|
Public Lands
|
5 Year Savings |
|
in $ Millions |
1872
Mining Law |
$ 1,000 |
Bureau
of Land Management Public Domain Forestry |
$ 30 |
Film
Industry Use of National Parks |
$ n/a |
Timber
Roads Construction |
$ 157 |
Money-Losing
Timber Sales |
$ 555 |
Oil
Royalty Valuation |
$ 330 |
Rangeland
Reform |
$ 250 |
Recreational
Trails Program |
$ 120 |
Tongass
National Forest |
$ 165 |
University
of Alaska Land Grab |
$ n/a |
US
Forest Service "Replanting Fund" |
$ 250 |
US
Forest Service Salvage Fund |
$ 1715 |
|
Granddaddy of Subsidies |
$1 billion
|
|
1872 Mining Law
|
"Until Congress steps forward to enact
meaningful reform of this law, I must continue to give away
America’s mineral resources for unfair return to the taxpayers."
Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, April 28, 1998
|
The General Mining Law of 1872, which governs mining on U.S.
public lands, is an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars. Under the
1872 Mining Law, mining companies not only extract minerals without
paying royalties, but also can "patent," or buy public land for $5
an acre or less, paying 1872 prices for land that is worth billions
of dollars. Each year, mining corporations extract $2 billion to $3
billion worth of minerals from public lands and pay no royalties.
The archaic 1872 Mining Law not only distorts the market, it
facilitates massive environmental destruction on public lands.
Green Scissors Proposal
1) Require fair market return to taxpayers for extraction of
publicly-owned minerals. A royalty of 8 percent could raise roughly
$1 billion over five years. 2) Eliminate mineral patenting, the
giveaway of public lands. This would save at least $10 billion in
potential new patents waiting to be filed. 3) Require companies to
post adequate reclamation bonds and establish a national program to
clean up abandoned mines.
Current Status
In 1994, Congress imposed an annual moratorium on patenting,
blocking billions of dollars worth of public lands giveaways, but
hundreds of patents already in the process may proceed. More recent
efforts to enact a mineral royalty and create an abandoned mine
reclamation program have been blocked in Congress. In 1998, the
Senate rejected a bipartisan amendment offered by Sens. Dale Bumpers
(D-AR) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) to repeal the percentage depletion
allowance for public lands mining. According to the Office of
Management and Budget, repeal of this corporate subsidy for non-fuel
minerals mined on public lands would generate $294 million over the
next five years. |
Project Hurt Taxpayers
Since the law was enacted, the U.S. government has given away
more than $245 billion of mineral reserves through patenting or
royalty-free mining, according to the Mineral Policy Center. The
subsidies embedded in public lands mining, along with the percentage
depletion tax allowance, create false incentives for miners and
hinder sound land management. Free-market advocates might favor a
competitive-bid leasing system, which would be one way to recover a
fair return to taxpayers.
Project Hurts the Environment
Mining can severely and permanently damage public lands.
Nationally, more than 550,000 abandoned hardrock mines scar the
American landscape. Mineral Policy Center estimates the cost of such
cleanups currently at $32 billion to $72 billion.
Contacts
Susan Brackett, Mineral Policy Center, (202) 887-1872; Lexi
Shultz, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, (202) 546-9707; Jill
Lancelot, Taxpayers for Common Sense, (202) 546-8500 x105. |
Back
to Top
|
Cutting a Sweet Deal |
$30 million
|
BLM’s Public Domain Forestry |
"BLM’s logging program on public domain lands
consistently operates at a significant loss to American taxpayers.
Its lasting legacy of mismanagement has led to overcutting,
resulting in the devastation of millions of acres of vital
woodlands."
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) |
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more than 12 million
acres of commercial forests on public domain lands. The agency fails
to return 20 percent of its timber revenues to the federal Treasury,
as required by law, to cover the cost of sale administration due to
contract defaults and the diversion of funds to other purposes. The
agency’s fiscally mismanaged logging program jeopardizes natural
resources and wildlife habitat.
Green Scissors Proposal
Terminate funding for the Bureau of Land Management’s Public
Domain Forestry program, saving taxpayers more than $30 million over
five years.
