Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
MARCH 10, 1999, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
1885 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN FRONT,
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND
BEFORE THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
SUBJECT - PERMANENT PROTECTION
OF AMERICA'S RESOURCES 2000
ACT (H.R. 798) AND THE CONSERVATION AND
REINVESTMENT ACT
OF 1999 (H.R. 701)
BODY:
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Alan Front, and I
am pleased to appear before you today representing the Trust for Public Land
(TPL)-- a national nonprofit land conservation organization that works with
communities, landowners, and public agencies across the country to secure
recreational, scenic, historic, or other important resource lands for public use
and enjoyment -- as you consider the much-needed establishment of a truly
dedicated federal funding source for land conservation.
First, I would like
to express TPL's gratitude and my own to Chairman Young and to Congressman
Miller, along with their respective cosponsors, for their leadership in
introducing legislation addressing this vital need and for their expeditious
handling of these bills. We appreciate the inclusive process the sponsors of
both bills have pursued from the outset, and particularly want to commend
Chairman Young and his staff for considering diverse input from the conservation
community. Given this cooperative spirit -- and given the common threads in both
proposals, the positive budgetary climate in which you will consider them, and
the time-sensitive nature of many willing-seller resource land conservation
opportunities now confronting us -- we are extremely hopeful that today's
hearing will be an important early step on the path to enacted permanent funding
legislation.
We are encouraged that both The Permanent Protection of
America's Resources 2000 Act (H.R. 798) and The Conservation and
Reinvestment Act of 1999 (H.R. 701) propose to reinvigorate, and to
amend the distribution and uses of, the Land & Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF), which for 35 years has stood as the principal federal engine for
parkland protection at all levels of government as well as for state and local
recreation projects. Both bills also restore the federal government's
partnership, through a revitalized and modified Urban Parks and Recreation
Recovery Act (UPARR) program, in metropolitan park projects.
H.R. 701 and
H.R. 798 differ significantly, though, in their approaches to these programs,
and in provisions regarding other programs. Based on these differences, as I
will describe further, The Trust for Public Land supports Resources 2000 as
introduced, but is unable to support The Conservation and Reinvestment
Act at this time.
From the standpoint of TPL's on-the-ground work
in the real estate marketplace, I would like to offer some perspective on the
land conservation titles of these bills and some specific modifications we
suggest, particularly regarding Title II of H.R. 701. First, I will share a few
thoughts as to why the permanent funding approach envisioned by both bills is so
urgently needed.
The Need for Increased, Improved, Permanent Conservation
Funding
The Land & Water Conservation Fund was established in 1964 to
enable priority additions to federal conservation areas and grants to states and
localities for land acquisition and recreational facilities projects. LWCF was
founded on a simple, elegant premise of finance: a portion of federal revenues
from the sale of non-renewable assets are reinvested in other irreplaceable
assets for the nation's benefit. I would be pleased to provide the Committee
with a recitation of statistics on annual Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) receipts
and annual LWCF levels, though I suspect these all are known to you; for today's
purpose, suffice it to say that the fund's unappropriated balance exceeds $12
billion.
Many members of Congress have worked to sustain LWCF through
challenging budgetary times and have advocated for specific projects and
programmatic uses of the fund. But because LWCF, despite its elegant logic, was
not truly set aside from OCS receipts but rather is addressed annually within
the Interior Appropriations allocation, funding has varied widely from year to
year and has fallen far short of the needs in America's parks, forests, refuges,
and other public landscapes. Consequently, there is an immense backlog of
willing- seller acquisition needs, support to state and local agencies
essentially has dried up, and key opportunities are lost each year.
The
shortage of LWCF dollars has posed extreme challenges to resources, effective
public management, landowner needs, and community needs. The inability to
acquire lands as they become available often leads to private inholding
development that can take a toll on resource quality and recreational
opportunities of adjacent public lands. Where inconsistent uses occur on private
lands amid protected parklands, the true costs of "managing the holes" in public
ownership can drain agency budgets, and in fact can far outstrip the cost of
acquisition. The paucity of purchase funding can place willing-seller property
owners in a difficult and unjust position; those who have public-spirited aims
for their lands, or face excessive controversy over proposed private uses due to
the public resources they host, often have to wait years for the just
compensation that acquisition provides. For communities that depend on public
land protection no only for recreation but also to provide safe drinking water,
support tourism, or meet other local needs, the inability to secure public lands
can have severe economic consequences.
Revitalizing LWCF and UPARR
Recognizing these challenges, both Resources 2000 and The
Conservation and Reinvestment Act would provide reliable,
permanent funding to fulfill the original purposes and expectations of LWCF.
