[Senate Hearing 106-148]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-148
OPEN SPACE AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 17 AND 18, 1999
JULY 7, 1999--LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
59-380cc WASHINGTON : 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred sixth congress
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming HARRY REID, Nevada
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BARBARA BOXER, California
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah RON WYDEN, Oregon
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
------
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 17, 1999
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 1
Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho..... 2
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida.........19, 37
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey 36
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 4
WITNESSES
Garczynski, Gary, Vice President and Treasurer, National
Association of Homebuilders.................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Press release, National Association of Home Builders......... 58
Helmke, Hon. Paul, Mayor, Fort Wayne, IN, and past President,
U.S. Conference of Mayors...................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Hohmann, Kathryn, Director, Environmental Quality Program, Sierra
Club........................................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Hayward, Steve, Senior Fellow, Pacific Research Institute........ 27
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Kaufmann, Hon. Terry, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania........................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Moe, Richard, President, National Trust for Historic Preservation 23
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Responses to additional questions from Senator Lautenberg.... 49
Rising, Nelson, Chairman, Environmental Policy Advisory
Committee, National Realty Committee........................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 60
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Press release, National Realty Committee......................... 59
Statement, Scenic America, Meg Maguire........................... 62
------
MARCH 18, 1999
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 73
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 69
Statement from Assistant Administrator J. Charles Fox,
Environmental Protection Agency............................ 72
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 65
Lieberman, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut 66
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 75
WITNESSES
Falender, Andrew, Executive President, The Appalachian Mountain
Club........................................................... 102
Prepared statement........................................... 137
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 142
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from the State of California 82
Prepared statement........................................... 121
Glendening, Hon. Parris N., Governor, State of Maryland.......... 90
Brochure, Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation......... 125
Prepared statement........................................... 122
Grossi, Ralph, President, American Farmland Trust................ 112
Prepared statement........................................... 154
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 157
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 157
Hayes, David, Counselor to the Secretary, Department of the
Interior....................................................... 98
Paper, President Clinton's Lands' Legacy Initiative.......... 133
Prepared statement........................................... 130
Responses to additional questions from Senator Crapo......... 136
Kienitz, Roy, Executive Director, Surface Transportation Policy
Project........................................................ 110
Article, Washington Post..................................... 154
Prepared statement........................................... 152
Landrieu, Hon. Mary, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana.... 78
Article, New York Times...................................... 119
Prepared statement........................................... 118
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont... 80
Prepared statement........................................... 120
Montague, Chris, Eastern Manager, Montana Land Reliance.......... 105
Prepared statement........................................... 143
Peterson, Max, Executive Vice President, International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies...................... 108
Prepared statement........................................... 145
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 151
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Articles:
Cox, Wendell, for the Heritage Foundation.................... 179
Myers, Phyllis, for the Brookings Institution................ 161
New York Times............................................... 118
Washington Post.............................................. 153
Brochure, Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation............. 123
Letter, Thomas B. Stoel, Jr...................................... 173
Statements:
Conti, Eugene, Department of Transportation.................. 158
Draper, Eric, National Audubon Society....................... 177
Fox, J. Charles, Assistant Administrator for Water,
Environmental Protection Agency............................ 72
Griffiths, John, Metro Parks and Greenspaces Advisory
Committee.................................................. 176
Piacentini, Mary Anne, Katy Prairie Conservancy.............. 175
Stoel, Thomas B., Jr......................................... 173
------
JULY 7, 1999--LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
GROWTH AND LIVABILITY IN THE LAS VEGAS VALLEY
OPENING STATEMENT
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 185
WITNESSES
Bartos, Jay, President, Friends of Red Rock Canyon............... 225
Prepared statement........................................... 251
Berkley, Hon. Shelley, U.S. Representative from the State of
Nevada......................................................... 189
Prepared statement........................................... 233
Biaggi, Allen, Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection..................................................... 221
Prepared statement........................................... 248
Bryan, Hon. Richard H., U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.... 188
Prepared statement........................................... 232
Bunker, Richard, President, Nevada Resort Association............ 199
Prepared statement........................................... 241
Fernandez, Nuria I., Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration, Department of Transportation................... 192
Prepared statement........................................... 234
Gibson, Hon. Jim, Mayor, City of Henderson, NV, and Chairman,
Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority................... 223
Prepared statement........................................... 250
Goodman, Hon. Oscar, Mayor, City of Las Vegas, NV................ 194
Prepared statement........................................... 238
Kincaid, Mary, Chairman, Southern Nevada Water Authority......... 208
Prepared statement........................................... 242
Lewis, Robert E., President, Nevada Region, Kaufman and Broad
Home Corporation............................................... 212
Prepared statement........................................... 244
Mulroy, Patricia, General Manager, Southern Nevada Water
Authority...................................................... 210
Prepared statement........................................... 243
Snow, Jacob, Executive Director, Clark County Regional
Transportation Commission...................................... 214
Stephens, Tom, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation..... 219
Prepared statement........................................... 246
Woodbury, Bruce, Chairman, Southern Nevada Planning Coalition.... 197
Prepared statement........................................... 239
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter, Nevada State Senator Dina Titus.......................... 253
Statement, Sierra Club........................................... 253
OPEN SPACE AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:30
a.m. in room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John H.
Chafee (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Chafee, Crapo, Reid, Baucus, and Graham.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. I want the welcome everyone here this
morning.
I'm excited about the hearings today and tomorrow on open
space and environmental quality. These hearings mark the
beginning of a close, extended look by this committee on the
issues of open space, sprawl, and their relation to
environmental quality.
The opening round of hearings has two purposes: first, to
provide an introduction to the issues and the vigorous debates
surrounding them; second, to provide an opportunity to explore
specific Federal proposals that are likely to be raised during
the consideration of the budget resolution, which will come up
on the floor of the Senate very soon.
Much attention has been given to the subject of open space
and development in recent months as a result of the resounding
success of State and local ballot initiatives across the
country and numerous Federal proposals following on the heels
of these initiatives.
I might say, in my State, it doesn't make any difference
whether it's the State or the local community putting a bond
issue for open space on the ballot, they receive tremendous
support--as high as 60 percent or 70 percent of the voters.
The ballot initiatives presume that there is a problem to
solve, and the Federal proposals presume there is a role for
the Federal Government. Before making these presumptions, we
must first look at the nature, extent, and consequences of land
development, particularly so-called ``sprawl.''
Land development has been described as a three-legged stool
composed of the community, the economy, and the environment.
With respect to the last leg, environment, sprawl can have a
profound effect on environmental quality, including water
quality, air quality, traffic congestion, wildlife and natural
habitat, and waste disposal.
When one dissects the issue of sprawl and its individual
components, one is looking at a panoply of environmental
subjects under the jurisdiction of this committee.
The conservation of opening space has been one of the most
important priorities for me throughout my career. When I was
Governor of our State in the 1960's, I started a green acres
program, in which the State government would provide matching
funds--and, indeed, at that time we could get some Federal
funds, likewise--to help the local communities preserve open
space, and then, of course, we preserved open space on the
State level.
When I think of where I will spend my time when I leave the
Senate, it is not going to be in the shopping malls. It is
going to be in the wildlife refuges that we are blessed with in
our State.
I believe that the loss of open space occurring in parts of
the Nation is a real problem. I believe the Federal Government
does have a role in it.
States like mine--and I'm sure the State of Idaho,
likewise--can benefit greatly in their endeavors from Federal
assistance. The most significant project is the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. Last week I drafted a letter to the Budget
Committee requesting full funding for this fund, the Land and
Water Conservation Fund. The letter was cosigned by 35
colleagues in the Senate.
Smaller Federal programs also exist, and both Senators and
the President believe there is an opportunity for a greater
Federal role.
It seems to me we should have a better sense of the nature
and consequences of sprawl and the efforts by local and State
and private organizations to address it. The hearings over the
next 2 days will explore these issues.
We've got a splendid group of witnesses, and I'm eager to
hear their testimony.
Senator Crapo, we welcome you here. If you've got a few
comments, now is a good time.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief.
I appreciate the attention you are giving to this issue.
You are correct that there is a lot of potential for good to be
done through these types of initiatives.
Obviously, one of the concerns that we all have is to make
sure that the Federal Government doesn't impose too much on
State and local decisionmaking in those types of matters, but
the assistance that can be provided is often invaluable.
We have been able to use the Land and Water Conservation
Fund very effectively in Idaho in some cases, and I think that
looking at how to best utilize those funds in a way that does
not increase Federal Government holdings of property to the
reduction of private property holdings, but instead in a way
which preserves and strengthens our open spaces and the
tremendous environmental heritage we have in this country is
the approach we ought to be taking, and I commend you for your
efforts.
[The prepared statement of Senator Crapo follows:]
STatement of Hon. Michael D. Crapo, U.S. Senator from the State of
Idaho
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the issues of
open space, land use planning, and environmental quality and thank you
for providing this forum. There are currently a number of proposals
before the Senate that would take major steps, commit a significant
amount of new funding, and, in some cases, create new Federal programs
to address these issues. Most of these proposals would create a
permanent funding stream through the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF).
I agree with the proponents of these bills that we have a
responsibility to ourselves and future generations to preserve,
protect, and enhance our natural environment and am pleased that these
issues are being given the attention that they deserve. As we move
forward in consideration of these measures, it is, however, important
that we be mindful of all of the potential impacts that the proposed
increase in funding and programs will have, especially on the autonomy
of State and local governments. We must ensure that Federal assistance
through such legislation is structured so as to complement and support,
but not direct or inhibit, local decisions and priorities. We must
further emphasize that, while the Federal Government has a proper role
in LWCF-assisted projects that are used to provide incentives, such as
scenic or conservation easements, for private property owners to
achieve recreation or environmental goals on their own land that
benefit the public, increased Federal land ownership and increased
Federal involvement in local planning decisions is not necessary to
achieve recreation and conservation goals. As the debate continues as
to how best to manage the LWCF, I will work for proposals that meet
recreation and conservation goals by involving State and local
governments and private landowners without unnecessarily increasing
Federal land holdings.
