sonable manner which is in keeping and faithful to existing Supreme Court rulings. The bill codifies and clarifies the area of takings law and court jurisdiction to enable the property owner to vindicate his rights; requires that all Federal agencies examine proposed regulations to assess the takings impact of those regulations; creates a streamlined administrative remedy for claims arising under the much maligned Endangered Species Act and the wetlands provision of the Clean Water Act; explicitly provides for arbitration, which will also serve to avoid expensive litigation costs; and provides that all awards or settlements for takings claims will be paid out of agency budgets. All these provisions will combine to achieve remarkable results. Not only will private property owners be equipped to defend themselves, but the Federal Government will benefit from this bill as well. By forcing the agencies to consider the costs of their takings, the agencies will steer away from unnecessary takings. The clarifications in the law will permit both the agency and the property owner to more accurately determine what will be considered a taking before the matter goes to court. Finally, by imposing the cost of the agency's action on the agency itself and not on innocent individual property owners, the agency will be certain to achieve its statutory goals with as little taking of private property as possible. Now, there have been a lot of exaggerated arguments made by the opponents of this bill. These arguments are absolutely unfounded and absurd. Listening to them, you will begin to think the sun will explode if we pass this bill. Today, we will address those exaggerations so we can get beyond them and concentrate on the real issues. This bill simply protects the rights guaranteed to all Americans by the fifth amendment. It does so fairly, reasonably, and in a way that allows us to protect the environment as well as public health and safety. Those who call this bill flawed should understand that they are, in essence, calling a part of the Bill of Rights flawed in the same breath. It is our purpose to enact this legislation and restore the fundamental right to property that this Nation is founded upon. Senator Thurmond, do you have any opening remarks? Senator THURMOND. No. We are glad to have you here and glad to have you speak out and tell us exactly what happened. I think that would be of very much benefit to the public. Again, we thank you for coming. The CHAIRMAN. We are hopeful that Senator Dole and Senator Gramm will be here within the near future, but we will begin our hearing by calling upon Ms. Nellie Edwards. We are delighted to have you here as my fellow Utah constituent. We appreciate your making the efforts to be here and we think your testimony is very important in the overall consideration of this matter. So, Ms. Edwards, we will be delighted to listen to you. STATEMENT OF NELLIE EDWARDS, PROVO, UT Ms. EDWARDS. May I say to you how grateful I am to be here, and for the few minutes that you will spend with me, I am truly grateful. My name is Nellie Edwards. I am from Provo, UT. My husband, Phil Edwards, and I have been ranchers for many years. Our farm is located on the east shore of Utah Lake and borders the Provo River as it flows into Utah Lake. We have been property owners in Utah for 50 years. Three years ago, my husband, Phil, passed away. Shortly thereafter, I was informed that my land had been condemned by Provo City. I was told they planned to use my land to enlarge an existing extremely profitable campground near the lake. It seemed I didn't have much choice in the matter because the laws were clearly on their side. Today, I can walk down on the land on which our cattle used to feed and see the mobile trailer hookups. Just before my husband passed away, he told me to protect this lakefront property because it was a prime location and to not let anyone take it away from me. Phil had good reason to issue this warning because he had lost valuable land to condemnation twice in his lifetime. My husband had had the foresight to see that there was no other piece of property like this in the entire State. He knew that someday this land would be sought after because of its view of the lake and the sandy beaches. I have taken this condemnation particularly hard because this is the third time that a government entity has condemned property which belonged to this family. In 1938, my husband and his brother owned a large dairy farm in Charleston, UT. The Government entity condemned this farm for the building of a reservoir. They took possession of the property, giving very little compensation to these two brothers. Three days later, as Phil and his brother rode across their land to get to their cattle, they were told by a local sheep herder that they were trespassing and that he had leased the land from the Government. At the time this first condemnation took place, my husband was only 19 or 20 years old. He and his brother tried to fight for their land, but they lost it in court. In 1973, our family had its second experience with losing land to condemnation. That property included our feed yard, a nice shed, a flowing well, and good protection for our cattle. Even though we did not want to sell the property, we were able to reach an agreement to sell it for $7,500 an acre. Since then, it has become one of the State's most profitable campgrounds. Now, we find ourselves in the position of having our land taken for the third time. In this most recent condemnation, the city carefully laid all their groundwork in secret behind closed doors. Land owners were not informed of the revisions and changes in plans until there was nothing we could do to stop the taking of our land. The intimidation used by these people has been very difficult because I have not had Phil to help me fight this battle. I have desperately asked for fair market values for my land and have been told that my land was now valueless because it had been declared a wetland, even though we had never been notified by the Corps of Engineers nor anyone else. When I voiced my opinion that I was unable to understand how a wetland could be used for a trailer park, I was told that if I did not accept this offer, they would challenge my title to the land ownership. I have since learned that the city was able to acquire property at $600 an acre because 27 of the 35.5 acres have been designated as wetlands. However, this property is now being developed into an $800,000 campground which will accommodate over 60 recreational vehicles per night and has excellent potential for profit. I did not want to sell my land and have been denied the opportunity of developing it myself. My biggest fear, however, is that if these agencies are allowed to take this valuable recreation property at these low-ball prices, they will come back and take the rest of my property. I have always worked very hard to be independent, and this land was supposed to support me and my husband in our retirement years. We did not have the benefit of working for a company which would provide us with retirement programs. Our land was our security, and that security is now being taken from me when I need it the very most. The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. That is a very, very touching and interesting story. How many acres were involved? Ms. EDWARDS. Thirty-five and one-half acres. The CHAIRMAN. Thirty-five and one-half, and how much did you get per acre? Ms. EDWARDS. Six-hundred dollars. The CHAIRMAN. And this was when? What year was it? Ms. EDWARDS. Just recently. The CHAIRMAN. In the last few years? Ms. EDWARDS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. But in 1973, on other acreage that they took, they paid you $7,500 an acre? Ms. EDWARDS. Right, and you can step from the piece that we sold in 1973 to the piece that they have taken off me today; they are connected. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any estimate of what that land really would have been worth had it not been declared a wetland? Ms. EDWARDS. I am scared. The CHAIRMAN. I understand. I don't blame you. Ms. EDWARDS. We have sold ground down there. My ground surrounds the park, the Utah State Park. I am all around them, and we sold ground in 1981 for $12,000 an acre. Today, my ground is selling for $18,000 to $20,000 an acre within a 11⁄2 miles of this ground. The CHAIRMAN. One of the things I find most disturbing about uncompensated takings like yours is the appalling number of people who, like you, have purchased land so that they could support themselves when they decide to retire, and then all of a sudden turn around and have their life savings just stolen away from them. Ms. EDWARDS. Right. The CHAIRMAN. For years, people in America have always said you can't go wrong with real estate, but now it seems you can. Given everything that has happened to you and your family, what advice would you give to somebody who is planning for their retirement by acquiring real estate and holding on to it? Ms. EDWARDS. Oh, my gosh, Senator Hatch, I think I would say get you a really, really good lawyer, one that is really honest. [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. I think what you said in your opening statement really told the story of why we need this bill far more eloquently than I can, so let me just ask you one more question. Some people have suggested that requiring government to properly compensate owners when taking their rights will somehow hurt property owners. So, as a property owner, do you think you would be better off if the government had to fairly compensate you for taking your property or better off just keeping your property? Ms. EDWARDS. Is this your bill you are passing? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Ms. EDWARDS. That is what I want, that is what I want. [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. I don't think I could have a better endorsement of the bill than that. [Laughter.] One last question. There must have been a lot of water on this property, I guess, for them to declare it a wetland. Ms. EDWARDS. No, no, absolutely not. It is dry. They are putting a campground on it. The CHAIRMAN. You mean this is dry property, 35.5 acres, that they declared a wetland, so you had to sell it for $600 an acre so they could build a campground on it? Ms. EDWARDS. Right. The CHAIRMAN. And the campground is worth what? Ms. EDWARDS. I guess, $800,000. The CHAIRMAN. Something you could have done, if you had wanted to, on your own? Ms. EDWARDS. Yes, absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. Well, it makes me feel badly that that happened in my own home State, but your situation is not too dissimilar from a lot of other people who have had drylands declared wetlands under the same and similar circumstances. I think it is a flagrant example of how far some of our laws have gone. I want to compliment you on being here today. Senator Thurmond? Senator THURMOND. I just want to congratulate you for coming here and exposing this situation. This is land you owned yourself. The government has taken it. They did not pay you adequately. In South Carolina, we have wetlands, so I know exactly what you are talking about and I think you are exactly right. Ms. EDWARDS. May I thank you. I am so grateful that you are listening to me. The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are, and I don't know what we can do, but we are going to look further into your case and see what can be done. Neither the Federal Government nor the States should be doing things like what happened to you. So we appreciate your taking time to be here and we thank you for your testimony. Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. The privilege is mine. Senator KYL. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me. I didn't notice you, Senator Kyl. Senator KYL. I just wanted to also compliment Ms. Edwards. My home State of Arizona is much like your State. There is not a lot wet to it, and yet we have been declared wetlands in some areas, too. You may have been nervous coming here today, but, believe me, you give us a lot of spirit to fight this battle, and we will use your case as an example. So it may have been detrimental to you, but it will help in our fight. Ms. EDWARDS. Good. Senator KYL. You should know that when you leave the witness table there, you will see behind you this entire room is full of people who are concerned about this issue. We have the key people in the Senate who have sponsored this legislation, this Hatch bill, some of whom are about to testify here. So there is a lot of strength behind your idea and behind the chairman's idea, and I am confident that we will be able to rectify this situation for people to come. Thank you for being here. Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. We appreciate you being here, and thank you for taking the time to come, and your family as well. Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. We now have the privilege of having one of our fine colleagues, who, of course, is one of the great leaders in the U.S. Senate and in this country. We are happy to take your testimony, Senator Phil Gramm from Texas. STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL GRAMM, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Senator GRAMM. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you I am very happy that I was able to hear Nellie Edwards because what we heard here was the voice of America. What we heard here was the outrage that exists in America when we have a situation that the Founding Fathers could have never in their wildest dreams imagined. In America in 1995, it seems that two consenting adults can engage in any kind of consensual behavior with total constitutional protection-except owning private property and engaging in commerce and business. The reason that you are here today, the reason that we have all joined together-many of us who wrote our own bills to put together one bill, is that we want to protect property rights in America. The Constitution of the United States says very clearly that no private property shall be taken for public purpose without just compensation. Yet, as we just heard from Nellie Edwards-and as we all know from our own States-over and over again, everyday all over America, people are having their private property taken. They are not compensated. It occurs whether a Red Cockaded Woodpecker flies into your pine trees in Texas, or whether a farmer bush-hogging in California runs over a rat that turns out to be an endangered species. People are having their property values reduced and effectively having their land taken to promote an objective which society says is good, but which society refuses to pay for. I think it is vitally important that we change that. I think it is important that we guarantee that every American who has their property taken or where a government regulation or Federal action lowers the value of their property substantially, the Federal Government ought to have to pay them for it. That will accomplish two |