SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC41–889CC
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY'S LAND BETWEEN THE LAKES AREA
PLEASE NOTE: The following transcript is a portion of the official
hearing record of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Additional material pertinent to this transcript may be found on the
web site of the Committee at [http://www.house.gov/transportation].
Complete hearing records are available for review at the Committee
offices and also may be purchased at the U.S. Government Printing
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
JUNE 21, 1997
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTUCTURE
BUD SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCHOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JAY KIM, California
STEPHEN HORN, California
BOB FRANKS, New Jersey
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
JACK QUINN, New York
TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
SUE W. KELLY, New York
RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
FRANK RIGGS, California
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio
JACK METCALF, Washington
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCMERRILL COOK, Utah
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota
CHARLES W. ''CHIP'' PICKERING, Jr., Mississippi
KAY GRANGER, Texas
JON D. FOX, Pennsylvania
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois
ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
GLENN POSHARD, Illinois
ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, Jr., Alabama
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
PAT DANNER, Missouri
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
BOB FILNER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
MAX SANDLIN, Texas
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
JAY W. JOHNSON, Wisconsin
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota Vice Chairman
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCDON YOUNG, Alaska
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JAY KIM, California
STEPHEN HORN, California
BOB FRANKS, New Jersey
JACK QUINN, New York
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
SUE W. KELLY, New York
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
FRANK RIGGS, California
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
BUD SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania
JAY JOHNSON, Wisconsin
ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
GLENN POSHARD, Illinois
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCFRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Bauer, Robert J., Executive Director, Kentucky Forest Industries Association
Baust, Dr. Joseph A., Sr., Professor, Murray State University, Murray, KY
Carroll, Austin, Board Chairman, Land Between the Lakes Association
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Hamilton,
Milton H., Jr., Commissioner, Department of Environment and
Conservation, State of Tennessee, Nashville, TN
Hess, Charles M., Chief, Operations,
Construction and Readiness Division, Directorate of Civil Works, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
Jordan, Tracy Cothran, Former LBL Landowner
Kennoy, William H., Director for TVA,
Knoxville, TN, accompanied by Dr. Kathryn J. Jackson, Executive Vice
President, TVA's Resource Group, Knoxville, TN, and Ann W. Wright,
General Manager, Land Between the Lakes, Golden Pond, KY
Lassiter, Jody A., Cabinet Liaison, Office of the Governor, State of Kentucky, Frankfort, KY
Laverty, Lyle, Director of Recreation,
Wilderness and Heritage Resources, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Lowe, Rick L., Manager, Resource Management Department, Land Between the Lakes
McKinney, Hon. Terry O., Lyon County Judge/Executive Representing Lyon, Stewart and Trigg Counties
Murray, Ann P., Executive Director, Tennessee Conservation League
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Nickell, David, Former LBL Landowner
Switzer, Ronald R., Superintendent, Mammoth
Cave National Park, National Park Service, U.S. Department of The
Travis, Ella Mae, Former LBL Landowner
Tuck, Tom, Past President, Western Kentucky Arabian Horse Association
Yambert, Dr. Paul, Representing the Concept Zero Task Force
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Bryant, Hon. Ed, of Tennessee
Clement, Hon. Bob, of Tennessee
Whitfield, Hon. Ed, of Kentucky
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Bauer, Robert J
Baust, Dr. Joseph A., Sr
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Hamilton, Milton H., Jr
Hess, Charles M
Jordan, Tracy Cothran
Kennoy, William H
Lassiter, Jody A
Lowe, Rick L
McKinney, Hon. Terry O
Murray, Ann P
Switzer, Ronald R
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Travis, Ella Mae
Yambert, Dr. Paul A
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Murray, Ann P., Executive Director, Tennessee
Conservation League, report, atural Resources Management Plan for Land
Between the Lakes, October 1994, Volume II
Whitfield, Hon. Ed, a Representative in
Congress from Kentucky, article, ''Playground for the Rugged'', by Joe
Creason, Louisville Courier Journal, June 23, 1963
Yambert, Dr. Paul, Concept Zero Task Force:
A Superior Management Proposal for Land Between the Lakes—Concept Zero, pamphlet
Excerpt from the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 1997
ADDITIONS FOR THE RECORD
Anderson, Vernon R., statement
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Doles, Jewell R., statement
Gray, J.R., State Representative, 6th District, Kentucky, statement
Greene, Chris, Teacher, Murfreesboro , TN, statement
Jordan, Tracy Cothran, statement
Matheny, Charles, Central Region Manager, Forest Resources Division, Westvaco Corporation, statement
Kennamer, James Earl, Ph.D., Vice President for
Conservation Programs for the National Wild Turkey Federation, statement
Whitehead, Corinne R., on behalf of the
Coalition for Health Concern, and former residents of the Land Between
the Lakes, statement
Yambert, Carla and Paul, statement
Letters concerning Land Between the Lakes
TVA'S LAND BETWEEN THE LAKES AREA
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCSATURDAY, JUNE 21, 1997
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at
9:11 a.m., in the Lovett Auditorium, Murray State University, Murray,
Kentucky, Hon. Sherwood Boehlert (cairman of the subcommittee)
Mr. BOEHLERT. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment will come to order.
This morning we meet to receive testimony on a
matter of great national and regional significance—management of Land
Between the Lakes, commonly referred to as LBL.
For those of you not familiar with the
proceedings of a Congressional hearing, let me first mention that we
are governed this morning by the rules and traditions of the U.S. House
of Representatives and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. Only witnesses who appear on the official witness list
are permitted to provide oral testimony, although any and all
interested persons are encouraged to submit written testimony for the
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We will strictly adhere to the Committee's five
minute limitation on oral testimony. Let me remind witnesses that
regardless of whether they are able to fully articulate their positions
within the allotted 5 minutes, their complete statements will be made
part of the official hearing record and read by the entire
In addition, the Committee appreciates the
number of individuals and groups desiring to present oral testimony
today. Unfortunately, we could not accommodate everyone. If you were
unable to present oral testimony, I would strongly encourage you to
submit written testimony for our consideration and the official record.
I assure you it will be read and given just as much consideration as
the oral testimony. The Committee will leave the hearing record open
for 30 days for anyone wishing to submit testimony for the record.
With those procedural ground rules stated, let
me now turn to the reason we are all here, to better understand how
Land Between the Lakes, certainly a national treasure, has been managed
and is to be managed in the future. This hearing would not have
happened without the hard work and leadership of our colleague,
Congressman Ed Whitfield.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, that is well-deserved.
He has been tenacious in his desire to educate
members of Congress about this wonderful asset and the many issues
surrounding current and future management.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Incidentally,
I would point out that this is—we were due to come here on March 1 and
we were at 7:00 a.m. in the morning at Andrews Air Force Base waiting
to take off and we were advised that we could not come because of
weather conditions, and we all know what a disastrous day that turned
out to be. But we were determined to come and we have fulfilled the
commitment, and it is a tribute, once again to my good colleague, Mr.
This morning, we had the privilege of flying
over the LBL. Its abundant wildlife, breathtaking natural beauty and
first-class recreational facilities were indeed impressive. I would
encourage, when I get back to Washington, every member of Congress,
whether from New York, as I am, or New Mexico or wherever, to see this
wonderful area first-hand.
I would also note in our elected positions, we
must make difficult decisions about balancing the federal budget,
declining federal expenditures and the more efficient management of our
nation's assets. The tight fiscal environment we live in will require
innovative ways to operate and protect our national treasures such as
Once again, let me thank my colleague, Mr.
Whitfield, for his leadership and the efforts of all the other members
on this panel and throughout the region. I look forward to receiving
all testimony for this critically important hearing.
Now it is my privilege to turn to the ranking
Democrat on the Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman. And I first want to commend you for your leadership in
holding this field hearing on future management plans for Land Between
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Transportation Committee has a long history
of addressing the nation's priorities in a bipartisan manner. Likewise,
Mr. Chairman, I applaud the bipartisan efforts of my colleagues from
the Tennessee Valley, as demonstrated by the members who are here
today. For years, I have worked with my colleague, Bob Clement, who
serves on the Committee and serves in a very senior position. I also
want to compliment Ed Whitfield, who I have also been friends for a
number of years, even before his service in the Congress. And I would
be remiss, Mr. Chairman, if I did not mention Mr.—Congressman John
Tanner, who had also urged me to join you today in this hearing. And I
also want to acknowledge the presence of Congressman Ed Bryant, who
also represents the interests of the valley in a very positive manner.
Like you, Mr. Chairman, I recognize that Land
Between the Lakes is a National Recreation Area, which is also a
national asset, one that is visited by almost three million people each
year. It is a beautiful place that offers plentiful recreational
opportunities and a variety of services to people with diverse
interests. As a National Recreation Area, we have accepted a federal
responsibility to manage it for the people of this region and the
country. However, in today's tight budgetary environment, every federal
agency and every federal program is under review to explore
opportunities to streamline and cut back. TVA and Land Between the
Lakes are subject to this same review.
Several proposals have been circulated to
address the future of LBL and TVA and each has generated lively debate.
As the Committee of jurisdiction, it is our responsibility to review
proposals such as the commission recommended by Congressman Clement. We
may learn that little change is needed or that major change is needed.
Regardless, a review of LBL and TVA is timely and appropriate. This
field hearing is the perfect vehicle to help members learn.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today so that we can better understand the complex management
issues concerning the future of Land Between the Lakes and TVA.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Now the Chair is pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, the reason why we are here, Mr. Whitfield.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Chairman
Boehlert and members of the Subcommittee. And I want to particularly
give thanks to Chairman Boehlert and Mr. Borski and other members of
this Committee for taking the time to come to Kentucky to talk about an
issue that is particularly important in western Kentucky. I also want
to thank those people in attendance today who, by being here, display
and show their interest in this important issue.
I look forward to working with Chairman
Boehlert and with my fellow members of this Subcommittee—as many of you
know, I am not a member of this Committee, but it is the Committee that
has jurisdiction over TVA and LBL. And I look forward to working with
them to ensure that Land Between the Lakes is properly managed and
How did I become involved in LBL? Well, I
remember attending a meeting about a year ago that was on a Wednesday
night over at Kenlake State Park, and being on a Wednesday night, we
really did not think that there would be many people in attendance
because that generally is the night that people attend church here in
western Kentucky. But when we arrived there, there were about 300
people in attendance. And during that meeting, you could actually feel
the intensity about this issue. As we listened to former landowners and
as we listened to people who manage that property, it became very clear
to me that there had not been an oversight hearing on LBL really since
its inception. And so with the intensity that night, I felt it was
essential that we have this hearing and so I requested the hearing
because I felt we had an urgent need to shine the light of
Congressional oversight on certain TVA proposals and management
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Foremost among my concerns were TVA's five
concepts that was being floated to commercially develop LBL at
different stages. These proposals, in my view, violated commitments
made by the federal government over 30 years ago when President Kennedy
authorized Land Between the Lakes to be a National Recreation Area
managed by TVA. To implement this Presidential authorization, property
owners and farmers were forcibly evicted from their land. Not
surprisingly, the public was intensely opposed to TVA's proposals to
commercialize LBL; so much so, that TVA ultimately withdrew them.
Subsequently, TVA Chairman Craven Crowell
unilaterally announced that TVA would no longer seek federal funding
for LBL or TVA's other non-power programs after fiscal year 1998.
Crowell's announcement heightened the public's concern about the future
of LBL. His announcement also shocked members of Congress because he
never discussed the issues with us and with many people even at TVA.
Some members of Congress, as a result, are currently planning to
eliminate all federal funding for LBL in fiscal year 1998, which begins
October 1 of this year.
After Mr. Crowell announced TVA's intention to
walk away from its non-power programs, TVA formed a 19-member task
force to analyze whether he made the right decision. The task force is
comprised totally of TVA employees. Because of the public outcry
against TVA's original plan, this task force will likely recommend
revising TVA's proposal to provide at least some federal financial
support to TVA's non-power programs.
But I fear we face an uphill battle in Congress
because of actions taken by the Chairman of TVA. I hope that this
hearing will help Congress address two fundamental questions:
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, does the TVA Board of Directors have the
willingness, the ability and the commitment to manage LBL to assure its
preservation for future generations?
Two, if not, which agency of the federal
government should be entrusted with federal management responsibility
Views differ on which agency can do the best
job of managing LBL, but I sense there is overwhelming agreement about
the purposes for which the land should be managed. These purposes are
spelled out clearly in a Louisville Courier Journal article that
appeared on June 23, 1963, and I ask unanimous consent to include the
article as part of my remarks.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield and article referred to follows:]
Mr. WHITFIELD. This article
appeared the same week that President Kennedy established LBL as a
National Recreation Area, and I quote from the article, it said,
''Non-commercial facilities in a section set aside for maximum public
In the subsequent 34 years, visitors to Land
Between the Lakes have defined maximum use through their pursuit of a
wide range of recreational activities, including hunting, fishing, bird
watching, camping, environmental education programs, timber harvesting,
horseback riding and hiking, as well as the enjoyment and study of the
LBL's abundant wildlife and unspoiled natural beauty.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Regardless of which federal agency is in charge
of LBL, these pursuits must be allowed to continue. To that end, I will
urge Congress to take the following actions:
First, reaffirm the principle that commercial
development, private or public, is prohibited on Land Between the Lakes
and the public can continue its current recreational activities.
Second, Congress will not allow TVA to walk
away from its LBL responsibilities until Congress enacts provisions to
ensure competent federal stewardship of LBL and adequate funding of LBL
to preserve and protect what is an irreplaceable resource in
Again, I thank the Chairman and my colleagues
from Tennessee, Pennsylvania and New York for being here. I look
forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. And before I yield
back the balance of my time, several of my constituents have asked to
videotape this hearing and I request unanimous consent that they be
allowed to do so.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much,
Mr. Whitfield. That is a very comprehensive statement. I think it quite
eloquently places us where we need to be as we begin this proceeding.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Clement.
Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you, Chairman
Boehlert and our ranking Democrat, Bob Borski, Congressman Ed
Whitfield, his lovely wife, Connie. And I might say, Congressman
Whitfield did go above and beyond the call of duty to make sure we had
this Congressional oversight hearing here at Murray State, which I
think is very necessary. Also, Congressman John Tanner, my neighbor in
Tennessee, as well as Congressman Ed Bryant. The three of us represent
Tennessee and I feel very close to Kentucky. Much of my family come
from Kentucky and I have always looked at Tennessee and Kentucky as
sister states and very, very close and we want to keep it that way. And
I assure you we are in this boat together.
I am a member of this Committee, the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that has oversight,
Congressional oversight authority over TVA operations.
I agree with what Congressman Whitfield said
awhile ago, we were shocked, bewildered, angered, and as a member of
the TVA Board, I took a personal insult to the way and how this was
handled. Chairman Crowell went directly to OMB, Office of Management
and Budget, around us in the Committee, around us as members of the
Tennessee Valley Congressional Delegation. We in the Tennessee Valley
Congressional Delegation, the seven states that are part of the TVA
region, we are the front line troops for you, the people, the seven
million people in the Tennessee Valley area. We are the ones that lead
the fight to protect, defend and support TVA. The TVA Board,
particularly Chairman Crowell, made it very difficult to defend,
support and protect TVA moving into the 21st century.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC I
love LBL. I am telling you I fell in love with it a long, long time
ago, all the way back to 1963. I have traveled extensively in the LBL
area in Kentucky and Tennessee. I know it not only to be a regional
asset, but a national asset. You know, we have over two million
visitors visit LBL every year.
We are here to take testimony on the current
operations at LBL, on the future needs and also the potential future
management options. And what TVA has done to us. We may even have to
have some other federal agency to manage LBL, to restore the funds, the
federal funds, because of the damage that is being done. Pandora's box
has been opened. In my opinion, the TVA Board has violated the TVA Act.
The TVA Board has been responsible for opening up, as I stated,
Pandora's box; they have, in my opinion, acted very irresponsibly, they
have done irreparable harm. And I might say to you, a couple of weeks
ago we had a Congressional hearing in Washington, DC and I gave
Chairman Crowell an opportunity on the record to say to everyone—and I
asked him this question, I said, ''Chairman Crowell, you have got an
opportunity now to say I am sorry, I did not mean what I said, I got
some bad information, I did not mean to zero out all the federal
dollars for LBL and flood control and navigation and recreation and
concern all of us have about our lakes that we surely do not want
privatized; you have got your opportunity right now to say I did not
mean it, I am sorry, I want those funds restored. Are you willing to
say that?'' And he refused to renege or to take back the words and the
agreement that he made to zero out federal funds.
This is a very, very serious matter, and we in
the Tennessee Valley area need to take it seriously. But I assure you,
Bob Clement and others, we are not going to sit on the sidelines and we
are going to fight for the Tennessee Valley area because it is worth
preserving for future generations.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clement follows:]
Mr. BOEHLERT. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bryant.
Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I do have a complete statement and I would ask unanimous
consent to be able to include that in the record and would like to just
make a brief statement.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Fine.
Mr. BRYANT. I thank you, too. I
want to add my special thanks on behalf of the people that are here
today, the people of Kentucky and Tennessee that we represent. I
appreciate very much your effort as well as Bob Borski's effort to take
time out of your busy schedule to come down to our part of the country
and listen to the concerns of our constituents.
