Order Code IB10015 CRS Issue Brief for Congress Received through the CRS Web Protecting Natural Resources and Managing Growth: Issues in the 107"" Congress PROPERTY OF WMRC LIBRARY Updated June 14, 2001 Jeff Zinn Resources, Science, and Industry Division Congressional Research Service ❖ The Library of Congress A ,• Contents Summary Most Recent Developments Background and Analysis Assisting Efforts to Address Sprawl and Manage Growth The CARA Proposals Legislative Activity in the House Legislative Activity in the Senate Related Proposals The Clinton Administration’s Lands Legacy Initiative FY2000 FY2001 Major Points of Debate Activities in the 107'*’ Congress Legislation 106'*’ Congress 107'*’ Congress Congressional Hearings, Reports, and Documents For Additional Reading I .• I' r^_ jKTw: ^ At A rxHtjgeiJ ifmnOijffM •^' ho, I v. <‘.^rl^ :4miM •> 4e ^ .■ flA.^ vrT \ J «»:*>? Bi . ,>^A ,> fv iv-xi \ - '■’'« i‘ !■ 7 t'3^f .4 ! ,raB» ! 4>iir. i i ',u*f»M;iiljA rifjjr-'n dfT T tj ^'/iswQ •TItt -.11 ft\ * v?..' ifa /■. '*iLh r,. ..rii j’.' JAJwito^i*« !. .M IB10015 06-14-01 Protecting Natural Resources and Managing Growth: Issues in the 107‘^ Congress Summary The 107'^ Congress is continuing efforts to address expanding protection of natural resources, which could have some benefits for managing growth and constraining sprawl that started in the 105“’ Congress. The 106'“ Congress considered numerous omnibus resource protection bills as well as a Clinton Administration proposal - The Lands Legacy Initiative - tied to annual appropria¬ tions for FY2000 and FY200L The omnibus bills, referred to as CARA, would have used revenues from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas activities to fund land and easement acqui¬ sition, wildlife protection, and restoration and protection of coastal resources, urban parks, historic sites, public and Indian lands, spending about $45 billion over 15 years. The House passed a version of CARA, H.R. 701, on May 11, 2000. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported a substitute version of H.R. 701 (S. Rept. 106-413), on July 25, but no further action was taken. This legislation attracted bipartisan sup¬ port from those who view expanded resource protection as a response to sprawl, from state and local interests who seek additional federal funding for resource protection and restora¬ tion, and from wildlife and recreation advo¬ cates who believe that resource protection activities have been ehronically underfunded. Opposition came from those who worry about protecting personal property rights and expanding federal land ownership, especially in the West. Others opposed use of permanent appropriations, a component of some earlier versions, because they would prefer to spend federal funds for other purposes, want to limit overall federal spending, or want all funding to be appropriated annually. The Clinton Administration endorsed many elements in these bills. In addition, it proposed appropriating funds annually for a similar array of programs a different approach in its Lands Legacy Initiative in FY2000 and FY2001 In FY2000, the Lands Legacy pro¬ grams received $197.5 million in a separate title of the Interior Appropriations bill as well as increased funding for many of its programs. After it became clear that the Senate was unlikely to act on CARA, the appropriations committees and the Administration agreed to a multi-year lands legacy program as part of the FY2001 appropriation. This agreement increased funding for resource protection programs that could total $12 billion over 6 years, if fully appropriated annually. For FY2001, the total appropriation is $1.67 billion ($ 1.2 billion through Interior Appropri¬ ations and the remainder through Commerce Appropriations). The CARA proposal has been reintro¬ duced in the 107'“ Congress, again as H.R. 701, and the House Resources Committee has scheduled a hearing. The Bush Administration has not taken a position on H.R. 701, but it did not inelude the lands legacy approach with its initial budget submission. It did, however, request full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund with this submission. The FY2002 Interior appropriations bill, as passed in subcommittee, includes $ 1.32 billion for the Lands Legacy programs, an increase of $120 million over FY2001. Congressional Research Service ❖ The Library of Congress r/-. I t ■; - • ' ^; 'I, , O', , I " ■.■’ ■' I »1 !»• , /.' v '■'•"• 'I - 'll jr- Jt . I ■ it'i ■■'Ti ' •*It -f , . . •{ ii' f • / " /. ■ t'‘>‘ ' 'u»i. . Mr:' '<> ' ' ^ 't'nnAAfaif ’ I i. Ar-,■ la tj) iOiM ..."' '/tmtt _ .»< . .. V^vnfaiaorii A * 1. •!•. gQwf f nnjs u%vw fti » —>11 IduTV^ < '.v {cifoAimcO r, itr.t )ay« 1 1 1 M '-...i K1 '1 fj .i;il |I Hi |L„ __ .’.r ;3ffi iou .Tav>«j . .'(ir'iit.w • Ij.rhjni • vr'^'* , . . . ... -, '. '. tfli II-• • ! .•<(> Uii* /if>Lirc,* I •«.. - ^ r «‘•T « ' Mill ii.'(>/ *•( i»'. ir l^•.•v.v^^ - ■ f.. *.' t • . mi.- ' ' l it ..(111* !'il. I ■ i. ..... * 1 ' ../•■({» JT' ^ ' ■ . - 1, • ;u 1 • t.i< lit. . i,vii. . ’ll ■ 4 bn» J 1 'HlS ' t i.ir/ 1 rtri«|l|fff MBW -ui... iiv. '"o: i IB10015 06-14-01 Most Recent Developments House members have reintroduced H.R. 701, omnibus legislation known as CARA, that would increase funding to more than $3 billion annually for acquisition of land, restoration and protection of wildlife, coastal resources, urban parks, historic sites, public and Indian lands, and acquisition of easements. This legislation had passed the House and was reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in the 106'^ Congress. The Bush Administration has not taken a position on this legislation. It has, however, proposed fullfunding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million in FY2002 in its budget submission. While the 106"' Congress did not complete action on its version of H.R. 701, it