[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON H.R. 2438, AND H.R. 1995
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2438
TO ENCOURAGE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF APPROPRIATE TRAILS ON ABANDONED
RAILROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY, WHILE ENSURING THE PROTECTION OF CERTAIN
REVERSIONARY PROPERTY RIGHTS
H.R. 1995
TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF FARMLAND AT THE POINT REYES NATIONAL
SEASHORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
OCTOBER 30, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC
----------
Serial No. 105-76
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46-626 CC WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
LINDA SMITH, Washington FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
Allen Freemyer, Counsel
P. Daniel Smith, Professional Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held October 30, 1997.................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, a Senator in Congress from the State of
California, prepared statement of.......................... 4
Christian-Green, Hon. Donna M., a Delelgate in Congress from
the Territory of the Virgin Islands, prepared statement of. 22
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from
American Samoa............................................. 3
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado, prepared statement of................... 5
Ryun, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Kansas.................................................. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Vento, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota......................................... 5
Woolsey, Hon. Lynn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 12
Additional material submitted for the record by.......... 307
Statements of witnesses:
Ackerson, Nels, Attorney, The Ackerson Group................. 37
Prepared statement of.................................... 99
Allen, Richard, Landowner.................................... 54
Prepared statement of.................................... 130
Berner, Robert, Executive Director, Marin Agricultural Land
Trust...................................................... 65
Prepared statement of.................................... 143
Borello, Judy, Rancher....................................... 78
Prepared statement of.................................... 157
Coletti, Mary, Rancher....................................... 75
Prepared statement of.................................... 153
Additional material submitted for the record by.......... 216
Cummiskey, Vicki, Mayor, city of Ottawa, Kansas, prepared
statement of............................................... 177
Doughty, Sharon, Dairy Rancher............................... 66
Prepared statement of.................................... 145
Furlong, Donna, Rancher...................................... 77
Prepared statement of.................................... 155
Glosemeyer, Jane, Landowner.................................. 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 113
Hodgson, Hon. Janice, Mayor, City of Garnett................. 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 127
Kinsey, Steve, Supervisor, Fourth District, County of Marin.. 63
Prepared statement of.................................... 141
Kitay, Evelyn, Senior Trial Attorney, Office of the General
Counsel, Surface Transportation Board...................... 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 93
McIntyre, Amelia J., Legal Counsel, city of Garnett, prepared
statement of............................................... 165
Newman, Bill, Vice President and Washington Counsel, Conrail. 56
Prepared statement of.................................... 136
Norton, Edward, Board Member, National Trust for Historic
Preservation............................................... 51
Prepared statement of.................................... 117
Pozzi, Martin and Sally, Ranchers............................ 73
Prepared statement of Mr. Pozzi.......................... 150
Stevenson, Kate, Associate Director, Cultural Resource
Stewardship and Partnerships, The National Park Service.... 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 84
Welsh, Richard, Executive Director, National Association of
Reversionary Property Owners............................... 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 109
Woodbury, Howard, Landowner.................................. 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 115
Additional material supplied:
Point Reyes National Seashore, California.................... 179
HEARING ON H.R. 2438, TO ENCOURAGE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF APPROPRIATE
TRAILS ON ABANDONED RAILROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY, WHILE ENSURING THE
PROTECTION OF CERTAIN REVERSIONARY PROPERTY RIGHTS AND
H.R. 1995, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF FARMLAND AT THE POINT REYES
NATIONAL SEASHORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1997
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National
Parks and Public Lands, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V.
Hansen (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Hansen. The Committee will come to order.
Good morning and welcome to the hearing. Today we will hear
testimony on two bills. One amends the National Trails System
Act, and the other provides protection to farmlands in
California. We are pleased to have two Members of Congress to
testify on these bills, along with the other witnesses.
I would like to welcome Congressman Jim Ryun, who will
explain H.R. 2438, and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, who will
explain H.R. 1995.
Before these hearings, however, I need to proceed with the
legislation markup of H.R. 2186.
[Whereupon, at 10:02 a.m., the Subcommittee proceeded to
other business.]
Mr. Hansen. Let's see--we'll now go back to the legislative
hearing.
H.R. 2438 was introduced by Congressman Jim Ryun of Kansas
to establish appropriate trails on abandoned railroad rights-
of-way. This bill will amend the National Trails System Act to
ensure protection of private property rights on lands which
once held an active railroad easement and modifies the language
in the existing Act to allow other uses, but still retains the
recreational use where it is appropriate. H.R. 2438 also
assures that State laws regarding railroad easements and
rights-of-ways will not be preempted by Federal statute.
The second bill the Committee will hear today is H.R. 1995,
the Point Reyes National Seashore Farmland Protection Act of
1997, introduced by Mrs. Woolsey of California.
This bill creates a farmland protection area in Marin and
Sonoma--is that how you pronounce that--Sonoma Counties--is
that right, Lynn?
Ms. Woolsey. That's correct.
Mr. Hansen. [continuing] in California, consisting of
38,000 acres of privately owned land by expanding the existing
boundary of the Point Reyes National Seashore. This bill is
opposed by some people here who will give their objection to
it. There is also the concern of acquisition of development
easements by the Secretary of the Interior. This legislation
could set a precedent, and I would hope that members would take
a close look at both bills.
I will now recognize my distinguished colleague from
American Samoa for any opening remarks he may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
Statement of Hon. James V. Hansen, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Utah
Good morning everyone and welcome to the hearing. Today we
will hear testimony on two bills. One amends the National
Trails System Act and the other provides protection to farm
land in California. We are pleased to have two Members of
Congress to testify on these bills, along with the other
witnesses.
I would like to welcome:
Congressman Jim Ryun who will explain H.R. 2438 and,
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey who will explain H.R. 1995
But before these hearings however, I need to proceed to the
legislative markup of H.R. 2186. I would like to begin by
saying that Congresswoman Cubin wanted to be here to explain
H.R. 2186, however, she has just undergone major back surgery
and is unable to attend. I certainly wish her a very speedy and
complete recovery.
Now, I will get back to the legislative hearings.
H.R. 2438 was introduced by Congressman Jim Ryun of Kansas
to establish appropriate trails on abandoned railroad rights-
of-way. This bill will amend the National Trails System Act to
ensure protection of private property rights on lands which
once held an active railroad easements and modifies the
language in the existing Act to allow other interim uses, but
still retains the recreational use where it is appropriate.
H.R. 2438 also assures that state laws regarding railroad
easements and rights-of-way will not be preempted by Federal
statute.
The second bill the Subcommittee will hear testimony on
today is H.R. 1995, The Point Reyes National Seashore Farmland
Protection Act of 1997, introduced by Mrs. Woolsey of
California.
This legislation is very controversial in nature, and was
scheduled for a hearing before this Subcommittee only at the
insistence of Chairman Young. This bill creates a ``Farmland
Protection Area'' in Marin and Sonoma counties in California,
consisting of approximately 38,000 acres of privately owned,
productive agricultural land, outside the existing boundary of
the Point Reyes National Seashore. The bill is opposed by a
majority of the affected landowners who control approximately
75 percent of the land in question.
We will hear testimony from these directly affected
landowners that will emphasize how this involuntary inclusion
within a National Park Service boundary will affect the value
of this land, and the future of agriculture in this area that
their families have protected for over 100 years!
We will also hear from officials representing Marin County
and the Marin Agricultural Land Trust to explain why Federal
taxpayers must bail out the most wealthy per capita income
county in the United States, by purchasing development rights
on privately owned land that is already protected from
development by local zoning, and comprehensive State of
California programs, such as the Williamson Act and the Coastal
Zone Management Act.
Finally, we will hear that the Congress has already
provided a voluntary, agricultural conservation easement
program on a national basis in the 1996 Farm Bill. H.R. 1995
attempts to fund agricultural easements through the National
Park System at a time when the land acquisition backlog is over
$1.2 billion. The bill intends to place a burden on the Land
and Water Conservation fund of $30 million, to an estimated $80
million, to enhance Point Reyes National Seashore and the
Golden Gate National Recreation Area for which the American
taxpayer has already paid over $145 million for land
acquisition, and will spend more this year!! The hearing today
is before the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands,
there should be no mistake that H.R. 1995 is a park expansion
bill, not an agricultural bill!
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELGATE TO CONGRESS
FROM AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I would also
like to offer my personal welcome to Congressman Ryun of
Kansas, and our good friend, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey from
California.
Mr. Chairman, we're here this morning to receive testimony
on two pieces of legislation, H.R. 2438, by Mr. Ryun of Kansas,
to amend the National Trails System, and H.R. 1995, by
Congresswoman Woolsey of California, to protect the farmland at
Point Reyes National Seashore.
In 1983, Congress amended the National Trails System Act to
set up a process through which railroad corridors would be
converted into recreation trails on an interim basis. This
program has been extremely successful thus far, resulting in
123 railbanked corridors in 26 States, comprising some 3,412
miles of recreation trails. And recreation trails have been
reactivated to rail service in Ohio and Washington.
The Rails to Trails program provides the public with the
opportunity to enjoy outdoor recreation activity on land that
would have otherwise remained under the authority of railroad
companies and closed to the public. For the railroad companies,
this program provides for railroad rights-of-way to be
maintained and preserved until the company reinstates future
rail lines as needed. Through this program, Federal, State, and
local governments have not only worked cooperatively among
themselves, but also with private business interests,
preservationists, and outdoor enthusiasts.
In 1992, the National Park Service, together with Penn
State University, conducted a study of trail problems to the
neighbors and its effects on local businesses. Some land owners
with property adjacent to rail corridors fear that a recreation
trail would bring problems to their neighborhood. However, one
of the study's results found that 87 to 97 percent of adjacent
landowners found that having a recreation trail either had no
effect or increased their property values.
I am concerned about the impacts enactment of H.R. 2438
would have on this program. Provisions affecting the
abandonment status of rail-banked corridors and applicability
of State laws may hinder this important and popular program.
H.R. 1995, the Point Reyes National Seashore Farmland
Protection Act, addresses a problem in Congresswoman Woolsey's
district of Marin and Sonoma Counties in California. There have
been numerous public meetings on this legislation among the
affected landowners, Federal and local officials.
In July 1995, the National Park Service released a study
which they were directed to undertake by this Committee
confirming the need to protect farmlands in this area. To date,
the local community has contributed in excess of $15 million
toward the acquisition of conservation easements.
I want to commend Congresswoman Woolsey for her fantastic
work on this piece of legislation and her dedication and hard
work on this matter, and I look forward to hearing the
testimonies from the witnesses concerning these two pieces of
legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Minnesota.
[The prepared statements of Mrs. Boxer and Mr. Hefley
follow:]
Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, a Senator in Congress from the State
of California
As with many of our national parks, monuments and other
protected treasures, the character and beauty of the Point
Reyes National Seashore are threatened--not by development or
environmental degradation within the national seashore--but by
proposed development outside the boundary line over which the
Park Service has no control.
The Point Reyes National Seashore Farmland Protection Act
of 1997 is an innovative proposal which will ensure that the
ecological integrity of the Point Reyes National Seashore is
protected for future generations, while also preserving the
property rights and historic agricultural use of the farmland
in the area. I am pleased to be introducing the Senate
companion legislation next week.
The legislation establishes a Farmland Protection Area
adjacent to the Point Reyes National Seashore within which
willing farmers and ranchers will have the opportunity to sell
conservation easements for their land. The Farmland Protection
Area includes 38,000 acres of the eastern shore of Tomales Bay
visible from within Point Reyes. Property owners within that
area will be available, but not required, to sell conservation
easements to their land.
Conservation easements are legal agreements between a land-
owner and a land trust (non-profit) conservation organization.
The conservation easements restrict development on the land
which is incompatible with the agricultural uses of the land.
The easements would not expand public access, pesticide
regulations, hunting rights, etc. Furthermore, the easements
will remain with the land in perpetuity providing security for
ranchers as well as continued protection for the national
seashore.
The easements will allow existing agriculture activities to
continue and will preserve the pastoral nature of the land
adjacent to Point Reyes National Seashore and the Golden Gate
National Recreation Areas by guaranteeing no new development.
I believe this legislation will become a model for land
conservation across the nation as governments lack the funds to
purchase fee title to protect valuable properties from
development. This approach may be used to address similar
problems at other parks, wildlife refuges, and marine
sanctuaries by preserving compatible land use areas that
protect view sheds and prevent environmental damage.
This legislation will allow the National Park Service,
working with the Marin Agricultural Land Trust (MALT), the
Sonoma Land Trust (SLT), and the Sonoma County Agricultural
Preservation and Open Space District (SCAPOSD) to protect this
beautiful area at a fraction of the cost of acquiring title to
the properties within the new boundaries. In addition, those
properties would be maintained on Marin County's tax rolls.
Without this legislation, almost 40,000 acres of scenic
ranch land will be vulnerable to development. This bill has the
strong support of the local farmers and ranchers within the
area to be protected, local environmental groups including the
Marin Conservation League, effected local governments and the
local chamber of commerce.
I commend Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey for her hard work and
dedication to this legislation. She has been working closely
with interested parties in an effort to find this innovative
solution which benefits ranchers, environmentalists, the
County, and the Park Service alike.
------
Statement of Hon. Joel Hefley, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado
Mr. Chairman, in 1983, the Senate Energy Committee was
confronted with a growing number of railroad abandonments and
began to think it was a good idea to keep some of these rights-
of-way open. The result was the National Rails-to-Trails Act,
probably one of the more popular programs of recent years.
As a supporter of both recreational trails and private
property rights, I have a particular interest in--and concern
over--the bill before us today. Based upon what little I know
about Kansas property law and settlement patterns, Mr. Ryun may
have a point--in his home state. But I don't think it's wise to
adopt a blanket remedy for a problem that happens in scattered
states or regions. In Kansas, the railroads may well have sold
land to farmers with a reversionary right. If that is the case,
then it would seem they are due compensation and there are
existing laws to deal with that problem. But I do not know
whether the same situation exists in Colorado or Oklahoma or in
the West at large, in other parts of the country or even in
other parts of Kansas. If we are going to protect private
property rights, we must protect all private property rights,
whether they belong to the farmer, the railroad or the United
States.
I am further concerned about whether this bill will damage
the alleged underlying purpose of the 1983 law, that is to
preserve transportation corridors for possible future use. It
may seem absurd to us, while we lose approximately 3,000 miles
of railroad trackage each year, to worry about whether we'll
need rail rights-of-way in the future. But as a national policy
body, we must. By yielding these rights-of-ways, we may forever
lose the option of their use as a transportation corridor. It
does no good to say we can declare a public use easement if
that need arises. The country is growing. Costs would likely
preclude any such future construction. I do not know whether we
can allow individual states to opt out of a national
transportation plan any more than we could allow them to opt
out of the Interstate Highway System.
In conclusion, I believe we should tread warily on this
issue. Reportedly, the Senate Transporation Committee worked on
this issue for two years without resolution and the subject has
been constantly revisited since 1983. The issue has worked its
way to the U.S. Supreme Court on at least two occasions.
Private property rights are a constitutional issue that should
be dealt with seriously. But we should not trash a successful
program and our future needs without careful deliberation.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE VENTO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Vento. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm a sponsor of the
Point Reyes National Seashore Protection Act. This is a bill
that has received a good deal of focus and study over the last
6 or 7 years. It was initiated by the local authorities in
terms of the county and then picked up by the Congresswoman in
terms of pursuing a Federal participation in the role.
It represents an important step forward in terms of
enhancing and trying to accommodate the Point Reyes National
Seashore experience, the basic designation. This proposes to
protect through wholly voluntary agreements--it's a voluntary
program in terms of buying the scenic easements and maintaining
the farm and dairy character of the lands--the farmlands and
agricultural lands adjacent to Tomales Bay.
It's an area if you visit, Mr. Chairman, you would
recognize that when you're in Point Reyes you're looking
directly over at these particular lands. As I said, there's
been substantial dollars already raised locally to participate
in the program. The major county involved has taken the lead in
this, but they need our cooperation. We need to coordinate our
activities with the county and the Park Service to achieve the
objectives that are envisioned here.
This is a park where nearly 2.5 million visitors a year
experience this, merely 50 miles north of San Francisco. It's
an important resource and one that affords us an economical and
efficient way, in terms of a partnership, an important
partnership, to try and conserve and maintain the rural
character on a voluntary, willing-seller basis with regard to
the purchase of these covenants that are envisioned in the
bill.
And so it has received--the Park Service has studied it--I
think we will get support. There is substantial agreement;
there isn't absolute agreement, but I don't think we should be
too amazed by that. I think, though, that the work has been on
this, and I think the bill has a goodly amount of merit, and,
hopefully, we can work through whatever differences remain and
act positively on it.
I also note that we're hearing a bill that modifies the
basic Rails to Trails law, one of the more innovative
proposals. Across the country we've seen substantial rail
abandonment or the cessation of the use of rails on many of the
lines, and these have turned into one of the most important
recreational resources that are available in many of our areas.
It affects greatly--now here's an area that affects a lot
of urban areas, Mr. Chairman, and suburban areas, and in spite
of the fact that adjacent landowners have often voiced
concerns, after the trails are established, as high as 70 to 90
percent have voiced an affirmative response that it actually
has enhanced the value of the lands adjacent to it, because of
the desirability of being close to a resource of this nature.
So, I, myself, am a frequent user of such trails, and I
think and I find that the ones in and around--we have trails
that stretch in Minnesota for hundreds of miles, and they are
an extremely valuable resource and, I think, point the
direction of recreation into the next century. So I am very
concerned about any changes that might occur to that which
would discourage the temporary railbanking, which I think is a
good compromise and/or, in other words, would eviscerate the
effect of converting these trails to recreation use.
So I hope we can work our way through that and try to put
in place the proper safeguards to assure that there are some
hearings and some review of that, but that we would keep in
place the progress, the evolution of these rail sites into
trails for the broad public use, Mr. Chairman. So I look
forward to the hearing today.
We will be interrupted, I understand. Our Committee has
responsibilities on the floor, and I certainly, while I'm
interested in these topics, will be most interested in
addressing the concerns on the floor, as may other members.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
California, Mr. Pombo.
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. I am primarily here to listen to my spiritual
confessor, Lynn Woolsey.
Mr. Hansen. We're happy to have our two colleagues with us
at this time. We'll turn to The Honorable Jim Ryun and The
Honorable Lynn Woolsey.
Mr. Ryun, take whatever time you need, and the floor is
yours--and we'd also like to welcome our colleague from
Missouri who is with us at this particular time.
Mr. Ryun.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM RYUN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF KANSAS
Mr. Ryun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling the
hearing today on my bill, H.R. 2438, the Railway Abandonment
Clarification Act.
I would like to also thank all of the witnesses who have
taken time and spent their money coming here to testify on
behalf of my bill. Also, I would like to request unanimous
consent to submit additional testimony to be made part of the
record.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection, so ordered, and all
additional testimony will be part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Ryun. And I'd also like to take a moment of privilege
and introduce my colleague, who you've already mentioned from
Missouri, Kenny Hulshof, who would like to make an
introduction.
Mr. Hulshof. Thank you. It's my privilege to be here. I'm
not intending to offer testimony, but I do appreciate the
efforts that Mr. Ryun has made with this bill.
I am privileged and honored to welcome two constituents
here today, one of whom you'll be hearing from. With all due
respect to the gentleman from Minnesota, assuming that the
numbers ``70 percent to 90 percent of landowners are now
appreciative of the Rails to Trails,'' I think you're going to
hear some compelling testimony today from the minority of the
10 percent to the 30 percent, particularly Jayne Glosemeyer and
her husband, Maurice, who have come from the 9th Congressional
District of Missouri, from Marthasville, that have a farm
there. They have the situation of an abandoned railway that has
been turned into a trail area, and they're going to talk about
some of the realities and some of the difficulties and
challenges that they've faced.
So, I'm here in support of them, and, again, appreciate the
gentleman allowing me the privilege of introducing the
Glosemeyers to you and to this body. Thank you.
Mr. Ryun. Mr. Chairman, I'm here today to discuss a
fundamental constitutional right, and that is the right to own
property. This right is a pillar of our democracy and there is
a Bill of Rights to protect that.
My legislation addresses the rights of property owners
whose land once held a railway track that was running through
it. Specifically, the Act allows States to participate in the
process of determining how abandoned railways are developed
into recreational trails.
From the start let me say one thing and make it very clear:
I support the development of trails. I've enjoyed trails; I
want my children and future grandchildren to have the
opportunity to use trails, and I believe that the quality of
trails can add economic benefits to some communities. Although
I have run on more miles than I care to count on trails, and
they are wonderful, they're safe, my desire to run on a smooth
surface should not come at the expense of property owners whose
constitutional right hangs in the balance.
These property owners are farmers--you're going to hear
from some of them today--homeowners, and small business people.
When many of these folks in my district approached me with
their concerns about the way railways are currently converted
into trails, I found the root of their concern to be the very
thing that American people have rejected time and time again,
and that is one-size-fits-all Federal law--the Washington
mentality, that type of law that is based on power, that gives
power to the few at the expense of the majority.
When the Rails to Trails Act was first introduced in 1983,
it was not given careful consideration in Congress, and,
consequently, its impact was not understood. The Rails to
Trails Act was passed by the House of Representatives under
suspension of the rules in March 1983 and was debated for only
20 minutes in the Senate. This expedited schedule resulted in a
simple misunderstanding. While many railways ran on Federal
property, it was not mentioned that many other railroad rights-
of-way are held on private property.
Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of the Rails to
Trails program is that individual property rights are suspended
and special interest groups, under the color of law, are
allowed to use private land for public purposes without
providing due process or compensation for property owners.
The controversy over the Rails to Trails program boils down
to the fact that much of the railbanked land actually belongs
to private landowners, and these landowners are completely
denied, even under the slightest opportunity, to participate in
the decisionmaking process with regard to how the trail will be
developed on their property.
Here's what actually happened to one my constituents. This
farmer and his family have owned a piece of land near Topeka
for almost 150 years. The farmer allowed the railroad to lay a
railway--the ties and the track--across the land and use the
land by granting the land to the railroad as an easement. But
keep in mind, the farmer continued to own that land. When the
railroad stopped operating its trains and removed its tracks
and railroad bed, the farmer still owned that land; nothing had
really changed. However, the Federal Government told the farmer
that he couldn't use his own land after the railway was taken
away. Instead, the government told the farmer that his land was
not considered abandoned and he would not be able to use it,
and it was used then for a public recreation trail.
To add insult to injury, special interest trails groups
with no public accountability are authorized to establish these
trails on privately owned land. Therefore, the farmer becomes
the proverbial David against the trail group's Goliath, which
is armed with lawyers and the power of the Federal Government.
This is all accomplished through legislative sleight-of-hand.
The National Trails System Act states that interim use of a
railway is defined as bicycling, cross-country skiing, day
hiking, equestrian activities, jogging or other similar
activities. Furthermore, the Rails to Trails Act, which amends
the National Trails System Act, states that interim use should
not be treated as--and this important--railway abandonment, and
the Surface Transportation Board shall not permit abandonment.
So abandonment really does not equal abandonment.
Common sense, on the other hand, would suggest that interim
use is abandonment because you cannot run, bike, ride your
horse, ski, or whatever, on railroad tracks. Interim use and
railroad are mutually exclusive; you cannot have one with the
other.
The Rails to Trails Act tramples on the rights of property
owners and tramples on the rights of many State governments.
For example, Kansas law states that when a railroad ceases to
use its tracks on the farmer's property and the trains stop
rolling, the use of the land automatically reverts to the
rightful land owner? Why? Because the farmer owns the land and
can do with it as he pleases once the trains and the tracks are
gone. Through definitional sleight-of-hand, the Federal
Government has thrown out State law relating to reversionary
property rights, and suddenly a person's private land had
become, if you will, public.
Those in favor of trail development argue that changes in
the Rails to Trails Act are not warranted because of the
significant popularity and the economic benefits of
recreational trails. Trail advocates say further that
railbanking rail corridors is vital to the country's
transportation infrastructure because it preserves valuable
rail corridors for the future.
And lastly, trail advocates state that the Supreme Court
has ruled that railbanking is constitutional, and that those
property owners who believe a taking has occurred should file
with the U.S. Court of Claims for their day in court and
receive compensation.
It is true that property owners can file in the Claims
Court. Small Kansas farmers, however, do not have the financial
resources to hire an attorney to jump through the
administrative hoops and to spend the money to fight for
compensation on a 100-foot wide easement that they know is
really theirs. We can all do the math. It is not worth spending
$100,000 in attorney's fees to be compensated for confiscated
land worth about $30,000. In fact, not a single aggrieved
property owner has been compensated in the 14 years of the
Rails to Trails program. And I think that point is very
important to make, and at this point no one has been
compensated through all of these years as a result of what we
define as a ``taking.''
Also, my bill removes the one-size-fits-all-mandate that
converts abandoned railways into recreational trails. It does
not diminish the Surface Transportation Board's authority to
preserve our national corridor system. Instead, it gives
discretion to the Surface Transportation Board to certify trail
use, but does not require it. In this way, railbanked corridors
do not have to hold a recreational trail. Instead, railbanked
land could be used by landowners for farm or range land or any
other purpose until rail use is reinstated.
I can assure the Committee that reinstating a railway over
a crop of wheat is no more difficult than reinstating a railway
over a trail. In this way, the STB can continue to preserve the
valuable railway corridors in compliance with State abandonment
law. The Railway Abandonment Clarification Act takes a common
sense approach. It balances the approach to the Federal
treatment of railway abandonment and the development of
recreational trails.
