U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88-530 PS 2003

H.R. 1005, H.R. 1723, H.R. 2707 

and H.R. 2766

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND 

FOREST HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Thursday, July 24, 2003

Serial No. 108-45

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Scott McInnis, Colorado 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

George Radanovich, California 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada, 

Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Greg Walden, Oregon 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Devin Nunes, California 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Calvin M. Dooley, California 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas 

Joe Baca, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH 

SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman 

JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on July 24, 2003 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Acevedo-Vila ́, Hon. Anı ́bal, a Delegate in Congress from Puerto Rico, 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1723 .............................................................. 14

Beauprez, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement on H.R. 2766 ........................................................... 4

McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement on H.R. 1005 ........................................................... 16

Prepared statement on H.R. 2707 ........................................................... 30 

Pearce, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Mexico, Oral statement on H.R. 2707 ............................................... 32

Stenholm, Hon. Charles W., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, Oral statement on H.R. 2707 ...................................................... 30

Statement of Witnesses: 

Baroch, Hon. Charles J., Mayor, City of Golden, State of Colorado ............ 9

Prepared statement on H.R. 2766 ........................................................... 11

Carlson, Tim, Executive Director, Tamarisk Coalition ................................. 40

Prepared statement on H.R. 2707 ........................................................... 42

Davis, Hon. Don, Commissioner, Rio Blanco, Colorado ................................ 20

Prepared statement on H.R. 1005 ........................................................... 21

Davis, Tom W., Manager, Carlsbad Irrigation District ................................. 50

Prepared statement on H.R. 2707 ........................................................... 52

Estill, Elizabeth, Deputy Chief, Programs, Legislation and 

Communications, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Oral 

statement on H.R. 1723 ............................................................................... 15

Oral statement on H.R. 2707 ................................................................... 33

Oral statement on H.R. 2766 ................................................................... 6

Prepared statement on H.R. 1723, H.R. 2707 and H.R. 2766 ............. 7

Kearney, Chris, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Policy/International Affairs, 

U.S. Department of the Interior .................................................................. 17

Prepared statement on H.R. 1005 ........................................................... 18

Kershaw, John R., President, Imperial Valley Conservation Research 

Center Committee, Imperial County, California ........................................ 53

Prepared statement on H.R. 2707 ........................................................... 54

Redifer, John, Ph.D., Department of Social and Behavioral Science, Mesa 

State College ................................................................................................. 46

Prepared statement on H.R. 2707 ........................................................... 48

Sulnick, Bob, Campaign Manager, Alliance for the Rio Grande Heritage .. 56

Prepared statement on H.R. 2707 ........................................................... 57

Tate, James, Science Advisor to the Secretary, U.S. Department of the 

Interior ........................................................................................................... 34

Prepared statement on H.R. 2707 ........................................................... 36

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2766, TO 

DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

TO EXCHANGE CERTAIN LANDS WITHIN 

THE ARAPAHO AND ROOSEVELT NATIONAL 

FOREST IN THE STATE OF COLORADO; 

H.R. 1723, TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS IN THE 

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO AS 

COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 1005, TO PROVIDE 

PERMANENT FUNDING FOR THE PAYMENT 

IN LIEU OF TAXES PROGRAM, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 2707, TO 

DIRECT THE SECRETARIES OF THE INTERIOR AND AGRICULTURE, ACTING 

THROUGH THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE, TO 

CARRY OUT A DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 

TO ASSESS POTENTIAL WATER SAVINGS 

THROUGH CONTROL OF SALT CEDAR AND 

RUSSIAN OLIVE ON FORESTS AND PUBLIC 

LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE. 

Thursday, July 24, 2003 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health 

Committee on Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:07 a.m., in room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Scott McInnis, 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

2

Present: Representatives McInnis, Rehberg, Renzi, Pearce, and 

Mark Udall. 

Also present: Representatives Cannon and Beauprez. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SCOTT McINNIS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

COLORADO 

Mr. MCINNIS. The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health 

will come to order. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on 

H.R. 2766, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Land Exchange Act of 2003; H.R. 1723, the Caribbean National Forest Act 

of 2003; H.R. 1005, PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing Permanent 

Funding Act; and H.R. 2707, Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control 

Demonstration Act. 

I would ask unanimous consent that our fellow members could 

have permission to sit on the dais. No objection, so ordered. 

I have no opening statements at this point, though I may offer 

some as we proceed. And Mr. Inslee may have an opening statement when he comes in at a later point as well. 

I would like to move quickly to our first bill. I would like to explain to our guests, I know a number of you have traveled a great 

distance. I appreciate very much you taking the time to come to the 

Committee hearing today. I would advise you that the lack of attendance here is pretty typical. We have lots of conflicts. On top 

of that, we are competing with the House of Representatives, which 

met until about 2:30 this morning. So I would guess that there are 

still some people out there trying to catch a snooze because we are 

supposed to work that kind of night tonight as well. 

But, regardless, the important thing here is not so much what 

is heard today, although that is important to our members; it is 

also what goes in the permanent record. So I do appreciate your 

participation. 

Mr. MCINNIS. I would like to introduce our witnesses for 

H.R. 2766 on panel one. We have the Honorable Bob Beauprez, 

District of Colorado. Bob, thank you so much, and I know that you 

didn’t get much sleep last night either—Elizabeth Estill—Elizabeth, thanks. Nice to see you again—Deputy Chief, Programs, Legislation, and Communications, U.S. Forest Service; And Charles 

Baroch, the mayor of the city of Golden, State of Colorado. 

If you would like to take the seats up there. 

I remind all members and all people in the audience, if you have 

a cell phone, to avoid the wrath of the Chairman, turn it off or put 

it on vibrate. Second of all, we do allow our witnesses and our 

members 5 minutes. We try to adhere to that in order to give other 

people their time that they have requested as well. 

Mr. Beauprez, thank you again for coming, and I am going to let 

you proceed. You may begin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB BEAUPREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing today. I appear before you today in support of 

my bill, H.R. 2766, which authorizes and directs a small land exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:22 Jan 07, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 J:\DOCS\88530.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
3

change between my constituents, the city of Golden, and the United 

States Forest Service. Before I go any further, I would like to also 

thank Congressmen Udall and Tancredo, who have graciously cosponsored H.R. 2766 with me. That would be Congressman Mark 

Udall. 

Two of the three land exchange parcels in the bill are in Mr. 

Udall’s district, and our staffs have worked closely to get this legislation introduced and expedited forward. The legislation also has 

been endorsed by Clear Creek, Park, and Summit Counties in Colorado, the Continental Divide Trail Alliance, the city of Black Hawk 

Public Works Department, and the Georgetown Loop Railroad, and 

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that their letters of support be included in the record of this hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, water shortages in Colorado have been no laughing matter the past several years, and the 

primary purpose of H.R. 2766 is to enable the city of Golden to expeditiously acquire a nearly 10-acre parcel of national forest land 

that it needs to help complete a small water storage project near 

Empire, Colorado. The water storage reservoir itself and the proposed pipeline leading to the reservoir are all located entirely on 

private land, and the construction of the reservoir was initiated 

this June. 

However, a small 125-foot stretch of the pipeline to service the 

reservoir must cross national forest land, and both the city of Golden and the Forest Service have agreed that it would be best for all 

concerned if the city could own the land; hence, this proposed land 

exchange of H.R. 2766. 

Happily, even though the water needs of the city of Golden are 

my primary reason for introducing H.R. 2766, we have been able 

to structure this land exchange to also greatly benefit the Forest 

Service. Those benefits derive from the fact that in return for giving up only 9.84 acres of land that mostly comprise a steep hillside, 

the Forest Service will acquire up to 80 acres of forest inholdings 

near Evergreen, Colorado, that are near a popular Forest Service 

trail head in Cub Creek. 

In addition, the Forest Service will also receive a 61-acre donation of surface land from the city that contains part of the route 

of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. 

So, Mr. Chairman, not only will this be an equal-value trade of 

lands, but the Forest Service will gain a significant donation of 

land over and above equal value and that donation will consolidate 

national forest holdings along one of the Nation’s most popular hiking scenic trails. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that in making the 61-acre 

donation along the Continental Divide Trail, the city of Golden is 

going far beyond what it legally needs to do to have the land exchange meet standard land exchange requirements. I commend the 

city for going the extra mile to help the Forest Service in its efforts 

to consolidate its ownership of the route of the Continental Divide 

Trail. Donating the land to the Forest Service in this case will 

mean that scarce trail acquisition dollars, which you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of our Colorado delegation have worked 

extremely hard to get appropriated over the years, can be used in 

other places. 

4

I would also note that the Argentine Pass area, where the city 

is donating the land, not only contains the actual route of the 

Continental Divide Trail itself, but a popular access route to get to 

the trail, as well as one of several routes used to climb Gray’s and 

Torrey’s Peaks, which are perhaps the most visited 14ers in our 

entire State. 

I want to emphasize to the Committee that enactment of this legislation is an urgent matter. Although the city of Golden and other 

front-range cities appear to have a reprieve this summer from the 

extreme drought conditions of the past several years, completion of 

the Empire reservoir project is critical to ensuring that the city has 

adequate water supplies should the drought return. 

To that end, H.R. 2766 provides that if the proposed land exchange cannot be completed for any reason, such as hazardous materials or other title problems with the exchanged land, the Empire 

parcel will be sold to the city and the sale proceeds used to buy 

other lands for the Forest Service in accordance with the Sisk Act. 

In addition, the bill provides that immediately upon its enactment, the city can begin laying the pipeline across the national forest land this fall without further action required by the Forest 

Service. As the pipeline will be laid in an existing irrigation ditch 

and will cross only 125 feet of Forest Service land before going entirely onto private land, I do not think that authority is too much 

to ask. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for scheduling the 

hearing so quickly on this matter. This exchange is a classic winwin for both the citizens of the city of Golden and the Forest 

Service and the public in general. 

I would be glad to answer any questions if you have them, and 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beauprez follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Bob Beauprez, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Colorado, on H.R. 2766

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dear Chairman McInnis, Ranking Member Inslee, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, I appear before you today in support of my bill, H.R. 2766, which 

authorizes and directs a small land exchange between my constituent, the City of 

Golden, and the U.S. Forest Service. 

Before I go any further, I would like to also thank Congressmen Mark Udall and 

Tom Tancredo, who have graciously co-sponsored H.R. 2766. Two of the three land 

exchange parcels in the bill are in Mr. Udall’s district and our staffs have worked 

closely to get this legislation introduced and expedited forward. The legislation has 

also been endorsed by Clear Creek, Park, and Summit Counties; the Continental Divide Trail Alliance; the City of Black Hawk Public Works Department; and the 

Georgetown Loop Railroad, and I would ask that their letters of support be included 

into the record of this hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, water shortages in Colorado have been no 

laughing matter for the past several years, and the primary purpose of H.R. 2766 

is to enable the City of Golden to expeditiously acquire a nearly 10-acre parcel of 

National Forest land that it needs to help complete a small water storage project 

near Empire, Colorado. The water storage reservoir itself and the proposed pipeline 

leading to the reservoir are all located entirely on private land, and construction of 

the reservoir was initiated in June. However, a small 125-foot stretch of the pipeline 

to service the reservoir must cross National Forest land, and both the City of Golden 

and the Forest Service have agreed that it would be best for all concerned if the 

City could own that land. Hence, the proposed land exchange of H.R. 2766. 

Happily, even though the water needs of the City of Golden are my primary reason for introducing H.R. 2766, we have been able to structure this land exchange 

5

to also greatly benefit the Forest Service. Those benefits derive from the fact that 

in return for giving up only 9.84 acres of land that mostly comprise a steep hillside, 

the Forest Service will acquire up to 80 acres of forest inholdings near Evergreen, 

Colorado, that are near a popular Forest Service trailhead in Cub Creek. In addition, the Forest Service will also receive a 61-acre donation of surface land from the 

City that contains part of the route of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. 

So, Mr. Chairman, not only will this be an equal value trade of lands, but the 

Forest Service will gain a significant donation of land over and above equal value—

and that donation will consolidate National Forest holdings along one of the nation’s 

most popular hiking trails. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that in making the 61-acre donation along 

the Continental Divide Trail, the City of Golden is going far beyond what it legally 

needs to do to have the land exchange meet standard land exchange requirements. 

I commend the City for going the extra mile to help the Forest Service in its efforts 

to consolidate its ownership of the route of the Continental Divide Trail. Donating 

the land to the Forest Service in this case will mean that scarce trail acquisition 

dollars, which you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of the Colorado Congressional delegation have worked extremely hard to get appropriated over the years, 

can be used in other places. I would also note that the Argentine Pass area, where 

the City is donating the land, not only contains the actual route of the Continental 

Divide Trail itself, but a popular access route to get to the Trail, as well as one of 

several routes used to climb Grays and Torreys Peaks, which are perhaps the most 

visited ‘‘14ers’’ in the state. 

I want to emphasize to the Committee that enactment of this legislation is an urgent matter. Although Golden and other front range cities appear to have a reprieve 

this summer from the extreme drought conditions of the past several years, completion of the Empire reservoir project is critical to insuring that the city has adequate 

water supplies should the drought return. To that end, H.R. 2766 provides that if 

the proposed land exchange cannot be completed for any reason, such as hazardous 

materials or other title problems with the exchange land, the Empire parcel will be 

sold to the City, and the sale proceeds used to buy other lands for the Forest Service 

in accordance with the Sisk Act. In addition, the bill provides that immediately 

upon its enactment, the City can begin laying the pipeline across the National 

Forest land this fall without further action required by the Forest Service. 

As the pipeline will be laid in an existing irrigation ditch, and will cross only 125 

feet of Forest Service land before going entirely on to private land, I don’t think that 

authority is too much to ask. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for scheduling a hearing so quickly 

on this matter, and for working with me, Congressman Udall, Congressman 

Tancredo, the non-profit Continental Divide Trail Alliance, and numerous others to 

see that it becomes law at the earliest possible date. This exchange is a classic ‘‘winwin’’ for both the citizens of the City of Golden, the Forest Service, and the public 

in general. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you and Members of the Subcommittee 

might have. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Beauprez. Also, I appreciate the 

personal time you have committed to this and sitting with the 

Chair and kind of going through the details. 

Mr. BEAUPREZ. A pleasure. Thank you. 

Mr. MCINNIS. And I want you to know I am still mad at your 

mayor in Golden for stealing our city manager out of Rifle. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MCINNIS. You got a good guy—Mr. Bestor. He does a very 

good job, and you have a wonderful community. 

Elizabeth, you may proceed, and thank you again for coming. We 

appreciate, by the way, the close relationship and cooperation we 

have with the Forest Service. 

6

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTILL, DEPUTY CHIEF, 

PROGRAMS, LEGISLATION, AND COMMUNICATIONS, FOREST 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. ESTILL. I really appreciate being here today. I am a former 

resident of the city of Golden. 

I do appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department on H.R. 2766, the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests 

Land Exchange Act of 2003. As has already been mentioned, 

H.R. 2766 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange to the 

city of Golden all rights, titles, and interests in 9.84 acres of Federal land within the Arapaho National Forest, upon receipt of acceptable title to 140 acres of non-Federal land. The 140 acres consist of two separate parcels, including up to about 80 acres near 

Evergreen, Colorado, known as Cub Creek, and about 60 acres near 

Argentine Pass, Colorado, known as the Argentine Pass. The 60-

acre Argentine Pass property is made up of 15 patented mining 

claims. The bill modified the exterior boundary of the Arapaho 

National Forest to incorporate the Cub Creek parcel. 

The Department supports the goals of H.R. 2766, but we do have 

a number of recommended changes, and we would like to work 

with the Committee and staff to incorporate some of those. 

First, we recommend that if any cash equalization funds are received, that they be deposited pursuant to Public Law 90-171, commonly known as the Sisk Act, and, therefore, could be used for the 

acquisition of lands for addition to the National Forest System in 

the State of Colorado. 

Secondly, we note that only the surface estate is being offered 

relative to the Argentine Pass parcel. The management of split estates is often very problematic for the Forest Service, and we try 

to avoid that situation if at all possible. We understand that it is 

not the sub-surface minerals that are at issue, but the underground 

water conveyance tunnel and the associated access that the city of 

Golden wishes to protect. We would like to work with the Committee and the city to develop language which ensures Golden the 

continued use and operation of the tunnel and have both the surface and sub-surface interests acquired in fee for the Federal 

estate. 

H.R. 2766 indicates Congress’ intent that the land exchange be 

consummated no later than 120 days after enactment and authorizes the city of Golden to construct the water pipeline on the 9.84 

acres of Federal land prior to the consummation of the exchange. 

We have two concerns regarding that. First, we are a little concerned that we may not be able to complete the environmental consultation and clearances required for the disposal of the Federal 

property in 120 days. So we would like to see that moved to about 

180 days. And second, we don’t support construction prior to the 

conveyance of the property to the city of Golden, for a lot of reasons, including liability. 

The Department believes that the proposed 148-acre acquisition 

which could result from the exchange would be very beneficial to 

the Forest Service and to the public estate. Specifically, the acquisition would eliminate a forest inholding; it could reduce the cost of 

forest boundary administration; it could increase recreation opportunities; and certainly it would ensure permanent public access to 

7

a portion of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, as was 

previously mentioned. 

In conclusion, the Department supports the concept of the exchange identified in H.R. 2766 and would like to work with the 

Committee to see the exchange proceed with mutual benefit. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Estill on H.R. 1723, H.R. 2707, 

and H.R. 2766 follows:]

Statement of Elizabeth Estill, Deputy Chief, Programs, Legislation and 

Communications, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on 

H.R. 1723, H.R. 2707, and H.R. 2766

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today. I am Elizabeth Estill, Deputy Chief for Programs, Legislation, and Communications, Forest Service. I am here today to provide the Department’s comments on three bills: 

H.R. 1723—To designate certain National Forest System lands in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, and for other purposes. 

H.R. 2707—To direct the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture, acting 

through the Forest Service, to carry out a demonstration program to assess potential water savings through control of Salt Cedar and Russian Olive on forests and 

public lands administered by the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service. 

H.R. 2766—To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange certain lands within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest in the State of Colorado. 

The Department supports H.R. 1723. The Department supports the goals of 

H.R. 2766, but has a number of recommended changes. Further, the Department 

supports the goals of H.R. 2707, but has concerns about roles and requirements, 

and believes the work can be achieved within existing authorities. We would like 

to work with the Committee on the improvements we recommend to H.R. 2766 and 

H.R. 2707. 

H.R. 1723—Caribbean National Forest Act of 2003

H.R. 1723 designates approximately 10,000 acres of land in the Caribbean 

National Forest/Luquillo Experimental Forest in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

as the El Toro Wilderness and as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

The bill provides that designation of the Wilderness shall not be construed to prevent within the area’s boundaries: (1) installation and maintenance of hydrologic, 

meteorological, climatological, or atmospheric data collection and transmission facilities when they are essential to the scientific research purposes of the Luquillo Experimental Forest; (2) construction and maintenance of nesting structures, observation blinds, and population monitoring platforms for threatened and endangered 

species; or (3) construction and maintenance of trails to such facilities as necessary 

for research purposes and the recovery of threatened and endangered species. 

The Caribbean National Forest encompasses over 28,000 acres of land, making it 

the largest block of public land in the Island of Puerto Rico. The Forest, locally 

known as El Yunque, is one of the most popular recreation sites in Puerto Rico and 

the National Forest System. Almost a million tourists, from Puerto Rico, the U.S. 

mainland, and abroad experience this tropical rain forest environment each year. 

It is the only tropical rain forest in the National Forest System and by far the 

friendliest and most accessible in the world. It is also home to the Puerto Rican parrot, one of the 10 most endangered birds in the world, and nearly 240 species of 

trees and 120 terrestrial animals—four of which are also listed as endangered species. 

The Department supports H.R. 1723. The 1997 revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Caribbean National Forest/Luquillo Experimental Forest recommended wilderness designation for the 10,000-acre El Toro area. We believe the 

designation of the El Toro Wilderness would contribute to a more diverse wilderness 

preservation system and enhance the areas solitude, scenery and pristine qualities. 

Designation of the El Toro Wilderness would be significant. It would become the 

only tropical forest in the National Forest Wilderness System and the only wilderness area in Puerto Rico. 

H.R. 2707—Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act 

H.R. 2707, The Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act, directs 

the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the 

8

Forest Service, to carry out a demonstration program to assess potential water savings through control of Salt cedar and Russian olive on forests and public lands 

under their jurisdiction. 

The Department agrees with the goals of H.R. 2707, which would provide important information for managing two non-native invasive species that pose a significant ecological threat in the western United States. However, the Department has 

some concerns and would like to work with the Subcommittee to clarify and improve 

the bill. 

The genus Tamarix (commonly known as Salt cedar) is comprised of shrubs or 

trees native to arid, saline regions of Eurasia and Africa. Since the 1830s, ten species have been introduced into North America as ornamental plants and for 

windbreaks. Two species of Salt cedar have escaped cultivation and rapidly invaded 

riparian areas of the western United States. Today, Salt cedar has infested over one 

million acres in the western United States, consuming large quantities of water, 

intercepting deep water tables and interfering with natural aquatic systems. It disrupts the structure and stability of native plant communities and degrades native 

wildlife habitat. 

Russian olive (Elaeagnus augustifolia) is also a native of southern Europe and 

Western Asia that was first introduced in the late 1800s as an ornamental tree and 

windbreak. Although it is a non-native invasive species, Russian olive is a popular 

and hardy plant that is sold commercially for landscaping purposes. However, as its 

impact to native species has become evident, it has been declared a noxious species 

in states such as Utah, and sales have been banned in states such as Colorado. Like 

Salt cedar, Russian olive is a fast growing plant that can out-compete native vegetation and tax water reserves. 

To manage invasive species, the Forest Service uses existing authorities to coordinate projects at the Federal, State, and local levels through its National Forest System, Research and Development, and State and Private Forestry Deputy Areas. The 

Forest Service participates with other Federal agencies in the National Invasive 

Species Council (NISC), established by Executive Order 13112. The Agency also participates in the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and 

Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW) to manage invasive plants. The NISC and FICMNEW 

continue to work collaboratively with local, State, Tribal, and regional interests to 

expand partnerships and coordination efforts among all stakeholders. 

Section 3 of H.R. 2707 directs the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with 

the Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest Service, to complete an assessment 

of current knowledge concerning Salt cedar and Russian olive invasion. It also calls 

for at least three projects to demonstrate and evaluate the most effective methods 

to control these invasive species. The bill specifies that no project may exceed 

$7,000,000 and that the Federal share of the costs shall be no more than 65 percent 

of the total cost. The authorized funding is not in the President’s budget and therefore must be considered within existing resources. The actions outlined in the bill 

can be achieved within existing authorities. 

