
reason, I strongly support using the proceeds of this sale for
not only land and water conservation measures, but also for
giving these counties the resources to help make long-term
recreational improvements on the lake.
I'm confident the Montana congressional delegation and all
the interested parties will come together to resolve the issue
of what the sale of the leases will benefit. Be assured that
legislation I have introduced in the House of Representatives
on this matter will be one of my highest priorities in the
remainder of this Congress. This hearing will assuredly help
move us forward for the benefit of all Montanans.
Again, thank you, Senator Baucus, for your efforts here
today.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Peggy, and thank you,
Congressman Hill.
All right, let's begin with--well, first on the list, I
guess it's you, Bob, representing the Canyon Ferry Recreation
Association. It's all yours.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. ROBINSON, CANYON FERRY RECREATION
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Robinson. On behalf of the Canyon Ferry Recreation
Association, and as chairman of the Acquisition Subcommittee,
I'd like to thank you, Senator, for working so hard on Senate
Bill 1913, as both the primary sponsor of the bill and for
holding this hearing.
I'm today accompanied by Larry LaRock and Stephen Browning.
Larry is a member of the Acquisition Subcommittee. He is also a
long-time member of the Board of Directors of the Canyon Ferry
Recreation Association. Steve Browning, as you know, a former
member of your staff, is our legal counsel on this particular
bill.
I'd also like to go on record as thanking Senator Burns and
Congressman Hill. Both have been closely in touch with our
association, as have you, and both have been working towards
reconciliation of some differences and to get a bill that we
can all support and that meets all the needs of the people in
the area. I'd specifically like to recognize the efforts of
Holly Luck. Holly has done an excellent job of keeping us
informed, listening to our complaints, trying to identify for
us issues before they became a problem. She is always an open
ear and a real good support for our association.
Senator Baucus. You can say that again. I've heard a lot
from Holly on your behalf.
Mr. Robinson. Good. Keep it up, Holly.
Brian Kuehl, also on your staff, has just done an excellent
job in terms of working with the details of the bill and
working with the congressional delegation staff back in
Washington, DC. We really do appreciate his technical efforts
as well.
We've prefiled our testimony, which is pretty long, longer
than the 5 or 10 minutes that you've given me, although Holly
said earlier maybe 15 if we stretched it. But I'll try to be
shorter than that.
Senator Baucus. Holly said what?
Mr. Robinson. Holly just left.
That testimony is pretty straightforward, it's factual, we
think it's balanced, and we think it addresses the expected
issues with regard to the proposed transfer. My testimony is
going to be more from the heart. I represent a family who has
been a lessee since 1960.
You can look around this room, and there are a ton of
people we know who have been lessees from the late 1950's to
the 1960's. The interesting thing about this is, we have a
community out there. This is a community of 265 lessees who all
have kids and grandkids and great grandkids out there and all
who know each other. We know our neighbors out there. This
isn't like some other places where we don't know our neighbors,
we don't know what's going on. We are a community. I mean, they
even built their own church out there. They utilize the same
little stores. They see each other in various recreation
aspects. So we're talking about what's happening to a 265-home
community out there.
I want to really make it clear that this bill is
desperately needed by these 265 lessees, and more importantly,
or as important, for the other people in southwestern Montana.
Some of these people, and you can look around, there's a few
people out here with more gray hair than I, and they've been
dealing with this issue since 1968. The first record that we
were able to discover is that Canyon Ferry Recreation
Association was in touch with Senator Mansfield, trying to
address this issue in 1968.
The two driving issues behind this bill and, and our
proposal is that the Department of the Interior and the Bureau
of Reclamation has a policy to eventually eliminate the leased
cabin sites at Canyon Ferry, and we'll talk a little bit later
about that policy; and most recently, in the last 10 to 15
years, a continuous upward spiral in the lease rates that are
pushing people, literally, off the land.
I think these issues must be addressed now. They can be
addressed by the Baucus/Burns bill. In addressing the issues
that are affected by the 265 leaseholders, we can address some
other issues that should have been taken care of when Canyon
Ferry Dam was constructed and some other issues related to
habitat, to other recreation opportunities in southwest Montana
and, as you've modified the bill, in all of Montana. So Canyon
Ferry Recreation Association wants to go on record as strongly
supporting the bill is it's currently written.
I want to tell you about the cabin site lessees. They're
not wealthy individuals or out-of-State owners, like you see at
Flathead Lake or Seeley Lake or at Whitefish Lake. These are
people primarily from Helena and Butte, Boulder, Bozeman, White
Sulphur Springs, even some from, I think from Billings and
Missoula, but primarily from southwestern Montana. These are
people who are teachers, they're lawyers, they're dentists,
they're smelter workers, they're craftsmen, they're telephone
company employees. These are people who are not considered
wealthy on the scheme of real wealth, even here in Montana.
They are people who have raised their kids here. They are
people who pay taxes out there, they pay taxes on a home in
their communities as well.
They're also not just 265 individuals. I hate to use my
family as an example, but my mother and father had seven kids.
We all use that cabin. We're all married, we've all got a bunch
more kids. This summer, we may have the fourth generation of
Robinsons out there.
Senator Baucus. How many is that?
Mr. Robinson. I'm afraid to ask. I think we'd be talking in
the 30's. So there's some 30 people that have a direct interest
in the outcome of this bill. That happens all the way up and
down the lake. That's not just on Cabin Site 8. We can go up
and down the shoreline and find dozens and dozens of families
whose grandfathers and fathers and brothers and sisters and
kids are now using those sites.
The other thing that happens out there is that those sites
become a magnet for a whole bunch of other people in the
community that aren't lessees--friends, office parties--
whatever happens out there. Those cabin sites are a recreation
resource in and of themselves.
So we're facing some pretty serious problems. But we think
we've got a solution here, and we think there's some
extraordinary benefits in terms of how to utilize the funds. We
think, as the bill is currently drafted, there are no losers in
this legislation. We've been through this since 1968. Every
time there's a loser involved in this legislation, or in this
process, the process gets stymied and stops. We think we've got
a process, with your bill, where there aren't losers. There's
gainers on all sides.
I want to give you a little bit of background on this.
We're relying on a man by the name of Steve Clark, who used to
be a Bureau of Reclamation employee in Helena and did a
Master's thesis on leases at Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
The dam was completed in 1954. It was primarily for flood
control, power production, and irrigation. But when that dam
was discussed in Congress, and was promoted, they also talked
about the multipurpose use of it, and part of that multipurpose
use was recreation. As Clark says, what better way to show
multipurpose use than to allow cabin sites along the shoreline
of the lake.
Before the cabin sites were, were authorized between 1958
and 1960, the Bureau of Reclamation identified the prime public
recreation spots on the north end of Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
They segregated those so that there wouldn't be any cabin sites
on those spots. So the best sites were reserved for the public
back in 1956, '57, before any permits were issued.
Then those first 265 sites were, were authorized by
lottery. They weren't 265 in one fell swoop, I think they went
in two or three lottery cycles. The deal was at the time, and
the requirement of the lease, was that if somebody received a
cabin site by lottery, they had 2 years in which to build a
permanent structure on that site, so the Bureau of Reclamation
could go back to Congress and say, ``Look, we've established
the multipurpose use of this thing. We have cabin sites out
there, we've got public recreation sites.'' So the deal was,
you build a permanent structure, we'll give you a reasonable
lease, and we meet our obligation.
What's happened since then is the Federal cabin site policy
has vacillated. It's gone from one of overt and open promotion
of cabin sites to discouragement of cabin sites to kind of
leaving the cabin sites alone for a while, when it was managed
by the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, now to a
proposed phase-out. I would refer you to the Inspector
General's Report dated May of 1995--and we submitted that with
our testimony--on pages 10 and 11, where they speak
specifically to why hasn't the Bureau of Reclamation activated
its plan to phase out the cabin sites and then they conclude
that they haven't activated their plan because the Bureau of
Reclamation could not prove at that point that the sites were
needed for public use. I think that's going to be pretty
important when we refer to the maps here in a little bit. But
we believe that the purchase of the sites will eliminate that
contention and give us a whole lot of other benefits.
I'd like to refer to this (indicating map), and Larry will
point out what we want to show you. The north end of the lake
is in Lewis and Clark County. The economic benefit from the tax
base has accrued entirely to Lewis and Clark County at this
point. Roughly, 20 percent of the lake, or maybe a little less,
is in Lewis and Clark County.
On the south end of the lake, the undeveloped end, about 80
percent of it, Broadwater County. Broadwater County really
hasn't seen economic much benefit from this lake.
The dark spots you can see on, on the map there, those are
where the cabin sites are located. You've been out there, you
know that.
Senator Baucus. Right.
Mr. Robinson. But an important point to recognize is that
about 3 miles from the dam back to the first cabin sites is
public land; lots of public recreation opportunities occur
there. Interspersed within the cabin sites, as you can see on
the south side, and on both sides, the prime land was earmarked
for public recreation sites. Those in fact do exist. There are
much fewer of them on the south end of the lake.
We'll refer you to the other map now. Keep Larry on the
move here. This is a map prepared in some of the work that
we're doing with our reappraisals. If you take a look at that,
this is a micro-section of the cabin site section over here
(indicating illustration).
The green area that encompasses all of the shoreline in
front of and between the cabins are in fact Bureau of
Reclamation land and, by this proposal, would remain Bureau of
Reclamation land. None of the cabin sites are on the lakeshore.
We all have lakeshore access, but we don't directly front the
lakeshore--our property lines are generally in an area of ten
vertical feet above high water level at the lake, which pushes
you back quite a bit from the shoreline. I think that's
something that's real important for everybody to understand all
the way along here, that if these cabin sites are sold, the
lakeshore, the recreation opportunities from the lakeshore are
not lost to the public.
With the sale, there is no loss of the current recreation
opportunities. In fact, there are new recreation opportunities
that will result from the sale.
We'd like to call it a land exchange, but it's not quite
that, in that we don't have land to, to transfer. But what it
is, is an exchange of money, maybe estimated at $15 to $20
million, if you look at all of the cabin sites; and that money,
in your bill, would be split 45 percent to the Canyon Ferry-
Missouri Trust and 45 percent to the fund for public land
access and 10 percent to the, to the Bureau of Reclamation.
I think the good thing about this is that in times of tight
Federal money, we are developing new public use dollars that
can provide significant opportunities for recreation and
habitat enhancement in the area. Most of that money, or most of
the Missouri River-Canyon Ferry Trust would be used in
Broadwater County. I mean, that's where the opportunities are,
and that's where most of the adverse impact from the dam
occurred. Lewis and Clark County would receive an increased tax
base to the extent that that $15 to $20 million is now, in
property value is privately held. That goes onto the tax base.
Lewis and Clark County benefits. East Helena schools, the
Helena public high schools benefit from that.
The whole idea of a trust is not new. I'm sure you're aware
of Montana Power's Missouri-Madison Trust that was created to
do exactly the same thing we're talking about. But they left
the hole in the doughnut. They go from Hebgen Dam down to
Toston Dam, pick up at the bottom of Canyon Ferry, and go down
to Great Falls. Because the Bureau of Reclamation owns the
Canyon Ferry Reservoir, we don't have any Missouri River Trust
here. This is the way we can fill that in, and I think it's a
perfect match for Montana Power's Missouri-Madison Trust.
There are other trusts in Montana. I'm sure that in your
days of watching the Bonneville power line go across Montana,
you remember the Rock Creek Trust that was established to
mitigate the impacts there. Montana Power and Bonneville Power
put $1 million up to mitigate that. That's working wonderfully
over there in the Rock Creek drainage.
I want to make sure that you understand, and that the
public understands, that this is not a sweetheart deal for the
cabin site owners. The language in the bill and the concept
embodied by yourself and the other Congressmen are that fair
market value, based on a current, valid appraisal, has to be
the minimum price that the cabin owners would pay for their
sites. In exchange, we would obtain the title to the land, an
easement access from the main road to the cabin site, and an
easement for one boat dock per cabin site and recreation
opportunity on the shoreline. Again, I want to emphasize, the
shoreline remains public property.
The bidding process is a little bit complicated. We've gone
back and forth on that. We can support the bidding process as
it now stands, with the safeguards that allow the current
lessee to match the highest bidder or allow the current lessee
to continue to lease until the current lease expires in the
year 2014. We recognize and support the requirement that you
people see in Congress to ensure that fair market value is
obtained.
I'm just about winding up here.
We received a letter from the Montana Wildlife Federation
not too long ago, in fact, shortly after we were talking about
the Sweetgrass Hills. The Montana Wildlife Federation, I
thought, had a great sentence in there that said that: Canyon
Ferry public lands have lost their historic public wildlife
value as a result of habitat alterations and destruction. If
those lands are permanently taken out of the public domain,
then we believe they must be replaced by lands that aim to
provide the public with wildlife and recreation opportunities
that once existed.
I can tell you that our cabin site didn't have a whole lot
of animals around there when we first got there, but what was
really lost was the riparian habitat on the river bottom. We
really do believe that this trust fund that could be used to
acquire other public lands or new public lands on the Missouri
upstream from Canyon Ferry and the conservation easements from
willing sellers--we don't want to get in the position of
anybody thinking anybody is bullying anybody around with this
fund, but always from willing sellers and willing
participants--we think that we can replace that lost riparian
habitat to some extent with preserving some public land
upstream of the river.
I think, Senator, this bill is good for all of the
stakeholders. It can pass--given where we are in little old
Montana, it can only pass if all of our congressional
delegation is dead behind this thing and works hard to ensure
its passage.
We're pleased with the progress. We appreciate the work
that you've done very much. We also appreciate the work of
Representative Hill and Congressman Burns--or Senator Burns.
Boy, I'll be in trouble now. We commit our efforts, our
Committee and the Association, to helping you get this bill
passed. We really appreciate it. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. You bet, Bob. Thank you very much. That was
a very good statement. I'm glad, frankly, that you spoke more
than 5 minutes to give a full explanation.
Okay, Mike, you can have another few minutes, too.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL VASHRO, PRICKLY PEAR SPORTSMEN
Mr. Vashro. Mine won't be near that long.
We thank you, Senator Baucus, for this opportunity to speak
this afternoon on the Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Act of 1998. My name is Mike Vashro, and I'm representing the
Prickly Pear Sportsmen's Association.
The Prickly Pear Sportsmen's Association is a greater
Helena area rod and gun club dedicated to the conservation and
enhancement of fish and wildlife resources in Montana. The
sportsmen and women of our organization are active hunters and
anglers, and our club frequently engages in efforts to improve
and protect fish and wildlife habitat on public and private
lands.
The idea of creating a fish and wildlife habitat trust fund
from assets now held by the public around Canyon Ferry
Reservoir came from within our organization. Members of our
organization have considerable experience in the creation and
administration of fish and wildlife conservation trust funds.
The lands in question around Canyon Ferry Reservoir are
presently a public asset of considerable economic value.
Although their value as wildlife habitat have been diminished,
their value as an asset with the potential to positively impact
wildlife habitat, the preservation of agricultural land, and
the retention of open space protection remains substantial.
The representatives of our organization shared the concept
of a wildlife habitat/land conservation trust fund with the
Canyon Ferry property owners as a way of converting a publicly
held land asset, the cabin lease lands, into a land trust
dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of wildlife
habitat. This concept met the needs of the property owners and,
in the opinion of the Prickly Pear Sportsmen's Association,
also met the trust--the public trust responsibility associated
with publicly held assets.
We appreciate the attention this proposal has received from
the Montana congressional delegation. You have all been very
responsive. Our enthusiasm for this idea remains high and is
anchored in two features that must be retained as this
legislation moves through Congress: The first, the purpose of
the trust must remain focused on protection of fish and
wildlife habitat; and the second is, the trustees of the fund
likewise need to be representatives clearly dedicated to the
purpose of the trust.
The Prickly Pear Sportsmen's Association also supports the
idea in the legislation advanced by Senators Max Baucus and
Conrad Burns to create a second trust dedicated to gaining
access to public lands. The access trust, like the land trust,
must be focused and administered similar to the terms outlined
for the land conservation trust. If these conditions are
guaranteed, our organization believes that the public interest
will be served; wildlife habitat, agricultural land, and open
space will be protected; and the property ownership around
Canyon Ferry will be equitably resolved.
Our organization's commitment to the principles outlined in
this testimony is not casual. We recognize that there will only
be one chance to deal with this public asset now held by the
Federal Government at Canyon Ferry. To put this asset at risk
by being either casual or vague about the use of the funds to
be generated by sale of the cabin sites is a risk our
organization is not willing to take.
Therefore, we offer our support to the effort being made in
this legislation sponsored by Senators Baucus and Burns. We
suggest the language in the legislation addressing the purpose
of these trusts and the makeup of the entities that will
administer them be given close and constant attention as the
legislative process continues. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mike. You've got more time. Do
you want to use it?
Mr. Vashro. That's it.
