Order Code IB10015
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Protecting Natural Resources and Managing Growth:
Issues in the 107th Congress
Updated March 25, 2002
Jeffrey Zinn
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Assisting Efforts to Address Sprawl and Manage Growth
The CARA Proposals
Legislative Activity in the House (106th Congress)
Legislative Activity in the Senate (106th Congress)
Related Proposals (106th Congress)
Status in the 107th Congress
The Clinton Administration’s Lands Legacy Initiative
FY2000
FY2001
Status in the 107th Congress
Major Points of Debate
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
IB10015
03-25-02
Protecting Natural Resources and Managing Growth:
Issues in the 107th Congress
SUMMARY
The 107th Congress is continuing efforts
title as well as increased funding for many of
to enact omnibus legislation, known as CARA,
its programs. In FY2001, after the Senate
to expand protection of natural resources,
failed to act on CARA, Congress and the
which could also benefit efforts to manage
Administration agreed to a multi-year lands
growth and constrain sprawl. Earlier versions
legacy program. This agreement will provide
were introduced in the 105th Congress and
growing funding for resource protection
considered in the 106th Congress, where the
programs, with increases that could total up to
House passed H.R. 701 and the Senate Energy
$12 billion over 6 years. For FY2001, the
and Natural Resources Committee reported a
total appropriation in what Congress has
substitute version (S. Rept. 106-413). These
labeled the Conservation Spending Category
bills would have used about $45 billion in
(CSC) was $1.67 billion through Interior ($1.2
revenues from Outer Continental Shelf oil and
billion) and Commerce Appropriations ($0.47
gas activities over 15 years to fund land and
billion).
easement acquisition, wildlife protection, and
restoration, and protection of many resources.
The CARA proposal has been reintro-
duced in the 107th Congress, again as H.R.
This legislation attracted bipartisan sup-
701. The House Resources Committee held a
port from those who view expanded resource
hearing on June 20, 2001, and completed
protection as a response to sprawl, from state
markup on July 25, but has yet to file a report.
and local interests who seek additional federal
Senator Murkowski and Senator Landrieu
funding, and from wildlife and recreation
introduced different versions of CARA on
advocates who believe that resource activities
August 2, 2001. The Bush Administration has
have been chronically underfunded.
not stated a position on H.R. 701. It did,
however, request full funding for the Land and
Opposition came from those who worry
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the largest
about protecting personal property rights and
component of CARA, in FY2002.
expanding federal land ownership. Others
opposed use of permanent appropriations, a
The FY2002 Interior appropriations bill,
component of some versions, because they
provides $1.32 billion for the CSC, an increase
would prefer to spend funds for other pur-
of $120 million over FY2001. CSC programs
poses, want to limit overall spending, or want
funded through Commerce appropriations will
all funding to be appropriated annually.
provide $223 million, less than half of last
year’s amount. Therefore, the total appropria-
The Clinton Administration endorsed
tion for CSC programs declined from $1.67
many elements in these bills. Also, it proposed
billion to $1.543 billion. For FY 2003, the
appropriating funds at much higher levels
Administration requested essentially level
annually for a similar array of programs in its
funding at $1.318 billion for the Interior ap-
Lands Legacy Initiative. In FY2000, the
propriations programs in the CSC.
Lands Legacy programs received $197.5
million in a separate Interior Appropriations
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
IB10015
03-25-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
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 completed markup
on July 25, 2001, but has yet to file its report. In the Senate, both Senator Murkowski and
Senator Landrieu introduced versions of CARA (S. 1318 and S. 1328, respectively). The
Bush Administration has not taken a position on CARA legislation.
After the 106th Congress was unable to complete action on CARA, 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. The first session of the 107th Congress continued
to support these increases when it provided $1.32 billion in FY2002,an increase of $120
million from the preceding year, for almost the same suite of programs under the
jurisdiction of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee. FY2002 Commerce
Appropriations provides $223 million, less than half of last year’s total. It now calls this
suite of programs the Conservation Spending Category (CSC), and the total CSC funding
declined from $1.67 billion to $1.543 billion. For FY2003, the Administration is requesting
virtually the same total funding for programs under the Interior portion of the CSC.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
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 (CSC) in
interior and commerce 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, but the current Bush
Administration has expressed less interest in these 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
CRS-1
IB10015
03-25-02
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 is being 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. Reports in the press indicate some disagreement on the effectiveness
of these policies at some sites.