The Act will ensure that farmers and property owners have a
voice in how the land will be used. It will conform Federal
railway abandonment law to the Constitution. It will preserve a
State's rights to determine private property issues and to
continue the encouragement and development of trails, and
that's very important. Sometimes I've argued against that I am
against trails--I am very much for trails.
Let's look at this last point for a moment, if I might.
H.R. 2438 does not repeal the Trails Act or prevent the
development of trails on private property. Instead, it
continues to encourage States to develop trails. The Railway
Abandonment Clarification Act encourages trail development by
returning this power to the States and allowing them to
determine how trails will be developed. H.R. 2438 corrects the
problem of current law, while maintaining railbanking and
appropriate trail development.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude my testimony with a
quote from James Madison, illustrating the foresight of our
Founding Fathers. He said this in 1792, and I'd like to quote
it for you. Madison said: ``That is not a just government, nor
is property secure under it, where the property which a man has
in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by
arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of
the rest.''
I urge quick consideration of this bill so that the
landowners can regain the use of their land, and I'd be happy
to answer any questions at this time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ryun follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jim Ryun, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Kansas
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing on my
bill, H.R. 2438, the Railway Abandonment Clarification Act. I
am here today to discuss a fundamental constitutional right--
the right to own property. This right is a pillar of our
democracy and my bill aims to protect that right.
My legislation addresses the rights of a property owner
whose land once had railroad tracks running through it.
Specifically, the Act allows states to participate in the
process of determining how abandoned railways are developed
into recreational trails.
Before I address what my bill does, however, let me make
one thing clear: I support trail development. I enjoy trails; I
want my children and grandchildren to have the opportunity to
use trails; and I believe that quality trails can add economic
benefits to some communities. Although I have run more miles
than I can count on trails, my desire to run on a smooth
surface should not come at the expense of property owners whose
Constitutional rights hang in the balance.
These property owners are farmers, homeowners, and small
business people. When many of these folks in my district
approached me with their concerns about the way railways are
currently converted into trails; I found their concerns to be
the very thing that the American people have rejected time and
time again: a one-size-fits-all Washington-based law that gives
power to the few at the expense of the majority.
When the Rails to Trails Act was first passed in 1983, it
was not given serious consideration in Congress and
consequently its impact was not understood. The Rails to Trails
Act was passed by the House of Representatives under suspension
of the rules in March of 1983, and was debated for only twenty
minutes in the Senate. This expedited schedule resulted in a
simple misunderstanding: while many railways run on Federal
property, it was not mentioned that many other railroad rights-
of-way are held on private property. Unfortunately, the
unintended consequences of the rails to trails program are that
individuals' property rights are held in abeyance and special
interest groups are allowed to use private land for public
purposes without providing due process or compensation to the
property owners.
In a nutshell, the controversy over the Rails to Trails
program boils down to the fact that much of the railbanked land
actually belongs to private landowners, like the good farmers
in my district. Here is what actually happened to one of my
constituents who is a farmer.
This farmer owns a piece of land near Topeka, Kansas. The
farmer allowed a railroad to lay a railway (the ties & track)
across his land and ``use'' the land by granting the railroad
an easement. But, keep in mind, the farmer still owns the land.
When the railroad stopped operating its trains and removed its
tracks and railway bed--again the farmer still owns the land.
However, the problem is that the Federal Government told the
farmer that he couldn't use his own land after the railway is
taken away. Instead, the government told the farmer that his
land is not considered abandoned and will be used as a public
recreation trail.
To add insult to injury, its not even the Federal
Government that determines where trails will be developed.
Special interest trails groups, with no public accountability,
are authorized to establish these trails on privately owned
land. Therefore, the farmer becomes the proverbial David
against the trail group's Goliath, which is armed with a league
of lawyers and the power of the Federal Government.
This is all accomplished through legislative sleight-of-
hand. The National Trails System Act states that interim use of
a railway is defined as bicycling, cross-country skiing, day
hiking, equestrian activities, jogging or similar fitness
activities. Furthermore, the Rails to Trails Act, which amended
the National Trails System Act, states that interim use shall
not be treated as railway abandonment and the Surface
Transportation Board shall not permit abandonment.
In essence, the Federal law states: abandonment is NOT
abandonment. Common sense, on the other hand, would suggest
that interim use IS abandonment because you cannot run, bike,
ride horses or ski on railroad tracks. Interim use and railroad
use are mutually exclusive; you cannot have one with the other.
The Rails to Trails Act tramples on the rights of property
owner's and tramples on the rights of many State governments.
For example, Kansas law states that when a railroad ceases to
use its tracks on the farmer's property--and the trains stop
rolling--the use of the land automatically reverts to the
rightful landowner. Why? Because the farmer owns the land and
can do with it as he pleases once trains and tracks are gone.
Through definitional sleight-of-hand, the Federal Government
has thrown out state law relating to reversionary property
rights and suddenly a person's private land has become
``public.''
Those in favor of trail development will argue that changes
to the Rails to Trails Act are not warranted because of the
significant popularity and economic benefits of recreational
trails. Trails advocates say further that railbanking rail
corridors (the policy that prevents the reversion or rights-of-
way to property owners for potential future railway use) is
vital to the country's transportation infrastructure because it
preserves valuable rail corridors for the future. Lastly,
trails advocates state that the Supreme Court has ruled that
railbanking is constitutional and that those property owners
who believe a taking has been made can file in the U.S. Court
of Claims for their day in court to receive compensation.
It is true that property owners can file in Claims Court.
Small Kansas farmers, however, do not have the financial
resources to hire an attorney to jump through the
administrative hoops and spend the money to fight for
compensation on a 100 foot wide easement that they know is
theirs. We can all do the math: it is not worth spending
$100,000 in attorney's feeds to be compensated for land worth
about $30,000. In fact, not a single aggrieved property owner
has been compensated in the 14 years of the Rails to Trails
program.
The Railway Abandonment Clarification Act takes a common-
sense, balanced approach to the Federal treatment of railway
abandonment and the development of recreational trails. The Act
will ensure that farmers and property owners have a voice in
how their land will be used. It will conform Federal railway
abandonment law to the Constitution; preserve a State's right
to determine private property issues; and continue to encourage
trail development.
Let's look at this last point for a minute. H.R. 2438 does
not repeal the Trails Act or prevent the development of trails
on private property. Instead, it continues to encourage states
to develop trails. The Railway Abandonment Clarification Act
encourages trail development by returning this power to the
states, allowing them to determine how trails will be
developed.
My bill removes the ``one-size-fits-all'' mandate that
converts abandoned railways into recreational trails. Instead,
it gives discretion to the Surface Transportation Board to
certify trail use, but does not require it. In this way,
railbanked corridors do not have to hold a recreational trail.
Instead, land could be used by landowners for farm or range
land or any other purpose until rail use is reinstated. In this
way, the STB can continue to preserve valuable railway
corridors and can allow state abandonment law to revert railway
corridors that are dead-ends or are remotely located.
Let's be clear. Again, in many cases, the farmer owns the
land. He owns the soil and everything beneath the ties and
tracks. The ties and tracks belong to the railroad. When the
railroad removes those tracks and ties, there is nothing left
but the land owned by the farmer.
But the Federal Government does not believe that Kansans,
or other Americans, know best how to use their own land.
Instead of making the rights of private property a priority,
the government has made recreational use for certain citizens a
priority.
This is poor Federal legislation and needs to be rectified.
H.R. 2438, The Railway Abandonment Clarification Act--will
change this law and restore private property rights issues to
the states.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude my testimony with a
quote from James Madison, illustrating the foresight of our
Founding Fathers. He said, in 1792:
``That is not a just government, nor is property secure under
it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety
and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizers of one
class of citizens for the service of the rest.''
H.R. 2438 corrects the problems in the current law while
maintaining railbanking and appropriate trail development.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. Lynn Woolsey, we'll turn
to you.
STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN WOOLSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Woolsey. First, I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for holding this important hearing. I know how busy your
schedule is, and I truly, truly appreciate your willingness to
have a hearing on this important piece of legislation. Thank
you.
I'd also like to extend my appreciation to Chairman Young
and to the Committee for their interest, and your interest, in
the bill.
Today you will hear from a variety of people about the
Point Reyes National Seashore Farmland Protection Act. I'd
like, particularly, to recognize three of my constituents who
have traveled to Washington to demonstrate the breadth of
support which this bill enjoys in my district. I want to thank
them for sacrificing their busy schedules and being here today:
Marin County Supervisor, Steve Kinsey; Marin Agricultural Land
Trust Executive Director, Bob Berner, and Sharon Doughty, West
Marin Chamber of Commerce member, Marin County Farm Bureau
member, and landowner.
There are many others in the audience, Mr. Chairman, who
have also traveled to demonstrate their support, and I want to
thank them, too.
In addition to submitting my written statement for the
record, I'd also like to submit letters of support for this
bill to be included in the hearing record.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year the American
Farmland Trust released a shocking statement: ``Nationwide,
almost 50 acres of prime and unique farmland are being
destroyed every hour, every day.'' This loss of productive
farmland threatens not only the lifestyle of small farmers, but
also the economic and environmental stability of our community.
In my district, Marin County alone has lost 32,000 acres of
farmland since 1952. The Point Reyes National Seashore Farmland
Protection Act, H.R. 1995, is a unique solution to this growing
problem in our country. How do we protect disappearing farmland
while simultaneously protecting our natural resources?
The fundamental problem we face in Marin and Sonoma
Counties is the threat of development. The lands in the
proposed farmland protection area are sandwiched between 6.5
million people who live in the San Francisco Bay area and the
Point Reyes National Seashore, one of the 10 most heavily
visited national parks in this country. As more and more
visitors discover the beauty and the majesty of this area, Mr.
Chairman, the pressures for development become greater and
greater.
By authorizing the purchase of agricultural conservation
easements, this bill enables willing landowners to remain in
agriculture. The great beauty of this legislation is that the
local residents developed a solution which works for them. It
is based on former Marin County Supervisor Gary Giacomini's
vision, and it builds upon existing successful land trust and
open space district programs. The organizations that monitor
the agricultural conservation easements within the proposed
farmland protection area are made up of local residents.
Mr. Chairman, landowners will not be dealing with
bureaucrats in Washington. They will be dealing with their
neighbors who best understand their needs. The Federal
Government does have an interest in this area. That interest is
the Point Reyes National Seashore. The purchase of agricultural
conservation easements protects agriculture, while defending
the Nation's investment in the seashore from incompatible land
uses in the surrounding areas.
H.R. 1995 creates a 38,000-acre farmland protection area.
Landowners in the area qualify for the benefits of agricultural
conservation easements. Landowners outside the area do not.
H.R. 1995 authorizes $30 million for the Federal Government to
partner with the local community in a dollar-for-dollar match.
The local community has already invested $15 million in this
area.
H.R. 1995 does not grant any additional powers to the
Federal Government. It authorizes a voluntary program. It
ensures that the land remains on the tax roll, and it protects
private property rights. If a landowner chooses not to
participate, life remains unchanged.
Mr. Chairman, I've held public meetings, and I've had
individual meetings, one-on-one, with most landowners within
the proposed farmland protection area. I sat in their kitchens,
I heard their concerns, and I cleared up misinformation. These
meetings were extremely productive, and this bill responds to
the suggestions and concerns that I heard from the landowners.
Through these meetings, I know that the majority of
impacted landowners support this bill. In addition, the great
majority of my constituents support this bill. Both the Marin
and Sonoma Boards of Supervisors have endorsed the plan, as
well as the West Marin Chamber of Commerce. National
organizations supporting this legislation include the League of
Women Voters, American Farmland Trust, and the Trust for Public
Land.
Currently, H.R. 1995 has 44 bipartisan co-sponsors. In
particular, I'd like to acknowledge my original co-sponsor,
Congressman Wayne Gilchrest, as well as the Park Subcommittee
members who are co-sponsors: Ranking Member Faleomavaega, which
I think was the hardest part of this testimony--making sure I
got his name right--Representatives Duncan, Vento, Jones,
Pallone, and Hinchey, and Delegate Christian-Green.
The landowners raised concerns about this legislation
during our meetings, and in response this bill was strengthened
to ensure more protection for agriculture and for landowners.
Despite these changes some members, however, of the local Farm
Bureau, continue to oppose the bill. However, it must be noted
that the Marin Farm Bureau is split and officially neutral on
this issue.
Mr. Chairman, Subcommittee members, the Point Reyes
National Seashore Farmland Protection Act is a creative
solution for protecting our agricultural land, a solution that
balances environmental and economic needs, while at the same
time respecting the rights of individual property owners. H.R.
1995 will serve as a national model for the protection of
agriculture, as well as for the protection of our Nation's
investment in its national parks.
The program is completely voluntary. It keeps lands in
private ownership and maintains the local tax base. Through
this program, we will be investing in our future by protecting
our Nation's resources--both land and people. We must begin to
take steps to address this need. This bill will start that
process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering any
questions that you might have about this legislation.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I will proceed at this point, as we
have a vote on now on the rule on the grazing bill--and
following that, if we could hurry back, we would have questions
for our colleagues on their testimony, and then we'll go to the
panels. I intend to hold everyone--members and witnesses--to 5
minutes. We've got seven panels today, and it's going to take a
while to get through this, so if anybody goes over, they will
hear the gavel. So, don't do something you don't want to hear.
Anyway, we'll stand in recess long enough to vote, and then
I would urge members of the Committee to hurry right back.
[Recess.]
Mr. Duncan. [presiding] I've been asked by Committee staff
to go ahead and reconvene the hearing until Chairman Hansen
gets back. And we are, I understand, at the point of
questioning of members, and I don't think we have too many
questions of members because we want to move as quickly as we
can to other panels.
But, I would like to ask Ms. Woolsey about her bill. Is
your bill totally voluntary, Ms. Woolsey?
Ms. Woolsey. The bill is 100 percent voluntary, Mr. Duncan.
It's willing seller, willing buyer.
Mr. Hansen. [presiding] The gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Duncan. Would any agency of the Federal Government have
any increased authority or power over this land?
Ms. Woolsey. No. In fact, because of the concern in that
regard and a discussion I had with Representative Tom Campbell,
I have agreed to an author's amendment to the bill when we do
get to markup; and that language would say that, ``no lands or
interest in lands may be acquired by the Secretary within the
farmland protection area without consent of the owner
thereof.'' That is the intent in the bill, and we will have it
in the bill when the bill gets to the next step.
Mr. Duncan. Would any of the farmers there now, anybody who
wanted to farm the land later--it's my understanding that a
farmer who has this land now would be able to sell the land
later to somebody who agreed to keep it in agricultural use. Is
that correct?
Ms. Woolsey. Absolutely.
Mr. Duncan. Would they have to get permission from the
Department of the Interior or the National Park Service or any
other Federal agency----
Ms. Woolsey. No.
Mr. Duncan. [continuing] to sell the land or do anything
else on the land? If they wanted to expand their farm by adding
a barn, for instance, or doing anything else consistent with
agricultural use, would they have to get permission from the
Department of the Interior or the National Park Service or any
other Federal agency?
Ms. Woolsey. They would not have to get permission from any
Federal agency. They would go through the Land Trust with whom
they negotiated their easement and their agreement.
Mr. Duncan. Now what does that mean--that they would have
to get permission from the Land Trust?
Ms. Woolsey. The Land Trust will monitor the easements.
Landowners negotiate a contract with them about how they're
going to use their land. And certainly a barn, a residence for
a farm worker or for one of their kids--all of that--they've
been doing that already in the 15 years that the Marin
Agricultural Land Trust has had easements. We have excellent
experience in that regard, that there's no controversy as the
land remains in agriculture.
There's no control over pesticides; there's no control over
hunting; there's no public access availability in this bill.
Public access would be dependent on the landowner wanting
public access and having that land purchased by the Federal
Government, but they would have to ask for it.
Mr. Duncan. All right; thank you very much.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from American Samoa,
you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congresswoman
Woolsey, obviously there were, according to your testimony,
there were landowners that were opposed or still are opposed to
the proposed bill. Can you elaborate how--I'm sure that in the
course of the hearings and the meetings that you've held with
the community people, including the landowners--can you tell
the Committee what the basis is of how you draw the conclusion
that, as far as you're concerned, the majority of the
landowners support the legislation?
Ms. Woolsey. Well, as I said, I met one-on-one, actually in
kitchens, at the kitchen table, with the majority of the
landowners. And talk about a group of wonderful people--let me
tell you; it was my privilege to be there, not their privilege
to have me. During these meetings it became very clear that
there was a lot of misinformation. Once I got there, we talked
through the bill and what it really means--that it is
voluntary, that they don't have to be a part of it if they
don't want to, and that their lives won't change if they choose
not to participate.
Once they realized that the easements would be based on
fair market value, that the Federal Government would not have a
reach into their lives, and that their private property rights
would be protected, the great majority--there is a small, vocal
minority, believe me--but the great majority of landowners
said, ``All right, even if I don't want to participate, I have
no problem doing so.'' And I feel very secure in telling you
that the majority of the landowners support it.
Mr. Faleomavaega. A couple of days ago--and I'm sure with
all of the other members of the Subcommittee--I received a
letter from a Mr. Echeverria, the president of the California
Cattlemen's Association in opposition to H.R. 1995. Would you
care to comment on that?
Ms. Woolsey. Well, yes; I would. I read that letter myself.
First of all, only 3 percent of Cattleman's Association members
live in my district, but they sent out this letter about this
bill that is very, very inaccurate. I mean, it comes close to
being lies, actually. So, to clarify it, agricultural
conservation easements will be negotiated and monitored with
willing landowners by the local Land Trust organization, not
the Park Service as they stated. These easements will keep the
land in agriculture, in perpetuity. When the landowner dies,
the land doesn't go to the Park; it stays in the family like
any private property would.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to share a thought with my friends
from across the aisle that I don't believe in the encroachment
of the Federal Government, too--perhaps you might say
selectively.
Now you've indicated earlier in your testimony that your
bill does not add more power to Big Brother--the Federal
Government--to coming in there and taking control of the lives
of the people who live or will be affected by the proposed
legislation. Would you care to comment on that?
Ms. Woolsey. We have, throughout the authoring of this
bill, been very careful to make certain that the Federal
Government does one thing and one thing only--it provides a
partnership in funding with the local agencies so that we could
keep this land in agriculture in perpetuity. This is about
farming. This is about agriculture--and with the Tom Campbell
language that I've agreed to, it couldn't be clearer that
there's nothing in this bill to give the Park Service more
control over that land.
The farming around the borders of the Point Reyes National
Seashore really does protect our investment in that existing
national park, which is one of the most visited national parks
in the country. So it makes a difference to our investment in
the existing park; it makes a difference in keeping agriculture
alive in my district and in the Nation.
Congressman Ryun, you're not being neglected here. I just
have one question on your proposed legislation. You're just
simply saying that the landowners deserve to have due
compensation for the taking.
Mr. Ryun. That's correct, and that's one of the processes
we're trying to establish with this particular Act.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK; and is it your opinion that the
Federal Government should be the one that is paying these
landowners for the taking?
Mr. Ryun. Not only my opinion, but it's the opinion of the
Supreme Court, as well.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. And I understand that there is
ongoing court litigation on this very issue. This is nothing
new. I mean, I notice you have about seven trails in Kansas,
according to the----
Mr. Ryun. Yes; we have some that are developed and some
that are being considered. I think when you get to the
testimony you'll hear some compelling testimony, not only by
landowners that have been affected, but by some of the court
decisions that have already been rendered.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK; thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from California, Mr. Pombo.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Woolsey, you've
said that your legislation is voluntary, and I have looked
through it, but I fail to see--normally in a legislation such
as this that the author intends to be voluntary, there will be
a section on that particular subject that outlines what the
voluntary participation is and what the options are for the
particular private property owners, and there is not one
included in this particular legislation.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, if the gentleman would like to work with
my office in that regard, like we did with Representative
Campbell, we're more than willing to define what the intent of
a boundary is. I can tell you what the intent is with this
bill, and that's that we create a choice for the landowner.
Those who are within this farmland protection area have the
option of an agricultural easement. Those who are not within
that area do not have that option, and that's exactly what this
is about. It's defining where the Federal Government would have
an interest, an interest enough to invest money over time
through appropriations after the bill is authorized.
Mr. Pombo. Your legislation allows the purchase of lands
within the farmland protected area that are in danger of being
developed or under threat of being developed. Whose definition
of ``under threat of being developed'' are we going to use?
Ms. Woolsey. Well, I think the community at large probably
would have more to say about that than either of us here in
Washington. But it would be willing seller in that regard, and
that's what is strengthened in the language--through Mr.
Campbell's language.
Mr. Pombo. Unfortunately, this legislation--you're
incorrect in one thing--the community would have less to say
about it than the members of this Committee, because if the
Secretary of the Interior is the one that is going to be
purchasing the lands, it will be a Federal decision that is
made. Therefore, the definition of ``under threat of
development'' is more likely to be a definition that is used by
the National Park Service or the Department of the Interior or
the particular committee--this being the Resources Committee,
the Committee of jurisdiction.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, my point in saying local is that the
negotiations will be through local land trusts and open space
districts. But, remember what the intent of this bill is. The
intent of this bill is to keep land in agriculture. One of the
reasons we haven't tried to use State programs is that the
State tends to turn the land back in to parks. That isn't the
intent of this bill. The intent of this bill is to keep this
land in agriculture because that is the best use of the land,
and it's also the best protection for the Point Reyes National
Seashore.
So, keeping that in mind, the people who lived in the area
which is now the Pt. Reyes National Seashore were very
frightened of the same things that you're talking about. Now,
100 percent of those who are currently farming in the National
Seashore have signed a petition saying they are very satisfied
with their relationship with the National Park Service. So, we
will keep our agreement, and the agreement is to keep this land
in agriculture in perpetuity--willing seller, willing buyer.
Mr. Pombo. One final question for you. The land is
currently zoned as agricultural land; that's the current zoning
that's on the property. The local people have made the decision
that that is the zoning that they want, that they want to keep
it in agriculture, that that is the purpose of that land in the
county zoning at the current time. Why do you think it is
necessary to go beyond what the local people have instituted to
put in Federal legislation or a Federal designation on that
particular piece of property?
Ms. Woolsey.Now, for the same reason that we have the Marin
Agricultural Land Trust and the Sonoma County Open Space
Districts, these lands are under great threat of development.
It is a miracle that that land is still in productive
agriculture, but it's because it's been owned by three and four
generations of farmers that are dedicated to that lifestyle.
There are pieces of property proposed for development right now
within that area that are before the Board of Supervisors. Over
time, that threat is getting greater and greater, and I believe
that it's in the best interest in protecting our existing
investment in the National Seashore, and also in protecting----
Mr. Pombo. I don't want to interrupt you, but I've run out
of time. You've said that the local people support keeping it
in agriculture. The local people make the decision as to how it
is going to be zoned, and it's currently zoned agriculture. The
local people make that decision.
No one in this room, other than you, have anything to do
with how that particular piece of property is zoned. And yet
you seem to be concerned that the local people may change their
minds and want a different zoning on that particular property,
so what you're asking is that we come up with a Federal zoning
for that particular land----
Ms. Woolsey. No.
Mr. Pombo. [continuing] so that they can't change their
mind and make a different decision.
Ms. Woolsey. No, they can change their mind. If they don't
volunteer to be part of the easement program, they can go right
to the Board of Supervisors, to the planning and zoning program
that is existing right now in their county. I would think that
Republicans would really like this bill because the land is
zoned one unit for 60 acres; therefore, they don't get to
develop very much of it, if any of it. And I am proposing that
we offer them some financial support so they can stay in
agriculture, so they can expand, so they can modernize, so they
can do whatever--pay inheritance taxes. This is really paying
them for not developing, which is exactly what I thought was
part of the property rights initiative that you support.
Mr. Hansen. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from Guam.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only have one
question for Mr. Ryun, and just a comment on Ms. Woolsey's
legislation.
Mr. Ryun, in the case of the owners of these railway
easements, how far back, how many generations are we talking
about in many of these cases? I mean we're not talking about--
--
Mr. Ryun. It's really hard, at this point, to pinpoint an
exact date. I know we have many--in fact, I think there are
some documents that might be available today showing some of
the actual easements that were granted. My point is, it's
difficult to trace it back and yet we have many documents that
show that people originally gave just the right-of-way to the
railroads for an interim use just for that period of time.
Mr. Underwood. Well, I'm in support of the basic thrust of
your legislation, but I was just wondering, are we talking
about things that could go back four, five, or six generations
of families, of owners? We're talking about something that
could have been over 100--no, not 100 years--maybe 100 years
ago?
Mr. Ryun. Yes; that's very possible.
Mr. Pombo. If the gentleman would yield on that point. In
many of these cases these easements were granted between the
late 1800's and 1920, and especially on private property where
you had a private property owner granting a railroad use
easement on that property. A lot of those easements were given
between the late 1880's and 1920's; that is when the documents
were actually signed.
Mr. Underwood. OK; thank you very much. And so in that
instance, even though the property owner may have changed,
obviously the right to the property stayed with whoever it went
to.
Mr. Ryun. And may I add something to that?
Mr. Underwood. Sure.
Mr. Ryun. And that is why the right-of-way was given, it
was just for the purpose of the railroad. When the railroad
left and the railways and the ties and everything left, so did
the easements; so it should revert back to the original owner.
That's the way the easements were established.
