Copyright 1999 The Times-Picayune Publishing Co.
The Times-Picayune
May 2, 1999 Sunday, ORLEANS
SECTION: SPORTS; Pg. C16
LENGTH: 750 words
HEADLINE:
PARTIES IN RARE AGREEMENT ON CONSERVATION BILL
BYLINE: By Bob Marshall
BODY:
Warning: Before reading the next paragraph, remove all fragile objects from
your hands, sit in a stable chair, take a deep breath. Cardiac patients and
pregnant women should consult their physicians.
A bipartisan effort is
gaining steam in Congress to pass legislation this year that could dedicate more
than $1 billion annually to protect fish, wildlife and coastal wetlands.
Conservative Republicans are joining with liberal Democrats to secure funding
for what could become the largest conservation bill of the
century. And Louisiana stands to benefit more than any other state.
Shocking, but true.
The
Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 is something outdoors
people
can cheer about -- and so can politicians of all stripes. The act
seeks to
take revenue from offshore oil and gas leases, which currently go
into the
national treasury (estimated at $4.59 billion in 2000), and do some
important
things: * Use 27 percent (about $1.24
billion) to allow coastal states to
mitigate the impacts of offshore oil and
gas development.
* Use 16-23 percent for land-based outdoors
recreation projects in every
state. Money would be available to address
trail maintenance, renovate or
build state parks, construct birding trails,
wildlife viewing stands and more.
* Use 7-10 percent for wildlife
conservation, restoration and education
projects. State
agencies finally would have funding to care for hundreds of
non-game
species.
The bill is a dream machine for conservationists
who long have sought a
solution for the nation's growing funding crisis in
wildlife management and
outdoor recreation. While the United States likes to
boast about its
accomplishments in the field of
conservation, the truth is we're really a land
of haves and
have-nots when it comes to wildlife.
Almost all species
actively sought by hunters and fishers are in great
shape, because hunters
and fishers have been paying the bills for more than 50
years. Excise taxes
on hunting, fishing and boating gear have fueled dramatic
comebacks for a
wide range of animals, including wild turkey, white-tailed
deer, elk and
pronghorn antelope. But 90 percent of wildlife on the continent
are non-game
species, and they have suffered seriously for lack of support
from the rest
of the nation.
Attempts over the years to correct that
imbalance by spreading the cost to
non-consumptive users met stiff
resistance from politicians afraid to be
associated with a fee, much less a
tax. And proposals for the nation to
address the environmental damage
associated with oil and gas drilling had
fewer friends in Congress.
But a happy coincidence of events has helped change all
that. A record
budget surplus has opened the window on funding. And some
savvy maneuvering by
wildlife advocates has made the mechanics of the
proposal acceptable to many
conservatives.
"This bill
isn't a tax or a user fee, and it isn't a regulatory bill," said
Naomi
Edelson, of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
which has chased this dream for many years. "We've gotten lucky, and the
opportunity is here. We need to take advantage of it, because no one knows
when we'll get another chance like this."
Louisiana's
congressional delegation has been among the Act's most vocal
supporters. The
Senate version of the bill, S 25, has been dubbed the
Landrieu-Young Bill
for its major workhorse, Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu.
Their interest is
obvious: Louisiana, the state that has suffered most to
provide the nation
with oil and gas, stands to receive the most from the act
-- an estimated
$347.7 million for the year 2000 alone.
There are critics.
Some environmentalists are afraid the bill would
encourage states to repeal
moratoriums on offshore drilling just to get a
piece of the action. Not
likely. Others think the mitigation for oil and gas
drilling should be
spread evenly among all states. Under that scenario, an
inland state like
Nebraska, which has never lost an acre of marsh to the
dredge, would get the
same slice as Louisiana, which has seen its coast
devastated for oil and
gas.
Finally, some fiscal conservatives see this as
creating another entitlement
-- this one for fish, wildlife and the
environment.
That complaint can prompt only one response:
It's about time. Louisiana's
outdoors people should tell their congressmen
and senators to stay this
course.
COLUMN: BOB
MARSHALL
LOAD-DATE: May 2, 1999