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, and issued a report in August, 2001, titled Private
Lands, Public Benefit: Principles for Advancing Working Lands Conservation.
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 these boundaries are difficult to adjust. 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 recent survey
CRS-2
IB10015
03-25-02
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. Local and regional
trusts now protect more than 6.2 million acres. Trusts are now using easements rather than
acquisition to protect nearly 2.6 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
53 members and 10 bills it endorses on topics ranging from commuting by bicycles to creating
land conservation incentives.
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 24 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 have received 3 reports from the General Accounting Office since
April 1999. 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; the second report, released in September 2000, found many local governments are
pursuing a variety of strategies to manage growth; and the third report, released October
2001, concluded that federal incentives could be used to promote land use patterns that
protect air and water quality.
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,
CRS-3
IB10015
03-25-02
farmland, and the like using various approaches in addition to acquisition. Also, a portion of
these funds have been appropriated for purposes other than traditional land acquisition
programs in recent years. 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.)
The CARA Proposals
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 (106th Congress). 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:
! Impact Assistance and Coastal Conservation ($1 billion);
! Land and Water Conservation Fund Revitalization ($900 million);
! Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Fund ($350 million);
! Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR)($125 million);
! Historic Preservation Fund ($100 million);
! Federal and Indian Lands Restoration ($200 million);
! Conservation Easements and Species Recovery ($150 million); and
! Payment In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Refuge Revenue Sharing ($200
million).
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
CRS-4
IB10015
03-25-02
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:
! dropped the budget waiver language by deleting §7, so that the federal
LWCF funding would remain subject to annual appropriations while most of
the other programs funded under the bill would be mandatory spending, and
not considered in the annual appropriations process;
! replaced a proposed new $100 million Interior Department conservation
easement program in Title VII with funding for two existing easement
programs in the Department of Agriculture, the Farmland Protection
Program and the Forest Legacy Program; and
! required that appropriators provide more than $100 million for Payment in
Lieu of Taxes and $15 million for refuge revenue sharing before additional
funds provided by H.R. 701 for these programs would be made available.
The seven amendments the House approved would have:
! reduced incentives for new offshore oil and gas drilling;
! added a statement that funding under this legislation should supplement, and
not replace, annual appropriations to the National Park Service;
! allowed money to be shifted to the CARA Fund annually only after the
Congressional Budget Office has certified that Social Security and Medicare
are solvent for the next 5 years and that the surplus will be sufficient to retire
the federal debt by 2013;
! provided these funds only to states with a dedicated land acquisition fund;
! required the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to develop of a
statewide plan for federal land acquisition and disposal in Montana;
! added the Urban and Community Forestry Program to the programs that
receive funding under Title VII, easements; and
! added a new Title VIII stating that spending on this legislation would not
diminish the Social Security or Medicare Trust Funds.
Legislative Activity in the Senate (106th Congress). 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:
! Coastal Impact Assistance ($430 million);
! Coastal Conservation ($350 million);
! Coral Reef Protection ($25 million)
! Land and Water Conservation Fund ($900 million);
CRS-5
IB10015
03-25-02
! Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Fund ($350 million);
! Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program ($75 million);
! Urban and Community Forestry Program ($50 million);
! Historic Preservation Fund ($150 million);
! National Park and Indian Lands Restoration ($125 million);
! Forest Legacy Program ($50 million);
! Farm and Ranch land Protection Program ($50 million);
! Cooperative Forestry Rural Development Program ($25 million);
! Forest-Dependent Rural Community Assistance Program ($25 million);
! Youth Conservation Corps Programs ($60 million); and
! Payment In-Lieu of Taxes (variable, estimated at $325 million)
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, 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 (106th Congress). 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 totals $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) :
CRS-6
IB10015
03-25-02
! Coastal impact assistance and conservation ($1 billion);
! LWCF revitalization ($900 million);
! Wildlife conservation and restoration ($350 million);
! Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program ($125 million);
! Historic Preservation Fund ($160 million, an increase from $100 million);
! Federal and Indian land restoration ($200 million);
! Endangered and threatened species recovery ($50 million); and
! Payment In-Lieu of Taxes and Refuge Revenue Sharing Programs ($350
million, an increase from $200 million).
