[Senate Hearing 108-712]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-712
AMERICANS OUTDOORS ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 2590
TO PROVIDE A CONSERVATION ROYALTY FROM OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES
TO ESTABLISH THE COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, PROVIDE ASSISTANCE
TO STATES UNDER THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1965, TO
ENSURE ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR CONSERVING AND RESTORING WILDLIFE, TO
ASSIST LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN IMPROVING LOCAL PARK AND RECREATION
SYSTEMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
JULY 20, 2004
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
97-188 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
Kellie Donnelly, Counsel
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from Tennessee............... 2
Angelle, Scott A., Secretary, Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources, Baton Rouge, LA..................................... 29
Baughman, John, Executive Vice President, International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies...................... 41
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 2
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana.................... 7
Clifton, Daniel M., Federal Affairs Manager, Americans for Tax
Reform, Washington, DC......................................... 57
Diamond, Henry L., Chair, Americans for Our Heritage and
Recreation..................................................... 45
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 1
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota................ 10
Jordan, Charles, Chairman, the Conservative Fund, Portland, OR... 35
Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana.............. 5
Marzulla, Nancie G., President, Defenders of Property Rights..... 50
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska................... 12
Nickles, Hon. Don, U.S. Senator from Oklahoma.................... 8
Scarlett, P. Lynn, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
Budget, Department of the Interior............................. 13
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 7
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 71
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 89
AMERICANS OUTDOORS ACT
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V.
Domenici, chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. Good morning. This hearing of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee on S. 2590, the Americans Outdoors
Act, will come to order.
This legislation that is before us today dedicates for
fiscal years 2005 through 2010 approximately $1.425 billion per
year of the revenue gained from oil and gas development from
Federal waters of the Outer Continental Shelf in order to
directly fund the coastal impact assistance programs, the State
Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the programs under the
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Urban Park
and Recreation Recovery Act. Although the Federal Land and
Water Conservation program is not addressed in S. 2590, as
introduced, the bill's sponsors have stated their intent to
offer an amendment to fully fund the program, as well as an
additional $450 million.
This committee considered legislation similar to this in
the 106th Congress. There was a wide variety of views on both
the policy and the budget implications. The makeup of our
committee, as well as the provisions of the bill that we
examine today, is different than in the 106th.
So I look forward to today's discussion.
Testifying today--I am just going to state them and then
yield to Senators--first is Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary
for Policy, Management and Budget; Scott A. Angelle, secretary
of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources; Charles
Jordan, chairman of the Conservation Fund; John Baughman,
executive vice president of the International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Henry Diamond, chairman of the
Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation; Nancie Marzulla,
president of Defenders of Property; and Daniel Clifton, Federal
affairs manager for Americans for Tax Reform.
Once again, I welcome all the witnesses here today and I am
very thankful that a number of Senators have arrived. This is a
very important bill.
With that, I will yield to Senator Bingaman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having the
hearing.
This bill, S. 2590, would take a portion of the oil and gas
revenues generated from the Outer Continental Shelf and
dedicate those to various conservation programs.
This is not a new issue for the committee. As you
indicated, 5 years ago we had several hearings on what was then
entitled the CARA act, or the Conservation and Reinvestment
Act, and created quite a legislative record in connection with
consideration of that.
A central position, which I urged at that time and think is
still valid, is that we need to remain true to the intent
behind the establishment of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. The idea behind that was that at least some portion of
the revenues from the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas
production, which was a non-renewable resource, should be used
to protect other resources throughout the country. I thought
that was a very useful concept and one that was worthy of
maintaining.
I commend Senator Alexander and Senator Landrieu for
continuing to pursue this issue with this new legislation.
I do strongly believe that we should include full funding
for both the Federal and State components of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. If we enact legislation along these lines,
as I understand it, the bill as introduced only funds the State
portion of the fund. I am pleased that Senator Alexander and
Senator Landrieu have both committed to addressing this at some
point in the future.
I do think it is very important legislation, and again,
thanks for having the hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Bingaman.
Now I ask your advice. A number of Senators want to make
statements. Normally we stop after the chairman and ranking
member and wait until we start questioning, but I think I will
change that back to the old way and let every Senator make a
statement now. So with that, let us go now to Senator
Alexander.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the courtesy of that.
Recognizing that there are several Senators here, I will
try to be succinct in my remarks, but what I would like to do
is to have a chance to make my point because I believe that
what Senator Landrieu and I are suggesting here is a little
different than some of what the committee has heard before, and
I want to make sure that that distinction is made. We will have
other opportunities to make those points before the witnesses,
so I will make them very quickly.
As the chairman said, the Americans Outdoors Act would
provide a reliable stream of funding by creating a conservation
royalty from drilling of oil and gas on offshore Federal lands.
Now, Sharon, would you please put up the States and what
they now get from onshore?
[Chart.]
Senator Alexander. It is the idea of the conservation
royalty that I hope the Senators will focus on. There are
really two issues that created difficulty with the prior
legislation. One was the budget issue, and we have the chairman
of the Budget Committee here, and the other was private
property rights. Senator Landrieu and I have tried very
carefully to listen to our colleagues on those two issues and
see if we could at least go a long way toward meeting those
problems.
Now, first on the budget. What we propose doing offshore is
what we are already doing onshore. Today under the Federal
Lands Leasing Act, which was passed in 1920, we take 50 percent
of the money that we get from onshore oil and gas drilling and
that does not go to the Federal Treasury for appropriation.
That is a royalty. You pay a royalty to the landowner when you
drill. You pay a royalty to other people with ownership rights.
In this case, a royalty is paid to Wyoming, to New Mexico, to
Colorado, to Utah, to Montana, to Oklahoma, and that money does
not come up here. That money stays there, and that is why it is
outside the appropriations process.
We also do that, if I am not mistaken, with moneys from
Dingell-Johnson and Pittman-Robertson, two provisions that take
money we raise basically from sportsmen and gas taxes and we
allocate them directly to help create other opportunities for
sportsmen. Those are also outside the budget process.
Now, I am well aware that since those laws have passed, we
now have a budget law. While I have tried to think of ways to
avoid it, I have not been able to think of one.
[Laughter.]
Senator Alexander. So the budget law will need to be taken
into account if we take 25 percent approximately, as we
propose, of the money from offshore oil and gas drilling and
treat it as a State royalty in the same way we now treat 50
percent that we take from onshore drilling. I am aware of that
issue, but I think philosophically it is the very same thing
and it is appropriate to treat it differently as a State
royalty. That is the first issue.
And the second issue is the concern for private property
rights. Sharon, if you could please put up the map of the
country that shows where Federal land is.
[Chart.]
Senator Alexander. We will hear testimony today about
whether the Government should own any more land. That is a map
that shows where the Federal Government owns lands today. As an
easterner, I am over there in the white area where most of the
people live. I am very much aware that out West, except for
California where most of the people do not live, the Government
owns an incredible amount of land. I have always been aware
that a single policy that might apply to the West might not
necessarily apply to the East.
The fact is that in the Eastern part of the United States,
there are plenty of places where we still think we need some
help. Yesterday I helped release some eaglets down near
Dandridge and Douglas Lake in east Tennessee. Our proposal
would provide a steady stream of royalty funding to create more
wildlife conservation places for eagles to go.
As I have looked through the earmarked appropriations over
the last few years, I have found there have been, even in the
West, a number of desirable places where State governments and
Federal land under the Land and Water Conservation Fund have
used money in the Snake River and a whole variety of western
States, which are already heavily owned by the Federal
Government. There are still some appropriate places where
things need to be done.
Two weeks ago, I took a bicycle ride on the Hiawatha Trail
between Montana and Idaho, which most of the Senators on this
committee take credit for creating. It is a rails and trails.
It is a beautiful thing. It takes it from private property,
railroad, to public land, using dedicated funds. It is the old
track from Chicago to Tacoma, Washington with high trestles and
long tunnels.
So those are the two issues. What Senator Landrieu and I
are proposing is that we take about 25 percent of the revenues
that we get from offshore drilling and devote it to a
conservation royalty to fully fund the State side of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund. The game and fish commissions of
our country fully fund that, fully fund the city parks
provision that is already in the Federal law, and create a new
section that takes care of wetlands and other coastal
mitigation issues.
We have deliberately left out of our legislation the
provision for the Federal side of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund because we have not been able to reach a
consensus among members of the committee and other Senators on
how to deal with that, and we are hopeful that today what we
hear is some good suggestions about how to fashion that in a
way that will not just get it out of committee but will past
the U.S. Senate.
The Chairman. How much money is that?
Senator Alexander. The Federal side is $450 million a year.
That is what is authorized in law today. So if you added the
$450 million a year, Senator Domenici, to the proposals we
have, it would be $1.45 billion plus $450 million, $1.9 billion
a year.
Now, to conclude, if I could show the chart of how much
money now is available from offshore oil drilling, about the
amount I believe that we get from Saudi Arabia every year, it
is about $6 billion this year.
[Chart.]
Senator Alexander. The Department of the Interior's
estimates are it will be about that for the foreseeable future.
If you take the amount of money that is now appropriated for
these same kinds of programs for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, it is $4 million to $5 million a year. If
you added what we are doing, that would take it up to $1.45
billion or $1.9 billion. So that is between 25 and 33 percent
of the anticipated offshore revenues would go into this
royalty.
Mr. Chairman, you have been generous with your time. I
believe I have made my major points. I would simply say I
believe there is a huge conservation majority in this country.
I believe that there are legitimate budget issues and there are
legitimate issues in western States where the Federal
Government owns a lot of land. What we hope to do is fashion
legislation that will look ahead for a generation and help us
find a steady stream of money to fund our game and fish
commissions, our city parks, and the State, and once we get
more of a consensus, the Federal side of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, as well as provide some funding for
mitigation in those States that now produce the oil and gas
offshore.
Those are the organizations to date that support what we
are doing, and I hope we can reach a consensus on the
committee.
Thank you very much for scheduling the hearing and thank
you for being generous with the amount of time you have given
me.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator. My generosity
on time stopped when you stopped. We will have 5 minutes per
Senator from now on.
Senator Landrieu.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY L. LANDRIEU, U.S. SENATOR
FROM LOUISIANA
Senator Landrieu. Well, I am just happy he made all the
right points. So I will just try to fill in.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, thank you for agreeing to hold
this hearing and for your support of this general concept and
your willingness to help us work through some of the challenges
that still remain. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his
great leadership and partnership.
I want to, before I begin, thank the folks from Louisiana
that are here. Not only do we have our Secretary of Natural
Resources that will testify in a minute, Mr. Scott Angelle, who
has been a tremendous and effective advocate as he stepped into
this position just a year ago with our new Governor's help and
support, but also we have 2 of our 19 parish presidents, one
from Lafourche Parish and one from Saint Bernard Parish. Both
of these parishes have been directly and dramatically,
drastically impacted by the loss of land, thousands and
thousands of miles of wetlands, which both Senator Bingaman and
Senator Domenici have actually seen as they have flown over
those parishes. So we thank them.
As Senator Alexander said, colleagues, there are really two
charts that tell the whole story, and I would particularly like
the Senator from Oklahoma to look at this chart of the status
of OCS leasing.
[Chart.]
Senator Landrieu. It is fairly dramatic. Not only are the
numbers dramatic. It has been $140 billion since 1955, $140
billion that the Outer Continental Shelf of this country has
produced for the Federal Treasury. It has produced more money
from this portion of Federal land than any portion of land in
the entire United States of America by far. As Senator
Alexander pointed out, it provides more energy and more
resources to this Nation than any country in the world,
including Saudi Arabia, in terms of energy production.
The Senator from Oklahoma will notice the red dots. That is
the only part of the country where offshore oil and gas
drilling is currently allowed. So not only is it the only part,
but it is the only part because all the other parts are
prohibited and off limits. So this platform of Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama basically produce off of
our shores, with Alaska coming on line just slightly but open
as the technology improves, for us to provide this amount of
money for the Federal Treasury. Yet, year after year, these
States or these programs that we are talking about receive
basically no royalty whatsoever.
Last year, Conrad, the State of Louisiana off of our shore
alone produced for the Federal Treasury close to $6 billion and
got less than 1 percent of the money, after serving as a
platform for this offshore oil and gas drilling.
We think it is a simple but profound idea to take what is a
depleting resource, which will be gone one day and reinvest it
in coastal programs, in wildlife programs, and in State and
Federal land if we can come to some meeting of the minds about
the Federal land.
So I think this chart shows it all. There is only one place
in America that is drilling offshore. There is only one place
that is contributing this amount of money, and it is time that
some of those revenues be redirected, as they are into the
interior States.
The other chart I would like Sharon to put back up, if she
would, which is the chart that Senator Alexander showed,
because I want to make one point before closing, Mr. Chairman--
and you have been generous--about the private property issue.
And it is this chart.
[Chart.]
Senator Landrieu. Clearly, in the West, there are acres and
acres, thousands of acres that are owned and under the control
of the Federal Government and State governments, but clearly,
Senators, in the East there are still some great needs, through
the Great Smoky Mountains, through Illinois, through New York.
In our State, only 2.5 percent of the land is under Federal
ownership. Clearly there is a need. And I could provide other
evidence to suggest, not the least of which is the list of the
billions of dollars of land that comes to us requesting from
willing sellers and from Governors and from mayors all over the
Eastern part of this country asking, please, help us with
getting Federal property.
And the final point is this. This effort is not to take
land out of private property and diminish it or not care for
it. This is to balance the needs of private property owners
which we believe built this country. No one is arguing that. We
want to support that concept. But we want to provide a steady,
reliable stream of revenue to all States, particularly those
eastern States, which will create and enhance, not diminish
economic prosperity for this Nation.
So we think this is a balanced bill. We look forward to
working with the colleagues of this committee who have shown
themselves to be far-sighted Senators in many ways and look
forward to working with you particularly, Mr. Chairman, as we
fashion a bill that is good for everyone. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I was wondering, Senator, since you mentioned all of the
money we have that comes from that one little offshore drilling
area, if we might not consider a trade. You get us another area
for offshore drilling and we will give you that money for this.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman, I am a good Senator, but I
am not sure I am that good. So we will just stick with our bill
and move forward. But I hear what you are saying.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Burns.
STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thanks
for the hearing.
I want to just make a point. If you all do not have enough
Federal lands back East, if you want to figure on a little
trade, we might wrangle that for you because there is some land
out there we would like to turn into private lands, and if you
want it back there, we will just make you a little trade and
solve that problem.
Of course, I think the same arguments that were made for
and opposed to CARA still apply in this piece of legislation.
When we take a look, it does open a flood gate of $1.4 billion
from the Secretary of the Treasury for programs, while ignoring
the investment that is needed in other areas, other programs,
and policy initiatives. So the notion that a select group of
Interior bill programs should be allocated significantly
increase fixed funding on multi-year bases assumes that these
programs are currently effective without any oversight.
I think that is where we have a real problem because
basically what we are setting up here is another entitlement,
an entitlement that is written into law that prevents any
oversight if it is abused or not being used in the way that
maybe the law should allow.
We do have needs for that money. We need it in Indian
health. We need it in Indian schools. All of these appropriated
accounts out of appropriations that sometimes we have to be
versatile enough to take some money away from some programs and
put it into others to address a specific crisis or situation.
This legislation does not allow us to do that with those funds
that come into the Treasury and usually allocated under the
appropriated method and budget.
I congratulate Senators Alexander and Landrieu because this
does need to be addressed, but are we doing it the right way.
That is where we sort of run afoul. So I look forward working
with both Senators to pass the legislation that we think is
probably good policy and good for our country. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
I am going on the order of arrival. As I have it up here,
Senator Thomas arrived next.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This, of course, uses the OCS revenues to fund programs in
the Land and Water Conservation Act. I expect that you will
have additional amendments which would fund the Federal Land
and Water Conservation program, very much like the CARA
decision we went through before.
I am concerned about this idea of turning it into mandatory
spending. I am concerned about the aspect of having additional
lands. This is one that has an impact on property rights. Our
State of Wyoming is half owned now by the Federal Government. I
have had for a long time the notion that we ought not to have
any additional. We ought not to have a net increase of Federal
lands. If we are going to take some in, we ought to reduce it
in some other places.
I certainly think there are opportunities for inholdings of
Federal lands. I just returned from spending some time at
Glacier Park, and of course, I work on the parks all the time.
It is, I think, pretty clear that we have a lot of backlogs to
fund before we acquire more properties. So I think we have to
take a long look at this bill and make sure that we are
fiscally responsible, that we are responsible in terms of the
total needs and what really ought to be done by the Federal
Government, as opposed to some other governments. Everything
you want to do is not the responsibility of the Federal
Government, and we have expanded ourselves beyond where we want
to go in a lot ways, and I think we need to be careful that we
do not do it in this one as well.
So I hope we focus on the fiscal responsibility, as well as
the total land responsibility of private land, and I think we
have to do a lot of work on this before it is acceptable to
most of us.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
My recording here has Senator Nickles, Senator Johnson, and
then Senator Murkowski.
Senator Nickles.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON NICKLES, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OKLAHOMA
Senator Nickles. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am
pleased to join this hearing today, and I want to compliment
Senators Alexander and Landrieu for their persistence, also
compliment them on changing the title of the bill. I happen to
like the Americans Outdoors Act a lot better than CARA. I
opposed CARA. Maybe I should support this because it has a
great title, but I will not.
[Laughter.]
Senator Nickles. I saw the list of people who are
sponsoring this, and I can see a lot of people saying, hey, we
can get a chunk of this money. We want this because this is
going to help us build parks or do projects that, frankly, they
are not getting money for now. So sign me up. And I can see
lots of organizations joining, just as they supported CARA.
But I think it is fatally flawed legislation. I think it
would be a mistake for Congress to pass it for a couple of
reasons.
I asked former Chairman Byrd on the appropriations process,
what percentage of the budget today is discretionary, i.e.,
controlled by the appropriators that we actually really do
control, and what part of it is mandatory. Since 1990
entitlement spending has increased from 45 percent to 54
percent. Entitlement spending has really been on an increase. I
used to be chairman--and I think Senator Burns is chairman. Are
you still chairman of Interior Appropriations now?
Senator Burns. Yes.
Senator Nickles. Interior Appropriations is a great
committee. It has charge of most of those lands that are
Federal lands. Frankly, we do not do a very good job. We do not
do a good enough job in controlling our parks. This is saying
that these projects that are funded here have a higher priority
than Yellowstone or any of our national parks, some of which
are not maintained as well as they should be maintained. But we
are going to say that these items should have entitlement
status.
Just to give you an example, the Urban Park Recreation
Program would be declared mandatory funding. It would receive
$125 million a year. That is more than it has received since
1985, but we are going to give them that much money every year
and we are going to place that as a higher priority than taking
care of our existing parks or existing wildlife refuges? We
have one wildlife refuge in Oklahoma. We say it has more
visitors than any other wildlife refuge in the country. But we
are going to say, no, no, we are going to have new parks or new
addition that have a higher priority than taking care of
adequate maintenance and so on for existing facilities.
The State Land and Water Conservation Fund would receive a
guaranteed $450 million a year, which is $350 million more than
it received in 2004. I hate to tell anybody this, but we have
about a $400 billion deficit. So if you take a program that
received, what, $100 million or something last year and now we
are going to make it $450 million and we are making it an
entitlement, that is not very good. That is just not very
responsible.
Somebody might say, well, wait a minute, we want to fully
fund it because it is authorized. I will tell you if you fully
funded everything that is authorized in the Federal Government,
you would have a deficit that would be many multiples of what
it is today. Thank goodness we do not fully fund everything
that is authorized. We could not come close to affording it,
whether you are talking about education, whether you are
talking about other programs. It will not add up.
And then there is the idea of, well, okay, we also want to
do the Federal portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
so there will be additional land acquisition when we are not,
frankly, maintaining the existing lands that we have control
over today in a way that we should be proud of.
So I just mention these concerns. I do not know how you can
take some of these programs and turn them into an entitlement,
make them a higher priority than existing programs. Those
existing programs may be Park Service, they may be Fish and
Wildlife Service, you name it. Those are all funded through the
appropriations process, and I do not know that we should be
saying these individual programs should be funded from an
entitlement status, a higher status, you might say, than
others, plus the fact they would add about $2 billion a year to
the national deficit. So I have serious reservations about
this.
I appreciate the concerns that were addressed. Senator
Landrieu I think has some points, although I want to be
educated or make sure I am correct, but I think coastal States
have 100 percent of the royalty within 3 miles.
Senator Landrieu. Yes, that is correct.
Senator Nickles. I believe that is correct, and I believe
they have 27 percent of the royalties the next 3 miles. Correct
me if I am wrong, our experts in Interior. It is legitimate.
Should that be extended? I think that is a legitimate debate.
Should the States that are bearing the ``environmental risk''
have a larger boundary for that 3 miles? I think that is a
legitimate debate and maybe we should consider that. But I am
concerned about taking this ``pool'' of money for a few
projects that are listed and turning those into an entitlement
status.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Johnson.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. I will submit a full statement, and I will be brief
with a few observations here.
I have to say that as a member of both the Budget Committee
and the Appropriations Committee, and as a Western State
Senator, I am very supportive of the extraordinary work that
Senator Landrieu and Senator Alexander have done and the
leadership that they have provided. I am grateful for what they
have been doing to put this legislation together.
I also have to smile a bit at some people who are always
willing to extend massive tax cuts for America's wealthiest
families, but when it comes time to provide resources for
ordinary middle class to hunt, to fish, to enjoy the outdoors,
then they become great fiscal conservatives. This is a
legitimate philosophical debate about the role of government
and what our priorities are. I understand that, but I do not
think there is one side of this issue that is on the side of
the fiscal prudence and one side that is not. It is a question
of priority about where those next dollars should go.
In South Dakota, a Western State, we have an enormous
demand for public and open areas for recreation that is
outstripping the available capacity.
The Federal Government's efforts to enhance and protect
wildlife habitat rests I believe on a three-legged stool. One
is management and restoration of habitat for game species
through the longstanding Pittman-Robertson Act. Second is
dedicated Federal funding for sports fish restoration through
the Sports Fish Restoration Act. And what is missing is the
third leg of the stool, a dedicated funding source for State-
based efforts to enhance non-game species.
Title IV of the Americans Outdoors Act establishes a
dedicated funding source that States and tribes can leverage
for the conservation and enhancement of both game and non-game
species that are threatened with Federal protection. A
permanent, stable funding source is extremely important to the
efforts of States to better manage valuable resources to avoid
the need for costly and burdensome Federal remedies.
Cooperative and voluntary conservation agreements require long-
term funding commitments, and title IV ensures that State and
local partners will finally have all the tools necessary to
enhance the sustainability of many of our most threatened
species.
I also believe that the rationale for preventing species
from becoming endangered is practical, economical, and rooted
in the common sense belief that an ounce of prevention is worth
a pound of cure. The wildlife conservation provisions in this
bill provide funds for a diverse array of fish and wildlife
species with an emphasis on preventing species from becoming
listed through the Endangered Species Act. Ensuring that fish
and wildlife do not become endangered will go a long way to
helping private property owners who otherwise will face severe
limitations on the management of their own lands due to
endangered species.
We in South Dakota right now are struggling with a
management plan for the black-tailed prairie dog with a goal of
creating the State solution instead of relying on the far more
restrictive Federal remedies that would otherwise occur if in
fact this species were listed as endangered. So a program like
this is going to give State and local governments a greater
level of resources which will permit them to keep species that
are on the cusp of becoming endangered off the list and thereby
not only preserving that species but also making certain that
private landowners are not faced with severe Federal rules
because of whether it be the black-tailed prairie dog or other
species that otherwise may well become endangered.
Senator Nickles. The black-tailed prairie dog?
Senator Johnson. We have millions of them. A lot of South
Dakotans would raise an eyebrow at the thought that these
critters are endangered, but the fact is that they are on the
list of next to be listed if we do not do something. And our
State is in the process in a multi-State plan right now to
create sufficient habitat that we can assure our friends that
indeed this species is not endangered, but we need some
additional resources to make sure that that happens. Otherwise,
we face very severe restrictions if in fact that animal were
listed.
Senator Nickles. I have been worried about it. Thank you.
Senator Johnson. An animal that hunters come to shoot from
miles around and that ranchers curse daily--I appreciate that
there are many who wonder about the endangered nature of that
species, but the fact is if you look at the collapse of the
nationwide population compared to what it was 100 years ago,
the Endangered Species Act could, in fact, become operative in
all of our States, and certainly in South Dakota if we do not
have a proactive plan to prevent that from happening.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator
From South Dakota
Thank you Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman for
convening today's hearing on the Americans Outdoors Act. As a member of
the committee who worked hard in previous years to enact similar
legislation, and who was disappointed when we came up a little bit
short in 2000, I am pleased that my colleagues from Louisiana and
Tennessee have reintroduced this landmark conservation and recreation
funding bill.
The public continues to demand clean and abundant areas to
recreate, hunt, fish, or simply enjoy the outdoors. Approximately 40
million Americans hunt and fish, generating $70 billion in annual
expenditures for their sport. In South Dakota, the demand for public
and open areas to recreate outstrips the available capacity;
diminishing the experience for long-time sportsman, as well as the next
generation of South Dakotans who derive such enjoyment from our open
spaces. In a time of such great uncertainty abroad, Americans are
looking to spend their vacations closer to home and states, counties,
and cities are racing ahead to plan and develop local park and
recreation facilities.
The Americans Outdoors Act also fulfills a decades-long effort to
bridge the gap in fully-funding wildlife conservation programs, and it
is this section of the bill that I am particularly interested in
finally accomplishing.
The federal government's efforts to enhance and protect wildlife
habitat rest on a three-legged stool: management and restoration of
habitat for game species through the long-standing Pittman-Robertson
Act and dedicated federal funding for sportsfish restoration through
the Sportsfish Restoration Act have proved highly successful at
restoring declining species and their habitats. These long-standing and
highly successful efforts paid for in part by anglers and hunters have
created a solid model for the restoration of key fish and wildlife
species. What is missing is the third leg of this stool: a dedicated
funding source for state-based efforts to enhance non-game species.
Title IV of the Americans Outdoors Act, establishes a dedicated
funding source that states and tribes can leverage for the conservation
and enhancement of both game and non-game species threatened with
federal protection. A permanent stable funding source is extremely
important to the efforts of the states to better manage valuable
resources and to avoid the need for costly and burdensome federal
remedies. Cooperative and voluntary conservation agreements require
long-term funding commitments and title IV ensures that state and local
partners will finally have all the tools necessary to enhance the
sustainability of many of the most threatened species.
I also believe that the rational for preventing species from
becoming endangered is practical, economical, and rooted in the common
sense belief that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The
wildlife conservation provisions in this bill provide funds for a
diverse array of fish and wildlife species, with an emphasis on
preventing species from becoming listed through the Endangered Species
Act. Ensuring that fish and wildlife do not become endangered will go a
long way to help private property owners. For example, in South Dakota
the state is working with several counties, as well as landowners and
producers to develop a management plan for the black-tailed prairie dog
with the goal of creating a state solution instead of relying on more
restrictive federal remedies. Preventing fish and wildlife now from
becoming endangered later is an investment that will save landowners
valuable time and money that would occur after a species has been
depleted.
The Americans Outdoors Act is an important investment in our
states, cities, and local communities. Although we have few legislative
days remaining in this Congress it is my hope that the committee will
move forward on this bill in the same collaborative and bipartisan
manner that greeted our previous efforts. Thank you and I look forward
to hearing from our panel of witnesses.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the effort that you, Senator Landrieu and Senator Alexander,
have made on this issue. I need to echo some of the concerns
that have been expressed here this morning, the financial
implications, as well as the impact on land ownership. In
Alaska, about two-thirds of our State is owned by the Federal
Government. We quite honestly do not think that they need to
have any more of that, and we would like to change that
equation a little bit. So, Senator Burns, I concur with you
that we might be interested in figuring out a way that we can
swap some of this around.
But I am eager to learn more about the proposal that we
have before us, how it can benefit us in Alaska, how it can
benefit us across the country. We have 6,000 miles of coastline
in Alaska. 6,000 miles is a lot of coast. Right now we are not
doing much in the offshore production area, as you have noted,
Senator Landrieu. That red dot is not yet visible in Alaska,
but we anticipate that that is going to change over the next
period of years.
But again, I look forward to hearing the testimony this
morning and to work with the two of you and the chairman on
this issue. I think that there have been some comments raised
this morning that whereas we might not agree on exactly what we
have before us, there is certainly a need to be discussing the
issues that are presented here today and this is a good format
for it. So I appreciate you, Mr. Chairman, scheduling the
hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
With that, Senators, we are going to proceed to the
witnesses. Our first witness is Lynn Scarlett, Assistant
Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, U.S. Department of
the Interior. We welcome you and we are sorry you had to sit
there so long, but that is the way it is.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF P. LYNN SCARLETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY,
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Scarlett. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the Americans
Outdoors Act of 2004. The act, as the Senators have noted,
presents an ambitious vision. It proposes a permanent stream of
funding using Federal offshore oil and gas revenues for grants
and assistance to States, tribes, and local communities for
recreation, habitat restoration, and other related purposes.
The administration strongly supports the goals of these
activities, but we cannot support moving funding for these
programs off the discretionary spending ledger and converting
funding into non-discretionary, automatic spending.
The legislation highlights many goals the administration
has pursued through a variety of cooperative conservation
grants. One of the criticisms of previous legislation on
related topics was the focus on Federal land acquisition and
its implications for private land ownership. Our cooperative
conservation approach offers an alternative to land acquisition
as the central way to achieve conservation.
To implement our cooperative conservation vision, working
with Congress, Interior has provided since 2002 over $1.3
billion in grants to States, tribes, local governments, and
private landowners. Through these partnerships we have removed
invasive weeds, replanted native grasses, improved riparian
habitat along thousands of miles of streams, conserved limited
water resources, and protected many threatened and endangered
species. To continue these efforts, the President's 2005 budget
for Interior proposes over $500 million for cooperative
conservation programs.
I would like to focus for a moment on a few of these
provisions that reflect many of the goals and purposes of the
Americans Outdoors Act. Our approach focuses on grants that
leverage Federal dollars, sometimes as much as 4 to 1, 5 to 1,
even 6 to 1. Our efforts enhance local innovations in
conservation, drawing on the local knowledge of folks on the
ground that live near and love places. They target high
priority projects through a competitive process. They advance
alternatives to land acquisition as the central way to achieve
conservation and outdoor recreation goals, and they provide the
kind of continual oversight for program results that has been
mentioned here this morning.
The grants include grants that facilitate local and private
conservation efforts, including $50 million for competitively
awarded cost-share grants to States for landowner incentive
programs. Our 2005 budget also proposes grants that enhance
habitat for fish and wildlife and for projects that support
wildlife-based recreation, a goal of title IV of the Americans
Outdoors Act. Indeed, more than 50 percent of the Fish and
Wildlife Service budget is currently devoted to payments and
grants to States, local communities, and landowners to help in
species protection and habitat conservation.
One cornerstone of our suite of cooperative conservation
programs is our challenge cost-share grant programs. These
grants enable our land management bureaus to partner with local
communities, gateway communities to achieve common conservation
goals and resource management goals. Through our Partners for
Fish and Wildlife program, Interior has worked with nearly
9,000 landowners and communities over the last 3 years to
protect over 150,000 acres of wetlands and over 700,000 acres
of prairie and grasslands. Over the last decade or more, we
have partnered with nearly 30,000 landowners and communities.
A central focus of the Americans Outdoors Act is protection
of coastal areas in States with offshore energy activities.
While we recognize the importance of and are investing in
coastal conservation, we would also like to mention that
coastal communities enjoy benefits from these offshore
development activities. Rather than establish a process for
automatically distributing receipts from offshore activities to
coastal States, the President's budget proposes to allocate
funds to priority coastal conservation needs through existing
conservation programs. The Fish and Wildlife Coastal Program is
one such program, a program that leverages Federal dollars on
average by 4 to 1.
Other programs in other Departments also provide coastal
assistance, such as the Department of Commerce's Coastal Zone
Management grants.
The administration strongly supports discretionary spending
for conservation programs that are consistent with many of the
principles set forth in the Americans Outdoors Act. However, as
I noted earlier, we cannot support the mandatory nature of the
funding mechanism which removes the ability of both Congress
and the administration to weigh the programs funded under this
legislation against other national priorities and trends such
as parks maintenance, the forest and rangeland health issues,
particularly adjacent to wildland/urban interface communities.
I can pledge to you that this administration's willingness
to work with this committee and others in the Congress on
issues embodied in the Americans Outdoors Act is strong. Those
issues focus on working in partnerships with States, local
governments, tribes, and individuals to conserve natural and
historic resources and provide outdoor recreation
opportunities.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions you
or members of the committee might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Scarlett follows:]
Prepared Statement of P. Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management & Budget, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss S. 2590, the
``Americans Outdoors Act of 2004.''
The Americans Outdoors Act presents an ambitious vision. It
proposes mandatory spending for a stream of funding, using revenues
from oil and gas development from federal offshore lands, to (1)
establish a Coastal Impact Assistance Program; (2) provide Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act assistance to states; (3) conserve
and restore wildlife; and (4) provide grants to local governments
consistent with the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act. The bill
would provide for the automatic funding of four programs at levels
higher than they have been funded in the past. The Administration
strongly supports the goals of these activities. However, we cannot
support moving funding for these programs off the discretionary
spending ledger and converting it into non-discretionary automatic
spending. The total cost of the bill would be $1.425 billion annually.
A central goal of S. 2590 is to better enable local communities to
carry out activities that benefit conservation and recreation. In this
respect, the legislation highlights goals that the Administration has
pursued in recent years through a suite of cooperative conservation
grants. By partnering with states, tribes, community organizations, and
citizens, the Department of the Interior is achieving conservation
through cooperation. communication, and consultation--what Secretary
Norton calls the 4 C's.
These partnerships exemplify Secretary Norton's cooperative
conservation vision. By applying a caring hand to the local lands where
they live, work and play, citizen stewards are working with federal
agencies to conserve habitat and enhance outdoor recreation
opportunities while maintaining working landscapes that support dynamic
economies and thriving communities.
To implement this vision, the Department has provided since 2002
over $1.3 billion in grants to states, tribes, local governments, and
private landowners through programs that conserve open space, restore
habitat for wildlife, and protect endangered species. With our
partners, we have restored millions of acres of habitat; removed
invasive exotic species; replanted native grasses; improved riparian
habitat along thousands of miles of streams; conserved limited water
resources; and developed conservation plans for endangered species and
their habitat. To help meet this challenge, the President's fiscal year
(FY) 2005 budget includes $507 million for cooperative conservation
programs.
These cooperative conservation grants leverage non-federal funding
and the initiative of landowners, nonprofit organizations, tribes, and
other governments to achieve conservation results and outdoor
recreation opportunities. The Department has a strong interest in
enhancing these efforts.