Current Status
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) reviewed
forestry activities related to the BLM’s timbercutting program in
Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon and California — the states where
more than 85 percent of the sales occur. Aside from fiscal waste,
PEER has documented other evidence of agency malpractice involving
widespread violations of environmental laws and internal
procedures. |
Project Hurt Taxpayers
Payments by timber purchasers fail to cover the agency’s timber
sale costs. BLM districts routinely lose money on sales because
public domain forests are relatively unproductive, and therefore are
less attractive commercially to timber buyers. Most of the proceeds
from Public Domain timber sales are earmarked by the BLM for other
purposes such as irrigation. The few timber receipts returned to the
federal government are offset by overhead costs. Some districts
spend millions of dollars to prepare and administer sales, but
collect less than 10 percent of these costs from the timber sales.
Through a combination of negligence by BLM and fraud perpetrated
against the agency, as much as half of the timber harvested from
public domain lands is stolen by logging companies. In some cases,
purchasers have taken up to five times the contract volume of timber
without payment.
Annual losses from BLM Public Domain timber sales roughly equal
the forestry program’s entire budget. Despite the fact that program
expenditures out-pace operating costs, the agency has received a 31
percent increase in funding over the last two years.
Project Hurts the Environment
BLM’s actions jeopardize the public domain. Public domain lands
consist largely of "scrub brush" forests that serve as important
ecological buffers between grazing lands and upland forests. The
agency routinely exceeds sustainable levels to "get the cut out" and
fails to comply with its own reforestation requirements. Many
districts vastly exaggerate stocking rates, reporting healthy
forested tracts when, in fact, the new trees have died from disease,
insect infestation or drought. By ignoring replanting failures, BLM
miscalculates productive timber acreage and presents overly
optimistic sale projections, a vicious circle that leads to
overcutting.
In addition to causing severe environmental harm to watersheds
and wildlife habitat, BLM’s post-sale indifference means that much
of the damage caused by unsustainable logging is never mitigated.
Because existing forests are not timber dense, an average of nine
acres must be harvested on the public domain to equal the yield from
one acre of prime forest land.
Contacts
Rob Perks, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility,
(202) 2657337; Sean Cosgrove, Sierra Club, (202) 675-2382. |
Back
to Top
|
Bargain Matinee |
$n/a
|
Film Industry Use of National Parks |
"Film makers pay location fees everywhere they
work — except in National Parks."
Dick Young, Supervisor of Special Use Permits, National Park
Service. |
National film producers use National Park lands to film hundreds
of commercials and movies. The Park Service should be allowed to
charge for use of land under its control and retain the fees
collected for park purposes.
Green Scissors Proposal
The National Park Service (NPS) should be given the authority to
collect location fees from commercial film makers and be allowed to
retain those fees within the park system.
Current Status
Under NPS regulations, film companies are only required to cover
the cost of ranger supervision and any damage mitigation. While film
companies are paying little, if anything, for the use of our
National Parks, park visitors across the nation have this year
encountered entrance fees which have doubled, even tripled. On
November 9, 1997, Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO) introduced H.R. 2993,
which would require the Park Service to charge fair-market-value
filming fees and would allow the parks to keep the revenue
generated. Although the legislation passed the House on September
15, 1998, previous inaction on appropriations legislation forced the
bill to languish in the Senate. S. 1693, the National Parks
management reform bill, did not include language on filming fees.
Film producers have indicated their willingness to support National
Parks through reasonable film fees. |
Project Hurt Taxpayers
Commercial users do not pay their fair share. At a time when
taxpayers are being asked to pay more to visit National Parks,
commercial users who benefit financially from the use of the parks
must be made to pay their fair share.
Production companies reap tremendous benefits from park sites.
While the Park Service does not have a system that accounts for all
films made in the parks, Arches National Park alone has averaged 52
film makers (including makers of commercials) per year for the last
five years. Three of the hundreds of movies which have been filmed
in parks (Star Wars, Forrest Gump and Return of the Jedi) have
generated well over $1 billion in domestic revenues.
Other agencies come closer to charging fair market value. The
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service insist on
location fees of up to $3,000 per day from film production
companies. Private land holders demand as much as $10,000 per day, a
drop in the bucket considering the standard production budget.
Project Hurts the Environment
Filming companies can disrupt wildlife movements for days or
weeks, since production ties up roads and can cause the closure of
portions of parks. Retaining lost revenues could help reduce the
huge maintenance backlog under which the parks are operating.
Contacts
Phil Voorhees, National Parks and Conservation Association, (202)
223-6722. |
Back
to Top
|
The Great Tree Robbery |
$157 million
|
Timber Roads Construction |
"For years, an unusual coalition of
environmentalists and budget-conscious conservatives has been trying
to end the practice of federally subsidized logging in America’s
national forests, a practice that does as much damage to the
government’s bottom line as it does to the environment."