I also want to thank all the members of the
audience that came today. I know I showed up at the first meeting
because I drove in and did not get word that it had canceled. I know I
saw several of you there and I think as a result of that place being so
overcrowded, we decided to relocate over into this building. And hence,
the reason for the change of venue. But again, I think your presence
today reflects the importance to Kentucky and Tennessee that LBL is in
terms of both economy and recreation.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To conclude, we have a number of witnesses to
hear. I do share the concerns of all the members—John Tanner, Bob
Clement, Ed Whitfield and others that are not here today for other
reasons, about the future of the LBL. I am very committed to the plan
that has been in place here at LBL, the multi-use purposes that we have
seen that have worked so successfully over the years, that not only
provides the good stewardship of this area, but also the use that not
only the people in Kentucky and Tennessee, but from this entire region,
have the opportunity to just benefit from. And I would like to see that
I am satisfied with TVA's performance in
managing this property, and again at this point, I would prefer, and I
think many of my constituents would prefer that TVA continue as the
manager for this area.
With those remarks, I will conclude and again
thank the Chairman for the time and effort that he has expended, and
especially the interest he has shown in us. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank my colleague. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Tanner.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bryant follows:]
Mr. TANNER. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman and Mr. Borski, I want to thank both of you all for holding
this hearing. I am not a member of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and I want to also thank you for inviting me
to come and participate this morning. This is important to the folks in
Tennessee and Kentucky. It is also important, I think, to the nation as
a whole because LBL, as has been stated before, is a national treasure,
a National Recreation Area, unlike a National Park or Wildlife Refuge.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The counties surrounding LBL in Tennessee are
in the Eighth Congressional District and therefore we do have an
intense interest in the proceedings here.
In the interest of brevity, I have a statement
that I will submit for the record in its entirety, but may I just
simply say this, Mr. Chairman, as we determine the future course of
LBL, who will manage it, what will it look like in the future as
budgetary pressures mount, I think the counties surrounding LBL in
Tennessee are interested not only in what may happen from an economic
development standpoint, but also there is a theory or a theorem, a
payment in lieu of taxes, that is very important to the constituencies
around LBL that must be addressed at some time. And secondly, if there
is in the future a determination made by the Committee or by others,
the Congress, that LBL should be somehow disposed of, then it will be
our strong insistence that those families from whom this land was
originally taken must be given, as they say in real estate parlance,
the right of first refusal, if that should ever come to pass.
So with those few remarks, may I again thank you all for——
Mr. TANNER. Thank you for coming and we look forward to the witnesses in the hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Now we will start with our first panel. The
first panel we will hear from will bring us the point of view of the
Tennessee Valley Authority represented ably by Director, Mr. William
Kennoy, accompanied by Dr. Kathryn Jackson, who is Executive Vice
President for TVA's Resource Group and Ms. Ann Wright, who is General
Manager of Land Between the Lakes. Mr. Kennoy, we are going to try to
adhere to the five minute rule, you have been through this drill
before, but this is a very important hearing, so we will give a little
leeway to this first panel. With that, we will start.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM H. KENNOY, DIRECTOR FOR TVA, KNOXVILLE, TN,
ACCOMPANIED BY DR. KATHRYN J. JACKSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, TVA'S
RESOURCE GROUP, KNOXVILLE, TN, AND ANN W. WRIGHT, GENERAL MANAGER, LAND
BETWEEN THE LAKES, GOLDEN POND, KY
Mr. KENNOY. Thank you, sir. And good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.
It is a pleasure to come before you today on
behalf of the TVA Board of Directors, and with me this morning are Ms.
Wright, who is the General Manager of Land Between the Lakes National
Recreation Area and Dr. Kate Jackson, whois Executive Vice President of
the Resource Group.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Excuse me one second. Can the audience hear okay?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Pull the mic a little bit closer, if you will. Can you hear us up here?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Okay. So we will do our best to make sure we are heard, this is an important subject.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KENNOY. Does this work?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Okay, fine, thank you very much.
Mr. KENNOY. We appreciate this
opportunity to talk about LBL, which is one of 37 National Recreation
Areas and one of the major public recreation areas in this nation's
heartland. So we welcome this hearing because we are proud of the job
that the LBL staff is doing to serve the public's recreation needs. And
this hearing also provides an opportunity to hear from that diverse
group of users who treasure LBL.
We know that LBL is special, not only for the
people of this region, but also for the people across the United
States, and each of them wants what is best, what they think is best
for LBL, and naturally their interests often conflict and it is our
challenge to balance these competing interests.
LBL does serve a diverse group of users because
it was established as a National Recreation Area, and the history of
that designation is germane to the issues surrounding its future. The
idea for LBL took root back in 1959 when TVA recognized the
recreational potential for the peninsula that would be formed by
Kentucky Lake and the impoundment of Lake Barkley. In 1961, President
Kennedy submitted TVA's proposal to the Department of Interior and the
Interior Secretary recommended that TVA develop the area as a
demonstration project. Secretary Stewart Udall said, and I quote, ''The
project will demonstrate how an area with limited timber, agriculture
and industrial resources can be converted into a recreational asset
that will stimulate the economic growth of the region.''
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In following the Secretary's recommendation,
the LBL National Recreation Area was created in 1963. TVA has managed
LBL in accordance with this mandate and the mission statement developed
So, Mr. Chairman, as the Committee looks at the
issues affecting LBL, I respectfully request that you address three
points. These points are the foundation of LBL that the public enjoys
today and are essential to its future.
First, LBL is a National Recreation Area.
Second, LBL is managed for multiple recreation uses that respond to public demand.
And third, LBL is a national asset and should continue receiving federal funding.
It is clear that the future of LBL lies in its
continued designation as a National Recreation Area. It is not a
wilderness, nature preserve nor wildlife refuge, not a national forest
or a national park, but it offers all the benefits of these
designations. As a National Recreation Area, LBL has the flexibility
needed to provide the wide variety of recreational and educational
opportunities that make it so popular. The current activities include
full service camping, backpacking, off-highway vehicle and horseback
riding, hiking, biking, boating, fishing, hunting and environmental
education and nature studies for the entire family.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Now
this wide range of activities attracts more than two million visits
annually by people from every state. In fact, more than 60 percent of
the visitors to LBL come from beyond 100 miles distance. It is this
multi-use approach that makes LBL so valuable as an economic driver for
this region. Today, LBL's healthy ecosystem supports a bounty of
wildlife for viewing as well as hunting, and there is 130 percent more
forest volume now than there was in 1964 when TVA began its management.
LBL is also a national laboratory for cost
recovery management and customer-based decision-making. TVA has met the
fiscal challenges put forth by Congress to make LBL more
self-sufficient. And while appropriations for many federal lands have
increased, LBL's appropriations have remained essentially flat, in the
$6 million to $7 million range for most of the past 15 years. Last
year, TVA received $6 million for LBL and generated approximately $3.4
million in earned income, and this income paid for more than one third
of all operation and maintenance, which is a greater percentage than at
most national recreation areas.
While we have increased LBL's cost recovery
significantly through new ways of doing business, we are reaching the
maximum level possible under current guidelines. Recent attempts to
support new ways to generate income, including adding new facilities
and services, just simply did not find adequate public support.
But that situation is not unique. LBL is only a
microcosm of the national debate about funding and management of public
lands, and solutions do not come easily in the face of competing public
interests and limited budget resources. So the (TVA) Board established
a 19-member task force to identify options and make recommendations for
TVA programs currently funded by Congress, which includes LBL. Since
January, that task force has spent more than 700 hours generating
public opinion, and this includes 22 public workshops and a phone
survey by an independent firm that contacted 3600 people. By an
overwhelming majority, 9 out of 10 people in the 7 state TVA region
want TVA to continue operating LBL. I want to note that at a public
meeting in Clarkesville, Tennessee, drew the largest turnout of the 22
public meetings. And while the large amount was not surprising, we were
surprised that 82 percent said they favored TVA operation of LBL as a
multiple-use recreation area. In the phone survey that we conducted in
three LBL Congressional Districts—the First in Kentucky, the Seventh
and Eighth Districts in Tennessee—showed that 79 percent of those
contacted wanted TVA to continue managing LBL. It is obvious that while
a vocal minority has received a great deal of media attention, the
unpublicized silent majority favors LBL the way it is.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As I stated earlier, TVA is proud of its
balanced management of recreational and environmental education
resources at LBL and we are committed to managing LBL, if that is the
desire of Congress.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the success of LBL
lies in its ability to serve a broad range of recreational needs and
that is possible because it is a National Recreation Area and should
continue to operate under that designation. The question, could TVA or
someone else manage LBL with less federal funding? The answer is yes.
Activities and services can be eliminated, but it will come at the
expense of the users of those services. And one thing that is real
important to me and I think we should all remember that 788 families
and their homes, farms and businesses were moved to create LBL. It is
only fitting that their heritage be preserved as a federal land
So I am confident that we have all the same
objective and that is to ensure that LBL continues to serve the
recreation interests of the American people and produces top value for
the customer and taxpayer.
So, Mr. Chairman, we seek your help and your
support to preserve LBL as a unique regional and national asset.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much,
Mr. Kennoy, and you will note, and I think the audience will note, that
the Chair was generous with its time so that we could frame the issue
properly and give the Director from TVA, Mr. Kennoy, an opportunity to
give us a more comprehensive statement than 5 minutes would allow.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Whitfield.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Kennoy, I was
glad to hear you say that LBL should continue to receive federal
funding, but that position is exactly opposite from what Mr. Crowell,
the Chairman of TVA, announced not too long ago. So what is the
position of Mr. Crowell today? I mean, you are one of three Boards of
Directors; does he favor continued funding by the federal government of
LBL, or not?
Mr. KENNOY. Well at the last
hearing we had, he was asked that question and he did say that we could
consider alternatives, and a compromise is in order. So I think he has
publicly stated that the Board does support receiving federal funding
Mr. WHITFIELD. Okay, so he has changed his position on that then, he does believe there should be federal funding for LBL.
Mr. KENNOY. Yes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now, one of
the problems that people talk to me about relating to TVA—and this does
not reflect the management quite as much as it does the leadership at
TVA, the Boards of Directors, for example—but people say to me many
times that they believe TVA goes out and has a lot of public hearings
to leave the impression that they are asking for input, but that TVA
has already basically decided on what they want to do and what they do
not want to do. To be more specific, many people felt that when you
proposed the five concepts for various stages of development, TVA was
committed in advance to pursuing one of those proposals. And I would
ask you, what is your response to that allegation?
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KENNOY. Well, I never did really look at those as proposals or concepts.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Could you please pull that mike up, because I know everyone is most interested in your answers.
Mr. KENNOY. Yes, sir, thank you.
I never did consider those to be concepts or
proposals. What we were trying to do at that time was to get ideas and
to get public input, to get some conversation started about what really
is the future of LBL, what should happen, what are the possibilities.
So those concepts or proposals or ideas have long since been terminated
by the TVA Board. I mean they are no longer being considered, they are
no longer on the table at all and have not been for a long time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. In your testimony,
you left me with the impression that you felt that TVA is the
appropriate agency to continue to manage LBL. Is that your position
Mr. KENNOY. TVA was originally
created because it had a broad mandate and a lot of flexibility that
other federal agencies did not have. And that is one reason why that
ability exists for TVA to do that. I cannot address the other agencies
and what their missions and mandates might be, or what the agendas
might be. They can best answer that. But those are some of the things
that the task force is going to determine for us, I think October 15 is
the date, is that not, Dr. Jackson, when that will be submitted?
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WHITFIELD. Do
you think, as a Director of TVA, that TVA can walk away from LBL in the
way Mr. Crowell said that they were going to do without the approval of
Mr. KENNOY. When that was brought
up, that really never came before the TVA Board for approval. We were
going through a process of self-evaluation like you do in continuous
improvement, of our whole program, including our power program which is
98 percent of our total program. And those are questions you ask
yourself; you ask yourself those questions as food for thought, you try
to think outside of the box, and you try to generate ideas. Those are
what-if questions. What would happen if this took place. And I do not
know how they got misinterpreted—people can interpret those things
different ways and—but to me, it was just food for thought. It was part
of that process of being honest, asking the honest questions and trying
to get this information in so we could really evaluate all of TVA's
Mr. WHITFIELD. But does the TVA Board today have a position? Do they want to manage LBL or not?
Mr. KENNOY. TVA would be totally pleased to manage LBL, if that is the wish of Congress.
Kate, would you like to add something to this?
Dr. JACKSON. Could I add something
to that? The Chairman's proposal was to examine whether or not there
were more efficient or effective ways to deploy the activities that TVA
currently does with appropriated dollars. And what the Chairman said
was that TVA would like to look into opportunities not to receive
federal appropriations to perform those activities. He never said those
were not essential services of the federal government. One of the
things the task force has done is tried to examine which of the
programs that we are doing are appropriate for federal management and
which should be performed some other way or by some other entity or
group of entities. And we are still committed to completing that task
force report and then those recommendations clearly will go to the
Board. We look to Congress—to this Committee as the oversight committee
and also the Appropriations Committee and the regional delegation—to
clearly take the final action on that.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr.
Chairman, I know my time has expired, but I would just make one
comment. When Mr. Crowell made this announcement, I did not get the
impression that he was asking the opinion or floating this as an idea,
but that it was a decision that he had made unilaterally. That was my
But I know my time has expired, Mr. Boehlert, so thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Whitfield. The Chair recognizes Mr. Clement.
Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I might say I am thoroughly confused, Mr. Kennoy.
Mr. CLEMENT. I might say I have
the utmost confidence in your staff, in your employees. I have lost a
lot of faith and confidence and trust in the TVA Board.
Mr. CLEMENT. I tell you, I have
seen a lot of things in my life but I do not know how you expect us,
the members of the Tennessee Valley Congressional Delegation, and those
even outside the Valley area, Congressmen on the various committees
that care about national assets such as LBL, to carry water when you
send such mixed messages. I cannot believe—like this public opinion
survey that has now been made by TVA that says the overwhelming number
of people in the Valley area want TVA to continue to manage LBL. Why
did you not make that survey before Chairman Crowell zeroed out all
federal funds for TVA for LBL? I mean, why now? Why did we not do that
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KENNOY. Well, I guess, hindsight is 20/20. We are continually monitoring public opinion because we want to do the right thing for LBL.
LBL is really the heart of TVA, a big heart of
TVA. You talk to all the employees, you talk to all our retirees—LBL is
extremely important to TVA and we care a lot about LBL. And this is
just part of the process. Perhaps we did not do it exactly right,
perhaps we got the cart before the horse a little bit, but I think the
intentions were good.
Mr. CLEMENT. But you see——
Mr. KENNOY. We are really trying, everybody is trying to do the best thing.
Mr. CLEMENT. But how can you say you care about LBL when you zeroed out all federal funds for the operation and maintenance of LBL?
Mr. KENNOY. Well, I am not sure
that was the intent. As I said earlier, I think those are honest
questions you would ask yourself internally. If you are really trying
to get at the right answers, if you really want to think outside of the
box, if you really want to do good quality management, if you want to
have continuous improvement. And TVA has had a lot of continuous
improvement over recent years. They have made a lot of progress and I
think this is just part of that overall process of going through that——
Mr. CLEMENT. For the audience, let
me share this with the audience, we have three members of the Board at
TVA, you all have heard me say maybe before, they report to God only
and most of the time they do not listen to God, you know. And I have
made that statement.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CLEMENT. But let me add, the
three Board members are appointed by the President and they are
confirmed by the U.S. Senate for a 9-year term. Now a Board, if you
have three members, two of the three can out-vote the Chairman, two of
the three sets policy, changes direction, et cetera.
How can you explain to the people here how
Chairman Crowell could go up there and zero out all federal funds for
flood control, navigation, recreation, and funds for LBL, all by
himself, Mr. Kennoy?
Mr. KENNOY. I really cannot. The
Chairman is an independent person and all the Board members are
independent and I really cannot. He needs to answer that question, I
think. I think Kate Jackson has—would like to make a contribution.
Mr. CLEMENT. No, I want you to answer these questions, you are on the Board.
Mr. KENNOY. As I said before, I
think it was a question asked in all honesty in a what-if situation:
what would happen if this happened; what would happen if other things
came along that affected TVA and really, we examine ourself. It is part
of self-examination, and I think it was all part of an honest process
to do that.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CLEMENT. Let
me say this to you very clearly. Here is the proposal to eliminate
federal funding of TVA's appropriated programs, Craven Crowell,
Chairman, Tennessee Valley Authority, January 1997. Proposal: To
eliminate all federal funding for TVA's appropriated programs by fiscal
year 1999. It is very clear. It is in print, all of us have a copy of
Let me share with everyone here—and Mr. Kennoy
and the Board are very familiar with what I have proposed—I have
proposed now—maybe we need a cooling off period more than anything, but
I have proposed a regional commission and this regional commission
would meet just for 12 months. It would not be another so-called layer
of government. But we have got utility deregulation right around the
corner, which very well could skyrocket our power rates. We have got a
debt of over $27 billion that TVA has. Now we have this proposal to
zero out all appropriated funds. This regional commission would look at
everything, including changing the structure of the Board where rather
than having a three-member full time board, maybe a part time board of
five, seven, nine people and do it in a different way. Just because we
have had TVA the way we have had it in the past does not mean it is the
way we ought to have it for the 21st century.