We appreciate the efforts put forward in S. 2590 to support
conservation at the local level, but we believe funding allocation
decisions should be made through the appropriations process and not
through new mandatory spending. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a
few minutes to walk you through the provisions of our recent budget
proposal that reflect many of S. 2590's purposes and goals.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND STATE GRANT PROGRAM
Title III of S. 2590 would provide for $450 million in LWCF state
conservation grants to be apportioned among states, the District of
Columbia, and territories to be used for the planning, acquisition (but
not condemnation), and development of projects under the LWCF. Tribes,
through a competitive grant program to be developed by the Secretary,
and political subdivisions, through grants from states, would also be
eligible to receive funds. The legislation would also require states to
develop ``action agendas'' that describe priorities and criteria for
selection of outdoor recreation and conservation acquisition and
development projects, among other things.
The President's FY 2005 Budget proposes, through the appropriations
process, $900 million in LWCF funding for a mix of programs that
advance many of the goals set forth in S. 2590. Over the past several
years, we have developed a comprehensive approach to funding a wide
array of state recreation and conservation needs through grant
programs. This approach offers states, tribes, local governments, and
citizens the flexibility to determine priorities among various program
purposes. These grants also encourage innovation in conservation tools.
Conservation of wildlife and habitat is a major component of conserving
and enjoying our natural resources. States, tribes, and local partners
should be able to use these funds for projects that protect or enhance
habitat for an array of fish and wildlife, including wetlands for
migratory birds and other species.
One of the criticisms of previous legislation like S. 2590 was the
increase in funding for federal land acquisition and its implications
for private land ownership. Our cooperative conservation approach
offers an alternative to land acquisition as the central way to achieve
conservation of land. The Administration's Land and Water Conservation
Fund's budget for FY 2005 includes $679 million for such grant and
cooperative programs. Secretary Norton strongly believes that
conservation dollars can go farther and conserve more open space and
wildlife habitat if more land is left in private ownership and private
landowners are provided with incentives for private stewardship. The
President's budget proposal funds a number of programs to facilitate
local and private conservation efforts, including $50 million for
competitively awarded cost-shared grants for state landowner incentive
programs, and $10 million for competitively awarded private stewardship
grants to support individuals and groups engaged in local, private, and
voluntary land and wildlife conservation efforts.
CONSERVATION AND WILDLIFE RESTORATION
Title IV of S. 2590 would provide $350 million in funding to the
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account established under recent
amendments to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. These
monies would be made available to states, the District of Columbia,
territories, and tribes for use in fish and wildlife conservation and
related recreational opportunities.
The Department's FY 2005 budget proposes a number of grant programs
that enhance habitat for fish and wildlife and for projects that
support wildlife-based recreation. More than 50 percent of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's budget is currently devoted to payments and
grants to states, local communities, and landowners.
One of the cornerstones of the Department's partnering program is
the Cooperative Conservation Initiative (CCI) challenge cost-share
grants. These challenge cost share grants fund conservation
partnerships with our land management bureaus, enabling them to work
with local communities to achieve common conservation goals. Our CCI
program also includes the coastal program, Migratory Bird Joint
Ventures, and Partners for Fish and Wildlife, all in the Fish and
Wildlife Service; and Take Pride in America, a public lands volunteer
program. In FY 2005, we propose $129.5 million for CCI-related funding.
Through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program alone, the
Department has worked with nearly 9,000 landowners and communities to
restore over 150,000 acres of wetlands and over 700,000 acres of
prairie and grasslands from 2001 to 2003.
Our FY 2005 budget also includes S90.0 million for the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund and $54.0 million for the North
American Wetlands Conservation Fund. A significant portion of the
remaining request will support technical assistance at the local level
under programs such as Endangered Species Act Consultation and Habitat
Conservation Planning and Fish and Wildlife Assistance.
COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE
Finally, Title II of S. 2590 would establish a new $500 million
program of payments to states with approved coastal impact assistance
plans. The bill delineates several purposes for these funds, including
projects and activities related to the conservation, protection,
infrastructure, or restoration of coastal areas. The funds protect
wetlands, mitigate of damage to fish and wildlife or natural resources,
as well as mitigate the impact of OCS activities. Generally, funds
would be allocated to states in the proportion that the amount of
qualified OCS revenues generated off the coastline of the producing
state bears to the amount of qualified OS revenues generated off the
coastline of all producing states. In addition, 35 percent of the funds
allocated to each state would be further payable by the Secretary
directly to coastal political subdivisions in the producing state.
While we recognize the importance of and are investing in coastal
conservation, we would also like to mention that coastal communities
enjoy benefits from offshore development activities. Rather than
establish a new and complicated process for automatically distributing
receipts to coastal states, the President's Budget proposes to allocate
funds to priority coastal conservation needs through existing
discretionary programs. Our proposed FY 2005 budget includes $13.1
million for the Fish and Wildlife Service's Coastal program, through
which the Fish and Wildlife Service and its partners work to conserve
fish and wildlife and their habitats to support healthy ecosystems.
This program provides assessment and planning tools to identify
priority habitats for protection and restoration; conserves coastal
habitat through voluntary conservation easements and locally initiated
land acquisition; restores degraded coastal wetlands, uplands, and
stream habitat; and focuses resources through partnerships that
leverage financial and technical resources. On average, the Coastal
program leverages federal funding at a rate of 4:1. In addition, the
Department provides coastal wetlands grants, over $90 million for
refuge operations in coastal areas, and over $50 million in U.S.
Geological Survey science, mapping, and hazards programs that pertain
to coasts and ocean areas. Our Coastal Program protected over 200,000
acres of wetlands and more than 750,000 acres of uplands in 2001 to
2003.
In addition, the Department of Commerce's proposed FY 2005 budget
includes a request for almost $64 million for Coastal Zone Management
grants to states. These grants are intended to provide matching funds
to support state and local projects that address a broad spectrum of
coastal management issues.
CONCLUSION
The Administration strongly supports discretionary spending for
conservation programs that are consistent with many of the principles
of set forth in S. 2590. As you know, the cost of this legislation,
over $1.425 billion per year over the next 5 years, is not in keeping
with the President's budget for FY 2005 or with the Administration's
efforts to control increases in federal spending over the next several
years. Moreover, the Administration has stressed the importance of
strong conservation funding under the programs listed above, under the
conservation title of the 2002 Farm Bill, for wetlands projects, for
National Parks operations and maintenance, and for forest and rangeland
fuels reduction. However, the Administration opposes the mandatory
nature of the funding mechanism, which removes the ability of both
Congress and the Administration to weight the programs funded under
this legislation against other national priorities and needs.
I can, however, pledge to you this Administration's willingness to
work with this Committee and others in the Congress on the issues
embodied in S. 2590, those of working in partnership with states, local
governments, and individuals in conserving the Nation's natural and
historic resources and providing outdoor recreation opportunities. This
Administration has a clearly developed record of success with
cooperative conservation initiatives. I believe that as more of the
public becomes involved, our Nation will have healthier lands and a
whole new generation of self-motivated citizen stewards.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I am pleased to
respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Committee
might have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
Senator Bingaman, do you have any questions? Then we will
go down the line one and one.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me first ask something I raised with Secretary Norton
when she testified earlier this year, I believe. As I
understand the proposed budget that you have given us for 2005,
it contains no funds for Federal land acquisition. Is that
accurate?
Ms. Scarlett. No, that is not accurate. Our Land and Water
Conservation proposal has a modest amount of Federal land
acquisition in it.
Senator Bingaman. How much is that?
Ms. Scarlett. In Interior, we have about $153 million
proposed, of which about $40 million is for some proposed
acquisition of oil and gas subsurface mineral rights. There is
an additional portion of land acquisition in the Forest Service
budget.
Senator Bingaman. My impression--and correct me if I am
wrong on this--is that the law that established the Land and
Water Conservation Fund required that half go to the States for
their land acquisition needs and half be retained by the
Federal Government for its land acquisition needs. Essentially
what you are doing each year and what you are proposing to do
next year is to take the funds that by law are required to be
spent on land acquisition and using them for these various
things that you call cooperative conservation grants instead of
land acquisition. Am I wrong? Do you read the law differently?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, as we read the law, the Land and
Water Conservation Fund in 1965 proposed $900 million in
spending for land acquisition or--and these are the exact
words--unless otherwise allotted in the appropriations act for
purposes consistent with the conservation and recreation goals.
We believe that the proposal that we have put forth is indeed
consistent with the provisions of the Land and Water
Conservation Act and does, in fact, achieve those purposes.
There are many hundreds of millions of dollars in our proposals
that go to States, tribes, and local communities for recreation
and conservation purposes, using partnerships rather than
strictly emphasizing one tool, land acquisition.
Senator Bingaman. But it is fair to say that your budget
proposal recommends to Congress that most all of the funds that
are supposed to be on the Federal side of the Land and Water
Conservation funding not be used for land acquisition, be used
for cooperative conservation grants of one kind or another, and
then if the Appropriations Committee agrees to that, then your
view is that is legal?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, just to clarify, the total Federal
land acquisition piece is over $200 million, combining Forest
Service and Interior, which is a substantial portion.
But yes, we have been working with Congress and the
appropriators. Indeed, in 2003 and 2004, they significantly
agreed with this approach and did allot funding for our
landowner incentive program, our private stewardship grant
program, our partners program, and others through Land and
Water Conservation, consistent I believe with the language that
I read earlier.
Senator Bingaman. Following the CARA debate, Congress
established what was called the conservation spending category
as part of the fiscal year 2001 Interior appropriation bill.
Under this conservation spending category, there was a certain
amount of funding that was fenced off in the budget each year
for land conservation and related activities as critical
national priorities. That was sort of a fall-back, as I recall
it. Since CARA did not become law, there was a general
agreement, okay, let us at least put it in the budget.
This program has been in place now for 4, 5, 6 years. The
amount has been decreasing. This year, as I understand your
fiscal year 2005 budget request, you have asked for no funds
for the conservation spending category. Am I right about that?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, that would be inaccurate. This
conservation spending category is a category that includes a
lot of different programs within it, and in fact in 2004, I met
with Congressman Dicks and walked through the programs that we
have that fit within that conservation spending category.
Overall, since 2001, our conservation spending in the
Department of the Interior for our cooperative conservation
programs is up some 240 percent, significant increases in
conservation spending.
Senator Bingaman. But in the budget submission that we
received from you, there is no longer a conservation spending
category identified for this upcoming fiscal year.
Ms. Scarlett. For this fiscal year, we did not present the
budget in that way. I would be happy to go back and, as we have
done in the past, align the programs that come under that
category and provide you that information and that alignment.
Senator Bingaman. I think that would be useful because then
we can determine whether, as I believe is the case, we have
seen a drop-off in spending for those activities over the last
several years since we last had the CARA debate here.
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Madam Secretary, would you supply that
information to each member of the committee please?
Ms. Scarlett. We will be happy to do that.
The Chairman. Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
When we talk about acquisitions and so on, do you have any
interest in sort of the no net gain thing? In other words, if
we are going to add Federal here, can we reduce some over here,
particularly inholdings and things that have no particular
significance?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, this was a concept that I heard for
the first time today expressed, and we certainly would be
interested in discussing it with you. It is not something that
we have discussed yet at Interior.
Senator Thomas. You know, we have always some expansion and
so on, generally justified, but on the other hand, seldom do we
ever see any exchange. For instance, we are exchanging in
Yellowstone a State section. Then maybe we ought to reduce
some.
What about the backlog? I just returned from a weekend at
Glacier National Park and about all they talked about was
trying to catch up. How would this impact your efforts to use
the money for maintenance and pick up the backlogs?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, let me first thank you for your
strong efforts in the maintenance backlog arena, both focusing
on the management needs we have there and also supporting the
President's efforts to address that backlog.
I think there are two responses. One, as I said in my
testimony, we are concerned that we maintain the discretion and
flexibility to address priorities as they emerge over time. For
this administration, addressing that maintenance backlog has
become a significant priority.
We are on target to spend the $4.9 billion to address that
backlog, and with those dollars expended, to date we have
either accomplished or have underway some 4,000 maintenance
backlog projects across our 388 park units. We are continuing
that effort and look forward to working with Congress to get
the Transportation Efficiency Act reauthorized to get the road
portion which will allow us to address road maintenance.
The Chairman. Senator Thomas, would you yield for a moment
on land acquisition/land disposal?
Senator Thomas. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I am getting the statute to ask her a
question. But you might recall when we acquired in New Mexico
that beautiful piece of property that we call the Baca
location. We spent a lot of money for it. The second title to
it required the Federal Government dispose of all the
inholdings, which there was no use for and were determined
already to be useless. That would have been very many thousands
of acres. I do not believe they have done anything with it, but
we will ask her as soon as we get the statute.
Senator Thomas. That is great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have no further questions. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator?
Senator Landrieu. Yes, thank you. I appreciate your
testimony and understand that there are some programs within
the Department that you all are proud of in terms of the grant
program. But I was just wondering if I could just focus with
you for a minute just on the coastal programs.
I note, Madam Secretary, this is the Interior budget brief,
which you are familiar with, and on page 48 here I just want to
be sure under the Land and Water Conservation Fund that I am
reading this correctly. It says coastal programs, 13060, which
would be $13 million for coastal programs. that would be for
the whole country. As you might recall, we had put up that map.
Only four coastal States are producing, which is approximately
$6 billion.
So I just want the committee to be aware that while there
are, in fact, coastal programs underway, it is $13 million for
the whole country, and from what I understand, the Federal
Government puts up $1 and the private sector has to put up the
other $4 of this program. Considering that just for Louisiana,
the cost of our restoration estimated just for Louisiana's
restoration is $14 billion over the next 20 years. Clearly, I
just wanted to show this is not adequate.
So I wanted to ask you, given the great need of Louisiana,
which is America's wetlands, and our coast, is the
administration arguing that this money is a sufficient
investment in coastal conservation programs in the Nation?
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, thank you, Senator, for raising that
issue. Actually our coastal program is one small program of
many that actually benefit coasts. For example, we spend some
$90 million each year on our wildlife refuges on coasts. We
spend about $50 million in our U.S. Geological Survey in
specific activities relating to coastal mapping, coastal
protection, coastal science. The Department of Commerce has $64
million for additional coastal programs. And then as many are
aware, because so many of our wetlands are along the coasts,
our North American Wetlands Conservation Act fund also invests
significantly in coasts. So when you put those funds together,
it amounts to in the hundreds of millions rather than the $13
million.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I realize that is just one program,
but even when you add them up and it is $100 million and it is
for the coast of the entire United States, it still does not
seem to me to take into account particularly the coastal States
that are serving as a platform for the oil and gas and how
limited the investments seem to be in that particular area. I
would argue when you spread that couple of hundred million
around the whole United States, it really falls short
considering two-thirds of our population in this country live
within 50 miles of the coast.
So in addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the
Secretary if she is aware of the volatility in funding, which
is what we are attempting to solve with this piece of
legislation. In 1965, the State side of Land and Water, which
there does not seem to be much disagreement on this committee--
there is disagreement about the Federal side and how much it
should be, how it should be allocated. But on the State side,
did you know that one of our intentions is to try to level the
funding to give States some planning opportunities?
In 1965, this Government only allocated $10 million to the
State side of Land and Water. In 1978, it went up to $305
million. In 1982, it went down to 0. Then in 1996, 1997, 1998,
1999, 0, 0, 0, and then back up to 1997. This chart, which I
did not have blown up, but I would like to show the committee,
is what happens to the State side of Land and Water.
So my question is, do you think it is possible for the 50
States to plan a very good conservation program with their own
money with this kind of volatility in funding of the State side
of Land and Water? And if not, what is the administration's
position about trying to give some reliability to this stream
of funding?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, we have tried to significantly
invest in the State-side Land and Water Conservation program,
and over the last 3 years, the administration has consistently
proposed over $90 million for that program. In addition, we
have actually significantly funded the State and tribal
wildlife grant program, something that we heard from States
about a strong need for. Together those programs bring over
$150 million to States.
On the one hand, I understand the challenges of changes in
the spending flow. On the other hand, it is precisely the
flexibility that allows us to address emerging priorities or
trends on an ongoing basis as they surface.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I would just end with this, Mr.
Chairman, that while flexibility is always desirable, it is
equally desirable to have reliability and to be a partner to be
there year in and year out, not be a partner in the sunshine
and then not a partner in the rain, to be a solid partner with
the State governments to provide much needed land and
recreation efforts for the 50 States. With volatility in
funding that they cannot count on, it makes it very difficult.
So I just wanted to point that out and thank you for the
questions, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Whenever we get into mandatory type spending or entitlement
type spending, here is the problem we run into. We run into a
situation where it is almost a perfect storm. I have requests
on my desk right now for 347 acres that they want to sell to
the Federal Government. The Federal Government wants to own it
at a cost of $5.5 million. Right across the river is 147 acres
that they want $1.5 million for. Whenever you get entitlement
spending--and here is the problem we run into. We always say,
well, there is a clause in there that says, Senator, it is
willing seller/willing buyer. In this case we got both. And
that costs lots of money. It just throws reason and logic out
the door.
So I do not have a question of Ms. Scarlett, but I am
saying that we have to watch our policy here when we write it
into law. I have seen some awfully high priced land that you
would never make a living on it like that even from--they say,
well, you ought to see the view. Well, if that is all they are
buying now, we are going to start selling view in the grocery
store.
Senator Landrieu. Senator Burns, would you yield just a
moment?
Senator Burns. Yes.
Senator Landrieu. Since you were not directing the
question, I would like to take a shot at answer that because
part of Senator Alexander's and my bill is exactly that, to
give the taxpayer a good bargain for the money that they spend.
And what happens when we do not have a steady stream of
revenue, when money becomes available, the managers and people
that are looking at what land should the Federal Government buy
or what lands should they not are so desperate that they will
overpay for property. Why? Because they do not know they will
have the money next year.
That is exactly the point of our bill, to give a steady
stream of money so we do not have to overpay for property, so
we can wait out sellers if their property is too high and say,
no, we are not paying you $100 an acre. We are going to wait
till the price comes down or to you offer it to the taxpayers.
The taxpayers get a good deal. That is part of this bill.
So I just wanted to share that with you because I do think
we overpay for property and we do because nobody ever knows
from year to year how much money we are going to have to buy
it. So if we allocate it, we can plan better and save the
taxpayers some money.
The Chairman. Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. I will pass on this. I think just the
opposite will happen. I think just the opposite will happen,
Senator. I am just going from past experience of buying and
selling.
So I thank the chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Alexander, questions?
Senator Alexander. Yes.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Scarlett, thank you very much for your testimony today.
I thought it was helpful and constructive. I understand your
point about mandatory spending.
And I want to say that I have carefully looked at the
information you gave me about the administration's work on
cooperative conservation and I think it is impressive. Senator
Bingaman was asking questions about this. Generally speaking,
you spent a lot more money on these cooperative projects while
not as much money has been spent on the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
I want to go back, though, as much for the record as
anything else. President Bush said in 2001 that in outlining
his budget proposal for that year, ``I propose fully funding
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. $900 million will fully
fund the fund. It is the highest request in the fund's history
and half the money will go to the States, just like the authors
of the law intended.'' So am I not correct that in President's
first budget, he did ask full funding of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, we believe the President has asked
for full funding in each year. The 2002 budget of the President
actually did distribute the funds, $450 million for Federal and
$450 million for State-side. Working with Congress, we ended up
with a different mix, and subsequently have moved forward with
the alternatives that I have described here this morning.
Senator Alexander. Maybe it is easier for me to say than
for you, but some Members of Congress were not willing to
appropriate $900 million for the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. So you took a different tack. Is that close to right?
Ms. Scarlett. As I noted, in 2002, we provided a very
traditional approach, and Congress gave us other directions.
Subsequently we have worked with that direction to provide a
different mix and focus on our cooperative conservation
efforts.
Senator Alexander. Diplomatically stated.
[Laughter.]
Senator Alexander. But President Bush did say in his
campaign and, as you said, he through his definition believes
he has continued to, but in his first budget he put 450 and 450
in the traditional way of funding the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
While we will hear more from Henry Diamond in the next
panel, I want to emphasize that my own experience with the Land
and Water Conservation Fund came when President Reagan asked me
to be chairman of the President's Commission on Americans
Outdoors in 1985 and 1986. While we recommended a broad number
of proposals that were mainly outside Washington, the one
proposal we agreed on was to spend at least $1 billion a year
from offshore drilling on the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
I only have one question about that. You say that the
administration opposes mandatory funding, and so did several
other Senators. But would you not agree that the program that
has been in place since the 1920's, which gives 50 percent of
royalties from drilling for oil and gas onshore, not mandatory
funding? That money goes directly the States. The
appropriations committees of Congress never get a penny of it.
Would that not be considered to be mandatory funding?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, as was noted in several of the
comments by other Senators, there certainly are a number of
areas where we have mandatory spending, and the 50 percent
share that is automatic might fall into that kind of category.
Senator Alexander. Does the administration propose taking
the $500 million that goes to Wyoming each year and the other
onshore oil and gas drilling money that automatically goes to
States and putting it in the Federal Treasury for appropriation
each year in order to deal with the budget deficit?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, I think we are certainly not
proposing changing any of the current allocations. We look at
each proposal as it comes forward, and in this particular
instance, of course, Congress has a long history of opining on
the appropriate allocation of those moneys offshore, dating
back I think to the 1940's when the Submerged Land Act actually
determined that rather than having those first 3 miles be
Federal, they would be State and 100 percent of those moneys
would go to States, again automatically. Subsequently the
change to the law allowed the next 3 miles to have a 27-plus
percent distribution to the coastal States. So we look forward
to continuing to work with Congress on what the appropriate
ongoing distribution is.
Senator Alexander. Is it not true that there is something
called Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson, which are Federal
laws passed several years ago, through which hunters and
fishermen pay license fees that automatically go for wildlife
conservation? And would that not also be considered mandatory
spending that does not go through the appropriations process?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, as noted before, there certainly are
many programs that are mandatory. I think our concern is that
of adding to those programs, particularly at a time with a lot
of other Federal priorities. We are increasingly seeing, as we
put our budget together, the important ability to flexibly meet
needs such as law enforcement, such as maintenance backlog as
they surface. So our concern would be adding to the mandatory
programs that already exist.
Senator Alexander. I accept that.
Mr. Chairman, as a concluding comment, I think it is a
matter of priorities really, and since it was President
Reagan's commission that recommended this and President George
H.W. Bush endorsed that commission, and since this President
Bush has said he wants to fully fund the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, and since we already create a State royalty
for onshore oil and gas drilling, it seems to me a little
different and appropriate, even in light of budgetary
considerations, to say let us take 25 or 30 percent of offshore
oil drilling and devote that to a State royalty for
conservation purposes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a very quick question on the coastal impact assistance
program. Alaska received in 2001 a little over $12 million in
coastal impact assistance. I am trying to understand under the
proposal that we have before us by Senator Alexander and
Landrieu, what would the coastal impact assistance be to Alaska
on an annual basis?
Ms. Scarlett. I am afraid I will have to get back to you
with that specific amount because there is a formula and it is
somewhat complicated, but we would be happy to go through the
numbers and figure out what that might be.
Senator Murkowski. Well, it is complicated and you want to
know whether you are going to be better under the new proposal
than you are under the status quo. Quite honestly, I cannot
determine that. So I would like an answer on that if we could
get that from you. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Will you get that answer as soon as you can?
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, we will. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Lynn, maintenance backlogs on all of our
public lands, BLM, Forest Service, Parks, continues to grow,
and is estimated now to be over $23 billion. And some of those
backlogs are considered to be life-threatening or hazardous to
humans who might traffic those areas. Although we do not know
how much Federal land this bill would add to the Federal
estate, the sponsors have indicated that they plan on a Federal
land acquisition provision to be added. If like in past
proposals we add $450 million to $500 million of direct Federal
land acquisition spending over the next 6 years in the bill or
20 years in the House version, we are talking about $2.7
billion to $10 billion over the potential life of this
legislation.
At the same time, in 3 of the last 4 years, we have
expended more than $1 billion on fire fighting and this year
with what is going on in the West and in Alaska, we have the
chance of a record burn year and a record cost year. The good
news is I guess that in Nevada the fire is under control. A
variety of homes and small businesses, but no lives lost.
Lynn, do you really believe that we can continue to acquire
Federal land when we do not have the funding to maintain the
land we have got?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, thank you for raising the matter of
the maintenance backlog. Secretary Norton's No. 1 priority is
to invest in maintaining the lands that we have, and President
Bush, of course, committed to addressing the $4.9 billion
estimated backlog on the national park lands and that is what
we are focused on doing.
It is for this reason that we have focused our conservation
efforts on partnerships, that is, rather than land acquisition,
working in partnership with private landowners to achieve
conservation goals, rather than putting additional land into
the Federal dominion.
Senator Craig. The conservation partnership approach is
such a positive one because in that relationship a great deal
is learned and a cooperative environment is created. Out West,
if it is Fed land, oftentimes the sign goes up, the gate goes
closed, and do not tread, all in the name of the environment.
That can be tremendously frustrating at times in a State like
mine that is 63 percent owned by the Federal Government, and
you are one of our larger landlords, and sometimes we do not
like you very much in the style of your stewardship.
Do you think it is responsible for the Government to
suggest that any additional Federal land acquisition be
reasonable and prudent in the context with its ability to
maintain it?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, first, I hope that our stewardship
has created improved relations.
Senator Craig. It is improving.
Ms. Scarlett. We have certainly focused on trying to do
that.
Again, our priority is to focus on caring for the lands
that we have. We do have an opportunity, at the request of the
House Appropriations Committee, to create a land transaction
strategy or plan that we are to submit in December. We expect
that that plan will help to set priorities and give some
greater focus to how we undertake our land transactions and
where we focus dollars, and I look forward to sharing that with
you.
Senator Craig. In the development of that strategy, let me
ask then one other thing. I would like you to provide to this
committee a list of the Federal land acquisitions that have
been made over the last 10 years. I think as we talk about
acquiring more land, it is important we know what we are doing
now. I have not seen the grand total of 10 years' worth of
Federal acquisition, but I think it would be quite surprising
in the total volume and number of acres acquired. So I think it
would be important to do that.
And in doing so, how much of its cost is in acquisition?
How about new maintenance costs? And of course, we know the
fire suppression costs. Right now we are stealing from all
kinds of accounts within the system to fight fires, and then we
do not replenish the money back into the accounts. So the
stewardship programs, the conservation programs, fire
suppression programs, or pre-fire programs are not being
funded. What we are doing out there right now, my guess is if
it were fully exposed to the public, there would be a
phenomenal argument about mismanagement in the first order. And
that is not just on your watch. That has been happening for
some time because you have to do what you do at the time fires
are underway, and then we here in Congress do not have the
money to replenish the funds. So then you cannot contract out
to do the kind of work that Congress by law and you by
definition of good stewardship are allowed to do, and the cycle
goes on. And here we want to acquire more land? That to me is a
phenomenal frustration.
As the chairman and others know, I am a bit obsessed at
times with invasive weeds. Small item. You are losing 10,000 to
15,000 acres a year, wipe-out, to invasive weeds, just BLM
alone, not counting the Forest Service, and you do not have the
money to fight them. You will not fight them. You cannot fight
them. We are trying to change things so that you will fight
them. These are weeds that are so obnoxious that even wildlife
no longer inhabit the area. Erosion sets in because they become
the dominant species on the land. Under any reasonable
conservation-minded person's attitude, it would suggest that
that is phenomenal mismanagement, and yet it goes on today and
it continues to go on, and under greater acquisition, it will
go on on that land also. That is one example.
Last idea here. Somewhere in my memory, I recall that the
original Land and Water Conservation law indicated that only 15
percent of Land and Water Conservation funds would be expended
in Western States. Has that been the case over the last 20
years? Do we know that we have held at that 15 percent level?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, I do not know. We would have to go
back and evaluate that.
Senator Craig. Hit the total button, if you would, and give
us a number. That would be valuable. And would you provide the
committee a State-by-State and a year-by-year accounting of the
funds expended under the Land and Water Conservation Fund? That
ought to be a reasonably easy task to do.
I think as we ask--and I know what the Senator from
Louisiana is about, and I would suggest to her that when money
comes off from offshore drilling, that States that are willing
to allow that to happen ought to be the recipients of some of
those benefits. I am quite amused by States who come and ask me
to join in on Land and Water Conservation funding to acquire
lands in their State, but they have a prohibition to offshore
drilling. They want to take somebody else's money to benefit
their State but they will not allow the money to be generated
offshore of their States. And that example is replete up and
down the east coast and the west coast. Take somebody else's
money so that we can stay pristine. Well, thank you, Louisiana,
for supplying a huge supply of oil so all you folks could get
here today in your automobiles.
Those are some of my frustrations about how we handle these
resources. I am not quite sure I can get to the idea of an
entitlement or dedicated funds, especially when we are not
funding properly good stewardship and management today at the
level that almost any reasonable person would suggest ought to
be. Thank you.
The Chairman. Madam Secretary, let me first say to you I
was pleasantly surprised with your grasp of the issues and I
commend you for it. I did not know you very well and I had no
dealings with you, but I think on this complicated issue, you
have done a very good job.
I have some questions of you that have to do with the
partnership activities, but I am going to submit them so you
can answer them.
But I do have something I would like to lay before you and
put in the record.
Public Law 106-248 was adopted 3 years ago and it provided
for two things. First, it acknowledged that in the United
States there were millions of dollars of inholding lands, lands
which were completely surrounded by the Federal Government of
no use to anyone but the Government. The Government had
indicated an interest in condemning them and there were
millions that were condemned, neither of which had been paid
for. So we said in this legislation we have surplus Federal
land. Now, this is not land that anybody should get excited
about in the conservation community, and I do not think they
did because this land is not good for anything. It is on the
maps already as surplus. We suggested that that ought to be
sold in an orderly manner and the proceeds be used to pay these
Americans who had not been paid.
I would like to know from your Department whether that law
has been used, either of the two, and if so, how, and if not,
why not. Would you do that for us?
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, Senator. I believe you are referring to
what we sometimes call the Baca legislation?
The Chairman. That is correct.
Ms. Scarlett. We have utilized the Baca legislation but we
have not utilized it to the extent originally anticipated. If
my memory serves me correctly--and we will have to get back to
you on the right number--I think we may have only done
something like $4 million worth of transactions in recent years
through the Baca legislation.
We are actually very interested and Secretary Norton has
made it a priority to explore working with Congress on some
changes to that which would give a stronger incentive and
ability of our agencies to utilize that legislation so that we
can achieve the goals set forth.
One of the elements of it was a restriction on addressing
lands that were in existing resource management plans up to a
certain date, and because we have now revised those plans, it
puts some of those areas off limits and we would like to
explore working with you on that.
The Chairman. Well, ma'am, let me tell you one thing I
really have learned in my years around here is to make sure
that the executive branch does what it is told. We are all
arguing about new things, but there are many things that the
executive branch does not do that are already on the books.
This was an important part of acquiring that huge property
called the Baca location. I do not think the Republicans would
have bought that had we not had this provision in the law, and
so I ask you to give us the information.
But I want to tell you that I expect--and I will be here a
while--to see you do this. This is not so difficult. It is just
you do not want to devote the time and energy to do it, and the
field people do not want to either.
Now, having said that, I want to say to my friend, the
Senator from Louisiana, when I went to your State and you
showed me how the coast lands were eroding and you suggested
this new source of funding, I guess I should have known, but I
did not, that the State of Louisiana is getting a lot of money
from the offshore drilling. I thought you were really getting
nothing, as you explained what the inland States got from
either royalties there or distribution of some of your
resources. But I have found that your State got $969,276,130
from the years 1986 to 2003, which I think is 17 years.
Now, what is that money used for? I do not have to ask you.
I can ask Mr. Angelle, but I do want that on the record because
we are talking here as if you get nothing, while as a matter of
fact you get a lot. Do you use it for any of these conservation
issues that we are talking about?
Senator Landrieu. Can I answer that, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. You sure can.
Senator Landrieu. I think you are referring to the amount
of money that we get between 3 and 6 miles, which is referred
to as the 8(g) track.
The Chairman. That is correct.
Senator Landrieu. It was an agreement that was reached in
prior Congresses. It sounds like a lot of money. $900 million
is not small change, but relative to what we have produced in
that time, it works out to be just a few percentage points
because from those years, if you go back to 1986, in terms of
offshore oil and gas production--and I can give you these
numbers. The staff can figure them up now. Mr. Chairman, it
sounds like a lot of money, but relatively it is minor. It
would be less than just a few percentage points. So the case
remains the same, that Louisiana produces billions of dollars
every year for the Federal Treasury and, even with the 8(g)
settlement, still only gets a very few percentage points.
That money, though, is used for an education trust fund
which was basically established under the direction of Senator
Johnston, with the help of Senator Breaux, before I got here,
which has been used very wisely by our State, Mr. Chairman, to
help support our universities, to promote early childhood
education, and unlike Western States that have great
flexibility in how that money is used, that money in our State
is dedicated to education, as is a lot of the Texas offshore
oil and gas money or onshore oil and gas money. They put it in
a trust fund for education as well.
The Chairman. But that was your choice.
Senator Landrieu. Yes, it was. Let me tell you we are happy
for the 8(g) money because if it was not for 8(g), we would not
get anything. But still, even counting that, it is a fairly
small percentage, extremely small percentage of what we
produce.
The Chairman. Okay.
Any other questions of the Secretary?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much. We are sorry it took so
long. You are excused.
Oh, Senator Cantwell, did you have any questions?
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have
any. I will ask the next panel.
The Chairman. I am sorry I missed you.
Senator Cantwell. That is all right, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You got here a little late and I missed you.
Senator Cantwell. I just arrived, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You are excused.
The next panel is: Scott Angelle, secretary of the
Louisiana's Department of Natural Resources; John Baughman,
executive vice president of the International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies; and Nancie Marzulla. We are going
to do all six of you, if you would get there, please. Charles
Jordan, chairman of the Conservation Fund, Portland, Oregon;
Henry Diamond, chairman of Americans for Our Heritage and
Recreation; and Daniel Clifton, Federal affairs manager for
Americans for Tax Reform.
I think we have your cards there. Daniel Clifton. You start
on this side please. Nancie, you are next. Can we call you in
the order that I announced you, if you do not mind? So the
first witness will be Scott Angelle. There you are on the right
side. Go ahead.
Now, would you all put your statements in the record? I am
just ordering that they be made a part of the record, as if you
read them, and if you can make them shorter than reading them,
we would greatly appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT ANGELLE, SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, BATON ROUGE, LA
Mr. Angelle. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I bring greetings to you from the great State of
Louisiana and Governor Kathleen Blanco. My name is Scott
Angelle. I am the secretary of the Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources. And while you may wonder where some of the
people who will speak today are from, my accent will give you
no doubt as to where I come from.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Angelle. I thank you for the opportunity to speak in
enthusiastic support of the Americans Outdoors Act. I
appreciate so much the comments of the Senators today
recognizing Louisiana's vital role in providing the energy that
this Nation needs. I want to especially thank Senator Landrieu
for her assistance and her untiring efforts in trying to pass
this type of legislation that is so crucial to Louisiana.
We believe this act is a sound concept, to take non-
renewable, one-time resources in the form of OCS revenues and
to invest them in our renewable resources.
The coastal States that host our Nation's offshore oil and
gas production play a critical role in this country's economic
and energy security. Louisiana, like other producing States, is
proud to contribute to the fueling of this great Nation. That
is precisely why we are here today, to put us in a position to
allow us to continue the oil and gas production that this
Nation needs.
