Colorado Wilderness Act of 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher) for his leadership.

I rise in strong opposition to this package of divisive and partisan bills. Collectively, this package of ideologically driven bills impact lands in Colorado, California, and Washington by creating nearly 1.5 million acres of new wilderness, designating 843 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers, and creating 100,000 acres of National Monument expansion.

In Colorado alone, H.R. 2546 would designate approximately 570,000 acres of new wilderness areas, 23,000 acres of expanded wilderness, and 14,000 acres of potential wilderness. These new designations would be in addition to the already existing 3.5 million acres of public land in Colorado that is already designated as wilderness.

Now, I commend my colleague from Colorado for her efforts to work with local shareholders to address some of their concerns, but the bills contained in this package do not achieve the type of balance and local consensus necessary for bills of this magnitude.

Many of the local communities impacted by this wilderness package have raised significant concerns, including the loss of motorized access and recreation, the elimination of multiple use, and the overall threat to local economies. If wilderness designation is imposed, fewer people will have access to these lands.

Engaging local stakeholders and considering their on-the-ground expertise are critical steps in making decisions about public lands management. Local communities have concerns with many aspects of this bill.

At the July 10, 2019, subcommittee hearing on this bill, the committee heard testimony from Montezuma County Commissioner Keenan Ertel, who shared the county's concern that this bill would negatively impact ``individual landowners, agricultural entities, water providers, first responders, and especially the recreation tourism industry.''

Garfield County also opposes this legislation due to concerns with restricting access and increased risk of catastrophic wildfires due to the restrictive management regimes imposed by this legislation.

In addition to local grievances, the affected land management agencies have noted that this bill is inconsistent with previous designations and existing land uses by arbitrarily adding wilderness areas and Wild and Scenic Rivers in areas where those designations are not appropriate. Supporting the declaration of areas that do not actually possess these characteristics undermines the integrity of the Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as well as the existing lands that do possess those features.

Because of these concerns, the Trump administration has rightly issued a veto threat against this partisan bill.

To quote from the Statement of Administration Policy: ``This bill would impose unnecessary and harmful restrictions on more than 2.5 million acres of land in Colorado, California, and Washington State, including nearly 1.5 million acres in the form of wilderness designations. These restrictions will greatly reduce opportunities for multiple uses on these public lands, limit access to them, and significantly reduce the available productive acreage in working forests, rendering them more prone to catastrophic wildfires.''

This highly partisan package is in stark contrast to the omnibus lands package that was passed overwhelmingly last year by both Chambers and signed into law by President Trump. That package was the most sweeping conservation legislation in the last decade. It had begun under the Republican House and was successful because it featured the input of a wide coalition of our colleagues, and it earned the support of a broad, diverse coalition of advocates for public lands, economic development, and conservation.

Mr. Chair, we are wasting our time here. I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source