did enact portions of the Clinton Administration’s “Lands Legacy Initiative, ” which proposed substantial increases in funding for selected resource protection and restoration programs with its FY2000 and FY2001 budget submissions. For FY2001, Congress enacted $1.2 billion, and a 6-year program as part of Interior appropriations that would provide a total of $12 billion if all the funds are appropriated each year (Title VIII of P.L. 106-291), and $470 million, mostly for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for one year only, in Title IX of the Commerce Appropriations (P.L.106-554). For FY2002, the Interior subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee has provided $1.32 billion for the suite of programs under its jurisdiction, an increase of $120 million from the preceding year. Background and Analysis Managing growth and related resource protection issues moved on three distinct fronts during the 106th Congress. (l)The 106th Congress monitored state and local governments as they addressed suburban sprawl and related growth issues. (2) It considered and almost enacted omnibus legislation, commonly referred to as CARA, to spend up to $3 billion annually over each of the next 15 years of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas revenues to fund a variety of resource protection programs. (3) It enacted portions of the Clinton Administration proposals to increase annual appropriations to selected programs funded by the Interior and Commerce appropriations, called the Lands Legacy Initiative, in both F Y2000 and FY200L Many of the programs that would have been funded under CARA and are funded under the Lands Legacy Initiative (mostly at lower levels) address issues associated with managing growth. Assisting Efforts to Address Sprawl and Manage Growth In recent years, some Members of Congress and the Clinton Administration were interested in addressing growth management issues, which often include major resource protection components. Many of these issues are most visible and addressed at the local level. At this level, protecting valued resources, including farmland, forests and other resources that provide amenity or recreation benefits, can also help control sprawl and manage patterns of growth. Managing growth involves searching for ways in which federal programs can be used to reduce a host of expanding undesirable attributes, such as loss of CRS-1 A' fA-Uli Vui nUst «' r -r l • i \,v '..v.l *. A»ir-• \.ir tXi«(.tt\\00'iV * 1 . .'. >nil iU » I i^. .Ijljifeftr UA !> ft# n* Mwr/ *iiik^ • “•Ki.'•tyr/liL.- * r I t I' -n*! "/rt. .1 .' • I. 4if> i*’ »y. •.f »■’--' ’ .1 MU. ••It»x4 '( 1 , 1 - • i‘ ri.ft ‘V I* irt <■ t«l hnn iw#i )6 ' *'• Hfmp' I '' ,1 •'' , 1 ■ •'■ ••:■. .'»-;--4rKl|t .»11 *» -■ */ rjJ ' ,, '.O'lJi < > IB10015 06-14-01 agricultural land or open space, the decline of neighborhoods in older cities, or increased traffic congestion and commuting time, while giving higher priority to policies and funding choices that foster desirable conditions. Growth management and sprawl issues emerge periodically. Interest is currently high, and many states and localities have been attempting to use various public policies to deal with these issues for the past several years. Maryland received considerable publicity when it recently acted on these issues. It adopted the Clinton Administration moniker, “smart growth,” when it enacted legislation in 1997. Under this legislation, state road and sewer project spending to assist development will be concentrated both to revitalize approved urban areas and to curb sprawl by minimizing public spending in other areas. In addition, more than $70 million is to be used by 2002 to purchase development rights on land with high environmental value. Governor Glendening continues to pursue these initiatives in Maryland after the departure of the Clinton Administration, and is using his position as Chair of the National Governor’s Association to increase interest and awareness around the country. For example, the Association held a summit in March 2001 that addressed the benefits resource conservation programs on private lands. Current efforts to deal with sprawl and manage growth emphasize incentives and disincentives to encourage desirable choices. By contrast, most earlier efforts were based on regulation and enforcement. For example, Oregon’s urban growth boundaries, which have been in place for about 25 years and are viewed as a model by some other jurisdictions, are relatively rigid and are based on extensive land-use planning and zoning. By contrast, Maryland’s new program emphasizes the use of financial incentives to encourage preferred actions at desired locations. A similar change to a more flexible approach can be seen in resource protection where more funds and efforts are devoted to protection or restoration without full fee acquisition. The issues addressed by these initiatives have important economic dimensions. The costs associated with resource protection and measures of what protection is worth to individuals have been widely discussed (and disputed). The costs associated with managing growth and addressing sprawl are even more controversial. Advocates of growth management cite the costs of providing new services, such as schools and transportation, in growing areas while existing services in areas of declining population are underused. However, others say that many of these costs are overstated and that the offsetting savings are not properly accounted for. Analysis of the costs change with scale; costs (and savings) may be quite different at a regional scale than at a community scale. In addition to the many actions the public sector may initiate, one proliferating response in the private sector is the creation of land trusts, which protect valued resources that are threatened with