Date: 1982-09-29
Speaker: VANDER JAGT (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise in enthusiastic support of H.R. 3787 and to commend the chairman of the subcommittee. the distinguished gentleman from Ohio for his great leadership and legislative skill in fashioning this bill which resolves a number of issues connected with the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore on Lake Michigan in my congressional district. The Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore has been filled with controversy since it was first proposed over two decades ago. I do not know of any lakeshore that has stirred more intense emotions and passions. so the fact that the gentleman from Ohio could fashion this bill which resolves a number of issues that has the unanimous support of environmentalists. preservationists. property owners. the majority and the minority in the Michigan delegation. and now. with the explanation he gave. the support of the administration. is a great tribute to his legislative leadership. I would like to thank the gentleman for his personal interest. and involvement in what is an extraordinary legislative achievement. I would also like to commend the original sponsor of the legislation. my good friend and distinguished Congressman from Michigan (Mr. BnooMFIELD) and to also acknowledge that without the work of the gentleman from Michigan on the subcommittee. this happy compromise could not have been reached. Special thanks must also go to the distinguished gentleman from Alaska . the ranking minority member of the subcommittee. I would also like to thank the staff that worked so diligently to bring about this compromise. Turning to the substance of the bill. I want to note that the language of H.R. 3787 as it was reported from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs incorporates the language of legislation I had introduced last year. H.R. 4062. to revise the authorized boundaries of the lakeshore to delete the Leelanau County segment of the scenic corridor that was originally proposed. That roadway is no longer in the Park Service plans for the lakeshore. so it is most appropriate that that land be removed from the official boundaries to eliminate the uncertainty that has clouded private property rights. The language of H.R. 3787 also addresses other issues of concern which were resolved after lengthy discussions between the various parties with interests in the lakeshore. The bill carefully balances the interests of inholders nnd local residents against public use needs of the lakeshore. It was developed in the best sense of compromise. and is a sound agreement resolving several outstanding problems relating to the lakeshore. The bill accomplishes the initial objective of the original bill. H.R. 3787. by extending the term of use and occupancy for residents of properties built between 1964 and 1970. This involves approximately 90 homes. most of which are not needed by the Park Service for the immediate future. Those few properties that are needed by the Park Service in the immediate future will not be eligible for this extended tenancy. Further. the Park Serr e is directed to advise property holears of any plans it now has to use their property over the next two decades. and to keep them advised as future plans are more firmly developed. If the Park Service does eventually have a real need for a property. and has the funding available to carry out its intended use. the bill clearly gives tile Secretary the authority to revoke occupancy rights. The bill and the accompanying committee report give the Park Service criteria to evaluate the need for property. It is my hope that the direction given to the Park Service and the notification it is required to give residents will insure an orderly transition from private use to public use of these lands. balancing the needs of the residents with that of the public with minimal infringement on either. Similar care was given to developing a balanced solution for the protection of two special "resource preservation areas" nearby the existing boundaries of the lakeshore. One area. Miller Hill. overlooks the lakeshore and exemplifies the scenic beauty of the area. The other. Bow Lakes. contains a number of outstanding natural features including a large bog area that would be desirable for nature studies. The Park Service would be authorized to acquire these lands for inclusion in the lakeshore. but the rights of private property owners are carefully protected. Property acquisition would be done only from willing sellers. and from Park Service exercise of right of first refusal on property transfers. Condemnation would not be authorized for general acquisition. and could only be employed to prevent significant damage to the scenic. water or soil resources of the lakeshore. If any landowner initiated activities which might threaten damage to these resources. the Park Service could obtain an injunction to stop the damaging action. This gives the landowner an opportunity for judicial review. and insures that the Park Service has valid objection to the threatening activities. Again. the rights of private property owners have been carefully balanced with the need to protect essential resources of the lakeshore. Section 5 dealing with wilderness questions should also be addressed. Wilderness designation of several areas in Sleeping Bear Dunes was initially sought by representatives of conservation and environmental organizations. These organizations pointed out that the National Park Service had prepared detailed recommendations on areas in Sleeping Bear which might be suitable for wilderness designation. This recommendation was completed in 1981. and was forwarded to the Department of the Interior. No recommendations have been submitted to the Congress. Because the Congress has not had an opportunity to review the wilderness recommendations in detail. and has received no comments from local citizens and governments which might be affected by official wilderness designation. I raised strong objection to designating wilderness at this time. Consequently. the lenguage of H.R. 3787 directs the President to submit the wilderness recommendations. already under consideration. by June 1. H.R. 3787 does include language directing the Park Service to continue managing the recommended wilderness areas as they are currently doing to "maintain their presently existing wilderness character and potential for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System." This language merely insures that the Prk Service will continue to do what Lobey are doing today. and what they are required to do under the general management plan for the lakeshore. thus preserving the status quo. This requirement is subject to existing private rights. and the committee report further points out that this does not change the Parks Services authority to maintain or close roads and access to private inholdings. Nevertheless. questions have been raised about the language in section 5 of the bill on management of these lands as wilderness. While President Reagan and Secretary of the Interior Jim Watt have stated their strong support for designation of wilderness areas in accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act. the administration has raised concerns that section 5 could cause problems in managing areas of the lakeshore subject to use and occupancy under the other provisions of this bill. Of particular concern is the indefinite period the Park Service would be required to manage the recommended areas as wilderness in the absence of congressional action to officially designate them as such according to the Wilderness Act. I would certainly be agreeable to amending this provision when the bill i" considered in the other body to address concerns about possible unintended consequences. Although I would hope that the other body would act as expeditiously as possible on I.R. 3787. I do expect that there will be an op.ortunity to consider this issue. as well as other provisions of the bill. Perhaps the easiest manner to address the concerns raised by the management requirements contained in section 5 would be to limited their duration to a fixed period. and I will recommend that the management directive be limited. That this bill resolves several rather controversial issues in a fair and balanced manner is a direct reflection on the gentleman from Ohio . the chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and National Parks. I cannot express in strong enough terms my gratitude and appreciation for his willingness to examine the problems associated with the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. and act on legislation to resolve them. Chairman SEIBERLING led a subcommittee field inspection of Sleeping Bear Dunes last year. so he has a genuine personal understanding of the situation at the lakeshore. As I have noted. several members of the Michigan delegation have worked long and hard to develop this legislation. The original sponsor of this bill. Mr. BROOMFIELD. has been extremely involved and interested in the lakeshore. as has the gentleman who serves on the subcommittee. Mr. KILDEE. and Mr. DINGELL who has cosponsored the bill. In addition. the two Senators afrom Michigan have been part of the many meetings and discussions that led to agreement on H.R. 3787. In particular. the senior Senator from Michigan. Mr. RIEGLE. has been most helpful in working to resovlve differences between various parties involved in the issues. I hope. therefore. that my colleagues will join me in giving the kind of enthusiastic vote to this legislation which will send a message to the Senate that we need expeditious action. yes. even in these remaining few days before we break for the congressional elections. If we do not act expeditiously in both Houses. about 90 property owners could be thrown out of their homes in the snow this coming February and I am certain that is something no Senator or Congressman would like to see. Again. I commend the gentleman for his leadership and the happy resolution of a number of issues connected with the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.