Mr. Underwood. Well, thank you for that. And I would just
like to commend the gentlewoman from California for her
legislation and for an innovative and creative way to keep
alive what is a very valuable national park area.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Underwood. Yes, I'd be happy to yield.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just wanted to ask Congresswoman
Woolsey just an additional question just to make sure--in the
times that you've also met, does the administration support
this legislation?
Ms. Woolsey. Yes. Actually, the Secretary has been out to
the area. He came just to view it, and then when he got out of
the helicopter he said, ``You've sold me. I've never seen
anything quite like it.''
Mr. Faleomavaega. And in this whole process----
Ms. Woolsey. It has to stay in agriculture.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And in this whole process, there is no
Federal taking, whatsoever, of land ownership.
Ms. Woolsey. There is no Federal taking.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And that the landowners maintain their
private ownership of the lands involved here.
Ms. Woolsey. Private ownership on the tax rolls--willing
seller, voluntary involvement. What participating means is that
land stays in agriculture in perpetuity. It can only be sold
for agriculture or for open space, but our goal is to keep it
in agriculture.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. And Mr. Ryun, you're not against the
trails system, you just want the landowners to be compensated?
Mr. Ryun. That's correct.
Mr. Faleomavaega. That's the bottom line of what you're
asking in this legislation.
Mr. Ryun. That's partly correct. Let me qualify that; yes,
we want them to be compensated, but we want them to be able to
use their own land, because as it is now set up many times that
land goes away, on a trail, and they're not able to use the
land as it was originally intended. They have to maintain,
let's say, for example, both sides of the trail with fences,
whatever it might be. But, nevertheless, we want them to have
the right to use that land in whatever way they choose.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So if a landowner, an adjacent landowner,
has 5 acres--that wants to develop that portion--and then
another portion adjacent to the trails system that goes on for
100 miles, but because of that 5 acres they'll have to go
around the trails system?
Mr. Ryun. One of the reasons we wanted to return to the
States is to get the State the opportunity to make that
decision and get the landowners the choice of whatever they
would like to do with their land.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Guam--are there any further
questions on your time?
The gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to
ask Ms. Woolsey, is this bill--is this not only what the
landowners in the area want, but also what the local leadership
in your district wants?
Ms. Woolsey. You're correct, Carlos. Both Boards of
Supervisors have endorsed the bill, as well as the West Marin
Chamber of Commerce. And, we have a stack of support letters
that most bills would be very glad to have. And I can tell you,
the majority--the great, great majority--of the people in my
district support this initiative, this legislation.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Well, I guess, who are we then to say
otherwise?
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Ryun, all you're looking for is
that the land that is now being used for the trailways, that it
reverts back to the landowners that are adjacent to that
property? Is that correct?
Mr. Ryun. We're really dealing with the current land
situation and who owns that current land.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Oh, the owners--they are the owners of
the land, or was the railroad the owner of the land? Who is the
owner?
Mr. Ryun. It's whoever holds the deed. In this case, we
believe the majority of it goes back to the landowners--
privately held.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Oh, so the land itself--the trailways
themselves--were not owned by the railroad?
Mr. Ryun. No, they were not.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. They were just easements.
Mr. Ryun. That's correct.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. OK; thank you very much.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Ryun, during the last vote you mentioned
you felt there was a question on what the gentleman from
Minnesota, Mr. Vento, had said and you would like to clarify
that answer for the record. Would you like to do that now?
Mr. Ryun. Well, the rights-of-way were paid for--and if I
can say this, they were paid for, I guess, forever, but really
they were only granted for a period of time. In fact, there's
case law at the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals and
the Supreme Court of Indiana that all agree with the fact that
that right-of-way was for a period of time and that it would
revert back to the original landowners.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Do any of my colleagues have further
questions for this panel, for our colleagues?
The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ryun, I've had the
opportunity to review a number of the grant deeds that were
given in these cases. Typically, they would state a boundary
limit that would have the property description on it. They
would typically say that they were granting an easement that
was 50 feet wide on either side of the track that went within
this particular property, and that it was a surface easement
granted for railroad purposes only; if they were ever to be
given up for railroad purposes, that the underlying easement
would revert to the adjoining property owners, which was the
case in this country for many years, that that is what
happened. In many cases, once the ICC ruled that abandonment
had taken place, the property would revert to the adjoining
property owners who rightfully owned the real estate.
Rails to Trails changed that, and it came in and said,
unilaterally, we are taking away all reversionary property
right that the adjoining property owners have, and it was done
on the suspense calendar in the House; it was done with little
or no debate in the Senate. I don't think anybody really
realized what a massive taking had occurred when that
particular piece of legislation passed, and what you are
attempting to do is to correct part of that problem.
You've stated that your interest is in compensation, in the
rightful compensation when a taking occurs. But in your
experience, do most of these property owners want to be paid or
do they want their reversionary rights returned to them?
Mr. Ryun. Most of them would really like the use of their
land, because in some cases--and we'll have some shown here in
just a little bit indicating that the land really cuts through
the middle of their property--to the extent that maintaining
fences takes away, if you will--it gives them a lot of
additional liabilities. I hate to disagree with some of the
gentlemen that spoke earlier, but I will--that it is not as
pleasant an experience for the landowners as has been
projected.
And while I'm an advocate of trails and enjoy the purpose
for which they are there--the families can go and participate
and bike-ride on them; I enjoy running on them--I think it's
very important that we look at this issue closely and give the
property owners the rights that are guaranteed under the
Constitution, and that is if they choose to have compensation,
that's fine, but many of them just want the use of their land.
Mr. Pombo. I know that in your past life you are probably
the most famous trail user that this Congress has ever had, and
have supported that throughout your entire life--the creation
of those trails. But I think in this particular case it's not a
matter of whether or not you support trails; it's whether or
not Congress is willing to do what's right.
Mr. Ryun. That's correct, and that's one of the reasons
that this particular Act is being offered, and that is to
return those rights back to the State, because once the Federal
Government stepped in and took that right away, it changed this
process enormously--and also return that right back to the
individual.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I----
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from American Samoa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask
unanimous consent to provide for the record a statement by
Congresswoman Donna Green----
Mr. Hansen. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Faleomavaega. [continuing] in full support of
Congresswoman Woolsey's bill, H.R. 1995.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Christian-Green follows:]
Statement of Hon. Donna M. Christian-Green, a Delelgate in Congress
from the Territory of the Virgin Islands
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to make this
statement in support of H.R. 1995, the Point Reyes National
Seashore Farmland Protection Act. I want to also take this
opportunity to praise Congresswoman Woosley for her hard work
in putting H.R. 1995 together and for getting it to this point
today.
Mr. Chairman, the Point Reyes National Seashore Farmland
Protection Act is a worthy bill which enjoys bipartisan support
and deserves this Subcommittee's favorable recommendation. It's
primary purpose is to preserve agriculture by maintaining the
Point Reyes farmland in private ownership using conservation
easements, following the successful nonprofit Marin
Agricultural Land Trust model, which preserved over 11,000
acres of agricultural land in the proposed area over fifteen
years ago. This represents a unique and creative way to lend a
hand to the area farmers while protecting their livelihood.
In addition to the public/private partnership, H.R. 1995
also establishes a local/Federal Government partnership.
Federal funds will be contributed to the area only after the
local government has contributed its share. H.R. 1995 has also
received the bipartisan support of the Marin County Board of
Supervisors, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, the
American Farmland Trust, the Inverness Association, the West
Marin Environmental Action Committee and the West Marin Chamber
of Commerce.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1995 proposes an innovative cost
effective way to protect the 38,000 acres of agricultural lands
adjacent to the Point Reyes National Seashore and deserves to
be enacted into law.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And I was curious--in my ignorance, Mr.
Chairman, I had asked you if this was the famous Jim Ryun, the
olympic runner that I admired so much in my earlier years in
watching him perform. And I thought it was R-y-a-n rather than
R-y-u-n, but at any rate, my added congratulations for your
being here before the Committee.
Mr. Ryun. Thank you--and I assume then that I can count on
your support?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, as long as it doesn't affect the
trails and that the Chairman will find the money to pay for our
adjacent landowners, I think we should be able to work
something out here in-between.
Mr. Hansen. This is the famous Eni Faleomavaega, the BYU
football player, in case you had any question.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, if the Chairman would yield, you
know we have 20 Samoans that play in the NFL, and three made
All-Pro last year. So that means for every 12,000 Samoans, Mr.
Chairman, that live in the United States, we produce one NFL
player.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hansen. And half of the BYU team is from American
Samoa, if I may say so.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous
consent that a letter that was sent to me by the California
Farm Bureau Federation be included in the record.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Any further questions? The gentleman from
Puerto Rico.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. No further questions.
Mr. Hansen. Ms. Woolsey, I've been trying to absorb what
you've been saying here, and one part kind of bothers me in
section 3(b) of your bill. It provides for the Secretary of the
Interior to exchange Federal lands for lands within your
farmland protection area without regard to the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976--or we call that the FLPMA
Act--you know, the Organic Act.
In other words, the Secretary can exchange for Federal
lands outside of California--well, why do you have that
provision in your bill? Because in effect, you're amending the
FLPMA Act for this one provision, and that is always kind of a
red flag to those of us who wade through these things daily.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, it was included to make sure we covered
every base of how we might be able to keep this land in
productive agriculture, Mr. Chairman. I'm more than willing to
talk about how that gets in the way of the bill going forward.
I should ask the Park Service why they requested to put it in
there.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hansen. We'll have them on next.
Ms. Woolsey. This is a question for Don Neubacher.
Mr. Hansen. Don't worry; they'll get their opportunity. The
thing that bothers me, though, is that that's kind of a wide-
open provision. See, what you've got here is----
Ms. Woolsey. If there were excess BLM estimates.
Mr. Hansen. [continuing] somebody could--say the Department
of Interior could--find a piece in southern Utah, called the
Grand Staircase Escalante, and take ground out of that, or he
could find it some somewhere else, and for me that's kind of a
dangerous provision on that. Their estimates may be a little--
--
Ms. Woolsey. I would believe it would be, and, Mr.
Chairman----
Mr. Hansen. Would you be amenable to taking that out?
Ms. Woolsey. [continuing] would you ask that question to
the Park Service in the next panel? Because they know why they
requested it, and if it doesn't make sense we'll work with them
and we'll do something differently.
Mr. Hansen. All right; thank you. Any further questions?
Apparently not. We're into this hearing 1 hour and 35 minutes;
we've got a number to go.
We ask our colleagues, if they so desire, to join us on the
dias, and we'll recognize them after members of the Committee
if they have questions for the further panels. Thank you very
much.
We'll turn to our next panel, which is Kate Stevenson,
Associate Director, Cultural Resource Stewardship and
Partnerships, for the National Park Service, and Evelyn Kitay--
I hope I'm saying that right--senior trial attorney, Office of
the General Counsel, Surface Transportation Board--if they
would like to join us.
It's always good to see you, Ms. Stevenson; it's a pleasure
to have you with us. We'll start with you. Keep in mind, we've
got a long hearing. We've got to have this over by 2 o'clock,
because we've got other people that are going to come in this
room. So, we'll hold everybody to 5 minutes; you know the rules
on the lights.
Ms. Stevenson. That's fine; thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. All right, we'll turn the time to you--may we
have order in the chambers, please?
STATEMENT OF KATE STEVENSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CULTURAL
RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP AND PARTNERSHIPS, THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE
Ms. Stevenson. Thank you very much. We appreciate very much
the opportunity to offer the views of the Department of the
Interior on both H.R. 2438 and H.R. 1995. I have with me today
Tom Ross, who is the Assistant Director for Recreation and
Conservation, and Don Neubacher, who is the Superintendent of
Point Reyes National Seashore.
We strongly oppose H.R. 2438. This bill would effectively
eliminate the railbanking provision in the National Trails
System Act, thus impeding preservation of rail corridors for
future transportation needs, as well as hindering the creation
of new trails in the interim. Railbanking is entirely voluntary
on the part of the railroad and the local community. This
provision of the statute merely allows those groups to decide
whether and how a corridor should be banked for the future.
The National Park Service role is purely advisory. The Act
directs us to encourage the development of trails on abandoned
railroad rights-of-way for possible future uses. To that end,
we notify State and local governments that railroad rights-of-
way may be available for trail use. The action, then, is in the
hands of the community and the railroad.
Each year we receive about 150 notices of impending
abandonments from the railroads. That amounts to about 2,500
miles a year. From October 1995 to October 1996, 118 corridors
totaling 1,673 miles were proposed for abandonment. Communities
requested railbanking on 34 corridors for a total of 730 miles.
Railbanking has become an effective tool for the preservation
of railroad corridors. In the 10 years that it has been in
place, it has led to the development of 45 trails totaling
1,238 miles in 20 States. We believe the communities should
continue to have this option.
The Department strongly supports H.R. 1995, and we urge its
early enactment. The bill has five important components. No. 1,
it preserves the long-term productive agriculture in the
region. No. 2, it furnishes essential watershed protection of
Tomales and Bodega estuaries. No. 3, it maintains the land
primarily in private ownership. No. 4, it creates a model
public-private partnership, and, No. 5, it protects the
significant public investment in the Point Reyes National
Seashore.
The legislation proposes an innovative and cost-effective
method to protect the 38,000 acres of coastal agricultural
landscape. This protection would primarily be accomplished
through acquisition of development rights and conservation
easements, all from willing landowners. With conservation
easements, land would remain in private ownership and would be
protected from incompatible development, and would contribute
to the local economy and the tax base. Preserving the
undeveloped lands in the farmland protection area is integral
to protecting park values and the long-term health of the
Tomales and Bodega Bays.
The compatible pastoral setting of the eastern side of
Tomales and Bodega Bays is unquestionably in jeopardy. Growth
throughout Marin County is high. Open pastures and ranches are
being sold and segmented for various types of development.
Major land-use changes in the lands forming the eastern slope
of Tomales Bay will directly and negatively impact public
enjoyment of Point Reyes National Seashore.
A private, non-profit group, the Marin Agricultural Land
Trust, MALT, has made significant headway in protecting the
rural setting of these critical watershed lands. The 13-year-
old group has already purchased conservation easements on
11,000 acres within this proposed 38,000-acre protection zone.
Because of MALT's efforts, the acquisition of these easements
by the Federal Government would not be needed.
Similarly, the Sonoma Land Trust has begun the purchase of
several properties in the northern part of the protection area.
These local efforts have already contributed close to $15
million to achieve the overall goals of the bill. H.R. 1995
would authorize a Federal partnership, a Federal contribution
in order to complete the overall protection of the area.
H.R. 1995 has received bipartisan support and the
endorsement of many groups, including the Marin County Board of
Supervisors, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, the
American Farmland Trust, the Inverness Association, the West
Marin Environmental Action Committee, and the West Marin
Chamber of Commerce.
The National Park Service believes now is the time to
support these innovative partnership efforts. If H.R. 1995 were
enacted, funding for easement acquisition would be contingent
upon Federal budgetary constraints and the administration's
funding priorities.
This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions you all might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stevenson may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. Ellen Kitay, we'll turn
the time to you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF EVELYN KITAY, SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF THE
GENERAL COUNSEL, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Ms. Kitay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Evelyn Kitay of the
General Counsel's Office at the Surface Transportation Board.
I've been involved in a number of judicial proceedings
relating to the implementation of the existing Trails Act by
the Board and its predecessor, the ICC. Accordingly, I'm here
to testify regarding the role of the Board in implementing the
existing Trails Act and to present views on H.R. 2438. With me
at the table today is Joseph Dettmar, Deputy Director of the
Office of Proceedings.
The existing Trails Act gives interested parties the
opportunity to negotiate voluntary agreements to use, for
recreational trails, railroad rights-of-way that otherwise
would be abandoned. The Act is intended to preserve railroad
rights-of-way for future use, which is called railbanking. Many
railroads do not own the land on which their track lies.
Rather, they have easements over the land of adjoining property
owners.
Unless those easements are railbanked by converting them to
a trail, they are extinguished, and the land reverts to the
adjoining property owners when the Board authorizes the
abandonment of the line and the abandonment authority is
exercised. Some rights-of-way that were made into trails have
been reactivated as active rail lines.
The Board has adopted specific procedures to implement the
existing Trails Act. To begin the trail use process, a trail
proponent must file a formal request in an actual abandonment
docket. A trail-use request has no effect on the Board's
decision as to whether to grant a railroad permission to
abandon the line. It is considered only after the Board has
decided to permit the abandonment.
The formal trail use request must include a statement of
willingness to assume financial responsibility for the
property, and the trail use proponent must explicitly agree to
assume responsibility for paying taxes and for any liability.
When the Board has decided that an abandonment will be
permitted on a particular line, and a trail use request has
been received regarding that line, the railroad must notify the
Board of whether it is willing to negotiate a trail use
agreement. If the railroad declines to negotiate, the
abandonment will proceed as if no trail use request was ever
filed.
On the other hand, if the railroad agrees to negotiate and
no offer of financial assistance to continue rail service on
the line is received, the Board will impose a trail condition
which gives the trail use proponent time to negotiate a trail
use agreement with the railroad. Offers of financial assistance
take priority over trails use requests, because they are offers
to continue actual rail service on the line.
The Board has no involvement in the negotiations between
the railroad and the trail use proponent. It does not analyze,
approve, or set the terms of trail use agreements. If a trail
use agreement is reached, the parties may implement it without
further Board action. If no trail use agreement is reached, the
trail condition expires and the line may be fully abandoned.
The Board is not authorized to regulate activities over the
actual trail, and the Board has no authority to deny the trail
use request if the statute has been properly invoked and the
railroad has consented to negotiate. In short, the Board's
jurisdiction is ministerial, and the Board cannot decide on
whether or not railbanking or trail use is desirable.
H.R. 2438, if enacted, would dramatically alter the Board's
ministerial role under the Trails Act. Under the current
statute, the Board must impose a trail condition permitting
interim trail use on a rail line approved for abandonment
whenever the statutory criteria are met. The Board has no
discretionary decisionmaking authority in this area and no
substantive authority, other than to carry out the essentially
automatic provisions of the statute. Furthermore, the Board is
not authorized to regulate a trail and its use.
Under the proposed bill, however, the Board's ability to
impose a trail condition would become discretionary; that is,
the Board would be required to seek to determine if trail use
is appropriate in a particular case. Requiring the Board to
approve and oversee particular trails in this manner would be
beyond the Board's primary mission, which is to oversee the
economic regulation of railroads, motor carriers, pipelines,
and non-contiguous domestic water trade. The Board has no
particular expertise or knowledge concerning recreational
trails. Congress only gave the agency a part to play in the
formation of trails because of the railbanking element of the
Trails Act.
Furthermore, the Board has limited resources. It currently
has only around 130 employees to handle approximately 500
pending cases. The Board lacks the staff that would be required
to approve and oversee individual trail use requests. In short,
involving the Board in trail use approvals would be neither
consistent with the agency's mandate, nor feasible given its
existing resources and expertise.
H.R. 2438 also raises additional concerns. First, the bill
could result in a delay of the exercise of a railroad's right
to abandon lines that are no longer needed for current rail
service until the Trails Act process under the legislation is
completed. This would be counter to the mandate of the law that
the Board now implements, which is to facilitate and expedite
abandonments.
Second, the bill provides no legal standards by which the
Board is to exercise the discretion the agency would be given
with respect to the granting of trail authority. This could
create inconsistency in the granting of trail use authority and
vulnerability with respect to likely judicial appeals.
Third, the bill raises the possibility of our having to do
an environmental review under NEPA in every case in which a
trail proposal is made. Such a requirement would impose
additional burdens on the already strained resources of the
Board.
Finally, the bill creates confusion within the provision
eliminating Federal preemption by appearing to give the vesting
of any reversionary property interests pursuant to State law
priority over the creation of any trail and railbanking. This
provision could render the exercise of the Board's discretion
with regard to trail use fruitless in many cases, because there
could be no trails under the proposed bill if there would be a
reversion under State law.
In summary, the role that the Board plays under the Trails
Act is not intended to promote a position on the issue of the
conflict between reversionary property rights and trails. The
Board's existing responsibilities with respect to trails are
ministerial and do not and are not intended to resolve this
conflict from a policy perspective.
However, the proposed bill appears to impose a burdensome
regulatory responsibility on the Board to determine whether a
trail should be created that could be rendered a nullity, in
many cases, by the operation of State law giving effect to
reversionary property rights. This exercise, which is not
consistent with the Board's primary mission, would be time-
consuming and a strain on its already limited resources, and
could ultimately be a fruitless effort by the Board.
This concludes my oral remarks, and I would be happy to
answer any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kitay may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
Questions for our witnesses? I'll limit the members to 5
minutes; the gentleman from American Samoa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Kitay--am I
pronouncing the name correctly?
Ms. Kitay. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I think, basically, as a matter of our
national policy, not so much in the area of the fact that at
one time we've had 270,000 miles of railroad corridors all over
the country, and now because of abandonments since 1990, it's
only 141,000--and correct me as I'm going along on the history
of our railway system. We're having a difficult time even
getting Amtrak on the track, as far as getting proper
appropriations and funding for the process.
My question is, isn't it the bottom line--because of the
Congress seeing this as our national policy--that we have to
preserve these easements so that at one time, or maybe sometime
in the future, that if our railroad system would have a need
for these easements to go back, if there's a need economically?
Ms. Kitay. Yes. In the Preseault case in the Supreme Court,
the Supreme Court clearly found and approved the railbanking
purpose of the statute, and if there is railbanking, then the
line remains within the national transportation system and
remains available to be restored to rail service. So that is
clearly a policy of the existing Trails Act.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Then the Congress turned around and made
it very technical, saying it's still for public use because
it's an easement and there's really not been an absolute--what
do you call it--alienation--of the land that is used as an
easement by these railroads. Am I correct? So instead of doing
it, now we come out with this system of putting in trails,
rather than giving back the lands to the original owners.
Because it seems to me that this is the heart of Congressman
Ryun's bill; they don't mind having trails, but they do want to
be compensated after abandonment. This is what I sense, and
correct me if I'm wrong on this.
Ms. Kitay. No; I think that's correct. I think under the
existing statute we have no discretion. We have to stop the
abandonment. The abandonment doesn't go forward if there is a
proposal for trail use, assuming that the statutory criteria
are met. And the Supreme Court, in the Preseault case, found
that the landowner's right was to seek compensation, by filing
an action in the Claims Court, and there have been several of
those actions that have been filed and are pending.
This statute would change that because--or at least it can
be read to change that, to suggest that--where there are
easements and where the easements would be extinguished under
State law, you'd never get to the trail in the first place.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And I'm sorry Mr. Ryun is not here, but I
think there was an additional condition that if these
landowners get their land back, they can then develop the land
in some other form different from the trails system.
Ms. Kitay. Right. Well, once there is an abandonment and
once the abandonment authority is exercised, then the land is
no longer within the national transportation system and it can
be developed for any use, and the right-of-way would have to be
re-acquired to bring it back as a rail line, which is often a
very costly undertaking.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Let's say there's a corridor 100 miles
long, and the landowner gets it back--maybe 50 miles of that.
Obviously, this is going to break the trail system, because the
landowner may decide, ``Well, I want to develop this 50 miles;
it belongs to me as a landowner.'' What is this going to do to
the railway system, as far as the original intent of the
Congress? We're not going to have a rail system.
Ms. Kitay. Well, there have been a few railroad rights-of-
way that have been restored.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK, so in other words the railroads will
just have to go around these landowners who say, ``Well, 50
miles belongs to me.'' And they're every much entitled to it as
a landowner.
Ms. Kitay. Well, I think it's----
Mr. Faleomavaega. My question is how the railway system is
going to redevelop itself should the railway system say,
``Well, we want to use the easements again because our railroad
system in the country needs to be brought back to life again.''
Ms. Kitay. Well, there are ways; eminent domain is
available, and there are other ways in which a railroad can
acquire land. It's just more expensive and more cumbersome to
do it that way than it would be under this kind of a statute.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Now don't get me wrong. I absolutely
believe in the right of landowners to be duly compensated. But
when the easements were taken, these landowners never received
a cent from the Federal Government?
Ms. Kitay. I think it's not clear. They could have received
money. We'd just have to go back to 1899 or what happened in
1910, and that's something that we don't know about. Presumably
they paid less for their land than they would have if there
hadn't been an easement or they got money from the railroad.
Mr. Faleomavaega. They were compensated for fair market
value. I mean, isn't this a Federal policy in the first place,
that in a taking for a public purpose that the landowner should
be compensated?
Mr. Dettmar. Well, Congressman, landowners----
Mr. Hansen. State your name, please, for the record.
Mr. Dettmar. I'm sorry; I'm Joseph Dettmar, the Deputy
Director of the Office of Proceedings at the Surface
Transportation Board.
Landowners have a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act
in the Court of Claims, but as I believe as has already been
stated, none of those claims have been successfully prosecuted;
so no landowners have received any money for any land.
Ms. Kitay. Well, it's under the Fifth Amendment. They can
bring a takings claim, not a tort claim. It's a takings claim
under the Fifth Amendment, and in one case a taking was found,
and the amount of damages has not yet been set. That is the
Preseault case that arose out of the Supreme Court case, and
there are several cases that are now pending. One is pending in
the Federal Circuit, and there are two or three pending in the
Claims Court now.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Are the landowners included in the negotiations
with the trail proponents and the railroad?
Ms. Kitay. Not directly. The way the statute was drafted
and the way it's been implemented by the Board, landowners get
notice of the proposed abandonment and the possibility that a
particular right-of-way can be used as a trail, but the
voluntariness and the beginning of a negotiation process is
between the trail proponent and the railway.
