U.S. Congress Embraces Land Conservation

***********************************************

WORLDWIDE FOREST/BIODIVERSITY CAMPAIGN NEWS

***********************************************

Forest Networking a Project of Ecological Enterprises

http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Archives

http://forests.org/web/ -- Discuss Forest Conservation

4/13/99

OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by EE

All one can say is "it is about time," as the U.S. Congress wakes up

to the importance of land conservation. Perhaps, in a small way,

around the margins, the rapid diminishment of U.S. lands will be

slowed and more ecosystem functionality, biodiversity and sustainable

development potential will remain for future generations. It is very

important that these purchases of land be targeted towards areas of

biological importance.

g.b.

*******************************

RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

Title: Congress Embraces Land Conservation

Source: Associated Press

Date: April 12, 1999

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A billion-dollar land rush is under way in

Congress, with both political parties saying they want to preserve

open spaces, protect wildlife and set aside environmentally sensitive

places.

But the details are very much in dispute. Environmentalists and their

Democratic allies want the bulk of funds to go for new parkland,

suburban green spaces and wildlife protection. Most Republicans are

backing a proposal to funnel money into coastal states with offshore

oil drilling.

Despite the differences, never before have lawmakers, liberal

Democrats and conservative Republicans alike, been as gung-ho to spend

money for land conservation -- as much as $2.6 billion a year under

one proposal.

There could emerge ``a classic congressional bargain'' for

unprecedented and permanent annual funding for land conservation

programs, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said in an interview.

``There's no question the money is available.''

After decades of Congress giving little attention to land conservation

programs, the change of heart has left environmentalists stunned.

`We need new open spaces and finally it looks like Washington might be

about to play the kind of role it should,'' said William Meadows,

president of the Wilderness Society.

The proposals are coming from conservatives such as Rep. Don

Young, R-Alaska, a property rights advocate and frequent critic of

environmentalists, to liberal Democrats such as Rep. George Miller and

Sen. Barbara Boxer, both Californians with strong links to

environmentalists.

Measures introduced this year in both the House and Senate far exceed

even the ambitious $1.1 billion ``land legacy'' initiative unveiled by

President Clinton in February -- itself a record amount for

conservation should it be approved.

While the administration has yet to endorse any specific bill, Babbitt

already has a $295 million shopping list of 86 priority projects,

including buying 450,000 acres in California's Mojave Desert, along

with forests in New England and property in the Florida Everglades.

``There's a lot of room for agreement'' among the various bills,

says George Frampton, chairman of the president's Council on

Environmental Quality.

And the politics seem to be right. Last November, voters approved

local and state ballot initiatives calling for spending more than $4

billion on urban parks and setting aside farmland and open spaces.

``There's not a significant constituency that's opposed to this. In

this case, we're dealing with something that's motherhood and apple

pie,'' Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, said in

an interview.

In recent months, it's been a race of one-upmanship.

First, Clinton proposed doubling conservation spending to $1.1

billion, including $642 million for federal and state land purchases

under a program that for years has been largely ignored.

Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, proposed

spending $2.1 billion, including $620 million to buy new land for

conservation.

In the House, Young and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., came up with a

$2.59 billion package, with $756 million for federal and state land

purchases.

Both of these bills would allocate about half of the total spending

for ``impact assistance'' from offshore oil drilling. Under Young's

bill, Louisiana alone would get $360 million, nearly the total

earmarked for federal land purchases.

Environmentalists have criticized the bills because of fear the

potential windfall might prompt states and local communities to push

for increased oil development at the expense of other wildlife

protection and land acquisition programs.

``It is heavily tilted to offshore oil producing states,'' said

Babbitt. ``That's something that needs to be bargained about.''

Young counters that he's only trying to ``resolve the inequities'' in

how revenue from offshore oil drilling -- which would pay for the

programs -- is distributed.

Environmentalists, meanwhile, have lined up behind legislation offered

by Miller and Boxer that would pump $2.3 billion into conservation

spending, including $900 million for federal and state land purchases.

They would prohibit favoring states with oil drilling and putting more

money into park restoration, farmland preservation and endangered

species protection.

Despite opposition to all the bills from some property rights groups,

Miller said he wants to avoid ``sniping at each other's bills or

motives'' and work on a compromise.

``We have a solid base to begin working cooperatively,'' agreed

Young.

###RELAYED TEXT ENDS###

This document is a PHOTOCOPY for educational, personal and non-

commercial use only. Recipients should seek permission from the

source for reprinting. All efforts are made to provide accurate,

timely pieces; though ultimate responsibility for verifying all

information rests with the reader. Check out our Gaia Forest

Conservation Archives at URL= http://forests.org/

Networked by Ecological Enterprises, gbarry@forests.org