May 22, 2009
Trevor Harmon
Dear Trevor:
Thank you for taking the time to share with me your thoughts on H.R. 980, the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act (NREPA). I appreciate hearing from you on this piece of ill-conceived legislation that would have such sweeping effects on Wyoming's way of life.
As you may know, H.R. 980 would set aside approximately 24 million acres of lands in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, as either units of the Wilderness preservation system or as newly established areas called "Biological Connecting Corridors." In addition, the bill would designate nearly 2,000 miles of waterways in these five states as new sections of the Wild and Scenic River system. As a matter of comparison, the acreage covered by the various designations in this bill is roughly equal to that of Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont, combined - all with significantly reduced public access rights and the elimination of multiple-use land management flexibility.
Another less known but equally troubling section of the bill would create new federal reserved water rights that would preclude future development upstream of any Wilderness area created in the legislation. Not only are these federal reserved water right provisions in the bill ripe for numerous lawsuits from impacted states, they are in fact inconsistent with the language of the original Wilderness Act itself. That statute specifically states that nothing in the act should be taken to imply the federal government is exempt from State water laws.
Even these expansions of formal land protections are not sufficient for the bill's sponsors, however. H.R. 980 also creates a National Wildland Restoration and Recovery System, complete with a federally staffed National Wildland Restoration and Recovery Corp within the Forest Service. The intent of this new land classification is to "return" an additional one million acres of lands - including approximately 70,000 acres in the Bridger Teton National Forest - into lands suitable for future wilderness designation. Any lands in this new classification would of course be withdrawn from any oil, gas, or mineral development.
Finally, under a latter section of H.R. 980, the National Academy of Sciences is directed to perform a review of any roadless areas over 1,000 acres in Wyoming or the other four affected western states, regardless of whether those lands are publicly or privately owned. These lands are then placed off limits to new road construction or reconstruction; timber harvest; oil or gas leasing; mining; or any other development that "impairs the natural and roadless qualities of these lands."
Wyoming has a right to be proud of the way the residents of our communities, counties, and State have helped manage and protect our public lands and resources for the enjoyment of future generations. Good stewardship of the land is a Wyoming value and one I hold in the highest regard. As such, the very basis of H.R. 980 - that east coast politicians know best when it comes to land management decisions in our Wyoming communities - is an assault on our heritage and western way of life.
It should be noted that this recycled bill has been reintroduced every Congress for nearly two decades, never once passing the House or Senate. Shockingly, in all this time, I am not aware of one locally-elected official in Wyoming whose input was sought out on the language or impact of H.R. 980. Due to this absolute absence of local support, not one Member of Congress whose district is encompassed by the land set-asides in H.R. 980 is currently a cosponsor of the legislation.
Good policy making comes from the ground up. It depends on public input, open and transparent debate, and rolling up our sleeves to find consensus. By attempting to replace a balanced and multiple-use approach to public land management in the west with a top-down set of restrictive mandates, H.R. 980 takes the opposite approach.
Be assured, I will remain diligent in fighting this bill to ensure it suffers the same fate as it has the past numerous Congresses where it has been rejected. In the interim, please don't hesitate to contact me again with any other issues important to you.
Sincerely,
z
Cynthia M. Lummis
Member of Congress
Trevor Harmon
Dear Trevor:
Thank you for taking the time to share with me your thoughts on H.R. 980, the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act (NREPA). I appreciate hearing from you on this piece of ill-conceived legislation that would have such sweeping effects on Wyoming's way of life.
As you may know, H.R. 980 would set aside approximately 24 million acres of lands in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, as either units of the Wilderness preservation system or as newly established areas called "Biological Connecting Corridors." In addition, the bill would designate nearly 2,000 miles of waterways in these five states as new sections of the Wild and Scenic River system. As a matter of comparison, the acreage covered by the various designations in this bill is roughly equal to that of Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont, combined - all with significantly reduced public access rights and the elimination of multiple-use land management flexibility.
Another less known but equally troubling section of the bill would create new federal reserved water rights that would preclude future development upstream of any Wilderness area created in the legislation. Not only are these federal reserved water right provisions in the bill ripe for numerous lawsuits from impacted states, they are in fact inconsistent with the language of the original Wilderness Act itself. That statute specifically states that nothing in the act should be taken to imply the federal government is exempt from State water laws.
Even these expansions of formal land protections are not sufficient for the bill's sponsors, however. H.R. 980 also creates a National Wildland Restoration and Recovery System, complete with a federally staffed National Wildland Restoration and Recovery Corp within the Forest Service. The intent of this new land classification is to "return" an additional one million acres of lands - including approximately 70,000 acres in the Bridger Teton National Forest - into lands suitable for future wilderness designation. Any lands in this new classification would of course be withdrawn from any oil, gas, or mineral development.
Finally, under a latter section of H.R. 980, the National Academy of Sciences is directed to perform a review of any roadless areas over 1,000 acres in Wyoming or the other four affected western states, regardless of whether those lands are publicly or privately owned. These lands are then placed off limits to new road construction or reconstruction; timber harvest; oil or gas leasing; mining; or any other development that "impairs the natural and roadless qualities of these lands."
Wyoming has a right to be proud of the way the residents of our communities, counties, and State have helped manage and protect our public lands and resources for the enjoyment of future generations. Good stewardship of the land is a Wyoming value and one I hold in the highest regard. As such, the very basis of H.R. 980 - that east coast politicians know best when it comes to land management decisions in our Wyoming communities - is an assault on our heritage and western way of life.
It should be noted that this recycled bill has been reintroduced every Congress for nearly two decades, never once passing the House or Senate. Shockingly, in all this time, I am not aware of one locally-elected official in Wyoming whose input was sought out on the language or impact of H.R. 980. Due to this absolute absence of local support, not one Member of Congress whose district is encompassed by the land set-asides in H.R. 980 is currently a cosponsor of the legislation.
Good policy making comes from the ground up. It depends on public input, open and transparent debate, and rolling up our sleeves to find consensus. By attempting to replace a balanced and multiple-use approach to public land management in the west with a top-down set of restrictive mandates, H.R. 980 takes the opposite approach.
Be assured, I will remain diligent in fighting this bill to ensure it suffers the same fate as it has the past numerous Congresses where it has been rejected. In the interim, please don't hesitate to contact me again with any other issues important to you.
Sincerely,
z
Cynthia M. Lummis
Member of Congress
