[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON
MAINTAINING PUBLIC LANDS FOR
HUNTING, FISHING, RANCHING
AND SMALL BUSINESSES
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 17, 2008
__________
Serial Number 110-85
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-858 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Ranking Member
CHARLIE GONZALEZ, Texas ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona TODD AKIN, Missouri
MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
MELISSA BEAN, Illinois MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas STEVE KING, Iowa
DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee
YVETTE CLARKE, New York MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii
Michael Day, Majority Staff Director
Adam Minehardt, Deputy Staff Director
Tim Slattery, Chief Counsel
Kevin Fitzpatrick, Minority Staff Director
______
STANDING SUBCOMMITTEES
Subcommittee on Finance and Tax
MELISSA BEAN, Illinois, Chairwoman
RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona VERN BUCHANAN, Florida, Ranking
MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana STEVE KING, Iowa
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania
______
Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology
BRUCE BRALEY, IOWA, Chairman
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee, Ranking
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland
YVETTE CLARKE, New York SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania TODD AKIN, Missouri
MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
.........................................................
(ii)
Subcommittee on Regulations, Health Care and Trade
CHARLES GONZALEZ, Texas, Chairman
RICK LARSEN, Washington LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia,
DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking
MELISSA BEAN, Illinois BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin STEVE KING, Iowa
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado
JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
______
Subcommittee on Urban and Rural Entrepreneurship
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina, Chairman
RICK LARSEN, Washington JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska,
MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine Ranking
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland
YVETTE CLARKE, New York MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
______
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
JASON ALTMIRE, PENNSYLVANIA, Chairman
CHARLIE GONZALEZ, Texas MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma, Ranking
RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia
(iii)
?
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M.......................................... 1
Chabot, Hon. Steve............................................... 2
WITNESSES
PANEL I:
Allred, The Honorable C. Stephen, Assistant Secretary for Land
and Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the Interior....... 4
PANEL II:
Amerine, Mr. Gary, Greys River Trophies, Daniel, WY.............. 18
Dvorak, Mr. Bill, Dvorak Expeditions, Nathrop, CO................ 19
Velasquez, Mr. Chris, Rancher, Blanco, NM........................ 21
Moyer, Mr. Scott, Down Valley Septic and Drain, Rifle, CO........ 23
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M.......................................... 36
Chabot, Hon. Steve............................................... 38
Altmire, Hon. Jason.............................................. 39
Allred, The Honorable C. Stephen, Assistant Secretary for Land
and Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the Interior....... 40
Amerine, Mr. Gary, Greys River Trophies, Daniel, WY.............. 46
Dvorak, Mr. Bill, Dvorak Expeditions, Nathrop, CO................ 50
Velasquez, Mr. Chris, Rancher, Blanco, NM........................ 55
Moyer, Mr. Scott, Down Valley Septic and Drain, Rifle, CO........ 65
(v)
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON MAINTAINING
PUBLIC LANDS FOR HUNTING, FISHING,
RANCHING AND SMALL BUSINESSES
----------
Thursday, April 17, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:43 a.m., in Room
1539, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Nydia M. Velazquez
[chair of the Committee] Presiding.
Present: Representatives Velazquez, Shuler, Clarke,
Ellsworth, Chabot, Bartlett, Akin, and Davis.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN VELAZQUEZ
Chairwoman Velazquez. Good morning. I call this hearing to
order to address maintaining public lands for hunting, fishing,
ranching and small business.
As we approach Earth Day, it is an appropriate time to
reflect on the vast natural resources of this country. This
Nation's public lands are one of the greatest national
resources. They serve as tourist destinations for millions of
Americans and generate important activity for many small
businesses. Ranchers use thousands of acres for their cattle to
graze. Hunting and fishing guides bring in tourism dollars, and
local economies see the benefit. There is also energy
development to harvest oil and gas resources.
Today's hearing will examine how Federal land policy must
account for these diverse uses of these lands and the small
businesses who access them. It is key that our Federal land
policy is balanced and account for many different categories of
small businesses that rely on public land.
One of the key drivers of the western economy has been the
use of these lands for recreational purposes. Over 87 million
Americans participated in wildlife-related recreation in 2006,
spending more than $122 billion, much of this spent on
recreation and public lands, and the vast majority of firms
that reap the benefits are small.
Hunting and fishing outfitters depend heavily on the use of
public lands. The vast majority of hunters pursue game on
public lands. And more than 50 percent of our Nation's most
prized trout streams originate on them. These dollars support
outfitters, gear manufacturers, and the hotels, restaurants,
and shops that cater to the tourists who visit these lands.
Our Nation's cattlemen have also depended on this land for
raising their herds since the 1800s. These ranchers are able to
lease these lands from the Federal Government to bring their
cattle to market. While BLM leases 160 million acres a year for
grazing purposes, there is increased concern about access and
whether the land is usable.
Energy development is obviously another important use for
our public lands. Our Nation is fortunate to have large
reserves of natural gas, much of which is on Federal lands.
This development has brought economy growth in communities
across the West. However, it must be done in a sustainable and
balanced manner.
We are all aware the energy challenges this country is
facing. Increased domestic production of oil and gas should be
part of a balanced national energy strategy. But it alone will
not address our current problems.
The Department of Interior has been invited here to discuss
what the agency is doing to meet these diverse needs. The
Federal Land Policy and Management Act charges BLM with the
responsibility of managing public land by balancing a variety
of uses. These uses include recreation, natural resource
development, grazing, and wildlife preservation. The law also
requires BLM to take into account thelong-term needs of future
generations and manage without permanently impairing the
quality of the environment.
However, the General Accounting Office has reported that
BLM has not been meeting its responsibilities for mitigating
the environmental impacts. The agency has simply not been able
to keep up with the dramatic increase in oil and gas operations
on public lands.
While drilling on certain public lands is necessary and
appropriate to meet our energy needs, it should be managed in a
way that will not destroy wildlife habitat and diminish the
hunting, fishing and grazing opportunities. These stakeholders
make a very important contribution to the small business
economy of the West, and their concerns need to be fully
considered.
The fact that this hearing coincides with Earth Day is not
a mistake. Earth Day was created to raise awareness and
appreciation for our environment, and it is my hope today to
show that there are ways to foster economic growth without
compromising a healthy, sustainable environment.
I look forward to today's testimony and thank all the
witnesses again for coming here to share their stories. I yield
now to the ranking member for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. CHABOT
Mr. Chabot. I thank the Chairwoman for yielding, and I also
thank her for holding this important hearing on the management
of Federal lands and how best to manage those lands to benefit
all Americans, including small business owners.
The Bureau of Land Management in the Department of Interior
manages about 258 million acres of land. Since the United
States began acquiring public lands about the time of the
Northwest Ordinance passage, there has been tension over how to
use those lands. About a century ago, Federal land managers
began developing a compromise for utilization of the Federal
lands, a philosophy that can best be expressed as conservation
for the greatest good, for the most people, for the longest
period of time. This methodology has come to be known as
multiple-use sustained-yield management.
This system means that no single use takes priority over
any other use on the 258 million acres under the Bureau of Land
Management's control. Proper management, and let me emphasize
proper management, should enable the public lands to be used
for a variety of uses, be it hunting, fishing,outdoor
recreation, grazing, or oil drilling.
For those who know the difficulty of maintaining a nice
lawn and a small garden, making sure that there are no weeds,
trying to prevent the neighbors' pets from chomping on the just
sprouting bushes, and controlling children's play on a newly
seeded grass, just imagine trying to do something similar on
258 million acres of land spread across the western United
States. That is the Bureau of Land Management's job, only a lot
more complicated because the agency is required to consider a
multitude of uses not just growing a green lawn.
Given the immense task delegated to an agency staffed by
human beings, I am sure that one could cross these Federal
lands and certainly find some laxness in the Bureau of Land
Management's management, just as someone could travel in any
neighborhood in the United States and find flaws in someone's
lawn.
The issue is not whether the BLM should manage the land for
multiple uses. Congress put to rest that issue in 1976 with the
passage of the Federal Land Policy Management Act. Rather, the
question is whether current practices of managing the land for
multiple uses satisfies the overriding ideal of using the
Federal lands to obtain the greatest good for the greatest
number of people for the longest period of time. I will be
interested in the witnesses' perspectives on that issue.
Finally, it is important to note that there are a large
number of small businesses that are not represented at this
hearing, the small business that must pay nearly $4 a gallon
for gasoline. If the public lands are owned by all Americans,
to benefit all Americans, we must not forget about the benefits
those businesses get from environmentally sound extraction of
oil from Federal lands.
With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you.
Now it is my pleasure to welcome the Honorable Steven
Allred.
Mr. Steven Allred is the Assistant Secretary for Land and
Minerals Management in the U.S. Department of Interior.
Previously he served as the director of the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality and Administrator of the Division of
Environmental Quality in the State. He was also the President
of the Environmental and Government Services Group of the
Morrison Knudsen Corporation. Secretary Allred received his
Bachelors of Science and Masters of Science degrees from the
University of Idaho.
Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE C. STEPHEN ALLRED, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
Mr. Allred. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Congressman Chabot,
members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to come
visit with you today.
It seems that one of the most difficult things that
challenges us, is to have the kind of communication that is
necessary to find solutions to many of these problems.
I believe that it is extremely important that government
have clear laws and rules and be responsive to the needs of our
citizens and our clients. Experience has taught me that it is
results that count, and clear processes help us ensure the
quality and transparency of those actions. Also, in order to
achieve results, it is imperative that government work
collaboratively with States, local governments, tribes, which
is a responsibility that we have, individuals, and other
stakeholders to resolve issues and develop productive
relationships and build consensus. This management approach, as
you indicated, has yielded positive results for me, not only in
this current position, but also in my previous capacity in
private business and as an environmental regulator.
One only need look at the news any of the last few days to
see the impact that energy costs are having on all sizes of
businesses. The Energy Information Administration forecasts
that that increases in crude oil will continue through the
spring and beyond. In fact, as you are probably aware, in the
last 3 days, we have had record prices for oil. Last night, it
closed at almost $115 a barrel. Equally important, and perhaps
more critical, natural gas closed at $10.53. That is very
concerning to me.
As a result of those prices, we are going to see record
levels for gasoline this spring and this summer. Increases in
these energy prices, as Congressman Chabot indicated,
especially those associated with transportation impacts, are
going to hit small businesses hard. Certainly ranching and
other operations, which are so dependent upon oil and gas, I
think are going to have a real challenge as we go forward.
As energy demand increases, along with the other multiple
uses of these lands, we have to focus on energy supplies.
According to the Energy Information Administration's latest
estimates, even with aggressive energy efficiency standards,
oil consumption will continue to rise, probably by 10 percent
by 2030. U.S. total energy use, which is also a critical
concern, is expected in that same time frame to increase about
19 percent, and that is when we see what is happening in China
and India, where demand is expected to double. It points to
increasing difficulties in obtaining the energy that we need in
the United States at reasonable costs.