Mr. Hansen. What's the history of this, then? Have
landowners become an integral part of it? If they're given a
notice, like we get notices of water--things that somebody's
doing--that's all they get?
Ms. Kitay. They get notice of proposed abandonments. They
have participated in our abandonment proceedings before the
Board; they have challenged several decisions where we imposed
trail conditions in the courts, with varying degrees of
success.
Mr. Hansen. But they're only a party if they become an
intervenor then; is that right?
Ms. Kitay. They can file comments and participate in our--
yes; but that's correct; that's the way the statute was
written.
Mr. Hansen. So that's like John Q. Anybody. I mean, I could
do that in Salt Lake City. I could intervene on an issue in
Hutchinson, Kansas if I so desired. I mean, anybody can do
that. So they're not given any particular greater standing than
anybody else; is that right?
Ms. Kitay. That's right. In our proceedings, that's right.
Mr. Hansen. Oh, I see. The gentlelady from--the gentleman
from Iowa----
Mr. Ryun. If you could yield for a minute.
My question is, have any interim use requests been
considered or denied as a result of landowner appeal?
Ms. Kitay. No. Well, there are cases where we have found
that the abandonment had been fully exercised prior to an
imposition of a trail condition, and we have revoked trail
authority on that ground. And we have also made it clear that
if a landowner or anyone else comes in and shows that the
statutory requirements of the Trails Act are not being met,
that we will revoke trail conditions.
Mr. Ryun. Well, no, because the landowner owns the land,
and that's what we're trying to establish here.
Ms. Kitay. Right. The land--I think the way that the
statute was written and the way that the board has implemented
the statute is that the landowner's real right is to go to
court and bring a takings claim.
Mr. Ryun. May I make a point on that? That's what we were
discussing earlier, that they can go to court, but the cost of
going to court and coming back here exceeds the actual cost of
the land. In many cases it would cost them a great deal of
money. In fact, I gave a point earlier that it can cost as much
as $100,000 for land, let's say, that's worth $30,000, in
addition to the number of years that it's tied up in court. So
it is extremely difficult for the landowner to be able to do
this process.
Mr. Hansen. That was on my time.
The gentlelady from Washington.
Mrs. Linda Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think my first question is for Ms. Stevenson--and I could
be confused, but I don't think so, because I've gone through
some of these. But you stated in your testimony that
railbanking is entirely voluntary between railroads and local
communities. And that railbanking requires consensus--is what
you said--among local community leaders and their constituents.
I'm really not aware of the provisions of section 8(d) that
prevent the conversion of railroads, or railways, into
recreational trails, absent community or constituent consensus.
So I guess, how does this statute require consensus from local
communities, which is part of your testimony?
Ms. Stevenson. I think actually that, when Ms. Kitay
explained her testimony, hers probably was more clear than what
we had written. It doesn't require total consensus from the
committee; it requires an agreement between the railroad and
the community group, or the rail proponent in order for a
railbanking provision to go ahead.
Mrs. Linda Smith. OK. So it isn't necessarily consensus;
it's just an agreement of the parties present?
Ms. Stevenson. Consensus between the two parties----
Mrs. Linda Smith. Just the two parties.
Ms. Stevenson. [continuing] not necessarily consensus of
the entire community. That's correct.
Mrs. Linda Smith. OK. So the landowners themselves could be
excluded from this consensus?
Ms. Stevenson. That's correct.
Mrs. Linda Smith. Thank you.
I would reserve the balance on my time for the proponent of
this particular bill.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
The gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Kansas, do you have any
questions?
The young lady from California. We'll recognize you for 5
minutes.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Stevenson, would it be all right if Superintendent Don
Neubacher sat with you?
Ms. Stevenson. It would be a pleasure.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much.
My question really is directed to him, because it's about
the history of the Point Reyes National Seashore as it was
originally proposed.
Mr. Neubacher, it's my understanding that--and you weren't
there then; you're way younger than I am, but you know the
history better than I. It's my understanding that there was a
lot of opposition when the initial Point Reyes National
Seashore was proposed. This opposition was based on the fears
of the bill's consequences and of intrusion of Federal
Government in a way of life.
I'd like to know, do we still face those worries with the
local ranches within that area?
Mr. Neubacher. Unequivocally no. Actually, we have a very
positive relationship with the ranchers with inside the
National Seashore at this point in time. We still have 18
ranchers operating, and we get along extremely well. In fact,
there was--part of the original legislation that prohibited
from purchasing any of those ranch complexes; is later the
ranchers came to Congress, and ask for authority to work a
little bit more closely with us, and gave us the authority to
buy interest in those lands to.
To this day we still have about 20,000 plus acres of active
ranching going on in Point Reyes National Seashore, and again,
it's extremely compatible, and as your proposing this bill, we
endorse the idea of extending that to the East Side of Tomales
Bay because of the positive relationship.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, would you take a step across the bay now
to the farmland protection area, and talk about how that would
enhance our Federal investment in the national park.
Mr. Neubacher. The Tomales Bay estuary system--which is
really one of the largest on the west coast--is extremely
productive. There's like 50,000 shore birds. We have Coho
salmon, we have steelhead. Ten percent of the Coho population
left in California--goes up Waganeigus Creek, which comes out
of Tomales Bay.
We have found over time that again this relationship with
the pastoral setting is very compatible with the park setting.
What we don't want--there is numerous studies that urbanization
actually adds more deterioration to the environment. So we'd
like to work with the local community. And this was really
initiated by the local community to ensure that the pastoral
setting continues, because again, we have a very clean estuary;
we have a good system; it's working, and want to ensure that it
continues into perpetuity.
Ms. Woolsey. OK, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Superintendent, how many acres have you
purchased since establishment of the park?
Mr. Neubacher. Pardon me?
Mr. Hansen. How many acres have been purchased since the
park was established?
Mr. Neubacher. The total authorization for Point Reyes is
71,000, and we've purchased about 65,000. The rest is
primarily--other agencies own it. For example, the Coastguard.
And there were some agreements with AT&T that we wouldn't
purchase that land. Actually, the outstanding land that we
haven't purchased, the very small parcels; we're probably going
to do those--actually, our land protection plan calls for less
than fee acquisition. Total outstanding is 200 to 300 acres.
Mr. Hansen. How much would that be agricultural ground?
Mr. Neubacher. Left?
Mr. Hansen. Yes.
Mr. Neubacher. None.
Mr. Hansen. None? How much agricultural ground has been
purchased?
Mr. Neubacher. Actually, I'd have to submit that for the
record. The original pastoral zone created by the legislation
was 26,000. And we did purchase more of that, and I could look
that up, but I don't know the total acres initially.
Mr. Hansen. At one time was this all agricultural land?
Mr. Neubacher. A lot of the park was agricultural land. It
is heavily wooded in the southern section of the park. In the
initial concept for the park, when it was supported by the
Board of Supervisors, they divided the park up into a public
use area, and a pastoral zone. And we have really kept to that
original agreement. And again, we've worked the ranching
community. And one thing we're going to enter today is
testimony from the ranchers that are in the park now, saying
that we've treated fair, that we have a good relationship, and
that they work well with us.
Mr. Hansen. How much money does this cost the taxpayers?
Mr. Neubacher. The authorized ceiling for Point Reyes
National Seashore is approximately $62 million----
Mr. Hansen. So you still have some----
Mr. Neubacher. [continuing] the majority of that, $62.5
million.
Mr. Hansen. So how much more do you feel you need to
accomplish what would be in Mrs. Woolsey's bill?
Mr. Neubacher. With Woolsey's bill, actually the
appraisal--the authorized ceiling in Woolsey's bill is $30
million. The appraisal that the Park Service did--and this was
a very rough appraisal--that we could purchase everything,
which means the conservation easements and the 38,000 acres--
about 2,000 of that is state lands--with about $40 million. And
again, there's already been a commitment of 11,000 acres, which
is worth about $15 million. So the rest of the money would come
from the match.
And again, this is a partnership. We were approached by the
local community--the partnership between the state, the local
community, and the Federal Government. So what we're trying to
do is do the Federal commitment, because we have such a
significant resource here, next to Tomales Bay and in Point
Reyes National Seashore.
Somebody mentioned earlier, the public truly is being
served. We have 2.5 million visitors coming to this area, and
we contribute about $107 million to the economy.
Mr. Hansen. Well, what is the significance you point out? I
mean, if we talk Yellowstone, we can all figure out what that
is, the Grand Canyon. For those of us who haven't the
opportunity to visit this park, give us a quick summation of
the great significance on it.
Ms. Stevenson. Well, if the gentleman will yield. You have
to remember you've been invited out there many times.
Mr. Neubacher. And we would love to have you come out.
Mr. Hansen. That's true. We're invited everywhere around
the world, and it's just hard to prioritize it all.
Mr. Neubacher. The park's significance, really--when
national seashores were established we were trying to protect
scenic coastline, and within the park we have a lot of maritime
history. We have 147 miles of hiking trails. We have wildlife
that abounds. I mean, we serve a lot of visitors, so the
recreational and scenic opportunities are phenomenal. And we
also have the oldest shipwreck on the west coast. We have the
St. Augustine. You may have read about it recently; we're
trying to uncover it. It's where the first European contact
occurred in California; Sir Francis Drake landed there in the
1500's. The significance overall for the resources, cultural
and natural, are phenomenal, and of national significance.
Mr. Hansen. I'm not asking you to be a land appraiser, but
the original Act--what, it was $14 million. And yet you folks
have spent $65 million. How do you feel $30 million will handle
it all?
The rule of thumb around here is it takes longer and cost
more on everything we do.
Mr. Neubacher. We can submit this for the record, but we've
actually gone through--the conservation easements have been
purchased by the Marin Agricultural Land Trust. So we have a
lot of history, and actually the prices to a certain extent
have stabilized. We actually did an estimate for a conservation
easement, we feel very certain--and again, this was done by
qualified appraisers. I personally believe that we'll do the
job.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from Washington, did you want to
reclaim any time?
Mrs. Linda Smith. I just had one question of Ms. Kitay. Am
I saying that right?
Ms. Kitay. K-i-t-a-y.
Mrs. Linda Smith. Kitay. You made a comment, that I just
wasn't sure if I understood it fully. You were concerned about
NEPA review being required because of this particular bill. I
guess I wanted to know why trails shouldn't be--or should be
exempt from NEPA review, or did I not understand what you were
saying?
Ms. Kitay. Well, we had a court case involving NEPA, and
whether we had to do a environmental analysis of every trail,
and the 8th Circuit in a case called Goos v. ICC, found that
because our role under the Trails Act is ministerial, there's
no discretionary decisionmaking involved, and therefore NEPA is
not triggered every time you have a trail proposal. And our
concern here is that, if this bill were enacted, and the Board
were given discretion regarding trail authority, that then you
would have trails considered, or the licensing or approval of
trails considered, to be major Federal actions requiring an
environmental review under NEPA.
Mrs. Linda Smith. So the jury's out on whether or not I
would support that or not. I think there should be a lot of
review before there's a trail. But you would say that would get
in the way of producing that trail, making it more difficult.
Ms. Kitay. I think the concern that the Board has is that
that would impose additional burdens on our already strained
resources, because we have so little staff, and so many pending
cases; and that that would just create more cases that we had
to do environmental assessments on or whatever.
Mrs. Linda Smith. So you think trails should be exempt of
most environmental assessments?
Ms. Kitay. Well, I think that--as I said, because under the
current statute we don't exercise discretion----
Mrs. Linda Smith. You don't have to now; you would have to
then.
Ms. Kitay. We would have to under this bill.
Mrs. Linda Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Maryland, any questions?
Mr. Gilchrest. Not at this moment that would probably make
any sense, Mr. Chairman, because I'm late for the hearing, but
I hope everything's going all right so far. I'll have some
questions maybe for the next panel. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from American Samoa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to ask the superintendent and then Ms.
Stevenson for their comments further on H.R. 1995. I guess
there's a saying that haste makes waste. And I just wanted to
ask you, is there any conceivable issue that was not
considered, in terms of the process that you've undertaken to
review all the issues that were involved, where we've come now
with Ms. Woolsey's proposed legislation?
I mean, how long has this taken place as far as the
consultations, and meetings? I mean, this wasn't done in a
process of 3 months or 6 months, or----
Mr. Neubacher. No, we're talking years. And I've been--
Actually I worked at Point Reyes National Seashore, I worked on
another project; no I'm back. And I've been the superintendent
there for approximately the last 3 years. And this started way
before I got there, so we're talking 3 years plus. There's been
a lot of discussions and consultations. And I have to admire
Ms. Woolsey for actually all the work she's done working with
the community. She's done a lot of public meetings.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. So this is not a Democratic or
Republican bill; this is a bill that's going to benefit the
community there in Point Reyes.
Mr. Neubacher. Very much so, and there's tremendous broad-
based support from the community organizations.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I yield to the gentlelady from----
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. I would like to ask, if the
Chairman's not going to ask a question about clarifying the
section of the bill you questioned earlier, if I should ask
them. Or are you going to ask them?
Mr. Faleomavaega. I will ask them myself.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Could you clarify that provision that was
raised by the Chairman?
Mr. Neubacher. Yes. The intent of that section is clearly
what Mr. Hansen stated, was that we could exchange lands
outside the state. So under the current Policy Act we cannot do
that; it would only be with inside the states. So that's why we
worked with the Congresswoman to instate that. I mean, that's--
in our opinion, would not make or break this bill. So if
there's concern we wouldn't oppose a change.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So in other words, Secretary Babbitt can
exchange Escalante Monument in Utah with----
Mr. Neubacher. I'm afraid so, I guess I'd have to say.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Why is that necessary to have that in the bill?
Mr. Neubacher. Well, we were trying--there have been other
cases where I've worked with the Park Service, that we have
found lands in other states that we could not exchange that
were really good--the agricultural community would like to have
had, but we just couldn't do it, and we had to go back to
Congress for authority. So we thought we'd avoid that so we
could exchange lands in another location if possible. It just
gives us broader authority to do the job.
Mr. Hansen. But in effect your amending FLPMA for this one
particular area.
Mr. Neubacher. That's correct.
Mr. Hansen. That's dangerous, too. I wouldn't count to
heavily on that----
Mr. Faleomavaega. I think I'm still on my time, Mr.
Chairman.
Now this is not the only exception of this proposed
legislation, Ms. Stevenson. I mean, are there other instances
where the secretary is authorized to do exchange of lands, or
the department for that matter?
Ms. Stevenson. I'm sorry, Mr. Faleomavaega, I don't know
the answer to that; we'll have to provide it for the record.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Would you provide that for the record,
because I think--I do share the Chairman's concern if we're
setting a precedent.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
We appreciate Evelyn Kitay and Kate Stevenson for being
with us, and appreciate your testimony. We'll excuse you at
this point. And Panel No. 3 is Nels J. Ackerson, The Ackerson
Group; Richard Welsh, Executive Director of National
Association of Reversionary Property Owners; Jayne Glosemeyer;
and Howard Woodbury.
We appreciate the third panel being with us at this time.
You know the rules. We're 2 hours and 15 minutes into this
hearing. It's going a little slower than we'd plan.
Mr. Ackerson, we'll start with you, and just go across.
We'll give you each 5 minutes. Is that all right?
Mr. Ackerson. That's fine, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The floor is yours, as we say in our
business.
Mr. Ackerson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have submitted for the record a 7-page
single-spaced statement of testimony, of which I will not have
time to read.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection, that will be included. And
all of your testimonies in their completeness will be included
in the record, and you would like to abbreviate your testimony,
by all means, please do it.
Mr. Ackerson. Thank you, I will do so.
STATEMENT OF NELS ACKERSON, ATTORNEY, THE ACKERSON GROUP
Mr. Ackerson. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I
have the privilege of representing, individually and in class
actions, now tens of thousands of landowners, homeowners,
families, retirees, small businesses, farm organizations, and
others, in about 15 states across the nation. Like the author
of H.R. 2438, Mr. Ryun, many of my clients enjoy the outdoors
and know the benefits of recreational trails. They also in many
cases are conservationists.
What distinguishes my clients from others is that they own
the land on which railroads once operated their trains, and
upon which trails are now operating or proposed. They are not
adjacent landowners; they are the landowners. They own the
strips of land running through their farms or their yards,
where trains once ran, every bit as much as any homeowner owns
a backyard, a driveway, or a deck.
And so, members of the Committee, I want to ask this
Committee to look at two different perspectives on the railroad
corridors where trails have been proposed or are operating; not
just the perspective down the corridor, but the perspective
across the corridor.
The owner's perspective is different, because it is their
land. They not only look down the abandoned railroad, but also
across it. Looking cross the right-of-way they see the rest of
their farm, reunited for a more efficient farming operation,
now that the railroad has brought to an end the agreement that
allowed railroad use on their land.
They see a backyard in which their children can play in
safety and privacy. Sometimes they see a strip of land that has
become a sanctuary for wildflowers, berry bushes, and wildlife
which they would like preserved, free from asphalt surfaces and
free from traffic.
In short, what my clients, the landowners, see, is their
home, their farm, their land. Unfortunately, the perspective
that has dominated much of the debate, and not a bad
perspective, but a different perspective--and it's only bad if
it's the only perspective--and that is the perspective down the
corridor.
Railroad companies and trails advocates often fail to look
at the other perspective, across the corridor. Railroads want
to be paid for land they once used, regardless of whether they
own it. Trails pro-
ponents see opportunities for recreational uses, and often view
my clients as greedy or disgruntled neighbors, who are
troublesome in their bothering to stop part of a trail; rather
than as the owners of the trail that is to be taken without
their consent and without their consultation for the purpose
that they did not have in mind.
Now those who look down the corridor, and only down the
corridor, not only miss a beautiful view of life; they also
miss the fundamental point that we learned in kindergarten: you
shouldn't take something that is not yours without first
asking. That's the first principle. The other is, you should
pay for what you take. The perspective down the corridor--when
it is the exclusive perspective--turns a blind eye to those who
own the land. A trail proponent in zeal to establish a
recreational trail may presume that the railroad, rather than
the real landowner, should be approached and paid for the land.
The railroad of course likely will be happy to oblige. It's a
rule of human nature I think--even in this city--that if you
rob Peter to pay Paul, you can often count on Paul for support.
Thus the real landowners are taken out of any involvement
whatsoever in what happens to their land. That is the
perspective that has been fostered and maintained by the
present law. Owners of the land to be taken for a trail don't
even know about these abandonments in many many cases. Some of
my clients who own farms or little homes along abandoned
railroad corridors don't read the Federal Register every day.
They don't get a second notice. Some of them have no idea
what's happened until it's done. That is why the issues that
are addressed in this bill must be addressed seriously.
H.R. 2438 provides a way to restore balance among the
various pubic and private interests that are affected by the
National Trail System Act. Public policy should recognize and
protect the legitimate interests of persons whose land is taken
for a new public purpose, and whose lives and the lives of
their families will be changed forever as a result.
Those persons who are the most affected should at the very
least, have a significant role in the process, be given
protection against the loss of security and privacy, and have
access to traditional land law to enforce their property
rights. The conservation, recreation, and even national
security objectives of the National Trail System Act--and
incidentally, I would like to address those national security
issues if the time will permit--those objectives can be
accomplished without sacrificing what has been the very fabric
of society embedded in the Constitution.
We don't need to sacrifice constitutional safeguards. We
don't need to eliminate the roles of state and local
government. And we don't need to violate the simple principle,
that we should never take what is ours without first asking,
and we should pay for what we take.
I believe my time is up, unfortunately. I have addressed in
my written statement a number of misconceptions about the law
and about the facts, which I would be happy to address if
anyone has questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ackerson may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. Mr. Welsh.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD WELSH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF REVERSIONARY PROPERTY OWNERS
Mr. Welsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee.
Mr. Hansen. Would you move the mike over in front, if you
would, please.
Mr. Welsh. Oh.
Mr. Hansen. Yes, right there. Thank you.
Mr. Welsh. Usually with my hearing problem I talked loud
enough for everybody to hear within a mile.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I'm Richard
Welsh, the Executive Director of National Association of
Reversionary Property Owners, the non-profit organization
dedicated to the preservation of reversionary property rights
for the tens of thousands of property owners throughout the
country.
NARPO currently is working with aggrieved property owners
in 47 states. To date there is over 60,000 property owners
throughout the country affected by this rails-to-trails law.
Regardless of the intentions of the supporters of the rails-to-
trails movement, rails-to-trails as passed by Congress and
implemented by Federal agencies, and private entities I might
add, has become a terrible detriment to the individual and
constitutional property rights of members of our United States.
H.R. 2438 will go a long way to right a major flaw in the
rails-to-trails law.
When Congress passed the original rails-to-trails law in
1983, the new railbanking policy preempted state property laws.
Specifically, Congressman Ryun's bill will eliminate this
preemption. This will not be the death of the rails-to-trails
movement, as the trails owners insist. Instead Rails-to-Trails
project sponsors can acquire land like any other entity,
seeking specified land for public use. Government and private
groups can pay for the land needed from the property owners to
develop the trails. The rails-to-trails law has programmed over
3,600 miles, across 62,000 pieces of private property, without
paying one cent of compensation for the loss of rights; rights
which the U.S. Supreme Court set seven and a half years ago for
due compensation. Jayne Glosemeyer sitting on my left here will
testify to that effect now.
Because the Rails-to-Trails Act preempt state property law
of reversion, certain other state and Federal laws lose their
application. A glaring case of laws being abrogated due to the
Rails-to-Trails Act occurred near Park City, Utah in 1989, and
still exists today. When Union Pacific Railroad abandoned their
line in Echo, Utah to Park City, abutting owners expressed
concerned about the nearby tailing piles from the old Silver
King mine. The tailing piles lie directly on the right-of-way
and imposed an environmental risk at that time, and even today
still do.
The BLM hazardous material unit ordered an environmental
survey to be conducted on the right-of-way, which was proposed
for the trail. The survey reported that voluminous amounts of
arsenic, mercury, lead, were present, and leeching into the
soil and going into the air. The report warned that children
would be susceptible to airborne carcinogens emanating from the
tailing piles. Because of the exemption from state and Federal
environmental laws through this Trails Act--excuse me. Because
of the exemption from state and Federal environmental review of
trails, nothing was done, and the trail was built within 20
feet of the exposed tailing piles. If Park City would have had
to abide by the state reversionary laws, more oversight of the
project would have occurred, and polluted land most assuredly
would have been cleaned up.
One of the worst aspects of the Rails-to-Trails Act is that
private entities can designate and develop trails without ever
being subject to the electorate. In a case near Lewiston,
Idaho, a rail salvage company acquired an interest in a long-
abandoned railroad. When the property owners heard that a trail
might be built on the rail bed they tried to find out who owned
the property and who had control over it. NARPO was finally
able to determine that the railroad was abandoned in 1985, and
already the land had reverted to the abutting property owners.
But during this confusion the trails group sold quit claim
deeds to the non-suspecting property owners that already owned
the land.
One way property owners can fight to regain the use of
their land, is to convince local elected officials to oppose
rails-to-trails projects. It is difficult to succeed however,
when an advantage is provided to the trails group over
landowners, through the Federal law. In almost every instance
property owners do not know about a forthcoming project until
the trail is being built through their property. The Rails-to-
Trails Conservancy, who is going to testify later, supports
this non-notification of property owners. Into the record as
part of my testimony today is the letter from the RTC office in
Washington, DC, here to an Emmet, Idaho official, where the RTC
advocates keeping the property owners in the dark until the
funding and authorization for the trail is approved. The sad
part is, RTC receives Federal program money to be used to
collude against property owners.
Interim Trail Use designation and the arbitrary control by
a trails groups has had detrimental affect to property rights.
After being designated an Interim Trail User under the Rails-
to-Trails Act, an entity can take complete control of the
right-of-way, even though it might be 400 feet wide. The
negotiations between the trail use entity and the abandoning
railroad can go on for years. The Service Transportation Board
exerts no oversight before or after issuing the trail use
agreement. Meanwhile, the abutting owners do not know who's
controlling it and who to address their complaints to.
H.R. 2438 will prevent the preemption of state property
law. Groups interested in making trails would have to abide by
state reversionary property law. Abiding by the state law would
solve all the above-mentioned problems before they occur. It a
state or local government want to develop a trail they could
condemn the right-of-way and pay the property owner. This is
the way our law is supposed to work.
Rails-to-Trails was written to effectively extinguish
reversionary rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has said these
rights can be taken. The court said the Constitution requires
compensation. To date nobody has been paid. The property owner,
Mr. Preseault from Vermont, has been waiting, and really since
1980, when his property was originally taken, and is now a
trail.
I want to thank the committee, and I'd be glad to answer
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Welsh may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Welsh.
Jayne Glosemeyer.
STATEMENT OF JANE GLOSEMEYER, LANDOWNER
Ms. Glosemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am Jayne Glosemeyer, a landowner from Marthasville,
Missouri. I came here today to tell you that the Rails-to-
Trails Act may produce trails, but in the process it destroys
things much more precious; the safety and security one has in
their property, and a future hope of passing down one's
heritage to their children. My husband and I learned of this
government policy that prevents us from using our own land, by
reading the Sports section of the ``St. Louis Post Dispatch.''
Landowner notification is not a provision of the Rails-to-
Trails Act.
We own and operate a farm that has been in our family for
over 100 years. My great uncle, granted and recorded an
easement in 1889 to the Cleveland, St. Louis, and Kansas City
Railroad Company--of which I hold a copy--allowing 12 acres to
be used for the purpose of a right-of-way for a railroad, and
for no other purpose. Today, instead of a railroad, which my
family agreed to, I now have a state park running through the
middle of my farm.