We would like to work with the Subcommittee and the Department of the Interior 

to: 

• Clarify the roles of the Departments and Agency referenced in the bill, 

• Specify components and requirements of the assessment report, and 

• Develop criteria for selection of the demonstration project areas. 

I commend the Subcommittee for addressing the ecological problems posed by 

these two non-native invasive species. The Subcommittee has recognized that the 

invasive species challenge to our Nation is enormous, and land managers and communities are stretching their limited resources significantly to address it. Increased 

understanding of the impact of these species on the quantity of surface and groundwater would advance our Nation’s ability to address their ecological consequences. 

H.R. 2766—Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Land Exchange Act of 2003

H.R. 2766 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange to the City of Golden, 

Colorado all right, title and interest in 9.84 acres of Federal land within the Arapaho National Forest, upon receipt of acceptable title to 140 acres of non-Federal 

land. The 140 acres consist of two separate parcels, including 80 acres near Evergreen, Colorado known as Cub Creek and 60 acres near Argentine Pass, Colorado 

known as Argentine Pass. The 60-acre Argentine Pass property is made of 15 patented mining claims. The bill modifies the exterior boundary of the Arapaho 

National Forest to incorporate the Cub Creek parcel. 

The bill requires the exchange values to be equalized. If the non-Federal parcel 

market value exceeds the approved market value of the Federal land, the values 

may be equalized by reducing the size of the Cub Creek non-Federal parcel or with 

9

a cash equalization payment without regard to the cash equalization limitation of 

43 U.S.C. 1716(b), as amended. 

If the Federal land market value exceeds the market value of the Cub Creek nonFederal parcel, the values shall be equalized by the Secretary preparing a statement 

of value for the Argentine Pass non-Federal parcel and utilizing as much of such 

contributory value as is necessary as a credit to equalize value. Argentine Pass 

lands not needed to balance the exchange values will be donated to the Forest 

Service. In the event the Secretary declines to accept the Argentine Pass lands for 

any reason, Golden shall make a cash equalization payment to the Secretary as necessary to equalize the values of the Federal land and the Cub Creek parcel. We recommend that any cash equalization funds received be considered money received 

and deposited pursuant to Public Law 90-171 (16 U.S.C. 484 (a)), commonly known 

as the ‘‘Sisk Act,’’ and may be used, without further appropriation, for the acquisition of lands for addition to the National Forest System in the State of Colorado. 

Additionally, we note that only the surface estate is being offered relative to the 

Argentine Pass parcel. The management of split estates is problematic. We understand that it is not the minerals at issue but an underground water conveyance tunnel and associated access that the City of Golden wishes to protect. We prefer to 

acquire both surface and subsurface interests, in fee, and are willing to work with 

the Committee and the City to develop language which ensures continued use and 

operation of the tunnel. 

H.R. 2766 indicates Congress’ intent that the land exchange be consummated no 

later than 120 days after enactment and authorizes the City of Golden to construct 

a water pipeline on the 9.84 acres of Federal land immediately upon enactment and 

prior to the consummation of the exchange. We are concerned that we may not be 

able to complete environmental consultation and clearances required for the disposal of the Federal property in 120 days. We request extending this timeframe to 

180 days. We also do not support construction occurring prior to conveyance of this 

property to the City of Golden. At the very least, we would expect that the City 

would be required to operate under a special use permit as long as the property remains in Federal ownership. Our preference is to delay construction of the pipeline 

until the conveyance is completed. 

H.R. 2766 directs the City of Golden to pay for any necessary land surveys and 

appraisals. Further, the bill authorizes and directs the Secretary to sell the Federal 

land to Golden at its appraised value, if the land exchange cannot be consummated 

for any reason. 

The Department does not object to H.R. 2766 with changes recommended above. 

Public interest could also be served by the Arapaho National Forest acquisition 

of the 140 acres of non-Federal land. Specifically, the acquisition would eliminate 

a forest inholding, and could: reduce cost of forest boundary administration: increase 

recreation opportunities: and ensure permanent public access to a portion of the 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. The Department supports the concept of 

the exchange identified in H.R. 2766 and would like to work with the Committee 

to see this exchange proceed with mutual benefit. 

Conclusion 

This concludes my statement. We look forward to working with the Committee on 

making the suggested modifications as noted above, and I would be happy to answer 

your questions. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you very much. 

Well, Mayor, I appreciate very much, Mayor Baroch, for you coming over. It is a wonderful community you are in. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES J. BAROCH, MAYOR,

CITY OF GOLDEN, STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. BAROCH. Thank you very much for allowing me to come before the Committee. My name is Charles Baroch. I am mayor of the 

city of Golden. I am here to testify in favor of H.R. 2766 and to 

request that it be processed into law at the earliest possible date. 

As some of you may be aware, the city of Golden is in the process 

of selling approximately 5500 acres of land in Clear Creek County, 

known as Beaver Brook property, to the U.S. Forest Service. The 

purpose of that sale is twofold; first, to bring the valuable land into 

10

Forest Service ownership for general public use and enjoyment and 

to protect a wildlife habitat, and second, to raise funds to enable 

Golden to enhance its water supply and storage system. 

As I am sure all of you are aware, Colorado and much of the 

West has been experiencing a very severe drought over the past 

few years. And even though we have received some relief this 

spring, the City feels it is our responsibility to augment our water 

supply for future emergencies and future generations. To achieve 

that goal, just last month the City Golden broke ground on the construction of a dam for our new water storage reservoir in an existing gravel quarry. When completed, the new reservoir will be able 

to store in excess of 1500 acre-feet of water and will increase our 

existing water storage capacity by approximately 400 percent. This 

is approximately a 90-day supply for the city of Golden in its peak 

season. 

While a new reservoir is being constructed entirely on land 

owned by the City, an approximately 125-foot length of pipeline 

needed to run the water from the West Clear Creek to the reservoir 

needs to cross a small corner of national forest land along an existing ditch line. And we need to start building that pipeline this fall. 

When we approached the Forest Service about this pipeline, and 

after some discussion with them and others, it was agreed by all 

concerned that a land exchange would be the best option to achieve 

the desired result. The reasoning was the land we need from the 

Forest Service is not especially useful to the public because of its 

odd configuration and topography, whereas the land that we can 

offer the Forest Service in exchange is highly desired by them for 

public purposes. 

Accordingly, we have developed the land exchange proposal that 

is before you today as H.R. 2766. In that exchange the city of Golden would receive a 9.84-acre delta wing-shaped parcel of land from 

the Forest Service and in return would give the Forest Service up 

to 80 acres of land which they desire to acquire in the Cub Creek 

drainage in Park County, near Evergreen, Colorado. In addition, 

we are willing to donate the surface estate of 61 acres to the Forest 

Service along the Continental Divide in Clear Creek and Summit 

counties. The 61 acres is traversed by the Continental Divide 

National Scenic Trail and also includes an access route to the trail. 

If for some reason the land exchange cannot be consummated, 

H.R. 2766 directs the Forest Service to sell us the 9.84-acre parcel 

at full fair market value, and use the proceeds of the sale to buy 

other lands of the Agency’s choosing in the State of Colorado. 

Finally, the bill authorizes us to construct the pipeline along the 

125 feet of national forest land immediately upon the bill’s enactment. We need that authority in order to complete the pipeline this 

fall and begin filling the reservoir this spring. 

Mr. Chairman, we have come to Congress to both expedite this 

exchange and because of minor forest boundary changes needed to 

enable the Forest Service to acquire land which we will convey to 

them near Evergreen. In addition, should the exchange fall through 

due to title problems with any lands involved, it is imperative that 

Congress direct the land be sold to us at the earliest date possible. 

I note the land exchange as directed by H.R. 2766 has been endorsed by Clear Creek County, Summit County, and Park County 

11

boards of county commissioners and also by the nonprofit Continental Divide Trail Alliance, which is interested in seeing the land 

along the trail acquired by the Forest Service. 

I wish to thank Congressmen Bob Beauprez and Mark Udall for 

introducing this legislation, and you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling 

a hearing so quickly. This land exchange is very important to the 

city of Golden. We are deeply appreciative of your efforts to help 

us augment our municipal water supply. 

I will be happy to answer any questions you or other members 

of the Subcommittee might have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baroch follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Charles J. Baroch, Mayor,

City of Golden, Colorado, on H.R. 2766

Chairman McInnis & Members of the Subcommittee, 

My name is Charles J. Baroch and I am the Mayor of the City of Golden, Colorado. I appear before you today to testify in favor of H.R. 2766, and to request that 

it be processed into law at the earliest possible date. 

As some of you may be aware, the City of Golden is in the process of selling approximately 5,500 acres of land, known as the Beaver Brook property, to the U.S. 

Forest Service. The purpose of that sale is twofold. First to bring valuable lands into 

Forest Service ownership for general public use and enjoyment, and second to raise 

funds to enable our City to enhance its water supply and storage system. As I’m 

sure all of you are aware, Colorado has been experiencing a very severe drought 

over the past few years, and even though we have received some relief this year, 

the City feels it is our responsibility to augment our water supplies for future emergencies. 

To achieve that goal, just last month, the City of Golden broke ground on construction of a new water storage reservoir in an existing gravel quarry near the 

West Fork of Clear Creek, approximately 25 miles west of Golden. When completed, 

the new reservoir will be able to store in excess of 1,800 acre feet of water and will 

increase our existing water storage by approximately 400%. 

While the new reservoir is being constructed entirely on land owned by the City, 

an approximate 125 foot length of the pipeline needed to run water from West Clear 

Creek to the reservoir needs to cross a small corner of National Forest land along 

an existing ditch line, and we need to start building the pipeline this fall. 

When we approached the Forest Service about this pipeline, and after some discussion with them and others, it was agreed by all concerned that a land exchange 

would be the best option to achieve the desired result. The reasoning was that the 

land we need from the Forest Service is not especially useful to the public because 

of its odd configuration, whereas the land that we can offer the Forest Service in 

an exchange is highly desired by them for public purposes. 

Accordingly, we have developed the land exchange proposal that is before you 

today in H.R. 2766. In that exchange, the City of Golden would receive a 9.84 acre 

delta-wing shaped parcel of land from the Forest Service, and in return, we would 

give the Forest Service up to 80 acres of land which they desire to acquire in the 

Cub Creek drainage near Evergreen, Colorado. In addition, we would donate the 

surface estate of 61 acres to the Forest Service along the Continental Divide in 

Clear Creek and Summit Counties. The 61 acres is traversed by the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, and also includes an access route to the Trail. 

If for some reason the land exchange cannot be consummated, H.R. 2766 directs 

the Forest Service to sell us the 9.84 acre parcel at full fair market value and to 

use the proceeds of the sale to buy other lands of the agency’s choosing in the State 

of Colorado. 

Finally, the bill authorizes us to construct the pipeline across the 125 feet of 

National Forest land immediately upon the bill’s enactment. We need that authority 

in order to complete the pipeline this fall and begin filling the reservoir this spring. 

Mr. Chairman, we have come to Congress to both expedite this exchange and because a minor forest boundary change is needed to enable the Forest Service to acquire the lands we will convey to them near Evergreen. In addition, should the exchange fall through due to title problems with any of the lands involved, it is imperative that Congress direct that the land be sold to us at the earliest date possible. 

I note that the land exchange directed by H.R. 2766 has been endorsed by the 

Clear Creek County, Summit County and Park County Boards of County CommisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:22 Jan 07, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88530.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
12

sioners, and also by the non-profit Continental Divide Trail Alliance, which is interested in seeing the land along the Trail acquired by the Forest Service. 

I also wish to thank Congressmen Bob Beauprez and Mark Udall for introducing 

this legislation, and you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling a hearing so quickly. This 

land exchange is very important to the City of Golden, and we are deeply appreciative of your efforts to help us augment our municipal water supply. 

That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you or 

other members of the Subcommittee might have. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mayor. And again, thank you for traveling the distance to testify in front of the Committee. 

I will open it up for questions. Mr. Rehberg? Mr. Udall? 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I wanted to 

thank you for holding this hearing. The bills on today’s agenda are 

quite different, but each is a good measure. I am biased as a cosponsor of most of them, but I am really appreciative that the Subcommittee is beginning the process of moving them forward. 

In particular, I want to thank the Chairman for the expedited 

treatment that is being given to H.R. 2766, which my colleague 

Mr. Beauprez and I introduced just last week. The bill is very important for our State, very important for the city of Golden, so it 

is excellent to have it on today’s agenda. And I am hoping that 

when we get back from our August break we can take up some 

more bills dealing with the management of national forests in Colorado, such as the bills I mentioned to you, Mr. Chairman, in my 

recent letter. 

And I want to thank you again for holding the hearing at this 

time. I don’t have any questions. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Pearce? Any questions? Go ahead. Mr. Renzi? 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Go ahead. 

Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful. Thank you. I enjoy 

being around all these Coloradans today and am willing to do 

whatever it takes to stay in the good graces of my Chairman. 

I am just interested in learning something from you, though, as 

a freshman here. Did they look at the option of an easement at all, 

and how would that play out, rather than—it seems like you are 

giving up so much. 

Mr. BAROCH. Yes, we did look at the option of an easement, and 

through the cooperation of the Forest Service, they recommended 

the land transfer, or land exchange. With an easement, you never 

know what eventually might happen in future generations. And by 

taking firm title to the land, then we have the option of going in 

and working on the tunnel, the drainage ditch, the water pipeline 

as we wish to maintain it, whatever, expand it if we have to, without having to go through additional dealings with the National 

Forest Service. So that was discussed. We talked about that option, 

and it was the agreement of both parties that a land swap was 

probably the best approach to take. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Beauprez? 

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of quick 

questions, if I might. First to Ms. Estill. 

You mentioned a couple of things I would like to probe. The subsurface rights—I understand if you can, you would like to have 

them all—my understanding that the City’s pipeline already goes 

13

through the Argentine Pass property. And for the reasons that I 

think brought us to the point of wanting a sale as opposed to an 

easement, it seems to make sense to me for the City to maintain 

those subsurface rights. I would like you to explain exactly why the 

Forest Service is going to—you are not—the Forest Service doesn’t 

anticipate any mining or drilling, certainly, up there for oil or gas? 

Ms. ESTILL. Well, we don’t actually know which of the parcels—

we haven’t been out on the ground with Golden and looked at those 

parcels to see what is there. But generally, no, we aren’t expecting 

any difficulties with mining of minerals. It really would be with—

we think that Golden’s interest in keeping the subsurface, as you 

stated, is to be able to maintain that tunnel. We believe that we 

could put in the legislation the ability to maintain that tunnel in 

the legislation, and then have the subsurface rights. It just makes 

it cleaner for us if we have the subsurface with the surface, and 

that is generally what we like to do. 

Mr. BEAUPREZ. You are open to working that out? 

Ms. ESTILL. We are certainly open to working that out. 

Mr. BEAUPREZ. And I understand, I guess, some of your concern 

about the timing of all this. But given the Sisk Act and the provisions of this bill that if for some reason this land swap falls apart, 

the land will be sold to the city of Golden, you have committed to 

that, the cash exchange. Why the delay, then, in allowing them to 

move forward? Because I am going to ask the Mayor in just a second what happens if they don’t get to go there pretty quick. 

Ms. ESTILL. Well, absent specific language that exempts the 

Forest Service from obtaining clearances and conducting analysis 

required by the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and other environmental laws, we would proceed 

with applying for just going through all of those processes in advance of disposing the land. The only probable or likely sticking 

point might be, as we exchange out of this almost-10 acres, it is 

considered lynx habitat, and we will have to go through consultation with Fish and Wildlife Service. And conceivably, that could 

slow things down without specific provisions in this legislation. 

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Mayor, what happens if—I know you explained to me once that time is really critical. What happens if you 

can’t get going with construction? 

Mr. BAROCH. Well, if we don’t get construction, obviously, we 

won’t begin filling the reservoir until we have the pipeline in place. 

We have excess water during the wintertime out of Clear Creek 

that we don’t use right now. We could start storing that water in 

the wintertime and then in the spring, when the runoff is so heavy, 

generally there is excess capacity in Clear Creek. Therefore, we 

would like to begin storing that water immediately. 

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Why don’t you take just a second and explain 

your water situation last summer. 

Mr. BAROCH. That is a very complicated issue. 

Mr. BEAUPREZ. How short did you get? 

Mr. BAROCH. We had a half of our water supply cut out from 

under us under a decree by the Water Court that dropped priority 

5 water down below priority 9, and as a consequence, we went into 

severe restrictions during September and October until November, 

when we got some additional— 

14

Mr. BEAUPREZ. How severe? 

Mr. BAROCH. We were down—typically in the summertime, we 

run around 7.5 million gallons a day through our system for watering our lawns and our people. We were down to 2.5 million gallons 

a day. So we terminated all outdoor watering. The only watering 

you could do was if you saved your water from taking a shower. 

Before it warmed up, you could take it out and water your vegetables or your flower garden. So we were— 

Mr. BEAUPREZ. This storage is pretty critical? 

Mr. BAROCH. This storage is very critical to us. 

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you. That concludes our testimony. Again, 

I appreciate that. 

And, Ms. Estill, I do want to pass on to the U.S. Forest Service—

I am not clear whether those forest firefighters that we lost yesterday were with the Forest Service or the BLM, but at any rate, if 

they were yours, we send on our deepest condolences. This Committee has been very active in that fire situation, but those are 

brave young men and women we have out there on the front line. 

So we pass on our condolences. 

Ms. ESTILL. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Mr. Chairman, if I could just—if I might, Mr. 

Beauprez mentioned this bill is supported by a number of local governments and groups, and I would ask that their letters of support 

be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Without objection, so ordered. The panel is 

excused. Thank you very much. 

[NOTE; Letters of support for H.R. 2766 have been retained in 

the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. REHBERG. [Presiding] We now begin the hearing on 

H.R. 1723, the Caribbean National Forest Wilderness Act of 2003. 

Mr. REHBERG. The sponsor of the bill, Resident Commissioner 

Acevedo-Vila ́ of Puerto Rico, could not be with us today. Without 

objection, his statement will be submitted for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Acevedo-Vila ́ follows:]

Statement of Resident Commissioner Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, a Delegate in 

Congress from Puerto Rico, on H.R. 1723

Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate you affording the Caribbean National Forest 

Wilderness Act of 2003, H.R. 1723, this hearing. 

I would also like to thank the Ranking Member of the Committee, Representative 

Nick Rahall, who is an original cosponsor of this bill, for his strong support, in addition to the other members of the Resources Committee who are cosponsors of this 

bill. 

I am also thankful for the U.S. Forest Service’s presence here today. I have developed a good working relationship with the Forest Service, both locally in Puerto Rico 

and in the national office, and I appreciate Deputy Chief Elizabeth Estill sharing 

with us the administration’s position on the bill today. 

As some of you may know the Caribbean National Forest, the only tropical 

rainforest in the national forest system, celebrated its 100th anniversary earlier this 

year. Twenty-seven years before this, in 1876, Spain’s King Alfonso XII proclaimed 

this forest a Crown Reserve, making this forest, know locally as El Yunque, one of 

the first forest reserves in the western hemisphere. 

Due to the topography of El Yunque, unsuitable forest composition for timber, and 

conservation by the Forest Service, El Yunque, and to a greater degree the lands 

to be designated as the El Toro Wilderness in this bill, maintain the characteristics 

that they had 100 years ago. El Yunque contains virtually all of the primary forest 

in Puerto Rico, and as such represents a unique cultural and natural heritage for 

15

Puerto Ricans. The Wilderness Act was passed to protect just these types of lands—

where the forest has been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable. Therefore, I believe that wilderness 

protection is appropriate and in line with the history of these lands and the value 

they contribute to Puerto Rico. 

However, these beliefs are not solely mine. When the Forest Service revised the 

management plan for El Yunque, the public widely supported wilderness designations on the forest. As the population density in Puerto Rico is among the highest 

in the nation, large, undeveloped tracts of land are increasingly rare, while their 

value to the public has grown significantly. Public support for wilderness led the 

forest plan to nearly double the wilderness recommendation from 5,254 acres to 

what is included in this bill, over 10,000 acres. What my bill proposes to designate 

as wilderness is identical to that recommendation in the Caribbean National 

Forest’s revised land and resource management plan, and would create the first wilderness area in El Yunque. It should also be noted that there are no competing interests, such as timber harvest, road construction, or water development, in the 

lands to be designated as wilderness. 

The El Toro area to be designated as wilderness through this bill is also essential 

habitat for the Puerto Rican parrot. One of the ten-most endangered birds in the 

world and a Federally listed endangered species, the parrot requires large, undeveloped tracts of land for its survival. It is for this reason that the only remaining wild 

population of this bird, currently about 25 birds, is confined to El Yunque. Taking 

into consideration the management needs of the Puerto Rican parrot, this legislation 

permits nesting construction and watching and monitoring activity to occur in the 

proposed wilderness area. In addition to the Puerto Rican parrot, no fewer than 

eight other threatened and endangered species call El Yunque home. Many other 

species are endemic only to El Yunque, and the forest also provides respite to dozens of migratory bird species. Protecting the El Toro area as wilderness will ensure 

that the habitat of these species remains undeveloped and well suited for their 

survival. 

Water conservation is another important value of El Yunque. The forest is comprised of 8 major watersheds that provide water for nearly 800,000 Puerto Ricans. 

Weather events in El Yunque, such as rainstorms experienced earlier this year, lead 

to mudslides often around roads, that impact water quality for both species and 

human consumers. Through wilderness protection, much of this forest will be protected from road development that can accelerate this type of erosion and water impairment. 

The El Toro area currently has a network of trails that permit an array of recreational opportunities that will continue under wilderness designation. Almost one 

million tourists a year currently visit and use El Yunque. Local residents and tourists alike hike, swim, climb El Toro peak—the highest peak in El Yunque, bird 

watch and otherwise take advantage of the wild nature of the proposed wilderness 

area. I believe that the characteristics and values of the proposed El Toro Wilderness 

Area are very much in concert with the intent and purpose of the Wilderness Act. 

Solitude, the absence of the imprint of man, and nationally unique ecological and 

biological features comprise El Yunque and the proposed wilderness area. It would 

be fitting that the first wilderness designation in El Yunque be El Toro, as it encompasses the qualities of the forest, and should be protected in that nature for perpetuity. 

Again, I very much appreciate the Chairman’s scheduling of this hearing for this 

bill and other worthy legislation. I appreciate the support for this bill that my colleagues have provided, and I encourage the support of this Subcommittee, and the 

Resources Committee in considering and approving this bill. 

Mr. REHBERG. We will now hear from Panel II on H.R. 1723. 