undesirable change, such as those caused by sprawl. A 1997 survey conducted by the Land Trust Alliance (a group in Washington that represents about two- thirds of the land trusts) found more than 1,200 trusts operating in all 50 states and protecting more than 17.5 million acres, an area larger than West Virginia. The Nature Conservancy, which is the largest and perhaps the best known of these trusts, protects more than 8 million acres; most land trusts work to protect resources in a relatively small area. Trusts are now using easements rather than acquisition to protect about 1.4 million acres. This is a nearly five-fold increase over the past decade, but still a small portion of the land protected by trusts. CRS-2 f Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/protectingnaturaOOunit IB10015 06-14-01 All land protection efforts are not necessarily directly linked to traditional environmental interests and organizations, to purchasing land, or to sprawl. Two groups involving commercial ranching interests that have received considerable attention for their land protection and restoration activities are the Malpai Borderlands Group along the Mexican border with New Mexico and Arizona and the Colorado Cattleman’s Association. Some Members of Congress have responded to these resource protection and growth management interests by creating groups of Members who represent concerned constituencies. In the House, Representative Blumenauer created a Livable Communities Task Force within the Democratic Caucus in early 1998. Its stated objectives include recognizing the role the federal government has played in affecting community livability and promoting partnerships where the federal government works with local governments to achieve a community vision. A press release from Representative Blumenauer’s office listed 17 members. In the Senate, Senators Jeffords and Levin announced the formation of a bipartisan Senate Smart Growth Task Force on January 13, 1999. Objectives of this Task Force are to investigate federal policies that curtail the quality of life in communities and regions, and to promote federal policies and programs that assist and complement state and local efforts to promote "smart growth". These Senators received reports from the General Accounting Office in April 1999 and in September 2000. The initial report concluded that federal policies do contribute to sprawl, although the data to determine the extent and magnitude of the federal influence is not available, while the second report found many local governments are pursuing a variety of strategies to manage growth. They have requested a third report, to be completed later in 2001 that focuses on environmental protection programs. Resource protection advocates have been pressing to increase overall federal funding levels for a mix of resource protection programs and increase the consistency of funding from year to year. The traditional source of federal funding to support federal, state, and local efforts to acquire natural resources is primarily the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Annual appropriations to LWCF have been unpredictable from year to year. They were greatly reduced in the early and mid 1990s, as the Clinton Administration and Congress struggled to reduce the deficit, but have been rising steadily more recently. Further, the grants to states portion of the LWCF, which had received about one-third of all appropriated funds since the law was implemented in 1965, was not funded from FY1995 through FY2000 but received $41 million in FY2000 and $91 million in FY2001. Other generally newer and more focused federal resource protection programs address wetlands, migratory bird habitat, farmland, and the like using various approaches in addition to acquisition. The expenditure of LWCF funds by either federal agencies or states has not to date involved consideration of the patterns of growth or sprawl. (For more information on the LWCF, see CRS Report 97- 792 ENR, Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues, last updated March 16, 2001.) The CARA Proposals Interest in addressing these LWCF funding problems and related resource protection issues led to the introduction of three bills late in the 105“’ Congress (H.R. 4467 sponsored by Representative Gephardt, H.R. 4717 sponsored by Representative Don Young, and S. 2566 sponsored by Senator Landrieu). These bills would have funded the LWCF using CRS-3 f0-4< ( *V << .. .<4 ■’■ ' U Wm > . *. •>!!) tioidlllA ^ »» • U'% — ^ovia»3ii *-»rH U4II i^wmn ’!fu~ iht •fmslnjt. titMWJloC)'tftr •'<"/-tt-itiA » w» Hhw r v/- iilv/'*T,> :rnn tioia*. "4 n jj b*!;«*?' 'n O/crt UCHOpO^ j rry!.rsJ4 * - 4^1 Oilyi i':‘ -"pjutjj ■“'f' tRam^^'^'n 4yjlui/atiitAr> 4 boteri'i itumui^ .Wji,: < Sij* J sljuforti »-i7 U^i.tm irtl. OJ v|.j £5 ,|{ ^{j^f 7 ■k'AV’^oWii. ban (ft! wirry^J-. lo-<6r4 ■wttllC" <5> k m 4 <.*!.'>*? i»>»oii»;4^v*^n/r*>yu;j Ifl'it.'ff ^if jnf#4i*‘ ■•'iMiiaH''' -"nirwr^ li-T.;i| i#4Vo«'T.i.rR,4-Mii|t‘* •« » v^* .V/* - ».xp^rt«.ib’■'I <<; 3 (jtu.i^hut wvMiib ,i'* K‘ 3iy»MJi.(4- ir ■ ! iii i4»Mi. janaifr|^ j-.^: . r?; .? wA '»«4V44||^/.iv,yv? *»l^| -'.f;»rL- *1-^ 6»« w -A ‘ m .'Uteiff -^'. •,• > tt4b fM> ' ^ iMk ^ . h* •n *> §CiWJA rj, IJ.-.'affk') nilJ (-'»«•,. dr»*#i'Ti hpfr.'V --Mi vct^ ,,«•>»' kiiuikyi i» y/ 1 ti(^^‘"' P*. »«^>i iri/i/M jtO i*'Mi** •^r Wi r nriA m «iit3 lo. •Ji(j(..>/^j|4(i(|Tt6>4 v 111 ' ■ ' %. ^ ilUi •« ■'o ■( ,l//i;fft »*' ikkirititkp^' ')^?an9yi]|lil4i,<»l ■■'14.■'aim jJidiy ^ tfi.* \>n-.1:. k< ' ( t»i/f7 fl ' . » '*>•.*. i- Vtvlo ViaWftV* 1»«B ^ '' • r-.T.^WW .Hi .' <■ KK »( ^i)i/f7 fl'. I '*v**' _ .'(Lvu^mI a .it'^'. (ilfV'iA tifllbad Hy »•¥<♦ >)i y *>--wiv»*; Txvt^' •”“« 'I *L' ii’ii^j7i'‘'ir'j 9vtS**t ' n «i-',i yjiif ikrfkT i^>.>1 u' « . -if. •{K jucs« t ' Atrti ' f 4di 4fl(^ni^i'L*'U) li ..'