Senator Baucus. Bill Orsello?
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ORSELLO, MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Mr. Orsello. I wish to first thank Senator Max Baucus for
being present. I wish to also thank him for the invitation and
the opportunity to testify on the Montana Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Act of 1998, Senate Bill 1913. The presence of
Senator Baucus here demonstrates his concern for the lessees,
wildlife conservation, and the interests of Montana sportsmen.
My name is Bill Orsello, and I am here as a representative
of the Montana Wildlife Federation, comprised of 7,500 members
and 21 affiliate clubs. I am also here as a concerned hunter,
angler, parent, and outdoor recreationist.
The Montana Wildlife Federation recognizes the complexity
of drafting legislation that attempts to solve a problem, the
loss of wildlife habitat and the concerns of the lessees, that
has existed since the 1950's. The Montana Wildlife Federation
applauds and supports the Senator's bill for the exchange of
these public lands.
We feel that Senate Bill 1913's success depends on five
features: 1) the exchange of public lands that have had their
wildlife value diminished by the construction of cabins,
elaborate homes, and landscaping for the ability to acquire
lands, access, and conservation easements that have equal or
greater wildlife and recreational values. 2) non-developed
recreational opportunities have been lost, and they should not
be replaced by developed recreational opportunities. Primitive
habitat was lost, and it should not be replaced with developed
habitat. This must be a land related values exchange. 3) the
creation of two endowments or trust funds that will only be
used to guarantee the preservation of wildlife habitat and
wildlife recreational opportunities in Montana. 4) that any
trust funds developed from this exchange be administered by
Montana representatives dedicated to the perpetuation and
conservation of wildlife, public access to public resources,
and the preservation of our hunting and fishing heritage. 5) we
believe that Montana's wildlife and sports persons are best
served by decisions formulated at the local and State level for
the dispersal of the funds generated by the endowments. The
intimate, on-the-ground knowledge of local wildlife and sports
persons' needs would only be diluted by transferring the
decision-making process to a national influence.
We feel uncompromisingly that this bill must stay on track
with its original intent to create an exchange of degraded
public properties with properties that will have a long-term
benefit to the public and the preservation of wildlife habitat.
Any attempt to modify this bill or redirect monies
generated from the exchange for programs, like the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, or projects not benefiting the
enhancement of wildlife habitat and the greater public wildlife
oriented recreational opportunities, will create many
adversaries. We feel this proposal has a delicate balance; it
only works if it is an exchange of diminished wildlife value
land for useful public lands with high wildlife values. This
bill must ensure that the funds generated from lost publicly
held assets are used to replace those assets with accessible
lands, benefits to wildlife, and public recreational
opportunities within the immediate geographical area.
The Montana Wildlife Federation remains enthusiastic toward
the passage of Senate Bill 1913 and feels the bill will help
preserve Montana's hunting and fishing heritage for future
generations, if it is held intact and uncompromised.
I reiterate, this proposal must ensure that funds generated
from the exchange of our public lands, our public assets, must
be used to replace those assets with publicly accessible lands
in Montana, wildlife habitat in Montana, and public wildlife
opportunities in Montana, preferably in the immediate
geographical area.
Again, we applaud and thank Senator Baucus for his efforts.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much, Bill.
I'd like to first turn to you, Bob, and ask a couple of
questions about how the Association, and particularly the
members, would acquire the land.
Originally, I had thought that the legislation should have
some kind of mechanism where the leaseholders themselves would
be able to directly acquire their sites at fair market value.
It was later suggested that there be an auction and bidding
process, and the bill now provides for that, for a bid process.
The thought is that someone, some entity could then bid on the
package, on the sites. If the Association has the highest bid,
then the Association would own the sites and the cabin owners
would then be able to own their sites.
Now, the question obviously arises, what happens if
somebody else comes in with a higher bid, and particularly, if
it's much higher? The range of appraisals right now is around
$18 million, up to $20 million perhaps. What happens if
somebody comes in, if someone were to come in, I don't know,
say, $40 million, and wants to acquire the sites?
We've tried to protect against that in the bill by, first,
giving the Association the first right of refusal. But that
would mean the Association would have to raise and spend the
$40 million. The second set of protections, as you know,
written into the bill are that whoever purchases or gets the
highest bid has to honor the current lease arrangements and the
lessees will be able to extend their leases for, I guess
another 5 years, and then there's two options to do that, an
option to buy, and if they don't buy, the leaseholders are
compensated for improvements that they've made, et cetera.
But if I were a cabin site lessee, I'd be concerned about
this. I just want to ask you how you foresee this working and
what happens if, say, somebody were to come in with a much
higher bid than $18 million.
Mr. Robinson. Senator, I think the bill addresses that.
Obviously, our earlier discussions, the very first discussions
of this bill talked about the cabin site lessees being able to
purchase those just directly at fair market value from the
Bureau of Reclamation. But as you know the machinations of
congressional negotiations back there, the--it was made at
least clear to us that in order to have all of the
congressional delegation supporting this bill, that there had
to be some kind of a bid process in order to ensure that other
Congressmen outside of Montana were convinced that this wasn't
a sweetheart deal.
I think the current process will work, though. First of
all, I think the provisions in the bill that require one entity
to bid on all 265 lots turns away a whole bunch of would-be
bidders. But there still may be one of those would-be bidders
out there. If that in fact did happen, the other two
safeguards--actually, three safeguards, I think that are in the
bill really protect the cabin site owners, or at least we think
it does.
First, that whatever that individual or that entity is that
was the higher bidder than the Canyon Ferry Recreation
Association was, or whatever they bid, they would have to be
able--or the Canyon Ferry lessees would have the right to
purchase their particular cabin site from the successful bidder
at the amount that that bidder bid. In the case of my mother's
cabin, say, the fair market value was $40,000 and somebody came
in and bid them all up by 20 percent, 25 percent and that was
$50,000. Well, then, we would have the right to match that
proportional share, that $50,000, and my mother could get that
site.
I think that's the first safeguard. The second safeguard is
that if that person pushed that price up too high, then the
cabin site owners could exercise their option to continue the
lease until 2014 at something similar to the current Bureau of
Reclamation lease rates. Well, if the person--the successful
bidder puts up too much money, and ends up with a lease rate
that doesn't recover his or her costs, or its costs, then I
think that's a bad business decision for the next 16 years by
that particular entity.
Last, but not least, and I think a real important point in
here that we sometimes overlook, maybe these cabin sites would
be more valuable if somebody was going to put up a Hilton Hotel
out there. But the bill requires that those cabin sites be
utilized in the future by the purchaser with their historic
property boundaries and their historic use. Those are
individual homes. So we don't think that there's going to be an
entity that comes in there that wants to buy up all those
sites.
The other, the other problem with that is, that entity who
buys up all those sites that's not Canyon Ferry, the Bureau of
Reclamation would have the obligation, if we desired, as
lessees, to buy our improvements on that property at fair
market value. So not only are they going to overprice the land,
but then they've got to turn around and look at buying 265
cabins and associated septic systems and wells. That's probably
not an economic--a good economic decision.
We think the safeguards are there. It would sure be a lot
cleaner if we were to say, you know, the current lessees buy it
right directly from the Bureau of Reclamation at fair market
value.
Senator Baucus. It would be a lot cleaner. I'm curious, I
mean, how concerned are you about the current the arrangement
as proposed in the bill, compared with the cleaner, direct
purchase? You say that you think that the current safeguards
are sufficient, and I'm just trying to get a sense of how much
comfort you have with all of this.
Mr. Robinson. Well, I don't know how much comfort everybody
else has or the Association has, but we really do--you know, we
would have preferred the direct purchase, but if that doesn't
fly in Congress----
Senator Baucus. Well, let's assume that Congress doesn't
care.
Mr. Robinson. Then that's the way to go.
Senator Baucus. But again, do the arrangements in the
current bill give you--on a scale of 1 to 10, are you about 80
percent comfortable or are you----
Mr. Robinson. I've got to see how comfortable these guys
are (indicating).
Mr. LaRock. Ninety.
Mr. Robinson. Ninety percent.
Senator Baucus. About 90, okay.
Mr. Robinson. There's a risk. Obviously, there is some risk
there.
Senator Baucus. Do the rest of you think it's 90?
[Negative response.]
Senator Baucus. I want to make sure that we have the right
temperature here on this question. We don't want to be buying a
problem if we don't have to. The current provision of the bill
which provides for the auction doesn't have to be in the final
bill. That could be deleted.
Mr. Robinson. Correct.
Senator Baucus. I'm here to determine how comfortable are
you with the current provisions. That would help me to know how
hard to try to delete this auction portion and move toward a
direct, fair-market-value purchase.
Mr. Robinson. Senator, I think that's almost a political
decision that you have to work out with the other Congressmen.
Because, you know, your original draft and our draft----
Senator Baucus. That's right.
Mr. Robinson. ----had a straight purchase by the cabin
site----
Senator Baucus. But I'm asking the question partly as if
they were sitting right here, so you could tell them how
comfortable or uncomfortable you are with the----
Mr. Robinson. Well, there's a little discomfort, as you can
tell from the group. There are some that are more concerned
than, than probably others. But it would sure be a lot cleaner
going the straight purchase route.
Senator Baucus. Do you think you could come up with $18 or
$20 million?
Mr. Robinson. As long as we got a fair appraisal out
there--and we've got a couple of surveys of the cabin site
owners that said that probably 95 percent of those people would
buy their cabin sites if it was a fair evaluation of the value
of the property.
Senator Baucus. How many would?
Mr. Robinson. About 95 percent, 96 percent, something on
that order.
Senator Baucus. ``Fair'' means what number?
Mr. Robinson. Well, that the appraisal fairly represented
the value of that particular cabin site. I think that there's
been some appraisals with regard to lease rates that 100
percent of the cabin site owners said are a little out of
whack. We think that there is, a valid reappraisal would
probably be a little bit lower than the current prices. But,
you know, when it came down to a fair value, we think we have
95, 96 percent.
Senator Baucus. I understand. But I have no idea what the
current appraisal is----
Mr. Robinson. We don't know what they are.
Senator Baucus. ----but say it's between $16 and $20
million. Do you think you can handle that, the Association can?
Mr. Robinson. We've had some discussions with some
financing entities, usually large banks or other financial
institutions that we would work with on an individual basis to
set up loans, or some individuals may want to cash them out.
But with the lead time, if the bill passed, we could put the
financing together. We've been advised by local banks that that
would be possible.
Senator Baucus. Could you describe in a little bit more
detail the Rock Creek Trust, how that's set up.
Mr. Robinson. Well, I don't know all of the details----
Senator Baucus. Just roughly.
Mr. Robinson. ----but, when Bonneville Power extended the
Colstrip power line from Townsend and took it to the Bell
Station over on the western side of the State, that line had a
number of environmental impacts. At the time that that line was
being placed, in the Missoula area, there were a number of Area
Two study areas. The line had to cross a few of those.
The compromise with the environmental community over there
was, sure, that line could cross or skirt a couple of these
Area Two study areas only in exchange for some compensation for
the environmental impact. I think it was $1.2 million, but you
can't hold me to that number--it was something in that area--
that the Montana Power and Bonneville Power Administration put
up into the Rock Creek Trust. That money has been held in
trust. I think it's managed by a committee of recreationists.
Maybe the Wildlife Federation people can tell us better. But
it's pretty much managed by people who are interested in the
resource in the Rock Creek area. To my understanding, it's
acquired some conservation easements up and down that creek to
protect that drainage.
Senator Baucus. Let me ask Mike and Bill about the access
provisions. I heard you to say in your testimony that you're
comfortable with the two trusts, with proceeds that are to be
used to buy easements or access, or lands, private lands, to
give more access to hunters and fishermen in our State. Do you
feel that this bill does that enough, or not?
Mr. Vashro. Can I just revert to your last question about
the Rock Creek Trust?
Senator Baucus. Sure.
Mr. Vashro. Our past immediate president was active in the
creation and administration of the Rock Creek Trust. His name
is Jim Posewitz. Unfortunately, he can't be here today. He
could have answered questions very intimately.
Yes, we do feel comfortable about that.
Senator Baucus. You, in your statement, though, said that,
if I heard you correctly, that you want to make sure that the
trust does protect fish and wildlife and the proceeds are
clearly dedicated to the purposes for which they're stated. I
wasn't sure, when I listened to you, whether you thought they
could be sharpened up or not or whether you thought that you
just didn't want any changes that would dilute that.
Mr. Vashro. We don't want any dilution. We want to make
sure that the language in the bill is kept true. As you know,
language does tend to get diluted.
Senator Baucus. Bill.
Mr. Orsello. I think we'd say the same thing. The bill, as
it is now formed, meets our needs. What we're concerned about
is a dilution of the purpose, that being wildlife related
access, wildlife related conservation easements or purchases.
We would hate to see this money redirected for large-scale,
modernized recreational facilities, things that don't have land
related values: boat docks, picnic tables, campgrounds. There's
other funding mechanisms, we think, available for those
improvements and that this should be generated only for land-
related value.
Senator Baucus. Could you expand on that a little bit,
because I think there are some people who would like to see the
proceeds used for some of that, you know, boat docks, picnic
tables, and so forth.
Mr. Orsello. I'm sure there are. I think that's a very
delicate balance. Montana sportsmen have traditionally been
against selling public assets. Basically, that's how we would
see those improvements, would be a product of money generated.
We think that this can only work, from our point of view, if
they're land-related values, if the values that come from these
public lands and the lands that were lost are replaced by other
land-related values that benefit the public and wildlife.
There are several venues available to provide those other
public assets. I don't think this is the appropriate one.
That's the Wildlife Federation's position, and one that our
members cling to very dearly. We had a board meeting yesterday,
and that was one thing that came up immediately, was that this
has to be an exchange of land for land, or land-related values.
Senator Baucus. Do you know what's happening in other
situations, like the Rock Creek Trust? Is there a similar
situation there?
Mr. Orsello. I think the focus on the Rock Creek Trust was
narrowed down to where that was the only thing that it was used
for; that those land-related values were written in and that
the people that directed that fund, the board that oversees it,
were predominantly members of the conservation community, so
that the intent and the direction couldn't be changed.
Senator Baucus. You heard Bob say that, you know, that with
the present cabin sites not directly on the shore, but 10
vertical feet back, and the further provisions of the bill,
that he felt there's sufficient public access. I mean, would
you agree with that statement?
Mr. Orsello. I think there's probably the perception of the
public that they wouldn't want to have a picnic in Bob's front
yard, even though it is available.
Senator Baucus. Bob doesn't mind that.
Mr. Orsello. No. Well, you know, there hasn't been a
problem with that. I don't think the public in general thinks
in those terms, that they're going to lose anything. But it
wouldn't change from the conditions that now exist. The
safeguards of access to the lake in areas adjacent to these
properties, I think are protected in the bill. That's important
to many people.
I think one of the things in our focus is that we believe
that what was lost here--There were many things gained, there
was a cold water fishery and impoundment that came, the
recreational aspects, water skiing, boating, cabin sites. What
was lost was 20 some miles of riparian area, wildlife habitat,
bottom land, farmland, that we've put campgrounds on this lake.
We've created recreational access. We've done a lot of these
things. What we really haven't done with Bureau of Reclamation
money was compensated for what was lost as far as wildlife
habitat and opportunity.
My father used to hunt ducks up by the Canton Bridge. My
grandfather used to sit up on the North Fork of Deep Creek,
broiling on a dryland grain farm, wishing that he was down
there in that bottom land that he'd homesteaded 10 years
earlier. Those are all gone. They're under 60 feet of water
now. But we have the opportunity to take that money and protect
other parts of the wild river that runs up to the confluence,
and I think that that's very admirable to hold.
Senator Baucus. Yes, I think probably most of the
leaseholders, potential landowners would not want a lot of
camping in their front yard.
Mr. Orsello. No, and I think the lake is large enough and
the opportunities can be, you know, created.
Senator Baucus. All right. The composition of the trusts,
that is, how the trustees are appointed and the powers that
they have, are you satisfied? Are you comfortable, all of you,
with all of that, or not?
Bob?
Mr. Robinson. I think Canyon Ferry Recreation Association
steps out of that because we don't want to be viewed as having
a beneficial interest. So we intentionally did not put a Canyon
Ferry Recreation Association member in our original proposal.
So it's really a discussion that comes down to who is on it--
are they conservationists, are there some local government
people? I think that's where the issue is. I think we prefer to
step out of that debate and let the conservationists and local
government deal with that.
Senator Baucus. What about this other issue about use of
proceeds, though, does the Association have a position on that?
Because Bill and Mike are concerned, quite legitimately, that
any proceeds from this should go back to access and not for
non-land purposes.
Mr. Robinson. Well, I think there's probably a pretty
strong feeling among the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association
members that replacing----
Senator Baucus. Can everybody hear back there?