Most importantly, however, as we consider new projects and funding
under the auspices of the LWCF, we must first honor existing
commitments made by the United States for the funding of conservation
and scenic easements. In Public Law 92-4000, for example, Congress
established the Sawtooth National Recreation Area ``to assure the
preservation and protection of the natural, scenic, historic, pastoral,
and fish and wildlife values and to provide for the enhancement of the
recreational values associated herewith,'' and authorized the purchase
of scenic easements to achieve these goals. Unfortunately, for numerous
years, willing sellers and landowners interested in signing easement
agreements were stalled by lack of funding. I have fought in recent
years for this funding to become available and have made some progress.
I have also, however, discovered that land has since changed hands, or
landowners have become tired of waiting, and the land is therefore no
longer available. This situation is lamentable and I would hope that as
we move forward in considering legislation to increase funding for the
LWCF, we include recognition of existing outstanding commitments that
should be honored before new projects are sought out.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you. It is interesting, because
you and I have discussed this and I know you are concerned
about what is happening in your major city. You and I have
discussed that. And frequently the view is that, ``Oh, the
westerners don't want the government in this at all,'' but you
indicated that the Federal Government could be of a help to you
in solving the problem that you are facing, particularly in
Boise.
Senator Crapo. That's right, Mr. Chairman. And I think the
key word there is ``help.'' The concern that we all have in the
west is that we don't need to have overly burdensome Federal
rules and regulations that tell us all how we should govern
ourselves, but the assistance that can be provided in the right
way through these resources can be very helpful. And that's the
kind of legislation I think we need to work toward.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Our first panel consists of: The Honorable Paul Helmke,
mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, past president of the U.S.
Conference of Mayors; and The Honorable Terry Kauffman,
chairman, Board of Commissioners, Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania.
If you gentlemen would please come to the table--and,
Senator Reid, I don't know whether you had a comment at this
time, but if you had anything you want to say----
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement I'd like to
make part of the record, and I also--later today there is going
to be some information that I'm tremendously interested in, and
the question is I have another hearing, so I'm going to have to
come and go. I'm very appreciative of your scheduling this. I
can't think of anything that is more important that we could do
than work on this urban sprawl, and Las Vegas is the picture
child for urban sprawl. We have so much growth there that we
need all the help we can get.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows:]
Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was sorry to hear earlier this week that this committee and the
U.S. Senate will be losing one of its finest members and greatest
leaders at the end of next year.
During the years that you have been chairman, the environment has
known no better friend in Congress than you, Senator Chafee. Your
leadership will be sorely missed.
This committee has long had the reputation for being the most
nonpartisan on Capital Hill, a tradition you have upheld with great
honor, Mr. Chairman. I can only hope that the next chairman of this
committee will be able to live up to the standard you have set.
However, there is still much work to be done and I am glad that you
have chosen to turn to this fascinating and important subject for
today's hearing.
In this committee we work on some of the most complex, scientific,
technical, and, at times, obscure material imaginable. However, today
we are going to begin a dialog on something pretty straightforward:
Quality of Life.
We are going to call it a lot of different things: The Livability
Agenda, Open Space Protection, sprawl, smart growth, and Lands Legacy.
But they all describing the quality of life issues that face so many of
us today, particularly those of us who live in urban or suburban areas.
Our challenge is to find the tools and resources that our
communities need to ensure that our cities and towns can grow and
develop in the ways that its residents want.
These challenges are incredible and interrelated. Problems of
congestion, poor air and water quality, issues of water quantity, waste
disposal, and sewage treatment are all problems of modern life that
communities struggle with.
Nevada as a State is one of the fastest growing in the country. Las
Vegas is one of the nation's fastest growing cities. 5000--7000 new
people call Nevada home each month, many of them settling into the Las
Vegas Valley.
With this growth, which has been wonderful for Nevada, has come
many of the problems that we have begun to associate with
``livability'' issues. People move to Nevada and to Las Vegas for the
wonderful quality of life, so it is incumbent upon Nevadans to make
sure that standard of living is maintained.
During her recent campaign for Governor, Las Vegas Mayor Jan Jones
made livability issues and urban sprawl a centerpiece of her campaign.
Like so many other areas nationwide, the communities of the Las
Vegas Valley have begun to work together on regional solutions to many
of these tricky problems.
Just last month, the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority
released its plan for responsible growth in the Valley. This is a
several hundred page document dedicated to responsibly and creatively
answering the question: ``What will Southern Nevada look like 20 years
from now?''
Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to our field hearing on this
subject in Las Vegas later this Spring. We are going to pack the
hearing room with citizens and local officials, all of whom are eager
to share with you the many unique and innovative things local people
are doing in Southern Nevada to make it a wonderful place to call home
now and for many years to come.
One thing I am sure they will tell us: If the Federal Government
has good ideas or resources to devote to these livability issues, then
they want our help. Otherwise, they just want us to get out of the way.
Let me be clear about one important thing: I am not sitting here
today as an advocate of some system of Federal zoning or any other such
nonsense. I don't think that any of my colleagues are, either.
I am saying, however, that the Federal Government has a role to
play, particularly with so much development currently taking place in
coastal areas, flood plains, or, in the case of Nevada, on land that
borders on Federal property (and probably used to be Federal property)
In many parts of the West, the Federal Government has been a not-
so-great absentee landlord. Communities have developed as much
according to Federal land use policy as they have according to local
land use policy. It has not always been a great way to go.
Before concluding, I am delighted to see such great attention being
focused upon the various proposals to boost the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and other land management funds. We cannot continue
to ignore the impacts of development on sensitive areas.
The LWCF has been critical to the efforts of the California and
Nevada congressional delegations to protect and preserve Lake Tahoe.
These funds have been used in dozens of other States for similar
conservation purposes. LWCF is a tremendously worthwhile program.
One area that has not been addressed in any great detail in any of
the LWCF proposals I have seen thus far is our National Parks. We are
literally loving our National Parks to death and Senator Graham and I
hope to be able to work with all of you that have drafted LWCF
proposals to see about doing something more than we are doing to
protect sensitive and important areas within the Park System.
Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. As you can see, it is
possible to cover a lot of ground on this topic. Thank you, again for
holding this important hearing.
Senator Chafee. Mayor, we welcome you here. You go to it.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL HELMKE, MAYOR, FORT WAYNE, INDIANA, PAST
PRESIDENT, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
Mayor Helmke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Paul Helmke. I'm the mayor of Fort Wayne,
Indiana. That's the second-largest city in the State of
Indiana. I'm the immediate past president of the U.S.
Conference of Mayors.
The whole issue of livability, of sprawl, of really what's
going on in our communities today--smart growth, or whatever
the catch words are--is a very important one to all of us.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, too, that I was a candidate for
U.S. Senate last year and had hoped to be sitting on the other
side of the aisle here, but being mayor is a great job and
Mayor Coles, I know, from Boise reflects that and the mayors in
Rhode Island that I know well and Mayor Jones in Las Vegas are
all very concerned about all these issues, and I'm happy to be
here on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors talking about
these issues.
I submitted a statement, and I don't want to read that
statement, but I do want to touch on a few of the high points.
First of all, when I talk to people in my community, when I
talk to other mayors----
Senator Chafee. What's the population of Fort Wayne?
Mayor Helmke. About 200,000.
When I talk to people in my community, they are concerned
about what I call ``front-door issues.'' They're concerned
about what they see when they open their front door. Are the
schools good? Is the traffic situation OK? Are the streets
safe? Are their jobs secure? They're concerned about quality of
life.
Although I know what we do at all levels, what you do at
this level is very important in terms of front-page issues, I
think those front-door issues are just as important in terms of
what Federal policies do to impinge on what my folks and what
the folks in your cities see out their front door.
It is my sense that, in the past, oftentimes we've had
policies at the Federal level that end up having an anti-urban
bias, that end up causing problems for people out their front
doors, and that's why I think it is important to have this
discussion about livability, about environment, about open
space.
I think there are a few things that really show this pretty
clearly. One is the whole issue of brownfields. Brownfields are
the abandoned industrial sites that are in every city and town
in America. It can be the abandoned gas station. It can be the
old factory. And these are sites that really, I think, reflect
a lot of this discussion.
I think one of the best things we can do to preserve open
space is to find a way to help redevelop the brownfield sites.
And a lot of that deals with the legislation that has been
talked about, that has been proposed by you, Mr. Chairman, and
proposed by Congressman Boehlert on the House side, that deals
with changing the liability rules so that we don't just worry
about who we are going to be suing, but we worry about how we
are affecting our neighborhoods, how we make it easier for
developers and investors and private sector, public sector,
not-for-profit sector to come in and redevelop these brownfield
sites.
I think, as a country, we've learned that it is important
to recycle glass and aluminum and paper. We need to recycle our
land, and there are Federal policies that have made it
difficult to do this, so I think the whole issue of brownfields
is an important one.
One of the statistics that I mention in my text is taken
from the American farmland trust. This was part of a report
that the U.S. Conference of Mayors issued a year ago. During
the 10-year period from 1982 to 1992, the United States
converted more than four million acres of prime farmland to
urban land. This is the prime farmland, the good soybean
fields, corn fields that we've got in Indiana. That's an area
that's larger in size than the entire greater Chicago
metropolitan area, which runs from southern Wisconsin into
Indiana. It's an area equal in size to the States of
Connecticut and Rhode Island combined.