-s) ii> jifT ^-y ,' •< t^'i7 ^ iwiAi itv :1t4 ei , ^i/IVOSW lM>;7in ifi (ki t •|UO\i •»COOd i **tO*«ti A-r;r !i )Utj 5;r‘Ji^';f'rtifrtbAo*' nj!")4fv -ii. aOW-! itl'.miru/H .'|h||ki>t wont fKiLjrsi. n'**^ vvj <’ s,*-, .ii«i 14) vi' •;. • 'i» %7. <-nk tiTBrn'^ipyJlu^wiv, .7 r*/J Swlj^tiin^u f "uHuT. * fi'.fttYH A'1'^ 7^4 cVWf Y’-iyiVji'tly4;n»(l.R'n 1hwit t:-, i**j'.:, - 1 oiii, '^r4f(i lOO HTOC ^ .' If* *11*11' *'{ tuiai ^’ 7i l]*|)i' ^ . r »(/•*. ’^4ifitlhW44Kt’‘'A24 ' tun ‘ ft i0iftfnyy i tuup 9tuhUty-0%9i4f oi aohti^i! rii •■) *M '.*4*ifrJ‘' 'n SlK>rj)-V ^'11JSJ ■»•’*< jli; ■< I *» IfulVMVi. • k*r*^MlttikA^^: |ailf’ AHA5ii 11 - ur^ 9VU.k^. ' JK-U-r'' - -yit fmgrA fn bntomsst^i ^?. I ^4 4 K n .A IB10015 06-14-01 permanent appropriations rather than the annual appropriations process, and revitalized the state grants program. In addition, the bills introduced by Representative Young and Senator Landrieu also would have: provided funds to coastal states to address impacts from offshore energy development; funded the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR), which had not been funded since FY1995; and increased funding for the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (also known as the Pittman-Robertson Act). Both bills enjoyed some bipartisan support, and were reintroduced, with some changes, early in the 106‘^ Congress (H.R. 701 and S. 25). H.R. 701, the main legislative vehicle in the 106‘*’ Congress, would have created the CARA Fund of almost $3 billion annually from offshore oil and gas revenues. It had the same basic features as the bills that had been introduced in the 105"’ Congress. The House-passed version funded 10 programs, while the Senate version, which was developed later in the 1 Ob'" Congress and contained more of the programs that were also in the Clinton Administration’s Lands Legacy Initiative, funded 20 programs. While the basic concepts were generally similar in both bills, some of the details differed. Legislative Activity in the House. As passed by the House, H R. 701, or CARA would have appropriated $2,825 billion annually from revenues derived from offshore oil and gas activities. All the funds except the federal portion of the LWCF would have been permanently appropriated and have bypassed the annual appropriation process. All purposes, authorized through FY2015 (and annual funding levels) included: • Impact Assistance and Coastal Conservation ($1 billion); • Land and Water Conservation Fund Revitalization ($900 million); • Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Fund ($350 million); • Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR)($125 million); • Historic Preservation Fund ($100 million); • Federal and Indian Lands Restoration ($200 million); • Conservation Easements and Species Recovery ($150 million); and • Payment In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Refuge Revenue Sharing ($200 million). The House approved H. R. 701 on May 11,2000, after 2 days of debate, during which it adopted 7 amendments. H.R. 701 had 315 cosponsors and was approved by a vote of 315- 102. During the debate, supporters generally argued for the benefits of additional resource protection through multiple programs, especially at a time of growing budget surpluses. Opponents argued against removing this funding from the annual appropriations process, accelerating acquisition of land by the federal government, and increasing intrusion by the government on the lives of private citizens. The bill the House considered also contained some significant technical revisions made after the full committee had passed it. The most significant revisions: • dropped the budget waiver language by deleting §7, so that the federal LWCF funding would remain subject to annual appropriations while most of the other programs funded under the bill would be mandatory spending, and not considered in the annual appropriations process; • replaced a proposed new $100 million Interior Department conservation easement program in Title VII with funding for two existing easement CRS-4 . I (Ail Mi 1 (r iir.HU 04 I ' iliTr*;* *' ■ * . h ■■••(/. . *1 ■H'lva-. > ' > ■ .'I-, itf/i \ I Mr %i • t-n/ '* ^ ufU „ • i » '1 ■ • 1.J . •'iM -V^r, l-k'ii, . .it ^ V . i .. . - ' J i,-w I .11 1 • li 'i-^ < ' . 'Jfjt*. iTJ^- ft I i ^-f. iVi ' i'l ' :.(>jU. i - '.I I ' '••'•1 ii.-j i)'. rv..j/jj4olU3»]^J»lp.^: -j:.. i ij. I: ' .' Ifr.>'.':rt ...jr;/. .W iT 11^ . .i. -'V^ ■■ c- - ' ' i‘tV. i,i’ -' ■• r i^v; ' i"* I ..iif jr:,'' .Ml ^ jjf -v.j-jv 1.1 •.1. 4(1 i V.?' ' i'v;« f'* fioTl ;. 'utOlAlMl yi'fi..-s.xii LiiU ,'.'i:'r. I . :-.l. I'j' 1.,.' <1 ’jf}) lliii I, I ...ic O'. ; ;1 '(ti • trth^ -, n*; .,r- r*.-., -r-.)#..->• i:i'irUf»i' , • . *jii jyw Uf .! ■ i7/i tijl IB10015 06-14-01 programs in the Department of Agriculture, the Farmland Protection Program and the Forest Legacy Program; and • required that appropriators provide more than $100 million for Payment in Lieu of Taxes and $15 million for refuge revenue sharing before additional funds provided by H.R. 701 for these programs would be made available. The seven amendments the Flouse approved would have: • reduced incentives for new offshore oil and gas drilling; • added a statement that funding under this legislation should supplement, and not replace, annual appropriations to the National Park Service; • allowed money to be shifted to the CARA Fund annually only after the Congressional Budget Office has certified that Social Security and Medicare are solvent for the next 5 years and that the surplus will be sufficient to retire the federal debt by 2013; • provided these funds only to states with a dedicated land acquisition fund; • required the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to develop of a statewide plan for federal land acquisition and disposal in Montana; • added the Urban and Community Forestry Program to the programs