Mr. Robinson. I think there's a fairly strong feeling among
most of the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association members, at
least the Acquisition Committee and the board of directors, at
our discussions, that we would support habitat acquisition,
whether they're conservation easements, outright purchase of
the property in, you know, the upriver area. We think that
there is a lot of area, if you look at the map, on the edge of
the Canyon Ferry Reservoir that's undeveloped and real hard to
get to. We think that maybe some easements could be acquired
that would----
Senator Baucus. Like down by the silos, for example.
Mr. Robinson. Yes, from there all the way up to White Earth
or even up through the back side of the Spokane Hills there. An
awful lot on the other side as well.
Senator Baucus. Right.
Mr. Robinson. It's difficult for people to get on land from
the highway down to the lake. Maybe there's an opportunity to
acquire some easements across private land to the lakeshore
which would enhance recreation opportunities on the lake.
Because we think there will be a need in the future for flat
water recreation.
We don't necessarily sign on to building a bunch of marinas
and those kinds of things there. But we need to do something
about getting people to the lake to let them have some
opportunities on the lake.
Senator Baucus. So the Association is in support of access
and not in support of, of capital improvements, docks, boat
landings, and so forth.
Mr. Robinson. I think there'd probably be some discussion
of that among the members of the Canyon Ferry Recreation
Association. But, but we think that the makeup of the board
isn't going to ignore entirely recreation opportunities on the
lake for the betterment of everything upstream.
Senator Baucus. Do any of you want to say something that
hasn't been addressed? Is there some question that I should
have asked but haven't that you want to respond to?
Mr. Robinson. Senator, I'd just like to have the people in
the audience who appreciate your efforts and the work that
you've done on this bill stand up, so you know how many people
out here really do appreciate what you've been doing for us
here.
[Applause.]
Senator Baucus. We're in all in this together.
Mr. Orsello. Senator Baucus, I would like to thank you for
the formatting. I think this is something that we had to
discuss a lot, the idea of an endowment versus a land-for-land
exchange. But the possibilities of the perpetuity of an
endowment, the creation of money, and the ability to leverage
off of it is a tremendous asset. Buying another piece of
property is always beneficial, but then you have that piece of
property and all the ramifications that come with managing it
and developing it. This way, it provides a vehicle to fund
acquisitions, conservation easements, access that we can
continue this on, not this generation, but in generations to
come.
Senator Baucus. I agree. I think we have a real opportunity
here. Like all of you, I have a lot of fond memories of the use
of the reservoir and the lake as a little kid. I remember
watching those big cranes come down and build the dam. It was
quite a sight. Then later on, a good friend of mine, John
Marlow was his name--a really industrious little fellow. He
enlisted me--I was a bit of a sucker at the time--to build a
cabin there on the lake. We had to do it from scratch, so we
went up toward McDonald Pass here with a flatbed truck. We
sawed down some trees. I don't know how legal it was at the
time.
Well, we had to peel the bark off the trees and haul them
up on the flatbed. The first mistake we made was the trees were
too big. We couldn't lift them up and put them on the flatbed.
So we went off and cut a couple smaller ones. We put them on
the truck and hauled them down to the lake. I remember peeling
all the bark off.
Then we had to make the foundation. We were mixing all this
concrete for the foundation for the little cabin. Then we built
a deck on it. I have no idea what's ever happened to John
Marlow's cabin. Maybe some of you know about it or where it is.
Audience Member. It's still there.
Senator Baucus. Is it still there? It's still there.
So we had a lot of fun out there. We had parties out there
on the deck. I've done a lot of ice fishing on the lake.
So it's a great opportunity for a lot of people. I agree,
if we could keep it for our kids in the future, it would make a
huge difference and something we can all be very proud of.
Thank you, all of you, very much.
Let's give everybody here that testified a round of
applause.
[Applause.]
Senator Baucus. We asked the Bureau of Reclamation to
testify, but they couldn't be here. It was rather short notice.
So if some of you were wondering why they're not here, that's
the reason. But they'll certainly have an opportunity to
comment on all this and we'll take those comments into
consideration, as well as all of yours here.
All right, now the next portion of the hearing, for those
of you who want to go on the record here, have your name and
comments indelibly printed for posterity, Holly is going to
call off from the sign-up sheet, I guess in the order of people
who signed in.
Ms. Luck. I'll call in blocks of three, and if you'll
please line up behind the microphone, to make it as quickly as
possible.
Lanny Helfert, Larry LaRock, Julie or John Blacker.
STATEMENT OF LANNY HELFERT
Mr. Helfert. Good day, sir.
Senator Baucus. Hi. Lanny, right?
Mr. Helfert. Lanny Helfert is my name, yes. I would to like
to first thank you for being here to give us this opportunity
to voice our opinions in this forum. I'd also like to thank
Representative Hill and Senator Burns for all their work that
has been put into this, as well as the people from Canyon Ferry
Recreation and all the organizations that are involved here.
I don't know if being the first is good here or not.
Sometimes the first fighter doesn't have a chance, you know.
But I will start off by saying that we've been on the lake
since 1957, I believe. I grew up there, my brother grew up
there, my children have grown up there, and hopefully this
summer, like Bob, I may have a grandson up there spending some
time.
We feel strongly that we have helped develop the lake, the
cabin owners and lessees, through the past 40 years, and we
naturally would like to see this come our way. We would like to
own those pieces of property. We feel that the monies that are
going to be generated from this probably would not be available
from any other source except this, this exchange.
There's going to be some good come, from everybody's
aspect, I believe. I think it's a win/win situation. Of course,
I'm prejudiced, but Mr. Orsello and Mr. Vashro are probably
prejudiced, too. They have their agendas, as does everybody.
But it's an all-win situation. We feel that if it's done
properly, and I think the congressional delegation would feel
the same way, if we can get the rest of the people in the
United States and all of Montana to go with us, it would be a
good deal.
Again, I thank you, sir, for being here. I'll pass it on to
Dr. LaRock.
Senator Baucus. Thanks, Lanny, very much. Appreciate your
comments.
STATEMENT OF LARRY LAROCK
Mr. LaRock. I'm Larry LaRock. First of all, I want to thank
you. A couple of months ago, you may remember, I was in
Washington, DC, talking to you about another issue. Towards the
end of the conversation, I mentioned Canyon Ferry, and you
brought Brian Kuehl down right away, and we spent more time
talking about Canyon Ferry than what I showed up for in the
first place. I appreciate that.
I'd like to make one or two comments about the bid. As you
know, we worked on the wording on the bid process in the
legislation with Brian and staff members from Senator Burns's
and Representative Hill's offices. The language that is there,
I think we feel comfortable with, our attorneys feel
comfortable with.
Obviously, there's a comfort level, though, a comfort zone
that would be nice if it weren't there. I think it would make
us all feel better if it were just a nice, clean, clean,
situation, maybe a cleaner situation. But at the same time, we
worked with your staff on this, and the other staff members,
and our attorneys assure us that this is a fairly comfortable
position that we're in with the bid process. Again, maybe
comfort level would be a little bit higher if it were worded a
little differently.
One of the things I'd like to correct for the record--and
this was actually taken care of when I was at your office in
Washington, DC a few months ago. I was talking with Brian. The
initial trust makeup, as far as who is on the board of
trustees, did have CFRA listed as a member. We discussed it at
that time at your office, and I said, ``We don't need to be
there. We have no reason to be there.'' And so our name was
taken off. I want to clarify that point. We don't have any
reason to be on that trust because we don't envision that any
of the money from that trust would go to benefit any of the 265
cabin sites. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Larry.
STATEMENT OF JULIE BLACKER, CANYON FERRY RESERVOIR LEASEHOLDER
Ms. Blacker. Senator Baucus, my name is Julie Blacker. My
family has had a cabin site out there for well over 40 years.
They were original cabin site owners at that spot. We consider
that spot home, and we desperately want that opportunity to
purchase that land, if possible. We support all your efforts
and thank you for all the work you're doing on behalf of us.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Julie, very much.
Ms. Luck. Charlie McCarthy, Dwayne or Lilly Kretchmer, Lisa
Blanford.
Senator Baucus. Hi, Charlie.
STATEMENT OF CHARLIE MCCARTHY
Mr. McCarthy. Hi, Senator. Thank you for coming. I am a
office holder in the Prickly Pear Sportsmen's Association and
the Montana Wildlife Federation. I think Mike Vashro did a good
job for Prickly Pear and Bill Orsello did a good job for the
Wildlife Federation.
As an individual, I'd like to say that I'm a little
troubled by the fact that we don't have our companion piece
from the House here. I know Representative Hill has the
intention of introducing it, but I haven't seen it. I'm worried
that what might come back at us, after you go to back to
Washington and start negotiating with this bill, that it might
look like something different. So all I'm saying is, I'm for
the bill the way it's currently proposed.
As I understand an endowment, we would be spending the
interest or whatever we would gain off of this, not that we
would go and spend the whole endowment right away. So we're not
talking about a lot of money here. Prickly Pear just did an
outhouse out at our range. $25,000 for a two-hole outhouse was
the bid we got. So it's not going to take a lot of money--or a
lot of time or effort to spend this money real quick out there
if we go into building boat ramps and outhouses and picnic
tables and that sort of thing.
I'd like to emphasize the word ``wildlife'' that appears in
here all the time, ``hunting, angling, and wildlife recreation
opportunities.'' I'm a little bit concerned about all the jet
boats, that kind of thing that goes on out there. Yes, it
brings money. Yes, it does this and does that, but what does it
do for the gull or the pelican or the eagle or the osprey or
whatever else are out there?
Thank you again for the opportunity.
Senator Baucus. Well, that's a good point, Charlie; these
trusts are permanent endowment trusts. So it would be the
income from the trust that would be used for access or
acquisition, and not the principal. So you get a $9 million
trust at, say, 7 percent. That's about $566,000. Get the math
right here. How does that work?
Audience Member. It's $600,000.
Senator Baucus. It's $600,000, yes, would be potentially
available. That's not a lot of money when it comes to buying
significant easements and land acquisition. So that's a very
good point that you made. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DWAYNE KRETCHMER, HAVRE, MT
Mr. Kretchmer. Senator Baucus, my name is Dwayne Kretchmer,
my wife Lilly here (indicating). We're from Havre, Montana. We
have a home at 3908 East Shore Drive--and we're very proud of
it and we love it--ever since 1982.
I didn't realize when I signed my name and my wife's name--
--
Senator Baucus. That you were going to have to say
something.
Mr. Kretchmer. Right. So I'm really trying----
Senator Baucus. You don't have to say anything.
Mr. Kretchmer. ----trying my best. However, as long as
you're putting it that way, when it was mentioned about all the
Canyon Ferry cabin sites are owned by people from Helena and
East Helena and Butte and Bozeman and Livingston and Billings
and Great Falls, Havre is also part of Montana.
Senator Baucus. Okay. Very good. I like the sweatshirt
you're wearing, too
Mr. Kretchmer. That is Havre.
Senator Baucus. Yes, right.
Mr. Kretchmer. Now, all I want to do is say, in the best
words that I can, that we very much support your efforts and
thank you very much.
Senator Baucus. You're welcome. Thanks, Dwayne, very much.
STATEMENT OF LISA BLANFORD, CANYON FERRY RESERVOIR LEASEHOLDER
Ms. Blanford. Good afternoon, Senator Baucus. My name is
Lisa Blanford.
Senator Baucus. Hi, Lisa.
Ms. Blanford. I'm a leaseholder, I also have a cabin, third
generation. We would really appreciate any opportunity to be
able to purchase the land and to continue our recreational
opportunities out there. Our preference would be to have a
possibility of direct purchase of the cabin, but we'll support
the efforts of the Association and any, any efforts it takes in
order for us to be able to purchase that land. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Lisa.
Ms. Luck. Dorothy Foreman, Margery Rothschiller,
Representative Harper.
STATEMENT OF DOROTHY FOREMAN, BILLINGS, MT
Ms. Foreman. Senator Baucus, I'm Dorothy Foreman. We live
in Billings. We came here over 20 years ago. Even though we
have, of course, a city like Billings, and opportunities, we
have nothing like what we have here in the Canyon Ferry
Recreation Area. We came here with the hope in our, you know,
our golden years, that we would be able to take advantage of
and really enjoy those last years here. We found, after we
signed on the dotted line, too, that the lease arrangement gave
us a lot of trouble. You know, we would really like to have the
opportunity to buy this land. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Now, if any of you have heard anything that you would like
to comment on, either in response to questions I've asked or
answers that others have given, that is, Mike and Bob and Bill,
when you're speaking up here, feel free to comment on or react
to anything else that's occurred thus far in addition to your
own direct personal views. I mean, take advantage of the
opportunity, if you want to.
STATEMENT OF MARGERY ROTHSCHILLER, GREAT FALLS, MT
Ms. Rothschiller. I'm Margery Rothschiller. On behalf of my
husband Vern, we're from Great Falls, and we've been cabin
owners since 1982. We're not pioneers, but sometimes we think
we are when we're out there. We bought our cabin on Valentine's
Day, by the way, and it has been a labor of love ever since.
One little thing on the lighter side that I might want to
say, you know how bad Montana needs rain right now. Senator
Baucus, I want you to know that we knew you were going to come
to the race yesterday, and we said, ``One beautiful day,
please.'' And by the 6,000 people in the race, evidently, the
Man Upstairs was paying good attention to us. So anyway, we
were glad that you were here to make the race with us.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Ms. Rothschiller. But we've been really good stewards of
our land out there and have felt that it's been a privilege to,
to be there and have met a lot of good people, and have become
good shoppers in Helena in fact. So anything that anybody else
has said in front of me already is, we're ditto.
I do want to say, there is wildlife out there. If somebody
comes and looks at my shrubberies, the beautiful grooming job
on them, you'll know that we're not hurting for wildlife. Could
use a few more fish, though.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Margery.
Hal?
STATEMENT OF HAL HARPER, MONTANTA STATE REPRESENTATIVE
Mr. Harper. Good afternoon, Max, cabin owners, I'll be real
brief. I've got to go prepare a bid for an outhouse for
Charlie, I think.
Max, thanks for your work on this issue. We've worked on a
lot of similar issues in the Legislature, and they're very
difficult. We know that you have a very long and difficult road
ahead of you, and we wish you success.
I'm very much in favor of the concept, the endowment
concept. I guess I would like to reiterate the cautions that
most of the people have voiced, that is, please don't exchange
developed land for development. That especially means capital
improvements. Use this opportunity to restore these lands to
their original purpose, that is, primarily fish and wildlife
habitat. So I would say go heavy on that, go easy on certain
aspects of access.
My people in this district are very concerned about the
loss of quality of life that we are experiencing in the State.
Other States in the western part of the country have been
transformed by outside pressures. This particular endeavor
gives us an opportunity to begin to mitigate and maybe turn of
those pressures around, increase fish and wildlife
opportunities and access.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Baucus. Hal, do you think that the composition of
the, of the trustees is sufficient to protect, you know, as
much as one reasonably can, those concerns of yours?
Mr. Harper. Well, that is something that you're going to
have to work on. It's going to be tough, Max. You've got to
balance that. But who you choose, of course, is going to depend
on how the money is spent and whether it's spent. That's one
thing that bothers me. But still, I don't think there is any
other way to accomplish what we need to accomplish. If you can
get the right people in charge of that endowment, we're in good
shape and I think our minds can be at rest.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Ms. Luck. Representative Gay Ann Masolo, Tom Budewitz, John
Grant.
STATEMENT OF GAY ANN MASOLO, MONTANA STATE REPRESENTATIVE
Ms. Masolo. Good afternoon, Senator.
Senator Baucus. Hi, Gay Ann.
Ms. Masolo. Thank you for coming. I am Gay Ann Masolo, and
I represent York and Canyon Ferry area, all of Broadwater
County, all of Meagher County, and parts of Cascade.
I was going to talk to you about this in the race
yesterday, but I didn't really want to run that slow. Now that
I have that on the record, you know I'm just joshing.
Senator Baucus. I beg your pardon.
Ms. Masolo. I'm sure you're going to listen to me now,
right?
Senator Baucus. What was your timing?
Ms. Masolo. I haven't even had the nerve call and ask.
Actually, I want to tell you, I did write a letter in
support of this. I am very much for the sale of the cabins,
because I had these families, I had their children in school
for 25 years and I can attest to them being wonderful families,
and I want to keep them in this area.
Also, Bob Robinson might think he's a little historic, but
I'm a Sullivan from Canton Valley, and I lived on those
ranches. I knew all those ranches that gave up their places
that are below the lake now. So I'm kind of here on their
behalf, too. Because I was a little girl, and I'll never forget
my father had a Bureau of Reclamation guy come out to him and
say, ``Hey, Dan,'' as the water was coming up on our ranch,
``have you got webbed feet yet?'' And my dad, being the little
wily Irishman he was, kicked off his irrigation boot and said,
``Yes.'' My dad had webbed feet, had webbed toes. He said it
was the first time he ever saw a government official
speechless.