And I assure you, Mr. Kennoy, the people in the
Valley area need a bigger voice than they have right now on the future
of TVA and where we are going.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BOEHLERT. I
thank the gentleman. You know, the Chair would note that Chairman
Crowell's statement about future funding of LBL, the non-power aspect
of the budget of TVA, came out within hours of the President's budget
submission to Congress and the American people. It came after
consultation with officials of the Office of Management and Budget. So
I am wondering here if the signal did not come from the White House
that this was going to happen and the inevitable was responded to by
What, Mr. Kennoy, is your response to that?
Mr. KENNOY. Any contact with the
OMB was not a Board action and I am sure there is a lot of individual
interaction between staff members of TVA and individual directors with
OMB and I really could not address that. I really have no knowledge of
the particulars of how that came about.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, I just wanted
the record to note that the President's budget does call for a phasing
out of the funding, and it starts at the top. So we are going to have
to have a lot of analysis of this whole issue.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant.
Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the members of this panel for
testifying today and for taking the heat, not that there should not be
some heat put on you, but I do appreciate your willingness to come
forward and answer the questions.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to also thank you for the job Ms. Wright
and others have done in the management of the LBL. You are in a
difficult position. We do not always do things perfectly to make
everybody happy all of the time, but I think by the numbers that we
have seen through the polling results and the surveys—the multi-purpose
use of this area is certainly the route we need to maintain.
I think, Mr. Chairman, your listing of the
activities, the multi-purpose activities that we have out there is
certainly not exhaustive, there are many others, but they are the sort
of things that I think most of the people in this audience have come to
expect, not only from Kentucky and Tennessee, but within the entire
region of this country. It is a national recreation center.
I think the management from the ecological
side, the ecosystem—the number I wrote down, there is 130 percent more
forest out there than in the 1960s—certainly shows a correct and
appropriate management, not only from the multi-purpose use, but also
from the ecological use. And again, just the sample results of the
surveys and ballots show that the vast, vast majority of the people are
satisfied with TVA's management of this area.
I do not think in the end there is any question
that this asset is not going to disappear. There is going to have to be
an expenditure of Federal funds into this asset, as it should be any
other national park or national recreation area. I think the question
to me is who will continue to manage it and under what management plan.
And as I have said several times today already, I want the TVA to
continue managing it under its current multi-use purpose. I do not want
it turning into a wilderness where people cannot go into it. I want it
to stay as it is.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And if I understand your testimony, and if any
of the three of you have a different opinion, correct me, but I
understand TVA is prepared to continue its current management which, I
think it is a 10-year plan that we are in. Is that correct?
Mr. KENNOY. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. BRYANT. Okay. Ms. Jackson or Ms. Wright, no disagreement on that?
Now do you speak for the Board or do you just speak for Mr. Kennoy today?
Mr. KENNOY. I speak for the Board in what they have set up.
Mr. BRYANT. Is there not a vital
linkage between the power and the non-power side in terms of working
together and the priorities of water levels and so forth, and I am sure
many more that I do not know about, but is there not some significance
and importance to maintaining that connection, whereas if you had
different agencies independent of each other trying to operate the two,
there would be inevitable conflict and balancing of priorities and one
might suffer over the other—is that not a factor?
Mr. KENNOY. We feel like that TVA
can manage the river system more efficiently because we do have all
these things to consider and balance, and the balance is important as
far as how you handle the water levels, how that relates to power. Dr.
Jackson has spent a lot of time in that and she might give you a little
more detail and like to address that a little bit.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. JACKSON. The
tension among the multiple uses of the river system, such as for
potable water, navigation, flood control, recreation and also
hydropower production, is one of the things that has made this
integrated resource management system so effective. And if you begin to
pull apart the synergies among those and create different tensions or a
different set of priorities, a different set of outputs will result.
And so, as we change that equation, we will definitely change the
output of that vital finite resource, the river system, and yes, we get
more out of it because of that multi-purpose tension.
Mr. BRYANT. So if you bring more
decision-makers, in other words if a different organization, different
part of the federal government comes in to run the LBL, it obviously
will be making decisions one way versus TVA who will continue to make
the hydroelectric power decisions.
Dr. JACKSON. That is right.
Mr. BRYANT. So it complicates it.
Dr. JACKSON. The Board of
Directors has broad mandate to make all decisions on the flow of the
water up and down that reservoir system, and recognizing anything we do
up in Virginia or the upper part of east Tennessee has an impact on
Alabama or western Kentucky or western Tennessee. And because of that
broad mandate, TVA has been able to operate the river system without
the conflict that is so apparent, either political or legal conflict,
of other river systems.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I would yield back my time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Bryant. The Chair recognizes Mr. Tanner.
Mr. TANNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief. I know there are many witnesses that we have yet to hear from.
There is no question that LBL enjoys widespread
public support, it is a national treasure, as has been said. There have
been some mistakes made by the TVA Board and others and we might as
well acknowledge that and not try to fight that. I think, from what I
have been told, that the confidence of the people has been shaken
somewhat in the judgment of the leaders of the Tennessee Valley
Authority, and maybe that is all right. But we must move forward from
here. People are understandably concerned about the future of LBL. Not
only, as I mentioned in my opening statement, about the payments in
lieu of taxes, Stewart County, Tennessee for example, an area that has
historically high unemployment, receives about $750,000 a year payment
in lieu of taxes, every penny earmarked for education. When there are
pronouncements made by people in authority at the agency, then there is
understandable concern and that has not been a particularly pleasant
thing for either you all or for members of Congress who represent this
part of the country.
Having said all that, may I simply ask you to,
in your deliberations of this in-house committee that you told us about
when you came to Washington a couple of months ago, may I strongly
suggest that if you want it to be creditable that you solicit, consider
and otherwise make available to the general public the opportunity to
have input. And that not only includes members of Congress, but other
people who are directly affected by the operations of the Tennessee
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Let me just point out the situation as I
understand it. The President's budget includes $106 million for the
non-power aspects of TVA's budget for fiscal year 1998. For fiscal year
1999, the President's budget has nothing, nothing in there—I am not
talking about TVA, I am talking about the President of the United
States, the budget submitted to the Congress—nothing. Not a penny for
LBL, which is about $6 million traditionally; not a penny for
navigation, not a penny for flood control. And as you look at other
portions of the budget, there are no additional dollars requested to
make up for the lost revenue in this portion of the budget.
I just want to make it clear that this
Committee is determined on a bipartisan basis to make certain we do not
walk away from flood control responsibilities, from navigational
responsibilities and we are here demonstrating our interest in the
recreational aspect of that. So this is a very important issue and I
want to thank my colleagues for their attentiveness and particularly I
want to thank Mr. Whitfield for his leadership in this thing. Once
again, let me say he has been tenacious.
I come from beautiful upstate New York—not New York City, I want to emphasize that.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BOEHLERT. But
I come from upstate New York and we too appreciate something as
magnificent as an outdoor recreational area with multiple uses. I have
had first-hand exposure to LBL today and Mr. Borski and I, as we looked
at it, we just marveled at what a treasure that is for your area. We
are not here in any way, shape or manner identified with an effort to
take away that treasure. We are trying to determine how we are going to
preserve that treasure.
Thank you very much, Mr. Kennoy.
Mr. KENNOY. Yes, sir, thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Dr. Jackson, Ms. Wright.
The second panel consists of Mr. Jody Lassiter,
Cabinet Liaison, Office of the Governor for the state of Kentucky and
Mr. Milton Hamilton, Jr., Commissioner, Department of Environment and
Conservation for the state of Tennessee.
Gentlemen, your statements will appear in the
record at this point in their entirety. We would ask that in the
interest of expediting this hearing, that you try to summarize your
statement in approximately 5 minutes.
Let us go in the order announced, Mr. Lassiter, you are up first, since we are on Kentucky soil.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCTESTIMONY
OF JODY A. LASSITER, CABINET LIAISON, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, STATE OF
KENTUCKY, FRANKFORT, KY; AND MILTON H. HAMILTON, JR., COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION, STATE OF TENNESSEE,
Mr. LASSITER. Good morning. Mr.
Chairman and honorable members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of
Governor Patton, I welcome you to western Kentucky and to specifically
Murray, which I am proud to call my hometown. I am Jody Lassiter and I
have the pleasure of serving as the Governor's liaison to the 27
western-most counties of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Governor
Patton has asked me to deliver his statement regarding the future of
Land Between the Lakes, the subject of today's hearing.
The Tennessee Valley Authority is the nation's
largest electricity producer, a regional economic development agency
and a steward of the Tennessee River Basin. In 1963, TVA presented a
proposal to President John F. Kennedy, whereby it would develop a
national recreation area with an emphasis on conservation values and
education in the area of Kentucky and Tennessee lying between Kentucky
Lake and Lake Barkley. It would be called the Land Between the Lakes.
Early on, TVA's Board of Directors decided that
proper development of this unique resource would require full ownership
of the area. Accordingly, 95,000 acres then in private ownership was
purchased to add to the 75,000 acres already in public hands. Nearly
1000 families then living in the Land Between the Lakes were relocated.
The mission of the TVA, to provide resource management, environmental
education and outdoor recreation in this unique region of Kentucky and
Tennessee thus began and has carried forward for 34 years.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now TVA is seeking to divest itself of this
resource, its mission and its commitment to the nation and to the
people of the Tennessee Valley.
TVA has proposed, and this Subcommittee is now
considering, that Congress cease federal funding of TVA's non-power
related functions, including the Land Between the Lakes National
The Commonwealth of Kentucky urges that
Congress in no way eliminate federal funding from preserving this
unparalleled resource. Nowhere else in this nation can man come so
close to his environment to the mutual benefit of both.
Nearly two million people a year visit the
Kentucky portion of Land Between the Lakes. In fact, it is Kentucky's
number two tourist destination. They come to see and learn about such
national symbols as the wild turkey, the bald eagle and the American
bison. Within the 170,000 acres of protected lands and undeveloped
shoreline, there are 200 miles of trails, campgrounds, interpretive
centers and educational facilities. There is habitat diversity with
wetlands, several upland forest types and numerous open grassland
areas. There are more than 1600 species of plants and animals. There
are several biosphere reserve core sites which are undisturbed and
protected from development. There are access points to the lakes
themselves which are magnets for thousands of anglers and recreational
boaters throughout the nation.
This is a place where any man, woman or child
can see, hear, touch and enjoy nature. More importantly, it serves as a
natural learning environment for resource protection and preservation.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It has been suggested in some quarters that the
states of Kentucky and Tennessee should jointly take over and operate
Land Between the Lakes. Speaking for Kentucky, we do not intend, nor do
we possess the financial resources to make up for services lost because
of federal budget cuts. The Land Between the Lakes is a promise made by
the federal government to the people of the Tennessee Valley and should
be a promise kept.
My strongest recommendation to this
Subcommittee is that TVA should retain management and development
responsibilities for Land Between the Lakes. TVA should not be allowed
to turn these responsibilities over to the states or other federal
agencies. Congress should continue its support and TVA should continue
to carry out the mission it both proposed and promised to the people of
the Tennessee Valley and the nation.
Let me assure you that I have a keen
understanding of the demands and pressures on limited federal dollars.
Governors face these problems also.
However, Congress cannot fulfill its obligation
to the Tennessee Valley region while eliminating federal funding for
the Land Between the Lakes. Such an act would amount to an abandonment
of LBL and a loss of a precious resource.
If, as has been suggested, Congress does decide
to turn over the Land Between the Lakes operations to the National Park
Service or the National Forest Service, how will these already
financially strapped agencies operate this new acquisition without
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC If
such a transfer is decided upon, I implore you to accompany it with the
same level of funding currently going into the Land Between the Lakes
operations. Please do not allow this unique environmental showcase to
be relegated to the position of an unwanted stepchild.
My second recommendation to you is that a
partnership task force be created to advise and assist with regard to
the future of Land Between the Lakes. I ask that this task force be
made up of members of both states who represent the groups having a
deep and abiding interest in the region's future. This would include
representatives from the two states' fish and wildlife commissions,
environmental quality groups, natural resources and forestry
departments, conservation offices, biodiversity councils, tourism
agencies and perhaps most importantly people who live in the region and
thereby have the biggest stake in the decisions being made.
I am aware that the TVA Chairman has named a
task force within TVA to oversee any transition that may occur.
I propose that a task force such as I am
recommending can approach the future needs of the Land Between the
Lakes with a much broader understanding and commitment to the region. I
would like to see it become a permanent advisory board with real
authority to oversee operations at LBL whether it continue under TVA or
some other agency. In fact, I believe this task force could best
recommend which federal agency or combination of agencies could best
continue to carry out the mission and the commitment made 34 years ago
to the people of Kentucky, Tennessee and the nation.
The proper resolution of this matter must be
made with much care. There are many needs to be considered with regard
to preserving the natural environment, protecting wildlife, providing
the educational responsibilities that were part of the original
mission, and letting the people have access to and enjoyment of the
recreational aspects of LBL. All of these must be maintained with
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. Thank you very much, I really do appreciate that. And the full statement will appear in the record at this juncture.
Mr. LASSITER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. One quick question, what is the number one tourist attraction in Kentucky?
Mr. LASSITER. The number one tourist attraction?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Yes. You mentioned LBL is number two. I was just wondering what was number one.
Mr. CLEMENT. Basketball.
Mr. LASSITER. UK basketball would probably be a good choice. I am sure it is possibly the Mammoth Cave National Recreation Area.
Mr. BOEHLERT. All right, thank you. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman and
esteemed members of the Subcommittee, I am Milton Hamilton, Jr. I
currently serve at the request of Governor Don Sundquist as
Commissioner of Tennessee's Department of Environment and Conservation.
Today, I am speaking on behalf of the State of Tennessee.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, I want to express my appreciation for
your attention to this important issue, your willingness to come south
to visit with us and for giving us the opportunity to share our state's
We in the Department of Environment and
Conservation, together with Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency managed
by Executive Director Gary Myers, are responsible for and are concerned
with the quality of our environment, the abundance of our wildlife and
the enjoyment by our people of the great outdoors. We are particularly
concerned about the enjoyment and use of the public lands.
Due to these concerns, we are equally
interested in the Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area. On
behalf of the State of Tennessee, I would like to make three beliefs
known to this panel:
1. The State of Tennessee believes that broad
and careful study should be initiated for LBL's future to avoid
selecting rash or poorly considered proposals.
2. The State of Tennessee recognizes that the
LBL lands were taken by threat of or with eminent domain for outdoor
public use. WE feel strongly that traditional public uses established
at LBL should be maintained, particularly the hunting and fishing
3. The State of Tennessee believes that Land
Between the Lakes is a national resource. The United States Congress
should fund its management. Who should manage it is a matter for broad
and careful study.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, thank you for the opportunity to address you on behalf of the State of Tennessee.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Commissioner, appreciate it.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Whitfield.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Lassiter, in
your testimony, you indicated that your strongest recommendation to
this Subcommittee is that TVA should retain management and development
responsibilities for Land Between the Lakes. Now why do you recommend
Mr. LASSITER. Well, being a native
of this region, primarily I can tell you the Tennessee Valley Authority
made a commitment to the people of the Tennessee Valley in 1963 and
fulfilled that commitment, particularly with the actions taken by TVA
in creating Land Between the Lakes. Calloway County, for example, was
the destination of a great many individuals who were removed from the
land between the rivers area, and because of that reason and the strong
feelings and emotions and particularly the promises made by the federal
government, TVA should fulfill that promise.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, in my view,
there is a difference in their responsibility to fulfill it and their
commitment to doing it. But do you feel like there are other agencies
that could manage this property as well as TVA?
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Mr. LASSITER. It
is the position of the Governor and the Commonwealth of Kentucky that
TVA would be the primary operational control authority over TVA.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Now the Daniel
Boone National Forest, of course, is managed by the U.S. Forest Service
and it is a multi-use property just like LBL is. Do you feel like the
Daniel Boone National Forest is being managed in a professional way?
Mr. LASSITER. Absolutely, but
because of the history of the Land Between the Lakes and the commitment
that was made in 1963, the Tennessee Valley Authority is best prepared
to manage Land Between the Lakes and the many other responsibilities
that it undertakes to manage in the Land Between the Lakes recreational
Mr. WHITFIELD. So you primarily are recommending TVA, or the Governor is, because of the history that they have with LBL.
Mr. LASSITER. And its ability to manage the many resources that are there.
Mr. WHITFIELD. But you do not feel like their ability is any greater than say the National Forest Service, do you?
Mr. LASSITER. I believe they are
best equipped and the Governor believes they are best equipped to
follow through on the commitment and to manage the resource.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now you have
indicated that LBL is the second highest place for visitors to come to
as a tourist site in Kentucky. Do you think that there is any chance at
all that the State of Kentucky—recognizing that this draws so many
people to this area—would be willing to provide any funding at all for
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LASSITER. The
Governor's position is that the Commonwealth of Kentucky does not have
sufficient financial resources to contribute to the management of LBL,
and that that should be the responsibility of the federal government
and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. Mr. Clement.
Mr. CLEMENT. Yes. Mr. Lassiter and Commissioner Hamilton, both of you representing the State of Kentucky and Tennessee.
I might say, Mr. Lassiter, you did not mention
the Blue Grass State or horses when you were talking about that first
attraction and LBL being the number two attraction of the state. I just
wanted to put in a plug for Kentucky as well.