A little bit of background. I am just going to summarize
this. As was said, we are stewards of some 258 million acres of
surface and some 700 million acres of Federal onshore mineral
estate. These lands provide outdoor recreation, energy,
wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, timber, and certainly the
enjoyment and protection of other natural, cultural and
historic resources.
With the rapid growth that we have had in the West, from
some 20 million in 1950 to 65 million today, pressure to meet
these various uses is complex and very demanding. Traditional
uses of the public lands, including livestock grazing, have and
will continue to be critical to the economic viability and the
cultural identity of the West.
Approximately one-third of all domestic energy produced in
the United States comes from these resources that are managed
by the Department of the Interior. They include oil, gas,
renewable energy, such as solar, wind, biomass, andgeothermal.
And these will be challenges when we start to see the
development of these on the scale that will be necessary with
regard to other uses.
I know that this committee is keenly interested in the
success of small businesses. Reliable and affordable energy is
key to those businesses, especially the smaller operations.
Increases in energy prices, particularly those associated with
transportation, are going to impact our businesses, both large
and small. But the small businesses are going to have a much
harder time dealing with those impacts.
There are a couple of things I think that are important to
understand. First of all, only a small portion of BLM-managed
lands, some 5 percent, have oil and gas production, and even a
smaller portion, less than half of one percent, are directly
impacted by surface disturbance in these activities. I don't
mean to indicate that that is not a concern, because it is any
time we have disturbances.
Access to Federal energy resources is restricted by laws,
regulations and many special relations. Results from a recent
inventory we have done of some 279 million acres of onshore oil
and gas over Federal lands indicates that 60 percent of those
lands that contain oil and gas resources are currently not
accessible for use of the people of the United States for that
purpose; 23 percent of that is accessible only with a wide
variety of restrictions which determine how much can be
produced and during what period of time; only 17 percent are
available under what we would call standard restrictions.
While the BLM is seeing an increase in development on
Federal lands, access to energy development is occurring even
to a greater extent on private and State lands. It is important
to note that energy development on private and State lands is
more extensive than on Federal lands. For example, in States
with significant Federal minerals, more than two-thirds of the
oil production occurs on State and private land. In Colorado,
77 percent of the production currently is on State and private
lands. In Montana, it is 88 percent. In New Mexico, 64 percent
of the production is on State and private land.
Royalties collected by mineral leasing and fees collected
for other public uses benefit the taxpayer. In 2009, we expect
that public lands will generate onshore about $6.1 billion in
revenues, mostly from energy development. I might also indicate
that we expect total revenues, including those on and offshore,
this year that we contribute through royalties will be in
excess of $20 billion. Approximately 44 percent of the onshore
revenues are provided directly to the States and counties. As
you know, those support a wide range of needs such as roads,
schools and other community and cultural resource needs.
Wyoming's share in 2007 was $700 million. New Mexico's share
totaled about $350 million. Colorado's share was about $117
million.
The BLM continually seeks new ways to balance competing
uses and to minimize, integrate, and compensate for adverse
effects from these development activities on Federal lands.
Through our land use planning processes, implementation of best
management practices, and other efforts and initiatives that we
are involved in, we seek to ensure that oil and gas activity on
public lands is done in an environmentally responsible manner
consistent, to the extent possible, with all other uses.
Madam Chairwoman, I would be most happy to answer questions
that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Allred may be found in the
Appendix on page 40.]
Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you very much, Mr. Allred. The
number of drilling permits approved by the Bureau of Land
Management more than quadrupled between 1999 and 2007. This
focus has compromised other agency efforts. In 2005, the
General Accounting Office reported that BLM was not meeting its
goals to protect the environment on public lands because it had
been overwhelmed with processing these permits.
What has BLM changed to meet its environmental protection
responsibilities as the number of permits approved continues to
rise?
Mr. Allred. Thank you. I don't think there is any question
that the response that we received with regard to new
applications to drill wells created real constraints because of
the manpower resources that we had. One of the things that
Congress has done to help us is to provide for us resources to
create pilot offices. These were pilots from the standpoint
that they were experimental. But I think they will become the
way that we do business.
The issue wasn't just with the Bureau of Land Management,
but it also was with all of the other State and Federal
agencies and local interests that we need to deal with to make
sure that what we approve meets as many of their needs as is
possible. When Congress provided the additional funds for us to
establish these pilot offices, what we were able to do is to
bring all of the agencies into one facility and to then have
dedicated staff to deal with these issues having to do with
Applications for Permits to Drill.
That has worked very well. You will soon see a report that
was prepared by an independent organization that Interior
brought in to monitor our progress. As you will see when that
information becomes available, it has gone a long way to solve
the issues that we had when we first received the onslaught of
so many applications. Those applications continue, although in
the last little while, we have seen a bit of a, I won't say a
decrease, but certainly a plateauing of the number of
applications that we are getting.
One of the things that suffered from those other efforts
was our ability to get people out to do inspections. And that
is critical. When you issue these permits, you have to make
sure that they are being applied correctly; 99 percent of the
people that have them, do a good job. There is always a certain
number that have to be inspected.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Can you talk to us about--with the
increase of drilling operations on public lands across the
West, it is critical that BLM plan for dealing with wells when
they run dry. Can you discuss how energy operators can restore
land for wildlife habitat, hunting, fishing, and grazing after
a well has been depleted, and given the fact that most of your
inspectors are processing permit requests? And then how can you
explain to us that more than one-third of those permits are not
actually being used?
Mr. Allred. Madam Chairwoman, one of the results has been
that we have been able to get more people back on the ground to
do the inspections to make sure that we are assuring that the
stipulation requirements in the permits are being met. We also,
through the appropriations that Congress provided, have
increased the ability to do that.
Chairwoman Velazquez. How are you doing that? In the 2005
GAO report, they found that you lack the resources to
adequately monitor the restoration of the habitat, the
abandoned wells. So how are you doing that? Since 2005, what
specific efforts are you taking?
Mr. Allred. Madam Chairwoman, there have been a lot of
efforts. First of all, our regulations have changed
substantially. There are best management practices that are now
required to be followed with not only the reclamation efforts,
but the drilling efforts. Through the moneys that we have been
able to utilize that Congress has given us, we have increased
our inspection and efforts considerably in the last 2 or 3
years. I think we are seeing a lot better compliance. We also
are requiring bonding, requiring financial assurances that
these things be done properly.
We also have an effort that we call the Healthy Lands
Initiative. It is not only the issue of those resources which
are being impacted by oil and gas, but our bigger threats are
from invasive species and fire. So our Healthy Lands
Initiative, again, which Congress has helped provide funds for,
is I think doing a lot to improve not only the mineral lands
but also the other lands that we administer.
Chairwoman Velazquez. I will come back. Right now I am
going to recognize the ranking member.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Allred, let me just mention, first of all, a lot of the
land that you manage, as we have discussed, has all kinds of
natural resources on it, and oil is obviously available in some
areas. When one considers that, as early as let's just say
early 2007, say January 2007, I think the price per gallon was
around $2.30; it is now $3.40 on average. Unfortunately, it
seems to be heading up. So it seems pretty clear that we need
to go after that oil.
When you look over the decades, the technologies that we
have available to us for going after that oil has improved
pretty dramatically. You don't have to do as much damage to the
environment as maybe you did a decade or two decades or three
decades ago. Sometimes I think it is a fact that gets lost in
the discussion. We have put whole areas, like ANWR, for
example, where we have 16, 18 billion barrels of oil, off
limits.
So getting back to the technology, could you discuss
briefly whether or not the technology has gotten better so that
you can go after those resources in more of an environmentally
friendly manner than you could in previous years?
Mr. Allred. Congressman, I would be happy to. As many of
you know, I worked for Secretary Kempthorne when he was
Governor. He tells a story that I think illustrates what has
happened with drilling techniques. At those times, Idaho did
not have oil production, but we sat next to states that have
tremendous resources, both in Utah and Wyoming. He likes to
tell a story that if he had understood how oil drilling and gas
drilling were going to change over the last few years,
particularly with offset and angle drilling, Idaho would have
been an oil State.
There have been tremendous changes in what you see now,
even in the last 4 or 5 years, with regard to technology as
compared to what has happened before, which has allowed us to
make huge changes in how we regulate these people. Now, instead
of one well from any pad, we are seeing from 30 to 36 wells
from a single pad. What that means is that is 36 pads less that
have to be used in order to develop the resource.
You have seen a transition over the last few years not only
in the technology but also in the planning that we do, where
the agency is concerned, because of that technology, is able to
considerably lessen the impact to those areas where we do have
oil and gas development, the latest being in Colorado with Rome
plateau. That will have, we think, minimal impact as we go
forward.
Mr. Chabot. Could you discuss the lateral that you were
referring to, just in layman's terms, what we are talking about
here.
Mr. Allred. Yes. In the past, for oil drilling, you had to
sit directly over the hole and drill straight down or nearly
straight down in order to get to the resource, primarily
because of technologies that were developedoffshore. Those
technologies are now being applied onshore. And what they are
allowing us to do is to do offset drilling even a mile away or
2 miles away. I think it is quickly getting to the point where,
from a single spot, you can radially drill from that and reach
many of the resources that are available in these fields.
This has tremendous implications for wildlife and
environmental because you don't have to be out there. It is not
only the drilling that causes a problem. It is the
transportation. It is the utilities. It is all the things where
you have to go out and run to individual wells.
Essentially, with these new methods of development, we are
not allowing that. We are requiring them to drill from these
central sites. All the utilities have to be underground going
to that central site. Of course, all the well heads are in one
location so all the support facilities are in that location.
So it is, I think, a tremendous improvement in how
development is occurring in these areas. Now there are some
resources that are not conducive to that, but most of the major
resources are.
Mr. Chabot. So just to make sure that it is clear what you
are saying, if this table up here had oil in various locations,
rather than disturbing the environment at the surface level in
a whole bunch of places and digging a number of drilling sites,
you could have, for example, this one site, dig here and then
go under the ground in different directions, only disturbing
this one area and not all around this place. Is that correct?
Mr. Allred. Congressman, that is correct.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Mr. Shuler.
Mr. Shuler. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your appearance today.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act charged the
Bureau of Land Management with the responsibility of managing
public lands and balancing a variety of uses. This includes
recreation, natural resource development, grazing, and wildlife
prevention. How does the BLM manage that based on small
business practices, guided tours, hunting trips with guides?
How do they manage that based on the variety of things they are
charged to do?
Mr. Allred. Congressman, our activities as we manage these
lands are done pursuant to a resource management plan. Those
plans are developed over fairly extended periods of time. In
fact, some of them now have taken 7 years, that we are just
finishing up. Those resource plans involve a tremendous amount
of public input and are usually controversial because you are
talking about conflicting uses. But our goal is to represent as
many of those uses and make the smartest decisions we can with
regard to that plan.
