Issue Position: Public Lands and Natural Resources

Issue Position

Preserving and Enjoying Idaho's Public Lands

Idaho's abundance of parks, forests, and public lands makes our state a wonderful place to live, work, and play. Nearly two-thirds of Idaho is public land, and as a life-long Idahoan I know the challenges that this creates for local governments. The federal government has the responsibility to be a good neighbor, rather than simply a burden on states and communities.

As a member of the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, which oversees funding for federal land management agencies like the Forest Service, the BLM, the National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, I regularly work with these agencies to ensure that they are cooperating with citizens and local leaders in Idaho and using taxpayer resources wisely. In addition, I constantly work with my colleagues who are not from the West to educate them about the issues and challenges of living in a public land state.

NATIONAL PARKS SYSTEM
From Yellowstone National Park to the Everglades and Acadia National Park to Yosemite, our national parks are among our nation's most treasured national assets and have been rightly called our nation's "crown jewels." Not only do our national parks drive the economies of gateway communities like many in Idaho, but they provide hundreds of millions of Americans each year the opportunity to get outdoors and learn about the places and people of our great country.

I am a strong supporter of our national parks. As a member of the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, which oversees funding for the National Park Service, I recognize that there are a number of challenges facing our parks, not the least of which is that we have a tendency to love our parks to death. Addressing these challenges during difficult budget times requires us to set careful priorities and do more with the limited resources available.

As Republicans continue in their commitment to doing what it takes to reduce federal spending, balance the budget, and create jobs to help get our economy on a sustainable, healthy path for the future, I will work to create a responsible budget for the National Park Service.

PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES (PILT)
Because federal lands may not generally be taxed by state or local governments, the PILT program was created to compensate local governments for the loss of income due to the presence of federal land in their state or county. In places like Idaho, where the federal government owns nearly two-thirds of the land, the PILT program is critical to communities throughout the state. I am a strong supporter of ensuring that this program is fully funded so that the federal government can be a good neighbor and meet its obligations to state and local governments.

You may be interested to know that during the 110th Congress I supported legislation making funding for the PILT program mandatory for five years. The 2014 Farm Bill included a provision extending this mandatory authorization through FY2015. Every county in Idaho receives PILT funding, and under this law our state received $26 million in 2013. I am committed to fulfilling the promises made to public lands counties, not only through 2013 but permanently, which is why I believe that PILT should continue to be fully funded and not subject to the whims of the discretionary appropriations process. Full funding for PILT was included the Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations bill. A portion of the full funding for PILT was also included in the FY15 National Defense Authorization Act.

As the former Chairman of the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, I recognize that continuing to fully fund PILT is difficult at a time when budget deficits are threatening our economy and it is necessary to rein in federal spending. That being said, I do not believe PILT is optional. PILT is essentially the government's property tax on the federal land it owns, and it needs to be paid in full and on time. Since PILT moved to mandatory funding in 2008, states and counties have had certainty that the federal government will meet its obligations and I am hopeful that we are able to shift PILT funding back to mandatory funding, where it is not subjects to the whims of the annual budget process.

Ensuring adequate funding for PILT is one of my top legislative priorities. Congress must work harder than ever to fund the PILT program and restore a level of fairness for public lands counties across the country. The least that the federal government can do for these counties is to meet the minimum commitment it made through the PILT program.

RECREATIONAL ACCESS ON PUBLIC LANDS
Idaho's abundance of parks, forests, and public lands makes our state a wonderful place to live, work, and play. I know that our state has some of the best places in the country to hunt and fish, hike, mountain bike, and ride snowmobiles and OHVs. As a member of the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, I have been a strong advocate for continued access to recreation on public lands.

As a life-long Idahoan, I have always strongly believed that Idahoans are more qualified than Washington bureaucrats to determine what is best for Idaho. It is important to have local consensus when we pass laws to set aside public lands for the protection of ecosystems, habitats, and species. Those who live and recreate in an area should have a say in the management decisions made there. I will continue working to ensure that Idahoans have access to the beautiful places in our state.

USER FEES FOR PRIVATE CABINS ON FEDERAL LAND
I understand the concerns of Idahoans who own cabins on Forest Service land and the impact that the dramatic increase in user fees proposed by the Forest Service will have on them. In 2000, Congress passed the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act (CUFFA), which was intended to create a fair appraisal process for cabin owners. However, the recent appraisals make it abundantly clear that the law is not working as Congress intended.

In order to address this issue, I have cosponsored legislation introduced by Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA) that would end the current appraisal system and replace it with a fee structure that ensures fairness for both cabin owners and taxpayers. H.R. 1159, the Cabin Fee Act of 2013, establishes a tiered yearly fee structure based on current appraisals and tied to inflation, so that appraisals will not have to be done in the future. In addition, it institutes a transfer fee when cabins or sold or ownership is transferred to ensure that taxpayers are adequately reimbursed for the value of the land at that time. This new system will create the stability and predictability for cabin users that have been lacking under CUFFA.

The Recreation Residence Program was created to encourage private stewardship on public lands and many of the affected cabins have been handed down for generations by families that have strong ties to the land and the surrounding communities. I am hopeful that a solution can be found that allows Idahoans to continue to enjoy our public lands for many years to come.