Mr. LASSITER. Thank you.
Mr. CLEMENT. Let me ask both of
you, both of you represent the respective states, were either the State
of Tennessee or Kentucky informed about what TVA was going to do, to
zero out federal funds for the future of LBL, prior to them meeting
with the Office of Management and Budget in Washington, D.C.? And if
you were not informed, why do you think TVA did this?
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Mr. LASSITER. Speaking
for Governor Patton, I am aware of no contact that was made with the
Governor's office prior to the statement by Chairman Crowell, and could
not tell you the reasons for the lack of communication before the
statement was made.
Mr. HAMILTON. I also, from the
State of Tennessee's standpoint would have to say that we had no prior
notice of what was taking place. We have had a lot of contact since
that time with the various members of TVA and their board, in my office
and in the Office of Policy, State of Tennessee.
As to why they did not do that, I cannot answer
it. I said in my office that I thought maybe TVA was looking to see
just how much of a power base it had across the United States, and
particularly in the southeast where they are so heavily involved, and
that now they are finding out there is a lot of base of support for the
non-power functions of TVA that probably have more clout than those
that are just purely interested in power.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLEMENT. Yes.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I am sure from both
Governors the response was almost immediate in contacting your
respective Congressional delegations and reacting to Chairman Crowell's
statement. Was it just as immediate in responding to the President's
budget, which was released within hours? Has there been communication
with the White House on this issue? Because the task is made much
easier if the President includes something in his budget; but if the
President—which his budget does not include anything in 1999. Congress
can always insert and we have done that quite often in the past, but it
makes the task easier if we are both on the same page.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Have both your Governors communicated with the
White House, with the administration, to express your feelings? Because
whether or not TVA continues to be funded, if we follow the path that
has been charted minus $106 million from TVA's budget; therefore, no
money to continue the management of LBL, with the thought that there
are other agencies of the federal government that could and do very
effectively manage such resources, but there is no money in the budget
for them either. And so we have a magnificent resource and we have the
navigational portion of the activity and we have the flood control
portion of the activity, and there is no present plan in the year 1999
to have any money to deal with them.
Mr. HAMILTON. As far as I know
from the State of Tennessee, from my office in particular, we did have
a lot of conversation with our Congressional people in Washington. I do
not know whether the finance administration part of our state, which
deals mainly with our budget, had any contact with the federal
government through the White House or not. I would have thought that
there would have been some contact there, particularly since the Vice
President is a Tennessean.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Well knowing Governor Sundquist as I do, I can imagine there was swift.
Mr. HAMILTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Lassiter.
Mr. LASSITER. I am aware that
Governor Patton has been in contact with the White House with reference
to those budgetary items. As to the detailed communications, I could
not speak to them.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BOEHLERT. Sure,
I understand that, it is privileged communication. But I just wanted to
make sure that they understand that there is a player there that is
Mr. CLEMENT. My last question
would be about a regional commission which would be in existence just
for 12 months, about the future of TVA and what we expect of TVA in the
21st century. Would you support that, Mr. Lassiter?
Mr. LASSITER. Yes. Governor
Patton's proposal specifically states that there should be an advisory
committee made up of the stakeholders in this region to advise and
assist the TVA in managing its most precious resource, which is LBL.
Mr. CLEMENT. Commissioner Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Well, certainly
Tennessee would prefer some logical approach to trying to determine,
instead of a crash approach immediately trying to remove this from TVA.
We do not see, from my perspective, in dealing with the parks and
recreational areas of Tennessee that there will be any money saved if
you transferred it to anybody else but that needs to be considered in
the process because the land has to be managed by whoever you give it
to. If you give it to the Corps of Engineers or the U.S. Forestry
Service, that $106 million, you are not going to be able to save it,
somebody has got to manage it.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Mr. CLEMENT. Commissioner
Hamilton, you are absolutely right and I think that is what has been
unfair about TVA's proposal, leaving the impression that we are going
to have this budget savings, that we are downsizing. We are really
deceiving the public because if TVA is not involved in LBL and these
other functions in the future, someone else is going to have to take
over those responsibilities.
Mr. HAMILTON. That is correct.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bryant.
Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I just have one quick question to both members of the panel.
You have already answered most of my questions, but sometimes words
mean different things to different people.
But in terms of this word ''multi-purpose''; I
interpret that to mean that both your states, Tennessee and Kentucky,
support the continued multi-purpose use of the LBL, which to me,
multi-purpose is like it is being used today, various ways, 365 days a
year it is open to the public to do these various recreational things.
Is that your understanding of the word ''multi-purpose,'' both of you?
Mr. HAMILTON. It is certainly our
understanding in Tennessee, because we want the hunting and the fishing
to continue, we want the nature trails, the wildlife watching, all this
type thing, camping, recreational. That is what it is there for and
that is what the people are using it for, and it should continue.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Lassiter.
Mr. LASSITER. Absolutely. We do
not want the use of Land Between the Lakes, which has already been
restricted to some circumstances now, to be restricted any further and
that multi-purpose use continue.
Mr. BRYANT. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. Mr. Tanner.
Mr. TANNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I too will be brief.
Mr. Lassiter, I was interested in the Governor
of Kentucky's proposal about a Tennessee/Kentucky task force, meeting
or whatever. Has he communicated that to the State of Tennessee?
Mr. LASSITER. I understand that to be the case.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Hamilton, would the State of Tennessee be equally interested in such an idea?
Mr. HAMILTON. I think the State of
Tennessee would be interested in either way that the Congress would
decide that we should do it. We can do it together and make
recommendations or the task force that Congressman Clement is talking
about would certainly be a broader perspective than just the two
states, because it is not just serving the State of Tennessee and the
State of Kentucky. We have people from all over the United States
coming to use LBL. It is a great natural area.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TANNER. I
understand that and I do not think the two ideas are mutually
exclusive. I know that the people that are involved most directly are
those who live in Tennessee or Kentucky around LBL and I would hope
that they would have perhaps a bit more input than someone who is just
a visitor from Michigan or Maine or—pardon me, Mr. Chairman—New York.
Mr. TANNER. Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Any further questions of any of the panel members?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much,
and tell your respective Governors how much we appreciate your being
here. And please, Mr. Hamilton, pass along to my classmate Don
Sundquist my best wishes.
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you.
Mr. LASSITER. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. The third panel
consists of Mr. Austin Carroll, Board Chairman, Land Between the Lakes
Association; representing the Kentucky Forest Industries Association,
Mr. Robert Bauer, Executive Director; from our host, Murray State
University—and incidentally, they have been most gracious hosts and we
do appreciate it—we have Dr. Joseph A. Baust, Professor, and Dr. Paul
Yambert for the Center for Environmental Education; from the TVA-LBL
impacted counties, we have the Honorable Terry O. McKinney, Lyon County
Judge/Executive and from the Land Between the Lakes, the Team Leader in
Resource Management, Mr. Rick L. Lowe.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Gentlemen, we would ask that you try to
summarize your statement in 5 minutes or less, which will allow us
ample time for questions. Your full statement will appear in the record
at this juncture in its entirety.
We appreciate your being willing to serve as
resources for this Subcommittee as it goes about its very important
business, and we will now proceed with the panel in the order in which
the panel was announced. Mr. Carroll, you are up first.
TESTIMONY OF AUSTIN CARROLL, BOARD CHAIRMAN, LAND BETWEEN THE LAKES
ASSOCIATION; ROBERT J. BAUER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KENTUCKY FOREST
INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION; DR. JOSEPH A. BAUST, SR., PROFESSOR, MURRAY
STATE UNIVERSITY, MURRAY, KY; DR. PAUL YAMBERT, REPRESENTING THE
CONCEPT ZERO TASK FORCE; HON. TERRY O. MCKINNEY, LYON COUNTY
JUDGE/EXECUTIVE REPRESENTING LYON, STEWART AND TRIGG COUNTIES; AND RICK
L. LOWE, MANAGER, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, LAND BETWEEN THE LAKES
Mr. CARROLL. Good morning. My name
is Austin Carroll. On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Land
Between the Lakes Association, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to come and talk about the past and future of Land Between
the Lakes. The Land Between the Lakes Association is a non-profit
501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to assist with the improvement,
promotion, conservation and wise use of Land Between the Lakes. The
Association is independent of the Tennessee Valley Authority. It was
created by a group of private citizens. We are proud to be in our 15th
year of assisting with the stewardship of Land Between the Lakes.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC As
Chairman of the Association, I represent individuals who are interested
in LBL's future as a multi-use recreation area, a national attraction
and a demonstration area that includes environmental education and
natural resources management. Because of its national importance, LBL
is also a property that is a vital component of the continued economic
development of our region.
Our Association Board is a diverse group of
volunteers composed of business and community leaders, educators,
tourism industry representatives and descendants of former LBL
residents. In spite of our diversity, we speak with a single voice when
we talk about securing the future of Land Between the Lakes.
Land Between the Lakes is the largest
contiguous deciduous forest land between the Rockies and the
Appalachians. We like to say it is the biggest green thing between the
Rockies and the Smokies in the central part of the country. Within a
day's drive of more than two-thirds of the population of the United
States, LBL's 170,000 acres of scenic woodland and 300 miles of
undeveloped shoreline must be considered a priceless one-of-a-kind
While LBL can certainly be considered a jewel
in the nation's crown, we believe it should not be considered as a
candidate for preservation based management that has served some other
public lands so well. Applied in the strictest sense, preservation
would dramatically change the nature of LBL's mission in outdoor
recreation, environmental education and natural resource management.
It is paramount that LBL continue to be managed
with the multiple-use stewardship, those techniques that TVA has
applied successfully for more than 30 years. Multiple-use management
has allowed LBL to demonstrate that it can be a leader with a 36
percent cost recovery rate for its operation; quadruple LBL's deer
population; increase by 10 times the number of wild turkey on Land
Between the Lakes; reintroduce native species like the bald eagle and
the woods elk; identify and maintain sites for 22 federal endangered,
threatened and sensitive species; and increase LBL's volume of trees by
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
All of these accomplishments have been achieved
while LBL has also provided the additional services that the traveling
public desires, such as wildlife viewing, camping, hiking, horseback
riding, hunting and more. In fact, it is because of this multiple-use
approach that LBL has become, as was mentioned before, the second most
popular tourist attraction in Kentucky and third in Tennessee I
In planning for the future, the woodland
environment of LBL should not be confused with the wide open landscapes
of the west. For LBL, a key element of success has been the active
management of the landscape and its wildlife. When prairie fires ceased
and huge herds of grazing elk and bison disappeared, so did the open
spaces. Optimizing wildlife population levels and viewing opportunities
today now requires active professional management practices, including
selected timber harvest and maintaining forested openings and
controlled game hunting.
As we look ahead to Land Between the Lakes in
the future, we ask that some basic principles be used to guide its path
into the future:
1. The federal government must recognize that
it has an inherent responsibility to provide ongoing support for
safeguarding the rich cultural heritage of the land and the people who
have lived on this land.
2. Any managing agency must continue to focus
on LBL's original multiple-use mission to manage the resources of LBL
for optimum yield of environmental education and outdoor recreation
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC 3.
A clear definition of appropriate visitor services must be determined.
This definition must address a range of requirements, including visitor
needs for convenience and accessibility. There will never be 100
percent agreement on what level of commercial services are acceptable
for LBL. Still, the service needs of LBL visitors must be satisfied if
LBL is to remain a viable recreation attraction for this central region
of the country.
4. No plan for the future of LBL should be
considered without a viable implementation plan including realistic
funding resources and reasonable expectations for internal revenue
As I stated earlier, LBL is a national treasure
that has significant impact on local and regional well-being. This is a
proud region with a proud heritage and we are committed to doing
whatever needs to be done to see that LBL has a secure future. We, the
people of the region, accept the responsibility for making this happen,
but we also must insist that the responsibility be shared with the
The federal government cannot turn its back on
Land Between the Lakes. Huge investments have been made in land and
personal sacrifice by those who have lived here and those who have
worked here. We maintain that the federal government has a mandate to
continue its stewardship of this distinctive natural resource. We can
build upon our strengths as we work together to find innovative ways to
secure the future of Land Between the Lakes.
Thank you for your interest in this issue and we appreciate you folks allowing us to have input.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Carroll. Mr. Bauer.
Mr. BAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. My name is Robert Bauer
and I am the Executive Director of the Kentucky Forest Industries
Association. I appreciate the opportunity to address the Subcommittee
concerning future management of LBL.
The Kentucky Forest Industries Association
represents over 700 member companies that support a $2 billion wood
industry that provides over 25,000 jobs in Kentucky. The Association
works closely with these members and I am providing testimony on their
The management of LBL has served as an
excellent national model of resource management. When these lands were
assembled, the mission of LBL was to provide environmental education
and recreation within a multiple use conservation framework. We
strongly feel that continuing the traditional mission of multiple use
management of these lands should be a priority for this Subcommittee.
Hunting, camping, wildlife viewing, nature
photography, hiking, outdoor classrooms, ORVs, horseback riding, bird
watching and many activities have coexisted in LBL for many years. This
National Recreation Area recovers 36 percent of its costs which is far
more than any other area in the country. LBL should not be passed
around different government agencies, but used as a demonstration model
for other areas around the country.
In 1994, the LBL Natural Resource Management
Plan was supported by over 2600 people or 93 percent of the commenters.
The LBL Alliance, comprised of numerous outdoor user group
organizations was formed at that time and provided many comments
supporting multiple use in LBL. KFIA was a member of the Alliance. The
cost of this planning process was $3 million. This plan should not be
thrown out the window for another planning process at the urging of a
vocal minority, but should be used to guide future management. Recent
planning efforts have shown the public does not want extensive
development in LBL and past efforts have shown the public
overwhelmingly opposes total preservation. In short, most people
support a balanced approach to managing LBL.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In order to reach these management goals, the
agency which manages LBL must have all the tools available for
effective management that support a recreation/education mission. This
includes judicious timber harvesting to meet a wide range of objectives
from ensuring different age classes and stages of forest are available
for enhancement of wildlife habitat and to provide for all aspects of
LBL is currently 89 percent covered by an
oak/hickory forest. According to research, this has been the forest
type in the LBL region for over 10,000 years. LBL's forest has grown
from 308 million standing board feet in 1966 to over 700 million board
feet today. During this same 30-year period over 120 million board feet
was removed through timber harvesting. Trees in the forest have grown
larger and improved in overall quality since TVA ownership. Timber
harvests typically remove the worst trees and leave the better trees in
the forest more room to grow. Also, with the exception of 1 year in the
early 1980s, LBL's timber program has never been below cost. This is
partly due to the minimum of red tape required through internal
regulations. It indeed is a national model to follow.
Local wildlife are highly dependent on the nuts
and acorns this forest provides. The average acorn yield was 78 pounds
per acre in 1966. The last 10-year survey showed an average of 110
pounds per acre. The current ecology of LBL is such that over time, 40
percent of the oak/hickory acorn and nut producing forest will be lost
as it converts to a maple/beech forest. A maple/beech forest has a very
low food value for wildlife and limited plant habitat. A recent 4-year
study by Dr. Scott Franklin concluded that management is needed to
maintain an oak/hickory forest in LBL and to prevent the takeover of a
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Talk
of future management would not be complete without mentioning the
tremendous impact these lands have on the local area—jobs and income
generated from timber harvesting, hunting, camping, hiking and many
other uses. The LBL timber program alone supports 124 jobs and
contributes over $4 million to the local economy without adversely
affecting market conditions. In addition, local counties depend on TVA
for payments in lieu of taxes. In 1994, TVA paid about $7 million to
LBL surrounding counties.
For 30 years, forest management in LBL has been
a unique demonstration to everyone, from the wood industry to local
school children. In fact, 93 percent of the comments received on the
Natural Resource Management Plan supported active forest management on
LBL. Management has focused on wildlife habitat rather than forest
products since 1966. In fact, eight of the nine bald eagle nests in LBL
are located in timber harvest areas. If that is not testimony to proper
forest management, what is? In light of Dr. Franklin's recent findings,
strong evidence of past success, and overwhelming public support for
active forest management, we believe this program is crucial to proper
management of LBL.
We strongly prefer that LBL remain in TVA
ownership for the benefit of local counties as well as for continuance
of past model management. If a new agency must be chosen, KFIA supports
one that would continue LBL operations as they exist today. We suggest
in the event of transfer, the USDA Forest Service be given careful
consideration. Of all possible executive branch agencies, we believe
their multiple-use mandate most closely mirrors LBL's past management.
Again, I thank the Subcommittee for allowing me to speak today.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Dr. Baust.
Dr. BAUST. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning.
I must say I come here with a bias. The bias is
that I have been involved in education for 30 years of my life and my
belief is that the future of this country hinges on what we do, how we
educate our kids, especially in view of the time that now we see our
students are not able to do as well in mathematics and science as
children in other comparable countries and even smaller countries. And
so, I am here with somewhat of a bias, I must say.
What we teach sometimes to our students is that
there are some indicator species, those species sometimes tell us about
the health of our environment. Well today, I would like for us to look
at one facility at Land Between the Lakes as maybe an indicator of the
health of education at Land Between the Lakes.
