Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment*
|
Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment* |
|
|
|
IB10015: Protecting Natural
Resources and Managing Growth: Jeff Zinn August 6, 2001 CONTENTS
The 107th Congress is continuing efforts to enact omnibus legislation to address expanding protection of natural resources, which could have some benefits for managing growth and constraining sprawl. Earlier versions were introduced in the 105th Congress and considered in the 106th Congress. The 106th Congress considered several bills as well as a Clinton Administration proposal - The Lands Legacy Initiative - tied to annual appropriations for FY2000 and FY2001. The omnibus bills, referred to as CARA, would have used about $45 billion in revenues from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas activities over 15 years to fund land and easement acquisition, wildlife protection, and restoration, and protection of many other types of resources. The House passed a version of CARA, H.R. 701, and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported a substitute version of H.R. 701 (S.Rept. 106-413), but no further action was taken. This legislation attracted bipartisan support from those who view expanded resource protection as a response to sprawl, from state and local interests who seek additional federal funding for resource protection and restoration, and from wildlife and recreation advocates who believe that resource protection activities have been chronically underfunded. Opposition came from those who worry about protecting personal property rights and expanding federal land ownership, especially in the West. Others opposed use of permanent appropriations, a component of some versions, because they would prefer to spend federal funds for other purposes, want to limit overall federal spending, or want all funding to be appropriated annually. The Clinton Administration endorsed many elements in these bills. Also, it proposed appropriating funds annually for a similar array of programs in its Lands Legacy Initiative in FY2000 and FY2001 In FY2000, the Lands Legacy programs received $197.5 million in a separate title of the Interior Appropriations bill as well as increased funding for many of its programs. After it became clear that the Senate was unlikely to act on CARA, Congress and the Administration agreed to a multi-year lands legacy program in the FY2001 appropriation. This agreement increased funding for resource protection programs that could total $12 billion over 6 years, if fully appropriated annually. For FY2001, the total appropriation is $1.67 billion ($1.2 billion through Interior Appropriations and $470 million Commerce Appropriations). The CARA proposal has been reintroduced in the 107th Congress, again as H.R. 701. The House Resources Committee held a hearing on June 20,2001 and completed markup on July 25. Senator Murkowski and Senator Landrieu introduced different versions of CARA on August 2, 2001. The Bush Administration has not stated a position on H.R. 701. It did, however, request full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in FY2002. The FY2002 Interior appropriations bill, as passed by the House and the Senate, includes $1.32 billion for the Lands Legacy programs (now called the Conservation spending Category), an increase of $120 million over FY2001, but only partial funding for the LWCF. House members have reintroduced H.R. 701, omnibus legislation known as CARA, that would increase funding to more than $3 billion annually for acquisition of land, restoration and protection of wildlife, coastal resources, urban parks, historic sites, public and Indian lands, and acquisition of easements. The House Resources Committee held a hearing on this bill on June 20, 2001, and completed markup on July 25, 2001. In the Senate, both Senator Murkowski and Senator Landrieu introduced different versions of CARA (S. 1318 and S. 1328, respectively). The Bush Administration has not taken a position on CARA legislation. It did, however, propose full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million in FY2002 in its budget submission. The 106th Congress did not complete action on CARA, but it enacted portions of the Clinton Administration's "Lands Legacy Initiative," which proposed substantial increases in funding for selected resource protection and restoration programs with its FY2000 and FY2001 budget submissions. For FY2001, Congress enacted $1.2 billion, and a 6-year program as part of Interior appropriations that would provide a total of $12 billion if all the funds are appropriated each year (Title VIII of P.L. 106-291), and $470 million, mostly for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for one year only, in Title IX of the Commerce Appropriations (P.L. 106-554). For FY2002, the House and the Senate have each provided $1.32 billion for a suite of initiative programs under the jurisdiction of the Interior Department, now being called the Conservation Spending Category. This amount is an increase of $120 million from the preceding year, and the distribution of these funds among programs is somewhat different in the two bills. FY2002 Commerce Appropriations, which has passed the House and been reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, does not include any new funding for the Title IX programs. Managing growth and related resource protection issues moved on three distinct fronts during the 106th Congress: (1)The 106th Congress monitored state and local governments as they addressed suburban sprawl and related growth issues; (2) It considered and almost enacted omnibus legislation, commonly referred to as CARA, to