Testimony Before

U.S. SENATE 
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 
Full committee

Conservation and Reinvestment Act bills

Wednesday, May 24, 2000 Washington, DC

by Ray Kreig

201 Barrow Street #1 
Anchorage Alaska 99501-2429 
(907) 276-2025 fax 258-9614 [email protected]

My name is Ray Kreig. I have lived in Alaska since 1970 and I am an inholder in four places: Kantishna in Denali National Park; Millers Camp in Yukon Charley National Preserve; Three Saints Bay in Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge; and Treat on the Big Piney Creek National Scenic River in the Ozark National Forest, Arkansas. I am Chairman of the Kantishna Inholders Association and Chairman of the Arkansas Scenic Rivers Landowner Association. I testifying in an individual capacity.

I wish to bring to the attention of the Committee three recently released major studies critical to an understanding of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) HR701-S25.

I ask that they be included (in their entirety) in the official hearing record. Each item here includes quotes from the publication or summary provided by the authors:

#1 - HERITAGE FOUNDATION – WHY CARA IS FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND A THREAT TO LOCAL LAND USE DECISIONS, by Gregg VanHelmond and Angela Antonelli (Heritage Backgrounder No. 1370, May 9, 2000, 10 pages).

"The intention of H.R. 701--to improve land conservation and recreation in the United States--at first glance is noble, but in reality the bill represents little more than a pork-filled land grab by federal and state land management and recreation agencies...Making CARA's proposed programs off-budget also violates the spirit of the budget resolution, incorporating accounting gimmicks to increase spending in FY 2001 beyond what Members had agreed to spend...Congress would be dedicating money to CARA that it otherwise would have saved to shore up Social Security, reduce the debt, or give Americans a tax cut. CARA also represents a vast expansion of federal and state roles in local land management decisions...Unlike the practice in many of the programs that CARA would replace, H.R. 701 would require the U.S. Department of the Interior to review and approve many of the plans the states submit for the use of the funds...Finally, CARA is inherently unfair because it empowers government at all levels and special interests to buy land, placing average Americans at a disadvantage."

#2 - STEWARDS OF THE RANGE – FATAL FLAWS OF CARA, by Fred Kelly Grant (2000, 9 pages). "Much has been said and written about the benefits of and the flaws in H.R. 701 (CARA). Its supporters have defended the Bill against advocates of private property rights by claiming that the Bill protects property rights while extending funding to federal, state and local agencies to preserve the great openness remaining in our nation.

"The supporters have utilized summaries of the Bill and its supposed benefits, and asked for support by the grassroots on faith that the supporter's claims are factual. But, if one reads the provisions of the Bill---the provisions which will be binding federal law if the Bill passes---the fallacies of the supporting claims become evident.

"Because so much has been written, and because of the imminence of the vote on the Bill, the attempt here is to relate the actual language of the Bill as to limited specific issues regarding private property rights, the potential spread of federal control over land, and the impact on other programs of importance to the grassroots. When the actual language and the potential impact of the Bill is studied, it becomes apparent that H.R. 701 is the greatest threat to private property rights ever conceived in this country. "

#3 - POLITICAL ECONOMY RESEARCH CENTER – FEDERAL ESTATE: IS BIGGER BETTER?, by Holly Lippke Fretwell (Public Lands Report III, 2000, 24 pages). "As Congress prepares to add more land to the federal estate for conservation purposes, the condition of lands already under federal control continues to decline. Current federal land stewardship is doing more harm than good....one-third of the land area of the United States is under federal control. Acreage continues to be added at a rate of more than 800,000 acres per year and will rapidly increase if the proposed legislation specifically for land acquisitions is passed. While federal land ownership expands, funds for managing these new lands are not forthcoming...Any land manager whether working for a federal agency or overseeing a private farm or ranch, knows that protecting resources requires management and that comes at a price. Merely placing land into federal ownership without addressing its management needs in no way ensures conservation and can actually lead to greater degradation...To protect valuable federal lands, managers must face economic realities rather than kowtowing to Congress for their budgets."

Thank you Mr. Chairmen for providing this forum for examining CARA.

Sincerely,

[SIGNED AND TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY] Ray Kreig

Attachments:

#1 Heritage Study - Adobe PDF file "bg_1370.pdf" Also available at: http://WWW.Heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1370.html

#2 Stewards of the Range Study - WordPerfect file "CARA.Fatal_Flaws.wpd" Also available at: http://www.stewardsoftherange.org/fatal_flaws.htm

#3 PERC Study - Adobe PDF file "pl3.pdf" Also available at: http://www.PERC.ORG/pl3sum.htm

Be informed! Don't allow yourself to be snowed by CARA.