You have before you some pictures. If you
choose to look at them with me as I go through my testimony, I would
I would like to take an imaginary walk through
the Youth Station. This is one of the group camps at Land Between the
Lakes, 200 acres, 16-acre island that is associated with it. And on our
walk, I want to provide you a vision of environmental education at the
Youth Station at Land Between the Lakes.
We walk past the gate of Youth Station and
proceed along the winding road. This is a quiet, pastoral setting that
leads to an oasis where there is a dining hall and six cabins, home
away from home for 72 persons. This place left unoccupied, filled with
unused materials and equipment, is an indication that Youth Station
once was a bustling place, is now a ghost town.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Cathy Johnson and Lou Nell Litchfield, friends
of ours and also former cooks at the Youth Station at Land Between the
Lakes, relate a story. I think it is a poignant one. They related a
story about inner city Nashville children—a former home of mine as
well—and they said when the children were told they were going home
from Youth Station, they hid behind the trees and begged to stay. This
Lou Nell Litchfield said to me, why, I say why? Because Youth Station
made a connection to nature, made a connection to math and science and
language arts and social studies. It made a connection and allowed
these kids to see the simple gifts—you know, the Shaker hymn, the
simple gifts. Well, it made that connection for them.
But Youth Station made an impact on all
children, rich and poor, inner city, suburban, rural. It is from the
dining hall porch that Majority Leader Dick Armey and Secretary Bruce
Babbitt stood there and saw the promise Youth Station represented. This
bipartisan realization is reflected in Armey's statement, ''You have so
much opportunity here.''
What interest is there in Youth Station at LBL?
Well, currently there is none because it is closed, has been closed
since 1994. But Murray State and Austin Peay University joined together
to propose a model environmental education center at Youth Station for
children, the two universities would take a share in its running. We
wanted to help TVA and we wanted to educate children and teachers in
environmental education. Teachers, schools and other groups pledged to
use Youth Station 350 days per year—that is our survey. It comes from
the two universities.
There were 150 persons that volunteered from
Murfreesboro, Tennessee to Paducah, Kentucky to help us repair that
facility. And we raised over $23,000 in independent monies to help in
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Well, why have environmental education at LBL
at all? Because it is the mission of LBL to provide environmental
education for all Americans. It is good education, it is connective. In
a time when there is so much skepticism about government, our children
need and our citizenry needs to know that promises are kept. TVA made a
commitment to the former owners of LBL that they would create a
national recreation and environmental education area. We must assure
our children and our citizenry that we keep our word.
LBL's own survey found that 58 percent believed
that education should be the only business of LBL. This is yet another
confirmation of need as assessed by the people.
Lynn Hodges is the past president of the North
American Association for Environmental Education. He is also a member
of the staff of the Tennessee Valley Authority in Knoxville or Norris.
He stated that Youth Station was an important part of LBL's
environmental education mission. It had and still has the potential of
becoming a model facility, a national laboratory for environmental
All training at Youth Station, as we proposed,
Austin Peay and Murray State, should apply national standards in
environmental education in math, in science and other disciplines.
Youth Station should be a place where all who enter its gates should
experience quality education. It should provide skills and knowledge so
each person can make a well-informed decision and exercise his or her
rights and responsibilities as a member of the community. We want
critical thinkers, we want problem solvers. That is what we want and
that is what that facility represents.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Let
us look at some for instances. If we educated 500 teachers at that
facility the first year, we would reach 150,000 children over a 10-year
period. Let us even increase that. If 2000 teachers were trained at
that facility, 600,000 children would be impacted over a 10-year
period. What a good use of money, geometric increase.
If we can work together for a common good,
Youth Station can be saved from neglect. We would all be
winners—government, universities, communities becoming partners to make
a difference for children and teachers. It not only makes good sense,
it is just really cost effective. Education is a long-term investment
worth long-term commitment. Youth Station must become a national
demonstration project, it must not be allowed to fall to the ground.
There is a need, there is a promise. We want
our children to be good mathematics persons, we want them to be good
problem solvers, we want them to be good communicators. We should
provide the opportunity for others to stand on the porch of Youth
Station and see what Secretary Babbitt and Representative Armey have
seen—so much opportunity.
Please let us find a way to work together. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Dr. Yambert.
Dr. YAMBERT. Howdy. I am here to represent the Concept Zero Task Force. We appreciate the opportunity today, it is both welcome and urgent.
Unlike many of the people in the audience, I am
not a former resident or owner of land between the rivers. But I am a
current owner of Land Between the Lakes and of TVA. To fracture an old
aphorism, if it is broke, try fixing it before discarding it. Our claim
that LBL is broke is not based on its claims of inadequate funding. LBL
is broke because it no longer performs the functions for which it was
created; that is, its mission.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to LBL's explicit mission with
which we are all familiar, the implicit mission contains the promises
and assurances found in the Congressional testimony and the press
releases at the time of LBL's birth. In addition, we expect high
ethical standards, including using but not abusing science; heeding,
not circumventing, Congress; and completing, not competing with,
private and state enterprises.
Time constraints dictate that we deal only with
a few of the more egregious shortcomings of LBL today. I will mention
Disregard for its promises and its mission. The
promise of uniqueness, including no commercialization within LBL, was
first broken with the seemingly innocuous sales of ice and soft drinks
and has recently been broken at an increasing rate and scale by new
gift shops, restaurants, campground stores, bikes, cabins and ponies
for rent and sites for lease. Similarly, LBL's once exemplary
environmental education programs have degenerated to the motel for rent
and kiosks to read level.
Number two; disregard for public participation
in planning. In late 1995, LBL submitted and then was forced to
''officially withdraw'' its now infamous five preliminary concepts. LBL
quickly dropped all pretense of following the legislated NEPA process
and soon began to implement the plans it had disingenuously insisted
were only concepts with no EIS statement, no consideration of
cumulative effects, no preferred alternative and, apparently, no shame.
Number three; disregard for directives of
Congress. According to explicit Congressional directives, H.R. 479, LBL
is to become more nearly self-sustaining, self-sufficient, by becoming
an increasingly natural area with scaled down programs and staff.
Instead, LBL has rapidly expanded its commercial infrastructure.
Despite this defiant, spendthrift management, some Senators and some
Congressmen have pledged additional funds when additional commitment to
the mission is a far greater need.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Number four; disregard for the future. Federal
agencies have the option of longer planning horizons than private
enterprises. LBL has failed to embrace this option. Adding to its
failures in maintenance, LBL is now harvesting timber in potential core
areas of the biosphere reserve. This foreclosing of future options
indicates a lack of business acumen and ecological sensitivity which
cannot, in the context of the mission, be condoned.
LBL is operating as if a remiss Congress will
not insist upon retro-development or upon rededication to the mission,
the mission which worked so well for 30 years without intensive logging
or commercialization. Tragically, these broken promises have long term
moral, economic and ecological consequences which we, and the
environment, can ill afford.
By remaining faithful to its mission, LBL could
become an increasingly effective green magnet, requiring only a modest
budget, fulfilling its stewardship obligations, retaining its
uniqueness and, albeit gradually, regaining the confidence of the
In order to move toward this goal, we ask those
of you in Congress to take immediate and effective action as follows:
A. Establish a regional commission to evaluate
TVA's transition plans and those of possible successor groups.
B. Establish an immediate moratorium on any
further commercialization at LBL until step one is complete.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC C. Consider how LBL can best serve as a model demonstration of enlightened federal land management.
D. Evaluate the feasibility of establishing a
combined public/private endowment fund to manage LBL in perpetuity.
Obviously LBL deserves the lion's share of the
blame for the cascading abandonment of its mission. It is also clear
too few in Congress are dedicated to their oversight responsibilities.
Similarly, we the people have allowed ourselves to become passive and
poorly informed observers of the sociological and ecological processes
taking place at LBL. Both as a beloved site and as a bellwether for
federal land management, the future of LBL will soon be defined.
We of the Concept Zero Task Force will not be
among those guilty of allowing LBL to become a land of broken promises
rather than the land of promise it can and should become.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Yambert.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Judge McKinney.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Judge MCKINNEY. Today
with me on the stage is Jim Wallace, who is Superintendent of Trigg
County School System and also a former resident of Land Between the
Lakes, and Burlin Moore, the Trigg County Judge/Executive. So they are
also joining me in case there are tough questions, they are to answer
Today, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members,
distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, I speak to you on behalf of
Stewart County Tennessee; Trigg County, Kentucky and Lyon County,
No one group of people has paid a greater price
in the name of TVA than those forced to move from between the rivers.
In 1961 TVA Board members proposed to President John F. Kennedy that
the land between Kentucky and Barkley reservoirs be made into a
national recreation area. The lives of many people from Stewart County,
Trigg County and Lyon County would never be the same. The federal
government owns 42.79 percent of Stewart County, 40 percent of Trigg
County and 40 percent of Lyon County. The three counties receive $1.6
million from TVA annually. Tennessee distributes TVA power funds in
lieu of taxes to its 95 counties for general operating purposes.
According to TVA sources, TVA generated
$713,461 for Stewart County in 1996 from LBL. Since the 1994-1995
fiscal year, the general purpose school fund advanced to be the sole
recipient for all of Stewart County's State Revenue Sharing TVA
revenues. Should these funds be abolished, the Stewart County children
will suffer a great injustice. It should also be considered that with
43 percent of the property in Stewart County owned by the federal
government, this decreases the property tax base available. It is a
very rural area, where the largest employer is the school system. To
remove this amount of money from the school system budget would mean
cutting services to the children of the county and raising the
unemployment level, since cutbacks would be necessary.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The State of Kentucky retains 30 percent of all
TVA power monies that it receives, as well as all interest earned
between the receipt of TVA monies until annual distribution to the 33
TVA counties and their respective county school systems is made.
Trigg County received about $100,000 for fiscal
year 1995-1996, which represents 11 percent of the county general fund
budget. In past years, the amount received has been greater. Essential
services are provided with these funds.
The Trigg County School District has averaged
$406,786 each year during the past 10 years. The TVA payment makes up
seven percent of the school's general fund budget. Without this source
of revenue, the Trigg County Board of Education would be forced to cut
staff and reduce their student services.
Lyon County has received an average of $101,000
for the past 4 years from TVA. TVA's 1996 funding accounts for 11.7
percent of the general fund budget. The county received more from the
federal government than from local taxes in prior years.
The Lyon County Schools have received a total
of $1,517,158 over the past 5 years. This was the total amount
received. The current annual TVA payments are equivalent to ten
certified teachers in the Lyon County Schools. TVA makes high quality
education possible for Lyon County students.
The 170,000 acres in Land Between the Lakes
contains 420 miles of roads, 90 bridges and five dams. The money
necessary to maintain these transportation needs is not available to
the three counties from Tennessee and Kentucky. According to our
figures, it takes $1500—between $1200 and $1500 a mile just to maintain
the road, so this would be a total of $630,000 annually. Within LBL we
also find 221 cemeteries. These cemeteries require access and security,
so the former residents can visit their loved ones that have passed on.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We cannot change the past. On March 25, 1963,
President John F. Kennedy received a proposed press announcement from
his Secretary of the Interior:
''The President announced that the Tennessee
Valley Authority will develop a Natural Recreational Area as a
demonstration in resource development in the 170,000 acre
Between-the-Lakes area.... The agency will administer the area for a
period required to complete the demonstration, estimated to be about 10
years. At the end of that period, arrangements for permanent
administration of the area for outdoor recreation will be determined.''
LBL has been in the hands of TVA for over 34 years.
If TVA ceases to control the multi-use
recreation area, Stewart County, Lyon County and Trigg County request
Local governments be funded directly from Washington, D.C.
Funds be established equivalent to the highest year of TVA payments.
Funds increase consistently with inflation.
Multi-use recreational management continue for tourism economy.
All roads to cemeteries be maintained.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC A strong relationship with former LBL residents be maintained.
United States fulfill all ethical and financial obligations to the counties and people of LBL.
On behalf of Stewart County, Trigg County and Lyon County, thanks for your concern for our future.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Judge. Mr. Lowe.
Mr. LOWE. Thank you, Mr. Boehlert.
I am the acting manager of the Resource Management Department at Land
Between the Lakes. My colleagues and I are responsible for protecting
and managing LBL's wildlife, forest and fields. I hold a Master of
Science degree in wildlife biology and I have been involved with the
stewardship of LBL's wildlife resources for the past 20 years.
Congressman Whitfield's staff asked that I
share with this Committee some information about LBL's wildlife, and I
appreciate this opportunity, Congressman. I also want to thank you and
Congressman Bryant and Congressman Tanner for the longstanding support
of the conservation of LBL's wildlife resources. I encourage other
members of Congress to join them in very carefully considering LBL's
valuable wildlife resources, as the future of the area is deliberated.
TVA manages LBL's forests and fields for a wide
variety of wildlife. Today, there are 352 vertebrate species found on
LBL, most of which are forested animals. About 89 percent of LBL is
forested, seven percent is in open land and only four percent of LBL is
in developed roads and facilities and other infrastructure.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a result of habitat improvements, as others
have told you today, many wildlife populations have dramatically
increased. For example, our wild turkey flock has increased ten-fold
while the deer herd has increased four-fold. And the bald eagle has
also staged a remarkable comeback. When TVA assumed responsibility for
LBL there were no eagle nests, only a wintering population of about 20
birds. Today, however, LBL has 13 nesting territories and a wintering
population of about 150 eagles. This rapid recovery has been due in
part to restoration efforts conducted by TVA and partners. Similar
restoration efforts have been successful for osprey, giant Canada
geese, river otter and ruffed grouse. And we are currently exploring
the feasibility of releasing elk onto LBL.
The overall health and vigor of LBL's forest
has also vastly improved. As you have heard today, our standing timber
volumes have more than doubled since assuming ownership and
three-fourths of the forest is dominated by large mature trees, as you
saw today as you had your overflight.
LBL is nationally known for its hunting and
wildlife viewing opportunities. Currently, we offer over 230 days of
hunting annually. And to illustrate the scope of public interest in
hunting, please consider that since 1967, over one half million people
have submitted applications for deer hunting on LBL. During this same
period, a quarter of a million archers have hunted for deer and another
55,000 hunters pursued wild turkey. The high rate of hunter success at
LBL, coupled with the unique outdoor experiences that we provide truly
make it a destination of choice. And LBL's hunting program is
completely self-supporting through the sale of permits and application
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC While
our hunting program is important, wildlife viewing is actually the
highest rated visitor activity on LBL. And to increase the chances of
the public seeing wildlife, TVA has improved habitats. In our visitor
facilities, we have developed trails and observation blinds and we
provide special programs and tours. Visitation to our newest
attraction, the elk and bison prairie, I think very clearly highlights
visitor interest in wildlife viewing. Since opening last year, we have
had over 140,000 visitors tour the area. Development of this area has
been a partnership with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Land
Between the Lakes Association. Congressman Whitfield also played a
critical role in helping secure funding for the development of this
area. Thus far, we have received over $363,000 in private donations.
These opportunities to view and to hunt
wildlife are directly tied to the diverse habitats that we provide. And
really, the connection is quite simple. Without the right mix of food,
water, cover and shelter, many popular species of wildlife would
decline, as would the associated public uses. LBL's natural resources,
as you have heard today, are managed according to a scientifically
based plan that was developed under the guidelines of the National
Environmental Policy Act, with extensive public input. This plan
prescribes a combination of preservation and active management
techniques that I would like to desribe very briefly for you.
About one-fourth of LBL has been designated as
preserve areas, which are important for wildlife species requiring
older forest. In other parts of LBL, selective timber harvesting is
used to improve the quality and the diversity of habitat for many
wildlife species that our customers want. By removing some of the
trees, sunlight can reach the forest floor, which stimulates the growth
of young plants. These young plants provide food and cover for over
half of LBL's wildlife. And because, as you saw today, only seven
percent of LBL is in open land, timber harvesting is a critically
important tool for creating additional young growth.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is critically important that this
Subcommittee understand that future changes in LBL's habitat management
will directly impact wildlife and the related public uses. If active
forest and open land management were reduced or eliminated, the
landscape will change. Many desirable species dependent upon young
growth, such as deer, turkey and many species of songbirds, would
dramatically decrease. Obviously the associated benefits of these and
other wildlife would also be reduced. I hope your review will lead you
to the conclusion that a balance—that a balance of management and
preservation is required to meet ecological and social needs.
In closing, let me emphasize that LBL is an
important ecological asset. However, as we have heard today, there are
certainly many different views about how this asset should be managed.
TVA has demonstrated that a combination of active and passive
management will provide for a wealth of recreation benefits, as well as
a quality environment. This array of benefits should be carefully
considered as you make decisions about LBL's future.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, you had a good story and I appreciate hearing it. Mr. Whitfield.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you.
Mr. Carroll, you are the spokesman for the Land
Between the Lakes Association. How would you describe your relationship
with TVA? Do you have a good working relationship with them?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, we have a good
working relationship with them. We do not always agree on things but,
you know, we generally do. We support the Land Between the Lakes and we
conduct fund-raising activities and we coordinate volunteer activities,
several thousand manhours go into volunteer work at Land Between the
Lakes. We coordinate with TVA in those activities and generally have a
good working relationship.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WHITFIELD. And
you all are not associated with them formally, it is a volunteer
organization that looks out for the interests of LBL, is that correct?
Mr. CARROLL. That is correct.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Did the Chairman of
TVA or any of the Board of Directors come to talk to you prior to his
announcement that TVA was not going to seek any federal funds?