Once the plan is then adopted, and that is a public
process, with numerous public opportunities for input and
review, then we are required to administer those particular
lands with regard to that plan. Even then, there are lots of
disputes and lots of conflicts that our managers have to make
smart decisions about. Our goal is to make sure that, first of
all, there is a lot of opportunity so we can balance those
needs. In those cases where there are activities that are
disturbing other activity, we attempt to mitigate, to the
extent that we can.
Secondly, we make sure that what we do, we do in an open
and transparent manner so people can understand why we are
doing what we are doing. Even then, we get a tremendous number
of lawsuits from one issue or another.
I might say that one of the biggest impacts we are having
now on western lands, and this is not only West, it is
elsewhere as well, is invasive species and fire. That, perhaps,
is doing more damage to more uses and impacting I think small
businesses as much as anything we do on Federal lands.
Mr. Shuler. As an avid outdoorsman, there is nothing I
enjoy better than wing shooting, grouse, quail. I certainly
enjoy that. In your testimony, you made reference that most of
the gas and oil drilling is being done on private lands and
State lands. I think that is all the more reason why, on our
Federal lands, what we have to do is be able to protect, to be
able to have the conservations and to be able to protect the
grouse and the quail and the other species, so the small
businesses and ranchers can be able to use these lands for
economic development in their communities.
So that is not really a question, just a comment, that the
more we can provide for the ranchers and the fishing guides and
the outdoorsmen, I think it impacts a community in a very
positive way because they can't go on some of the other State
lands, or certainly on the private lands.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today.
Before coming to Congress, I was actually a small business
owner from the mountains of east Tennessee. Beautiful natural
area. I hope you have been there and visited the mountains. As
a small business owner, I understand that the first thing you
have to do is get customers in the door, and you also have to
be able to have your fleet of trucks be able to travel, and you
need energy to do that.
I think we need to make sure that we have a policy in
Congress that we allow small businesses to grow into big
businesses, and if you put a cost on a small business like
increasing energy costs--and I understand last January, oil was
about $56 a barrel. It is up to about $114, $115 a barrel now.
And we are becoming much more dependent on foreign oil.
The people that I talk to in northeast Tennessee want us to
have access to American energy. And if we are going to do that,
we need a policy that would allow us to use energy on Federal
land, in my opinion. It is basically an effect in small
business of supply and demand. If you have more of a product,
costs will go down. If you limit a product, costs will go up.
I noticed in your testimony that, right now, just pick the
State of Colorado, that 77 percent of the production is not on
Federal lands. So that means that about three-fourths of the
production is coming other than Federal lands. If we had
policies here that would actually allow for more use of
American domestic produced energy and we had a policy that was
pro-growth for small business, do you think we could increase
that production on Federal lands and still have it in an
economically and environmentally friendly way?
Mr. Allred. Congressman, yes. What you see happening, I
think, is that the State and private lands are easier to
develop. So the first ones to be developed have been those
lands. They don't have the restrictions that we do with regard
to Federal. As those are depleted, and they will be, you are
going to see more and more demand to do things on Federal
lands, I think. In fact, we are already seeing it.
I come from a ranching background, and I am concerned about
the ability of small businesses, particularly rural businesses,
to survive with these kinds of pressures. But one of the
problems I believe we are seeing is that part of the pressure
to develop the western lands is because we don't have access to
some of the offshore areas. Somehow we need to find a balance
so that, as we go after energy resources, we do it based upon
the areas with the least impact.
I am not foolish enough to think we have to develop all
these areas. But when we throw all the pressure in just
selected areas, it has an inordinate impact in those areas. So
I think that if we had a more consistent energy policy with
regard to oil and gas, we might--and we could start over--we
might choose to have a more balanced process between onshore
and offshore, and try to look at those places where the impact
might be less than it is in some of the areas that are now
being developed.
Given that we don't have that, given that we don't have
access to some of those areas, we are trying to make sure that
we try to do as much as we can to meet the U.S. needs and
protect as much of the other values as we can. That is not just
fish and wildlife. It is a lot of cultural issues, a lot of
other issues as well. For example, ranching life. We are very
concerned that we are going to lose that.
So we have to do what we can to perpetuate, I think, those
lifestyles as well.
Mr. Davis. Could you quickly tell me about your best
management practices?
Mr. Allred. I would be glad to. To encourage and demand
state-of-the-art practices, we require that those best
management practices be applied across the board. And these
have become more comprehensive over the last few years. In
fact, they continue to evolve to be more comprehensive. They
are designed to make sure that we use the best practices
possible, not only in oil and gas development, but in other
uses as well. So I think they are.
I think the Federal Government has a good set of those.
What I am trying to do in talking with the Governors of the
Western States is to make sure and encourage them to adopt the
same set of standards. And if the State and Federal Government
require them, they will be applied to Federal lands as well. So
I think they go a long way to meeting some of the objectives
that you and we have.
Chairwoman Velazquez. The time has expired.
Ms. Clarke.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Ranking
Member Chabot. Madam Chair, it is great to be here today
because, for most of our constituents in Brooklyn, our
relationship to this issue comes to us by way of television
sometimes. For me, Bonanza comes to mind, and motion pictures.
However, we can relate to the work of our ranchers and small
business entrepreneurs in regards to the provision of foods for
our communities. So this is a very important hearing here
today.
On a serious note, I want to personally thank you, Mr.
Allred, for testifying before us today, and I hope that, by the
end of the hearing, I will be more informed on how your agency
is meeting the needs of these small businesses.
I understand that in some areas of the West, increased
drilling has turned once spectacular landscapes into
industrial-like zones. I would like to get a sense from you of
what evidence you have gathered in your agency that
substantiates where there has been severe habitat destruction.
Mr. Allred. Congresswoman, one of the things that I think,
again, we have to understand is when we talk about the total
amount of Federal lands that are involved in oil and gas, it is
a very small amount. That doesn't mean it is not important. We
are going to make darn sure, and, again, from my background as
an environmental administrator, regulator, I am particularly
concerned that what we do, we do right. But I think we also
have to understand that most of the businesses involved in oil
and gas are small businesses. They are not the big mega
companies that people like to talk about with oil and gas.
I also think it is important to understand that there are a
lot of other pressures that are impacting those Federal lands.
I just mentioned invasive species and fire. That has a huge
impact on our Federal lands and on small businesses. When one
of these areas burns out, as happened in Utah and Idaho, it has
a tremendous impact on these rural communities and rural
businesses.
Ms. Clarke. What is your recommendation, after knowing that
this is something that happens annually, perhaps--it is a
natural occurrence sometimes. It is an accident sometimes. It
is carelessness on behalf of our citizenry. What best practices
do you believe must be put in place to turn that around as
quickly as possible so that we are all participating in the
remediation and rehabilitation of these areas?
Mr. Allred. Fire occurs naturally. In fact, most of the big
fires were lightning caused. But the reason they burn like they
do is because of fuels that normally were not there. The sage
brush habitats and the western habitats are generally what we
call fire regime habitats. They are used to fire. What has
happened is the vegetation has changed so much, the fires are
so much hotter, that they kill everything. They in effect
sterilize the land.
Fuels management is important. Dealing with the cheatgrass
and the invasive species is particularly important. That costs
a lot of money. Frankly, we and the State governments are not
able to deal with that issue effectively.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Will the gentlelady yield for a
second?
Ms. Clarke. Certainly.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Mr. Secretary, can you tell me what
responsibilities energy firms have to reclaim oil drilling
sites, and is the Department enforcing this?
Mr. Allred. Madam Chairwoman, they have an absolute
responsibility to reclaim those sites. We will not release
their bond or let them do other activities until it is done. We
actually place requirements on when it has to be done.
We are getting better at that. The government is like any
other organization; it has problems. You have a lot of people.
Any time you deal with lots of people, you have to manage those
people. We are learning a lot. I think that over the last
couple of years that I have been associated with this agency,
practices have improved substantially. That has been one of my
objectives. I think we are doing a good job now.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Do you have the manpower, based on
the General Accounting Office report in 2005?
Mr. Allred. I think we can do more if we had more manpower.
You will see, I think, in the 2009 budget and at least
recommendations for 2010, I think you will see some additional
requests for this type of manpower.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you for yielding.
Ms. Clarke. No problem, Madam Chair.
Just sort of on the note that the Chairwoman has struck
here, it is my understanding that the impacts of the industrial
drilling and oil and gas development, the impacts range from
being site specific, for example, removing several acres of
vegetation at an individual well pad; to those affecting a much
larger area, such as fragmenting tens of thousands of acres of
crucial winter range for mule deer.
We talk about manpower, but we know what the causes are and
what the effects are. What I am not getting from you is
specifically how we are going to go about addressing it. What
is required? What level of cooperation between State and
Federal Government, who in the agency will be responsible for
being proactive here? We are at the stage where we understand
what the impacts are. We now want to jettison ourselves into
the 21st century to be much more proactive on that.
Just in closing, if we can get some response.
Mr. Allred. I would be glad to. The government has to have
a name for everything, so we have a name we call Healthy Lands.
That involves a variety of factors. One of them is to look at
not only how we do oil and gas but other activity as well to
identify, for example, migration routes, and to make sure that,
as we authorize activities, that we don't fragment or interrupt
those migration routes. Some of the newest plans that you see
coming out are doing a much better job of that. It is a goal of
ours to do that.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Time has expired.
Mr. Bartlett.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you. I am sorry I couldn't have been
here for your testimony.
Last night, oil hit $115 a barrel in the Asian markets. The
day before yesterday, Russia announced that they had reached
their maximum oil production, and they probably could not
increase above that.
For the sake of discussion, I would like to make a counter
argument that drilling in our public lands and in ANWR and
offshore is pretty much the equivalent of giving cocaine, more
cocaine, to the addict. If all you are doing is feeding the
habit, that is exactly the wrong thing to do.
The two big agencies in our world that track the production
and consumption, which are the same--nobody is storing big
amounts of oil--are the IEA and the EIA, the International
Energy Association and the Energy Information Administration,
the latter a part of our Department of Energy. Both of those
entities indicate that, for about the last 3 years, production
of oil worldwide has been flat. During those same 3 years,
demand has been going up. And what happens when demand is up
and supply is inadequate? Prices have gone from $50 a barrel to
$115 a barrel.
It is very probable that the world has reached its maximum
capacity for producing oil, that we are now producing as much
oil per day as we will ever produce. That happened in the
United States in 1970. And in spite of drilling more oil wells
in all the rest of the world put together, in spite of having
the best technology in the world for finding oil and for
enhanced oil recovery, we still today are producing less than
half the oil that we produced in 1970, or importing about two-
thirds of our oil.
