Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
MARCH 10, 1999, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
1251 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT BY KEVIN
PAAP,VICE PRESIDENT
MINNESOTA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
THE AMERICAN FARM
BUREAU FEDERATION
BEFORE THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
SUBJECT - THE CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999
BODY:
Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Paap. I am a
dairy farmer from Garden City, Minnesota, and serve as Vice President of the
Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation. Minnesota is a coastal state identified in
H.R. 701. I am appearing today on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee today to
testify on H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of
1999. The bill provides a dedicated source of funding from revenues derived from
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases for a variety of programs such as OCS
impact assistance, land acquisition, payment in lieu of taxes, urban parks and
recreational development, and wildlife enhancement. We will direct our comments
to those programs that involve land acquisition and wildlife habitat
enhancement. One section of the bill provides a dedicated source of funding to
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has been used primarily for the
purchase of land by state and federal government agencies. This Fund has a
federal component, which provides money directly to federal agencies, and also
has a state component, which provides matching funds for use by state agencies.
If funding is to be provided for federal and state lands, we strongly urge
that any such funds be first earmarked for repair and maintenance of existing
lands before being authorized to purchase additional land. The federal land
management agencies have a significant backlog of repairs and maintenance to
their lands that totals billions of dollars. The U.S. Forest Service recently
issued a moratorium on further road building in the National Forests because it
could not keep up with maintenance of existing roads, which has an estimated $8
billion backlog.
We should first use any funds to take care of the lands
that we have. If our national parks are considered "American jewels," America
would be better served to have fewer jewels that are high quality and polished,
rather than more lower quality, unpolished and imperfect ones.
Because
farmers and ranchers own much of the remaining privately-owned open space in the
country, they are natural targets for having their land appropriated by
governmental entities for various purposes. In addition, condemnation of private
lands by governmental entities results in the removal of those lands from the
tax rolls, thereby increasing the tax burden for the remaining private
landowners in the area. Farmers and ranchers have experienced numerous problems
with different levels of government condemning their property for whatever
purpose. We are naturally skeptical, therefore, about any bill or action that
involves or authorizes the acquisition of land by government. We carefully
review such proposals to ensure that there are adequate safeguards for private
landowners.
We are pleased that H.R. 701 contains such safeguards with
respect to the federal component of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
amendments (LWCA). By limiting federal purchases only to existing inholdings and
to willing sellers, the bill prevents the runaway and uncontrolled acquisition
of federal lands that many people fear. Other bills such as H.R. 798 do not
contain these safeguards. Unlike similar provisions in H.R. 798 and other bills,
we feel that the conditions placed on the expenditure of federal LWCA funds in
H.R. 701 adequately protect private property interests.
The state component
of the bill contains no such safeguards. We urge that the bill be amended to
incorporate the same conditions on the use of federal matching funds for state
purchases as exist for federal acquisitions.
Also unlike H.R. 798 and
similar bills, H.R. 701 provides that for any money collected above the maximum
authorized for the LWCA, the excess shall be applied to the Payment In Lieu of
Taxes program. This Farm Bureau supported program, which seeks to make up for
lost local tax base resulting from the presence of federal lands by making
payments for use in local areas, has been traditionally underfunded. We support
the effort of H.R. 701 to give this program a needed shot in the arm.
No
less significant are the provisions that seek to further the partnership between
private landowners and the government to enhance wildlife and its habitat.
Privately owned farm and ranch lands provide a significant amount of the food
and habitat for our nation's wildlife. For example, over 90 percent of plants
and animals listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have some of their
habitat on nonfederal lands, with 78 percent occupying privately owned lands.
Approximately 34 percent of all listed species occur entirely on nonfederal
lands. The agencies must have the cooperation of farmers, ranchers and private
property owners if the ESA is going to work. Private landowners are clearly the
key to the Act's success.
The American Farm Bureau Federation believes that
an appropriate balance between the needs of a species and the needs of people
can be struck. We agree with the basic goals of wildlife enhancement. No one
wants to see species become extinct, yet at the same time no one wants to see
people lose the capacity to produce food or to be without essential human
services. Given the proper assurances, farmers and ranchers can play a
significant role in management of species on their property.
We are
therefore very pleased that both H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 contain programs that
acknowledge and seek to implement this partnership. Both of these programs
contain positive elements. Both programs provide for agreements between agency
and landowner to benefit species on their property. H.R. 798 provides a definite
source of funding for its program, whereas H.R. 701 does not.
H.R. 701 would
create the Habitat Reserve Program (HRP). The HRP is the type of program that
provides those assurances and achieves that balance between species and
landowner that is necessary for the well- being of both. Farm Bureau is
committed to making this type of program work.
Under this section, farmers
and ranchers would enter into contracts for the protection of habitat for listed
species. The private landowner would be paid for managing and protecting species
habitat, similar to the way that the Conservation Reserve Program works. This
program effectively recognizes the public benefit that private landowners
provide for listed species, and responds in an appropriate manner. It encourages
landowners to voluntarily provide needed management for species and habitat
while at the same time allowing the landowner to productively use the land
through payments received through the program.
This program will enhance the
conservation of species because it provides for their active on-the-ground
management by affected landowners instead of the current passive government
management practices of easements and land use restrictions. At the same time,
it provides landowners with flexibility to manage their property. The HRP thus
provides benefits for both the species and the landowner--the type of "win-win"
scenario that is needed.
In conclusion, we believe that H.R. 701 provides
more overall balance than H.R. 798 and similar bills thus far introduced. We
also believe that is offers the best chance of achieving any sort of consensus
on the issues contained therein, so long as appropriate amendments as suggested
in our testimony are incorporated.
We look forward to working with the
Committee on the issues we have addressed in our testimony today.
END
LOAD-DATE: March 14, 1999 