Mr. CARROLL. No, sir, we did not.
Mr. WHITFIELD. So you were not aware of that at all?
Mr. CARROLL. No, sir.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Okay. Mr. Bauer,
you are representing the timber industry here today. In your testimony,
you had mentioned that the forest at LBL is primarily an oak/hickory
forest which is important for wildlife to live on. But there is a
continuing battle in maintaining the oak/hickory forest instead of
allowing it go to a maple/beech forest, is that correct?
Mr. BAUER. That is correct. If
left unmanaged, it amounts to the type of species and how they grow,
and you know, certain trees can grow in the shade and certain trees
cannot. So it takes management to keep sunlight in to let the oaks and
those type trees grow, basically.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WHITFIELD. So if you stopped all timber harvesting at LBL, what do you think the result would be?
Mr. BAUER. Well, eventually you
are going to have the maple/beech, which can flourish in the shade much
better, and as you lose your oak/hickory stands you will have the
maple/beech take over. That is basically what——
Mr. WHITFIELD. So maple/beech would take over over time, which would have an impact on wildlife?
Mr. BAUER. Right, as far as acorns and value for wildlife, depending on which species of wildlife that you are talking about.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, Dr. Baust, you
had talked a little bit about environmental education, and I think that
is a very important use of LBL because there are many children that
live in cities that do not have the opportunity to visit places like
LBL and so forth. Now the Youth Station was closed in 1994.
Dr. BAUST. Correct.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Now in my
conversations with people at TVA, they say that it was closed because
there was not enough demand for use. What is your view on that?
Dr. BAUST. Well, my view is that
as their staff decreased, their ability to market the place decreased,
and I have memoranda that date back to 1989 that show that they were
not able to keep up with either demand or were not able to market the
facility. So that if you look at it over time, they had a flat rate of
use at that one facility, about an average of 7000 overnights a year,
means to me that they had more than they could do trying to keep up
what they were doing and they were unable to intersect with especially
Kentucky schools. If you look at the demographics, Kentucky schools
were almost summarily disregarded with regard to use. Example is, we
met with TVA staff and when we were asked—when we asked them about
disuse or misuse or not being able to use the LBL for environmental
education, we were told that we really do not need Kentucky schools,
and that is a quote-unquote.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WHITFIELD. I did not hear that.
Dr. BAUST. We really did not need
Kentucky schools for environmental education, we had enough use from
Tennessee schools. And I think if you are in an area that is from both
Kentucky and Tennessee and from a person who has adopted both states,
because I was in school in Tennessee, I think what is important is that
you use your constituency as broadly as possible.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, we recognize
how important money is and funding and so forth, but it is rather
shocking and shameful when you go to that Youth Station and you see
these multitude of buildings simply rotting away.
Dr. Yambert, you represent Concept Zero and I
know during your remarks you made some statements about Wranglers
Campground. I know that they do have facilities there for people to
spend the night and they evidently have a few grocery areas where they
sell Cokes, sandwiches, whatever. Now is it my understanding that your
group is opposed to that?
Dr. YAMBERT. Yes. We are—I would
rather say it positively, that we are in favor of sticking with the
mission and anything that digresses from that, we would not approve.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Now would you disapprove of riding horses there, I mean renting horses from the management of the——
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Dr. YAMBERT. Again,
I guess you folks stay out of micro-management and so do we. We feel
that the principle of no commercialization was a promise made when LBL
was formed. There is a lot of poetic literature from Directors of the
TVA Board at that time, the Chairman and others, ''no commercialization
in the future, therefore, none permitted from the past.'' And it just
brings tears to your eyes to see how eloquent they were and how their
vision is now currently being lost. LBL was justified under Section 22
and 23 of the original TVA Act because they could not get new enabling
legislation. In the context of that Act, LBL had to be a unique,
innovative demonstration. They could not just do what the Park Service
was already successfully doing, they had to do something different.
So the open sesame that they finally discovered
was if we make this place with no trace of civilization, only the
safeguards that are needed for the health and safety of the public, so
it will be so unusual that when you cross the bridges, you will
immediately recognize what a unique and special area this is. It is
that uniqueness that LBL is now homogenizing.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Do you support forest management, the timbering?
Dr. YAMBERT. Again going back to
the mission, I think forest management would be a very appropriate
activity, commercial forestry would be a very inappropriate activity.
Mr. WHITFIELD. So when TVA puts this out for bid to companies to come in and——
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. YAMBERT. We
would say that, if it is commercial, it is in violation of the mission.
If it is for environmental education purposes or wildlife management
purposes, it would be most appropriate.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Okay. Judge
McKinney, I suppose your primary concern is that whichever agency may
end up managing LBL, whether it is TVA or whatever, your primary
interest is the need to continue in-lieu-of tax payments, is that
Judge MCKINNEY. Yes, Mr.
Congressman, we are very concerned about the money. It seems like each
year there are rumors or each time a budget is passed, we hear rumors
that there are cuts or there are changes, and LBL is a very important
part in regard to funding local projects, especially in education and
in local government in the three counties. Now I am one-sixth of the
presentation you have heard. It was compiled also by Larry Lott, School
Superintendent from Lyon County and also Rick Joiner, the County
Executive in Stewart County. He had a death in the family today. And
Anita Hawkins is also the School Superintendent in Stewart County. But
we are very concerned that those monies would be oncoming and something
we can depend on.
Ever since I have been in government, which is
15 years, there has been questions about cuts and changes in LBL
funding. We have never had a situation that we could count on, and it
means a great deal to us in regard to being able to do our jobs.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Now it is my
understanding that TVA makes a payment to the state and then the state,
through a formula, disburses the money to the affected counties?
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Judge MCKINNEY. Each
of the states that are involved in the Valley have their own formula
for distributing the monies back to the governments. And yes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Okay. Mr. Lowe, I
would just say that I enjoyed your testimony very much. I think one of
the very unique characteristics of LBL is the wide variety of wildlife
that we have there and I think that definitely has to be a goal of
protecting wildlife because that is one of those activities that really
brings people into this area.
Now are you optimistic about the future of wildlife at LBL?
Mr. LOWE. Yes, sir, I sure am. The
key to success of having a diversity of wildlife though is to provide a
diversity of habitats. Wildlife have varying needs. Some require older
forests, some require younger forest. To meet those diversified needs,
we need to provide diversity of habitats.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Mr. Clement.
Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to say to all of you, you represent a
lot of people in this area that are very concerned and likely concerned
and should be about our future and what direction we are headed. And I
assure you, we are all in that boat together.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I might say also, I am just pleased to be here
at Murray State University, what a great university you have. I am a
former college president at Cumberland University, right outside of
Nashville. When I first got to Congress, people would come up to me and
say boy, you are a Congressman now, that is really something. I said
well, that is right, but you are going to have to understand, the last
4 1/2 years, they have called me Mr. President.
Mr. CLEMENT. But I miss the
college campus very much and it sure meant a lot to me, those years I
spent there, and I can imagine how you all feel.
I want you to know what we are really up
against, because I am very, very concerned where we are headed. Number
one, I think it is a good idea about Tennessee and Kentucky joining
forces in a task force, I think that is great. But I also think we are
going to have to have broader support than that and that is why, you
know, I have talked a lot about a regional commission because TVA does
cover seven states. It covers a lot of Congressmen and a lot of U.S.
Senators, and we know this national asset here, LBL, people come here
from all over the country, all over the world, to visit LBL. And we
want that to continue.
But we have a lot of Congressmen and U.S.
Senators around the country that are very envious of LBL, very envious
of what—of the great prosperity and growth that the Tennessee Valley
area has experienced in recent years. That is why you have heard an
outcry by some Congressmen—Congressman Bob Franks from New Jersey and
Congressman Scott Klug from Wisconsin and others, to destroy TVA as an
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TVA has given them a lot of ammunition now to
move in that direction, and I expect this year there is going to be a
move by some in Congress to privatize TVA, because it is a very, very
serious matter. And then you get down to what assets are going to be
affected and sold off and what is going to happen to all of us.
So knowing that we have got some Congressmen,
U.S. Senators in other parts of the country shooting at us, we need as
much strength as possible, we need to be as vocal as possible and we
need to be as unified as possible, or they are going to pick us off one
at a time. And I assure you, I have supported and I know all these
Congressmen here have supported national assets, national resources
that are located in other parts of the country. We have sure supported
their causes and their interests and we sure want them to support our
national assets, and one in particular here at LBL.
Any comment on that? Dr. Yambert?
Dr. YAMBERT. I certainly agree
with nearly everything you said. I think the one place that some of us
in Concept Zero might disagree is that there seems to be a tacit
assumption that the current amount of founding for LBL is pretty close,
it is in the right ballpark. Maybe it has slipped a little bit lately,
but have been able to make that up by additional logging or something
of that sort. In order to get you irritated, I think that the budget is
in the range of three times as high as it ought to be. I back that up
on one statement from Congress, a conference report, which showed the
number of staff per acre. And we left out the ones that would be unfair
in their comparison, and the remaining ones average to about LBL has
about three times the staff that the Park Service would have for a
comparable unit. Then based on Ted Williams' article last year in the
May-June issue of Audubon, where he studied three land management
agencies other than LBL, using his figures, we came to the same magic
number. The Park Service gets about $13 per acre per year, the Forest
Service gets about $7, but is also allowed to keep 90 percent of the
logging funds. The Fish and Wildlife Service only gets $2 per acre per
year and LBL gets $39 per acre per year; more than all the others
combined, three times as much as the second place one, which is the
National Park Service. We feel that it is incumbent upon us to pay our
way. We think that LBL should have an adequate but modest budget. This
would tend to preclude the mission leap which is at the heart of the
problem we are discussing today.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you.
Listen, we have got to move on now because you
have exceeded your time and we are getting way behind schedule.
Mr. Tanner, do you have anything?
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I just
want to thank Judge McKinney for your comments on a matter that we
share with Stewart County, Tennessee, and I appreciate you being here.
I talked to Mr. Lowe on the helicopter and I appreciate your testimony
Thank all you all for being here. I yield back the balance.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Judge McKinney should know that I am a former county executive, so I am sympathetic to the plight you have outlined.
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, this is
a very diverse panel and I think they all have very effectively made
their presentations and I will have no questions at this time. Thank
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr Chairman, I would just make one statement. We of course may be submitting some questions to these people individually.
Mr. BOEHLERT. By all means and I would hope the panelists would be responsive to any questions and reply in a timely fashion.
Thank you all very much for serving as very valuable resources for this Subcommittee.
The fourth panel of the day consists of Mr. Tom
Tuck, Past President, Western Kentucky Arabian Horse Association; and
former LBL landowners Tracy Jordan, David Nickell, Ella Mae Travis; and
from the Tennessee Conservation League, Ann Murray, Executive Director.
Your statements will appear in the record at
this juncture in their entirety. We ask, in the interest of time, that
you try to summarize your statements. We would also point out that some
of us may have some follow-on questions that we would submit to you in
writing and we would appreciate a response in a timely fashion.
Let us go in the order of introduction. Mr. Tuck, you are up first.
TESTIMONY OF TOM TUCK, PAST PRESIDENT, WESTERN KENTUCKY ARABIAN HORSE
ASSOCIATION; TRACY JORDAN, FORMER LBL LANDOWNER; DAVID NICKELL, FORMER
LBL LANDOWNER; ELLA MAE TRAVIS, FORMER LBL LANDOWNER; AND ANN P.
MURRAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TENNESSEE CONSERVATION LEAGUE
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Mr. TUCK. Good morning. My name is Tom Tuck, I am the Past President of the Western Kentucky Arabian Horse Association.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I do not think it is working properly. Jim, could we——
Mr. TUCK. My name is Tom Tuck, I am the Past President of the Western Kentucky Arabian Horse Association.
The equine population of the United States,
through 1996 stands at 6.9 million horses, with almost three million
horses used for recreational purposes. The horse industry accounts for
$25.3 billion in goods and services and pays $1.9 billion in local,
state and federal taxes annually. There are 1.9 million horse owners
with more than 600,000 people directly employed by the horse industry.
Members of Congress, elected and appointed
officials and participants of this hearing, I submit to you this
economic impact of horses in the United States today. The horse
industry is a growth industry, but is faced with the same budget
concerns that are facing all phases of our economy. Urban sprawl and
the continual loss of large tracts of open land are a grave concern to
the recreational segment of the horse industry.
The Wranglers Campground, which is the
designated equine camp at the Land Between the Lakes, has experienced
an increase in usage over the past 6 years of 348 percent, with as many
as 3800 people using the facility over Memorial Day weekend. In 1995,
the occupancy rate was 67 percent, almost twice the industry average.
The Wranglers Campground fills a niche for thousands of riders through
the central United States who have few large areas in which to ride.
Over the past 15 months, TVA has upgraded and expanded the Wranglers to
become one of, if not the number one equine campground in the nation,
with riders coming from all over the U.S. and Canada.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On behalf of the 50 members of the Western
Kentucky Arabian Horse Association, Inc. and equestrians throughout the
region, I ask that you make every effort to see that a long term
funding formula be implemented to serve the needs of the equestrian
industry for the foreseeable future. The suggestion of moving the Land
Between the Lakes from TVA to another agency does nothing to solve the
funding dilemma, and because of transitional expenses, only adds to the
After TVA initiated a Between the Lakes study
in 1959 which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Corps of
Engineers and the National Park Service all reviewed, President Kennedy
directed TVA to proceed with the development of the Land Between the
Lakes. It is my understanding that these agencies along with the U.S.
Forest Service were considered to manage the LBL but declined because
they could not or were not willing to manage the broad scope of the
recreational and environmental benefits required by the Presidential
directive. I propose to you that the above statement is even more
accurate today. None of the aforementioned agencies' missions encompass
the full breadth and scope that is required to yield the optimum
benefits to this region of the natural resources of the Land Between
the Lakes. Therefore, moving the management of the Land Between the
Lakes to any other agency can only be detrimental to the mission of LBL
of providing a leadership role in creating recreational opportunities
and environmental education to as wide a constituency as possible.
Craven Crowell's attempt to dump the Land
Between the Lakes in order to position TVA more advantageously in a
future non-regulated power production market is a slap in the face to
the people of this region. The commitment made in 1963 to develop and
manage the Land Between the Lakes forever changed the lives of people
whose land was taken to create this recreational area. It has since
changed the lives of those whose economic livelihood is tied to the
tourism this recreational area has created. It has changed the lives of
the two million visitors a year who depend on this area for an
irreplaceable form of recreation. One statement by a transitional
manager of TVA cannot and will not change that commitment.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am asking you here today, on behalf of our
horse club, on behalf of all equestrians, and on behalf of all users of
the Land Between the Lakes, do not let this be a done deal of moving
this great recreational area to another agency, but instead direct and
fund the TVA to manage the Land Between the Lakes for the present and
future benefit of all.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Tuck. Ms. Jordan.
Ms. JORDAN. Thank you, Congressmen and your staff for being here today. I want to talk for a few minutes about the past. Can you hear?
Mr. WHITFIELD. I think it would be helpful for you to get a little bit closer.
Ms. JORDAN. The 1960s were a time
of great culture shock for the entire nation, but for the people of the
land between the rivers, our shock was such that many never quite
recovered. The very institutions that sustain in times of crisis, that
promise shelter and calm were not spared by Tennessee Valley Authority.
The reason for removing us was so that LBR would be uninhabited. The
reason for taking our businesses was so that it would be
uncommercialized. There is no reason possible to give for destroying
In the past 5 years, American has been justly
outraged by the destruction of small churches in the south. It is hard
for LBR residents to communicate the devastation we felt when our own
government invested in the bulldozing and the burning of our churches.
What is more, the inevitable process of death that culminated in such
scenes took as long as 7 years to be complete. Of all the sad pictures
and mournful words from the last years of life as we knew it in LBR,
none are more moving than the funeral procession for Sardis Church or
the final minutes at the last meeting of Bethlehem carefully recorded
in my grandmother's hand, ''The motion was made and seconded to
disband'' and ''The motion was made to adjourn.''
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TVA officials must have been concerned about
the public relation problems inherent to destroying churches, but much
of the sentiment toward LBR people was contaminated by the depiction of
us as backward, ignorant and lawless people. TVA carefully publicized
their human interest endeavors even as they systematically destroyed
the world of these humans. One such early story dated 1963 praises
TVA's plan to keep cemeteries open and accessible for visiting and
decoration and for maintenance by relatives and cemetery associations.
The ironic and perhaps wistful ending of that story is that ''TVA will
not object to removal of any existing graves if heirs wish to do at
their own expense.''
TVA has not maintained access to the 250
cemeteries in LBR. In fact, in recent years, access to only about
one-fifth is possible, not always by motor vehicle. In January of 1997,
a funeral procession was stalled on the ice-covered road to a family
cemetery. Contacted earlier that week, TVA officials promised to have
the road cleared. Instead, they scattered salt on it which was not much
help with single digit temperatures. Family members have suffered the
pain of finding their loved ones' gravestones vandalized, finding
cemeteries rutted by four-wheel drive vehicles, even of not finding
their cemeteries at all. The Chinese cemetery in LBR, perhaps without
precedent in historic and human value, was removed entirely by TVA
officials. When relatives came, yes, from China, to visit it, TVA
officials showed them where it was.