that receive funding under Title VII, easements; and • added a new Title VIII stating that spending on this legislation would not diminish the Social Security or Medicare Trust Funds. Legislative Activity in the Senate. As reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the substitute version of H.R. 701 would have appropriated an estimated $2.99 billion annually through FY2016 (S.Rept. 106-413). Unlike the House- passed bill, all the funds would have been discretionary spending, because they only would have become available after Congress approved the Administration’s list of proposed federal land acquisitions under LWCF. The programs that would have been funded differ from the House-passed bill. Programs it would have funded (and annual funding levels) were: • Coastal Impact Assistance ($430 million); • Coastal Conservation ($350 million); • Coral Reef Protection ($25 million) • Land and Water Conservation Fund ($900 million); • Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Fund ($350 million); • Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program ($75 million); • Urban and Community Forestry Program ($50 million); • Historic Preservation Fund ($150 million); • National Park and Indian Lands Restoration ($125 million); • Forest Legacy Program ($50 million); • Farm and Ranch land Protection Program ($50 million); • Cooperative Forestry Rural Development Program ($25 million); • Forest-Dependent Rural Community Assistance Program ($25 million); • Youth Conservation Corps Programs ($60 million); and • Payment In-Lieu of Taxes (variable, estimated at $325 million) There were other differences between the two bills. The two bills funded programs at different dollar amounts; for example, the House-passed bill provided $1 billion for coastal CRS-5 // I ^' I f I ' V. r/'- ’1 r.ii iKtUim •' l.j ZlA iHT I 'i V vttfoH ' >. 5 > :> a fio vvjflitW MF' \^.^i. ' .4,fIfft 23j[ini 1; hr*! /i •v.it.tf V'. rH» OJ IIDobi I . tiPiijl > ?IA^ wb ijd* i /!j nnxt/ hrAiy. ill'll bTiUtmc^Un^^ > 1 *• oi th•-!:>-!HW•/• Of'-' » ('** t'lto 'i-i’vH jrfi .('.■. -J _ t4ll Un-j'-V ybif •/-•((' jf Ur:^>-''.'-•i'‘'>'t'.'f ' »•'•’n '-i Mb tiWr I - ■•' . •jT't *)/tin iUl '.■.V, V . -.i ■ •' liiUDiM: li ,(rtr>ti}tm llhli Offf tfif >Sl'i nutr^iJfS Af :». ft« > i ht». ■ * ^ rAV lu. MH fj.. lu O* «••' f .f W*»/ P ' .1 ►!!>» I»aA*tt . nn- . t»T^l5:o bx : i j^9t^fnfPol ^ i^bs^qt-n: tt.fOT Jl m ■•‘,umi(, tkm.OOOl, >4 ^vn« fK. WW.J x*» fcij^5 rir' r ,/. ) Jv /d ^Jttu.y.0, Mr Z mai^nn »r,- J, , ,,. '^{fJ i tW -1 life vj^ fij>v ‘ ntti^ai9 p^yn rHjJ:*»r>uJl| !)o« vrff : ^ •*•*•>/• 'Xiwr JTiflrWrr/Hnibotfvj-v. w^4> u*filter ,4t^1 .^W>‘ ^A#ii * J ih ^.. U WumaistmhA ^{/ h/fui . wrf/ *| /». t» . t i v(j»i 7^»«. ntu-r,. .'tid mil it| OT / t^ni .1 t''i< >.l ^fi thw*|J--t«| ■' 5"* '\i Jt H'},* am 1 ' Wfk)' hjOTKi i.»iii. {0? HV) <»l i<«^{tn 2 d>i <«w ir?nf>mijt ''”V M J^jj^ Triillifif b|AlO/f >‘H»f r>tij',v ,0 r .a 1 j •i/*, .* >t>T ^ )rv.iii ->rfT .a9T^rtQ}iA0aBm*4S^ , - VTuiabnBflibluw. /oi{ vj -1 iufti m:.i..‘iiiHeci.C'*liifdii3.m^yaamx i>*. Vri't. TtffiJ itMt.) ^»y|f *»t* ' H K(«. fii4 . 4 !^ if't ■■)■• jg ■t « « ae^ik4tiq'»J ■’•" 'HAfie ;, '.A, • I '.'H 4ltl .: a ,itl- •ti 'n ** ll»c r. ■i.-^4f '■ 'I ^>:«o IB10015 06-14-01 The Clinton Administration’s Lands Legacy Initiative FY2000. The Clinton Administration first proposed to various resource protection pressures, especially sprawl and growth management questions, through its “Lands Legacy Initiative” in January 1999. It then included these proposals in its FY2000 budget submission. Some of these proposals would have required authorizing legislation, but it did not submit any draft bills. It sought increases totaling more than $1 billion for more than 20 programs, and divided them among the Department of the Interior ($579 million), the Department of Agriculture ($268 million), and the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA )($183 million). This would have been an increase of $540 million from FY1999 funding. Congress rejected many of these proposals and partially funded most others. In total, it provided $727 million for these programs, an increase of $268 million from FY1999. The House and Senate Interior Appropriations Committees both opposed the initiative. While the normal appropriations process did not result in substantial funding for these proposals, negotiations on the Consolidated Appropriations for FY2000 (H.R. 3194), which combined five appropriations bills, resulted in providing an additional $197.5 million to implement aspects of the Initiative in a separate Subtitle VI of the Interior Appropriations. Most of these funds were for land acquisition. The Forest Service received $81 million and agencies in the Department of the Interior received the remaining $116.5 million. All but $35 million were earmarked. The legislation required that the remaining funds — $15 million for the Forest Service, and at least $20 million for the Department of the Interior agencies — could be spent only after being approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. (The committees released the funds in March 2000.) FY2001 . The Clinton Administration slightly revised the components of its lands legacy proposal in FY2001, replacing three programs with three others. It sought an overall increase of $673 million, to $ 1.4 billion. Added programs included a Coastal Impact Assistance Fund, grants to states for non-game wildlife, and the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund. The first two of these added programs were already major components in the pending CARA legislation. The proposal would have provided $735 million to the Department of the Interior, $429 million to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce, and $236 million to the Department of Agriculture. As in FY2000, no authorizing legislation was