spend almost $3 billion annually over each of the next 15 years of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas revenues to fund a variety of resource protection programs; and (3) It enacted portions of the Clinton Administration proposals to increase annual appropriations to selected programs funded by the Interior and Commerce appropriations, called the Lands Legacy Initiative, in both FY2000 and FY2001. Many of the programs that would have been funded under CARA and are funded under the Lands Legacy Initiative (mostly at lower funding levels than in CARA) could be used to address issues associated with managing growth. The collection of programs in the initiative are now called the Conservation Spending Category in interior appropriations reports. Assisting Efforts to Address Sprawl and Manage Growth In recent years, some Members of Congress and the Clinton Administration were interested in addressing growth management and sprawl issues. These issues often include major resource protection components and may include many other topics as well. Many of these issues are most visible and addressed at the local level. At this level, protecting valued resources, including farmland, forests and other resources that provide amenity or recreation benefits, can also help control sprawl and manage patterns of growth. Managing growth involves searching for ways in which federal programs can be used to reduce a host of expanding undesirable attributes, such as loss of agricultural land or open space, the decline of neighborhoods in older cities, or increased traffic congestion and commuting time, while giving higher priority to policies and funding choices that foster desirable conditions. Growth management and sprawl issues emerge periodically. Interest is currently high, and many states and localities have been attempting to use various public policies to deal with these issues for the past several years. Maryland received considerable publicity when it recently acted on these issues. It adopted the Clinton Administration moniker, "smart growth," when it enacted legislation in 1997. Under this legislation, state road and sewer project spending to assist development will be concentrated both to revitalize approved urban areas and to curb sprawl by minimizing public spending in other areas. In addition, more than $70 million is to be used by 2002 to purchase development rights on land with high environmental value. Governor Glendening continues to pursue these initiatives in Maryland after the departure of the Clinton Administration, and is using his position as Chair of the National Governor's Association to increase interest and awareness around the country. For example, the Association held a summit in March 2001 that addressed the benefits resource conservation programs on private lands. Current efforts to deal with sprawl and manage growth emphasize incentives and disincentives to encourage desirable choices. By contrast, most earlier efforts were based on regulation and enforcement. For example, Oregon's urban growth boundaries, which have been in place for about 25 years and are viewed as a model by some other jurisdictions, are relatively rigid as the lines that denote the boundaries are difficult to change. By contrast, Maryland's new program emphasizes the use of financial incentives and disincentives to encourage preferred actions at desired locations. A similar change to a more flexible approach can be seen in resource protection where more funds and efforts are devoted to protection or restoration using easements and other mechanisms that cost less than full fee acquisition. The issues addressed by these initiatives have important economic dimensions. The costs associated with resource protection and measures of what protection is worth to individuals have been widely discussed (and disputed). The costs associated with managing growth and addressing sprawl are even more controversial. Advocates of growth management cite the costs of providing new services, such as schools and transportation, in growing areas while existing services in areas of declining population are underused. However, others say that many of these costs are overstated and that the offsetting savings are not properly accounted for. Analysis of the costs change with scale; costs (and savings) may be quite different at a regional scale than at a community scale, so the scale at which government is organized to provide services can strongly influence how it approaches these responsibilities. In addition to the many actions the public sector may initiate, one proliferating response in the private sector is the creation of land trusts, which protect valued resources that are threatened with undesirable change, such as those caused by sprawl. A 1997 survey conducted by the Land Trust Alliance (a group in Washington that represents about two-thirds of the land trusts) found more than 1,200 trusts operating in all 50 states and protecting more than 17.5 million acres, an area larger than West Virginia. The Nature Conservancy, which is the largest and perhaps the best known of these trusts, protects more than 8 million acres; most land trusts work to protect resources in a relatively small area. Trusts are now using easements rather than acquisition to protect about 1.4 million acres. This is a nearly five-fold increase over the past decade, but still a small portion of the land protected by trusts. All land protection efforts are not necessarily directly linked to traditional environmental interests and organizations, to purchasing land, or to sprawl. Two groups involving commercial ranching interests that have received considerable