We know today that all cemeteries are subject
to attack. Ours are especially defenseless, we cannot visit them daily
or weekly. For many of us, those of us who live far away, the elderly,
those in poor health, our infrequent visits are often cause for anger
and reproach rather than for peace and communion. We have our yearly
dinner on the grounds on the empty spots where our churches used to be.
We hear the ghosts of music, we smell the just trimmed grasses and
flowers and we taste the faint sweetness of the past.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There is no justification for taking our churches away.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Ms. Jordan, your
statement is very eloquent and it will appear in the record in its
entirety and we have all had the benefit of reading it. I want to thank
you for coming here and telling us in a very poignant manner your
personal story, it means a lot to us. Thank you.
Ms. JORDAN. Can I finish?
Mr. BOEHLERT. And I might be a little bit prejudiced because I have a daughter named Tracy too.
Ms. JORDAN. Thank you.
What has happened to our cemeteries is grave
desecration. What happened to our churches is very grave desecration. A
great past-haunted southern writer, William Faulkner, once wrote that
''was'' is the saddest word of all. We of LBR can relate to that idea.
We remember the promises that TVA made to keep our land the way God
intended. We remember the promises that our ancestors made when they
carved farms out of a wilderness to feed a family that did not exist
yet and when they vowed to come back between the rivers from faraway
wars. We remember the inheritance of our mothers and fathers who farmed
the river bottoms through the depression and managed not to starve and
finally got their houses. We remember how they salvaged what they could
from the 1937 flood and cut their own timber and built their houses
again and how they finally took those houses with them out of something
that seems like stubbornness, if you did not know their stories, when
they had to leave their places in 1968.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
LBR is a sacred place. There are promises built
around it that allow for nothing to be done that would violate its
sanctity. It is a forest temple, not a place for things to be bought
and sold. It is a church in the wildwood, not the green motel. Those of
us who have lived there and who go there now in the right spirit will
not forget our sacred places. Is it reasonable to expect an agency to
care for and maintain some 10,000 graves along with us? After all, on a
land strip only 40 miles long and a few miles wide, that many
cemeteries mean many roads to nowhere as far as the disinterested are
concerned. If there is a bridge to the future, it most certainly
connects to roads from the past. That road and that bridge must be
reconciled to the fact that they meet. The past is not a distant point
on a time line that we slip further and further from. It is a continual
presence that demands our engagement and eventual return. Nowhere is
this more evident than in the fields of timeworn stones that bear the
names of our people and eventually our own. Bury our hearts between the
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Mr. Nickell.
Mr. NICKELL. I want to thank you for this chance. I have waited for about 30 years for this chance.
You have the text of my written testimony—it
was prepared for the March 1 hearing—that we evolved a unique cultural
identity between the rivers and that we have managed to preserve
remnants of that identity and we have even passed parts of that along
to our next generation.
I would like to summarize that testimony and
expound on its significance in light of the quickly deteriorating
situation at the Land Between the Lakes.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am of the sixth generation from between the
rivers. I teach sociology and philosophy at Paducah Community College
and I farm. From my perspective, this hearing is not about a recreation
area or whether some users would like more luxury. It is about our
homeland. It is about a sacred place, it contains our burial grounds,
it holds the body of our ancestors as for generations it held our hope
for the future.
It no longer belongs to us, but we still belong
to it. Our identity is tied to it in ways that we do not understand. I
ask you how many generations must a people live in one place before
they become the native offspring of that place? It is not property to
us. We belong to it more than it ever belonged to us.
When our people filed class action suits during
the relocation and we were allowed no other course of appeal, the suits
were not about price, they were not about getting more money, no matter
what TVA has said. They were about our rightful place on the earth,
they were about whether the government has the right to force the
people from their ancestral homeland, to destroy generations of
community building, to bulldoze and burn churches, the centers of our
On February 23, 1972, it was my 15th birthday,
Judge Phillips of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the use
of eminent domain was justified because the 1933 TVA Act includes the
provision for public demonstration. That decision not only cites but
directly quotes from past TVA Chairman Aubrey Wagner's explanation to
Congress of why that demonstration would justify the use of eminent
domain, which Congress was questioning at the time. It had already been
used on us three time in one generation.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
By removal of all commercialization, past and
future, within the LBL, economic development on the outside would be
stimulated. This was the demonstration which justified our removal.
Apart from this, TVA had no justifiable claim to our homes.
It was in this context that the promise was
made, there will be no commercialization in the Land Between the Lakes,
period. This promise was made to those of us who were being stripped
from our heritage and to those who were being lured into the area to
invest private capital in the surrounding area. They could be certain
of never having taxpayer supported competition from businesses within
the LBL. This promise was also a promise for the future. With all
commercialization excluded, the attraction of the LBL would always be
its unique natural beauty and the educational and recreational benefits
that could only be provided by a place devoid of all vestiges of
civilization, as Aubrey Wagner described it to Congress.
The promise was so well understood here that
when the management at LBL put in drink machines, public outcry was so
great, that they had to call a public hearing to promise that this was
not a trend, they were only meeting the needs of the LBL users and it
would go no further. We got grocery stores and gift shops.
When the five concepts for increased commercial
development were released, the outcry was so great, they were
officially withdrawn. We got restaurants, western stores, horse and
canoe rentals and rental cabins.
Each of these services was already available
from the private sectors surrounding LBL. TVA is closing the economic
opportunities the LBL was designed to create. More officially withdrawn
development is under construction as we speak and commercial logging is
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You elected representatives of the people
should be outraged that TVA, an agency of our government, is blatantly
violating its own promises, the will of the people and even Congress'
directives, explicit directives. Will you not act to stop this
irreversible construction and destruction in the LBL?
I support Concept Zero's alternatives for
funding the LBL and ask that you impose an immediate moratorium on
TVA's irreversible financial ventures in the LBL. The former residents
were given only one choice, load your houses and your businesses on a
truck and haul them out of here or have them bulldozed and burned. It
is only right that the management of the LBL now be given the same
My statement is in opposition to some that have
been heard here today and I have full documentation of every claim and
I hope I have a chance to share it with you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Nickell.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Ms. Travis.
Ms. TRAVIS. Chairman Boehlert, Congressman Whitfield and Committee members, my name is Ella Travis.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am a former landowner of what is now the LBL
area. My father-in-law had a boat dock, campground and over 500 acres
of farmland and timberland. Our land and homes were sacrificed when
condemned and taken by the TVA.
My father-in-law was among those asked to keep
his business within the area. TVA made a promise of no private
enterprise within the area as a condition in its creation, when in
1964, TVA Chairman A. J. Wagner testifies in Congress as to whether any
private land inholdings might be permitted. He said that when people
cross the bridges into this area, he wanted them to be immediately
conscious of the fact that this was a new kind of area—no inholdings,
no commercial development, that there be room for commercial
developments on the opposite shores of the Kentucky and Barkley
It was suggested in 1963 from a White House
press release that the TVA would administer the area for the period
required to complete the demonstration, estimated at about 10 years. At
the end of this time was when it was supposed to be determined who
would operate the agency.
To further substantiate this, again, TVA
Chairman A.J. Wagner testified in Congress. He said that TVA was doing
a demonstration and that when they tested all the ideas that appeared
to be useful to them, it was their thought that they would withdraw and
it would be turned over to another agency.
In 1964, before a Senate Committee, TVA gave a
prepared statement to show what their plans were for this
demonstration. It was to be for outdoor recreation such as hunting,
fishing and waters sports, it was to provide educators to teach outdoor
classes for conservation and natural science. The area was to become an
economic asset to the surrounding region, not within LBL.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My opinion, TVA acquired the LBL under the
pretense and impression of outdoor recreation such as hunting and
fishing and camping, not commercial recreation, such as in the TVA's
public use plan, five preliminary concepts, which consisted of a
heritage theme park, golf courses, food services, leasing of the land.
After great public opposition to these five concepts, in 1996 TVA
officially withdrew them, but there has still been implementation of
some of the very things in the LBL area, especially in the Wranglers
My opinion, if TVA is allowed to continue
management of LBL, they are going to further commercialize the area and
they are going to further log and harvest the timber.
TVA has betrayed the trust of not only the
former landowners but the surrounding area business people by allowing
commercial development within the area. When you make a commitment to
the former landowners and to the U.S. Congress, the times that change
and the years that pass and some people, such as the users that do not
understand, is no reason to dishonor it.
In conclusion, I respectfully request that Congressional action be taken on the following things:
1. Take the necessary steps to acquire a
complete audit of TVA's management of the LBL area. I want to know
where the appropriations, the user fees and the timber harvest fees
especially have all been applied.
2. Take action to stop all the commercialization.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
3. I want TVA eliminated from the LBL.
The over 65,000 acres that was once a Kentucky
woodlands National Wildlife Refuge area and turned over to TVA at the
time they acquired the land, return that to that status again and do
not take the land and homes of the people in the Clark Rivers bottom
area. Transfer the remaining LBL that was purchased to the National
Park Service, the agency that was favored for this project from the
very beginning. There must be documentation of established regulations,
restrictions and funding.
4. If for any reason, the National Park Service
could not operate the area, then I ask that action be taken that the
former landowners could get their land back.
I really do not mind asking my government to
return with dignity the land they took in a disgraceful way, I
sincerely feel that the former landowners constitutional rights were
violated from the cradle to the grave and all done by TVA with no
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Ms. Travis.
Now, Ms. Murray, as we pass the microphone from one to the other.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Ms. MURRAY. Thank
you, Chairman Boehlert and Committee members. I wish to thank you for
holding this very important meeting and I appreciate the opportunity to
be able to speak to you. My name is Ann Murray, I am the Executive
Director of the Tennessee Conservation League, a private, non-profit
membership organization. We are the largest and oldest broad-based
conservation organization in Tennessee and an affiliate of the National
I am also here speaking on behalf of the League
of Kentucky Sportsmen. Together, the two organizations represent over
30,000 sportsmen and women across the great states of Kentucky and
Even though this hearing today is to discuss
the management of Land Between the Lakes, it is hard to isolate just
the issue of the looming overall issue of TVA's lands. The magnitude of
TVA's decision to divest itself of all of the non-power programs is
monumental. TVA owns some 435,000 areas of public land, 174 public
recreation areas and controls 11,000 miles of shoreline throughout the
TVA region in seven states.
It appears that neither Chairman Crowell nor
the White House has thought through the proposal to divest TVA of its
non-power programs. Mr. Crowell has no clear idea where or how TVA's
responsibilities are to be transferred, and the White House, while
showing a $100 million a year saving by eliminating money from managing
TVA's locks and dams, contains no provisions for increasing funding to
other agencies who might assume those duties.
We are talking about our rivers, our locks and
dams, our public lands bought with public money for the protection and
economic development of the region.
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But today, LBL is the issue. And in regard to
LBL, the Tennessee Conservation League formally requests the following:
1. We request continued Congressional funding
for Land Between the Lakes. The President's budget contains no funds
whatsoever for the transfer of TVA natural resources to other agencies.
They simply are not funded after 1999. This is unrealistic and must be
changed. During the 1980s, LBL was repeatedly slated for zero funding.
Each time TVA, our elected officials and local interest groups went to
bat and justified continued funding. This time, we are without the TVA
leadership in a request for natural resources management.
2. We request an oversight committee of diverse
LBL stakeholders to be appointed by the Governors of Tennessee and
Kentucky, to work with the internal TVA transition team to establish a
process whereby any entities interested in taking over the management
of LBL can submit proposals for public review and comment. TVA's
transition team is to present their recommendations to the TVA Board by
October 1, 1997. Chairman Crowell has this plan on the fast track.
Gentlemen, it took us 66 years to get where we are today with TVA's
programs. It is ludicrous to think that these immense changes that
would result from these directives could be thoroughly examined in
seven months. We need to ensure that a very careful and considered
process is implemented and that the public is involved. I might also
say that we would be in support of Congressman Clement's regional
proposal to look at the bigger issue.
3. We request that the current Natural
Resources Management Plan be maintained regardless of who ends up with
the management of LBL. A Natural Resources Management Plan for LBL was
published in October of 1994 and implemented in 1995. The program
objectives and guidelines presented in the plan were developed to serve
the broad mission of LBL. This process was done under all mandated
guidelines and involved broad public participation. It cost several
million dollars of taxpayers' money to go through the process and to
develop the plan. It would be irresponsible to toss such a plan aside
when there has been such wide acceptance and we know the plan works.
LBL is a demonstration in integrated multiple-use management on a
contiguous block of land. By demonstrating that environmentally sound
resource management is totally compatible with extensive recreational
use, LBL serves as a national model for state and other federal
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We must remember that adequate funding for LBL was promised, that it is necessary and right.
On the broader front, Congress must look at the
true implications of TVA's decision to divest itself of its non-power
programs. The question is, who will manage a shoreline that encompasses
11,000 miles along 30 reservoirs in the states of Alabama, Tennessee,
Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky, South Carolina and North Carolina. Some
of Chairman Crowell's ideas include allowing the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, various state entities and private developers to buy up and
control land and river systems. Where will the states find the millions
of dollars to perform the duties TVA has done since the 1930s?
There are millions of people who use the river
for drinking water and recreation. Wildlife management as well as water
quality are issues not to be dismissed lightly. What would happen if
the river system is privatized? What is the economic impact to local
governments affected by these changes?
These and many more questions need to be
studied judiciously and with public participation. We need to keep LBL
as it is and that takes money. But we need to make people aware of the
extent of loss to our area beyond LBL unless the budget is restored.
Thank you very much.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Ms. Murray.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC The Chair recognizes Mr. Bryant.
Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a prior previous commitment to give a
speech in Memphis to the American Legion and I must excuse myself at
this time. I did want to thank this panel and assure the last panel
that I will be reading their testimony and certainly again I want to
thank the Chairman for holding these hearings.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Mr. Whitfield.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, this
panel was quite a poignant panel and it is very moving hearing
testimony from former landowners. Listening to Mr. Tuck and Ms. Murray
and thinking about the testimony of Dr. Yambert before, we understand
that there are a lot of competing ideas on the best use of LBL, but as
we have indicated before, we have read all of this testimony, and I do
not have any questions of this panel except to just thank them for the
time that they took in preparing it, and we will certainly be reading
your statements in more detail and appreciate your being here today.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Mr. Clement.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Mr. CLEMENT. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, panel, very, very much, and particularly
the former landowners. You are speaking for a lot of people out there
that deeply appreciate your thoughtful and emotionally charged
testimony, and everyone should read it and read it carefully, what you
Ms. Murray, I know in your testimony and
knowing the great organization that you represent, the Tennessee
Conservation League, which has done so much good work for so many years
and I congratulate you and your find organization.
Ms. MURRAY. Thank you.
Mr. CLEMENT. I know you have
thrown out a lot of questions about TVA and about what has transpired.
Can you give any rationale at all why TVA would propose zeroing out
federal funds in such a way with no other plans about what is going to
happen to LBL or what is going to happen to a lot of these other
Ms. MURRAY. Well, I cannot help
but think that it is being driven by a $27 billion debt, the
deregulation of the utilities industry, and I really do question it
because I know that there are private power entities that run non-power
programs very effectively and fund them and still look after natural
resources, environmental education and other quality of life issues. So
I am perplexed unless they just really want to get out of land
management and water navigation, flood control and turn into a strictly
Mr. BOEHLERT. Or, as you suggested
in your testimony, the White House sent a very strong signal, because
that budget came out and there was no funds——
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. MURRAY. Yes.
Mr. BOEHLERT. So the question is which came first, Chairman Crowell's decision or was he instructed by the White House——
Ms. MURRAY. It is a chicken and egg situation.
Mr. BOEHLERT. ——that it was inevitable.
But I want to thank all of you, you have been
very helpful, you are very valuable resources for us and the heartfelt
testimony is much appreciated.
Ms. TRAVIS. Chairman Boehlert, I
would like to bring something to your attention, and that is regarding
the timber situation in the LBL, if I may. May I speak?
Mr. BOEHLERT. For a minute, because we have got to move on because we have got a plane that has to get out of here.
Ms. TRAVIS. Okay.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I will not get home, incidentally, until about 10:00 tonight.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. TRAVIS. From
the very beginning, in the early 1960s, TVA claimed that the area was a
deficient area, an area of little value, but as soon as they moved a
sawmill in the area in 1966, they started—they commercialized the area
at that time with harvesting the timber. As early as 1985, they claimed
they had made $2,322,763.30 in just 19 years. I do not believe that. A
forester, in an interview with the local newspaper, claimed that much
of LBL's forest is mature forest. So they contradict theirself.
TVA so implied to Congress that the land would
be left in a wilderness state, giving hikers, campers, hunters,
fishermen and bikers and naturalists a place to roam freely. Time has
shown that TVA was more interested in developing the area than in
preserving it for future generations.
In a recent article in a local newspaper on May
26, 1997, the General Manager of LBL told of their Natural Resource
Management Plan, which was really their commercial logging plan for
1997, and I would like to present this to you today. They claim only a
small portion of LBL's timber is removed and LBL's forest management is
not profit driven. Well, then I ask why is 40 percent more timber going
to be cut this year than last year? They claim that by removing some
trees, sunlight can reach the forest floor, stimulating rapid growth of
young plants. These plants provide food and cover for half of LBL's
To me, this is misleading, since it will be
many, many years before these young plants will yield or provide for
wildlife the food and cover offered by the trees that they have cut and
sold. And one thing that she did not mention, a month before, on April
16, 1997, TVA issued a categorical exclusion for each of the work areas
for the LBL logging plan for 1997. This means—this is a determination
that the action will not individually have a significant effect on the
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The logging plan, in my opinion, is
inappropriate for LBL's designation and mission of education and
recreation. The logging of 5.7 million feet over 21,896 acres will
impact trails and camping areas.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Ms. Travis, why do you not submit the rest of that for the record, because we have to get on with the next panel.
