Protecting Natural Resources and Managing Growth: Issues in the 107th Congress

Protecting Natural Resources and Managing Growth: Issues in the 107th Congress

Order Code IB10015
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Protecting Natural Resources and Managing
Growth: Issues in the 107th Congress
Updated December 19, 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)
Activity 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
12-19-02
Protecting Natural Resources and Managing Growth:
Issues in the 107th Congress
SUMMARY
The House Resources Committee re-
similar array of programs in its Lands Legacy
ported omnibus legislation (H.R. 701), known
Initiative in FY2000 and FY2001 appropriati-
as CARA, to expand protection of natural re-
ons. In FY2001, after the Senate failed to act
sources; it could also benefit efforts to manage
on CARA, Congress and the Administration
growth and constrain sprawl shortly before the
agreed to a framework for increased funding
end of the 107th Congress (H.Rept. 107-758,
through the appropriations process in a multi-
pt. 1). Versions of the bill were introduced,
year lands legacy program in the FY2001
but not considered, in the Senate. Earlier, the
Interior appropriations legislation. This agree-
106th Congress had considered this legislation.
ment creates the Conservation Spending
The House passed H.R. 701 and the Senate
Category and sets a ceiling that increases
Energy and Natural Resources Committee
annually for 5 years for a suite of resource
reported its version (S.Rept. 106-413).
protection programs funded through Interior
Appropriations. This suite is similar to those
All these bills would have used about
under the jurisdiction of Interior Appropria-
$45 billion in revenues from Outer Continen-
tions that would have been funded through
tal Shelf oil and gas activities over 15 years to
CARA, with increases that could total up to
fund land and easement acquisition, wildlife
$12 billion over 6 years. (The Category also
protection, and restoration, and protection of
includes coastal and ocean programs under the
many resources.
jurisdiction of Commerce Appropriations.)
This legislation attracted bipartisan
For FY2001, the total appropriation in
support from those who view expanded re-
what Congress has labeled the Conservation
source protection as a response to sprawl,
Spending Category (CSC) was $1.68 billion
from state and local interests who seek addi-
through Interior ($1.2 billion) and Commerce
tional federal funding, and from wildlife and
Appropriations ($0.47 billion), while in FY20-
recreation advocates who believe that resource
02 it was $1.76 billion through Interior ($1.32
activities have been chronically underfunded.
billion) and Commerce Appropriations ($0.44
Opposition came from those who worry about
billion). For FY2003, the Administration
protecting personal property rights and ex-
requested essentially level funding at $1.318
panding federal land ownership. Others
billion for programs in Interior appropriations
opposed use of permanent appropriations, a
in the CSC, and a decline to $0.35 billion for
component of some versions, because they
programs in Commerce appropriations.
would prefer to spend funds for other pur-
poses, want to limit overall spending, or want
There was no congressional effort to
all funding to be appropriated annually.
complete legislative action during the waning
days of the 107th Congress. This may be
The Bush Administration has been large-
attributable to a combination of the projected
ly silent on this topic. By contrast, the Clinton
large budget surplus being replaced by a
Administration had endorsed many elements
deficit, the lack of a Bush Administration
in these bills. Also, it proposed appropriating
position, and changes in national spending
funds at much higher levels annually for a
priorities since 9/11.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB10015
12-19-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The House Resources Committee reported H.R. 701 on October 16, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-
758, pt. 1). This omnibus legislation, known as CARA, 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.
In the Senate, Senator Murkowski and Senator Landrieu both introduced versions of CARA
(S. 1318 and S. 1328, respectively). The Bush Administration did not taken a position on
CARA legislation.
Congress is funding many of the programs in the CARA proposal through the
Conservation Spending Category (CSC). Total CSC funding increased from $1.68 billion
in FY2001 to $1.76 billion in FY2002 For FY2003, the Administration requested virtually
the same total funding as FY2002, and Congress anticipated completing action on these
appropriations very early in the 108th Congress.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The 108th Congress may continue to consider managing growth and related resource
protection issues, like its predecessors, on three distinct fronts: (1) monitoring state and local
governments as they addressed suburban sprawl and related growth issues; (2) considering
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) providing increased annual appropriations
to selected programs funded by the Interior and Commerce appropriations, called the
Conservation Spending Category (CSC). Many of the programs that would have been
funded under CARA and are funded under the CSC (mostly at lower funding levels than in
CARA) could be used to address issues associated with managing growth. However, the
next Congress may be less interested in these issues because the projected large budget
surplus has been replaced by a projected deficit, the Bush Administration has not taken a
strong position either in favor of or against these proposals; and national spending priorities
have changed since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
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 of greatest concern at the local level. Local governments who
respond to these issues often determine that one of the benefits of protecting valued
resources, including farmland, forests and other resources is that it helps control sprawl and
manage patterns of growth. Managing growth involves searching for ways in which federal
programs can be used to reduce, rather than increase, a host of expanding undesirable
attributes, such as loss of agricultural land or open space, the decline of neighborhoods in
CRS-1

