LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

Search Terms: "Conservation and Reinvestment Act", House or Senate or Joint

Document 43 of 92.

View Related Topics

APRIL 20, 1999, TUESDAY

SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 2456 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
BRUCE VINCENT
VICE-PRESIDENT, PEOPLE FOR THE USA
PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE FOR AMERICA
BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBJECT - THE CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999

BODY:

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and good morning/day. My name is Bruce Vincent, vice president of People for the USA and president of the Alliance for America. These are the two largest grassroots organizations in the country that advocate a balance between environmental protection and economic growth while protecting private property rights. People for the USA has 26,000 direct members and over 200,000 affiliate members. The Alliance for America is an umbrella organization comprised of 500 grassroots groups from across the United States.
I would like to make it clear that the organizations I represent here today do not support any of the Land and Water Conservation Fund bills as they are currently written.
We find the open-ended funding and kitchen-sink approach taken by both the Boxer and Miller versions to be both politically extreme and fiscally irresponsible, and we hope that no part of either legislation makes it into a final version. We feel the same toward the Clinton Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative. To be blunt, the total package presented strikes us as nothing more than a direct special- interest subsidy pipeline to environmental activist groups, a cheap ploy to gather votes for the upcoming election. We find it sad that the desire to gather votes 1 g months from now has led certain politicians to try to establish a program that our grandkids may wind up supporting against their wishes.
As for S-25, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999, we feel that it is proper -- indeed only fair -- to establish a 27% royalty share to states impacted by oil and gas production off their shores. After all, states with oil and gas production on land are entitled to a 50% share of federal royalty revenues.
We could and would support those provisions as a stand-alone bill. But we are concerned that in the political give and take, much more is being lost than gained.
We would also like to emphasize that we do not oppose the general intent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which was, and should still be, used to facilitate the conservation of land for the enjoyment of all Americans. As a sportsman and environmentalist, I personally recognize the need to set aside places where Americans can enjoy outdoor recreation opportunities. But as a society we have already set aside vast areas for the public enjoyment, and as time has passed the law's original intent has been lost. Local communities are cut out of the process by large nonprofit land trusts acting as glorified brokerage houses that make equally glorified profits. Incremental assimilation of private land into the public domain has too often proven to be cumulatively bad for our communities and the very environment we seek to protect.
We recognize that political change is incremental. While we would prefer that the entire concept of land and water conservation be rethought to truly reflect a conservation as opposed to a preservation ethic, we understand that positive changes have to be made incrementally. Therefore, we would like to see several changes made to S-25 and its companion bill. We would hope this legislation sets precedents for certain principles that will be applied to all future federal conservation legislation. In general, these principles are: 1. No decoupling of the acquisition process from the appropriation process: 2.) No net loss of private property; 3.) No profit for so-called nonprofits; 4.) Fair value; and 5.) Local control over local destiny.
No Appropriations De-Coupling
The funds that are expended by the Federal government to purchase private lands are generated in the private sector. Private citizens elect representatives to oversee the management of their federal government -- including the critically important process of reviewing tax expenditures. Allowing off-budget expenditure of Land and Conservation Fund dollars to increase the size of the public domain that must ultimately be maintained through the budget process is not acceptable.
Reasonable people are asking reasonable questions such as:
Why is it that the federal government cannot afford to fully implement the Northwest Forestry Plan that the federal government claims is necessary to protect the species and the communities of the Northwest -- but can fund a program to buy more land to manage?
Why can't the federal government afford to expend the money the Federal agencies need to bring our public road system up to modem BMP standards -- improving management accessibility and protection of water and soils -- but can suggest finding the money outside of the budget to buy more land in need of protection?
Why are the Interior Columbia Basin federal land managers telling the public that funds required to 'restore' the health of our ecosystems will not be available -- yet we are considering going off-budget to buy more land to restore?
Why is it that a federal government which cannot afford to fully fund the Payments in Lieu of Taxes to our counties to offset the local impact of federal ownership can somehow make a permanent allocation to take more land off the tax rolls?
Finally, most recently, why is it that after over a decade of acrimony and nearly half a billion dollars in state and federal money, the Headwaters redwood grove in California was closed to the public the day after it became public land? How can it be, even after years of so-called oversight, first-day visitation to the grove had so damaged the understory vegetation and trails that the government had to impose an emergency closure until a management plan can be written? How is that conservation? Is it really wise to lessen the existing checks and balances? We don't think so.
Senators, there are few people who deny that public land ownership in America has an important role. However, we hear the managers of the public domain telling those of us who live in, work in, play in and love that public land that they do not have the budget to properly care for that land. Until that situation is resolved there will be absolutely no support within our members or our member groups for taking hundreds of millions of dollars outside of your critically important budgetary process.
No net loss of private property
Related to the matter of appropriate funding is the question of where funds come from in the first instance. The fact is, 28% of all land is already owned by various levels of government. The federal government alone directly controls well over 650,000,000 acres, which, if the current debate over user fees, park maintenance, road closures, logging costs, et cetera is any indicator, it cannot properly care for. Proper care and stewardship of land is what land and water conservation is all about.