Mayor Daley, a former head of our organization, uses the
quote a lot that the U.S. destroys more farmland each year than
any nation on earth.
In that same 10-year period, 1982 to 1992, all of the land
developed, not just the prime farmland, was equal in size to
the States of Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware,
and one-quarter of Maryland.
I think, when you look at those sorts of statistics, even
though there is a lot of open space, particularly in the west,
we still need to be careful about what we're doing with our
land. I think the brownfields issue is one that needs to be
talked about as a way to preserve open space, to make sure that
people are staying close to where they want to work, that we're
not contributing to sprawl, that we're not contributing to
pollution.
I think transportation issues are also crucial. What we've
done oftentimes is contribute to the problem of sprawl with the
way that we've spent the transportation dollars. From the U.S.
Conference of Mayors' perspective, if we could give more
flexibility to local communities on how they are going to spend
it, get the money directly to local communities so we don't
have to fight with the Governors and the legislatures to make
sure that we're doing the things that we think at the local
level are best able to help it.
A recent survey by one of the groups that is concerned
about reinvesting in America found that most people are more
concerned with putting more money into fixing the streets and
the roads they already have than building new streets and
roads. People are concerned about public transit and how we get
to work from where folks live, so that's a crucial issue.
The parks issue that you mentioned, Senator, is a crucial
one to us, too. Oftentimes, we love our national parks, but the
crucial park for most of my citizens isn't the national park,
it's the park across the street, the park down the block. We
need to put some of that money into our local parks, too.
So I salute you for addressing these issues. This is
something where I think it is appropriate to take a Federal
role, to look for a Federal partnership. The Federal role in
the past has caused some problems, and I think we can correct
that we a good open discussion and find out what we can do with
brownfields, transportation, environmental programs, so we
really do address those front-door issues.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much, Mayor. We'll all
have some questions for you when we finish up.
Now we're going to hear from Mr. Terry Kauffman, who is
chairman of the Board of Commissioners, Lancaster County, PA,
which I suspect is an area of considerable growth.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TERRY KAUFFMAN, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Kauffman. It is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I actually today represent the National Association of
Counties. Obviously, as the mayor would have said, our first
priority is our home, however, and remember that.
I first want to also echo our support of what the mayor has
said, and the efforts between the National Association of
Counties and the Conference of Mayors to try to address these
issues.
Quality of life concerns, as the mayor said, the high cost
of providing those services and infrastructure--and in our case
in Lancaster County, many other areas have loss of farmland,
and our environmental resources are topping the list of many of
my colleagues throughout the country.
And increasingly, whether we want to or not--and some of us
probably want to more than others--we are being called upon to
make the difficult decisions in this arena. Our local citizens
come first to the local elected officials to say, ``This is a
quality of life. We're losing farmland. We don't have parks. We
don't have traffic.'' We have been asked to take a lead role in
that, and we are looking for partnerships to develop new
approaches to better direct the way we grow.
The country, in general, also, I think, has highlighted and
expanded its understanding, and, if not its understanding, it's
awareness as citizens are concerned about what we call
``suburban sprawl.'' That could be described as an explosion of
concern over our current use or growth patterns.
What I really think it is, they're worried about change and
how it affects the quality of life issues. Again, I applaud
this committee for looking at those.
In my county, suburban sprawl over the last three decades
has depleted our farmland and natural resource base and
threatened the lifestyle of our Amish and Mennonite
communities, the things that we believe are the most unique and
appealing for citizens to live there.
Important on our list of growth-related problems is
financial burden that residential sprawl is placing on county
government, just as it is in our cities and our towns. Those
are the areas which supply services and infrastructure to new
housing, often without a corresponding tax base.
We are aware that some are encouraging the Federal
Government and State legislatures to take the decisions about
land use out of the hands of local elected officials and place
them in the hands of appointed regional bodies or State
entities who would establish growth or planning policies
applicable to our governments.
State mandates and preemption are something that are
scarce, but they are coming. For example, in Tennessee,
counties and cities have been mandated to adopt State-designed
growth plans by July of 2001. In Florida, State-appointed
regional water districts have a great deal of authority to
approve or deny certain land uses. In the opposite end of the
spectrum, States like Virginia make it very difficult for
counties to manage growth, requiring, for example, specific
authorization from the legislature before a county is allowed
to impose impact fees.
The approach of the National Association of Counties, on
whose behalf I am speaking today, is to better equip our
counties and elected officials to make decisions about smart
growth alternatives for themselves.
What do we mean by ``smart growth''? NACO believes that
includes efforts that accommodate growth in a way that
integrates economic prosperity and environmental quality and
affords to enhance the unique attributes of counties that are
valued by the community.
In particular, NACO supports comprehensive local land use
planning as a mechanism for achieving smart growth. Because we
believe that how we use our land directly affects our ability
to maintain a high quality of life for existing and future
residents, our board of directors recently listed smart growth
as a priority issue for the next 3 years.
We have been holding extraordinarily popular workshops
within our NACO conferences and developing working team
sessions, and we hear over and over and over again this is one
of the primary concerns and issues facing county governments.
At the same time, we look forward to partnerships with
agencies and governments such as yourselves to help us guide
our activities.
At the same time, we recognize we derive our legal
authority primarily from our State governments, and, without
the necessary ability to control those land uses, we will
remain limited in our ability to implement our comprehensive
plans and smart growth initiatives.
Every State has its own distinct land use structures. Some
States simply fail to respect local autonomy and authority.
On the Federal level, we see other policies that indirectly
limit local land use decisionmaking. For example, in some
areas, Federal facilities are placed without any correspondent
view on how they affect local land use planning.
There are a lot of models out there. In my county, we lack
the authority of zoning, but, through intermunicipal
agreements, we've developed a voluntary approach with our
boroughs and towns and townships, through sheer persuasion and
dollars, and convinced them to look at a unique planned effort
by Lancaster County.
There are other models as we go forward, other techniques,
critical areas.
Another growth management technique is the use of impact or
development fees. I will say to you that that's controversial,
but we have about 22 States which allow it, and it provides a
timing issue. In other words, we don't have housing, we don't
have hype, we don't have any growth until we have the
infrastructure to support it.
On the Federal level, we are hearing about some new,
interesting proposals for additional funding and assistance. We
look with favor on programs that assist us with acquiring land
and purchasing rights, and we look forward, again, to a
continuing expanded role.
We would only caution, on behalf of NACO and counties, that
Federal funding should be careful to respect local land use and
decisionmaking.
As we view these progress, will Federal growth management
goals conflict with the goals we have established within our
communities? We fully expect those answers will be
complimentary and will not supersede.
In conclusion, there are a wide variety of tools, both
already available and in the proposed stage, that hold a
promise for better management of our land resources and better
control over growth.
We have to be careful, however, in this effort that local
governments decisionmaking need not be pushed aside, and that
our authority to determine what our community looks like isn't
relegated to merely advisory status.
We look forward to working with this committee, the Federal
Government, our State legislators, our city and town partners
to achieve what we believe our citizens want--smart growth for
the community.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Kauffman.
Senator Baucus, do you have a statement or anything you'd
like at this time?
Senator Baucus. I do, Mr. Chairman. And first I thank you
for holding this hearing. It is a new, developing area which
I'm glad that you are paying very close attention to, and I
thank our witnesses for taking the time and effort to come
here.
I can speak with some personal experience to the problems
that you're facing, Mr. Kauffman. I have relative in your
county who I go visit, and I've seen how much Lancaster County
is changing, and I appreciate the problems that you have.
I'd also like to say that--and somewhat similar to the
problems facing Lancaster County--that this is not just a big-
city issue. We're not talking just about urban sprawl. I'm sure
that's a lot of the problem that you're facing, Mayor, but it
is not just urban sprawl. It's not just a big-city issue or an
East Coast issue or a California issue; it is an American
issue.
I might say that in some part I say that because the State
I represent, Montana, has the motto of, ``The Big Sky State.''
We pride ourselves in our open space. We're the least
metropolitan State, with only three cities, I might say, Mr.
Chairman, that have a population of 50,000 people or more. We
just don't have a lot of people.
Open space is a very big issue in the rural west for two
reasons. First of all, open space defines us. It is why we call
our State, ``The Last Best Place,'' the State of Montana. And
you'll be interested in this, Mr. Chairman. We, I think, are
the last State to successfully write a constitution. I think it
was 20 years ago. And let me just read you part of the
preamble. It begins by first thanking God for the quiet beauty
of our State, the grandeur of our mountains, and the vastness
of our rolling plains, thanking God for the quiet beauty of our
State, the grandeur of our mountains, and the vastness of our
rolling plains. Unfortunately, though, our State is changing.
It is growing. It has been discovered. Montana was discovered
about 10 years ago, people moving in to Montana to escape--to
escape what they regard as congestion or poverty or long
commutes or crime, to a much better quality of life.
As a consequence, we're growing very quickly. Our
population has grown by more than 10 percent, and in Flathead
County, which is in the northwestern part of the State, and in
Gallatin County, which is the southwestern part of the State,
our population in the last decade has grown 20 percent because
of people moving into the State.
This has its benefits, this growth, but it also has its
costs. We now face some forms of sprawl, and we have
congestion, pollution, increased demand for services.
Let me read you an editorial by the Billings ``Gazette''
just last Sunday. ``Something must be done, or in time we will
not have to lock the gates because the best parts of Montana
will be ruined, and then no one will want to come here, let
alone live here.''
That said, preserving open space raises very difficult
issues. For one thing, we in the west love, as much as
anything, and including open space, our independence. We don't
like to be told what to do. And we don't trust big government.
It runs in conflict with attempts to resolve the issues that
we're facing here.
We want to try to find a balance in Montana. We want to
preserve open space, but we also want to preserve environmental
quality, but we want to avoid red tape. This requires a lot of
creativity.
