By Daniel Pearson
It's been called the most sweeping package of conservation legislation in decades, a land-use juggernaut, and a champion for grassroots protection movements.
With all of the grandeur attributed to House Resolution 701, one would think its progress would have launched headlines in newspapers across the country. But political arguments for the $2.9 billion Care and Reinvestment Act (CARA) reverberated throughout the Capitol building Thursday without much consideration outside its walls by the American public. The final vote had not been cast by press time Thursday afternoon.
The Nature Conservancy is calling the bill the best quality-of-life present the government has given Americans, because it triples current funding levels of the 1964 Land and Water Conservation Fund, which had been raided by Congress since the Reagan Administration.
"This is an historic opportunity to preserve Americas land for future generations," said Rep. Tom Allen (D-Maine). "When we invest in our national resources we improve our communities or quality of life and our health."
Among other provisions, the bill will annually provide $1 billion for impact assistance and coastal conservation, $900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, $350 million for the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Fund, and $200 million for federal and Indian lands restoration.
But will that legacy become the downfall of other federal tax channels?
The Washington Post thought so in a May 11 editorial.
"Our objection is not to the purposes but to the automatic spending without regard to competing claims on the federal dollar," the Post stated.
The bill's sponsors say the new laws are necessary to ensure conservation efforts will continue to receive steady funding, but the Post argues this is just another example of the government egregiously allocating federal money for projects it deems worthy, rather than for immediate social needs.
About one-third of the money, which would not come from taxpayer pockets but rather written into the contracts offshore drilling corporations hold with the government, will be sprinkled across historic preservation, wildlife conservation and similar efforts. Another third is earmarked for states bordering the ocean, to offset the cleanup costs from offshore drilling. The remain third will be pumped into federal and state budgets to help with land acquisition. The U.S. already owns 670 million acres, or about one-third of the total land within its borders.
Observers are saying the government is finally listening to overwhelming citizen support to save land from being swallowed up by urban sprawl. But land use opponents say it's just another way for the government to levy restrictions without having to buy any land, and that federal money should be channeled to other areas -- such as education and national defense -- before environmental concerns are addressed.
"The bill will do more damage to people than good, especially in rural America," American Land Rights Association Executive Director Chuck Cushman told the Christian Science Monitor. "People will be forced to sell their land for federal land acquisition."
Reps. Don Young (R-Alaska) and Billy Tauzin (R-La.), who have long been staunch backers of land use rights, sponsored CARA. Many proponents say that is proof enough that the bill doesn't strip property owners of their rights, but rather improves existing laws in the favor.
At noon, Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) introduced an amendment to the bill that would strike nonprofit organizations from using federal funds to purchase conservation easements. Buyer wanted to require nonprofits to partner with the government in order to receive funding under CARA. The money would be funneled through local governments before any nonprofit could receive it.
"It would not take away any nonprofit funding," Buyer said. "(Environmental groups) can still receive federal funds if they partner with (the U.S.)."
But his provision died by vote voice 10 minutes later.
Daniel Pearson can be reached at
danielpearson@mindspring.com