Ms. TRAVIS. This is not in my testimony.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Yeah. No, no, I know
it, but I mean you can submit whatever you have for the record, we do
appreciate it and thank you all very much.
Now for the fifth and final panel of the day——
Mr. WHITFIELD. Would you give us that?
Ms. TRAVIS. It is not in form to give to you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. ——consisting of Mr.
Ronald Switzer, Superintendent, Mammoth Cave National Park Service,
Department of the Interior and we are going to have the question
answered as to what is Kentucky's number one tourist attraction. I am
sure Mr. Switzer can shed some light on that. Mr. Lyle Laverty, Program
Director, National Recreation, Wilderness & Heritage Resources for
the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Chief,
Operations, Construction and Readiness Division Directorate of Civil
Works, Mr. Charles M. Hess.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Gentlemen, you may proceed in the order that
you were introduced, Mr. Switzer, you are up first. And once again,
this is—we do not direct this, the airplane leaves at a certain time
and we had better be on it or else I will never get home. We ask that
you summarize your statement. As you know, from your previous
experience testifying, your statements will appear in their entirety in
the record at this juncture. Mr. Switzer.
TESTIMONY OF RONALD R. SWITZER, SUPERINTENDENT, MAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL
PARK, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; LYLE
LAVERTY, DIRECTOR OF RECREATION, WILDERNESS AND HERITAGE RESOURCES,
FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; AND CHARLES M. HESS,
CHIEF, OPERATIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND READINESS DIVISION, DIRECTORATE OF
CIVIL WORKS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. SWITZER. Good morning. My name
is Ronald Switzer, I am Superintendent of Mammoth Cave National Park,
the most heavily visited public use site in the Commonwealth of
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you for answering the question.
Mr. SWITZER. Accompanying me this
morning is Mr. Tom Falrath of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia. He will help me answer any
questions that you may have.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer the
Department of the Interior's views on management of national recreation
areas and how our management policies might apply to Land Between the
Lakes National Recreation Area.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, national recreation areas in the
National Park System were originally units surrounding reservoirs,
impounded by dams built by other federal agencies. The first unit of
the National Park System with this designation was Lake Mead National
Recreation Area and the National Park Service took over administration
of it in 1936. As of 1995, the National Park Service was responsible
for the administration of 18 national recreation areas in the United
States. The National Park Service manages many of these areas under
cooperative agreements with other federal agencies.
The concept of national recreation areas has
evolved to include various types of land and water resources set aside
for recreational use by Congress, including major areas in urban
centers. For example, Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San
Francisco, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area near Los
Angeles and Gateway National Recreation Area in New York City and New
Jersey. Activities at national recreation areas range from camping and
fishing to cultural events and music festivals, depending on the
individual area's resources.
Other federal agencies also manage national
recreation areas. The Forest Service and the Army Corps of Engineers
are here to discuss the national recreation areas under their
jurisdictions. Within the Department of the Interior, in addition to
the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management administers
one national recreation area. Created by the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act in 1980, the one million acre White Mountains
National Recreation Area in central Alaska is managed by BLM.
The Fish and Wildlife Service does not
administer any national recreation areas. With certain small exceptions
such as fish hatchery sites, by law all lands administered by the Fish
and Wildlife Service are classified as National Wildlife Refuges and
subject to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. That
Act provides that any public use of a refuge, including recreational
use, may be permitted only when it is determined to be compatible with
the wildlife conservation purposes for which the area was established.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has been phasing out public uses of
refuges that are not directly related to wildlife, such as motor
boating and waterskiing, or that can readily be provided by the private
sector, such as campgrounds.
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The National Park Service seeks to manage all
parklands in accordance with its mission, as established by Congress in
the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916. The Act says, and I
quote, ''to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects
and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same
in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.'' In the 1970s, Congress elaborated on
that Organic Act, confirming that all park units have equal legal
status in a national system. Accordingly, the National Park Service
treats each unit of the system with the same measure of concern it
gives attention to all resources in a park, regardless of its title or
the way in which it became part of the National Park System. Nearly
every unit of the system is a mixture of natural, historical and
recreational features. So our approach is to respect all significant
values and to manage the complexities of each park unit
comprehensively. We recognize the differences inherent in park purposes
and titles, but we manage, based on actual conditions rather than
official designations. This means that historic structures, natural
resources and recreational resources, regardless of where they are
located will be similarly managed.
Generally, our initial effort is to identify
nationally significant cultural and natural resource values. Once those
are established, we manage our units to protect and preserve those
values. According to the National Park Service Management Policies,
recreational uses are to be managed in such a way as to protect park
resources and prevent derogation of park purposes and values.
Specifically, each park unit develops and implements its own visitor
use management plan to ensure that recreational uses are consistent
with its authorizing legislation. Tools for managing recreational areas
include regulations, permit and reservation systems, local
restrictions, public use limits and special designations.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Unless
it is mandated by statute, the National Park Service will not allow a
recreational activity in a park or in certain locations within parks if
they would result in inconsistency with the park's enabling legislation
or proclamation or derogation of the values or purposes for which that
park was established. Recreational activity is generally not allowed if
it results in unacceptable impacts on visitor enjoyment due to the
interference or conflict with other visitor use activities.
Recreational activity similarly would not be allowed if it resulted in
consumptive use of park resources or in unacceptable impacts on park
resources or natural processes or if unacceptable levels of danger to
the welfare or safety of the public, including participants.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Switzer. We just noticed you summarized in the last couple of paragraphs.
We will have to move on now to Mr. Laverty. I
notice you have a rather lengthy statement. Let me tell you, the Chair
has got to be very arbitrary as we come to a conclusion of this session
because we have a plane to catch and we have got to get out of here.
Mr. LAVERTY. Mr. Chairman, thank
you for the opportunity to discuss the Forest Service management
operations of recreation programs as well as national forest areas. I
am the Director of Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Resources with
the Forest Service, and I have taken great liberty to cut a major
portion of the written response so that I can get out of this hot light
The national forests were created in 1905 by
Gifford Pinchot with a philosophy of multiple use. Through this whole
philosophy of multiple use, that has been the guiding principle on how
we manage the national forests. Recreation is but one of those multiple
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The goal of our recreation program is to
provide a wide variety and spectrum of quality recreational
opportunities for American people. The National Forest System provides
the greatest variety of outdoor recreation of any federal land
management agency in the United States. In fact, the National Forest
System, the 192 million acres, provide about 43 percent of the total
recreational use on the federal estate.
The national forests provide an extremely
strong boost to the nation's economy. By the year 2000, the Forest
Service programs will contribute about $130 billion to the gross
domestic product. Important to recognize is about 75 percent of that
will be generated by recreation and tourism on the national forests.
National Forest Service programs stimulate
employment and income related effects on local, regional and national
economies. As a result of that effort, about 3.3 million jobs will be
generated by national forest programs in the year 2000. Again, about 78
percent of that will be driven by national forest recreation, travel
and tourism programs.
Much of the tourism and recreation that takes
place on the national forests is carried out through a variety of
partnerships. We call these recreation service partners. In fact, we
have strategically positioned ourselves for the future to recognize the
increased demand that is going to take place on public lands to even
facilitate a stronger private sector role in the delivery of those
services. Special use providers provide the public thousands of jobs,
billions of dollars in income to local communities and millions of
hours of recreational opportunities. The national forest has about
23,000 special use permittees, about 1700 of these permittees have
invested probably in excess of a billion dollars in infrastructure to
support the recreation experiences on the national forests. Another
5100 permittees offer short-term permits that provide river rafting
experiences and concession campgrounds. In 1994, the GAO found that
these concession operations generated over $1.2 billion in gross
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me talk for a minute about the national
recreation areas in the national forests. We operate and manage a
system of 19 of the designated national recreation areas, representing
2.8 million acres in 17 states and these provide an extremely special
niche in our mission. We have found that each NRA is managed according
to the direction that has come from the Congress and provides a variety
of special benefits. Each NRA has its own unique management plan that
addresses the legislative direction while providing for multiple
The multiple uses found in many of our national
recreation areas include timber management, mineral development,
grazing, wildlife habitat improvement, hunting and a variety of other
activities, while at the same time highlighting the unique values that
warranted the designation as a national recreation area.
In summary, we have positioned ourselves for
the future, we have recognized the changed demands of American people
as they look at the public lands for recreation, and we have developed
a set of what I would consider to be contemporary tools, some of which
have been reinforced by members of Congress through the fee
We truly recognize those public/private
ventures in terms of how we can delivery services. We have gone
extensively to concessioning. About 75 percent of our campgrounds are
currently operated by the private sector. These tools have been
enhanced by the fee demonstration authority that came to us in the
1996-1997 appropriations bill. These have been strategic opportunities
for us to position ourselves to provide quality recreation experiences
to the American people while at the same time recognizing the dilemma
that we are all in as we begin to balance the budget.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thanks for the opportunity to share some ideas
about the national forests. We would be delighted to work with you and
would invite you to one of our NRAs to see what goes on. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hess, you know the drill, time is of the
essence. We appreciate all of you being so very proud of the work your
respective agency is doing, so we can dispense with some of the
plaudits because we recognize you are doing a good job. Mr. Hess.
Mr. HESS. Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, ladies and
gentlemen, I am Charles Hess, Chief of Operations, Construction and
Readiness Division, Directorate of Civil Works, Headquarters, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. I am testifying this afternoon on
behalf of the Honorable H. Martin Lancaster, Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works, and accompanied today by Major Robin Hagerty, the
Acting District Commander of the Nashville District Corps of Engineers.
In your letter of invitation, you asked for
views on the Corps management of national recreation areas and how
those management policies might apply to the Land Between the Lakes
National Recreation Area. I would briefly like to describe Corps
authorities in regard to operating and managing recreation areas, talk
about the role in management of recreation and natural resources
nationwide and discuss the Corps policies in the management of
recreation areas that we believe are of general applicability.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC The
basic Corps authority that it uses in managing its recreation and
natural resources management program stems from Section 4 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944, as amended. This Act authorized the Chief of
Engineers to construct, maintain and operate public park and
recreational facilities at water resource development projects under
the control of the Secretary of the Army, and to permit the
construction, maintenance and operation of such facilities. It also
provides that the water areas of projects shall be open to the public
use, generally for boating, fishing and other recreational purposes.
There are other authorities, of course, that
are involved in our operation, maintenance and management of
recreational facilities and those are in my written testimony.
Some facts concerning the Corps role in the
management of its recreation and natural resource management program
that would be of interest to the Committee and the members of the
public: The Corps are stewards of natural resources on over 11 million
acres of land and water at 456 lake projects in 43 states.
Approximately 80 percent of the American population live within a
1-hour ride of these Corps facilities and use these facilities heavily.
In fiscal year 1996, an estimate 375 million
visitors participated in recreation activities at Corps projects,
making the Corps the largest provider of water-based recreation in the
United States. We are the second largest provider of recreation to the
Forest Service, my colleagues.
At these lakes there are over 4000 recreational
areas for which the Corps is responsible. The Corps directly operates
and manages about 2500 of these areas and 1800 are managed by others
under Corps oversight. These include federal agencies, state
government, local governments, concessionaires and quasi-public
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In our operation of our fiscal year 1996
program, we expended approximately $65 million on its natural resource
program and $185 million on its recreation program and collected about
$35 million in user fees, which represents about 18.3 percent of the
amount expended on the total program.
The Corps manages only about two percent of the
total federal land holdings, but receives about 30 percent of the total
visitation to all federal managed areas, and again, that ranks us
second behind the U.S. Forest Service.
I would like to now talk a little bit about our
recreation management policies. Essentially we manage our lakes
according to the purposes for which the lakes were authorized. These
typically are multi-purpose projects which include recreation as well
as flood control, navigation, water supply, water quality,
hydro-electric power, fish and wildlife and other purposes. Our natural
resource management mission is to manage and conserve these natural
resources consistent with sound ecosystem management principles while
providing quality public outdoor recreation experience to serve the
needs of present and future generations.
In all aspects of natural and cultural resource
and management, the Corps promotes awareness of environmental values
and adheres to sound environmental stewardship.
I think these in general discuss our highlights
of our natural resource and recreation management authorities, role and
policies. Clearly in today's fiscal climate, where balancing the budget
and reducing the deficit by the year 2002 is a major priority, the
Corps like other federal agencies is faced with level or declining
resources to maintain these services on behalf of the public. We are
constantly seeking greater efficiencies as we provide these services
and we are also negotiating with states and other federal partners and
the public to perform certain recreation services.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This concludes my testimony and I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much and I want to thank all the panelists.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. The National
Park Service, the National Forest Service and the Corps of Engineers,
all manage some national recreation areas. Now are you aware of any
national recreation area that you manage that was not created by
Mr. WHITFIELD. Okay, so all the
national recreation areas that you manage were created by statute and
that is one difference that we have here at LBL. LBL was not created by
a separate statute and I think what you all are saying is that you
manage your property under the parameters of the statute setting up the
national recreation area. Okay, well I wanted to get that point out,
because like I said, we do not have a statute on LBL.
Second of all, Mr. Switzer, in your statement
on page 4, you indicated several instances in which recreational
activities will not be allowed on Park Service property, including when
those activities would result in unacceptable impacts on park resources
or natural process. Based on your knowledge of LBL, is there any
activity that they do there right now that you would not allow based on
their resources and natural processes?
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SWITZER. As
you so aptly pointed out, some of the recreation uses are implemented
in keeping with the enabling legislation. In many of our areas we have
found that incompatible uses or impacts on natural resources result
from such things as ATV or all terrain vehicles and those kinds of
things that have not been regulated properly. That does not mean that
they would necessarily be excluded.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now my
understanding is, just from reading the testimony, that if you looked
at the activities at LBL, that the National Forest Service is the one
that allows most of those kinds of activities. Would you agree with
that Mr. Laverty, from your knowledge of LBL?
Mr. LAVERTY. Basically many of the
activities that take place on the LBL are very similar to the
activities that take place on the national forests.
Mr. WHITFIELD. So you are really a multi-use organization.
Mr. LAVERTY. That is correct.
Mr. WHITFIELD. And you manage the Daniel Boone National Forest?
Mr. LAVERTY. That is correct, yes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Okay. Mr. Chairman,
I have read all their testimonies and I think I have a clear
understanding of the differences in these agencies. I want to thank you
for arranging for this hearing because it means a lot to this area
because this is a valuable piece of property and we know that it was
taken forcibly from families who did not want to leave it. So we have a
tremendous responsibility as a government to make sure that this
property is preserved for future generations and I look forward to
getting back to Washington to go over all this material and see if we
can reach some consensus among everyone affected.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Whitfield.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, thank
you. I want to just follow up on one question Mr. Whitfield had with
regard to the Park Service. Does the Park Service presently participate
in any active professional wildlife management programs?
Mr. SWITZER. I am not sure I understand your question, Mr Tanner.
Mr. SWITZER. In the properties that are administered by the Park Service, do you have active wildlife management programs ongoing?
Mr. SWITZER. Absolutely.
Mr. TANNER. You do?
Mr. SWITZER. Yes, sir, in almost every natural area and recreation area in the system.
Mr. TANNER. That would be preservation or conservation?
Mr. SWITZER. Preservation and conservation, restoration of habitat and active and ongoing reintroduction programs, we have all of those.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TANNER. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I just wanted to make a note in closing, I know it was
brought up once or twice today perhaps even by yourself, Mr. Chairman,
that this administration had sought to zero out funding for TVA's
Mr. BOEHLERT. 1999.
Mr. BORSKI. In 1999. I was also
reminded by Ms. Murray on the previous panel that that is not new, this
also happened during the 1980s. What is new this time is that the
Chairman of TVA has himself agreed to zero funding.
And I wanted to close, Mr. Chairman, where I
started that this Committee, in its long tradition, is bipartisan. I do
not know that there is, if that is the right word, more of a bipartisan
leader than yourself and certainly the members of the Tennessee Valley
delegation on a bipartisan basis have fought the budget cuts in the
1980s and I am sure that that bipartisan leadership will fight just as
diligently this time and I expect them to be as successful as they have
been. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
And I would like to thank all of the witnesses today. This last panel a
little bit short-changed in terms of time but I know you appreciate it.
All the previous panelists who appeared before us today, very valuable
resources in giving us a real good feel for the issue.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to particularly commend my colleagues
for taking their weekend to be right here. It is very important, I do
not have to remind anyone this is a beautiful time of year all over
this country, but we are here because we really care.
Finally, I want to thank all of you who are
here in this auditorium today for your attentiveness, for your interest
in this subject and I wish to assure you that we are going to, in the
best way possible, come to grips with this issue in a bipartisan
manner, as Mr. Borski mentioned, and fully appreciative of the
magnificence of that wonderful facility called Land Between the Lakes.
Thank you very much, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m, the Subcommittee was adjourned.]