attention for their land protection and restoration activities are the Malpai Borderlands Group along the Mexican border with New Mexico and Arizona and the Colorado Cattleman's Association. Some Members of Congress have responded to these resource protection and growth management interests by creating groups of Members who represent concerned constituencies. In the House, Representative Blumenauer created a Livable Communities Task Force within the Democratic Caucus in early 1998. Its stated objectives include recognizing the role the federal government has played in affecting community livability and promoting partnerships where the federal government works with local governments to achieve a community vision. A press release from Representative Blumenauer's office listed 17 members. In the Senate, Senators Jeffords and Levin announced the formation of a bipartisan Senate Smart Growth Task Force on January 13, 1999. The Task Force now has 22 members from both Chambers and both parties. Objectives of this Task Force are to investigate federal policies that curtail the quality of life in communities and regions, and to promote federal policies and programs that assist and complement state and local efforts to promote "smart growth". These Senators received reports from the General Accounting Office in April 1999 and in September 2000. The initial report concluded that federal policies do contribute to sprawl, although the data to determine the extent and magnitude of the federal influence is not available, while the second report found many local governments are pursuing a variety of strategies to manage growth. They have requested a third report, to be completed later in 2001 that focuses on environmental protection programs. Resource protection advocates have been pressing to increase overall federal funding levels for a mix of resource protection programs and increase the consistency of funding from year to year. The traditional source of federal funding to support federal, state, and local efforts to acquire natural resources is primarily the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Annual appropriations to LWCF have been unpredictable from year to year. They were greatly reduced in the early and mid 1990s, as the Clinton Administration and Congress struggled to reduce the deficit, but have been rising steadily more recently. Further, the grants to states portion of the LWCF, which had received about one-third of all appropriated funds since the law was implemented in 1965, was not funded from FY1995 through FY2000 but received $41 million in FY2000 and $91 million in FY2001. Other generally newer and more focused federal resource protection programs address wetlands, migratory bird habitat, farmland, and the like using various approaches in addition to acquisition. The expenditure of LWCF funds by either federal agencies or states has not to date involved consideration of the patterns of growth or sprawl. (For more information on the LWCF, see CRS Report 97-792 ENR, Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues, last updated March 16, 2001.) Interest in addressing these LWCF funding problems and related resource protection issues led to the introduction of three bills late in the 105th Congress (H.R. 4467 sponsored by Representative Gephardt, H.R. 4717 sponsored by Representative Don Young, and S. 2566 sponsored by Senator Landrieu). These bills would have funded the LWCF using permanent appropriations rather than the annual appropriations process, and revitalized the state grants program. In addition, the bills introduced by Representative Young and Senator Landrieu also would have: provided funds to coastal states to address impacts from offshore energy development; funded the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR), which had not been funded since FY1995; and increased funding for the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (also known as the Pittman-Robertson Act). Both bills enjoyed some bipartisan support, and were reintroduced, with some changes, early in the 106th Congress (H.R. 701 and S. 25). H.R. 701, the main legislative vehicle in the 106th Congress, would have created the CARA Fund of almost $3 billion annually from offshore oil and gas revenues. It had the same basic features as the bills that had been introduced in the 105th Congress. The House-passed version funded 10 programs, while the Senate version, which was developed later in the 106th Congress and contained more of the programs that were also in the Clinton Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative, funded 20 programs. While the basic concepts were generally similar in both bills, some of the details differed. Legislative Activity in the House. As passed by the House, H.R. 701, or CARA would have appropriated $2.825 billion annually from revenues derived from offshore oil and gas activities. All the funds except the federal portion of the LWCF would have been permanently appropriated and have bypassed the annual appropriation process. All purposes, authorized through FY2015 (and annual funding levels) included:
The House approved H.R. 701 on May 11, 2000, after 2 days of debate, during which it adopted 7 amendments. H.R. 701 had 315 cosponsors and was approved by a vote of 315-102. During the debate, supporters generally argued for the benefits of additional resource protection through multiple programs, especially at a time of growing budget surpluses. Opponents argued against removing this funding from the annual appropriations process, accelerating acquisition of land by the federal government, and increasing intrusion by the government on the lives of private citizens. The bill the House considered also contained some significant technical revisions made after the full committee had passed it. The most significant revisions:
The seven amendments the House approved would have:
Legislative Activity in the Senate. As reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the substitute version of H.R. 701 would have appropriated an estimated $2.99 billion annually through FY2016 (S.Rept. 106-413). Unlike the House-passed bill, all the funds would have been discretionary spending, because they only would have become available after Congress approved the Administration's list of proposed federal land acquisitions under LWCF. The programs that would have been funded differ from the House-passed bill. Programs it would have funded (and annual funding levels) were:
There were other differences between the two bills. The two bills funded programs at different dollar amounts; for example, the House-passed bill provided $1 billion for coastal impact assistance and coastal conservation while the Senate bill provided $780 million. The Senate bill used different language to limit incentives to expand offshore oil and gas production. It used different formulas to distribute funds under some of its programs, and it has much less detailed language on aspects of public involvement for planning and distribution of funds at the state and local levels. (For a comparison of H.R. 701, as passed by the House with the substitute H.R. 701, as approved by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, see the updated version of CRS Report RL30444 (pdf), dated September 14, 2000, and titled Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA): A Comparison of Current Versions of H.R. 701 with Current Law.) Related Proposals. Several more limited bills were introduced in both Chambers, but no action was taken on any them. For example, H.R. 452, introduced Representative Tom Campbell, would have moved the LWCF off budget and required that at least 50% of each year's funding is provided to the state grant program. S. 532, introduced by Senator Feinstein would have provided a secure source of funding for the LWCF including the state grants program, and also the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. Senator Lieberman introduced S. 1573, which was designed to spread the CARA funding more evenly among the 50 states. Also, identical bills that mirrored the Administration's FY2000 Lands Legacy Initiative, except that these bills would have permanently appropriated funding FY2015, were introduced by Senator Boxer (S. 446) and Representative Miller (H.R. 798). In addition, other versions of CARA were introduced in the Senate during the 106th Congress. S. 2123, sponsored by Senator Landrieu, was identical to H.R. 701 as reported in the House. S. 2181, sponsored by Senator Bingaman, would have funded many of the programs that were in the Clinton Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative. S. 2567, sponsored by Senator Boxer, was identical to H.R. 701 as passed by the House. Status in the 107th Congress. Representative Young of Alaska reintroduced CARA legislation, securing the same number for the bill in this Congress. The new H.R. 701 is similar to the version that passed the House in many ways. Funding would be mandatory so long as it did not reduce social security and medicare benefits, and total $3.135 billion. It would create a fund from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas revenues to support the following programs (at the annual funding levels and changes from the bill passed in the 106th Congress) :
Other changes from the bill that passed in the 106th Congress include deleting provisions that would have provided $100 million annually for farmland protection and forestry programs administered by the Department of Agriculture, providing $10 million from the $160 million appropriated to the Historic Preservation Fund for the Maritime Heritage Program, and changing the wildlife conservation and restoration provisions to reflect amendments to the Pittman-Robertson Act that were enacted after the House had passed H.R. 701. The House Resources Committee held a hearing on June 20, 2001. It then amended and approved the bill on July 25, by a vote of 29-12, after defeating most of the amendments that were offered, including ones that would have limited the effect of the bill on private property rights. Bill supporters have signed up almost 240 cosponsors, including a majority of the committee members. Related bills were introduced in the Senate on August 2 by Senator Murkowski (S. 1318) and Senator Landrieu (S. 1328). S. 1318 is identical to S. 25, introduced at the start of the 106th Congress by Senator Landrieu. S. 1328 is identical to the bill that the House approved in the 106th Congress, H.R. 701. The Clinton Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative FY2000. The Clinton Administration first proposed to various resource protection pressures, especially sprawl and growth management questions, through its "Lands Legacy Initiative" in January 1999. It then included these proposals in its FY2000 budget submission. Some of these proposals would have required authorizing legislation, but it did not submit any draft bills. It sought increases totaling more than $1 billion for more than 20 programs, and divided them among the Department of the Interior ($579 million), the Department of Agriculture ($268 million), and the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA )($183 million). This would have been an increase of $540 million from FY1999 funding. Congress rejected many of these proposals and partially funded most others. In total, it