Elizabeth Estill is Deputy Chief of Programs, Legislation, and 

Communications at the United States Forest Service. Please go 

ahead. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTILL, DEPUTY CHIEF, PROGRAMS, LEGISLATION, AND COMMUNICATIONS, FOREST 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. ESTILL. Thank you for the opportunity to provide USDA’s 

views on H.R. 1723. The Department supports H.R. 1723, which 

16

designates approximately 10,000 acres of land in the Caribbean 

National Forest Luquillo Experimental Forest in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as the El Toro Wilderness and as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

The Caribbean National Forest encompasses over 28,000 acres of 

land, making it the largest block of public land in Puerto Rico. It 

is the only tropical rain forest in the National Forest system and, 

by far, the friendliest and most accessible in the world. Almost a 

million people visit the Caribbean National Forest each year from 

Puerto Rico, from the mainland, and from abroad. It is the home 

to the Puerto Rican parrot, one of the ten most endangered birds 

in the world, and nearly 240 species of trees and 120 terrestrial 

animals, four of which are also listed as endangered species. 

The 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the 

Caribbean National Forest recommended wilderness designation 

for the 10,000-acre El Toro area. We believe that the designation 

of the El Toro Wilderness will contribute to a more diverse national 

wilderness preservation system. 

In conclusion, the Department of Agriculture enthusiastically 

supports H.R. 1723. 

This concludes my testimony. I am willing to answer any questions. 

Mr. REHBERG. Are there any questions from the Committee? Mr. 

Udall? 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I am moving slowly since I have already seen you this morning, but—we had those 

late votes. I don’t have any questions at this time. Thank you. 

Mr. REHBERG. OK. Thank you, Ms. Estill. I might remind the 

Committee that if they have any additional questions, the hearing 

record will be left open for 10 days and you will have an opportunity to submit those questions. And Ms. Estill, if you could respond in writing, we would appreciate that. 

Ms. ESTILL. I would be glad to. 

Mr. REHBERG. I’d like to introduce the witnesses for H.R. 1005. 

On Panel III we have Mr. Chris Kearney, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Policy and International Affairs, Department of the Interior; and the Honorable Don Davis, Commissioner, Rio Blanco, Colorado. 

Let me remind the witnesses that under the Committee rules 

you must limit your oral statements to 5 minutes, but your entire 

statement will appear in the record. 

I now recognize Mr. Kearney for his statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis on H.R. 1005 follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Forests and Forest Health, on H.R. 1005

At the outset, I want to welcome my good friend, Commissioner Don Davis, here 

today. This is the second time in as many years that Don has come out to preach 

the gospel of full-funding for PILT. Don, here’s to hoping that the next time you 

come to Washington, DC the President will have signed this bill into law and you 

can talk about something other than PILT. Welcome Don. 

Colleagues, when Congress enacted Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, it made both an admission and a promise. The admission 

that Congress made was that it would be fundamentally unfair for the Federal Government to own vast tracks of land within a county or municipality—land that 

would otherwise provide local revenue in the form of property tax to fund roads, 

17

schools and other important social services—and not reimburse the county for those 

revenue losses. Remember, the Federal Government’s holdings are generally immune from state and local taxation. And so Congress affirmatively recognized that 

many localities would quite literally whither on the vine without some form of compensation from the Federal Government. 

With that admission in mind, Congress made a promise—to provide just and reasonable compensation to the local governments whose tax base is eroded by a large 

Federal land ownership presence. That promise was embodied and codified in PILT 

and the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, which set out a reimbursement formula under 

which localities would be compensated. 

Unfortunately, Congress has rarely been willing to fund PILT and the Refuge 

Revenue Fund at the levels authorized under these formulas. You couldn’t say that 

Congress totally broke its promise, but there’s no question we’ve been fudging—big 

time. In Fiscal Year 2003, for example, Congress shortchanged PILT in excess of 

$100 million, and the Refuge Revenue Sharing several million more. In the scheme 

of the United States Treasury, this may not seem like a big deal. Representatives 

of counties and other local governments—including my good friend Don Davis who’s 

here to testify today—will tell you otherwise. In times when state and county governments are cash-starved—and schools and hospitals and social services suffer because of it—this mammoth shortfall strikes even deeper at rural communities. 

Now there are some who say we can’t afford permanent full funding of PILT. I 

say we can’t afford not to. PILT and the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act fund the nutsand-bolts programs that keep communities strong. These dollars go directly to classrooms, to paving the expansion of the local county road, to keeping cops on the 

street, and to funding critical social service programs. This is mom-and-apple pie 

stuff, Colleagues, that’s being shortchanged because of Congress and this and previous Administration’s historic propensity to fudge on its word. 

H.R. 1005, the PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing Permanent Funding Act, would 

rectify this inequity by doing just what the title suggests—fully funding both programs without further appropriation. The bill solidifies Congress’ promise to our 

friends in local government in ironclad terms by guaranteeing that appropriated 

moneys will always equal the levels authorized by those complicated formulas. 

No more partial funding, no more fudging on our word. H.R. 1005 settles the 

score once and for all for communities and local governments. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS KEARNEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY/INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. KEARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, 

members of the Committee. I am pleased to have the opportunity 

to testify today on H.R. 1005, a bill that would make the Bureau 

of Land Management’s Payment In Lieu of Taxes Program and the 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Refuge Revenue Sharing Program mandatory. 

A hearing on PILT took place almost a year ago today, on 

July 25, 2002, before this Subcommittee, and our position on this 

bill remains unchanged. The administration strongly supports the 

PILT and RRS programs and views them as high priorities. But 

the administration is strongly opposed to 1005 because it would 

force the Federal Government to either raise taxes or cut into other 

programs that are integral to the President’s budget and important 

for the American public. 

Now, the President’s Fiscal Year 2004 budget request, however, 

demonstrates our clear commitment to the PILT program. The administration requested $165 million in Fiscal Year 2003 for PILT, 

and $200 million in 2004—which is an increase of $35 million. Furthermore, while the total amount requested for all programs by the 

Department for Fiscal Year 2004 represents an approximately 3.3 

percent increase from the prior year, the request for PILT is more 

than 21 percent over last year’s request for this important proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:22 Jan 07, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88530.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
18

gram, reflecting our continued commitment and obligation to the 

PILT program even in the context of other significant budget priorities. 

While we recognize the importance of the program, it should not 

be viewed in isolation from other Departmental and Federal programs that do bring or will bring benefits to the counties in the future. Examples include funding for rural fire assistance and our efforts to work with gateway communities to increase tourism. 

This year some counties received slightly reduced PILT payments 

to adjust for increased revenue received during the previous fiscal 

year under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. This act provides payments to compensate certain 

counties for declining timber receipts. The combination of PILT 

payments and payments under Secure Rural Schools Act, however, 

will result in higher overall payments for the affected counties. 

I would also like to note that we continue to engage in discussions with the National Association of Counties concerning issues 

associated with the allocation formula, and we believe those issues 

should be addressed before considering such a significant action as 

converting them to permanent payments. 

In conclusion, the administration recognizes that these payments 

are important to local Governments, sometimes comprising a significant portion of their operating budgets. The PILT and RRS 

monies have been used for critical functions, such as local search 

and rescue operations, road maintenance, law enforcement, schools, 

and emergency services. These expenditures often support the activities of people from around the country who visit or recreate on 

Federal lands. The Department looks forward to continuing to work 

cooperatively with the communities on these important issues. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kearney follows:]

Statement of Chris Kearney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

International Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1005

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1005, a bill that would make the Bureau of Land 

Management’s (BLM) Payments-in-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Refuge Revenue Sharing (RRS) Program mandatory. A hearing on 

PILT took place almost a year ago today on July 25, 2002, before this Subcommittee. Our position on this bill remains unchanged. The Administration strongly supports the PILT and RRS programs and views them as high priorities, but the 

Administration is strongly opposed to H.R. 1005 because it would force the Federal 

Government to either raise taxes or cut into other programs that are integral to the 

President’s budge and important for the American people. 

Background 

The PILT Act (P.L. 94-565) was passed by Congress in 1976 to provide payments 

to local governments in counties where certain Federal lands are located within 

their boundaries. PILT is based on the concept that these local governments incur 

costs associated with maintaining infrastructure on Federal lands within their 

boundaries but are unable to collect taxes on these lands; thus, they need to be compensated for these losses in tax revenues. The payments are made to local governments in lieu of tax revenues and to supplement other Federal land receipts shared 

with local governments. The amounts available for payments to local governments 

require annual appropriation by Congress. In the past, the BLM has allocated payments according to the formula in the PILT Act. In recognition of fact that this program is multi-bureau in nature, beginning in FY 2004, funding and management 

of PILT will be administered at the Departmental level. The formula takes into acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:22 Jan 07, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88530.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
19

count the population within an affected unit of local government, the number of 

acres of eligible Federal land, and the amount of certain Federal land payments 

received by the county in the preceding year. These payments are other Federal revenues (such as receipts from mineral leasing, livestock grazing, and timber harvesting) that the Federal Government transfers to the counties. 

The President’s FY 2004 budget request demonstrates our commitment to PILT. The Administration requested $165 million in FY 2003 for PILT, and $200 million 

in FY 2004, an increase of $35 million. Furthermore, while the total amount requested for all programs by the Department for FY 2004 represents a 3.3% increase 

from the prior year, the request for PILT is more than 21% over last year’s request 

for this important program, reflecting our continued commitment and obligation to 

the PILT program even in the context of other significant budget priorities. While 

we recognize the importance of the PILT program, it should not be viewed in isolation from other departmental and Federal programs that bring or will bring benefits 

to counties in the future. Examples include funding provided for rural fire assistance and our efforts to work with Gateway Communities to increase tourism opportunities. 

This year, some counties received slightly reduced PILT payments to adjust for 

increased revenue received during the previous fiscal year under the Secure Rural 

Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. This Act provides payments to 

compensate certain counties for declining timber receipts. The combination of PILT 

payments and payments under the Secure Rural Schools Act, however, will result 

in higher overall payments to affected counties. 

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (RRS) (16 U.S.C. 715s) as amended, was enacted 

in 1935. It authorizes payments to be made to offset tax losses to counties in which 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) fee and withdrawn public domain lands are 

located. The original Act provided for 25 percent of the net receipts from revenues 

from the sale or other disposition of products on refuge lands to be paid to counties. 

The Act was amended in 1964 to make it more like the payment-in-lieu of tax program. The new provisions distinguished between acquired lands that are purchased 

by the Service and lands that are withdrawn from the public domain for administration by the Service. For fee lands, the counties received 3/4 of 1 percent of the adjusted value of the land or 25 percent of the net receipts, whichever was greater, 

with the value of the land to be reappraised every 5 years. They continued to receive 

25 percent of the net receipts collected on the withdrawn public domain lands in 

their county. 

The Act was amended again in 1978 in order to provide payments that better reflected market land values to counties with lands administered by the Service within their boundaries. The method used to determine the adjusted cost of the land acquired during the depression years of the 1930’s (using agricultural land indices) resulted in continuing low land values compared to the land prices that existed in 

1978. Also, other lands that were purchased during periods of inflated land values 

were found to be overvalued. The Congress decided that the payments did not adequately reflect current tax values of the property. It also recognized that national 

wildlife refuges are established first and foremost for the protection and enhancement of wildlife and that many produce little or no income that could be shared 

with the local county. 

In the 1978 amendments, Congress chose to distinguish between lands acquired 

in fee and lands withdrawn from the public domain, by recognizing that the financial impact on counties tends to be greater when lands are directly withdrawn from 

the tax rolls, rather than when the refuge unit is created out of the public domain 

and has never been subject to a property tax. The formula adopted then, and still 

in effect, allows the Service to pay counties containing lands acquired in fee the 

greater of: 75 cents per acre, 3/4 of 1 percent of the fair market value of that land, 

or 25 percent of the net receipts collected from the area. If receipts are insufficient 

to satisfy these payments, appropriations are authorized to make up the difference. 

Counties can use funds for any government purpose, and pass through the funds 

to lesser units of local government within the county that experience a reduction 

of real property taxes as a result of the existence of Service fee lands within their 

boundaries. Counties with Service lands that are withdrawn from the public domain 

continue to receive 25 percent of the receipts collected from the area and are paid 

under the provisions of the PILT Act. 

I would like to note that many of the same concerns we have previously expressed 

regarding PILT funding hold true for RRS funding as well. We continue to engage 

in discussions with the National Association of Counties concerning issues associated with the allocation formula and we believe those issues should be addressed 

before considering such a significant action as converting these payments to permanent mandatory payments. 

20

Although the Administration supports the purpose of H.R. 1005, we must oppose 

it for the same reasons that we opposed an identical bill last year in the 107th 

Congress. We support protections for local governments against the loss of property 

tax revenue when private lands are acquired by a Federal agency. However, the Administration is opposed to creating a new mandatory spending category to fund 

these programs because it would force the Federal Government either to raise taxes 

or cut into other programs that are integral to the President’s budget and important 

to the American public. 

Conclusion 

The Administration recognizes that these payments are important to local governments, sometimes comprising a significant portion of their operating budgets. The 

PILT and RRS monies have been used for critical functions such as local search and 

rescue operations, road maintenance, law enforcement, schools and emergency services. These expenditures often support the activities of people from around the country who visit or recreate on Federal lands. The Department looks forward to continuing to work cooperatively with the communities on these important issues. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or the other members may have. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Kearney. 

Mr. Davis? 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON DAVIS, COMMISSIONER, 

RIO BLANCO, COLORADO 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Subcommittee members, it is 

an honor to appear before you to present this testimony in support 

of H.R. 1005. My name is Don Davis, and I am a county commissioner from Rio Blanco County, Colorado. I serve as Chairman of 

the Public Lands Steering Committee of Colorado Counties Incorporated, and as president of the Western Interstate Region of the 

National Association of Counties. 

H.R. 1005, the PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing Permanent 

Funding Act represents a bipartisan effort to provide an ongoing, 

secure source of funding. This legislation, introduced in the House 

by Chairman McInnis, would permanently fund these two programs so critical to public land counties. It is landmark legislation 

and should be enacted without delay. 

Counties are the general-purpose local government that must 

provide public services both for the Federal employees and their 

families and for the users of Federal lands. These local services include law enforcement, search and rescue, firefighting, health care, 

solid waste disposal, road and bridge maintenance, et cetera. 

In 1976, Congress enacted, and President Ford signed, the Payment In Lieu of Taxes Act. Under the 1976 PILT formula, total 

payments nationwide averaged about $100 million annually, depending on the level established each year in the appropriations 

process. There was no allowance for inflation. 

In 1994 Congress amended the PILT formula at the request of 

the National Association of Counties to recognize inflationary costs. 

Unfortunately, in the intervening 8 years, no Presidential budget 

has requested, nor has any Congress yet appropriated, the amount 

authorized under the revised formula. 

NACo and CCI with to go on record to applaud the members of the House of Representatives for requesting a historic $225 million 

for PILT in Fiscal Year 2004. That was passed just a few days ago. 

We thank you for your strong support. However, though we are 

21

grateful for any increased appropriation, we view incremental 

increases as stop-gap measures. PILT should not be seen as just 

another spending program in the BLM, and it should not have to 

compete with worthwhile conservation programs within the Interior and related agencies. 

In Colorado, 56 out of the 63 counties contain Federal lands. 

There are a total of 23.6 million entitlement acres of Federal lands 

in Colorado. With annual PILT payment in 2002 of approximately 

$17.6 million, this works out to about 74 cents per acre. However, 

in Rio Blanco County, we have 1.5 million acres of Federal land 

and a PILT payment of $272,412, or about 18 cents per acre. In 

Hinsdale County in the southwestern part of the State, the situation is even worse. With 676,515 acres of Federal land, their PILT 

payment was only $70,770—about 10 cents an acre. 

The 676,515 acres of public lands in Hinsdale County represent 

95 percent of the county. There are only about 37,000 acres of private land. Three hundred and five miles of 326 miles of county 

roads are located on Federal lands. In the summer months, the 

population of Hinsdale County swells as much as 20-fold. The influx of recreation-seeking visitors creates extreme law enforcement 

challenges, which carry commensurate costs. Local property taxes 

for the 37,000 acres of private land averages $9.91 per acre, compared to 10 cents. 

The National Association of Counties also supports permanent 

funding for the Refuge Revenue Sharing Program through 

H.R. 1005. Federal Wildlife Refuge acreage is not automatically 

PILT-entitled. In fact, if it is acquired by Fish and Wildlife Services 

from private owners, it is not covered by PILT. This program is 

particularly important in the eastern States. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Don Davis, Commissioner, Rio Blanco County, 

Colorado, on behalf of The National Association of Counties & Colorado 

Counties, Inc. 

Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Subcommittee members, it is an honor to appear before you to present this testimony in support of H.R. 1005. My name is Don 

Davis, and I am a County Commissioner from Rio Blanco County, Colorado. I serve 

as Chairman of the Public Lands Steering Committee of Colorado Counties, Inc., 

and as President of the Western Interstate Region of the National Association of 

Counties (NACo). 

H.R. 1005, the PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing Permanent Funding Act, represents a bi-partisan effort to provide an ongoing secure source of funding for the 

counties entitled to payments under the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976. This 

legislation, introduced by my Congressman, Chairman McInnis, would permanently 

fund this program so critical to communities surrounded by Federally managed 

land. 

The Payments in Lieu of Taxes program has a two-fold purpose: (1) to help compensate counties ‘‘in lieu’’ of property taxes for the tax exempt nature of Federallyowned lands; and (2) to help reimburse counties for a portion of the costs of local 

services impacted by the activities on and visitors to the public lands. 

Counties are the general purpose local government that must provide public services for both Federal employees and their families and for the users of Federal 

lands. These local services include law enforcement, search and rescue, fire fighting, 

health care, solid waste disposal, local recreation programs, road and bridge maintenance, etc. There are more than 1900 counties nationwide that are eligible to receive 

PILT. 

In 1976, Congress enacted, and President Ford signed, the Payments in Lieu of 

Taxes Act. It was sponsored by Rep. Frank Evans of Colorado. This legislation was 

22

based upon a key finding of the Congressional Public Land Law Review Commission 

co-chaired by Rep. Wayne Aspinal of Colorado and Rep. Mo Udall of Arizona. Under 

the 1976 PILT formula, total payments nationwide averaged about $100 million annually, depending upon the level established each year in the appropriation process. 

There was no allowance for inflation. 

In 1994 Congress amended the PILT formula, at the request of the National Association of Counties, to recognize inflationary costs. Unfortunately, in the intervening 

eight years, no President has asked for, nor has any Congress appropriated, the full 

amount authorized under the revised formula. This lack of secure funding has been 

particularly distressing for rural public land counties like Rio Blanco County and 

Hinsdale County in Colorado. In the PILT formula there is a pro rata payment provision to disperse payment when less than full payment is provided. This provision 

adversely affects counties with large holdings of public lands that also have low populations. For example, one year the payment for Rio Blanco County actually dropped 

by $12,000 (about 8%) even though overall payment nationwide increased. NACo 

supports an amendment to the statutory formula which would, in conjunction with 

permanent full funding, allow the low-population high-entitlement-acreage counties 

to realize more of the benefit from PILT. However, even absent such an adjustment 

to the formula, this is an inequity that can largely be corrected by the enactment 

of H.R. 1005. 

In Colorado, 56 out of 63 counties contain Federal lands. There are a total of 23.6 

million ‘‘entitlement’’ acres of Federal lands in Colorado, with annual PILT payment 

in 2003 of approximately $17.6 million. This works out to about seventy-four cents 

per acre. 

However, in Rio Blanco County with 1.5 million acres of Federal land, the PILT payment was $272,412, or about eighteen cents per acre. In Hinsdale County the 

situation is even worse. With 676,515 acres of Federal land their PILT payment was 

only $70,770, about ten cents per acre. 

The 676,515 acres of public lands in Hinsdale County represents 95% of the county. There are only about 37,000 acres of private land. This means that 305 miles 

of the 326 miles of county roads are located on Federal lands. In summer months, 

the population of Hinsdale County swells as much as a twenty-fold. The influx of 

recreation seeking visitors creates extreme law enforcement challenges which carry 

commensurate costs. In fact, a former Hinsdale County Sheriff was killed on public 

lands by a poacher. Local property taxes for the 37,000 acres of private lands averaged $9.91 per acre, compared to the ten cents per acre averaged for the PILT payment. 

In Rio Blanco County we have a similar situation. Approximately 500 miles of the 

900 miles of county roads are located on Federal lands. The county is impacted by 

extensive natural resource activities on these Federal lands. We have oil and natural gas production, coal production, nacholite (or sodium bicarbonate) production, 

plus considerable hunting, fishing and recreation activities. Quite frankly, Rio Blanco County cannot adequately keep up with the demand for local services. We need 

your help. Rio Blanco County is also facing the future development of the world’s 

richest deposit of oil shale. Shell Oil Company is currently operating a research facility in our county that looks promising. Development of these critical national resources requires extensive infrastructure investment at the local level; particularly 

if the development is going to be done in a manner which is sustains important ecological values. 

This year, the state and local governments in Colorado, across the west and in 

fact across the country, face increased fire fighting costs due to the high risk of catastrophic forest fires this summer. I am concerned that Colorado faces a real threat 

of more future fires from eco-terrorists. We have suffered previous eco-terrorist attacks in Eagle County, where a ski lodge was burned, and in Boulder County, where 

a new home was burned. When well-meaning mainstream environmental organizations express concern over efforts to reduce fire risk through fuel treatment programs outside the wildland urban interface, I fear that the more radical fringe 

groups may initiate eco-terrorist activities to stop programs they oppose. In any 

event, whenever any of these fires spread to private lands, suppression becomes a 

state or local responsibility, and a costly one, at that. 

The National Association of Counties also supports fully funding the Refuge Revenue Sharing program through H.R. 1005. The acreage in wildlife refuges managed 

by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is not automatically PILT entitlement acreage. 

In fact, if it was acquired by the Fish & Wildlife Service from private owners, it 

is not covered by PILT. The Refuge Revenue Sharing program is how local governments are compensated for this special category of Federally owned tax-exempt 

land. This program is particularly important in states outside the west where most 

of the wildlife refuges were not carved out of the public domain but have been acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:22 Jan 07, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88530.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
23

quired by the Federal Government from private landowners. For example, in FY 

2003, counties in the State of Maryland received over $290,000 in Refuge Revenue 

Sharing, but only about $92,000 in PILT. Similarly, Delaware counties received 

about $126,000 in Refuge Revenue Sharing, but only about $3,000 in PILT. 

Some have suggested that PILT does not need to be funded at its full authorization because many counties receive payments under programs like the Secure Rural 

Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (PL 106-393), thus implying that 

counties are overpaid under Federal programs. Please remember the facts: 

1. The National Forests have produced billions of dollars of revenues to the 

Federal treasury in recent years. Furthermore, Title II projects under PL 106-

393 will add millions more in badly needed revenues for Federal forest restoration projects selected collaboratively by Resource Advisory Committees. 

