Date: 2000-06-07
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. let me say at the outset of this debate that the gentleman from Utah has worked very. very hard on this legislation. and I think any of us who are familiar with these issues in the West recognize the controversy that they provoke. As many of us are also aware. the controversy goes on for a considerable period of time. In this particular area. we have had controversy and discussions since the 1930s about what to do in the San Rafael area. This legislation deals with the San Rafael Swell. which is an incredible dome of uplifted sedimentary rock that rises some 1.500 feet above the surrounding desert measuring 50 miles long and 30 miles wide. This is an area that those who may be familiar with the area recognize is sheerwalled cliffs and twisting canyons with incredible mesas and buttes. This is the incredible beauty of this area of the West. this area of Utah. and that is why it has been an area of such great controversy because there are those who live there and make their livelihood there. There are those who want to protect it in the highest form of protection we can provide as a national treasure. and there are those who simply want to drive by and look at it as part of their summer vacation. It is a dramatic area. it is a beautiful area. and it clearly has resources and values and assets that are on a par with Arches. Canyonlands and Zion National Parks. This is not a minor piece of legislation. This is dealing with one of the great environmental assets in this Nation. But again it is also that fact that makes this legislation so controversial and even the discussion of the parts of this legislation is controversial. The gentleman from Utah has worked hard with the community in trying to develop a consensus and worked with the Secretary of Interior as he pointed out over many. many months recently to see whether or not they could come up with a legislative package that addressed all of their needs. I am sad to say that I do not believe that they have yet arrived at that package. that this legislation has a number of flaws that need to be corrected. We repeat some mistakes that we know have turned out to be very costly from the past. and. that is. when we start setting environmental and ecological boundaries that are based upon political jurisdictions and political decisions that follow existing roads or follow existing section lines or follow existing political boundaries of counties or townships. that we very often make a terrible mistake because that does not reflect the true protection of the environmental assets. it does not reflect the movement of wildlife. it does not reflect the expanse of habitat. it does not reflect necessarily the corridors that are needed for wildlife to move during different seasons and wet and dry periods of the year. Yet in this legislation once again we see that almost the entire southern boundary here is based upon a county line. As we know. as we struggled with the issues surrounding Yellowstone Park and other preserves in this country. those old decisions that were made in that fashion have turned out to be very bad for the protection and the conservation of those resources. I think that we even see in areas where we would be considering wilderness protection. protection of those assets in some cases. the boundaries here split those in two without taking that into consideration. The same is true with known wildlife habitat. I also think that we make the mistake in this legislation in not addressing the need for wilderness area. I appreciate the controversy that that raises in the West when discussing the wilderness area. and our committee from time to time has tried to work around that area. but to simply set these up as conservation areas is to allow a whole range of activities in those areas that then later work against the qualification of those areas for wilderness areas. whether it is communication towers. whether it is roads. those kinds of uses that then people use as evidence to say. Well. you cant consider this a wilderness area. So a great deal of damage can be done to the wilderness areas and the potential for wilderness protection if in fact we do not arrive at that level of protection. We have studied this. we have had a number of wilderness assessments done in this State. most recently several years ago. and clearly have identified these areas. There will be amendments on the floor to establish this as a wilderness area or a wilderness study area. I think the Members ought to give serious consideration to that. The other one is. there has been a tragic history here of really irresponsible offtheroad vehicle use. Clearly that is one of the uses of lands in many parts of the West. It is very controversial. Some people adamantly disagree with it and do not believe there should be any ORV use. I do not think that is realistic necessarily. or appropriate or necessary. but what we do have to have is responsible policies. In the past. this area has been closed because of those irresponsible policies and now simply to engage and let those people continue this for another 4 years I think is a mistake and again fails to recognize what we have learned from the past management of this land. We would in effect be codifying the same BLM regulations that have failed to protect this area. We also have the problem of creating something called the Western Legacy District. We do not know what a Western Legacy District is. we do not know what values it is there to protect. It appears that apparently this county has determined that. I think if we were looking for historical assets or whatever the basis is or environmental assets. we might find others that are more worthy of that designation. Clearly some definition. some protection of both the areas and of the taxpayer ought to be written into this legislation. I am also deeply concerned. again this is a controversial area in the West. about the issues of Federal reserve water rights. Here the Secretary apparently turned over whatever would be a federally reserved water right to the States. the State of Utah. but that does not provide for the kinds of protections necessary to protect the full range of a Federal asset here because it is a rather limited water right that the State has for conservation based mainly on wildlife and puts the State in the position of negotiating with its own- citizens who may want to make withdrawals and consumptive use of this water. I know this is controversial. but we should be protecting these Federal assets to the full extent of the law and the need of the area. and if we start just continuing to take consumptive use upstream from this area. we then denigrate the environmental values and assets of this area. Clearly. I think the Secretary has made a mistake on the Federal reserve water rights. There will be amendments offered after the general debate on these areas. I would hope Members would support the amendments by the gentleman from Colorado . the gentleman- from New Jersey . the gentleman from Washington . and the gentleman from New York because I do believe that they strengthen this bill. and most importantly they provide the kind of protection that the people of H3~