Cleveland Plain Dealer, June 1998 |
Under the U.S Forest Service (USFS) timber program, logging
roads are constructed to assist timber companies in cutting and
removing timber. Historically, the agency has paid for the
construction of hundreds of thousands of miles of these roads.
Construction of these forest roads exploits tax dollars to pay the
timber industry’s business costs and leads to the degradation of
wildlife habitat, soil, and streams.
Green Scissors Proposal
Cut all funding for construction, planning and design of new
logging roads, saving $31.4 million annually or $157 million over 5
years.
Current Status
In 1998, both House and Senate Appropriators agreed to eliminate
the "Purchaser Road Credit" (PRC) from the FY99 Interior budget. The
PRC program enabled timber corporations to receive trees from the
National Forests in exchange for building logging roads. Despite
elimination of PRCs, logging roads continue to be subsidized through
annual appropriations from Congress to pay for the engineering and
design costs associated with logging road construction. The
Administration’s FY99 budget request has projected these costs to be
around $31.4 million to subsidize the costs of constructing and
reconstructing 3,400 miles of roads to access timber
sales. |
Project Hurt Taxpayers
Taxpayers should not pay for the timber industry’s cost of doing
business. According to the General Accounting Office (GAO),
taxpayers paid $387.1 million to construct timber roads from FY92 to
FY97.
More than 440,000 miles of roads have been built on National
Forest lands, enough to circle the globe 17 times. In recent years,
an average of 95 percent of new roads built in National Forests were
logging roads — only five percent were for recreation or general
purpose. Expenses for constructing recreation and general purpose
roads are covered by a separate line item.
Project Hurts the Environment
Forest roads are a major cause of the decline of grizzly bears
and cause problems for more common wildlife such as elk. Roads
fragment habitat, disrupt wildlife-migration routes, and destroy
scenic beauty.
Forest roads cause serious soil erosion and stream sedimentation,
ruining water quality and fish habitat, and have been linked to more
frequent and severe mudslides.
Contacts
Michael Francis, The Wilderness Society, (202) 429-2662; Courtney
Cuff, Friends of the Earth, (202) 783-7400 x207; Jill Lancelot,
Taxpayers for Common Sense, (202) 546-8500 x105; Steve Holmer,
American Lands Alliance, (202) 547-9105; Marty Hayden, Earthjustice
Legal Defense Fund, (202) 667-4500; Bethanie Walder, Wildlands
Center for Preventing Roads, (406) 543-9551; Amelia Jenkins, Forest
Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, (202)
547-9681. |
Back
to Top
|
The Price Isn’t Right |
$555 million
|
Money-Losing Timber Sales |
"In terms of assets, the agency would rank in
the top five in Fortune magazine’s list of the nation’s 500 largest
corporations. In terms of operating revenues, however, the agency
would be only number 290. In terms of net income, the Forest Service
would be classified as bankrupt."
Economist Randal O’Toole |
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) "commodity" timber sales provide
timber from our National Forests to companies that cut and mill
lumber or other wood products. This program provides only four
percent of the total volume of timber cut in the nation. U.S.
Commodity timber sales on public lands lose money because the
receipts paid to the government by the companies buying the timber
do not cover all of the costs associated with preparing and
administering the sales.
Green Scissors Proposal
Require the receipts for National Forest commodity timber sales
to cover all of the expenses involved with preparing the sales and
restoring landscapes and watersheds. Doing so would save more than
$111 million annually or $555 million over five years. |
Project Hurt Taxpayers
Since 1989, the USFS has lost billions on its timber program. The
losses come from selling timber at below the agency’s cost of
preparing the timber for sale and subsidizing the construction of an
extensive network of logging roads to support the agency’s timber
sales program.
Eighty-three of 106 National Forests with commodity sales lost
$111 million, according to the Wilderness Society’s analysis of the
FY97 sales.
Project Hurts the Environment
Logging in our National Forests has eliminated many old growth
forests and damaged habitat for numerous species such as salmon,
grizzly bear, and wolf. Soil erosion and sedimentation caused by
logging and road building is the most significant threat to fish and
other aquatic organisms in our National Forests. Erosion can also
reduce the productive capacity of these lands, limiting regeneration
of trees and other plants.
Logging compromises many essential biological services, such as
clean water, that are provided by forests. A large number of below
cost sales are in high-elevation, environmentally sensitive
watersheds on steep slopes, areas that will probably need to be
restored in the future.
