9 



These conservation projects have affected about 1.3 miUion acres of wetlands and 

 associated upland habitat in Canada and the United States. Conservation education 

 and wetland^ management plan projects in Mexico affect large biosphere reserves. 

 The program has been tremendously successful, and, for the most part, I would 

 not recommend major changes to the Act. However, I do believe the Subcommittee 

 should consider some clarifying language — either in the statute or in the Committee 

 report to accompany any legislation that is reported. 



Specifically, the Committee should speak to congressional intent with regard to 

 the type of protection that is to be afforded projects approved under the Act. A wet- 

 land is a fragile thing. As we have learned — often the hard way— it is not something 

 that is easily created or fixed. It is not something that can be protected for 10 years 

 and then plowed under. Instead, it is an ecosystem to which we must commit not 

 just money, but time. 



As the Federal Government devotes money to conservation and restoration of 

 these systems, we must also make a commitment of time and require that our part- 

 ners do the same. The money we spend on wetlands conservation is ill-spent if the 

 projects disappear after 10 or even 25 years. Only through permanent protection of 

 these lands — either through fee acquisition or a permanent easement — can these 

 goals be achieved. The amount of money that is being spent on protection of wet- 

 lands by the Federal Government is significant. We must require that an equally 

 significant commitment of time be made by the Federal Government's partners. 



I commend to the Subcommittee a reading of the House and Senate reports in this 

 regard. The congressional intent is clear that: 



[W]here possible, the term "long-term, conservation" should be interpreted in a 

 manner that will result in habitat being reserved in perpetuity for fish and 

 wildlife conservation. Easements to conserve wetland ecosystems for 25 years 

 or more, while less desirable than perpetual easements, also would be consist- 

 ent with the requirement for long-term conservation. In some cases, purchase 

 of easements to conserve habitat for less than 25 years, or even for 10 years 

 or less, may be appropriate if the purchase is likely to result in the landowner 

 agreeing to a longer term conservation agreement at the expiration of the initial 

 easement. 

 Senate Report 101-161, p. 5 



The House report is even more clear in this regard stating that, "[i]t is the Com- 

 mittee's preference that the lands bt protected in perpetuity. In cases where an 

 agreement cannot be reached to protect the land in perpetuity, the land should be 

 protected for as long a period as possible." House Report 101-269, p. 13. 



I would like to thank Chairman Studds and the other members of the Subcommit- 

 tee for allowing me to share my views on the reauthorization of this important pro- 

 gram. 



I would be more than happy to answer any questions that you might have. 



Mr. Studds. Are there questions for Chairman Dingell? The gen- 

 tleman from New Jersey. 



Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to ask the 

 gentleman if he could be more specific in recommending a change 

 here in terms of the time we devote. In other words, we would ask 

 the various partners to make a commitment; I guess you are talk- 

 ing about a long-term commitment that the project would not be 

 abandoned towards which we put money after some short period of 

 years; is that correct? 



Mr. DiNGELL. Well, the way the process works is that an agree- 

 ment is negotiated between the Federal Government and the part- 

 ners. And then pursuant to that, an approval process takes place 

 which defines both the conditions and the terms, the area to be 

 saved, and everything else like that. 



Most of these acquisitions are either leases or easements. And 

 more often they are easements rather than leases because all you 

 want to do is protect the one single value as opposed to protecting 

 a lot of values. 



When I was a member of this Committee, we were always con- 

 cerned about the acquisition being of too short a period, and the 