If we are drilling in these areas to help us break the
habit, then I am supportive of that. But I have 10 kids and 16
grand kids and 2 great grand kids. And if we could pump ANWR
and our public lands and offshore tomorrow, what would we do
the day after tomorrow? And there will be a day after tomorrow.
Don't we really need to be focusing on alternatives? Wouldn't
it be nice to save a little oil for our kids, grand kids and
great grand kids, since we are leaving this horrendous debt,
not with my vote, but we are leaving them a horrendous debt,
wouldn't it be nice to leave them a little oil? Shouldn't we
really be focusing on alternatives and how to live a
lifestyle--we are one person in 22 in the world. We use a
fourth of the world's oil. There are countries in the world
that use a fourth as much energy as we do, who live as long as
we do, who educate their people as well as we do. We don't need
to use as much energy as we use to live the golden life, do we?
And wouldn't it be--shouldn't a top priority be--if we are
going to drill in these areas, and I will vote to drill in
those areas when I am assured that all the energy we get there
is going to be used for developing alternatives. Because we
have now blown 28 years. We knew darn well we were going to be
here today or about this time with oil over $100 a barrel,
because M. King Hubbert was right about the United States. We
peaked in 1970. In 1980, we knew darn well he was right. He
predicted the world would be peaking about now.
Where has our sanity been for the last 28 years that no
responsible country in the world has taken the correct path,
that is to develop alternatives so that we run down the other
side of what Hyman Rickover called this Golden Age, that we
would still have a high quality of life.
Mr. Allred. Congressman, I agree with you that the solution
to our problem is not oil and gas. However, if you look at the
Energy Information Administration forecast, they indicate that,
by 2030, you may only have 6 to 10 percent of the U.S. energy,
total energy, not oil and gas, supplied by what you refer to as
renewables.
We are aggressively pushing renewable energy. In fact, you
will see an announcement today of a number of areas that are
being opened up for offshore renewable energy development. That
is important. But I think, in any forecast that I can see or
any scenario that I can see, if you want to maintain something
similar to the economy that we have, particularly with regard
to small businesses, oil and gas, and particularly gas, and I
have a bigger concern about natural gas than I do oil and the
price of what is happening there, that if we want to continue
the kind of economy that we have, it is going to take oil and
gas as part of that formula.
It is interesting to note that, and there are actually some
huge proposals for renewable energy, they are less acceptable
when we go out there and try to process applications than oil
and gas is. Because oil and gas is usually a fairly transient
impact. You may only see, for example, a drilling rig for a few
months or a year and then all that is left is a well head,
generally. When you put, and I am a big fan of and I am pushing
renewable energies, but when you put a wind machine up there,
it is obvious for a long time. When you cover the surface of
the desert with a solar facility, it is there a long time. And
there are not other alternative uses when you do that.
Chairwoman Velazquez. The time has expired.
Mr. Ellsworth.
Mr. Ellsworth. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Allred. I was, being a bit tardy myself, I
couldn't agree with Mr. Bartlett more in his testimony, but if
you had further on Mr. Davis's comments about best practices
and didn't get to finish, I would give you my time to do that.
If you were finished with your thoughts, I don't have a
question. I don't know if you were done with the best practice
summary or not when the time ran out. I was going to give you a
chance to comment on that, or follow through.
Mr. Allred. Thank you, Congressman. I would just say that
we do have a lot of best management practices, and they cover
everything, not only with oil and gas, but they cover
everything from drilling, to bonds, to utilities, a number of
things. They are improving substantially as we go forward and
learn. I think that is going to improve and hopefully lessen
the impacts and the conflicts that occur.
Mr. Ellsworth. I have no further questions.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Mr. Akin.
Mr. Akin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I had just a wonderful
chance over the Easter break to get out and see some of the
lands that you all are managing and see some States that you
manage, more than half the State, with the lands that we have
absorbed as a government. Kind of taking a look at it from the
people that live out in those areas, I can see why there might
be some resentment sometimes at the fact that more than half of
somebody's State has been taken by the government. So the topic
we are talking about is of a lot of interest to a lot of
people.
I appreciate Mr. Bartlett's sermon there about the oil and
everything. I am an engineer by training as well. I guess the
concern I have is that, doesn't it seem to you that somewhere
along the line we are going to have to be able to convert our
coal more efficiently into some type of fuel like a liquid fuel
and also that we should be pushing the nuclear solution?
Because both of those seem like there is a lot of American
energy that we can use wisely, and we don't have to be
dependent on all kinds of other corners of the world that may
be a little bit unstable. From your point of view, does that
seem to be a reasonable sense?
I mean, we drove by those windmill farms, and I think I am
kind of a environmentalist, but I am thinking those are really
eyesores. I would be more comfortable with some of the success
we have had with nuclear and with coal.
So if you would like to comment on that, sir.
Mr. Allred. Congressman, we are going to have to have a
wide variety of sources. In fact, I tell people that if you
look at the EIA forecast, it is going to take every possible
thing we can do if we want to maintain the economy that we
have.
Nuclear, while it is not my direct responsibility, I have
worked in a lot of nuclear issues, and it will be very
important to us. But it is probably going to be beyond 2030
before it contributes substantially. There are two other
resources that we have got to learn how to do better with.
Certainly, coal. We have tremendous coal resources, both on
Federal lands and on other lands.
The other resource we have, which we have not developed and
which will be challenging to do so, are the oil shale resources
in the Rocky Mountain States. Those are tremendous resources,
and it will be a challenge to figure out how to do it. Those
are opportunities I think we have to find solutions to help
meet our needs in the future.
Mr. Akin. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Velazquez. I now recognize Mr. Bartlett for the
second round.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much.
Sir, you mentioned that in your current business climate,
it is going to be very difficult for businesses, including
small businesses, to continue to prosper without the
accessibility to fossil fuels that we have had; that,
therefore, the right thing to do is to go out and aggressively
drill for the little bit of fossil fuels that remain. If our
civilization was coming to an end, that might be a wise thing
to do.
Sir, you cannot pump what is not there. There is increasing
evidence that the world just will not have the ability to
increase the production of oil and gas in the future. I would
be very suspect, sir, of the prognostications of USGS and of
what oil is going to be found. Laherrere says their projections
are absolutely implausible, that we are going to find as much
more oil as all the known reserves that exist in the world
today. Even, sir, if that were true, it only moves peak out
about a dozen years.
Albert Einstein, when he was asked what the next great
force in the universe was going to be, he said the greatest
force in the universe was the power of compound interest. Two
percent growth doubles in 35 years. It is four times bigger in
70 years, eight times bigger in 105 years, and 16 times bigger
in 140 years.
Mr. Bartlett. We just are going to have to find a way to
have prosperous businesses without using increasing amounts of
fossil fuel, because, sir, the evidence is they are just not
going to be there. Our country reached that point in oil in
1970. In spite of drilling more oil wells in all of the rest of
the world put together, we still are producing only about half
the oil that we produced then.
Coal has been mentioned. There is probably about a hundred
years of coal remaining, not the 250 years we have been
quoting. The National Academy of Sciences says it hasn't been
looked at since the 1970s now, and they believe about a hundred
years. Even, sir, if there were 250 years, if you increase its
use only 2 percent that shrinks to 85 years. If you use some of
the energy to convert it to a gas or a liquid it shrinks to 50
years. And if you share it with the world and there is no
alternative to sharing it with the world, because if we use oil
that we get from coal, then the oil we might have bought from
Saudi Arabia is bought by somebody else, isn't it? So from a
practical world perspective we must share whatever energy we
develop with the world, because if we are not using energy from
over there someone else has access to that energy.
You are correct, sir, there are huge amounts of potential
energy in our oil shales, more than all the known reserves of
oil in all the world, recoverable reserves in all the world.
But, sir, there is also more energy in the tides or in methane
hydrates, more energy in methane hydrates than all the fossil
fuels in all the world, including those that we have burned so
far. But because the potential energy is there doesn't mean it
is in your gas tank. There is an old adage that says that
energy and power to be effective must be concentrated.
Shouldn't we have started a long time ago an aggressive
program to develop alternatives knowing that since the United
States peaked in 1970, which is certainly you know an
indication that we are a major part of the world, if we peaked
in 1970 and the same person who predicted that peak predicted
the world, we would be peaking about now, shouldn't we have
started a long time ago to develop alternatives rather than
sitting here today using ethanol from corn, doubling the price
of corn, increasing the price of wheat and soybeans and rice
around the world, headlines above the fold, Washington, the New
York Times a couple of days ago, saying that the leaders of the
Third World countries were complaining that we were starving
their people because our corn ethanol program has more than
doubled the price of corn, wheat and soybeans and rice around
the world? Shouldn't we have started a very long time ago, sir,
to do this?
Mr. Allred. Congressman, I think it is extremely important
that we identify and develop alternative energy sources. What
you find though is that if we rely, which we do, on private
business to accomplish these things it all has to do with the
price of energy. And many of these things even today are very
difficult to get people to invest money in and to receive an
adequate rate of return.
Mr. Bartlett. Isn't that why we have a government, sir,
that is supposed to exert leadership?
Chairwoman Velazquez. Can you answer with a yes or no since
we don't have much time left?
Mr. Allred. That is a tough one to answer.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Let me just say the time has expired.
But Mr. Bartlett, two things. This side of the aisle really
enjoys your participation when it comes to energy policies, and
I for one will be making a recommendation to any Democratic
administration to appoint you as Department of Energy
Secretary. The time has expired. And I want to take this
opportunity again, Secretary Allred, to thank you for your
participation. And we will continue to monitor BLM's mission to
make sure that steps are taken to protect small businesses that
are such an important sector of our economy.
Mr. Allred. Madam Chairwoman, it is a pleasure to be here
and visit with you, and any time that you would wish to talk I
am most willing to do so.
Chairwoman Velazquez. The gentleman is excused, and I will
ask the witnesses of the second panel to please come forward.
Good morning, gentlemen. And I will introduce our first witness
Mr. Gary Amerine. Mr. Amerine is the owner of Greys River
Trophies located in Daniel, Wyoming. His business provides
hunting and summer horseback trips in the Wyoming ranch. Mr.
Amerine has been in the big game hunting and back country
recreation business for over three decades. Gentlemen, welcome.
And you have 5 minutes. That is the timer. With the green you
start. The yellow is telling you that your time is almost there
to expire. And the red you should wrap up. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MR. GARY AMERINE, GREYS RIVER TROPHIES, DANIEL,
WYOMING
Mr. Amerine. Chairwoman Velazquez, members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. My
name is Gary Amerine, and I own and operate Greys River
Trophies with my wife Jennifer. Our small business is a
hunting, fishing and horseback riding outfit in the Wyoming
Range of western Wyoming. These mountains provide a livelihood
and a safe environment where we have lived for many years and
have raised three wonderful daughters.