IB10015
12-19-02
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 has been high
recently, 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 suggest that recent actions by Governor Glendening
to protect land just before his term ends are being questioned by many who are concerned
with projected state budget deficits. Maryland is just one of many states in which growing
deficits are likely to dampen growth management activities that have significant costs. (For
a survey of recent state efforts to address sprawl, see CRS Report RL31656, Survey of Recent
State Policies to Manage Growth and Protect Open Space.)
The CRS survey, prepared under contract by the LBJ School of Public Policy at the
University of Texas, and other recent studies show that many 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
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
CRS-2

IB10015
12-19-02
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 higher amounts since. 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. 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.
CRS-3

IB10015
12-19-02
(For more information on the LWCF, see CRS Report 97-792, Land and Water Conservation
Fund: Current Status and Issues, last updated January 28, 2002.)
The CARA Proposals
Interest in addressing these LWCF funding problems and related resource protection
funding 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).
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
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, including:
! dropping 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;
! replacing a proposed new $100 million Interior Department conservation
easement program in Title VII with funding for two existing easement
CRS-4

IB10015
12-19-02
programs in the Department of Agriculture, the Farmland Protection
Program and the Forest Legacy Program; and
! requiring 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);
! 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)
CRS-5

IB10015
12-19-02
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 January 17,
2001, 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.

Activity 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
was similar to the version that passed the House in many ways. Funding would have been
mandatory so long as it did not reduce social security and medicare benefits, and totaled
$3.135 billion. It would have created 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) :
! 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).
CRS-6

IB10015
12-19-02
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 House was finally filed more than a year later, on
October 16, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-758, pt. 1). 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 Senate
took no further action.
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 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
CRS-7

IB10015
12-19-02
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.
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.
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
CRS-8

IB10015
12-19-02
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.
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.
CRS-9

IB10015
12-19-02
Interior appropriators continued 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 $85 million to fund state
wildlife grants using LWCF monies. The Interior appropriations conference committee
report summarized that Congress provided $708 million for LWCF.

The Interior portion of the CSC includes numerous other programs in addition to the
LWCF and those supported using LWCF funds. 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.
CSC programs funded through Commerce appropriations, which includes coastal
management, estuarine and marine sanctuaries, and Pacific salmon recovery, among others,
received $439 million. This amount is a large increase over the Administration request of
$284 million. However, there is no further discussion of the CSC in either the FY2002
legislation or either committee report.
For FY2003 appropriations, the Bush Administration request again did not use the CSC
framework. When the program requests are added together, the total is $1.318 billion for
programs funded through Interior appropriations. 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. The House and Senate
both responded by providing a total of $1.44 billion for Interior appropriations programs.
For programs funded through Commerce appropriation, the request totals $348 million.
These programs are now being funded through a continuing resolution , and congressional
leaders have promised to move quickly to complete action earlier in the 108th Congress (For
a table comparing the request amounts and appropriation, by program, in FY2000, FY2001,
FY2002, and the FY2003 request, and a more detailed discussion of these initiatives, see
CRS Report RS20471, The Conservation Spending Category: Funding for Natural Resource
Protection.)
Major Points of Debate
The CARA proposal (H.R. 701) had 244 co-sponsors in the 107th Congress. Two other
versions of the proposal have been introduced in the 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.
CRS-10

IB10015
12-19-02
In this setting, many issues that were raised earlier are likely to resurface in the 108th
Congress. 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.
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
CRS-11

IB10015
12-19-02
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.
If the 108th Congress considers these issues, it will do so in a setting that is changing
in at least three ways. First, the anticipated change from a projected surplus to a projected
deficit has probably made it far more difficult to enact the CARA legislation, as OCS
revenues will be viewed as needed even more in the general treasury. Second, the economic
downturn has also adversely affected the financial condition of many state and local
governments who have less financial and other resources to devote to amenity values and
quality of life issues. Third, many of the states will have new governors, and it is unclear
whether they will have different views on these issues than their predecessors, some of whom
were among the most aggressive in addressing these issues. For example, the new Maryland
governor seems unlikely to continue Governor Glendening’s smart growth initiatives; he may
end them, or he may modify them.
LEGISLATION
Numerous bills that would address aspects of growth and sprawl issues were introduced
in the 107th Congress. 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. Reported, October 16, 2002. (H.Rept. 107-
758, pt.1).
CRS-12

IB10015
12-19-02
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.
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.
––-. H.R. 701, The Conservation and Reinvestment Act; and H.R. 1592, the Constitutional
Land Acquisition Act. Hearings, 107th Congress, 1st session. June 20, 2001. 124 p.
Serial No. 107-43.
CRS-13

IB10015
12-19-02
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.
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.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Sprawl Watch, and Smart Growth America. Are State
Budget Shortfalls Shortchanging Smart Growth Initiatives? Washington, D.C. 2002,
10p.
CRS-14

IB10015
12-19-02
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 Reports
CRS Report RS20471. The Clinton Administration’s Lands Legacy Initiative – Funding in
FY2000 and FY2001, by Jeffrey Zinn.
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.
48p.
CRS Report 97-792. 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 RL31656. Survey of Recent State Policies to Manage Growth and Protect Open
Space, by the LBJ School of Public Policy under the supervision of Jeffrey Zinn. 87 p.
CRS-15