For example, the Montana Land Reliance has been a real
leader in using conservation easements to preserve farmland. In
the past 20 years, Montanans have required conservation
easements of over 500,000 acres.
Boseman and Gallatin County are trying their own different
approaches, and the State is also doing a very good job in
bringing leaders together Statewide. That helps all this.
So I hope, Mr. Chairman, these hearings--and I know they
will--will help us find that right balance.
Two approaches I think are particularly constructive. First
is, ``Let's make the Federal Government a better neighbor.''
Right now, many agencies often work against the interests of
local communities. For instance, they often abandon downtown
areas that the community is trying to redevelop. I've seen this
in many communities in my State. And we should reexamine
Federal policies that contribute to sprawl. We've made some
progress. For example, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, we tied
highway construction more closely to environmental protection.
In addition, I've joined in asking the GAO to look at the
effects of other Federal programs on sprawl, a report which
should be done by mid-April, and that should help us even
further.
Second, let's help local communities get more control over
their own destinies. For example, the Administration has
proposed Better America Bonds and land's legacy initiative.
Senator Lautenberg on this committee has proposed legislation
to help redevelop brownfields in inner city areas. And Senator
Boxer and others have introduced bills to conserve opening
statement and habitat and protect farmland. These are
reasonable ideas and 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 financial incentives for communities to
preserve open space, reduce water pollution, and protect the
environment in the ways that make most sense locally. But 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
initiatives are suited to the needs of various problems in
various parts of the country, not just urban, not just eastern
and western, and not just rural, but so it is tailored to suit
specific local needs in specific parts of our country.
I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to exploring these issues and
others and hearing from our witnesses. And I apologize for
taking the time here to----
Senator Chafee. No, that's very interesting, Senator. Thank
you for your remarks.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. This is a very difficult field. For
example, I think it was--was it you, Mr. Kauffman, that
mentioned about Virginia, which, as I understand it, if a local
community in Virginia--let's take McLean--wishes to impose a
transfer tax of, let's say, 2 percent on real estate transfers
to go into a fund for open space purchases, that's prohibited.
You have to get the permission of the State of Virginia. And,
you know, that's a Virginia problem. I presume that--and the
arguments always are, ``This is elitist. You're going to keep
out--you're forcing up the cost of real estate.''
In our State we've tried several different--trying to do
this on the city level I think is difficult because I don't
think you have much open space left except for your
brownfields, probably. In our State, we're doing it on a State
basis in our State, and, for instance, one of the things that
has proven quite popular as far as the purchase of farmland is
not to buy the farmland but to buy what we call the
``development rights,'' not an easement. It's similar to an
easement, to a degree, but let's say the land is worth $10,000
an acre as development and $2,000 an acre as farmland, we would
say to the owner of the land, ``We'll pay you $8,000 an acre.
You will continue to own your farm and you will receive this
$8,000 an acre, but it ever hereafter can only be used as
farmland. You lose the development rights.'' That is expensive,
but it keeps what few dairy farms we have going, and it is a
good program.
Mayor, what I'd like to ask you is what would you do if you
got--you know, there are a whole variety of bills that Senator
Baucus mentioned, and others, but primarily it is the Land and
Water Conservation Fund that people are looking to. Suppose you
got some money with no strings attached but you've got to use
it for the general theme we're on here, you can't use it to
help your schools. What would you do with it?
Mayor Helmke. In the city of Fort Wayne we'd probably use
it first for brownfields redevelopment. We've identified a
number of sites. They are in areas that are close to where
people live, close to where some schools are, but they have, in
effect, become dead zones. And we have already put together
some coalitions with bankers, with not-for-profits, with
developers to do something with these sites and try to get the
assessments and make sure that the pollution is taken care of,
but to start building housing on these sites and then do these
things.
So if we got flexible funds, I think we'd use them first to
acquire this land, make sure that the land is properly assessed
and cleaned up, and then start getting some productive uses out
of it.
What we have found in our city and in cities around the
country is that there are so many tax dollars lost, so many
jobs lost by the fact that we can't redevelop these brownfield
sites.
What I think is exciting about the bond program that was
discussed is that, as I understand at least the initial drafts
of this program is that it does give communities a lot of
flexibility, which is the important thing. What's going to work
in Fort Wayne might be different than what's needed in
Providence, what's needed in other communities. And giving
local communities the flexibility to design the program to
their existing needs I think is the crucial one.
But if we can take care of brownfields, we can get more
investment, we can get more jobs, we can get more tax revenue,
and, most important, we can have stronger neighborhoods and
that's going to make a stronger city.
Senator Chafee. But why would what you've described in any
way fit under the rubric of preventing urban sprawl or
preserving open spaces? Is your theory that if something went
there it wouldn't go out in some lovely cornfield outside of--
--
Mayor Helmke. My theory is that if we find ways to help
encourage investment in our cities, then they are less likely
to automatically run to the cornfield or the soybean field.
What happens in my community--and we've got rich farmland
around us--is that it is just cheaper and easier and quicker to
buy that cornfield, buy that soybean field, and put the new
development, whether it's commercial, industrial, or
residential, in the cornfield. And we----
Senator Chafee. Then you've got all the expenses of the
infrastructure, the sewers, the----
Mayor Helmke. Right. And what ends up happening is that
eventually someone has to extend the roads, someone has to
extend the water, someone has to extend the sewer, and then
someone has to figure out how to get the workers who don't live
there to those jobs.
That's why, if we can take away some of the barriers that
are already there with the brownfield sites, we have the
existing infrastructure. Water and sewer are there, roads are
there. We've got other challenges--crime and perceptions of
crime, racism in some areas. But if we can take away some of
the barriers that, in effect, have been created by some Federal
policies in the past, I think we can get the investment back in
the city. That will help preserve the open spaces that are so
important to all of us.
Senator Chafee. Mr. Kauffman, what would you do if you got
some money? You are a county official, right?
Mr. Kauffman. We get blamed for that, Sir.
I think we would take----
Senator Chafee. By the way, what does the county do? What
is your jurisdiction? Do you run the schools?
Mr. Kauffman. No. We do not have schools and we do not have
law enforcement. Actually, our county is made up of 60
municipalities, one city of approximately 55,000. We have 16
boroughs, and the remaining are incorporated townships. Again,
everyone has their own local zoning opportunities. We have
comprehensive planning.
But to the question, I think we would really use two
processes. First of all, I support the investment in our urban
center, because, just for the reasons the mayor has said, if we
keep our urban centers healthy, then we will keep the pressure
off sprawl or utilizing cornfields and agriculture.
Senator Chafee. So that would mean what? Keep them healthy?
How can you do it?
Mr. Kauffman. We would to brownfields. I think, also,
reinvesting in some efforts to reestablish businesses, to
rehabilitate buildings, to do any of those things--parks in
neighborhoods, quality of life issues. By the same token, we
would also use dollars, I think, for the transfer development
rights, as you outlined that your State is using.
What we'd do with those moneys then would be to take those
transfer of development rights or property rights, if you will,
and transfer them from a rural township to a suburban township,
where there is sewer and water and infrastructure, and then
encourage higher densities in those areas where the
infrastructure is. So the purchase of those development rights
are then sold to a developer who then reuses those to get
higher density.
So ours would do, too. And our community is a bit different
than some of my other colleagues in that we have a pretty
large--we're kind of rural suburban. We have a population
approaching half a million. But we also probably have the No. 1
agricultural non-aerated land. We currently, in our county,
have over 30,000 permanently preserved agricultural lands.
So we not only, I think, would attack what I perceive the
issue that is there today that is the root, but also try to
attack it from the other end, which is prevention.
Mayor Helmke. I'd like to mention, Senator, if I might, one
of the things I had mentioned in my text. We're getting ready
to release a second survey from mayors across the country on
brownfields. One of the things we found preliminarily is that
110 cities that responded estimate that they could absorb more
than 3.5 million new residents into their cities if we could do
something about redeveloping brownfield sites, taking down some
of those other anti-urban barriers. That's equivalent to 1
year's growth in the Nation's population.
Again, there are other barriers than just brownfields, but
if we can find ways to use our existing city resources, our
existing urban resources, to make that land attractive, those
neighborhoods attractive, it can do a major thing in terms of
preserving the open space that, again, our farm community and
all of us want to see preserved.
Mr. Kauffman. If I may also follow on, our city, which is
about 50,000 people, is about----
Senator Chafee. Is that Lancaster?
Mr. Kauffman. Lancaster. It is about 50,000 people. That's
about the growth that we've had in our county in the 1990's.
But that new 50,000 has taken 40 square miles rather than the
seven square miles. So it's the way we've grown, the sprawl.
And there's a clear, classic example of what sprawl has done.
We've utilized six times the land than we would have in
traditional patterns.
Senator Chafee. I know your county a little bit. I'm an
ancient buggy aficionado, so I come up to the Martin auctions,
which I believe are in Intercourse, Pennsylvania.
Mr. Kauffman. That's correct.
Senator Chafee. And so I like your community very much.
Senator Baucus?
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like your reaction, both of you, to the Better America
Bonds proposal. Do you think that's a good idea? Or how might
you tailor it or change it and so forth?
As you know, the Administration is suggesting allocating--
basically it's an allocation. It would be an EPA allocation of
tax credits, I guess, in the amount of the interest, and the
credit would go to the purchaser of the bond, with the purpose
of the bond I guess in various categories. Open space would be
one. I've forgotten the others.
As you know, this is different from, say, industrial
development bonds, which, under current law, there's an
allocation according to a State's population, and I guess the
States, themselves, decide which projects make sense within the
State.
Your general thoughts on how Better America Bonds would
help, the degree to which it would help address some of the
problems that we're addressing here today?