2. National forest moneys to counties under PL 106-393 are dedicated to roads 

and schools. PILT payments are flexible, discretionary general funds, needed 

to pay for the services counties must provide to visitors of these Federal lands 

and to the lands themselves (e.g., public health and safety, search and rescue, 

solid waste treatment and disposal). These two programs serve different, but 

critical functions, yet both relate directly to tax-exempt Federal lands. 

3. PL 106-393 Title I and III payments reduce the amount of PILT payments received by a county. By operation of the PILT formula, when the Federal Government increases its support for roads and schools, it reduces its support of 

the other Federal land-related local services counties must provide. For example, Crook County, Oregon, saw its PILT payment drop from $824,141 in FY 

2002 to $170,812 in FY 2003! Chelan County, Washington, received $1,131,714 

last year and only $857,298 this year. Tehama County, California, dropped 

from $324,602 to $81,184. In rural areas where vast stretches of Federal lands 

are located, this is real money that cannot be replaced. 

The uniqueness of both the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program and of natural resource revenue sharing programs must be explicitly recognized and strictly 

maintained. PILT must not be confused with the various revenue sharing programs 

which are linked to natural resource development and usually have strings attached 

as to their use. 

NACo believes that Congress was correct to enact PILT and Refuge Revenue 

Sharing legislation to compensate counties for the tax-exempt status of Federal 

lands and to help defray some of the local costs associated with activities on these 

lands. As a county official actively involved in NACo’s efforts to secure equitable 

funding for these programs, I urge you to approve H.R. 1005. This bi-partisan legislation would provide a much needed and secure level of funding of annual PILT payment to public land counties throughout the country. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

Mr. MCINNIS. [Presiding] Don, I wasn’t here. I was out of the 

room temporarily when you first came up. Thank you very much 

for coming. You have been a terrific participant on these issues 

over the years, and I appreciate very much your service as a commissioner up there. I know you are well-respected in your area. 

Do we have any questions by members of the panel? Go ahead, 

Mr. Pearce. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would direct a question 

at Mr. Kearney. 

My district is about 9 hours to get across it, and that is at 75 

miles an hour. It is very large, it is very rural. One of our western 

counties, Catron County, for example, has about 18,000 square 

miles. New Mexico is 60 percent public lands. The budgets in our 

counties with a high percent of public lands are being decimated. 

In Catron County alone we have lost 250,000 animal units. That 

is a tremendous piece of their tax base to run the functioning of 

the county. 

If you think that the PILT payments should not be fully funded, 

what are these counties to do as they continue to be affected by the 

Endangered Species—that is taking—your Department, in a lot of 

cases, is affecting the tax base tremendously. Then you have people 

24

who are moving into these areas and voluntarily taking animal 

units off. Ted Turner has bought a lot of land in New Mexico and 

has really taken a lot of the productive assets off of those lands. 

What are these counties to do if we are not to—if you are going 

to continue to buy up land from the Federal Government and continue to erode the tax base, exactly how do you perceive that these 

counties can function? 

Mr. KEARNEY. Well, sir, I think those are challenges that are increasingly growing in your area and elsewhere around the West, 

and we are keenly aware of them. We think that there are a number of programs throughout the Department, a number of activities 

throughout the Department that perhaps can be of assistance in 

trying to deal with some of those issues, other than those dollars. 

And I think that we would be happy to work with you and your 

staff on specific problems and challenges you are facing in those 

issue areas with respect to how we can best address them across 

the board in terms of the different programs and agencies that we 

have. There are an enormous number of agencies and programs 

that we have that we think can also try to be helpful with that. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Kearney. The term ‘‘assistance,’’ if 

you give assistance, frankly, these people just want to make their 

own living. A lot of the farmers and ranchers have existed there 

for generations. On these allotments and the permits, the grazing 

permits are being taken away from them and not renewed. At some 

point you are not going to have any ranchers who are willing to 

take that. And if you think that there is a mess on public lands 

today that are burning without ceasing in the West, if you take the 

animal units off, if you take the grazing off, then I think the environmental damage is going to be extreme, because the field load 

buildup is going to do that. 

And as you were talking about the programs in the Department 

that are affecting the life—and your willingness to offer assistance, 

the wolf introduction program is occurring in Catron County. They 

got rid of the wolves because they were decimating the livestock 

population out there, and now they are being reintroduced. And not 

only that, but it is not just wolves that are being reintroduced. 

They are taking the problem wolves from my friend Mr. Renzi’s 

State, the ones that are too dangerous there, kill too much livestock, do too much damage, they bring them over and put them in 

the corner of my State and then I am not really too appreciative 

of that because I get to answer the questions when I go in and talk 

to my constituents. 

And so instead of providing assistance, your agencies are providing more economic damage to a very, very troubled economy—

to individuals, but also to the counties that are trying to function 

with decreasing budgets. Do you—what about some of the programs that are causing such disarray? I will let you answer, and 

that is my last question. Thank you. 

Mr. KEARNEY. Sir, we understand that there are problems and 

challenges out there on the land that are affecting ranchers and 

grazers and all the issues that you have addressed, and we are 

working hard to make sure that we fully appreciate the impacts of 

all of the things that are happening on the land and that we are 

working with the people on the land to try to deal with those 

25

issues, and stand ready to try to do that and address them any way 

that we can. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you. Mr. Udall? 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will be brief. I 

wanted to welcome Commissioner Davis as well, and clarify for the 

record that you are from Rio Blanco County. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. It is always great to have a Coloradan here. 

I just wanted to associate myself with the Chairman’s legislation, 

and make a remark to the effect that PILT is especially good because it provides certainty to the counties. And it doesn’t link payments to management decisions, so that commissioners in whatever county it may be aren’t forced to weigh in on all the portfolio 

of public lands issues—timber, mining, wilderness, water projects, 

anything that has to do with affecting your revenues. 

So if we could get this done, and I want to urge the administration to be creative in looking at how we pass this legislation and 

fund it, then you all could turn your attention to some of the pressing problems and opportunities you have instead of every year having to fight for your PILT funding. 

So I want to again thank the Chairman for this very important 

piece of legislation for westerners, and a number of easterners as 

well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Udall. 

I would like to, before I go to Mr. Cannon, just to mention one 

thing about the PILT and so on. As you know, Mr. Davis—you and 

I have talked on a number of occasions—PILT is but a small part 

of the reimbursement if you consider the entire impact to the area. 

I have noticed recently that in some of the water debate that is 

going on within the borders of our State, that some have said, well, 

we are going to pay payment in lieu of taxes and you ought to be 

satisfied. Well, that does not satisfy the mitigation that is required. 

PILT is just a partial reimbursement to assist the counties in the 

impact. 

So I would—I am saying this not so much for our people in attendance today, but for the permanent record. We do not—despite 

the fact that PILT has never really been fully funded, even if it 

was, even if we got everything we wanted under PILT, it is only 

a partial mitigation of the impact that results from some of these 

lands, which run all the way from water diversions to roads, as Mr. 

Udall said, and some of the services that are rendered. 

With that, Mr. Cannon, you may proceed. And welcome to the 

Committee, Mr. Cannon. Also, I want to publicly acknowledge that 

Mr. Cannon chairs our Western Caucus Coalition, which is kind of 

the voice of the West. And as many of you know, many of our colleagues here in the east don’t really have public lands. The public 

lands are in the West, the bulk of the public lands. So we feel a 

voice for the Western Caucus is very important. Mr. Cannon carries out that task very well. I appreciate your service. 

Mr. Cannon, you may proceed. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here as a member of the Resources Committee, but not 

of the Subcommittee. I appreciate your allowing me to be here. I 

26

appreciate and thank you for the bill that you have introduced that 

is before us today. 

Let me begin by associating myself with the remarks of my good 

friend, Mr. Udall. We see differently on many issues in the West, 

but on this one we see the same thing. Let me just reiterate a couple of points. 

PILT is important because you can’t jerk it if you don’t like what 

counties do. That is very important for our counties as they make 

the decisions. Second, Mr. Udall referred to people in the West appreciating this, but also people in the east. We often hear this 

chant that these are all America’s public lands, but America 

doesn’t pay for them. The cost comes in proximity. There is a huge 

penalty paid by the counties that have these public lands within 

their borders, and they are not—as the Chairman just indicated, 

those costs are not covered by this program. 

So first of all, let me thank you, Mr. Davis, for being here. We 

appreciate your perspective on this issue. Mr. Kearney, I have sat 

on the other side of the—where you are sitting now, and I know 

that it is sometimes uncomfortable. But let me just express for myself, and I think I express this as a uniform voice for the Western 

Caucus, we are exceedingly disappointed in the position of the administration on this issue. Exceedingly disappointed. We just 

fought the issue on the floor in the last few days. 

And I am going to give you a chance to respond in just a moment 

here, but as I read your testimony, it is not adequate. We represent, as you look at the map—some people call it the blue and 

red map—I call it the red map with blue fringes, because the bulk 

of the map is rural counties, and that represents the electoral base 

of this President, and we expect, in this particular case, to have response. 

Are you familiar, Mr. Kearney, with the work by my—the Speaker of my House of Representatives in Utah, Marty Stevens? He 

calls it ‘‘Apple—’’ 

Mr. KEARNEY. Yes, sir. He has been in to brief folks at the Interior Department, yes, sir. 

Mr. CANNON. Do you recall the conclusions from that presentation, about how Federal lands in western states affects the funding for schools? 

Mr. KEARNEY. In essence, one of his concerns, as I recall, was 

that there has been an increased demand in counties in his and 

other States where the increased population has put an increased 

demand on education without— 

Mr. CANNON. I think you have missed the point. What he has 

done here is a gross look at the West versus the East. He has 

looked at the percentage of taxes that people pay in western States, 

he has looked at the percentage of the budget that States apply toward education, and what he comes up with is a yawing gap between what is paid in the West for education and what is paid in 

the east. So we are taxed more heavily, we pay more heavily, and 

the only difference, adjusting for everything else, the only difference is the public lands that we have in the West. 

So we get to pay the cost of those public lands in our higher 

taxes, in our lower expenditure on children, and you say to us 

today that the administration strongly opposes, or is opposed to 

27

H.R. 1005 because it would force the Federal Government to either 

raise taxes or cut other programs. 

Now, with all due respect, isn’t this a matter of adjusting priorities, not cutting programs? We have cut taxes. This administration 

has cut taxes. In the process, we are going to re-juggle things. 

Would you mind addressing that issue, particularly the issue of 

whether we are going to have to raise taxes; second, whether we 

don’t have room to fix this program in place, since our counties 

have to count on it; and finally, if it is a priority and we are going 

to do it anyway, why not do it the way this bill suggests? 

Mr. KEARNEY. Mr. Cannon, there is no question that this program and the issues associated with this program and the demands 

that it places on the counties are of critical importance and a challenge that has to be addressed. We are, within the confines of the 

budget the President has submitted and the position of this administration with respect to mandatory spending being clear, however 

it is also clear that we believe strongly in the program, strongly in 

what it is trying to do. We have provided, I believe, an unprecedented increase in this program with respect to past years and, 

frankly, within the context of the overall Interior Department 

budget. With respect to that, we have gone well above. We are 

somewhere on the order of 20 percent over what the rest of the programs within the administration budget for Interior received. We 

are much closer to what Congress is on track to provide for this 

program. We are addressing administrative changes with respect to 

the money. 

Mr. CANNON. But I don’t think you are answering the question 

that I asked, if you don’t mind. 

Mr. KEARNEY. In terms of prioritization, there is no question that 

there are a variety of priorities that have got to be addressed, and 

this is one of them. And within the constraints of the budget that 

the administration has submitted and the position of this administration, I think we have demonstrated that it is one of the highest 

priorities at the Department of Interior, as well as also recognizing 

that we do have other priorities in addition to that in terms of 

matters related to homeland security, in terms of fire, in terms of 

education—other programs that affect the West and western counties as well—in the broader budget of the administration. 

So it is, we believe, a high priority of the administration with respect to—within the confines of the budget that we have and the 

setting of the priorities. 

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent for 

an additional minute? 

Mr. MCINNIS. Certainly. You may proceed. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. Let me just point out that it is not a 

matter of cutting taxes or cutting other programs. In fact, there are 

lots of other options. For instance, we have, I think, already identified by the Interior Department 5 million acres of surplus lands. 

We can sell those lands. 

Let me just end by saying that we appreciate the priority that 

is given the West. We have to do this stuff with homeland security 

because we have this huge and untended forest and other public 

lands that could go up in vapor overnight and ruin our environment, kill endangered species, and we have people that have the 

28

animus to do that. So we have to do some of those things. That is 

not helping our counties. It is nice that that is being done, but that 

is an American obligation by the American people, and our counties 

are the folks that are suffering the disproportionate burden. Because every time you guys do—or every time the Federal Government, not the Interior Department—but as the Federal Government creates mandates on our local police, we have to pay them 

in our counties, and that is a huge disproportionate impact on rural 

counties as compared with the urban counties. 

Let me just tell you plainly. It is the highest priority of the Western Caucus—that is the 125 or so westerners who are associated 

with the caucus, so I can’t speak for all of them, but I am pretty 

sure that most of them have that view, and the 50 or 60 that are 

active and regularly involved in the Western Caucus—to get PILT 

funded fully up to the level of the appropriation. And we want to 

raise that over time. 

Secondly, this bill is of major importance. I suspect you will find 

that the Western Caucus members are going to focus on this over 

this next few months, and we will weigh in again and again and 

again until we solve this problem. Solving the problem is raising 

the funding and making it permanent. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CANNON. Certainly. Whatever remains of that minute. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Just briefly. I have been listening intently trying to find a place where I could disagree with my good friend Mr. 

Cannon, and I can’t. And so I further want to associate myself with 

your remarks and let this administration know that this is a bipartisan effort on the part of western members of this House, to fully 

fund PILT and, as the Chairman has said, make real the promise 

that has been presented for so many years to western counties. 

Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentleman for that. I am wondering if 

we are going to get lightning or something here. This is at least 

a historic moment. I thank the gentleman. 

Now, I suggest that as you consider this, it is not just the Western Caucus, but a huge number of people who have a bipartisan 

interest. I think I can speak for those people that I deal with often 

who are northeastern Republicans, who often disagree with us on 

western issues. I don’t think you are going to find a bit of disagreement on this issue. That is, that they are going to want—they understand that there is a disproportionate burden, they are my 

friends and the friends of other members of the Western Caucus. 

They are going to want something to happen here. And we are 

clear on this point and want to express that we the greatest clarity 

that we possibly can. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do yield back. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Cannon and Mr. Udall. 

I would just note, for sensitivity purposes, that in the statement 

which is being referred to, the language ‘‘because it would force the 

Federal Government to either raise taxes or cut into other programs,’’ what the Federal Government needs to realize is that they 

have forced Mr. Davis and his county to either raise taxes or cut 

into other programs. So it is really kind of ironic that the Government comes, takes the land off the tax rolls, forces the local county 

29

to have to subsidize or raise taxes, and then when it is time for 

them to pay their fair share, they say, oh, my gosh, we don’t want 

to have to cut our programs. It just ain’t good. 

So to wrap this up, Mr. Davis, do you have anything else? I know 

some points have come up that you might want to answer. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, your last remark is very much to the 

point. And as you know, in Colorado, county commissioners don’t 

raise taxes. It takes a vote of the people. And we recently attempted to do that, because our economy is going the way of many 

economies across our Nation. And the people said no. So we have 

done all the liposuction on the fat that we can, and we are now—

we are watching the blood flow. And it is very serious. This is one 

program that could help us. 

That is one point. And another is, it isn’t all the West. Last year 

I sat here with a lady from North Carolina. There are many eastern states that have PILT. As a matter of fact, I think the only one 

that does not have PILT is Rhode Island. 

Mr. CANNON. Would the Chairman yield for just one more comment. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Yes, sure. Go ahead. 

Mr. CANNON. I would ask you, Mr. Kearney, and I know you 

have to run this stuff through—your testimony through OMB, but 

you may want to take a pencil or yell at those guys and not let 

them force you to say things like ‘‘the problem here is raising taxes 

or cutting programs.’’ That is something that I think you guys can 

control in Interior. At least you ought to be yelling at them if they 

insist on that kind of language, which is deeply offensive. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Cannon. I know that, at least as 

Chairman of the Committee, I have had a number of discussions 

with Mr. Renzi on this issue, on this particular issue. Mr. Renzi, 

if you wouldn’t mind, I would appreciate you just kind of covering 

some of that area real quickly. 

Mr. RENZI. Yes, thank you. In a matter of saving some time, I 

will hold my questions, which were really covered by Mr. Cannon. 

I just want to associate myself with my colleague Mr. Pearce’s 

comments about the wolf and the way we treat our neighbors out 

west. That rare and endangered wolf introduction program turns 

out, as we found out recently, and we suspected early on, that 

these wolves also have now dog DNA in them. And so these hybrid 

wolves that are destroying many of the cattle in the West, and particularly putting some of our ranchers out of business, it turns out 

they contain dog DNA. Not even they are hybrid wolves. 

So I lend myself to the comments of my colleagues as it relates 

to wanting to see the PILT program fully funded and, hopefully, 

these increases that we are hoping for, I think—did you mention 

21 percent? Hopefully we will see that begin to grow. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Are there any further questions by the members? 

Seeing no further questions, I want to thank the panel. Thank you 

very much. I appreciate it. As you know this is a very high issue 

of interest, would be a good way to put it. So thank you again. Appreciate it, and appreciate the distance you have traveled. We will 

now call up our witnesses for H.R. 2707. Ms. Estill and Mr. James 

30

Tate, with the Department of Interior. Mr. Stenholm, thank you for 

coming. If you would like to join us at the dais, you are more than 

welcome to, or at the table, whatever your choice would be. Go 

ahead and be seated. Thank you very much for coming. 

Because of the size of the panel, we are going to do the panel in 

two sections. We will do the first people that I have called, and 

then we will bring up the second panel. We will withhold questions 

until we have had both panels make their presentations. 

I am pleased today to have Mr. Stenholm and Mr. Pearce both 

come to the Committee for testimony on this. Mr. Stenholm, I will 

let you begin with your statement, and then we will move to Mr. 

Pearce, and then on to the rest of the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis on H.R. 2707 follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, on H.R. 2707

Today the Subcommittee will consider Tamarisk eradication legislation offered by 

my friend and Colleague Stevan Pearce, who I want to personally commend for his 

hard work and leadership on this important issue. I look forward to hearing from 

all of our witnesses today, including my old friend Dr. John Redifer from Colorado, 

and working with the Members of this Committee over the coming weeks to get 

Tamarisk control legislation enacted into law. 

Every year billions of gallons of the West’s water—that’s right, I said billions—

are sopped up by a tenacious and all-too-prevalent invasive tree called Tamarisk, 

or Salt Cedar. If you’ve been out kayaking or rafting the Colorado River, or gone 

fly-fishing on one of her many tributaries, you’ve seen this harmless looking tree—

it’s seems to be everywhere. 

But make no mistake about it—this non-native vegetation is anything but harmless. Tamarisk is the equivalent of a massive rat hole on the West’s waterways. It 

is robbing the West blind of its most cherished commodity—water. 

Consider these facts: 

When it comes to water in the West, it’s not too often that you find an area on 

which everyone agrees. But in Tamarisk, it appears that we finally have a common 

enemy. Upper basin States, lower basin States, California, Colorado, environmentalists, fisherman, those who want more dams, and the ‘‘flat-earthers’’ trying drain 

Lake Powell—all seem to agree that a massive Federal, state, local and private effort is needed to yank this unwanted invader from the banks of the West’s rivers 

and streams. 

Congress can’t make it rain, but giving land managers the tool to eradicate 

Tamarisk isn’t a bad days work. It’s a big challenge, and it won’t be cheap or easy—

we should have no allusion about that. But it is a no brainer 

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Stenholm, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES W. STENHOLM, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. STENHOLM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and the 

members of the Committee for allowing me to testify here this 

morning. I commend the Resources Committee for taking such 

swift action on this bill that my colleague, Congressman Steve 

Pearce, and I have been working on so diligently. 

The effects of the salt cedar and Russian olive invasion can be 

seen in more than half of the continental United States. I am glad 

today’s panel includes scientists, individuals working in the field to 

control this non-native species, and I will gladly leave the science 

on this issue for them to explain. 

I want to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of 

brush control demonstration projects and outline the benefits of 

these programs for our communities in western United States. 

31

I represent the 17th Congressional District in the West Central 

part of Texas. As in much of America, drought has certainly left 

its mark on West Texas. As a result, salt cedar proliferated in this 

area as receding waters left ideal conditions for growth of this 

invasive plant. The devastating results, evident throughout the 

Upper Colorado River basin, have become more acute in recent 

years as the salt cedar invasion has severely diminished the availability of fresh water supplies. 

Not only is this the largest waste of fresh water in the West, but 

salt cedar increases soil salinity and fire frequency. It develops into 

monotypic thickets that displace valuable native plant and tree 

species, and has virtually no economic or environmental benefit. To 

underscore the devastation this plant causes, I offer this example. 

The Colorado River Municipal Water District estimates that the 

salt cedar consumed more water in 2002 than the district’s largest 

municipal customer, a city with more than 100,000 people. 

The combined capacity of the district’s three reservoirs fell below 

25 percent during 2002, and it became readily apparent that salt 

cedar was robbing municipalities of this precious resource. The district has worked closely with many Federal, State, and local entities to begin brush control projects within the Colorado River watershed. In cooperation with private and public land managers, the 

Colorado River Municipal Water District implemented salt cedar 

control projects with reasonable success. Further, private land owners have partnered with the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service to employ brush control on their properties, and in some 

cases the dormant streams and creeks have again begun to flow 

where those brush control projects were put into action. 

I am convinced this bill moves in the direction toward real solutions to the salt cedar and Russian olive invasion. It outlays the 

framework for private and public land managers to cooperate with 

the Department of Interior, USDA, Army Corps of Engineers, local 

soil and water conservation districts, and State agencies to work together in these demonstration programs. After all, it will take integrated control and management practices to significantly deter further spread of this non-native species. 

I believe Congress should play an integral role in the mitigation 

of these invasive pests, since much of the invasion has occurred on 

Federal lands. More importantly, Congress cannot ignore the fact 

that Federal agencies introduced the use of Russian olive to minimize soil erosion in riparian areas. Since that introduction, these 

plants have spread throughout the United States, and therefore we 

must take a proactive approach to restore our public and private 

lands to healthy levels. 

The fact remains, to minimize the wasteful reductions in our Nation’s water supply, Congress must take immediate action to implement a control plan for sale cedar. I have worked closely and tirelessly during my time in Congress to address the scarce water situation in West Texas. I can attest that brush control efforts have 

produced most lasting results in the 17th District. Like most of the 

United States, West Texas has been devastated by drought, highlighting the importance of developing a long-term plan to ensure 

that communities will have an adequate supply of drinking water. 