included with the package. More specifically, the Lands Legacy Initiative, as proposed in FY2001, would have: • Funded federal land acquisition through the LWCF, including lands in several specified areas, such as the Florida Everglades and the Northern Forest. The estimated cost was $450 million, an increase of $25 million. • Provided grants to states to acquire land through the LWCF state grant program. The estimated cost was $ 150 million, an increase of $ 109 million. • Provided matching grants to states through the Department of the Interior to develop open space and "smart growth" management strategies. The estimated cost was $50 million; this proposal went unfunded in FY2000. • Initiated a new revolving loan fund at the Department of Agriculture to support acquisition of land and easements in rural areas based on “smart growth” principles. The estimated cost was $6 million. CRS-7 I'l l. I iVj m i *1 “0 •vaelifni J * i noil#tKiniin>?A ffotoUd hmCT • .- -^i • ‘/!.hf« Jttffjcuiv Oi M>tq itii’’- I •.;4xUfni.ri6A . . ;** Mi ii^tMiTiO /o V,.',- ,p unr'ft^io’iKij^ipj^ ' 4 .: H’'* ^ ’*;/* bil M iitO v»rb'hsinpC ItM U!i't l(A riOiitill * Z ni^(b ;‘t.?in IMI* ><*) ;Ttjt U jsU^nnb (»> inaiTduKpO AfK-Hilim >i'r»inl lo Ui^nfiM^pQ tobiO HttHKiit \u «*:■ rfu ot. f»oa*l biVTt 1 / ?»(fl Irnrfliw r5^: A.ACV4-«DI r ^r.io^ .;<(. - 'n/l^cxj’*‘^ ‘ fl»iUU4> -«*i» ttS Jir ili'iit''' y u»i('/« . q ''ijiUa fm tA /rVS'jriq «-. • IM xqiiicqtv^^ i|4/pli' l< 4 riiMM |.|^brl^.^'JI^U'.H Mi(^ 0 »rCy' Ti ^ • *«r BoJrJor^ “— r r ■ , 'll ^ ^**tJt Latfdifiy* fu ^Mlar^x lottithqtt^rv ^ -I I i*)!- i/ ,/Uv.’i'>U»>r;t'T(|Jt^ ~ t-nrt f *?HfT%' '''XUupJ* t’sVV' v4 " > r ^1^7/ (. .fllji't 'C? Ml IL^. .tvjtJlifn f' k-ri I :(t> vrt - 4l!Vi \ 8rvi»'* ‘t.f* .am* Wi l?a*'Air»^ ♦ inK} - '■on-i^t . WTMtfn>|»-nt ' -’PipC]n^tp tJUirt'*- ’ >»bet;xi#lh|| jui! * :^.’ifttt*(ncO ytf>tr^u w.-r *’■ 4»uarf‘»H$T|iW . • ♦“^>t,ii.:i4i> ••i •: .‘1 t«wt3lHr-!rtfAg •■i vf ,b{ii/1 Hjuiinl liJdtfO • trxWs^fi!|fi q Mitx/; W^’jli Ux^< j. ,iiO:jUui t 'of h‘ *5 VJ »»'*> 'WtT l»»Wl t;l!rytCvt!>iP aftibiyi w* *♦#*•* t>< MtHjj 4V»IA > bitft\i ^isatiKKgjftCtI -t^rn 'j'^A iv4w ^.iw»t|.j('; U4*M •• ’•!■ ■ 9£W -ifll >*'hi' no^ 4 un* .Iv - . Ml iMr* .lOOSY I »*i b-job^aaqjit^C' * v .vis-i 1 ,^|>bb? \tr^ \i jijUwM • n ' /ii>Hotlxi;OlOWtfilii ' ^ . ' 4'-.»*.-' ■ « ; t'• 7.« vu i-4t /a «|iS( ^ MIA ' ' ‘ * nvlli' ‘•'. »A-*« *>0!i4tiir»tili<| m(T ■ ■• 'W '• < •' t ' IR 'f'" .'-"ih -/»•., '!> 4 / \c*p' ' ■ tTx^ pm*m' tv-f^ii 1 PH -■ ;■ -»‘^••j •OSbtfyi^i :: a. . ul *>' f ? id gi «Ml^ .'9U.>w# ?i*t*(T ii.'.'. -n of l«:artYT hnr *jp,gai^]^Cv.. *if Kri,!/tTTL> ^ i Hi '••♦<'>,Oi»r- • i r/x]iij> vrf iu fli o ra 'cfwKn^^ . .> • ■luJti'^ OUli UhJ ivij t'>tD irf^o vfT KUum ■ ».>!» Ui>'. a# 4I JiHT la^^g. ' iilj,..T iwli-vi mniwif’ . f**i *ivi « ^ tH|„ -fli ’P'Wi2 •«■ :• -w ' iMP i tiu bo^f''v/ui viuiUMtj 4u ■»•* »»s4trj’'n";—vo^^.inA*' •im w^vt.-titi vCr lAM Ix/I 1 Iff, v/* ft-" .'.-oviiiuli4n3^5i |ir^ t.7 |i>. VH orfO l>Mr usi>**»t ;(5|L-. * .*,, r, f ,.i, , ■ '*■■■■ -«iiV^li4| ■• :*:t ..r.vt ^arr/mrtMuuipi i^'i^ 1 1 ><»i r . 4 b•■(,.»; ^(iUin 1 ^ ^ 4f^.r tiili Xwsrjl pn^iitm l A jr- fcnn -44>i. ^i^tVKpv«i J^ * ,( I'i • jA'j ttiv::ii/tjg[./^«4a*i •' **' ‘?U.atU3Pdlg[» .-. .Tint ' ’i‘3txt • vr^ v>/rowj * :'“ fij irfii iiir i» t^»rf¥-V ;r'! 1 fU i Ll ;*ittl«!>■ ..m\ }*ri ,4i '■■■" V'* . x '^ > Ihj^iO^^b/'fciLT ynir.' ^ t>j|i iwk • ^ hiiB tcft r* . ‘^^U.'\jf*jv,i »»■■ li, . .. r. t »Drff«i lot ,. iU III ftc/.*’ « »#THM||firH^ "THSU^ I ' '» »4 ltd Lew {»«'i; t, 4 •(igtl .'it > • ' ynJr.'^^ '<>j[||r~.u. OMr itf ijtiril '*“* j*W|i ''14 • i'ltQgCifililM* ^' •' lit•li!:>*oilli 7$^ K|)i*W' *» ? • • ■ cT* <*ftu l».n8 yi » i .* .f .«/ It l« T ^L(f [ i/tf It .N.) .•r^..r>T igtiai ' ■• ' r.. ,I-.*»• *ji< I ..rtii^ ^ it. ■ 11/ o.> It* ft* -ittTui. ‘ o II^T. bu . !., «r«» >'ir 'itcJttfW •’. ■ {> »W >*<' 1 *i4^i #tr ♦**' ‘^^i -'*1 .»»t .inii I w‘‘«i(ii •t<'pE%| ipr ^ ‘ilAi n*.., ^*MI1S k *fc ir* !.» ‘ir IB10015 06-14-01 from other Interior appropriations and to separate each of the five categories listed above from each other. This fencing structure applies only to the first $ 1.6 billion, and would not affect increases in future years. Also, any funds not appropriated in one year could be appropriated in a subsequent year. The agreement also called for an additional $400 million to be provided for coastal and marine programs in the Commerce Appropriations. The language, in Title IX of P.L. 106- 554, actually provides $470 million. An important difference is that it is limited to addressing appropriations for FY2001. The FY2001 funding would be divided as follows; • $ 150 million for coastal impact assistance; • $135 million for ocean, coastal, and conservation programs; • $135 million for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration programs; and • $50 million for grants to states for wildlife conservation and restoration programs based on a state wildlife conservation plan. Status in the 107*^ Congress. The Bush Administration’s initial budget request made no mention of the Lands Legacy Initiative, but it did call for full funding of the LWCF at $900 million, split equally between the state grant program and federal agency land acquisition. The Administration would earmark $50 million of the federal portion to a new grant program administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that states could use as an incentive for landowners who are willing to include wildlife considerations in their land management practices. It also proposes that an additional $10 million from the amount provided to the FWS be used to establish a new private stewardship grant program to support local and private groups engaged on local, private, and voluntary land and wildlife conservation efforts. The House Appropriations Committee’s Interior subcommittee agreed with the