H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 would set aside a portion of OCS revenues each year,
without further appropriation, to fund LWCF at its currently authorized level.
In both bills, this substantial, predictable annual commitment affords the
opportunity restore LWCF's stateside program, striking an important and overdue
balance between essential funding of federal needs and appropriate investment in
state and local conservation and recreation. From our work with constituencies,
landowners, and agencies on both sides of this equation, the Trust for Public
Land applauds this big-picture approach.
In a number of salient details
where the two bills diverge, however, TPL has substantial concerns regarding
provisions in The Conservation and Reinvestment Act that we
believe would result in undue restrictions and delays. Among these are the
following:
-H.R. 701 would limit federal LWCF funds to lands exclusively
within exterior conservation area boundaries. But while most acquisition
currently takes place inside these lines, our work with such agencies as the US
Forest Service sometimes takes us near but outside the boundaries to secure
priority lands that contribute to established agency programs. In some cases,
single ownerships are transected by agency boundaries. Congress and the agencies
now pursue these sorts of "outholdings" with LWCF funds; hemming in this
already-existing flexibility would be counterproductive. -H.R. 701 would direct
2/3 of federal LWCF to the eastern United States. There are pressing needs in
these states, but the needs are no less pressing elsewhere. Currently, annual
Congressional direction of LWCF and Administration budget proposals can focus
dollars on priority projects when and where properties become available,
irrespective of geography. To remain responsive to communities and property
owners in these priority areas, Congress needs to retain this existing
flexibility.
-H.R. 701 would require enactment of new law for any
LWCF project whose federal cost exceeds $1 million. Such a requirement would
create enormous and often insuperable obstacles to timely project completion.
Congress routinely deliberates and appropriates funds substantially in excess of
this proposed limit with no new enabling legislation; in fact all acquisitions
rely not only on those deliberations but also on existing authorizing statutes
that already provide for these land purchases.
TPL firmly believes that this
provision mandates duplicative enabling legislation and threatens to overload
the apple-cart of this committee's workload. Moreover, the resulting inevitable
delays are certain to leave landowners and communities hanging, and in many
cases to doom win-win projects that happen (as is so often the case) to be on
short fuses. We therefore believe it is absolutely essential that you retain the
kind of project scrutiny that the Hill and the Administration now exercise, as
H.R. 798 provides for, but that you not unnecessarily add to it.
TPL
appreciates the inclusion in H.R. 701 of Indian Tribes and Alaska Native
Corporations as eligible recipients of stateside LWCF funds. We are now working
in a number of areas on tribal land conservation projects. To foster that work,
we ask that this eligibility be extended, as it is to other stateside
recipients, to include tribal land acquisition.
Both H.R. 701 and H.R. 798
also guarantee restoration of meaningful funding levels to the Urban Parks and
Recreation Recovery Act program. As an organization dedicated to meeting
community conservation and recreation needs, particularly where people live and
work, TPL witnesses daily and first-hand the urgent backlog of urban park
protection and reclamation needs. We therefore strongly support the proposed
recommitment to this vital program. We also are grateful for the proposed
updating of the program to better address the facilities and land protection
demands facing our urban partners.
Given the demonstrated need across the
nation for a fully-funded LWCF and for adequate UPARR investment, we urge the
Committee to fund UPARR from OCS revenues beyond those intended for LWCF, as
proposed in Resources 2000, rather than relying on LWCF funds for both programs
as provided for in The Conservation and Reinvestment Act. Other
Conservation Provisions
Beyond LWCF and UPARR, Resources 2000 also includes
a number of other titles that TPL fully endorses, and to which we hope the
Committee will give its full attention and support. Taken together, these
provisions would establish a strong and integrated family of funds for resource
protection, restoration, and management. We appreciate this holistic approach to
the nation's environmental infrastructure.
Among the important threads in
this fabric of stewardship is Title IV of the bill (Farmland, Ranchland, and
Forestland Protection), which extends the conservation reach of the bill in
extremely important ways. It provides for a steady investment in the Forest
Legacy Program, which TPL has participated in extensively and which has done
much to preserve working timber landscapes in a number of areas. Similarly, it
provides critically needed funding to protect agricultural lands from loss to
urban sprawl or other conversion. We hope the legislation the Committee advances
will include this exceptionally useful, voluntary mechanism for sustaining
traditional resource-based livelihoods and lifestyles.
The Road Ahead
TPL greatly appreciates the opportunity to share these perspectives with you
as you review this landmark legislation. We look forward to providing any
additional help we can to assist the Committee's consideration, and we hope that
the 106th Congress will take advantage of this unprecedented chance to restore
and enhance its commitment to conservation.
END
LOAD-DATE: March 14, 1999 
