Copyright 1999 Star Tribune
Star Tribune
(Minneapolis, MN)
March 17, 1999, Wednesday, Metro Edition
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 16A
LENGTH: 522 words
HEADLINE:
Conservation spending;
Open-space fund may finally get its due
BODY:
An odd but encouraging competition is
underway in Congress over how to spend revenues from offshore oil and gas wells
_ particularly the portion that is supposed to go for buying parks and other
public land.
For decades there has been an
annual battle over how much of this Land and Water Conservation Fund could be
diverted to defense budgets, deficit reduction and the like. Environmental
groups have pressed in vain for spending the full $900 million
now authorized by law; Congress has responded with appropriations in the
$200 million to $300 million range.
But this year the bidding is running in
the other direction. The Clinton administration's $1.1 billion
Lands Legacy Initiative, regarded as a bold move when announced
in January, now stands as the cheapest alternative. A competing plan offered by
two California Democrats, Rep. George Miller and Sen. Barbara Boxer, would spend
$2.3 billion _ about half the total now flowing in from coastal
wellheads. Versions backed by powerful Alaska Republicans, Rep. Don Young and
Sen. Frank Murkowski, would peg spending at $1.4 billion and
$1.7 billion respectively.
Several factors account for this changed
political environment. Drilling revenues are running high and federal deficits
belong, for now, to history. Voters registered strong support last November for
open-space initiatives, approving nearly three-fourths of the 240 measures they
considered, according to a recent Brookings Institution study. Democrats and
Republicans are seeking opportunities for bipartisan cooperation. Rep. Young,
who has displayed a generally antagonistic attitude toward expanded public land
holdings, is said to be thinking of his legacy.
All of the bills share a central purpose
of making money available for federal, state and local agencies to acquire new
land for conservation. They vary in their provisions for historic preservation
projects, urban park restoration efforts, habitat protection for endangered
species, conservation of fish and marine birds, and so on.
The Alaskans' versions have some
objectionable elements as well. They give preference in appropriations to states
that have a lot of offshore wells _ say, Alaska _ and may permit spending on
roads and other projects at odds with conservation goals. On the theory that the
federal government already owns too much land in the West, they require that
two-thirds of new purchases be made east of the 100th meridian (roughly
Bismarck, N.D.). And in an effort at micromanagement, they require specific
congressional endorsement of all but the smallest purchases.
So there is plenty for Congress to
fight about, in the details as well as the price tags. But there is also reason
to be hopeful that when all these differences are resolved, the nation will be
making an investment of historic scale in open space and resource conservation,
and ratifying anew the original logic for handling offshore drilling revenues _
that money earned from exploiting these national resources ought to be used, in
significant part, for conserving others.
LOAD-DATE: March 18, 1999