People from all over the world come to enjoy the basin
where I live. They come to hunt, they come to fish, they come
to just relax. Nearly every type of recreation is here; back
country skiing, snowmobiling, horseback riding, backpacking,
canoeing and much more. In recent years the production of
natural gas has brought many new jobs to the region, and our
economy has shifted suddenly from tourism and agriculture to
extraction. Some businesses enjoy the bustling economy, but the
rapid increase of gas production on public lands has also come
at a price. Small tourism businesses like mine in and around my
home town of Pinedale, Wyoming are paying the price of the
rapid growth. Our business depends upon our great outdoors
heritage, particularly abundant wildlife and fish populations
and wide open beautiful vistas. I have got to tell you that all
three are in decline in the rural area where I live. Like I
said, there is a price to pay for the boom we are experiencing.
Every year I have hunters come to my hunting camp from all
over the country and even other parts of the world. They spend
money in my hometown and they pay for my services. Some are
starting to go other places rather than return for a hunt with
me. Why? Because fewer licenses are available to nonresident
hunters than in years past. Nonresident mule deer licenses have
dropped from 1,400 to 800 in the past 5 years, a reflection of
our declining deer herd which has fallen nearly 50 percent in
recent years due in part to the ongoing impacts of energy
development.
The gas industry has also impacted a diversity of the
economy across the Rocky Mountain region. When our local
Sublette County Outfitters and Guides Association in Wyoming
went to host the annual spring convention of the Wyoming
Outfitters and Guides Association this past spring, there were
not enough motel rooms available for everyone as gas workers
had rented them all. The convention had to be moved to another
community, giving that chapter the opportunity to reap the
benefits of hosting the spring convention. This is a meeting
that brings several thousand dollars to the host community,
money that the Sublette County outfitters use for the benefit
of the local community. A portion of this money would have been
used for the funding of local college scholarships. Sublette
County will not have the opportunity to host this event for
several years as the convention rotates around the State. Sure
the nonsustainable industry brings money to our town but
tourism is renewable. I think we can have both industries, I
think we can have balance.
Right now the Wyoming Range Legacy Act, S. 2229, is working
its way through the Senate. This is a bill that gives us a
little bit of balance by setting aside 1.2 million acres of
public national forest from future oil and gas leasing. This is
a place where other uses and other diverse businesses
contribute to other segments of our economy, in particular
ranching and tourism. These are aspects of our economy that are
sustainable and renewable. Oil and gas are not.
I am not against oil and gas development. I am not a
hypocrite. I heat my home with natural gas, I burn fossil fuels
when I haul my horses in the mountains. But I do think there
are places that are too special to drill. Come out and see for
yourself. I will have a horse saddled for you.
Wyoming is leading the way in energy production. Sublette
County, where I live, is a big part of it. Two of the country's
largest gas fields, the Pinedale Anticline and the Jonah Field,
are within a short drive of my house. The impacts to wildlife
in both these areas from intense energy development have been
dramatic. Researchers have found mule deer responded to
development immediately showing avoidance and a change in
habitats which has ultimately led to the decline in the mule
deer populations by 46 percent.
We Wyoming people are a practical lot. We know that
sometimes it is tough to live here, far away from shopping
malls and interstates. But we also love our wildlife and our
wild country. We know that there is a place for balance. Right
now we feel like that scale is tipping very much in favor of
the gas industry over the traditional ranching and tourism
economy.
Over the past decade, the Federal Government has leased
nearly 27 million acres for oil and gas development, resulting
in an unprecedented loss of fish and wildlife habitat in the
Rocky Mountain States. Nearly 20 percent of Wyoming, accounting
for more than 13 million acres, is leased for oil and gas
development. We would like to keep some of our valuable public
land for our kids, for their kids, for your kids for balance.
Again, thank you for the opportunity. I am happy to answer
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Amerine may be found in the
Appendix on page 46.]
Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you Mr. Amerine. Our next
witness is Mr. Bill Dvorak--
Mr. Dvorak. Dvorak. Close.
Chairwoman Velazquez. --owns Bill Dvorak's Kayak and
Rafting Expeditions in Nathrop, Colorado. His business was
founded in 1969 and provides whitewater rafting, kayaking and
fly fishing trips in 11 rivers across the West. Mr. Dvorak's
business has been featured in National Geographic and on ESPN.
Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF MR. BILL DVORAK, DVORAK EXPEDITIONS, NATHROP,
COLORADO
Mr. Dvorak. Thank you, Chairwoman Velazquez, members of the
Committee. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to you. I am
Bill Dvorak, and I was raised on a small ranch about 20 miles
north of Sheridan, Wyoming near the Montana border.
I have been outfitting and guiding hunting, fishing and
river trips in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico and Texas
for the last 30 years. While outfitting and guiding these trips
I cover tens of thousands of miles each year and have developed
an intimate understanding of the West and its special places.
In the last few years I have witnessed unprecedented industrial
grade energy development throughout the intermountain West.
You will see from a map of the rivers I run that I outfit
right in the heart of oil and gas development. I am willing to
bet that everyone you will be hearing from today agrees that
oil and gas drilling is a legitimate and important use of
public land. I personally support responsible energy
development wholeheartedly. The problem is that over the last 6
years or so the oil and gas industry has become the dominant
tenant of the public lands where subsurface fossil fuels are
found. In fact, the BLM's current policy is so out of balance
that there is rising concern, a cause of concern among State
and local elected officials, game and fish departments,
hunters, anglers, ranchers, farmers and other residents of the
real West. But the lands we have used for a generation is
changing and it is not for the better.
With 26 million acres of public land leased to oil and gas
companies already and 126,000 new wells planned for the next 15
years, it is no surprise that people are concerned. There is no
doubt in anyone's mind that energy development will take place.
The question is will it be done in a way that protects wildlife
habitat and the outdoor heritage that is part of the
distinctive western way of life.
It is important to remember that wildlife, rivers, streams
and entire landscapes are the true economic foundation of this
region, and they all depend on conserving key habitat on public
lands. If we don't figure out how to drill for oil and gas with
a smaller industrial footnote on our public lands the other
uses of these lands will continue to suffer.
The latest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports found
that fishing contributes about $582 million every year to the
Colorado economy. Hunting contributes another $449 billion. And
wildlife watching alone contributes $1.4 billion to the
Colorado economy in 2006. That is over $2.5 billion in one
year. Clearly hunting and fishing are important parts of
western economy, and protecting pristine habitat on public
lands plays a critical role in maintaining the ability for
individuals, outfitters and small businesses to partake in
these activities and make a living.
Many of the small mom and pop businesses in rural Colorado
make about 70 to 80 percent of their yearly income in the 2 to
3 months of hunting season. There are recently 5 spills of
drilling mud and drilling related chemicals in Garden Gulch on
the western flanks of the Roan Plateau, only one of which was
reported by industry. In one spill alone more than a million
gallons of mud and chemically tainted water found its way into
the gulch, which eventually feeds into the Colorado River, a
river that I use to make a living. These spills were
particularly difficult for me to hear about because I fly
passengers on my Desolation and Gray Canyon trip on a small
plane from Grand Junction, Colorado. All they see on the flight
until they get to the landing zone on the mesa is oil and gas
wells and the accompanying roads, pipelines and infrastructure
that go with them. I would love to be able to tell my clients
that development isn't going to impact their back country
experiences, but I simply cannot say that with conviction,
given the pace of development right now and the fact that it is
often done without regard to fish, wildlife and water
resources, and there is little or no regulation.
I am proud to say that I am currently involved in an effort
to develop real solutions to the challenges we face in the West
and push for those changes in Congress and the incoming
administration. Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development, a
collaborative campaign that was launched yesterday involving
the National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited and the
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and hunting and
fishing groups and businesses around the West, is a historic
effort to bring balance to our public lands energy policy.
Together we have developed the Sportsmen's Bill of Rights on
Energy Development, a comprehensive list of 10 rights that all
sportsmen should enjoy when it comes to public lands. We are
working to have these incorporated into legislation and into
new administrative rules, for our public lands support multiple
uses and don't focus only on energy extraction.
With the Bill of Rights in place small business owners like
me will be able to continue to maintain the lifestyle we love
and sustain ourselves and our families while continuing to
operate on public lands. We should all be able to tell our
children and grandchildren we did what we could during our
lives to leave them something, to give them the same quality of
life we have had, to know that they will take their children
and grandchildren to the same places our parents and
grandparents took us to learn how to hunt, fish, hike and
develop an appreciation of the world around us.
I am here before you today and out on the front lines
tomorrow making sure I can say these things to my family in my
old age and to do so with a clear conscience. Thank you for
your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dvorak may be found in the
Appendix on page 50.]
Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Dvorak. Our next
witness is Mr. Chris Velasquez. Mr. Velasquez is a fourth
generation rancher from Blanco, New Mexico. Mr. Velasquez has
been a rancher all his life. In 1995, Mr. Velasquez and his
wife were awarded the Rangeland Management Award for New
Mexico, nominated by the Farmington Bureau of Land Management
Office. Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF MR. CHRIS VELASQUEZ, RANCHER, BLANCO, NEW MEXICO
Mr. Velasquez. Good morning, Chairwoman Velazquez and
members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to address
this Committee. My name is Chris Velasquez and I have been
ranching all my life. My great-grandpa ranched in the same area
where I currently ranch. In 1995, my wife and I were awarded
the Ranchland Management Award for New Mexico.
I am not opposed for those companies to drill on BLM land
if they do it in a responsible manner. In 2006, because the
increased number of wells, pipelines and roads on 22,000 of our
allotment made it uneconomical to run summer cattle there, I
felt I had to sell it. This allotment was the most impacted of
the BLM field office of the allotments. Roads, pipelines,
wellpads, sandstone quarries, disposal and transmission sites
all are the results of reducing availability to natural forage
for the cattle and wildlife. The industry is reluctant to
follow reasonable business practice to remedy these business
losses. Not paying on a reasonable amount of damage money in a
reasonable amount of time, I haven't been paid damages yet for
a calf injured by a vehicle in March of 2007 or for cattle that
escaped on the same time due to lack of required cattleguard
maintenance.
This is a compressor station within 2 miles of my home, and
the level of the noise is so high it reaches inside my home.
This map is from around 2004 from Google Earth. It shows the
area of our ranch. Each white dot is a wellpad or an associated
oil and gas location. A spiderweb of roads and pipelines
fracture the area and make ranching less and less profitable.
These are two more aerial photos of the ranch. In 2005 this
BP unlined pit was full of oil by-products and oilfield trash.
The fencing around this pit did not meet BLM standards. My
cattle, as well as wildlife, had easy access to this
contamination.
BP constructed a landfarm for remediating contaminated soil
within 100 feet slightly uphill of this livestock watering
pond. This was done on my private property without my
permission. I found this pond one day with a thick oily film of
water. My cattle were drinking from it and I took three test
samples from it. One sample showed positive petroleum content
and three showed traces of petroleum content. BP made no effort
to respond to this problem.