But there are costs that come with the national benefits
that we provide, costs to our environment and costs to maintain
onshore infrastructure that supports offshore energy
activities. Sharing OCS revenues with the producing States will
provide the steady stream of revenue needed to plan and
mitigate the effects of this production.
Offshore oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico has
provided close to $140 billion to the Federal Government, as
Senator Landrieu has said. Up to 90 percent of that figure has
come from Louisiana. This is the second largest source of
revenue to the Federal Government, the first being taxes.
In 2002, more than $7.5 billion in offshore revenues went
into the Federal Treasury. More than $5 billion, or two-thirds
of that amount, came from offshore Louisiana. Yet, due to the
fact that this production was outside the 3 mile jurisdiction,
we received less than 1 percent of that. The same year, other
States together received more money, or 50 percent of the
revenues generated, from mineral production on Federal lands
within those States. We believe because the Nation benefits
from drilling on Federal lands and because non-coastal States
like Wyoming and New Mexico incur impacts from that production,
we fully support the share of revenues they receive. However,
Louisiana and other producing States are feeling the full
impact of offshore oil and gas activity and are not sharing in
the revenues. I respectfully point out the inequity because it
is profound.
Distinguished committee members, Louisiana is losing its
coast at a staggering rate of 25 square miles a year, a
football field every 30 minutes. We have lost more than 1,900
square miles in the last 70 years, an area the size of the
State of Delaware. And the U.S. Geological Survey predicts we
will lose another 1,000 if action is not taken now. Natural
processes like subsidence and storms, combined with the
unintended consequences of Federal actions like the leveeing of
the Mississippi River and impacts from offshore oil and gas
exploration and development, have led to an ecosystem on the
verge of collapse.
Louisiana truly is America's wetland. It is not a beach but
a vast landscape of wetlands, the seventh largest delta on
earth where the Mississippi River drains much of the United
States. It is one of the most productive ecosystems in America,
producing more seafood than any other State in the lower 48. It
is the nursery ground for the Gulf of Mexico and habitat for
one of the greatest flyways in the world for waterfowl and
migratory song birds. These wetlands protect the largest port
system in the world by tonnage. They protect 2 million people
and a unique culture from storm surge. They protect America's
strategic oil reserve. They protect oil and gas infrastructure
that was designed and built with the expectation of this
protection. While difficult to imagine, almost 30 percent of
the oil and gas that is consumed in this country comes through
the wetlands of Louisiana to be distributed to the rest of the
Nation. These are truly working wetlands.
Through the Breaux Act of 1990, we have initiated or
completed more than 100 coastal restoration projects and gained
great technical and scientific knowledge. We have also seen
many long-term partnerships with our five Federal agency
partners.
Last year the citizens of Louisiana passed three
constitutional amendments to address the State cost-share
capabilities and to limit liability to the State due to coastal
restoration activities. We have worked hard with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, producing a comprehensive, long-term plan.
We will continue to struggle to restore America's wetlands, but
the cost of restoring is in the billions and neither Louisiana,
nor any other State in this Union, can do it alone. The
revenues generated by offshore oil and gas production should be
shared to help mitigate the impacts, and they should benefit
from this production and the Nation will surely lose if it is
not restored.
On behalf of my State of Louisiana and other coastal
producing States, I urge Congress to enact the Americans
Outdoors Act. It would show foresight, vision and would be a
gift to our Nation for generations to come and put Louisiana in
the position to continue to aggressively provide the oil and
gas this country so desperately needs.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Angelle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Angelle, Secretary,
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Scott Angelle,
Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Thank you
for giving me this opportunity to speak in enthusiastic support of the
Americans Outdoors Act. I'd like to offer a special thanks to Senator
Landrieu for her untiring efforts to pass this type of legislation, so
crucial to Louisiana, a state that is experiencing perhaps the greatest
environmental crisis in our nation today.
The Americans Outdoors Act is a sound concept--to take non-
renewable, one-time resources in the form of OCS revenues and to invest
them in our renewable resources--through the preservation of our
coasts, our wildlife, our parks, and our history. This legislation is
vitally important to all coastal producing states and it is absolutely
critical to my state of Louisiana.
The coastal states that provide our nation with its offshore oil
and gas supply play a critical role in this country's economic and
energy security. Louisiana, like other producing coastal states, is
proud to contribute to the fueling of this great nation. But there are
costs that come with the national benefits we provide--costs to our
environment and costs to maintain onshore infrastructure that supports
offshore energy activities.
Sharing OCS oil and gas revenues with the producing states is the
obvious and appropriate way to provide the steady stream of revenue
needed to mitigate the effects of this production. As the distinguished
Members of this committee know, there is precedence for this.
Offshore oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico has provided
close to $140 billion to the Federal government. Up to 90 percent of
that figure has come from offshore Louisiana. This is the second
largest source of revenues to the Federal government. The first is
taxes.
In 2002, more than $7.5 billion in offshore revenues went into the
Federal treasury. More than $5 billion, or two-thirds of that amount,
came from offshore Louisiana. The same year, Wyoming and New Mexico
together received about $800 million, or 50% of the revenues generated
from mineral production on Federal lands within those states. However,
because the activity off Louisiana's coast was outside the state's
three-mile jurisdiction, we received only $30 million in 2002, less
than one percent of what was generated off our coast.
Because of the benefits the nation receives from drilling on
Federal lands on shore and the impacts those states incur from that
production, we fully support their share of revenues. However,
Louisiana and other producing coastal states are feeling the full
impact of supporting offshore oil and gas activity, but are not sharing
in the revenues. I only point out the inequity because it is profound.
Every coastal state that serves our country through hosting
offshore oil and gas production must deal with the impacts of that
activity and both impacts and needs are as unique as their individual
coastlines. I can only share with you why Louisiana could serve as a
model for the case to reinvest OCS revenues in our natural resources
through the Americans Outdoors Act.
LOUISIANA'S STORY
Louisiana is losing its coastal land at the staggering rate of 25
square miles a year. That's square miles, not acres. That's a football
field every 30 minutes. We've lost more than 1,900 square miles in the
past 70 years and the U.S. Geological Survey predicts we will lose
another 1,000 if decisive action is not taken now to save it. The
effects of natural processes like subsidence and storms combined with
the unintended consequences of Federal actions like the leveeing of the
Mississippi River and impacts from offshore oil and gas exploration and
development, have led to an ecosystem on the verge of collapse.
Louisiana's coast is truly America's WETLAND. It is not a beach,
but a vast landscape of wetlands. It is the seventh largest delta on
earth, where the Mississippi River drains two-thirds of the United
States. It is one of the most productive ecosystems in America,
producing more seafood than any other state in the lower 48. It's the
nursery ground for the Gulf of Mexico and habitat for the one of the
greatest flyways in the world for waterfowl and migratory song birds.
These wetlands provide protection for the largest port system in
the world by tonnage and protection from storm surge for two million
people and a unique culture. They also provide protection for America's
strategic oil reserves and for 80% of the nation's offshore oil and gas
supply, with almost 30% of all the oil and gas consumed in this country
coming through these wetlands to be distributed to the rest of the
nation.
This country's richest oil and gas resources are located off our
shore and the majority of support infrastructure runs through
Louisiana's coast. In 1995, the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act was
passed. With its passage and the advancement of new technology, the
deepwater in the Gulf of Mexico became the new frontier for oil and gas
exploration. By 2002, deepwater production had surpassed production on
the OCS and there is an estimated 71 billion barrels of reserve in the
deepwater Gulf--more than Alaska.
In addition to domestic production, Louisiana's coast is the land
base for LOOP, America's only offshore oil port that handles about 15%
of this country's foreign oil and is connected to more than 30% of the
total refining capacity in the U.S. Much of the support infrastructure
is located in the most rapidly deteriorating coastal areas.
Port Fourchon is the geographic and economic center of offshore
drilling efforts along the Louisiana Gulf Coast. Port Fourchon supports
75% of the deepwater production in the Gulf. This port and much of the
nation's energy supply is connected to the mainland by a 17-mile
stretch of two-lane highway--LA 1--that is inundated by flooding in
relatively mild storms and is vulnerable to being washed out
completely. In 2002, Tropical Storm Isidore and Hurricane Lili shut
down much of the Gulf production off the Louisiana coast. In only 8
days, more than one billion dollars of raw product was unavailable to
the U.S. market. Would the American public stand for paying an
additional $2 to $3 a gallon for gasoline should LA 1 and its
surrounding wetlands and infrastructure continue to degrade?
THE IMPACTS
The United States depends on the oil and gas shipped through and
produced in Louisiana's coastal zone. Wetlands and barrier islands
protect the billions of dollars worth of infrastructure that supports
the industry from wave and storm damage and is an integral part of the
nation's energy system. The industrial uses associated with offshore
exploration and production, pipelines, and canal developments have
directly and indirectly contributed to marsh destruction, putting the
industry itself at risk.
Navigation channels and canals dredged for oil and gas extraction
have dramatically altered the hydrology of the coastal area, allowing
salt water into fresh marshes, killing vegetation and habitat. Canals
have also increased tidal processes that impact the marsh by increasing
erosion. Channel deepening has caused saltwater intrusion, endangering
the potable water supply of much of the coastal region.
There are more than 20,000 miles of pipelines in federal offshore
lands and thousands more inland. They all make landfall on Louisiana's
barrier islands and wetland shorelines. The barriers are the first line
of defense against combined wind and water forces of a hurricane, and
they serve as anchor points for pipelines originating offshore. These
islands protect the wetland habitants from an offshore oil spill and
are critical in protecting the state's wetland-oriented oil and gas
facilities and thousands of jobs directly and indirectly tied to the
industry.
If the barrier islands erode entirely, as expected in the next 50
years, platforms, pipelines and wells will be damaged in increasing
numbers. More than 58 percent of the region's wells are located in
coastal parishes. Most of them are more than 50 years old and were not
designed to withstand the conditions of open water they could face in
the next 50 years. More than 30,000 wells are at risk within the 20-
parish coastal area. Wells that were on land only a few years ago are
now surrounded by water, a situation hazardous to boat traffic and an
environmental liability to habitat and fisheries.
Workers, equipment, supplies and transportation facilities that
accompany the rapid growth of the offshore oil and gas industry depend
on land-based facilities. Roads, housing, water, acreage for new
business locations and expansions of existing businesses, waste
disposal facilities and other infrastructure facilities will be needed
in localized areas along the Louisiana coast. Existing land-based
infrastructure is already heavily overburdened and needs expansion and
improvement, requiring extensive financial infusions from state and
local governments.
Louisiana ranks first in the nation in total shipping tonnage,
handling more than 450 million tons of cargo a year through its deep-
draft ports of New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, South Louisiana,
Plaquemines Parish and St. Bernard. The ports between Baton Rouge and
New Orleans are the largest by tonnage carried in the world and serve
the entire eastern part of the country.
The state's wetlands and barrier islands protect this
internationally important port system, as well as navigation channels,
waterways and anchorages from winds and waves. At present land loss
rates, more than 155 miles of waterways will be exposed to open water
in 50 years, leaving this key port system at risk and businesses
throughout the nation losing preferred links to European and Pacific
Rim markets.
Because of our coastal marshes and barrier islands, Louisiana's
commercial and recreational fisheries are among the most abundant in
America, providing 25 to 35 percent of the nation's total catch.
Louisiana is first in the annual harvest of oysters, crabs and
menhaden, and is a top producer of shrimp. Some of the best
recreational saltwater fishing in North America exists off Louisiana's
coast. The reason for this abundance is that our coastal marshes
provide the nursery for young fish and shellfish.
The long-term impacts of wetland loss relate to many species of
fish and shellfish that depend on these habitats, translating into
economic losses that affect the entire region and the nation. Nearly
all Louisiana commercial species use the marsh at some stage of their
life cycle, and fisheries loss will be proportional to marsh loss. By
the year 2050, the annual loss of commercial fisheries will be nearly
$550 million. For recreational fisheries, the total loss will be close
to $200 million a year.
Louisiana's coastal wetlands provide a diverse habitat for many
wildlife communities. The wetlands provide life cycle needs for
resident species and wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl and
other birds. Land loss and habitat change by the year 2050 will affect
the nation's wildlife population. Sea birds, wading birds and shore
birds are expected to decrease, along with raptors and woodland birds.
Alligators and furbearers will decrease in certain areas of the coast,
as will the abundance of ducks and geese.
Louisiana's cities and coastal communities are at great risk as the
wetlands and barrier islands disappear, leaving people with no buffer
from storm surges and the force of high winds. Miles of hurricane
protection levees will be exposed to open water conditions, forcing
widespread relocation and abandonment of coastal communities.
Wetlands create friction and reduce high winds when hurricanes hit.
They also absorb hurricane storm surges. Scientists estimate that every
2.7 miles of wetlands absorbs one foot of storm surge. The 3.5 million
acres of wetlands that line Louisiana's coast today have storm
protection values of $728 million to $3.1 billion.
A direct hit of a hurricane on New Orleans would be devastating.
Because the city is literally below sea level and sits ``in a bowl'',
the potential loss of life and property is incomprehensible, and the
threat of disaster was not lost on the city's residents.
With the loss of barrier islands and wetlands over the next 50
years, New Orleans will be a Gulf Coast city and will lose its wetland
buffer that now protects it from many effects of flooding. Hurricanes
will pose the greatest threat, since New Orleans sits on a sloping
continental shelf that makes it extremely vulnerable to storm surges.
More than two million people in inland south Louisiana will be
subject to more severe and frequent flooding than ever before. Coastal
communities will become shorefront towns, and the economic and cultural
costs of relocation are estimated in the billions of dollars.
South Louisiana's unique culture is a national treasure, and the
very fabric of its distinct way of life is being eroded with the coast
at great intangible cost to the nation and the world.
THE SOLUTIONS
Louisiana began work in earnest to restore its coast in 1989 when
the legislature created the state's coastal restoration program. In
1990, Congress enacted the Breaux Act, or CWPPRA (The Coastal Wetlands
Planning Protection and Restoration Act). Since then, more than 100
restoration projects have been initiated or completed. We have gained
the technical know-how, and, by working with our federal partners, we
are cementing long-term partnerships as we build projects together.
Several years ago, the Coast 2050 Plan was developed in partnership
with the public. It has served as a blueprint to rehabilitate the
Louisiana coastline, to sustain our coastal resources and to provide an
integrated multiple-use approach to ecosystem management. The main
strategies of the plan are watershed structural repair, such as
restoration of ridges and barrier islands, and watershed management,
such as river diversions and improved drainage. In making
recommendations, the process did not view the number of coastal wetland
acres saved as the only priority, but considered other resources as
well, such as roads, levees, fish and wildlife resources, and public
safety and navigation, in making recommendations.
During the past two years, the state has created the Louisiana
Coastal Area plan in a 50-50 partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The LCA plan addresses the critical near-term needs during
the next five to ten years and creates a Science and Technology Program
to ensure the best science and engineering continues to lead the way.
We are now in the process of putting together a comprehensive plan to
address the long-term efforts needed to save this coastal landscape.
Last year, the citizens of Louisiana passed three constitutional
amendments to address the state's cost share capabilities and to limit
liability to the state due to coastal restoration efforts.
Louisiana will continue its struggle to restore America's Wetland,
a landscape so rich in natural resources and of such benefit to the
entire nation. To continue to let it disappear is a national tragedy.
The cost of will be in the billions and Louisiana, like other coastal
producing states, cannot do it alone. The revenues generated by the
offshore oil and gas production off their shores should be shared with
these states to mitigate the impacts. The nation is the beneficiary of
this production and the nation will surely be the loser if the
investment is not made now to invest in the preservation of our
renewable natural resources.
On behalf of my state of Louisiana and the other coastal producing
states, I urge Congress to enact the Americans Outdoors Act. It would
show extraordinary foresight and vision and would be a gift to our
nation for generations to come.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Before we go to the next witness, let me say to you and to
those residents of your State and the public officials that
this Senator is fully aware of what you do for our Nation. I
tell you, if some of our other States who are coastal States
just knew what is happening to America's future because we will
not maximize our oil production, if they just knew it and could
see it, it probably would be impossible for them to maintain
their current posture.
But let me tell you how difficult it is. We had an item in
a bill, you might remember, Larry, that merely said let us
inventory the value, the resources that are on our coastal
States that are not being explored. Let us just find out how
much might be there. That was stripped from the bill by a vote
because there are States who are even frightened that we would
know how much is there.
But your State is bearing the burden and producing huge
quantities, and frankly I would like to do everything I can to
help you. I am not sure that this year is the right time or
this bill is the right one. But you know that you have a
Senator that truly believes that we owe you a lot, and I will
get back in a minute to asking you a question about what you do
with the moneys that you get now.
Let us proceed to John Baughman. Would you please give us
your statement and abbreviate it please. Oh, I am supposed to
take Charles Jordan. Excuse me.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF CHARLES JORDAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, THE
CONSERVATION FUND, PORTLAND, OR
Mr. Jordan. If I was standing, you would not have missed
me.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Jordan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. My brain told me what I should do.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Angelle. Thank you very much and also to Senator
Landrieu and Senator Alexander for this opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for my opening remarks. I really
appreciate you not requiring me to read this document because
you have more copies than I do.
You talked about the threat to America, America's future.
That is what I want to talk about. Today I am not representing
the Conservation Fund. I am speaking for State-side Land and
Water and that includes local areas. When you talk about
America's future, you have got to look at State and local
parks.
Lamar, in 1985-87, as we, along with 14 others, traveled
all around this country for 18 months talking to Americans
about the great outdoors, thousands of them came and they
shared with us their dreams and their hopes for the future. And
we were so excited because we thought we were going to make a
difference. We completed this report, and this is chapter 2. It
says our greatest recreation needs are in urban areas close to
home. How quickly we forget.
And I will tell you I have come 3,000 miles to share these
moments. I am not going to be able to finish, so cut me off
when you please.
But talking about a threat, our young kids, 80 to 85
percent of all Americans live in and around cities. Now, who is
serving those people? We are. They are not going to national
parks. They are the ones who are going to inherit these
national parks. All of these national treasures you are now
talking about setting aside and we are arguing about today, who
is going to assume responsibility for those? The people that I
am serving today in urban parks, and they do not know anything
about this responsibility you are going to drop on them. They
are not factoring those costs into their future. They want to
buy a home. They want a car. They want to travel. But when they
realize the responsibility they have, they are not prepared. So
you cannot forget urban parks and State parks. That is where
the people are.
I sat there and as I listened to you talk about the
national parks--and I used to hear the President talk about
national treasures, and I would just wait for him to say
something like, well, all of our national treasures are not at
the national level. We have urban treasures. We have State
treasures. No one ever talks about our State and our local
treasures. We have parks there that carry quite a story that we
like to share with our young people.
I just became a grandfather, and I will tell you it changed
my life because now at the age of 66, I wanted to rest. I
wanted to retire and give up, but I cannot. When Mia came into
this world, I looked at that little girl and I said, boy, in
order to give her a fighting chance, I have got to get back in
the race. I have got to try to do all I can to make this a
better place.
I take her to the park often, local parks. She is too young
to go to national parks, but I am counting on that because the
national treasures are just as important to me as the urban
treasures. It is not going to be enough for me to take her
where she can have fun and games and play. It is coming a time
when I need to take Mia to some of our national treasures, to
the underground railroad. I need to tell her what went on in
this place. I need her to feel proud of Harriet Tubman, but
also I need Mia to know that she and her white friends are
going to do a lot better than you and I have done. And I want
her to bring her white friend along when I take her to these
places so as we tell the stories--Harriet Tubman could not have
succeeded without white friends. You and I both know that.
So we do have a history of succeeding by working together,
but all we talk about are the negatives, the slavery and
discrimination. When are we going to talk about the positives?
We have a history of doing things together. I want Mia to know
about those. Yes, I want her to know about slavery and
everything else, but I need to take her to those special
places. We need the place. The books are not enough. I want to
take her to the grounds and I want to show her what happened
here and why it is important that you never forget this, Mia.
I want her to know about the responsibility that we have
and that we want to make sure that our national parks and our
State parks and our urban parks work together, which they do
not now. We talk it. We got a lot of verbiage, but we really do
not collaborate. That is why we all need lots of money.
Senator Landrieu is right. In the last 3 to 4 years, we
have not had any UPARR money, and therefore the city would not
invest in those capital projects because they know they cannot
complete them. I heard a lot of talk about partnership. That is
what we want. We are not asking you to pay for everything. But
these are challenging times for us in urban areas. And I will
not get so excited. I will slow up and try to calm down now.
But we need partnerships and I know it appears as if you
are supporting the State-side Land and Water. But let me tell
you, it is needed, but I also want to protect those 17 sites in
the National Park System that are of significance to African
Americans. I do not need to tell you. Look around this room.
Look around this room. There are 73 million blacks and browns
in America. Now, can we win this one without them? Can we win
the conservation war without them? No. 73 million people are
not involved in the great outdoors movement. Look at it.
We are facing some challenges, and where are these people
now? In and around cities. And who is serving them? We are in
our urban parks, and we are having to close down parks. Now,
that is not a good testimony.
That is where Mia goes. That is where she meets people of
different colors and different backgrounds, and they learn to
play together. They learn to win together. And if they learn to
play and win together, they are going to continue that through
their adult lives.
Every kid cannot dunk a basketball or hit a home run or
kick a football, but every kid has a need to at least one time
in his or her life to run home that day and say, Mom, today I
was No. 1. That is what we do in urban parks. We help kids win.
We give them a taste of victory. We help them to learn to work
together. You cannot do that in national parks.
We need an effective national system of parks. We have a
National Park System, but we do not have a system of parks.
There are certain things that are not appropriate for national
treasures, but maybe we can say for this reason, we prefer that
you not use that machine in this park simply because it
destroys this. However, our State parks or our urban parks
allow you to do that. If we work together, we could collaborate
a lot more. We do not have that.
So today when you read my report, you already know
everything that is in there. You have heard it many times
before. But, Mr. Chairman, I just would hope that you would
give some very strong consideration to the challenge that we
face at the State and local level. I hate competing with
police, fire, homeless, houses. I cannot compete. Parks and
recreation are considered to be fun and games. We are not
considered a basic service. And yet, there is no greater
partner in an urban area than parks and recreation.
And I will close with this. Tonight at this very moment,
there are thousands of kids running up and down community gyms,
soccer fields, baseball fields, thousands, different colors,
different backgrounds. They are not harming themselves nor are
they harming other people. Where are they going to go? When we
close, are they going to go the library and sit down and study?
We know better.
So today I am asking that you would give us some assistance
and maybe with a little help, we can keep our promise not to
Mia and her generation, but to the Roosevelts and the Pinchots
and all of the others because we made a commitment and we hope
that maybe just with a little help we can ensure that our
legacy would be no less than our inheritance.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jordan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles Jordan, Chairman of the Board,
The Conservation Fund, Portland, OR
Chairman Domenici, Ranking Member Bingaman and Members of the
Committee, I wish to express my appreciation to you for holding today's
hearing on the Americans Outdoors Act (S. 2590) and for the opportunity
to testify on the provisions in the bill relating to the ``stateside''
component of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and the Urban
Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR).
My testimony is based on my thirty-year career as a park official
in Portland, Oregon and Austin, Texas, where I worked to provide
recreational opportunities directly to the public. My testimony also
draws upon my work with state and local park directors, the National
Park Service and other federal land managing agencies. Currently, I
serve as the Chairman of the Board of The Conservation Fund, a national
non-profit organization with a mission to protect wildlife habitat,
historic sites, working landscapes and community open space. I am
testifying in my personal capacity.
Before discussing the Americans Outdoors Act, I wish to express my
appreciation to the Senate and the Congress for including funds for the
stateside LWCF program in the Interior appropriations bills for the
last several years. At the state and local level, these funds
strengthen and promote partnerships between state, county and local
governments and between public agencies, the non-profit sector,
businesses and other stakeholders. Most importantly, these funds give
local governments the financial tools they need to provide access to
affordable leisure opportunities in a clean and safe environment.
President Bush's commitment to fund the stateside program in his
budget requests, coupled with Congress's support for the President's
requests, has revived the stateside program. This recent funding has
also laid the foundation to fulfill the promise of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund through dedicated funding, as embodied in the
Americans Outdoors Act.
Senator Alexander and Senator Landrieu have performed a great
service to our country by introducing the Americans Outdoors Act. This
bipartisan legislation requires annual allocations of $450 million for
stateside LWCF and $125 million for UPARR, along with funding for state
wildlife grants and impact assistance to coastal communities.
Almost twenty years ago, I had the opportunity to serve as a
commissioner with Senator Alexander, who chaired President Reagan's
Commission on Americans Outdoors. To carry out the vision outlined by
President Reagan, the Commission recommended expanding federal
investments in state and local parks and open space conservation.
Today, Senator Alexander's bill implements one of the Commission's top
recommendations--to make the Land and Water Conservation Fund a
dedicated trust to pay for land acquisition and for state and local
facility development and rehabilitation.
In the fourteen years since the Commission's report, the need for
federal support for our states, counties, cities and towns has only
grown.
STATESIDE LWCF
Following my work on the Commission, I served as the director of
the Department of Parks for the City of Portland, Oregon. During that
time, I worked with my staff and partner organizations to ensure
affordable and accessible recreational opportunities for all the city's
residents.
To meet these goals across the country, park and recreation
agencies at the state, regional, county and local levels are working to
conserve open space, provide recreational facilities and promote
outdoor recreation.
State and local parks provide the public with opportunities to go
for a walk, run along a trail, bike along a stream or river, play team
sports on a ball field, go for a swim in a municipal pool, enjoy a
family picnic and engage in other activities. State parks also provide
opportunities for camping, boating and hiking within a short drive of
our cities and suburbs.
Thanks to the vision and leadership of Congress and this Committee,
our country has the world's greatest system of National Parks, National
Forests, National Wildlife Refuges and other public lands. These
national treasures are complemented by our country's great system of
state and local parks, to form a network of parks and open space from
the inner cities to the highest mountain peaks.
For most Americans, their only park and recreational experience is
close to home, in their local neighborhood at a basketball court,
tennis court, playground or local beach or within a days drive from
home.
Mr. Chairman, at a time of international uncertainty and threats to
our security at home, Americans need places in their neighborhood to
escape from the stress of daily life more than ever.
Through parks and recreational programs, we build communities.
Building communities means connecting people to their neighborhoods,
one another and to the land.
Mr. Chairman, for over thirty years as I've traveled the country
and visited my colleagues at the state and local level. I've seen the
challenges facing many state and local parks agencies and community
organizations along with the benefits that stateside and UPARR funding
can provide to cities, towns, small communities and to urban
neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, conserving land and developing recreational
infrastructure is expensive. These capital expenses must compete with
increasing budget pressures to ensure public safety, educate our
children and provide for other local infrastructure needs. Cities,
counties and states are struggling to pay salaries for public safety
personnel, teachers, park and recreation employees and other municipal
employees. Despite these budgetary challenges, state and local
governments are working to ensure that local recreational facilities
and state parks are open, clean and safe.
In addition to providing recreational opportunities, many states
are working to manage urban sprawl, changes in land tenure and
decisions by large forestland owners to consolidate land holdings. In
many states in the east, changes in land ownership patterns have
created one-time opportunities to conserve large tracts of land for
recreation, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat.
To meet these challenges, local leaders and the public have voted
to support parks and open space conservation. Out of a total of 134
ballot measures in November 2003, voters approved 100 ballot
initiatives to raise $1.8 billion in non-federal funding for land
conservation. In many communities, the public understands that parks
and recreational opportunities are not just amenities; they are
necessary to promote local economic development to attract and retain
businesses and jobs.
The Bush Administration and the Congress have also supported the
stateside program in recent years. These dollars benefit people
directly, by supporting a variety of projects on the ground, in all
fifty states.
As a former parks director, I can testify that these annual
appropriations are very much appreciated. Since 1971, Portland, Oregon
has received $5.5 million to acquire land at six parks. While in the
grand scheme of the federal budget this figure may seem small, at the
local level this funding has had a big impact.
State and local governments are not asking the federal government
to pay for operations and maintenance at state and local parks. State
and local governments are asking the federal government to support this
legislation to help pay for the one-time cost of land acquisition and
facilities development through the 50/50 match program and to provide
greater predictability for budgeting and long-range planning.
Supporters of full funding of the stateside program include the
National Governor's Association, National Association of Counties, U.S.
Conference of Mayors, National Recreation and Park Association,
National Association of State Parks Directors, National Association of
State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers and other organizations
representing municipal governments and officials. In addition to local
agencies, these funds will benefit many of our partners--the local Boys
and Girls Clubs, YMCAs, YWCAs and other groups.
By passing this bill, Congress can fulfill the original promise of
a program that has a forty-year track record of success and which has
funded over 40,000 projects in every corner of our country.
The funds that Congress provided for stateside LWCF have helped
underserved neighborhoods and state open space programs throughout
America and have yielded tremendous dividends for children, young
people, young adults, families and senior citizens. These dividends are
enjoyed by every income and ethnic group.
The stateside program works. It works in big and small cities,
suburban areas, and rural counties. Examples include:
Bozeman, Montana. A $50,000 LWCF grant was part of a
successful project to complete the development of Sundance
Springs Park to enable the acquisition of 10.25 acres and to
promote access to Bozeman's urban ``Main Street to the
Mountains'' trail.
Willcox, Arizona. The City of Willcox received LWCF funds to
install a new sprinkler system and lights for the Rodeo and
lights for the Quail Drive Sports Park.
Transylvania County, North Carolina. The State of North
Carolina received stateside funding to support a partnership to
acquire 10,000 acres of lands in and around the Jocasse Gorges
to establish Gorges State Park.
Juneau, Alaska. The City of Juneau Parks and Recreation
Department received stateside LWCF funds to help open a new ice
skating rink at the Treadwell Arena in 2003.
State and local governments seek federal assistance to defray some
of the costs for these types of projects. They ask Congress to provide
greater certainty and predictability for planning and funding long-term
capital projects and other initiatives, which would be provided by this
bill. Land acquisition and facilities development are capital
expenditures and state and local officials need greater certainty to
budget and plan for these improvements.
As provided for in the bill, the Land and Water Conservation Fund
deserves permanent funding, because the LWCF is tied to a dedicated
funding source--offshore oil and gas royalties. Fully funding LWCF is
consistent with other federal wildlife and conservation programs that
enjoy dedicated funding, such as the Dingell-Johnson and Wallop-Breaux
programs. In addition, the federal transportation reauthorization bill
is funded via its own funding source--the federal gasoline tax. Last
year, Congress approved spending for airport improvements which are
paid for by airport user fees and other revenue sources. Four years
ago, Congress approved mandatory spending for payments to rural
counties which rely on timber receipts from federal timber harvests.
S. 2590 does not seek special treatment for park, wildlife and
coastal programs. By providing dedicated LWCF funding to states, Indian
tribes and Alaska Native Corporations from 2005-2010, the bill puts
stateside LWCF, urban park, wildlife and coastal funding on par with
other federal programs which have dedicated funding sources.
With the 50/50 match requirement for stateside LWCF, the Alexander-
Landrieu bill will also leverage significant non-federal funding--
approximately $2.25 billion over the life of the bill.
URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM
I commend Senators Alexander and Landrieu for including funding for
UPARR in the bill. When it established the UPARR program in 1978,
Congress authorized the National Park Service (NPS) to provide federal
matching grants and technical assistance to help ensure that young
people in economically-distressed cities and neighborhoods have access
to high quality recreation facilities.
In the last twenty-five years, UPARR has provided 1,461 grants to
380 local jurisdictions in 43 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico. These grants have rehabilitated existing facilities,
promoted innovative programs, and funded planning activities.
Most of the UPARR grants have been used to rehabilitate
playgrounds, recreation centers, ball fields, neighborhood parks,
swimming pools, picnic areas and basketball and tennis courts. These
grants are matched by the local jurisdiction on a 70/30 basis.
With the Congressional appropriations between FY 2000 and FY 2002,
the National Park Service has worked in close partnership with our
cities--both large and small in many regions of our country to fund on
the ground improvements.
I know first hand the benefits that UPARR provides. In Portland,
UPARR funding allowed us to convert an abandoned fire station into the
Interstate Fire House and Cultural Center and to rehabilitate the
University Park Community Center.
Other recent examples include:
Covington, Kentucky. The NPS provided a $120,000 grant to
rehabilitate a 6.3 acre park by installing a new play surface,
new playground equipment and replace a picnic shelter.
Kansas City, Missouri. The NPS provided a $500,000 grant to
rehabilitate the pool facility at Swope Park, in an
economically-depressed neighborhood.
Las Vegas, Nevada. The NPS provided $425,000 to rehabilitate
basketball courts, a skateboard rink, playground equipment and
restrooms.
Phoenix, Arizona. The NPS provided a $500,000 grant to
replace the current recreation building, water play area,
playground equipment and softball field lighting.
To build on the past success of the program, our cities need the
$125 million provided in the bill.
FEDERAL LWCF
In my capacity as Chairman of The Conservation Fund, a nationwide
non-profit organization, I've learned that our nation's landscape is as
diverse and varied as our nation's population. Our landscape
encompasses the coasts, the cities, piedmont and foothills, mountain
valleys and the backcountry. Our nation's built environment is also
diverse and varied, from the downtowns of our large and small cities,
to the suburbs, to rural county land, working landscapes and remote
communities.
Over the last forty years, this Committee and the Congress have
recognized the diverse needs of our lands and our people. Starting
forty years ago with the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, Congress
passed a series of bills authorizing a suite of federal grant programs
to address our most pressing conservation and recreation needs. To
build on these legislative accomplishments, we need adequate resources
to carry out the programs that Congress has authorized.
We also need the flexibility provided by the federal LWCF program.
On the ground, local governments, conservation organizations and their
partners are using all available tools to preserve our lands and
waters. Full funding of the federal LWCF program is an important tool
for land conservation, especially as acquisitions grow more creative
and complex.
Successful conservation initiatives often require a mix of federal,
state, local, or private funding. Federal LWCF is an essential
ingredient for projects that are locally supported and respectful of
the needs of landowners.
By fully funding the stateside and federal LWCF, we can ensure that
our people can enjoy a nationwide network of local, state and national
lands dedicated to recreation and land and water conservation. By
approving this bill, Congress can protect, enjoy and pass on America's
great natural resources to future generations.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of the bill. I
would be pleased to respond to question.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Landrieu. Amen.
The Chairman. If we were not in a Senate hearing, we would
applaud you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Jordan. I thank you for hearing me.
The Chairman. I have 11 Mias. So I have a bigger job than
you.
Mr. Jordan. That means you are wealthier than I am right
now.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We are going to John Baughman.
STATEMENT OF JOHN BAUGHMAN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES
Mr. Baughman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
trying to put me on before Mr. Jordan. It would have been a lot
easier.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Baughman. My name is John Baughman. I am the executive
vice president of the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies. Our association was founded in 1902 and we
are the organization of all the public agencies charged with
the protection and management of North America's fish and
wildlife resources. Our governmental members include the fish
and wildlife agencies of all 50 States, plus the provinces and
territories and Federal Governments of the United States,
Canada, and Mexico.