We strongly feel that the federal government -- all government -- should concentrate on taking care of the land and infrastructure already under its stewardship rather than purchasing more, especially in public lands states where the tax base is already too small. It should certainly not compound the problem by seeking to remove land from the tax base - land which needs to be productive in order to raise the funds for proper stewardship. Therefore, under Title 2 Section 203 we propose language providing that for each acre or dollar's worth of private land acquired with these funds, equivalent land is returned to the private estate.
The reason for this is straightforward. Although this bill attempts to protect private property fights, we cannot forget its impact on the institution of private property. We must keep in mind the long term effects on this fundamental American concept if the productive private estate continues to be reduced relative to the public estate.
Further, in the interest of keeping public lands productive for all Americans, we join in agreement with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association in requesting language under Title II Section 203 that acquired lands be managed for productive multiple uses.
No nonprofit profits
It is glaringly obvious that profit is replacing conservation as the goal of land conservancies. Nonprofit land trusts often browbeat private property owners into selling for a song, and then, rather than take on responsibilities of land stewardship, including the payment of taxes to the affected local community, turn right around and sell to whichever government agency will ante up. Often, the trust makes a substantial profit. On the other hand, the taxpaying public at large winds up footing the bill -- forever.
Even as we speak, a Trust for Public Land deal is in the works in Maine, which will earn this "non-profit" some $1.5 million. TPL has optioned 15,000 acres of fair timberland in Bowtown for $3.7 million. They propose to exchange this land to Plum Creek Timber for a package of questionable shore land.
This package will then be sold to the State of Maine for $5.26 million. A spokeswoman for the Trust for Public Land stated that, "Essentially the state will reimburse us for the cost of purchasing Bowtown." I guess it depends on your definition of profit. This deal is so structured that no one pays any taxes on the gain, though the cost base of the land in question is likely only a few dollars per acre. Maine's Governor plans to fund the purchase out of the state's surplus. Just imagine what he might do if he had Federal funds available. To be frank, we can see why nonprofits like to do business with the government. I mean, what a sweet deal, right out of a political economics textbook. You lobby the government to pay you, and give you what you want, at everyone else's expense. That's not fair...that's pork. We don't want to see this bill turned into a pork pipeline for yet another special interest group. Americans have had enough. We'd like to see this bill stick to the old maxim: "You get what you pay for." With that in mind, under Title 2 Section 203 language should be inserted that nonprofits shall recover no funding under this act from any transaction brokerage role. Nor should they -- or anyone -- profit excessively under this program. Also under Title 2, Section 203, we propose language prohibiting speculative acquisitions. Lands held before the effective date of this act axe exempted. Lands acquired after the effective date will be bought at fair value...no more, and no less.
Fair Value for All
There have been too many cases where private landowners have not only been given a song and dance by !and trusts, but been regulated into submission by government agencies who have fallen for the land trust pitch...to the point where the landowner is so frustrated and intimidated that they will sell at any price -- or simply give up and walk away. We feel their Fifth Amendment rights must be fully protected.
We propose under Title 2, Section 203 a prohibition against any form of coercive condemnation, or downzoning, or targeted restrictions, by any and all government agencies, not just federal, but state and local, Further under this title, we have proposed that valuation for acquisition using these moneys be based on allowable and reasonably foreseeable uses according to existing land-use regulations and laws at the time of purchase. In light of several Endangered Species Act cases, we also propose that property up for acquisition using these moneys shall be valued as they were before any loss of use value due to ESA or other regulations.
Local Control and Commitment
We believe in the idea that if one owns something, it's theirs to use and enjoy -- especially private property that people work all their lives to buy and maintain. We have less sympathy for the idea that if people can see something, they have a say in how it is managed. By extension, we vehemently oppose granting control of land policies to groups and bureaucrats who have never visited or seen or walked on the lands in question. Local land decisions must be made by those most affected -- local governments and private citizens, and we are proposing amendments under Title 2 sections 701,702 and 704 which will we hope will ensure that land conservation and use decisions are vested in local institutions and private citizens.
My home county in Montana is Lincoln. It is already 85% publicly owned, and much of the remainder is coveted by regulatory agencies. The cumulative impact of incremental assimilation of even more of our private land base into public ownership is a huge issue in our area.
We have 2.5 million acres of forest land that grows 492 million board feet per year. We're losing 300 million board feet a year to mortality, yet Forest Service projected harvest is only 50 to 60 million board feet per year, We're wasting a quarter billion board foot a year outright, while our mills are shut down, but jobs aren't the only factor.
Forest scientists are warning us of forest health problems that will ultimately yield management by catastrophic fire. Our forest road system is in need of repairs to bring it up to modern best management practice specifications, so we can protect our waters and enrich our management options.
As for the managers - the U.S. Forest Service - they tell us their hands are tied in more aggressively caring for the !and under their stewardship because of budget restraints and a myriad of conflicting, overlapping laws and regulations.
Our nonsensical experience with Federal ownership of public lands is not the exception in the United States -- it's the rule.
Hard experience has convinced us that the local citizenry must have a seat of authority in the process of any incremental assimilation of private lands into the public domain.
We propose, therefore, to insert language under Title 3, Sections 301 and 305 that any and all land transfers under this law shall be initiated only under specific requests for funding from all affected state, local and private entities with existing jurisdiction over the property.
We also propose that any affected entity can choose to opt out. Furthermore, in contrast to the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, that opt-out will remain in effect until specifically reversed by the originating entity.
In conclusion, I would like to express the hopes of People for the USA, the Alliance for America, and our many affiliates and allies, that you will see fit to include these and other reasonable proposed changes in this bill as it works its way through the lawmaking process. We look forward to working with you to make this a law that truly works...not for the benefit of special interests, but for all Americans, now and in the future.
It has been an honor and a privilege to come before you today. Thank you. I will be happy to answer any of your questions.
END

LOAD-DATE: April 21, 1999

Document 43 of 92.


Search Terms: "Conservation and Reinvestment Act", House or Senate or Joint
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase: