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

89-967 PS 2004

H.R. 2907 AND H.R. 3247

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

Tuesday, October 21, 2003

Serial No. 108-70

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 Tuesday, October 21, 2003 .......................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Hayworth, Hon. J.D., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Arizona ........................................................................................................... 4

Prepared statement on H.R. 2907 ........................................................... 5 

Inslee, Hon. Jay, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 4

Renzi, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona 1

Prepared statement on H.R. 2907 ........................................................... 3 

Tancredo, Hon. Thomas G., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Colorado ..................................................................................................... 32

Prepared statement on H.R. 3247 ........................................................... 33

Udall, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 34

Rocky Mountain News article submitted for the record ........................ 35

Statement of Witnesses: 

Dickinson, Hon. Mitch, Mayor, Town of Camp Verde ................................... 9

Prepared statement on H.R. 2907 ........................................................... 11

Groseta, Peter Andrew ‘‘Andy,’’ Owner, W Dart Ranch, dba, Groseta 

Ranches, LLC ................................................................................................ 13

Prepared statement on H.R. 2907 ........................................................... 16

Jenkins, David, Director of Conservation and Public Policy, American 

Canoe Association ......................................................................................... 41

Prepared statement on H.R. 3247 ........................................................... 43

Parkinson, Larry R., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Law Enforcement and 

Security, U.S. Department of the Interior .................................................. 36

Prepared statement on H.R. 3247 ........................................................... 37

Rey, Hon. Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture ................................................................... 6

Prepared statement on H.R. 2907 and H.R. 3247 ................................. 7

Oral statement on H.R. 3247 ................................................................... 36

Roder, Aileen, Program Director, Taxpayers for Common Sense ................. 17

Prepared statement on H.R. 2907 ........................................................... 19

Smith, Larry, Executive Director, Americans for Responsible Recreational 

Access ............................................................................................................. 38

Prepared statement on H.R. 3247 ........................................................... 40

Additional materials supplied: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Letter submitted for the record on 

H.R. 3247 ...................................................................................................... 55

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2907, TO PROVIDE FOR A LAND EXCHANGE IN THE 

STATE OF ARIZONA BETWEEN THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND YAVAPAI 

RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AND 

H.R. 3247, TO PROVIDE CONSISTENT 

ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY TO THE 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, THE 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, THE UNITED 

STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, AND 

THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC LANDS 

UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THESE 

AGENCIES, TO CLARIFY THE PURPOSES 

FOR WHICH COLLECTED FINES MAY BE 

USED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

Tuesday, October 21, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health 

Committee on Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 

Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rick Renzi, 

presiding. 

Present: Representatives Renzi, Duncan, Tancredo, Hayworth, 

Flake, Pearce, Inslee, Kildee, Tom Udall of New Mexico, and Mark 

Udall of Colorado. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICK RENZI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. RENZI. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Forests and 

Forest Health will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting 

today to hear testimony on H.R. 2907, the Northern Arizona 

National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003, and H.R. 3247, the 

Trail Responsibility and Accountability for the Improvement of 

Lands Act of 2003. 

2

Under Committee rule 4(g), the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member may make opening statements. If any other member has statements, they may be included in the hearing record 

under unanimous consent. 

Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the Subcommittee’s 

consideration of my bill, H.R. 2907, the Northern Arizona National 

Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003. H.R. 2907 facilitates a land exchange in Northern Arizona of private land within the Yavapai 

Ranch for Forest Service land in the northern portion of the State. 

Mr. RENZI. I would like to recognize local representatives in the 

First District of Arizona, including the Mayor of Camp Verde, 

Mitch Dickinson, the Mayor of Clarkdale, Mike Bluff, and the 

Mayor of Cottonwood, Ruben Jauregui. 

H.R. 2907 accomplishes several goals in Northern Arizona. First, 

it will preserve the pristine areas within the Yavapai Ranch for the 

wildlife and recreation purposes. Second, H.R. 2907 provides the 

City of Flagstaff with the opportunity to acquire land to expand 

and improve Pulliam Airport. H.R. 2907 will allow the City of 

Flagstaff to develop a new city park and recreational areas and obtain ownership of land near their water treatment plant. This is 

critical to the City of Flagstaff’s future by providing economic development and affordable housing. 

The Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange Act will 

also allow the City of Williams to acquire land for its well sites, 

water storage tanks, and wastewater facilities and drinking water 

treatment plants. Until recently, the City of Williams relied completely on surface water supplies to service the community. However, surface water reservoirs in Williams are currently at a minimal 8 percent of capacity. H.R. 2907 will assist Williams in meeting their water challenges in the future, providing new land for 

well drilling sites. 

In the Verde Valley, this bill provides the Town of Camp Verde 

with a unique opportunity to acquire lands for open space to protect their view shed. The Camp Verde Fire District will be provided 

with land adjacent to Interstate 17 for an emergency response and 

urgent care facility for faster response. A planned development 

along I-17 will provide Camp Verde with additional tax base and 

job opportunities. 

A residential development in Clarkdale and Cottonwood will diversify the housing market and provide new lands for their tax 

base. I am assured that language in H.R. 2907 ensures that water 

conservation and water use restrictions must be met for any future 

development. In addition, any development must also comply with 

the State of Arizona’s surface and groundwater laws, as well as 

local community planning standards. 

Finally, this legislation ensures that six summer youth camps, 

serving between 6,000 and 8,000 children per year, have the opportunity to acquire the land and benefit from full ownership and 

management of this land. Included in this exchange are YoungLife 

Lost Canyon Camp, Friendly Pines Camp, YMCA Sky-Y Camp, 

Pine Summit Camp, Temple Beth Israel’s Camp Charles 

Pearlstein, and the Roman Catholic Church of Phoenix Patterdale 

Pines Camp. 

3

In the past few months, I have received many letters and phone 

calls providing input and information on this exchange. I have also 

held several town halls and town meetings in the districts to discus 

many complex issues surrounding this exchange. I have visited and 

toured Yavapai Ranch and the exchange parcels and have witnessed firsthand the equity this land exchange can bring to the 

area. Bringing the Yavapai Ranch into Federal ownership is in the 

best interest of the public and the general good, and the Forest 

Service has indicated that it would otherwise be unable to afford 

to acquire these parcels. 

H.R. 2907 will benefit the public, the many communities and 

camps in Northern Arizona that will receive opportunities for future economic development and the natural beauty of the Yavapai 

Ranch. The hearing on H.R. 2907 today represents another step in 

this legislative process. I appreciate the Subcommittee’s consideration of the Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange Act 

of 2003. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Renzi follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Rick Renzi, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Arizona, on H.R. 2907

Good morning, Chairman McInnis and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the Subcommittee’s consideration of my bill, H.R. 2907, the Northern Arizona 

National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003. H.R. 2907 facilitates a land exchange 

in northern Arizona of private land within the Yavapai Ranch for Forest Service 

land in the northern portion of the state. 

H.R. 2907 accomplishes several goals in northern Arizona. First, it will preserve 

the pristine areas within Yavapai Ranch for wildlife and recreation. Second, 

H.R. 2907 provides the City of Flagstaff with the opportunity to acquire land to expand and improve Pulliam Airport. H.R. 2907 will allow the City of Flagstaff to develop a new city park and recreational areas and obtain ownership of land near 

their water treatment plant. This is critical to the City of Flagstaff’s future by providing economic development and affordable housing. 

The Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange Act will also allow the City 

of Williams to acquire land for its well sites, water storage tanks and wastewater 

facility and drinking water treatment plants. Until recently, the City of Williams 

relied completely on surface water supplies to service the community, however, surface water reservoirs in Williams are currently at a minimal eight percent of capacity. H.R. 2907 will assist Williams in meeting their water challenges in the future 

by providing new land for well drilling sites. 

In the Verde Valley, this bill provides the Town of Camp Verde with a unique 

opportunity to acquire land for open space to protect their view shed. The Camp 

Verde Fire District will be provided with land adjacent to Interstate 17 for an emergency response and urgent care facility for faster response. A planned development 

along Interstate 17 will provide Camp Verde with additional tax base and job opportunities. 

A residential development in Clarkdale and Cottonwood will diversify the housing 

market and provide new lands to their tax base. I have ensured that language in 

H.R. 2907 ensures that water conservation and water use restrictions must be met 

for any future development. In addition, any development must also comply with the 

State of Arizona’s surface and ground water laws, as well as local community planning standards. 

Finally, this legislation ensures that six summer youth camps, serving between 

six and eight thousand children a year, have the opportunity to acquire the land 

and benefit from full ownership and management of this land. Included in this exchange are YoungLife Lost Canyon Camp, Friendly Pines Camp, YMCA Sky-Y 

Camp, Pine Summit Camp, Temple Beth Israel’s Camp Charles Pearlstein and the 

Roman Catholic Church of Phoenix Patterdale Pines Camp. 

In the past few months, I have received many letters and phone calls providing 

input to this exchange. I have also held several town halls and town meetings in 

the district to discuss the many complex issues surrounding this exchange. I have 

visited and toured the Yavapai Ranch and the exchange parcels and have witnessed 

first hand the equity of this land exchange. Bringing the Yavapai Ranch into federal 

4

ownership is in the best interest of the public, and the Forest Service has indicated 

that it would otherwise be unable to afford to acquire these parcels. 

H.R. 2907 will benefit the public, the many communities and camps in northern 

Arizona that will receive opportunities for future economic development, and the 

natural beauty of the Yavapai Ranch. The hearing on H.R. 2907 today represents 

another step in the legislative process. I appreciate the Subcommittee’s consideration of the Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003. 

Mr. RENZI. At this time, I would like to recognize the Ranking 

Member, Mr. Inslee, for any statements that he might have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAY INSLEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Just briefly, I look forward to this. I 

think there are a lot of interesting issues. I look forward to a discussion of this water conservation movement issues, its enforceability in particular, and I am sure we will have a lot of other good 

questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. RENZI. I thank the Ranking Member. 

I would like to invite the first panel to join us at the table, 

please, and I would like to introduce our witnesses today. 

As the gentlemen are making their way to the table, I would like 

to recognize the gentleman who originally helped to author this bill 

during the 107th Congress, the Congressman from the Sixth District of Arizona— 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Or what used to be the Sixth District, now the 

Fifth with the realignment. 

Mr. RENZI. Now the fifth. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Yes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HON. J.D. HAYWORTH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, it is good to see you in the chair 

today and I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about this important legislation. Let me commend you, Mr. Renzi, for all your 

hard work in bringing this before the Forest Subcommittee. I would 

also like to join the Chairman in welcoming my friends from Arizona who join us in the Committee Room today and thank them 

for making the trip back to Washington to participate in this hearing. 

Although you may not agree on every jot and tittle of the legislation before us, I think it is safe to say that we all agree that we 

have a common goal. I look forward to working with each of you 

toward that goal, which is to ensure that the environment, ecosystem, watershed, and forested lands of Northern Arizona are protected and preserved. 

As the Chairman mentioned, H.R. 2907 is very similar to a bill 

I sponsored in the last Congress, together with our friend the late 

Bob Stump. The concept of a land exchange to consolidate the 

Yavapai Ranch lands just made sense. Through this land exchange, 

the Federal Government will receive pristine forest lands that truly 

belong under the stewardship of the U.S. Forest Service to preserve 

for future generations. 

This exchange was originally initiated by the Forest Service to 

consolidate a massive checkerboard parcel of land and to protect 

5

the Juniper Mountains forested area from future development. Watershed management, wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation in 

the consolidated land parcel will be preserved through this action. 

Additionally, many of the land parcels the Forest Service will 

trade to accomplish these goals are eagerly sought by the local 

communities for a variety of worthwhile civic purposes, including 

expansion of airports, parks, and other municipal facilities. As the 

Chairman mentioned, six summer camps that currently lease lands 

from the Forest Service would be able to acquire their leased areas. 

There have been numerous meetings between Forest Service personnel and various communities and citizen groups. As a result, 

the bill has been endorsed by the city councils of Flagstaff, Williams, Camp Verde, Cottonwood, Clarkdale, as well as the Yavapai 

County Board of Supervisors, the Salt River Project, the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, 

the Greater Flagstaff Economic Council, the Williams Chamber of 

Commerce, the Camp Verde Chamber, the Cottonwood Chamber, 

the Grand Canyon Trust, the Sedona Verde Valley Realtors, the 

Wildlife Conservation Council, the Arizona Antelope Foundation, 

the Arizona Mule Deer Association, the Central Arizona Land 

Trust, and the Arizona Republic Newspaper editorial board. 

This bill makes good sense for our forest and for the people of 

Arizona. The savings for the Federal Government and obviously for 

U.S. taxpayers associated with this land exchange are significant, 

but much more importantly, this exchange will ensure that one of 

the last largest pristine forested parcels in Arizona will pass out 

of private hands and be protected from development indefinitely. 

We have several questions for our witnesses today, and obviously 

welcome them and look forward to their testimony. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I commend you for your hard work on this 

and am glad to be a part of this hearing today. Thank you, sir. I 

yield back my time. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, J.D. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayworth follows:]

Statement of The Honorable J.D. Hayworth, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Arizona, on H.R. 2907

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this important legislation today, and commend the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Renzi, for his hard work 

in bringing this before the Forests Subcommittee. I also want to welcome my friends 

from Arizona who join us in the Committee Room today and thank them for coming 

to Washington to participate in this hearing. All of you may not agree on every jot 

and tittle of the legislation before us, but I think it is fair to say that we all agree 

that we have a common goal. I look forward to working with each of you toward 

that goal, which is to ensure that the environment, ecosystem, watershed, and forested lands of Northern Arizona are protected and preserved. 

As you know, H.R. 2907 is very similar to a bill I sponsored in the last Congress, 

together with our friend, the late Rep. Bob Stump. The concept of a land exchange 

to consolidate the Yavapai Ranch lands just makes sense. Through this land exchange, the federal government will receive pristine forest lands that truly belong 

under the stewardship of the U.S. Forest Service to preserve for future generations. 

This exchange was originally initiated by the Forest Service to consolidate a massive ‘‘checkerboard’’ parcel of land, and to protect the Juniper Mountains’ forested 

area from future development. Watershed management, wildlife habitat and outdoor 

recreation in the consolidated land parcel will be preserved through this action. Additionally, many of the land parcels the Forest Service will trade to accomplish these 

goals are eagerly sought by local communities for a variety of worthwhile civic purposes, including expansion of airports, parks and other municipal facilities. Also, six 

6

summer camps that currently lease lands from the Forest Service would acquire 

their leased areas. 

There have been numerous meetings between Forest Service personnel and various communities and citizen groups. As a result, this bill has been endorsed by the 

City Councils of Flagstaff, Williams, Camp Verde, Cottonwood, Clarkdale, as well 

as the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors, Salt River Project, Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, Greater Flagstaff Economic 

Council, Williams Chamber of Commerce, Camp Verde Chamber of Commerce, Cottonwood Chamber of Commerce, Grand Canyon Trust, Sedona-Verde Valley Realtors, Wildlife Conservation Council, Arizona Antelope Foundation, Arizona Mule 

Deer Association, Central Arizona Land Trust, and the Arizona Republic, among 

others. 

This bill makes good common sense for our forests and for the people of Arizona. 

The savings for the federal government (and, therefore, the U.S. taxpayer), associated with this land exchange are significant. But much more importantly, the exchange will ensure that one of the last, largest pristine forested parcels in Arizona 

will pass out of private hands and be protected from development indefinitely. 

I have several questions for our witnesses today, and look forward to their testimony. And again, I commend Congressman Renzi for his hard work on this important legislation and thank him for the chance to partner with him on this bill. 

Mr. RENZI. At this time, I would like to introduce our witnesses 

on H.R. 2907. On panel one, we have the Honorable Mark Rey, 

Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment with the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture; the Honorable Mitch Dickinson, 

Mayor of the Town of Camp Verde; Mr. Peter Andrew Groseta, 

Owner of Groseta Ranches, LLC; and Ms. Aileen Roder, Program 

Director, Taxpayers for Common Sense. Welcome and good morning to you all. I am thankful. 

We begin with a little reminder that I would ask that you limit 

your statements to 5 minutes. Mr. Rey, I would now recognize you 

for your 5-minute statement. 

STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL 

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE 

Mr. REY. Thank you, Congressman Renzi, and thank you for the 

opportunity to present the Department of Agriculture’s views on 

H.R. 2907, the Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange 

Act of 2003, and H.R. 3247, the Trail Responsibility and Accountability for the Improvement of Lands Act of 2003. I will limit my 

remarks on this panel to the first of those two bills and summarize 

accordingly. 

The Department supports the land exchange embodied within 

H.R. 2907 and supports the goal of H.R. 3247. We would like to 

work with the Subcommittee and the sponsors on some modifications that we believe would improve both bills. 

With regard to H.R. 2907, the Department supports the land exchange between Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership, the Northern 

Yavapai LLC, and the Forest Service, which would consolidate the 

largest remaining checkerboard ownership in Arizona. We do, however, have some concerns related to the partial deletion order, the 

enforcement provisions associated with the conservation easements, 

the cost of the appraisal, and compensation for persons holding 

grazing permits within the parcels identified for transfer. Both of 

those, or all of those issues, we believe, can be resolved by technical 

corrections to the bill and we would like to work with the Subcommittee on these kinds of corrections. 

7

This exchange will offer substantial benefits to all of the parties 

involved. The forest units involved would benefit from simplified 

boundary management, reduced administrative costs, and the acquisition of lands adjacent to the Juniper Mesa Wilderness, which 

has significant forest, wildlife, and recreation values. Consolidating 

110 square miles into solid Forest Service ownership is a significant gain from both administrative and resource standpoints. Savings in just land line locations alone would amount to $1 million. 

So the bill has significant benefits for all of the parties involved. 

The Department supports enactment of the legislation and we 

would be happy to work with the Committee to that end. Thank 

you very much. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Rey. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]

Statement of Mark Rey, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and 

Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 2907 and H.R. 3247

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department’s views on H.R. 2907, 

the Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003, and H.R. 3247, 

the Trail Responsibility and Accountability for the Improvement of Lands Act 

(TRAIL Act) of 2003. The Department supports the concept of the land exchange 

embodied within H.R. 2907, and supports the goal of H.R. 3247, but would like to 

work with the Subcommittee and sponsors on some modifications that we believe 

would improve the bills. 

H.R. 2907—the Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003

The Department supports the concept of a land exchange between Yavapai Ranch 

Limited Partnership, the Northern Yavapai, L.L.C. and the Forest Service, which 

would consolidate the largest remaining checkerboard ownership in Arizona. We do 

however, have some concerns related to the parcel deletion order, enforcement provisions associated with the conservation easements, the costs of the appraisal, and 

compensation for persons holding grazing permits within the parcels identified for 

transfer. We would like to work with the Subcommittee on some clarifications to 

this bill. 

H.R. 2907 would authorize the exchange of approximately 55,000 acres of Federal 

and non-Federal land in the State of Arizona between the Secretary of Agriculture 

and Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership. Pass-through provisions allows for some 

of the Federal land acquired by Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership and the Northern Yavapai L.L.C. to be reconveyed to the cities of Flagstaff, Williams, and Camp 

Verde, Arizona, and to summer organizational camps identified in the bill. 

This exchange can offer substantial benefits to all parties involved. The Forest 

units involved would benefit from simplified boundary management, reduced administrative costs, and the acquisition of lands adjacent to the Juniper Mesa Wilderness, which has significant forest, wildlife, and recreation values. Consolidating 110 

square miles into solid Forest Service ownership is a significant gain from both administrative and resource standpoints. 

The Department has suggestions to improve four sections in the bill. First, Section 

4(a)(3)(B) establishes conservation easements on the Camp Verde and Cottonwood 

parcels, which are located on the Prescott National Forest. H.R. 2907 needs greater 

detail concerning: (1) how a memorandum of understanding with the State of Arizona will be developed to enforce the conservation easements; (2) when the memorandum will take effect and for how long; and (3) how the Federal government will 

be removed from liability. We would be happy to work with the Subcommittee and 

the bill sponsors to provide additional details. 

In addition, the Department is concerned that the valuation of the Federal parcels 

due to the conservation easements could result in the transfer of far more Federal 

land to the owners of the Yavapai Ranch and its related limited liability corporation 

than would otherwise occur if the market value of the Federal estate were valued 

without this encumbrance. The Federal government will hold these conservation 

easements in perpetuity, thus reserving the value. 

Our second concern involves Section 5(c)(2), which describes the order for deleting 

Federal parcels. If the final appraised value of the Federal land exceeds the final 

8

appraised value of the non-Federal land, the intended deletion order could result in 

undesirable boundaries. 

Third, Section 6(d) states the costs of implementing the land exchange will be 

borne by the Secretary of Agriculture (for the Federal land) and Yavapai Ranch (for 

the non-Federal land). The costs of implementing the exchange should be borne 

equally by both parties since both parties are benefitting from this land exchange; 

specifying each type of cost is not needed in the bill. Also, the Department believes 

reimbursement to Yavapai Ranch for using independent third party contractors 

should only be done where the Forest Service has agreed to the contractor, scope 

of work, cost estimate, and formally accepts the work performed. 

Fourth, Section 9 states that persons holding grazing permits for land transferred 

into private ownership shall be compensated for any loss of grazing associated with 

the transfer. The Department believes this section should be deleted. Grazing on 

National Forest System land has been determined by the courts to be a privilege, 

not a right. The Department does not believe this grazing privilege should be compensated since Forest Service regulations allow for a grazing permit to be canceled, 

modified, or suspended, in whole or in part, where lands grazed under the permit 

are to be devoted to another public purpose including disposal. In these cases, except in an emergency, no permit shall be cancelled without two years’ prior notification (36 CFR 222.4). 

However, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 provides compensation for permittees’ interest in authorized permanent improvements. Forest 

Service regulations at 37 CFR 222.6 states, ‘‘Whenever a term permit for grazing 

livestock on National Forest land in the 16 contiguous western States is canceled 

in whole or in part to devote the lands covered by the permit to another public purpose, including disposal, the permittee shall receive from the United States a reasonable compensation for the adjusted value of his interest in authorized permanent 

improvements placed or constructed by him on the lands covered by the canceled 

permit. The adjusted value is to be determined by the Chief, Forest Service. Compensation received shall not exceed the fair market value of the terminated portion 

of the permittee’s interest therein.’’ Any compensation is based on amortization over 

the life of the permanent improvement, thus the Department would need an amortization schedule from the permittee for all permanent improvements to be claimed, 

including receipts of purchase, labor costs, or any other costs. The Department believes these are the only costs where compensation is appropriate. 

H.R. 3247—the Trail Responsibility and Accountability for the Improvement of 

Lands Act (TRAIL Act) of 2003

The Department supports the goals of H.R. 3247, but would like to work with the 

Subcommittee on some modifications that we believe would improve the bill. We 

commend Mr. Tancredo and the cosponsors of H.R. 3247 for their efforts through 

this bill to raise the public’s awareness of the laws pertaining to Federal lands to 

protect the public’s natural resources, and the consequences of violating them. We 

also thank the Subcommittee for seeking innovative approaches for providing resources to the Department to rehabilitate National Forest System lands once a 

criminal violation has occurred. 

H.R. 3247 makes consistent the penalties for violating regulations of the National 

Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service in 

the Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture. We support such a concept as we work closely with our fellow land management agencies in enforcement activities, including local cross-designations of authority. Consistent enforcement authority would make this cooperation much easier, aid 

the public in understanding regulations and penalties, and assist prosecutors and 

courts that must handle cases arising from different federal jurisdictions. The bill 

would change the penalty for violation of our regulations from one level of offense 

to two levels. We will work with the Department of Justice and the federal courts 

to best ensure advantages of consistent criminal penalties are fulfilled. 

The Department has been working with the Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior, and the Subcommittee on similar bills dealing with enforcement and violations. We are willing to offer suggested changes to H.R. 3247, which 

we believe will strengthen the bill while still allowing the flexibility for enforcement. 

These suggested changes to the Forest Service Organic Act deal with fines. 

The Department would like to work with the Subcommittee, the Department of 

the Interior, and the Department of Justice to clarify Section 2 of the bill dealing 

with Class A and Class B misdemeanors. Creating these separate offenses provides 

both the land managers and the Department of Justice with much greater flexibility 

to deal with criminal violations of land management regulations. The Forest Service 

has authority to issue Class B misdemeanors for a violation of agency regulations 

9

as stated in the Forest Service Organic Act of 1897. H.R. 3247 would create a new 

Class A misdemeanor for certain offenses committed on National Forest System 

lands by any person who knowingly and willfully violates any such rule or regulation. The bill adopts the most onerous requirement of ‘‘knowingly and willfully,’’ 

which generally requires greater proof of wrongdoing. Thus, in a prosecution involving the ‘‘knowing and willful’’ standard, the government must prove that the defendant specifically intended to violate the law, a difficult standard to meet. Proof that 

an offense was committed ‘‘knowingly’’ merely requires proof of the facts that constitute the offense. This means that in a criminal prosecution involving the ‘‘knowing’’ standard, the government must only prove that the defendant was aware of his 

acts, performed them intentionally, and did not act by mistake or accident. 

In addition, Section 3 of the bill needs to be clarified concerning use of collected 

fines. H.R. 3247 identifies how collected fines will be used by providing authority 

to the Secretary to use all fines, including collaterals, collected as a result of a violation of Forest Service regulations to cover the cost to the United States of any improvement, protection, or rehabilitation work on National Forest System lands rendered necessary by the action which led to the fines. Congress has previously approved the use of fines by other Departments in other critical environmental legislation, including the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act of 1918. H.R. 3247 also would establish an innovative and effective means of 

putting the penalties paid by violators of Federal regulations to use to cover some 

of the costs of damage caused by violations. The bill also would authorize the use 

of moneys received from fines, forfeitures, judgments, settlements, and compromises 

to be used for prevention and education programs to help prevent future violations 

and losses. 

To effectuate fully the authority provided by H.R. 3247 to retain and spend fines 

and collaterals collected for criminal violations of Forest Service regulations, the Department recommends that Paragraph (A), as added by Section 3(d) of the bill governing the use of moneys collected by the Forest Service be amended by expanding 

the use of such moneys to cover the costs of repair and replacement of other government property damaged by the action that led to the fine, forfeiture, judgment, compromise, or settlement. 

We appreciate the interest of the sponsor and the Subcommittee in addressing 

violations of law on National Forest System lands and their penalties, and your willingness to work with us to address the many law enforcement challenges we face. 

This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that 

you may have. 

Mr. RENZI. Mitch, it is good to have you here this morning. 

Mr. DICKINSON. Thank you, sir. I am happy to be here. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you for coming all the way to Washington. I 

am interested to hear your statement. Please begin. 

STATEMENT OF MITCH DICKINSON, MAYOR, TOWN OF CAMP 

VERDE, ARIZONA; ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL R. BLUFF, 

MAYOR, CLARKDALE, ARIZONA; AND RUBEN JAUREGUI, 

MAYOR, COTTONWOOD, ARIZONA 

Mr. DICKINSON. My name is Mitch Dickinson and I am the 

Mayor of the Town of Camp Verde. I am also a sixth generation 

Camp Verde native and I believe I have a strong understanding of 

the issues important to Northern Arizona. 

I appear before you today as a spokesperson for the towns of 

Camp Verde, Cottonwood, Clarkdale, Flagstaff, Williams, Prescott, 

Chino Valley, and Prescott Valley, all of whom strongly endorse 

this land exchange. Four of these communities, including my hometown, will receive lands via this exchange that are very important 

in our efforts to plan for and accommodate future growth and economic development in a challenging rural area while preserving 

and protecting open space, the Verde River, and the Ponderosa 

Pine Forest. We were disappointed last year when the bill was not 

10

passed and we are here today to encourage you and support passage this session. 

The Forest Service and Yavapai Ranch have worked with the 

local communities for more than 5 years now and I would emphasize that we have an extraordinary consensus in Northern Arizona 

about this trade. Specifically, this land exchange has the strong 

support of every single city or town that has land involved in the 

exchange and every town that has land abutting the exchange. It 

also has the support of the numerous organizations that were mentioned previously. There could not possibly be a broader base of 

support for this bill. 

I would like to briefly describe why our communities are so interested in seeing this exchange. I will begin with Flagstaff. As was 

mentioned earlier, Flagstaff needs room to expand their airport. 

They need more room for runways to bring in regional jets that will 

help accommodate business and tourist travelers to the economy of 

all of Northern Arizona. They also need to acquire Forest Service 

land on which its water treatment plant is located, and this would 

help to meet the Forest Service goal that has been stated publicly 

in my hometown, that the Forest Service would like to get out of 

the land leasing business. 

Turning to Williams, the problems with water there were mentioned. Last year, their water capacity reservoirs were down to 4 

percent. This year, they are up to 8 percent. Out of all of the communities, they are probably the most anxious about its passage. 

They need additional lands to develop wells for proper water resources for their community. When water levels get this low, there 

is also a problem with water quality and water filtration, so it really is a public health issue to Williams. 

The next communities involved in the exchange are Cottonwood 

and Clarkdale. Clarkdale Mayor Mike Bluff and Cottonwood Mayor 

Ruben Jauregui are here with me today to support this bill. Both 

communities need this land exchange to accommodate their 

planned future growth and to improve the regional mix of housing 

available to its residents and to increase needed tax revenues while 

also maintaining open space along the foothills. These lands would 

give them the ability to make those smart growth planning decisions. 

Mayor Bluff has corrected stated in letters to Senators McCain 

and Kyl that this trade will save water. The water conservation 

easements that had been agreed to are unprecedented in Arizona. 

This legislation will require conservation methods that will be an 

example to future development in Arizona. 

Now, I will turn to my own Town of Camp Verde, where our 

town council strongly favors this land exchange. In the election 

held last spring, this issue was the most prominent and the proexchange candidates ran strongly on this issue for the growth and 

planning of our community and they were elected overwhelmingly. 

That was an accurate indication of how the people of Camp Verde 

think on this issue. 

Camp Verde understands that this exchange will provide us the 

opportunity for highway frontage land to build a commercial tax 

base that is currently Forest Service land. It will also provide land 

to our fire department and hazmat and emergency teams to have 

11

a response facility that is essential to their ability to handle emergencies along the Interstate 17 and Highway 260 corridors in a 

timely manner. 

We must build a commercial tax base in order to have sufficient 

revenue stream to provide basic services to our residents. Business 

wants to be located near a highway that passes 11 million vehicles 

a year and brings tourist dollars with it that will help to make 

these developments be successful. The Forest Service owns the land 

along the highway. This land is arid, low-lying scrub-brush that is 

not very scenic by Verde Valley standards. It is, however, ideal for 

commercial development. 

Right now, you cannot buy a pair of shoes in Camp Verde. Our 

residents are forced to drive 15 miles or more to neighboring towns 

to do most of their shopping, and that is an inefficient circumstance 

in an ever-growing area. This trade will work to help development 

occur where it belongs, along the highway, well away from the riparian belts of the Verde River and the low-lying valley. 

I am aware that some have questioned the enforceability of the 

water conservation easements in the legislation. Arizona statutes 

authorize those easements and I can assure you that the towns of 

Camp Verde, Cottonwood, and Clarkdale are concerned about 

water and that we are ready, willing, and able to monitor and enforce them. 

We think the exchange is a win-all for Northern Arizona for future jobs, smart economic growth, and for protection and preservation of open space. We think it is fair to all the parties, including 

the cities and towns, Yavapai Ranch, and the Forest Service, and 

for all of these reasons, we ask you to promptly pass this bill. I 

would like to say that there are several letters of support that have 

been submitted and I would ask that they be included in the 

record. 

This concludes my statement. Mayor Jauregui, Mayor Bluff, and 

myself are here to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. RENZI. Mitch, thank you for your leadership on this and your 

comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dickinson follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Mitch Dickinson, Mayor,

Town of Camp Verde, Arizona, on H.R. 2907

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is Mitch Dickinson, and I am the Mayor of the Town of Camp Verde, 

Arizona. I appear before you today on behalf of the mayors of Camp Verde, Chino 

Valley, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, Flagstaff, Prescott, Prescott Valley and Williams, all 

of whom strongly endorse the land exchange proposals of H.R. 2907. 

Four of those communities, including my home town of Camp Verde, will receive 

lands via this exchange that are very important in order to accommodate future 

planned growth and economic development, provide critical new municipal services, 

and preserve and protect open space and the Verde River. 

Mr. Chairman, our communities need these lands now, before it is too late. This 

land exchange has been the most discussed in the history of Arizona. We were extremely disappointed when Congress adjourned last year without taking final action 

on the exchange legislation, even though the House passed it unanimously. Thus, 

we are asking that H.R. 2907 be passed by the Congress this fall. 

As you have already heard, the Forest Service has been working with the Yavapai 

Ranch Partnership and our city and town governments to put this land exchange 

together for more than five years now. I would emphasize that we have developed 

an extraordinary consensus about it. Specifically, this land exchange has the strong 

support of: 

12

• Every single City and Town that has land involved in the exchange or land 

which abuts the exchange; • The Coconino County Board of Supervisors and numerous elected officials; • Six summer camps for children which will receive land via the exchange—land 

which is needed to avoid future management conflicts with the Forest Service; • The Arizona Game and Fish Department; • The Navajo Nation, and Hopi and White Mountain Apache Tribes; • The Arizona Republic, our state’s largest newspaper, along with Flagstaff’s Arizona Daily Sun, Williams’ Grand Canyon News and the Verde Independent; • Numerous environmental, conservation and sportsmen’s groups, including the 

Central Arizona Land Trust and the 35 affiliated groups of the Wildlife Conservation Council; and • Numerous local Chambers of Commerce, Economic Development Organizations, 

unions and other civic and community organizations. 

Mr. Chairman, there could not possibly be a broader base of support for 

H.R. 2907 than what exists today. 

My official role here today is as the spokesperson for the cities of Northern Arizona, and so, with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly describe 

why the communities of Flagstaff, Clarkdale, Williams, and my own Town of Camp 

Verde are so interested in seeing this exchange completed at the earliest possible 

date. 

I will begin with Flagstaff. As Congressmen Renzi and Hayworth are so acutely 

aware, the City of Flagstaff desperately needs to retain and improve commercial airline service for its business and tourist travelers. By 2006, Flagstaff’s air carrier will 

have changed its fleet to regional jets that need a longer runway to land at and take 

off from Flagstaff’s Pulliam Airport. To do that, Flagstaff will need to lengthen its 

runway. This exchange will help facilitate Flagstaff’s efforts to do exactly that. Land 

around the airport that is not acquired by Flagstaff will become available for future 

business park or light industrial development that will diversify the region’s employment base. Other land may be used for affordable housing and new municipal 

parks. Flagstaff would also acquire the Forest Service land on which its water treatment plant is located. For all these reasons, the land exchange is vital for Flagstaff’s 

citizens and northern Arizona’s economy. Flagstaff and the Forest Service agree it 

makes sense for Flagstaff to acquire the lion’s share of the 1500-acre Federal parcel 

identified in H.R. 2907. 

Turning to the City of Williams, some 30 miles to the west of Flagstaff on Historic 

Route 66, the situation urgently requires passage of this legislation. Williams faces 

an absolute water crisis. Last year, its water reservoirs were depleted to only 4 percent of storage capacity—I repeat—4 percent of capacity—by the ongoing drought. 

This year, its reservoirs have ‘‘recovered,’’ if you can call it a recovery, to 8% of capacity. As Dennis Wells, who is the Williams City Manager, pointed out in last 

month’s testimony to the Senate, when water levels are that low, it not only jeopardizes Williams’ ability to provide even basic water services, but also triggers water 

quality and filtration problems. For this reason, Williams is extremely anxious to 

see immediate passage of H.R. 2907 so it can acquire from the Forest Service sites 

to drill new water wells to provide additional drinking water. Williams will then be 

able to implement its comprehensive water and wastewater program, which includes 

improvements to its water filtration plant and storage tanks, and the wastewater 

treatment facility. The severe drought in Arizona is ongoing, and may well be the 

worst drought in the past 100 years, so it is critical that the City of Williams acquire the new well sites at the earliest possible date. 

In addition, Williams is one of the main gateways to Grand Canyon National 

Park, and needs to improve its airport. The public golf course, municipal park, 

water filtration and wastewater treatments plants are all located wholly or partially 

on National Forest land. Williams wants to acquire these lands, and the Forest 

Service wants to exchange them, so Williams can own the land on which these municipal facilities are located. The Yavapai Ranch land exchange would enable this 

to happen. 

The next communities with lands involved in the exchange are the Town of 

Clarkdale and the City of Cottonwood, both of which are located some 20 miles 

northwest of Camp Verde. Clarkdale Mayor Mike Bluff and Cottonwood Mayor 

Ruben Jauregui are here with me today to support H.R. 2907. Clarkdale has already annexed the land adjacent to its boundaries. Both communities need this land 

to accommodate future planned growth, to improve the regional mix of housing 

available to its residents, and to add needed tax revenues. 

In addition, as Mayor Bluff has stated in previous letters to Senators McCain and 

Kyl, this trade saves water. The water conservation easements that have been 

agreed to are unprecedented in the Verde Valley. This legislation will require 

13

conservation methods to be put in place and we can use these as an example for 

future development. It is also important to note that many of our communities are 

landlocked by Forest and other public lands. Because additional land is not available, land prices have escalated. This additional land will help the market and 

make it easier for young families to reach the American dream of home ownership. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I turn to my own Town of Camp Verde, where our Town 

Council strongly favors this land exchange. Indeed, in the election held in our town 

last spring, approval of the Yavapai Ranch land exchange was the single most important issue on the voters’ minds. In that election, pro-exchange candidates were 

all elected by a 70% to 30% margin. That gives you an indication of how our community feels about this issue. 

Mr. Chairman, Camp Verde voters understand that this exchange offers them a 

commercial tax base to fund needed municipal services. Camp Verde and the local 

Fire District need land for an emergency response facility with fire, hazmat and 

medical services that are essential for a rapid response to emergencies along rural 

stretches of Interstate I-17. 

We also need to expand our regional commercial and residential tax base, which 

includes a regional shopping center. Right now, Camp Verde residents drive 15-20 

miles to Cottonwood to do most of their shopping—that is not very efficient in terms 

of traffic congestion and pollution, nor does it enhance our residents’ quality of life. 

Although there is private land in Camp Verde that could accommodate future 

growth, much of it is located along the beautiful Verde River or on the Verde River’s 

floodplain. 

So our choice is relatively clear: either we have more commercial development 

along the River, which our residents would like to see preserved, or we can locate 

it on the Forest Service land, west of Interstate 17. This tract is arid and not very 

scenic. It is located upslope and away from the Verde River, and can be developed 

without any visual or other impacts on the River’s riparian habitat. 

I also have been told that a member of Arizona’s Congressional staff has questioned the enforceability of the water conservation easements. Arizona’s statutes authorize those easements, and the Town of Camp Verde is ready, willing and able 

to enforce them. 

We think the proposed exchange is a win for our Town, for future jobs and 

growth, and for the protection and preservation of our open space and the Verde 

River riparian lands which make our community so beautiful. I also would like to 

introduce letters of support from our local firefighters union, from mayors, citizens 

and business, and an editorial from our local newspaper, the Verde Independent, 

which was published just last week on October 8. That editorial urges you to pass 

this bill. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, you can see why the elected officials from so many 

towns and cities in north central and northern Arizona think H.R. 2907 is a great 

piece of legislation, and why our four towns in particular need it to be enacted as 

soon as humanly possible. We think that H.R.2907 is fair to all parties, including 

our cities and towns, Yavapai Ranch and the Forest Service. For all these reasons, 

we ask you to promptly pass H.R. 2907 this fall. 

That concludes my testimony. Mayor Bluff, Mayor Jauregui or I would be happy 

to answer any questions the Subcommittee might have. Thank you. 

Mr. RENZI. Andy, good morning. Good to see you. 

STATEMENT OF PETER ANDREW ‘‘ANDY’’ GROSETA, OWNER, W 

DART RANCH, DBA, GROSETA RANCHES, LLC, COTTONWOOD, 

ARIZONA 

Mr. GROSETA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and 

members of the Subcommittee, my name is Peter Andrew Groseta 

and I am a third generation cattle rancher from the Verde Valley 

in North Central Arizona. My family came to the Verde Valley at 

the turn of the last century to work in the copper mines in Jerome, 

Arizona. In 1922, my father’s family moved to a ranch in Middle 

Verde, and in 1936 to Cottonwood, where our ranch headquarters 

are today. 

We are a family run ranching operation. My father passed away 

in May of 2000. My wife, Mary Beth, and I have raised three 

14

children, one son and two daughters, who are all enrolled at the 

University of Arizona, majoring in agriculture. Our son would like 

to come back to the ranch after he receives his degree and operate 

the ranch. 

I am here today representing my family’s ranch, which will be 

adversely impacted if the proposed Yavapai Ranch land exchange 

is passed by Congress, unless Groseta Ranch is fully compensated 

for the real losses it will suffer as a result of the exchange. If this 

exchange is passed by Congress, it will cause a substantial adverse 

financial loss for my family. 

Despite what some might say, my family’s loss will be very real. 

The exchange will constitute a taking in the truest sense of the 

word. The marketplace and the Internal Revenue Service take the 

value of grazing permits, improvements, and other factors into account every day in the evaluation of rangelands for the purposes 

of death and gift transfers, purchases and sales. If the Internal 

Revenue Service can dramatically increase a value of a rancher’s 

base property because of a grazing permit and improvements for 

the purposes of imposing estate taxes and capital gains taxes, how 

could the Federal Government take away these very same values 

from a citizen and not compensate him or her? And how can anyone ignore the financial impact on a ranch of permanently losing 

a substantial amount of its capacity to raise a sufficient number of 

cattle to cover fixed expenses and debt service? 

I begin my testimony with an emphasis that there is much local 

controversy, not only in the towns of Camp Verde, Cottonwood, and 

Clarkdale regarding this proposed exchange, but also in the unincorporated areas of Yavapai County. All of this controversy is totally apart from the Groseta Ranch issues. The Camp Verde Town 

Council has reversed its position on this proposed exchange three 

times, and the Clarkdale Town Council has reversed its position 

two times. That should tell you that this proposed land exchange 

is very, very controversial in the Verde Valley. 

At the outset, it is important to note that the Groseta Ranch prefers that the Camp Verde and Cottonwood-Clarkdale parcels simply be dropped from the exchange. 

We recognize that the proposed H.R. 2907 will greatly benefit 

Arizona, particularly many counties and municipalities. We believe 

the public goals of such an exchange can be effectively completed 

without including the Camp Verde and Cottonwood-Clarkdale parcels. There is already a substantial amount of undeveloped private 

land in the Verde Valley to support economic growth and increase 

the population base. 

However, if the exchange as presented is passed by Congress, it 

will cause a severe economic loss to our family’s ranch. We have 

researched this matter and have found that according to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act Title 43, Section 1752(g), 

statutory authority is provided for compensation to grazing permittees in the event a land exchange occurs. 

The following economic issues result from the exchange. Number 

one, if the proposed exchange is implemented, approximately 2,200 

acres of real U.S. Forest Service property with grazing rights would 

be eliminated from Groseta Ranch’s cattle operation, known as the 

Camp Verde parcel. This lost business opportunity would result in 

15

a permanent reduction in grazing of at least 47 head of cattle, or 

25 percent of the carrying capacity of this holding. This will cause 

a permanent loss of net income to Groseta Ranch, which puts an 

additional burden on Groseta Ranch’s ability to pay its bills and 

debt service. 

Number two, in addition to the loss of grazing rights, vested 

water rights would be impacted on the Camp Verde parcel. 

Number three, improvements, such as right-of-ways, fences, 

roads, and trails, water pipelines, water troughs, wells, and corrals 

would be lost. Photographs of these improvements are included in 

Exhibit A, which will be submitted for the record. 

Number four, there would be a significantly diminished value for 

Groseta Ranch’s fee simple real property interest in the Hayfield 

base holding, not contiguous to the Camp Verde parcel, but as a 

part of the grazing allotment. 

Number five, there will be a significant permanent loss of production and, therefore, income by Groseta Ranch as a result of the 

significant reduction in its carrying capacity. 

Number six, presently, the U.S. Forest Service CottonwoodClarkdale parcel, which consists of 820 acres, is landlocked. Any 

prescriptive easement the Forest Service or its transferee may obtain in the future will not support a use other than running livestock. Lack of legal access and water conservation easements are 

both factors which will encumber the parcels and reduce fair market value when they are appraised. This should take the parcel out 

of the proposed exchange altogether. 

We believe the transferee-developer hopes to get this parcel at a 

greatly reduced value and then find a way to get around the legal 

prohibitions to its development. There is no other possible explanation why he wants this parcel in the exchange. This would be a 

disservice to the American people, who would be basically giving 

this parcel away. 

In conclusion, the following is a summary of the real losses, calculated on a conservative basis, as detailed in Exhibit A, which is 

submitted for the record that will be sustained by my family as a 

result of the exchange. Loss of grazing permits, $105,000. Loss of 

value in base property, $141,900. Loss of vested water rights, 

$9,000. Loss of improvements, $153,688. Legal and other related 

costs, $25,000. Loss of business capacity, $111,236. This adds up to 

a total loss to the Groseta Ranch of $545,824. 

A detailed memorandum submitted to Congressman Renzi and 

Senators McCain and Kyl on July 9, 2003, is attached as Exhibit 

A, which is submitted for the record. 

Groseta Ranch’s first choice, however, is to have the controversial 

Camp Verde and Cottonwood-Clarkdale parcels excluded altogether 

from the exchange and not suffer any of these losses. Even with 

both of these parcels being excluded from the exchange, the exchange itself still offers substantial benefits to all parties involved. 

The proponent of the exchange can be compensated for removing 

these parcels by conveying alternative Federal land to him on the 

Yavapai Ranch, the Flagstaff Airport, or other selected Federal 

lands the Federal Government desires to exchange in Northern Arizona. 

16

However, in closing, if the above-mentioned compensation to our 

family is included in the proposed bill, we can support the bill. This 

concludes my testimony and I would be pleased to answer any 

questions. Thank you. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Groseta. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Groseta follows:]

Statement of P. Andrew (‘‘Andy’’) Groseta, Owner, W Dart Ranch, dba, 

Groseta Ranches, LLC, on H.R. 2907

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Good morning. My name is Peter Andrew Groseta, and I am a third-generation 

cattle rancher from the Verde Valley in north central Arizona. My family came to 

the Verde Valley at the ‘‘turn of the last century’’ to work in the copper mines in 

Jerome, Arizona. In 1922, my father’s family moved to a ranch in Middle Verde, and 

in 1936 to Cottonwood, where our Ranch Headquarters are today. 

We are a family-run ranching operation. My father passed away in May of 2000. 

My wife, Mary Beth, and I have raised three children, one son and two daughters, 

who are all enrolled at the University of Arizona, majoring in agriculture. Our son 

would like to come back to run the ranch, after he receives his college degree. 

I am here today representing my family’s ranch, which will be adversely impacted 

if the proposed Yavapai Ranch/USFS Land Exchange is passed by Congress, unless 

Groseta Ranch is fully compensated for the real losses it will suffer as a result of 

the exchange. If this exchange is passed by Congress, it will cause a substantial, 

adverse financial loss for my family. Despite what some might say, my family’s loss 

will be very real. The exchange will constitute a ‘‘taking’’ in the truest sense of that 

word. The marketplace and the Internal Revenue Service take the value of grazing 

permits, improvements and other factors into account every day in the valuation of 

rangeland for the purposes of death and gift transfers, purchases and sales. If the 

Internal Revenue Service can dramatically increase the value of a rancher’s base 

property because of a grazing permit and improvements for the purposes of imposing estate taxes and capital gains taxes, how could the federal government take 

away these very same values from a citizen and not compensate him or her? And 

how can anyone ignore the financial impact on a ranch of permanently losing a substantial amount of its capacity to raise a sufficient number of cattle to cover fixed 

expenses and debt service? 

I begin my testimony with an emphasis that there is much local controversy, not 

only in the Towns of Camp Verde, Cottonwood and Clarkdale regarding this proposed exchange, but also in the unincorporated areas of Yavapai County. All of this 

controversy is totally apart from the Groseta Ranch issues. The Camp Verde Town 

Council has reversed its position on this proposed exchange three times; and the 

Clarkdale Town Council has reversed its position two times. That should tell you 

that this proposed land exchange is very, very controversial in the Verde Valley. 

At the outset, it is important to note that Groseta Ranch prefers that the Camp 

Verde and Clarkdale parcels simply be dropped from the exchange. 

We recognize that proposed H.R. 2907 will greatly benefit Arizona, particularly 

many counties and municipalities. We believe the public goals of such an exchange 

can be effectively completed without including the Camp Verde and Clarkdale/Cottonwood parcels. There is already a substantial amount of undeveloped private land 

in the Verde Valley to support economic growth and increase the population base. 

However, if the exchange as presented is passed by Congress, it will cause a severe economic loss to our family ranch. We have researched this matter, and have 

found that, according to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 USC 

§ 1752(g), statutory authority is provided for compensation to grazing permittees in 

the event a land exchange occurs. 

The following economic issues result from the exchange: 

1. If the proposed Exchange is implemented, approximately 2,200 acres of real 

property U.S. Forest Service (USFS) grazing rights would be eliminated from 

Groseta Ranch’s cattle operation (the ‘‘Camp Verde parcel’’). This lost business opportunity would result in permanent reduction in grazing of at least 47 head of cattle, or 25% or more of the carrying capacity of this holding. This will cause a permanent loss of net income to Groseta Ranch, which puts an additional burden on 

Groseta Ranch’s ability to pay its bills and debt service; 

2. In addition to the loss of grazing rights, vested water rights would be impacted 

on the Camp Verde parcel; 

17

3. Improvements such as right-of-ways, fences, roads and trails, pipelines, wells, 

troughs and corrals would be lost. Photographs of these improvements are included 

in Exhibit A, which will be submitted for the record; 

4. There would be a significantly diminished value for Groseta Ranch’s fee simple 

real property interest in the Hayfield base holding (not contiguous to the Camp 

Verde parcel, but the base property of the Verde Grazing allotment); 

5. There will be significant, permanent loss of production, and therefore, income 

by Groseta Ranch as a result of the significant reduction in its grazing capacity; and 

6. Presently, the USFS Cottonwood/Clarkdale parcel (820 acres) is landlocked. 

Any prescriptive easement the USFS or its transferee may obtain in the future will 

not support a use other than running livestock. Lack of legal access and water conservation easements are both factors which will encumber the parcels and reduce 

fair market value when they are appraised. This should take the parcel out of the 

proposed exchange altogether. We believe the transferee/developer hopes to get this 

parcel at a greatly reduced value and then find a way to get around the legal prohibitions to its development. There is no other possible explanation why he wants this 

parcel in the exchange. This would be a disservice to the American people who 

would basically be giving this parcel away. 

In conclusion, the following is a summary of the real losses (calculated on a conservative basis as detailed in Exhibit A, which is submitted for the record) that will 

be sustained by my family as a result of the proposed exchange: 

Loss of Grazing Permits — $105,000

Loss of Value in Base Property — $141,900

Loss of Vested Water Rights — $9,000

Loss of Improvements — $153,688

Legal and Other Related Costs — $25,000

Loss of Business Capacity — $111,236

Total: — $545,824

A detailed memorandum submitted to Congressman Renzi and Senators McCain 

and Kyl, on July 9, 2003, is attached as an Exhibit A, which is submitted for the 

record. 

Groseta Ranch’s first choice, however, is to have the controversial Camp Verde 

and Cottonwood/Clarkdale parcels excluded altogether from the exchange, and not 

suffer any of these losses. Even with both of these parcels being excluded from the 

exchange, the exchange itself still offers substantial benefits to all parties involved! 

The proponent of the exchange can be compensated for removing these parcels by 

conveying alternative federal land to him on the Yavapai Ranch, the Flagstaff Airport, or other selected federal lands the federal government desires to exchange in 

Northern Arizona. However, in closing, if the above-mentioned compensation to our 

family is included in the proposed bill, we can support the bill. This concludes my 

testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

[NOTE: The attachment to Mr. Groseta’s statement has been retained in the 

Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. RENZI. I now recognize Ms. Roder. 

STATEMENT OF AILEEN RODER, PROGRAM DIRECTOR,

TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE 

Ms. RODER. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Renzi, Congressman Inslee, and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I am Aileen Roder, Program Director at Taxpayers for 

Common Sense, a national nonpartisan budget watchdog group. I 

would like to thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding 

H.R. 2907, which would convey approximately 21,000 acres of 

Forest Service land to Yavapai Ranch in exchange for lands within 

the boundaries of the Prescott National Forest in Arizona. 

Taxpayers for Common Sense strongly opposes H.R. 2907 and is 

concerned about land transfers and land exchanges in general. In 

1998, TCS testified urging that taxpayers deserve a fair return on 

the public’s investment. Under fair market terms, both U.S. taxpayers and local interests can benefit from land exchanges. However, due to recent controversies surrounding the management of 

18

Federal lands, we believe that a temporary moratorium on all land 

exchanges should be implemented. 

We need to fix the system administratively. The legislative process should be eliminated because it lacks a process for public input 

and raises the specter of political influence dictating outcomes. 

H.R. 2907 allows Yavapai Ranch to have its cake and eat it, too, 

with Yavapai Ranch keeping its grazing allotment and part of its 

water rights on the lands it is exchanging to the Federal Government while receiving extremely valuable lands throughout the 

Verde Valley. H.R. 2907 also requires the Forest Service to reimburse grazing rights of those entities that are currently grazing on 

the Federal lands that Yavapai will receive. The cost of reimbursing these grazing rights should not fall upon taxpayers. 

The conservation or water restriction easements on two parcels 

of Federal lands to be given to Yavapai will decrease the fair market value of the Federal property. Due to an apparent loophole in 

H.R. 2907, these water restrictions will reduce the estimated value 

of the two parcels while not actually achieving the goal they are 

seeking. 

Local communities in the Verde Valley are extremely concerned 

regarding this land exchange, with 15 out of 31 local elected officials opposed to this land exchange being legislated. Under a legislated land exchange, the public will not see the appraisal of Federal and non-Federal lands until the land exchange is complete. Secrecy in completing land deals is bad public policy and it hurts the 

public trust in the process. 

The General Accounting Office investigated Federal land exchanges conducted by BLM and the Forest Service and documented 

numerous cases in which the Federal Government did not ensure 

that the land being exchanged was appropriately valued or that 

land exchanges served the public interest or met other land exchange requirements. The GAO found that agencies have given 

more than fair market value for the non-Federal land they acquired and accepted less than fair market value for Federal land 

that they conveyed. The agencies did not follow their requirements 

that help show that the public benefits of acquiring the non-Federal land in an exchange matched or exceeded the public benefits 

of retaining the land. 

As a result, GAO stated, ‘‘We believe that Congress may wish to 

consider directing the Service and the Bureau to discontinue their 

land exchange programs.’’ BLM and Forest Service must be cognizant of the serious issues raised by GAO. In response to these 

concerns, the Department of Interior recently announced the creation of a new team that will plan to consolidate appraisal functions performed by various agencies within the Department of Interior. 

In conclusion, H.R. 2907 raises numerous taxpayer concerns, 

both to the specific land exchange and the Federal land exchange 

system in general. Congress should eliminate legislative land exchanges because they are too susceptible to the political influence. 

Simply put, land exchanges are an administrative function and 

should be removed from the political arena. 

Specifically, the Yavapai land exchange reveals many questions 

regarding valuation of Federal and non-Federal lands, the right of 

19

1Land Exchanges Need to Reflect Appropriate Value and Serve the Public Interest. June 

2000, (GAO/RCED 00-73). 2P.L. 94-579, October 21, 1976. 

3GAO/RCED 00-73. 

4 Ibid. 

5 Ibid. 

6 Ibid. 

7 Ibid. 

the Yavapai Ranch to retain water and grazing rights, local community opposition, and the inability of taxpayers to see appraisals 

until after the land exchange is completed. These problems raise 

concerns of fundamental fairness to both local communities and 

American taxpayers. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I would 

be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you for your articulation, Ms. Roder. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Roder follows:]

Statement of Aileen Roder, Program Director,

Taxpayers for Common Sense, on H.R. 2907

Good morning, Chairman McInnis, Congressman Inslee, and other distinguished 

members of the Subcommittee. I am Aileen Roder, Program Director at Taxpayers 

for Common Sense (TCS), a national, non-partisan budget watchdog group. I would 

like to thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing regarding H.R. 2907, 

which would provide for a land exchange in the State of Arizona between the Secretary of Agriculture and Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership. 

Taxpayers for Common Sense strongly opposes H.R. 2907. This bill, introduced in 

July by Congressmen Renzi (R-AZ) and Hayworth (R-AZ), would convey approximately 21,000 acres of Forest Service land to Yavapai Ranch in exchange for lands 

within the boundaries of the Prescott National Forest, Arizona. 

Unfortunately, H.R. 2907 is just one more example of the controversy and problems associated with the federal land exchange system. In June 2000, the General 

Accounting Office (GAO) documented numerous cases in which the federal government ‘‘did not ensure that the land being exchanged was appropriately valued or 

that exchanges served the public interest or met other exchange requirements.’’ 1

Taxpayers for Common Sense favors privatizing or devolving certain federal assets to state or local government in appropriate circumstances. Under fair market 

terms and conditions, both U.S. taxpayers and local interests can benefit from land 

exchanges. However, due to the extreme controversy surrounding the management 

of federal land exchanges in recent years, TCS believes that we need to have a temporary moratorium on all land exchanges until the system can be fixed. The administrative process should be revamped to be fully transparent and serve taxpayer, not 

private interests. The legislative land exchange process should not exist, period. The 

legislative process, such as it is, lacks a process for public input and visibility and 

raises the specter of political influence dictating outcomes. Simply put, land exchanges are an administrative function and should be removed from the political 

arena. 

Federal Land Exchange System in Desperate Need of Reform 

In order for a land exchange to occur under federal law, the estimated value of 

the nonfederal land must be within 25 percent of the estimated value of the federal 

land and the public interest must be well-served. 2 In its June 2000 report, GAO investigated federal land exchanges conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service between 1989 and 1999. 3 During that time 

period, the Forest Service completed approximately 1,265 land exchanges, valued at 

over $1 billion, and acquired a net total of about 950 square miles. 4 BLM does not 

track exchanges, but instead counts transactions (two can occur for every land exchange). 5 Between 1989 and 1999, BLM completed about 2,600 transactions, acquiring approximately 550 square miles. 6

The GAO found 7: 

1. ‘‘The agencies have given more than fair market value for nonfederal land they 

acquired and accepted less than fair market value for federal land they conveyed because the appraisals used to estimate the lands’ value did not always 

meet federal standards.’’

20

8 Ibid. 

2. ‘‘The agencies did not follow their requirements that help show that the public 

benefits of acquiring the nonfederal land in an exchange matched or exceeded 

the public benefits of retaining the federal land, raising doubts about whether 

these exchanges served the public interest.’’

3. BLM ‘‘sold federal land, deposited the sales proceeds into interest-bearing escrow accounts, and used these funds to acquire nonfederal land (or arranged 

with others to do so). Current law does not authorize the Bureau to retain or 

use proceeds from selling federal land; it instead requires the Bureau to deposit sale proceeds into the Treasury and to use appropriations to acquire nonfederal lands. In using these funds and the interest earned on them to purchase land, the Bureau augmented its appropriations. The Bureau also did not 

comply with its sale authority when it sold the land, and none of the funds 

retained in escrow accounts or used in this manner were tracked in the Bureau’s financial management system.’’

As a result, GAO stated, ‘‘[W]e believe that the Congress may wish to consider 

directing the Service and the Bureau to discontinue their land exchange programs.’’ 8

GAO’s findings raise serious concerns about federal land exchanges. Although 

there are times when exchanging federal lands for nonfederal lands may appear like 

a good solution, BLM and the Forest Service must be cognizant of the issues raised 

by GAO. In fact, the Department of Interior recently announced the creation of a 

new team that will provide an action plan for consolidating appraisal functions performed by various agencies within the Department of Interior. 

TCS believes that land exchanges that occur through the legislative process are 

more prone to misuse and political influence than those occurring through the administrative process. Legislative land exchanges that are conducted for political reasons are less likely to ensure that land is properly valued and the public interest 

is protected. 

Taxpayers for Common Sense has been concerned with land exchanges for years. 

In 1998, TCS also testified about land transfers and exchanges. Then as now, TCS 

urged that taxpayers deserve a fair return on the public’s investment. 

Specific Taxpayer Concerns Regarding H.R. 2907

Under H.R. 2907, Yavapai Ranch will keep its grazing allotment and water rights 

to three wells on the properties that it transfers (the Forest Service will be entitled 

to half the production in each of the wells up to 3,100,000 gallons a year). In effect, 

H.R. 2907 allows Yavapai Ranch to ‘‘have your cake and eat it too.’’ Yavapai Ranch 

can continue its ranching activities and water usage on the lands it has exchanged 

to the federal government while receiving extremely valuable land throughout the 

Verde Valley. 

The conservation, or water restriction, easements on two parcels of federal lands 

to be given to Yavapai will decrease the fair market value of the federal property. 

It appears that these restrictions could be evaded or irrelevant to actual potential 

water use, therefore obviating the utility of water restriction easements on these 

two parcels of land. As a result, these water restrictions would reduce the estimated 

value of these two parcels of federal land without actually achieving their goal. 

Along with allowing Yavapai Ranch to keep its grazing rights, H.R. 2907 also requires the Forest Service to reimburse grazing rights of those entities that are currently grazing on the federal lands that Yavapai will receive. The cost of reimbursing these grazers should not fall completely on taxpayers. 

Under a legislated land exchange, the public will not see the appraisal of federal 

and nonfederal lands to be exchanged until after the deal is completed. This leaves 

the public with little recourse to affect the land exchange. Secrecy in completing 

land deals is bad policy and hurts the public trust in the process. It makes taxpayers and local communities feel like their interests and concerns are secondary. 

Instead, appraisals should be a matter of public record prior to the signing of land 

exchange deals. By making the federal land exchange appraisal process more transparent, BLM and the Forest Service can get more public buy-in to the end result, 

thereby reducing controversy and concerns around pending land exchange deals. 

Under this bill, if the Secretary of Agriculture lacks adequate staff or resources 

to complete the land exchange, Yavapai can hire third-party contractors, subject to 

mutual agreement of the Secretary and Yavapai Ranch, to carry out activities necessary to complete the exchange by 18 months after H.R. 2907 becomes law. The 

Secretary must reimburse Yavapai for costs associated with these contractors. This 

provision sets up a potentially strange dynamic where a private entity can force 

21

9GAO/RCED 00-73. 

congressional appropriators to fund administrative costs for a land exchange, even 

if those appropriators chose for policy reasons to defund federal land exchanges. 

Finally, local communities in the Verde Valley are extremely concerned regarding 

this land exchange. Letters and petitions have been sent. Fifteen out of 31 elected 

officials in the Verde Valley are opposed to this land exchange being proposed. This 

is further evidence that the public would like more input into the process rather 

than being excluded from negotiations. Based on this and other public and taxpayer 

concerns, this land exchange should not be legislated, but should instead go through 

the administrative process. Allowing the public to be more involved could go a long 

way towards ensuring local communities and federal taxpayers that their concerns 

are being taken seriously and addressed. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, H.R. 2907 raises numerous taxpayer concerns related both to this 

specific land exchange and to the federal land exchange system in general. Congress 

should implement a moratorium on all land exchanges until such time that the public can be ensured that ‘‘the land being exchanged was appropriately valued or that 

exchanges served the public interest or met other exchange requirements.’’ 9 We 

should eliminate legislative land exchanges because they are too susceptible to political influence. Instead, land exchanges are an administrative function and should 

be removed from the political arena. 

Specifically, the Yavapai land exchange raises numerous questions regarding 

valuation of the federal and nonfederal properties, the right of Yavapai Ranch to 

retain water and grazing rights, local community opposition, and the inability of the 

taxpayers to see land appraisals until after the exchange deal has been completed. 

These problems raise concerns of fundamental fairness to both local communities 

and American taxpayers. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

Mr. RENZI. At this time, we would like to move to questions of 

the members. I remind the members under Rule 3(c), we impose a 

5-minute limit on questions. At this time, I would like to recognize 

the gentleman from Arizona, Congressman Hayworth. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rey, thank you for joining us this morning. If my understanding is correct, I believe you testified at the Senate hearing 

that it could take seven to 8 years to complete this exchange if we 

do not do it by legislation. Is that still the correct estimate? 

Mr. REY. That would be the optimistic scenario absent any appeals or legal action that might follow a major land exchange like 

this. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. As is often the case in panels, and for the record, 

I thought it was interesting to hear critical discussions as if we are 

not taking into account different points of view, and we welcome 

all of the panelists because there are substantially different points 

of view on this that is now being made part of the public record 

even as we speak. 

Mr. Rey, you also mentioned in your testimony that this ex- change could result initially in $1 million worth of savings, I believe I heard in your testimony. Could you expound upon that? 

Mr. REY. That is just an example. That may be the simplest one 

to describe because we won’t be doing land line locations throughout an extended checkerboard ownership and we can quantify that 

directly in terms of what our average land line costs are per linear 

foot. 

But more broadly, you know, you have to consider that the status 

quo is not going to remain static absent this exchange. Within that 

22

checkerboard are areas that are susceptible to development. If 

some of those checkerboard private acres are developed, then our 

costs for managing our ownership within the checkerboard will escalate dramatically. Just our fire fighting and fire suppression 

costs alone will go through the roof because we will be bound to 

try to protect some of the subdivisions that are created within that 

checkerboard. 

So this is an important land exchange to get us out of a land 

ownership pattern that is archaic and dates back over 160 years. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Rey. 

Mayor Dickinson, you have testified that the 2,200 acre Camp 

Verde parcel is a local place for future community growth and that 

placing a regional shopping center and other development in that 

area, if possible, is a better place to channel future development in 

your town than along the bottom lands of the Verde River. Do your 

fellow council members agree with that assessment? 

Mr. DICKINSON. Yes, that is indeed correct. At the current time, 

we have a seven-person council, and six members of which are in 

favor of this exchange, and the idea of putting the development on 

the freeway, where there is proper access, away from the Verde—

I mean, any other land that we have available for commercial development, it is a piece here, a piece there, mixed in with residential, not proper access. It is just really along the freeway is where 

we need to build a tax base for our community. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. And the council vote was six to one— 

Mr. DICKINSON. Our current council sits six to one, and Mr. 

Groseta was indeed correct. It has been an issue that got arm wrestled out. But the community at this point, for about the last 9 

months now, has been real strong on it and in recent months the 

logical sense of all of this has really come to the forefront. Our 

council is strongly in support of this. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Mayor, I would appreciate that, and I think 

we would note in public policy it is rare when we get complete unanimity on questions of these types. Our friend, the late John 

Rhodes, used to say that public policy results in the art of what is 

possible, not what is always agreed to throughout, and so certainly 

we are dealing with this today and we welcome all the testimony. 

One final question for Mr. Rey. Mr. Rey, recently, the environmental group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, 

or PEER, claimed that violence against Federal employees has increased due to Bush administration policies. Have you had a 

chance to review that analysis to verify its accuracy, and how 

would you respond to the claims of PEER in general? 

Mr. REY. When we saw that release a couple of months ago, I 

asked Forest Service law enforcement to go back into the data base 

that PEER requested through the Freedom of Information Act to 

use to build that claim. What we found, and I will make this report 

available for the Subcommittee’s record, is that the threats and assaults against Forest Service employees actually declined by 40 

percent over the last year. So it is an enigma to me how PEER 

managed to mis-analyze the data to show an increase when the 

data actually show a reduction. 

The second allegation, that these are somehow the result of Bush 

administration resource management policies, ignores the fact that 

23

most of the threats or assaults were made by drunks, drug runners, and devoted environmental protesters. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Rey, I thank you for your response and I 

thank all of the panelists. I think we have a new definition of peer 

pressure. I yield back. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RENZI. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. 

I recognize now the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Mr. Rey, I am sure you don’t lump all 

those groups together. 

Mr. REY. No. 

Mr. INSLEE. It was just a coincidence that— 

Mr. REY. Those were just the three largest categories. 

Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate that clarification. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. INSLEE. Maybe I could just ask the panel in general about 

this issue, and not knowing the area, not very well versed in this 

conservation easement issue, but is this mechanism different than 

a water rights retention, and if not, why not? Why not a water 

right—why not a transfer or retention of water rights as opposed 

to a, quote, ‘‘conservation easement’’? 

As I understand the conservation easement, you are trying to affect the surface usage of the land but not necessarily specifically 

adjudicating or handling the specific water right. Is my understanding correct, and maybe you could just address the effectiveness of this. I know a question has been raised about a potential 

loophole of one or two of the municipalities being able to use this 

one aquifer. If all of you, if you can, address the enforceability and 

how this affects the water rights itself. That is an open question 

to anyone. 

Mr. DICKINSON. The enforceability in Camp Verde, we feel like 

is going to be done through the zoning and the planning and zoning 

process. When this land goes into private ownership, it is going to 

carry the current zoning on it, which is RCU-2A, which historically 

was a zoning classification designated by Yavapai County in the 

late 1950s, early 1960s as they were unsure about how Yavapai 

County would develop. It stands for Residential or Conditional Use, 

Two Acre Minimum. So when somebody acquires Forest Service 

land, they have two-acre zoning. 

Obviously, two-acre residential zoning along a busy freeway, 

where it is a prime spot for commercial development, is not the 

zoning that is going to be needed. As soon as this legislation is 

passed, the town of Camp Verde would move to adopt those conservation easements as part of the land use and the zoning on that 

so that any applicant that comes forward with a planned area development or any development issue whatsoever would be forced, 

if that zoning did not look like that it met those water conservation 

easements, it wouldn’t be approved. 

The underlying factor of this is also, as you may or may not 

know, in our State, Salt River Project carries a pretty big stick 

about water issues, as well, and they are going to be monitoring 

that. The 700 acre feet that have been allotted for the Camp Verde 

piece, we think is a fair and accurate allocation of water. It is not 

24

too much. It is not too little. But it was sensible enough that the 

Salt River Project was involved in those negotiations. 

So just through this planning and zoning process, we feel locally 

we can control that water usage. 

Ms. RODER. Congressman, we have concerns that there are ways 

to get around this, similar to the concerns raised by the Department of Agriculture, that there is a loophole with the ability to go 

out to the private water market and which would mean that we 

would potentially devalue the Federal lands that are being exchanged to Mr. Ruskin without actually achieving any of the conservation goals that we are seeking. 

Mr. INSLEE. Could you describe how that would work? When you 

say go out to the private water market, what do you mean? 

Ms. RODER. Well, there is a provision, Congressman, that they 

potentially can, from our reading of it, go above the 700 acre feet 

within the one parcel and the 150 acre feet within the other parcel 

on the water market and purchase additional water, which would 

mean that the actual goal of conserving water in this area, which 

seems to be one of the greatest concerns of the people of the Verde 

Valley, as the folks that I have talked to, would then be obviated. 

At the same time, we would devalue the Federal land, making the 

deal a lot worse for Federal taxpayers. 

Mr. INSLEE. Is the conservation easement a retention independent of the municipal zoning? Is that correct? In other words, 

there would be in the title an easement, is that correct? 

Mr. REY. That is correct. 

Mr. INSLEE. And is there a retention of water rights itself or a 

transfer of water rights itself in the proposed legislation? 

Mr. REY. The easement is a transfer of water rights, or the use, 

the right to use water. 

Mr. INSLEE. I am trying to wrap my arms around that, because 

to me, a conservation easement is a restriction of land usage, 

whereas a water right would be a legal right to the usage of the 

water itself. What I am hearing is there is the former, namely 

there is a restriction of land usage, which by implication you would 

assume would reduce or sort of compel certain usages of water, but 

there is not a specific legislative description of the water right. Am 

I correct on that, or do I misunderstand this? 

Mr. REY. I think—let me see if I can explain it, and I don’t hold 

myself out as an expert in water rights. In this particular case, the 

water is the value. Without water, the land has a much reduced 

value. What many proponents of the exchange would like to assure 

occurs is that the lands are not developed beyond the point such 

that the water usage associated with that development becomes a 

problem within the Verde Valley. 

So what the easement does is essentially purchase part of the 

water right and convey it into public ownership, or retain it in public ownership. Now, that will have the effect of devaluing the land, 

but since we are retaining the value of the water in public ownership, the devaluation of the land isn’t of great concern to us. It all 

evens out. 

Now, if it is theoretically possible to purchase water from the 

outside, and I doubt that it is given the scarcity of water in this 

particular area, but even if it is theoretically possible, the cost of 

25

purchasing that water is going to be an added cost to whatever 

landowner wants to try to do it. The government isn’t losing anything by breaking up the water and the land rights in this case because we are retaining the water rights. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you. I will move to Mr. Duncan for a statement or questions. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have any questions, but I will say that I note that Mayor Dickinson is here representing eight different mayors, he says all of whom strongly support this legislation. I do hope that Mr. Groseta’s concerns can be 

taken care of in some way. 

But I heard the last witness say that the politics should be removed and the political influence should be removed. Actually, politics is just a way for the people to have some say-so in or control 

over their own government. It seems to me that to be a very elitist 

attitude to say that the will of the great, great majority of the people should be ignored and that this decision should be left with 

unelected bureaucrats, and it is obvious that the great, great majority of people there do support this, with the support of the members of Congress and all the mayors in the cities, and so it appears 

to me that this is good legislation which we should support. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. RENZI. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Udall? 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, I 

don’t have any questions. I did want to thank the panel for taking 

the time to join us. It has been very helpful to me to get a better 

sense of what we face. Thank you. 

Mr. RENZI. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Flake? 

Mr. FLAKE. I will just echo Mark’s comments, or the Congressman from Colorado. I am glad to have the panel here. I am sorry 

I was not able to hear most of the testimony, but I have read some 

of it and I am in support of this deal and am glad to hear the supporting comments from the panel. Thanks. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Flake. 

Mr. Udall of New Mexico? 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Renzi. My question goes 

to the waiver of the NEPA process. I see there are a number of letters here, one from the North Central Arizona Regional Water Consortium that talks about there is no mechanism for ensuring the 

people of the United States receive fair value in exchange for public 

lands. It also talks about why aren’t we going through a public 

process. A lot of these considerations that are out there ought to 

be fleshed out in a public process rather than just having one hearing here in Washington. Somebody else raises the issue there is 

currently not enough water in this area to support the land that 

is already owned. 

Can you speak to the issue of why we are waiving NEPA, which 

is a process that normally allows planning and public input there 

at the local level? 

Mr. REY. It is not uncommon in large legislated land exchanges 

for the Congress to decide that the legislative process will stand as 

26

an adequate or more than adequate substitute for the public process associated with NEPA. The legislative process is, I think, a 

public process. This is the third hearing at which I have personally 

testified, so it has been exhausting for me, at least, speaking for 

nobody else comfortably. But it is not unusual for a legislated land 

exchange to waive NEPA. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Well, I know that is not unusual, Mr. Rey, but 

why are you doing it under these circumstances? 

Mr. REY. I am not. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. What is the argument for—are you support it? 

Is the Department of Agriculture supporting the waiver in this legislation? 

Mr. REY. We have indicated, in the context of the amount of 

analysis that has already been done as well as the amount of review that Congress has put to this land exchange, that we don’t object to NEPA being waived. There is some question as to what additional utility a full-blown NEPA review would serve. It would certainly delay the culmination of this exchange significantly. It would 

establish additional grounds for litigating an exchange which presumably, if it passes Congress, the Congress wants to see done. 

And it would probably cost us and/or the other parties to the exchange a couple of additional extra million dollars to process the 

NEPA documents. 

Ultimately, the Congress has to decide whether you want NEPA 

complied with, but as has been the case in virtually every other 

legislated land exchange, Congress has decided that their own deliberations stand as a more than adequate substitute for agency 

proceedings under NEPA. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. It seems to me, with all the controversies that 

are here in these documents, that the NEPA process would be a 

better one in terms to try to accommodate those at the local level 

and I am a little surprised that your agency isn’t more deferential 

to local people and the planning process. 

I would like to ask Ms. Roder the same question and if she has 

any comments on this issue. 

Ms. RODER. Thank you, Congressman. I would definitely agree 

that we need to go through the administrative process here. That 

would allow public hearings within Arizona, where the people are 

actually being affected. And there are 3,800 people, constituents in 

this area, who have signed a petition asking for the removal of the 

Clarkdale and Camp Verde sections of this land exchange. They 

are not able to be here in Washington, D.C., to speak to all of you 

and we believe that they should have that opportunity. 

We also believe we should have the opportunity to see an appraisal prior to this land exchange. I mean, once it is completed, 

I can go for public inspection in the offices of several national forests, but that doesn’t really help us once we have actually completed a land exchange. 

I have received calls from Jerome Vice Mayor Jay Moore, Cottonwood’s council member Diane Jones, Camp Verde council member 

Tony Drea, and I know that there are numerous other elected officials in this area who are deeply concerned about this and they 

should have the opportunity to go through the administrative process and be able to speak their minds about this issue so that we 

27

can make sure it is the best deal for both Mr. Ruskin and the Federal taxpayer. Mr. Ruskin has admitted to reporter Ken Olson in 

an article that this land exchange, he would not be able to get it 

through without Congress’s help, which to me says something 

about the process that we are going through here. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Thank you. It also seems to me that NEPA 

would direct the Forest Service to look at alternatives under that 

process and then maybe some of the more controversial parcels 

could be excluded from this particular deal. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and I yield back. 

Thank you to the panel. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Udall. 

Let me take privilege here and use my 5 minutes on a couple 

of—to help clarify a couple issues. 

First of all, this exchange has taken many, many years. Ms. 

Roder, there have been over 80 public meetings, hearings, town 

halls. I have had five town halls myself in Yavapai, in the Verde 

Valley area, in Sedona. I met with the opposition, visited the land 

three times. Over 80 public hearings and meetings, going all the 

way back to 2000. 

It is a complicated trade and we took our time with it in my office. It was introduced in the 107th by the gentleman from Arizona, 

Congressman Hayworth, on the Senate side by Senator McCain. 

The Grand Canyon Trust, who is not normally friendly to many of 

my positions, has endorsed it. 

And one of the reasons why we are looking at trying to come up 

with a legislative process and have now moved away from the administrative process is because it has taken so long. There have 

been 90 jobs last year lost in Flagstaff with one company who has 

moved out of the area because they have inability to get in and out 

of the airport, which is landlocked by Federal land. 

Williams is out of water. The people in Williams will not drink, 

and the water they drink now is 8 percent of their capacity, unless 

we fix this. As has been said, over 6,000 or 7,000 children will benefit. Never mind the fact that the largest private Ponderosa pine 

forest in Arizona, with the largest non-fenced antelope range in Arizona will be exchange, pristine land for impacted land. 

For all these reasons and the greater good, I got behind this, and 

I took my time with it because I was concerned, as you were, particularly with the water conservation areas that Mr. Inslee talked 

about. But the water conservation portion written by Mr. Kyl limits 

the amount of water that the Yavapai Ranch can use. 

You talked about the fact that you think there is a loophole and 

the fact that they could use a private water company. We are still 

talking about one house per two acres. So whether they go down 

and drill their own well and stay out of the Aluvian, which feeds 

into the Verde River, or they tap into the local water company, 

they still can only use the amount of water that supports a family 

of one house per two acres. And so in itself, it restricts the amount 

of water that will be used, and it is a compromise that we reached 

out to with the environmental community, and particularly those 

concerned with water use. 

I would like to move to Mr. Groseta’s issue, Mr. Rey, as it relates 

to the cattlemen. I felt it would be a hypocrisy for me to be pushing 

28

legislation in the next few months in developing a Cattlemen’s Bill 

of Rights and not address the issue of reimbursements for our 

cattlemen in America as it relates to loss of use for its betterments 

and improvements. Historically, your agency has done a wonderful 

job of reimbursing cattlemen as it relates to betterments and improvements. The cattleman goes on the land. He gets a contract, 

permit for 10 years, puts wells in, corrals, invests his life savings 

into it, many times has to borrow second mortgages to do it, and 

then we come along and tell him, well, you have got 2 years to get 

off the land. 

Fundamentally, let me understand, when we take our cattlemen 

off the land—and let me just back up for a second. The Tonto 

Range the gentleman from Arizona represented so well for many 

years used to support 50,000 cattlemen. We are now down to less 

than 500. Not just the drought, but policies are forcing the Arizona 

beef industry and the cattlemen off the land. 

I would ask you, where is it we are missing in recognizing loss 

of use for our cattlemen? 

Mr. REY. Let me try to describe how the current situation works, 

and it is hopefully a little bit simpler than the water issue. We 

have well-established procedures that if we need to reduce or terminate usage of one of our permittees, that we will reimburse them 

for improvements that they have made on the range, and typically 

when we have to do that, we normally arrive at an acceptable result in terms of the value of those improvements. 

As far as the loss of use, however, it is at present well established law in the Tenth Circuit and elsewhere in Arizona and New 

Mexico—Arizona is in the Ninth Circuit, New Mexico is in the 

Tenth Circuit, but I think both circuits have held the same holding—that a permit to graze on Federal lands is a privilege and not 

a right. 

So there is a disconnect in the legal system, I guess you could 

say. On the one hand, for taxation purposes, the IRS looks at a 

grazing permit as an asset that has value that is taxable. On the 

other hand, insofar as regulating grazing use on Federal lands, we 

have established as a matter of law that grazing use is not a privilege and, therefore, not compensable if it is reduced or eliminated. 

If the decision in this bill is to reimburse Mr. Groseta for the loss 

of use, I don’t think you will have much problem from the administration. I would suggest, however, that if you do that, that you 

make it clear that you are not trying to establish a precedent in 

this bill to change the established jurisprudence on the status of 

a grazing permit, and you might also want to just work on establishing what the number is— 

Mr. RENZI. I appreciate it. 

Mr. REY. —and save both Mr. Groseta and us some time. 

Mr. RENZI. It is not just Mr. Groseta. There are three permittees 

which I particularly emphasize to my colleagues includes the 

Yavapai Apaches in Camp Verde. Fundamentally for me, I recognize that when you kick cattlemen off the land, that there is a loss 

of use, and I think it is a philosophical argument that we can carry 

forward. 

I think we will go for a second round here. Congressman 

Hayworth from Arizona? 

29

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of 

questions. 

Mr. Rey, to follow up, it has been cited in testimony by others 

in a June 2000 report on land exchanges. What changes has the 

Forest Service made as a result of that GAO report in June of 

2000? 

Mr. REY. The June 2000 GAO report was followed in short order 

by a Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General report. 

We have issued a new set of directives to the field to respond to 

the recommendations of both the GAO and the Inspector General. 

I will make those new directives available for the Subcommittee’s 

record. I would suggest that much of the concern raised about previous Forest Service procedures have been addressed by those directives. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you very much, Mr. Rey. 

In listening to some of the questions and some of the responses 

in the first panel, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, it seems there 

is a paradox here. On one hand, we received testimony that this 

would be a waste of taxpayers’ money. On the other hand, there 

are those who want to see an administrative process continue that 

would eventually cost taxpayers more money, and we fail to take 

into account what might transpire in terms of economic enterprise 

for communities such as Camp Verde and what that would do for 

the tax base, and also what the open space provisions would do environmentally. And indeed, as the Chairman pointed out, there are 

some environmental groups who have endorsed the project. 

Ms. Roder, I thank you for coming today and offering your testimony and I was especially interested to hear your take that the administrative process is, in your view, far more desirable than the 

process of Congress dealing legislatively with land exchanges. I 

would respectfully submit that the essence of public interchange 

and scrutiny comes through the elective process. All of my colleagues here, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, vegetarian, Independents, all of us who serve in the Congress of the United States 

must stand at the bar of public opinion every 2 years. We are ultimately accountable to the people. 

And while I appreciate the fact that you cited some public officials who had a different take on this who are unable to come to 

Washington, I think the reverse might be asked of you. Have you 

had a chance to visit Arizona and visit with Mr. Renzi’s constituents firsthand on the property site and see what is transpiring 

there with this land and with the exchange. 

Ms. RODER. I have been to Arizona, Congressman— 

Mr. HAYWORTH. No, the question— 

Ms. RODER. —but not to this particular land exchange. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. That is my question. Have you been to visit 

firsthand with the people there, the land holdings there, that you 

this morning testify against? 

Ms. RODER. No, Congressman, but 3,800 people— 

Mr. HAYWORTH. That speaks volumes, ma’am. I have no further 

questions. 

Mr. RENZI. I thank the Congressman. 

We will get one more question out of the gentleman from Washington and we will take a break. 

30

Mr. INSLEE. This may sound like a rookie question, but I am 

going to ask it. Essentially, what we are doing in this legislation 

is we are directing the Forest Services to go out and do these appraisals and giving, as I understand it, a preapproval to whatever 

appraisal process they come up with and the lands they select. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. REY. Not quite. What you are directing us to do is to use the 

Uniform Standards of Federal Appraisal, so that is a known appraisal process, and the legislation does then put together a list of 

the order for the exchanges to occur. So there are more knowns in 

what you are directing us to do, given that we know what the Uniform Standards of Federal Appraisal will do. 

Mr. INSLEE. So if you were going to pick a percentage, if you 

were going to draw a map today of what you think would be involved in these exchanges, what parameters are there that change 

in the appraisal process, do you figure? 

Mr. REY. I would say that the changes will be on the margin. 

What you are doing is anticipating what the rough appraised value 

would be. That will then go through the formal appraisal, and then 

if we have to adjust, there are provisions in the bill for adding or 

deleting tracts at the bottom end to make sure that it is a value 

for value exchange. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. RENZI. I have one more question and then we can take a 

break. The gentlemen can leave anytime they want for the vote. 

I want to recognize the mayor from Clarkdale, Mike Bluff, to 

help me—early on, he helped me understand an issue as it relates 

to access. Mike, do you mind rising? Without objection from the 

panel, I would like to recognize Mayor Bluff. 

Mr. Groseta talked about access, in particular near Clarkdale, 

and one of the reasons being that he would like to see that parcel 

dropped out. Can you help me understand that a little bit better? 

Mr. BLUFF. Sure. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak. The portion that is in Clarkdale was annexed 

about 2 years ago and that actually abuts our town limits right 

now. So there is—from my perspective, it is not landlocked. It 

touches our boundaries now. There is access from the existing 

Town of Clarkdale into that area or we wouldn’t be able to annex 

it. There is not a road through there now, but you can access the 

parcel that we are talking about, the Clarkdale parcel, through the 

Clarkdale, the existing Clarkdale town limits. 

Mr. RENZI. Mayor Bluff, the parcel that Clarkdale would be receiving or that you would be working on as far as rezoning and all 

then would not be landlocked from your perspective? You know the 

parcel better than anyone. 

Mr. BLUFF. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. 

Mr. RENZI. OK. I appreciate that. 

One other just real quick question, Ms. Roder. When you talk 

about the appraisal process and you talk about not having it disclosed ahead of time, the Forest Service would be able to pick from 

a credible appraiser, certified appraiser, that would then have the 

objective to go out and conduct the public interest, in the public 

good. Are you suggesting that they don’t have the ability to do 

that? 

31

Ms. RODER. We are suggesting, Congressman, that there needs 

to be more openness in the process. We do need to have independent appraisals so that we can make sure that lands are being 

properly valued, and as was found by the GAO, they were having 

a hard time accomplishing that goal, and as such, we think that 

an independent appraisal process needs to occur and it needs to be 

revealed to taxpayers prior to land exchanges. 

Mr. RENZI. Ms. Roder— 

Mr. REY. Can I offer a clarification there, because I think we are 

missing something. 

Mr. RENZI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. REY. First of all, per the GAO recommendation, we do use 

independent appraisals and we do use the Uniform Federal Rules 

of Appraisal. Second, appraisals are never made available to the 

public in any land exchange until they are completed and reviewed, 

because preliminary information may be wrong or, in some cases, 

sensitive. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you. Fundamentally, what the argument goes 

to, I think, is that somehow the public would be ripped off on this 

deal. What I need to really point out for the record is that the pristine lands that are owned by Yavapai Ranch right now, again, the 

largest stand of Ponderosa pine forest in Northern Arizona, could 

be developed right now. Golf courses could be put in. All the water 

use up there—the Ruskin family owns 24 pond and well sites and 

they are willing to give up 21 of them and only retain three, in exchange for impacted land along a freeway, impacted land that has 

a dump and a shooting site, a little part-time shooting range right 

now, and it has, when I went up there, people who camp out on 

it. 

And so I want at least the element of truth for a guy who walked 

the parcel three times and met with groups on both sides and came 

into this only trying to look at what would be the greater good. It 

needs to be understood that we are talking about exchanging pristine land which is next to a wilderness area, the Juniper Wilderness Area, in exchange for impacted land. 

And with that, I want to thank all of you for your testimony, for 

coming here to Washington, D.C., for your expertise and for a good 

debate. Thank you so much. 

We will take a break now for votes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you. I appreciate your patience coming back 

from that vote. 

We are going to introduce the second panel, testifying on 

H.R. 3247. 

Mr. RENZI. On panel two, we have Congressman Tom Tancredo 

of the Sixth District of the State of Colorado; Mr. Mark Rey of the 

United States Department of Agriculture; Mr. Larry Parkinson, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement and Security, 

U.S. Department of Interior; Mr. Larry Smith, Executive Director 

of Americans for Responsible Recreational Access; and Mr. Dave 

Jenkins, Director of Conservation and Public Policy, American 

Canoe Association. 

I welcome you all to what is almost this afternoon. Thank you 

for coming. 

32

Let me remind the witnesses on Committee rules. You have 5 

minutes for your oral testimony. I would like to now begin by recognizing the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tancredo. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS TANCREDO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing today on H.R. 3247, the Trail Responsibility and 

Accountability for the Improvement of Public Lands Act of 2003. I 

am pleased of the number of cosponsors on this Committee, including Mr. Udall and Mr. Beauprez, along with other gentlemen on 

the Committee, and I want to thank you for that cosponsorship. 

Those of us privileged to represent Western States here in Congress know of the long-running battle between Federal land agencies and private interests. This is especially so since the Federal 

Government is the landlord of so much of the land in the Western 

part of the United States. 

Historically, issues of contention have often arisen surrounding 

grazing rights, mining and drilling rights. Today, these public land 

debates are often characterized by access to public lands for different recreational activities, all of which have an enormous and 

positive economic impact on the communities we represent. 

In the last 20 years, Americans have found new ways to enjoy 

their public lands and waterways beyond just hiking, horseback 

riding, or power boats. Today, mountain bikers, ATVs, SUVs, and 

snowmobiles also use our public lands. Many of these vehicles represent the only access to the great outdoors to a whole segment of 

our population, like senior citizens and the disabled, that might not 

otherwise be able to get out and visit the beautiful places like the 

Pike National Forest in my district. 

The economic impact for Colorado of these kinds of recreational 

activities contributes more than $200 million a year to our economy, creating more than 3,100 jobs. With those economic benefits, 

however, there have come conflicts and some irresponsible people. 

No one here will say that there haven’t been problems with certain individuals and groups abusing, misusing, and in some instances destroying valuable property on our Federal lands. Over 

the Memorial Day weekend in 1997, vandals destroyed a national 

treasure, the Eye of the Needle, an 11-foot sandstone arch on BLM 

land in the Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River Area 

in Montana that was so impressive that Lewis and Clark wrote 

about it in their journals. Because of the actions of these thoughtless people, future generations have been deprived of the opportunity to view the unique natural wonder. 

Two years ago, on New Year’s Eve, thousands of off-road enthusiasts convened at the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreational Area in 

California. One Forest Service ranger described the situation this 

way, quote, ‘‘We don’t want to send any officers down there because 

we can’t be sure it is safe.’’ In describing the problem, one off-road 

enthusiast put it this way. ‘‘It is a total weekend warrior thing. A 

handful screw up for the masses.’’ For the good of our public lands 

and for those citizens who behave responsibly, we cannot ignore 

such instances. 

33

I visited the Coronado National Forest, the Organ Pipe Cactus 

National Monument in Southern Arizona. These places are home to 

some of the most spectacular terrain and wildlife habitat in the 

American Southwest. They are also home to some of the worst vandalism you can imagine. Graffiti covers rock formations and cactus. 

Garbage is strewn across the desert. Unauthorized roads and trails 

mar the landscape. If we are to preserve these areas for future generations, we must make those who intentionally destroy them pay 

a price. 

As I have said, outdoor recreation on our public lands and waterways will continue to grow, and it should. It is now time we equip 

our land managers with the means to appropriately and evenhandedly enforce land use regulations. The TRAIL Act accomplishes this by creating consistent fines and penalties among all of 

our land use agencies. In doing so, the bill also increases fines and 

penalties substantially for people who knowingly engage in inappropriate behavior. 

The bill also allows the agencies to retain the fines that are collected for repair and maintenance on these public lands and for 

outreach and educational programs to train outdoor enthusiasts on 

what is and what is not appropriate behavior. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses 

today. If they have suggestions on how we might improve this legislation, I hope they will share these ideas with us. I also hope that 

in the not-too-distant future, our Committee will report this measure to the full House for its consideration. Our public lands are too 

important to be left unattended by inadequate penalties for inappropriate behavior. The law enforcement ability of our Federal land 

agencies needs to be strengthened, and I believe H.R. 3247 is a 

major step in that direction. 

Mr. RENZI. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tancredo follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Thomas Tancredo, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Colorado, on H.R. 3247

Mr. Chairman: 

Thank you for holding this hearing today on H.R. 3247, the Trail Responsibility 

and Accountability for the Improvement of Lands Act of 2003. I am pleased that 

you have joined in cosponsoring this measure along with our colleagues from Colorado, Mr. Udall and Mr. Beauprez, along with many of our other colleagues on this 

Committee from both sides of the aisle. I also want to recognize and thank you for 

the past work you have done on similar enforcement legislation. Today’s legislation 

was built upon your work. 

Those of us privileged to represent western states here in the Congress know of 

the long-running battle between Federal land agencies and private interests. This 

is especially so since the Federal Government is the landlord of so much of the land 

in the western part of the U.S. 

Historically, issues of contention have often surrounded grazing rights, mining 

and drilling rights. Today, issues of contention now include the matter of access to 

public lands for recreational activities—activities have an enormous and positive 

economic impact on the communities that we represent. 

In the last twenty years, Americans have found new ways to enjoy their public 

lands and waterways beyond just hiking, horseback riding, or powerboats. Today, 

mountain bikes, ATVs, SUVs, snowmobiles, and personal watercraft are used in a 

variety of ways on our public lands and waterways. Many of these vehicles represent the only access to the great outdoors to a whole segment of our population—

folks like senior citizens and the disabled—that might not otherwise be able to get 

out and visit beautiful places like the Pike National Forest in my district. 

34

In some states like California, registrations of off-highway vehicles have doubled 

in the last 20 years. At the same time, we have seen an increasing amount of public 

lands placed ‘‘off limits’’ to this kind of recreation. The growth in the popularity of 

this activity, coupled with a reduction in the amount of available land to pursue it, 

has led to conflict and a challenge for public lands managers. 

In my own State of Colorado, outdoor recreation has become increasingly popular 

among our citizens. From 1995-2003, snowmobiling has grown by more than 100%, 

jet skiing by nearly 100%, and horseback riding by 30%, to name just a few types 

of outdoor sporting activities on the rise. These statistics simply confirm what many 

of us already know: Coloradoans love to be outdoors and to enjoy our beautiful 

State—and one thing is certain: This type of recreation will only increase in the 

coming years. 

The economic impact for Colorado of these types of recreational activities is re- vealing. OHV use in Colorado contributes more than $200 million to our economy, 

creating more than 3,100 jobs. More than 130,000 Colorado resident and non-resident households use motorized vehicles for recreation in our State. 

The economic impact of white-water rafting jumped from $75 million in 1993 to $125 million in 2001. Bicycling generates over $1 billion, and ski and snowboard 

equipment and apparel expenditures exceed $1.1 billion annually in our State. I 

could go on with more statistics, but the important thing to remember is that outdoor recreation is important to Colorado; it is important for the physical well-being 

of our citizens and it is important to the economic well-being of our State. In short, 

Coloradoans cannot afford to ignore outdoor recreation issues on our federal lands. 

No one here will say that there haven’t been problems with certain individuals 

and groups abusing, misusing and, in some instances, destroying valuable property 

on our Federal lands. Over the Memorial Day weekend in 1997, vandals destroyed 

a national treasure—the Eye of the Needle, an 11-foot sandstone arch on BLM land 

in the Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River area in Montana that was 

so impressive that Lewis and Clark wrote about it in their journals. Because of the 

actions of these thoughtless people, future generations have been deprived of the opportunity to view this unique natural wonder. 

Two years ago on New Year’s Eve, thousands of off-road enthusiasts convened at 

the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area in California. One Forest Service Ranger 

described the situation this way: ‘‘We don’t want to send any officers down there 

because we can’t be sure they’d be safe.’’ In describing the problem, one off-road enthusiast put it this way: ‘‘It’s a total weekend warrior thing. A handful to screw it 

up for the masses.’’ For the good of our public lands and for those citizens who behave responsibly, we cannot ignore such instances. 

As I have said outdoor recreation on our public lands and waterways will continue 

to grow—and it should. It is now time we equip our land managers with the means 

to appropriately and evenhandedly enforce land use regulations. The TRAIL Act accomplishes this by creating consistent fines and penalties among all of our land use 

agencies. In doing so, the bill also increases fines and penalties substantially for 

people who knowingly and willfully engage in inappropriate behavior. The bill also 

allows the agencies to retain the fines that are collected for repair work and maintenance on these public lands, and for outreach and educational programs to train 

outdoor enthusiasts on what is and what is not appropriate behavior. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. If they have 

suggestions on how we might improve this legislation, I hope they will share those 

ideas with us. I also hope that in the not too distant future, our Committee will 

report this measure to the full House for its consideration. Our public lands are too 

important to be left unattended by inadequate penalties for inappropriate behavior. 

The law enforcement ability of our federal land agencies needs to be strengthened, 

and I believe H.R. 3247 is a major step in that direction. 

Mr. RENZI. Staying within the Great Mountain State of Colorado, 

cosponsor of the bill, Mr. Udall. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

again express my appreciation to you for holding this hearing on 

H.R. 3247. 

Let me begin by saying that I am glad my colleague from the 

great State of Colorado, Mr. Tancredo, has introduced the bill. I 

35

joined as a cosponsor because I also want to improve the ability of 

our land-managing agencies to adequately enforce the rules that 

apply to uses of the Federal lands. 

I introduced a related bill, H.R. 751, the Responsible Off-Road 

Vehicle Enforcement and Response Act, and if you run out the acronym, that results in ROVER being the acronym for that particular bill. My bill is narrow in scope. It deals only with the enforcement of the regulations that apply to using vehicles on national forest lands and public lands managed by the BLM. 

H.R. 3247 goes much further. In addition to the forests and BLM 

lands, H.R. 3247 also applies to lands managed by the National 

Park Service and the refuges managed by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. It addresses also the enforcement of all regulations, not 

just those related to the use of vehicles. 

I do think enforcement of regulations is an area where legislation 

can be helpful. However, we need to recognize that it is only one 

part of a bigger picture. Even more than new legislation, it seems 

to me the agencies need more resources, more money and more 

people, if we want them to do a better job, and I intend to explore 

that particular matter with some of the witnesses as well as to ask 

about some of the differences between my bill and my colleague, 

Mr. Tancredo’s bill. 

Mr. Chairman, if I might, in today’s Rocky Mountain News, there 

is a letter from the Supervisor of the Pikes and Isabel National 

Forest in Colorado. The letter discusses ‘‘mud-bogging,’’ quote-unquote, and other activities that violate Forest Service rules, including the indiscriminate dumping of trash and discharging firearms 

in ways that can endanger people for miles around. This is the sort 

of thing that prompted me to introduce my bill, H.R. 751, and to 

cosponsor Congressman Tancredo’s bill, H.R. 3247. I would ask 

unanimous consent that the letter be included at an appropriate 

place in the record of today’s hearing and would yield back whatever time I have remaining. 

Mr. RENZI. Without objection. 

[The letter submitted by Mr. Mark Udall follows:]

From the Rocky Mountain News

Letters to the Editor

October 21, 2003

Seeking solutions to destruction in forests 

One of the pleasures of living along the Front Range in Colorado is being able 

to gaze up at the mountains to the west and idly dream of being in the green forest, 

with clean running water, clean air and just getting away from it all. But there’s 

something happening in that forest that is disturbing. 

They call it ‘‘mud bogging.’’ After 10 or 12 four-wheel-drive vehicles have 

tried to make it through a wet meadow, it’s neither lush nor green anymore. After several more attempts, it is nothing but a worn-out mud hole.

These private natural-resources demolition teams move over a few feet and 

try it again. 

These mud holes can be very costly for the Forest Service to clean up and revegetate, if even possible. 

Often times, adjacent to the mud hole, is an area where other equally disturbing 

activities take place: indiscriminate. shooting and the dumping of trash. In a few 

cases, there has been no natural backstop to this shooting, which could put people 

several miles away in jeopardy. This is not what you or I envision as we gaze up 

at the mountains. 

36

Policing these areas to stop the activity works, but perpetrators often merely 

move to a new area. Policing the whole Rampart Range at one time is virtually impossible. We must have a new means of managing these degrading and dangerous 

activities. 

Everyone should be able to enjoy these precious public lands. It should be a place 

to ‘‘get away from it all’’ and feel safe. It’s the Forest Service’s responsibility to provide such an environment. Therefore, I cannot ignore the problem, but must provide 

a solution. Coloradans will no doubt hear more about this in the future as we solicit 

their opinions and ideas. 

In the meantime, if anyone sees people engaging in these activities, please report 

the incident and the description of any vehicles to the nearest Forest Service Ranger 

District Office or County Sheriff’s Office.

Bob Leaverton 

Forest Supervisor, Pike/San Isabel National Forests and Cimarron and Comanche 

National Grasslands 

Mr. RENZI. We move now to an opening statement by Mr. Mark 

Rey. Mr. Rey? 

STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL 

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE, ON H.R. 3247 

Mr. REY. Thank you, Congressman Renzi. The Department of Agriculture supports H.R. 3247. We have some technical changes that 

we would like the Subcommittee to consider. 

H.R. 3247 makes consistent the penalties for violating regulations of the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture. 

We support such a concept as we work closely with our fellow land 

management agencies in enforcement activities, including local 

cross-designations of authority. 

Consistent enforcement authority would make this cooperation 

much easier, aid the public in understanding regulations and penalties, and assist prosecutors and courts that must handle cases 

arising from different Federal jurisdictions. The bill would change 

the penalty for violation of our regulations from one level of offense 

to two levels, and we will work with the Department of Justice and 

the Federal courts to best ensure advantages of consistent criminal 

penalties are fulfilled upon passage. 

I would be happy to respond to any of your questions after the 

other panel members have spoken. 

Mr. RENZI. Mr. Rey, thank you for your testimony. 

I move now to Mr. Parkinson. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY R. PARKINSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SECURITY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. PARKINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make this 

brief, submit my written statement for the record, and then open 

it up to questions. 

We strongly support the goal of H.R. 3247. As Mr. Rey indicated, 

we also have some suggested technical amendments that we think 

would improve the legislation. We look forward to working with the 

Committee and the Department of Agriculture and the Department 

of Justice to do that. 

37

This has two themes to it. One is consistency in law enforcement 

authority and the second is flexibility in law enforcement authority. 

Those are both virtues that we strongly support. 

The Department of Interior has three bureaus that are primarily 

responsible for enforcing these regulations, as was indicated in the 

opening statements, BLM, the National Park Service, and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and of those three, we have three different 

penalty structures. Conceptually, that doesn’t make a lot of sense. 

The regulations that those three agencies are enforcing are comparable and I think ought to be treated comparably. 

One other point that I would just highlight in my opening remarks is we do urge the Committee to adopt the ‘‘knowingly’’ 

standard as opposed to the ‘‘knowing and willful’’ standard that is 

now set forth in the legislation. We think the best model that exists 

out there is the model that exists currently in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act, which provides both Class A 

and Class B misdemeanors, but has a ‘‘knowing’’ standard but no 

‘‘willful’’ standard. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Parkinson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Parkinson follows:]

Statement of Larry R. Parkinson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law 

Enforcement and Security, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 3247

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

to appear before you today. My name is Larry Parkinson and I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement and Security at the Department of the Interior. I am here to present the Department’s views on H.R. 3247—the Trail Responsibility and Accountability for the Improvement of Lands Act of 2003. 

As discussed further below, the Department agrees that our land management bureaus should have consistent enforcement authority, and we strongly support the 

goal of H.R. 3247. The investigative and enforcement simplicity offered through the 

option of applying a Class A or Class B misdemeanor, as proposed in H.R. 3247, 

is an attractive tool for law enforcement personnel. However, we would like to work 

with the U.S. Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture, as well as the Department of Justice, to provide the Subcommittee with specific changes to ensure 

that the authority provided by this bill does not conflict with or, duplicate, our existing authorities. 

As currently drafted, H.R. 3247 is intended to amend the existing enforcement 

authorities of the National Park Service (Park Service), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Fish and Wildlife Service), 

as well as the Forest Service, to make consistent the ability of these bureaus to 

charge misdemeanor offenses for violations of bureau rules and regulations. 

As noted above, the Department agrees that consistent enforcement authority 

serves important and useful interests. For example, currently the BLM and Park 

Service operate under different rules for criminal penalties for violations of rules 

regulating the use of fire by visitors and others on their respective lands. For the 

NPS, these violations are classified as Class B misdemeanors, which may result in 

a fine of up to $5,000 or up to six months in prison. Class B violations are strict 

liability in nature, which means that intent need not be proved. However, under the 

current enforcement provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 

BLM penalties for violations of land use regulations are set as Class A misdemeanors for all ‘‘knowing and willful’’ violations; BLM does not currently have authority to charge for a Class B misdemeanor. Therefore, similar violations of rules 

regulating the use of fire by visitors and others on public lands are Class A misdemeanors for the BLM, which may result in a fine of up to $100,000 or imprisonment for up to one year and requires a demonstration that the party knowingly violated the law. 

The changes advanced by this legislation will also further the economy of law 

enforcement resources. Under Class A misdemeanor violations, a defendant has a 

right to a jury trial, which frequently results in dismissed cases as prosecutors are 

deterred from proving a ‘‘knowing and willful’’ intent, and judges, who already have 

38

large dockets, are less likely to take on lengthy and expensive jury cases. In contrast, under a Class B misdemeanor offense, a citation can be used as the charging 

instrument, and defendants can be tried directly by a Magistrate Judge. The ability 

to apply a lower lever penalty, as provided in H.R. 3247, for violations that are not 

committed in a ‘‘knowing and willful’’ manner will also simplify investigative and 

enforcement tasks that officers must currently undertake compared to that required 

when prosecuting Class A misdemeanor offenses. 

In addition, we urge the Committee to review the intent language to determine 

whether it is necessary to include a ‘‘willful’’ element in addition to the ‘‘knowing’’ 

element. We would caution against such an inclusion and understand that Department of Justice will be providing a views letter that will specifically address this 

issue, as well as other issues. We intend to work with the Forest Service and Department of Justice to provide specific language addressing these concerns. 

As noted above, we would also like to work with the Forest Service and the Department of Justice to provide the Subcommittee with specific changes to ensure 

that this new authority accomplishes the intended result and does not conflict with 

or duplicate our existing authorities. 

For example, while the substance of the provisions in H.R. 3247 nearly mirror 

those provided to the Fish and Wildlife Service in the 1998 amendments to the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, Pub. Law No. 105-312, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s current language is structured so that Fish and Wildlife 

law enforcement personnel can charge an offender under two alternative provisions, 

an option that would not be available under H.R. 3247 as currently drafted. 

The Department also supports the changes made by Section 3 of H.R. 3247, which 

calls for the use of fines collected by the affected agencies for the limited purposes 

of improvement, protection, or rehabilitation work on public lands made necessary 

by the actions which led to the fine, as well as to increase public awareness of regulations and other requirements regarding use of the public lands. The provisions are 

limited in nature and require that excess funds be transferred to miscellaneous receipts and cannot be retained by the agency. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the Members of this Subcommittee 

for your continued interest in our law enforcement issues. We at the Department 

look forward to continuing positive dialog to improve our federal law enforcement 

capabilities. This concludes my statement and I am happy to answer any questions 

that you might have. 

Mr. RENZI. Mr. Larry Smith? 

STATEMENT OF LARRY E. SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

AMERICANS FOR RESPONSIBLE RECREATIONAL ACCESS 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I serve as Executive Director of ARRA, Americans for Responsible Recreational Access. 

ARRA was founded in June of 2000 because of a growing concern 

that opportunities for recreational activities on public lands and 

waterways were being eliminated by the closure of many of these 

areas to the American people. ARRA is comprised of a number of 

national, State, and regional trade associations, as well as thousands of Americans who have registered on the ARRA website. 

First, I want to thank Mr. Tancredo for sponsoring this legislation and for Mr. Udall of Colorado for cosponsoring it, and thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing. It has been a pleasure 

to work with your respective personal staffs and the Subcommittee 

staff in the development of this legislation. 

Every single day, more and more Americans are seeking recreational opportunities on our public lands and waterways. As our 

cities and suburbs become more congested, Americans are increasingly turning to public lands as a means to relieve the stress of everyday living. Maintaining access to these public lands, therefore, 

becomes an important element for the health and well-being of millions of Americans. 

39

We are not here today to say to this Subcommittee that there 

aren’t problems with some individuals behaving inappropriately 

when visiting public lands. Let me be clear about this. Problems do 

exist. However, all too often, a simple response to such problems 

on the part of some interest groups is to advocate denying access 

to these public lands for all Americans and not just to those few 

who choose not to be good stewards of these lands. 

Closing access to public lands does nothing to address the real 

problem of inappropriate behavior. In fact, as more areas are designated off-limits to all Americans, a greater concentration of recreational activities and overuse will likely occur in those areas still 

remaining accessible. Therefore, until the problem of inappropriate 

behavior is directly addressed, all public lands remain threatened. 

Clearly, the present day response of closing public lands is a 

flawed policy. All this policy does is penalize all Americans for the 

misdeeds of a few. Fortunately, H.R. 3247 seeks a different solution. This legislation seeks to penalize only those individuals or 

groups who choose to misuse our public lands and not those who 

abide by land use regulations. We believe this legislation strikes an 

appropriate balance between those who might unknowingly violate 

land use regulations and those who willfully and knowingly seek 

to do harm. 

The penalties and fines for Class B and Class A misdemeanors 

are scaled appropriately for the behavior associated with the purported violations. The greater the damage to our public lands, then 

the stiffer the penalty should be to those who cause such damage. 

H.R. 3247 allows for consistent penalties among the four major 

agencies responsible for the stewardship of our public lands. 

As members of this Subcommittee know, it is often difficult for 

a visitor to know when U.S. Forest Service land ends and BLM 

land begins. Does the present day inconsistency of fines and penalties among these agencies mean that the land holdings of one 

agency are less or more important to the American people? We 

think not. We are pleased that this legislation seeks to remedy this 

inconsistency. 

More often than not, land agencies lack adequate funds to restore, repair, or maintain the public lands that are extensively used 

by the general public. Under this legislation, agencies will be able 

to use the fines collected for restoration work as well as to educate 

the general public on what is and is not appropriate behavior when 

visiting public lands. 

Since our inception, we have taken the position that all recreation activities do not belong in all areas of public lands. We believe that there are areas that truly should be designated as wilderness areas, as well as other areas that should be designated for 

certain types of recreational activities. Having said that, we also 

firmly believe that the Federal land agencies need to do a better 

job of providing a broader range of recreational opportunities so 

more Americans can enjoy their public lands. 

As we have said, we find it distressing that certain public interest groups approach public lands management issues by advocating 

closure rather than addressing the issue of abuse or misuse. When 

someone breaks our traffic laws, society’s response is not to ban all 

traffic on the highways. Rather, we increase enforcement and we 

40

prosecute law breakers. The same should hold true for activities on 

Federal lands and waterways. 

Mr. Chairman, ARRA seeks to solve problems that inhibit public 

enjoyment of our public lands and waterways. We believe that public lands should be made available to all Americans regardless of 

age or physical well-being for their enjoyment and use in a responsible manner. With enhanced enforcement and stiffer penalties for 

those who disobey the rules of proper land use, our Federal land 

agencies should be able to pull down the ‘‘Do not enter’’ signs and 

replace them with signs that say, ‘‘Welcome to your public lands.’’ 

Again, thank you for inviting us to participate. We would be 

happy to respond to any questions you or the other members might 

have. 

Mr. RENZI. Mr. Smith, thank you for your substantive remarks, 

well researched. I am grateful. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

Statement of Larry Smith, Executive Director,

Americans for Responsible Recreational Access, on H.R. 3247

Mr. Chairman: 

My name is Larry Smith and I serve as the Executive Director of ARRA, Americans for Responsible Recreational Access. ARRA was founded in June of 2000 because of a growing concern that opportunities for recreational activities on public 

lands and waterways were being eliminated by the closure of many of these areas 

to the American public. 

ARRA is comprised of the following organizations: the American Horse Council, 

the Motorcycle Industry Council, the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, the 

American Council of Snowmobile Associations, the National Marine Manufacturers 

Association, the American Motorcyclist Association, the Personal Watercraft Industry Association and the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council. In addition, there are a number of state and regional organizations affiliated with ARRA. 

First, I want to thank Mr. Tancredo for sponsoring this legislation and to you, 

Mr. Chairman, for cosponsoring this measure and for holding this important hearing. It has been a pleasure to work with your respective personal staffs and with 

the Subcommittee staff in the development of this legislation. 

Every single day, more and more Americans are seeking recreational opportunities on our public lands and waterways. As our cities and suburbs become more congested, Americans are increasingly turning to public lands and waterways as a 

means to relieve the stress of everyday living. Maintaining access to these public 

lands, therefore, becomes an important element for the health and well-being of millions of Americans. 

We are not here today to say to this Subcommittee that there aren’t problems 

when some individuals behave inappropriately when visiting public lands. Let me 

be clear about this—problems do exist. However, all too often, the simple response 

to such problems on the part of some interest groups is to advocate denying access 

to these public lands for all Americans and not just to those few who choose not 

to be good stewards of these lands. 

Closing access to public lands does nothing to address the real problem of inappropriate behavior. In fact, as more areas are designated ‘‘off limits’’ to all Americans, 

a greater concentration of recreational activities and overuse will likely occur in 

those areas still remaining accessible. Therefore, until the problem of inappropriate 

behavior is directly addressed, all public lands remain threatened. 

Clearly the present day response of closing public lands is a flawed policy. All this 

policy does is penalize all Americans for the misdeeds of a few. Fortunately, 

H.R. 3247 seeks a different solution. H.R. 3247 seeks to penalize only those individuals or groups who choose to misuse our public lands and not those who abide by 

land use regulations. 

We believe that H.R. 3247 strikes an appropriate balance between those who 

might unknowingly violate land use regulations and those who ‘‘willfully and knowingly’’ seek to do harm. The penalties and fines for Class B and Class A misdemeanors are scaled appropriately for the behavior associated with the purported 

violation. The greater the damage to our public lands, then the stiffer the penalty 

should be to those who cause such damage. 

41

H.R. 3247 allows for consistent penalties among the four major agencies responsible for the stewardship of our public lands: the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau 

of Land Management, the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. As members of this Subcommittee know, it is often difficult for a visitor to 

know when U.S. Forest Service land ends and BLM land begins. Does the present 

day inconsistency of fines and penalties among these agencies mean that the land 

holdings of one agency are less or more important to the American people? We think 

not. We are pleased that this legislation seeks to remedy this inconsistency. 

More often than not, land agencies lack adequate funds to restore, repair or maintain public lands that are extensively used by the general public. Under this legislation, agencies will be able to use fines collected for restoration work as well as to 

educate the general public on what is and is not appropriate behavior when visiting 

public lands. 

Since ARRA’s inception, we have taken the position that all recreational activities 

do not belong in all areas of public lands. We believe that there are areas that truly 

should be designated as wilderness areas as well as other areas that should be designated for certain types of recreational activities. Having said that, we also firmly 

believe that Federal land agencies need to do a better job of providing a broader 

range of recreational opportunities so more Americans can enjoy their public lands. 

As we have said, we find it distressing when certain public interest groups approach public lands management issues by advocating closure rather than addressing the issue of abuse or misuse. When someone breaks our traffic laws, society’s 

response is not to ban all traffic on our highways. Rather, we increase enforcement 

and we prosecute lawbreakers. The same should hold true for activities on Federal 

lands and waterways. If penalties are insufficient to deter violators, then ARRA believes strengthening our laws and penalties is the proper course of action rather 

than embracing the closure of our Federal properties. 

Mr. Chairman, ARRA seeks to solve problems that inhibit public enjoyment of our 

public lands and waterways. We believe that public lands should be made available 

to all Americans regardless of age or physical well-being for their enjoyment and 

use in a responsible manner. With enhanced enforcement and stiffer penalties for 

those who disobey the rules of proper land use, our Federal land agencies should 

be able to pull down the ‘‘Do Not Enter’’ signs and replace them with signs that 

say ‘‘Welcome to Your Public Lands.’’

Again, thank you for holding today’s hearing and for inviting us to participate. 

We hope that the Resources Committee will report this measure to the House Floor 

for action by the entire House of Representatives. Doing so will be of benefit to all 

Americans who enjoy visiting our public lands. 

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to any questions that you or members 

of the Subcommittee might like to ask regarding ARRA’s support for this legislation. 

Mr. RENZI. We will move now to Mr. Dave Jenkins of the American Canoe Association. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID JENKINS, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION AND PUBLIC POLICY, AMERICAN CANOE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. JENKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me this opportunity to address the Committee regarding H.R. 3247. The 

American Canoe Association is the nation’s oldest and largest organization representing people who enjoy canoeing and kayaking. It 

has over 50,000 members nationwide, members who regularly depend on the nation’s public lands and waters for recreation. 

Today, our public lands and waters are in higher demand than 

ever before. Much of this demand is related to the increasing popularity of outdoor recreation. Participating in kayaking, for example, 

up 182 percent over the past 7 years, is growing faster than any 

other outdoor activity. The popularity of other outdoor recreation 

activities, such as hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, and 

climbing, is also up significantly. As a result, people are flocking 

to these protected resources seeking a wide variety of recreational 

opportunities. 

42

The task of managing these resources to provide the public with 

quality recreational experiences, while at the same time safeguarding them for future generations, is a very challenging and increasingly difficult balancing act. It is a balancing act that depends 

on resource managers being able to effectively manage recreational 

use. Failure to adequately manage recreational use not only results 

in the degradation of the resource, it also leads to more user conflicts and reduces visitor satisfaction. 

One of the most difficult challenges facing managers and all of 

us who care about these places is the effective management of motorized recreation. Use of motorized vehicles, off-road vehicles in 

particular, is causing serious damage to our public land and waters. This damage includes erosion and other visual impacts to the 

landscape, sediment pollution in rivers and streams, damage to 

wetlands, and adverse impacts on wildlife. Motorized use is also 

encroaching the most on the recreational experiences of others by 

eliminating quiet and secluded areas and by emitting visible air 

and water pollution. 

Much of these motorized use impacts are the result of people failing to recreate responsibly, often in direct violation of the law. 

Whether I talk to managers from the Forest Service, the Park 

Service, or BLM, they all express the frustration and disillusionment at the enormity of this problem and at the lack of adequate 

resources for enforcement. It is common for the Forest Service and 

BLM to have one law enforcement agent covering more than a million acres of land. 

While I commend the sponsors of H.R. 3247 for trying to improve the enforcement of regulations, I am concerned that this legislation falls short of providing the full range of enforcement tools 

that our resource managers so desperately need. Addressing any 

inconsistencies in enforcement authority between agencies is certainly welcome, but there are bigger barriers to effective enforcement that also need addressing. 

One common theme I hear from resource managers is that the 

fines imposed are so low and the likelihood of getting caught so remote that those who intentionally violate regulations consider the 

fine as simply a potential user fee that they are more than willing 

to pay. In order for any kind of law enforcement to work, both the 

chances and consequences of getting caught have to be high enough 

to alter behavior. H.R. 3247 is not going to get us there. 

I hope that more comprehensive legislation will be forthcoming. 

A significant increase in the number of agency law enforcement 

personnel is desperately needed, as are increases in the collateral 

schedule of fees for ORV violations. Provisions contained in 

H.R. 751, sponsored by Representative Udall, targeting fines and 

facilitating restitution by offenders merits serious consideration. 

Much of the problem of fines being too low to deter illegal behavior results not from a lack of authority to impose significant fines, 

but from an unwillingness by judges and others to assess fines that 

are sufficient to deter. For this reason, the establishment of mandatory minimum penalties and condemnation authority should also 

be considered, especially for specific types of violations that reflect 

intentional disregard for the law and for those who are repeat offenders. 

43

One common example of a violation that shows intentional disregard for the law is the removal of signs that declare a specific 

trail or area off-limits to motorized vehicles. By removing such 

signs, willful violators are able to disguise their own conduct as an 

innocent mistake. 

For ACA members and other self-reliant, nature-oriented outdoor 

enthusiasts, their enjoyment of public lands and waters is very dependent on the quality of the natural environment and its wildness. The desire to protect these resource qualities is why our 

members invest the time and effort to practice ‘‘leave no trace’’ ethics and to dedicate countless hours volunteering for stewardship 

projects. 

Please help us ensure that the irresponsible, destructive, and illegal actions of some are not allowed to ruin the outdoor recreation 

experience for the rest of us. 

I have two newspaper articles that illustrate common enforcement problems and an editorial from the Denver Post that I ask 

be included in the record. I thank you and will be glad to answer 

any questions. 

Mr. RENZI. Without objection. Thank you for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jenkins follows:]

Statement of David Jenkins, Director of Conservation and Public Policy, 

American Canoe Association, on H.R. 3247

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to address the Committee regarding 

H.R. 3247, the Trail Responsibility and Accountability for the Improvement of 

Lands (TRAIL) Act. The American Canoe Association is the nation’s oldest and largest organization representing people who enjoy canoeing, kayaking and rafting. It 

has over 50,000 members nationwide, members who regularly depend on the nation’s public lands and waters for recreation. While these members belong to the 

American Canoe Association because of their interest in canoeing and kayaking, 

many of them also access our public lands to hike, backpack, ski, climb, hunt and 

fish. 

Today our public lands and waters are in higher demand than ever before, and 

much of this demand is related to the increasing popularity of outdoor recreation. 

Participation in kayaking for example, up 182% over the past seven years, is growing faster than any other outdoor activity—on land or water. The popularity of other 

outdoor recreation activities such as hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, and 

climbing is also up significantly. As a result, people are flocking to these protected 

resources seeking a wide variety of recreational opportunities. 

The task of managing these resources to provide the public with quality recreational experiences, while at the same time safeguarding them for future generations, is a very challenging and increasingly difficult balancing act. It is a balancing 

act that depends on resource managers being able to effectively manage recreational 

use. Failure to adequately manage recreational use not only results in the degradation of the resource, it also leads to more user conflicts, and reduces overall visitor 

satisfaction. 

One of the most difficult challenges facing managers, and all of us who care about 

these places, is the effective management of motorized recreation. Use of motorized 

vehicles, off-road vehicles (OHV) in particular, is causing very serious damage to our 

public lands and waters. This damage includes erosion and other visual impacts on 

the landscape, sediment pollution in rivers and streams, damage to wetlands, and 

adverse impacts on wildlife. Motorized use is also encroaching the most on the recreational experiences of others, by eliminating quite and secluded areas and by 

emitting visible air and water pollution. 

Much of these motorized use impacts are the result of people failing to recreate 

responsibly, often in direct violation of the law. Whether I talk to resource managers 

from the USDA Forest Service, the National Park Service or the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), they all express frustration and disillusionment at the enormity of this problem, and at the lack of adequate resources for enforcement. It is 

common for the Forest Service and BLM to have one law enforcement agent covering more than a million acres of land. 

44

While I commend the sponsors of H.R. 3247 for trying to improve the enforcement 

of regulations, I am concerned that this legislation falls short of providing the full 

range of enforcement tools that our resource managers so desperately need. Addressing any inconsistencies in enforcement authority between agencies is certainly 

welcome, but there are far bigger barriers to effective enforcement that also need 

addressing. 

One common theme I hear from resource managers is that the fines imposed are 

so low, and the likelihood of getting caught so remote, that those who intentionally 

violate regulations consider the fine as simply a potential user fee that they are 

willing to pay. In order for any kind of law enforcement to work, both the chances 

and consequences of getting caught have to be high enough to alter behavior. 

H.R. 3247 alone is not going to get us there. 

I hope that more comprehensive legislation will be forthcoming. A significant increase in the number of agency law enforcement personnel is desperately needed, 

as are increases in the collateral schedule of fees (stiffer penalties) for OHV violations. Provisions contained in H.R. 751, a bill sponsored by Representative Udall, 

which apply fines directly to enforcement needs and facilitate restitution by offenders merit serious consideration. 

Much of the problem of fines being too low to deter illegal behavior results, not 

from a lack of authority to impose significant fines, but from an unwillingness by 

judges and others to impose fines sufficient to deter illegal behavior. For this reason 

the establishment of mandatory minimum penalties and condemnation authority 

should also be considered, especially for specific types of violations that reflect intentional disregard for the law, and for those who are repeat offenders. 

One common example of a violation that shows intentional disregard for the law 

is the removal of signs that declare a specific trail or area off-limits to motorized 

vehicles. By removing such signs, willful violators are able to disguise their own 

conduct as an innocent mistake. Another clearly willful violation is ‘‘mud-bogging,’’ 

the increasingly prevalent practice of tearing up fragile meadows, wetlands or 

streambeds with four-wheel drive vehicles—a practice that often leaves ruts up to 

6 feet deep. 

The damage done to the resource by such actions and the costs to the public cannot be tolerated. At least 60,000 miles of ‘‘ghost roads’’ have already been carved 

out of national forests alone. An Associated Press story from this past July noted 

‘‘A brief drive through the Umatilla National Forest in northeastern Oregon turns 

up at least a dozen large mud bogs visible from the dirt road. One year-old site is 

scarred by tire ruts 19 inches deep that have yet to sprout new grass.’’ It also notes 

how a Forest Service law enforcement officer has seen his patrol area more than 

double in recent years to more than 1.2 million acres. 

For ACA members and other self-reliant, nature-oriented outdoor enthusiasts, 

their enjoyment of public lands and waters is often dependent on the quality of the 

natural environment and its wildness. Having clean air and water, seeing wildlife, 

listening to the sounds of nature and escaping the noise of everyday life are essential parts of their recreational experience. The desire to protect these resource qualities is why our members invest the time and effort to practice Leave No Trace ethics 

and to dedicate countless hours volunteering for stewardship projects. 

Please help us ensure that the irresponsible, destructive and illegal actions of 

some are not allowed to ruin the outdoor recreation experience for the rest of us 

who recreate responsibly. I will be glad to answer any questions. 

[NOTE: The attachments submitted by Mr. Jenkins were 

copyrighted and have been retained in the Committee’s official 

files.] 

Mr. RENZI. We will move now to questions from the members, 5-

minute questions beginning with the gentleman from Colorado and 

author of the legislation, Mr. Tancredo. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a question for Mr. Parkinson. If you could, please, expand 

a little bit on what you mean by, or what is the significance of separating out knowing and willful and just using knowing. What are 

the implications of that? Why do you support that? 

Mr. PARKINSON. Mr. Tancredo, the implications of that is that if 

you require knowing and willful, it increases the burden of proof 

for the prosecution, and let me walk through that a little bit. 

45

Knowingly, if the element of the offense is that it was a knowing 

violation, that simply requires proof of the facts that constitute the 

offense. 

Mr. TANCREDO. I see. 

Mr. PARKINSON. What the government must show in that case is 

that the defendant was aware of his acts, the defendant performed 

those acts intentionally, and third, that the defendant did not act 

by mistake or accident. Not a high burden of proof for the prosecution. 

Willfully raises the burden of proof and that requires, in addition 

to what I mentioned, that would also require the government to 

prove that the defendant specifically intended to violate the law, 

and getting into someone’s head, as a former prosecutor, I can safely testify that when you add that added mental element, state of 

mind element, it does increase the burden of proof and makes it 

harder to penalize those who commit the offense. So that is fundamentally the issue. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you. You are shaking your head, Mr. Rey. 

You agree with that observation? 

Mr. REY. Yes. We have the same observation, the same view. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Jenkins, in your testimony, there are certainly aspects of it 

with which I can agree and, I guess in particular, your desire to 

increase the number of people who are out there on the line to try 

and identify those folks who are violating the law. I certainly will 

support that and do support it. 

I will also note that we had another bill here at a different time. 

I brought a bill forward to increase the penalties for those who 

knowingly and willfully violated the campfire bans and did have a 

minimum penalty as a part of it and the folks on the other side 

of the aisle here opposed it. 

In this case, I am trying to look at what we would be gaining 

by doing that. There are concerns that have been raised by folks 

in the Service about the need for greater flexibility here. I must 

admit that someone wanders off of a trail, even knowingly wanders 

off a trail and commits some damage, I don’t know that I can put 

that in the same category as trying to burn down the whole forest. 

But I appreciate your concerns and there are certain aspects of it, 

as I say, that I fully intend to support, given the opportunity, and 

that is an increased number of personnel. 

I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RENZI. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Colorado. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to just start by thanking the panel for your helpful 

testimony, and again, I want to thank Congressman Tancredo for 

his work on the TRAIL bill and also would associate myself with 

his remarks in regards to Mr. Jenkins, your comments and the 

need to put more people on the ground to enforce the existing laws 

that we have. 

If I might, I would like to direct this question, my initial question 

at Mr. Rey and Mr. Parkinson, and I want to compare my bill, 

H.R. 751, with Mr. Tancredo’s H.R. 3247, and that has to do with 

how the money that is collected as fines could be used. Both bills 

46

say the money could be used to increase public awareness of agency 

rules. Both bills would allow the agencies to use the money for 

damage repair or improvement work. 

But under H.R. 3247, that would be limited to work that was 

made necessary by the violation that led to the fine, while under 

my approach, the money could be used for any necessary projects. 

Included in that, it would allow Agriculture or Interior to use the 

money that was left for, quote, ‘‘administrative, legal, and related 

expenses, including damage assessments, payments of rewards for 

information, and investigative costs.’’ But under H.R. 3247, that 

wouldn’t be permitted, and so any leftover fines would be returned 

to the general Treasury. 

I wonder, wouldn’t it be better to broaden this part of H.R. 3247 

so the agencies could direct this money into the enforcement efforts 

and into some of the needs that we have identified here? Mr. Rey 

and Mr. Parkinson, if you would be willing to comment on that, I 

would appreciate it. 

Mr. PARKINSON. I will begin, Congressman Udall. I have not had 

the opportunity to review H.R. 751 myself, but let me take a crack 

at this. 

I think the approach that you described in H.R. 751 certainly 

would give more flexibility and certainly more discretion to the 

agencies that were using the fine money. My, and this is tentative 

because I think we need to take a closer look at this, but even allowing fine money to be used specifically to repair damage caused 

by the specific offender is something of a unique approach in our 

criminal law enforcement and I think it requires some study. 