A landowner group, made up of community members, formed
with me and spent over $150,000 to fight for our property in
state court, Federal court, U.S. Supreme Court, and now the
U.S. Court of Claims. Over ten and a half years of my life has
been spent in some form of litigation over land that I own, and
I have a deed to it. This confiscation of private land for
public use has left me feeling like a second class citizen.
Neither the Missouri Constitution, nor Missouri state statutes
have protected me.
The Rails-to-Trails Act is a scam, contrived by special
interest trails groups to void state railway abandonment law in
order to use my land for their purposes. Trail proponents state
in a September 1988 issue of The Bay State Trail Riders
Association, that railbanking is a myth, and a way to get old
railroads without having to pay for them. Railroad companies
welcome the effects of this law, because they receive money for
land they do not own, nor have the right to sell. According to
the Rails-to-Trails Act my legal contract with the railroad
company is a useless sheet of paper, and I do not understand
why Congress would pass a law that negates legal contracts and
renders state property law useless.
As a result of the Rails-to-Trails Act, I have found that I
have not only lost my property rights, but I am also forced to
carry an undue financial burden to provide recreational space
for the general public. The Katy Trail sits 30 yards outside my
front door, and 2 feet from our livestock's pens and sheds. In
addition to the privacy I've lost because of the trail, I am
forced to rent housing facilities for my livestock, 2 miles
from our farm. The potential for liability and disease from
human contact with our livestock has caused us to move our
animals and prevented us from expanding our livestock
operation. Just imagine, owning plenty of land to op-
erate and expand our farm--our hog farm--only to have
government, a government program force us to rent land because
the program has made our land unfit.
Now that a recreational trail exists in the railroad's
place, we face significant exposure to liability arising from
the uncontrolled trespass of the public, or generally ignorant
of the dangers of interfering with the breeding habits of
animals. Our once peaceful farm was at risk of being sued
should a trail user be injured by an animal.
One afternoon I returned home to find a woman off her
bicycle, sitting in the shade of our shed, while her child
chased one of my piglets around the field. I shudder to think
what would have happened to that child if the piglet had
squealed and the 600 pound sow came to the rescue of her baby.
Representative Jim Ryun's bill, the Railway Abandonment
Clarification Act, will honor state property law, and prevent
the Federal preemption of state law, concerning how railway
abandonments are treated. Since it will remove the Federal
mandate regarding the treatment of abandonment railways and
designation of recreational trails, I will be free to deal with
the State of Missouri. As you may know, due to the lobbying
efforts of the landowners along the abandoned Katy Rail line,
the State of Missouri struggled with the issue of whether to
proceed with the Katy Trail, and with that I do not object. I
do object however, when the Federal Government grants to
special interest groups and railroads, both non-public
entities, the power and the authority to claim my land as their
own to do what they wish.
The Railway Abandonment Clarification Act removes the
Federal bias that converts abandoned railways into trails over
the rights of property owners. Since it is my land, I want
control over how it is used. Anyone, including the State of
Missouri, should consult me first to ask permission to use my
land. I support Jim Ryun's bill, and encourage its immediate
consideration by the Committee, and I thank you for this
opportunity to be here. And I'd be happy to answer questions
later.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Glosemeyer may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
Mr. Woodbury.
STATEMENT OF HOWARD WOODBURY, LANDOWNER
Mr. Woodbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee on this issue
that directly affects my farm and family. Representative Ryun's
bill, H.R. 2438, the Railway Abandonment Clarification Act, is
a sensible solution to the problem created when bikers, hikers,
and horseback riders want to put a trail on my land where there
used to be railroad tracks.
My name is Howard Woodbury, and my brother, father and I
operate a diversified farm of 4,000 acres in Eastern Kansas. On
my farm we raise wheat, corn, grain sorghum, soybeans, and
cattle. My grandfather bought this farm more than 50 years ago
when the Missouri Pacific Railroad operated the rail line that
runs through my land. Originally, the railroad was build in
1886 and served Forbes Field in Topeka when it was an air force
base. After Forbes Field became an Air National guard base the
rail line was used to service some farm cooperatives in
Northern Osage County, but no longer continued north into
Topeka. The particular line that cuts across my property is a
15-mile spur from Lomax to Overbrook, off of the Union Pacific
line out of Kansas City.
When my grandfather bought our farm he understood that
there were existing easements for railroad purposes on the
land. My grandfather understood, and it has been long
understood in Kansas, that railroads hold no interest in the
land except as an easement. The Rails-to-Trails Act, however,
has put in jeopardy the owner's property rights to his land
which holds an easement. Kansas Law 66-525 states, any
conveyance by any railroad company of any actual or purported
right, title, or interest in property, acquired in strips for
right-of-way to any party other than the owner of the servient
estate, shall be null and void, unless such conveyance is made
with a manifestation of intent that the railroad company's
successor shall maintain the railroad operations on such right-
of-way, and railroad owns marketable title for such purpose.
What that means is, that unless the railroad sells the right-
of-way to another railroad, the easement expires, and I regain
the use of my land. In fact, my property held another railway
that was abandoned some time in the 1920's. Consistent with
Kansas state law, the use of that land reverted back to my
farm, and today I use that land to grow hay to feed my cattle
and other livestock.
Some time in 1984 or 1985 a flood caused the washout of the
Missouri Pacific railway north of my farm, between Overbrook
and Michigan Valley. Because the line was not heavily used and
probably did not generate too much business for the railroad,
the washout was not repaired, and rail service was discontinued
on the line. The Overbrook co-op sued the Missouri Pacific to
repair the washout, and reinstate rail service for their grain
elevators. The Union Pacific railroad bought the railway
shortly after the rail service returned on the line. This was
particularly memorable because since the washout repair the
railway was not as sturdy as before, and trains would travel up
and down the line at approximately 8 to 10 miles an hour,
blowing their whistles as they went.
In 1993, rail service was permanently discontinued, and the
tracks and ties were removed in 1996. Around this same time
rumors began that the railway was to be converted into a trail
for horseback riders and recreational users. Neighboring farms
like mine, which would be affected by this conversion were
concerned. We had seen and were aware that another abandoned
railway south of Topeka was dedicated to one of these
recreational trails and never amounted to much. The right-of-
way is not developed, not maintained, and seems like a big
waste of money, property, and other resources.
My family and I do not want our land to be turned into an
eyesore since, according to state law, I should be able to use
the land to graze my cattle. Some landowners from surrounding
towns met together, but we were told if we wanted to use our
property it would be a long, drawn-out and expensive legal
fight. In addition, the trail manager, who's the director of
the Kansas Horsemen Foundation, and the former director of the
Kansas Wildlife and Parks, told us that they owned the land. He
further stated that anyone fencing off the corridor or
attempting to use the land could be arrested. Also the trail
manager said that the trail was opened for public use, even
though it had not been developed, and he would not be
responsible to keep out trespassers. Our fears about our land
are becoming quickly realized. It is not maintained, it has not
been developed, and trespassers are a constant problem. Because
the right-of-way has become a kind of no man's land, heavy
rains have shifted rock and soil, and damaged some of the
fencing. I took it upon myself to repair the fencing to keep my
cattle safe, but have yet to be reimbursed by the trail
manager. I would like to use my land, keep it maintained, and
determine its use for myself.
What really gets under my skin is the fact that by all
rights this land is mine, and I should be able to do with it
what I want.
Representative Ryun's bill makes it clear that the Federal
Government does not preempt state law, with respect to the
establishment of an the easement, or right-of-way, or property
interest. The people of Kansas have the good sense to develop
laws and regulations under which everyone can operate. And if
we have a problem, I can get to the courthouse or the state
house, without having to travel all the way to Washington, DC
to address my grievances. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Woodbury may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, sir.
We'll now turn to the members of the Committee for
questions for this panel.
The gentleman from American Samoa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ackerson, I think you're the legal scholar here among
the panelists, and I'd like to ask just one or two questions if
I may.
I take the position that you suggested to the members of
the Subcommittee that we ought to put ourselves in the position
of the landowner, so let me ask you this.
Were the landowners compensated at the time of the taking,
of the easements, historically?
Mr. Ackerson. In some cases--if you're speaking of
easements alone--in some cases the landowners were compensated
for what was taken, and that was only the right to cross the
land. They were not compensated for the ownership of the land.
In other instances, according to the records, there was no
compensation at all. In many of the cases which we have
involving railroads, the railroads cannot prove that they ever
paid anything for the land, but in some cases, no doubt, they
did. And let me say, in some cases there's also no doubt that
the railroads actually bought the fee simple interest in the
land. That's not what we're talking about today.
But the answer to your question then, were the landowners
compensated for their land? No, they were not. They were
compensated if an easement was given; they were compensated for
a right to cross the land with the railroad. And at the risk of
saying too much here, let me just say, there was a lot of
reason for that. When most of these railroads were built the
communities welcomed them because they would carry their crops,
and unite their communities.
Mr. Faleomavaega. It's an economic benefit, obviously.
Mr. Ackerson. That's right. And so the railroad provided
the benefit, completely different from what now might be used
as an recreational benefit to someone else.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I'm trying to gather again what you just
stated earlier. There was compensation but in different
circumstances.
Mr. Ackerson. Well, there's compensation for what was
taken, but there was not compensation----
Mr. Faleomavaega. It was a mixed bag.
Mr. Ackerson. [continuing] there was not compensation for a
use after the railroad was abandoned. There was never
compensation for that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. In the most instances where these lands
were involved if a railroad wants to build a rail system
through my land would I have to get permission from the state
government to contract with the railroad?
Mr. Ackerson. Most typically in the last century when
railroads were chartered they were given limited powers of
eminent domain. And that is, they could either bargain with the
landowners, or they could cause eminent domain to be exercised,
and they could take the land. But they could only take it after
paying for it, and after having a determination that it was,
(a) a legitimate public use; and (b) that a fair price was
being paid.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So your whole point of argument here, is
that if it was taken for a public purpose, and then after the
railroad has no longer the need for the use as a public
purpose, the land should revert back to the landowners. That's
the basis of your argument.
Mr. Ackerson. Not only that, but for a specific public
purpose--and the specific public purpose was to operate a
railroad. There are other public purposes to operate power
lines, to operate telecommunications lines, to operate--to have
sewers, to have public roads. These particular easements were
for one purpose only, and that was to operate a railroad.
That's what they bought or that's what they condemned in most
of the instances we're talking about.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Could you also share with the Committee.
I hear 100 feet, 200 feet, 15 feet; what exactly is the lateral
distance involved here. I notice the tracks. It's only about 15
feet from that home there.
Mr. Ackerson. This particular home happens to be in
Leelanau County, Michigan, and you're right, that is a proposed
trail. It's being developed as a trail right now, and it's
about 15 feet from the family's kitchen. There's another home
right down from the line from that, where it's 15 feet from the
bedroom and the kitchen, and the wife and the family was
shocked to look out her kitchen window one morning to see a man
on a horse right outside looking in upon her. That's the kind
of invasion of privacy that some of these people----
Mr. Faleomavaega. So in the process of taking, there are
inconsistencies, even on the property involved here--some
involved 100 feet, some 200 feet, some 10 feet from----
Mr. Ackerson. Typically through the plains and in the west
they're wider than in the east. They range from 20 feet at the
very minimum to more than 100, sometimes 200 feet.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So your suggestion is that, rather than
the railroads dealing with the landowners, the trail proponent
should deal with the landowners, if they want trails built on
their land.
Mrs. Linda Smith. Mr. Chair?
Mr. Ackerson. Whoever wants to use the land----
Mrs. Linda Smith. Could the gentleman yield?
Mr. Faleomavaega. I'd be glad to yield.
Mr. Ackerson. If I may just----
Mrs. Linda Smith. Please go ahead.
Mr. Ackerson. [continuing] just say, whoever wants to use
the land, should deal with the person who owns the land. I
guess that's the principle.
Mrs. Linda Smith. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Faleomavaega. I'd gladly yield.
Mrs. Linda Smith. I think what you're arguing for is local
control who could deal with this a lot better than we can here.
And I think the argument of the proponents is that, we
shouldn't violate local land use or state land use. And they
could probably better deal with this than we could deal here.
Mr. Faleomavaega. But I think one of the problems that I'm
faced with--and this goes right down to the bottom line of our
total mass transit system. As a matter of policy, where the
railroad system or the industry comes into play, if they're
going to be doing abandonments simply because--the railway is
in trouble. I don't know if I'm right it this.
At one time we had 290,000 miles of railway. It was the
most active form of transportation. America now would rather
ride in their cars than take the train. And this is the reason
why we don't have 125-mile bullet trains in our country,
because simply we're not into the mass transit system as are
most other developed countries.
My question is, it goes right to the fundamental issue that
Congress has to make that decision, as an overall Federal
policy, are we going to continue having a railway system in
place, whether or not by abandonment now, or in the coming 25
years or 30 years? Are we still going to be having some kind of
railroad tracks to maintain this form of transportation. And
maybe our friends from Conrail will respond to that when they
testify. But that's my concern that we have here.
Mr. Ackerson. May I offer----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Please, by all means.
Mr. Ackerson. The situation that we have under the National
Trail System Act right now, it seems to me puts the railway
system, even for national security purposes, at great risk.
Because there was a comment made earlier that these agreements
for trail use are voluntary agreements. Well, they're voluntary
agreements between a railroad and a trail group. It's like
three people saying--or two people saying, let's you and me
take that fellow's land. It's not voluntary for the landowner,
and it's not even supervised by the U.S. Government. So if
there is a national security risk, that risk is there now.
Unless a railroad and a trail group decide to pre-
serve something, the Surface Transportation Board says it has
no discretion.
Now in terms of just preserving the railroad system for
other purposes--and Mr. Faleomavaega, you mentioned a while ago
that you were concerned about a 5-acre strip interrupting an
entire trail if everyone else wanted the trail.
Well, there still can be an opportunity to accomplish that
in the traditional manner that our Constitution and our laws
have directed, including the laws of this Congress. And that
is, if there is a legitimate public purpose, first establish
it, and then allow condemnation to go forward. If there's
only--if as some of the trail proponent say, 70, 80, 90 percent
support it, then what is stopping it from being done in the
traditional manner? And I tell you what is stopping it. Right
now it's a matter of money. It can be acquired cheaper from the
people who don't own it--the railroads--than it can be from
those who do.
Mr. Faleomavaega. It can also be said by the same token,
because there was a commonality of an economic interest.
Everybody welcomed the railroads. So now that because of
abandonment--because of economic reasons, now the whole picture
has changed, and this is where we're at right now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The time has expired.
The gentlelady from Washington.
Mrs. Linda Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to make a comment to begin with. What I'm seeing is
the acquisition and the immediate taking out of the rails, as
quickly as possible, and sometimes changing of the structure
around it to ensure they will not be rails again in our area.
So, I can understand the concern. Yet, what we're dealing with
today are property owners who are not considered in the
decisions at all. So my concern with the property owners is
that they're being told that by default that a greater good
than their constitutional rights needs to happen, whether it be
for maintaining the railroads or whether it be for maintaining
trails, they're somewhere in between.
So I guess my argument today is that we can't leave them in
between. They do have a superior right under the Constitution
to their rights of property, and that's why we're here today
for this particular bill.
I do want to commend the author for the superior job he's
done. There's a lot of bills before Congress right now, and to
get this up in the last 2 weeks he must have had a pretty
compelling argument for the chair. But I know his passion for
the rights of the property owner are strong, and he is
representing the folks very well in his district on this issue.
I will just not ask any more questions. I don't think there
are too many questions on this particular issue, except his
bill should go forward to push the issue of protecting private
property rights, which is the prime purpose of the sponsor.
Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
Gentlelady from California have any questions for this
panel?
Ms. Woolsey. No thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. Ryun. If I may, I'd like to ask Ms. Glosemeyer a few
questions. We've been discussing rights, if you will, and the
entire trails issue.
Can you perhaps touch a little bit on, on what it has cost
you in terms of the moving of our livestock to another
location; some of the costs that are involved, the renting of
additional land?
Ms. Glosemeyer. It cost us basically $100 a month, or $100
a week--I'm sorry--to rent housing facilities for our
livestock. And that also creates the problem of bringing feed.
We have the feed at our farm, and we have to haul it to the 2
miles away, which is several times a week we have to do this.
Mr. Ryun. I think it's interesting to note that when the
actual railroad was running through, your animals were very
comfortable with the railroad, and were accustomed to the
sounds, and yet as a result of this----
Ms. Glosemeyer. There's were no problem with the railroad.
Mr. Ryun. [continuing] new transition, you've had to make
quite a bit of adjustment.
Ms. Glosemeyer. What caused us to have to move--like I said
in my testimony--was the threat of the trespass, which we did
not have when the railroad was there. And we felt no hindrance
to improving our farm and our livestock management.
Mr. Ryun. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Woodbury, Glosemeyer--if I'm saying that
right--how much of your farms--what would be the acreage size
that we're talking about?
Ms. Glosemeyer. The trail is approximately a mile long
through our farm, and approximately 100 feet wide, which would
convert to about 12 acres of land.
Mr. Hansen. And you stated in your testimony you had fee
title to that, is that right? You have the deed to it?
Ms. Glosemeyer. Yes, we have the deed, and we also have the
easement that was granted.
Mr. Hansen. Do you pay taxes on that area?
Ms. Glosemeyer. We paid taxes up until 1985, when the State
of Missouri determined that, because it was a railroad that as
a landowner I should not pay the tax. If a tax were levied on
it, I would be paying it, yes.
Mr. Hansen. You hold title to it, but you don't pay taxes
on it, is that right?
Ms. Glosemeyer. I did up until 1985.
Mr. Hansen. Up until 1985. Who does pay taxes, anybody?
Ms. Glosemeyer. No. The railroad company--excuse me. The
railroad company was levied at a tax on the property, and I
believe now the State of Missouri makes a payment in lieu of
taxes.
Mr. Hansen. So any citizen can go on that property now, is
that right?
Ms. Glosemeyer. Yes. It is opened to the general public,
yes.
Mr. Hansen. Is this about the same similar state with you,
Mr. Woodbury?
Mr. Woodbury. Mine would be somewhere approximately 8 to 9
acres on my mile that I've--that runs through our place. My
abstract from 1886, we didn't own the property. In fact, the
property that we own is in two different half mile sections,
and it was in approximately six different tracks in 1886 when
it was bought. Everyone of the abstracts from June of 1886 say
they condemn a strip 100 feet wide, over, across, and through
the property for railroad purposes; and if the railroad--for
that railroad and any of its successors, is what it says in the
abstract from 1886.
Mr. Hansen. You don't get an annual tax notice on it now,
is that right?
Mr. Woodbury. We pay taxes on the land, that is correct. We
don't pay the railroad taxes. The railroad paid the farm
greater majority of taxes on that land than what we did, but
they were paying it on their tracks, not on the actual land
that it was sitting on. We paid--I still continue to pay tax on
the land that it's sitting on.
Mr. Hansen. I see.
Were either of you brought into the negotiations when the
rail-to-trail thing went through? Were either of you an active
part of this?
Ms. Glosemeyer. No. Like I said in my statement, we read
about it in the ``The Post Dispatch'' in the Sports section
that there was the possibility of a trail being placed on the
abandoned rail corridor. And as landowners began to realize
that there was the possibility of this happening, we formed a
group to take it to court to reclaim the land as ours,
according to what Missouri state law should have given to us.
But not once did anyone from the Rails-to-Trails group approach
us and say, this is what we would like to do with your
property. We were never a part of any negotiation, nor was
there any notice given to us directly.
Mr. Hansen. Then apparently you weren't approached either
on the idea of compensation for the ground?
Ms. Glosemeyer. No, sir.
Mr. Hansen. So in effect, you have title to property, you
don't pay taxes on it. You have no control over it. But you
have some kind of quasi title, I guess, therefore you can't do
anything with it; you can't use it; you can't sell it; you
can't do anything, is that right?
Ms. Glosemeyer. I'm not allowed to do anything with it. No,
sir, it's part of a state park, but I do own it. My deed is
still there, and I still have an easement that says it could
not be used for any purpose but a railroad.
Mr. Hansen. What happens when you argue the fact that the
Constitution says you have to be compensated for your ground?
What's the response on that?
Ms. Glosemeyer. I believe in our Constitution. I believe
the Constitution was written so that this very thing would not
happen to me; that a private group could not, without my
consent, take and use my property. I believe it was written
there so I would be part--so they would have to negotiate with
me as to how my land would be used. Did I understand your
question correctly?
Mr. Hansen. One of the greatest arguments that goes around
this Committee is taking by the government, and being
compensated on it, whether it's wilderness, waterways, roads,
whatever it is. And I guess we're going to have to bring that
back to the middle somewhere. I think we got a little extreme
on some of it.
Did you have a comment?
Mr. Ryun. Yes, I have a question for Mr. Ackerson. I know
you've worked with a number of different landowners throughout
the country. Could you comment on perhaps some of those who
have actually had to buy their land back, or perhaps who have--
they don't have use of it anymore, but perhaps they've had to
buy it back.
Mr. Ackerson. One of the greatest abuses that I think has
happened as a result of this Act being in place, is that
persons have seized control of the land--including railroads--
not for the purpose of converting it to a trail, but for the
purpose of extracting money from the very people who own the
land, requiring landowners to pay railroads to get their own
land back under threat of taking it for a trail. If a railroad
can hold out the threat of railbanking, even when the railroad
does not own the land it can demand money from the landowners,
and yes, I've seen that happen in many instances.
In fact there have been instances where Federal money
through ISTEA has been used to pay the railroad, which does not
own the land, to convert the land to a trail, and we have a
possibility--although it's going to be expensive--for the
landowners to be paid by the United States by going to the
Court of Claims so the United States pays for the land once
again. And there's even a third possibility, because in some of
these instances we know that the railroads have donated their
land, which they don't own, and have taken tax deductions as if
they owned it.
So we have a triple hit by the taxpayers, and we also have
a double hit on the landowners, because the land they've
already paid for, and they own, and they're paying taxes on,
under the threat of it being railbanked, they may have to pay
the railroad for it one more time in order to avoid
railbanking.
Now we've seen that done through a method of bidding. A
railroad will say, we're going to railbank this, but if you
landowners want it back, you can bid more and we'll sell it
back to you, even though we don't own it.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, we're 3 hours into this hearing.
We've got three panels to go. So I appreciate the patience.
You've folks have been here, and traveled a long way to be
here. I will excuse this Committee, and thank you for your
testimony.
Panel 4 is Edward Norton; the Honorable Janice Hodgson,
Mayor of the city of Garnett; Bill Newman, and Richard V.
Allen.
We appreciate the panel being with us, and you know the
rules. We'd really appreciate it if you'd stay at 5 minutes.
Mayor, I don't know if you do that in city council meetings. I
used to have a hard time when I was in your position.
We'll start with you, Mr. Newman, and if you could stay
within your time, fine. You've got to realize that on the floor
right now is a grazing bill, and our members--a lot of them are
over there, and in and out, and around and about. And I guess
people in the west have some great concerns on that, so no
one's sliding you; we'll read a lot of your report.
Mr. Newman. Mr. Chairman, if it's alright with you, could I
yield to Mr. Norton to go first?
Mr. Hansen. Whatever makes you folks happy.
Mr. Newman. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. In what order do you want to go now?
Mr. Norton. I'll be glad to go first, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. All right, then 1, 2, 3, 4. Is that alright, in
that order?
Mr. Norton. That's fine.
Mr. Hansen. All right. Watch the clock.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD NORTON, BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL TRUST FOR
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Mr. Norton. I'll watch the clock very carefully. And thank
you for the opportunity to testify this morning. I always look
forward to testifying before this Subcommittee. Your
jurisdictions touches subjects that are near and dear to my
heart, and none more so that preserving our nation's rail
corridors and our rail trail system.
On just a very personal note, as a young boy I used to ride
with my Uncle Stewart, up the C&O line, from Ashville, Kentucky
to Elk Horn City, on his locomotive, and I can honestly say
that with respect to the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, the
national group that is involved in this issue, I was present at
the beginning in the early 1980's when this movement got
underway. So this is a subject that I've had some familiarity
with all along.
The subject of this hearing this morning touches a subject
within the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee that I think
requires careful balancing of the different interests and
values involved; private property rights, and private property
values, as well as broader societal interest. And I think that
in many cases--and this is exactly one--that many times those
interests are much more compatible, and in fact reinforcing
than they are in direct conflict, and that we can solve these
things without taking a blunderbuss or meat ax approach to
them.
I should also add that I'm testifying today on behalf of,
not only the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, but also the Surface
Transportation Policy Project, which is a coalition of more
than 150 organizations and individuals that include state and
local government; the National League of Cities, the National
Council of State Legislatures, and many organizations, and
certainly the total membership of the Surface Transportation
Quality Project probably exceeds 2 million people.
To get really right to the heart of the matter, we oppose
this legislation. We believed that it would effectively destroy
the national railbanking system, established under section
8(d); that it would destroy many of the benefits--additional
benefits--of interim trail use under the present law; that it
will really create--or eliminate any incentive for railroads to
preserve their unused corridors. It creates a cumbersome, and
burdensome, and confusing administrative process. And most
important, for purpose of what we've heard this morning, it is
our view that this bill will really not provide any significant
protection to private property rights of the adjacent
landowners.