Mayor Helmke. We've talked about this at the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, had a number of our mayors, both
Republican and Democrat, look at the idea, and we seem to like
the idea. It is something--again, we're still waiting for more
details, but, in effect, we're getting a loan, that we're
paying back in 15 years with no interest. The fact that it is
tax credits means that it is less of a burden on the Federal
Treasury. And these seem to be available for projects that will
make a difference.
I've talked to Carol Browner about the concept, and the
thing that I find most exciting is that it preserves local
flexibility. It doesn't tell us, ``Clean up this site,'' or,
``Use it for this specific purpose.'' It gives you the general
rubric of what you need to deal with and then allows the local
community to tailor those bonds to that community.
That's what we need more of. I see it as sort of the
equivalent of community development block grant dollars, where
general purposes are outlined. It is made available directly to
the local community, and the local community decides how best
to use that to help the local community. Here we are paying
them back, so it is different from CDBG, but it is something
that I think could make a major difference in our community,
and at this stage we support it, I support it.
Senator Baucus. So you don't mind having EPA make the
decision?
Mayor Helmke. As long as it is a general rubric and it
allows us to make the decision on how we are going to implement
it. As I understand it from my conversations with Administrator
Browner, they wouldn't be saying, ``Do this site. Don't do that
site.'' They would say it's available for brownfields, they
would say it's available for some urban park programs, they
would say it is available for some open space type things.
Those sort of criteria I think are important.
As I understand it, we would be applying for these bonds
and saying, ``Here's what we want to use it for,'' and they'd
be either granting it or not granting it. But we'd be the one
who is defining what we want to use it for. And if that part is
not in there, then we are not as supportive, obviously.
Senator Baucus. Commissioner?
Mr. Kauffman. Well, Administrator Browner has also, as
recently as a couple of weeks ago, addressed the National
Association of Counties, and I would say there's certainly a
fair amount of intrigue and interest in the program.
I think our concerns are simply along what the mayor has
said, as we believe it has to be workable with local
governments and what our plans are. It has to supplement what
we do. And it has to be suited to areas. It has to have
flexibility to allow each community--just as you heard with us
this morning, there is just a difference of opinion.
The other thing I'd have to say is there is some fear.
We're in part of a changing paradigm. We're talking about this
partnership, and I think we really believe that, but, from
local government's perspective, we're concerned when either the
State or the Federal Government comes to us and says, ``Trust
us, we're going to help you.'' And I would wager to guess our
citizens probably say, as we as commissioners or mayors go to a
citizens, ``Trust us,'' they have the same skepticism.
However, we believe it is worth looking at. We think
there's certainly merit to it, provided it supplements what is
happening in local government and it really is a choice of
local government to decide how to use it.
What we've heard so far I think fits in the program of what
the counties would look at. Again, flexibility and cooperation
and complementing what we do are keys.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate that.
Mayor, would you support legislation removing State
liability for perspective purchasers of contaminated brownfield
sites?
Mayor Helmke. Quite definitely. When I was president of the
U.S. Conference of Mayors, I made that my top priority item for
the U.S. Conference of Mayors. That follows the tradition we've
had with the Conference. Mayor Daley made it an issue. But it
is one that I'm excited with the possibility that something is
going to happen this session.
We did quite a bit of work on the House side last year with
Congressman Boehlert's bill that would have removed liability
for prospective third party innocent purchasers. That, to me,
is the crucial thing to change how brownfields are treated.
Right now, it is almost impossible for us to get someone in
there because of the fear factor. There might not even be any
pollution on the site, but, just because they don't know, they
don't want to touch it. And if we had that, I think we could do
a lot.
And I think it is exciting that, you know, it has been tied
up with Superfund, I know, and that's an important issue, too,
but if we can move the--if we can't get it all, let's move the
brownfields reform through. I think that would make a big
difference in Montana, it would make a big difference in Rhode
Island, it would make a big difference in Indiana. Every
community has these brownfield sites and needs some help.
Senator Baucus. So that's one way we can help you----
Mayor Helmke. Definitely.
Senator Baucus.--plan in your local areas?
Mayor Helmke. Right.
Senator Baucus. And I don't know what we're going to do in
Superfund. You're right that it is a little problematic. But if
we can't get it passed, I certainly hope that we can get
something passed, and this would helpful.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Senator Crapo?
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This question is for both gentlemen. I'm following up on
the question asked by Senator Baucus with regard to local
control and whether there is concern over having the EPA or any
other Federal agency in effect determine how the funding can be
used. And I appreciated your answers to Senator Baucus
question. He echoed the very same introductory comments I did
about how we in the west have concern about being told what to
do and how to do it.
The question I have is, I just want to get a little further
into the issue of how such a bond proposal could be
administered, because, even though there may not be a
requirement that, say, the EPA in this case, tell exactly how
the funding can be used, if the city or the county or the State
or whatever government entity was requesting the bond or the
grant knew that they would not be given the grant or receive
the funding if they didn't fill in the boxes the right way and
propose that they were going to use the funding the right way,
don't you think that there still could be a very high risk
that, just through the control of the purse strings, if the
control was not very broadly used, that essentially we could
get into a situation where the dollars were being designated by
a Federal agency for the achievement of Federal purposes and
that cities and counties were basically having to comply or not
participate?
Mayor Helmke. You make a very good point, Senator. This
needs to be a true partnership, and Federal purposes, as long
as they're general enough, I think can work within the local
communities deciding how to implement those purposes. And this
is where the devil is in the details.
If there are so many strings on it, folks aren't going to
apply for it because we're not going to want to jump through
those hoops. We don't want to have to spend a lot of additional
staff time filling out forms, filing out reports, meeting all
those criteria, getting so many approvals that it doesn't make
sense.
The concept is a good one. How it works is going to be the
crucial thing for us. And the major things would allow as much
local flexibility as possible, make the application, approval,
reporting process as simple as possible, and make sure that it
doesn't really cause more problems than it attempts to solve
when you set it up, or we won't take advantage of it.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Kauffman?
Mr. Kauffman. I would echo that. I think the concern we
have is a partnership. And, again, this is sort of a new thing
we're talking about that we trust each other.
In our county, where we adopted urban growth boundaries
without any implementing legislation, we basically sat down and
discussed with each of our municipalities 23 boundaries and
said, ``How is it? What is it?'' And I would tell you, each one
of the 23 boundaries look a little different, financial
resources look a little different. For some there were highway
issues, for some there were park issues. And if that
flexibility is not in this proposed bond program, I would see
many county governments walking away from it, because there has
to be that ultimate flexibility as long as we have as wide
array as local government mixtures or there's just no value.
Having a Federal program that tells us how to do that, that
really doesn't get us where we need to go.
Senator Crapo. Do both of you really think the cities or
the counties would walk away from those dollars----
Mayor Helmke. Yes.
Senator Crapo.[continuing] If they didn't have the ability
to exactly determine how they are going to be used?
Mayor Helmke. It depends how many strings are there. Again,
general purposes, we can handle that. But being told how to do
it--and, again, when I talked to Administrator Browner in
January, she was saying part of this is to make it as flexible
as possible for the cities or for local communities. Whether
that's what ends up in the legislation, though, is the crucial
thing.
This gets back to my front door concept, you know. My
citizens don't see differences between EPA, HUD, what this
agency does. They see the overall picture, and we need to make
sure it fits with that.
Part of our concern is that we've had so many frustrations
with EPA in the past. I raised the issue a few years ago. It's
great to see EPA encouraging brownfields redevelopment, but I
was concerned that if they made their clean air standards so
stringent that I could never get anybody to go to the
brownfields site, and all we were doing was encouraging
somebody to go to Montana and take good, clean air away again,
and we don't want that. I'm sure folks don't like to see that.
Since then, we've been able to work with the EPA on some
pilot programs where, in effect, credits are given if it is
saving greenfield space by doing a brownfields redevelopment. I
mean, there are ways to work it. But sometimes it's getting
folks to realize that in the real world a lot of our citizens
don't separate all these things into different jurisdictions,
different agencies.
Senator Crapo. I think it is very positive that we are all
talking flexibility now, and what I wanted to do in these
questions is flesh that out a little bit, because flexibility
to one may not be flexibility to another.
Could I get you both to agree or at least comment on
whether you agree with the notion that really what we are
talking about here is a revenue-sharing approach in which there
doesn't need to be much directive, if any, from the Federal
Government as to the specific use of the funds other than the
categories of use that may be authorized, and that it should be
a true block grant type approach, as much as is conceivably
possible.
Mayor Helmke. I think maybe it is a little closer to a
community development block grant approach than the old
revenue-sharing program, but, yes, outline a general purpose,
and then allow the local community to find how best to reach
that goal.
Senator Crapo. Would you agree, Mr. Kauffman?
Mr. Kauffman. I absolutely do. I want to reiterate I think
most local governments would walk away if strings were
attached, both some because they don't have the resources to
comply initially to get the money, and second, the other side,
those that have the resources are going to do it their way.
So, again, I'd look at this as an incentive program that is
being talked about of how we get everybody talking about the
same issues. I think the block grant concept certainly has a
lot more merit--again, though, I would say if the entitlement
or block grant or what you have passes through to the local
governments. The problem is, if we go through State
legislatures, unless there is some guidance, it may not be
directed to all communities with that flexibility.
Mayor Helmke. Let me reiterate that. That's an important
point, not only on this but on transportation funding and a lot
of the other issues. We want the control to come back to the
local level. That doesn't just mean the State House. We've got
some great Governors. The former mayor of Boise is now there in
Idaho, and Dirk Kempthorne does a great job. But it is--rather
than having to lobby all of our Governors all the time, if
we've got good intentions and good programs, let's get it back
to the local level without creating another level of
bureaucracy, oftentimes at the State House.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Senator Graham?
Senator Graham. I hope it is not necessary for me to come
to the defense of Governors.