The association sincerely appreciates the opportunity to
appear before you today to share with you the collective and
continued strong support of the 50 State fish and wildlife
agencies for the assured wildlife conservation and outdoor
recreation funding reflected in S. 2590, the Americans Outdoors
Act. I would like to start by thanking you, Senator Domenici
and Senators Alexander and Landrieu, for again elevating and
reengaging this discussion on what we think is a very important
merits of the conservation outdoor recreation funding in this
country.
At your request, Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I will
summarize my written testimony, and I think I can do that in
three points.
First, natural resource conservation and outdoor recreation
are important issues to America, typically ranking right up
there with national security, the economy, and social programs.
I wish I could say that as well as my colleague here did. As
our population approaches 300 million in this country, wildlife
conservation just does not happen. Like clean air and clean
water, it takes a reliable and ongoing commitment of human and
financial resources.
Second, unless Congress makes a multi-year commitment,
history shows that we will continue to postpone conservation
efforts which then cost more and result in substantial impacts
on public and private lands and on our local communities. We
need only to look at the 1,200 species right now on the
threatened and endangered species list to witness the
financial, administrative, and regulatory burdens that
accompany underfunded conservation.
Finally, history also clearly demonstrates the tremendous
success of fish and wildlife conservation in this country when
dedicated and assured funding is available. At the turn of the
century, we could look at white-tailed deer, wild turkeys, elk,
pronghorn antelope, most of the water fowl in this country,
many species of migratory fish. They were all depleted, some of
them near extinction. With the assured and dedicated funding
from the State hunting and fishing licenses plus Federal excise
taxes on sporting arms and ammunition that came along in 1937
with the Pittman-Robertson Act, the excise taxes on fishing
equipment that came along in 1950 with the Dingell-Johnson Act,
supplemented by motorboat fuel and small engine Federal-side
tax in 1984 with the Wallop-Breaux amendments, the States have
been able to join with our Federal, nonprofit, and corporate
partners, along with the private landowners of this country, to
restore all these species I mentioned and their habitats. And
likewise, the 20 or so species that we have already removed or
should be removed, could be removed from the threatened and
endangered species list are those species where adequate
funding has been devoted. You can look at the examples of
peregrin falcons, bald eagles, grizzly bears, species where we
put the money and we have made the progress.
Now it is time to provide conservation for all of America's
wildlife, not only those species of fish and wildlife
considered game or those already listed as threatened and
endangered but also the two-thirds of the Nation's wildlife
which presently receive too little attention and many of which
could be tomorrow's next threatened and endangered crises.
America's wildlife agencies have the expertise, they have
the will, and with assured funding, they would have the
resources to work with our Federal and private partners,
including the Nation's landowners, to continue our successes
which made America's system of fish and wildlife conservation
the model which other countries seek to emulate.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies stands ready to assist you and the
committee in whatever way we can to help make the programs
under the Americans Outdoors Act a reality for all our
citizens. I thank you and we would be happy to answer
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baughman follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Baughman, Executive Vice President,
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Baughman of the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies was founded in
1902 as a quasi-governmental organization of public agencies charged
with the protection and management of North America's fish and wildlife
resources. The Association's governmental members include the fish and
wildlife agencies of all 50 states, plus the provinces and territories
and federal governments of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The
Association has been a key organization in promoting sound resource
management and strengthening federal, state, and private cooperation in
protecting and managing fish and wildlife and their habitats in the
public interest.
The Association sincerely appreciates the opportunity to appear
before your Committee today to share with you the collective and
continued strong support of the 50 State Fish and Wildlife Agencies for
assured funding for wildlife conservation and outdoor recreation as
reflected in S. 2590, The Americans Outdoors Act, a bill that will
ensure a conservation legacy for all Americans. This bill is
unquestionably one of the most significant legislative initiatives for
fish and wildlife (and other natural resources) conservation in the
last several decades. Whether an American hunts, fishes, bird watches,
hikes, plays soccer or just enjoys the peace and tranquility of being
outdoors appreciating the vast natural bounty of our Nation, this bill
will ensure that our children and future generations will enjoy this
bountiful natural wealth.
Let me also thank you, Chairman Domenici and Senator Alexander and
Senator Landrieu for re-engaging serious deliberations over the merits
of and need for assured funding for conservation and outdoor
recreation. You have created the momentum that brings us back here
today to consider a bill that is desperately needed and strongly
supported by the majority of the American public and members of
Congress, as reflected in the progenitor to S. 2590, CARA. Mr.
Chairman, we stand committed to working with you and this Congress as
we have in the past.
Natural resource conservation is an extremely high priority for the
American people as recent polls again affirm. Support for S. 2590 sends
an unmistakable message that funding certainty for conservation has
finally achieved the standing in the national budget that it truly
deserves. As you know and appreciate, Mr. Chairman, natural resource
conservation and recreation programs contribute significantly to our
quality of life, our socio-economic stability, and our Nation's health
and well-being. Just as Social Security is a financial safety net,
conservation of our natural resources is the safety net for American's
quality of life and their environment. Unless Congress makes a multi-
year commitment, history indicates that we will continue to postpone
conservation efforts which then cost more and result in substantial
impact on private and public land because many species ultimately
become threatened and endangered.
Stewardship of our fish and wildlife, land, and coastal resources
is important to every one of our citizens. It is particularly important
to future generations who will either benefit from our prudent care for
these resources or be burdened by our failure to do so. Good
stewardship cannot be imposed from Washington, DC, or defined by
regulation; it needs to be nurtured and supported at the state and
community level where we live. It is clear that our nation's long-term
resource conservation challenges cannot be solved by one-time fixes,
cookie-cutter answers, or simply passing more regulations. The history
of fluctuations and constantly shifting priorities as reflected by
year-to-year appropriations underscores the fact that annual funding
simply is not adequate to meet current needs or address future
problems. There needs to be a comprehensive and sustained federal,
state and local stewardship commitment. For these reasons, assured
funding and state-based decision making are the most important
fundamental provisions of the Americans Outdoors Act.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, restoring declining species to a
sustainable level is a complex, multi-year endeavor that requires the
certainty of available funding for success. As an example, restoring
the nation's symbol--the bald eagle--to its current status has taken
four decades and it took a lot more than just banning the use of
certain pesticides to achieve this goal. In this case, funds were
available under the Endangered Species Act, but no secure funding is
currently available for the many imperiled non-game species from whose
ranks will come the next listed species. With assured and dedicated
funding, we can implement proactive conservation to address the early
warning signs of decline. It is far less expensive to restore species
before they become threatened or endangered, and our opportunities to
use voluntary incentive-based, non-regulatory programs are much
greater.
Our experience with game and sportfish clearly demonstrates the
tremendous success of fish and wildlife conservation efforts when
dedicated and assured funding is available. As you know, Mr. Chairman,
at the beginning of the last century, America's fish and wildlife
populations were in dire circumstances from several factors. Through
the efforts of America's sportsmen and women, working with the hunting
and fishing equipment industry and state and federal fish and wildlife
agencies, Congress statutorily established the Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson) in 1937 and Federal Aid in
Sportfish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux) in 1950 to
provide dedicated and assured funding to the State fish and wildlife
agencies for game and sportfish species. Those funds, along with
license fees paid by hunters and anglers, have provided the foundation
for America's successful fish and wildlife conservation programs over
many years and brought back species like the white-tailed deer,
pronghorn antelope, wood duck, wild turkey and striped bass. Now is the
time to build on that success to help all the nation's wildlife with
funding provided under the Americans Outdoors Act. We have the
expertise, we have the will, and with assured funding we will have the
resources to continue our successes which make America's system of fish
and wildlife conservation the model which other countries seek to
emulate.
Also, as you are aware, private land habitats are instrumental in
maintenance an restoration of much of our nation's wildlife. Assured,
long-term funding is necessary to create voluntary incentives for
private land stewardship, to provide technical assistance, and to
develop cooperative conservation agreements. These efforts would be
designed to reduce the need to list endangered species by funding
preventative conservation programs that restore declining species
before they reach a point where listing is necessary. This helps
landowners to become part of the solution through non-regulatory,
incentive-based programs that help integrate their land management
intentions with fish and wildlife conservation efforts.
The Association has testified several times before this Committee
(and others) in the previous Congresses on CARA and other proposals
that would have dedicated Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues to
State-based enhancement programs for fish and wildlife conservation,
conservation education, and wildlife-associated recreation; land and
water conservation; general outdoor recreation; and coastal
conservation and impact assistance. The Association strongly supports
the Americans Outdoors Act because it is a bipartisan, consensus-built,
common sense approach to conservation. It makes good economic sense,
good common sense, and good political sense.
The coalition of organizations that has come together (again) in
support of the Americans Outdoors Act truly represents a broad and
diverse grass-root alliance of the business community, conservation
organizations, elected officials at all levels of governments,
industry, the recreation community and other interests. Citizens from
``soccer moms'' to hunters and wildlife photographers strongly support
S. 2590. The Americans Outdoors Act places decisions on identifying
needs and spending priorities at the State and local level which we
believe can best reflect the interest of our citizens. This coalition
truly represents America's interest in our natural and cultural
heritage, and our need to conserve that heritage for future
generations.
Also, as you know, Mr. Chairman, outdoor recreation is one of the
fastest growing industries in this country, and the Americans Outdoors
Act will position the State fish and wildlife agencies to help local
communities identify and develop wildlife-related tourism
opportunities. Programs to capture these opportunities can
significantly enhance the economy of these rural communities.
Let me briefly share with you today two perfecting amendments the
Association would urge be made to the Wildlife Title (Title IV) of the
Americans Outdoors Act. The Association staff will continue to work
closely with your Committee staff on the details.
First, we ask for your serious consideration of eliminating the
existing (in statute) 10% spending cap restriction on wildlife-related
recreation expenses. In 1996, over 62 million Americans participated in
wildlife viewing with an economic impact of nearly $30 billion.
Wildlife-related recreation fosters understanding, appreciation, and
support, and it significantly contributes to building the public's
commitment to wildlife conservation which is essential to achieving the
on-the-ground conservation goals.
Second, we strongly encourage you to allow, at the discretion of
the State fish and wildlife agency, the expenditure of up to 10% of the
Title IV funds for conservation law enforcement activities. As you
know, state fish and wildlife conservation officers have many
opportunities to work with landowners and the public to implement
voluntary, proactive fish and wildlife protection and public education
and outreach programs. They also prevent poaching, or over-utilization
of fish and wildlife resources, thereby reducing the likelihood that a
species may become threatened or endangered in the future. Further,
they provide for public safety, security, search and rescue functions,
and resolution of outdoor user conflicts. In short, conservation law
enforcement is an integral component of a comprehensive state program
for conservation of all wildlife and should, at the discretion of the
State, be eligible for up to 10% funding under the Wildlife title of
the Americans Outdoors Act.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, the Association stands ready to assist
you in whatever way we can to make programs which would be funded under
Americans Outdoors Act a reality for all of our citizens. Let's work
together to advance this legislation as expeditiously as possible and
provide a future for our citizens that we can all be proud of passing
on.
We would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have.
Thank you for the opportunity to share the Association's
perspectives with you.
The Chairman. Thank you. I am very sorry on your name.
Mr. Baughman. I should spell it differently.
The Chairman. That is right.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Henry Diamond.
STATEMENT OF HENRY L. DIAMOND, CHAIR,
AMERICANS FOR OUR HERITAGE AND RECREATION
Mr. Diamond. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having us. I
represent the Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation, which
is a very broad coalition of folks, ranging from urban people
to wilderness advocates. We, of course, thank the committee for
having us and we thank, of course, Lamar Alexander and Senator
Landrieu.
Our basic thrust is we applaud the introduction of this
bill but urge that Federal funding be added to it to fund our
national parks and forest and wildlife areas.
The Land and Water Fund really has a wonderful, long
history. In 1958, Congress created the Outdoor Recreation
Resources Commission. It made recommendations to the President
and the Congress, and the centerpiece was the Land and Water
Fund. The chairman of the Outdoor Recreation Commission was one
of America's great conservationists, Laurance S. Rockefeller.
We lost Laurance last week. He always cited the creation of the
fund as one of his proudest achievements, and indeed, it is a
monument to his leadership.
By the way, your colleague, Senator Kyl's father was a
member of that commission. So there is a long-term connection.
In response to the recommendations of the commission and to
the growing need, Congress created the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. As has been noted but cannot be stressed too
much, a basic principle of the fund is that when one public
natural resource is sold, at least some of the proceeds should
be used to buy another public resource. Thus, Congress
dedicated a portion of the receipts of OCS to buy more public
land.
The fund has been a success. It has brought about
conservation and protection of more than 5 million acres of
land and water across the country. It has created and
consolidated or improved more than 700 different Federal land
areas. The State side of the program has funded more than
40,000 projects in 98 percent of the counties in America. My
testimony focuses on the Federal side, but AHR strongly
endorses the State side as well.
The Land and Water Fund has provided a lot for the American
people, but its future is uncertain. The need for a permanent,
adequate fund is urgent. Many decisions will be made over the
next 6 years that cannot be put on hold for lack of money.
Already we see the losses and already we pay the consequences
in threatened water quality, loss of wildlife habitat, lack of
neighborhood parks, and indeed quality of life.
The fund must have a guaranteed revenue stream so that
cities, States, and Federal managers can keep up and plan
ahead. A dependable funding source also provides for a timely
process in dealing with private landowners, many of whom are
waiting for this. The inconsistent record in providing the
promised $900 million of the fund during the past decade
dramatically demonstrates why this legislation is now
essential.
We realize that there are very real questions about the
budget impacts and the increased Federal landholding this bill
might entail. We look forward to discussing this issue and
because of the importance, working with you to resolve them.
The Federal part of the Land and Water Fund is a key force
in conserving our precious places and providing recreation
opportunities for the American people. Thus, we urge the
committee to amend S. 2590 to include $450 million for the
Federal side of the fund and report the bill favorably.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Diamond follows:]
Prepared Statement of Henry L. Diamond, Chair,
Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, my name is Henry
Diamond, and I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of
Americans for our Heritage and Recreation (AHR). AHR is an unusually
broad and diverse organization ranging from urban communities to
wilderness advocates.
I appear here today as Chairman of AHR, but my primary occupation
is as a partner in the law firm of Beveridge & Diamond. I have been
involved with the Land and Water Conservation Fund for a long time. As
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, I administered the Fund for New York and saw its great
impact. As editor of the reports of the Outdoor Recreation Resources
Review Commission, I helped formulate the Commission's recommendations
which led to the creation of the Fund.
The Chairman of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission
was Laurance S. Rockefeller, whom we lost last week. He always cited
the creation of the Fund as one of his outstanding achievements, and
indeed it is a monument to his leadership. Now more than ever, we must
re-affirm and rededicate ourselves to the Land and Water Conservation
Fund.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the full Committee for
holding this hearing on S. 2590, and for providing AHR with the
opportunity to testify on the importance of permanent and adequate
conservation and recreation funding. We salute the sponsors of S. 2590,
Senators Alexander and Landrieu, for introducing this legislation and
reaffirming Congress' commitment to the Land and Water Conservation
Fund.
THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND--
RESPONDING TO A NEED FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION
In 1958, Congress created the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
Commission to inventory and identify natural resources, and make policy
recommendations to meet the growing public demand for outdoor
recreation. The report was presented in 1962 and called on a
partnership among all levels of government--the centerpiece being the
Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Three years later in response to the Commission's report, Congress
passed the ``Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965,'' and with
it, the promise to protect our natural and recreational resources for
future generations. For more than 40 years, LWCF has faithfully
fulfilled its mission to conserve, develop, and utilize outdoor
recreation resources for the benefit and enjoyment of the American
people.
Initially, three sources of revenue to the fund were designated:
proceeds from sales of surplus federal real property, motorboat fuel
taxes, and fees for recreation use of federal lands. The level of
funding from FY 1966 through FY 1968 reached about $100 million per
year, which was far short of Congress' expectations. To remedy this
shortfall, Congress amended the Act to include Outer Continental shelf
(OCS) mineral leasing receipts as part of the funding stream. LWCF's
increase in authorized funding to its current level came in June 1977,
when Congress augmented it to $900 million.
In 1985, President Ronald Reagan called on Senator Lamar Alexander,
then governor of Tennessee, to chair a new Commission on Americans
Outdoors. The Commission report issued in 1987 found many threats to
the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors, including loss of space through
urban growth, pollutants, and disappearance of wetlands. Most
importantly, it found that budget cuts to conservation programs were
undermining efforts to provide access to recreation and that ``the
quality of the outdoor estate remains precarious.'' The report went on
to recommend that Congress should dedicate at least $1 billion a year
from offshore oil and gas drilling revenues to provide a steady and
reliable flow of funds to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
The success of the Land and Water Conservation Fund has resulted in
the conservation and protection of more than five million acres of land
and water areas across the country. Since its inception in 1964, LWCF
has created, consolidated, and improved more than 700 different federal
land areas. Notable projects to which LWCF funds have gone include:
Denali National Park & Preserve, AK (country's highest
mountain; more than 300,000 visitors per year)
Grand Canyon National Park, AZ (4 million visitors per year)
Golden Gate National Park, CA (one of the largest urban
national parks in the world; 16 million visitors per year; 33
federally protected or endangered species)
Everglades National Park, FL (1 million visitors per year)
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, NC/TN (9 million
visitors per year)
Appalachian National Scenic Trail, 14 states (LWCF funding
key to multi-state project; much loved by the public; more than
99 percent protected through federal or state land ownership or
by rights-of-way)
Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site, GA
(birthplace and home of Martin Luther King in Atlanta, 600,000
visitors per year)
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, HI (world's most active
volcano; 1 million visitors per year)
Santa Fe National Forest, NM (1,000 miles of trails for
hiking, horseback riding, 4-wheeling, skiing, snowmobiling;
more than 629 miles of streams and lakes)
Women's Rights National Historical Park, NY (home of
suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton)
Kirtlands Warbler National Wildlife Refuge, MI (preserves
the endangered neotropical Kirtlands Warbler, a migratory song
bird)
Coupled with the stateside LWCF program, more than 40,000 projects
have been developed in 98 percent of the counties in America. While my
testimony today will concentrate on the federal side of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, I want to point out that AHR is committed to
full funding of the entire program at its $900 million authorized
level, with an equitable allocation of funds between its federal and
state grant programs. In addition, AHR supports a revived and
substantially funded Urban Park and Recreation Recovery program
(UPARR). We view all three programs as integral tools in providing
Americans places to get outdoors.
AHR also supports the addition of the Historic Preservation Fund
(HPF) to the final bill. The HPF provides matching grants to encourage
private and non-federal investment in historic preservation efforts
nationwide. The HPF is legislatively authorized to receive OCS revenues
and complements the work of state recreation and wildlife grants
through conservation of historic and cultural treasures.
A new conservation program, called Forest Legacy, was developed in
the 1990's to preserve working forestlands and protect critical forest
resources. The program has a proven record of assisting private
landowners, leveraging non-federal funds, and ensuring conservation
benefits like many of the other programs included in S. 2590. AHR
believes this program provides creative and innovative land protections
for the twenty-first century. In fact, the demand for this program has
exceeded $250 million for the past several years. As the Committee
considers additions to S. 2590, we would encourage including Forest
Legacy in the reported bill.
40 YEARS OF BIPARTISAN PRESIDENTIAL SUPPORT FOR LWCF
LWCF continues to be the premier tool available to the American
people to permanently protect our most valuable and vulnerable lands.
The LWCF federal land acquisition program has been integral in
establishing and maintaining our country's priceless network of
national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges that is the envy of the
world.
Every President of the United States since Lyndon B. Johnson has
submitted annual budgets calling for Congress to expend a portion of
the authorized Land and Water Conservation Fund to acquire conservation
lands. Just this year, President Bush submitted in his FY 05 budget
request to Congress that $220 million be spent for federal land
acquisitions. President Bush has said, ``Our legacy should be an
unwavering commitment to preserve and conserve our treasured lands--a
commitment I intend to keep.''
Congress has worked hand in hand with the White House during these
40 years to honor the principle of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund--using the sale of proceeds of one capital asset to buy another--
into an ongoing program for park and open space protection. In fact,
federal funding of LWCF is less than four-tenths of one percent of the
total U.S. Budget.
To date, there is still approximately a $10 billion backlog in land
acquisition projects that have been identified by the federal land
agencies. Most of these projects come about due to the interest of a
willing private landowner and the cooperation of the state's
congressional delegation. In fact, in FY 02 and 03 combined, 84 percent
of LWCF appropriations went to the purchase/acquisition of inholdings
as opposed to expansion or dedication of new areas.
FEDERAL LWCF--FLEXIBLE INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST
CENTURY
The ability to preserve land across a continuum of jurisdictions--
federal, state, and local--is critical to the increasing struggle to
preserve what remains of our nation's dwindling open space. Indeed, the
need is now more urgent than it was in 1965 at the inception of the
Fund. Population has boomed beyond projections; land has been gobbled
up faster than we thought, and we have come to understand better the
vital role protected lands play in the health of our ecosystem and our
own well being.
On March 25, 2004, a representative from the Department of the
Interior testified before Congress that ``certain acquisitions of land
or interests in lands are necessary, not only to achieve Departmental
goals, but also to meet collaborative agreements with private property
owners, States, local governments, and third party groups, improve or
provide legal access to existing land, provide rights-of-way, and
protect historical recreational and natural resources.'' [Statement of
Robert Lamb, Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of Policy,
Management and Budget]
One reason that federal LWCF has worked so well during the past 40
years is because of its flexibility. It is not simply a land-buying
program, it does much more. The federal LWCF Act provides the authority
to acquire land, provide agencies with the authority to make minor
boundary changes, receive donated land, purchase land with donated
funds, purchase easements on private lands, or transfer or exchange
lands from other federal agencies.
For example, the Administration's FY 05 budget request includes a
$2,000,000 request for Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Upper Snake /
South Fork Snake River project in Idaho. Since 1991, Congress has
appropriated $13 million to purchase more than 1,100 acres of fee and
conservation easements on more than 3,000 acres. Other investments in
this project area have been made by the Bonneville Power
Administration, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and private conservation
organizations.
Similarly, federal LWCF can be used for purchase of small, but
strategic, parcels of land that mitigate future maintenance costs and
provide safer public access to parks.
For example, at Mt. Rainier National Park, 800 acres, a mixture of
public and private land would allow a new road to be built on higher
ground, reducing the maintenance cost of rebuilding the current road
that is annually washed out by heavy rains. Even this small land
purchase will receive a specific congressional authorization before
LWCF funds will be appropriated.
And, the Columbia River Gorge in Oregon and Washington has been
funded by LWCF for 15 years to help the U.S. Forest Service implement
the congressionally-authorized national scenic area, which follows the
Lewis and Clark expeditionary route along the Columbia River.
In 2002, Congress passed the Flight 93 Memorial Act to create a new
unit of the National Park System to commemorate the bravery of the
passengers and crew of Flight 93 on September 11, 2001 who gave their
lives in defense of the Nation's Capital. Local partners are working
with the National Park Service to protect more than 1,000 acres of the
crash site and associated viewshed, through a partnership involving the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the local county, landowners, and non-
profit organizations. To begin the federal land acquisition, the
President's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request to Congress included $2.2
million from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. If the
federal LWCF funds are approved by Congress, they will leverage
significant non-federal contributions, including an in-kind donation of
land.
New or renovated parks and trails in communities around the country
are proven catalysts for local economic development. LWCF investments
in parks, forests, and wildlife areas generate tourism dollars and
increase real estate values in adjacent gateway communities.
Finally, we would encourage the federal land managers to think
creatively and use the federal LWCF for consolidation and land
transfers among federal, state, and local agencies. Federal land
agencies need to be given adequate resources to make this a priority
during the life of S. 2590. These multi-agencies, multi-state transfers
are tedious and difficult, but in the long-run, federal LWCF dollars
used wisely could create new recreation opportunities for the public
that are more cost effective.
CONCLUSION
The Americans Outdoors Act, S. 2590, will provide a conservation
legacy for the next generation and provide the reliable stream of
funding that has beleaguered the Land and Water Conservation Fund
during the past 40 years. By integrating wildlife, coastal, state and
urban parks, and federal land programs under a dedicated fund guided by
Congress, future generations will inherit American landscapes
resplendent with parks, trails, hunting and fishing areas, wetlands,
and a more pristine environment.
In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has
indicated that regular physical activity is a crucial part of good
health. Economists now predict that significant health care savings to
state and federal governments could be achieved through increased
physical activity and exercise. By providing access to places for
physical activity, such as our parks, forests, and trails, LWCF has
become an important tool in providing Americans access to outdoor
recreation.
Given the conservation, recreation, and public health benefits
inherent in the federal LWCF program, we urge the committee to amend S.
2590, the Americans Outdoors Act, to include $450 million for the
federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Fund has proven to:
conserve, develop, and utilize outdoor recreation resources
for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people;
provide federal land managers with key tools to integrate
lands for more efficient management and better public access;
assist private property owners with options to be reasonably
compensated for decades of stewardship of their lands and their
personal rights to dispense with their land as they wish;
protect and preserve our nation's heritage for future
generations and to encourage livable communities for a
healthier population;
The need for a permanent, adequate LWCF is urgent. America's bounty
is shrinking fast. Since 1960, the number of Americans has increased
from 179 million to 255 million. Farmland and open space is being
consumed at twice the rate that our population is growing, losing 2.3
million acres of open space a year to single family housing. Recent
polling shows that voters are so concerned about protecting clean air
and water and conserving the lands that help preserve water quality
that they would support additional taxes to pay for protecting parks
and wildlife areas.
Public investment to preserve the rapidly dwindling resource must
have a guaranteed revenue stream so that our city, state, and federal
managers can keep up and plan ahead for our children's future. Also, it
provides for a timely process of acquisitions and easements to meet the
requests of private land owners. The inconsistent record in providing
the promised $900 million of LWCF during the past decade dramatically
demonstrates why this legislation is essential.
Many of the decisions that will be made in the next six years
cannot be put on hold; already we see the losses; already we pay the
consequences in threatened water quality, loss of wildlife habitat,
lack of neighborhood parks, and quality of life.
We look forward to achieving these goals by passage of the
Americans Outdoors Act, S. 2590, that includes full funding of both the
federal and stateside of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Diamond. Senator Domenici
has stepped out for a moment. He will be back.
Ms. Marzulla.
STATEMENT OF NANCIE G. MARZULLA, PRESIDENT, DEFENDERS OF
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Ms. Marzulla. Thank you and thank you for the opportunity
to testify here today. I am testifying on behalf of Defenders
of Property Rights, as well as the Keep Private Lands in
Private Hands Coalition, a coalition comprised of over 600
State and local organizations dedicated to the principle of
private property ownership.
Let me say at the outset that we fully support the many
important objectives and goals that we have heard discussed
this morning, outdoor recreation, conservation, wildlife
protection, and the like. However, I am here to testify in
opposition to S. 2590 to the extent that it provides funding
for State acquisition of private property. Likewise, to the
extent that the bill may be amended to provide funding for
Federal land acquisition, we also oppose any such amendment.
I have only one point to make and that is that we do not
need more government land ownership in this country. Whenever
government acquires more land, it acquires more power. Now,
this power is not an abstract concept. The architect of
communism, Karl Marx, wrote about the relationship between land
ownership and power in his Communist Manifesto, stating that
you reproach us with planning to do away with your property.
Precisely. That is just what we propose. The theory of the
communists may be summed up in a single sentence: abolition of
private property.
Today most of the world has abandoned communism as a failed
idea by reaching out toward protecting private property rights.
Countries such as Russia, China, and Cuba are moving toward
capitalism and embracing property rights protection. Yet,
ironically this bill and the proposed amendment moves this
country back in the direction of communism to the extent that
it authorizes abolition of private property.
I would further add that my rough calculation referencing
the map that we looked at today showing government ownership of
land in this country, government in the form of the Federal
Government, State government, and local government already owns
almost 40 percent of the land in this country. Now, that is fee
simple ownership. I do not have any figures on how much land
government also owns in lesser than fee simple ownership, if
you look at leases and easements and the like.
The important thing to note about government ownership of
land is that the Government not only exercises power over the
land it owns title to, but it also exercises power over
adjacent land. The Federal Government relies on Article IV of
the Constitution, or the Property Clause, for its authority to
regulate adjacent property. States and local government rely on
their police power and other provisions in their State
constitutions. Thus, whenever the government is your neighbor,
it can reach beyond its borders and control your property in a
way that no private neighbor could.
Kathy Stupack-Thrall and her fellow riparian landowners
found this out in Michigan. There, they had private rights in a
lake and the Forest Service purchased land adjacent to the lake
as well, and Forest Service came in and extinguished State-
established, State-created riparian rights in the lake to the
point where these landowners were told they could engage in no
use of motorized equipment on the waters of the lake, including
such things as radios. So marina owners were put out of
business and outdoor recreational activities were seriously
curtailed.
Last but not least, the Federal Government, using its
commerce power and the State again using its police power,
today regulates every conceivable aspect of private property
ownership through environmental laws and State and local land
use laws. In King County, Washington, for example, one proposal
would allow landowners to build on only 10 percent of their
land. Landowners would be required to set aside 65 percent of
their land and maintain it in its pristine, natural vegetative
condition, unable to make any changes to their land whatsoever,
thus leaving the property owner with only a small fraction of
his ``privately owned land'' with which to put to beneficial
and productive use.
Thus, we flatly oppose the creation of a massive slush fund
for acquisition of additional government-owned land. We
obviously recognize that there are instances where the public
good will necessitate the acquisition of specific parcels of
private property, but we think those instances should be
targeted and the power narrowly tailored and exercised.
In closing, I would like to say that I heard the concept
discussed today by Senator Burns and others, the notion of no
net loss of private property. We heartily endorse that notion
and think that would be a very good way of striking a balance
and preserving the balance, in fact, that our Founding Fathers
adopted in our Constitution.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Marzulla follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nancie G. Marzulla, President,
Defenders of Property Rights
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today regarding this Committee's examination of
S. 2590, the Americans Outdoors Act.
My name is Nancie Marzulla. I am President of Defenders of Property
Rights, the nation's only nonprofit legal foundation dedicated
exclusively to the protection of individual rights in the ownership and
use of private property. Founded in 1991, Defenders works in the
courts, the legislature, and in the marketplace of public opinion to
preserve private property rights, a cornerstone of individual liberty.
Defenders of Property Rights is a member of the Keep Private Lands in
Private Hands Coalition,\1\ chaired by Chuck Cushman, Executive
Director of the American Lands Right Association. Defenders submits
this testimony on its own and the Coalition's behalf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This Coalition is comprised of over 600 state and local
property rights and agricultural, and resource--user organizations, and
organizations representing federal land inholders. Together these
organizations represent millions of people, in all 50 states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we understand it, S. 2590 guarantees that each year $1.425
billion (collected from offshore oil and gas royalties) that would
otherwise go directly into the Federal Treasury will instead go to fund
three existing federal programs as well as the State Land and Water
Conservation Funds (LWCF). This money would provide ``a reliable stream
of funding by collecting a conservation royalty on revenues from
drilling for oil and gas on offshore federal land.'' \2\ A large
portion of these funds will be used by the states to acquire private
land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Lamar Alexander, Floor Remarks Before the Senate, June 24,
2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We further understand that this bill may be amended and sent to the
Senate floor with $450 million in funding for federal land acquisition.
As one sponsor of the bill stated ``there is at least one piece of
unfinished business. At some point in the process, Senator Landrieu and
I will offer an amendment to our own legislation that will fully fund
(at $450 million a year) the `federal side' of the Land and Water
conservation Fund.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent that S. 2590 provides federal dollars for more
government land acquisition, we oppose it. In our view, there is no
legitimate justification for any government--state or federal--to
acquire any more private property in this country. For that reason, we
oppose S. 2590 to the extent that it makes any funds available to the
states for land acquisition, and further oppose any amendment that
would allocate supplementary federal funds for additional federal land
acquisition.
By providing billions of dollars for more government land
acquisition, and by depleting the base of American private property
ownership, this bill moves our country toward socialism and
collectivism at the very time in history when all the fallen, and some
still falling, communist regimes in the world are moving in the
opposite direction. Discovering what the Founding Fathers knew more
than 200 years ago, most of the world now rejects government ownership
of private land as a failed experiment.
In the former Soviet Union, for example, 50 million Russians have
acquired vast amounts of private land holding rights--the equivalent of
the size of continental Europe.\4\ The world's most populous nation,
China, has also recently been moving toward primitive markets and
private property ownership; in fact, last March, China passed its
first-ever constitutional amendment protecting private property rights.
Article XIII of the Chinese Constitution states that ``[l]egal private
property is not to be encroached upon.'' \5\ Even in Cuba, where Fidel
Castro confiscated almost all private property in 1959, agricultural
land reforms have dramatically increased the number of private holders
of property since 1989.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Alexei Overchuk, Deputy Head of Federal Land Cadastre Agency,
Press Conference, March 20, 2003.
\5\ Chinese Const., art. XIII.
\6\ Eduardo Moises Penalver, Redistributing Property: Natural Law,
International Norms, and the Property Reforms of the Cuban Revolution,
52 U. Fla. L. Rev. 107, 130 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. WE OPPOSE S. 2590 BECAUSE THIS COUNTRY NEEDS MORE, NOT LESS, PRIVATE
PROPERTY
That S. 2590, as drafted, provides money to states (and not the
federal government) to purchase more land is irrelevant to our
overarching alarm at the loss of private land ownership. Private
property itself, not simply just compensation for its appropriation, is
critical in any civil society. This principle applies to state
governments no less than the federal government. Indeed, one argument
in favor of enhancing the federal government's power was that many
founders believed the states to be the greater threat to individual
liberty. As James Madison warned in the Federalist No. 10: ``The
smaller the society, the smaller the number of individuals composing a
majority, and . . . the more easily they will concert and execute their
plans of oppression.'' \7\ Private property ownership restrains the
growth and power of states just as it restrains the federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ James Madison, The Federalist No. 10 (1787).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although S. 2590 contemplates that states will purchase, rather
than confiscate privately owned land, this does not cure the
fundamental problem resulting from more government, and less private,
ownership of land. Indeed, local governments are notorious for their
abuses of the eminent domain process. One study alone reports
documenting over 10,000 eminent domain abuses.\8\ According to the
Hoover Digest, protections against eminent domain abuses in some
communities are non-existent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Clint Bolick, The Monster in Our Backyard, in Hoover Digest No.
3, 191-198, at 197 (2004).
``All a condemning authority has to do is publish a small
advertisement in the legal notices section of the local
newspaper. It does not have to state the consequences of the
owner's failure to act. Yet if the owners happen not to see the
notice or fail to act promptly, they will lose their right to
challenge the taking on public-use grounds 30 days following
the publication.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. at 193.
Nor does S. 2590's contemplation that privately owned land will be
purchased only from ``willing sellers'' adequately protect private
landowners, for the state always holds in reserve the paramount power
of eminent domain that allows it to take any home, farm, business or
factory it pleases. The individual property owner is virtually
powerless in negotiating with government. Unfortunately, ``[l]ocal
governments are abusing their power with increasing frequency, yet the
typical citizen lacks the resources, knowledge, and skills to take on
the local leviathan that our local governments have become.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. at 192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stepped in to unmask local
government's extortionate schemes, which falsely claim to be
``voluntary'' arrangements to acquire private land:
[T]he right to build on one's own property--even though its
exercise can be subjected to legitimate permitting
requirements--cannot remotely be described as a ``governmental
benefit.'' And thus the announcement that the application for
(or granting of) the permit will entail the yielding of a
property interest cannot be regarded as establishing the
voluntary ``exchange . . . .'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 833 n.2
(1987).