Contacts
Courtney Cuff, Friends of the Earth, (202) 783-7400 x207; Steve
Holmer, American Lands Alliance, (202) 547-9105; Carolyn Alkire, The
Wilderness Society, (202) 429-2685; Marty Hayden, Earthjustice Legal
Defense Fund, (202) 667-4500; Jill Lancelot, Taxpayers for Common
Sense, (202) 546-8500 x105; Amelia Jenkins, Forest Service Employees
for Environmental Ethics, (202) 547-9681. |
Back
to Top
|
Slick Oil Deals |
$330 million
|
Oil Royalty Valuation |
"...the taxpayers are being robbed...They are
being robbed to the tune of $5.5 million a month, and that is a lot
of money."
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Congressional Record, Sept 16,
1998 |
According to the Department of the Interior’s Minerals
Management Service (MMS), oil companies underpay royalties on the
natural resources they extract from public lands by an estimated $66
million per year. Although oil companies are supposed to pay a
royalty based on percentages of gross production, the industry has
used a "posted price" which can differ by as much as $2 per barrel
from the actual daily market price. For the past three years, MMS
has attempted to institute reforms that would create a fair,
market-based payment process for oil valuation, and make it easier
for the government to catch underpayments.
Green Scissors Proposal
Allow MMS to proceed with final rulemaking, ensuring fairer oil
royalty payments to the U.S. Treasury and reducing the subsidy to an
environmentally damaging industry. Further compromise is
unwarranted.
Current Status
After two years of development, five requests for public comment,
fourteen public meetings and more than 4,000 pages of comments, MMS
planned to publish a rule in June 1998 to enforce royalty valuation.
But Sens. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
successfully championed a legislative rider attached to the FY99
Omnibus Appropriations bill prohibiting MMS from issuing a final
rule on oil royalty valuation. The moratorium on this rulemaking
stands until June 1, 1999, or until a compromise is reached between
MMS and the oil industry. |
Project Hurt Taxpayers
Oil on federal land is a taxpayer asset that should be managed in
a way that maximizes return. Basing royalty payments on the market
price maximizes the return to the taxpayer. The prohibition on
promulgating reform regulations risks the loss of millions of
dollars owed to the taxpayer.
Oil companies continue to underpay royalties every year. MMS
estimates that oil companies underpay royalties by at least $66
million per year, totaling a $856 million loss since 1991.
Project Hurts the Environment
The current regulations reinforce existing programs that
subsidize an inefficient and environmentally damaging oil industry.
It is estimated that the oil industry loses approximately 280
million barrels per year through leaks, spills and other
inefficiencies.
Oil royalties paid below market rates place cleaner fuel sources
at a market disadvantage, discouraging the development of new
alternatives to fossil fuel energy. The burning of fossil fuels
contributes to air pollution, smog, and global warming. Subsidizing
the oil industry only encourages the development and misuse of the
dirty fuels that promote these problems.
The legislative rider blocking implementation of the MMS rule
shortchanges the Land and Water Conservation Fund. A portion of
revenues from oil royalties is dedicated to this special fund for
acquisition and conservation of natural places and habitat.
Contacts
Danielle Brian, Project on Government Oversight, (202) 466-5539;
Jill Lancelot, Taxpayers for Common Sense, (202) 546-8500 x105; Anna
Aurilio, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, (202) 546-9707;
Courtney Cuff, Friends of the Earth, (202) 783-7400 x207. |
Back
to Top
|
Cash Cows |
$250 million
|
Rangeland Reform |
"Although cattle grazing in the West has
polluted more water, eroded more topsoil, killed more fish,
displaced more wildlife, and destroyed more vegetation than any
other land use, the American public pays ranchers to do it."
Ted Williams, "He’s Going to Have an Accident," Audubon
1991 |
The public land grazing program administered by the U.S. Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is highly
subsidized, benefits only a tiny fraction of the nation’s livestock
operators and costs taxpayers between $50 and $500 million per year.
Below-cost grazing fees encourage overgrazing and, along with other
features of the existing federal program, have resulted in extensive
and severe environmental damage to public lands.
Green Scissors Proposal
1) Balance the federal range program by charging a grazing fee
that covers management costs and trimming program expenditures that
neither protect nor restore resources; 2) allow holders of grazing
permits to "rest" the land by not grazing it; and 3) create a
voluntary permit retirement program to terminate grazing on fragile
desert allotments.