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. A report to the full house from the committee has not yet been filed.
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 respond to various resource
protection pressures, especially sprawl and growth management question, by increasing
funding for selected programs 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
to a total of more than $1 billion for almost 2 dozen programs administered by 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, in total, 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
CRS-7
IB10015
03-25-02
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 also 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:
! Funded federal land acquisition through the LWCF, including lands in several
specified areas, such as the Florida Everglades and the Northern Forest. The
estimated cost was $450 million, an increase of $25 million.
! Provided grants to states to acquire land through the LWCF state grant
program. The estimated cost was $150 million, an increase of $109 million.
! Provided matching grants to states through the Department of the Interior
to develop open space and "smart growth" management strategies. The
estimated cost was $50 million; this proposal went unfunded in FY2000.
! Initiated a new revolving loan fund at the Department of Agriculture to
support acquisition of land and easements in rural areas based on “smart
growth” principles. The estimated cost was $6 million.
! Expand funding for other programs, including the Cooperative Endangered
Species Conservation Fund, the North American Wetlands Conservation
Fund, the State Non-Game Wildlife Grants, and two forestry programs. The
estimated cost was $295 million, a increase of $196 million.
! Provided matching grants and technical assistance to restore urban parks.
The estimated cost was $20 million, an increase of $18 million.
! Increased funding for the Marine Sanctuaries Program. The estimated cost
was $35 million, an increase of $10 million.
! Increased matching grants to state coastal zone management programs to
address the effects of growing population, runoff, and deteriorating coastal
habitats. The estimated cost was $157 million, an increase of $95 million.
! Improved management at the 25 sites in the Estuarine Research Reserve
System. The estimated cost was $20 million, an increase of $8 million.
! Expanded a NOAA coral reef protection and restoration program. The
estimated cost was $15 million, an increase of $9 million.
! Enacted a new program to fund efforts to minimize environmental risks from
coastal development. The estimated cost was $100 million.
! Increased funding for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. The
estimated cost was $100 million, an increase of $42 million.
CRS-8
IB10015
03-25-02
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 in FY2001 and for a total of 6 years through the annual appropriations process as
a shorter and less expensive alternative to CARA. For FY2001, the Interior Appropriations
conference committee added a new Title VIII that provided $686 million for Lands Legacy
programs beyond what was 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) was divided as follows:
! $540 million for federal and state LWCF;
! $300 million for state and other conservation programs;
! $160 million for urban and historic preservation programs;
! $150 million for public land maintenance and facility rehabilitation; and
! $50 million for the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes program.
Title VIII funds these programs in increasing amounts for the next 5 years, rising to $2.4
billion in the 6th year. Interior 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 (of which $1.2 billion is in Interior
appropriations), 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 Commerce
Appropriations for FY2001 (P.L. 106-554) actually provided $470 million. However, $50
million of this total is for a state grants program administered by an agency in the Department
of the Interior rather than any agency funded through Commerce Appropriations. Also, the
Commerce Appropriations legislation did not address funding beyond FY2001. The FY2001
funding was divided as follows:
! $150 million for coastal impact assistance;
! $135 million for ocean, coastal, and conservation programs;
! $135 million for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
programs; and
! $50 million for grants to states for wildlife conservation and restoration
programs based on a state wildlife conservation plan.
CRS-9
IB10015
03-25-02
Status in the 107th Congress. The Bush Administration’s budget request for
FY2002 made no mention of the Lands Legacy Initiative or the CSC, 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 proposed to 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 proposed that an additional $10
million from the amount provided to the FWS be used to establish a new stewardship program
to provide grants to local and private groups engaged on local, private, and voluntary land
and wildlife conservation efforts. Therefore, after these earmarks to the FWS, it would have
provided $390 million for federal land acquisition.
Interior appropriators choose to continue using the CSC framework when providing
FY2002 funding . It lowered the total for state grants from $450 million to $144 million,
while supporting the request for federal acquisition of $390 million. Congress reduced the
earmark to the FWS from $60 million to $50 million, then added funding of $85 million for
state wildlife grants using LWCF monies. The Interior appropriations conference committee
report summarized that Congress provided $708 million for LWCF, $192 million less than
the Administration had requested.
