Testimony of

Dr. John Redifer

Associate Professor of Political Science

Mesa State College

And

Vice President

The Tamarisk Coalition

Before the

House of Representatives subcommittee on

Forest and Forest Health

July 24, 2003

In its consideration of

H.R. 2707

The Salt Cedar and

Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act

Good morning, my name is Dr. John Redifer. I am an Associate Professor of Political Science at Mesa State College and Vice-President of the Tamarisk Coalition. I am also a past chair of the Mesa County Democratic Party and have worked closely with Rep. McInnis and his staff on the bipartisan issue of tamarisk control for the past two years.

I would like to thank Chairman McInnis for inviting me to testify today. The congressman has never turned down the numerous requests from me to visit my classes at Mesa State and I am grateful for this opportunity to return the favor. I would also like to thank Congressman McInnis as well as Congressman Pearce and Senators Domenici and Campbell for the leadership they have provided in our efforts to control tamarisk.

The recent drought and the “water stealing” capacity of tamarisk have heightened the need to finally bring this invasive species under control. In the event that we had forgotten, the drought ravishing the American West has reminded our communities of just how precious and scarce water is in our part of the world. At the same time, record drought conditions have forced policy makers to more fully grasp the importance of maximizing the availability of this scarce commodity. Eradicating the pervasive presence of tamarisk along our rivers and streams should be a central component of our region’s broader push to increase the availability of water. And so I want to applaud Congressmen Pearce, McInnis and the other sponsors of this legislation for introducing the Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act. The demonstration projects identified in HR 2707 and the rest of the funding it provides for eradicating tamarisk are a great start to addressing the problem. However, the benefits of this bill will likely erode over time if Congress fails to ensure that affected river basins infested with tamarisk have in place an adequately funded long term management strategy that will not only eradicate existing tamarisk, but will revegetate the infested areas and monitor them for any signs of re-infestation over time. We already know how to kill tamarisk, but this tree is extremely resilient and will quickly return if we don’t have in place the means and the methods to ensure its total and complete demise.

As currently written HR 2707 acknowledges the importance of long term management and funding strategies, but more could be done in the bill to ensure that stakeholders at the federal, state and local levels establish and fund systematic tamarisk control programs. The lack of a systematic, multi-stakeholder management and funding strategy is the single greatest hurdle that must be overcome if tamarisk is to be controlled over the long term. The President's National Invasive Species Council agrees that these two factors are the primary impediments to the control of not only tamarisk but most invasive species. Without a long term management and monitoring regime, federal, state and local authorities will spend millions of dollars chopping down these water-thirsty trees in the near term only to see tamarisk re-assert their control over the West’s waterways in the long run. I would encourage this committee to look at HR 695 sponsored by Congressman McInnis for a way to allocate resources for the development of a “process model” that can assist each river basin as it constructs their funding and management strategies. This will make an already strong piece of legislation substantially stronger, and more responsive to the challenges that tamarisk pose over the long run.

While I have no pre-conceived notions of what such a strategy will ultimately look like, I would like to describe a few general principles that any long-term tamarisk strategy should embody. First and foremost, the strategy must adequately address all three phases of tamarisk control to include eradication, revegetation and monitoring. Second, the strategy must be developed and supported by a coalition of federal, state, local and private land managers responsible for implementing it. The war against tamarisk will be won in the trenches. And those who will fight it there must believe that the strategy employed will work. This is best achieved if the stakeholders are implementing a strategy that they have developed. Third, the strategy should be developed river basin by river basin, state by state. While the process for developing a strategy may be the same, the strategy itself may differ based on the unique characteristics and political relationships between stakeholders in each river basin.

Fourth, the process for developing a strategy should be facilitated by an “honest broker”, someone that the stakeholders do not perceive as trying to force a solution that will allow them to dominate either the implementation of the plan or the funding allocated to it.

Fifth, the strategy must address how resources; money, equipment and personnel will be pooled to systematically eradicate, revegetate and monitor the effort to control tamarisk. An effective strategy may require public land managers to dedicate resources under their immediate control to efforts outside their political boundaries.

Sixth, the strategy must provide a voluntary, non-coercive means for encouraging local property holders to provide access to their land for the purpose of conducting operations related to controlling tamarisk. Many property owners are understandably suspicious of even the most beneficial government action and a means must be developed to abate those fears. We know that tamarisk does not respect either property boundaries or any other artificial jurisdictional distinctions. Success against tamarisk will only come if affected land owners of every type are equally committed to its eradication. Accordingly, a successful tamarisk suppression program will need to include non-threatening mechanisms that encourage the cooperation of private land owners.

Finally, the strategy must include an educational component designed to create public awareness of the problem, and the need to remedy it. Creating public awareness of tamarisk and the benefits associated with its control will be critical for the provision of an adequate funding source. We can not expect the federal government to fund the entire cost of controlling tamarisk. Obviously, the feds should be responsible for their fair share of the costs but state and local governments will have to provide the rest. We must be able to demonstrate to citizens that the benefits of controlling tamarisk far exceed its costs and that this effort will be completed in a specific time frame after which funding will no longer be required. Under these conditions citizens have demonstrated time and again their willingness to support government programs.

If we can develop a process that is successful in producing a long-term strategy and funding source to control tamarisk the positive ramifications will far exceed the problem itself. We will have a process model that can then be exported to deal with the tamarisk problem in other river basins and even other invasive species. If properly amended to ensure funding for the development of a “process model”, then, HR 2707 will have the potential to help solve a vast array of problems requiring multi-stakeholder cooperation. Without this systematic, multi-stakeholder approach, we will continue to address the problem of tamarisk control in a piecemeal fashion that will most assuredly kill a lot of trees only to see them grow back again.

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

Supplemental Sheet

Dr. John David Redifer

796 ½ Josilyn Ct.

Grand Junction, CO 81506

(970) 256-1381 (H)

(970) 248-1117 (W)

(970) 248-1934 (Fax)

Dr. Redifer’s testimony discusses the importance of controlling tamarisk in the arid west and the need for development of a long term management and funding strategy to ensure program success. He also identifies seven key components that any successful strategy must address. He recommends that H.R. 2707 be amended to include funding for the development of a “process model” to assist federal, state, local and private land managers in each river basin affected by tamarisk infestation to develop such a plan.