provided $727 million for these programs, an increase of $268 million from FY1999. The House and Senate Interior Appropriations Committees both opposed the initiative. While the normal appropriations process did not result in substantial funding for these proposals, negotiations on the Consolidated Appropriations for FY2000 (H.R. 3194), which combined five appropriations bills, resulted in providing an additional $197.5 million to implement aspects of the Initiative in a separate Subtitle VI of the Interior Appropriations. Most of these funds were for land acquisition. The Forest Service received $81 million and agencies in the Department of the Interior received the remaining $116.5 million. All but $35 million were earmarked. The legislation required that the remaining funds -- $15 million for the Forest Service, and at least $20 million for the Department of the Interior agencies -- could be spent only after being approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. (The committees released the funds in March 2000.) FY2001. The Clinton Administration slightly revised the components of its lands legacy proposal in FY2001, replacing three programs with three others. It sought an overall increase of $673 million, to $1.4 billion. Added programs included a Coastal Impact Assistance Fund, grants to states for non-game wildlife, and the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund. The first two of these added programs were already major components in the pending CARA legislation, so the revised initiative moved closer to the CARA proposal. The initiative, as proposed, would have provided $735 million to the Department of the Interior, $429 million to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce, and $236 million to the Department of Agriculture. As in FY2000, no authorizing legislation was included with the package. More specifically, the Lands Legacy Initiative, as proposed in FY2001, would have:
The Interior and Commerce appropriations bills initially provided far less funding than the Clinton Administration had requested. For example, the Administration had sought $450 million for federal land acquisition under the LWCF, but the House provided $184 million and the Senate Appropriations Committee $180 million. (For a table comparing the FY2000 request, the FY2000 appropriation, the FY2001 request and the FY2001 appropriation by program, see CRS Report RS20471, The Clinton Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative -- Funding in FY2000 and FY2001.) As Congress was finishing its actions on the FY2001 Interior Appropriations, however, congressional appropriators and the Administration agreed to fund the Lands Legacy Initiative for 6 years through the annual appropriations process as a shorter and less expensive alternative to CARA. The Interior Appropriations conference committee added a new Title VIII that provides $686 million for Lands Legacy programs in FY2001 beyond what is already provided in the normal agency appropriations for these programs, for a total of $1.2 billion. The FY2001 funding through Interior Appropriations (P.L. 106-291) is divided as follows:
Title VIII proposes to fund these programs in increasing amounts for the next 5 years, rising to $2.4 billion in the 6th year. Interior (and Commerce) programs could receive a total of up to $12 billion over the 6 years. However, all funds each year will have to be provided through the annual appropriations process; none of the funding is mandatory, as supporters of CARA had sought. To protect these funds from being used for other purposes, the legislation uses what proponents characterize as a "fencing structure" to separate these funds from other Interior appropriations and to separate each of the five categories listed above from each other. This fencing structure applies only to the first $1.6 billion, and would not affect increases in future years. Also, any funds not appropriated in one year could be appropriated in a subsequent year. The agreement also called for an additional $400 million to be provided for coastal and marine programs in the Commerce Appropriations. The language, in Title IX of P.L. 106-554, actually provides $470 million. An important difference is that it is limited to addressing appropriations for FY2001. The FY2001 funding would be divided as follows:
Status in the 107th Congress. The Bush Administration's initial budget request made no mention of the Lands Legacy Initiative or any other combination of funding for resource protection programs, but it did call for full funding of the LWCF at $900 million, split equally between the state grant program and federal agency land acquisition. The Administration would earmark $50 million of the federal portion to a new grant program administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that states could use as an incentive for landowners who are willing to include wildlife considerations in their land management practices. It also proposes that an additional $10 million from the amount provided to the FWS be used to establish a new private stewardship grant program to support local and private groups engaged on local, private, and voluntary land and wildlife conservation efforts. Therefore, after these earmarks to the FWS, $390 million would be provided for federal land acquisition. Both the House and Senate combined the programs from the initiative in FY2001 into a grouping titled the Conservation Spending Category. For the LWCF portion of this Category, both Chambers lowered the total for state grants from $450 million, to $154 million and $164 million respectively. The Senate increased funding for federal land acquisition