So I did live through all that. We did have wonderful
pheasant hunting and wonderful fishing and wonderful families.
Now, the way they sold that to Broadwater County was that
Broadwater County would benefit from it economically. So I
think it's extremely important that you take Broadwater County
into consideration with this money, and I believe you should
have a member of our county commissioners on the board, because
80 percent of this is in Broadwater County. I think it's very
important that you take it into consideration. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Would there be other sources of money to
help address some of the development questions? It is a risk to
start down the slippery slope of taking proceeds from public
lands and then using them to construct capital improvements. I
understand the concerns of those who are interested, like
Broadwater County, for example, about the lack of capital
improvements. I was wondering if you've given some thought to
another way to deal with that problem.
Ms. Masolo. Well, we do have one of our county
commissioners here, and we do have our next speaker who might
address this, because he's been in on it more than I have. But
I know that they are real concerned that they do receive some
of these funds to help them with their area. Of course, we
don't want to go to the property owners for more taxes.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Gay Ann. Next year, I'll try to
run slower for you--or I'll try to run faster for you.
STATEMENT OF TOM BUDEWITZ, BROADWATER COUNTY COMMISSIONER
Mr. Budewitz. I've seen her run, and I don't think that
what she said is true.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Tom Budewitz. I'm an attorney, and
I represent the Broadwater County Commissioners. I'm here
because I've been involved on their behalf since about 1993, in
various aspects of Canyon Ferry.
As Gay Ann alluded to, there were 36 family farms that
where flooded when Canyon Ferry was built. It's easy to forget
that after almost 50 years now. As more time goes on, the fewer
people there are around to remember. But just last year, when
the water level at Canyon Ferry was extremely low, if you were
to have walked around the shoreline along the south end of the
lake, you would have seen the foundations of a number of old
farmhouses and homesteads still poking up through the shallow
water at that time.
As Gay Ann said also, it's my understanding that there were
promises made back in the 1940's and 1950's, when Canyon Ferry
was being planned and was being built, that Broadwater County
would be the recipient of funds and other assistance for
economic development to replace the resources that were being
lost. It hasn't happened.
You've asked the question whether there were other sources
of funding. So far, there have not been. Now, that doesn't mean
that there aren't. But at least to this point, the agencies
that have been involved in Canyon Ferry have not been willing
to either spend the money that they have available or seek
other funds. That's despite the fact that the county
commissioners, at least since 1993, since I've been involved in
this, have been willing to participate, to share in the costs
at least through some in-kind contributions.
In 1993, there was a study commissioned by the Department
of Interior and by the State Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks, which resulted in a draft management plan and
environmental assessment prepared by some local environmental
consultants. I have a copy of the plan, as a matter of fact, in
my file. It's about an inch and a half thick.
It contained a very detailed study of Canyon Ferry and a
detailed study of the current uses and future prospects for the
facility. It proposed about $10 million worth of development,
or improvements, which may or may not be accurately described
as development, around the lake. The expenditure was projected
to be over a period of 10 years, so about $1 million a year.
At the time that the study was commissioned, I only became
involved during the public hearing process of that plan. But it
appeared at the time that there was never any discussion about
where this money was going to come from. You know, it was one
of these things that, ``Gee, let's commission a study and see
what ought to done out there, and then maybe somebody will come
up with the money later.'' Didn't happen. The plan died. The
study is gathering dust in somebody's closet somewhere. I
managed to retrieve mine out of a file several days ago in
anticipation of this hearing.
Some of the proposals contained in that study included
additional campgrounds, additional access, improvement of some
of the roads, things as minor as additional picnic tables and
outhouses and some major things. One of the things at the time
that the Broadwater County Commissioners suggested was the
deepening of one of the bays at the silos.
One of the problems on the south end of the lake is that
there is no place on the south end to dock or tie up a boat.
Although the silos is only about 6 miles from the city of
Townsend proper, if one lives in Townsend, one has to go about
35 miles, up to Goose Bay, around the east side of the lake, in
order to tie up a boat. One of the things that's required at
the silos in order to do that is the deepening of one of the
bays. I don't know the cost of that, but I'm sure it would be
substantial. The commissioners are willing to participate in
that. But up to this point at least, no one has been willing to
pay the burden of taking it on.
Again in 1993, Congressman Williams proposed a House
resolution which contemplated the creation of a partnership
between the two agencies of the Department of Interior, BLM and
BOR, as well as the State Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks
and local agencies, which presumably would have included the
counties, both Broadwater and Lewis and Clark. That resolution
provided, in part, that the fees generated, the income
generated at the site would be spent for maintenance and
operation of the facilities itself and the development of
additional facilities for hunting, fishing, and recreation.
That resolution died, primarily because of what I perceived
as a turf war between the two Interior Bureaus. Finally, the
State Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, out of
frustration, withdrew its interest entirely. It ultimately
withdrew its interest in managing the facility.
So when the question is asked or when the statement is made
suggesting that there are other funding mechanisms, Mr.
Chairman, we are doubtful that other funding mechanisms,
although they may exist, will ever be utilized at Canyon Ferry,
because they've never been utilized in the past.
We see this legislation as an opportunity for a one-time
generation of funds which could in fact be used for additional
improvements at Canyon Ferry Lake. Now, we support the concept
in general of selling these cabin sites and creating this fund
of money. We support the 10 percent going back to the
Department, we support the 45 percent going for the statewide
access fund, and we support generally the 45 percent that would
go to the proposed Canyon Ferry-Missouri River Trust Fund.
The concern we have is with the establishment provisions of
that trust fund, which are very narrowly drafted and do not
include--and probably at the request of the Wildlife
Federation, as Mr. Orsello suggested today--that they not
include anything other than the acquisition of land. Well, let
me tell you a couple of things that we think ought to be
appropriate expenditures of this money.
Number one, Highway 284, on the east of end of the lake,
which provides access from Highway 12 along the east side to
Confederate and Goose Bay, which is the only area on the east
side of the lake in Broadwater County with docking facilities,
is badly in need of repair. Generally speaking, that road
provides access to the lake and, generally speaking, as
proposed, might be included in the expenditures as contemplated
by this establishment clause. But we think it needs to be more
specific so that some of that money could be used for that
purpose, to maintain that road.
We also believe that there should be other roads developed
within the existing BLM property, not only at the silos and the
other areas, but perhaps an expansion of those roads between
the silos and White Earth. We believe that money should be
spent for the deepening of the bay at the silos. We're not
suggesting that money should be spent for the development of a
marina. We think that should be done with private funds
primarily. But at least if the bay is deepened, then access is
improved and increased to the lake in general, particularly on
the south end.
We believe also, Mr. Chairman, that the membership of the
board of trustees of the fund should be revised, either by
changing the, the proposed makeup to include representation
from the local county commissions--at least the Broadwater
County Commission, and perhaps Lewis and Clark, if they're
interested--or to expand membership. The existing proposal
doesn't need to be changed except to expand to include
additional representation by the local government agencies.
With those types of changes, the county commissioners would
be satisfied, to the extent that they ever will be, that this
opportunity to provide a one-source generation, one-time
generation of funds will not be lost. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Tom. You raise good points.
There's always a way to skin a cat. I think the goal here is to
try to keep the public access, but also address the Broadwater
County economic development and other capital improvement
concerns that, that many have.
One thought that comes to my mind--and I don't know if this
could be put together or not--Congress just passed a new
highway bill which gives Montana a lot more money than we've
been receiving over the past years. Over the last 6 years,
we've received in Montana about $162 million per year from the
Highway Trust Fund. Over the next 6 years, we're going to get a
60 percent increase of about $260 million per year from the
Highway Trust Fund, without any increase in gasoline taxes.
Although these are Federal dollars, to be used primarily
for interstate and primary road purposes, I wonder if there
might be a way to use some of these dollars for access. I don't
know, because there aren't specific provisions in the bill that
passed, whether any of this could be used for capital
improvements. I don't think that that's possible now.
But anyway, that's a potential source of some money. My
hope would be that all of us together and others also look for
other sources. Just because, you know, the plans you mentioned
in the past didn't materialize and the BOR/BLM joint
partnership didn't materialize, it doesn't mean that there's
not some other way we can work this out. But recognizing the
legitimate concerns of Montanans who want access, I encourage
all of us to keep looking for ways. I just mentioned one
possible way, and that is the Highway Trust Fund.
Mr. Budewitz. Mr. Chairman, we understand that there may be
other sources of funds available. But unfortunately, after a
period of time, in this case almost 50 years, one's patience
begins to run thin and we're now looking at our second or third
or fourth generation of county commissioners in Broadwater
County who have been exposed to the same problems and the same
difficulties in attempting to finance the improvements at
Canyon Ferry.
I want to add also that, point out that while the comment
has been made that the money should be spent only for the
replacement of riparian habitat, we should point out that at
the south end of the lake, there is perhaps the only place on
the lake where riparian and wildlife habitat has in fact been
increased.
Behind the dikes at the south end of the lake, there is a
tremendous wildlife habitat. In fact, I can tell you, while
we're mindful of jogging yesterday, I have been chased by
osprey on one of the dikes while jogging at that end of the
lake. I can tell you that the wildlife down there is
incredible. If you haven't been there, I invite you to come
down there and run the dikes, because you'll see some
incredible things.
There has been a replacement of wildlife habitat. It has
not all been lost by the construction of the lake. It certainly
hasn't all been lost by the existence of the cabin sites.
Again, I think that points out further the additional impact on
Broadwater County. We've got the wildlife. What we'd like to
have is a replacement of the economic impact, negative economic
impact which occurred through the loss of those farms almost 50
years ago.
Senator Baucus. You make some very good points. I
appreciate it very much. Thank you, Tom.
STATEMENT OF JOHN GRANT, CANYON FERRY RESERVOIR LEASEHOLDER
Mr. Grant. My name is John Grant, and I want to thank you,
also, for having this hearing. I would like to correct a
statement that I think has been made where we've been referred
to as lessees. When we purchased our cabin and moved out there,
we were lessees. The Bureau of Reclamation then came in and
made us permitees. We're out there as long as they permit us to
be. My fear is that my children will not be there for another
30 years. We very much appreciate your efforts to allow us to
purchase these properties.
Senator Baucus. You bet. Thank you, John.
Ms. Luck. Bill Janecke--I apologize if I pronounced it
wrong--Mary Beneventi, Mike Bishop.
STATEMENT OF BILL JANECKE, ANACONDA, MT
Mr. Janecke. Good afternoon, Senator Baucus. I'm Bill
Janecke, from Anaconda. I'm representing myself, as well as
George Grant Chapter of Trout Unlimited. I would like to point
out, as we've seen from our friend from Havre, that this is
more than a regional interest, it's a statewide interest. I
think the crowd here today reflects that to some extent, too.
With respect to how we proceed, we feel it's crucial that
the bill that you currently have, with the endowments or trusts
for wildlife habitat and access remain as they are. I would
point out, too, a little discussion we had earlier as to the
reason why. Wildlife doesn't use $2,500 outhouses. So we feel
that any redirection of these funds is really going to be a
failure and a shortcoming.
I would like to thank you very much for your efforts to be
here. We really appreciate it, and we're wonderfully happy to
have the opportunity to comment.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Bill.
STATEMENT OF MARY BENEVENTI, CANYON FERRY RESERVOIR LEASEHOLDER
Ms. Beneventi. Hi, Max.
Senator Baucus. Hi.
Ms. Beneventi. I'm Mary Beneventi, and I've lived at Canyon
Ferry Lake on the West Shore since 1978. I wish to thank not
only Max, but the rest of the congressional delegation. I
looked for my children for years and couldn't find them. They
were at the lake. I didn't have a cabin then. Finally, I was
able to get a cabin when the last one was in high school. But
I'm spending my retirement time there, and I love it. Please
let us buy that cabin. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF MIKE BISHOP, HELENA, MT
Mr. Bishop. Senator Baucus, I'm Mike Bishop, I'm from
Helena. I had the opportunity to thank you yesterday personally
for your leadership as you were so kindly handing out the
medals for the special needs children, of which one was my son.
I feel that we're a group with special needs here, too. A
lot of effort and expense has gone into getting to this point
that might allow us this opportunity to purchase these
properties. I would just like to convey our thanks to you and
the rest of the congressional delegation, and just urge you to
please hang with us and to see this through and to allow us to
come to fruition this time. Because I don't know what hardship
we might have in front of us if we're not successful at this
point in time.
So again, thank you very much for all your efforts and for
the efforts of the Recreational Association and the other
resource groups that have been present today.
Senator Baucus. Mike, you make a very good point, thank
you.
That raises another point, the joint efforts we're all
going to have to undertake if we want to get this legislation
passed this year. There are not a lot of days left in this
Congress, believe it or not, even though it's June.
Theoretically, you'd think that we have over half a year left,
but we don't. There are, I would guess, no more than 50,
perhaps 60 legislative days left this year. After the election
this fall, it will be a whole new Congress next year, and who
knows what will happen. We may have to start all over again.
So what I'm saying is this: I urge all of us to urge all of
us; the second thing is to get the congressional delegation to
move on this forthrightly, to keep moving and not let up. There
are going to be a couple wrinkles that we're going to have to
work out, but follow this legislation very closely in both the
House and the Senate. Call all our offices. Call us weekly to
keep abreast of what's going on and ask where it is, ask what
the latest provisions are, so that you're involved.
But the main thing is that we've got to work hard and we
have to work together to put this thing together on a
bipartisan basis--Republicans and Democrats. It also has to be
done bicamerally--both the House and the Senate--so it can pass
this year. It's going to take a joint effort on the part of all
of us. You can help us very much by calling us frequently and
urging us to resolve it, not only along the lines that you
want, but also to compromise where you think that that's
appropriate to get this passed this year.
Ms. Luck. Lyle Eggum, Mike Sedlock, Jeff Doggett.
STATEMENT OF LYLE EGGUM, CANYON FERRY RESERVOIR LEASEHOLDER
Mr. Eggum. Senator, I'm Lyle Eggum, and I am one of the
permitees, as John so aptly put it, on the East Shore. My
purpose here today is to say to you that we certainly
appreciate three Montana guys working together, forgetting
party lines, seeing a problem, and helping us solve it. We're
in support. Please help us. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. That's a good statement. It's right to the
point. Thank you, Lyle.
STATEMENT OF MIKE SEDLOCK
Mr. Sedlock. Good afternoon, I'm Mike Sedlock. I don't want
anybody confusing me with Walleyes Unlimited at this point,
because that's where most of you know me from. But I am
speaking on my own behalf today as a general angler.
I sympathize with the position that you people are in. I
wouldn't want to be there myself. I know many of you, and I
hope everything comes out for you. I'm not opposed or
supportive of the sale or the leases be continued at this point
because I'm observing all the process. But I would like to let
you know, as a general angler, living here in Helena, my view.
I go to Canyon Ferry quite often, along with Hauser,
Holter. I fish all over the State, as a matter of fact. It's
about a 20-minute drive from my house out to the lake. When you
people and the process has shown that, you know, the best
access sites are other parts on the lake, I don't really agree
with that statement.
The only access sites that we have on the north end of the
lake at this point is Shannon, Chinaman, and a little boat ramp
up on the dam end. If you've ever been out there on a weekend
and tried to get your boat in, you're lined up on places that
there's one concrete ramp. Chinaman and Shannon have no boat
ramps. You're trying to load on dirt banks, gravel banks,
getting your truck stuck. The camping sites are limited. There
is no opportunity to expand any of those sites at all for
public use. I do believe that this reservoir is for public use.
The next site, closest one for me to travel to when I'm
backed up, trying to get in and out on boat ramps to do a
little fishing and enjoy the lake myself, is Hellgate. Hellgate
has had some improvements. There again, a single-lane boat
ramp, a gravel road, three miles of gravel, rough road that
tears a boat trailer apart, the transom and stuff on vehicles.
If any of you ever purchased a $30,000 truck and a $20,000
boat, it's expensive to keep them up on roads like that.
I feel that we need some better access on the north end of
that lake for the general public. Where it is, I'm not sure. I
know that I would like to see it somewhere between Kim's Marina
and Magpie Bay. I'm sorry if you don't agree with me on this,
because you have homes there. Like I say, I do sympathize with
you. But this is public land. Once it is sold, we will not have
access to it.
I think that the bill needs to involve people being able to
retain these accesses, make improvements on the lake for the
general recreationists. I don't agree with the Montana Wildlife
Federation or Prickly Pear Sportsmen's Association of the
monies only going to land use, of buying more access. We need
more recreation for us people that are unfortunate enough to be
living in the town and not having homes on lakes or cabins up
in the mountains and stuff like that. So I would appreciate you
giving us some thought, too.
I hope that however it comes out, on the sale or your
leases are continued, that everything works out fine for you.
Senator Baucus. Mike, you say you think the best new access
could be between Magpie and where?
Mr. Sedlock. Kim's Marina. That would be south towards
Magpie.