In another example of state and local abuse, the city of Tigard,
Oregon decided that it would be in the public interest to have a
municipally owned pedestrian/bicycle pathway linking streamside
greenways. The city's planners drafted designs that were formally
adopted into a comprehensive development scheme. The city then enacted
an ordinance that on its face extorted from landowners the land
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
necessary for accomplishing the public objective:
The City shall review each development request adjacent to
areas proposed for pedestrian/bike pathways to . . . require
the necessary easement or dedications for the pedestrian/
bicycle pathways.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ City of Tigard, Comprehensive Plan, Section 8.4.
The city stated that the privately owned land to be acquired was
the ``backbone of the open space system . . . .'' \13\ When
Florence Dolan applied for a building permit to expand the plumbing
availability on her land, Tigard tried to condition Ms. Dolan's
building permit on her willingness to ``voluntarily'' give the city (in
fee simple) ten percent of her private land to complete the public
pathway. The city was strongly rebuked in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512
U.S. 374 (1994). But if S. 2590 money been available to the city of
Tigard, it could have attempted to accomplish the same extortionate
result by simply conditioning Ms. Dolan's permit on her ``voluntarily''
agreeing to sell her land to the city.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Private Property Ownership Promotes Stable, Local Communities
Private ownership of land promotes the beneficial and productive
use of land, and serves as economic basis supporting local governments
and communities. Local governments touch the lives of every American
every day. They operate schools, playgrounds, libraries, and provide or
control the essential services such as water, electricity, policing,
and firefighting.
In contrast, the loss of private property ownership destroys the
economic bases of both families and communities. For example, in the
Pacific Northwest, the federal designation of 6.9 million acres of
privately owned land as federal habitat for the northern spotted owl
led to what were commonly known as ``green ghettos.'' The University of
Oregon reported that local taxes were increased by tenfold in five
Oregon counties to replace the income generated from timber sales.\14\
The resulting loss of jobs led to marked increases in affected
communities in unemployment, alcoholism, suicide, battered spouses, and
troubled children.\15\ As Chuck Cushman noted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ J. Heissenbuttel & W. Murray, A Troubled Law in Need of
Revision, 90 J. Forestry 13 (1992).
\15\ Id.
Over time, 10-15 years, they strangle--systematically cut off--
the community. There is a hardly group of folks willing to deal
with the hardships, the drive for 50-100 miles to the grocery
store, the fact that there aren't services that companies
supply. Over a very short period of time the town turns into a
ghost town.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Interview with Chuck Cushman, Magic City Morning Star, Sept.
20, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Private Property Ownership Promotes Sounds Conservation and Multiple
Land Use
Public ownership of land does not reap the economic or
environmental benefits that interest groups and government agencies
expect to accrue once land is taken out of private hands. To the
contrary, governments make poor ecological stewards. Degradation in
national parks runs rampant, ecological imbalances often cause
unexpected declines or disappearances of entire populations of plants
and animals, and tourism pressures frequently offer perverse incentives
to government managers of public land.\17\ In short, government is a
poor substitute for mother nature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Terry L. Anderson, How and Why to Privatize Federal Lands,
Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 363, Nov. 9, 1999, p. 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal government seems particularly ineffective at managing
land. But states perform just as badly as the federal government in
attempting to do the same task. According to analyst Randal O'Toole:
State governments are no better managers than are federal
bureaucrats. They are just as economically inefficient,
ecologically short-sighted, and politically driven as their
federal counterparts . . . In fact, state governments have been
rapidly expanding . . . their land estates . . . \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Randall O'Toole, Should Congress Transfer Federal Lands to the
States?, Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 276, July 3, 1997, p. 1.
State management of public lands poses many of the same problems
surrounding federal control of land. Moreover, any governmental
management of land whatsoever tends to cause unexpected consequences.
Apart from simple land mismanagement, even activities that are pursued
in good faith by state officials can have profound effects on
ecological systems. Forest management can disturb delicate habitats,
increases in population of any given species can devastate others, and
inefficient resource allocation can increase the likelihood of
disasters like forest fires.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Anderson, supra note 16, at p. 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private property, however, despite common misconceptions, has a
good record of balancing ecological and economic interests. Property
rights provide the foundation for markets, and establishing property
rights over environmental resources enables individuals and
organizations to pursue environmental goals in the marketplace.
Individuals who care most about ecological matters are surely the most
efficient protectors of those resources. Private groups should take the
place of politically unstable government agencies.\20\ These groups are
capable of surviving without the benefit of government aid, are better
able to protect wilderness land, and are more successful in
implementing conservationist policies than would be state or federal
governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Terry Anderson & Donald Leal, Enviro-Capitalists: Doing Good
While Doing Well (Lanham, Md.; Rowman & Littlefield, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of one's opinion of private landowners' ability to
balance economic and environmental goals, there must be agreement that
the federal and state land management programs are certainly not
achieving the goals they set for themselves. Private ownership, in
addition to preserving the civil rights of American citizens, also
offers the chance to better effectuate environmental goals than does
government land management.
C. Private Property Rights Are the Engine of Economic Prosperity and
the Foundation of the Free Market
Economic studies over the last 20 years show that private property
rights are the cornerstone of a prosperous society.
One study, completed in 1984 by Freedom House, correlated rankings
on a scale of political and civil freedom, including private property
rights, with economic welfare. The study found that a one unit
improvement on the seven-point liberty scale correlated with a 34%
decrease in infant mortality and a 49% increase in GNP per capita.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Milton Friedman, A Statistical Note on the Gastil-Wright
Survey of Freedom, in Freedom, Democracy and Economic Welfare (M.A.
Walker, ed.) 1988. Fraser Institute, Vancouver, B.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another study, reported in the Journal of Political Economy, built
upon the Freedom House measurements, and contributed valuable empirical
analysis to the earlier data. The study concluded that societies
committed to the protection of private property ``grow at three times
(2.73 to 0.91% annually) the rate and are two and one-half times as
efficient as societies in which these freedoms are circumscribed or
proscribed.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ G.W. Scully, The Institutional Framework and Economic
Development, 96 J. Pol. Econ. 652, 661 (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly, studies have also determined that property rights
encourage equitable income distribution. The author of the Journal of
Political Economy study noted in 1992 that societies protecting
property rights ``have much larger shares of income going to the middle
60 percent of the [population] distribution than is observed in
societies where men are not free to choose . . .'' Moreover, he added,
``[t]he income share of the highest income group is much larger in
nations that repress individual rights than in those where rights are
protected.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ G.W. Scully, Constitutional Environments and Economic Growth
196-97. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indisputably, the citizens of less restrictive regimes enjoy a
higher standard of economic efficiency, growth, and equity.
D. Without Private Property Ownership, Civil Rights and Liberty become
a privilege, Not a Right, of Americans
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that property
rights and civil liberty are interdependent:
[A] fundamental interdependence exists between the personal
right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither
could have meaning without the other. That rights in property
are basic civil rights has long been recognized.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Lynch v. Household Finance Corporation, 405 U.S. 538, 552
(1972).
For that reason, the protection of rights in property lies at the
heart of our constitutional system of government. The Founding Fathers,
in drafting the Constitution, drew upon classical notions of legal
rights and individual liberty dating back to the Justinian Code, Magna
Carta, and the Two Treatises of John Locke, all of which recognize the
importance of property ownership in a governmental system in which
individual liberty is paramount. Concurrently, the constitutional
framers drew upon their own experience as colonists of an oppressive
monarch, whose unlimited powers vested him with the ability to deprive
his subjects of their God-given rights of ``life, liberty, and
property.''
The United States Constitution imposes a duty on government to
protect private property rights. Thus, within the Bill of Rights,
numerous provisions directly or indirectly protect private property
rights. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that people are to be ``secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects . . . .'' \25\ The Fifth
Amendment states that no person shall ``be deprived of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation . . . .'' \26\ The
Fourteenth Amendment echoes the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment, stating that no ``State shall deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law . . . .'' \27\
Additionally, the Contracts Clause of the Constitution indirectly
protects property by forbidding states from passing any ``law impairing
the Obligation of Contracts.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ U.S. Const. amend. IV.
\26\ U.S. Const. amend. V.
\27\ U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
\28\ U.S. Const. art I, sec. 10, cl. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The protection of private property receives such strong emphasis in
the United States Constitution because the right to own and use
property was historically understood to be critical to the maintenance
of a free society. To understand this concept, one must understand that
property is more than just land. Property is buildings, machines,
retirement funds, savings accounts, and even ideas. In short, property
is the fruit of one's labor and the ability to use, enjoy, and
exclusively possess the fruits of one's labor is the basis for a
society in which individuals are free from oppression. Thus, there can
be no true freedom for anyone if people are dependent upon the State
for food, shelter, and other basic needs. Under such a system, nothing
is safe from being taken by a majority or a tyrant because the
citizens, as government dependents, are powerless to oppose any
infringement of their rights.
John Adams once stated, ``[p]roperty must be secured or liberty
cannot exist.'' \29\ Others have stated that ``the right of property is
the guardian of every other right, and to deprive a people of this, is
in fact to deprive them of their liberty.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Discourses on Davila, in 6 The Works of John Adams 280
(Charles Francis Adams ed., Little Brown 1865).
\30\ Arthur Lee, An Appeal to the Justice and Interests of the
People of Great Britain, in the Present Dispute with America 14 (1775).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Reagan, in announcing his intention to sign a
Presidential Executive Order to protect private property rights, told
Congress:
It was an axiom of our Founding Fathers and free Englishmen
before them that the right to own and control property was the
foundation of all other individual liberties. To protect these
rights, the Administration has urged the courts to restore the
constitutional right of a citizen to receive just compensation
when government at any level takes private property through
regulation or other means. Last spring, the Supreme Court
adopted this view in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission.
In a second case, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment
requires government to compensate citizens for temporary losses
that occur while they are challenging such a government
regulatory ``taking'' in court. In the wake of these decisions,
this Administration is now implementing new procedures to
ensure that federal regulations do not violate the Fifth
Amendment prohibition on taking private property; or if they do
take a citizen's property for public use, to ensure that he
receives constitutionally required just compensation.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ President's Legislative and Administrative Message to
Congress, 24 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 91 (Jan. 25, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. DESPITE ITS IMPORTANCE TO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND THE FREE MARKET
ECONOMY, PRIVATE PROPERTY IS DISAPPEARING IN THIS COUNTRY.
Approximately 630 million acres, or nearly one-third of the United
States, is already owned by the federal government.\32\ Much of that
land is out West, with States such as Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah
virtually belonging to the federal government. Nevada holds the record;
it is almost entirely owned (79%) by the federal government.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Requesters,
Land ownership--information on the Acreage, Management, and Use of
Federal and Other Lands. March 13, 1996. Available at: http://
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/
useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename= rc96040.txt&direct ory=/
diskb/wais/data/gao (last visited, July 19, 2004).
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The risk for the outright elimination of private property rights
was described by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1922:
The protection of private property in the Fifth Amendment
presupposes that it is wanted for public use, but provides that
it shall not be taken for such use without compensation . . . .
When this seemingly absolute protection is found to be
qualified by the police power, the natural tendency of human
nature is to extend that qualification more and more until at
last private property disappears.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415 (1922).
This dire scenario is rapidly becoming reality in modern America.
In recent decades, during the birth and growth of the administrative
regulatory state, federal government agencies have begun implementing
policies that deprive owners of the use and benefit of their property.
Many of these confiscatory measures are based neither upon
constitutionally granted powers, nor statutes adopted by Congress.
Rather, the mere ownership of land itself confers power on federal
agencies to regulate not only what they own, but what private citizens
own for miles around.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals summarized the state of the law
in upholding a Forest Service regulation which put several marina
owners out of business after the federal government acquired most of
the shoreline of Crooked Lake, Michigan:
Contrary to plaintiffs' apparent assertions, Congress's
inherent authority under [the Property Clause] is not limited
to regulation of purely federal property. In fact, since 1897,
the Supreme Court has recognized that ``needful'' regulations
``respecting'' government property will sometimes include the
exercise of power over purely private property, in order to
ensure adequate protection of the federal interest.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Stupack-Thrall v. Glickman, 70 F.3d 881, 885 (6th Cir. 1995).
As of September 1994, the federal government had rights-of-use
through leases, agreements, permits, and easements to over 3 million
acres of nonfederal land, usually to support the management of adjacent
federal lands. In 1995, the federal government held about 52.3 million
acres in 33 states in trust for Native Americans.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ GAO Report, supra note 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private property, however, is not only burdened by federal
regulations. Indeed, the notion that states need to take more private
land from their citizens to carry out their conservation and recreation
objectives is belied by the myriad regulatory programs at their
disposal, all of which affect and control private land use. Every
state, for example, has adopted various environmental protection and
conservation schemes that mirror, and often exceed, federal
requirements. State and local governments also have land use
regulations for historic preservation, battlefield protection, scenic
designations, setbacks along waterways and streams, farmland
protection, establishment of ``greenways,'' buffer zones, wetlands,
resource protection areas, parks, preserves, and restrictions on
natural resource development. Such regulations reach from the depths of
bodies of water to the heights of the stratosphere--but apparently not
far enough. Seemingly, states want it all, leaving nothing for private
ownership.
In addition to the extraordinary amount of land owned by the
federal government, the state and local governments also own and
control surprisingly large amounts of property. One study noted that
state governments own 196,924,100 acres of land, comprising 8.7% of all
land holdings. As of September 1994, the 13 western states owned about
141.9 million acres. Sadly, federal, state, and local governments own
fully 39.8% of all the land in this country.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ GAO Report, supra note 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Clifton.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL M. CLIFTON, FEDERAL AFFAIRS MANAGER,
AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM
Mr. Clifton. Chairman Domenici, members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Daniel
Clifton. I am the Federal affairs manager and chief economist
at the Americans for Tax Reform. We are a nonprofit,
nonpartisan coalition that works for lower taxes, fewer
regulations, and free markets.
Americans for Tax Reform strongly opposes S. 2590. As we
heard in the prior testimony, this is an assault on private
property rights. We would also argue that this is an assault on
the taxpayer, and I will give you five major reasons.
The first, as Chairman Nickles accentuated, we are moving
from a discretionary program to an entitlement spending. In his
example, he used from 1990 to 2004, but if we go back,
mandatory was one-quarter of the budget. Now it is over 50
percent, and in the future it will be as high as 75 percent. We
have a real growing need with the mandatory programs to be
reforming these programs, not adding onto these programs.
A second issue is moving funds that would come out of the
Treasury into a dedicated fund. I know that the sponsors of the
bill have worked hard to avoid this, but money is still
fungible and the shift to a dedicated fund would ultimately
require higher taxes or more bonding to pay for it.
A third is that this would continue the spending spree that
Congress has started, which has exacerbated the budget deficit
to $400 billion. I know a lot of people like to make the point
that this is because of the tax cuts, but the fact is that
Federal spending is increasing on average almost $100 billion a
year. No matter how much tax revenue you are going to have, you
are going to have a deficit. Tax revenues do not grow by that
much. The fact here is this continues that culture of spending
in the future.
At the same time, many people often tell me that this is so
small relative to the budget, the amount of money spending. I
would say hardly. We hear this on every program and when these
programs are compounded on top of each other, that is what is
leading to these spending increases.
In addition, as we heard today, there is a push now to add
the Federal component onto this legislation. Once we get that
in, they will come back for even more spending and more. We
have a very big concern with this, watching this process go on
since 1999.
Another major sticking point is that this would lose
flexibility. I know that that was discussed. If there is an
emergency, revenues would not be able to be offset and moved
into the general fund quickly. The accountability gets lost
because this money is now in the bureaucratic shuffle.
On top of that, the Federal, State, and local governments
own too much land as it is. And these proposals would hurt
rural communities and the local property tax base. I know some
people say that this is needed to lower local property taxes,
but the fact is by taking more land and stifling economic
development, it has a harsh impact on local communities and
their tax bases which are paying for cops and general services.
Again, I would like to say that the Federal Government
revenue situation is improving. Revenues are up. Economic
growth is at its fastest rate in 20 years. Now Congress needs
to hold the line on spending. This would violate that,
exacerbate the budget deficit, and I would urge members to
oppose this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clifton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel M. Clifton, Federal Affairs Manager,
Americans for Tax Reform
Chairman Domenici and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today concerning S. 2590, the Americans Outdoors
Act.
My name is Daniel Clifton and I currently serve as Federal Affairs
Manager and Chief Economist for the Americans for Tax Reform. ATR is a
non-partisan, not-profit coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups
throughout the country dedicated to lower taxes, fewer regulations, and
free markets.
Americans for Tax Reform strongly opposes enactment of S. 2590. As
we heard in the prior testimony, S. 2590 is an assault on private
property rights. But in addition to the property rights violations, ATR
opposes this legislation from a fiscal perspective for four major
reasons.
As a starting point, this legislation will exacerbate the current
bipartisan spending spree that has resulted in a budget deficit of more
than $400 billion. Second, this legislation removes funding from the
general fund and transfers revenue to a dedicated fund. The resulting
shortfall in the general fund will have to be made up with higher taxes
or more bonding. Third, the matching component for state and local
governments will require higher taxes in each state. Fourth, the
government's continual effort to purchase land is removing more
properties from the local tax rolls and thus driving up property and
other local taxes.
As members of this Committee may recall, similar legislation moved
forward in 1999. At that time, the federal budget was moving from a
deficit to a small surplus. The idea of moving revenues from the
general fund to a dedicated fund was a bad idea while the nation was in
surplus; it's an even worst idea now that the country is facing
deficits.
The change in the nation's fiscal outlook during the 1990's was the
result of three factors. First, strong economic growth resulted in
higher tax revenues. Second, the rapid acceleration of Americans
invested in the stock market resulted in a four fold increase of
temporary capital gains tax revenue. And most importantly, spending
restraint was the absolute essential key element.
From 1992-2000, inflation adjusted federal spending increased at an
average annual rate of $12.4 billion per year. Federal spending (as a
percentage of income) declined for eight straight years, which reduced
government spending from one out of every four dollars of national
income to one out of every five dollars. By 2000, average Americans
worked 14.3 days less of the year to pay off their federal spending
burden than in 1992. This enabled the country to move from deficit to
surplus.
Yet, as the budget scenario continually improved, a new culture of
spending took hold. No longer could members tell the Washington
spending interests ``no'' to new spending requests. Over time the new
ideas for spending programs continued to increase and when the economy
started to slow, the promises of new spending continued despite the
change in the budget outlook.
In fact, spending has accelerated in the wake of slower economic
growth. The average annual spending increase from 2000-2004 has been
$95.4 billion, more than 7 times the average annual rate in the
preceding eight year period and more than twice the growth of household
income.
I would note some of this spending is related to the two wars,
homeland security, and fighting the War on Terrorism. Moreover,
mandatory programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are increasing at
double digit rates. But even with that, non defense, non homeland
security spending continues to substantially increase.
And it is exactly because of programs being proposed in S. 2590. In
speaking with members in both the Senate and the House, I often hear
``but this is program is so small'' compared to total spending or the
budget deficit. Yet, this argument misses the main point. Every member
has their own projects and when they are combined together the
compounded effect is quite large.
Moreover, these programs continue to grow over time. As I
mentioned, many programs continued to come into existence starting in
1999. The original cost and scope of these programs have grown over
time. S. 2590 will be very similar. The legislation we are speaking
about only has a local component and will be in existence for six
years. The total cost is roughly $1.425 billion a year. Yet, the true
intent of the proponents of this legislation is just to get the
legislation in place then extend it to a new federal component. All
this adds new costs which over time compounds and combined with
hundreds of other programs also having the same effect at the same time
results in a deep pressure on taxpayers to pay higher taxes.
Another major sticking point with the proposed legislation is the
bypassing of the appropriations process. This is terrible fiscal policy
for several reasons. First, in case of an emergency, revenues cannot
easily be moved back into the general fund. Second, accountability of
spending gets lost in the bureaucratic shuffle and fuels waste and
mismanagement. Third, a dedicated fund will tie the hands of Congress
in the future when spending priorities may shift drastically. Budgeting
should be done so that all proposals must compete for limited funds.
The federal and state and local governments already own too much
land as it is. Roughly 40 percent of all land in America is owned by
the government. This is too much. According to the federal land
agencies themselves, they have a backlog of billions of dollars in
operations and maintenance on these federally held lands. But instead
of addressing this problem, this bill would spend record amounts of
money on buying more land instead of taking care of the land that the
government already owns.
The new purchases of land will stifle economic growth in rural
communities and further reduce local property tax bases. This is
important because in almost all jurisdictions, local property taxes are
the primary funding source for important services such as schools,
police protection and fire departments. Also, once all of this land is
bought, taxpayers will have to take care of it. This will add to
overall federal spending and increase the existing backlog in
maintenance and operations of land the federal government already
controls.
I would also add that many members of this Committee are on record
complaining about the federal budget deficit and yet voting for this
legislation will only further exacerbate the situation. This
legislation is moving revenues out of the general fund and into a
dedicated fund. The lost revenues to the general fund will need to be
made up with higher taxes and/or more bonding.
The federal revenue situation is improving. Despite this Congress
passing the third largest tax cut in American history federal revenues
are actually increasing. Revenues in the first nine months of the year
have increased 3.5 percent compared to same nine month period a year
ago. Tax collections have increased by more than 10 percent in three of
the past four months and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) revenue
targets for the fiscal year have already been met, despite the fact
that three months remain in the fiscal year. As a result, ATR is
forecasting a reduction of deficit of roughly $60 billion when the CBO
summer update is released next month.
Yet, as the evidence shows from the previous decade, stronger
economic growth only gets you so far in reducing the deficit. For every
new dollar the federal government is taking in two dollars of federal
spending is being spent. It does not take a Nobel Laureate economist to
figure out this formula will never bring the budget back into balance.
Fiscal responsibility starts right here with S. 2590. This program
is an assault on every American taxpayer from a number of different
angles. I urge the committee to reject this ill advised policy and
start the process toward true fiscal accountability.
Thank you for your time and I will be happy to answer any questions
from members of the committee.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Cantwell, we are going to let you ask first since
you have not had an opportunity. Are you ready?
Senator Cantwell. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that. I
appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues on this
important hearing. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing. I think this is a very important issue to
people in the West and I would say to people throughout
America.
Certainly my colleague has a unique circumstance in
Louisiana that makes this issue imperative to her, but I can
guarantee her that there are other issues throughout the West,
where rapid-growing communities are faced with the challenge of
preserving and protecting recreational areas in urban areas. I
think that our challenge has been that we have been basically
outpaced by the demand. Consequently, this fluctuation in
funding through the committee process, where funds are actually
supposed to be dedicated to these resources and then not
actually authorized and appropriated, has been very
frustrating, I think, to lots of local governments throughout
America.
My question. Mr. Diamond, you seem to have quite a bit of
history here with this issue. One of my predecessors from the
State of Washington, Henry Jackson, Senator Jackson, was a very
big supporter of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Mr. Diamond. A member of the original commission.
Senator Cantwell. And a member of the original commission.
At that time, President Kennedy and Senator Jackson and many
others saw the basic growth patterns of the United States, and
saw that the West was becoming, with the interstate highway
system and suburban development, a very rapidly growing part of
the country. And that is where the Land and Water Conservation
Fund came from.
So now here we are today, and I applaud my colleagues for
coming up with this proposal. Without a process in place, it
seems to me that what happens is that State and local
governments are now without the resources that had previously
been provided by the Land and Water Conservation Fund
throughout the 1960's and the 1970's. And now demand is
completely outpacing available resources.
So if you could comment on this instability of the fund
that we are currently seeing, and on the fact that, as it seems
to me, we actually are stealing these resources from Land and
Water acquisition and using them for other purposes in the
budget. Am I correct on that?
Mr. Diamond. We would say that Congress' wisdom is
reallocating. But yes, it has been taken away.
You raise a very important point. There was a very precise
process put into place by the Land and Water Fund where
governments had to plan the so-called State-wide comprehensive
outdoor recreation plan and look forward over years to doing a
well-planned, well-thought-out development of recreation
resources and parks.
We saw a chart on the Federal fluctuations earlier. The
same has been true in the States. The States have not been able
to plan, and this not only hurts park, it hurts property owners
who stand in line often and say, when are you going to buy my
property. So a smoothing out--that is one of the basic precepts
I think that Senator Landrieu and Senator Alexander have
brought about, a smoothing out and having a permanent funding,
which will give certainty and save money.
Senator Cantwell. And allow us to do better planning.
I wonder if I could ask Mrs. Marzulla if she supports--I
was listening to the principles that you were talking about for
your organization. Do you support the current Land and Water
Conservation Fund activities?
Ms. Marzulla. I will not profess to be an expert on
everything that the Conservation Fund does, but I certainly
support the principles of conservation and outdoor recreation
and wildlife protection. My point is really a very targeted
point, which is enough is enough in terms of government land
acquisition. The objectives that we have talked about here
today we fully support, but more government land is not needed
in our opinion. At least not a wholesale acquisition of land is
not needed to accomplish these objectives.
The Constitution has always been and interpretations of the
Constitution, the way it was formed, has been very clear that
property rights are fundamental and essential and regardless of
what objectives we want to accomplish, we should not do so by
breaking the back of private property ownership.
Senator Cantwell. I understand that point, but the Land and
Water Conservation Fund does now partner with State and local
governments, and land is acquired by partnership between them
and the Federal Government. So I would think under what you
were just describing, you would not support this. But maybe you
could look at that and get back to the committee, because my
sense is that you probably do not support the current program
either.
Ms. Marzulla. Well, that may be true. I would like to have
a chance to respond to that.
But the point that I also made toward the end of my
testimony is one that I would really urge the committee to look
closely at. I know a number of Senators have bounced the idea
back and forth, and that is the notion that there be no net
loss of private property. I think we have all acknowledged that
there are many States out West, Nevada, 80 percent government-
owned. To the extent that the fund is used to acquire land
elsewhere, then it seems to me a good principle would be to
have land that is currently in private ownership restored to
private ownership.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. I see my time is up. Mr.
Chairman, I wanted the witnesses to have their opportunity to
respond. But if I could submit a longer statement for the
record and just say that I think that what our colleagues are
putting before us is something that is very important. Mr.
Diamond's point about how to plan over a period of time, for
many of our western regions that have such rapid growth, is a
very difficult thing. And then to have local governments go
through a process, which is actually a very good process of
prioritization, so that taxpayer money is being spent in the
right ways. Looking at the demand across the country,
prioritizing the need, coming up with the criteria--this would
be a much better process.
What is very frustrating to local governments in my State,
and I would assume in other States, is to have none of their
priorities funded, and then to have one of their Members of
Congress stick in their favorite park or their favorite
appropriation bill, and that is the only thing that gets
funded. This is a very challenging and frustrating thing. So I
think there is a lot to be gained for the taxpayers in the kind
of program that prioritizes projects and tax dollars. Thank
you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator and you might submit your
statement or questions at your leisure. Whoever they are
directed at, would you please answer to them to each member of
the committee?
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
each of the six witnesses for traveling some long distances, as
Charles Jordan did, but all of you have made a special effort
to be here. You have been succinct. I have read your
testimonies. It has been a great help to us as we really try to
work our way through this.
We are not trying to be a debating society here. We are
actually trying to see if we can come up with something that
will create a consensus. So we are doing something Senators are
not always accused of doing, which is listening and seeing if
we can find a way through this.
I have two or three questions. I will try to be brief in my
questions so I can get to more of the witnesses.
Mr. Clifton, I respect and understand the point about
mandatory spending. Given your concern about mandatory
spending, would you recommend that we repeal the 50 percent
State royalty for onshore oil and gas drilling that this year
gave $500 million to Wyoming, $318 million to New Mexico, $62
million to Colorado, and $54 million to Utah without ever going
through the Federal budget?
Mr. Clifton. Senator, Americans for Tax Reform would like
to see as much go through the Federal budget as possible. We
just passed a Medicare prescription drug bill. The Congress
decided that it was important. At the same time, the system is
going broke in 2018. Social Security is going to go broke in
2042. Give a year or two----
Senator Alexander. No. I----
Mr. Clifton. I am sorry to interrupt. At this point we do
not think that anything should be added to the mandatory side--
--
Senator Alexander. But the question is, would you be in
favor of repealing the mandatory spending? Since you oppose a
royalty for offshore oil drilling, to be evenhanded, would you
be in favor of repealing the existing royalty for onshore oil
and gas drilling?
Mr. Clifton. I have not looked at it fully, to be honest
with you. I think it is a great question. I will promise I will
look at it and get it to the committee.
Senator Alexander. I would appreciate that.
Mr. Clifton. My major concern is adding any new types of
entitlements in the wake of the Medicare prescription drug
benefit.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Ms. Marzulla, I appreciate your suggestion, and let me see
if I can hone in on a few things to understand your position.
At one point in your testimony, you say in our view there is no
legitimate justification for any government, State or Federal,
to acquire any more private property in this country. Is that
what you mean?
Ms. Marzulla. I think conceptually yes, but I acknowledge
and tried to do so articulately in my testimony, and perhaps I
failed to do so--we acknowledged that there are instances where
government must acquire more private property, but we urge this
committee to adopt an approach that is narrowly tailored with a
heavy presumption, a rebuttable presumption, but nevertheless a
heavy burden on government justifying a need for more
acquisition of private property. Personally I think we have
enough, and that is why we support the notion of a no net loss
of private property. I think it is an idea with a lot of
appeal.
Senator Alexander. Well, that is actually a very
constructive suggestion. Obviously, if we needed new schools,
we need new land, or if we need a new park, we new land or a
new port. But the overall sense I got from you is I think I
understand your point, and I am not sure I disagree with most
of it, particularly in the western United States where we own
so much of the land. Senator Thomas had suggested no net gain
as one way, to use a word of yours, to try to achieve some
balance in what we do.
Another thing Senator Landrieu and tried to do in
fashioning this bill was to say that in spending in this money,
there would have to be a willing seller/willing buyer, in other
words, no land condemnation. Is that also something that would
help achieve balance in your view?
Ms. Marzulla. I listened very carefully to that exchange,
frankly with some surprise to the notion of the willing seller.
Perhaps in Louisiana they do things differently, but our
experience has been that the notion of a willing seller is more
of a fiction than a reality. Typically what we see is the
Government comes in with the heavy hand of regulation and
threats of condemnation and then says, gee, we will buy your
property. Guess how far below the fair market value we are
going to give you, and that is it, take it or leave it.
So to the extent that this committee could struggle with
the notion of ensuring that there be adequate protections in
place, guaranteeing a true fair market exchange looking at some
of the principles appraisers use, that would be something that
we would endorse.
Senator Alexander. That is very helpful, and as you reflect
on this, if you have other suggestions that you see that as the
legislation is making its way through, that would help achieve
a better balance that protects property rights, recognizing
that most of what we do here is a conflict of objectives and
principles, I would welcome seeing them.
If I may ask one last question of Mr. Diamond. With your
long experience with the Land and Water Conservation Fund--
maybe this is something you have already said, but looking back
all the way to 1958 and 1962, what can you say to those who
would say that it is inappropriate to take a steady stream of
funding and make it mandatory for spending rather than an
appropriated year-by-year approach? How would you sum that up
in the strongest possible way?
Mr. Diamond. We thought about this, Senator. How can we
come up here and say with all of the public needs, this one
should be a dedicated fund? I think there are several reasons.
One we alluded to earlier, the planning process makes being
able to know in your bill that for 6 years this is what
happens.
But more fundamentally in our view there was a trust made
with the American people in the original Land and Water
Conservation Fund whereby some portion of the resources that
are being extracted and the public owns them, that some of
those resources would go back to other resources which the
public wanted, and we think this is the basic justification for
a dedicated fund. It is rather different. It is not a tax
source, but it is a revenue source coming from a like kind, and
we believe that is the sound basis for it.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Landrieu, I am going to ask my friend
Senator Alexander, can you stay for a couple minutes?
Senator Alexander. I can.
The Chairman. So you can preside while Senator Landrieu----
Senator Alexander. I will be happy to.
The Chairman. Because I have to be somewhere, but I would
like to ask two questions and then excuse me.
First, I join Senator Alexander in thanking all of you.
Whatever difficulty it has been for you to come here, I think
it is worthwhile. The cause is worthwhile, so your presence is
worthwhile.
Mr. Diamond, were you the author of the report that we are
talking about?
Mr. Diamond. I was the editor, yes, sir. It was a
commission made up of eight Members of Congress and seven
private citizens, but I was a staff editor of the report.
The Chairman. Now, when was that done?
Mr. Diamond. It was reported to President Kennedy in 1962.
The Chairman. Have we made any strides since that report?
Mr. Diamond. Oh, yes, sir. I think we tend to forget that
the Federal Government did not buy land for park purposes
really. Cape Cod maybe in 1962 is the first time. It came out,
as this committee well knows, of the public domain. I think the
Land and Water Fund has helped the Federal Government fill in
much needed inholdings, buy new areas which were needed and
help the States to create this system that my friend Charles
Jordan referred to.
The Chairman. Let me say to Ms. Marzulla, I believe you
have contributed to our discussion. I have noticed that Senator
Alexander and Senator Landrieu are very willing to accept ideas
that will make this legislation more palatable to a broader
section of Senators, and some ideas that you put forth will
clearly be looked at.
Let me ask you Mr.--tell me how you say your last name
again?
Mr. Angelle. You can call me what you want if we can get
the right money, but it is Angelle.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I did not tell you that that was any quid pro
quo.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I will call you Scott if that will relieve me
from the responsibility of assuring you of money.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I want to ask you--if you know, okay; if you
do not, will you find out--first, can you cite the leveeing of
the Mississippi and impacts from OCS oil and gas exploration
and production as two reasons Louisiana is losing 25 square
miles of wetlands each and every year?
Mr. Angelle. Yes, sir. I appreciate the opportunity that
you had to visit with us in the State. Certainly the leveeing
of the Mississippi River----
The Chairman. Were you there when I visited?
Mr. Angelle. No, sir. Actually I was doing something else
in local government at that time.
The Chairman. I think they told me that.
Mr. Angelle. The leveeing of the Mississippi River
certainly had great intentions and some of the unintended
consequences of interrupting the deltaic system--the
Mississippi River can no longer overflow its banks and
replenish the coastal marshlands and wetlands of Louisiana.
Certainly a majority of scientists have come to that
conclusion.
When we talk about the oil and gas situation, we talk about
the gulf intercoastal waterway and the navigation channels that
have been built and saltwater intrusion. While we are very
proud of our relationship with the oil and gas industry and
look forward to continuing our role to serve America's energy
needs, there is no question that there has been some impact.
The Chairman. Now, under section 8(g) of the OCS Lands Act,
Louisiana has received $969 million since 1986. How much of
that revenue that Louisiana receives from the Federal oil and
gas activities is spent on wetlands mitigation?
Mr. Angelle. I am not qualified to answer that at this
time. I can get that for you and enter it into the record, sir.