We acknowledge that the private property rights of adjacent
landowners are an important subject that must be addressed in
any statutory arrangement like this. We are sensitive to those
constitutional rights. We look to try to create expeditious,
efficient means to resolve those rights, and to provide for
compensation where compensation is due under either state or
Federal law, but this bill does not accomplish that purpose.
Let me very briefly respond to the remarks that have been
made earlier about the origins and the implementation of
section 8(d). I happen to have been around when this matter
first began to move, and I really don't remember what happened
in the House of Representatives, and I looked at this again
last night.
I can tell you that the sponsors of this provision in the
Senate--Senator Jim McClure form Idaho, Senator Malcom Wallop
from Wyoming, and also Senator Dentor from Alabama. And I would
never say to any of those gentlemen, having dealt with them on
these kind of issues, that the put forward a piece of ill
considered legislation. Nor has the implementation of this bill
been ill considered, and its implementation really is not one
that has been left to private rails-to-trails groups and also
to the railroads.
If you look just at the Midwest for example, the George
Michaelson Trail in South Dakota, which is 110 miles and named
after Republican Governor George Michaelson. It's a federally
banked rail trail. The Cowboy Trail, which was 320 miles
recently discovered in Nebraska, and it was railbanked under
the leadership of Governor Nelson. In that case the rail detail
group was in fact the state agency. The same is true of the
Katy Trail, supported and railbanked by Republican Governor,
John Ashcroft. And certainly the Prairie Spirit Trail in Kansas
was railbanked under the leadership of former Republic
Governor, Mike Hayden. The state plays--and in all of those
cases, with the possible exception, I'm not quite sure of South
Dakota, the state is in fact the rail-to-trail agency. So the
notion that this is some Federal, private group and railroad
scheme fostered off onto landowners is just simply not correct
in neither the legislative history nor the subsequent
implementation of that law would suggest that.
With respect to the issue of property rights, which I'd
like to squarely address, it's our position on this that people
who are in fact actually agree have a perfectly added existing
remedy to which they can go. We would be delighted to work with
members of this Committee and the other interested groups to
make sure that is both expeditious and fair. But it is simply
not right to say that under present law, including the Supreme
Court's interpretation of that law, that state law is totally
preempted, and that person's right and their right to exclusive
ownership under the right-of-way is preempted by Federal law.
That in fact is the holding of the second round of the Preso
case, decided by the Court of Appeals here in Washington, DC
last year.
It should be absolutely clear that the Supreme Court
decided 9 to 0, without dissent, that section 8(d) is
constitutional. And the Court of Appeals have decided that
property owners do have a claim--if they do have a claim--if
they can establish ownership under state law, they have an
existing remedy to which they can turn in the U.S. Court of
Claims, and state that law--their rights to property will in
fact be determined by state law.
I see my time is up, and I'll be glad to answer any further
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Norton may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. [presiding] Thank you, Mr. Norton.
Mayor Hodgson.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE HODGSON, MAYOR, CITY OF GARNETT
Ms. Hodgson. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee.
My name is Janice L. Hodgson, Garnett, Kansas, in the heartland
of the Honorable Ryun's district. I'm accompanied to this
hearing by Mr. Scott Lambers, city administrator of Ottawa,
Kansas. He carries with him a letter from their mayor, and I
carry one from my city manager that I would like to have
entered into the record.
I am the mayor of a community in Kansas which has a
railbank corridor, which runs directly throughout town. We
currently receive a quality of life benefit from the National
Trail System Act because we have a wonderful linear park, which
connects both or city parks and reservoirs with the town
square. the Prairie Spirit Rail Tail between Richmond and
Welda, Kansas, with Garnett as a central point, is now
completed, and it's providing tremendous economic development
and tourism results for the city of Garnett. Users are
experiencing a healthy safe place to walk, ride and bike as
they enjoy all that nature has to offer. Ground breaking
ceremonies for Phase II from Richmond to Ottawa occurred just
last Friday, October 24th. This is the first major tourism
project for this area, and the first rail trail in the State of
Kansas. The $1.3 million project was started by the Kansas
Department of Wildlife and Parks, and the Kansas Department of
Transportation. This project was funded by ISTEA funds, and we
wish to thank the United Congress for authorizing the highway
transportation moneys for this use. We were required to provide
20 percent of the funds to complete this project, and these
funds were provided by state and local government, and private
contributors.
The city of Garnett, through its economic development
office, is keeping a close eye on the use of the trail, as well
as the impact that it has on our local economy. I promise that
we will do everything possible to ensure its continued success.
We are committed to maintain 3 miles of the trail that runs
through our corporate limits. Garnett is a rural community of
3,200 people. We are a community of volunteers and hard-working
people who understand what an enormous project the trail is,
but we are willing to work hard to provide a quality of life
environment, not only for our citizens, but for the many
visitors that we are attracting to our area.
Sales tax collections reflect a 10 percent increase from
1995 to 1996, and project the sales tax revenues from 1996 to
1997 will increase by 15 percent, which we feel can be
attributed somewhat to the trail users that are coming to our
city. The proposed amendment to the National Trails Act would
remove the Federal law's ability to override state law.
Supporters of these amendments want the states to be able to
decide how these corridors should be preserved, yet by the
current statutes in Kansas, these right-of-ways would be
disposed of as soon as they are abandoned, and by dividing the
right-of-way among the current owners of the adjacent property.
There is no mechanism in the State of Kansas to preserve
rail corridors. The Kansas statute divides all property,
regardless if the land was from a direct grant from the U.S.
Government to the railroad, or obtained through an easement.
The railbank corridor, which travels through our community, was
established in the 1860's, and 40 percent of the rail right-of-
way was from a direct grant from the U.S. Government. Other
parcels were obtained through donations and the purchase of
easements. Without railbanking, all of these would be divided
among the adjacent landowners of the current Kansas statute.
The corridor could be lost, and with it any hope of future
reactivation, either for freight or for a possible light rail
connection to Kansas City. In the meantime, our town would be
deprived of a major resource for economic development. In 1996
Governor Bill Graves issued a 1-year moratorium on the
construction of the second 15-mile section of the Prairie
Spirit Trail. This would allow the county commission for the
country through which that section passed to have the right to
stop construction by simply voting not to allow the trail to
pass through their county. The moratorium was for 1 year. In
that time the County Commission never called for a vote on the
trail. After the year was over, the moratorium was lifted, and
the plans for construction began.
For these reasons, I am here to discourage any amendment to
the National Trail System Act, which would place the Act in
danger, and fail to provide a nationwide plan for the
conservation of rail corridors.
I appreciate the time that you've given me to express our
opinion. Please visit our area and the first Kansas rail trail.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hodgson may be found at end
of hearing.]
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mayor Hodgson.
Mr. Allen.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD ALLEN, LANDOWNER
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to
appear here today, although I must admit that I'm more
accustomed to testifying on matters pertaining to nuclear throw
weights, perhaps China, which may be an easier topic today than
the one under consideration by this Subcommittee, the Soviet
Union and other national security topics.
I am Richard Allen, and I come today as a property owner
near--with property near the soon to be abandoned Southern
Pacific Tennessee Pass line of 178 miles. As a committed
mainstream--and by mainstream I mean to say Reagan Republican--
and as the author of the term ``Reaganaut,'' I use that term
very discretely--by disposition I'm committed to uphold in the
rights of individual property owners, and I am sensitive and
well aware of the property rights issues concerned with this
matter at hand.
I'd like to suggest that I limit my remarks, Mr. Chairman,
to four brief points. First, because I believe in the promotion
of our national security interest, I'm going to speak about
that issue. Second, I'd like to stress the importance of
preserving the famous Tennessee Pass rail line, one of only two
rail corridors crossing the great Rocky Mountains to Colorado.
Then I would like to talk about the level--the high level--of
local support in the region for this perspective conversion.
And fourth, I would like to remind members of this Committee
and Subcommittee that the nation's railbanking statute was
signed into law by President Reagan in 1983, and President
Reagan, certainly one of our most determined and fierce
protectors of property rights.
I served two presidents in the White House on three
occasions, and other public officials, and I've worked and
consulted widely with Members of Congress for many many years
since the early 1960's. And as long time advocate of national
defense, I am extremely aware of national transportation
polices which either will add to or subtract from the national
security interest of the United States. So I should like to say
emphatically that from my point of view, the railbanking
program strongly supports our national security interest, and
that eliminating or compromising the railbanking program could
compromise our ability to defend the Nation in the time of
crisis, especially a time of extended crisis.
You might recall that the interstate highway system was
first proposed by President Eisenhower as a national defense
highway system. It was proposed under that format because of
the need to move material, troops, and other vital materials
from one point of the country to another efficiently and
quickly. Although our nation's rail corridor system was
primarily developed by private interest, it's no less important
to the strategic protection of our nation in times of war or
global unrest. Railbanking is a common sense alternative to
ensure that the constructed rail corridor system remains
intact, even though current economic conditions may make in
infeasible to run trains on those lines.
There's also a national security of railroads system map,
just like the national defense highways system map, and this
map identifies railroads whose preservation are considered
essential for the national security. The proposed legislation
H.R. 2438 would actually preempt this important strategic
system, by allowing states at their own election, and without
regard to the larger national strategic considerations
involved, to make decisions about whether to protect portions
of the security railroad system. And while it may be unusual to
raise national security issues before this particular
Committee, we can all appreciate the long-range importance of
these issues.
In Colorado, with the merger of the Union Pacific and
Southern Pacific Railroad the great Tennessee Pass rail line is
being abandoned. We can all marvel at the truly significant
engineering accomplishments that made possible the development
of this corridor, which includes 119 bridges and more than
4,100 feet of tunnels through the Rocky Mountains. Under
current abandonment procedures, unless the corridor is
railbanked under the national railbanking statute, all 119
bridges would have to be dismantled, or would represent a
perpetual liability to the Union Pacific or the State of
Colorado. This is not an unusual problem of course, but it is
particularly acute there.
The Tennessee Pass corridor passes through 4 counties and
20 towns. Since the Union Pacific announced its intention to
abandon the line, the State of Colorado has examined many
alternatives, held many hearings, had a lot of citizen input,
and has developed what I would identify as overwhelming local
support. Certain committees met and held extensive hearings so
that public input could be heard, and the result is a very high
level of support for the trail system as it is to be proposed
there. Chambers of commerce and other businesses are very
importantly behind this.
I had the opportunity to discuss this just the other night
in Colorado with the Honorable John Fawcett, the mayor of Avon,
Colorado. And he informed me that there is virtually no
opposition whatsoever in the region and certainly not among his
own people. In the County of Eagle, in which Avon is located in
the town of Edwards, there has been a newly instituted one-half
cent transportation tax, of which 10 percent must go for rails,
rather for trails. This is an extremely important concept, and
$4 million has been appropriated from the GOCO, the Greater
Outdoors Colorado Foundation for this purpose.
Finally, I will suggest to members of this Committee and
the House of Representatives, that the statute was signed into
law by President Reagan after due consideration of his entire
staff, his administration, and particularly by the ever tough
and omnipresent Office of Management and Budget. I suggest that
this Committee follow President Reagan's leadership, and
refrain from weakening or dismantling this important
legislation, which helps to implement our national policy of
preserving the built rail corridor infrastructure. Thank you,
sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Allen.
Mr. Newman.
Mr. Newman. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
summarize my remarks, and you have my written statement for the
record.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Please.
STATEMENT OF BILL NEWMAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND WASHINGTON
COUNSEL, CONRAIL
Mr. Newman. Good morning or good afternoon, I guess by now.
My name is William Newman, and I'm Vice President of the
Washington Counsel for Consolidated Rail Corporation. And for
those who don't know, Conrail is the fifth largest Class I
railroad in America today.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of
Conrail, and I'm here today to extol the benefits of the Rails-
to-Trails program. But before I do that, I'd like to just take
a minute to bring the people on this Committee up to speed
about the Renaissance that's going on in the freight railroad
industry today.
Many people harken back to the early 1970's when our
industry was on very hard financial times; over 25 percent of
the railroad network was in bankruptcy. Today in good part, due
to the passage of the Staggers Rail Act, our industry is
prospering. I'm pleased to say that among other things, we
offer better service, we have newer technologies, and we are
also benefiting I think from the shortage of drivers in the
trucking industry. We're also benefiting from the fact that
there are limited resources to attend to the needs of our
highway system, but basically the railroad industry is thriving
today.
Notwithstanding that, we still are all businesses, looking
to shed unnecessary costs where we can. And historically as you
know, the way the industry dealt with lines that it no longer
needed was to abandon them. In fact, as I pointed out in my
testimony, the Class I railroad industry had 200,000 miles--
road miles in 1965 and the Class I network now is down to
slightly over 100,000. Abandonments, which are the virtually
irreversible dismantling of rail corridors, were the
predominant method of disposing of these lines before the
1980's. Then in the 1980's two alternatives to abandonments
arose; both of them we believe are better in terms of
preserving existing rail service, allowing the future potential
of rail service, and improving overall public policy.
The first was the development of the short-line sale
program, whereby uneconomic lines are sold to short-line
operators. Conrail has 170 of them connecting to us today, and
they're roughly 20 percent of our business. But for the lines
for which there is no foreseeable future of viable rail
service, the Rails-to-Trails program has offered an alternative
to abandonments, which would usually, as I mentioned, result in
the dismantling of a corridor, thus making the corridor
virtually impossible to be reconstructed for rail use.
The Rails-to-Trails program preserves rail lines by
authorizing trail use and railbanking through agreements with
interim trail users, made on a voluntary basis, subject to
reactivation and interim user assumption of liability in
connection with trail use, and the payment of taxes, and
without, from the railroads perspective, burdening the
abandonment process.
Congress carefully struck a balance between multiple goals
in the Rails-to-Trails program. It preserved rail rights-of-
ways and the rights of the railroads to dispose of their
property as they see fit. It induced the railroads to enter
into agreements to have the interim of trail user assume the
tax and legal liabilities, which otherwise might be formidable
hurdles; and facilitated the marketing of entire rights-of-way
segments in the economic development with such marketing. It
allowed for the potential reactivation of the right-of-way by
the railroad should demand arise for it, and it assured the
redress for the rights of the adjacent landowners, who have
compensable property interest in the right-of-way at issue. We
believe that the courts and the ICC, which is the predecessor
to the Surface Transportation Board, have preserved the balance
struck.
Let me focus if I can for a moment on the pending
legislation. Conrail believes H.R. 2438 would eviscerate the
Rails-to-Trails program for the following reasons beginning
with the repeal of the policy statement. In particular, the
repeal of the quote, ``to preserve established railroad rights-
of-way for future reactivation of rail service; to protect rail
transportation corridors'' and ``the interim use of any
established railroad right-of-way'' not being treated as an
abandonment, combined with the non-exemption of state property
law provided for in section 5 is, with the pun intended, a
total abandonment of the policy to preserve rail corridors for
interim use, with the possibility of reactivation for future
rail use.
Indeed, the bill is intended to give primacy to the
interests of adjacent property owners, but sacrifices the
policy of preserving rails rights-of-way and the possible
reactivation of rail service in doing so. Other sections of
H.R. 2438 are intended to cripple or burden the rails-to-trails
process, by leaving it ambiguous as to has the liability for
taxes on the right-of-way, the liability for the adjacent
property owners' interests, and making the Surface
Transportation Board process potentially more litigious,
extenuated, and consequently less predictable. In conclusion,
Conrail believes the rails-to-trails process works well as
presently constituted, and we would urge Congress not to tinker
with it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Newman may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. The gentleman from Kansas for questions.
Mr. Ryun. I'd like to direct my question, if I might, to
Mr. Norton. You said something early in your testimony I would
like to look at.
While it's true that landowners can go to claims court--and
by the way that's a very expensive process for landowners
throughout this country to travel all the way back here to
Washington--this arrangement gives great advantage to your
group to take the people's property, and then let those
landowners seek some sort of help along the way in an appeal.
You seem to be sensitive, and you made that comment earlier
that you want to be sensitive, sensitive to compensation,
landowners and property rights issues to the point where it's
an inconvenience to you.
How do you respond to that? Isn't that the way it would be,
that it's more of an inconvenience to you than anyone else?
Mr. Norton. I'm not sure I quite understand the question.
But let me address the property rights issue and the issue of
the cost--the process for resolving these issues and the cost
of that.
First of all, I don't understand how this proposed
legislation--assuming for the moment that we do have a costly
procedure, a very costly procedure, a time consuming
procedure--that I don't understand how this statute in any way
resolves that. I don't understand how property owners who have
legitimate claims will be really in any different position.
The underlying question always is, who has title to the
land, what is the extent of those rights, what were the rights
that were given up, what were the rights that it retained.
Those issues are determined under state law, and under the
terms of the deeds from the railroads, and they are very fact-
specific. Whether those are resolved in the Court of Claims, or
in state courts, or otherwise, these issues are always going to
end up to some extent--they're always going to end up in the
court.
Mr. Ryun. Mr. Norton, may I interrupt just for a minute.
I'm going to have to run for a vote. But I see the process as
being best handled at a state level, where they have the
opportunity to condemn that land, and to go through the
process, if you will, compensation; whereas in this process
it's very expensive, and it really does lean toward those of
you that are here as opposed to the small landowner, that's
back some place else in the United States.
Mr. Faleomavaega. If the gentleman from Kansas would yield,
because you have a vote, and I know this is a critical panel
that you would like to raise some additional questions, I'd be
more than happy to maybe give a 10-minute recess for you to
return, and may want to raise additional questions, if that's
all right with the gentleman.
Can the members of our panel have just a little patience,
and the gentleman will come back, and we will continue with the
questioning. Thank you.
The Committee will be recessed for about 10 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. We'd like to regroup, please, panel.
I am not sure if Mr. Ryun will be coming back, but
certainly every opportunity will be given to him to raise
additional questions. In fact, we'll even allow the gentleman
to submit more questions for the record if he wishes, and then
to the members of the panel.
I want to thank the members of the panel for their
testimonies. This is always what makes democracy quite
interesting, that you have an entirely different perspective
from the other panel which gave their statements earlier.
I do remember Mr. Richard Allen, with utmost respect for
your tremendous service to our country at the time when you
served as national security advisor to President Reagan, and I
want to offer my personal welcome to you, sir, and a job well
done, if that's a better way of saying it.
Mr. Newman, on the issue of our whole--I kept asking these
same questions, but I don't know, maybe I'm going over my head
in trying to focus a little more specifically on our general
overall national policy. It's not about land rights, it's not
about the taking or easements; I'm talking about the situation
with our whole railroad company or industry, if you want to put
it those terms.
You indicated earlier that we are getting a little better
than it was before.
Mr. Newman. That is correct.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you think that there is a future for
the railroad industry to be expanding even more?
Mr. Newman. Let me kind of reiterate some of the things I
touched on in my testimony.
The railroad industry is going to continue to grow. The
railroad industry, I believe--I feel very confident--is one
that will get a bigger piece of the freight traffic that is out
there. We are doing better. There are external forces at work
that help us. However, as I mentioned, we will do more with
less, as everybody in this world seeks to be more productive.
So, if your question is, will there be new lines of
railroad, not likely. As I mentioned with the short-line
program, one of our primary goals is the preservation of the
rail network, because after the railroad is gone, in our view,
it will not come back unless we preserve the corridors. That's
why our preference, when we have a line that does not make
economic sense, is to sell it first to a short-line operator,
thereby perpetuating rail service. And the fallback to that is,
if that doesn't work because the economics aren't there, then
we look to something like rails-to-trails.
Mr. Faleomavaega. See we've got a problem here. We have a
national policy with reference of maintaining the basic
structure or the integrity of our transportation system, which
the railway sys-
tem is one of those very important aspects of our whole
transportation system.
You're talking about an issue--what is it annually in terms
of the gross and passenger, industry, and cargo commodities?
Mr. Newman. The railroad industry is roughly about a $35
billion revenue industry; this is the freight industry. In
addition to that, as you know, you have Amtrak, who's revenues
are slightly over a billion dollars. You have a great number of
commuter agencies across the country, many of which--
particularly I'm familiar with Conrail--most of which operate
over our freight lines. We share those lines. And indeed, with
respect to Amtrak, we share the Northeast Corridor with them.
The railroad industry carries 60 percent of our nation's
coal, carries about 70 percent of our finished motor vehicles,
carries grain, carries chemicals. As I mentioned, we are
increasingly carrying all kinds of merchandise in our
internodal trains. Our internodal trains are growing
phenomenally. Our industry as far as I'm concerned is only
going upward.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And Mr. Norton, you've indicated that you
do have some very serious problems with the provision of Mr.
Ryun's bill. His suggestion is that we ought to just let the
state government take care of this, in terms of the reversion
of the status of the land, if it's abandoned by the railroads.
You're talking about how much--I notice Kansas, I think,
has about, what, nine trails, rail trail systems in Kansas
currently?
Mr. Norton. I think that's right currently in Kansas. There
is actually an exhibit at the back of--it's actually three,
three existing; it's attached to our testimony--three open
trails in Kansas at least, as I look at those numbers.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I noticed that Mr. Allen makes a very
interesting comment about the fact that our railway system has
very far-reaching the national security considerations. And I'd
like, Mr. Allen, if you can elaborate a little further, how
does a railroad have to do with our national security interest?
Mr. Allen. Well, Mr. Chairman, if you could imagine a
period of prolonged crisis, and the need to mobilize resources,
you would quickly I think understand the requirement to keep
open the option; to have always the option to revert to putting
rails back down.
I speak from the limited experience that I have in
Colorado. The railroad wants to take up those rails, use them
someplace else; they're heavy duty rails with a special high
quality, and take up the ties, and so on and so forth. But
there may be a time when it has to go back in. For example, the
misfortunate--or the unfortunate fact that there were a
building or something in existence, the railroad would have a
hard time--and I think you pointed out earlier--going around
those square corners. Put back in a railroad in time of great
national need, or prolong national crisis would be a very
important consideration. And it's my understanding that there
had been certain reconversions where economic feasibility
indicated that that should be done. But for long-term national
security considerations it seems to me to be vital to keep open
these main rail corridors, and to have the option to have them
converted once again to their original use. That's why I
believe that nothing should be done to disturb the existing
system.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, my time is up.
The gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. Ryun. Yes. I'd like to direct that question, if I may,
a little bit to Nels Ackerson, with regard to national
security. If you would comment on that. I know you mentioned
earlier you would like to do that.
Would you please do so at this point?
Your microphone is not on.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Could you turn your mike on, Mr.
Ackerson?
Mr. Ackerson. My reaction will be one of common sense, and
not born of the national security experience of Mr. Allen, so I
don't question at all the legitimacy of his concern. What I
hear though, is that there is a national security reason to
preserve the existing corridors, and if so, that should be
addressed it seems to me in the present law as well as any
future law. And it seems to me it could be addressed rather
effectively by simply permitting the Department of Defense to
determine, during the abandonment process, whether this is a
corridor that should be preserved for national security
purposes, and if so, then the traditional condemnation process
in eminent domain proceedings could take effect, and that
corridor could be preserved during the period in which that
condemnation action goes forward.
It seems to me that is a matter, to the extent there's a
national security interest, that is right now, because right
now the United States has no other way to preserve that
corridor, unless by chance a railroad and a trails group happen
to agree to.
Mr. Newman. Mr. Chairman, may I address this question,
because I know a little bit about it, coming from the rail
side.
Mr. Faleomavaega. The gentleman from Kansas, it's his time.
Mr. Ryun. Yes, you may.
Mr. Newman. Mr. Ackerson is exactly right. The people don't
realize that the Department of Defense is a major railroad
shipper, and when the railroad proposes to abandon the line as
one of the shippers, they are served with notice of the
proposed abandonment, and the Department of Defense has, and I
assume, will continue to be a purchaser of these lines. They
have from time to time stepped in and bought lines. And in fact
they, in several cases, operate their own service to reach the
outlying rail network.
Mr. Ackerson. And that could remain the same I think in the
continuing law if your bill were to be passed, Mr. Ryun.
Mr. Ryun. And that's correct. That's how I see my bill at
this point in time, that it really doesn't threaten that
particular issue.
Mr. Allen. May I make a comment, sir, although it's on your
time?
Mr. Ryun. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Faleomavaega. The gentleman from Kansas, it's his time,
but if you would allow Mr. Allen to respond to your concern.
Mr. Ryun. I'm finished at this point. That's fine. Thank
you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you have any further questions, sir?
[No response.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK, Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. I will let the gentleman at the end of the
table answer on some of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Allen, go ahead.
Mr. Allen. Thank you. I was just going to point out very
briefly that national security is a much broader consideration
than simply the Department of Defense. And my second
observation, meant somewhat lightly, is that the last place I
would go for a quick resolution of a problem or a study, is the
Department of Defense, and ask them to determine anything with
clarity recision within a reasonable frame of time. And I think
the Congress itself has its own experience in that regard.
So, the basic point I'd like to make, however, is national
security is not limited to what the Department of Defense has
to say about anything; it's a much broader concept, and
especially as we learn this fact of life in the post-cold war
world.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Woolsey. Yes, I will yield.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Norton, please enlighten us, what can
we do to help these landowners that are telling us their sense
of grievance? Now, you've indicated they do have access to the
Federal courts, costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Is there another option that is available for these
landowners?
Mr. Norton. Well, thank you for asking that question.
Actually Congressman Ryun and I were in the middle of a
conversation about that when you had to recess. Let me try to
pick up that answer.
First of all, I would say that we all should work together
to try to find the right forums and the expeditious processes
by which property--legitimate property rights can be
adjudicated. This has to be an adjudicatory process; it is the
essential nature of these issues. I do not think you can escape
that. It will have to be in state court--in Federal court or
the Federal courts of claims. But the process will have to be
adjudicatory.