If you look at a lot of the rest of the lake, down to the
south end of the lake, it's mainly all cliffs or shallow areas.
There are a few bays there that access could be put into. It
would be very expensive to put roads into it. Crittenton, the
bays north of White Earth, et cetera, it's a lot of ground with
very little access. Like I say, just like Tom Budewitz was
saying, on the site down at the silos, in order to get a decent
boat docking area in, you'd have to dig out one of the bays.
That would be a very expensive process.
You know, when you got a $20,000 boat and stuff, it gets a
little rough jamming it into a rocky shoreline all the time to
try and dock it to even get out to go get your truck to come
down to load your boat up.
Senator Baucus. How much would it cost? Because there's
always a big bill that goes to the Congress that generally
involves the Army Corps of Engineers. I was thinking of all the
dredge and fill operations this country undertakes,
particularly along the Mississippi and down in Louisiana and
other ports and so forth. We don't have big seaports and we
don't have the big barge traffic in our State, but, you know,
maybe there's an opportunity here. Has anybody done any
assessment on how much it would cost to deepen one of those
bays down by the silos?
STATEMENT OF STEVE MCCULLOUGH, BROADWATER COUNTY COMMISSIONER
Mr. McCullough. We don't have a cost estimate. There's----
Senator Baucus. Will you stand up and give your name,
please, for Cheryl.
Mr. McCullough. Steve McCullough, Broadwater County
Commissioner.
There's 75,000 yards of material that would need to be
removed out of that bay. We don't have a cost estimate on it.
Broadwater County would provide some of the equipment to remove
that.
Senator Baucus. So 75,000 yards.
Mr. McCullough. Yes.
Senator Baucus. Any contractor with us that can tell us how
much it takes to remove 75,000 yards from the bay?
Mr. McCullough. Hal left, I think.
Senator Baucus. Oh, Hal left. He's out bidding on the
outhouses.
Mr. McCullough. Broadwater County put in an outhouse for
$5,800, not 25,000.
Senator Baucus. Could you speak up a little bit. Cheryl is
having a hard time if you don't speak directly into the
microphone.
Mr. McCullough. The rodeo club just put in a outhouse,
self-contained, a nice outhouse, built in Three Forks, all
concrete vaults, for $5,800. So $25,000 is just a waste of
taxpayers' money.
Senator Baucus. Do you know how much the outhouse up in
Glacier Park cost?
Mr. McCullough. We can build a lot of those.
Mr. Sedlock. I believe what Steve is saying is that us
organizations can do things at a much more reasonable and
sensible cost than what the Government generally can.
But I do support the Broadwater County Commissioners and
their efforts down there to get improvements done. I would like
to see them on my end of the lake, too, instead of having to
drive the extra 20 or 30 miles all the time to go down to other
boat ramps that are still sticking out of the water because
it's been lowered 30 feet.
Senator Baucus. I hear you. Thanks, Mike.
Ms. Luck. Stan Frasier, Heidi Yakawich, Clark Pyfer.
STATEMENT OF STAN FRASIER, MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Mr. Frasier. Good afternoon, I'm Stan Frasier, from Helena,
President of the Montana Wildlife Federation. I want to
reiterate that the Montana Wildlife Federation's support for
this proposal is contingent upon this money being used to
replace public lands. We are opposed to the sale of public
lands, and we only supported this because this money was
designed to be put into a fund which would then buy other
public lands.
With the increasing population, there is always greater
demand for recreation, greater demand for access to public
lands. We are going to oppose this bill if it is diluted by the
provisions that Peggy mentioned earlier that Congressman Hill
has in his bill. We are opposed to this money going into the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, and we are opposed to this
money being under the control of politicians. I think we would
all agree that money is at risk anytime it's controlled by
politicians.
This is, I think a real opportunity to help these people
that have these cabin sites. I know that this whole thing has
been up in the air for a long time. I think it was a mistake to
build the dam in the first place, and it was a mistake to lease
those cabin sites and allow those cabins to be built on that
public land. But we're stuck with that. If we can get out of
this and help those people own those sites and exchange that
public land for other public lands and other wildlife habitat
and other recreational opportunity, we think that's the best
possible solution. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Stan.
Audience Member. Heidi had to leave. She said she supports
the legislation, but she had another appointment.
Senator Baucus. Okay, thank you.
STATEMENT OF CLARK PYFER, CANYON FERRY RESERVOIR LEASEHOLDER
Mr. Pyfer. Thank you, Senator Baucus, I really appreciate
it. My name is Clark Pyfer, and we have a cabin at 175 on the
lake. I'm the first generation, but I think we're into about
the third or fourth out there now.
But I just want to be sure that we all appreciate what this
delegation has done on a bipartisan basis. It isn't easy to get
both Republicans and Democrats on the same page.
I'm terribly distressed by the last three or four speakers,
because I know, I've been around legislation long enough that
you have just seen a deal breaker. Because if we do not present
a totally united front, if the county commissioners in Lewis
and Clark County and in Broadwater insist that there be changes
made in this bill, I guarantee you that nothing will be passed
this Legislature, this Congress, and I'll guarantee you that
we'll probably not be, the older ones of us, around to see it
done.
So let's present a united front. I defer to Gay Ann as far
as my good friend, her dad, Dan Sullivan, having been there
when the water came up and a long time before. My family lived
at Canton, and my father and his father went broke there on the
dry land. So we go back a few years, too.
We've been on the lake there in a cabin now since 1960. I
recognize all of the questions and so on that have been raised.
However, keep in mind, if there isn't a sale, all of this is
academic. If this bill does not go through, if the cabin sites
are not put up for sale, then you aren't going to have any
arguments about whether the commissioners use it in Broadwater
County or whether they use it in Lewis and Clark County. So
let's present a united front.
I can see our friends at BOR and the BLM rubbing their
hands together. When you can get people like my friend Mike
come up here and say, ``We've got to change the bill,'' or
Budewitz get up here and say, ``We've got to make changes to
the bill,'' you know as well as I do, Senator, if they start
making changes to this bill, it's dead in the water.
So let's present a united front. I say that we should
support it 99 percent, even if we don't like every part of it.
Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Baucus. Actually, Clark makes a very good point;
that is, the more this bill that's been introduced,
particularly in the Senate--all deference to Rick's bill, but I
say the Senate bill because it does provide where the proceeds
are going to be used and spent, whereas Congressman Hill's
bill--Peggy, correct me if I'm wrong--is silent on expenditure.
But if we don't support the basic bill close to 99 percent,
it's going to slow down and impede passage of the bill. The
more there are splits and differences, the more someone who
doesn't like it is going to take advantage of those splits and
differences. You know, it's divide and conquer.
Clark makes a very good point: we've got to come together
here. If we all are together, the congressional delegation and
the groups together push the same bill, then we can go to the
committee members in both the House and the Senate and say,
``We're all united on this. We've got to get this through.''
Otherwise, there's no reason for committee members, House
members, and other Senators to really pay any attention to
this. If they think this is good for everybody and there's no
significant difference of opinion in Montana on this, then
they'll say, ``Oh, okay, let's just pass it and go on.''
On the other hand, if they hear one group wants this,
another group wants that, then different groups will tend to go
to different House members and Senators and slow things down
and gum up the works.
So it's like most things. It reminds me a little bit of a
photo cartoon, ``We met the enemy, and he is us.'' The solution
is in this room. It's by and large among all of us here. If we
want it, we need to get together. I think the bill that has
been introduced is the combination of the efforts of a lot of
different groups. So we need to get behind a single bill.
I'm open for changes. That's the whole point of this
hearing. But I give us a little bit of a warning that the more
we start making changes and the more we tend to get split
apart, then the more nothing is going to pass. We don't want
that.
Now, some concerns have been raised on other issues, on
other legislation or other avenues. I think Tom has said well--
nothing has really worked out in the past years. Well, I don't
want to sound presumptuous, but, I've not worked on it in the
past. I'd like to think that I can help find some solution here
that's generally satisfying. But anyway, heed Clark's words,
they're very important.
Ms. Luck. The final three from the list are Bill Trumly,
Bill Simons, Commissioner Mike Griffith.
STATEMENT OF BILL TRUMLY, BUTTE, MT
Mr. Trumly. Senator Baucus, my name is Bill Trumly. I'm out
at Cabin Site 77.
Senator Baucus. 77, where is that?
Mr. Trumly. It's on the East Shore, Magpie Bay.
Senator Baucus. Okay.
Mr. Trumly. I'm from Butte. I really just came here to be
brief. I wanted to thank you and the rest of the delegation on
this proposal. Really, more than anything, anything that I
think about is I want to be able to purchase this lease land at
fair market value. I hope the proceeds of this sale can benefit
others in the State of Montana. However it's used, I don't
really care. I just want this to happen. I really hope that
this bill passes, and I thank you for your continued support.
I also have a statement right here. I have a fellow cabin
owner who couldn't make it here today, but he just wanted to
get his two bits in as well. He's also from Butte. He just
really reads, ``Dear Senator Baucus, thank you for proposing
the Canyon Ferry cabin site sale. We're extremely hopeful of
its passage and your continued support of its passage.
Sincerely, Rich and Karen McLaughlin.'' They're Cabin Site 84,
and they're also from Butte. Thank you very much.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Bill. Appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF BILL SIMONS, HELENA, MT
Mr. Simons. Senator Baucus, I'd like to thank you for all
of the work you've done on this bill. I'm in strong support
of----
Senator Baucus. You're Bill?
Mr. Simons. Bill Simons, from Helena, via Shelby.
I would like to address pride of ownership and what that
brings to taking care of the land. My heritage is my mother is
a Basque immigrant, and they took homestead land in the Shelby
area. Many of the Basque people sacrificed everything to come
to this country because of ownership. They have farmed up there
now for 80, 90 years.
I can tell you that when you own, that you become a steward
of the land, you take care of it better. It's been very
difficult owning a cabin at Canyon Ferry for 10 years, trying
to decide if you're really going to own it or if you're even
going to have a lease. The BOR has been very difficult to work
with.
A lot of funds that would have gone into stewardship of the
land have not reached the land because of the insecurity of all
the leaseholders. There's no doubt in my mind that pride of
ownership will increase the funds for erosion, weed control,
and all the other things that everybody is waiting on, not
sure. You know, it's like quicksand, you're not sure what
you're going to have in the end.
So I hope everybody comes together and passes this bill.
There's no doubt in my mind, it's the American way, and God
bless America.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Bill.
Mike.
STATEMENT OF MIKE GRIFFITH, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY COMMISSIONER
Mr. Griffith. Senator, welcome home.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Mr. Griffith. Gay Ann Masolo talked about the historic
character of this lake. I thought it was Lake Sewell in fact
that used to lap at her father's doorstep, and Clark's.
Senator, I'm here as a representative of Lewis and Clark
County Board of County Commissioners. The board of county
commissioners earlier went on the record to support your
legislation. We appreciate very much your leadership. We
applaud it, and we hope that you'll continue to maintain it,
for not only the residents of the local Canyon Ferry community,
but the greater good of the residents of the State of Montana.
Senator, I'm also here representing Montana Power in a
sense. Montana Power asked me to speak on behalf of the
Madison-Missouri River Corridor, which is part of the process
of re-permitting the Montana Power dams. I'm a representative,
one of the members of the steering committee of the Montana
Power effort in the repermitting process.
Bob Robinson referred to the hole in the doughnut that
exists with Canyon Ferry Lake relative to the entire corridor,
Madison-Missouri River Corridor that extends from Hebgen Dam to
Ryan Dam in Great Falls. Montana Power, in partnership with the
Bureau of Land Management, Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the Forest
Service, other Federal agencies, is involved in a very major
conservation/recreational effort for the entire area extending,
again, from Hebgen to Ryan Dams. The only exception in the
corridor, the Madison-Missouri River Corridor, is in fact
Canyon Ferry, and that is because of the fact that Canyon Ferry
is outside of that purview of Montana Power dams.
But about a year ago, Montana Power did invite the Canyon
Ferry involvement, and Broadwater County. Broadwater County is
represented now on the steering committee. The people, the very
few people who have expressed any concern here today in respect
to the lack of recreational access to the, to the corridor,
particularly at Canyon Ferry Lake, I feel can relax to some
extent because I believe that Montana Power is, is very much
involved, very dedicated to maintaining access throughout this
entire corridor, the Madison-Missouri River Corridor. That will
include, as much as possible, Canyon Ferry Lake.
People may be aware of a very major effort on the part of
the Bureau of Land Management below Canyon Ferry on Hauser Lake
at Devil's Elbow, which will come about hopefully beginning in
about the year 2000.
As far as the trust account, Senator, and with the trust
funds, I, too, would encourage, as Tom mentioned over here, in
respect to the infrastructure, the road network. I think it is
one thing to protect the, the wildlife and other riparian
interests, wildlife, fish, et cetera. But unless we have a very
strong and ongoing transportation network--and that means
Highway 284 Tom referred to in Broadwater County. Likewise,
Lewis and Clark County would go on record as supporting the
continued improvement or the ongoing improvement and
maintenance of Highway 284.
Clark, with respect to the three-mile corridor extending
from Broadwater County into Lewis and Clark County, from
Confederate Gulch to Magpie Gulch: Lewis and Clark County is
likewise very interested in seeing that three-mile stretch of
road improved. Lewis and Clark County is under the same dilemma
as every other local government agency--the lack of funding.
Whether it is through the Highway Trust Fund, Federal
Highway Trust Fund, or through this trust fund, Senator, I
would encourage, in this particular case, rather than monies
being allocated from the Federal trust fund, that there be a
mechanism set aside so that funding of the ongoing improvements
and maintenance to this highway or the road network that Canyon
Ferry depends upon, that it possibly come from these trust
dollars.
That concludes my remarks. Again, I appreciate very much
your dedication, Max, to this project, and we'll continue to
support it. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Thanks, Mike, very much.
Now, since we began, we have more who want to speak. More,
I guess have signed up or just indicated they wanted to speak.
I think Holly has those.
Ms. Luck. There are four on the list, if they all just want
to come up to the microphone, Gil Alexander, Mary Doggett, John
Wilson, John Larson.
Senator Baucus. That's not to restrict anybody else. We are
going to end the hearing soon, but if others want to stand up
and say something because someone else has said something
that's so outrageous it has to be addressed, here's your
chance.
STATEMENT OF GIL ALEXANDER, CANYON FERRY RESERVOIR LEASEHOLDER
Mr. Alexander. Max, I'm Gil Alexander.
Senator Baucus. Hi, Gil.
Mr. Alexander. I operate a science institute out at Canyon
Ferry Lake, as well as I am one of the leaseholders and
permitees. I did prepare some remarks. I'm speaking in support
of your proposed legislation to allow the 265 cabin sites
located along the shoreline to be sold to the highest bidder at
an auction.
I believe that your bill encompasses the necessary language
to allow for fair disposition of this property, and at the same
time, it protects and enhances the rights of all citizens to
use Canyon Ferry as a prime recreation site. Further, your bill
will reduce conflicts that could arise between the existing
management agency--you know who that is--and the cabin owners,
thereby reducing administrative time that is presently spent in
conflict management as opposed to producing power and water. In
short, your bill should result in a win/win situation for all
parties.
I appreciate your efforts and the efforts that your staff
have made to resolve the issue and especially appreciate the
many hours that Holly Luck has spent meeting with cabin owners
and others to help structure the bill.
Those were the prepared statements, but since that time,
there have been some other things that I think are worth
addressing. First of all, I know that you have worked very hard
with other States up and down the Missouri River to acquire
some of the funding from the Pick-Sloan money that was
initially allocated for both recreation and transportation. As
we all know, the upstream States have never received their fair
share of recreation money. Those monies could be used for
enhancement of camping facilities and could be used for access
to the lake.
Likewise, as you addressed, the money that is available
through the Highway Act that you were responsible for could
also work to improve the Highway 284 along the northeast side
of the lake, as well as that section of road between Canyon
Ferry and York, which will, over the next 7 years receive
increased traffic because of the interest in the Lewis and
Clark Bicentennial.
I would like to suggest also that monies could be available
through the fishing tackle sales dollars that are available to
each State that are specifically allocated for fishing
improvement and fishing access locations. But those have not
been used, to my knowledge, on the Canyon Ferry Lake.
There are many, many other opportunities, I suspect, for
funding without subterfuge of this particular bill as it
stands. I know that there are many, many people in this nation
who want to ensure that whatever happens, that the Federal
Government and the people of the United States receive market
value. So regarding any particular comfort level, I think most
of us are willing to undergo a little more discomfort in order
to see that the process goes forward. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Gil. That's a very good
statement, thank you.
STATEMENT OF JOHN WILSON, TROUT UNLIMITED
Mr. Wilson. Senator, my name is John Wilson, and I am Vice
Chairman of the State Council of Trout Unlimited. I'm here
representing the State Council of Trout Unlimited. We represent
over 3,000 anglers across the State and about 13 chapters.
