My testimony will focus on the park and open space funding provisions of four proposals currently before the Senate. These initiatives include S. 25, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act introduced by Senators Landrieu and Murkowski, S. 446, Permanent Protection for America is Resources 2000, sponsored by Senator Boxer, S. 532' the Public Land and Recreation Investment Act, introduced by Senator Feinstein, and the Lands Legacy Initiative, included in President Clinton's FY 2000 budget proposal.
For over a century, the AMC has promoted the protection, wise use and enjoyment of the mountains, rivers, and trails of the Northeast. We work hard to involve our 82,000 members in caring for our nation's open spaces whether they sit on half an acre in the heart of the Bronx or vast wild areas like those found in the 26 million acre Northern Forest of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York.
Land and Water Conservation Fund: A Legacy of Success
In our view, the work of conserving and caring for these special places must be a partnership that engages government, businesses, and non-profit organizations. Federal funds and expertise are a critical element.of this partnership. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the thirty-year legacy of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). LWCF has a proud record of preserving more than seven million acres of open spaces and places to recreate. It has been the tool for funding conservation of our national parks and forests, wildlife refuges, and historic sites. LWCF has also provided critical matching grants to more than 37,000 state projects like urban tot lots. ballfields, watersheds and bike paths. These successes were generated through bipartisan leadership and a true commitment to parks and open space.
Unfortunately, our national commitment to this important open space partnership has been shaky for more than a decade. Between 1987 and 1997 LWCF spending averaged $230 million or just 25% of the $900 million authorized to flow into the fund from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leases. The average appropriation to the critical LWCF state grant program was $22 million over the same period. When you split this up over fifty states, it's not hard to see why the money doesn't begin to meet the need. (Figure I in my written testimony highlights this funding history.)
Thanks to strong bipartisan leadership from many in the Senate, LWCF funding jumped to $969 million in Fiscal Year 1998, only to fall again to $343 million in Fiscal Year 1999. Even with this spike in funding, the state grant program was essentially zeroed out. It is LWCF's legacy of success on the ground, combined with its spotty finding history that demonstrates the need to pass legislation that would fully and permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund along with a few of its sister programs like Forest Legacy, and the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. If the number of open space bills making their way through the Senate and House are any indication, there are many here in Washington who share our view about the importance of restoring our nation's commitment to protecting open spaces through the passage of comprehensive bipartisan open space legislation.
Citizens Strongly Support Funding for Open Space Protection
You don't need to look far to see that the American people understand this need and are prepared to act. This November in ten states, 25 counties, and over 150 towns, voters raised $4 billion for conservation of open space. Voters also approved another $3 billion for urban revitalization and smart-growth plans.
Americans voted for open space and enhanced community life all over the country: $700 million in Minnesota; $160 million in Jefferson County, Colorado; $50 million in Michigan; $62 million in Suffolk County, Long Island; and $1.5 Million alone in the little town of Bristol, Rhode Island.
With the vocal support of real estate interests, 15 Land Banks were created on Cape Cod. This happened because residents and businesses there know why people vacation on the Cape - for its charm and beautiful beaches. But there's no charm to unmanaged growth, and no beauty to overbuilt and polluted shorelines.
Closer by in Northern Virginia- where you see loss of open space as much as anywhere else -- Arlington and Fairfax Counties approved almost a $100 million for open space and parks.
The most dramatic initiative happened in New Jersey, where Governor Christine Whitman championed a $1 billion commitment. Here's a state under rapid development pressure from industrial and suburban expansion. Here's a state unfairly known for its turnpike. But New Jersey is also a state full of beautiful pine barrens, rolling farmland, and enclaves like Sterling Forest just 30 minutes from New York City.
The lesson of New Jersey and other communities across the country is simple. Where our populations are booming, where our economy is dynamic - that's where open spaces are the most threatened and the most precious. To their credit, many citizens in many states knew this. They woke up and spoke up. They voted against traffic jams, foul air, poor water quality and for healthier communities, urban parks, farmland, scenic vistas, protected forests, and open space buffers around watersheds.
The groups driving this effort across the nation are as diverse as they get with governors and mayors across the political spectrum, businesses, school boards, neighborhood groups and even real estate organizations joining the cause. They're working with environmentalists and community activists, producing consensus on open space protection and healthy, vibrant communities that you wouldn't have seen ten years ago.
