It's not just a big city issue. Or an east coast issue. Or a California issue.
I represent Montana. Big Sky country. The least metropolitan state, with only three cities that have 50,000 people or more.
You might think that Montana is one place where open space would not be an issue.
You'd be wrong. It's a big issue. For two reasons.
First of all, open space defines us. It's why we call Montana the "Last Best Place." It's why the preamble of our state constitution begins by thanking God for "the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, [and] the vastness of our rolling plains."
But Montana is changing. It's growing. In some places, growing very fast.
This decade, Montana's population has grown by more than 10 percent. In Flathead County--in northwest Montana--and Gallatin County--in south-central Montana--it's grown by more than 20 percent.
This growth has benefits. But it also has costs, in the form of sprawl, congestion, pollution, and an increased demand for services. An editorial in last Sunday's Billings Gazette put it this way: "Something must be done, or in time we will not have to lock the gate because the best parts of Montana will be ruined. Then no one will want to come here, let alone live here."
That said, preserving open space raises difficult issues. After all, one thing westerners love as much as open space is independence. We don't trust big government.
So Montanans have been trying to find a balance. We want to preserve open space and environmental quality, while avoiding red tape.
This requires creative approaches. For example, the Montana Land Reliance has been a leader in using conservation easements to preserve farmland. In the past twenty years, Montanans have acquired conservation easements over almost 500,000 acres of land.
Bozeman and Gallatin County are trying their own creative approaches. And the State is bringing community leaders together to help find the right balance.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that these hearings also will help us find the right balance.
Two approaches may be particularly constructive.
First, let's make the federal government a better neighbor.
Right now, federal agencies often work against the interests of the local community. For instance, they often abandon downtown areas that the community is trying to redevelop. I've seen this all across Montana, from Helena to Butte to Glasgow.
So we should re-examine federal policies that contribute to sprawl.
We've made some progress. In recent highway bills, we tied highway construction more closely to environmental protection.
In addition, I have joined in asking the General Accounting Office to look at the effects of other Federal programs on sprawl. The report should be done by mid-April, and should help guide further action by this and other committees.
Second, let's help local communities get more control over their own destinies.
For example, the Administration has proposed Better America Bonds and the Lands Legacy Initiative.
Senator Lautenberg has proposed legislation to help redevelop brownfields, in inner city areas.
Senator Boxer and others have introduced bills to conserve open space and habitat, and protect farmland.
These are reasonable ideas that deserve careful consideration.
As I told EPA Administrator Browner a few weeks ago, I am particularly interested in the Administration's bond proposal. It would provide a financial incentive for communities to preserve open space, reduce water pollution, and protect the environment in other ways.
I also have questions. I want to make sure that the proposal is workable. I want to make sure that it supplements local control, rather than displacing it. And I want to make sure that the incentives are suited to the needs of western states, such as the need to preserve access to public land.
I look forward to the opportunity to explore these and other questions with our witnesses.