The CSC includes numerous other programs in addition to the LWCF. In total, the
Administration had requested funding totaling $1.26 billion, an increase of $257 billion from
the preceding year. Congress provided a total of $1.32 billion. Examples where Congress
provided more than the Administration requested include: the Administration requested no
funding for Fish and Wildlife Service state grants, but Congress provided $85 million; the
Administration requested $15 million for the North America Wetlands Conservation Program,
but Congress provided $44 million; and the Administration requested no funding for the
Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Grants, but Congress provided $30 million. (Table 12
in CRS Report RL31006, Appropriations for FY2002: Interior and Related Agencies,
compares House, Senate, and enacted funding for all programs in the CSC with the Bush
Administration request and FY2001 funding levels.)
CSC programs funded through Commerce appropriations received $223 million.
However, there is no further discussion of the CSC in either the legislation or the committee
report.
For FY2003 appropriations, the Bush Administration request again does not use the
CSC framework. When the program requests are added together, however, the total is
$1.318 billion. This is not directly comparable with earlier years, however, as it includes
$49.5 million for the Forest Service’s Forest Stewardship which was not included in the CSC
in earlier years. The LWCF portion of the CSC would include $335 million for the federal
land acquisition programs, $200 million for the state grants program (which includes $50
million for a proposed Cooperative Conservation Initiative), and $374 million to fund other
conservation programs.
Major Points of Debate
The CARA proposal (H.R. 701) has been approved by the House Resources Committee
and has 243 co-sponsors. Two other versions of the proposal have been introduced in the
CRS-10
IB10015
03-25-02
Senate, where no action has been taken. Both Chambers supported 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
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 or should not involve
itself, 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. The anticipated change
from a projected surplus to a projected deficit has muted this support, and probably made it
far more difficult to enact this type of legislation. 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.
CRS-11
IB10015
03-25-02
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.
LEGISLATION
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)
Uses royalties from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production to establish a fund
to meet specified outdoor conservation and recreation needs. Introduced February 14, 2001;
referred to Committee on Resources. Hearing held June 20, 2001. Resource Committee
approved H.R. 701, amended, on July 25, 2001.
H.R. 1381 (Udall of Colorado)
Authorizes $100 million a year through FY2007 to provide federal matching grants to
preserve open space by acquiring conservation easements. Introduced April 3, 2001; referred
to Committee on Resources.
CRS-12
IB10015
03-25-02
H.R. 1433 (Blumenauer)/S. 975 (Chafee)
Authorizes the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make grants to states
and others to develop or update land use planning legislation to improve urban development
and the quality of life. H.R. 1433 introduced April 4, 2001; referred to Committees on
Financial Service and on Resources; S. 975 introduced May 25, 2001; referred to Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
H.R. 1739 (Udall of Colorado)
Requires the Council on Environmental Quality to conduct a study on urban sprawl and
smart growth, and to ensure that federal agencies consider urban sprawl when preparing
environmental reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Introduced May 3, 2001; referred to Committees on Resources and on Energy and
Commerce.
S. 1318 (Murkowski)
Uses royalties from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production to establish a fund
to provide coastal impact assistance to state and local governments, and to meet specified
outdoor conservation and recreation needs. Introduced August 2, 2001; referred to
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 1328 (Landrieu)
Uses royalties from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production to establish a fund
to meet specified outdoor conservation and recreation needs. Introduced August 2, 2001;
referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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.
CRS-13
IB10015
03-25-02
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.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
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
-----. Environmental Protection: Federal Incentives Could Help Promote Lad Use that
Protection Air and Water Quality. Washington, D.C. October, 2001. 167p.
GAO-02-12
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.
-----. Private Lands, Public Benefits; Principles for advancing Working Lands
Conservation, by Joel Hirschhorn. Washington, 2001, 52p.
National Research Council, Transportation Research Board. The Costs of Sprawl —
Revisited. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1998, 268 p. TCRP Report 39.
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.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Development at the Urban
Fringe and Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land. Washington, D.C., 2001.
80p.
Agricultural Economic Report No. 803.
CRS-14
IB10015
03-25-02
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 RL30444. 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. 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.
CRS-15