On March 8, 2008, I observed this cow drinking from this
tank. This tank was dry when I found it, but had 19 inches of
liquid in it recently, which was evidenced from the oily fluid
level mark on the inside of the tank. My whole herd was in this
area and also had access to this tank. Chickenwire is not a
sufficient barrier. This tank should have had either a complete
expanded metal cover or approved BLM fence around it to protect
access to livestock and wildlife.
I have complained twice to BP and BLM about oil around the
compressor and the holding tanks without screening at this
site. This is just another example of the trip to my ranching
business I face on a daily basis from the oil and industry.
This is the same cow that was drinking from the last of the
fluids in this tank on March 8th. Notice the hair loss around
the muzzle and around the ears, which on both sides of her nose
are falling off, and then her back ears, and then alongside her
neck she had white spots that were falling--she was losing her
hair.
My pregnant cows have also aborted their calves after
drinking contaminated liquid at well sites. I had a licensed
veterinarian take blood samples of this specific cow and three
more from this herd on April 4th. By phone on Thursday, April
10th, he reported to me that three out of the four cows tested
positive with toxic damage to the livers and kidneys. This
means that I will have at least three cows out of this herd and
probably more that will either die or be infertile. And this is
just one of the many times industrial has failed to properly
fence dangerous areas injuring my cows. Will the industry pay
these damages? Their track record shows that it will take me
time and effort to extract any damages from BP for this breach
of BLM regulations and best practice standards.
This is just another picture of a calf losing hair, body
hair. This calf was also tested positive with oil by-products.
The road conditions are a major problem in the area on my
allotment. This picture shows a result of flat-blading. Flat-
blading creates a road surface that does not allow water to
drain to the side of the road properly. The ruts in this road
are over 2 feet deep. Note the pitchfork with a yellow flag
forcing traffic to go around the main travel road destroying
additional natural surface areas. This is another example of
flat-blading. Note the 12-inch high pressure gas line,
transmission line that has been excavated by erosion and
runoff. Also note the pitting on the rust on the outer surface.
If heavy equipment or an accidental vehicle contact would have
hit this pipeline it could have ruptured it causing a fiery
explosion and death or injury to anyone close by. No safety
barriers were in place here to notify travelers of the hazard.
Our public land is a national treasure for all to enjoy. As
a rancher I am committed to its protection. And reasonable oil
and gas production has destroyed many parts of our public land.
These damages will persist for lifetimes. It is time to enforce
the law and require proper land stewardship from oil and gas.
As a rancher I want my business protected from these impacts of
oil and gas industry. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Velasquez may be found in
the Appendix on page 55.]
Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you very much.
Mr. Scott Moyer, our next witness, is the owner of Down
Valley Septic and Drain in Rifle, Colorado. Down Valley Septic
is a small business that has over 33 employees. Mr. Moyer and
his wife have operated the company for over 11 years, and the
company offers septic pumping, portable toilets, tank rentals,
roll off containers and potable water services. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF MR. SCOTT MOYER, DOWN VALLEY SEPTIC AND DRAIN,
RIFLE, COLORADO
Mr. Moyer. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, members of the
Committee. Thank you for having me. I would like to admit my
statement into the record if I might and just talk to you this
morning. My wife and I--
Chairwoman Velazquez. Without objection.
Mr. Moyer. Thank you. My wife and I moved to Garfield
County in Rifle, Colorado about 12 years ago. Our income at
that stage of our lives was extremely low. We were surviving on
probably $20,000 a year between us to support ourselves, which
was mostly the case in our county. The county had a lot of
employees in it that were at medium income jobs, minimum wage,
getting by, things of that nature.
Today as I sit in our community in our restaurants and in
town, I see people living a lot better than they did 10 years
ago, having more things available to them, nicer houses, I see
higher education, getting a lot of funding from oil and gas and
tax bases in our community. My friends' children and the people
in our town can afford higher education and are going to
school, spending money, improving our community. We see a lot
of funding going to the Department of Wildlife, developing
programs to help with the mitigation between the wildlife and
the drilling, and it seems to be working. Today I can honestly
say in our community there is more people working, a better
quality of life than we had a decade ago.
Our community was mainly a tourist-based economy, which was
great for a lot of people 2 to 3 months out of the year, and
then everybody left. As soon as the winter came our population
would go down, our earnings would go down and our businesses
would shut. Today we enjoy year-round businesses, we enjoy
seeing businesses thrive and more people owning their own
business. I have seen an increase of 100 percent of the people
that used to be my neighbors working at McDonald's, working as
the janitors in our schools, that now have enough income and
opportunity that they can truly start their own business and
enjoy the benefits of having a good economy in our area.
We do not have a lot of foreclosures on our homes in
Garfield County in western Colorado where I understand the rest
of the country is in crisis. We do not have a lot of
foreclosures on our street. People are working, they are
spending their money. Our community is improving and we
actually can talk about investments.
Like Mr. Bartlett spoke of, investing in renewable fuels,
renewable energies, it takes money. And the common man cannot
afford to invest in renewable energy, energy fuels, things of
that nature, for the next generation unless we have the money
to do so. And too many people are trying to survive in the rest
of the country on minimum wage. I don't know anybody that can
invest money at $5.75 an hour or $6 an hour. They can barely
afford health care. They can't afford their housing. And now
with the energy development it allows my community to truly do
those things.
We see a lot of community benefited programs that are now
popping up that are backed by energy companies. They pay an
abundance of taxes where my taxes have not risen in Garfield
County. The money goes to schools, the money goes to our roads,
it improves our infrastructure and truly benefits everybody in
the community, not just a select few.
Ten years ago when we came to the valley I started my
company, and I actually had to work two jobs, not just my
primary job pumping septic tanks and doing our normal business.
I had to pump gas at night just to make the bills meet. But
that is what we did because that is how my community got by; we
worked. And if we have to work day and night that is what we do
to pay our bills and to make things good in our community. Now
that we have jobs and people coming from all over the company
to fill those jobs, like I say, it allows us to work a lot less
and then truly enjoy our money, enjoy our hunting and our
fishing and the recreational sports that we do have available
to us. And I see all of those businesses flourishing.
And that is about all I have to say. Thank you, Madam
Chairwoman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moyer may be found in the
Appendix on page 65.]
Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Moyer. Mr. Dvorak, I
would like to ask my first question to you. BLM is tasked with
managing land for multiple uses to best meet the needs of the
American people without permanently impairing the quality of
the environment. Do you believe that BLM is meeting that goal,
and how do they take into account the needs of small firms like
yours which depend heavily on recreational use of the land?
Mr. Dvorak. Well, it is real easy for BLM to talk the talk,
but when you see them out on the field they are not really
walking that talk, because there is almost nobody in the field
actually monitoring what goes on in gas and oil extraction.
Most of the people that still work for the BLM, all they are
doing is issuing permits.
There is a real frustration. My brother-in-law was actually
the district manager of the BLM in Casper, Wyoming. And he
talks about how a lot of people who have resisted what is going
on in the current administration have been forced into
retirement, how a lot of biologists and people who are
concerned about the ecology have actually been forced into
other jobs, forced into areas that they no longer can have any
sort of say on how the BLM is managing the land.
And so no, in answer to your question I think the BLM is
doing a horrendous job of managing public lands for multiple
use.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you. Mr. Amerine and Mr.
Dvorak, I will invite you to comment on this question. More
than 87 million Americans spent over $122 billion on wildlife-
associated recreation in 2006. How do those billions of dollars
help small firms create jobs out West and do your clients
support other local businesses and stimulate local economies?
Mr. Amerine.
Mr. Amerine. Madam Chairwoman, our local economy is out of
whack right now. The energy development going on around us has
allowed the high school kids, the ranch kids to go out and
drive a water truck for $20 to $25 an hour. It is very hard for
the small businesses in the surrounding area to pay those kind
of wages. Granted, the local hardware store is booming because
of the influx of oil and gas workers. But the poor guy is
working himself to death because he can't get any help to run
the counter for him or the back room.
The same thing is a happening on the ranches. To get a kid
to buck a bale of hay right now is almost impossible. They just
simply won't do it. The ranchers cannot afford to pay the wages
that are going on around it. The same thing with my outfitting
business. Three guides I have working full time for me love
what they are doing, and that is the only reason they are doing
it. If it was a financial gain for them, they would be in
another place.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Mr. Dvorak.
Mr. Dvorak. Again, I happen to live in an area that is not
directly affected by oil and gas. In my community the major
economic driver is the river business. We generate something
like $390 some million a year in the State of Colorado. The
Arkansas River where I am based on is the most popular
whitewater river in the world. My particular company is
actually sort of the largest customer of the local Safeway
store. We have about 300 guides that live in the valley, and
all of the economy that is generated through their wages and
things like that goes directly back into that community. Most
of us are year-round residents there, they own companies there.
So our kids go to school there. You know, we buy our insurance,
we do all the things that a small business would do for that
community. If that answers your question.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you very much. Mr. Velasquez,
you explained to us the contamination that has taken place in
the land that you lease. Can you talk to me, who are you
reaching out to asking for help; BLM?
Mr. Velasquez. Madam Chairwoman, yes, we used to have
meetings with BLM and the oil companies on a daily basis
because this problem has been going on for 20 years-plus on my
operation. And we thought we could solve it by having meetings
with the oil companies, bringing them in on board.
Chairwoman Velazquez. This is BP?
Mr. Velasquez. BP, ConocoPhillips, Williams Field, every
company that is available there in the four corners. We bring
them into those meetings and spend 4 or 5 hours with them. We
are the only ones not getting paid to go to those meetings. BLM
was getting paid and the staff was getting paid, the oil
companies. We were sitting there until we found out that we
didn't have no voting right when they made decisions on that
board so we quit. And I had brought it up to the--we used to
have field tours with oil companies and the BLM until I got
plumb fed up. I don't do that anymore. They know what they need
to do. The regulations are in place by BLM. They are not
enforced. And just on that instance, on the cows drinking that
contamination of that tank, that tank in 2005, and I got
pictures of it, didn't have a screen on it or nothing to
protect the wildlife or my cattle. So I called BLM, they went
ahead and put that chickenwire on it and now my cows get into
the same tank and they are turning out positive with
contamination to the liver. This has been an ongoing problem
constantly. And the BLM manager in the Farmington office told
me at one time he didn't want to see my pictures again or
anything that I had to report on BLM lands.
So I deal with the BLM Director from the State of New
Mexico, Linda Rundell, but it is a ongoing problem for me. And
BLM has not helped me protect my interest on public lands at
all, because I still got the same problems that I had 20 years
ago with cattleguards contamination going on still today. It is
frustrating.
Chairwoman Velazquez. It is. And I hope that you are
reaching out to your Member of Congress to get him to
intervene.
Mr. Velasquez. Yes. I have been working with them trying to
get them to help me out.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Mr. Moyer, you mentioned that there
are many examples of oil and natural gas companies being good
stewards of the land. Can you give us some examples of energy
firms working to minimize their impact on the environment?