Administration’s LWCF requests, except that it lowered the total for state grants from $450 million to $154 million, then added $100 million for state wildlife grants (the same amount that had been in the FY2001 Lands Legacy provisions) and $5 million for competitive grants for Indian tribes. It also provided the same or more funding than the Administration had requested for other programs in the lands legacy package, including funding for six programs where the Administration had not requested any. The total funding for these programs, labeled “Conservation Spending,” would be $1.32 billion, an increase of $120 million over FY200L Major Points of Debate The CARA proposal has been reintroduced in the House (retaining the same number, H.R. 701), and consideration is reportedly a priority of House Resources Committee Chair Hansen. The bill has 102 co-sponsors. There has been no indication whether congressional appropriators will continue to support higher funding levels for programs that were in the Lands Legacy Initiative. The Bush Administration's FY2002 budget proposals do not support substantial increases for those programs, with the exception of the request for full funding for LWCF. CRS-9 irtJlo •bta r^tt rm, fU 'ili imA»t»1gnfi rv.ii hh/o4' t«.» .tig,ltf*j 4. 1 * nf? v/b 4a yW»’/;'Itqa aw>5*!_-/ ynr cii i 0 *i,'nf ^KW (•/‘•fW/t y*1/. 4|l ' aWfCi r*< tyctjk.V^ tfMtt .laif ft III Nj-t -’7frtf|qp bnt Iff. M01I1& tfji^fsttrKlX^iTi ff^Jim OOf*' Ji VHJUAa'ilfl «*Tti^S, «<* rrf^CMfTgt: ik(T ^’ft l J.S >u XI aluT 01 ^gmr^ital r>fT VTiMtHUO'^ :!) fti £S» 4 j| 9 iq 9 r -- u ^nurj ijtiiifal«o)i'njI^' oA jirHlIiirTdV**^ .iqyliataai^lcr? -flsf/tfllo? ft Iitihiyib ad .okurt iilOt siCT lOU. H ic>lju»oiJr.HonvV|i ;-^tiArtbyn *oiqrar ,■ ivJ* • irMfigfaq a/»cHi Uit. >••>1 outUl-j 11 • - tKiuf.rJTUn mljA HrxrfjiOiwiX *f »l >Uf • nn>'tnio dff^bhv* icA •ia44iC| 4| ^ y nn t ^U 'H '^Z • .' L ru*i'< aHAf'n i»>iii»5* ;IflMini t'ti'^f'nworrrf^A 4«t>2 'ff^ i64i»nf*»cO "'*'0^“ti^ nl 4 ■ '< ff I uiihi (iui iffl Jb,. tuu »' fiH ?s •#y‘iiil • i Oi' ^WTjH (iit3i«di 111* (iivtt|< iq Njiss^ 9ii;, >#fi iijr^nnaif rf(*' «i ♦) rn Uiitwl aib \tt osifKim ilwiffnr- ttluo^ «a*rr>. r iro.tww^ttAi ’XII Uitl^U.' Kitt(^'«V (1 ifcJt'naK aiiiiu: .V Njif ii4M y I,? i\Li^‘**xn^Tiq mpi f " 1 Mill ft’iiuT' •rT«JiBrrjbiMii^a:riab&'Ar 3^ yi^^ult^niaC4#i n:.^y. Ji inuafni) nh moil rK^iilnn Oft ItMfobifi^ jw tiuii — irvif ;t2:rtr7 dliibifirf ijo^ \Ci,3aiiAilof biai lafl^vtiq .i&>c^ ^.||j .«yt» • •<<». > aiax^ii Ik-o. rnfmtilif arti ffJiw bwas afttUifUTnodiJu* ioi7Ah;l /'wiccrt 0«O • 4it O'-rj r I'XV. t R . 1,14. iriuoifu WI>'• >11 i MnA-ig sti i4f/if Msia lor oaOU^i.'H j 1 2 pxT . |t«*J7 «• Ji84iiA 4Jnf . pT' wUftiXlbin aV«i(»' i» vii{/i (a®|v ' jt'jjSt hiict ooiHiti ‘iilMtA '> •' ntui) T'ufUTci am&f wu laiHiiiA **4la aa^>T t:: t .; ftywigcnii'•( n «jwi>ti wt y4^4 v.‘icm> tiiliCitw y n: rp ^ 1 --, ^i«i.i^>'‘i: ffCitO *otl j^vtlwiO yn« iMMilar'^ u- './ .1 ., if. r;iri7-;,u' »■' K U''• . C(, I* • t«llK*'.f ’ '• , ,1 ,r^r -■ ‘ ^ ' • Ml,” V 4 - ■ «f| ,uV 3«1K*H 'll TW't 'i c>yillyW*^ /'TtT TiiH-a*' * '. j \ ■ -V If *>ittaWftt^itii f ilnw* f/ Tilr444f4f „ ■. rt i* isirf? . 1 4 ■ f,. ’•/ n, IT flcif'l -all •U id ftKjrtf ^i''■ i’.“'l^ 'lit Te iivr. i.‘ II, •• ; --■ ^ r,j/ i Vw » •' IB10015 06-14-01 In this setting, many issues that were addressed in the 106”^ Congress are likely to resurface. Central issues would be the degree and nature of federal government involvement in managing growth, which has been largely dealt with at the local level, with state involvement in some instances, and how federal programs contribute to both exacerbating and solving growth-related problems. Some opponents of CARA and the Initiative believe that the federal government has little to contribute to solving this suite of problems and opposed Clinton Administration efforts to create a much stronger federal presence. Others countered that the federal government already plays a major role through its policies and programs, whether intended or not, and that the Clinton Administration efforts had the potential to help address them. Some also stated that a stronger federal role may be most useful where issues are regional and cut across many Jurisdictions. Both CARA and the Lands Legacy Initiative attracted bipartisan support, although some initially viewed the Initiative as partisan, and saw endorsement of this proposal as support for the Democratic agenda. In fact, the division between supporters and opponents is more by region than by party affiliation. Some congressional Republicans, especially from the Northeast or suburban areas, supported efforts at managing growth that include resource protection dimensions. Some Republican governors strongly advocated addressing sprawl issues And some congressional Democrats from rural areas have questioned the need for federal action. In the House, about 200 Democrats were joined by more than 110 Republicans as cosponsors of CARA in the IOC*’ Congress. The CARA proposals and the Lands Legacy Initiative both combined rural, suburban, urban and resource protection activities in packages that were designed to have broad appeal. The congressional debate explored this appeal primarily in economic terms. Many interests, including conservation and environmental groups, supported providing more funds for federal resource protection and restoration efforts. These interests believed that some portion of the forecast budget surplus should have been spent on these efforts, reversing the trend of recent years when funding had been limited in the name of deficit reduction. Many of the most ardent supporters were local interests who stated that they were trying to protect amenity values and their quality of life. Opponents raised several economic issues as well. Some believed that the surplus should be spent in other ways, such as