Mayor Helmke. No, it isn't.
[Laughter.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GRAHAM,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Senator Graham. I feel there are a couple of
characteristics that a proposal for Federal involvement in an
area that previously has been a State and local responsibility
that have to be articulated. One is: what is the rationale for
the Federal role in this area? Two, is the Federal role going
to be of a sufficient scale that it can have a meaningful and
positive impact on that rationale?
So let me ask a question. Why do you think the Federal
Government should become involved in land acquisition programs
for the purpose of constraining urban sprawl and creating more
urban open space?
Mayor Helmke. I think it is appropriate for the Federal
Government to get involved in the issue of preserving open
spaces and the issue of sprawl for two main reasons. But if you
go too far into land control and zoning control, you're going
too far. But, in terms of the general issue, I think it is
appropriate for two reasons.
One is that Federal policies in the past have contributed
to an anti-urban bias and have helped create the problem,
whether it's the Superfund legislation that scared people away
from brownfield sites or the transportation legislation that
helped move people into the Naples/Fort Meyers area and then
make that community burgeon in an area where a family used to
have property.
Federal policies have contributed to this. EPA policies,
wastewater policies, stormwater policies, stormwater
regulations now basically encouraged folks to put their
development outside my city limits because the stormwater
regulations don't yet apply outside city limits.
There have been a lot of Federal policies that have an
anti-urban bias, so I think it is appropriate for the Federal
Government to try to correct some of the unintended
consequences of some of that legislation.
Second, these are issues that cut across city, county,
State boundary lines in many areas, and we need more of a
regional approach oftentimes in helping to address those
issues. But, again, the devil is in the details. I don't want
local planning authority, local zoning authority taken away
from my community, and I'm sure other mayors and county
officials agree.
But to have a Federal partnership role, partnership
position in helping with these issues, that's the way to go.
Senator Graham. And what about the issue of is the scale of
the Federal program sufficient in order to have an impact. And
your rationale, at least on point one, was largely an almost
remediation. The Federal Government screwed things up through
past decisions, and now needs to play a role in trying to put
them back together. How large is that Federal role going to
have to be in order to have an effective remediation impact?
Mayor Helmke. I think, just starting to play a role--again,
as long as it is a partner role, as long as it is a role that
allows flexibility--that sends the message to local communities
and to others that there is a partner that wants to do
something here.
The numbers we're talking about, whether it is in the bond
program or in some of these other ``livability'' programs are
fairly small dollars, but I think they send the message, as
long as they don't attach too many strings, that the Federal
Government wants to be a partner in dealing with these issues.
That, at least at this stage, is enough of a signal to me.
It's not something where it needs major Federal dollars
involved, but it needs to be a positive Federal partnership
role, and I think it can make a major difference.
Mr. Kauffman. Senator, if I may, I would like to piggyback
on the issue of investment. I think clearly the Federal
Government today spends a tremendous amount of money on
remediation, whether it be brownfields, whether it is water
quality issues, air quality, or stormwater issues, and I think
the investment, if we don't start dealing with the root cause
over here, I think will just cause the Federal Government and
other entities to spend many, many more dollars to deal with
environmental concerns for our grandchildren and great-
grandchildren.
So I think it is highly appropriate to invest today to deal
with the problems, but also put a portion of the investment on
the root cause so that it will be a window at the end of the
day that we can see out of and we can see progress being made,
and ultimately the investment of tax dollars, all of our tax
dollars, gets reduced.
Senator Graham. My concern with the numbers associated with
the proposals that are before us, I have a tendency to apply a
5 percent factor, because that happens to be the percentage
that Florida is of the Nation's population, and I see a
billion-dollar program, which would be $50 million in my State.
Last year, our State probably spent $300 or $400 million of its
own money on these open space programs. So with that scale it
is hard to see that it is going to have the kind of impact
against the problem that you described as the rationale.
Mayor Helmke. I see it, though, as pilot programs, and it
does help get the attention of mayors and local officials. A
similar thing with the HUD budget last year, where for the
first time I think they just had $50 million in terms of
brownfields--first time it had shown up in the HUD budget. It
had always just been in the EPA budget. That's hardly enough to
clean up a decent-sized city of the brownfield sites in any of
our cities around the country, but it started to say, ``This
agency is going to play a partnership role, and hopefully get
the attention in terms of changing regulations, bringing down
barriers, working to do things.''
I think there is importance and there's value in pilot
programs that send that message. Oftentimes, that's what's
needed to get State legislatures to move along, to get some of
the local committees to realize, ``Look, we can do this. Maybe
it's not going to solve everything, but we've got a start
here.''
Mr. Kauffman. Also, on that, we've done some programs
within our county, both on open space preservation, farmland
preservation, and transportation funds to local municipalities.
I look at this as a leverage tool that the Federal Government
uses to bring partners together.
In our transportation grants, we generally leverage both
public and private dollars on top of the county investment
about 4.5 times the investment. I also look, generally, in
public parks it is 2 to 1 leverage, that for every $1 we get $2
back.
So I see this as a wonderful tool, and I don't think we
should look to the Federal Government only to do this. I see
this as--and hearing Administrator Browning, it's one of the
things that I think she would like to see as a leverage. This
is how you would apply for grants. How much money you brought
to the table would certainly, if you will, give you points in
the application process. It makes us work harder. That's truly
how partnerships are formed and truly how we invest all our
taxpayers dollars most wisely.
Mayor Helmke. We've had some brownfield grants--again, not
very large dollars, but we've gotten the faith community
involved, not-for-profit sector involved, private sector
involved in helping to renew, rehabilitate some brownfield
sites. Again, it is a small piece of the pie, but it encourages
others to get involved with it.
Senator Chafee. OK, gentlemen. Thank you both very much.
Before you leave, just one quick question. Do you, in your
city or in your county, now go out and buy open space? I
suppose--my son is the mayor of a city of about 80,000, second-
largest city in our State. Oddly enough, we have some open
spaces left there, obviously not in the hundreds of acres, but
in the 60-acres or so, so he has put forth bond issues, which
the people have approved, to go out and buy these places to
preserve them for open space. Do you do similar things
yourself?
Mayor Helmke. We do two things. One is, inside the city
we'll pick up some areas where it has been dilapidated housing,
clear them, and create some open space inside the city in some
situations, oftentimes in connection with trying to put a new
project in there.
With our parks program, we've acquired property outside the
city limits for open space in areas where we see growth coming
from the city, so we've put investment both in sort of
residential lots that have deteriorated as well as open space
outside.
Mr. Kauffman. We do. We invest several million dollars a
year for purchase of development rights or outright
agricultural preservation easements on agricultural land. Then
we invest slightly over a million dollars a year on park land
acquisition.
Senator Chafee. Boy, that's pretty good.
Mr. Kauffman. Pretty much partnershipping with
municipalities. Again, we have increased our agriculturally
preserved land in the last 8 years from 10,000 acres to 30,000,
our park land has increased from about 800 acres to slightly
over 2,000 acres in the last 8 years. And every referenda
question--and I think that's important--that has been in our
community, which is perceived, I think, as being pretty
conservative, has had 75 to 78 percent approval rating.
Senator Chafee. Can't beat that.
Mayor Helmke. I'd like to mention real quick----
Senator Chafee. That's the kind of figures that Senator
Graham gets when he's running for reelection.
Mayor Helmke. One of the exciting things here on this issue
is that cities and counties are working together on this issue.
On a lot of issues in the past, we didn't talk together. We've
worked together on the Joint Center for Sustainable Communities
that was set up a few years ago, both National Association of
Counties, U.S. Conference of Mayors. We realize this is an
issue where we have to be working together, not at odds with
each other.
I think, with that sort of partnership at the local level
and a partnership at the Federal level, we can make a real
difference.
Senator Chafee. I think the point you've made here, that
there has to be an effort on your part, too, I think in any of
these proposals we've got it's not just 100 percent funds
coming in your direction. I think there has to be----
Mayor Helmke. Definitely.
Senator Chafee. [continuing] Some contribution; otherwise,
it makes life too easy.
Mayor Helmke. Generally, the larger share is really going
to come at the local level, but I think a Federal role can help
encourage a lot of that happening.
Senator Chafee. OK. Thank you all.
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say this last
point about the leverage I think is a very good one. I don't
think it is very well recognized, and I appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, I think it has been a great panel, very
helpful. And I would like, Mr. Chairman, if they could both
think about the Better America Bonds proposal and give us your
thoughts as to what would help make it work and, along with
that, some of the points that you think we should try to avoid
with it, because we need your direct experience. I mean, you're
there on the front lines. You know what works and doesn't work,
so if you could tell us how you'd like to see it put together,
what some of the packages, guidelines, and provisions would be,
that would be very helpful.
Mayor Helmke. We'd be happy to do that.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, sir.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
Mayor Helmke. I'd like to say, Senator Chafee, too, we just
want to thank you for your service, and we're sorry to see you
retire.
Senator Chafee. Aren't you nice. Thank you very much. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Moe, president of National Trust for Historic
Preservation; Kathryn Hohmann, director, Sierra Club; Mr. Steve
Hayward, senior fellow, Pacific Research Institute; Mr. Gary
Garczynski, National Association of Homebuilders; and Mr.
Nelson Rising, National Realty Committee--if you each would
take your seat, and each will have 5 minutes.
Mr. Moe, why don't you go to it. We want to welcome you
here.
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Chafee. Yes?
Senator Baucus. If I might just say something about Mr.
Moe, I've known Dick Moe for many years. He's a very close
personal friend, totally dedicated to service. He's served the
Senate, he's served the Administration. He's now president of
the National Historic Trust. I might add he's an historian of
note. He's written a couple of history books.
I read your statement, Dick, and I was very much struck by
your Churchill quote, but not surprised that you would come up
with something like that.