Mr. Moyer. Yes, ma'am. As a matter of fact 2 weeks ago
Williams Energy and EnCana Energy made large donations to the
Department of Wildlife to help start monitoring programs above
and beyond what the BLM and the local and State government have
implemented to them.
Chairwoman Velazquez. But if they are causing some type of
contamination, are they being responsive in cleaning up and
restoring?
Mr. Moyer. In all honesty, Madam Chairwoman, I have not
seen the type of factors that they are speaking of. In Garfield
County I live next door to one of the largest cattle ranches
which has drilling wells on it, and I have not seen any type of
the behavior that he spoke of with these particular oil
companies. They do a good job, as far as I can see, with the
cattleguards and the fencing. They have, on the contractors
like myself that work for them, they have rules and regulations
that they monitor them and they are very serious that they
impose and make sure that we are following.
Chairwoman Velazquez. So you work for the energy company?
Mr. Moyer. I work for my local citizens first and then I
work for my oil company second.
Chairwoman Velazquez. But you are being employed by the oil
company?
Mr. Moyer. I am employed by everybody in my county, not
just the oil and gas people. My priorities and my loyalties are
with what is right and wrong, not with who signs a bigger
paycheck.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to apologize
to the panel because I had to go to another committee hearing
and that is why I didn't hear all your testimonies here in
person. And since the gentleman from Missouri was kind enough
to fill in during that time and was here to hear all the
testimonies, I am going to defer to him for the questioning at
this time. And I will wrap up at the end. So I will yield my
time to Mr. Akin.
Mr. Akin. Thank you very much. I have got to scoot to
another hearing, too, in just a minute. But I think what I am
coming away with from the hearing, and that this is a balancing
act and there has to be team work, people have to work
together. And what I am hearing is that at least in some areas
BLM is just not doing the job that they should be in making
sure that we are keeping up certain standards. One of the
things that was interesting from the aerial photos is the
fairly large footprint at these different facilities. Are those
footprints that we are seeing in the pictures just recently
drilled or does the foliage have a chance to grow back after a
period of time? And are there standards about how much land you
have to disturb in order to--is this all natural gas, by the
way, or is this oil?
Mr. Velasquez. This is natural gas in our area.
Mr. Akin. Mostly natural gas?
Mr. Moyer. Mostly natural gas.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Yes.
Mr. Akin. And the natural gas is going to last for some
period of time, right, and then they just cap things off and
can go, is that right? How long do these wells last? And is
there some sort of requirement to keep the footprint as small
as possible, because it looked like they had roads in large
areas, pretty big areas that were being used just for one to
poke a hole in the ground?
Mr. Velasquez. That is what they do in our area, just use
one patch just for one well. Very seldom do they use
directional drilling. And that impact has impacted the wildlife
and my operation. Because every time they take a road and a pad
out of production on a forage or a pipeline they don't reseed
or reclaim it correctly. And that land that we live on is real
fragile. There is a lot of sandstone that erodes real quick. So
if they don't build that road up to BLM standards you got a big
ditch in the middle of the road or the water just travels down
the middle of the road and never gets back to the forage like
it should be.
Mr. Akin. Yes, Mr. Moyer.
Mr. Moyer. The vast majority of drilling in western
Colorado is now done directional. They run I have seen anywhere
from 9 to 15 wells going on one pad and all handled
directional.
Mr. Akin. So there is a newer approach to doing it?
Mr. Moyer. Not necessarily newer. It is a lot more
expensive.
Mr. Akin. To do that type of drilling, to do the angular?
Mr. Moyer. Correct.
Mr. Amerine. Congressman, if I may comment on this. Two of
the largest gas fields in the continental United States are
within a short drive of my house, the Jonah and the Anticline,
producing huge amounts of gas at this time. Unfortunately, it
is sitting at 7,000 feet. That area does not recover from
impacts. I can take you into areas that were wildcat drilled
back in the 1970s and 1980s, and they are highly defined, they
just don't recover. And along with that is our pronghorn and
mule deer. You can replant these areas with grass. Deer and
antelope will starve on grass. They need the bitter brush, the
sagebrush. It takes generations for that to come back.
Mr. Akin. Madam Chair, I was just thinking that just
sitting in this room gets a little tiresome. Maybe we need to
take the Committee on a couple of river trips if you could
arrange it. Thank you.
Chairwoman Velazquez. I think that there will be bipartisan
support.
Mr. Dvorak. If I can just comment, what you guys need to do
is to do a field meeting out there and look at the impacts of
what is going on. I mean, we can sit here and talk. And again,
anybody can talk the talk. But for you to actually see it and
be on the field and deal with the folks who have had--and we
talk about leasing on private lands. Well, you know, if your
private land is adjacent to somebody else who has a lease on
theirs and you are downwind of that particular oil and gas well
and 24/7 you are listening to that pounding and you are
smelling those fumes, tremendous numbers of people are just
getting very, very ill, and they are having all sorts of
endocrine damage. There are a lot of other things beside small
businesses and wildlife habitat issues here. There is
tremendous public health issues here.
In Colorado last year we actually passed a wildlife habitat
protection bill, and it went through both of our legislative
houses unanimously, because people have recognized that we have
serious problems here.
Chairwoman Velazquez. The time has expired. Ms. Clarke.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree, we need a
field exploration of this issue. One of the things that, and I
think it gets to the heart of something that Mr. Bartlett said
in his comments, is that you know there are short-term gains
and then there are long-term legacies. You know, we know that
right now, Mr. Moyer, your community is flourishing as a result
of what is taking place there. But we know that industry will
come to an end at some point in time. Maybe not in your
lifetime, but perhaps in your children and your grandchildren's
time. And so we have to be visionary in custodianship of the
industries that are currently providing a service, and a very
valuable service to your community and its growth.
But when you talk about the natural habitat that provides
for ranches work, which is enduring, the exploration and the
types of outfitting work that those two gentlemen on the end of
the table with you are talking about, which is enduring, we
have got to find that balance. And I think that it will be the
leadership of communities like yours in talking about what--now
that you have gotten to this level of technological and
industrial growth--what is going to be the next phase. And how
do we encourage that in a way in which, and how do we advocate
for it and how do we push government to respond in a way in
which it makes its transition? Because truly you are at the end
of a gain, and that is something that we all recognize in the
United States of America. But are we going to kill off
everything else around it so that we never recover, we never
recapture, we never renew ourselves as an environment for that
gain? And I think that is essentially the question that is
being asked here today. And we do have to be forward thinking
about what happens to a community that has been able to really
stand up as a result of these industries that have come in. We
have to look very closely at how this is regulated, because
there is no doubt that there is dereliction of duty and
recklessness taking place as well. And to turn a blind eye to
that could be perilous to us in the end.
So Madam Chair, I don't really have a question because I
think, you know, enough has been said and enough has been put
out there from each of you as witnesses. And I can appreciate
it because you brought a balance to what happens. But we
ultimately want to get to the win-win solutions here, and that
is what government is about. If we are being derelict of duty,
we are being reckless in allowing other small businesses to
trample other small businesses when there is enough room for
everyone, then we are not doing our duty here.
So I want to thank all of you gentlemen for again shedding
light and bringing this forth and being very honest about how
this activity is impacting on your businesses.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Clarke. Yes, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Velazquez. It is not small businesses against
small businesses. BP is not a small business.
Ms. Clarke. You are absolutely right.
Chairwoman Velazquez. I just wanted to make sure. Thank
you.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Any comments?
Mr. Velasquez. I would like to make another comment. In
every wellpad that you see there, there is either a compressor
going on or a pump jack. Even sometimes both are running 7 days
a week on the same pad. So the noise level is unbelievable you
get out there.
Chairwoman Velazquez. The time has expired.
Mr. Bartlett.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. I was interested in the
obvious conflicting interest expressed in the testimony of Mr.
Velasquez and the testimony of Mr. Moyer. Mr. Moyer's testimony
about the increased prosperity that came to his community when
they started the drilling is just an expression of the
incredible quality of energy that we get from these fossil
fuels. I think the most insightful speech given in the last
century was a speech given by the author by Nuclear Submarine
Hyman Rickover, to a group of physicians in St. Paul, Minnesota
on the 15th day of May 51 years ago. And he noted that this
incredible quality and quantity of energy, one barrel of oil,
has the energy equivalent of 12 people working all year. This
has enabled us to develop a truly golden age, which is what
Hyman Rickover referred to it as.
By the way, you can find the speech if you do a Google
search for Rickover and energy speech. And I think you will
find, as I have found, that it is probably the most interesting
speech that you have ever read.
Well, this is the crux of the problem. It is what got us to
where we are today. Because our society has benefited now for
150 years and benefited so spectacularly from a quality and
quantity of energies in these fossil fuels we have pursued
these fuels with the same intensity that the dope addict
pursues his drug, and with wanton abandonment, with no more
responsibility than the kids who found the cookie jar or the
hog who found the feed door open, we have just been pigging
out. The behavior is as if oil and gas were going to be
forever. Clearly they cannot be forever. Clearly they are
finite.
Our country reached its maximum oil production in 1970, and
in spite of drilling more oil wells than all the rest of the
world put together, today we produce about half the oil. By the
way, that is in spite of finding oil in Alaska and in the Gulf
of Mexico which wasn't included in King Hubbert's prediction.
Today we produce about half the oil that we did in 1970.
This is very interesting testimony, Madam Chairwoman,
because it indicates to us the incredible challenge that we
face. How are we going to continue the quality of lifestyle
that we have when we are going to be dependent on renewables
that will not have the quantity and quality of energy that
these fossil fuels have?
America is the most creative innovative society in the
world. This is a huge challenge. I am excited about this. The
world has never faced a problem like this--not my quote. This a
quote from a major study paid for by your government and
ignored by your government about peak oil, which said that the
world has never faced a problem like this.
Madam Speaker, I think we are up to this with proper
leadership. We are the most creative, innovative society in the
world. What we need is a program that has a total commitment of
World War II. In about 6 weeks I reach my 82nd birthday, so I
remember that war very well. And we need the technology focus
of putting a man on the Moon. Wow, how that invigorated
America. Everybody was a part of that first step on the Moon.
And we need the intensity of the Manhattan Project. And I think
with that that more and more communities will be thriving, Mr.
Moyer, like your community is thriving with the energy from
fossil fuels because of the activities that are going to be
necessary to move from fossil fuels to true renewables.
This has been very enlightening testimony. Thank you all
very much. It is very obviously the conflicting interests that
we have here. On the one hand our society demands, as a
previous witness indicated, our small businesses, he thought,
could not maintain their current vitality without unlimited
access to gas and oil. There will not be unlimited access until
we face a huge challenge in transitioning to these nonfossil
fuels, these true renewables. And I look forward to very
exciting times when America has more to do than just watch
movies and drink too much. I think there are more exciting
things to do.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much for this hearing.