In the 17th District of Texas there is virtually nothing of greater 

32

daily concern than the availability of fresh water. And while our 

demand for water grows, the supply dwindles. In order to meet projected water needs, we must develop integrated plans to increase 

supplies while reducing demand for water. 

I close by saying that, unlike a barrel of oil, it is tough to put 

a price on clean, fresh water. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to testify. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Stenholm. 

Mr. Pearce? 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE PEARCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

you for your willingness to address this problem by holding hearings. I would also like to express my appreciation for you and your 

staff for working diligently with me to produce this bill. 

Also, thanks to Mr. Stenholm, who has been tireless in working 

with me on the bill, and for the hard work that we are doing to 

ensure passage of this important measure. 

I would also like to thank Mr. Tom Davis, who is on the panel 

today. He is the president of the Carlsbad Irrigation District. He 

is here to testify. He has long been involved in salt cedar eradication. His testimony will share valuable experience and knowledge 

as we move forward. Mr. Davis is the one who almost singlehandedly tries to balance the water needs of the southern portion 

of New Mexico, where the Pecos runs into Texas. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, salt cedar and Russian olive are 

both invasive species that adversely impact the water supply. They 

increase soil salinity, they lower the potential water that soil can 

hold, and increase the fire frequency. Just a few weeks ago, in Albuquerque, several hundred homes along the Rio Grande River 

burned, forcing about 600 people to be evacuated from their homes. 

This fire burned many of the native cottonwood and willow trees. 

One of the main culprits being blamed for the escalation of the fire 

is the large amount of underbrush that had collected. Most of that 

was salt cedar. Without the buildup of salt cedar, the fire probably 

would not have burned as extensively or with the intensity that it 

did. 

One of the problems that is caused by the salt cedar is an inability to deliver the water to Texas that the Supreme Court has allocated. As you know, the Supreme Court made compacts between all 

of the States to determine the amount of water that each State 

gets. In specifically dry years, the upstream States are put at extreme disadvantage, and then, with the invasion of species that are 

sucking the water out of the river, deliveries are extremely difficult, causing economic chaos as disarray as well as the inability 

for communities to have the water which they deserve and need. 

The particularly difficult piece of this whole equation is that this 

plant is not native. It is a non-native species that was imported 

and is now being used by environmental communities to establish 

habitat and to establish the reasons for habitat being recognized. 

Salt cedar is widely distributed and is extensive along riparian 

areas in the western United States, particularly along Colorado, 

Rio Grande, Pecos, the Gila rivers. Controlling and, hopefully 1 

33

day, completely eradicating salt cedar and Russian olive is important. As we eradicate salt cedar, we will increase the flow of water 

in streams, springs, and rivers, restore native plants that are less 

water-consuming, and improve habitat. 

Because of the widespread nature of salt cedar and Russian 

olive, there have been many projects to clear these trees and then 

to estimate how much water was saved. The increased stream 

flows and water restoration estimates vary widely. The high range 

is from 69 acre-feet saved per year down to a low of between 0 to 

1.5 acre-feet per year per acre cleared. The last estimate is based 

on a study done by the USGS on the Pecos River in New Mexico. 

H.R. 2707 directs the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to 

implement demonstration projects over large acreages and time 

scales in order to monitor the actual saved water on both surface 

and ground water. This information will allow the Secretaries to 

formulate a comprehensive management plan, including cost, and 

distinguish when and where eradication methods are most effective. Almost everyone can agree, regardless of what side of the political spectrum they are on, that controlling salt cedar and Russian olive for water salvage, riparian restoration, salinity control, 

fire control, and habitat restoration is a positive benefit. However, 

without the input of good scientific input, this task may well prove 

to be impossible. H.R. 2707 will provide the sound scientific basis 

needed for our continuing to contribute new, innovative approaches 

and solutions. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Stenholm. I look forward to working with you to make any changes and improvements 

to this bill and secure passage so this important work can move 

forward. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Pearce. 

Ms. Estill? 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTILL, DEPUTY CHIEF, 

PROGRAMS, LEGISLATION, AND COMMUNICATIONS, FOREST 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. ESTILL. Thank you for the opportunity to provide USDA’s 

views on H.R. 2707, the Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control 

Demonstration Act, which directs the Secretary of Interior and the 

Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Forest Service, to 

carry out a demonstration program to assess potential water savings through control of salt cedar and Russian olive on forest and 

public lands under their jurisdiction. 

One of the greatest threats to the national forest is this spread 

of unwanted, invasive species. The Department agrees completely 

with the goals of H.R. 2707, which would provide important information for managing two non-native invasive species that, as we 

have heard, pose significant ecological threats in the western 

United States. However, the Department has some concerns and 

would like to work with the Subcommittee to clarify and improve 

the bill. 

The genus Tamarix, commonly known as salt cedar, is comprised 

of shrubs or trees native to arid saline regions of Eurasia and Africa. Since the 1830’s, ten species have been introduced into North 

America as ornamental plants and for windbreaks. Two species of 

34

salt cedar have escaped cultivation and rapidly invaded riparian 

areas of the western United States. Today, salt cedar has infested 

over 1 million acres in the western United States, consuming large 

quantities of water, intercepting deep water tables, and interfering 

with natural aquatic systems. It disrupts the structure and stability of native plant communities and degrades native wildlife 

habitat. 

Russian olive is also a native of southern Europe and western 

Asia that was first introduced in the last 1800’s as an ornamental 

tree and windbreak. Although it is a non-native invasive species, 

Russian olive is also a popular and hardy plant that is sold commercially for landscaping purposes. However, as its impact to native species has become evident, it has been declared a noxious species in some States, and sales have been banned in others, such as 

Colorado. Like salt cedar, Russian olive is a fast-growing plant that 

can out-compete native vegetation and tax water reserves. 

We would like to work with the Subcommittee and the Department of Interior to clarify the roles of the departments and the 

agency referenced in the bill, to specify components and requirements of the assessment report, and to develop criteria for selection 

of the demonstration project areas. 

Land managers in communities are currently stretching their 

limited resources to address the ecological problems posed by these 

two species. The increased understanding of the impacts of these 

species on the quantity of surface and ground water, as well as the 

effectiveness of various treatments, would advance our Nation’s 

ability to avoid or reduce undesired ecological consequences. 

This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any 

questions. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Tate? 

STATEMENT OF JAMES TATE, SCIENCE ADVISOR TO THE 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. TATE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I am Jim Tate, science advisor to the Secretary of Interior, 

Gale Norton, and a former resident of Golden, Colorado. Seems like 

everybody here is from Colorado. 

I want to thank you for providing the Department of Interior the 

opportunity to testify on H.R. 2707. The Department of Interior 

supports the goals of H.R. 2707 and we are committed to working 

with you to ensure the program established will be both effective 

and efficient in the control and management of two of the invasive 

weeds that are affecting our Nation’s economy and its ecology. 

This legislation focuses on two of the dozens of weed species that 

plague our public and private lands. These two groups of weeds—

salt cedars, or tamarisk; and olives, both Russian and autumn—are 

similar in many ways. They have been shown to out-compete native 

vegetation, confound water management, and cost our economy 

millions of dollars. And they are different, in that salt cedar is established on millions of acres, but olives, by comparison, are just 

getting a good foothold. 

Studies conducted since the 1950’s have shown that dense 

tamarisk stands utilize more water on a daily basis than native 

cottonwood, willow plant communities. Based on these studies, 

35

estimates have been made that water lost for irrigation, municipal 

uses, flood control, and hydropower run between $133 million and 

$265 million. Irrigation losses alone are as much as $120 million 

annually. 

But I have to suggest caution in how we say these things about 

the use of water by tamarisk, in particular. The use of water is divided into evapotranspiration—the water that is utilized by the 

plant itself—and other effects on water management, such as percolation of water into the alluvium, when the water is slowed down 

by dense stands. Water released for irrigation purposes from an upstream reservoir may not even get to their intended destination 

when tamarisk is blocking the channel. The effects of tamarisk and 

olive on other natural resource values have been documented as 

well and are equally as important as the water-management confounding effects. 

Currently DOI, the Department of Interior, uses strike teams to 

manage invasive plants on Federal lands, both in the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, where these teams are being developed, and modeled after the National Park Service’s exotic plant management 

teams. In some cases, such as olives, the resources potentially at 

risk have been detected early enough and can be spot-treated to 

avoid costly control efforts that might be necessary for tamarisk. 

This early detection and rapid response model is receiving increased attention as a means of preventing the spread and establishment of olives. 

But areas with well established species such as salt cedar require 

considerably more effort to manage. There, we have trained and 

certified specialists that clear areas vital to wildlife resources, and 

they use integrated management plans that involve both mechanical, chemical, and even physical means of removing the plants. 

Our National Wildlife Refuge at Bosque del Apache has served as 

a demonstration laboratory for the control and management of 

tamarisk, and that is a place we have been doing quite a bit of research. 

We do believe some additional research is needed. As identified 

in H.R. 2707, more precise information is needed on the extent of 

infestations, management options, control methods, strategies. 

Most urgently, more information is needed on areas that would 

most likely respond to restoration projects, and this would be needed to help develop an integrated control and restoration plan—a 

sort of best practices plan—that will provide land managers at all 

levels of Government with the options available to them for control. 

The Department currently promotes partnerships with private 

land owners, and there are a number of such programs mentioned 

in my written testimony. 

Currently, the Departments of Interior and Agricultural are cooperating in a cross-cut budget for Fiscal Year 2004. This is an 

interagency approach to invasive species control. This is a performance-based cross-cut, where the agencies work together to identify 

appropriated money directed to specific invasive species, such as 

tamarisk, and to develop common performance measures for the 

use of those monies. Under this performance umbrella, identified 

new and base funds will be applied in the Departments of Interior 

and Agriculture to control and manage the spread of tamarisk. 

36

As a means of deciding how to spend the Fiscal Year 2004 funds 

proposed in the President’s budget, the Department is considering 

a strategy workshop to be held in the West sometime this fall. The 

purpose would be to gain stakeholder input for our roadmap containing common protocols and decision criteria, best practices for 

tamarisk-control management. 

I will finish up very quickly. I see my time has expired. 

The Departmental views on H.R. 2707, we view the comprehensive assessment called for in Section 3(a) very positively, and we 

believe such an approach helps Federal land managers develop a 

more coordinated long-term approach. 

Section 3(b) would require the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to initiate demonstration projects. We recognize the importance of carrying out strictly controlled projects that would provide 

us with practical control methods; however, the language in this 

subsection, when viewed in combination with Subsection 2(a) and 

Subsection 3(d), does not make clear which secretary and how the 

program would be initiated. 

The legislation would authority $25 million for each of fiscal 

years 2004 through 2007. We are concerned the bill does not provide sufficient direction on how the appropriated funds could be 

distributed. 

And we also have concern about the overall costs of the program. 

While the administration’s cross-cut budget evidences our commitment to controlling invasive species, the program established under 

this legislation would have to compete with other priority activities 

within the context of the President’s budget. 

And finally, the Department notes that the actions called for in 

H.R. 2707 can be achieved within existing authorities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tate follows:]

Statement of Dr. James Tate, Science Advisor to the Secretary of the 

Interior, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2707

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Jim Tate, Science Advisor 

to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton. I want to thank you for providing the Department of the Interior (Department) the opportunity to testify before you regarding H.R. 2707, legislation to promote the control and management of the invasive 

species saltcedar, or tamarisk, and Russian olive. The Department supports the 

goals of H.R. 2707, and we are committed to working with you to ensure that the 

programs it establishes will be both efficiently delivered and effective. 

Let me begin by providing you with some background on this issue, followed by 

brief comments on the legislation. 

Background 

In the late 19th century, importation of several species of the genus Tamarix, 

commonly called tamarisk, which now interbreed in the United States, and Russian 

olive came just as the Department began efforts to mediate land speculation and 

work closely with western governors and Indian tribes during the turbulent settlement of the West. The scientific expeditions of John Wesley Powell (which carried 

out the Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain region in 1874) 

set in motion the still-evolving paradigm that wise development informed by science 

provides the best hope for conservation and future use of our Nation’s natural resources. 

The Department is one of the Nation’s principal conservation agencies, charged 

with protecting and providing access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage. 

Today, Departmental authorities provide for the management and protection of 

resources in an area of the West now increasingly under pressure as population 

densities mushroom and water resources are increasingly stressed. This region of 

37

the country also has seen the greatest impact from the species addressed in this legislation. 

Scope of the Problem 

Russian olive is a hardy, fast-growing tree native to Europe and western Asia. It 

was introduced into the United States in the 19th century and was promoted as 

windrow and ornamental plantings. It grows along streams, in fields, and in open 

areas. It is shade-tolerant, and it grows well in a variety of soil and moisture conditions. While Russian olive is primarily found in the West, it also is present in the 

Eastern United States. 

Tamarisk comprises a suite of several species also imported to the United States 

in the 19th century for use as windbreaks and erosion control plantings. It now covers approximately 1.6 million acres of riparian lands within all the seventeen western states (as far north as Montana). The spread of tamarisk, estimated at 50,000 

acres per year, is often supported by its flammability. It rapidly produces dense biomass and secretes salt on the soil that suppresses native plant seed germination 

and seedling growth. 

Preliminary studies have shown that dense tamarisk stands utilize more water 

on a daily basis than native cottonwood-willow plant communities. There is more 

total surface area on the leaves of tamarisk plants than on cottonwood and native 

shrubs growing in a given area, and tamarisk continues to release water through 

the pores in its leaves during mid-day, whereas native cottonwoods shut this process 

down to conserve water. Tamarisk growing in the streambed can also slow the water 

flow, allowing additional time for percolation of the water into the alluvium. Water 

released for irrigation purposes from an upstream reservoir may thus not get to its 

intended destination when tamarisk is blocking the channel. 

Estimates of the value of water lost—for irrigation and municipal uses, flood con- trol, and hydropower production—run between $133 million and $265 million. Irrigation losses alone are as much as $120 million annually. See, e.g., Zavaleta, ‘‘Valuing Ecosystem Services Lost to Tamarix Invasion in the United States,’’ in Invasive 

Species in a Changing World, ed. Harold A. Mooney and Richard J. Hobbs (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2000), 261-300. 

The growing abundance of tamarisk along western rivers has led resource managers to seek to control it in order to: (1) increase the flow of water in streams that 

might otherwise be lost to evapotranspiration and percolation; (2) restore native 

vegetation along the banks and floodplains of rivers and shorelines of reservoirs or 

lakes; (3) reduce hazardous fuels; and (4) improve wildlife habitat. 

As you know, the Department, through the Bureau of Reclamation, has a significant role in the distribution of water throughout much of the West and Southwest. 

Because of its significant impact on water resources alone, the Department has a 

strong interest in the control of tamarisk as part of its management efforts. For this 

reason, much of the remainder of my statement will focus on control efforts for this 

species. 

Current Departmental Tamarisk Management Efforts 

Current Departmental programs and activities focus control and management efforts for tamarisk on areas with resources at risk. Some areas are so heavily infested that expert ‘‘strike’’ teams have been used to remove the dense vegetation. 

For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is in the process of establishing such ‘‘strike teams,’’ modeled after the National Park Service’s (NPS) Exotic 

Plant Management Teams (EPMT), to combat invasive species, including tamarisk, 

in the Southwest. Areas vital to wildlife resources are cleared using mechanical, 

chemical, and physical means. Comprehensive conservation plans are used to guide 

these efforts and to indicate the areas of highest priority for waterfowl, endangered 

species, or other wildlife habitat values. In some cases, resources potentially at risk 

from tamarisk incursion are spot-treated early enough to keep the plants away, thus 

avoiding costly control efforts. This early detection and rapid response model is receiving increased attention as a means of preventing the spread and establishment 

of tamarisk. 

Place-based Research and Testing 

Departmental land management operations focus significant funding for tamarisk 

control on refuges, national parks and monuments, and along irrigation canals 

under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation. Bosque del Apache National 

Wildlife Refuge has served as a demonstration laboratory for control and management of tamarisk, including research and development of innovative methods for restoring native riparian vegetation and working with nearby private landowners and 

Indian Tribes to implement them. Biomass removal, intermittent flooding, chemical 

treatments, and other mechanical methods have all been tested and measured for 

38

effectiveness and efficiency. Cooperating with researchers from nearby universities 

and other research institutions, such as the Los Alamos National Laboratory, scientists and land managers have also tested methods to reduce the likelihood of later 

re-infestation by tamarisk. 

Because of our role in the management of Western lands, we recognize the need 

for on the ground management of invasive species like tamarisk. However, we also 

recognize that there are areas where our control and restoration efforts will benefit 

from targeted research and development projects. More information is needed regarding the identification of areas or situations that would most likely respond to 

vegetative restoration projects once tamarisk removal has begun. Such information 

will also assist in the development of an integrated control and restoration plan—

a ‘‘best practices’’ plan that will provide land managers at all levels of government 

with options for removal, control, and restoration of lands infested with tamarisk. 

Programs to Promote Private Partnerships 

Various programs within the Department seek to promote partnerships with private landowners to address problem species like tamarisk. One initiative that addresses these issues is the cooperative conservation component of the challenge cost 

share programs in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), NPS and FWS. These 

programs emphasize building partnerships for the conservation of natural resources 

and provide expanded opportunities for land managers to work with landowners and 

others to form creative conservation partnerships. This initiative recognizes that nature knows no jurisdictional boundaries and that, through these partnerships, the 

Department’s land managers can work with landowners and other citizen stewards 

to tackle invasive species, reduce erosion along stream banks, or enhance habitat 

for threatened and endangered species. Among other things, in FY 2003 we have 

funded through this initiative projects that are aimed at the eradication and control 

of tamarisk, Russian olive, and other invasive plants, and reclamation of impacted 

lands. 

Another program is the FWS’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife, which promotes private landowner cost-share projects for habitat restoration, including funds targeted 

for control of invasive plants and subsequent restoration. The Partners Program has 

worked with private landowners across the Nation to remove, burn, biologically control, and otherwise combat invasive plants on thousands of acres of wetlands and 

upland. Tamarisk control is a focus of technical and financial assistance in the 

Southwest. 

The control and management of tamarisk is part of the BLM’s Partners Against 

Weeds Strategy Plan, BLM’s Strategic Plan, and the National Fire Plan. The Partners Against Weeds program funds cooperative efforts with landowners to control 

invasive species. It also funds cooperative outreach and education projects with 

schools and local and county governments. In one important project, the BLM plans 

to work with several groups, including Clark County and the communities of 

Bunkerville and Mesquite in southern Nevada, to remove tamarisk along portions 

of the Virgin River floodplain. As I noted above, because of its properties, tamarisk 

poses a potential fire risk to homes, ranches, farms, and recreational facilities in the 

wildland-urban interface. 

This project involves mechanical removal of tamarisk in the project area. The goal 

of the project is to move away from the tamarisk-fueled, high intensity fires that 

are now typical of the area concerned and to restore native vegetation, such as the 

relatively inflammable grasses, sedges, shrub communities, cottonwoods, and willows. Current planning calls for 95 acres of treatment in FY 2004, with an additional 100 acres per year during the following 7-8 years. 

The NPS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Bureau of Reclamation partner 

with the Agriculture Research Service and the U.S. Forest Service, both within the 

Department of Agriculture, and university scientists to develop and test biological 

control agents, including the beetles used for biological control of tamarisk in the 

West, on projects to identify and avoid sites where tamarisk is naturally dying out, 

to conduct studies of stream flow management for vegetation control, and on studies 

of hybridization to better predict the potential future spread of tamarisk. 

USGS scientists can help identify site potential for water salvage, revegetation, 

and wildlife value, and develop protocols and measures for prioritizing sites for control or revegetation. The USGS also has partnerships with state and county weed 

departments, the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), and the 

Tamarisk Coalition aimed at mapping currently invaded sites and identifying new 

invasions. 

The Bureau of Reclamation leads, along with USDA’s Agricultural Research 

Service, the Saltcedar Biological Control Consortium, a task force comprised of over 

40 agencies. The Bureau of Reclamation, in collaboration with Los Alamos National 

39

Laboratory, also develops new technologies for determining the amount of water lost 

from the Rio Grande River due to tamarisk. 

Crosscut Budget for Fiscal Year 2004

The Administration is also working toward an interagency approach to invasive 

species control. The President’s Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 contains 

a performance budget crosscut on tamarisk. Agencies would work together to develop common performance measures. Under this performance umbrella, new and 

base funds will be applied in the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to control 

and manage the spread of tamarisk in the Southwest. Within the Department, the 

BLM proposes to control 2,750 acres of tamarisk with a $500,000 funding increase. 

The Bureau of Reclamation, utilizing $600,000 in new funding, proposes to control 

22,000 acres of tamarisk. The FWS has proposed an increase of $640,000 for treatment of tamarisk and other species on an additional 50,000 acres, and the NPS, utilizing $200,000 in base funding, proposes to treat 1,000 additional acres. A proposed 

funding increase of $100,000 will help the Bureau of Indian Affairs control tamarisk 

on 4,000 acres. Finally, USGS proposes two additional research projects in direct 

support of land management efforts, including the development of protocols and 

measures to prioritize sites for control and revegetation efforts. 

In addition, both Interior and Agriculture agencies are working together with our 

state and local partners to develop and implement control technologies as part of 

an integrated approach to pest and weed management. New chemical and biological 

control methods for tamarisk are being tested under strictly controlled conditions 

because the endangered southwest willow flycatcher occupies areas now infested 

with tamarisk that were once occupied by stands of native willows and cottonwoods. 

The Federal agencies are providing support for a multi-pronged approach to 

tamarisk control utilizing prevention, early detection and rapid response, and other 

control and management activities to limit the introduction and spread of tamarisk 

into new areas of the Southwest. 

Coordinated Tamarisk Control and Revegetation Workshop 

As a means of deciding how to spend the FY 2004 funds proposed in the President’s Budget for tamarisk control, the Department is considering a strategy workshop to be held in the West sometime this fall. The purpose would be to gain stakeholder input for a roadmap containing common protocols (decision criteria) and best 

practices for tamarisk control and management. The roadmap would provide guidance for selecting on-the-ground projects and research efforts with the twin goals 

of generating increased water supply and restoring ecosystems through long-term 

tamarisk control, revegetation, and habitat recovery. 

Departmental Views on H.R. 2707

I hope that this overview has provided you with a picture of what the Department 

is doing to manage the control of tamarisk and other harmful exotic species. With 

the above discussion in mind, let me briefly turn to H.R. 2707. 