Current Status
The Forage Improvement Act (H.R. 2493), introduced by Rep. Bob
Smith (R-OR), wound its way through both the full House and through
the Senate Energy Committee in the 105th Congress, but stopped short
of consideration by the full Senate. The bill would have perpetuated
below-cost grazing, discouraged permittee stewardship, prevented
public participation in grazing management and increased agency
costs. The Tenth Circuit recently upheld an administrative rule that
allows non-ranchers to obtain grazing permits, but overturned a
second regulation that would have allowed permit holders to put
allotments into conservation use. |
Project Hurt Taxpayers
The current grazing fee does not cover the cost of managing the
public’s rangelands. The federal range program costs at least $5.76
per animal per month (AUM), while the current fee is only $1.35 per
AUM.
In 1996 the grazing fee cost taxpayers a net loss of more than
$50 million. It generated only $25 million while $77 million was
spent on administration of the program, a tremendous waste of tax
dollars especially considering only three percent of U.S. beef is
produced on federal lands.
The current fee is far below the private and state land leasing
rates charged in most western states. Private rates range from $6.50
to $12 per animal per month while state rates in 1996 ranged from
$2.18 to $15.50.
Grazing subsidies are not limited to Forest Service and BLM land.
Free grazing is permitted at many U.S. military installations. At
Fort Hood in Texas, ranchers are permitted to graze livestock for
free, depriving taxpayers of more than $6 million a year.
Project Hurts the Environment
Below market fees and rancher subsidies encourage overgrazing and
are often an incentive to graze environmentally sensitive lands,
with resultant damage to riparian areas, soil, plants and other
resources.
Contacts
Johanna Wald, Natural Resources Defense Council, (415) 777-0220;
Fran Hunt, The Wilderness Society, (202) 429-2657; Courtney Cuff,
Friends of the Earth, (202) 783-7400 x207; Jill Lancelot, Taxpayers
for Common Sense, (202) 546-8500 x105; Caroline Kennedy, Defenders
of Wildlife, (202) 789-2844 x247; Mark Salvo, American Lands
Alliance, (503) 647-2825; Rob Perks, Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility, (202) 265-7337. |
Back
to Top
|
Trails of Destruction |
$120 million
|
The Recreational Trails Program |
"Motorized users have created a tax-payer funded
cash cow [Symm's Act] that flies under the radar of environmental
analysis... "
John Adams, Ecologist, as quoted in the Great Falls Tribune, May
21, 1998 |
The Recreational Trails Program (RTP), otherwise known as the
Symm’s Act, subsidizes the construction of environmentally damaging
off-road vehicle trails. These trails – used by all-terrain vehicles
(ATVs), snowmobiles, 4x4s, dirt bikes, dune buggies, and sport
utility vehicles — destroy wildlife habitat, cause water and air
pollution, and causes soil erosion. Through the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the Federal Highway
Administration will give states $240 million over the next five
years for the construction and maintenance of trails, up to 70
percent of which can be used for off-road vehicle trails.
Green Scissors Proposal
1) Cut funding for the Recreational Trails Program by 50%, saving
taxpayers $120 million over the next five years. 2) Eliminate the
motorized trail component from RTP funding requirements, directing
remaining funds to non-motorized trails.
Current Status
In 1998, Congress reauthorized the Recreational Trails Fund in
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the
successor to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA). TEA-21 dramatically increased funding for the Recreational
Trails Program from $37.5 million allocated in the original six-year
funding period between 1992-1997, to $270 million over the six-year
period from 1998-2003. $30 million of the $270 million has already
been dispersed to states in 1998. |
Project Hurt Taxpayers
Taxpayers should not subsidize the construction and maintenance
of motorized trails. Currently, the Forest Service estimates a trail
maintenance backlog exceeding $267 million. The development of new
motorized trails on federal lands will only exacerbate this backlog,
representing a misallocation of taxpayer dollars.
Motorized trail users represent a small minority of trail users,
yet can leverage up to 70 percent of the funding for trail
construction. According to the national survey Outdoor Recreation in
America, only 5 percent of the survey population stated they
participated in motorcycling or other motorized recreation. Yet,
these trail users are capable of receiving up to 70 percent of the
federal funding available through the Recreational Trails
Program.
Project Hurts the Environment
Federal agencies are currently unable to properly manage and
monitor the environmental damage caused by motorized trails.
According to a 1995 GAO study, "¼ at all locations, off-highway
vehicle use was being monitored casually rather than systematically,
adverse effects were seldom being documented, and needed corrective
actions remained to be prioritized."