to $406 million, while the House supported the administration proposal of $390 million. Both Chambers supported the $60 million earmarked to the FWS from its federal grant funding, then added $100 million for state wildlife grants (the same amount that had been in the FY2001 Lands Legacy provisions) and the House also added $5 million for competitive grants for Indian tribes; the Administration had not requested any funding for these programs. In total, the House version would provide $709 million for LWCF programs, while the Senate version would provide $730 million; both are considerably lower than the Administration request of $900 million. For the overall Conservation Spending Category, which includes numerous other programs in addition to the LWCF, the Administration requested funding totaling $1.26 billion, an increase of $257 billion from the preceding year. Both Chambers provide a total of $1.32 billion, but distribute the funds among programs in somewhat different ways. Examples of these differences include: the House provides $60 million to the Forest Legacy Program, while the Senate provides $65 million; the House provides $30 million for Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Grants, while the Senate provides $20 million; and the House provides $50 million to the National Park Service for construction while the Senate provides $60 million. (Table 12 in CRS Report RL31006, Appropriations for FY2002: Interior and Related Agencies, compares House and Senate approved funding for all programs in the Conservation Spending Category with the Bush Administration request and FY2001 funding levels.) The CARA proposal (H.R. 701) has been approved by the House Resources Committee and has 239 co-sponsors. Two other versions of the proposal have been introduced in the Senate. Both Chambers are supporting higher overall funding levels in FY2002 for the composite of programs that were in the Lands Legacy Initiative in FY2001, and higher levels than the Bush administration had requested, with the exception of for full funding for LWCF. In this setting, many issues that were raised in the 106th Congress are likely to resurface. Central issues would be the degree and nature of federal government involvement in managing growth, which has been largely dealt with at the local level, with state involvement in some instances, and how federal programs contribute to both exacerbating and solving growth-related problems. Some opponents of CARA and the Initiative believe that the federal government has little to contribute to solving this suite of problems and opposed Clinton Administration efforts to create a much stronger federal presence. Others counter that the federal government already plays a major role through its policies and programs, whether intended or not, and that the Clinton Administration efforts had the potential to help address them. Some also stated that a stronger federal role may be most useful where issues are regional and cut across many jurisdictions. Both CARA and the Lands Legacy Initiative attracted bipartisan support, although some initially viewed the Initiative as partisan, and saw endorsement of this proposal as support for the Democratic agenda. In fact, the division between supporters and opponents is more by region than by party affiliation. Some congressional Republicans, especially from the Northeast or suburban areas, supported efforts at managing growth that include resource protection dimensions. Some Republican governors strongly advocated addressing sprawl issues And some congressional Democrats from rural areas have questioned the need for federal action. In the House, about 200 Democrats were joined by more than 110 Republicans as cosponsors of CARA in the 106th Congress. The CARA proposals and the Lands Legacy Initiative both combined rural, suburban, urban and resource protection activities in packages that were designed to have broad appeal. The congressional debate explored this appeal primarily in economic terms. Many interests, including conservation and environmental groups, supported providing more funds for federal resource protection and restoration efforts. These interests believed that some portion of the forecast budget surplus should have been spent on these efforts, reversing the trend of recent years when funding had been limited in the name of deficit reduction. Many of the most ardent supporters were local interests who stated that they were trying to protect amenity values and their quality of life. Opponents raised several economic issues as well. Some believed that the surplus should be spent in other ways, such as giving priority to Social Security, tax cuts, or deficit reduction. Others saw these efforts as expanding and empowering the federal government, by giving it more money and thereby weakening individual and property rights. This concern centered on enabling the federal government to purchase more private lands, especially in the West. Another economic perspective that some opponents raised was that growth is largely the manifestation of a free economy at work, which they viewed as preferable to greater government intrusion. Debate over the CARA proposals brought several issues into clearer focus. One was how funding should be treated in the appropriations process. The House-passed bill would have taken funding for almost all programs off budget and out of the annual appropriations process, thus guaranteeing full funding each year unless OCS revenues fell short. Full funding without having to negotiate the annual appropriations process was very attractive to program proponents who said that their programs, while meritorious, had been unable