We're dedicated to the preservation and rehabilitation of cold
water fisheries in Montana.
We're here in strong support of your Senate Bill 1913. We
feel that we're unified with the cabin owners, cabin holders on
this bill in terms of the direction of how the funding is going
to go and what's going to happen. We, too, have grave concerns
when people come in and start to peck around the edges of these
things. I think Hal said it well, Representative Harper, that
we should not exchange development for development. It's
conservation for conservation at this particular point.
There are a couple little tweaks. I mean, we don't want to
pick around the edges, but we see these as administrative
things. In there right now, there's a representative from a
fishing conservation organization. We think that that should
delineate a Montana fishing organization or a statewide fishing
organization, so that it doesn't end up being a national or
someone outside of Montana. That's just a little tweak.
Secondly, we think it would maybe be wise to expand the
geographic region of the area that the trust could be used to
include downstream. We might----
Senator Baucus. You mean the first trust.
Mr. Wilson. The first trust, yes, perhaps to Cascade.
Because there's high usage in that area, recreational usage,
there's high development pressure in that area. Although Mike
pointed out that in the FERC licensing processing process,
there will potentially be a Madison-Missouri Corridor Trust,
that's not a reality right now. That's not the case, and it
hasn't been decided, and that hasn't happened.
Similarly, or maybe in addition, as Montana Power divests,
through the deregulation of their generating facilities,
there's a great deal of land along these rivers that is
currently owned by Montana Power that we're uncertain about the
ultimate disposition of those lands, which is now available to
the public generally, but may not be in the future.
So we think it might be wise, if it doesn't disrupt the
bill, to expand the geographic area, not just from Three Forks
down to the Canyon Ferry Dam, but to go all the way down to
Cascade, for the trust purposes. So we'd ask that you take a
look at it. But our support is unified with the cabin owners,
and we commend you for taking the time to do all this. Thanks.
Senator Baucus. You bet, John, thank you.
STATEMENT OF JOHN LARSON, CANYON FERRY RECREATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Larson. Senator Baucus, I'm John Larson, Cabin 126. I'm
Chairman of the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association's Appraisal
Committee. Just, I'm here for your information. On May 18, we
signed a settlement agreement with the BOR to do a new
appraisal, and we put a process together that's agreed upon
between both the BOR and the Canyon Ferry Recreation
Association. So what I'm doing here is, any of that information
that you or your staff or Senator Burns needs or would like to
review, if that information will help you in any way, I can get
that to you.
Senator Baucus. That will be very helpful, John. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Larson. Thank you for all your great work, and thanks
to Senator Burns and Mr. Hill, too.
Senator Baucus. You bet. I'll pass that on.
Is there anybody else that wants to . . .
John.
STATEMENT OF JOHN BLACKER
Mr. Blacker. Thank you, Senator. My name is John Blacker.
My wife spoke earlier. She was the prettier one of the family.
I did want to clear up a couple of issues that have been
brought forth. I also wanted to thank you, on a side issue,
being a Department of Transportation administrator, for the
highway funding bill that just came to Montana. I don't believe
people understand how truly significant it's going to be for
transportation in Montana.
Senator Baucus. It really is a big deal for the State.
Mr. Blacker. Yes. It's unbelievable. It has our heads
spinning at this point really. There's plenty of needs, there's
plenty of places it needs to go. I would hope, before we
consider clouding up this particular piece of legislation with
transportation type issues in that manner, that we get the
opportunity at least to decipher where everything is at. I've
heard the word Highway 284, which is a Federal aid secondary,
which is eligible for those Federal aid type funds.
Again, we're talking some major type monies here. From our
standpoint, from a transportation standpoint, it's going to be
a ramping-up effect. Although I've heard you say $260 million a
year for up to 6 years, it takes a little bit of time to move
into that. I think the first year for us is roughly--which is
the current year right now, roughly, we don't have exact
figures, it's going to be about $220 million, $210 million; the
following year, about $235 million.
Senator Baucus. But still, that's a lot more than we've
been getting.
Mr. Blacker. Well, by the end of the bills, we'll be at
$300 million-plus annual bid lettings. Now, that's
unbelievable. When you throw that in with the State dollars and
stuff, that's double what we've done at any time in the past.
Now, the good news is, we're going to have a lot better
highways, they're going to be a lot nicer. The bad news is, you
people that don't like to travel through work zones, you're
going to see them double over. There's only so much opportunity
to do something.
So on that issue, I want to thank you for that. I would
hope that we don't cloud this issue with trying to get in some
transportation or highway type funding issues with that.
Secondly, I think, the other thing I just wanted to say
was, I've always--I'm 46 years old, and I've been at Canyon
Ferry for 40 years. So for the best part of my life, I've been
around Canyon Ferry. My folks started there, and both have
passed on and have left me somewhat into trust the family
cabin. I take care of it for myself, my sisters, my families. I
have two grown daughters who have since left the State, but
they come back every year for their vacations. They could go
anywhere. They come back every year and spend their vacations
at the family cabin.
With those issues, I've always thought of Canyon Ferry as
being a joint effort. It didn't have to be for the cabin owners
only or the recreationists only. I think it takes both of those
groups to make it a successful operation. Some people say,
``Oh, gee whiz, it's kind of crowded, it might be too
crowded.'' You know, I've been there a long time. I don't see
those crowds. But, you know, part of having people around doing
things and watching people enjoy life, that's what makes it fun
to go to those places.
The NBA playoffs are on right now. I don't think anybody
would get excited if there was only ten people at the game.
They like the crowd. They like the ambience of having things
going on.
So I think there's a joint effort here. I heard somebody
else say it earlier, it's a win/win for everybody. I appreciate
and I want to thank you very much for everything you're doing.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, John, very much. Appreciate it.
Well, those words that encourage everybody to cooperate
together, I think is a good way to end this hearing.
I first want to thank all of you very much. You've sat here
for a couple hours at least. I appreciate it. Thank you on
behalf of yourselves and others that you're working with.
Second, we will take this testimony and questions that
you've posed to Congressman Hill and Senator Burns. We'll meet
together and talk this out so that we can get it wrapped up and
on a fast track.
Your efforts will be very helpful; that is, calling us,
writing us letters, talking to us. Don't forget, you're in
charge. I mean, you're the employers, we're the employees.
You've got to act like employers, you've got to give us our
directions, our marching orders, what you want, recognizing
that only one bill is going to pass here and we've got to agree
on the provisions of the bill; but also recognizing, as I
mentioned earlier, there are lots of ways to solve problems.
That is, perhaps we can solve some problems that need to be
solved--and I'm talking about recreation and capital
improvements--not as much in this bill as some would like, but
in another bill.
When I'm saying that, I don't mean to pass the buck, at
all. I'm just saying that if we don't, we run the risk of
nothing. We want something. The something we want to is address
all the concerns. As I said, I feel quite confident that are a
lot of ways to solve all of these concerns. The longer I've
been around, the more I realize that there's a lot of different
ways to accomplish something. It's not always the first way
that comes to mind. I mean, there's a totally different way to
reach the objective which turns out to be just as easy.
Finally, I want to thank a lot of people working very hard
at this, not only those of you, Bob and Bill and Mike, who have
worked so hard, but I want to particularly thank some people
who are not really recognized as much as they should be for all
the work that they do. They're our staff people. So I'll have
them all stand and stay standing until I call all their names,
so we can all give them a big round of applause.
I'll start with Peggy Trenk, who works for Congressman
Hill. I understand Michael Harris, who works for Senator Burns,
is here. Michael is standing back there. I want to particularly
thank Doug Mitchell, who works on my staff, as well as Bill
Lombardi, who works for me. Chris Niedermeier is my Chief of
Staff, and she's standing back there. But even for me
personally, the most important person, who has really worked
hardest on this, is Holly Luck. So Holly, could you stand,
please.
Let's give them all a big round of applause.
[Applause.]
Senator Baucus. I forgot Cheryl. Cheryl, our stenographer.
Can you stand, Cheryl?
[Applause.]
Senator Baucus. Okay, thanks, everybody, and we'll take it
from here.
[Whereupon, at 2:39 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[The bill, S. 1913, and additional material submitted for
the record follows:]
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Statement of Hon. Rick Hill, U.S. House of Representatives
First I'd like to thank Senator Baucus for holding this important
hearing. I would also like to thank the witnesses and others gathered
here today for their efforts to address this important issue.
The Montana congressional delegation has agreed on the value of
selling 265 leases on Canyon Ferry. This sale would allow current
householders the opportunity for permanent ownership, while paying fair
market value to the benefit of the taxpayer.
While we all share the common goal of providing more funding for
conservation, I believe it is very important that we also make sure
Lewis and Clark and Broadwater Counties have a stronger say in how
their backyard will be managed. For this reason, I strongly support
using the proceeds of this sale for not only land and water
conservation measures, but also for giving these counties the resources
to make long-term recreational improvements on the lake.
I'm confident the Montana congressional delegation and all the
interested parties will come together to resolve the issue of what the
sale of the leases will benefit. Be assured that legislation I have
introduced in the House of Representatives on this matter will be one
of my highest priorities in the remainder of this Congress. This
hearing will assuredly help move us forward for the benefit of all
Montanans.
Again, thank you Senator Baucus for your efforts here today.
______
Statement of Bob Robinson, Canyon Ferry Recreation Association
Good afternoon Senator Baucus. My name is Bob Robinson. I am the
designated spokesman for the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association
(CFRA). I serve as the Chair of the CFRA Cabin Site Acquisition sub-
committee.
I am accompanied today by Larry LaRock, who is a fellow member of
CFRA's Cabin Site Acquisition subcommittee. I will present a summary of
CFRA's written testimony, and Dr. LaRock will join me in answering any
questions that you might have regarding CFRA's interest in this
legislation.
I should begin by thanking you, Senator Baucus, for holding this
hearing and sponsoring S. 1913, the bill that is the subject of this
hearing. I would also like to extend my thanks to the other two
distinguished members of the Montana Congressional delegation who are
working with you on Canyon Ferry legislation. Senator Burns (who is co-
sponsoring S.1913 with you) and his staff have been most helpful to
CFRA in answering our many questions and in assisting on this important
legislation. Additionally, Congressman Rick Hill, who is a sponsor of a
companion piece of legislation (HR 3963), has been most responsive in
listening to the needs expressed by CFRA and other members of the
public concerned about the best use of Federal resources at Canyon
Ferry.
While extending thanks, I want also to single out the excellent
staff work performed by the staff of the Montana congressional
delegation on this legislative effort. Holly Luck, from Senator
Baucus's Helena office, consistently attends the myriad meetings called
on Canyon Ferry matters and has been most attentive to questions and
concerns raised by CFRA members and the public who are so concerned
about Canyon Ferry matters. Brian Kuehl, Senator Baucus's legislative
assistant for natural resources in Washington D.C., has also been
enormously attentive to details relative to the policy issues
associated with S. 1913. Mr. Kuehl deserves special recognition for his
efforts to work out the differences among the various groups that have
a stake in the issues touched upon by S. 1913. There are many other
interested parties to thank, but since the legislative process for the
Baucus-Burns proposal is still in the formative stages, I prefer to
wait until this bill (and its companion measure in the House--HR 3963)
advances further in Congress before I thank others in the supporting
cast who deserve public recognition for their efforts to improve and
enact this important proposal.
As far as my personal involvement with this legislation, I am
simultaneously humbled, excited and burdened in my appearance before
you today. I am humbled by the opportunity to present the CFRA position
to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. As member of a
family holding a lease, an avid outdoors man and an active member of
the Helena regional community, I am also excited about the potential
that your legislative proposal offers to the cabin site lessees and the
broader recreational community served by the Missouri River/ Canyon
Ferry drainage. Finally, I feel seriously burdened by the
responsibilities placed on us to implement the concepts embodied in S.
1913.
With those preliminary thoughts expressed, let me turn briefly to
the public benefit of the proposed legislation itself. As CFRA sees it,
the Baucus/Burns proposal authorizes an exchange of Federal land for
significant private resources ($15-20 million from the lease holders
for the full market purchase price of their leased lots). The
substantial sums of money potentially generated by this proposal can
bestow far greater public benefit than what the 150 cabin site acres
currently represent. Further, the Baucus-Burns proposal maintains all
existing public access and improve public access opportunities at
Canyon Ferry Reservoir and create a mechanism by which additional
access and easements could be developed. S. 1913 improves wildlife
habitat and related opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife
viewing and other recreational resources in the Canyon Ferry and
southern Missouri River drainages. It will provide benefits to
Broadwater County since 80 percent of the lake and Missouri-River
tributaries up to Tosten are in Broadwater County. Lewis and Clark
County will benefit from the increased tax base that ownership will
provide. For the 265 cabin site leaseholders, it would provide the
security that only ownership can provide.
These Important public benefits will be generated in the following
manner. The bill authorizes a process that permits the Federal
Government to transfer ownership of the underlying fee interests for
the 265 cabin lots at Canyon Ferry in exchange for substantial sums of
money that would permanently endow the perpetual acquisition of the
public benefits previously identified above.
Background Facts Regarding Canyon Ferry Legislation
Permit me to offer some background information about the Canyon
Ferry Reservoir and the 265 cabin sites that are the subject of this
legislation. The public perception may be that cabin sites cover all of
the banks of Canyon Ferry. but the contrary is true. The reservoir is
26 miles long with a shoreline of 76 miles. (Dr. LaRock is pointing to
the relatively small portion of the lake devoted to the cabins.) Please
note that none of the 265 cabin site lots contain shoreline, but all
are near the shoreline. The 265 cabin site lots, with a total area of
less than 150 acres, sit on land that is adjacent to less than 8.2
percent of the reservoir shoreline or 6.7 miles. All of the cabin lots,
which average about one half acre per site, are located at the north
end of the reservoir, and all are situated in Lewis and Clark County.
The sites start about three miles from the dam and extend about three
miles on each side, with numerous public facilities developed at the
appropriate sites best suited for public use.
Here are a few facts about Broadwater County as it relates to
Canyon Ferry. Roughly 80 percent of the shoreline of Canyon Ferry is in
Broadwater County, but as noted earlier, no cabin site lots are in
Broadwater County. The reservoir is shallower at the south end of the
lake, which is near Townsend. This fact will be discussed later in my
testimony when we get to the subject of environmental impacts. However,
I do want to note at this point that the high water level of the
reservoir is 3,800 feet, which is the height of the dam spillways. All
cabin sites are above 3,810 feet, and for comparison, the Townsend
county courthouse steps are reported to be 3,820 feet. Raising the
level of the dam would create quite a problem for Townsend
I want to emphasize that, should S.1913 become law. as currently
proposed, existing public access would remain the same. Additionally,
if section 5 of S. 1913 (which provides for a Canyon Ferry-Missouri
River trust) were enacted into law, significant additional public
access can be provided through land or easement purchases near the
Reservoir. This Trust is perpetual, thus providing these benefits
forever as they are needed or as the opportunity arises.
It should be remembered that when the land at the North end of
Canyon Ferry was leased to private permit holders (a process that began
more than forty years ago), the current 265 lots that are now developed
were raw and completely undeveloped land. When BOR began leasing these
lots, permit holders legally obligated themselves to build cabins on
their lots as a written condition of BOR's permit. Tents or trailers
did not satisfy BOR's condition. Instead, the minimum BOR requirement
was for the permit holders to build a permanent foundation for a
structure of at least 600 square feet.
Many permit holders, who met the conditions of their lease
requirements, have continued to improve their properties at their own
expense, including drilling wells, installing septic systems,
constructing access roads and the like. Further, it has not been
uncommon to see dozens of trees planted by the permit holders, along
with other valuable landscaping and erosion control activities all at
their own expense.
While I will provide additional background information to this
Senate Committee on the history of the project and the history of the
cabin sites, my most important assignment is to identify and articulate
the myriad public benefits that would enure from the enactment of S.
1913. What are those benefits? They are summarized as Congressional
findings in Section 2 of S. 1913, which provides that:
(1) it is in the interest of the United States for the Secretary of
the Interior to sell leaseholds at Canyon Ferry Reservoir in the State
of Montana for fair market value if the proceeds from the sale are
used----
(A) to establish a trust to provide a permanent source of funding
to acquire access or other property interests from willing sellers to
conserve fish and wildlife and to enhance public hunting and fishing
opportunities at the Reservoir and along the Missouri River:
(B) to establish a fund to be used to acquire access or other
property interests from willing sellers to increase public access to
Federal land in the State of Montana and to enhance hunting, and
fishing opportunities; and (C) to reduce the Pick-Sloan project debt
for the Canyon Ferry Unit:
A first benefit of the legislation (listed in ``A'' of the proposed
Congressional findings) would be to provide improved access at Canyon
Ferry and the Missouri River basin upriver to Three Forks. These
benefits would occur from the implementation of the Canyon Ferry-
Missouri River trust that is authorized under section 5 of the bill.