The Chairman. Would you be surprised if it was none?
Mr. Angelle. I would say that it is my understanding that
the majority of those funds have been used for education.
Obviously, in Louisiana we put that at the very top, and we are
making considerable strides in our education. In fact, here
recently, one of the accountability acts that was passed in
Louisiana is now being used as a model in America. So we are
proud of that, and it has helped us in a lot of areas. But
certainly coastal restoration is a very important issue for us.
The Chairman. But you understand the purpose of my
question.
Mr. Angelle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Could you also tell the committee--if you do
not know, if you would get it--how much does the State of
Louisiana realize in property, payroll, and corporate income
from the OCS oil and gas exploration and production?
Mr. Angelle. I will get that answer for you, sir.
The Chairman. How much does the State of Louisiana realize
in income from oil and gas exploration and production on State
lands and how much of that income is devoted to wetlands
reclamation and mitigation? Now, I mean submerged State land.
Mr. Angelle. I can answer that question. I think here in
the current year about $450 million direct to the State budget.
One of the positive things that we have done in Louisiana is we
have adopted a constitutional amendment that provides and
dedicates a portion of those funds to coastal wetlands
activities. We are using those funds to match some of the
requirements of our Federal partners.
The Chairman. Before I leave, I want to also congratulate
the two lead sponsors of this bill. Senator Alexander, I
commend you. You have done a lot of work. You told me about
this when you first came here, and it is extraordinary that you
have moved this rapidly and understand this so well. But I
would not be surprised because you have great experience in
working on these kinds of things.
Senator Landrieu, I have gotten to know you very well. I
was very privileged to be in your State. Now all I have to do
is find a reason for getting you to come to my State.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, and I thank the
witnesses.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The chairman has
been so gracious with his time and has to step out, but I am
going to be proud to submit what Louisiana has contributed to
this effort over the last 20 years with virtually little help
from the Federal Government, to remind the staff and others,
that we have to put up 25 to 40 percent of all the Corps of
Engineers projects that go on in our State. A lot of those
projects are not just for flood protection, but for commerce
and dredging. So the taxpayers of Louisiana pick up a
substantial amount of money to manage and maintain this coastal
area, not for the benefit of just the people that live in
Louisiana. We drain two-thirds of the continental United
States, and we are trying to preserve 80 percent of the coastal
wetlands left in the United States of America. Those coastal
wetlands do not just benefit the 4.5 million people that live
in our State, but they benefit the 300 million that live in the
United States.
So I will submit more details to the record, but I did not
want this committee to close, Senator Alexander, with there
being any thought that the taxpayers of Louisiana have not
contributed mightily to this effort, basically standing alone
against the tide, on top of which we are contributing, as I
said, anywhere from $2 billion to $6 billion, depending on the
leasing activity, virtually alone in the Nation. And it is a
tragedy and a crime that we have not been compensated in a fair
and more just manner than we have to date.
In addition, for the taxpayers of Louisiana to be willing
to share this revenue with the rest of the country, even to
those States who refuse to produce the oil and gas themselves,
is also a testament to the generosity and the big-heartedness
of people in Louisiana who understand.
I just have two questions, and then I will be ready to wrap
up.
I want to understand, Mr. Clifton, if the people that you
represent, given their choices to send the $6 billion either to
the Federal Treasury for general expansion of operating
revenues or would they rather see a portion of this revenue
dedicated to preserving, to be good stewards of the land we
already have, and purchasing property so that all taxpayers,
whether you are wealthy or middle income or poor, could
benefit? Are you testifying before this committee that the
people you represent would rather see the Federal budget
expanded as opposed to an investment in conservation?
Mr. Clifton. Senator, I think that is a great question. Let
me first say we represent about 100,000 taxpayers who are
members of Americans for Tax Reform. They have joined our
membership because they oppose enlargement of the Federal
budget and Federal spending.
But with that said, the Federal Government is still
providing a lot of money right now for conservation. Let me
give you an example. The National Park Service right now is
spending an enormous amount of money, despite the backlog.
But with that said, what we see as the trend happening
nationally is local governments instituting taxes on top of
their property tax rate dedicated for open space and
conservation purposes. We also see State governments now
branching into that. The common identity of those programs is
that voters are voting themselves--some of them get rejected,
some of them get approved, but voters are having a say whether
they would want higher taxes for those purposes. Do I have an
exact breakdown of how that has panned out right now? No. But
the fact is that taxpayers have a choice. Here it is very much
more diffused from the taxpayer and our members are opposed to
new spending on Federal programs.
Senator Landrieu. Well, you may want to just take back one
of the goals that Senator Alexander and my bill which is to
keep taxes lower and to use the taxes that we already have in
ways that the taxpayers tell us that they want those moneys
spent. I would like to submit to your organization the most
recent study conducted by Mr. Luntz.
Mr. Clifton. Frank Luntz.
Senator Landrieu. Frank Luntz, thank you. It indicates
exactly that point, that the taxpayers of the United States
would like to see a portion of the tax dollars already being
paid, not new dollars, directed to these programs.
Ms. Marzulla, just one question. Under the philosophy of I
guess people who have money can own property and those that do
not do not get the benefits of it, how does your organization
argue the idea that people with less resources would obviously,
under your philosophy, have access to open space or lakes or
streams because unless you can own it, you cannot use it? How
do you all square your philosophy? Because I hear you say that
you think that all property should basically be privately
owned. In that case, only the people that own it could use it.
So what about the millions and millions and hundreds of
millions of people that do not own a lake? Where do they go to
swim?
Ms. Marzulla. Well, I could spend the rest of the afternoon
answering that question because it is----
Senator Landrieu. Well, try to answer it, if you could, and
I am serious. Where do the people that do not own a lake go to
swim? I would like to give you a minute and a half to answer
that.
Ms. Marzulla. Okay. First of all, I would like to just
clarify that property, of course, is more than just land, but
the topic of course is land.
I think the short answer is that I do not think that the
only way that we can have outdoor recreation in this country is
by government ownership of land or water. There have been
countless studies done. I would be happy to submit reports and
analyses that talk about private ownership and ways of
accomplishing many of the objectives, if not all of the
objectives, that we have talked about here today.
But I would also like to underscore the fact that my
testimony is not that we should have no government ownership of
any land for any reason ever. My testimony today is to urge the
committee not to create a slush fund to acquire more. The
balance has been struck. There is a balance between government
ownership of land and private ownership of land. And it is a
constitutional balance that is being struck. So let us not go
off in the direction of extremities.
Senator Landrieu. I would agree with that. So when you
refer to communism, that might be something that we would want
to keep in mind.
But I would like answer to my question in writing, if you
would. Where do the people that do not own a lake swim? And you
can submit that to me anytime in the next couple of weeks.
Thank you.
Ms. Marzulla. I would be delighted to.
Senator Alexander [presiding]. Senator Landrieu, thank you.
I do not know how the Senator from Louisiana feels about
it, but we go to lots of hearings. This has been one of the
better hearings, I think, that I have had a chance to attend
because we have had a very clear purpose. We have had good
attendance from a lot of Senators. They provide lots of
different points of view, and we have had excellent witnesses.
The administration's testimony was on point and direct and very
helpful. And then the six of you I think gave us exactly the
range of thoughts and opinions that we hoped to elicit. We did
not want to just get one side or we did not want to hear the
cheerleaders of the opponents. We wanted to hear, in this big,
complicated country of ours, what should we take into account
as we try to move ahead with this.
And we have heard about Louisiana's interests and what is
happening on the coast.
Charles Jordan, as he has for years, eloquently talked
about city parks. I well remember President Reagan's Commission
on the Americans Outdoors. One of its most important points was
that so many people live close to home, let us create some
parks close to where the people live.
Mr. Baughman reminds us of the great gains we have made
with our, I still call them, game and fish commissions across
this country. These are the organizations that our hunters and
fishermen love because they create sporting and outdoors
activities that all of us enjoy.
Henry Diamond has brought us a perspective that spans the
whole history of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, for
which we are very grateful.
Ms. Marzulla, I appreciate your specific suggestions that
we can consider about how to achieve a better balance, as we
consider land acquisition.
Mr. Clifton, thank you for your directness about the
importance of keeping in mind our budget.
Senator Landrieu and I now intend to work with our
colleagues. We are going to fashion an amendment to the
existing legislation that will include the Federal side of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, but we have learned some
things here today and from our colleagues that we need to take
into account there. Then we will decide where to go from here.
She has been working on this for a number of years. I want
to salute her for that. During her whole first term, this was a
major priority, and we would never have gotten to this point if
it had not been.
I had the privilege of working outside of Congress as a
Governor with our State commissions and as chairman of
President Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors. I think it
is worth saying that this idea has had strong bipartisan
support. It has had Presidential support. Let us see if as
legislators we can find a way to create a consensus within the
Senate that recognizes what I believe is the huge conservation
majority in the United States that supports the Americans
Outdoors Act.
My final statement will be I would like to submit to our
committee hearing a list of the two dozen Americans Outdoors
bill supporters. These are organizations. Actually it is more
like three or four dozen, ranging from the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, the National Wildlife Federation, to the Boone and
Crockett Club and a variety of outdoor recreation
organizations. They have letters in support of this activity.
Senator Landrieu, if you have nothing else, I thank the
witnesses and the hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
NOTE: Responses to the following questions were not
received at the time this hearing went to press.
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, July 22, 2004.
Hon. Gale Norton,
Secretary, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Norton: I would like to take this opportunity to
thank you for sending your delegate, Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget, the Honorable Lynn Scarlett, to appear before
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Tuesday, July
20, 2004, to testify on S. 2590, a bill to provide a conservation
royalty from Outer Continental Shelf revenues to establish the Coastal
Impact Assistance Program, to provide assistance to States under the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, to ensure adequate
funding for conserving and restoring wildlife, to assist local
governments in improving local park and recreation systems, and for
other purposes.
Enclosed herewith please find a list of questions which have been
submitted for the record. If possible, I would like to have your
responses to these questions by Tuesday, August 5, 2004.
Thank you in advance for your prompt consideration.
Sincerely,
Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman.
[Enclosures.]
Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. You testified that the Department of the Interior's
cooperative conservation approach offers an alternative to land
acquisition as the central way to achieve conservation of land. Please
explain.
a. Has DOI been able to leverage its federal dollars with this
cooperative conservation approach? How so?
b. How were these programs developed?
c. Can you give me some examples of projects?
Question 2. Your testimony highlights the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program in which DOI has worked, from 2001 to 2003, with
almost 9,000 landowners and communities to restore over 150,000 acres
of wetlands and over 700,000 acres of prairies and grasslands. How does
this program add value to your efforts?
Question 3. Do you see any impact on these types of collaborative
programs if S. 2590 is enacted?
Question 4. S. 2590 provides a dedicated source of funding for a
number of conservation projects. Has this Administration advanced
conservation efforts in any other major way that goes beyond dollars?
Question 5. You testified that the Administration's Budget proposes
to allocate funds to priority coastal conservation needs through
existing discretionary programs. Please explain.
Questions From Senator Craig
The maintenance backlog continues to grow and is estimated to be
over $23 billion. Although we don't know how much federal land this
bill will add to the Federal estate, the sponsors have indicated that
they plan on a Federal Land LWCF Acquisition provision to be added.
If like in past proposal we add $450 to $500 million of direct
federal land acquisition spending for the 6 years in this bill, or the
20 years in its House of Representative companion bill, we are talking
about $2.7 to $10 billion over the expected or potential life of the
bill.
At the same time, in three of the last four years we have expended
more than a billion on fire fighting and this year has the potential to
set both acres burned records, as well as a record for costs.
Question 1. Ms. Scarlett, do you really believe that we can
continue to acquire federal lands, when we do not have the funding
needed to maintain these lands? Do you think it is responsible
government to suggest that any additional federal land acquisition is
reasonable or prudent.
Question 2. I would like you to provide for this Committee a list
of the federal land acquisitions that have been made over the last ten
years, how much it cost to acquire the lands, how much new maintenance
back log resulted, how much additional fire pre-suppression, and
suppression costs were added to your work load, and how many new
employees had to be added to ensure these lands are managed as they
should be. I would like that list to be provided on State by State
basis.
Question 3. Somewhere in my memory, I recall that the original LWCF
law indicated that only 15% of the LWCF funds would be expended in the
Western States. Has that been the case over the last 20 years? Would
you provide for the Committee a State by State and year by year
accounting of funds expended under the LWCF program?
Question From Senator Thomas
Question 1. The AOA would provide a significant amount of funding
toward land acquisition at a time when our country has a tremendous
maintenance backlog in all public land management agencies. Adding more
land to the Federal domain should not be a priority at this time. Can
you explain the maintenance backlog in all bureaus at the Department of
the Interior, how the National Park Service has been addressing the
maintenance backlog in the last 3 years, and whether the Park Service
methods for assessing and prioritizing maintenance requirements would
work for other bureaus?
Questions From Senator Bunning
Question 1. Kentucky received $1.3 million dollars in State
allocation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund last year. How can
we in the Commonwealth and in other States expect both State and
Federal funding levels to change with this new legislation?
Question 2. This legislation calls for $1.425 billion in mandatory
spending to fund these conservation programs. What are your concerns
with this funding's exemption from the annual appropriations process?
______
Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation,
Washington, DC, August 4, 2004.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici and Committee Members: Thank you again for
the opportunity to testify before the committee on July 20, 2004 to
speak about the importance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Attached is my response to the series of questions submitted for
the record from the hearing. I am happy to provide any further
information to you and the committee.
We hope that in the near future a markup of S. 2590 will be
scheduled and that a final bill can be passed by the Senate.
Sincerely,
Henry Diamond,
Chairman.
[Enclosures.]
Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. In your testimony, you note your organization's support
for full funding for the LWCF program and UPARR. You also recommend
dedicated funding for additional programs--namely the Historic
Preservation Fund and Forest Legacy.
a. Why were some programs included and not others in S. 2590 as
introduced?
b. Should all the programs included in H.R. 701 as reported by the
Senate ENR Committee be included in S. 2590? If not, why not?
c. If the answer to (b) is ``no'', are there other programs your
organization would like to see added to this legislation?
Answer. The Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Historic
Preservation Fund are two programs that have traditionally been
recognized by Congress to receive portions of receipts from the Outer
Continental Shelf revenues. We would hope that any new trust fund
created would recognize and honor the original programs tied to the OCS
receipts and include them in the 21st century conservation trust fund.
We do not know why the Historic Preservation Fund, along with the
other programs in H.R. 701, was not included in S. 2590.
Americans for our Heritage and Recreation did support the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported, H.R. 701, and the
programs contained within the bill. We believe the Forest Legacy
Program to preserve working forestlands and protect critical forest
habitat through easements and we believe it should also be included in
a permanent trust. The fragmentation of open space. The loss of
critical habitat in many our states is a serious conservation concern,
and the success of this program is proving that collaborative efforts
between states, private land owners, and the federal government can
make a huge difference.
AHR also supports the addition of the Historic Preservation Fund
(HPF) to the final bill. Like the state-side of LWCF, the HPF provides
matching grants to encourage private and non-federal investment in
historic preservation efforts nationwide. The HPF is legislatively
authorized to receive OCS revenues and complements the work of state,
recreation and wildlife grants through conversation of historic and
cultural treasures.
AHR is certainly happy to provide further testimony regarding other
conservation programs that the Committee might consider adding to S.
2590.
Question 2. Some have accused this administration and past
administrations and Congress of failing to properly manage and maintain
the current federal estate. Given the current budget deficit that is
projected to be with us for at least a few more years, do you believe
it wise to mandate such significant spending on a relatively narrow
range of programs?
Answer. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created to
preserve our outdoor recreation and natural heritage. It is as
important to the quality of our American way of life; it reaches into
all communities (98% of all counties in the U.S. have received LWCF
funds); and it is an excellent financial investment, by returning a
tangible asset for a depleting resource.
In the 1987 Report of the President's Commission on Americans
Outdoors, the report noted:
``Accelerating development of our remaining open spaces,
wetlands, shorelines, historic sites, and countrysides, and
deferred maintenance and care of our existing resources, are
robbing future generations of the heritage which is their
birthright.''
Due to the lack of carrying through on earlier commitments to LWCF
we find in 2004 the situation remains even more at risk. Furthermore,
alarming medical reports are finding our population at health risk due
to lack of physical activity. Preservation of our outdoor resources is
a foundation for health; competes with economic vitality in our
communities; stimulates tourism; enhances environmental quality
especially in protecting our air and water; protects key habitat for
our plants and wildlife; and enriches our life and culture. Few federal
programs bring as much return as does the LWCF program.
We not only believe it is wise to invest and mandate the spending,
we believe it is imperative. Further, we believe that the federal
government should be doing more to manage and maintain our federal
parks, forests, and refuges. We believe that Congress should use more
appropriated dollars to address the maintenance backlog.
Question 3. You testified there is a $10 billion backlog in land
acquisition projects that have been identified by the federal land
agencies. Please explain what you mean by backlog.
a. Are these potential projects that the federal government would
like to do but that have not received Congressional appropriations?
b. If Congress, as the result of this bill, were to provide the
full $450 million per year for the Federal LWCF program, after 6 years
the program will receive $2.7 billion--only a portion of this backlog.
Is that where you would see this new funding going? To the backlog?
Answer. In March, 2001, the Natural Resources Policy, Environment
and Natural Resources Policy Division of the Congressional Research
Service, released a report on the Land and Water Conservation Fund:
Current Status and Issues. The report by Jeffrey Zinn reports:
``The Department of the Interior has estimated that the overall
backlog for acquisitions that await funding exceeds $10
billion.''
The backlog exists because Congress and the Administration has not
provided enough money over the past 40 years of the annual
appropriations to meet the need. Furthermore, the approximate $14
billion appropriated for the Fund has been unevenly allocated among the
states and four federal land agencies with average appropriations
during the past 20 years ranging between $200 million and $300 million.
The states have seen even greater uncertainty in their funding, with a
number of years zero funds being appropriated.
Land values have also dramatically changed during the past 40
years. The purchasing power of federal dollars in 2004 is much less
than it was in 1965, when the Fund was in its inception, creating even
more demand on the agencies backload. Today's dollar doesn't buy what
it once did.
Congress has been the decision-maker during the past decade in
deciding how much and where the federal dollars are spent. In FY 02 and
FY 03 combined, 84% of LWCF appropriations went to the purchase/
acquisition of inholdings as opposed to expansion and dedication of new
areas. We have consistently encouraged the federal land agencies to use
their current authority under the LWCF to seek land exchanges,
transfers, cooperative agreements, and easements, and we would hope
that the increased spending would allow the federal agencies to work to
reduce the long waiting period of willing-sellers for the government to
purchase their inholdings.
As noted during the hearing, history and natural events are not
static. Since January, 1993, for the National Park Service alone,
Congress has authorized the federal acquisition of 2.5 million acres of
land at a cost of $338.8 million. Most of President Bush's FY 2005
budget request involves Congressionally supported authorizations. One
such authorization and budget request involves protection of land to
commemorate the Flight 93 Memorial site. The flexibility of the Fund to
be used for purchasing inholdings, conservation easements, and new
acquisitions is a key to its achievement.
AHR believes that if the $450 million of federal LWCF was
guaranteed through this legislation, the federal agencies could do a
much better job in stretching the federal dollar by collaborating with
other federal agencies in exchange, transfers, use of easements, better
appraisals and purchases, and greatly reducing the waiting period for
the willing seller.
Question From Senator Craig
Question 1. Mr. Diamond, In your testimony, you note your
organization's support for full funding for the LWCF program, UPARR,
and even recommend dedicated funding for additional programs--namely
the Historic Preservation Fund and Forest Legacy.
I notice you don't mention your support for the proposed Coastal
Impact Assistant program in S. 2590. The bill proposed to fund this
program at $500 million per year.
Do you support funding for this effort or would you prefer the
annual $500 million for coastal impact assistance be redirected
elsewhere?
Answer. Americans for our Heritage and Recreation had been asked to
testify regarding the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, and our
coalition organization has not taken a specific policy position on
Title I of S. 2590 at this time.
As you know, the United State's Commission on Ocean Policy released
its preliminary findings on April 20, 2004, AHR was especially pleased
that the Commission sought to first use the offshore oil and gas
royalties toward funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
and the Historic Preservation Fund, while applying the remaining
royalties for coastal conservation purposes. We have commended the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy for taking a leadership role in creating a
long-term solution to help protect our nation's valuable shorelines and
coastal beaches, while reaffirming the national need for more close-to-
home parks, trails, hunting and fishing areas, as well as thousands of
athletic and playing fields.
Questions From Senator Bunning
Question 1. This legislation calls for $1.425 billion in mandatory
spending to fund these conservation programs. Given our already tight
spending constraints, why should these funds in particular be exempted
from the annual appropriations process?
Answer. Americans value the outdoors, and for forty years, since
1964 passage of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, localities,
states and members of Congress have supported the simple principle that
a portion of the receipts from the sale of nonrenewable resources owned
by Americans--oil and gas from the Outer Continental Shelf--is
reinvested in permanent assets for future generations.
This legislation has been introduced to solve the fluctuation of
the revenue stream getting from the Treasury to the states and federal
land managers, as authorized.
From 1982 through 1999 the disbursement of Federal and American
Indian mineral lease revenues shows 62.2% of all the revenues returned
to the General Treasury, with 15% of the revenues being used for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund and 2.3% for the Historic Preservation
Fund. (Report by the U.S. Dept. of Interior, Mineral Management
Service). Currently more than 50% of OCS receipts are already made
available to Congress and the Administration for its annual budget and
appropriations process to be used for the government's discretionary
spending. We believe that the fundamental principle that all Americans
get return on their diminishing natural resources is a sound one
supported by the American public. It is not an either/or situation.
Nearly all of the federal acquisition projects appropriated during
the past decade have been specifically earmarked by the Interior
Appropriations Committee, at the specific request of Members of
Congress. We do not have an objection to establishing a process for
designation of expenditure of the funds that includes the
Appropriations Committee in consultation with federal land managers
through the Administration's annual budget request, but there must be a
guarantee that the funds be spent for the purposes intended in LWCF and
not be reprogrammed or returned to the U.S. Treasury unused.
Question 2. This legislation will provide funding for many multi-
purposed and multi-jurisdictional programs. How can we ensure that
there will be collaboration and communication among private, local,
State, and Federal interests?
Answer. AHR appreciates your question because we believe that best
practices and efforts in protecting our natural environment happens
when all parties, public and private, finds ways to work together. Our
public lands are national treasures of enormous value, and serve as
economic assets for our towns, cities and states where the federal
lands are located.
Many of the current statutes governing public land management
require public processes to ensure that collaboration occurs at all
government levels. For example, the state-side of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund requires each state to produce a state-wide needs
assessment that includes public review and comment, and is then
reviewed and approved at the national level by the National Park
Service. Most, if not all, federal acquisition projects receive review
by the Appropriations Committee, which includes public hearings,
letters of support from local communities, governors, and the Members
of Congress that represent the land under consideration.
AHR to build on the strong support and to encourage strong
partnerships with the private sector, profit and non-profit, and with
other federal, state, and local agencies.
Question 3. You have mentioned that these programs have had good
experiences working with sports fishermen and hunters. Could you
elaborate on how sportsmen in Kentucky, for example, would benefit from
this legislation?
Answer. The Land and Water Conservation fund was created to provide
American families with increased opportunities for outdoor recreation
at national, state and local sites. More than 600 hunting and nature
areas have been funded by LWCF during its 40 year history. Another
10,000 swimming and boating facilities have been provided, along with
5,000 campgrounds and overnight recreation areas.
Kentucky has received through the state-side of LWCF $49,200,286.81
(through FY 2000). Attached is a chart, * provided to AHR by the
National Park Service, that shows all Projects that have been funded
for fishing facilities, and two projects related to hunting for total
$1,601,974.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The chart has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report shows that 55% of
American adults don't move enough to meet the minimum recommendation of
30 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity on most days of the
week. Kentucky was ranked as the least active state, with only 29% of
its residents met the minimum physical activity requirements.
Funding S. 2590 will provide a more reliable stream of funding for
state wildlife, local parks, and recreation centers to plan, implement
and provide the citizens of Kentucky with better outdoor recreation
opportunities whether to hunt and fish, hike or bike, or enjoy the vast
richness of the state's wildlife. Increased wildlife funding will
enable state fish and game employees to protect important wildlife
species habitat through cooperative agreements with private landowners.
______
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources,
Baton Rouge, LA, August 16, 2004.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: Thank you for the opportunity to testify
before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Tuesday, July
20, 2004. I appreciate your inquiry and the ability to respond to the
questions regarding Louisiana's coastal wetland restoration program and
its relation to Outer Continental Shelf revenues. Attached, you will
find responses to the questions posed on July 22, 2004. I hope you find
the responses informative and complete. However, if further
clarification or information is needed, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (225) 342-2710.
As stated in my testimony, the S. 2590 bill is instrumental in
Louisiana's effort to save our rapidly disappearing wetlands. Since 30
percent of all oil and gas consumed in the country is either produced
in or travels through our coastal wetlands, the reinvestment of OCS
revenues in our restoration efforts is both logical and justified. I
appreciate any support you could lend toward the passage of this very
important bill.
Very truly yours,
Scott A. Angelle,
Secretary.
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. Your testimony cites the leveeing of the Mississippi
and impacts from OCS oil and gas exploration and production as two
reasons Louisiana is losing 25 square miles of wetlands each year.
Can you tell the Committee how much wetlands loss is attributable
to each of those suggested impacts?
Answer. Because these factors overlap in their areas of influence,
it is impossible to distinguish between the relative impacts of each on
Louisiana's current land loss crisis.
LEVEES
The most significant levees in South Louisiana are a system of
dikes that were brought to modern grades as part of the Mississippi
River and Tributaries Project (MR&T), authorized in 1928. This project
had two major goals, to enhance navigation and reduce river flooding.
Levees severed the river from its flood plain and tightly constricted
the lower river (below Vidalia), precluding all overbank flooding, on
which deltaic wetlands depend. Levees also result in the annual loss to
the Louisiana coast of 200 million tons of vital sediment, which flows
past New Orleans and is lost in the Gulf of Mexico.
In addition to levees, several natural distributaries, including
the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Manchac and Bayou Lafourche, were dammed
or controlled, further limiting the river's influence and decreasing
ecosystem sustainability. These distributaries once acted like arteries
carrying vital river water, sediment, and nutrients to the large
portions of the delta. The MR&T levee system also includes the Old
River Control structure, which has been used to prevent the lower river
from changing course thereby limiting the building of new land in the
Atchafalaya delta.
OCS OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION
Oil and gas production in coastal Louisiana began with a massive
exploration and development program in the forties, extending through
the seventies. Most of this activity took place in coastal wetlands,
and was especially concentrated around salt domes that had been formed
by the weight of the sediments that created the Mississippi River
delta. Onshore development impacts included the direct ``footprint'' of
a massive network of canals for oil and gas development and
transportation and the indirect hydrologic impacts that result from
them. Brine discharges from produced waters and marsh buggy tracks also
caused enormous permanent damage to wetlands. Onshore production peaked
in 1970 and steadily moved offshore, first into Louisiana waters and
then into federal waters greater than three miles off our coast.
In addition to disrupting the natural hydrology of the affected
area, oil and gas canals also provide avenues for higher salinity water
to move into previously freshwater marshes, thereby compounding the
saltwater intrusion problems associated with levees.
As OCS production increased and moved into deeper water, the energy
service industry needed deeper channels to accommodate larger and
deeper boats. These artificial channels, such as the Houma Navigation
Canal, created conduits for storm surge flooding to move miles inland
and caused major wetland impacts from saltwater intrusion and erosion
from boat wakes. These damages and risks increase steadily.
Servicing the OCS activity requires specialized port facilities
that are accessible to larger, deeper-draft supply ships that can
safely and economically cover the greater distances. These and other
technological changes have spurred both public and private investments
to upgrade the previously existing port infrastructure. Notably, Port
Fourchon was constructed expressly to serve the deepwater industry. The
thousands of people who work on offshore structures served by Port
Fourchon as well as the stream of trucks bringing supplies to, and
hauling waste from, this multi-million dollar facility must traverse
100 miles of an often flooded two-lane state highway, much of it
through marsh. The continued maintenance of this elaborate pipeline
network and the port infrastructure within and at the expense of
Louisiana's fragile wetlands will therefore be required to support the
OCS industry. At the same time, it can be expected that state taxpayers
will be incurring significant additional costs for projects to stop the
catastrophic loss of wetlands exacerbated by oil and gas activities
over many years, both onshore and offshore. The oil and gas comes
across the Louisiana coast through a pipeline system that is
increasingly prone to damage from subsidence and erosion of the
wetlands that surround it. New pipelines that bring OCS oil and natural
gas onshore will connect to an existing collection and distribution
network that has developed within the marshes of the Mississippi River
deltaic plain.
Question 1a. Also, under Section 8(g) of the OCS Lands Act
Louisiana has received $969 Million since 1986. How much of the revenue
Louisiana receives from Federal oil and gas activities is spent on
wetlands mitigation?
Answer. Although coastal protection projects were constructed as
early as 1981, the magnitude of Louisiana's land loss problem and the
cost of the solutions were not fully understood even as recently as
1986. However, the State was acutely aware of the need to increase
funding to other socially important issues, such as education.
Therefore, when section 8(g) was established, the State decided to
dedicate this money to the impoverished education system in Louisiana
by depositing these revenues into an Education Trust Fund.
Question 2. How much does the State of Louisiana realize in
property, payroll, and corporate income from OCS oil and gas
exploration and production?
Answer. The economic impact of OCS activities in Louisiana is hard
to pinpoint. The few companies operating solely in Louisiana, who are
active in the OCS, are also active in state offshore and onshore
regions. The majority of the major companies who had corporate offices
or drilling and exploration headquarters in Louisiana in the 1990's are
now relocated to Houston, Texas. (Chevron-Texaco, Exxon Mobile, Ocean-
Meridian, Unocal and others).
PROPERTY TAXES
Those corporations that do remain are a few large independent
drilling and exploration companies. Most of their ``property'' is
equipment and material that are not based on shore or are used in areas
that are not taxable by state property or ad valorem taxes. The actual
figures are unavailable, but, given the nature of the business in
general, are in a sharp decline.
PAYROLL
According to a recent MMS state paper on Louisiana, ``MMS and
Louisiana--Summer 2003,'' ``An estimated 40,000 jobs directly depend on
the offshore program--about 60% of them are in Louisiana. As of 2001,
the average annual salary for these jobs was $58,000. These wages
generate about $155 million per year in state and local tax revenues .
. . Thus although OCS activities impose costs in Louisiana for roads,
schools and other support activities for workers and families, the
revenue from the OCS provides substantial benefits.''
Although the MMS study does indicate a benefit, it unfortunately
provides no quantifiable cost-benefit analysis. Our contention has
always been that, yes, there are benefits to Louisiana, but many of
these benefits are not solely to Louisiana but the United States in
general. To a large extent the infrastructure burdens placed on
Louisiana by the OCS are practically unrecoverable from a taxation
perspective since a huge portion of the workers and most of the
companies operating in the OCS are beyond the state's taxing authority.
Although they work in Federal OCS area, many OCS workers live and
pay taxes in areas far remote from Louisiana's taxing authority. Past
efforts to find out where OCS workers live revealed that huge numbers
(over 60% by some estimates) commute from Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi,
Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, and other states, as well as
foreign countries such as Venezuela and Mexico. The 7 day on, 7 day
off, 14 day on, 14 day off and similar schedules for offshore workers
facilitate long distance commuting. Workers mostly pay taxes where they
live, buy homes and cars, shop, etc. For large numbers of OCS workers,
that is not Louisiana.
Additionally, the production, equipment, property, profits, etc. of
OCS companies and operations are in federal waters, beyond the taxing
jurisdiction of the state of Louisiana, other than the incomes of
employees and companies headquartered in Louisiana.
Question 3. How much does the State of Louisiana realize in income
from oil and gas exploration and production activities on State lands?
How much of that income is devoted to wetlands reclamation and
mitigation?
Answer. As shown in the table below, Louisiana realizes a total of
$802.48 million per year from oil and gas production within the state
boundary. Of this, $25 million is appropriated directly to a
constitutionally protected trust fund for restoration activities.
FISCAL YEAR 2003/04 OIL AND GAS REVENUE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Lands
Total State & Water
($ million) Bottoms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Royalty................................... 409.39 409.39
Severance\1\.............................. 439.60 22.51
Bonuses................................... 23.79 23.79
Rentals................................... 11.67 11.67
-----------------------------
Total Revenue......................... 884.45 467.36
Severance Parish fund..................... 41.03 2.10
Royalty Parish............................ 40.94 40.94
-----------------------------
State Net Revenue..................... 802.48 424.32
=============================
Wetland Fund.......................... 25.00 13.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DNR estimated number based on 10 months of actual data.
Question 4. In your testimony, you note that since the enactment of
the Coastal Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration Act in 1990,
more than 100 restoration projects have been initiated or completed.
How much has Louisiana received under this Act to date?
Answer. Since 1992, Louisiana has received approximately $712
million from the Coastal Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration
Act (CWPPRA). The complexity of this restoration effort is
unprecedented and project construction has been a learning process for
scientists nationwide. Through CWPPRA, we have learned what types of
restoration features are most ecologically beneficial and cost-
effective. We have also learned that small, site-specific projects are
effective but at a very localized scale. While this scale is useful,
the causes of land loss are basin-scale or greater. Thus, the
strategies outlined in the Coast 2050 plan (see response to Question
#5) must be implemented in order to provide an ecosystem-level,
process-based approach to restoration of coastal Louisiana. Full
implementation of the Coast 2050 plan has been estimated to cost $14
billion.
Question 5. Your testimony also notes that the state's ``Coast 2050
Plan'' has served as a blueprint to rehabilitate the Louisiana
coastline. Please describe this program in more detail. How has this
Program been funded? How much funding has the program received to date?
Answer. The Coast 2050 plan, completed in 1998, is a technically
sound, science-based conceptual plan, intended to achieve the
overarching goal of ``. . . sustain(ing) a coastal ecosystem that
supports and protects the environment, economy, and culture of southern
Louisiana and that contributes greatly to the economy and well-being of
the Nation.'' Restoration strategies outlined in this plan were based
upon elements of previous restoration efforts along with initiatives
from private citizens, local governments, State and Federal agency
personnel, and the scientific community. Additionally, new quantitative
techniques for projecting future land loss patterns, a coastwide
assessment of subsidence rates and patterns, and a comprehensive
consideration of changes in fish and wildlife populations were
incorporated. The three strategic objectives of Coast 2050 are: (1) to
sustain a coastal ecosystem with the essential functions and values of
the natural ecosystem, (2) to restore the ecosystem to the highest
practicable acreage of productive and diverse wetlands, and (3) to
accomplish this restoration through an integrated program that has
multiple use benefits.
Although Coast 2050 established a conceptual framework for
restoring Louisiana's coast, it contained no mechanism for plan
implementation or funding acquisition. Coast 2050 focused on a process-
based, ecosystem scale that would require construction of projects
generally larger than had been previously implemented. Since
completion, Coast 2050 has served as the guiding document for all
restoration programs, including CWPPRA and the Louisiana Coastal Area
(LCA) Study. If funded, the LCA plan will be the first big step towards
implementing the Coast 2050 plan.