Anyway, Mr. Chairman, we're very honored and we're lucky to
have someone of his stature.
Senator Chafee. Well, I echo that, Senator Baucus. Mr. Moe
has been a very active and efficient head of the National
Trust. If you look at some of the--it is just a wonderful
organization. I always think back that one of the great crimes
of this century, I think, was maybe what stirred the formation
of your organization, when Penn Station was torn down in New
York City. As a child I can--well, not such a child. I
believe----
Senator Baucus. I remember Penn Station.
Senator Chafee. [continuing] It was designed after the
baths of Caracole, I believe, so they used to tell us. Is that
true?
Mr. Moe. I believe it was.
Senator Chafee. And to have that torn down was one of the
great architectural crimes of this century. Because of what
Dick Moe is doing and his organization, hopefully things like
that won't occur again.
Go to it, Mr. Moe.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD MOE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TRUST FOR
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Mr. Moe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, Senator
Graham. I appreciate those kind remarks. I only regret that I
now have to live up to them.
I really appreciate your convening this hearing today,
because this is an enormously important set of issues that you
are addressing, and we really applaud your leadership in this
area.
Sprawl is a major concern for the National Trust because
preservation these days is in the business of trying to save
special places and the quality of life that they support, and
sprawl destroys both.
Sprawl really has become a very important preservation
issue because it tends to suck the economic and social life out
of existing communities where most of our historic resources
exist.
Now, there are, obviously, other factors--crime, bad
schools, poor public services--that push people out of cities
and contribute to sprawl, and those are the push factors. But
sprawl, itself, becomes a pull factor, because once more and
more economic activities leave the city, they pull even more
behind them.
Our goal is to revitalize existing communities to reduce
the demand for sprawl.
Sprawl is clearly a national problem and it needs a
national debate, which you are helping to give it today, but
the debate should not, in my judgment, focus on finding a
national solution, because there isn't one. There are two
essential elements in any effective program to combat sprawl:
the sensible use of land and the revitalization of existing
communities. These are issues traditionally and I think best
handled at the State and local levels. In the end, that's where
the fight against sprawl will be won or lost.
But the Federal Government also has a very important role
to play in the process, because the decline of our cities and
the rampant development of our countryside have both been
facilitated by Federal policies.
Because the Federal Government has contributed so heavily
to the problem, we believe it has the duty to help find
solutions. Regrettably, there has been very little systematic
review of how Federal policies have encouraged or perhaps even
subsidized sprawl.
Even though there is a GAO study expected, as Senator
Baucus mentioned--and we have hopes for that--if it is not as
comprehensive and as thorough as we hope it will be, I hope
this committee will continue its efforts to try to really
determine the effects of Federal policies on sprawl. I think it
is the single most important thing that can be done.
In summary--and I spell these out in greater detail in my
submitted testimony--there are four ways that the Federal
Government can help.
First, it should correct Federal policies that encourage or
reward sprawl. Tax and transportation policies have
historically played the largest roles in this arena, but other
policies, particularly the siting of Federal facilities and the
availability of Federal funds for rehab versus new
construction, are important; also, the ready availability of
things such as water and sewer grants.
Second, the Federal Government should reward States and
communities that promote smart growth and help to revitalize
existing communities, perhaps by designing a Federal smart
growth score card that evaluates the effectiveness of States
and communities in creating systems that favor sensible and
sustainable growth and giving those entities an edge in the
competition for Federal funds.
Third, the Federal Government should promote regional
cooperation as a key to effective control of sprawl. When it
comes to sprawl, city limits and county lines are often
meaningless marks on a map. Efforts to control sprawl in a
limited area often just shift the problem from one community to
another.
Fourth, the Federal Government should provide incentives
for reinvestment in existing communities and promote moderate-
and middle-income home ownership in cities and older suburbs.
We and a number of partners, some of whom you will hear
from tomorrow, representing a range of interests, are now
coming together to form a coalition that will advocate for
Federal policies and promote smart growth. We've identified a
few issues, and I would just like to summarize them briefly.
First, the sound implementation of TEA-21 by the Federal
and State departments of transportation, which, thanks to the
leadership of you Senators and this committee, builds on the
vision of ISTEA.
The passage of the historic homeowner tax credit, which
you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Graham are championing here in
the Senate, and which I believe can do more to revitalize
cities such as Providence, Helena, Miami, and many others, than
any other thing I can think of.
The comprehensive implementation of the Presidential
executive orders dealing with the citing of Federal facilities,
which directs that Federal facilities should go into downtown
areas, and, where possible, historic districts.
Passage of the Post Office Community Partnership Act, which
Senator Baucus and Senator Jeffords have led the way on here in
the Senate--a very important piece.
And several more, including the broadening and enactment of
the Clinton Administration's proposed ``Livability agenda.''
Specifically, we would urge the Congress to expand the eligible
activities for the proposed Better America Bonds to include
infill development on brownfields and historic preservation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Moe.
Ms. Hohmann?
STATEMENT OF KATHRYN HOHMANN, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PROGRAM, SIERRA CLUB
Ms. Hohmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I'm proud to be here representing the Sierra Club.
My name is Kathryn Hohmann, and I'm the director of the Sierra
Club's environmental quality program.
I'm gratified to be here, but disappointed to hear of your
impending retirement. There is not an environmental statute out
there that doesn't have your fingerprints on it. You've been an
inspiration to us all.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much. That's generous of
you.
Ms. Hohmann. I would like to start by saying that our board
of directors every 2 years goes through a process where we poll
our grassroots activists to find out what is of concern to
them. As we did this polling process from California to Rhode
Island, from Washington to Florida, we found out that sprawl
was there on all of their concern lists. Even though we went
from community to community and found out that each place was
unique, in each place sprawl was ubiquitous.
So the Sierra Club has begun and we've kicked off a
national top-level priority campaign that is called,
``Challenge to Sprawl.'' I'd like to talk for a few moments
about what that campaign is really going to consist of.
This work is not new. Our activists have been fighting the
effects of sprawl for many years. From Connecticut's trap rock
ridges and California's San Mateo Creek to Rhode Island's
Narragansett Bay, folks have been challenging sprawl.
We are proud to say that we've had some real successes. For
instance, in Utah our activists have been battling the Legacy
Highway, a 1950's-style thoroughfare that would cut through the
heart of the Great Salt Lake wetlands. We're happy to say that
we've just had an interim success when the EPA came out in
opposition to that highway, the Legacy Highway.
But our efforts expand from there. In Georgia we are
working for more transportation choices in a city where people
put on the most vehicle miles and a city that has lost its
Federal share for highway dollars because of its air pollution.
Our efforts don't stop there. In our very own back yard
here in the District of Columbia we have a program called,
``Restore the Core,'' which hopes to funnel more resources into
the urban areas so that we don't fuel sprawl. It's what Mr. Moe
described as one of the pushes.
If we don't bring infrastructure dollars to our city
centers, we can expect more sprawl.
Again, this program is nationwide. We have some efforts--
even though we are trying to focus on a local level, we have
some efforts that are national. We put out a report called,
``The Dark Side of the American Dream,'' which listed the top
sprawl-threatened cities across America. That garnered lots of
media attention because people care so much about this issue.
They see it affects their very lifestyle. They see themselves
caught in traffic.
They know that, for example, in Washington, DC, the time
commuters spend stuck in traffic climbed 69 percent between
1982 and 1994. And you can bet they didn't make up for those
hours by trimming back on their work days. No, they trimmed
back on the amount of time they spent with their families.
The effects of sprawl go beyond this, though. We're talking
about air pollution and water pollution, city streets running
off poisoned runoff into our water systems. Urban areas and our
city centers are also threatened.
But there is good news, as well. There is bipartisan
support behind this issue. There is a mandate coming from the
public to work on sprawl.
From coast to coast in this last election there were 150
ballot measures, as the chairman mentioned, about growth
management, open space, and those sorts of measures.
In New Jersey, voters, even in the State's famously tax-
averse republican counties, asked overwhelmingly to approve the
use of $1 billion in tax revenue to conserve open space and
farmland.
How can we solve this problem? Will there be a Federal
role?
Well, the Sierra Club believes that there will be, but
sometimes what is needed is not more government but more
government leadership. Sometimes the Federal Government just
needs to get out of the way or reform policies that create
perverse incentives that fuel sprawl--policies like the ones
that our colleagues mentioned about stormwater, which pushes--
again, one of the push factors--pushes development out of our
city centers and creates more third-, fourth-, and fifth-ring
suburbs.
There are some positive things that the Federal Government
can do, as well. The Sierra Club is especially inspired by the
Better America Bonds program, the idea that is being floated by
the White House. We think that this program will get us off the
ground forging partnerships with communities. We ask why, in a
country that has for many years used bonds to create roads and
bridges, why we can't use bonds to create open spaces,
greenways?
We think that this program is a great first step. It will
provide $700 million in new tax credits. But that money would
really be bigger, would expand as we go. There's a magnifying
force here that would, over 5 years, leverage nearly $10
billion in bonding authority for communities to shape their
futures in ways that are healthier, greener, more stable.
We are looking forward to working with this committee as
you grapple with this important issue of sprawl and thank you
again for asking us to testify.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much, Ms. Hohmann.
Mr. Hayward, Senior Fellow, Pacific Research Institute for
Public Policy?
STATEMENT OF STEVE HAYWARD, SENIOR FELLOW, PACIFIC RESEARCH
INSTITUTE
Mr. Hayward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think maybe the best way to begin putting the current
debate on sprawl into some context is to make recourse to that
proverbial barometer of the American soul, the taxi driver. Not
long ago I was in a taxi on my way from Lindbergh Field in St.