The ‘‘Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act’’ establishes a twopronged approach to control of these species. Section 3(a) of the legislation would 

require the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to complete an assessment of the extent of infestation by these species in 

states where the Bureau of Reclamation operates. The assessment is also to include 

past and present assessments and management options to control these species; the 

feasibility of reducing water consumption; methods and challenges in land restoration; and the estimated costs of destruction, biomass removal, and restoration and 

maintenance. Finally, the assessment is to identify long-term funding strategies 

that could be implemented by Federal, state, and private land managers. 

We view a comprehensive assessment positively, and believe such an approach 

helps Federal land managers develop a more coordinated, long-term approach to addressing the problems associated with these species. While we agree with the goals 

of the bill, we have concerns with some provisions. 

Subsection 3(b) of the bill would require that the Secretary initiate demonstration 

projects to determine the most effective control methods, and provides certain criteria that must be included in the project designs. As noted above, the Department 

is currently working with our partners to develop and implement an integrated approach to management of this species. We recognize the importance of carrying out 

strictly controlled projects that will quickly provide us with practical control methods that can be used by our land managers on the ground. We note, however, that 

the language of this subsection, particularly when viewed in combination with subsection 2(a) and subsection 3(d), does not make clear which Secretary would initiate 

the program. We suggest that this language be clarified. 

40

The legislation would also authorize $25 million for each of fiscal years 2004 

through 2007, though the bill does not provide sufficient direction on how the appropriated funds are to be distributed. The Department also has a concern about the 

overall cost of the programs created under the proposed legislation. While the Administration’s cross cut budget evidences our commitment to control invasive species 

like those addressed here, the program established under this legislation would 

have to compete with other priority activities within the context of the President’s 

Budget. Finally, the Department notes that the actions called for in H.R. 2707 can 

be achieved within existing authorities. 

Conclusion 

In closing, I want to assure the Committee that the Department is prepared and 

committed to identifying, assessing, and acting to curb the economic and ecological 

impacts of tamarisk and Russian olive in the West. We will continue to work with 

our partners, and we agree with the intention of H.R. 2707 to more systematically 

develop a more effective control strategy. Our goal is to ensure the protection of our 

water resources and the restoration of important wildlife habitat. 

We share the Committee’s concerns and interest in this issue, and offer to work 

with the Committee to ensure that any legislation promotes an efficient and effective control strategy. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I am happy 

to answer any questions that you might have. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Tate. And I think the field hearing 

is very appropriate. It is going to be helpful, but I—though I would 

like to have it in Colorado. I understand it is being in New Mexico, 

and I think that is also very appropriate. 

Let’s see. We will go ahead now. I am going to excuse you, but 

I would appreciate it if you would stay around just long enough for 

questions after the next panel. I will go ahead and excuse Ms. Estill and Mr. Tate, and would ask the second panel to come on up. 

We have Tim Carlson, Dr. Redifer, Mr. Davis, Mr. Kershaw, Mr. 

Sulnick. 

Mr. Carlson and Dr. Redifer, I hope I beat you to Grand Junction 

tomorrow, but I am afraid I probably won’t. It is getting a little 

warm out there, huh? 

Mr. Carlson, why don’t we go ahead and start with you. You may 

proceed. 

And by the way, I want to thank all of you for traveling this distance to testify. And again, what is very important here is the 

words that we get put into the permanent record, because this 

issue is a very critical issue that directly addresses the droughts 

that we are facing out there in the West. 

Go ahead, Mr. Carlson. 

STATEMENT OF TIM CARLSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

TAMARISK COALITION 

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, 

thank you for this opportunity to present testimony before your 

Committee on the important issue of salt cedar and Russian olive 

control in the West. 

My name is Tim Carlson. I am executive director of the 

Tamarisk Coalition. The coalition is a nonprofit organization that 

represents a wide variety of interests throughout the Southwest, 

including land managers, cities and counties, environmental organizations, water conservation districts, farmers and ranchers. 

The mission of the Tamarisk Coalition is to provide education on 

the problem of the non-native invasive plant tamarisk—it is also 

known as salt cedar, so any time both words are used, it really 

41

means the same plant. It is also to help develop long-term management and funding structures to control its infestation. Although 

salt cedar is a primary invasive plant—we call it the poster child 

of non-native plants—impacting western rivers, other plants, notably Russian olive, cohabit with salt cedar and should be part of any 

river restoration action. 

The legislation introduced by Mr. Pearce includes significant onthe-ground demonstration projects. I would like to concentrate on 

five points that emphasize the importance of these large-scale demonstrations beyond the obvious benefits of site-specific salt cedar 

control and restoration. 

First, the demonstrations serve to help answer critical questions 

on what will be the true changes that will result after salt cedar 

control and restoration takes place; that is, the changes to water 

availability, both in the surface and ground water supplies, 

changes to water quality, changes to wildlife habitat, and biodiversity changes. Because these research activities go beyond single 

demonstrations at any single site in any State and will involve 

many Federal scientists, we encourage that research efforts that 

are tied to these demonstrations be 100 percent Federally funded. 

Second, our partners have identified four important issues. These 

issues include maintaining respect for existing State water laws 

and water rights; respect for private property rights; respect for existing infrastructure, such as water storage and delivery systems; 

and respect for endangered species. We believe that the large-scale 

demonstrations will show that salt cedar control and restoration 

can be successful and at the same time be supportive of these 

issues. In fact, both water rights and endangered species recovery 

should be enhanced under well designed demonstrations. This 

would be especially true for the endangered fish species in the 

Upper Colorado River. 

The third point is demonstrations will not solve the salt cedar 

problem. The salt cedar problem is much larger than what this bill 

can provide funding for. However, the demonstrations can be used 

as an educational and cooperational tool to help develop the strategies for long-term management and funding for salt cedar control. 

Fourth, the demonstrations can also be used to support international cooperation on salt cedar control between the U.S. and 

Mexico by including at least one border demonstration. 

Fifth, the demonstrations can also serve to foster work experience for youth through existing programs such as Youth Conservation Corps, AmeriCorps, and related State, Native American, and 

local youth programs. 

Finally, the question has to be asked, what will the public gain 

from these efforts? From a cost standpoint, salt cedar control and 

restoration is really low-hanging fruit. Preliminary cost estimates 

would indicate that long-term gains are 5 to 20 times less costly 

than new storage, water recycling, conservation, or expensive desalination programs. 

Beyond improving the abundance of water, the other important 

side benefits of salt cedar control and riparian restoration are: 

Water quality will be enhanced; wildlife habitat will be improved; 

there will be greater biodiversity among both plants and animals; 

and there will be improved conditions for human enjoyment of the 

42

river systems. The value of the improved viability to the West’s rivers is difficult to measure in terms of dollars, but is considered to 

be highly significant. 

We believe that this legislation provides an appropriate level of 

effort to help gain protection of the West’s limited water resources 

and riparian habitats from the infestation of salt cedar and Russian olive. The Tamarisk Coalition encourages Congress to pass 

and fund this legislation. 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak before this Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carlson follows:]

Statement of Tim Carlson, Executive Director, Tamarisk Coalition 

Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for this opportunity to present written testimony before your committee on the important issue of Salt cedar and Russian olive control in the West. 

The mission of the Tamarisk Coalition is to provide education on the problem of 

the non-native invasive plant Tamarisk, which is also known as Salt cedar, and to 

help develop long-term management and funding structures to control its infestation. Our goals are the restoration of native habitat to the West’s rivers and 

streams, and the preservation of its water resources for beneficial uses. 

The proposed legislation, H.R. 2707—Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act, is an extremely important and needed piece of legislation. While the 

Salt cedar problem has been identified as a significant problem for almost 50 years, 

it has taken the drought of the past several years to gain widespread acceptance 

that solving this problem should be an important component of the West’s water 

management strategy. H.R. 2707 provides significant on-the-ground demonstration 

projects that will help to answer critical questions on potential changes to water 

availability, water quality, habitat, and biodiversity. The legislation also identifies 

the critical issue of developing long-term management and funding strategies that 

could be implemented by Federal, State, local, and private land managers. 

The Tamarisk Coalition believes that this legislation provides an appropriate level 

of effort to help gain protection of the West’s limited water resources and riparian 

habitats from the infestation of Salt cedar and Russian olive. This written testimony 

is divided into three sections that provide a background on the problem, suggested 

changes to the legislation, and important issues to consider. 

Background 

Salt cedar is the primary non-native phreatophyte of concern in the West and 

thus has the dubious distinction as the ‘‘poster child’’ of non-native plants impacting 

the riparian zone of rivers and streams. Other plants, notably Russian olive 

(Elaeagnus angustifolia), co-habit with Salt cedar and also deserve attention. Therefore, within the context of this testimony, whenever the term ‘‘Salt cedar’’ is used, 

one must also consider Russian olive as the other principal invasive plant that may 

be important to control within riparian areas. 

Impacts—Salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) is a deciduous shrub/small tree that was introduced to the western U.S. in the early nineteenth century from Central Asia and 

the Mediterranean for use as an ornamental, in windbreaks, and for erosion control. 

Salt cedar is well suited to the hot, arid climates and alkaline soils common in the 

western U.S., and has escaped cultivation to displace native vegetation. It gradually 

became naturalized along minor streams in the southwest and by the mid-twentieth 

century, Salt cedar stands dominated low-elevation (under 6,500 feet) river and 

stream banks from Mexico to Canada. Salt cedar is now believed to cover anywhere 

between 1.0 and 1.5 million acres of land in the western U.S. and may be as high 

as 2 million acres (Zimmerman 1997). The severe impacts on riparian systems that 

this infestation causes throughout the West include (Carpenter 1998, DeLoach 

1997): 

• Salt cedar populations develop into dense thickets, with as many as 3,000 

plants per acre that can rapidly displace all native vegetation (e.g., cottonwoods 

and willows). 

• As a phreatophyte, Salt cedar invades riparian areas, leading to extensive degradation of habitat and loss of biodiversity in the stream corridor. 

• Excess salts drawn from the groundwater by Salt cedar are excreted through 

leaf glands and are deposited on the ground with the leaf litter. This increases 

soil salinity to levels that kill saline intolerant willows and other plants and 

prevents the germination of many native plants. 

43

• Salt cedar seeds and leaves lack nutrients and are of little value to wildlife and 

livestock. • Leaf litter from Salt cedar tends to increase the frequency and intensity of 

wildfires which tend to kill many native plants but not Salt cedar. • Dense stands on stream banks may gradually cause narrowing of the channel 

and an increase in flooding. Channel narrowing along with Salt cedar-induced 

stabilization of stream banks, bars, and islands lead to changes in stream morphology, which can impact habitat for endangered fish. • Dense stands affect livestock by reducing forage and prevent access to surface 

water. • Aesthetic values of the stream corridor are degraded, and access to streams for 

recreation (e.g., boating, fishing, hunting, bird watching) is lost. 

While each of these points is important to one or more constituencies, the single 

most critical problem is that Salt cedar uses significantly more water than native 

vegetation that it displaces. This non-beneficial user of the West’s limited water resources dries up springs, wetlands, and riparian areas by lowering water tables 

(Carpenter 1998, DeLoach 1997, Weeks 1987). As Salt cedar moves into adjacent upland habitats through the aid of its deep root system, it consumes even more water 

as it replaces the native grass/sagebrush/rabbit brush communities (DeLoach 2002). 

Zaveta (2000) demonstrates that a program of Salt cedar control and revegetation 

would have clear economic, social, and ecological benefits. The National Invasives 

Species Council has identified Salt cedar as one of its primary targets, most western 

states have listed it on their noxious weed list, and Colorado Governor Bill Owens 

has issued an Executive Order to control Salt cedar on public lands within ten 

years. 

Water Usage by Different Vegetative Types—Limited evidence indicates that 

water usage per leaf area of Salt cedar and the native cottonwood/willow riparian 

communities may not be that different. However, because Salt cedar grows into extreme thickets, the leaf area per acre may actually be much greater; thus, water 

consumption would also be greater on an acre basis (Kolb 2001). Probably the most 

insidious aspect of Salt cedar and its consumption of water is that its much deeper 

root system (up to 100 feet compared to healthy cottonwoods and willows stands at 

6 feet (Baum 1978, USDI-BOR 1995)) allows Salt cedar to grow further back from 

the river and thus can occupy a larger area and use more water across the floodplain than would be possible by the native phreatophytes. This is especially significant, because the adjacent uplands and floodplain typically occupy a cross-sectional 

area several times that of the riparian zone. In these areas, less dense areas of 

mesic plants can be replaced by Salt cedar resulting in overall water consumption 

several times that associated with these other plants (DeLoach 2002). 

From thirteen different studies conducted between 1972 and 2000 on Salt cedar 

evapotranspiration rates, the average water use reported is approximately 5.3 feet 

per year (Hart 2003). More recent work performed on the Pecos River in Texas over 

the last three years indicates water use by Salt cedar of 7.7 feet per year (Hart 

2003). Recent research by the U.S. Department of Interior on the middle Rio Grande 

estimates evapotranspiration rates on the order of 4.3 feet per year (Interior 2003). 

These studies were performed using different methods of measurement, at different 

locations, and for different densities of infestation. Native cottonwood/willow communities have been estimated to use approximately one foot less per year than Salt 

cedar (Weeks, 1987) while the native shallow-rooted upland plant communities of 

grasses, sage, etc. principally use only the moisture received by precipitation. Unpublished research on the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge on the middle Rio Grande River in New Mexico indicates that Russian olive has very similar 

evapotranspiration rates as Salt cedar (Bawazir 2003). 

Estimates of Non-Beneficial Water Use—The term ‘‘non-beneficial water use’’ is 

defined as the difference in water consumption (evapotranspiration) between Salt 

cedar and the native plants it has replaced. Estimates on water consumption by Salt 

cedar vary a great deal depending on location, maturity, density of infestation, and 

depth to groundwater. This will also be true for the cottonwood/willow community. 

Using the above information, one can reasonably estimate that this non-beneficial 

use of water is approximately 1 foot per year for Salt cedar in the riparian areas 

that could support a cottonwood/willow community and approximately 4 feet per 

year for the upland areas that could support a native grasses/sage/rabbit brush type 

of plant community. For the West, it is estimated that one-third to two-thirds of the 

land currently infested by Salt cedar was formerly occupied by cottonwood/willow 

communities and that the remaining percentage of land would have been occupied 

by grasses/sage/rabbit brush type of plant communities. If one takes the estimated 

infested acreage of 1.0 to 1.5 million acres in the West, the estimated non-beneficial 

water consumption is approximately 2.0 to 4.5 million acre-feet per year. These 

44

estimated water losses represent enough water to supply upwards of 20 million people (Denver Water Board 2002) or the irrigation of over 1,000,000 acres of land. At 

a modest infestation rate of only 1% per year, these losses will increase by twothirds in the next 50 years. These values obviously represent a great deal of water 

that is being consumed beyond what the valuable native plants would have used. 

It would be even higher if the areas occupied by other non-native phreatophytes, 

such as Russian olive were included. 

Costs—Costs for removal vary depending on the expanse of the infestation, existence of other valuable plant species, and terrain. For aerial helicopter spraying with 

herbicide the cost is around $200 to $250 per acre (Hart 2003, Lee 2002). While aerial herbicide spray is extremely effective in killing Salt cedar, it also kills most other 

vegetation types. For mechanical mulching and herbicide application the cost ranges 

from $300 to $800 per acre (McDaniel 2000, Taylor 1998, CWCB 2003). For hand 

clearing and herbicide application the cost can range from $1,500 to $5,000 per acre 

(Tamarisk Coalition 2002). Terrain, access, presence of other native vegetation, etc. 

all dictate which approach to use. No one approach is right for all situations. The 

U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends the strategy of Integrated Pest Management that matches the right methods for each situation. Additionally, a new biocontrol approach that uses a Chinese leaf beetle is being researched by the U.S. Departments of Interior and Agriculture and may help further to reduce costs (De 

Loach 2002). 

Removal is only part of the cost. Restoration is the other component which is necessary to bring back the right native plants and restore habitat. If the objective is 

to only kill Salt cedar, other invasive noxious weeds will likely take their place if 

restoration is not part of the effort. Restoration may occur naturally where native 

plants are still viable or may require specialized efforts to restore the riparian 

lands. In general, costs may range from $50 to $1,500 per acre. 

The Tamarisk Coalition has estimated that the overall cost for control and restoration could average approximately $250 per acre-foot of water resources recovered (CWCB 2003). As a reference point, the cost of purchasing senior water rights 

in the Denver, Colorado area is valued at $4,000 to $12,000 per acre-foot (Franscell 

2002). 

Beyond improving the abundance of water, the other important side benefits of 

Salt cedar control and riparian restoration are 1) water quality will be enhanced, 

2) wildlife habitat will be improved, 3) there will be greater bio-diversity among 

both plants and animals, and 4) there will be improved conditions for human enjoyment of the river systems. The value of this improved viability of the West’s river 

systems is difficult to measure in terms of dollars but is considered to be highly 

significant. 

Suggested Changes to H.R. 2707

The Tamarisk Coalition offers for consideration the following three suggested 

changes to the H.R. 2707—Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration 

Act: 

1. Page 3, Line 21: Add the following sentence: ‘‘The Secretary shall also identify 

at least one international demonstration project between the U.S. and Mexico.’’ 

This addition is important because Salt cedar infestations do not recognize political boundaries, and eventual control will require cooperation between both 

governments and will aid in meeting international agreements for water delivery. 

2. Page 4, Line 20: Change sentence to read: ‘‘The Federal share of the costs of 

any demonstration activity funded under this program shall be no more than 

65 percent of the total cost. Research activities associated with demonstrations 

shall be 100% Federal share.’’ This change is important because critical research issues on water availability, water quality, habitat, and bio-diversity 

benefit the entire West and are not solely a local issue. Additionally, this type 

of research will be a collaborative effort between Federal scientists and numerous universities throughout the West that are not project specific. 

3. Page 5, Line 10: Add the following sentence: ‘‘For demonstration projects, the 

Secretary is encouraged to award procurement contracts, grants, or cooperative 

agreements under this section to entities that include Youth Conservation 

Corps, AmeriCorps, or related partnerships with State, Native American, local 

or non-profit youth organizations, or small or disadvantaged businesses where 

appropriate.’’ This change would reinforce the use of youth programs for performing many of the labor-intensive activities associated with control and 

restoration. 

45

Important Issues 

Tamarisk Coalition partners have raised four issues that are important to consider in the overall control of Salt cedar and restoration in the West. They are: 

1. Water Rights—The control of Salt cedar should improve both groundwater and 

surface water supplies in the future. This is not the creation of new water but 

rather the prevention of a non-beneficial use of water and, therefore, no new 

water rights should be implied. Respect for existing state water law and water 

rights are important to maintain. 

2. Property Rights—While private property owners are some of the strongest supporters of this legislation, it is important to acknowledge that private property 

rights must be respected. 

3. Existing Infrastructure—The rivers of the West are highly impacted by man 

to improve their capability to store and supply water (e.g., dams, irrigation systems) for beneficial use. Existing infrastructure is important for the continuation of these uses and Salt cedar control and restoration should respect these 

conditions. 

4. Endangered Species—Protection of endangered species have been viewed in the 

past as a potential obstacle to Salt cedar control. This is not the case. The 

Final Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2002) does provide management approaches that will allow staged removal of Salt cedar and restoration to occur. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program also recognizes the impacts Salt cedar has had 

on river structure and its subsequent impact on fish breeding opportunities. 

The Endangered Fish Recovery Program is working directly with the Tamarisk 

Coalition to develop compatible Salt cedar control and restoration strategies 

that will enhance fish recovery. 

The value of well designed demonstration projects authorized under H.R. 2707 is 

that these projects will help to demonstrate that Salt cedar control and restoration 

can be successful while maintaining respect for water rights, property rights, existing infrastructure, and endangered species. 

The Tamarisk Coalition encourages Congress to pass and fund this legislation to 

help preserve the limited water resources of the West and to help restore riparian 

habitat. Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony before your committee. 

REFERENCES

Baum, B. R. 1978. The Genus Tamarix. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 

Jerusalem. 209 pp. 

Bawazir, A.S., New Mexico State University, Personal communication, April 2003. 

Carpenter, A. 1998. Element Stewardship Abstract for Tamarix ramosissima 

Lebedour, Tamarix pentandra Pallas, Tamarix chinensis Loureiro, and Tamarix 

parviflora De Candolle. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. 

CWCB 2003, Colorado Water Conservation Board, ‘‘Impact of Tamarisk Infestation 

on the Water Resources of Colorado’’, May 30, 2003, prepared by the Tamarisk 

Coalition. 

DeLoach, J. 1997. Effects of Biological Control of Saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima) 

on Endangered Species: Biological Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Temple, Texas. 

DeLoach, J., R Carruthers, J. Lovich, T. Dudley, and S. Smith, 2002. ‘‘Ecological 

Interactions in the Biological Control of Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the United 

States: Toward a New Understanding’’—Revised. 

Denver Water Board, 2002. ‘‘Denver Water Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 

2001’’. 

Franscell, R., Denver Post, Drought years plumb the depths of water rights, Conflicts inevitable in self-policing system based on prior claims, September 10, 

2002. 

Hart, C.R., Texas A&M, Personal communication on the Pecos River Ecosystem 

Project. March 2003. 

Kolb, Thomas E. 2001 ‘‘Water Use of Tamarisk and Native Riparian Trees.’’ Proceedings of the Tamarisk Symposium, September 26—27, 2001, Grand Junction, 

Colorado. 

Lee, B., Northstar Helicopter. Personal communication, August 2002

McDaniel, K.C., and Taylor, J.P. Saltcedar Recovery After Herbicide-burn and 

Mechanical Clearing Practices, New Mexico State University and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 2000

Tamarisk Coalition, 2002. ‘‘National Fish and Wildlife Foundation—Pulling 

Together Initiative Final Report on Tamarisk control in the Upper Colorado 

River’’, Project # 2001-0028-006. 

46

Taylor, J.P., and McDaniel, K.C. Restoration of Saltcedar (Tamarix sp.)—Infested 

Floodplains on the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge. Weed Technology, 1998, Volume 12:345-352

Weeks, E., H. Weaver, G. Campbell and B. Tanner, 1987. Water use by saltcedar 

and by replacement vegetation in the Pecos River floodplain between Acme and 

Artesia, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. 

USDI-BOR 1995. ‘‘Vegetation Management Study: Lower Colorado River, Phase II.’’ 

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado River, 

Draft Report, Boulder City, Nevada. 

U.S. Department of Interior personal communications, 2003

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, ‘‘Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Emidonax traillii 

extimus) Final recovery Plan’’, August 2002. 

Zavaleta, E., 2000. ‘‘Chapter 12—Valuing Ecosystem Services Lost to Tamarix in the 

United States; Invasive Species in a Changing World’’, Mooney, H. A. and R.J. 