Essential Principles for Open Space Legislation
This diverse partnership should send a clear signal that the time is now to pass strong legislation for funding open space protection. We urge you to adopt the following principles as the basis for evaluating and modifying the open space funding bills circulating here in the Senate. These principles address the array of tools and funding levels needed to restore our nation's commitment to protecting open space and providing recreational opportunities for all Americans.
-- Full and permanent funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (at least $900 million annually).
-- An equitable allocation of LWCF funding for the program's federal and state components, including the following elements:
-- Funding for the U.S. Forest Service, Forest Legacy Program at $50 million annually including $25 million per year for the Northern Forest region.
-- Revived Urban Parks Recovery Program and Historic Preservation Fund, each funded at $150 million on a permanent annual basis.
-- Funding for Wildlife Conservation at $350 million in permanent annual grants to states for habitat conservation and species protection.
-- Fully and permanently fund the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT). In 1998 full funding of PILT would costs $256 million.
-- No new restrictions should be placed on the uses of Land and Water Conservation Funds especially those that would limit acquisition to federal inholdings or adjacent lands, employ arbitrary geographic restrictions on the use of funds, or require new authorizations. In addition, any legislation must protect the traditional use of LWCF stateside funds for recreation enhancement.
-- Legislation focused on restoring our nation's commitment to open space conservation and recreation opportunities through LWCF or other means should not allow funds to be used for environmentally damaging activities. In particular, new legislation should not include incentives for additional offshore oil or gas leasing, exploration, or development.
By applying these principles, we believe that Congress can create the full set of tools needed to successfully protect our environment and open spaces. This framework would continue the long tradition of working with willing sellers established through LWCF.
Analysis of Current Open Space Funding Proposals
We want to recognize and praise the momentum and interest in addressing the pressing need for additional open space funding. The number and variety of bills before the Senate and House of Representatives illustrates that many of our leaders are listening. Let me say thank you for providing the leadership needed to address this critical need.
I want to take a moment to examine each of the open space bills in relation to the principles I laid out earlier and I have brought along a chart that summarizes the key elements of each bill being considered by the Senate. (See Figure 2, attached at the end of in my written testimony.)
S. 25, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act
S. 25, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, makes a significant commitment to open space funding. Unfortunately, the bill also has a number of critical shortfalls. In our view, Title I, which provides aid to states to mitigate the impact of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) drilling, contains significant incentives for states to consider increased oil and gas drilling off their coast. The formula established in the bill for allocating OCS impact assistance allocates significantly more funds to states with active oil and gas leases.
Under Title I, coastal states would receive 27% of annual OCS revenue, which totaled $4.5 billion in 1998. There are 35 coastal states and territories in the United States, currently six have offshore oil drilling. The Minerals Management Service estimates that of the 29 states and territories with no offshore oil drilling, this bill would allocate $7 million or less to 12 of them annually and between $7 million and $50 million to 17 states annually. By contrast, estimates are that the six states with offshore oil drilling would receive between $70 and $350 million annually in OCS impact assistance.
For a state like Florida with existing oil reserves off its coast, the increase in revenue is estimated to go from $1.8 million under current law to $85.5 million under the Impact Aid provisions of S. 25.
The sheer size of the increase in impact aid creates a strong incentive for states to consider beginning or increasing drilling off their coast. This incentive is strengthened further through the design of the impact aid assistance formula which awards more impact assistance to states and localities as drilling activities move closer to the coast. If the geographic center of a leased tract for oil drilling is within 200 miles of a state's shoreline, 50% of the state's impact aid will be based on OCS oil or gas production off that state's coast. The closer drilling occurs to the shoreline, the more money the state will receive.
Title II of S. 25 contains provisions that change the way LWCF funds can be used. The bill limits LWCF federal-side funding to the purchase of existing inholdings with exceptions only approved by an act of Congress. The bill also requires that two-thirds of all LWCF federal side dollars be spent east of the state of Texas. This Title also caps appropriations for any single federal or state grant project at $5 million. These constraints on the uses of LWCF funds restrict critical flexibility originally designed into LWCF. The $5 million spending cap combined with the provisions limiting federal-side LWCF spending to inholdings and focusing spending east of the state of Texas won't only hurt the western states by diminishing a critical source of funding, they will also have the effect of blocking important projects in the east.