Question 6. Your testimony further notes the Louisiana Coastal Area
plan, a partnership the state recently created with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. According to your testimony, this plan addresses the
critical near-term needs during the next five to ten years and creates
a Science and Technology Program. Please describe this program in more
detail. How has this program been funded? What are the projected costs?
Answer. The Louisiana Coastal Area plan (LCA plan) is currently
under consideration for Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 2004
authorization. It is one avenue we are pursuing in order to implement
the Coast 2050 plan (see response to question # 5, above). The cost of
the LCA near-term plan is estimated to be $1,961,380,000 over a 10-year
period, with $1,171,110,000 of that total being requested for WRDA 2004
authorization. Of this portion, $100,000,000 would be dedicated to the
Science & Technology (S&T) program, and an additional $175,000,000
would be used for an associated Demonstration Project program.
The overall purposes of the Science and Technology (S&T) program
are to provide the necessary planning and predictive tools for
efficient program implementation, to facilitate resolution of
scientific and technological uncertainties, and to integrate advancing
science and technology into planning, design, and operation of future
projects and program components. All activities of the S&T program
would be coordinated through an S&T Office. The office would provide a
physical location and a single point of contact for State and Federal
agencies, universities, and private sector engineering firms and
individuals with interests in science and technology related to the
Louisiana coastal zone. The S&T office will coordinate scientific and
engineering research and analytical tool development in support of LCA
objectives. Demonstration projects are another tool that will be used
by the S&T office to help advance the LCA program. Through focused
design and monitoring of such projects, critical areas of uncertainty
may be resolved, leading to more cost-effective project construction
and operation in the future.
The LCA plan builds upon the best available science and engineering
knowledge, which has resulted in part from the restoration activities
that have been ongoing in coastal Louisiana for the past several
decades. The construction of over 400 projects of varying scales since
1986 has taught managers what types of projects are most cost-
effective, achieve the intended ecological benefits, and are most
appropriate for a specific location. However, uncertainty is inherent
in ecosystems, and is therefore unavoidable when managing large-scale
ecological systems. Acknowledging and identifying these uncertainties
is critical to the advancement of any large-scale restoration program.
Additionally, large-scale restoration programs may last for decades,
and a mechanism is needed to ensure that the best available science and
engineering knowledge continue to be incorporated into planning,
design, and operation of components of the restoration program.
As the LCA Program advances, uncertainty will be reduced through
research and demonstration projects directed by S&T Office. Through a
process called adaptive management, information resulting from
demonstration projects as well as other research directed by the S&T
office may be incorporated into future planning, design, and operation
of individual projects within the LCA restoration program.
Additionally, adaptive management allows for large-scale ecosystem
restoration to proceed even as researchers work to reduce those
uncertainties. Therefore, the S&T program and demonstration projects
are essential pieces of the adaptive management of the LCA program.
By instituting and funding a formal Science & Technology program we
can recruit and maintain state-of-the-art expertise with appropriate
support for modeling, monitoring and advanced engineering. Recognizing
the critical role of applied coastal science for restoration, the State
of Louisiana has already invested in a coastal R&D program currently
housed in the Governor's Office of Coastal Activities and directed by a
senior coastal scientist. This program is currently operating on state
funds at close to a $1 million/year level.
Questions From Senator Bunning
Question 1. This legislation calls for $1.425 billion in mandatory
spending to fund these conservation programs. Given our already tight
spending constraints, why should these funds in particular be exempted
from the annual appropriations process?
Answer. Louisiana has already lost 1900 square miles of land (an
area the size of Delaware), and continues to lose coastal wetlands at a
rate of 24 square miles per year. If restoration is not implemented
quickly, Louisiana could lose another 500 square miles by the year
2050.
Saving these wetlands is not only important to the state of
Louisiana, but to the Nation as a whole. Louisiana is nationally
important in its contribution to energy supply and security. Nearly 30%
of all oil and gas consumed in the United States either is produced in
or travels through Louisiana. When oil and gas production from the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is factored in, Louisiana ranks first in
the Nation in crude oil production and second in the Nation in natural
gas production. Our wetlands provide protection for over 40,000 of
miles of pipelines and major components of the infrastructure and
services to support the OCS activities. In addition, these coastal
wetlands protect an internationally significant complex of shallow and
deep-draft ports from the destructive forces of storm-driven waves and
tides. This complex handles 21 percent of the Nation's waterborne
commerce, more than any other port in the Nation, and has the most
active segment of the Nation's Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW)
(Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center (WCSC), 2002). Coastal
Louisiana's environmental services include commercial fishing landings
at a dockside value of $305 million in 2002, and account for
approximately 30 percent of the total catch by weight in the lower 48
States (USDOC 2002).
Additionally, the proposed restoration activities may also
contribute to reduction in nutrient loading to the continental shelf
that that is needed in order to reduce the hypoxic zone that develops
each year off the coast of Louisiana. Currently, managers are looking
to the farmers upriver in the Mississippi River basin to reduce
nutrient runoff from agricultural fields. While this also will be
needed to address the problem fully, diverting Mississippi River water
through Louisiana's coastal wetlands before it reaches the open Gulf of
Mexico is a crucial component of the overall effort to reduce the
hypoxia problem.
Historically, royalties from OCS oil and gas activities have
bypassed Louisiana and gone directly to the Federal government. In
2002, Louisiana only received 0.30% of the OCS revenue generated
Nationwide. That is less that one-half of one percent of revenue
returned to the state that leads the country in OCS crude oil
production. These monies are crucial for the restoration of our
coastline which contributes so greatly to the energy security and
environmental sustainability of the Nation.
Question 2. This legislation will provide funding for many multi
purpose and multi jurisdictional programs. How can we ensure that there
will be collaboration and communication among private, local, State,
and Federal interests?
Answer. Louisiana has a proven record of collaborative
relationships among private, local, state, and federal interests.
Through a variety of avenues, the state encourages communication
between all who live and work in the coastal zone. Louisiana Governor
Kathleen Blanco has elevated coastal restoration to the highest
priority of state issues with which she will deal during the next four
years. The Governor's Executive Assistant for Coastal Activities chairs
a task force of all State resource agencies which authorizes all
restoration program and project funding.
The Governor's Advisory Commission on Coastal Restoration and
Conservation was established in 2002 to represent the principal
stakeholders (business and industry, commercial and recreational
fishing, local government, NGO's and the national environmental
community, etc.). Its purpose is to advise the Governor and state
legislature on the overall status and direction of coastal restoration
and to foster coordination among federal, state, and local agencies and
the public.
Louisiana's Coastal Zone Management Program involves a partnership
between Louisiana's Department of Natural Resources (LDNR), NOAA, and
local parish governments. A Parish Coastal Wetlands Restoration Program
is implemented through local governments throughout Louisiana's 20
coastal parishes. LDNR coordinates this program, which primarily
involves construction of low-cost shoreline protection structures.
Finally, Louisiana has three very good examples of effective
collaboration and communication among all interests in the coastal zone
with regard to the restoration program.
The Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) provided a one-
time appropriation of $150 million to assist states in
mitigating impacts from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas
production. Louisiana was one of seven coastal states eligible
to receive funds under CLAP. In 2001, Louisiana received $26.4
million that was utilized for project construction, monitoring,
erosion control, or control of invasive species. Before coastal
states and coastal political subdivisions received funding, the
state was required to submit a CIAP plan detailing how funds
will be spent. In Louisiana, the LDNR was responsible for
creating this plan utilizing input from private, local, and
state interests.
Significant federal involvement in coastal restoration began
in 1990 with the passage of the Coastal Wetlands Planning
Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA). This law allocated
federal funding for the planning, identification, and
implementation of priority coastal restoration projects. The
CWPPRA program is guided and directed by the Coastal Wetlands
Conservation and Restoration Task Force comprising
representatives from 5 federal agencies (USACE, NOAA/NMFS,
NRCS, USFWS, and USEPA) and the State of Louisiana, represented
by the Governor's Executive Assistant for Coastal Activities.
This group makes final decisions concerning issues, policies,
and procedures necessary to execute the CWPPRA program and its
projects. Considerable collaboration and communication on a
federal level has been demonstrated over the past 14 years
through the construction of 68 CWPPRA projects.
A clear example of Federal/State/Local cooperation in
Louisiana came in 1997-1998 when federal, state and local
governments collaborated to create the Coast 2050 plan. This
restoration plan outlines the general ecosystem strategies for
restoring coastal Louisiana. It is based upon elements of
previous restoration efforts along with new initiatives from
citizens, local governments, state and federal agencies, and
the scientific community. The level of citizen support for this
approach to restoration planning in coastal Louisiana was
demonstrated by the fact that Parish Councils and Police Juries
of all 20 coastal parishes passed resolutions in support of the
Coast 2050 Plan.
Question 3. You have mentioned that these programs have had good
experiences working with sports fishermen and hunters. Could you
elaborate on how sportsmen in Kentucky, for example, would benefit from
this legislation?
Answer. The connection to fishermen and hunters is evident in
Louisiana's nickname, the ``Sportsman's Paradise''. In large part, this
Sportsman's Paradise is Louisiana's coastal wetlands and the fish and
wildlife they support. In Louisiana, as in Kentucky and other portions
of the Mississippi River drainage basin, duck hunting is a popular form
of outdoor recreation. The ducks hunted in these states breed during
the spring and summer in the northern U.S. and Canada. Many ducks
travel the Mississippi flyway from their breeding grounds to winter in
the Mississippi alluvial flood plain. Ducks that use this flyway funnel
over many states, including Kentucky, while traveling to their
wintering habitat. Louisiana wetlands provide the largest and most
important wintering habitat for those birds using the Mississippi
flyway. Since quality of winter habitat improves breeding success of
ducks, monies used to restore Louisiana's wetlands can directly affect
the numbers of ducks available for harvest in other states along the
flyway.
In addition to migrating waterfowl, Louisiana also provides
essential stop over and wintering habitat for neotropical migratory
song birds. These long distance migrants tend to be more vulnerable to
habitat loss and fragmentation than resident birds or short distance
migrants. Therefore, maintaining their habitat in Louisiana is of
considerable importance to the preservation of these fascinating and
ecologically important birds.
Louisiana also provides opportunities to sports fishermen from
Kentucky and around the country. For example, bass fishing continues to
grow nationally. Because of the vast amount of suitable habitat, the
largest bass tournament in the country, the Bassmasters Classic, has
taken place in New Orleans in 1999, 2001, and 2003. This tournament is
nationally televised and is not only of tremendous interest to
Louisianans, but also to the rest of the country.
______
Responses of John Baughman to Questions
From Senator Domenici
Question 1a. In your testimony, you note that you have testified
several times before Congress on past efforts to enact legislation to
dedicate OCS revenues to conservation programs.
Why has it been so difficult for Congress to reach consensus on
this issue?
Answer. While previous legislative efforts to dedicate OCS revenues
to conservation passed the House in 2000 by a wide margin, the bill was
never scheduled for floor attention in the Senate. The difficulty
centered principally around the provision to dedicate statutorily these
funds to conservation, thus removing these expenditures from
discretionary appropriations oversight. Less so, property rights
concerns about additional federal land acquisition also impeded
passage.
Question 1b. How does S. 2590 differ from previous Congressional
attempts?
Answer. S. 2590 is different in that it is a smaller bill in both
portfolio and price tag. Significantly, federal-side Land and Water
Conservation Fund is not in the bill as introduced.
Question 2. Your testimony notes that in 1996, over 62 million
American participated in wildlife viewing with an economic impact of
nearly $30 billion. Can you share some more recent figures with the
Committee?
Answer. 80 Million Americans participated in wildlife viewing in
2001--an economic impact of nearly $108 Billion.
Question 3. You propose at least 2 amendments to S. 2590 as
introduced. Please explain what these proposed amendments are and why
you feel they are necessary.
Answer. The 2 amendments, as described below, related to
eligibility of projects for funding under the Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration account in Pittman-Robertson. Both amendments would allow
the State fish and wildlife agency further discretion over fund
expenditures. Our testimony details further the need for these.
Currently, the WCRA caps expenditures for wildlife-
associated recreation at 10%. We are asking that expenditures
for that be at the discretion of the state fish and wildlife
agency according to it's needs, and that the statutory cap be
removed.
Currently, the Pittman-Robertson law precludes spending any
funds on wildlife law enforcement. We are requesting that, at
the discretion of the state fish and wildlife agency, up to 10%
of WCRA funds be eligible for law enforcement use.
Responses of John Baughman to Questions From Senator Bunning
Question 1. This legislation calls for $1.425 billion in mandatory
spending to fund these conservation programs. Given our already tight
spending constraints, why should these funds in particular be exempted
from the annual appropriations process?
Answer. Because the history of funding for natural resources
conservation in the United States under discretionary appropriations
for the last 30 years continues to decline. With increasing human
populations, pressure on land and habitat, and human growth and
development in sensitive habitats as our coastal areas, we need long-
term and assured funding to ensure that population growth is consistent
with natural resource conservation. The vagaries and uncertainties of
discretionary appropriations simply cannot address those challenges.
Question 2. This legislation will provide funding for many multi-
purposed and multi-jurisdictional programs. How can we ensure that
there will be collaboration and communication among private, local,
state, and federal interests?
Answer. The wildlife title authorizing language, currently in
statute as part of the Pittman-Robertson law, requires cooperation
among governments and the opportunity for public participation.
Question 3. You have mentioned that these programs have had good
experiences working with sports fishermen and hunters. Could you
elaborate on how sportsmen in Kentucky, for example, would benefit from
this legislation?
Answer. Just as the so-called non-game species have benefited from
game and sport fish conservation programs under Pittman-Robertson and
Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux, habitat conservation programs for non-
game species will also benefit game species found in these habitats.
Similarly, increased access to lands for all wildlife associated
recreation uses will enhance hunting and fishing opportunities for
sportsmen and sportswomen.
______
Responses of Defenders of Property Rights to Questions From
Senator Domenici
Question 1. Ms. Marzulla, I gather from your written testimony that
your organization is fearful not only of the federal government having
more money available to purchase private property and add it to the
federal estate, but also that states and localities may pursue
acquisition of private property more aggressively. Can you elaborate on
those concerns for the Committee?
Answer. Documenting more than 10,000 cases of eminent domain abuse
by local and state governments, the Hoover Institution has recounted
the level of abuse that takes place each day by local government:
The typical person lacks the resources, knowledge, and skills
to take on the local leviathan that our local governments have
become. The odds are further stacked by the ability of
politicians to use their own citizens' dollars against them.
Except for the rare situation in which local media take an
interest, individuals usually stand no chance against the very
officials that in our federalist system are supposed to protect
our rights.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Monster in Our Backyard, Hoover Digest No. 3, 191, 197
(2004).
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stepped in to curtail local
government's extortionate schemes, which falsely claim to be
``voluntary'' arrangements to acquire private land.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825,
833 n.2 (1987) (``And thus the announcement that the application for
(or granting of) the permit will entail the yielding of a property
interest cannot be regarded as establishing the voluntary ``exchange .
. . .''); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 385 (1994) (``Second,
the conditions imposed were not simply a limitation on the use
petitioner might make of her own parcel, but a requirement that she
deed portions of the property to the city. In Nollan, supra, we held
that governmental authority to exact such a condition was circumscribed
by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and local governments, through their police powers, have come
to exercise just as much damage to the civil rights of American
citizens as the federal government. Congress should consider the extent
of state and local governments' violations of private property rights
before it invests these institutions with additional power, and
additional resources to enable the use of that power.
Question 2. Ms. Marzulla, you note in your testimony that you are
skeptical of S. 2590's requirement that private property can only be
purchased from a ``willing seller.'' I think what I am hearing is that
when the government, either federal, state or local, is the only
``willing buyer,' then the ``willing seller'' is at a significant
disadvantage. Please comment.
Answer. S. 2590's provision that privately owned land will be
purchased only from ``willing sellers'' does not adequately protect
private landowners because the government always holds in reserve the
paramount power of eminent domain that allows it to take any home,
farm, business or factory it pleases.
The government often harasses citizens into selling their property.
The American Land Rights Association has reported finding significant
abuse and harassment on the part of National Park Service agents once
sellers become hostile to initial offers for purchase from the Park
Service.\3\ These agents have searched out individuals who are in
financial need because of personal loss and by purchasing certain
properties in a community, they have ``checker boarded'' entire
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ American Land Rights Association, Willing Seller--a Myth,
Hearing on Land Acquisition and Maintenance in the National Parks,
Testimony Before the Resources Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation and Public Lands United States House of Representatives
(September 27, 2003), available at http://www.landrights.org/ubbs/
ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f= 8&t=000037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The phenomenon known as ``condemnation blight'' illustrates how the
government rarely purchases from a ``willing seller,'' since private
property owners often have no choice but to sell to the government.
Condemnation blight occurs when property values plummet due to the
threat of government condemnation or by delays between the time the
government announces a proposed acquisition and the time the actual
condemnation occurs. In the City of Norfolk, Virginia, for instance,
the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority targeted 90 acres for
condemnation in East Ocean View in an effort to develop valuable
waterfront property. When NRHA identified the 90-acre site in 1993, it
did not have the funds to purchase the property in two to three years
as announced, and years later, the city still had not purchased most of
the targeted property.
According to one commentator:
The city has, in effect, put a dome over East Ocean View,
imposing conditions that prohibit private property owners from
acting in their own best interests. For these property owners
in the path of condemnation, there is no market to sell their
property because buyers will not willingly purchase property in
a neighborhood targeted for demolition. The only potential
buyer is NRHA, which puts NRHA in a uniquely advantageous
bargaining position. Banks make it difficult, if not
impossible, to refinance mortgage loans. Landlords find it
almost impossible to attract quality tenants to a neighborhood
featuring boarded-up buildings, broken windows, and trashed
buildings, all awaiting demolition.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Condemnation Rights in Ocean View, The Virginia-Pilot (May 26,
1998), available at
http://www.vaemdomain.com/essays/oceanview.html.
In Richmond, Virginia, a similar story unfolded when the Richmond
Redevelopment Agency had repeatedly advised a landowner that it would
acquire a property as part of a redevelopment zone, but thirteen years
after the property was initially included in the zone, it decided to
abandon the acquisition. The property owner sued in federal court and
won, with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming on appeal that
the government's actions had so interfered with the landowner's
property rights, it had to pay compensation for the land taken.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Richmond Elks Hall Ass'n v. Richmond Redevelopment Agency,
561 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1997) (``When a public entity acting in
furtherance of a public project directly and substantially interferes
with property rights and thereby significantly impairs the value of the
property, the result is a taking in the constitutional sense and
compensation must be paid.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3. Ms. Marzulla, do you believe that this legislation can
be amended so as to adequately protect private property owners from
having their land taken without fair compensation?
Answer. Yes, the bill could incorporate a requirement guaranteeing
no net gain of public land. That is, if a government wishes to purchase
land from a seller under the Americans Outdoors Act, it must
subsequently sell a different piece of public property to a private
buyer. With this guarantee in place, the bill would at least place an
obstacle in front of the gradual encroachment of private property by
the government.
The bill should also set explicit limits on the amount and types of
property to be purchased, the tactics available to government actors in
those purchases, and internal checks on abuses to guard against
condemnation blight and ensure that these sales are truly voluntary.
There should be a limit set on the amount of time that can elapse
between announced sales of private property and acquisition.
Again, it should be stressed that these changes would be relatively
minor in scope, and that the heart of the bill's purpose--to convert
vast amounts of private property into publicly owned land--is contrary
to Defenders' mission. We see little value in amending the bill's
structure in minor ways while disapproving of its larger consequences
on private ownership.
Question 4. In his testimony, Mr. Diamond notes that increased
conservation-related tourism, such as bird-watching, will lead to
increased property values. How do you respond?
Answer. Certainly conservation and recreational activities do
increase the value of privately owned land in some circumstances, but
not always.
For example, in one case seeking just compensation in the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims for a taking of property located in Reno,
Nevada, the government required property owners to set aside 200 acres
of their land as a conservation (wetland) area. According to the broker
who was tasked with marketing the remainder of the land next to the
conservation areas, these areas reduced the value of the private land.
At trial for damages, he testified that, ``As a matter of fact, we see
[the conservation areas] as a real danger. You'll notice that a lot of
the wetlands have to be left in their existing state. They had wells,
holes that were dug by the ranchers. As a matter of fact, we see it as
dangerous to children, and for residents that don't want to enter them.
And we cannot touch them to manicure them or do any work . . . We did
not advertise that as an amenity.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Trial Tr. at 355, Norman v. United States, No. 95-667L (Fed.
Cl. Dec. 2, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responses of Defenders of Property Rights to Questions
From Senator Craig
Question 1. You imply during your testimony that the true answer to
many of the problems with our public lands is not more money, but
spending our money more wisely. Can you give the Committee a few
examples of what you are seeing on the ground?
Answer. Yes. For instance, in the Pacific Northwest, the federal
designation of 6.9 million acres of privately owned land as federal
habitat for the northern spotted owl led to what are commonly known as
``green ghettos.'' The University of Oregon reported that local taxes
were increased by tenfold in five Oregon counties to replace the income
generated from lost timber sales.\7\ The resulting loss of jobs led to
marked increases in affected communities in unemployment, alcoholism,
suicide, battered spouses, and troubled children.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ J. Heissenbuttel & W. Murray, A Troubled Law in Need of
Revision, 90 J. Forestry 13 (1992).
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC),
public land managers often fail because they have to kowtow to
politician's wishes rather than managing the land properly, as many
private parks are able to do. PERC states that ``[o]n-the-ground
federal land managers have little authority to care for the more than
400 million acres in their charge. These trained professionals,
supported by biologists, botanists, forest ecologists, and a host of
other scientific experts, are often taking orders from Washington
politicians who know nothing about forest health.'' \9\ PERC further
notes the Forest Service's mismanagement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Linda Platts, Politics Manages Our Public Lands, Tom Daschle
Shows How, PERC Reports (Dec. 2001), available at http://www.perc.org/
publications/percreports/sept2002/politics.php.
Year after year, the General Accounting Office has criticized
the Forest Service for the severity of its accounting and
reporting deficiencies. One particularly glaring error arose in
fiscal year 1995 when the Forest Service could not account for
$215 million of its $3.4 billion operating budget. The GAO
reports that the agency is ``unable to reliably keep track of
billions of dollars of major assets, cannot accurately allocate
revenues and costs to its programs, and made significant errors
in preparing its financial statements.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id.
PERC lauds the private management of the Clinch Valley forest in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia:
[T]he Clinch Valley Forest Bank, the brainchild of the Nature
Conservancy, deserves mention. The Clinch River Valley in
southwest Virginia is one of the biologically richest
watersheds in the country. Much of the land is owned by small
private landowners, who may rely on the timber for income or to
meet sudden cash needs such as medical emergencies and school
tuition. The Nature Conservancy has come up with a plan that
links conservation with the land's economic productivity.
Landowners may deposit the legal rights to their timber in
return for an annual dividend of about 4 percent on the
appraised value of the timber. The individuals retain
ownership, but the bank acquires the right to grow, manage, and
harvest the trees in perpetuity. To fund the dividend payments,
the forest bank will harvest and sell the timber in a [sic]
ecologically sound manner that protects the health of the
watershed and the forest.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id.
While the federal government is particularly ineffective at
managing land, the states perform just as badly. According to analyst
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randal O'Toole:
State governments are no better managers than are federal
bureaucrats. They are just as economically inefficient,
ecologically short-sighted, and politically driven as their
federal counterparts . . . In fact, state governments have been
rapidly expanding . . . their land estates . . . \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Randall O'Toole, Should Congress Transfer Federal Lands to the
States?, Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 276, July 3, 1997, p. 1.
Private property ownership fosters environmental protection by
rewarding those who conserve their resources and refrain from harming
the public by use of their land. Indeed, it is no surprise that in
those countries where private property is, or was until recently, not
protected, neither is the environment. In Bangladesh, Africa,
Chernobyl, and Eastern Europe, where property rights were or are at
under governmental control, incentives to protect the environment or
natural resources remain non-existent, and the environment falls into
ruin.
Question 2. Some concerns have been raised by groups such as yours
that an expanded land acquisition trust fund will erode any multiple-
use management of public lands. Can you expand on your concerns and the
reasoning behind it?
Answer. We do believe that multiple-use management of lands would
be eroded by an expansion in the land acquisition trust fund. This is
because government does a remarkably poor job at managing public land
in an ecologically sensitive way, private stewardship of land,
particularly if incentives could be offered to private landowners,
would be much more effective at preserving the multiple uses of
important and ecologically significant land.
In the early 1960s, Interior Secretary Stuart Udall initiated a
program in which the National Park Service would reward landowners for
being good stewards. If they met certain criteria, their land would be
nominated as a National Natural Landmark, and they would receive
recognition and awards for their excellent stewardship. But this
program turned from one based on incentives to one that precluded
private landowners from exercising the full scope of their property
rights. If Secretary Udall's plan to provide incentives for private
stewardship of land had continued, the government could encourage
multiple-use aspects of private land. In government hands, however,
even if such efficient use is possible, it has rarely been realized.
Responses of Defenders of Property Rights to Questions
From Senator Landrieu
Question 1. If every piece of property in the United States was
privately owned, where would the general public go to enjoy the
outdoors, such as open lands and lakes?
Answer. Approximately 630 million acres, or nearly one-third of the
United States, is already owned by the federal government.\13\ Much of
that land is out West, with states such as Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and
Utah virtually belonging to the federal government; Nevada is almost
entirely owned (79 percent) by the federal government. The country is
hardly in danger of every piece of property being privately owned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Requesters,
Land ownership--Information on the Acreage, Management, and Use of
Federal and Other Lands (Mar. 13, 1996), available at http://
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/
useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename= rc96040.txt&directoryr/
diskb/wais/data/gao.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if all land were in private ownership, however, all navigable
waters in the United States are public property and thus, the public
would still enjoy the right to use all navigable lakes, rivers,
streams, and seashores. Due to the federal government's navigational
servitude, a private owner cannot prevent the public from accessing and
using a navigable water for fishing, boating, or other recreational
activities, at least not without the government's permission.
Furthermore, states also regulate these navigable waters and the lands
underneath them for the public use under the public trust doctrine.
Further, Defenders does not take the position that all property
must be privately owned. Although we strongly favor additional
constraints on the government's ability to confiscate private land, we
recognize the occasional, if rare, benefit to state-owned property.
Unfortunately, the Americans Outdoors Act fits squarely into the type
of legislation that most endangers private property rights, and has the
potential to seriously undermine constitutional rights.
Often, the government's zeal to achieve social objectives, like
those stated in the Americans Outdoors Act, endangers constitutional
freedoms. The government's efforts to secure benefits for one group of
individuals almost always impairs the ability of others to secure their
own rights; the Americans Outdoors Act is no exception. Perhaps one
reason why many of us are so willing to trade individual property
rights for desirable public benefits is that we have, in many
instances, forgotten why we have property rights protection in the
first place. Government plays such a large role in our daily lives that
it is difficult to imagine any social good not emerging from the
government. Government provides us with roads, schools, police
protection, and innumerable other public benefits.
In our testimony, we distinguished the governments of the Soviet
Union and other communist nations from our American democracy, which
rejects the idea that government must own excessively large amounts of
property for the public good. From the Ten Commandments to Justinian's
Code, John Locke to James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson to today,
private property rights have constituted a central part of our civil
society, and help to ensure that our government will not grow too
large.
That private property does not always efficiently meet public
demands, or that it burdens certain segments of society, does not mean
that the government should expand its holdings so significantly as to
undermine fundamental civil rights. The Americans Outdoors Act, despite
good intentions, would severely hinder constitutional rights, and would
violate the traditions of the founders of this nation.
Responses of Defenders of Property Rights to Questions
From Senator Bunning
Question 1. This legislation calls for $1.425 billion in mandatory
spending to fund these conservation programs. Given our already tight
spending constraints, why should these funds in particular be exempted
from the annual appropriations process?
Answer. We think this question is better directed to the witnesses
who provided testimony before the Committee in support of this
legislation. Since Defenders opposes passage of the Americans Outdoors
Act, as it is now drafted, we have not considered whether funds to
support the legislation should be exempted from the annual
appropriations process.
Question 2. This legislation will provide for many multi-purposed
and multi-jurisdictional programs. How can we ensure that there will be
collaboration and communication among private, local, state, and
federal interests?
Answer. Again, this question is better directed to those witnesses
who provided testimony before the Committee in support of this
legislation. Since Defenders opposes passage of the Americans Outdoors
Act, as it is now drafted, we have not considered how the legislation
would provide for collaboration and communication among private, local,
state, and federal interests.
Question 3. You have mentioned that these programs have had good
experiences working with sports fishermen and hunters. Could you
elaborate on how sportsmen in Kentucky, for example, would benefit from
this legislation?
Answer. No comment.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
Washington, DC, June 4, 2004.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Alexander: The Association strongly supports and
endorses your initiative reflected in the proposed ``Americans Outdoors
Act'' to address the need for assured and dedicated funding for
conservation and recreation that is state and local-based and directed.
We are particularly appreciative of your recognition in Title IV--
Conservation and Restoration of Wildlife, of the need for providing
funds to the state fish and wildlife agencies for comprehensive fish
and wildlife conservation, education and recreation programs. As you
know, all 50 State fish and wildlife agencies are members of the
Association.
The Title IV funds will be particularly significant in positioning
the state fish and wildlife agencies to proactively conserve declining
fish and wildlife species before the only remedy is to list them as
threatened or endangered. Addressing the life needs and habitat
requirements of declining species early on allows greater use of
voluntary, non-regulatory programs in working with private landowners
when flexibility in choice of management tools is still available. This
will avoid not only the ``emergency-room'' need for the Endangered
Species Act, but also minimize the socio-economic impacts of this
largely regulatory statute. Preventative conservation makes good
biological sense, good economic sense, and good common sense.
We applaud your dedication to shepherding a bipartisan bill through
the legislative process, and look forward to working with you to bring
this to legislative success. The support and assistance of the 50 state
fish and wildlife agencies stands ready to assist you in your endeavor.
Sincerely,
John Baughman,
Executive Vice President.
______
The Wildlife Society,
Betheda, MD, June 7, 2004.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Alexander: The Wildlife Society strongly supports your
initiative to introduce the Americans Outdoors Act, reopening
deliberations on the need for long-term, dedicated conservation and
recreation funding. The Wildlife Society is the organization of
professional wildlife biologists and managers, dedicated to wildlife
stewardship through science and education. For more than a decade we
have advocated for a permanent funding source, statutorily dedicated to
fish and wildlife conservation, wildlife related recreation, and
conservation education. Your commitment to shepherding such an
initiative through Congress is of great importance to the wildlife
profession.
There are significant benefits to wildlife and habitat in the
Americans Outdoors Act. Most importantly, Title III would provide $350
million annually in assured, long-term funding for state fish and
wildlife programs. These funds would be allocated through the Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Account established in the Pittman-
Robertson Act, which apportions funds on a formula of \2/3\ population
and \1/3\ land area. This would mean more than,$6 million per year for
Tennessee and more than $5 million per year for Louisiana to conserve
all species of wildlife, to reverse declines of species in need of
conservation, and to meet public demand for outdoor recreation and
conservation education.
Your leadership in drafting a bill that can engender bipartisan
support is extremely valuable and much appreciated. We are poised to
help you build momentum to successfully move this bill through the
legislative process. Thank you again for your commitment to
conservation.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Franklin.
______
Boone and Crockett Club,
Cody, WY, June 9, 2004.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Alexander: The Boone and Crockett Club is pleased to
see the ``Americans Outdoors Act'' introduced to continue the dialog
about how to fund state wildlife agencies to preserve their lead role
in delivering wildlife conservation at the local level, and to provide
carefully selected additional lands for Americans to use in recreation.
We continue to be supportive of legislation that taps logical funding
sources, carefully and clearly protects the rights of the private
landowner, and helps to conserve America's outdoors.
We are pleased to see a bipartisan effort under way and look
forward to working with you, other members of Congress and the
Administration to pass legislation that meets the needs of the states,
the American public, and America's outdoor heritage.
Sincerely,
Robert Model,
President.
______
American Sportfishing Association,
Alexandria, VA, June 21, 2004.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Alexander: The American Sportfishing Association
strongly supports your initiative reflected in the proposed ``Americans
Outdoors Act'' that would assure and dedicate funding for conservation
and recreation that is state and local-based and directed. We are
particularly appreciative of your recognition in Title IV--Conservation
and Restoration of Wildlife, providing funds to the state fish and
wildlife agencies for comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation,
education and recreation programs. The American Sportfishing
Association is a non-profit trade organization whose members include
fishing tackle manufacturers, boat builders, tackle retailers, state
fish and wildlife agencies, angler organizations and the outdoor media.
The Title IV funds will be particularly significant in positioning
the state fish and wildlife agencies to proactively conserve declining
fish and wildlife species before having to list them as threatened or
endangered. Addressing the life needs and habitat requirements of
declining species early on allows greater use of voluntary, non-
regulatory programs in working with private landowners and giving an
amount of flexibility to choose the best management practices
available. This will not only avoid requiring listing under the
Endangered Species Act, but it will also minimize the socio-economic
impacts of this largely regulatory statute. Preventative conservation
makes good biological sense, good economic sense, and good common
sense.
We applaud your dedication to shepherding a bipartisan bill through
the legislative process, and look forward to working with you to bring
this to legislative success. The support and assistance of the
sportfishing industry stands ready to assist you in your endeavor.
Sincerely,
Gordon C. Robertson,
Vice President.
______
Archery Trade Association,
Vienna, VA, June 22, 2004.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Alexander: The Archery Trade Association strongly
supports your initiative reflected in the ``Americans Outdoors Act'' to
address the need for dedicated funding for conservation and recreation
that is state and local-based. We are particularly appreciative of your
recognition in Title IV Conservation and Restoration of Wildlife, of
the need for providing funds to the state fish and wildlife agencies
for comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation, education and
recreation programs.
The Title IV funds will allow state fish and wildlife agencies to
proactively conserve declining fish and wildlife species before the
only option is to list them as threatened or endangered. Addressing the
life needs and habitat requirements of declining species early allows
greater use of voluntary, non-regulatory programs in working with
private landowners when flexibility in choice of management tools is
still available. This will avoid not only the ``trauma-type'' use of
the Endangered Species Act, but will minimize the socio-economic
impacts of this regulatory statute. Preventative conservation will
achieve biological goals in an economical fashion which makes good
common sense.
We appreciate your efforts to push this bipartisan bill through the
legislative process, and look forward to working with you to bring this
to legislative success. Please accept the support of our 500
manufacturers and over 2,000 retailers and know that we stand ready to
assist you in your endeavor.
Sincerely,
Jay McAninch,
CEO/President Archery Trade Association.
______
National Marine Manufacturers Association,
Washington, DC, June 21, 2004.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Alexander: The National Marine Manufacturers
Association (NMMA), the nation's leading recreational marine trade
association, your proposed legislation, the Americans Outdoors Act.
NMMA represents over 1,500 member companies that are involved in every
aspect of the recreational boating industry and our members manufacture
over 80 percent of all recreational boats, engines, trailers, and
accessories purchased by the boating community in the United States.