I think you've heard very compelling testimony here today
that the bill, as introduced, for a number of reasons would
destroy any incentive on the part of the railroads. We've heard
it from the railroad industry to preserve unused rail
corridors. I think that we need an approach, with respect to
these property rights, that employs the scalpel rather than the
meat cleaver on these issues. And we would be very anxious to
work with the Committee in order to do that.
From my own experience litigating cases in both state and
Federal courts, local courts, state courts, Federal courts, I
don't believe that state courts are necessarily even the best
or the most expeditious place in which to resolve these issues.
I know that the Court of Claims does have procedures now that
allow for the Court of Claims to act as essentially circuit
writers. A great deal of this can be done in an expeditious
way, and maybe it would be better.
I would conclude by saying that, I think that this is an
issue on which this Committee should get some really good legal
advice. I think there's been some bad legal advice about these
legal issues, and the constitutional issues, and the court
decisions bandied about today. I think you should get some good
independent advice on this, and develop a consistent position
with respect to property rights.
Recently, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1534,
which allows, Congressman Ryun, private landowners and
developers to bypass state and local court systems, and go
directly to Federal court, even bypassing state administrative
processes. And I think what we need to do is really look--this
issue is coming up over and over again, and we need to look at
a way that these legitimate property rights can be
expeditiously adjudicated.
Mr. Hansen. [presiding] Thank you. Any other questions for
this panel?
Mr. Ryun. Just a comment. And that is, the bill you
mentioned, H.R. 1534, while it has passed the House, has not
been signed into law yet, so it is still to be----
Mr. Hansen. We'll excuse this panel, and thank you so very
much. Appreciate the patience of all you folks today. All heck
could break loose on the floor any minute on the grazing bill,
and we've got to move right along here, if we can.
Our fifth panel is Steve Kinsey, Robert Berner, and Sharon
Doughty. If those folks would like to come up, we'd appreciate
it.
Well, thank you very much for being here; we appreciate
your presence. I would appreciate if you stay within your time,
not that your testimony isn't extremely important, but we're
going to have bells going off, and we're going to sit here to 8
if we don't get some of things going.
So, Mr. Kinsey, we'll start with you, sir.
STATEMENT OF STEVE KINSEY, SUPERVISOR, FOURTH DISTRICT, COUNTY
OF MARIN
Mr. Kinsey. Thank you very much. My name is Steven Kinsey,
and I do appreciate your durability today, as well as this
opportunity to address you on behalf of the Marin County Board
of Supervisor, and as a representative voice for the quarter
million residents of Marin County.
The district that I serve is a very vast part of Marin
County, comprising almost two-thirds of its land mass, and
virtually all of it's agricultural lands; as well as the great
majority of its Federal parks and its recreation areas. It's a
privilege to serve the spectacular and diverse community of
Marin.
Mr. Chairman, the Marin County Board of Supervisors
unanimously supports H.R. 1995, because this legislation sets
up a voluntary cost-effective collaboration between Federal and
local governments that can help protect our region's
agricultural heritage and, one of our nation's most popular
national parks at the same time. I'm pleased to report as well
that my colleagues on the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors,
our neighbors immediately to the north, equally share our
commitment to passage of this bill. Additionally, throughout
each of our counties there is an overwhelming majority of
residents who strongly favor the protections that will be
provided by this legislation.
H.R. 1995 offers real relief for ranching families
committed to sustaining their way of life. Farming has never
been an easy job. Farming on the urban edge is even more
challenging, due to the relentless pressure development exerts
upon the fertile soil.
Like so many ranchers across America our region's farming
families are often land rich and cash strapped. This
legislation can deliver the vital funds many ranchers need to
finance repairs and improvements in their operations, to comply
with emerging regulatory requirements, or to diversify into
entirely new agricultural venues. In return, the environmental
character and the productive value of the land can be retained
in perpetuity.
I'm not sitting here today asking the Federal Government to
unilaterally undertake the salvation of our region's
agriculture. Marin has a 25-year history, a very proud history,
of working to effectively preserve our historic agricultural
lands. We've utilized many tools, including low density zoning,
acquisition of conservation easements, and diversification of
the industry beyond our historic beef and dairy markets, toward
reaching this goal of protecting our agriculture. Today Marin
ranches in addition to beef, sheep, and dairy, also produce
high quality vegetables, grapes, berries, and even an emerging
market in olive oil.
In spite of Marin's historic efforts to protect our
agriculture, H.R. 1995 is urgently needed to assist ranching
families who choose to continue their way of life, and pass it
on to generations to come. Without this program those cash-
strapped families will have no other choice except to sell out
or seek to develop their property. In fact, for the first time
since creating our coastal ag zoning, an application to develop
a sprawling 20-unit subdivision on a 1,200 acre parcel within
the proposed Protection Act boundary, has been submitted, and
it's expected to be deemed complete by our County's staff
tomorrow on October 31st.
The proposal reflects the maximum density permitted under
the Marin 60-acre zoning. Similar proposals are sure to follow
this precedent-setting effort, and as each one is submitted,
the pressure for adjacent property owners to follow down that
path will surely increase. Passage of H.R. 1995 will certainly
stall that trend.
It is not Marin's intention that property owners be denied
the ability to propose such developments if they desire to do
so. However, H.R. 1995 offers a voluntary alternative to
development. Individual ranchers can decide for themselves
whether or not to participate in the program. This is far
different than the circumstances an earlier generation faced
when the Park Service was acquiring lands in the national
seashore.
There are other provisions of H.R. 1995 that I'd like to
bring to your attention today as well. H.R. 1995 requires the
local community to continue to invest in protecting our
agriculture. Fifty percent of the funding for easement
purchases must come from non-Federal sources. Purchase of
conservation easements instead of the costlier fee purchase in
most instances, will allow more agricultural lands to be
protected for less Federal dollars. The land will also remain
on local property tax rolls, particularly important to me as a
supervisor, and particularly important to the schools in our
country, as well as to the other important service districts
that receive property tax funding.
In conclusion, I wish to reiterate my deep gratitude for
the opportunity you've made for us to speak to you on this
matter today. In this year of shrinking government and a
renewed commitment to private property rights, H.R. 1995
provides your Committee with an innovative opportunity to
protect the family farm and our national treasures, without
breaking the bank or infringing on an individual's freedom to
choose. I urge you to breathe life into this important
legislation, adding your own contributions to its innovative
structure so that it can serve not only the coast of
California, our remarkable Marin County and Sonoma County; but
also serve as a national model for a way to protect agriculture
on the urban edge. Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kinsey may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Berner.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT BERNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARIN
AGRICULTURAL LAND TRUST
Mr. Berner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee.
My name is Robert Berner. I am executive director of Marin
Agricultural Land Trust, a non-profit organization, whose
mission is to help preserve productive farmland in Marin
County. I speak for MALT and not for any other organizations or
individuals.
Farmland makes Marin County one of the most unique and
beautiful places in the United States. Agriculture preserved
what is now Point Reyes National Seashore from second home,
suburban and commercial development, until it was set aside as
a national park. Agriculture today serves as the gateway to
Point Reyes National Seashore, and is an integral part of the
values, quality and character that makes Point Reyes one of the
most visited national parks in the country. These are not hobby
farms, but economically viable businesses, many of which have
been in the same families for three and four generations.
But farming on the edge of the country's fourth largest
metropolitan area brings development pressures and rising land
prices that threaten the future of agriculture. When Point
Reyes National Seashore was created in 1962, there were 3
million people in the northern California Bay area; today there
are over 6 million.
The most pernicious threats to agriculture are insidious
and largely invisible. County land use policies protect against
sprawl development with low density zoning, typically one unit
for every 60 acres. The State Williamson Act allows
agricultural landowners to be taxed based upon our agricultural
land values rather than market values. But zoning and the
Williamson Act do not protect against high agricultural land
values driven by the proximity of our agricultural lands to the
metropolitan bay area, or rural sprawl characterized by low
density residential development. The average agricultural
property in the county is 600 acres, making it vulnerable under
local zoning to subdivision into 10 residential parcels.
For 17 years Marin Agricultural Land Trust has offered
agricultural families faced with the need to capitalize some of
the value of their land a conservation alternative through the
purchase of conservation easements. We have acquired easements
on 38 farms and ranches totaling 25,500 acres. The purchase of
conservation easements has been critical to the survival of
agricultural in Marin. Every rancher knows someone who would
have been forced to sell their land, or unable to buy land,
were it not for the purchase of a conservation easement.
Because Point Reyes National Seashore is a national asset
and its protection and preservation a Federal responsibility,
we think it is reasonable and justifiable for the Federal
Government to share in the cost of protecting the farmland
which is so important to the character, quality, and
environment of this enormously popular park. We do not think it
fair to place the economic burden of protecting these lands
solely on the landowners through further downzoning.
We offer to work in partnership with the Federal Government
to permanently preserve the farmlands within the boundaries of
H.R. 1995 through the acquisition of conservation easement in
voluntary, compensatory transactions with landowners. The land
would remain privately owned, privately managed, and on the tax
rolls. MALT will help match Federal funds, and will undertake
both acquisition and monitoring responsibilities entirely at
our own expense, at no cost to the Federal Government.
I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that MALT does not
support legislation that makes private farmland park land;
subjects landowners to Federal regulation; diminishes land
values; or is not voluntary and compensatory. We do not believe
that H.R. 1995 does any of those things. H.R. 1995 would help
maintain privately owned agricultural land in private ownership
and protect it from non-agricultural development, but protected
from non-agricultural development by conservation easements
purchased at market value in voluntary transactions with
landowners, thereby preserving this area adjacent to Point
Reyes National Seashore in the private agricultural land uses
which have historically, and continue to be, compatible with
and complimentary to the park. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Berner may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
Ms. Doughty.
STATEMENT OF SHARON DOUGHTY, DAIRY RANCHER
Ms. Doughty. Good afternoon. My name is Sharon Mendoza
Doughty. I am a lifetime registered Republican and a third
generation dairyman, who was raised on a Historic B Ranch,
which is now a part of the Point Reyes National Seashore. My
family owned four ranches, totaling 5,000 acres, which became
part of the Point Reyes National Seashore when it was
authorized in 1962. My father and brother still operate a dairy
on this land, under the reservation of use and occupancy with
the National Park Service. After college I married a local
dairyman, and in 1973 moved to a 773-acre dairy on the East
Side of Tomales Bay, across from the Point Reyes National
Seashore. This land is within the proposed area to be included
in the Point Reyes National Seashore Farmland Protection Act.
Since being widowed in 1984, I have continued to operate the
dairy. We milk 300 cows twice daily, produce 2,500 gallons of
milk. That along with 50 other dairies in Marin County provide
25 percent of the milk for the San Francisco metropolitan bay
area.
My family and I are committed to agriculture. It is hard
work, but it is what we know and love. Although it certainly
was not our purpose, for the past 30 years agriculture has also
preserved the east shore of Tomales Bay from development, that
would otherwise destroy the extraordinary pristine quality of
the bay, and the integrity and character of the Point Reyes
National Seashore.
As an active participant in the agricultural community, I
am a 20 plus year member of the Marin County Farm Bureau, as
well as Western United Dairymen, as well as the local Chamber
of Commerce. In 1994 Governor Pete Wilson appointed me to the
California Coastal Commission, where I served for 2 years. In
1986 the Marin County Board of Supervisors appointed me to the
15-member board of the Marin County Agricultural Land Trust,
where I served for 9 years. I was chairman of that board for 2
years, as well as chairman of the Agricultural Committee for
several years. MALT's nationally recognized program is highly
respected by farmer and non-farmer alike. It has successfully
purchased easements on 25,504 acres of the 150,000 acres
critical to Marin's ag industry.
In the past to fund MALT easement program we have used
money from a local foundation from the California Coastal
Conservancy, as well as $15 million from State Proposition 70.
There is still a long list of property owners who are
interested in selling their easements on their land. We have
twice tried within the county, and participated in another
state proposition to obtain more funds, but have failed
narrowing the two-thirds vote required. Because of the
popularity of the Point Reyes National Seashore with the people
throughout the United States the concept was developed that
this open space along Tomales Bay deserves national support.
I was not especially enthusiastic about this idea in the
beginning. We certainly do not need more land and public
ownership in Marin County, and I had many questions concerning
accessibility, funding, and administration. In the past 3 years
Lynn Woolsey has closely listened to all the property owners
and sincerely tried to address their concerns, while protecting
the investment for the people of the entire United States. In
its form today I am now in full support of H.R. 1995. No new
authority to regulate private land is granted in this
legislation. If and when the Federal Government purchases the
conservation easement, the conservation easement protects the
landowner. The conservation easements acquired as a result of
this Act will expressly permit hunting, predator control, use
of lawful pesticides, just as MALT easements do. MALT is
specified in the bill to manage and monitor these easements.
My 773-acre property is very desirable for development. We
are reminded of how desirable this property is every weekend by
the guests of our bed and breakfast. However, I prefer to have
the option to sell a conservation easement on this productive
land, for me and my heirs to continue our stewardship of this
land and agriculture. We have planted 5 acres of vineyards in
an effort to diversify for viability. The money we could
receive from this act would help us to buy more land for
vineyards to build a winery, or creamery for a cheese operation
without incurring heavy debt. We have four adult children who
are very interested in agricultural operators. Upon my death,
these funds could be used to help supplement my life insurance
and pay my heirs' inheritance taxes, so my children would not
be forced to sell the land.
Because of the positive experience that my family has had
with the tenants of the National Park Service, I would
willingly enter into an agreement to sell my conservation
easements to the National Park Service. For over 25 years the
tenants of the National Park Service within the Point Reyes
National Seashore have enjoyed a positive relationship. These
tenants have together signed a petition, which I'm submitting
as part of my testimony today to substantiate that
relationship.
It reads, ``We the undersigned ranchers and residents of
the Point Reyes National Seashore wish to dispel certain
misinformation about our relationship with the seashore. In
particular, we would like it be publicly known that our
relationship with the National Park Service is generally
harmonious.'' And it is signed by the current tenants of the
seashore.
I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to
testify here today in support of H.R. 1995.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Doughty may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much.
Questions for the panel?
Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would defer to the gentlelady from
California.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, that was excellent testimony. Thank
you for being so patient and waiting so long.
First, with Bob Berner. Can you tell me what the confusion
is among those who are in opposition to this bill, regarding
the Williamson Act? They seem to think that the Williamson Act
will do the same thing as the conservation easements. I think
they're missing a point.
Could you put that in words for us?
Mr. Berner. Well, I can't speak for other people, but the
Williamson Act is a short-term provision, an agreement between
the landowner and the county, whereby the landowner is taxed
based upon agricultural use rather than market value, in
exchange for commitment to maintain the property and
agriculture for a 9- to 10-year period.
Ms. Woolsey. But it does not add any new income to the
landowner.
Mr. Berner. That's correct. It does not address the problem
I described of high land values and the difficulties of farming
families when they have to treat the land as a financial asset,
and not just as a natural resource. Zoning and the Williamson
Act, public policy in general simply is not a tool, which is
useful in a region like ours to address this economic problem.
Ms. Woolsey. And under H.R. 1995 wouldn't the land with
agricultural conservation easements be taxed at ag value, not
at development value? So they would still have the benefit----
Mr. Berner. When a landowner sells the conservation
easement, if that property is not already in the Williamson Act
the landowner would, I think, invariably enter into the
Williamson Act, a contract for the county, so it would be taxed
based upon its agricultural use.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.
Sharon, you've come from a large ranching family, and I'd
like, if you would, to go a little bit beyond your own
concerns.
Do the other members of your family have concerns about
this bill, and have we through our changes answered most or all
of those concerns?
Ms. Doughty. Yes. Besides my piece of property, my family
also owns more property within this zone. And again, we are
conservative farmers. There were definitely--my Republican
father was very concerned about what this would mean to that
property and to our family, and he has worked very closely--all
of us have worked very closely in expressing our concerns, and
he has--in the last version of the bill was very delighted with
the changes that were made; felt that we could definitely live
viably within what was being presented. And he said to me, that
he was quite impressed with you, Lynn, because you had listened
to us, and your tenaciousness in meeting with all of us, and
finding out what we all needed and felt--you've done a
wonderful job of representing us.
Ms. Woolsey. I guess I was the straight man for that one,
Mr. Chairman. I wasn't asking for a compliment. I really wanted
to make sure that I have answered a good number of the concerns
of your family as well as the others----
Ms. Doughty. Well, we certainly feel that you have been
very tenacious----
Ms. Woolsey. Well, thank you.
Ms. Doughty. [continuing] in making sure that our concerns
were met, and that farming would in fact survive. That was the
point.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.
Supervisor Kinsey, let's talk about the 2.5 million
visitors that visit the Point Reyes National Seashore every
year. It's one of the most visited national parks in the
nation, and that keeps getting lost I think in what we're
talking about here.
Those visitors travel through Marin County. What does that
bring to your county?
Mr. Kinsey. Well, I think, Congresswoman, really it brings
a tremendous amount to our county, not only the cultural
exchange that obviously happens when you have visitors from
around the world, but certainly a tremendous boost to our
economy. And in fact, there certainly are 2.5 million visitors
who come to the National Seashore each year. They are just a
part of the over 6.5 million visitors who come to all of Marin
County on an annual basis to enjoy, not just the seashore, but
the Golden Gate national recreational areas as well.
Within the seashore itself I think Superintendent Neubacher
mentioned earlier today that over $100 million a year is
brought to the local economy, and that contribution has a
tremendous benefit. It serves not only to increase the sales
taxes and the overnight occupancy taxes that help to fund a
number of our county services, including the public safety
services that many rural communities cannot afford; but it
provides the opportunity for many of our residents to work
locally, which has enormous benefits to strengthen the family
values, and to reduce the environmental impacts that long
distance commuting provide to so many urban areas.
So I would say that there is a significant environmental as
well as cultural and economic benefit to having the park, and
we extend ourselves generously I hope to those visitors because
we want to provide a real sense of hospitality to people that
come to Marin County.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, I've used my time.
Mr. Hansen. Gentleman from California.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kinsey as one of those people who has boosted the
economy in Marin County on a number of occasions on my visits
to Point Reyes. I can understand why the people are interested
in protecting that area, and it is a beautiful area. And
there's no question about that.
But what do you think this legislation--what power does
this legislation give you, or what authority does it take to
protect this area that you don't believe you currently have as
the lead authority in land use planning in Marin County?
Mr. Kinsey. Mr. Pombo, I believe that this legislation is
primarily developing an economic partnership between the
Federal Government and the local community to fulfill our land
use expectations and aspirations. It's a voluntary bill, and
for those landowners who don't choose to exercise the options
available through this legislation, we have--if not a welcome
door, certainly an open door in Marin County that would allow
individuals to apply.
As I mentioned in my testimony, we currently have a
proposal on a 1,200-acre ranch for a subdivision of that ranch,
the first of its kind within the coastal ag zoning. I would say
that this is not about fulfilling our land use expectations in
ways that we cannot as Marin County; this is about
strengthening the partnership between the Federal Government
and the long-term efforts of Marin County to sustain our
agricultural heritage.
Mr. Pombo. So, in your mind it gives you no greater land
use authority than what you currently have, but it gets the
money; it brings money to the table.
Mr. Kinsey. It does not in any way affect the land use
authority that the county currently has; that's correct.
Mr. Pombo. Have you supported in the past the development?
I think you said that your county was on 60 acres development,
was the minimum. Have you supported those developments in the
past?
Mr. Kinsey. As I mentioned, Mr. Pombo, this is the first
application within the coastal ag zoning for a subdivision of a
ranch. What I have done is to make it clear to our staff that
we need to treat this application with all fairness, and as
such, we are determining that that application is complete as
of this week, and we will begin the environmental review
process and the public hearings, and consideration of the
project on its merits, as it applies to our current zoning.
Our zoning----
Mr. Pombo. Is this the first time that there has been an
application to subdivide into 60-acre blocks within this area?
Mr. Kinsey. Within the coastal ag zoning this is--the areas
within the Farmland Protection Act boundaries; this is the
first subdivision that has been proposed.
What I would say is that, the zoning that we have is very
strict. It's very clear that our intention is to support
agriculture, and that agriculture is the primary intention that
we choose to accomplish. So for a subdivision to be deemed
appropriate it needs to show that it's a secondary use to the
primary use of agriculture. So there's no question--and I don't
want to mislead anyone here to think that we have lax zoning
that would allow for agriculture to slip away from us. But this
legislation, should it be successful, will strengthen our hand,
and more importantly, will provide individuals who choose to
participate with the opportunity to stay on their lands, as
opposed to feel compelled for personal reasons, financial
hardship, to either sell the lands or attempt to subdivide the
land in order to continue their lifestyle.
Mr. Pombo. I think you've established that the greatest
need in this area is dollars, in purchasing the conservation
easement on those lands; that it's not a lack of land use
ability that the county has, but it's a lack of dollars, and
that that is the primary motivation with legislation like this.
Is that correct or is that incorrect? Because if there's no
land use authority included in this bill, if there's no
restrictions that are included in this bill, if there's no way
that we are in any way taking away any of your land use
authority, or any of the property rights of the people
involved--the property owners involved, then the only thing
left in that scenario is the dollars.
Mr. Kinsey. I think that, while I would agree that the land
use authority is maintained with Marin County, the value of
this bill goes far beyond the economic benefit alone.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Berner, if you want to respond to that. I'm
very curious because I'm not--I'm not totally opposed to this
idea because we have a program very similar to it in my own
county. But the argument that is continually made is that, it's
no new land use authority, and there's nothing there. And if
that's the case, why do you need a Federal bill?
If it's just the dollars, then let's just say, OK, it's
just the dollars, let's work on that. But if it's not that,
tell me what it is.
Mr. Berner. Well, I think the bill as it is written is very
clear about that. All it does is authorize Federal funds to be
used to purchase conservation easements in order to preserve
the land for agriculture. As I tried to indicate my testimony--
--
Mr. Pombo. It's several pages, and I've reviewed the bill,
and it's more than just an authorization. I've done
authorization bills before, and you don't need several pages to
just do an authorization bill.
Mr. Berner. The problem in Marin County--and this is a
problem that's shared in other agricultural communities
adjacent to urban areas--is that land prices have risen far
beyond any values based upon agricultural land. And while that
in some senses is a windfall to the landowner, it also presents
them with a host of problems. It makes it difficult to pass
land from one generation to the next because of high estate
taxes. It makes it difficult for a young farmer or rancher to
buy land because it has to be paid for at market value by----
Mr. Pombo. Coming from a seventh generation farm family----
Mr. Berner. OK. You know all this.
Mr. Pombo. [continuing] I'm very familiar with that.
Mr. Berner. So, the solution that Marin county has tried to
apply to this problem for the last 17 years, is to support a
program which offers landowners an option. Instead of having to
sell the land, or consider dividing it, or developing it, they
instead can sell a conservation easement. And in that way
realize some of the capital value of the land without having to
change what they're doing. We have spent some $17 million in
the county over the last 15 years doing that. We will continue
doing that, but the magnitude of the need is greater than the
local funding is going to be able to meet. And because Point
Reyes National Seashore is so importantly related to at least
some of these agricultural lands, we are urging Congress to
consider the idea of sharing with us the cost of offering this
conservation option to agricultural landowners.
Mr. Pombo. Let me ask you a question--Do you have any
questions----
Mr. Gilchrest. Um----
Mr. Pombo. Very quickly I'll ask one more question, then
I'll yield to him.
Mr. Hansen. Well, I thought he could yield to you if he
didn't have any questions.
Mr. Gilchrest. I have one.
Mr. Hansen. Well, why don't you take the floor----
Mr. Gilchrest. I'll take my time and----
Mr. Hansen. [continuing] yield to Mr. Pombo, and then come
back to your question.
Mr. Gilchrest. [continuing] yield--I'll yield to the
gentleman from California, with a quick question.
Mr. Hansen. That way, we'll use the time wisely.
Mr. Pombo. Thanks, Wayne.
Just one final question. If we came up with legislation
that all it was was an authorization for a grant that would go
into an organization--not necessarily yours, but an
organization like yours--to purchase conservation easement for
the protection of agriculture in this area, and gave no other
authority whatsoever--that's all it did--would that accomplish
what you want?
Mr. Berner. Yes, sir. And I think that's all we think this
bill does.
Mr. Pombo. No, there are a lot of concerns that this bill
could go----
Mr. Berner. I understand, but that is----
Mr. Pombo. [continunig] beyond that. That was the question.
Thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Hansen. Gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Gilchrest. I guess to some extent that was my question,
and I'm from Maryland, and we have conservation easement
program where we simply buy the development rights from a
farmer, and then that farm stays in a permanent easement from
now until the end of time. And it's an excellent program,
except there's never quite enough money to do that. And there's
more farmers that want to do it than there is a money available
for that, and so we mixed the little Federal fund about year--I
guess it's about a year ago. It's $35 million nationwide to be
distributed to those states that have those kinds of programs.
And I guess I'd like maybe just a quick answer from
especially the dairy rancher. Ma'am. I'm not sure where you are
on this panel. But I guess if we could--whether it's Lynn's
bill or somebody else's bill, the intent here is to help state,
Federal, local govern-
ment, private landowners to preserve agricultural land in the
United States. It's my understanding we lose about a million
acres a year. In my small state of Maryland we lose 25,000
acres a year, and that's a lot for us.
So we're attempting to give money in cooperation with the
state programs, to preserve agriculture, not to create natural
parks or BLM land--and there's nothing wrong with those
things--but to preserve agriculture.