giving priority to Social Security, tax cuts, or deficit reduction. Others saw these efforts as expanding and empowering the federal government, by giving it more money and thereby weakening individual and property rights. This concern centered on enabling the federal government to purchase more private lands, especially in the West. Another economic perspective that some opponents raised was that growth is largely the manifestation of a free economy at work, which they viewed as preferable to greater government intrusion. Debate over the CARA proposals brought several issues into clearer focus. One was how funding should be treated in the appropriations process. The House-passed bill would have taken funding for almost all programs off budget and out of the annual appropriations process, thus guaranteeing full funding each year unless OCS revenues fell short. Full funding without having to negotiate the annual appropriations process was very attractive to program proponents who said that their programs, while meritorious, had been unable to compete with other spending priorities in recent years. Appropriators and others who believed that most federal spending should have been reviewed and justified each year opposed this approach. CRS-10 Ml ome *il< fa^li■MiA|i| urtKn'i^ 'ovni •JIMII’ liiiAF lfiia»ifiM^^ bat ^'. ’^iv^k)^ w «« bndiiiiuio^ .«f4bO abwi^!'‘ tNaioiftcnq l^i» tMvQk^ /<•,( »i/lj Tilai fttss ' j ft ft* . a _ . _ A. « . « k • ■ : , - «NI8efM(!llfi»il • i ' i.n lo •iai|||||M||^-^M. ;.||Mirr; "■ lt» Ir t; v.jijffqr. ';;.• ^ 0!*ui \MUr, < ■ -i '' • • .'U Jiyw »•€?»» /' ■' a • - ii ■<} u j*/!' r/id b«*t«b: .c. rrj/i;i. 7n*»M Jmia ” f . ^ >«^N)s'k lolublttfl ll/On' Mi.y f--r ;HLl>tilt«>lrKM|9fn / ^ 1 at|» :. L' I (w ^ctd.ii'fifxf-' Tr^u^.Uflt >fi|fO vr^v.i ■ ^ii:r ... <«arv;ji 9 Ht1o«<|[^ ••. u r.,j 3iff a6fVi>JlYi " : , u ima uild • mud L»aiocnx&;i0|| a>^ bfU 9MI0H 4d) (Mldfililf • 't. • in.lirm udKiimi Ddi Mw janfhiuaf ■J-i: '1 wttihajii* i ■• 11 ■ t.'. I (I ’ I *, ' ),■ ■ •>• ■. :• I j- i 5 iv*-, .S '■• ' ■ "‘I'-j ratfw • i- .*... J . /• >. . ’ IB10015 06-14-01 Congressional Hearings, Reports, and Documents U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Resources. Hearings on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. Hearings, 106‘^ Congress, H'session. March 9 and 10, 1999. 421 p. Serial No. 106-14. -. H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. Field Hearings, 106*'’ Congress, H’ session. March 31 and May 3, 1999. 368 p. Serial No. 106-18. -. H.R. 701, Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999, and H.R. 798, to Provide For the Permanent Protection of the Resources of the United States in the Year 2000 and Beyond. Field Hearings, 106^^ Congress, H’session. June 12, 1999. 318 p. Serial No. 106-40. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Offshore Oil and Gas Activity Impact. 106* Congress, 1^ session. January 27, 1999. 63 p. S. Hrg. 106- 14. .. Bills and Administrative Proposal to Invest OCS Revenues in Conservation Programs. Hearings. 106* Congress, H' session. April 20 and 27, and May 4 and 11, 1999. 361 p. S. Hrg. 106-106. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environmental and Public Works. Conservation and Reinvestment Act. Hearings. 106* Congress, 2"‘* session. May 24, 2000. 174p. S. Hrg. 106-935. For Additional Reading Environment and Energy Publishing. Sprawl Becomes Potent Political Issues. Washington, D.C. June, 1999. 24 p. General Accounting Office. Community Development: Extent of Federal Influence on “Urban Sprawl” is Unclear. Washington, D.C. April, 1999. 81 p. GAO/RCED-99-87 Community Development: Local Growth Issues - Federal Opportunities and Challenges. Washington, D.C. September, 2000. 161 p. GAO/RCED -00-178 Myers, Phyllis and Robert Puentes. Growth at the Ballot Box: Electing the Shape of Communities in November 2000. Prepared for the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Washington. February, 2001. 128 p. National Governors’ Association. Growing Pains; Quality of Life in the New Economy, by Joel Hirschhom. Washington, 2000, 68p. National Research Council, Transportation Research Board. The Costs of Sprawl — Revisited. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1998, 268 p. TCRP Report 39. CRS-12 eionv JA>«;•. ',v s. w ' w’C rs-H/y .'-T-'* j' t r. iqpiiiltkill!3 ■' -A' •,.»-«ar'• ' " •»■ -*■ \ f' I W* 4 (, V uoAt j.'iaur Il' Oi.y , rl’j Li ,.)tj IB10015 06-14-01 Natural Resources and Environment Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. AREI Updates: Land Trusts. Washington, D.C. 1995. 4 p. Sierra Club. Smart Choices or Sprawling Growth: A Fifty State Survey of Development. Washington, D.C., 2000. 36 p. Stanley, Sam. The Sprawling of America: In Defense of the Dynamic City. Reason Public Policy Institute. Los Angeles, 1998. No pagination. Policy Study #251. CRS Reports CRS Report 97-792 ENR. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues, by Jeffrey Zinn. 6 p. CRS Report RS20011. Managing Regional Growth: Is There a Role for Congress? by Jeffrey Zinn. 6 p. CRS Report RS20471. The Clinton Administration’s Lands Legacy Initiative - Funding in FY2000 and FY200I, by Jeffrey Zinn. Updated regularly. CRS Report RL30444. Resource Protection: A Comparison ofH.R. 701, S. 2567 and Three Other Senate Bills (S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181) with Current Law, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Com. June 12, 2000. 62 p. CRS Report RL30444. Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA): A Comparison of Current Versions of H.R. 701 with Current Law, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Com. September 14, 2000. 48p. CRS-13 PROTECTING NATURAL RESOURCES AND MANAGING GROWTH. nATE DUE Waste Management and Research Center Library One E. Hazelwood Drive Champaign, IL 61820 (217) 333-8957 demco