Chairwoman Velazquez. I will yield on a second and third
round to the gentleman.
Mr. Bartlett. I have got to go. My phone was just ringing.
I have an appointment. I thank you all very much.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Mr. Ellsworth.
Mr. Ellsworth. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you gentlemen
for being here. I am not quite sure why Mr. Moyer didn't get
the memo on the dress code on the boots and hat, but we will
figure that one out.
Mr. Moyer. My boots are always rubber.
Mr. Ellsworth. You need to invest in a pair of those. But
thanks for holding this important hearing. I would just like to
associate my comments again with Mr. Bartlett and Ms. Clarke
that, Mr. Moyer, I can appreciate when you see the influx of
the jobs and the economic development that comes in with that.
But then we have to look. And I don't know the life of these
wells, if they are 15 years, 20 years. But I just have to guess
that the company is not going to stick around and continue that
investment when the gas is gone. And so we have to find that
mix and leaving that land as pristine as possible so that we
can protect those lands. And I have been blessed to be able to
come to all of your States and enjoy those exact things that
you do for a living, and I appreciate that and want to go back.
Mr. Dvorak, and that is close, you reacted when we were
talking about the cost of the directional drilling versus the
one hole, and you had a little reaction when we talked about
being more expensive, and I don't know if you would like to
elaborate on that. It was just kind of a nod and a smile. But
are you seeing, and maybe Mr. Moyer, tell me again the
percentage they are doing directional, and then Mr. Dvorak,
what you are seeing in that of the directional drilling we are
doing? If you two could help me on that.
Mr. Moyer. Well, I am not in a position to know exactly
what the cost of our directional, of directional drilling. But
I do know from what I hear from my company and all the
different companies that I deal with it is a lot more
expensive. But they do opt for the more expensive drilling to
keep their footprint to a minimum and work from one patch just
as long as they can.
Mr. Ellsworth. And did you have a percentage earlier of how
many you think are done directionally?
Mr. Moyer. I think 80 percent of our wells are now done
directional. I may be wrong.
Mr. Dvorak. I think in Garfield County where he refers to
there are only eight rigs that concurrently develop
directionally. So there is a finite number that they can
actually do. So there is still a lot of straight down hole
drilling because there is more of those kind of drill rigs
available.
I think in the long run a lot of energy companies are
finding that directional drilling is actually more economical,
because they actually have one road in, they can put a pipeline
in, a pipeline out, they don't have to have the pits that Chris
is talking about where you have the toxic waste in the pits
that either could overflow or animals can get into. So I think
in the long run they are going to find that it is more
economically to actually directionally drill. It is just that
they have a limited number of those types of rigs out there
right now. And there is more in production so it is going to
take a little bit of catch-up time. So there still is a lot of
straight down hole drilling.
And I guess just to your comment earlier and Ms. Clarke's
comment, I come from Sheridan, Wyoming. I have seen four boom
and bust cycles in the course of my lifetime, primarily coal
based. I was based in Grand Junction, Colorado in 1982 on Black
Sunday when Exxon pulled out of the Colony Oil sale and watched
that economy totally deteriorate. 2,200 jobs were lost
overnight. It took that western slope of Colorado 10 years to
recover from that. And they recovered by relying on their
natural resources, on their lands that you could recreate on.
Wyoming, where I am from, in Sheridan, always has gone back to
being a ranching community at the each of those bust cycles. So
again, it is a land that sort of sustains us. And it is the
sustainability of that land that in the long run is what we
need to protect.
And again, nobody is against gas and oil exploration. All
it needs is the balance that you are talking about, sir, that
we can go in there and extract the resources from the Earth and
do so in a way that the other things can co-exist with that.
Mr. Ellsworth. And just as a--and thank you all very much.
Madam Chair, as a final observation, in my brief time in this
House I know that the Federal Government creates these
programs, BLM, for a reason. And I don't know what we would
look like if we didn't have--you know, when the Federal
Government steps in to make that balance and protect people's
rights. But again, another Federal agency that we create, and
yet we are getting bad reports on, and when we call the leaders
of the agencies and they say, well, I either just got here in
the last 9 months, that happened before my watch, or we are
looking into that. And I have heard that in not just the Small
Business Committee, but Armed Services Committee and
Agriculture Committee. And I just keep looking at us and saying
if it is the administration--not the administration, if it is
the bureau's problem, then shame on them, and if it is us not
doing our job, then shame on us. And it is pervasive up here
when we say I am looking into that or we are getting bad report
cards on our agencies. And I yield back.
Chairwoman Velazquez. The time has expired. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I wasn't here
for all the testimony, and I understand there were some really
superb illustrations and photographs and that sort of thing as
well. My comments briefly, and then a question. A lot of the
questions that I had have already been asked by others. But in
my observation it will be the Bureau of Land Management
obviously should use every effort to make sure that the proper
balance is being met between protecting the environments of
small businesses, such as the folks that are here today are
able to make a living and to be able to utilize the land and
the natural resources we have and the wildlife appropriately,
and at the same time that we are able to go after natural gas
and oil, the energy to run this country. Now, oil can be used,
and in general of course in this country it is used to run
motor vehicles, which is the principal transportation that most
people utilize in this country nowadays, at least under the
current technology that we have. It can also be used in power
plants as coal can be and natural gas and others. About 2
decades ago was the last time we actually utilized one source
of power in this country that other countries utilize, and that
is nuclear. France, for example, the last figure that I believe
I saw was about 75 percent of the power generation over there
is nuclear. We haven't built a nuclear power plant in 20 years
here. We have some out there that are still in operation, and
for the most part very safely being operated. But we haven't
built one in 20 years. And I would be interested to know,
knowing what we do now, and knowing that our resources,
especially in the area of oil, both in this country and the
world, are being depleted.
Do you think that in the future that should be an
alternative that ought to be considered to power this country
so we don't have to be so reliant upon oil? And I see you
nodding, so I will begin with you, sir.
Mr. Amerine. Congressman, I am a firm believer that we have
to start looking for other energy sources. Overall, nuclear has
been fairly safe. The problems we have had haven't been in the
United States, to speak of. I mean, there were a couple
isolated incidents, but not really any real problem.
We are going to run out of fossil fuels. It is inevitable,
the pace we are going right now, and I look around at what kind
of impacts that development is going to leave. What is going to
be in the wake of all this development throughout the Western
States, an area that does not recover fast from impacts on the
landscape.
So, yes, I am a firm believer in any type of alternative
energy, whether it be solar, wind or nuclear.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Mr. Dvorak. If I can comment on that, I have a slightly
difference perspective because, in my area, while we don't have
oil and gas near where I live, we do have uranium. And there is
also uranium on several of the rivers that I operate on. One of
the rivers, the Dolores, was actually where the uranium came
from that the bombs that were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima
came from. There are tremendous uranium resources there.
You have the same kind of problems because the current way
of developing uranium is to actually drill and then impregnate
the ground with a solution and then to bring the slurry back
out, that same mineral that creates the uranium. You have the
same kind of problems that you have with oil and gas
development, in that to do that, they have to fracture the
soil. When they do that, they run the risk that those
fractures, instead of going out horizontally, may sometimes go
up vertically and then contaminate the ground water that people
utilize for either their drinking water or their stock.
So we have issues with uranium mining as well because it is
not the old sort of drill a hole in the ground and pull out the
yellow cake that we once utilized. Now it is mostly a drilling
process.
Mr. Chabot. Would it be safe to say, really, in essence,
that no source of power or energy in the future or now is risk-
free?
Mr. Dvorak. I would say that it is not risk-free. I am
saying it is going to require the same balance. We need to do
it in a responsible way and make sure that the resource is
looked after.
Mr. Chabot. Even wind, for example, now you have people
that will talk about the number of birds that end up being
killed as a result of that. Some people don't like to have them
where they can see them, like up in, I believe, Massachusetts,
off the coast up there. There are some folks that have objected
to that.
Mr. Dvorak. Again, I think if you can work with your
divisions of wildlife and figure out where the main nesting
areas and the areas for these birds to be and avoid those
areas, and, again, that is what we have asked for in the oil
and gas areas, is that these folks consult with the divisions
of wildlife and look for where the main winter ranges are,
where the migration routes are, where the calving and lambing
areas are, and sort of try to avoid those areas or stay out of
those areas in the most critical times. That makes a tremendous
impact on how the wildlife sustains itself.
Mr. Chabot. Back to the nuclear, Mr. Velasquez and Mr.
Moyer, if you had a comment.
Mr. Moyer. If you think about Three Mile Island, you think
about Chernobyl, there is truly no safe form of fuel or energy
available to us. There is always going to be cause and effect
and a risk on anything that powers our cars or heats our homes.
Chopping down trees for firewood, we are going to run out of
our forests.
Like you said, it is a point where we need to find the
right balance with nature and man and then go from there. I
haven't heard anybody mention hydrogen yet. That is where I
would like to see it go.
Mr. Chabot. The President in one of his State of the Union
addresses talked about the development of a hydrogen vehicle at
some point, too, which I think all of us would like to see. But
at this point, there are a number of technology problems that
still have to be dealt with.
Mr. Velasquez. On my part, we get a lot of sun and wind in
New Mexico, so we could use a lot of that for alternative
energy on our part.
Mr. Chabot. In some areas of the country, obviously, solar
is more realistic than others, and wind as well. I agree with
you completely, and I think that is the point, that at this
point in time, we have to look at what is realistic and
reasonable and what the cost is and the safety issues that are
involved and hopefully make the right decisions. That is one of
the purposes of this hearing, to make sure that we are
considering that.
I think this panel has been very helpful in giving us
useful information. Thank you for that.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Velazquez. Mr. Moyer.
Mr. Moyer. I was just going to say, we still have one
restaurant in town that still has horse parking. You can tie
your horse up to his restaurant any time.
Chairwoman Velazquez. I guess that is the right balance.
Again, I want to thank all of you. I have found, coming
from New York City, and to have the opportunity here to listen
to all of you has been a great, great hearing. We have never
conducted a hearing of this nature in dealing with public land
and the responsibility of the Bureau to make sure that they
strike the right balance, and that in the process, small
businesses are not impacted, and looking at ways where we can
exercise oversight to make sure that the Bureau is taking their
responsibility and their mission seriously.
One of the members of this committee is Raul Grijalva from
Arizona, and he chairs the subcommittee that has jurisdiction
over these type of issues. Of course, I will be talking to him
the same way that we are going to be talking with the
Department of Interior in making sure that they get the message
that this committee will intend to exercise oversight over the
responsibility that they have in making sure that we protect
the environment, the land, public land, and the source of
business for the small business people that are involved in
different activities related to public land and the
environment.
Thank you very much.
I ask unanimous consent that members will have 5 days to
submit a statement and supporting materials for the record.
Without objection, so ordered. This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40858.031