Hobbs (eds.) Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Zimmerman, J. 1997. Ecology and Distribution of Tamarix chinensis Lour and T. 

parviflora D.C., Tamariccea. Southwest Exotic Plant Mapping Program, U.S. 

Geological Survey. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Carlson. 

Dr. Redifer? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN REDIFER, Ph.D., DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, MESA STATE COLLEGE 

Mr. REDIFER. Good morning. My name is John Redifer. I am an 

associate professor of political science at Mesa State College and 

vice president of the Tamarisk Coalition. I am also a past chair of 

the Mesa County Democratic Party, and have worked closely with 

Representative McInnis and his staff on the bipartisan issue of 

tamarisk control for the past several years. 

I would like to thank Chairman McInnis for inviting me to testify 

today. The congressman has never turned down the numerous requests from me to visit my classes at Mesa State, and I am grateful 

for this opportunity to return the favor. 

I would also like to thank Congressman McInnis as well as Congressman Pearce, Senators Domenici and Campbell for the leadership that they have provided in our efforts to control tamarisk. 

The recent drought and the water-stealing capacity of tamarisk 

have heightened the need to finally bring this invasive species 

under control. In the event that we have forgotten, the drought 

ravishing the American West has reminded our communities of just 

how precious and scarce water is in our part of the world. At the 

same time, record drought conditions have forced policymakers to 

more fully grasp the importance of maximizing the availability of 

this scarce commodity. Eradicating the pervasive presence of 

tamarisk along our rivers and streams should be a central component of our region’s broader push to increase the availability of 

water. 

And so I want to applaud Congressmen Pearce, McInnis, and 

other sponsors of legislation for introducing the Salt Cedar and 

Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act. The demonstration 

projects identified in H.R. 2707 and the rest of the funding it provides for eradicating tamarisk are a great start to addressing the 

problem. However, the benefits of this bill are likely to erode over 

time if Congress fails to ensure that affected river basins infested 

with tamarisk have in place an adequately funded long-term management strategy that will not only eradicate existing tamarisk but 

47

will revegetate the infested areas and monitor them for any signs 

of reinfestation over time. We already know how to kill tamarisk, 

but this tree is extremely resilient and will quickly return if we 

don’t have in place the means and the methods to ensure its total 

and complete demise. 

As currently written, H.R. 2707 acknowledges the importance of 

long-term management and funding strategies, but more could be 

done in the bill to assure that stakeholders at the Federal, State, 

and local levels establish and fund systematic tamarisk control programs. The lack of a systematic multi-stakeholder management 

and funding strategy is the single greatest hurdle that must be 

overcome if tamarisk is to be controlled over the long term. The 

National Invasive Species Council agrees that these two factors are 

the primary impediments to the control of not only tamarisk, but 

most invasive species. Without a long-term management and monitoring regime, Federal, State, and local authorities will spend millions of dollars chopping down these water-thirsty trees in the near 

term, only to see tamarisk reassert their control over the West’s 

waterways in the long run. 

I would encourage this Committee to look at H.R. 695, sponsored 

by Congressman McInnis, for a way to allocate resources for the 

development of a process model that can assist each river basin as 

it constructs funding and management strategies. This will make 

an already strong piece of legislation substantially stronger and 

more responsive to the challenges that tamarisk pose over the long 

run. 

While I have no preconceived notions on what such a strategy 

will ultimately look like, I would like to describe a few general 

principles that any long-term tamarisk strategy should embody. 

First and foremost, the strategy must adequately address all 

three phases of tamarisk control, to include eradication, revegetation, and monitoring. 

Second, the strategy must develop and be supported by a coalition of Federal, State, local, and private land managers responsible 

for implementing it. The war against tamarisk will be won in the 

trenches, and those that will fight it there must believe that the 

strategy employed will work. This is best achieved if the stakeholders are implementing a strategy that they have developed. 

Third, the strategy should be developed river basin-by-river 

basin, State-by-State. While the process for developing a strategy 

may be the same, the strategy itself may differ based on the unique 

characteristics and political relationships between stakeholders in 

each river basin. 

Fourth, the process for developing strategies should be facilitated 

by an honest broker—someone the stakeholders do not perceive as 

trying to force a solution and will allow them to dominate either 

the implementation of the plan or the funding allocated to it. 

Fifth, the strategy must address how resources, money, equipment, and personnel will be pooled to systematically eradicate, revegetate, and monitor the effort to control tamarisk. An effective 

strategy may require public land managers to dedicate resources 

under their immediate control to efforts outside their political jurisdictions. 

48

Sixth, the strategy must provide a voluntary, non-coercive means 

for encouraging local property holders to provide access to their 

land for the purpose of conducting operations related to controlling 

tamarisk. 

Finally, the strategy must include an educational component designed to create public awareness of the problem and the need to 

remedy it. Creating public awareness of tamarisk and the benefits 

associated with its control will be critical to the provision of an adequate funding source. We cannot expect the Federal Government to 

fund the entire cost of controlling tamarisk. Obviously, the Feds 

should be responsible for their fair share of the costs, but State and 

local Governments will have to provide the rest. We must be able 

to demonstrate to citizens that the benefits of tamarisk control far 

exceed its costs, and that this effort will be completed in a specific 

timeframe after which funding will no longer be required. Under 

these conditions, citizens have demonstrated time and again their 

willingness to support Government programs. 

If we can develop a process that is successful in producing a longterm strategy and funding source, the ramifications will far exceed 

the problem itself. We will have a process model that can then be 

exported to deal with the tamarisk problem in other river basins 

and even other invasive species. 

If properly amended to ensure funding for the development of a 

process model, H.R. 2707 will have the potential to help solve the 

vast array of problems requiring multi-stakeholder cooperation. 

Without this systematic multi-stakeholder approach, we will continue to address the problem of tamarisk control in a piecemeal 

fashion that will most assuredly kill a lot of trees only to see them 

grow back again. 

This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Redifer follows:]

Statement of Dr. John Redifer, Associate Professor of Political Science, 

Mesa State College, and Vice President, The Tamarisk Coalition, on 

H.R. 2707

Good morning, my name is Dr. John Redifer. I am an Associate Professor of Political Science at Mesa State College and Vice-President of the Tamarisk Coalition. I 

am also a past chair of the Mesa County Democratic Party and have worked closely 

with Rep. McInnis and his staff on the bipartisan issue of tamarisk control for the 

past two years. 

I would like to thank Chairman McInnis for inviting me to testify today. The congressman has never turned down the numerous requests from me to visit my classes 

at Mesa State and I am grateful for this opportunity to return the favor. I would 

also like to thank Congressman McInnis as well as Congressman Pearce and Senators Domenici and Campbell for the leadership they have provided in our efforts 

to control tamarisk. 

The recent drought and the ‘‘water stealing’’ capacity of tamarisk have heightened 

the need to finally bring this invasive species under control. In the event that we 

had forgotten, the drought ravishing the American West has reminded our communities of just how precious and scarce water is in our part of the world. At the same 

time, record drought conditions have forced policy makers to more fully grasp the 

importance of maximizing the availability of this scarce commodity. Eradicating the 

pervasive presence of tamarisk along our rivers and streams should be a central 

component of our region’s broader push to increase the availability of water. And 

so I want to applaud Congressmen Pearce, McInnis and the other sponsors of this 

legislation for introducing the Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration 

Act. The demonstration projects identified in H.R. 2707 and the rest of the funding 

it provides for eradicating tamarisk are a great start to addressing the problem. 

49

However, the benefits of this bill will likely erode over time if Congress fails to ensure that affected river basins infested with tamarisk have in place an adequately 

funded long term management strategy that will not only eradicate existing 

tamarisk, but will revegetate the infested areas and monitor them for any signs of 

re-infestation over time. We already know how to kill tamarisk, but this tree is extremely resilient and will quickly return if we don’t have in place the means and 

the methods to ensure its total and complete demise. 

As currently written H.R. 2707 acknowledges the importance of long term management and funding strategies, but more could be done in the bill to ensure that 

stakeholders at the Federal, state and local levels establish and fund systematic 

tamarisk control programs. The lack of a systematic, multi-stakeholder management 

and funding strategy is the single greatest hurdle that must be overcome if 

tamarisk is to be controlled over the long term. The President’s National Invasive 

Species Council agrees that these two factors are the primary impediments to the 

control of not only tamarisk but most invasive species. Without a long term management and monitoring regime, Federal, state and local authorities will spend millions 

of dollars chopping down these water-thirsty trees in the near term only to see 

tamarisk re-assert their control over the West’s waterways in the long run. I would 

encourage this committee to look at H.R. 695 sponsored by Congressman McInnis 

for a way to allocate resources for the development of a ‘‘process model’’ that can 

assist each river basin as it constructs their funding and management strategies. 

This will make an already strong piece of legislation substantially stronger, and 

more responsive to the challenges that tamarisk pose over the long run. 

While I have no pre-conceived notions of what such a strategy will ultimately look 

like, I would like to describe a few general principles that any long-term tamarisk 

strategy should embody. First and foremost, the strategy must adequately address 

all three phases of tamarisk control to include eradication, revegetation and monitoring. Second, the strategy must be developed and supported by a coalition of 

Federal, state, local and private land managers responsible for implementing it. The 

war against tamarisk will be won in the trenches. And those who will fight it there 

must believe that the strategy employed will work. This is best achieved if the 

stakeholders are implementing a strategy that they have developed. Third, the 

strategy should be developed river basin by river basin, state by state. While the 

process for developing a strategy may be the same, the strategy itself may differ 

based on the unique characteristics and political relationships between stakeholders 

in each river basin. 

Fourth, the process for developing a strategy should be facilitated by an ‘‘honest 

broker’’, someone that the stakeholders do not perceive as trying to force a solution 

that will allow them to dominate either the implementation of the plan or the funding allocated to it. 

Fifth, the strategy must address how resources; money, equipment and personnel 

will be pooled to systematically eradicate, revegetate and monitor the effort to control tamarisk. An effective strategy may require public land managers to dedicate 

resources under their immediate control to efforts outside their political boundaries. 

Sixth, the strategy must provide a voluntary, non-coercive means for encouraging 

local property holders to provide access to their land for the purpose of conducting 

operations related to controlling tamarisk. Many property owners are understandably suspicious of even the most beneficial government action and a means must 

be developed to abate those fears. We know that tamarisk does not respect either 

property boundaries or any other artificial jurisdictional distinctions. Success 

against tamarisk will only come if affected land owners of every type are equally 

committed to its eradication. Accordingly, a successful tamarisk suppression program will need to include non-threatening mechanisms that encourage the cooperation of private land owners. 

Finally, the strategy must include an educational component designed to create 

public awareness of the problem, and the need to remedy it. Creating public awareness of tamarisk and the benefits associated with its control will be critical for the 

provision of an adequate funding source. We cannot expect the Federal Government 

to fund the entire cost of controlling tamarisk. Obviously, the feds should be responsible for their fair share of the costs but state and local governments will have to 

provide the rest. We must be able to demonstrate to citizens that the benefits of 

controlling tamarisk far exceed its costs and that this effort will be completed in 

a specific time frame after which funding will no longer be required. Under these 

conditions citizens have demonstrated time and again their willingness to support 

government programs. 

If we can develop a process that is successful in producing a long-term strategy 

and funding source to control tamarisk the positive ramifications will far exceed the 

problem itself. We will have a process model that can then be exported to deal with 

50

the tamarisk problem in other river basins and even other invasive species. If properly amended to ensure funding for the development of a ‘‘process model’’, then, 

H.R. 2707 will have the potential to help solve a vast array of problems requiring 

multi-stakeholder cooperation. Without this systematic, multi-stakeholder approach, 

we will continue to address the problem of tamarisk control in a piecemeal fashion 

that will most assuredly kill a lot of trees only to see them grow back again. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any questions 

the committee may have. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. Davis? 

STATEMENT OF TOM W. DAVIS, MANAGER,

CARLSBAD IRRIGATION DISTRICT 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, Committee members, I consider this 

an opportunity to give you my thoughts on this particular piece of 

legislation. 

I am Tom Davis. I manage Carlsbad Irrigation District, and prior 

to that I worked for 16 years with the U.S. Forest Service in various capacities throughout the Southwest and the State of Texas. 

I want to thank Congressman Pearce for his work in bringing 

this bill to this stage. I agree with what the testifier just said—a 

lot of the salt cedar work that has been done in the past has been 

very piecemeal, and it has been done by some of us that haven’t 

been capable or had the funding to conduct it in such a fashion to 

really pinpoint all the complexities in the results of the control and 

the need to revegetate, and our ability to guarantee revegetation 

has been lacking. 

I have had quite a bit of experience the last 15 years in managing salt cedar, but my experience has been limited to the Pecos 

basin in New Mexico. Pecos basin in New Mexico is considerably 

different even from the Rio Grande basin in New Mexico, or the 

Salt River basin in Arizona, or the Wichita River basin in Oklahoma. 

So the advantage to this particular piece of legislation is that we 

look on a broad scale, globally, at salt cedar infestations in a wide 

range of different biological conditions, and we are able to get at 

permanently, once and for all settle the issue of not only how do 

we kill salt cedar—I think we are getting on top of that issue—but 

how do we reestablish native vegetation, how do we mitigate for 

some of the benefits that salt cedar serves, in some cases. 

I support the goals of H.R. 2707. In particular, what we are 

doing here is establishing demonstrations, like stated, globally, before we go out and attempt to spend money on large-scale projects 

that would invariably make some mistakes. These demonstration 

projects will be able to look at all the what-if situations, determine 

ways to mitigate for those situations prior to making large-scale 

mistakes that will invariably damage the ecosystems for a long period of time. Most of salt cedar occur in Southwestern United 

States and, as you know, Nature is not as forgiving out there as 

it is maybe back here in the East or in the central area of the 

United States. When rainfall regimes are below 25 inches, it is 

very difficult to mitigate for a mistake made. It takes years to do 

that. 

51

So this demonstration project is so critical that we look at can 

and can’t be done in various ecosystems, various rainfall belts, and 

I think it is critical that we do this, particularly the—my experience, and I am president of a nonprofit corporation that was established in 1992 to do this very thing. We looked at 5,000 acres of 

salt cedar, or which 3,800 acres of that was total, 100 percent canopy cover of salt cedar. We did post studies there of—wildlife studies with New Mexico State University, we established monitoring 

wells, and with the help of Congressman Skeen, a former colleague 

of this body, we were able to fund this demonstration project. And 

we struggled for years. 

Killing the salt cedar wasn’t as difficult as reestablishing vegetation. We found that to be very difficult. We also found, just as the 

previous witness testified, salt cedar is very resilient. Not only is 

it difficult to kill, but it is going to come back. Once conditions are 

favorable again, the seeds are out there by the billions and it is 

going to come back. So it continually calls for follow-up action to 

prevent reinfestation. Reinfestation can be controlled somewhat if 

you get a good established native vegetation in place, which is difficult to do often in our Southwestern regions because of very few 

years, or favorable years, to reestablishing vegetation. And in looking at this bill, that is one of the main things that is called for in 

3(a), is looking at how to not only control the salt cedar, but also 

look at how to establish revegetation of native vegetation. That is 

a difficult process, we have found in the past. 

Although salt cedar is an exotic species, I am convinced that it 

may be here to stay, and we may have to figure out a way to keep 

it in control as much as possible and encourage our native vegetation as much as possible. But it is going to be very difficult in the 

long term to totally eradicate salt cedar. I think our greatest challenge is how to successfully and economically reestablish the native 

vegetation and how to prevent salt cedar from reestablishing in 

areas that we previously controlled it. And I believe that this bill 

will—the implementation of these demonstration projects will get 

at that very thing. 

I understand that this demonstration, this bill will provide for 

multiple projects to be conducted in a variety of river systems 

throughout the western United States. And the importance of this, 

I believe, is that these demonstrations will be conducted by nonbiased professionals, representatives of State and Federal agencies, 

universities, national laboratories, private contractors. And I think 

that is what has been needed for a number of years, is to really 

have a look at this thing by people that really aren’t biased one 

way or the other. Salt cedar control has been sold, I think, as a silver bullet to our water problems in the Southwest in a lot of cases, 

and I do believe that each salt cedar plant is a small pump that 

is evapotranspirating water into the atmosphere. But I think that 

we need to really get at the heart of this issue of water savings and 

how much water replacement vegetation uses. And this bill will 

provide for that opportunity with these demonstration projects. 

I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for going over my time, but I will be 

happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]

52

Statement of Tom W. Davis, Manager, Carlsbad Irrigation District, 

Carlsbad, New Mexico, on H.R. 2707

I am Tom W. Davis. Since 1987 I have been the Manager of the Carlsbad Irrigation District. For the sixteen years prior to my current employment, I was employed 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. During the past fifteen years 

I have had extensive experience in control and/or management of salt cedar 

(tamarisk spp.) in the Pecos Basin in New Mexico using chemical and mechanical 

methods. 

In recent years, driven primarily by drought conditions and water demands 

throughout the western United States, a tremendous amount of interest has been 

generated in salvaging water by eradicating salt cedar and to a lesser extent, Russian olive. This movement has been promoted by some as the ‘‘Silver Bullet’’ to increasing flowing water and restoring native riparian vegetation in our rivers. It is 

all too easy to over-simplify the complex nature of river systems and over-promote 

the possible benefits of salt cedar removal while overlooking the possible unintended 

negative impacts of such actions or any environmental virtues salt cedar might provide. 

However, salt cedar and Russian olive control is not a new concept along the 

Pecos River. In 1946 Royce Tipton, a hydrologist working with the National Water 

Planning Board, convinced both the states of New Mexico and Texas to sign the 

Pecos River Compact appropriating the waters of the Pecos River between the two 

states. The primary underpinning of this allocation of the flows of the Pecos was 

the perceived water salvage potential resulting from the eradication of non-native 

phreatophytes (salt cedar). 

Public Law 88-594, 78 Stat. 942 was signed on September 12, 1964 authorizing 

the Secretary of Interior to carry out a continuing program to reduce non-beneficial 

consumptive use of water in the Pecos River Basin in New Mexico and Texas. The 

Bureau of Reclamation was charged with the responsibility of implementing this 

project. Eventually, 36,000 acres in New Mexico and about 17,000 acres in Texas 

were mechanically cleared in the Pecos River Flood Plain. The areas originally 

cleared are maintained as cleared today. 

G. E. Welder, a hydro-geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, completed and 

published in 1988 the results of a ten-year study attempting to quantify any additional base flows in a specific reach of the Pecos River resulting from eradication 

of 20,000 acres of salt cedar from that particular reach of the river flood plain. This 

study was not able to specifically quantify any increases in river base flows, but indicated that evapotransportation (ET) had been reduced by removing salt cedar 

from the flood plain vegetation. The study could only speculate as to the fate of any 

salvaged water made possible by a reduction in ET. 

However, in today’s environment of increased demands on our river systems, we 

are obligated to investigate every option to maintain river flows. This legislation 

provides the opportunity to establish several demonstration projects. These projects 

will take another look at determining the merits of salt cedar removal, and monitor, 

measure and track any salvaged water and increased river flows. Using today’s 

technology we must not only attempt to quantify actual water salvaged by reducing 

ET, but we must be certain of the environmental impacts, monetary costs and effectiveness associated with the different methods of salt cedar and Russian olive control. Also, we must mitigate the unintended consequences of removal of these 

species and prove reliable methods of re-establishing native vegetation. We must 

determine how to replace the virtues of salt cedar after its removal, such as stream 

bank stabilization and nesting sites for birds. 

These demonstration projects must be conducted in a variety of river systems 

throughout the western United States by non-biased professionals, representatives 

of Federal and state agencies, universities, national laboratories and private contractors. The knowledge gained from these demonstrations will be critical in conducting proper future management of our riparian ecosystems and stabilizing river 

flows. 

This legislation provides for all of these elements and more. I request that you 

vote in support of this bill. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this bill. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. Kershaw? 

53

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. KERSHAW, PRESIDENT, IMPERIAL 

VALLEY CONSERVATION RESEARCH CENTER COMMITTEE, 

IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. KERSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I am going to summarize my prepared remarks in the interests of time. 

I am John R. Kershaw, a resident of Brawley, California, in Imperial County, where I have been engaged in farming and ranching 

and agricultural business enterprise for over 40 years. I also serve 

as president of the nonprofit Imperial Valley Conservation Research Center Committee, a unique partnership between agricultural community and the Brawley Research Station. 

I am here today on behalf of the Imperial County Board of Supervisors, chaired by Mr. Joe Maruca, and also from Mr. Stephen 

Birdsall, who is our ag commissioner, and also he is the one who 

is spearheading our area’s tamarisk control efforts. Mr. Birdsall’s 

office also coordinates a weed management coalition involving his 

office, Imperial Irrigation District, the California Department of 

Food and Agriculture, University of California Extension, and the 

USDA APHIS Agency. This group has targeted tamarisk as a 

major invasive species for strong controls. 

Salt cedar has had a substantial presence in this entire region 

for many years. 

Diversified farming and ranching is a cornerstone to the region’s 

economic base, where you must use innovative approaches to address the increasing demand for a diminishing water supply. As 

the Members of Congress are aware, Imperial County is experiencing tremendous pressures to reduce its use of Colorado River 

water, and is engaged in ongoing negotiations dealing with the interests of other areas in their search for additional water supplies. 

We feel that by controlling the incredible water thievery of the 

salt cedar population in the region, and replacing this aggressive 

invasive plant species with the native plant communities that once 

flourished therein, the availability of Colorado River water could be 

increased, along with the restoration of habitats conducive to wildlife. 

And of course, the general taxpaying would also benefit significantly from the control of salt cedar through expanded water availability at relatively low cost, versus other means that are being explored in the search for more abundant water resources. 

We believe the control of salt cedar can have a relatively fast 

benefit ratio to augment existing strained water supplies. This 

water savings no doubt would be significant and should provide a 

more reasonable and less costly timetable for developing other 

water resources. 

Imperial County Agricultural Commissioner’s office and the 

Brawley Research Station have been building data for some time 

on ways in which to control salt cedar and the benefits from such 

an accomplishment. 

We know that extensive tests by USDA-ARS have shown the 

Chinese leaf beetle to be a selective feeder of the species of salt 

cedar. An APHIS scientist based at the Brawley Research Station 

has been researching new bio control agents and is excited about 

the Fish and Wildlife Service opening up the Northern tier above 

the 37th parallel for bio control releases. He is anxious to begin 

54

testing these agents so selections can be made as to the correct 

strain. 

This same APHIS scientist is also studying the effects of replacing salt cedar with native vegetation on non-target organisms, 

seeking to determine any collateral defects in data that shows costs 

and benefits. We feel this is an important area to research as serious salt cedar remediation gets under way—what will be the impacts of the control efforts on non-targets? 