NMMA focuses considerable resources to support initiatives to
strength fisheries conservation and management because fishing is very
important to a majority of the recreational boating community.
Statistics show that nearly 80% of U.S. boat owners enjoy recreational
fishing as a wholesome pursuit and escape from the stress of everyday-
life. As you know, the Americans Outdoors Act will provide funding for
programs important to fishing and wildlife conservation in general. The
boost in funding for wildlife conservation programs in the ``Americans
Outdoors Act'' will help bridge a funding gap that makes it difficult
for state fish and wildlife managers to effectively do their jobs.
State fish and wildlife managers need the funding provided in this bill
in order to monitor and manage game and non-game species including
valuable fish stocks.
The coastal impact assistance will address a top conservation
priority: protecting and enhancing wetlands. This habitat fills an
irreplaceable niche that is vital to a huge variety of species.
Wetlands habitat is under particularly heavy development pressure and
is sensitive to the effects of offshore drilling related activities.
The coastal mitigation support in your bill is an important step toward
solving this important problem.
The funding for the planning and development of state and local
parks and recreation facilities will help reverse trends that are
seeing fewer and fewer kids take up outdoor pursuits. Providing better
access and facilities for outdoor enthusiasts can strengthen the
fraying bond between Americans and the natural world.
NMMA urges you to introduce the Americans Outdoors Act, and we are
offering our services in this effort. Please do not hesitate to contact
Jeffrey Gabriel of my staff at (202) 737-9764 or email at
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Monita W. Fontaine, Esq.,
Vice President, Government Relations.
______
Federation of Fly Fishers,
Livingston, MT, June 22, 2004.
Hon. Mary Landrieu,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Landrieu: The Federation of Fly Fishers strongly
supports and endorses your initiative reflected in the proposed
``Americans Outdoors Act'' to address the need for assured and
dedicated funding for conservation and recreation that is state and
local-based and directed. We are particularly appreciative of your
recognition in Title IV--Conservation and Restoration of Wildlife, of
the need for providing funds to the state fish and wildlife agencies
for comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation, education and
recreation programs.
The Title IV funds will be particularly significant in positioning
the state fish and wildlife agencies to proactively conserve declining
fish and wildlife species before the only remedy is to list them as
threatened or endangered. Addressing the life needs and habitat
requirements of declining species early on allows greater use of
voluntary, non-regulatory programs in working with private landowners
when flexibility in choice of management tools is still available, This
will avoid not only the ``emergency-room'' need for the Endangered
Species Act, but also minimize the socio-economic impacts of this
largely regulatory statute. Preventative conservation makes good
biological sense, good economic sense, and good common sense.
We applaud your dedication to shepherding a bipartisan bill through
the legislative process, and look forward to working with you to bring
this to legislative success.
Sincerely,
Kim Gates,
Conservation Coordinator.
______
American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD, June 24, 2004.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Alexander: The American Fisheries Society strongly
supports and endorses your initiative reflected in the proposed
``Americans Outdoors Act'' to address the need for assured and
dedicated funding for conservation and recreation that is state and
local-based and directed. We are particularly appreciative of your
recognition in Title IV--Conservation and Restoration of Wildlife, of
the need for providing funds to the state fish and wildlife agencies
for comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation, education and
recreation programs.
The Title IV funds will be particularly significant in positioning
the state fish and wildlife agencies to proactively conserve declining
fish and wildlife species before the only remedy is to list them as
threatened or endangered. Addressing the life needs and habitat
requirements of declining species early on allows greater use of
voluntary, non-regulatory programs in working with private landowners
when flexibility in choice of management tools is still available. This
will avoid not only the ``emergency-room'' need for the Endangered
Species Act, but also minimize the socio-economic impacts of this
largely regulatory statute. Preventative conservation makes good
biological sense, good economic sense, and good common sense.
We applaud your dedication to shepherding a bipartisan bill through
the legislative process, and look forward to working with you to bring
this to legislative success.
Sincerely,
Gus Rassam,
Executive Director.
______
National Wildlife Federation,
June 24, 2004.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mary Landrieu,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Alexander and Senator Landrieu: On behalf of the four
million members and supporters of the National Wildlife Federation
(NWF), I would like to thank you for introducing the Americans Outdoors
Act. Enactment of long-term and reliable annual appropriations for
wildlife conservation, natural areas and safe neighborhood parks,
recreation, and coastal restoration would be a milestone appreciated by
this and future generations.
The bill's $350 million wildlife title is especially important to
NWF. Its stable funding will enable state and tribal fish and wildlife
agencies to effectively conserve wildlife, so our children's children
can experience the birds, fish, and wildlife that we enjoy in our
backyards, streams, and rural areas. While state agencies manage all
species within their boarders--with the exception of marine mammals--
most of their resources are dedicated to the wildlife we hunt and fish.
These programs have successfully restored wild turkey, elk, black bear,
and striped bass to their native habitats. However, over 90 percent of
the species within our nation are not hunted and fished and their needs
are vast. The wildlife title embraces all species, but strategically
invests in those that are most in need of conservation. It proactively
addresses these needs through partnerships with landowners, nonprofit
organizations and others in an effort to prevent species from becoming
threatened or endangered in the first place.
Our neighborhood parks and recreation areas are among the most
valued assets of our cities and towns and reflect the vision and wisdom
of past community leaders. Similarly, access and opportunities to hunt,
fish, and study nature have contributed a major facet of American
character. Your bill ensures that these proud traditions will continue
as our nation and communities grow.
We also support your effort to ensure that additional funds are
made available for coastal restoration. Louisiana alone loses a
football field every thirty minutes and between 25 and 30 square miles
of marsh and swamp a year due to a range of factors including the
impacts of oil and gas activities.
We truly appreciate the leadership and consultation with colleagues
that are reflected in your bill and the consideration the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee will afford your bill as a result.
Having said that, we do urge that as the bill makes its way through the
legislative process, it be amended to include titles on the federal
side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and the Forest
Legacy program (FLP).
Federal LWCF makes a valuable and lasting contribution to the
citizens of every state. The federal acquisition of willing-seller
lands is a critical conservation tool that has been associated with OCS
revenues for nearly three decades.
The Forest Legacy program allows states to protect important
forests that are threatened with conversion to non-forest uses and to
protect local communities and their way of life. Designed to encourage
the protection of privately owned forest lands, FLP is an entirely
voluntary program. To maximize the public benefits it achieves, the
program focuses on the acquisition of partial interests in privately
owned forest lands. It encourages and supports acquisition of
conservation easements, legally binding agreements transferring a
negotiated set of property rights from one party to another, without
removing the property from private ownership. Ultimately, the program
is a win for private timber operators, landowners, wildlife and the
environment.
We applaud your effort to keep our common fish and wildlife common
and to invest in the outdoors and recreation opportunities that
contribute to the physical, mental, social, and spiritual health of our
citizens and communities. These investments must be made each year to
keep up with our nation's growth and to save taxpayers the enormous
costs that result when they are not
Once again, thank you for introducing the Americans Outdoors Act.
The National Wildlife Federation looks forward to working with you as
the Americans Outdoors Act progresses through the legislative process.
Sincerely,
Larry Schweiger,
President & CEO.
______
Coastal States Organization,
Washington, DC, June 24, 2004.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mary Landrieu,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Alexander and Landrieu: On behalf of the coastal
states, I am writing to voice our support for the principles contained
in the Americans Outdoors Act. The Coastal States Organization has
long-held the position that revenues derived from Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) oil and gas development belong to all Americans and as
such, should be reinvested in ocean and coastal programs that provide
for the protection, restoration, and management of coastal resources.
The recently released preliminary report by the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy affirmed the need for assured and dedicated funding. The
Commission called on Congress to ensure that a portion of the OCS
revenues be invested in the conservation and sustainable development of
ocean and coastal resources through grants to coastal states.
As coastal resources face increasing pressure from use and
development, it is important that funding be provided to assist states
in mitigating the impacts. CSO asks you to consider providing all
coastal states with an equitable share of the federal revenue from OCS
oil and gas development. These funds will enable states to address
erosion, habitat loss, environmental contamination, invasive species,
and to mitigate the impacts of offshore oil and gas development.
Coastal states where OCS oil and gas is produced may receive a larger
portion of the compensation to address the environmental impacts of
energy activities. Lastly, any OCS revenue-sharing legislation should
contain assurances that no incentives for additional exploration or
production on the OCS will be created and current moratoria on offshore
oil and gas leasing are unaffected.
This bill is an important step towards enacting dedicated funding
for coastal conservation and strong coastal communities. We applaud
this bipartisan effort and look forward to working with you on this
legislation.
Sincerely,
Tony MacDonald,
Executive Director.
______
Hodgman Inc.,
Montgomery, IL, June 14, 2004.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mary Landrieu,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators: We are writing to express the Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership's strong support for the ``Americans Outdoors
Act.''
In particular, we are pleased to see elements in this legislation
that provide funding for programs important to hunting and fishing and
wildlife conservation.
The boost in funding for wildlife conservation programs in the
``Americans Outdoors Act'' will help bridge a funding gap that has made
it difficult for state fish and wildlife managers to effectively do
their jobs. In order to monitor and manage game and non-game species so
that all Americans can benefit from interacting with the wildlife of
this country, state fish and wildlife managers need the funding
provided in this bill.
The coastal impact assistance will address a top conservation
priority: protecting and enhancing wetlands. This habitat fills an
irreplaceable niche that is vital to a huge variety of species.
Wetlands habitat is under particularly heavy development pressure and
is sensitive to the effects of offshore drilling related activities.
The coastal mitigation support in your bill is an important step toward
solving this important problem.
The funding for the planning and development of state and local
parks and recreation facilities will help reverse trends that are
seeing fewer and fewer kids take up outdoor pursuits. Providing better
access and facilities for outdoor enthusiasts can strengthen a bond
between Americans and the natural world that has become frayed.
At the Conference on the Conservation of Natural Resources at the
White House in 1908, our greatest conservation president, Theodore
Roosevelt said,
``It is time for us now as a nation to exercise the same reasonable
foresight in dealing with our great national resources that would be
shown by any prudent man in conserving and wisely using the property
which contains the assurance of well-being for himself and his
children.''
The ``Americans Outdoors Act'' represents just the sort of
conservation foresight T.R. was talking about. This bill can help
ensure that future generations are able to enjoy this country's
beautiful wild spaces and the fish and wildlife that live in them.
Sincerely,
Ronald W. Foster,
President.
______
Statement of Brad Hays, Chairman, U.S. Soccer Foundation
The United States Soccer Foundation, a public, not-for-profit
organization committed to health and recreation through the increased
development of the sport, would like to thank Senator Lamar Alexander
of Tennessee and Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana for their
leadership and express our strong support for the Americans Outdoors
Act, a bipartisan effort to provide states and municipalities a
permanent source of matching funds for parks and recreation.
The Americans Outdoors Act provides a dependable source of
recreation support for State and Local Governments by fully funding the
stateside component of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and
providing ample funding for the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
Program (UPARR). Funding for these two programs have long been a
priority for the entire U.S. Soccer membership (including national
youth, adult, and professional soccer organizations).
The reason for our support is clear: the LWCF has played an
integral role in creating and developing our nation's parks and
recreation spaces. In its 35-year history, LWCF has helped communities
develop more than 38,000 state and local park and recreation projects,
including well over 7,000 soccer fields nationwide. UPARR (LWCF's urban
sister program) enhances opportunities for critically necessary
recreation facilities in neighborhoods that need it most. A recent lack
of dependable annual funding has turned UPARR into less of a resource,
but we still view it as an untapped gem in assisting with the
renovation of playing fields in the swiftly growing urban soccer
market.
Permanent annual funding for these two programs will allow soccer
enthusiasts to enhance the development and growth of the game in their
local communities. It will also allow organizations like the U.S.
Soccer Foundation to better utilize the game of soccer as a vehicle to
promote healthy and active lifestyles and improve the communities in
which we live, work, and, now more importantly than ever before, play.
The U.S. Soccer Foundation, and the U.S. Soccer Federation member
organizations, including U.S. Youth Soccer; U.S. Adult Soccer; and the
American Youth Soccer Organization, representing the over 19 millions
Americans who play soccer each year, enthusiastically support the
passage of the Americans Outdoors Act.
______
Statement of Celina Montorfano, Director of Conservation Programs,
American Hiking Society
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, American Hiking Society
represents 5,000 members and the 500,000 members of our 150 affiliated
organizations. As the national voice for America's hikers, American
Hiking Society promotes and protects foot trails and the hiking
experience. As the only national recreation-based conservation
organization dedicated to establishing, protecting, and maintaining
America's foot trails and a long-time partner with the National Park
Service (NPS), USDA Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), American Hiking and its constituents have a very strong interest
and stake in conservation and recreation funding programs for national
parks, forests, trails, and public lands.
In order for Americans to enjoy the outdoors and find healthy
places to recreate, we need protected open spaces and access to natural
and recreational resources. The Americans Outdoors Act, S. 2590,
introduced by Senators Lamar Alexander and Mary Landrieu, funds a
variety of critical outdoor recreation and conservation programs
including the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund. American
Hiking applauds the sponsors for introducing this significant
legislation and strongly urges the inclusion of the federal side of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the Americans Outdoors Act.
The LWCF is one of the government's most important land protection
tools that protects open space, trails, and natural and recreation
resources for the benefit of the nation and future generations of
hikers.
LWCF--BACKGROUND
The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a visionary and bipartisan
program, established by Congress in 1964 to create parks, protect
trails and open spaces, preserve wilderness and wildlife habitat, and
enhance recreational opportunities.
LWCF was created in response to the need for quality and accessible
outdoor recreation as well as threats to the open space and natural
resources that provide that recreational experience. Early successes of
the program and the popularity of the projects that LWCF has made a
reality created pressure to increase the amount of money in the Fund.
In 1968 Congress made offshore oil and gas drilling lease proceeds a
source for LWCF and in 1977 increased the amount of funds available to
$900 million per year.
Over the past decade, the majority of LWCF funds have been diverted
to programs unrelated to the traditional LWCF uses such as land
protection and recreation. While LWCF funds have been cut severely, the
need for open space and recreation has soared. Authorized at $900
million annually, LWCF is one of the most important conservation tools
ever designed and is critical to the future protection of national
trails and trail lands.
The federal program of LWCF funds the purchase of land and water
areas for conservation and recreation purposes within the Forest
Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau
of Land Management. During the last forty years, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund has protected some of America's most recognized and
treasured national parks, wilderness, trails, forests, and refuges.
Federal LWCF projects have protected lands and resources endeared by
hikers including: Acadia National Park; Grand Canyon National Park; the
Appalachian, Pacific Crest, Florida, Ice Age, and Continental Divide
National Scenic Trails; Rocky Mountain National Park; King Range
National Conservation Area; Great Smoky Mountains National Park; Denali
National Park; Green Mountain National Forest; Gallatin National
Forest; and many others.
Federal land agencies obtain LWCF monies only after completing an
in-depth prioritization process and receiving specific appropriations
approved by Congress. After taking into account a variety of factors--
including cost, threat/probability of development, local support,
whether the project meets a public need, and federal management agency
objectives, among other criteria--the agencies develop lists of
prioritized needs for LWCF projects. These lists are then reviewed and
approved or rejected by the Office of Management and Budget, after
which they are included or excluded from the President's budget.
LWCF & THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
Hikers, other recreationists, and all Americans benefit from our
twenty-three national scenic and historic trails, but only one--the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail--is fully open for public use from
end-to-end. For most of these trails, barely half of their
congressionally authorized length and resources are protected and
available for public use. Land acquisition through the LWCF is an
essential means for protecting the resources and continuity that form
the basis for these trails.
The NPS, Forest Service, and BLM play an essential role in
protecting resources and rights-of-way critical to the integrity and
continuity of these trails. Federal acquisition through LWCF is one of
many land protection tools, but it is a critical and proven one. The
federal government complements land acquisition through a number of
alternative land protection mechanisms including conservation
easements, private stewardship grants, challenge cost-share programs,
and other types of partnerships.
Land managers purchase land to protect the national trails only as
opportunities arise and as Congress appropriates the necessary funds.
If Congress doesn't want to fund federal land acquisition, it doesn't
have to appropriate the funds requested. Congress' intent to provide
opportunities for outdoor recreation and appreciation and enjoyment of
natural and historic resources may never be fully achieved along these
trails without the agencies' ability to purchase land from willing
sellers through the LWCF. Many landowners have offered to sell their
land to the federal government to maintain the continuity of a national
scenic trail. Individual families have voluntarily protected many
unique and special sites along the scenic and historic trails for
several generations.
Acquisition through the LWCF enables the federal agencies to carry
out their responsibilities under the National Trails System Act (NTSA)
to protect nationally significant components of our nation's cultural,
natural, and recreational heritage and to provide public access to and
travel within them. Appropriations from the LWCF enable the federal
agencies to respond to conservation opportunities presented by willing
landowners. For most national scenic trails, the need to acquire land
is acute and requires prompt action in order to save irreplaceable and
invaluable resources and experiences.
Ultimate control over how much land may be purchased for the
national trails remains with Congress through the annual appropriation
process. Acquisitions are also controlled by the limited funding
available for acquisitions combined with the linear nature of these
trails. However, if the administering agency can only protect a segment
of trail corridor by acquiring a whole parcel larger than needed for
the corridor, the NTSA allows agencies to exchange or dispose of land
acquired as part of a whole tract that falls outside the area of trail
acquisition. The federal land management agencies are needed as
partners to add their staff and acquisition dollars to the efforts of
state/local agencies and private organizations to protect the rights-
of-way that will enable these trails to become the continuous footpaths
Congress intended.
The trails and trail lands protected through the LWCF represent one
of our nation's most valuable assets, bringing individuals and families
outside for recreation, inspiration, and education, and providing
healthy physical activities, alternatives for transportation, and
protection for natural and cultural resources. Hiking is one of the
nation's most popular outdoor activities--73 million Americans hike
regularly or occasionally (Outdoor Industry Association Participation
Study 2002). By increasing physical activity, trail use such as
walking/hiking reduces the risk of life-threatening diseases such as
heart disease, diabetes, and cancer and combats one of the leading
causes of preventable death today: obesity. Our parks, forests, and
trails serve as outdoor classrooms for natural and cultural history in
addition to outdoor recreation areas. Trails also provide economic
vitality to communities, increasing property values and enhancing
regional tourism. Nationally, sales of outdoor gear, clothing,
footwear, and other accessories amount to more than $18 billion per
year.
CONCLUSION
American Hiking Society supports the conservation and recreation
funding programs included in S. 2590; however, we strongly urge the
Committee to amend the Americans Outdoors Act to include full funding
of $450 million for the federal side of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, a cornerstone program that protects trails and trail lands for
the benefit of the nation and future generations of hikers.
American Hiking Society and its members and member clubs do their
part every year to help maintain our nation's outstanding network of
trails, contributing tens of thousands of volunteer hours worth
millions in labor along with direct financial contributions. These
efforts complement federal and state agency responsibilities to protect
our natural, cultural, and recreational heritage and to provide public
access to and travel within them. These responsibilities are not
achievable without consistent, dedicated funding to both the stateside
and federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a visionary,
proven program that provides essential conservation, recreation,
economic, public access, and public health benefits to the nation.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Statement of the National Recreation and Park Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, pending before you is a
bill that challenges the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the
Senate and others to consider the national imperative for public
recreation access and resource stewardship. This is not exclusively an
issue of conservation and investment in federal lands most often
discussed by the committee. Rather, it is an issue fully
intergovernmental in nature. Public recreation and stewardship
responsibilities are shared by state governments, where state park
systems include over 6,000 sites and host over 750,000,000 visits
annually, and with more than 5,000 `local' public park and recreation
entities that plan, finance, design, and manage over 80,000 sites. Our
best estimate suggests that collectively local public park and
recreation places--from large regional parks to community recreation
centers--likely host 2.5-3.0 billion visits annually. In reality, the
American people seek a continuum of recreation destinations and
experiences.
Public investments in capital projects are most efficient when
funds are sufficient to address specific public needs and are
reasonably predictable. Despite exceptional work by members of this
Committee and many other legislators, neither LWCF nor the Urban Park
and Recreation Recovery Program, have, over time, had the benefit of
sufficient, predictable funds. Accordingly, we urge the Committee to
continue active consideration of S. 2590, to amend it as necessary, and
to favorably report it to the Senate. NRPA will in the near future
recommend specific areas where, in its judgment, S. 2590 should be
strengthened.
The National Recreation and Park Association is a 501(c)(3)
organization. Among many activities, it is an advocate for progressive
national policy and actions that support public recreation and park
systems and services. Its membership consists of public executives,
managers, elected and appointed citizen policy makers, and citizen
advocates associated with the creation and public use of recreation and
park places and public services. Our 23,000 members are associated with
public park and recreation agencies at all levels, water and other
conservation authorities, research, undergraduate and graduate
education, continuing education and training, recreation services and
site adaptations for persons with disabilities, and recreation for
members of the Armed Forces and their dependents. Our trustees include
representatives of this ``community.'' They are also representative of
large and small businesses, foundations, and other private interests.
Our earliest institutional roots reach to the creation in 1898 of
the New England Association of Park Superintendents, to a merger in
1965 of five associated groups. Prior to 1965, most of these groups
participated in the work of the congressionally authorized Outdoor
Recreation Resources Review Commission. They separately testified in
support of the creation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. NRPA
was the principal national not-for-profit advocate for the creation in
1978 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act. The urban park
restoration program is the only element of then-President Jimmy
Carter's urban initiative that the Congress enacted into law.
THE RECREATION AND PARK IMPERATIVE
Today, the imperative for investing in public recreation resources
is, in our view, at least as great and arguably greater than were
circumstances in 1964 and 1978, respectively, when the U.S. Congress
enacted the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and the Urban Park and
Recreation Recovery Act. Why?
Population Growth: One answer lies in observations of U.S. Senator
Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) as recent as July 12 in remarks at the National
Press Club. By 2014, just short 10 years from now, Senator Frist
observed, the U.S. population will approach or exceed 320 million
people. Twenty-five percent of us will be over 65, and the fastest
growing segment of our population will continue to be over 85. This
will result, and is resulting, in two scenarios of critical importance:
First, more people will result in increased demand for public
recreation destinations, space, and services, in all likelihood close
to where they live. Second, the availability of the most geographically
critical space for public recreation and conservation, again, mostly
close to home will be greatly diminished. Also, the purchase power of
the presently authorized OCS revenue credited to the U.S. Treasury--
$900 million annually (and amounts available for the restoration of
urban parks in distressed places)--will be greatly diminished.
Population Diversity: The national population will be increasingly
diverse. The growth rate of minority populations--37 percent of total
population--will be twice the rate of the general population by 2014.
New immigrants are settling in large cities and small communities. This
scenario brings significant social and economic change, and impacts the
types and location of recreation demand, among other factors. A high
percentage of this population will depend on public recreation
resources and services.
Healthy People and Health Care Costs: The Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act contains a single policy objective: To improve
individual and public health through access to a network of recreation
resources. There is an increasing abundance of medical science and
practice that supports this objective. Increasingly, a physically
active life-style through recreation is a viable strategy for disease
prevention and health promotion for many people. Access to this
information and interpreting it is recognized by health professionals,
policy-makers, and health-focused organizations. This spring, for
example, 26 groups, including NRPA, urged House and Senate
appropriators to recognize the health outcomes of active recreation by
appropriating more adequate funds for LWCF and urban park-aided
investments. Advocates for Health, Public Parks, and Recreation,
include the American Heart Association, Center for Science in the
Public Interest, State Directors of Health Promotion and Education,
Amputee Coalition of America, Institute for Cancer Prevention,
Association of State and Territorial Public Health Nutrition Directors,
and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, among others.
Health and health care costs will ``pretty much determine'' whether
or not (American) companies will compete successfully in the global
market place, Sen. Frist observed. The administration's announcement on
July 16 that certain types of obesity will be considered an illness and
thus eligible for Medicare, could dramatically change public health
care costs and estimates. Active recreation will not be a panacea, but
it must be considered as an element of a healthy lifestyle.
Revelations in the Journal of the American Medical Association
(March 10, 2004) on the increasing rate of mortality attributable to
physical inactivity and poor diet increase the imperative to invest in
public park and recreation facilities that encourage active lifestyles.
The 400,000 deaths annually due to physical inactivity and poor diet is
the ``largest increase among all causes of death,'' the report
observes. Also, Kenneth H. Cooper, M.D., M.P.H. recently noted,
``(Today) our kids are fatter and less fit than they have been in the
history of this country.'' (Statement to National Governors'
Association, Winter Meeting, Feb. 22, 2004). Idaho governor and
National Governors Association president Dirk Kempthorne on July 17
announced an NGA policy initiative that will anticipate state health
care strategies and costs of a soon-to-retire `Baby Boom' generation.
These individuals, most with reduced incomes, are expected to place
enormous demands on local and state park systems, and recreation-
accessible federal resources.
A report by the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion reinforces the recommendations of health-recreation
community. The Center observed, ``(C)haracteristics of our communities
such as the accessibility and location of parks, trails, sidewalks and
recreation centers... may play an even greater (than social
environments) role in promoting or discouraging an individual or
family's level of physical activity.''
More sufficient congressional support for increased public access
through recreation development and resource conservation holds high
potential for at least stabilizing some types of health costs over the
long term. For example, the four diseases that may be prevented by
appropriately active lifestyles, including active recreation--heart
disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes--are life-threatening and costly
to treat. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has observed
that if physically inactive people were to become sufficiently active,
the nation could potentially reduce health care costs by over $75
billion a year. Active recreation also can promote mental health by
reducing anxiety and depression. Youth, especially, can benefit from
active recreation. About 15 percent of all children are obese, a
condition that increases the risk of high blood cholesterol, high blood
pressure, and diabetes. By being physically active on a regular basis,
often at public park and recreation sites, youth may be able to avoid
or delay health problems associated with obesity and related
conditions. With sufficient predictable funds thousands of public park
and recreation facilities in American communities will be created,
restored, and expanded, thus offering greater opportunity for active
lifestyles.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT NEEDS
Since 1990, the National Recreation and Park Association has
undertaken three national surveys at 5-year intervals to objectively
estimate local public recreation and park investment needs. In January
2000 NRPA surveyed 500 local park and recreation agencies, selected
randomly from 5,050 agencies nationwide to determine the needs,
priorities, and probable funding sources for capital investment during
fiscal years 2000 through 2004. Estimates of total local needs for the
five-year period were developed. We are scheduled to initiate a 2005-
2009 needs survey later this year.
The NRPA research on 2000-2004 indicated that local park and
recreation agencies need to invest, from all sources, an estimated $55
billion for rehabilitation, land conservation, and construction of
facilities. Localities expected to have less than one-half that sum
available. The total estimated need is twice the amount, $27.7 billion,
projected for the 1995-1999 period. It must be noted that this survey
occurred prior to Sept. 11, 2001 and a major decline in the value of
personal, corporate, foundation and other stocks.
Nonetheless, the capital investment priorities for FY2000-2004 are
instructive. They emphasize the need to expand the capacity of public
recreation systems generally, and enhance access--46.2% of local
agencies ranked this as the greatest priority. Over 36% of the agencies
ranked eliminating and/or reducing specific recreation deficiencies as
the highest priority. Conserving specific natural resource features,
and shaping and controlling the direction of land use change were
ranked as the top priority by 20.2% and 9.2% of local agencies,
respectively.
In terms of fiscal need, the development of new recreation
infrastructure ranked highest, with a total need of $25.5 billion
(46.3%) nationwide. For those agencies expressing such needs, the
averages need per agency was $5.6 million, up from $3 million for the
previous five-year period. Rehabilitation and restoration needs of
lands and facilities nationwide totaled $13.8 billion (25.2%). These
needs are not for ``maintenance,'' but reflect major costs for resource
renovation to correct deficiencies due to age or wear, outdated design,
accessibility for persons with disabilities, and to increase user
capacity of existing lands and facilities. For those agencies
expressing a need for rehabilitation, the average need per agency was
$3 million, up from $2.2 million in the previous survey.
Land acquisition needs including both fee simple purchase and less
than fee approaches totaled $16 billion (28.5%). For those agencies
expressing the need for investment in land acquisition, the average
cost per agency was $3.4 million, up from $2.4 million estimated
previously. The average amount of additional recreational space rose
from 214 to 349 acres per local system. Local governments anticipated
that about six percent of capital needs (almost $1.8 billion) would
come from federal sources.
LWCF DEDICATED VERSUS AVAILABLE FUNDS
Access to and investment of OCS revenues allocated to the Land and
Water Conservation Fund have varied greatly. Appropriations have always
been less than the $900 million authorized to be annually credited to
the Fund, or requested by all governments. During the last 20 years
(FY1985-FY2004), for example, revenues from Outer Continental Shelf
activities credited to the Land and Water Conservation Fund U.S.
Treasury account total about $17.4 billion (Minerals Management
Service, Minerals Revenue Management, 1982-2003). During the same
period, actual LWCF appropriations--federal and state--totaled about
$7.8 billion. Appropriations for assistance to states and local
governments during this period totaled $876 million. Of this amount,
about $551 million was appropriated during the period 2000-2004. This
followed four consecutive years of zero funds for grants. Assuming an
equal distribution ($450 million each) for federal and state/local
projects at full dedicated funding ($900 million), state assistance and
federal investments, would each total $2.7 billion over the six-year
life of S. 2590.
The table below reflects the variability in LWCF appropriations for
state assistance.
APPROPRIATIONS FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND STATE/LOCAL
ASSISTANCE
[Five-Year Periods from Fiscal Years 1965-2004]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period $ in Millions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1965-1969....................................... 256
1970-1974....................................... 750
1975-1979....................................... 1.250
1980-1984....................................... 657
1985-1989....................................... 184
1990-1994....................................... 116
1995-1999 (1 year).............................. 25
2000-2004....................................... 551
-----------------------
Total....................................... 3.7 Billion
=======================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through FY 2004 the LWCF state assistance program has made
available over $3.7 billion to be apportioned to the 50 states, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands for planning (states only),
acquisition and development of recreation resources. Through fiscal
year 2003, nearly 40,000 projects have been approved to support
acquisition or other forms of conservation and development of
recreation facilities and infrastructure necessary for public access
and recreation use. State and local LWCF fiscal partnerships occur in
almost every county and a high percentage of small and large localities
nationwide. LWCF appropriations for state and local projects have been
equally matched by state and local contributions for a total LWCF grant
investment in excess of $7 billion.
Of the total number of grant projects, over 10,000 have helped
states and localities conserve about 2.55 million acres of land. Over
27,000 projects have aided development or redevelopment of recreation
sites. Through FY 2003 over sixty-five percent of the total obligated
funds have gone to locally sponsored projects to provide accessible
``close-to-home'' * recreation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* `Close to home'--Within 15 minutes from home by foot or bicycle,
or 10 miles from home by car or public transit. Witnesses appearing at
most of the hearings of the Presidents Commission on Americans Outdoors
(1985-1986) repeatedly stressed that public recreation investments
should occur `close to home.' PCAO staff reviewed a number of
transportation `origin--destination' studies and public recreation and
park plans and practices. While perhaps imprecise at that time, it was
a best estimate of where investments were of high importance.
Presently, the security of children and other factors and conditions
suggest that `closer to home' may be preferred, especially for young
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
Since FY1965, LWCF state assistance funds have been invested as
follows:
Project Sponsor...................................................
State resource agencies, including park, forest, public land
and wildlife, among others:................................. 38%
Local governments, including municipalities, towns, townships,
park districts other than counties:......................... 49%
County governments:........................................... 13%
Project Type......................................................
Land conservation:............................................ 33%
Development for public access and use:........................ 62%
Planning (states only):....................................... 2%
Combination--land conservation and development:............... 3%
Source: National Park Service
CONTEMPORARY AND FUTURE NEEDS
Requests for Fiscal Partnerships: Recent requests for both Land and
Water Conservation Fund and Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program
assistance bring perspective to macro-scale need estimates. Specific
plans, projects and processes begin to define the nature of present and
continuing work to be done. In North Dakota, for example, less than
one-half of projects submitted to the state LWCF liaison officer for
fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004 were funded. Unfunded local
government projects totaled $4.57 million. All requests came from
communities of less than 15,000 and counties. Relative to LWCF-eligible
projects, ``For the past several years, the funds requested in those
applications have far exceeded our (federal) allocation,'' according to
a state official.
The Town Council of Brunswick, Maine recently adopted a $5,045,700
5-year capital improvement program principally for public recreation
and park resources. Many projects would be eligible for Land and Water
Conservation Fund assistance. Brunswick's present system of trails and
parks are central elements of a more livable, healthy community.
The Murfreesboro, Tenn. Parks and Recreation Department anticipates
capital investment needs of $15.8 million for Fiscal Years 2003-2008.
All projects would be either LWCF or UPARR-eligible. Siegel Park at
Regency Park Dr. illustrates the imperative for investment. This multi-
feature park will serve a 370-unit public housing project in an
economically distressed area. Park design responds to identified
needs--a `community gathering place,' girls softball, basketball,
multi-purpose sports fields, tennis, and parking,'' according to the
agency director.
A private consulting group advised NRPA in 2002 that the firm had
at least 23 local government clients with identified recreation
facility needs. Needs were determined by assessments and feasibility
studies. Clients included Juneau, Alaska, population 30,711; Fort
Bragg, California, 7026; Windsor, Colorado, 12,000; Greenfield,
Indiana, 14,600; Lehi, Utah, 19,000; and Camas, Washington, 11,534,
among others. While the private firm's specific clients continue to
evolve, these and other clients indicate that the need for recreation
investment across every population category. Planning, finance,
architecture/engineering, construction, landscaping, and, ultimately,
facility operations and recreation services, result in an array of jobs
and payrolls--and ultimately more livable, economically viable
communities.
Portland, Oregon park and recreation officials, citing the city's
Parks 2020 Vision Plan (2001) anticipates 1870 additional acres of
public parkland, including 620 acres of protected habitat; 100 new
sports fields; 150 additional miles of trails, and completion of the
40-mile loop trail. Many swimming pools, some built in the 1920's, are
still in use but need repair.
SUMMARY
Local and state park systems are critical to the health of the
American people and others who work and reside among us. With
sufficient funds, more recreation resources could become accessible.
These resources address diverse public interests and our collective
need for quality recreation and associated services for children of
working parents. Local agencies in particular host programs that serve
millions of nutritious breakfasts, lunches, snacks, and suppers to
needy children. Public recreation and park sites and services help
reduce crime and delinquency, especially during non-school hours, days
and seasons. Public recreation and park managers recognize that at any
given time perhaps 50 million people have a physical disability: They
attempt to accommodate their needs for recreation.
State and local park agencies contribute importantly to plant and
wildlife diversity. Hundreds of local systems contain more than 5,000
acres, with many systems in excess of 15,000 acres. An estimated 80 to
85 percent of larger systems are typically undeveloped, thus
contributing to an array of conservation and environmental outcomes.
Most systems also provide opportunities to create public awareness of
environmental conditions and convey messages about stewardship.
The National Recreation and Park Association appreciates the
opportunity to submit this statement. NRPA public policy director,
Barry Tindall (202-887-0290), is available to discuss issues raised in
this statement or to respond to questions.