Similar trusts are currently in place that provide public benefits for
lands adjacent to the Missouri River sites both downstream from Canyon
Ferry and upstream from Tosten Dam. While the Canyon Ferry section of
the Missouri does not currently have a such a trust in place, this bill
would help create and fund this important public benefit.
An associated benefit would be the development of wildlife habitat
at Canyon Ferry and upriver to the Tosten Dam. Again, these benefits
would come as a result of the spending expected to be generated by the
proposed Canyon Ferry-Missouri River Trust. When the Canyon Ferry dam
was built in the early 1950's, there were no Federal programs in place
to mitigate adverse environmental impacts, such as the loss of wildlife
habitat. Were this dam to be built today. such protections would
protect against such losses. However, the proposed Canyon Ferry-
Missouri River Trust, as proposed in S. 1913. could help mitigate the
more than four decade loss of important wildlife habitat that was
destroyed when the Reservoir began to fill in 1954.
A second public benefit generated by S. 1913 (see ``B'' of the
Congressional findings) would be a State-wide fund for increasing
public access to Federal land in the State of Montana. This benefit
will be discussed in greater detail by witnesses who will testify later
in the hearing.
The third benefit from the legislation (see ``C'' of the
Congressional findings) is that BOR would receive 10 percent of the
proceeds from the transfer of the cabins to the lease holders. While
the total value of the transfer has not yet been determined, it could
be more than $20 million, and if it reached that level, BOR would
receive $2 million, which could be used to pay down the current debt on
the Canyon Ferry Dam, a debt that now approaches $37 million. It should
also be remembered that the Canyon Ferry Dam was built from funds lent
by the Federal Government. In enacting the ``Pick Sloan'' loan program,
Congress contemplated that power and irrigation revenues pay project
debt, and there is little evidence to suggest that Congress anticipated
the prospect of debt repayment through the use of recreational lands
that were increased in value due to the creation of a public lake, but
that is certainly a benefit that S. 1913 would generate.
It should also be emphasized that none of the proceeds of the
proposed Canyon Ferry Trust is contemplated for use on the 265 lots. In
other words, the use of those lots would remain essentially unchanged.
Those lots are now occupied by private permit holders, and the
recreational amenities available to those permit holders are not
contemplated to change under this legislation.
In preparing this testimony, CFRA's Cabin Site Acquisition
Committee drew upon numerous historical documents that we are now
providing to the committee for the public record. Listed below are the
following documents that have been supplied to the Committee staff for
inclusion in the hearing the record:
Exhibit A: A masters thesis entitled ``Private Use of Public Lands:
Canyon Ferry Lake and Cabin Lease Sites'', by Stephen Ray Clark. a
professional paper in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Masters of Public Administration at Montana State University
in Bozeman, MT. August 1987.
Exhibit B: ``Canyon Ferry Lake-Recreation and Conservation
Management Reserve'', a proposal presented to United States Bureau of
Reclamation and Montana Department of Fish. Wildlife & Parks. The
proposal was prepared by American Public Land Exchange Company Inc. of
Missoula, MT and was presented in May 1985. Attached to the report is a
document entitled ``Helena Valley Canyon Ferry Land Exchange Background
Information'', prepared at the request of Canyon Ferry Recreation Users
Association by American Public Land Exchange Company Inc., dated
September 12, 1984.
Exhibit C: Canyon Ferry State Park ``Proposed'' Management Plan by
the Canyon Ferry Master Advisory Committee, the Montana Department of
Fish. Wildlife & Parks. and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1993.
Exhibit D: United States Department of Interior Office of Inspector
General Final Audit Report on Reclamation Management Activities at
selected sites, May 17, 1995.
Exhibit E: List of cabin site owners at Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
Exhibit F: Rock Creek Fund Trust Agreement and related documents.
Exhibit G: Missouri-Madison Rivers Comprehensive Recreation
Management Plan and related Revolving Trust Fund documents.
History of Canyon Ferry Reservoir
I would like to present to the Committee a brief history of the
Canyon Ferry Reservoir. In preparing this history. CFRA relied
extensively upon the 1987 thesis of Steven Ray Clarke, a BOR employee
at the Canyon Ferry project. Mr. Clark prepared this thesis for a
Master Degree in Public Administration from Montana State University.
He is still working for the Bureau of Reclamation.
Canyon Ferry Lake was formed when Canyon Ferry Dam was completed in
1954 as a part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. Recreation
homesite leases at Canyon Ferry were first issued in 1958 as a result
of a direct promotion by BOR. The Bureau supplied to the Montana
Highway Commission drafts of recommended lease agreements. boat permits
and licenses for docks. The State of Montana issued these permits
pursuant to a State-Federal management agreement. Newspaper articles at
the time noted that, prior to the identification of potential cabin
sites, BOR first reserved the preferred public recreation sites around
the Reservoir's shoreline. According to Mr. Clarke's thesis, an
important reason for leasing summer home sites was the ``multi-purpose
authorization of the Canyon Ferry project and other Bureau projects
built at that time.'' Clarke then observed:
``What better way to demonstrate the multi-purpose implementation
and development than to lease 265 cabin or summer home sites and
rapidly develop their recreational aspects of the multi-purpose
authorization?''
By May 1958, summer home sites were leased, and 29 sites already
had cabins constructed on them.
Initial leases for the cabin sites were for a period of 10 years
with an option to extend for an additional 10 years. A practice began
to occur where the ten year renewals were provided on a virtually
automatic basis. Additionally. improvements were allowed to be sold by
lessees to different persons, and new leases were drawn up to begin a
new ten year lease term for owners of cabins.
According to Mr. Clarke's thesis, the following changes have
evolved in BOR's leasing policy:
``The leasing policy in the Department of the Interior for private
use of recreational lands has vacillated during the past thirty years.
The policy has gone from one of open encouragement, to open
discouragement, to status-quo, to support of a phase-out.''
These precipitous changes in policy by the Federal Government,
which continue to this day, have prompted CFRA members to seek
ownership of their leased properties. According to Mr. Clarke. the
Canyon Ferry Recreation Association first asked the Montana
congressional delegation more than thirty years ago for authorization
to purchase the land upon which their cabins are located.
In addition to the problems faced by the cabin owners. there have
been a variety of other problems confronted by the public at Canyon
Ferry. From the 1950's to the early 1980's, considerable dust was
generated at the south end of the reservoir particularly. when the lake
reached low levels. This dust caused considerable problems for Townsend
area residents. In response. BOR spent roughly $14 million to abate the
dust by retaining more water at the southern end of the lake and
providing more habitat for wildlife.
The dust abatement project is noteworthy, because the original
design of the dam and the resulting reservoir ignored the negative
impacts on the wildlife and the environment. This was so. because
Federal environmental laws did not then require any assessment of the
environmental impact of federally financed projects, such as Canyon
Ferry Dam. Further. the primary purpose of the Canyon Ferry project was
to generate electricity, improve irrigation and provide flood control.
While recreation was later described by BOR as one of the multiple
purposes of the project, it was then a relatively minor purpose.
Beginning in May 1958, once the leases were issued to private
parties, who agreed to build cabins on BOR lands. certain additional
requirements were established. First, it was required that a permit fee
be paid each year for the lease. Further, the cabin owners were
required to provide unobstructed public access to the lake. Over the
years, because of changes in BOR policy, there have been numerous
modifications in the lease documents. Cabin site leases have become
increasingly restrictive and for shorter terms. Initially, these leases
were for ten year periods with ten year renewal periods. In 1987, new
leases were issued for 5 years with a 5-year renewal. The associated
rent payments charged for the leases increased on an accelerated basis
due to a combination of factors, including a change in BOR policy, and
the recognition of increased values of the underlying land where the
lease holders had built their cabins. The current leases for the cabin
site properties expire in 2004, but they may be renewed for up to two
consecutive five-year terms, or until the year 2014.
It should also be noted that the lease holders do not pay property
tax on the land (since that land is owned by the BOR) but they do pay
State and local property taxes for the value of all their improvements.
Additionally, BOR pays to Lewis and Clark County a payment in lieu of
taxes.
Most of the cabins on the leased sites can only be used in the
summer, as they lack insulation for colder weather. Most lessees are
not inclined to make substantial improvements due to the potential
termination of their leases, including the requirement that the lessee
must remove all improvements upon termination. However, private land
ownership should generate substantial capital improvements, thereby
increasing associated property tax revenue. which is yet another public
benefit.
Further, it should be noted that CFRA and its members have been
working with Lewis and Clark County in recent years to insure that
waste water disposal systems (i.e. septic tanks and/or holding tanks)
are in place and in conformance with applicable environmental
requirements.
CFRA and BOR
CFRA's dealings with BOR over the years have generally been
amicable and productive. While disputes have arisen in a few instances,
much of that controversy has been associated with the increased annual
lease payments for the permits for the 265 leased properties. Some of
the cabin owners have experienced as much as eight-fold increases in
their annual lease payments over the past 10 years. Such increases have
caused CFRA to dispute BOR on the valuation of the underlying
properties. Fortunately, the most recent dispute on the BOR's appraisal
procedure was recently settled by CFRA and BOR. The new settlement
procedure comes at a propitious time for several reasons. First, it may
provide a basis for determining the fair market value of the cabin site
lots to be transferred under this legislation. Second. the settlement
minimizes the uncertainty that might otherwise constrain the transfer
of lands associated with disputed property values. The phasing-out of
leased land has greatly concerned the leaseholders and threatens their
investment, work. time and memories that have been built up over almost
four generations for many leaseholders.
A Brief Analysis of S. 1913
In its simplest form, the bill authorizes the U.S. Department of
Interior to sell all of the cabin sites. as a group. to the highest
bidder under a sealed bid process. The legislation also requires the
successful bid to equal or exceed the appraised fair market value of
the 265 lots combined. In the event that CFRA bids on the sites, and
its bid is exceeded by another bidder, we have the right to match the
highest bid. Whoever the high bidder is. it must sell the specific site
at market value to the then permittee, assuming the permittee elects to
purchase its lot. If the permittee does not want to buy the land on
which their cabin sits, the permittee can continue to lease the cabin
site for a period not to exceed the current terms allowed under it's
permit with BOR. In the event that the cabin owner chooses not to buy
their lot, and doesn't want to keep leasing, the high bidder must buy
the cabin improvements at a market value price set by appraisal.
CFRA is generally pleased with the current form of this bill. Our
association has carefully avoided taking positions on exactly how the
proceeds of the transfer are to be used, except we believe that much of
the public benefits to be generated by the exchange should stay within
the Canyon Ferry/Missouri River area. Further, we are seeking to avoid
any appearance that these monies would be used in any way to benefit
the cabin owners directly.
We are pleased that our recommendation to create a trust to benefit
the Canyon Ferry/Missouri River area were accepted by Senators Baucus
and Burns, who included this concept in their bill. Our ideas in that
regard were strongly influenced by the Missouri-Madison Trust and the
Rock Creek Trust.
I would also note that our organization has worked closely with the
county commissioners of the two counties encompassing the Reservoir.
Broadwater County contains approximately 80 percent of the shoreline of
Canyon Ferry Reservoir, and Lewis and Clark County contains the
balance. While all the cabins are located in Lewis and Clark County,
CFRA is concerned that the proceeds of the sale generated by the
transfer of the cabin-site lots should in some way provide benefit to
the residents of Broadwater County who have arguably not received from
BOR as many financial and recreational benefits from the lake as have
Lewis and Clark County residents.
There are scheduled to be witnesses at this hearing representing
various wildlife, hunting and fishing organizations. No doubt those
witnesses will provide a full and compelling explanation of the various
benefits that will occur to wildlife and fish habitat and associated
recreational access and activities.
The experience of CFRA over the past four decades in working on the
problems associated with leased lands at Canyon Ferry suggest to us
that perceptions of public benefit are as varied as the members of the
public who express their views about public needs and benefits. In that
regard, I would highlight a statements recently communicated to CFRA by
the President of the Montana Wildlife Federation:
``Canyon Ferry public lands have lost historic public wildlife
value as a result of habitat alterations and destruction . . . . If
those lands are to be permanently taken out of the public domain, then
we believe that they must be replaced by lands that aim to provide the
public with wildlife and recreational opportunities that once
existed.'' We generally agree with the theme of the MWF statement, but
we would also observe that the distribution of public benefits is best
accomplished by representative legislative bodies, such as Congress.
These bodies follow proven procedures for involving the public at all
levels. Further, if experience is any guide, additional changes will
likely be made to this legislation, as it advances through the
legislative process. We hope that all parties now supporting this
important legislation will continue to be able to support it.
In times of limited public budgets, it is a welcome sight to see
another important source of funding that will allow greater public
benefits to be bestowed. We at CFRA hope that we are given the
opportunity to provide that funding through the implementation of your
legislation.
Thank you. Senator Baucus for giving us the opportunity to present
this testimony and we look forward to answering any questions you might
have about the proposal from the standpoint of the 265 site owners at
Canyon Ferry.
______
Statement of the Prickly Pear Sportsmen's Association
The Prickly Pear Sportsmen's Association is a greater Helena area
rod and gun club dedicated to the conservation and enhancement of the
fish and wildlife resources of Montana. The sportsmen and women of our
organization are active hunters and anglers and our club frequently
engages in efforts to improve and protect fish and wildlife habitat on
public and private lands. The idea of creating a fish and wildlife
habitat trust fund from assets now held by the public around Canyon
Ferry Reservoir came from within our organization. Members of our
organization have considerable experience in the creation and
administration of fish and wildlife conservation trust funds.
The lands in question around Canyon Ferry Reservoir are presently a
public asset of considerable economic value. Although their value as
wildlife habitat may have been diminished, their value as an asset with
the potential to positively impact wildlife habitat, the preservation
of agricultural land and the retention of open space protection remains
substantial.
Representatives of our organization shared the concept of a
wildlife habitat/land conservation trust fund with Canyon Ferry
property owners as a way of converting a publicly held land asset (the
cabin lease lands) into a land trust dedicated to the preservation and
enhancement of wildlife habitat. This concept met the needs of the
property owners and in the opinion of the Prickly Pear Sportsmen's
Association also met the public trust responsibility associated with
publicly held assets.
We appreciate the attention this proposal has received from the
Montana Congressional delegation. You have all been responsive. Our
immediate past president was active in the creation and administration
of: The Rock Creek Trust Fund (a combination State/private managed
effort) and the Forever Wild Endowment (a private non profit
conservation organization).
Enthusiasm for this idea remains high and it is anchored in two
features that must be retained as this legislation moves through
Congress. The first is:
<bullet> the purpose of the trust must remain focused on the
protection of fish and wildlife habitat, and the second is,
<bullet> the trustees of the fund likewise need to be
representatives clearly dedicated to the purpose of the trust.
The Prickly Pear Sportsmen's Association also supports the idea in
the legislation advanced by Senators Max Baucus and Conrad Burns to
create a second trust dedicated to gaining access to public lands. The
access trust. like the land trust must be focused and administered
similar to the terms outlined for the land conservation trust. If these
conditions are guaranteed our organization believes:
<bullet> the public interest will be served,
<bullet> wildlife habitat and agricultural open space protected,
and
<bullet> a property ownership around Canyon Ferry equitably
resolved.
Our organization's commitment to the principles outlined in this
testimony is not casual. We recognize that there will be only one
chance to deal with the public asset now held by the Federal Government
at Canyon Ferry. To put this asset at risk by being either casual or
vague about the use of the funds to be generated by sale of the cabin
sites is a risk our organization is not willing to take. Therefore, we
offer our support to the effort being made in the legislation sponsored
by Senators Baucus and Burns. We suggest the language in the
legislation addressing the purposes of both trusts and the make up of
the entities that will administer them be given close and constant
attention as the legislative process continues.
______
Statement of the Montana Wildlife Federation
I wish to first thank Sector Max Baucus for being present, I wish
to also thank him for the invitation and the opportunity to testify on
the Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1998 (S. 1913). The
presence of Senator Baucus here demonstrates his concern for the
leasee's, wildlife conservation and the interests of Montana sportsmen.
My name is Bill Orsello and I am here as a representative of the
Montana Wildlife Federation comprised of 7500 members and 21 affiliate
clubs. I am also here as a concerned hunter, angler, parent and outdoor
recreationist.
The Montana Wildlife Federation recognizes the complexity of
drafting legislation that attempts to come a problem, the loss of
wildlife habitat and the concerns of lessees, that has existed since
the 1950's The MWF applauds and support the Senator's bill for the
exchange of these public lands.
We feel Senate bill 1913's success depends on five features.
1. The exchange of public lands that have had their wildlife value
diminished by the construction of cabins, elaborate homes, and
landscaping for the ability to acquire lands access ? conservation
easements Bat have equal or greater wildlife and recreational values.
2. Non-developed recreational opportunities have been lost and they
should not be replaced by developed recreational opportunities
Primitive habitat was lost and it should not be replaced with developed
habitat. This must be a land-related values exchange.