to compete with other spending priorities in recent years. Appropriators and others who believed that most federal spending should have been reviewed and justified each year opposed this approach, saying that it reduced both budget discipline and the array of budget options available for Congress. Opposition also came from others who had different priorities for federal spending, who wanted to limit overall federal spending, or who wanted to see less federal land acquisition in the future. A second issue was what portion of CARA or the Initiative should be returned to coastal states supporting OCS activities to ameliorate some of the adverse environmental effects. Supporters stated that the legislation would have made the relationship between offshore energy extraction and coastal states more like that in the federal programs that provide funds to on-shore communities in which resources are extracted from federal lands. (The Department of the Interior estimated that under both the House and Senate bills, the largest amounts would be spent in California and Louisiana, while the smallest amounts would be spent in less populated states that are located away from the coast and have little federal land, such as Vermont, Kansas, Iowa, and North Dakota.) But others expressed concerns about the types of projects that would be permitted or about the large amount of funds that would suddenly become available for these kinds of projects in a few states. They were also concerned that lower revenues from offshore oil and gas activities might not sustain authorized spending levels, increasing pressure to expand these activities, regardless of any legislative protections or prohibitions. Numerous bills that would address aspects of growth and sprawl issues have been introduced. The bills listed below are but a small sample of these. H.R. 701 (Young of
Alaska) H.R. 1381 (Udall of
Colorado) H.R. 1433 (Blumenauer)/S. 975 (Chafee) H.R. 1739 (Udall of
Colorado) S. 1318 (Murkowski)
S. 1328 (Landrieu)
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Resources. Hearings on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. Hearings, 106th Congress, 1st session. March 9 and 10, 1999. 421 p. Serial No. 106-14. -----. H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. Field Hearings, 106th Congress, 1st session. March 31 and May 3, 1999. 368 p. Serial No. 106-18. -----. H.R. 701, Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999, and H.R. 798, to Provide For the Permanent Protection of the Resources of the United States in the Year 2000 and Beyond. Field Hearings, 106th Congress, 1st session. June 12, 1999. 318 p. Serial No. 106-40. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Offshore Oil and Gas Activity Impact. 106th Congress, 1st session. January 27, 1999. 63 p. S. Hrg. 106-14. -----. Bills and Administrative Proposal to Invest OCS Revenues in Conservation Programs. Hearings. 106th Congress, 1st session. April 20 and 27, and May 4 and 11, 1999. 361 p. S. Hrg. 106-106. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environmental and Public Works. Conservation and Reinvestment Act. Hearings. 106th Congress, 2nd session. May 24, 2000. 174p. S. Hrg. 106-935. Environment and Energy Publishing. Sprawl Becomes Potent Political Issues. Washington, D.C. June, 1999. 24 p. General Accounting Office. Community Development: Extent of Federal Influence on "Urban Sprawl" is Unclear. Washington, D.C. April, 1999. 81 p. GAO/RCED-99-87 -----. Community Development: Local Growth Issues - Federal Opportunities and Challenges. Washington, D.C. September, 2000. 161 p. GAO/RCED -00-178 Miara, James. Visiting Sprawl, In Urban Land. Washington, July, 20. P. 72-80. Myers, Phyllis and Robert Puentes. Growth at the Ballot Box: Electing the Shape of Communities in November 2000. Prepared for the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Washington. February, 2001. 128 p. National Governors' Association. Growing Pains; Quality of Life in the New Economy, by Joel Hirschhorn. Washington, 2000, 68p. National Research Council, Transportation Research Board. The Costs of Sprawl -- Revisited. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1998, 268 p. TCRP Report 39. Natural Resources and Environment Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. AREI Updates: Land Trusts. Washington, D.C. 1995. 4 p. Sierra Club. Smart Choices or Sprawling Growth: A Fifty State Survey of Development. Washington, D.C., 2000. 36 p. Stanley, Sam. The Sprawling of America: In Defense of the Dynamic City. Reason Public Policy Institute. Los Angeles, 1998. No pagination. Policy Study #251. CRS Reports CRS Report 97-792 ENR. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues, by Jeffrey Zinn. 6 p. CRS Report RS20011. Managing Regional Growth: Is There a Role for Congress? by Jeffrey Zinn. 6 p. CRS Report RS20471. The Clinton Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative - Funding in FY2000 and FY2001, by Jeffrey Zinn. Updated regularly. CRS Report (pdf). Resource Protection: A Comparison of H.R. 701, S. 2567 and Three Other Senate Bills (S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181) with Current Law, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Corn. June 12, 2000. 62 p. CRS Report RL30444 (pdf). Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA): A Comparison of Current Versions of H.R. 701 with Current Law, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Corn. September 14, 2000. 48p. Return to CONTENTS section of this Issue Brief. |
CRS Reports Home
|
||
 |
National Council for Science and the Environment 1725 K Street, Suite 212 - Washington, DC 20006 202-530-5810 - info@NCSEonline.org |
 |