Off-road vehicles can cause irreparable environmental damage.
Motorized vehicles are capable of traveling into backcountry areas,
contributing to habitat fragmentation, exotic weed dispersal, air
and noise pollution, soil compaction, and erosion.
Contacts
Erich Pica, Friends of the Earth, (202) 783-7400 x229; Amelia
Jenkins, Forest Employees for Environmental Ethics, (202) 547-9695;
Bethanie Walder, Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads, (406)
543-9551. |
Back
to Top
|
Tongass Timber Travesty |
$165 million
|
Tongass National Forest |
"The plan will almost surely be a bad deal for
taxpayers."
The New York Times, Editorial 1997 |
In 1997, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) issued a forest plan for
the Tongass National Forest that continued to allow logging in
pristine, roadless areas of the world’s largest old-growth temperate
rainforest and allowed new timber road construction and
industrial-scale clearcutting. In recent years, similar
mismanagement of the Tongass has cost taxpayers $33 million per
year.
Green Scissors Proposal
Improve the new Tongass Land Management Plan by eliminating
destructive taxpayer-subsidized road construction in southeast
Alaska’s Tongass National Forest. Doing so would save $165 million
over five years and end Forest Service policies that promote a
federally-dependent timber industry in southeast Alaska.
Current Status
The USFS issued a new Tongass forest plan in May 1997 that
proposed to build over 1,100 new miles of taxpayer-subsidized
logging roads while clearcutting more than 85,000 acres of
old-growth rainforest over a 10-year period. In FY99, Congress gave
$2 million for a veneer mill study in southeast Alaska and added an
unrequested $12.5 million to the USFS budget for timber management
increases and road building. |
Project Hurt Taxpayers
The Tongass timber program is the biggest money loser in the
National Forest system. The Forest Service in 1997 admitted losing
$33 million on the Tongass — 37% of the losses for the entire
national forest timber program. The increased expenditures for the
timber sale program will lead to increased costs to the taxpayer.
Such increased expenditures are unjustified given the low timber
demand — only 19 million board feet of the 187 million board feet
offered for sale in FY98 was sold.
The program will create more dependence on federal timber in the
Tongass, despite the fact that the federal government has spent more
than $250 million in the last three years to promote southeast
Alaska’s transition away from a timber-dependent economy. In 1996,
the Alaska congressional delegation gave $110 million of taxpayer
money directly to Tongass communities. In 1997, Congress spent an
additional $140 million to pay off timber giant Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation to settle a dispute over the company’s monopoly
contract.
Unsustainable Tongass logging levels threaten other
forest-dependent industries. Commercial fishing and tourism both
employ more people than does timber, and tourism is the fastest
growing part of the regional economy. Much of the timber offered at
rock-bottom prices still goes unsold due to a changing timber
economy. The USFS is investing vast amounts of taxpayer money for
timber sales that have no buyer.
Project Hurts the Environment
Clearcutting destroys important habitat for Alaska’s brown bears,
wolves, salmon, bald eagles and goshawks. Clearcutting and other
destructive logging techniques could devastate up to 8,500 acres
yearly.
The agency will continue to build roads and clearcut old-growth,
roadless watersheds, fragmenting up to 400,000 pristine, roadless
acres in the first decade and 1.8 million roadless acres over a
50-year period.
There are already 4,000 miles of roads in the Tongass, yet the
agency plans to build 1,110 new miles of timber roads over the next
10 years. Logging roads add sediment and mud to Tongass streams,
impairing world class trout and salmon habitat.
Contacts
Marty Hayden, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, (202) 667-4500;
Buck Lindekugel, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, (907)
586-6942; Sharon Buccino, Natural Resources Defense Council, (202)
289-2414; Diana Rhoades, Alaska Rainforest Campaign, (202) 544-0475;
Amelia Jenkins, Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics,
(202) 547-9681; Michelle Buxton, Taxpayers for Common Sense, (202)
546-8500 x107. |
Back
to Top
|
Alaska Land Grab |
$n/a
|
University of Alaska Land Grab |
"The only lands the federal government should
own are the Statue of Liberty, the Washington Monument, and a few
other such things."
Rep. Don Young (R-AK), Chairman, House Resources Committee, June
9, 1997 |
The Alaskan congressional delegation is attempting to give
500,000 acres of federal land to the University of Alaska. Three
separate land grants, in 1915, 1929, and 1980, gave Alaska 186,000
acres of land for higher education – 96,000 more than allowed under
the Morrill Act, the original higher education land grant bill that
was passed 136 years ago.
