Good afternoon. My
name is
As many of us know, the Endangered Species Act was signed
into law in 1973 with its original purpose being to protect species like the
bald eagle and manatee. The Act
authorizes the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
to place restrictions on how agricultural producers can use their private
property in order to protect plants and animals deemed endangered or threatened.
This may include restrictions on clearing land, drawing water, or other
activities that might only indirectly affect a species. Today, we have over 1,
200 species protected under federal law and list continues to grow. Farmers and
ranchers face fines and imprisonment for even the most basic farm practices if
federal regulators believe such actions would disturb the endangered species.
The agencies I
referenced above often do not have a sound scientific basis for imposing these
restrictions. In addition, farmers and ranchers do not have an opportunity to
participate in discussions where ESA decisions are being made about the granting
of permits or other actions affecting their operations. The agencies are
determining how private lands containing species habitat are managed, without
input from the landowner.
To alleviate these
problems, we feel strongly that independent, scientific peer reviews be required
for ESA decisions. We also recommend that affected landowners, local
communities, and the general public be given an opportunity to provide comments
and have them considered on all draft recovery plans.
The current system
is not working. Over 1200 species
have been listed, and only 15 have been removed from the list because they have
recovered. We strongly believe that
a new approach is necessary if we are to make the ESA work for people and
species.
Farmers
and ranchers are not opposed to saving endangered species.
We are opposed, however, to the
arbitrary land use prohibitions that are imposed by species habitat protection
and the harsh and often unreasonable penalties that accompany any activity that
is contrary to administrative fiat. For
these reasons, Colorado Farm Bureau and American Farm Bureau believe that
endangered species protection can be more effectively achieved by providing
incentives to private landowners and public land users than by imposing land use
restrictions and penalties. Desired
behavior is always more apt to be achieved by providing a carrot rather than a
stick. There is no
"carrot" provided by the Endangered Species Act, as currently written.
As agricultural
producers, we want to be proactive in finding common sense, practical solutions
to saving threatened or endangered species. We believe that voluntary,
cooperative conservation programs are one of the best options available right
now to help conserve species and habitat. We are pleased that this committee and
the Administration are interested in learning more about these types of
programs.
In order to ensure
these cooperative conservation programs are grounded through legislation and not
enacted through regulation, we believe all ESA cooperative-based programs
should: 1.) be voluntary with the landowner. Program participation may attract
listed species to the property, impacting neighbors that do not want to
participate and a provision must be made to remove any ESA impacts to such
neighbors. 2.) Focus on providing active species management and innovative
improvement measures, as opposed to passive management through restrictions on
land use. 3.) Not focus on sales of lands or purchases of easements. 4.)
Incorporate removal of existing regulatory disincentives, such as land use
restrictions. In fact, many landowners would more readily accept the removal of
ESA land use restrictions instead of incentive payments.
Specific regulations might include:
·
For the Landowner Incentive Program
1.) Recognize existing and potential state incentive programs. State programs already in existence should be recognized for purposes of providing grants. These programs should not be subject to new criteria for approval by the Secretary.
2.) Incorporate the six characteristics described above as requirements for new state programs. New state programs should include the characteristics described above in order to be eligible for funding under the Landowner Incentive Program.
3.) Provide funding to state programs in the form of grants. Current authorization would provide $50 million to this program and $10 million to the Private Incentive Program. Funding levels for the first few years should tilt the opposite way until more states develop incentive programs, and LIP funding should increase in relation to Private Stewardship funding every subsequent year. This would encourage more state programs.
4.) Require that people in states with cooperative conservation programs can only participate through the state program, and are ineligible for individual competitive grants. Since people in states with programs already have a mechanism to fund their projects, they should not be allowed to compete with people from states that do not have a program for scarce Stewardship grants.
5.) Allocate a small portion of the amount targeted to the state programs as seed money for new state programs. A goal of the Landowner Cooperative Conservation Program should be for states to develop their own incentive programs. A small portion of funds should be set aside to foster those programs.
6.) Provide for confidentiality of personal information for program participants. Access to personal information in records and data should be shielded from federal and state Freedom of Information Act requests to prevent possible harassment or citizen suits. Access to privately owned property for purposes of inspection should be restricted to federal or state employees, and only for purposes of administering the agreement.
7.) Report periodically to Congress to build a record of successes. As success stories are achieved, the program might be expanded and more funds might be made available.
·
For the Private Landowner Stewardship Program
1.) Eligibility restricted to people from states without incentive programs. People from states that already have a program should not be allowed to compete for scarce Stewardship funds.
2.) Geographically diverse participation, if possible. Participation should be from as broad a geographical spectrum as possible, in order to encourage participation.
3.) Limit amount of grants to individuals, and also to groups. Grants should not be restricted to a few large projects, but should be available to as large a number of people as possible.
4.) Establish a small board composed of FWS, state government, industry and environmental interests—to receive applications and award grants.
5.) Short form application and agreement. Paperwork requirements for grant applications and for program administration should be kept to a minimum.
6.) Provisions for monitoring compliance with the agreement. There should be a mechanism for monitoring for results and landowner and agency compliance.
7.) Provide for confidentiality of personal information for program participants. Access to personal information in records and data should be shielded from federal and state Freedom of Information Act requests to prevent possible harassment or citizen suits. Access to privately owned property for purposes of inspection should be restricted to federal or state employees, and only for purposes of administering the agreement.
8.)
Report periodically to Congress to build a record of successes.