I also want to note that Title II would fund LWCF at only $680 million annually based on FY 1998 OCS revenues. While this is a significant increase over LWCF funding in years past, it falls short of full funding for LWCF, which we believe is a critical element of any legislation.
In addition, Title II of S. 25 does not include language for providing LWCF grants to states on a competitive basis. The bill allocates all state grant funds based on a formula using land area and population. We recommend keeping this approach and complementing it by adding a provision similar to the one I outlined earlier that would allow states to compete for additional state grant money if they can demonstrate that their project lies within an area of national interest. This addition will address the difficulties faced by many small states, such as Rhode Island and New Hampshire, that do not receive appreciable funding through the LWCF state grant formula.
Finally, we would like to see permanent annual funding for the Forest Legacy Program and Historic Preservation Fund added to the Conservation and Reinvestment Act.
S. 446, Permanent ProtectionforAmerica's Resources 2000
S. 446, Permanent ProtectionforAmerica's Resources 2000 avoids many of the pitfalls contained in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. It does not contain incentives for increased oil and gas drilling and fully and permanently funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Historic Preservation Fund, Forest Legacy Program, and wildlife conservation along with several other programs.
The bill is clearly focused on environmental protection and open space conservation. It meets the majority of the principles I discussed earlier with two minor exceptions.
The bill funds UPARR at $100 million instead of our recommended full funding amount of $150 million annually. We urge Senator Boxer to consider increasing this funding level to respond to the clear input from mayors laid out in their December 16, 1998, U.S. Conference of Mayors letter to President Clinton supporting full funding of LWCF and its urban sister program, UPARR.
S. 446 also takes a different approach to establishing a competitive state grant program under LWCF. The approach I outlined that would take 20% of the total LWCF annual allocation and make it available for competitive state grants would provide $180 million annually for competitive state grants. S. 446 would allocate only $150 million annually. We applaud the bill's sponsors for including a competitive state grant provision and urge them to consider increasing the annual allocation to this provision by $30 million. Taking this step would increase the percentage of total LWCF funds available for state grants from 50% ($450 million) to 60% ($540 million).
This bill faces the challenge of not having bipartisan support at this time. As the bill's sponsors know, it will be essential to build bipartisan support behind this legislation. We urge you to continue to reach across the aisle and engage your fellow Senators in the bipartisan dialog and initiative that made LWCF successful for so many years.
S. 532, Public Land and Recreation InvestmentAct This legislation has a narrower focus than S. 25 and S. 446. It provides $900 million annually to fund LWCF and UPARR, but does not include funding for wildlife conservation, the Historic Preservation Fund, or Forest Legacy. While we strongly support full funding of LWCF, we would like to see the bill address the full array of programmatic tools outlined in our principles. These tools each have a different focus and use and all are necessary to do an adequate job of restoring our nation's commitment to open space protection. In addition, we are concerned that funding for UPARR at $90 million annually is allocated out of the $900 million originally authorized for LWCF. We urge Senator Feinstein to consider allocating the full $900 million to LWCF in the manner described in our principles including a provision for competitive state grants. Funding for UPARR should not be taken out of the LWCF allocation, but funded separately through OCS revenues.
Lands Legacy Initiative President Clinton's budget contains the Lands Legacy Initiative. We are happy to see the Clinton Administration express support for open space protection through this initiative and eager to have Congress and the Administration work together to refine legislation that will permanently fund the full array of open space needs faced across this nation. As these discussions take place over the coming months we encourage the Administration to make several modifications to their proposal. The most important change involves a shift from the current one-year budget approach to a permanent legislative approach taken by each of the bills I have touched on today. We also feel strongly that the President's initiative should fully fund LWCF at $900 million with 60% reserved for LWCF state grants through the combined formula and competitive grant approach I have described this morning. The current proposal allocates $680 million to LWCF with $150 million for competitive state grants and $0 for state grants distributed through the existing state grant formula. The proposal also seriously underfunds UPARR at $4 million and does not provide any funds to states for wildlife conservation.
The Administration has recently endorsed a series of principles to guide their involvement in refining open space protection legislation. These principles are strong and quite similar in many respects to the principles I laid out earlier. We applaud the President's willingness to endorse these principles and urge the Administration to work closely with both parties on Capitol Hill to enact legislation that will put these principles into action.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today and for your leadership in revitalizing our nation's commitment to open space funding. We look forward to working with you on this issue in the future.