3. The creation of two endowments or trust funds that will only be
used to guarantee the preservation of wildlife habitat and wildlife
recreational opportunities in Montana.
4. That any trust funds developed from this exchange be
administered by Montana representatives dedicated to Be perpetuation
and conservation of wildlife, public access to public resources and the
preservation of our hunting & fishing heritage.
5. We believe that Montana's wildlife and sports persons are best
served by decisions at the local and Sate level for the dispersal of
funds generated by the endowments. The intimate, on-the-ground,
knowledge of local wildlife and sports person, needs would only be
diluted by transferring the decision making process to a national
influence.
We feel (uncompromisingly) this bill must stay on track with its
original intent to create an exchange of degraded public properties
with properties that will have a long-term benefit to the public and
the preservation of wildlife habitat.
Any attempt to modify this bill or redirect monies generated from
the exchange for programs, like the Land & Water Conservation Fund or
projects not benefiting the enhancement of wildlife habitat and the
greater public wildlife oriented recreational opportunities, will
create many adversaries. We feel this proposal As a delicate balance,
it only works if it is an exchange of diminished wildlife value land
for useful public lands ninth high wildlife values. This bill must
insure that the funds generated from lost publicly had asset' are used
to replace these assets with accessible lands, benefits to wildlife,
and public recreational opportunities within the immediate geographical
area.
The Montana Wildlife Federation reman enthusiastic toward the
passage of S. 1913 and feels the bill will help preserve Montana's
hunting and fishing heritage for future generations, if it is held
intact and uncompromised.
I reiterate, this proposal must insure that funds generated from
the exchange of our public lads, our public assets, must be used to
replace these assets with publicly accessible lands in Montana wildlife
habitat in Montana, and public wildlife opportunities in Montana--
preferably in the immediate geographical area.
Again, we applaud and thank Senator Baucus for his effort,.
Thank you.
______
Statement of Eluid L. Martinez, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit the Administration's views on S. 1913, the
Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1998. The Bureau of
Reclamation supports efforts to improve public access to rivers and
lakes throughout the west. However, S. 1913 would grant exclusive
private use of lake front property at Canyon Ferry Reservoir to a few
beneficiaries, would foreclose future use of the land for project or
other purposes, and would lead to a loss in future Federal receipts.
The bill also would make management of the land at Canyon Ferry more
difficult, without reducing the need for future Federal expenditures.
In addition, S. 1913 is unclear on several critical questions of intent
and procedure. Moreover, we do not believe there is a need for this
legislation given that Reclamation and the Canyon Ferry Recreation
Association recently agreed on a key issue concerning rental fees. For
these reasons, the Administration strongly opposes S. 1913.
S. 1913 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell at fair
market value all right, title and interest of the United States to
leaseholds for the 265 cabin sites at Canyon Ferry Reservoir in
Montana, along with easements for vehicular access to the leaseholds,
docks, and boathouses.
The leaseholds and easements would be sold by auction, with the
minimum bid established by the Secretary and based on a fair market
appraisal, excluding the value of improvements made to a site. As
drafted, it is unclear whether S. 1913 contemplates individual auctions
for each leasehold or intends that all 265 be sold to a single
purchaser.
Under S. 1913, the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association, (CFRA) a
Montana corporation, would have the right to match any bid received and
purchase the leaseholds. Any purchaser would be required to offer to
sell to existing leaseholders the leasehold for fair market value. It
is important for the Committee to understand that CFRA is a relatively
small group of beneficiaries of this project that does not represent
all taxpayers, all beneficiaries of the project, or even all existing
lessees at Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
Under S. 1913, the United States would receive 10 percent of the
purchase price paid for the leaseholds, while the remaining 90 percent
would be equally divided between the Canyon Ferry-Missouri River Trust
and the Montana Hunter and Fisherman Access Fund established in S.
1913. The Canyon Ferry-Missouri River Trust would provide a permanent
revenue source of monies for the acquisition of land for fish and
wildlife conservation, fishing, hunting, and recreation opportunities
at specific sites at Canyon Ferry Reservoir and along the Missouri
River. The Montana Hunter and Fisherman Access Fund would be dedicated
to enhancing public hunting and fishing opportunities in Montana.
Mr. Chairman, the Canyon Ferry Unit was authorized and constructed
by the Bureau of Reclamation as a part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin
Program as a multiple purpose project for irrigation, recreation, and
hydroelectric power and it is Reclamation's role to balance these
competing demands for the resources. Canyon Ferry Reservoir was formed
when the Canyon Ferry Dam was completed in 1954. Reclamation and the
State of Montana were land managing partners for 37 years until 1994,
when the State terminated its role. Most of the cabin site permits were
originally issued in the late 1950's, and lessees were given the option
to renew the leases every 10 years.
Reclamation and the Bureau of Land Management now share the land
management responsibility, except for the task of administering the
cabin site leasing program which exclusively Reclamation's
responsibility. The 265 cabin sites occupy scenic lakeshore areas
around the northern end of the reservoir. The lot sizes vary from .2
acre to 1.4 acres, with the average size about lo acre. These sites are
unconsolidated scattered tracts within the reservoir lands. There is no
large block of consolidated sites.
In the last few years, there has been controversy surrounding the
rental fees at Canyon Ferry. The controversy centers on attempts to
determine and charge fair market value for rental fees. Under 43 CFR
Part 429.6(f), Reclamation is required to collect fair market value for
the right to use Reclamation project lands. In 1986, the State raised
the rental fees to approximately 1/3 of the then fair market value. The
fees remained unchanged until 1995 when Reclamation raised the fees
based on an increase in the Consumer Price Index. Reclamation also
initiated an independent appraisal in 1995 to determine a new fair
market value. Presently the cabin lessees are paying an average of
about $1,000 per site per year, significantly less than the fair market
value of $2,701 determined in the 1995 appraisal.
Reclamation committed to phase in a rate increase over a 5-year
period beginning in 1997. However, the CFRA challenged the 1995
appraisal through the Department of the Interior's Office of Hearing
and Appeals. CFRA had conducted a second appraisal which showed the
value of the leases to be about 60 percent of that indicated in
Reclamation's appraisal. That appraisal amount is still about 1.5 times
the amount which had been collected prior to 1997. While Reclamation
believes that the 1995 appraisal was properly conducted and accurately
reflected the current market price, Reclamation, for the sake of
goodwill and improving relations, recently agreed to a settlement with
CFRA whereby Reclamation and CFRA would collaborate and conduct a third
appraisal. It was agreed that the findings in the third appraisal will
be the new basis for the fee increase. With this settlement,
Reclamation and the cabin site lessees are working together to set fair
and acceptable rental fees. As such, no current controversy exists that
requires legislation.
Not only is the legislation unnecessary, it is not clearly drafted.
As mentioned above, the bill is ambiguous as to whether the sites will
be sold individually or in one bundle. In addition, S. 1913 is very
unclear as to exactly what the Secretary is directed to sell and what,
if anything, might remain in the hands of Reclamation. S. 1913 provides
for the sale of the ``leasehold'' for these sites. While the bill fails
to provide a definition of leasehold, it appears to be something less
than fee simple title.
Canyon Ferry Reservoir, one of the most scenic and popular flat
water recreation areas in Montana, is located within two hours of the
five largest cities in Montana. The area is already overcrowded during
peak visitation periods at several campgrounds and day-use areas. This
legislation could exacerbate this situation by reducing the public
access to additional areas of this reservoir.
We are concerned that if the intent of S. 1913 is to sell the
leaseholds only, Reclamation's role would shift from that of a public
agency managing public land, to that of a public agency managing
private leaseholdings. If it is the intent of S. 1913 to sell the cabin
sites on a fee simple basis, then Reclamation's role changes to that of
a public agency managing private inholdings in public lands.
Further, actual or effective private fee simple ownership of these
lands would complicate administration and management of the Canyon
Ferry Project. The legislation would likely exacerbate existing
difficulties around such issues as lake fluctuations, land use, and
water quality concerns related to septic systems. In the past, lessees
of cabin sites have complained about degradation of scenic qualities
when the lake level declined due to operational constraints. Given that
Canyon Ferry is a multipurpose project, we are concerned that this
legislation could lead to an increase in disputes and hamper
Reclamation's ability to balance operations at Canyon Ferry reservoir
for all the authorized project purposes, especially in dry years.
The bidding process proposed in S. 1913 is inequitable and is
unlikely to result in a bid that is higher than the minimum required.
Section 4(c)(3) would give to the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association a
preference over anyone else. If someone other than the CFRA is the
highest bidder, CFRA would have the right to match the highest bidder
and purchase the leasehold. thereby providing little incentive for
anyone but CFRA to submit a bid.
In addition, Section 4(d)(3)(A) would reduce any incentive to bid
up the price above the minimum appraised price by requiring the
successful bidder to offer each of the existing lessees an option to
purchase their leaseholds at the minimum allowable bid. Any bidder
offering more would lose money if the individual lessees takes the
option to purchase the leasehold.
Furthermore, Section 4(c)(2) provides that a minimum bid will be
set ``in consultation with interested bidders.'' It is unclear why
interested parties should be invited into the process of making an
objective determination of fair market value by a third party
appraiser. This appears designed to skew the process.
Presently, the United States collects approximately $290,000 per
year in rental income from the cabin sites at Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
By 2001, the receipts are expected to be approximately $700,000 per
year. It is estimated that the total value of the existing leaseholds
is approximately $21 million. Under S. 1913, the revenues that the
United States presently receives and would receive in the future
through the cabin site leasing program would be foregone and only 10
percent of proceeds from the auction would be paid to the United
States. While 55 percent of the purchase price would be deposited in
the Treasury, the bulk of this would be deposited in a new interest-
bearing account established in Section 6. Because this section also
directs the spending of the ``earnings'' from this account without
further appropriations, the funds deposited in this new account would
not have the effect of reimbursing the Federal Government for costs it
has incurred for the project lands and cabin sites.
Reclamation plans to seek a non-Federal managing partner to manage
the recreation opportunities and lands at Canyon Ferry. Reclamation law
provides for such managing partners to be able to utilize user fees and
other receipts from the use of the public lands that they manage to
operate and maintain existing facilities, and to enhance public
recreation or fish and wildlife benefits. Without the revenues
generated by the cabin site leases, the ability to attract a managing
partner would be significantly diminished. This will result in the need
for continued Federal appropriations for recreational management.
In addition to those issues raised above, Reclamation has a number
of technical concerns I would like to briefly highlight.
1) The legislation fails to address who will pay for maintenance
activities that Reclamation is currently paying for such as road
maintenance and law enforcement once the leaseholds are granted or the
fee simple titles to the lands are sold. The County should bear some
responsibility for these costs, especially if the County is able to
secure tax revenues as the result of the lands becoming subject to
local taxes. It is unclear how local tax revenues would be generated
from the leaseholds if the United States will continue to own the lands
at Canyon Ferry.
2) Under the existing arrangement at Canyon Ferry, licenses for
boat docks are currently issued to cabin site lessees, but not to
private landholders on other areas of the lake. If the cabin sites were
sold, the question of whether to issue licenses would have to be
addressed. S. 1913 is silent on the issue of boat dock licenses.
3) Section 2(1)(C) presents as a finding that it is in the interest
of the Secretary to reduce the Pick-Sloan project debt for the Canyon
Ferry Unit. Yet, the bill does not provide for any debt reduction.
4) Section 2(4) says the sale of leaseholds will reduce Federal
payments in lieu of taxes. If fee simple title is not granted to the
purchasers, payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) may continue to be
required. If it is fee simple title that is to be auctioned, then the
legislation should explicitly state that PILT payments will be
discontinued. If it is only the leases that are to be sold, then absent
legislative language, PILT payments would likely continue to be paid by
the United States. In either case, it is not clear why PILT should
continue.
5) Section 3(3) would extend the benefits of the legislation to
parties who do not hold a current lease and may not have legal claim to
the use of the cabins.
6) The issue of liability is not addressed. If S. 1913 proposes
that it is fee simple title that is to be auctioned, then all liability
for this land should be conveyed to the purchasers. If only the lease
is to be auctioned, as we believe the bill to currently read, then
unless otherwise stated, the liability remains with the United States--
thereby eroding whatever benefit is to be gained for the United States
in this legislation.
7) Section 4(b)(1)(B) calls for small parcels contiguous to the
leaseholds to be conveyed in order to eliminate inholdings and
facilitate administration of surrounding land remaining in Federal
ownership. The bill assumes that the Secretary and the purchasers will
be able to agree on each of these parcels. A public process should be
undertaken to determine the size and shape of these parcels. Also, the
fair market value of these areas should be determined.
8) In Section 4(c)(3) the word ``than'' appears to be missing
following the clause, ``If the highest bidder is other'' and before the
word ``CFRA.''
9) Section 4(d)(3)(B)(ii) says that the purchaser shall compensate
the lessee for the ``full'' market value of the improvements. It is not
apparent whether the term ``fair'' should be substituted for ``full''
as occurs throughout the bill.
10) Section 5 fails to describe whether the members of the Canyon
Ferry-Missouri River Trust will be compensated for their efforts, who
will appoint them as members, and what their responsibilities will
entail.
S. 1913 would affect direct spending or receipts and therefore be
subject to the ``pay-as-you-go provisions of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990.
Again, Mr. Chairman, while we appreciate the interest of this
Committee and the Montana delegation, we strongly oppose S. 1913 and do
not believe this legislation is necessary.
3888 East Shore Drive,
Helena, MT 59602, June 7, 1998.
Senator Max Baucus,
Senate Hart Building,
Washington, DC 20510-2603.
Dear Max: I'm speaking in support of your proposed legislation to
allow the 265 cabin sites located along the shoreline of Canyon Ferry
Reservoir, Montana, to be sold to the highest bidder at auction.
I believe that your bill encompasses the necessary language to
allow a fair disposition of this property and, at the same time,
protects and enhances the rights of all citizens to use Canyon Ferry as
a prime recreation site. Further, your bill will reduce future
conflicts that could arise between the existing managing agency and the
cabin owners; thereby, reducing administrative time presently spent in
conflict management. In short, your bill should result in a win-win
situation for all parties.
I appreciate the efforts you and your staff have made to resolve
this issue and especially appreciate the many hours Holly Luck has
spent in meeting with cabin owners and others to help structure this
bill.
Sincerely,
Gil R. Alexander
______
John and Julie Blacker,
2615 Gold Rush Avenue,
Helena, MT 59601.
Senator Max Baucus,
Senate Hart Building,
Washington, DC 20510-2602.
Dear Senator Baucus: We again wanted to thank you for all your hard
work and support of Senate Bill 1913. As you may know we are current
lease holders at canyon ferry and sincerely wish to purchase the land
that we now lease.
Our family has been the only lease holder of this site for over
forty years, and in accordance with the lease agreement have added many
improvements to this site. It would be easy to say that this site is
now home. It has also been a long term goal of our family to someday
purchase this site to preserve the memories and wonderful times our
families have shared there.
We will continue to work toward our goal and support your efforts
in this worthwhile bill. We are also aware that this bill offers many
other opportunities and benefits with the trust funds that will be
created.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
John and Julie Blacker.
______
801 Knight Street,
Helena, MT 59601-2669, June 6, 1998.
Senator Max Baucus,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Senator Baucus, Ladies & Gentlemen: My family and I support Senate
Bill 1913, the Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. It will
alleviate a problem that has aggravated all parties involved for nearly
half a century. I don't own property at Canyon Ferry, but in any given
year I spend around 30 days on or around the reservoir. Being somewhat
handicapped, I find that Canyon Ferry is one of the diminishing number
of places I can still access successfully.
In Friday's Independent Record, an issue was raised concerning
campgrounds. Believe me, there are innumerable bays and coves suitable
for development, on both sides of the upper end of the reservoir,
should more campgrounds become necessary in the future. As noted in the
article, the present campgrounds are only hill three weekends a year:
Memorial Day, Fourth of July and Labor Day. One of the beauties of
Canyon Ferry is that its size accommodates both the few and the many in
any given month of the year.
Obviously S. 1913 has been carefully crafted to accomplish the
greatest, and fairest, good to the greatest number and thereby has
gained the support of our entire congressional delegation, no small
feat in itself! The Federal agencies involved should be reminded their
job is to carry out the will of Congress, not vice versa.
Two critical aspects of the bill are the Canyon Ferry-Missouri
River Endowment and the Montana Hunter and Fisherman Access Fund
endowment. Those features make the proposal a win-win situation.
Refinements in terms of guaranteed shoreline public access and
enhancement of the considerable wildlife habitat necessities could
improve the concept. Tough language should protect the funds generated
from being raided for other purposes, and leaseholders should have the
right of first refusal.
Senate Bill 1913 is a golden opportunity to fix a festering
problem, I urge the public, and Congress, to support it.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Carroll
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<all>