As success stories are achieved, the program might be expanded and more
funds might be made available
Positive
incentives might be adopted through creation of a voluntary Critical Habitat
Reserve Program (CHRP) administered by the Secretary of Interior.
Under the proposal, the Secretary of Interior would enter into contracts
with willing landowners and public land users in areas designated as
"critical habitat" for a listed species.
The private landowner/operator would agree to implement a plan for
management of a listed species on his land and retire acres judiciously from
uses that conflict with species management activities. Management plans would
focus on actions that would enhance the species instead of blanket land use
prohibitions.
In
return, the Secretary would provide the costs for implementing the CHR program,
pay annual rental and management fees to the private landowners for the
conversion of private property to CHR use, and provide technical assistance and
management training to cooperating landowners.
The
program would be voluntary, and must protect the private property rights of both
participants and non-participants alike.
The program must contain assurances that participants in the CHRP will
not be later restricted in the use of their property outside the terms of their
voluntary agreements. Participants
who enhance species habitat pursuant to their agreements to the point where
other listed species might also take up residence should not be restricted
because of the presence of these other residents.
The CHR contract would be
for a period of no more than five years, to coincide with the periodic species
review mandated by the Act. In order
not to de-stabilize the economic base of the community, the CHR would be
restricted to no more than 25% of the total area of any one county.
The program would also
permit the enrollment of land that might already be enrolled in other government
conservation programs, and would require consultation between the Secretaries of
Interior and Agriculture to ensure harmony between the CHR program and other
programs.
We
believe that, given the opportunity and proper support from the government,
farmers and ranchers can do a better job of enhancing listed species than the
government. As experienced,
practical land managers who may have observed the species for a number of years,
we bring a working knowledge that government scientists do not have.
More importantly, we can offer day-to-day management of the species that
the government certainly cannot do. Such
a program will result in better management and greater chance for recovery of
the species than is provided under the current law. We also believe that with
the proper incentives and a respect for private property rights of participants
and their neighbors, farmers and ranchers will be willing to participate in the
program.
In
closing, let me give you a perfect example of how a program of this nature can
work for everyone. The mountain plover, a small grass-land bird, was initially
petitioned for listing in February of 1999.
In December of 2002, the Fish & Wildlife Service reopened the comment
period to share new information and to provide the public with the opportunity
to comment. At the time of the listing, Colorado Farm Bureau was opposed to it
being listed largely because all necessary data had not been collected and
analyzed. In comments made to the Fish & Wildlife Service, Colorado Farm
Bureau stated that listing the mountain plover as a threatened species would be
detrimental to agriculture in the State of
As
I mentioned before, when the first proposal came out to list the plover there
was no scientific study comparing mountain plover nest success on non-cultivated
grasslands with nest success on cultivated fields. Nearly all of the studies had
been done on public lands with little or no study having occurred on private
property. In response, Colorado Farm Bureau, along with Division of Wildlife,
Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service began a 3
year study looking at mountain plovers on cultivated lands. CFB members
participated in the study by providing in-kind access to 300,000 acres of
private lands in eastern
In
the spring of 2003, Colorado Farm Bureau made a $3000 contribution towards a
project focusing on outreach mechanisms to heighten awareness for mountain
plovers. These outreach measures included a video to educate landowners on the
mountain plover and its characteristics and a toll-free hotline that farmers can
call to give 72 hour notice of their cultivation plans. A mountain plover team
will survey the land before farmers begin discing, planting, or other
maintenance activities and flag plover nests.
The Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher is yet another species that will benefit from cooperative
conservation. The Rio Grande Water Conservation District, in coordination
with local landowners and agricultural organizations, has submitted a grant
application for a Valley-wide Habitat Conservation Plan for the Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher in the
This
type of success certainly does not have to be limited to the mountain plover.
Currently, Colorado Farm Bureau is working proactively to develop wolf and sage
grouse management plans. We must work together to save these species and our way
of life, as farmers and ranchers.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you today and I will be happy to address any questions the committee may have.
Disclosure Requirement
B. To be completed by
nongovernmental witnesses only:
Alan Foutz
President,
July, 2004
Dr. Alan Foutz was born and raised on the eastern plains of
Dr. Foutz taught in the crop science department at
In 1982 Foutz returned to the family farm. Today he farms about 2,500
acres of wheat, no-till sunflowers and millet using continuous farming systems.
Foutz is currently a Commissioned Lay Pastor in the Plains to Peak
Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Foutz has served on the Colorado Farm Bureau Board of Directors and the
Colorado Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Board of Directors since 1986. He was
elected as Vice-president of Colorado Farm Bureau and Colorado Farm Bureau
Mutual Insurance Co. in 1992. He was elected President of Colorado Farm Bureau
and Colorado Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company in December 2000. Dr. Foutz
served on the Board of Directors for Western Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co. from
1992-95 and on the FBL Board of Directors from 1996-1998.
In 2003, Foutz was elected to serve on the AFBF Board of Directors,
western region. He also serves on
the Board of Directors for FBL, Inc., Farm Bureau Life, Farm Bureau Insurance,
American Farm Bureau Insurances Services and the Farm Bureau Bank.
He served as a member of the American Farm Bureau Federation Wheat
Advisory Committee and on the National Sunflower Board of Directors. Other
boards include the Colorado State University Associate Vice Provost of
Agriculture’s advisory board, Mountain States Legal Foundation Board of
Directors and USDA home security agriculture task force.
Foutz, in 2003, received the Distinguished Alumni Award
from CSU,
Contact information afoutz@colofb.com
Home: 970-345-6679
State Office: 303-749-7603