The Imperial County ag commissioner’s office has been seeking 

resources to complete a survey and data collection of salt cedar 

sites identified with GPS coordinates. Target areas are desert 

springs and oases and riparian areas. The goal is to evaluate these 

sites for control and restoration projects and determine the best 

combination of control and restoration methods for the chosen sites, 

and implement those methods. 

On behalf of Imperial County, I want to state support for 

H.R. 2707. We are grateful to its authors, including Representative 

Duncan Hunter. Having served as a Member of Congress for 20 

years prior to being redistricted fully to the San Luis area, Mr. 

Hunter has a strong familiarity with our County, its economic base, 

and reliance on the Colorado River with an acute awareness of the 

needs to conserve and protect our precious water resource. 

We would endorse the Tamarisk Coalition’s concern for restricting the Federal support for demonstration projects provided in 

H.R. 2707 to 65 percent, and we request that the Committee 

amend the language of H.R. 2707 so that the Federal share of the 

cost of any activity funded under this program shall be 100 percent 

of the total cost. 

I want to assure the USDA and Department of Interior that the 

facilities of Brawley Research Station are available to deal with the 

salt cedar problem, and I am certain the same can be said of the 

facilities of the ag commissioner’s office. 

Lastly, I thank the members of this Committee for the opportunity to appear before you, and hopefully, this hearing will lead 

to the enactment of a demonstration program to assess potential 

savings through control of salt cedar and Russian olive invasive 

species. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kershaw follows:]

Statement of John R. Kershaw, Imperial County, California, on H.R. 2707

Mr. Chairman, I am John R. Kershaw, a resident of Brawley, California in Imperial County, where I have been engaged in farming and ranching and agricultural 

business enterprise for over 40 years. I serve as President of the Imperial Valley 

Conservation Research Center Committee, a unique collaborative partnership between the agricultural community and the Brawley Research Station where there 

is always a lively agenda dealing with the invasive species spectrum, ever-evolving 

exotic crop pests and disease, bio controls, salinity/drainage trials, and water management including remediation and reuse. The Brawley Station has been lauded 

since its inception in 1951 for an impressive registry of accomplishment dealing 

with diversified agriculture and water-related research. 

I bring you greetings from the Imperial County Board of Supervisors, chaired by 

Mr. Joe Maruca, and also from Mr. Stephen Birdsall, who is spearheading our area’s 

tamarisk control efforts. Mr. Birdsall’s office also coordinates a Weed Management 

coalition involving his office, the Imperial Irrigation District, the California Department of Food & Agriculture, the University of California Extension, and the USDAVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:22 Jan 07, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88530.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
55

APHIS agency. This group has targeted tamarisk as a major invasive species for 

strong management controls. 

Imperial County is a hub of the Southwestern desert region whose borders merge 

compatibly with the great Yuma and Palo Verde Valleys to the East and Northeast, 

the tremendous Coachella Valley and Inland Empire Counties to the North and 

Northwest, and the renowned San Diego County complex to the West. Also, we have 

a strong cooperative relationship, especially in agricultural matters, with our significant Baja California neighbor to the South. 

Salt Cedar has had a substantial presence in this entire region for many years. 

Diversified farming and ranching is a cornerstone to the region’s economic base 

where we must use innovative approaches to address the increasing demand for a 

diminishing water supply. As the Members of Congress are aware, Imperial County 

is experiencing tremendous pressures to reduce its use of Colorado River water and 

is engaged in ongoing negotiations dealing with the interests of other areas in their 

search for additional water supplies. 

We feel that by controlling the incredible water thievery of the Salt Cedar populations in the region and replacing this aggressive invasive plant species with the 

native plant communities that once flourished therein, the availability of Colorado 

River water could be increased along with the restoration of habitats conducive to 

wildlife. The public would benefit from the greater recreational aspects of these 

habitats along with a more suitable riparian environmental scenario. 

The general taxpaying public would also benefit significantly from the control of 

Salt Cedar through expanded water availability at relatively low costs versus other 

means that are being explored in the search for more abundant water resources. I 

am informed by the International Center for Water Technology at Fresno, CA, that 

access to useable water is developing into the greatest challenge of this century. We 

absolutely must develop and deploy new technologies that maximize the effectiveness of water use for urban, environmental, and agricultural application. 

As premier and affluent as America is versus most nations, we rank 63rd in the 

quantity of water among all countries. It is estimated that our water availability 

per person will drop by one-third in the next 20 years. 

Rick Weiss, a news reporter, recently penned an article about how the dwindling 

of clean, fresh water is forcing scientists to go to such extremes as seismic and coredrilling technologies in search for rivers and lakes said to lie far beneath the surface 

of the earth—aquifers that contain ‘‘fossil’’ water as much as a million years old. 

That’s promising but this kind of water development no doubt will be very costly; 

as will be the desalination of salt water and other means to find greater supplies. 

It is reliably estimated that some supplemental water supplies can take 20 years 

or longer to develop and finance. 

We believe the control of Salt Cedar can have a much faster benefit ratio to augment existing strained water supplies. This water savings no doubt would be significant and might provide a more reasonable and less costly timetable for developing 

other water resources. 

The Imperial County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office and the Brawley Research Station have been building data for some time on ways in which to control 

Salt Cedar and the benefits from such an accomplishment. 

We know that extensive tests by the USDA-ARS have shown a leaf beetle, 

Diorehabda elongate, to be a selective feeder of a species of Salt Cedar. An APHIS 

scientist at the Brawley Research Station has been researching new bio control 

agents and is excited about the Fish & Wildlife Service opening up the Northern 

tier above the 37th parallel for bio control releases. He is anxious to begin testing 

these agents so selections can be made as to the correct strain. 

This same APHIS scientist is also studying the effects of replacing Salt Cedar 

with native vegetation on non-target organisms, seeking to determine any collateral 

defects and data that shows costs and benefits. We feel this is an important area 

to research as serious Salt Cedar remediation gets underway—what will be the impacts of the control efforts on non-targets? 

As mentioned earlier, systematically reducing the abundance of Salt Cedar would 

allow the presently depressed native plant communities of western riparian areas 

to recover and also encourage wildlife populations to increase, including several species that are declining, are threatened or endangered. 

One such bird is the endangered Southwestern subspecies of the Willow 

Flycatcher. While this bird utilizes the Salt Cedar for habitat, the Salt Cedar also 

displaces other native plants which harbor insects important to the Flycatcher’s 

diet. 

The Imperial County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office has been seeking resources to complete a survey and data collection of Salt Cedar sites identified with 

GPS coordinates. Target areas are desert springs/oasis and riparian areas. The goal 

56

is to evaluate these sites for control/restoration projects and determine the best combination of control and restoration methods for the chosen sites and implement 

those methods. This would include: biological, herbicides, cutting followed by herbicide treatment on stumps, mechanical removal by cutting or bulldozing, flooding, 

burning. Additionally, partial cutting would be followed by burning and competition 

by supporting regrowth of native plants. Mr. Birdsall’s plan would involve monitoring to assess the project’s success. 

I am refraining from referencing much of the diagnostics relative to tamarisk including the estimated water-extortion of this facultative phreatophyte owing to the 

belief that representatives of the Forest Service and Department of Interior or others at today’s hearing will provide these insights and explanations. 

However, we feel our region is victimized by the incessant expansion of this plant 

species. Its naturalization along the Colorado River and our important farming and 

ranching areas contributes to increased salinity of surface soil that renders it inhospitable to native plant species, lowers surface water tables, and uses more water 

than the native habitats it displaces. 

On behalf of Imperial County, I want to state support for H.R. 2707. We are 

grateful to its authors, including Representative Duncan Hunter. Having served as 

our Member of Congress for 20 years prior to being redistricted fully to the San 

Diego area, Mr. Hunter has a strong familiarity with our county, its economic base, 

and reliance on the Colorado River with an acute awareness of the need to conserve 

and protect our precious water resources. 

We would endorse the Tamarisk Coalition’s concern for restricting the Federal 

support for demonstration projects provided for in H.R. 2707 to 65 percent. We believe the need to deal such an obvious depleter of a precious resource would be justification for the Federal treasury to support these projects in the totality of their 

expenses. Therefore, we request that the Committee amend the language of 

H.R. 2707 so that the Federal share of the costs of any activity funded under this 

program shall be 100 percent of the total cost. Our need to deal with the Salt Cedar 

problem is among the greatest of any area but our economic condition is among the 

poorest of many areas, especially in the State of California. 

Further, I thank the Members of this Committee for the opportunity to appear 

before you and hopefully this hearing will lead to the enactment of a demonstration 

program to assess potential savings through control of Salt Cedar and Russian Olive 

invasive species. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Kershaw. I might mention that 

Mr. Hunter has been very helpful with the Committee on this particular issue. As you know now, of course, he chairs the Defense 

Committee. I am trying to get him to send a few military weapons. 

Maybe we could wipe the whole thing out. But they are a little 

more destructive than we probably want at this point, to deploy. 

But anyway, I do want you to know Mr. Hunter has been very 

helpful to the Committee. 

Mr. Sulnick, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF BOB SULNICK, CAMPAIGN MANAGER,

ALLIANCE FOR THE RIO GRANDE HERITAGE 

Mr. SULNICK. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify. 

My name is Robert Sulnick. I am the campaign manager for the 

Alliance for the Rio Grande Heritage. Our organization spans a distance between southern Colorado throughout New Mexico and into 

Texas. Our members include Amigos Bravos, Audubon, Defenders 

of Wildlife, Forest Guardians, Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, New Mexico PIRG, Rio Grande Restoration, Rio Grande/Rio 

Bravo basin Coalition, San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, Southwest Environmental Center, the Sierra Club, and World Wildlife 

Fund. Alliance members have worked on salt cedar-Russian olive 

removal throughout the Rio Grande basin, including Presidio, 

57

Texas, Soccoro, New Mexico, Alamosa, Colorado, and the Albuquerque Reach of the Rio Grande watershed. 

Last year, in the New Mexico State legislature, the alliance 

worked with the New Mexico State Association of Soil and Water 

Conservation Districts to secure a $5 million appropriation for salt 

cedar control and reestablishment of native vegetation and habitat. 

The alliance enthusiastically supports H.R. 2707. The approach 

of undertaking demonstration projects to evaluate the most effective for salt cedar-Russian olive removal is endorsed by the alliance. In our experience, it is particularly important to learn when 

and how to use targeted aerial spraying and when not to use aerial 

spraying, particularly in cases where native species or valuable 

pasture are present. We also, in addition to supporting mechanical 

spraying, support a pilot project involving the use of goats. 

We are particularly pleased with H.R. 2707’s attention to monitoring. In our experience, few resources have been provided for 

long-term monitoring of salt cedar-Russian olive removal projects. 

Without monitoring, it is impossible to establish a viable approach 

to solving these problems. 

Revegetation with native plants, in our view, is essential if these 

kinds of projects are to succeed. Absent revegetation and habitat 

restoration, it has been our experience that invasive species simply 

return and removal is ineffective. 

Finally, the projects to be funded by H.R. 2707 are worth undertaking even if they do not salvage one acre-foot of usable water. Although we would expect and desire a measurable increase in the 

availability of water to address water shortage problems, in our experience, because of the connection between surface water and 

groundwater, it is possible that expected gains from eradication 

will, in some instances, remain in the groundwater system. If such 

is the case, the resulting elevation of water tables and the benefits 

to both agriculture and wildlife are well worth undertaking the 

demonstration projects presented by this legislation. 

As a New Mexican, I would particularly like to thank Mr. Pearce 

for introducing this legislation and Congresswoman Wilson and 

Congressman Udall for cosponsoring. I would also like to acknowledge the leadership of Senators Domenici and Bingaman in this effort. We wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support the bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would also like to mention that I was married in Golden, Colorado, so I feel some relationship to the Coloradans on the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sulnick follows:]

Statement of Bob Sulnick on behalf of Steve Harris, Chair,

Alliance for Rio Grande Heritage, on H.R. 2707

Mr. Chairman, The Alliance for Rio Grande Heritage and its member groups 

have, over the past seven years, devoted their private resources to the problem of 

restoring the ecological health and integrity of the Rio Grande in Southern Colorado, New Mexico and West Texas. The Rio Grande problem is a difficult one stemming, as it does, from a century and a half of intensive development and control 

of land and water resources. Today, we are left with a river transformed by flood 

control and water diversion projects, a river that occupies only a portion of its historic floodplain and that retains a scant fraction of its natural water flows. 

One of the most vexing manifestations of the Rio Grande problem is the dominance of the river’s ecosystem by non-native plants. The fertility of the Rio Grande 

58

basin, its ability to produce healthy crops and healthy wildlife has been sacrificed 

to persistent non-native species, like salt cedar. 

In speaking with local people in places like Presidio, Texas, Socorro, New Mexico 

and Alamosa, Colorado, we hear deep concern about the loss of land productivity 

from the invasion of salt cedar and a desire to reclaim the ecological and economic 

benefits of a healthy agro-ecological system, supported by a restored and healthy 

river. 

In the Rio Grande, producers and environmentalists have come together to attempt to address the salt cedar problem. Last year, the Alliance and the state Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts successfully lobbied a $5 million appropriation from the New Mexico Legislature for salt cedar control and reestablishment of native vegetative associations. Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge 

and Santa Ana Pueblo, to cite just two projects in the Middle Rio Grande, that are 

of the scale contemplated in the present legislation, have become model projects. 

They are indeed inspiring a growing regional effort to restore the Rio Grande. 

We are very pleased that the 108th Congress, with its consideration of H.R. 2707, 

is addressing this problem, which plagues not only our locality but so much of the 

West. 

In deliberating this bill, we hope the Resources Committee will consider a few reflections from our own experiences: 

• The projects to be funded by H.R. 2707 are worth undertaking, even if they do 

not salvage one acre-foot of useable water. Although we would desire a measurable increase in the availability of water to address the West’s water shortages, 

neither Congress nor restoration practitioners should succumb to unreasonable 

expectations about the amount of water to be produced. 

The connection between surface water and groundwater is quite complex. In our 

experience, most of the expected gains from eradicating water-consuming non-native 

plants have remained in the groundwater system, and are not added directly to the 

useable supplies. What we can be sure of is that the water saved will remain on 

the landscape, elevating water tables and adding modest amounts to the surface 

water system. We maintain that the benefits of improved wildlife habitat, restoration of native associations and of land productivity are reason enough to undertake 

the projects contemplated by H.R. 2707. 

• Land restoration resulting from this measure is not apt to be truly successful 

without attention to restoring some measure of the underlying hydrologic regime. In many cases, it is the loss of seasonal floods in the streams that has 

most contributed to the dominance of these non-native trees. Projects that fail 

to address the need of native species for periodic inundation of floodplains have 

been least successful in terms of self-maintenance of the desirable species and 

the regrowth of the target species. 

• An appropriate portion of the project funding must be devoted to monitoring, 

not just the water salvage benefit, but the success in restoring the desirable 

plant associations. We all want to maximize the number of acres restored using 

the limited funds available. In our experience, there is a tremendous temptation 

to devote almost no resources to long-term monitoring of the success of these 

projects, especially the succession of vegetative associations that follow the 

treatments. We urge this Committee, in its findings to the Congress, to recommend for appropriate monitoring regimes. 

• Treatments selected for elimination of invasive species will vary from location 

to location. We have observed a tendency to over-rely upon aerial herbicide applications because initial per acre costs are lowest. However these treatment 

methods are not appropriate in a number of cases where native species, valuable pasture or open water is present on the project site. Project proponents 

should be advised to carefully assess the conditions of individual site and avoid 

reliance on an expedient, ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach. 

Salt Cedar, Russian Olive and other persistent invaders have indeed become a 

scourge on the West. We have made most progress in reclaiming afflicted lands 

where we recognize that underlying ecological factors have contributed to our problem, have corrected these conditions and provided hydrologic and soil conditions 

which will favor the desirable native vegetation over the invasives. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Well, we have a lot in common—not in regards to 

your marriage, but— 

Let me—I would like to begin some of the questioning here very 

quickly. 

59

Mr. Kershaw, one point that I thought maybe you could go into 

a little more detail, but briefly, for me—you talked about that you 

were successful in killing the tamarisk, if I am correct. Or maybe 

it was Mr.—I am sorry, Mr. Davis. I am confused. I apologize, Mr. 

Kershaw. 

You talked about being able to kill the stuff, but it is the revegetation or something else that was difficult. Go through that again 

very briefly. What—does it poison the soil, or what is happening for 

getting something else to replace it? 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, in our particular demonstration 

project, we looked at specifically two ways to kill salt cedar—one, 

mechanically, by root-plying with bulldozers. Keep in mind, this 

salt cedar was 100 percent canopy-covered and was probably 12 to 

15 feet high. Stem diameter was probably on the average of 4 

inches. We used aerial application of Arsenal, which is a new herbicide that has only been on the market about, let’s see now, about 

20 years. In fact, I think we were the first ones in the Carlsbad 

Irrigation District to use Arsenal as early as 1991—1990, I think, 

is the first time I used Arsenal to control salt cedar. 

Both of those methods are very effective in controlling salt cedar. 

They have different cost regimes. But I think we know how to kill 

salt cedar. I think an aerial application of Arsenal with water at 

the rate of about 15, 18 gallons an acre really gets a good coverage 

on all the growth tips of the plants and you get a pretty good kill. 

Root-plying also is effective, maybe a little more effective as far as 

percent-kill. It is a little more devastating to the ecology because 

you churn up a lot of ground, a lot of bare ground is exposed. However, that results in a better seed bed. 

Now, in the cases we looked at, both the aerial application and 

the mechanical, in both of those we had equal problems in getting 

native vegetation reestablished. We spent a significant amount of 

time and money going back over areas to try to reestablish native 

vegetation. We had a difficult time doing that. And what we ended 

up with was an environment out there that was not too conducive 

to wildlife or to soil stability. 

I hope these demonstration projects really focus in on that, because oftentimes we ended up with areas that were fairly destructive. And I blame our situation, difficulty of reestablishing native 

vegetation, primarily just due to rainfall. I have noticed areas on 

the Rio Grande where they could actually irrigate. They could dike 

and irrigate the reestablished native vegetation, whether it is reseeded or pole plantings, they were fairly successful. In our case, 

we weren’t able to do that. We were dependent strictly on what nature provided. 

Mr. MCINNIS. The rainfall is the key, you think? 

Mr. DAVIS. I think it is the rainfall. 

Mr. MCINNIS. All right. 

Dr. Redifer, real briefly. I think you suggested you felt there 

were some modifications to the bill that might improve it. Could 

you just summarize that for me? 

Mr. REDIFER. I would have liked to see that the bill specifically 

provide funding for development of a process model that would help 

in the multi-stakeholder approach toward building a long-term 

management solution. Without that, our efforts to control tamarisk 

60

and Russian olive aren’t going anywhere. And so I see this bill as 

providing an opportunity to kind of provide a boost to this process, 

some seed money, perhaps, to help show that in one river district 

or several, we can develop that kind of management strategy, demonstrate that we can effectively control the problem from there. 

Then you have something you can export. You can send it to other 

river basins, the process itself. The strategy will look different, as 

I said in my testimony, depending on the makeup of the river basin 

and the people playing—the stakeholders involved. But the process 

could be the same. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you. 

And Mr. Carlson, real briefly, since I am running out of time, tell 

me about the rate of speed of the tamarisk and the growth and the 

tenacity of the plant itself. 

Mr. CARLSON. If I understand your question right— 

Mr. MCINNIS. For example, let me tell you—on the way to Moab, 

the Moab canyon there, all the tamarisk that is right along the Colorado River, is that all one root? How long—is it like an Aspen 

tree? 

Mr. CARLSON. A lot of it could be from the same original plant. 

They have extensive root systems that—some literature would indicate that it goes down to 100 feet in depth, then out to the side 

over 50 feet. When a plant lays down, if there is moist soil, it will 

re-sprout from those shoots. 

What you saw on the Colorado River going through Moab, that 

all occurred from the 1984 flood. Remember, that was a time period 

when Lake Powell was about ready to overtop the dam. And that 

sent a lot of seed source from, really, Colorado into Utah and in 

the large wetlands area down there infested nearly 1,000 acres of 

land down through there. When it gets a chance, it will spread 

rapidly. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you. 

And Mr. Pearce, I might remind you, if you have a question, we 

also have Ms. Estill and Mr. Tate in the audience who would be 

happy to answer any questions you might have as well. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mostly want to make 

a comment that dovetails with Mr. Sulnick’s comment about the 

over-concern with seeing immediate flows at the end of a stream. 

In drilling oil wells, you have to—you drill down into the ground, 

and to keep the drill bit effective, you have to circulate the cuttings 

back out of the hole, the same as if you got a hand drill, you are 

drilling into a piece of wood or metal, you occasionally pull it out 

and you just blow the cuttings out, and that allows your bit to be 

effective. In drilling oil wells, you circulate fluid. 

When we go into fields that have been produced for a long time, 

you find that a certain hydrostatic pressure is needed at the bottom 

of the hole. Otherwise, your fluid comes down and goes out into the 

hole if you don’t have a hydrostatic pressure against the hole to 

cause the fluid to take the path of least resistance. 

I suspect what we are finding when we do get rid of the invasive 

species is that what we are going to do is recharge the aquifers 

around our streams. I suspect that the streams’ aquifers, that invisible piece underneath and on the sides that give hydrostatic 

push so that the water moves down the stream rather than soaking 

61

out into the aquifer around it, I suspect that we are going to have 

to recharge those. And I think that we can get very, very concerned, overly concerned with seeing flows at the end of a stream, 

right now, today. I think we probably have decades of overuse and 

over-exhaustion of these river systems. 

And so we are pretty committed to it because, I mean, you can 

just look down some of the small streams and rivers into Mexico 

and there is no way that the vegetation couldn’t be soaking up a 

tremendous amount of the water. But if we think that we are going 

to have a solution that is immediately evident at the end of the 

day, I think we would be chasing that a little bit hard. 

But we are pretty committed to it, and we appreciate all the testimony here today. I think that a lot of valid points have been 

made. We have noted some of the concerns and some of the requests for changes in the bill, and I have been talking with my 

staff as we go along to see what we can do with those. I think all 

the comments are well-made. 

And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present the 

bill today. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Pearce—your hard 

work is appreciated by many of your neighbors. 

With that, that concludes the hearing today. Once again, I want 

to thank all the witnesses for making a personal effort to be available today. The Committee— 

Do you have a request? 

Mr. PEARCE. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of letters that 

I would like to have unanimous consent to insert into the record. 

Those were letters of support from Pueblo, Santa Ana, and also the 

Texas Department of Agriculture, that were sent in to Congressman Udall from my State. And with your permission, we would 

like to insert those into the record. 

Mr. MCINNIS. So ordered. 

[NOTE: Letters of support for H.R. 2707 have been retained in 

the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. MCINNIS. The Committee now stands in adjournment. 

[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