Alaska received 103 million acres at statehood – acreage that
included Prudhoe Bay, the nation’s richest oil field. Alaska has
used Prudhoe Bay oil revenues to create a $25 billion "Permanent
Fund" from which it dispenses annual checks of more than $1200 to
every citizen. Its residents pay no state income or sales tax. Yet,
Alaska refuses to fully fund its university system.
Green Scissors Proposal
Do not allow passage of any legislation granting public land to
the University of Alaska.
Current Status
Legislation was introduced in 1998 that would grant up to 500,000
acres of federal land to the University. This public land giveaway
would allow the University to select at least 250,000 acres of
National Forest and/or other federal lands within Alaska that are
not "conservation system units." If matched by equal acreage from
state lands, the University could also select 250,000 additional
acres (at total of 500,00 acres) of National Forest and other
federal lands in Alaska. This legislation is sure to be revisited in
1999. |
Project Hurt Taxpayers
The State of Alaska should not get federal taxpayer assets free
of charge. This proposal could give the University lands containing
$4.8 billion in federal petroleum resources, $10.5 billion in timber
and subsurface resources from the Tongass and Chugach National
Forests, and $900,000 in subsurface resources of the National
Petroleum Reserve, according to the U.S. Department of the
Interior.
Project Hurts the Environment
The proposal would allow the University access to high-grade
federal lands of national conservation and economic significance,
including:
Tongass National Forest wildlands, the largest National Forest,
including lands protected by the Tongass Forest Plan;
Chugach National Forest wildlands, including the 1-million-acre
Nellie Juan-College Fiord Wilderness Study Area awaiting
congressional review;
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lands, including lands currently
under federal oil and gas leases, areas qualified for national
marine sanctuary or other protected status, and OCS lands off the
shores of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge;
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska wildlands, including three
congressionally authorized "Special Areas" of international
significance, including caribou calving and goose molting areas at
Teshekpuk Lake.
Contacts
Marc Wheeler, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, (907)
586-6942; Adam Kolton, Alaska Wilderness League, (202) 544-5205;
Diana Rhoades, Alaska Rainforest Campaign, (202) 544-0475; Marty
Hayden, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, (202) 667-4500; Sharon
Buccino, Natural Resources Defense Council, (202) 289-2406; Cena
Swisher, Taxpayers for Common Sense, (202) 546-8500 x108. |
Back
to Top
|
K-V Calamity |
$250 million
|
U.S. Forest Service "Replanting Fund" |
"... the question is are we going to enable them
to continue to do this practice [divert from the K-V Fund for
overhead] which is working to the detriment of taxpayers and working
to the detriment of the environment?"
Rep. George Miller (D-CA), July 22, 1998 |
The Knutson-Vandenburg (K-V) Fund was established in 1930 to pay
for the reforestation and restoration of logged over areas of the
National Forest System. However, the U.S. Forest Service, without
statutory authority, siphons money from the "Replanting Fund" to pay
for basic overhead costs such as office equipment and rent. In FY97,
the Forest Service spent as much as 49 percent of the K-V Fund on
overhead. This has not only cost taxpayers, but also stops funds
from going to the seedling replanting, brush removal and wildlife
habitat restoration needed after logging takes place.
Green Scissors Proposal
Enforce the law as it was originally written and prohibit the
Forest Service from spending money from the Replanting Fund on
overhead. This would save taxpayers about $50 million a year and
ensure that vital environmental restoration needs do not go unmet.
Further, agency overhead expenditures that indirectly support the
commercial logging program should be paid for by revenue from that
program, not by taxpayers.
Current Status
An overwhelming 236-182 vote by the House of Representatives on
July 22, 1998 supported an amendment offered by Rep. George Miller
(D-CA) prohibiting the Forest Service from using the Replanting Fund
for overhead. However, the FY99 Omnibus Appropriations bill included
language that permits the Forest Service to fund overhead and
indirect expenses from any funds available to the agency, so long as
such use is not prohibited by law. For FY00, the bill provides that
the Forest Service may use no more than 20 percent of its six
off-budget trust funds for indirect obligations. The question of
determining the legality of the Forest Service’s practice of
utilizing the K-V Fund for indirect expenditures is currently
pending before the courts. |
Project Hurt Taxpayers
The Forest Service improperly spends tax dollars on its
bureaucracy. A General Accounting Office (GAO) report said the
Forest Service spent $220 million from the Replanting Fund during
1993-97 on agency overhead instead of the restoration projects it
was supposed to carry out.
