Copyright 2000 The Chronicle Publishing Co.
The San
Francisco Chronicle
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, SATURDAY, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A3
LENGTH: 879 words
HEADLINE:
Congress OKs Historic Conservation Bill;
Environmentalists slam revised plan
BYLINE:
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
DATELINE:
Washington
BODY:
Congressional leaders reached a
breakthrough yesterday on a historic conservation bill that
promises to triple spending on everything from urban parks and suburban soccer
fields to coastal protection and wildlife habitats.
The legislation,
which will be tucked into an $18.8 billion Interior Department
appropriations bill coming before the House Monday, will allocate
$1.6 billion on conservation in 2001, raising
it to $2.4 billion in 2006.
Federal officials and
environmental groups said the agreement marks a turning point in years of
bitter, partisan fighting over the environment.
"This bill represents a
historic breakthrough in conservation funding," said George
Frampton, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, adding that
he was "ecstatic about the funding levels."
Still, the compromise bill
is a sharply scaled-back version of the original plan known as the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or CARA, sponsored by Rep.
George Miller, D-Martinez, and Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska.
CARA, driven by
an extraordinary alliance of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats,
would have spent $3 billion a year for 15 years, or
$45 billion in all, by tapping offshore oil royalties for
conservation and environmental protection.
"It is not
everything I worked for," Miller said, adding that the compromise nonetheless
"contains significant, multiyear dedication of revenues for land, recreation,
wildlife and coastal programs" that Miller said have been "severely under
funded" for years.
Driven by suburban angst over sprawl and the lure of
billions of dollars for congressional districts, CARA brought together erstwhile
ideological foes like Miller and Young, and gained huge bipartisan support in
both chambers.
The bill passed the House by a 3-to-1 margin last May and
garnered support from 63 senators, including Senate majority leader Trent Lott,
R-Miss.
But despite clear majority support, the bill has been stopped
cold in the Senate by Rocky Mountain Republicans and their constituents who fear
a new federal land grab, as well as the powerful appropriations committees who
see a threat to their turf.
Given the short time and the huge amount of
must-pass legislation Congress adjourns, however, Lott is fearful of bogging
down the Senate in a huge fight. Environmental groups expressed disappointment,
saying the new compromise is no substitute for the original.
"Certainly
when you have increased funding for land acquisition and wildlife that's always
good news," said Perry Plumart, spokesman for the National Audubon Society. "But
I think we could have much better news if we're able to pass CARA."
Without seeing the actual legislation, Jay Watson, director of the
Wilderness Society's California/Nevada region, said, "on the face of it, it
would look as if while short of CARA, it would still be a significant investment
in the American landscape and in outdoor recreation."
The White House
insisted that the new compromise, hammered out in the Interior Appropriations
Committee, accomplishes many of the objectives of the original legislation,
which aimed to create a huge pot of money that appealed to nearly every
interest: urban and suburban parks, bicycle paths, recreation, coastal and beach
protection, wildlife preservation, expansion of national parks and forests,
wetlands creation and historic preservation.
"The bill will mirror and
contain most of the essential elements in funding levels of CARA," Frampton
said.
And while the funding mechanism does not call for a dedicated draw
on offshore oil royalties, backers said the bill is written in such a way that
all but assures the money will be spent. That's because the bill mandates that
if the money is not spent on the required conservation
programs, it cannot be spent at all.
The White House said appropriators
seldom leave money unspent, and are highly unlikely to do so with the new
conservation measures since much of it will be going to states
and localities, where governors and mayors are always eager to get federal
funds.
Exactly how much money will wind up in the Bay Area and
California remains to be seen. Much of it will be allocated according to
existing funding formulas, and the arithmetic had not yet been worked out after
the compromise was reached late yesterday afternoon.
California should
see substantial benefit however, given its long coastline and abundant park
space.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSERVATION BILL DETAILS
The compromise on the
conservation bill directs spending at six big categories, about
two thirds of it going to states and localities. The money is divided in the
following ways:
-- Federal and state land and water
conservation programs, starting at $229
million next year.
-- State conservation programs,
starting at $218 million.
-- Urban and historic
preservation programs, starting at $39 million.
--
Federal lands maintenance, starting at $150 million.
--
Coastal programs, which could start as high as $100 million.
-- Payments to states in lieu of taxes lost on federally owned land, set
at $50 million.
E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at
clochhead@sfchronicle.com
LOAD-DATE: September 30, 2000