Normally, fine money would go into the Witness and Crime Victims Fund, so even departing slightly does raise some concerns, 

typically within the Justice Department and the administration because it is contrary to the typical way that fines are levied and 

then collected. So I suspect that that is one of the points that the 

folks were keeping in mind when they drafted this legislation, that 

we were taking a step that was unusual and it was a reasonable 

step and it also focused specific expenditure of money on violations 

that were tied to the offense. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Yes, I understand that rationale. It seems to 

me you could argue that at least one of the victims in this is the 

land itself, and in that context, it makes sense to have a fund, if 

you will, to repair the land. 

Mr. REY. This is an area— 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Mr. Rey? 

Mr. REY. This is an area where I think we want to visit with the 

Justice Department and get back with you with some suggested 

language that may have a little bit more flexibility. 

One area where we would have some concerns, though, is a proposal to utilize the money to hire more law enforcement people. 

That raises the specter that the average user of the Federal lands 

deals with our law enforcement agents in a context where they suspect that our agents have an incentive to be over-aggressive enforcers, because they are utilizing the fines to retain additional agents 

to essentially bolster their enforcement efforts. 

We have some areas where we need to enhance our enforcement 

presence, there is no question about that, but I think that is better 

47

done through appropriated dollars and not with a direct feedback 

loop to the fines. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. That is a very good point. There are, of course, 

administrative costs that I would hope we could consider being covered by the excess amount that might be left from the fine structure. 

I see my time is about to expire and I would want to ask the 

Chairman if I could include some additional questions, without objection, to the panel. 

Mr. RENZI. Absolutely. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. And if I could, I would like to ask Mr. Smith 

and Mr. Jenkins if they would respond to my initial question, as 

succinctly as you can, seeing that the red light is on. 

Mr. SMITH. In terms of your question, the other thing I just 

might add, in addition to being able to use fines collected to repair 

damage caused by individuals or groups, the legislation also provides that the money can be used for educational outreach in order 

to educate people in what is appropriate and what isn’t. We would 

certainly hope that any final legislation would continue to have 

that ability because we think that is very important. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Yes. I think we would agree that education is 

a key part of trying to reduce the number of infractions and, therefore, the damage to public lands. 

Mr. JENKINS. My concern is that we get those law enforcement 

dollars, and if they can come through appropriations, I think that 

is great. You have another provision in your bill that would require 

some restitution by the offenders, I believe, or at least allow for 

that, and I think that may be another approach at getting to the 

restoration of the resource because the damage is really severe 

damage in a lot of cases and we really need a way to deal with 

that, and like maybe the previous person that sits here would say, 

not let the taxpayers be shouldered with that burden. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Yes. I think that is a very good point. Mr. 

Chairman, thank you for your indulgence. 

Mr. RENZI. I thank the gentleman from Colorado and cosponsor 

and move to the gentleman from New Mexico. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Renzi, and thank you, 

members of the panel, for being with us today. 

Let me, first of all, applaud my cousin, Mr. Udall from Colorado 

and Mr. Tancredo, also from Colorado, for your piece of legislation 

and say that I don’t think there is any doubt that fines for off-road 

vehicle violations are too low. I think we need to address this issue. 

I applaud you for attempting to get a trip on this problem. 

In the spirit of you saying suggestions, Mr. Tancredo, in terms 

of improvement of this legislation, I just have a couple of comments, and I hope they are taken in the spirit of possible improvements here. 

First of all, on a procedural, two procedural issues, apparently, 

the Department of Justice declined to send a witness to be before 

this panel today, and I really believe, since we are dealing with Department of Justice prosecutions, we are dealing with the Federal 

courts, much of this is overlap between this Committee and what 

the Department of Justice typically does. So I am disappointed that 

they couldn’t find the time to send somebody. Apparently, there 

48

was an availability issue. I would hope that maybe we could get 

their input in this Committee on these specific provisions, and so 

that would be one suggestion. 

The second would be that the overlap in jurisdiction with other 

committees here in the House, the Judiciary Committee clearly has 

jurisdiction over these issues, also, because you are dealing with 

Federal prosecutors, Federal courts. The people that bring these 

cases, even if they are just citations, are all under the supervision 

of the Judiciary Committee and their oversight responsibilities. So 

I would urge you, if we not going to even get Justice to talk in this 

Committee, to urge the Judiciary Committee to assert some jurisdiction over this so that their input, the Judiciary input can be 

had. 

On the substantive part of this, two other comments, also, and, 

I think, a question for the panel here. I worry a lot about putting 

in the hands of an enforcement agency the authority to keep the 

money. Whenever you do that, you raise a whole host of issues. 

One of the big issues is, are you giving the enforcement people the 

incentive to issue more tickets even though they—more tickets or 

more prosecutions, trying to collect more fines and more money, 

even though it isn’t necessary to carry out law enforcement responsibilities? 

I think this would be an unusual way to run Federal law enforcement. In fact, I think we have seen us move away from this in the 

forfeiture area. I think Chairman Hyde, when he was at Judiciary, 

sponsored a bill to take the forfeiture authority so that when Federal prosecutors move in to forfeit, they don’t get to keep it because 

that would encourage them to use forfeiture maybe in inappropriate circumstances. So I just worry about the enforcing agency 

keeping the money because I think it pushes them to do things 

that maybe they wouldn’t otherwise do. 

And then the final—and let me ask the question to the panel on 

that specific point. Is there anyone that sees a problem with this 

as a revenue-raising measure, that you are going to be putting a 

bind on this? I know agencies love to get the money. I mean, I expect all of you to say, oh, no, we want the money. This is a great 

idea. We are going to do a good job. But I am asking you, is there 

anybody on this panel that thinks that this is a bad idea? I don’t 

need to hear that it is a good idea, because I assume you are all 

for it. But is there anybody that is on the other side on that issue? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, Mr. Udall, initially when we started studying 

this problem, we did have some initial concerns about this concept. 

But the more that we looked at it and understanding that these 

agencies, these land agencies are under some very tight fiscal constraints, we just feel it is very important that money be devoted 

to educational outreach for appropriate behavior, and if someone 

does damage to these Federal lands, that those fines be used for 

restoration work. 

So I think the need is greater than the potential concern. I understand where you are coming from, but at the end of the day, we 

just felt that this is the appropriate way to deal with this problem. 

Mr. REY. I think it is important to separate the enforcement from 

the use of the fine and that if the use of the fine is for purposes 

that are resource-related as opposed to additional enforcement 

49

activities, you eliminate the prospect that people are going to view 

the Federal law enforcement agencies as bounty hunters. 

We do have some experience with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

and the Lacey Act and the use of the fines there, and so far, that 

hasn’t been a problem. But I think the reason it hasn’t been a problem is that both of those statutes, as does this proposal, separates 

the enforcement from the fine. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Go ahead. 

Mr. JENKINS. We deal with this issue every day as individuals 

when we face traffic violations and things like that. It is always a 

concern about what is motivating the enforcement. It seems to me 

that the more directly you tie the use of those dollars to actual 

damage done, the less there is an incentive, or broader incentive, 

for law enforcement to be too picky on the type of penalties and 

type of tickets they are issuing. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Thank you very much. 

Mr. RENZI. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. I have additional questions, but I know I have 

exhausted on this particular round. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RENZI. You are welcome. I am going to yield my time to the 

gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tancredo. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess just a couple 

of very quick comments in response to my colleague from New 

Mexico. 

To a certain extent, the purpose of this legislation is to encourage 

the agencies to actually be more aggressive. So I don’t mind the 

thought, the idea that there may be some connection between the 

imposition of a fine and a more aggressive posture. 

I think sometimes some of the agencies have actually—some people out in the field have simply ignored what was happening because they did not feel that there was really anything that was 

going to happen as a result of them even issuing a fine or a citation 

or something like that, and I think a lot of it has just been because 

it is confusing, because sometimes they didn’t want to do it, because the restrictions of either their agency just having a Class A 

or Class B provision that, again, restricted their ability to be flexible, they decided not to do anything. 

So I am going to give them greater flexibility. I want them, 

therefore, to be more aggressive in actually enforcing the laws that 

are on the books. And as long as we confine the use of the money, 

as we have here, and has been stated by the panel, as long as we 

confine the use of the money for these specific things, I don’t feel 

as though they are going to be doing it in order to improve their 

own economic welfare, but just to actually enforce the laws as they 

are on the books and maybe reduce the amount of violators as a 

result of it. 

Especially, I like the educational part. Education to me means, 

among other things, some big signage that tells you what the heck 

is going to happen to you if you do this stuff. You know, that is 

one thing I want people to know. That is part of this, as a deterrent, naturally, is to tell people, here are the possible fines and the 

possible ramifications for your actions here, which they may not 

know today. So I am hoping that that comes as a result of it. 

50

Procedurally, I am certainly supportive of trying to get Justice to 

provide a little more participation in this process as we go through 

it here. Whether we need another referral or not, or referral to another committee, I guess I say that for a long time, I have listened 

to people on this panel and people in the Congress talk about the 

need to do something quickly to address the problems that are so 

endemic in our national parks and in the forests of this land. I 

don’t know whether—if we can get that kind of cooperation from 

Justice right now through this process here in this Committee, I 

am all for it. Beyond that, I think we have got a lot of input with 

them. I know the agencies have talked to them themselves. 

At any rate, I appreciate very much the panel being here and, 

Mr. Chairman, your willingness to provide some time in response. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you. Reclaiming my time, I am going to turn 

the Committee over now to Mr. Tancredo to finish up and to chair 

the hearing. I know Mr. Inslee has questions. I think Mr. Udall has 

a couple more questions. So Mr. Tancredo, thank you. 

Mr. TANCREDO. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The other 

comment that I just wanted to make is that it is clear to me that 

when you deal with these kinds of violations that occur on Federal 

lands, the vast majority of agency violations are handled through 

citations and they are handled—we should be really clear about 

what is going on. This citation is comparable to a ticket. The penalty on the citation is not a fine but a collateral paid by the recipient to authorize termination of the proceedings. This is under the 

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. So this is the way most of the 

cases occur. 

What I am concerned about is when you start giving more authority, is that authority going to be used well? My understanding 

within the Bureau of Land Management, which only has these 

Class A misdemeanors, is that what you have is a very aggressive 

approach by the agency, saying, oh, we are going to throw the book 

at these guys, and they are charging everybody with Class A misdemeanors and so they move forward along the process and they 

present their case. They don’t actually do the charging, of course, 

but they want the people to be charged. 

They go up to the Justice Department and the local U.S. Attorney and say, we have got these guys. We want you to charge them 

with a Class A misdemeanor. And what ends up happening is the 

Justice Department declines the cases because the cases haven’t 

been put together to prove all the elements of the crime and the 

enhanced intent provisions. 

And so we have had a record over in BLM, my understanding is, 

that it hasn’t really worked very well with Class A. And so it is 

fine for all of us to talk about, you know, throw the book at the 

ORV guys and that is where we want to go, but the reality is 

that—and I used to do these cases when I was an Assistant United 

States Attorney and we would have 1 day a month and there would 

be all these misdemeanor cases before a magistrate and we didn’t 

have very much time to deal with them because we were dealing 

with all these other felonies. And frequently, the law enforcement 

folks had very good intentions but they were not able to put the 

cases together, and so you had a lot of declinations at the last moment, which is not good for law enforcement, either. 

51

So what I think we need to think about in doing this is make 

sure that all levels of the law enforcement people in the Federal 

agencies have the kind of training, they work closely with the Department of Justice to make the cases that are really going to stick, 

because the agencies frequently view that they are being tough by 

wanting to charge something when they could get a lot better result with a lesser penalty, but they could actually get a conviction 

or, as I said earlier, the overwhelming majority are where people 

pay the collateral on these citations. 

So I don’t know whether, Mr. Parkinson, you have been a former 

Federal prosecutor. I mean, this is a concern of mine. You work in 

supervising some of this law enforcement area. Is this a concern of 

yours? I mean, my understanding is we have got a lot of problems 

here in terms of the way these prosecutions proceed, and if we are 

going to give all this additional authority across the Federal Government, I think we are going to have to have a level of training 

to make sure that it is used wisely and that it is used effectively 

and that it is done in a cost efficient way. 

Mr. PARKINSON. Congressman, you have made some very good 

points, sort of took me back to my former days as a prosecutor. I 

had the same experiences that you had. But what I think that does 

is it really highlights the need for this legislation. 

One of the reasons that, particularly with BLM, having only 

Class A authority means that they were compelled to either do 

nothing or go to the Class A misdemeanor route. By allowing them 

the lesser charge under a Class B misdemeanor does permit that 

sort of more reasonable approach to law enforcement. 

And, of course, as you said, training is a big component of that. 

I think some of the statements or some of the stuff that comes out 

from the field is lore, but I think it also has—there is a lot of reality to what you have been hearing. I don’t necessarily conclude 

that it is a failure of training as opposed to a lack of an appropriate 

penalty structure, which this legislation is designed specifically to 

address. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Mr. Parkinson, if we have, in fact, had some 

problems with BLM in their Class A, which you seem to admit 

there have been some, then giving them Class B, I would agree 

with you, is a good idea, and that is why I applauded earlier the 

objective that Mr. Tancredo is moving toward. 

But the Forest Service and the Park Service have not had Class 

A, so we are moving them into this whole new murky category 

where we have had problems at BLM. I would like some assurance 

that there is an understanding from the people that are supervising this, Mr. Rey for one, that it is going to be done in a way 

that it is successful and that the cases are presented in a way 

where there isn’t this disconnect between Justice and the prosecutors and the people in the field and cases being dismissed and us 

not really getting enforcement done on these very important public 

lands and resource cases. 

I guess my question in a way is to Mr. Rey. You are stepping into 

an area with Class A with the Forest Service, anyway, which they 

have never done, and I think you may have problems unless there 

is some level of training and understanding that it isn’t just the attitude of an agency saying, we are going to throw the book at them, 

52

and then Justice falls in line. It just doesn’t work that way. Do you 

have any comment? 

Mr. REY. Well, I think that is an area that we are going to be 

extremely mindful of. There is no benefit to be gained by bringing 

a case that can’t be prosecuted, as you indicated earlier. The one 

advantage we have at this moment in history, should this legislation pass, is that our new Director of Law Enforcement, Ron Sprinkle, comes to us from the Department of the Interior, from the 

Park Service, and the Secret Service before that. So we are going 

to enter into this, should you give us this authority, with the benefit of their experience in how to use Class A misdemeanor enforcement wisely. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. That is a welcome addition. Let me once again 

thank the panel for being here. I am finished with my questions 

at this point, and I thank Mr. Tancredo for his push to get tough 

on these ORVs. I don’t think there is any doubt we need to do this. 

I just have questions as to exactly how we get there. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. TANCREDO. I understand and I appreciate the gentleman’s 

concerns. 

Mr. Inslee, do you have questions? 

Mr. INSLEE. Yes. I appreciate this effort, too, having seen the 

damage that has been caused out there. It is pretty amazing in my 

neck of the woods. 

But I have a question about this idea. If you accept the concept 

that we need to increase the sanction or perceived sanction for offenders in this manner, and if you accept the fact that the Federal 

judicial system is clogged to the gills and Federal prosecutors probably are going to put this on the lower level of their priority system 

if we go to more misdemeanor prosecutions, should we be focusing 

as much, or more, on raising the collateral forfeiture numbers, and 

hopefully we keep people out of the judicial system but still whack 

them harder and send a message to the user community in that regard? 

Is that an equal or better sort of strategy here, because I have 

a concern that if we do this, we are going to get referrals that just 

aren’t going to go anywhere, particularly since now we have this 

willful standard, too, that I think is worthy of some discussion. 

That is just an open question. 

Mr. PARKINSON. Let me start. I think this legislation is a good 

solution. I think we start from—one of the introductory comments 

put it this way. I will boil it down, too. There are two classes of 

offenders generally. This may be a slight oversimplification, but I 

think it is useful. There are those who are committing violations 

without really intending to commit violations, and then there are 

the egregious offenders who know exactly what they are doing and 

they are out there, often repeatedly, normally repeatedly, violating 

the public lands. 

It strikes me that when you start with that conceptual framework, there ought to be two law enforcement kinds of responses 

available. You ought to be able to have a Class B misdemeanor 

ability for those who are really not egregious offenders, but for 

those who are egregious offenders, you really ought to have a Class 

A kind of misdemeanor authority, which—and the other thing is 

53

that you ought to have a structure within these four bureaus, the 

three Interior bureaus and the Forest Service, that is at least consistent. Right now, we have four different statutory frameworks for 

the four bureaus, and the confusion for prosecutors and law enforcement agents who might be cross-designated, as well as for the 

courts, I think conceptually just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. So— 

Mr. INSLEE. Could you address the issue of fines? Do we need to 

somehow induce agencies to look at their fine structure? If so, how 

do we go about that? 

Mr. PARKINSON. Well, I think this helps do that. I think, yes, a 

short answer is do we need to have agencies look at their fine 

structures, I think the answer to that is yes. We should always be 

taking a look at things like that and analyzing how we better enforce the statutes and regulations that are on the books, and I 

think this is the kind of legislation that is a vehicle for generating 

that kind of analysis and discussion. 

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Rey, how do we encourage you or get you to look 

at the fine structure? 

Mr. REY. We continue to review our fine structures, but I think 

what Mr. Parkinson said is right in terms of the conceptual framework that you approach this issue with. I don’t know that we are 

going to accomplish any additional enforcement by raising the collateral for an unwitting violator. Whether we get him for $25 or 

$200, he is still an unwitting violator. It is the people who are repeated knowing violators that this bill will give us the better opportunity to deal with by giving the Forest Service, for the first time, 

a Class A authority. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Inslee, we represent user groups. Quite often, 

there are a lot of bad things happening out there and a lot of destruction is occurring and we really want the agencies to have the 

means to go after those people that are deliberately destroying our 

public lands. And so that is why we like the fact that there is a 

two-tiered approach here with a misdemeanor A and B. Somehow, 

we have got to get on top of this problem, and we think this is one 

way to begin addressing some of that destruction that is occurring. 

Mr. INSLEE. I noted in the definition, it added the characteristic 

of willful to the prosecutorial standard. Is that necessary or is that 

really what we are after? I noted a memo here that—it’s been so 

long since I have been in law school—that said willful means you 

actually had knowledge that this would be illegal. Is that really the 

meaning of willful nowadays? 

Mr. PARKINSON. Let me take the first crack. I don’t believe you 

were here when I made the comments in my opening. I do think, 

one, it is not necessary, and two, we ought to amend the legislation 

to eliminate the willful requirement. 

Basically, what that does is it increases the burden of proof for 

the prosecutor. It requires the government to prove that the defendant specifically intended to violate the law, and I don’t think 

that is necessary and I think it will impede the enforcement ability 

of the agencies. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. 

54

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Inslee, and thank you very much 

to the panel. I want to thank the witnesses on our second panel 

for their insights and members for their questions. 

The members may have some additional questions for the witnesses. We ask that you please respond to these in writing. The 

hearing record will be held open for 10 days for these responses. 

If there is no further business before the Subcommittee, I again 

thank the members of the Subcommittee and our witnesses. The 

Committee stands adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[A letter submitted for the record by the U.S. Department of 

Justice on H.R. 3247 follows:]

55


89967.001
56

Æ


89967.002