Now, is there anybody on the panel that has some sense that
this bill would preserve agriculture for a short period of
time, and the likelihood that it would turn into a national
park later because of this legislation?
Ms. Doughty. No.
Mr. Berner. No, sir.
Mr. Kinsey. No.
Mr. Gilchrest. I guess we should go vote, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. OK. Thank you very much. Just let me ask one
other quicky here.
You've all talked about conservation easements. Do any of
you envision or support park service acquisition of private
property? Keep in mind that takes it off the tax rolls. Do any
of you support that?
Mr. Kinsey. Well, I consider this bill to be primarily an
easement acquisition program. I think that with willing
landowner--a willing seller and a willing buyer on the part of
the Federal Government, that on a merit basis you could
consider certain plans. But I would strongly discourage that
because of my interest in maintaining both the tax rolls and
the active agriculture in our county.
Mr. Hansen. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate the
panel's comments.
We'll turn to our last panel; Martin and Sally Pozzi, Mary
Coletti, Donna Furlong, and Judy Borello, please come forward,
please.
Now, if you folks--I could ask you to wait just a minute,
I'd really appreciate. We're going to have to go vote. And as
soon as Lynn Woolsey gets back, the gentleman from the American
Samoa will bang the gavel, and we're start again.
[Recess.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. The Committee will reconvene again. We'd
like to call on our next panel, our final panel here.
Mr. Martin and Sally Pozzi; Ms. Mary Coletti; Ms. Donna
Furlong; and Ms. Judy Borello. We would like to welcome you to
the Committee, and would like to hear your testimony right now.
Mr. and Mrs. Pozzi.
STATEMENT OF MARTIN AND SALLY POZZI, RANCHERS
Mr. Pozzi. Thank you. My name is Martin Pozzi. I'm a fifth
generation rancher in the Sonoma Marin area. I have come to
testify for this Committee, representing Cattlemen's
Association and as a landowner. Ms. Woolsey, my Congresswoman,
has introduced legislation which will make my ranch part of the
Point Reyes National Seashore. When I first learned of this
legislation she had intro-
duced it in the 103d Congress, without even telling the
landowners, and was proposing to introduce it in the 104th.
As president of the Marin County Farm Bureau, by direction
of board, I indicated that the legislation was unacceptable.
The major concerns were, the park boundary, private property
rights, and the lack of funding. After our meeting, Lynn sent a
letter to all the landowners, stating that we had met, and that
our concerns had been taken care of. She has made changes, but
the main concerns still remain.
As Ms. Coletti will testify, we have letters from
overwhelming from overwhelming majority of landowners,
indicating opposition to their land being included it the Point
Reyes National Seashore.
My family sold an agriculture conservation easement to the
local Marin Agricultural Land Trust organization, that this
legislation was modeled after. My eight siblings and father--
all co-owners of this ranch--committed to limiting the uses of
our ranch to agriculture.
The proceeds from MALT were used to purchase a neighboring
ranch to expand our agricultural holdings, making room for my
brother and myself to have agricultural operations. We support
the use of voluntary conservation easements as a tool for the
preservation of ag lands. Our ranch will never be developed.
Now we will be penalized by having it become park land, which
will jeopardize the one use we were trying to protect it for.
This is instant creation of park without compensation.
The creation of the Point Reyes National Seashore and
acquisition of land from the owners has happened in my
lifetime. I have been aware of what has happened to most of the
27 original dairies and numerous ranching operations which are
all now park land. Although the original legislation was
supposed to protect landowners of more than 500 acres in active
agriculture, not one is still privately owned.
Correspondence from the author, her staff, and her experts
claim that the program is completely voluntary. The legislation
states:
Section 3, ``Addition of farmland protection areas to the
Point Reyes National Seashore. a) Addition Section 2 of the Act
entitled, an act to establish the Point Reyes National Seashore
in the State of California, and for other purposes, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
The Point Reyes National Seashore shall also include the
farmland protection area.'' This is not voluntary.
The agriculture experts have openly stated that this will
not preserve agriculture, and the largest agricultural
organizations in the world are very distressed with a thinly
veiled attempt to use agriculture for park expansion.
As Bob Vice, president of California Farm Bureau Federation
wrote to her, ``You do not preserve farm and ranch land by
making it part of the park system.'' Our agriculture operations
are more threatened by the expansion of park than by
development.
I believe the public, your constituents, want to preserve
agriculture land, and are reluctant to pay for expansion of
park land. The opportunity to do what Ms. Woolsey describes as
voluntary use of conservation easements to protect this
agriculture land with willing landowners, can and should be
accomplished. Increase fund-
ing in the Department of Agriculture's Conservation Easement
Program so the use of voluntary easements can be accomplished.
This is the department of our government with expertise in
agriculture, and should be responsible for the easements, not
the Department of Interior, which specializes in parks.
I have worked my whole life on my family's 1,200-acre
ranch. We had a dairy until the late 1970's, and since have
raise sheep and beef cattle. I supported my youngest siblings
with my ranch operation, enabling them to attend college. All
nine of us graduated. My wife and I have a 2-year old daughter,
who spends time with us on the ranch, and loves it as much as
we do. We have a 4-month old son, and we almost named him Park
Pozzi, because this issue has taken up so much of our lives. My
children are the sixth generation in my family to be in
agriculture. I want to ensure that my children will be able to
continue my agriculture heritage.
Ever since I was in third grade I knew I wanted to be a
rancher. I worked hard toward that end goal, getting my college
degree in animal science with a minor in business, and being
active in agricultural organizations. Please do not include
this land in a national park. Thank you for allowing me to be
here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pozzi may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Pombo. [presiding] Thank you.
Ms. Coletti. My turn?
Mr. Pombo. Yes.
STATEMENT OF MARY COLETTI, RANCHER
Ms. Coletti. My name is Mary Coletti. My family has been
ranching our land for five generations. This same land is being
left in trust to our children, who plan to continue our
ranching operation.
I have been to numerous meetings concerning this 38,000
acre park expansion bill. I have witnessed overwhelming
landowner opposition, and, very little landowner support (as
the map illustrates). In addition, opposition to this park
expansion bill has been expressed by the farm groups and the
taxpayers organizations.1
------------
Opposition has been expressed by farm groups. American Farm
Bureau Federation, California Farm Bureau Federation,
California Cattlemen's Association, California Wool Growers
Association (refer to letter dated 11/04/97), North Bay Wool
Growers, Sonoma County Farm Bureau, Fresno County Farm Bureau,
Kings County Farm Bureau. (refer to submitted letter)
Ms. Woolsey, you wrote December 5th; ``As I made clear on
our November 26th meeting, I will not proceed in Washington
without the support of the landowners.'' And on the 22nd of
December; ``Let me assure you that Chairman Young gave me his
word, and I have given the landowners my word that this bill
will only move forward with local support.'' (Letters subitted
for the record)
Somehow our concerns have not been heard so I helped form
``Citizens for Protecting Farmland.'' Our purpose is to educate
the public and our legislators as to the facts of this bill,
and to reiterate our concerns and opposition to this bill. A
packet was prepared, and I would like to enter this into the
record now.
We are a group of landowners within the proposed park
boundary, representing over 22,000 acres opposed to the bill.
5,700 addi-
tional acres have serious concerns, but are leery of speaking
up; Plus we've just received two other letters in opposition to
the bill.2
------------
Since the publication of the packet, we recieved additional
letters. 23,679.18 acres are opposed and 2,540.26 acres have
major concerns for a total of 26,219.44. A letter from Margaret
Nobmann, Luke and Josh Stevens are included. The charts have
been updated and are included. Pages 9, 10, 10.1, 11, are
included. Mr. Williamsen, 39, is deceased, his wife and
children continue to be opposed to the bill.
Of the 38,000 acres, over 27,000 acres are protected from
development from the Williamson Act. Over 11,500 acres are
protected by the Marin County Agricultural Land Trust, MALT,
and the Sonoma County Preservation Trust, SALT. More is
protected by government ownership. (as maps illustrate)
Of the 38,000 acres, all development rights are protected
by stringent local laws and zonings, which have been in effect
for 25 years; 120 acres per dwelling in Sonoma; and 60 acres
per dwelling in Marin. Marin County may be the only county to
require mandatory conservation easements in order to build a
dwelling. If protected by MALT, SALT, and the Williamson Act,
the development rights are even more restrictive. (see map)
Because of all of the above, very few building permits have
been issued over the past 10 to 15 years. further testimony
that there is no push for development, nor a need for this
bill. These are family farms that have been in operation since
the 1800's.
H.R. 1135 and H.R. 1995 is not the first time that farmland
has been included within the Point Reyes National Seashore park
boundary. Farmers fought to save their land from becoming park
land in the 1960's and 1970's, and now, none of that land is
privately owned.3
------------
Merv McDonald submitted testimony pointing out that some
ranchers were forced out of the boundary and the land became
part of the Pt. Reyes National Seashore. (Refer to the attached
letter.)
Congresswoman Woolsey, if you're concerned about preserving
farmland, as your title for your legislation implies, I would
strongly encourage you, with Congress' help, to increase
funding to the USDA Conservation Easement program and include
our area as one to receive the funds to purchase easements in
Sonoma and Marin Counties. This would allow funding for anyone
that would like to sell their easements to their land without
the expansion of the Point Reyes National Seashore park, and
creating a ``public/private'' partnership or a ``local/
Federal'' partnership. This would not place an involuntary park
boundary over our land. We are the best stewards of our land.
Keeping the agricultural easements under the Department of
Agriculture, not the Department of Interior as part of a park,
will help the farmers the most in the long-run as history has
shown.
The large map illustrates the landowner opposition to this
park expansion.4 All the maps illustrate the lack of
need for such a bill to prevent development. Please help my
family, and the families of the other farmers who want to
continue to ranch without being included within the Point Reyes
National Seashore park boundary. Having a aprk boundary over
our land is not voluntary and is a waste of the taxpayers'
money. Thank you for hearing me.
------------
Opposition has been expressed to Ms. Woolsey. The chart on
page 10 lists landowners who submitted letters (pages 21-70) or
signed petitions (pages 71-81). To our knowledge these
landowners have not changed their position and are still
opposed to this legislation.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Coletti may be found at end
of hearing.]
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Pombo. Thank you very much.
Ms. Furlong.
STATEMENT OF DONNA FURLONG, RANCHER
Ms. Furlong. Good afternoon, gentlemen. My name is Donna
Furlong, and I've been ranching for most of my adult life.
After my husband passed away 14 years ago, I continued the
family business of raising beef, cattle, and sheep because I
wanted to pass the family tradition on to my four sons and my
grandchildren.
I am here today as a landowner who will be affected, and
also as a representative of the California Wool Growers
Association. You all received a letter from the California Wool
Growers. I would like to read an excerpt of that letter.
``The California Wool Growers Association opposes H.R. 1135
and H.R. 1995, which expands the Point Reyes National Seashore.
Both of the respective bills are misleading in title and
summary. While the author claims to be giving the Secretary of
Agriculture the authority and appropriations for farmland
conservation easements, it is clear that this is nothing more
than a park expansion bill. And while the author insists that
the bill is intended to preserve farmland, it does nothing more
than create public access, where there's now private farmland,
at the expense of taxpayers, local farmers, and ranchers.''
Most of the people I know want to preserve this farmland
for future generations. They do not disagree with conservation
easement, but do not want to be included within a park
boundary. This has been touted as buffer zone for the park. The
bay is already a natural buffer zone. Park land means public
access, and public access means lots of headaches for a
rancher.
This bill in the beginning offered assurances that no
public trails could be put through the properties involved.
This was taken out. This is a grave concern of mine. The
general public will not honor a fence, and once they enter your
property, even though they have no right whatsoever to be
there, they want you to be responsible for their actions. What
if my bull doesn't like their looks?
My main concern is funding. This bill is on a matching-fund
basis. Marin County does not have sales tax to fund open space
and conservation easement. Marin County taxpayers voted down
Measure A last November, which would have provided the Marin
Agricultural Land Trust with money to fund conservation
easements. The voters of California turned down Cal Paw 1994
which would have provided the Marin Agricultural Land Trust
with money. The voters have said they do not want to fund more
park land, so where will Marin County get the matching fund?
The only matching fund Marin County has is around $15 million.
Fifteen million dollars is not enough to purchase conservation
easements within this boundary.
Before such a bill is ever considered, there should be
enough funds available for just compensation for all properties
within the area. You should not put a boundary around land, and
then decide what just compensation is, and where the money will
come from. A licensed appraiser has told me that being in a
park boundary cannot help but lower your property value.
Most people in agriculture want to continue, but it has to
be viable. If you are truly interested in saving ag, help us
with the bottom line, but don't put a boundary around it. If I
put an easement on my property, and you allow predators to run
amok as they do in the park, and I can no longer raise
livestock, what do I do? Sit and look at my beautiful view of
the ocean, or sell out at a very reduced price? I feel that
this bill takes away my property rights with out just
compensation. My property rights have already been infringed on
by the Coastal Commission, the Planning Department, and the
Gulf of Farallones National Marin Sanctuary. Don't add another
layer of regulation. I would urge you please not to consider
this bill. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Furlong may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you very much. Ms. Borello.
STATEMENT OF JUDY BORELLO, RANCHER
Ms. Borello. My name is Judy Borello, and I own a 864-acre
ranch within the proposed Farmland Protection Act. My reasons
for opposing this bill are as follows:
When Ms. Woolsey, by the way, got up here today and said
that the people--the ranchers for her bill within the zone are
more in the majority to support the bill--it's totally wrong
and bogus. Two-thirds of the ranchers within the proposed
boundary do not want the supposed protection that her bill
recommends. And the proof--you can always talk to Martin Pozzi,
who's past president of the Farm Bureau, because there were
signed letters, signed signatures; two-thirds of the majority
of the ranchers within the zone are opposed to the bill.
In 1972 we could build a house on every 2 acres, then we
ranchers were rezoned one house every 60 acres; a devaluation
of 30 times of our property value. Right after the great
devaluation took place, 95 percent of the ranchers joined a
state program called Williamson Act. For a substantial
reduction in taxes the ranchers opted to not develop their
ranches, leaving their land in open space for the next 10
years. But the program automatically self renews itself every
day for 10 years. So, every day you're being renewed for 10
years, and so far I haven't known any rancher that's pulled out
of Williamson Act, so there's a real layer of protection right
there.
On top of these two layers or protection, 40 percent of the
38,000 acres within the proposed boundary has been purchased by
the Marin Agricultural Land Trust, which is referred to as
MALT. This means that, even though the development rights
cannot be used under Williamson Act--in other words they're
kind of in a neutered position--they are now permanently
extinguished under the rights to purchase a MALT easement.
To add to all of this already protection of the land on the
east shore of Tomales Bay, which is the land in question on
this bill, is a very scarce amount of water, due to the fact
that our land is geologically referred to as Franciscan
formation, which is known for its low bearing and inadequate
for water bearing supplies. There are like scarce pockets of
the water in different places, but it basically isn't an
abundantly watered piece of land. Reference to USGS Water
Supply Paper 1427, Geology and Groundwater in Sonoma and Marin
Counties is where you can find this information.
Summing all of this up and based on a logical conclusion,
do we need to spend the hard-earned tax dollar of the American
people to purchase what is already protected? There is 80,000
acres of park land already purchased, and can't be fully
maintained because of the lack of funding. So why purchase
more? In fact, over 50 percent of our Marin County is off the
private tax rolls, and these are in state, Federal, or county
park or open spaced districts.
My ranch is being lethally affected by this bill because,
my late husband, Robert Borello, who met an untimely death due
a car accident in October 1992, was the past president of the
Farm Bureau, and one of the longest serving directors in past
history. He was a staunch believer in retaining agricultural
land values and property rights. He opted not to put Borello
Ranch under Williamson Act, believing that if you take the
government carrot, you get the government noose. He kept his
development right intact by paying full taxes, developed a
thriving rock quarry, septic ponds for the West Marin County
community, and parts of Sonoma County. He developed large dams
on the property, one of which is 40-acre foot dam, and spring
fed, never losing half of its capacity. His hard work,
foresight, and determination created these assets, and now with
this Farmland Protection Act on a seemingly not-well-hidden
park bill, I stand to lose a lot as well as my neighbors.
The quarry has been idle since Robert's death. Three quarry
outfits have wanted to lease it, but when faced with the
pending park bill, have backed off, watching to see what
happens. On November 17th the quarry will be reviewed by the
Board on Mining, and there's a chance the quarry could be
closed permanently because idle position is granted for only so
long of a time.
Due to this 5-year fracas over this park bill--let alone if
it passed--I stand to lose a substantial amount of money while
it also clouds the title to sell my ranch to the private
sector. I believe that my fellow ranchers and myself deserve a
lot better from this. I would like to see agriculture easements
available to ranchers, but not at the expense of forcing the
many into while a few gain a deal. It's very funny to me that
the agriculturalists, the ranchers themselves, including the ag
experts in this deal say, they don't want it, it's not
protecting them, when in fact it weakens them. But the
politically non-savvy, non-agriculturally knowledgeable people,
will tell the rancher what's right for him, and force it upon
him, while portraying to the public how they saved agriculture.
I know that the Democrats and Republicans have come
together over fiscal responsibility issues, and I hope that
this Committee will see the wisdom of not wasting taxpayers'
money on this faulty bill. Perhaps if this bill guaranteed the
rancher the right to be fully compensated for his land as in
the original park bill, it would have a chance; but not this
forced boundary with limited compensation.
Thank you for allowing me time to speak on this issue. P.S.
Many politicians and environmentalists lust after our privately
owned land. They refer to it as their sacred viewshed. Don't
try to take it from us with this cheap shot Farm Land
Protection Act bill; after all, I believe there is still a
commandment that says Thou shall not steal. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Borello may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to defer to the
gentlelady from California.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that after this vote, we're
going to have six in a row, so let's try to do this, and then
we can let everybody out of this room.
First of all, I want you to know, all of you up here as
witnesses, thank you for coming. I cannot wait until the day we
sit down, realize the misinformation that's been kicked around,
and realize the benefits of still being in agriculture and at
the same time your neighbors have the benefit of volunteering
into these easements if they want them. I look forward to that.
I think it's going to happen. I wouldn't be doing this if I
didn't think it could happen.
But, you know, there's a lot of confusion. There's
something that confuses me, Judy, about your testimony. I know
after our sitting and talking you worry about the value of your
quarry. In response to this concern, this bill includes
language, language actually that Representative Pombo
questioned. It's on page 5, line 13 of the bill.
Ms. Borello. Lynn, can I say something here?
Ms. Woolsey. No, no, let me finish, please.
Ms. Borello. To answer you.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, I will let you. But I want to make sure
you know that this bill makes it possible for you and others to
negotiate voluntarily for in-fee purchase of your land. And
that was so that you could be fully compensated for that land.
So my question to you, how could you be against this bill,
when actually your major concern is answered in the bill?
Ms. Borello. OK, I will answer you. First of all, when this
bill first started, Gary Giacomini was our supervisor. He was
going to get $70 or $80 million worth of seed money here to try
to take care of everybody. I was at that time told by Gary, who
was friends with my late husband, that my ranch would come out
in fee, because it is the only real deal. It isn't in
Williamson Act. It has development rights.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, you could put it in.
Ms. Borello. OK. It has a quarry. It's very diverse from
the other ranches, all right?
Ms. Woolsey. OK, I'm going----
Ms. Borello. But let me finish----
Ms. Woolsey. No, wait a minute. I need to take----
Ms. Borello. So then I count on the facts----
Ms. Woolsey. No, excuse me, Judy.
Ms. Borello. [continuing] that I'm going to be bought out
in fee, and all of a sudden at the April meeting with you----
Mr. Pombo. The gentlewoman from California controls the
time, and we're trying to keep this----
Ms. Woolsey. Yes. Judy, let me respond.
Mr. Pombo. [continuing] I'm trying to keep this as good as
we can.
Ms. Borello. Well, I need to answer her question.
Ms. Woolsey. No, Judy, what you need to know----
Ms. Borello. At that meeting you guys dumped me, but in the
meantime the bill wasn't taking care of other people either.
Mr. Pombo. Please, let's try to keep this as calm as we
can. I will give you ample opportunity to respond. If there is
not time in the hearing, I will give you the opportunity to
respond in writing, and your entire testimony will be included
in the record at this point.
Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much, Mr. Pombo.
And Judy, it's not that I'm cutting you off. I've got a lot
of questions. And my point is, we did answer your concern in
the bill. So we'll go from there to more misinformation.
The point keeps being made by those at the table that the
landowners in the pastoral zone at the Point Reyes National
Seashore ended up having their land purchased. They came to the
Congress and asked if they could be bought out. That is why it
happened. They came to the Congress and asked, because the
original bill prohibited purchase of their land, and that
request was honored. So please, we don't need that
misinformation.
There is also misinformation about whether or not the
majority of the landowners support this bill. Believe me, I sat
with them, one-on-one; the majority does. The Citizens for
Protecting Farmlands report has people listed that have sent me
letters just recently, supporting the bill. You have a deceased
person on that list. You have people registered both as
property owners, and they're counted twice. You're double-
counting people.
So, all I can tell you, is that that's----
Ms. Borello. Could you supply us with signatures----
Ms. Woolsey. [continuing] misinformation.
Ms. Borello. [continuing] of people that are for your
bill----
Mr. Pombo. Is that a question?
Ms. Woolsey. No, my question is--now, I want to go on
beyond that. I want to talk about the letter of misinformation
that came from the Woolgrowers. Actually an example of the
misinformation--my point is proved in what you said, Donna. You
say that--you're quoting them, ``While the author claims to be
giving the Secretary of Agriculture the authority . . .'' It
shows how little they know about this bill. It's the Secretary
of Interior that we're dealing with.
People have not paid any attention to this bill. The
information that came from the cattlemen, full paragraph,
talking about letting people on the land for viewing, public
access, no hunting. None of that--all of that is protected for
you in the bill; absolutely.
How are we ever going to get together when I keep hearing
misinformation. You refuse to hear what's really in the bill.
Once you do, and then I think we deal with it actually.
Now, Martin and Sally, I have a question.
I understand that you sold your conservation easements on
your land.
Mr. Pozzi. Correct.
Ms. Woolsey. And that has worked well for your family, I
believe.
Mr. Pozzi. Correct.
Ms. Woolsey. I think you need to know a story that I heard
when I was going around talking to the neighbors and the
farmers.
Two different farmers that I talked to--landowners who have
MALTED easements on their land, told me point blank--and now
I'm telling you they told me this. They told me that they did
not like my bill because if their neighbor needed to sell they
did not want to have to compete with fair market value. They
didn't want to compete with H.R. 1995; they wanted to buy their
neighbor out cheap.
Is that fair?
Martin?
Mr. Pozzi. I can't tell you about cheap because the
appraisals----
Ms. Woolsey. Well they want to go below the appraisal, they
tell me.
Mrs. Pozzi. We are in favor of the use of voluntary
conservation easements for the preservation of agricultural
lands. We are opposed to our land becoming part of a park. We
have sold our development right, and we didn't ask that anyone
else have their land be included in a national park or have any
other limitation in order for our land to have the conservation
easement. There are conservation easement programs available,
and we request that you use those, instead of including all of
our land in a park, and you expand on the funding in the
program that's available, instead of causing this limitation on
our land. We want to continue an active agricultural
production--a productive agriculture.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, I'm with you. We're definitely together
on that.
Mr. Pombo. I'm going to have to cut you off.
Ms. Woolsey. And I've used up all my time.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Pombo. I'm going to have to cut you off. And I've got
to apologize to this panel. We have a series of six or seven
votes, which means we're going to be over there for about 2
hours, and I'm not going to make you stay here for the 2 hours.
I will tell you that there are questions that I have, that
Mr. Faleomavaega had, and that Mr. Hansen, the chairman of the
Subcommittee, had for this panel. Those will be submitted to
you in writing.
I will encourage each of you, if you have further
statements that you would like to have included as part of the
official record, to do that, and I will hold the record open on
this hearing for 10 days, to give you an opportunity to have
all of your information included in the official record of this
hearing. But unfortunately because of the voting schedule, I'm
going to have to adjourn the hearing. And again, I apologize to
all of you for the long wait in the abbreviated hearing. But
thank you very much for coming.
Ms. Borello. Thank you for hearing us out.
Mr. Pombo. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the Committee was adjourned
subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.260
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.261
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.262
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.263
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.264
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.272
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.273
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.274
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.275
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.276
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.277
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.278
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.279
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.280
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.281
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.282
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.283
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.284
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.285
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.286
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.287
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.288
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.289
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.290
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.291
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.292
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.293
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.294
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.295
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.296
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.297
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.298
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.299
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.300
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.301
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.302
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.303
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.304
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.305
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.306
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.307
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.308
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.309
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.310
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.311
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.312
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.313
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.314
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.315
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.316
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.317
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.318
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.319
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.320
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.321
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.322
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.323
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.324
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.325
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.326
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.327
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.328
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.329
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.330
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.331
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.332
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.333
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.334
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.335
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.336
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.337
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.338
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.339
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.340
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.341
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.342
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.343
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.344
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.345
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.346
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.347
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.348
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.349
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.350
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.351
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.352
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.353
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.354
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.355
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.356
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.357
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.358
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.359
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.360
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.361
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.362
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.363
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.364
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.365
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.366
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.367
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.368
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.369
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.370
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.371
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.372
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.373
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.374
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.375
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.376
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.377
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.378
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.379
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.380
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.381
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.382
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6626.383