WILDFIRE FUNDING
As a lifelong Idahoan, I have seen the impact of catastrophic wildfires first hand, and as a member of the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, providing adequate resources for wildfire suppression is a top priority for me. Even in the current difficult budget environment we are in and while cutting a number of other accounts, I ensured that the House Interior Appropriations bill for FY14 fully funded wildfire suppression at the 10-year average and also funded the FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Account. The bill also includes funding for the Forest Service to acquire two new next generation heavy air tankers to replace its aging and increasingly obsolete fleet.

While I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to fund wildfire suppression, I am deeply concerned about the impact that the wildfire budget has on the ability of the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to manage healthy forests. One key tool for reducing catastrophic wildfires is the removal of hazardous fuels, which cause fires to burn hotter and spread more quickly. Unfortunately, when fire costs exceed the agency's fire budget, the agency is forced to borrow from other accounts, like hazardous fuels reduction and grazing management, to pay for fire suppression. With fewer resources available for good forest management, fires get worse, and so wildfire suppression costs are eating up most of the agency's budget. For example, in the mid-1980's, 70% of the Forest Service's budget was dedicated to actually managing the national forests. Today, that number is a dismal 30%.

As a member of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee , I have worked to ensure not only that fire suppression is adequately funded, but that the management accounts are reimbursed when fire borrowing occurs. You may be interested to know that the FY14 House Interior and Environment Appropriations bill provides $600 million for the Forest Service in fire suppression funding in an effort to address fire-borrowing before it happens. In addition, recognizing the value and cost effectiveness of preventing wildfires versus fighting them, my bill also increases funding for hazardous fuels removal by $200 million for the Forest Service and $87 million for the Department of the Interior.

I've seen where proactively removing hazardous fuels from an area has made the difference between relatively minor damage to resources and property and complete destruction, so I simply cannot understand why these fire prevention accounts were drastically underfunded in the president's budget request. Failing to adequately fund the hazardous fuels account would virtually guarantee that the cost of wildfire suppression will continue to rise in the future. This bill will help us to get ahead of the problem as much as possible.

As we go forward, we need to find a way to restore our forests to a more healthy and natural state. In order to do that, we must develop a plan that includes managed prescribed burns, hazardous fuels reductions, and timber harvest where appropriate. We must give our forest managers the tools and the authority to properly manage our federal lands. The old adage, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is very appropriate. Over time, fuels reduction programs will pay significant dividends in the reduction of fire fighting and restoration costs.

WILDERNESS DESIGNATIONS
When there is local consensus, I have consistently been a supporter of passing laws to set aside public lands for the protection of ecosystems, habitats and species. In the past I have also lent my support to legislation to create wilderness or designate areas as Wild and Scenic Rivers because there was local support in the affected areas and the citizens' elected representatives sponsored the legislation.

Just as I demand the citizens and elected officials of Idaho be allowed to steer Idaho's public lands policies without outside interference, I feel that I should allow the citizens of other states to determine the affairs of their states. I will consider legislation designating wilderness areas with these views.

WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM
Currently wild horses and burros on federal lands are protected as "living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West" by the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. This law places these animals under the management of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). According to the law, the federal agencies are to manage the animals "to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands." In order to do so, the law authorizes the agencies to destroy old, sick, or lame animals by the most humane means available and to allow private adoption of healthy animals in order to prevent overpopulation which may damage both herds and the ecosystem. When suitable homes are not available for healthy animals, the agencies may sell them commercially. Current law prohibits the BLM from using appropriated funds for slaughtering healthy, unadopted animals or for the sale of wild horses and burros that would result in their slaughter for processing into commercial products.

As a member of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, which oversees funding for the BLM, I am deeply concerned about the unwarranted cost of BLM's wild horse and burro program. Overpopulation of these animals has caused serious environmental damage to the rangelands in the west, and I am concerned about proposals to push these animals onto fragile ecosystems where they do not currently roam, threatening the environment in those areas. While I am an avid animal lover and never like the idea of animals being put to death unnecessarily, I am concerned that restrictions place on the BLM make it difficult to manage the already unsustainable problem of wild horse overpopulation.

This program costs the taxpayer millions of dollars each year without any measurable return. As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee , I intend to closely scrutinize how taxpayer dollars are being used and do what it takes to restore fiscal sanity during times of serious budget deficits.

WILD LANDS POLICY
On December 23, 2010, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar issued Secretarial Order 3310. The Secretarial Order directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to "designate appropriate areas with wilderness characteristics under its jurisdiction as "Wild Lands' and to manage them to protect their wilderness values."

I have a long list of concerns about the Department of Interior's Wild Lands initiative, not the least of which is the fact that it was rolled out without giving the public an opportunity to comment on it and without the opportunity for congressional oversight. I'm concerned that this initiative will make it more difficult to make good land management decisions and result in increased litigation.

The longer this initiative has been out in the public, the more concerns I hear about the impact it will have on ranching, energy production, recreation, and even the BLM's own ability to manage their lands. To that list, I would add my own deep concern that with this initiative, the Department has overstepped its authority. Only Congress has the authority to create new land designations.

Because of these concerns, I included language in the FY11 Continuing Resolution (CR) to prohibit the use of funding for implementing the Wild Lands policy. This provision was signed into law by President Obama on April 15, 2011. The funding prohibition is currently still in effect through the existing continuing resolution. The responsibility for making land management designations belongs to Congress, not the agency. I believe the Department needs to work with Congress on this issue.

Source