The federal commercial logging program already loses hundreds of
millions of dollars a year. A separate GAO audit reported that the
commercial logging program lost $1.04 billion from 1995 to 1997.
Allowing the Forest Service to divert money to overhead compounds
the waste.
The Forest Service lacks accountability. In congressional
testimony in March 1998, the GAO stated that the Forest Service lost
$215 million in funds that they could not account for in FY95. The
Forest Service should be made to follow the law and stop adding more
tax dollars to its own bureaucratic coffers.
Project Hurts the Environment
Lack of funds means lack of reforestation. For every dollar the
Forest Service spends from the Replanting Fund on microwave ovens or
office supplies, less money is available to restore clearcut lands
and eroding hillsides.
Failure to address restoration needs compounds environmental
degradation. The longer a steep slope goes unplanted, the longer it
spills sediment into fish habitat and drinking water supplies. The
agency’s waste creates larger, more complex environmental problems
over time.
Contacts
Marty Hayden, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, (202) 667-4500;
Amelia Jenkins, Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics,
(202) 547-9681; Jill Lancelot, Taxpayers for Common Sense, (202)
546-8500 x105. |
Back
to Top
|
Freeze the Slush |
$171 million
|
U.S. Forest Service Salvage Fund |
"Allowing the agency to retain a portion of the
revenue it generates from timber sales without deducting its costs
may encourage the Forest Service to not always recover its cost to
prepare and administer sales."
General Accounting Office,
Forest Service Salvage Fund’s Deposits and Outlays, August
1996 |
The U.S. Forest Service Salvage Fund was created to expedite the
removal of insect-infested, dead, damaged or down timber. Salvage
sale revenues are deposited in the Salvage Fund. The U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) is authorized to make expenditures from the Salvage
Fund without an annual appropriations request, giving Congress
little ability to monitor and control this spending. Presently the
Salvage Fund is financing approximately one third of the logging on
the National Forests completely free from congressional oversight.
Many of these sales fail to cover even significant portions of their
costs.
Green Scissors Proposal
Abolish the U.S. Forest Service Salvage Fund and return the
unspent balance to the U.S. Treasury. The current balance is
approximately $171 million. |
Project Hurt Taxpayers
The USFS has exploited salvage sales to create a large fund that
is unaccountable to Congress and provides no revenue to the
taxpayer. According to the Congressional Research Service, "No
Forest Service budget documents have identified transfers of excess
collections from the Salvage Fund to the U.S. Treasury," as required
by existing law. This is despite the fact that the Salvage Fund
balance was to more than $210 million in FY95, $186 million in FY96,
$182 million in FY97, and is currently about $171 million in
FY98.
The Fund promotes a timber treadmill whereby managers are
encouraged to promote salvage sales since forests keep the sales
receipts instead of returning the funds to the Treasury. In
addition, shortfalls from one forest are often made up by excess
receipts from another forest. The taxpayer ends up funding excessive
timber management so that the USFS can perpetuate its
bureaucracy.
The Salvage Fund, which is fed from timber receipts, provides
local managers with an incentive to enhance sales by adding higher
value green trees with the lower value salvage material. Industry
benefits by often paying less than market value for wood while
having a portion of the sales cost financed by the U.S. taxpayer.
Project Hurts the Environment
Increased scrutiny of the U.S. Forest Service Salvage program has
uncovered numerous instances of inappropriate sales of live, healthy
trees under the guise of salvaging dead and dying trees. Most
salvage sales do not consider the impact of logging live and healthy
trees as part of the sale.
Salvage logging generates cash available for other timber sales,
which gives local forest managers an incentive to choose logging
over other management activities. For instance, instead of using
prescribed burns to reduce the risk of insect outbreak, a forest
manager may choose salvage logging and the resulting timber
receipts. Logging often has greater impacts on wildlife, habitat,
water quality, forest function, and scenic beauty than other
management activities. In the end, the land, taxpayers and Congress
are not better served by this slush fund.
Contacts
Carolyn Alkire, The Wilderness Society, (202) 429-2685; Steve
Holmer, American Lands Alliance, (202) 547-9105; Marty Hayden,
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, (202) 667-4500; Amelia Jenkins,
Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, (202) 547-9681;
Michelle Buxton, Taxpayers for Common Sense, (202) 546-8500
x107. |
Back
to Top | |