Louis out to St. Charles County, which is where the growth is
taking place in the St. Louis region. Trying to get some local
insight, I asked him what he thought was going on, what he
thought about what was going on. And he said, as so many people
say, ``Man, they're building so fast out here that if they keep
building like this there won't be any land left.''
So I asked him where he lived, and he said, ``Well, I live
down in the city of St. Louis,'' but he added, without any
prompting from me, ``I'm going to move out here. The quality of
life is so much better. You get so much more value for your
housing dollar out here.'' And that, I suggest, is what social
psychologists have longed called ``cognitive dissonance''--the
ability to keep two contradictory ideas in your mind at the
same time and be untroubled by it.
Jim Johnson, who just retired as the chairman of Fannie Mae
likes to say, more elegantly, I think, ``The American people
are against two things. They're against sprawl, and they're
against density.'' So now we go and try to sort that problem
out.
What I want to suggest is that there's a lot of cognitive
dissonance at work on this issue, quite a bit of misperception,
and a lack of proportion about our current discourse about
this.
I'd like to start this way, in what I'll describe in a
minute as an irrelevant fashion, by making reference to
aggregate land use statistics. We hear a lot about, you know,
million acres here, 10 million acres here. The total amount of
urbanized land in the continental U.S. is less than 5 percent
of the total area. And, based on some figures that are now a
little outdated--and we'll have some better ones in about 2
months from the U.S. Geological Survey--we develop every year
about .07 of 1 percent of the land area of the continental U.S.
There's even some evidence that the rate of sprawl may be
slightly lower than it was in the 1960's and 1970's. There is a
sprawl index that is used a lot in these discussions that is
sort of a rough comparison between rates of population growth
and the rates of urbanization, and it is a fairly crude and not
very good measure, in some ways, but the point is that that
measure has been declining since 1980.
One last fact. In 1969, there were about 2.6 acres of land
specifically designated for parks and wildlife and wilderness
conservation for every acre of urbanized land in the country.
Today there's about four acres of land designated for parks,
wilderness, and wildlife for every acre of urbanized land, and
those figures don't include our national parks, by the way.
Now, these are the kind of aggregate figures that I say are
irrelevant to the politics of the issue, because the acres
dwarf the human scale.
I'm reminded of President Roosevelt's famous quip about
critics of the long-run effects of the New Deal. He used to
say, as you might remember, ``People don't eat in the long run,
they eat every day.'' Similarly, every piece of open space that
yields to the bulldozer in this country is in the line of site
of a populated area where people live, and the change and
disruption it brings trumps the fact that the land area may be
statistically very small.
I think it is the aversion to rapid change that's the
dominant social fact behind the controversy over sprawl, and it
is enhanced and magnified by a second social fact of modern
life today, and that is that in all other areas of life we have
increasing latitude for choice and control over our lives.
Thirty years ago we didn't own our own phones. They were the
property of the phone company. Today we choose our own long
distance service. And next year we may choose our own electric
power generator. Right?
And so what we're seeing in city life, it seems to me, is
that people feel that their range of choice and control is
diminishing. Most acutely, we aren't able to choose where and
when we are able to drive in the same way we used to because of
traffic congestion. And people have a sense of what they can't
control events, themselves, they wish someone else would do it,
typically the government.
Now, my opinion is that most of the ideas that make up the
conventional wisdom at the moment, such as urban growth
boundaries and, to a lesser extent, the bundled ideas that go
forward under the banner of smart growth, are misguided because
I think they misperceive a lot of what is going on, especially
the major traffic congestion. But also I think as remedies they
would not be that effective in solving the main problems
associated with growth.
Why this is so takes a long time to go through, so let me
just mention what I think is the single most important reason
for being cautious about embracing ambitious land use schemes
or other measures that might distort our land market.
It seems to me that a century of regulation has taught us
that regulation typically favors the affluent and organized
over the less-affluent and less-organized, and there are few
groups less-organized and represented than the people who would
benefit from new houses and new jobs.
Now, most smart growth advocates will tell you that this is
not a debate about growth, per se, but it is a debate about the
form growth should take. And, while I take them at their word
at this and believe they are quite sincere about it and right
in many aspects of their critique, I think we are naive if we
fail to recognize that growth management schemes often become
the machinery of negation for existing residents.
To pick a local example, the angry voters attending Fairfax
County Commission hearings out in the suburbs here are not
angry because of the form of development. What a lot of them
told the ``Washington Post'' a few months ago is, ``Our housing
values are stagnant because the county is allowing too many
houses to be built, and we'd like to see fewer of them built.''
Everyone's favorite model right now of enlightened growth
management is Portland, Oregon. It strikes me that it is
starting to show some of the same kind of exclusionary effects
you've seen in some boutique regions like Boulder, Colorado,
Santa Barbara, Marin County, and so forth.
In my testimony I've attached a little table that shows
comparisons of housing prices between Portland and other
sprawling cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas.
Since the red light is on, I'll stop right now.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
Mr. Garczynski on behalf of the Homebuilders?
STATEMENT OF GARY GARCZYNSKI, VICE PRESIDENT AND TREASURER,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOMEBUILDERS
Mr. Garczynski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Gary
Garczynski, and I am currently the vice president and secretary
of the National Association of Homebuilders. I am a builder and
land developer in Northern Virginia and have worked in this
industry for nearly 30 years. I am currently developing some
infill projects in Alexandria and Fairfax County, and have
served as the president of the Northern Virginia Transportation
Alliance and serve at the pleasure of Governor Gilmore and
Virginia's Housing Study Commission.
If I could take 1 second, though, on behalf of the 197,000
firms and its members across the country, we would be remiss if
we did not acknowledge your contributions, Senator, over many
years of service. We haven't always been on the same side of
issues, but you've always conducted yourself as a gentleman and
a dedicated and committed public servant and our hat is off to
you.
Senator Chafee. That's very kind of you. Thank you.
Mr. Garczynski. Now, the notion of smart growth, AKA
sensible growth, sustainable growth, has certainly exploded on
our national consciousness as one of the most critical issues
confronting America today. As has been mentioned, it has been
on over 200 ballot initiatives and is likely to be a national
platform issue for both the republican and democratic
candidates.
Its impetus developed from population pressure, rising
housing demand, fragmented regional governance, personal
housing preference, suburban employment centers, which have
made outward expansion seemingly inevitable. It touches what
all of us Americans hold close to our lives--where we live, how
our children are educated, our commute time to work, and the
economic and job opportunities created by growth in our
communities--in other words, our quality of life, or, to be
more politically correct, ``livability,'' and its resulting
frustration has strained our fiscal, social, and environmental
well-being.
Smart Growth should address the questions of how best to
deal with the components of growth, and motion, economics, and
the politics of growth.
From the NAHB perspective, we need to build an acceptable
consensus of the definition of smart growth amongst government
officials, community activists, builders, developers,
environmentalists, bankers, and the voting public, because the
benefits of growth are being degraded by the cost of growing
badly.
Education on the smart growth principles and cooperation
among its stakeholders on the benefits of smart growth is the
only way toward overcoming barriers and reaching sustainable
development goals.
With that preamble, we at NAHB believe a definition of
smart growth should give serious consideration to the following
factors.
No. 1, no growth is not an option. Population and
immigration figures can tell us that over 1.3 million
households are created in this household yearly. Economic
development must also be considered. There isn't a State or
Governor in this union who doesn't have that as a goal for his
constituency. It means jobs and it means benefit to the
stakeholders.
For instance, in Virginia our $1 billion surplus generated
by new employment centers has led to no car tax, lower State
college tuitions, and better school funding.
The consensus is that we must bring people together and not
polarize them. There shouldn't be a brawl over sprawl. The
smart growth movement should not be about telling Americans how
they should live and work or about sacrificing their individual
values to the values of their politically powerful betters. It
should not be coercive or moralistic, but open and inclusive.
It should consider market sensitivity, where people and how
people want to live, the fact that people prefer a detached
single family home in a suburban location.
In survey after survey, consumers continue to state that.
As a matter of fact, we've just finished one where 80 percent
state that that is still their preference.
We do have a high home ownership rate in this country, the
highest it has ever been--67 percent--but there is still a
great majority of Americans, first-time buyers who still have
not tapped into that home ownership. And now, through programs
such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and HUD that have made
available to first-time buyers, a large number of African
Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities shouldn't be shut
out from the opportunity of owning a home.
Now, infrastructure development should also be taken into
that account. Let's face it, much of the public outcry over
growth revolves around three issues: traffic congestion,
overcrowded schools, and disappearing open space.
If we can solve the infrastructure problem by a balanced
and equitable funding source, we can solve a lot of the
rhetoric that occurs over no growth.
I'd offer an example. How many counties or cities have what
we call ``capital improvement plans,'' but no capital
improvement budget for a funding source to back them up?
We, as builders, have been caught in the middle of this
issue. For years we have been pushing on good planning policies
such as clustering, small lot development, higher density, and
broad-based and equitable ways to pay for major infrastructure
improvements.
I know my time is up, but I want to emphasize we want to be
at the table. We have been at the EPA, ULI, Smart Growth
Conferences--the first one was in New England, as Senator
Chafee probably knows, and there are going to be a series of 11
more around the country. We were there at the plenary sessions.
Our members are there to get involved in the dialog.
We aim to be centerist and be involved to the answers and
solutions to smart growth because it is to our benefit as
builders. We don't want to wear the black hats in this,
Senator, and we intend to make sure that we offer a balanced
approach to what is rapidly becoming an increasing challenge to
the American public.
Senator Chafee. Well, I think it is fair for you to request
being present at the table. You've got a big stake in this, and
certainly any activities I'm involved in with this will make
sure that you stay involved.
Mr. Garczynski. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Mr. Rising?
STATEMENT OF NELSON RISING, CHAIRMAN, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE, NATIONAL REALTY COMMITTEE
Mr. Rising. Thank you, Chairman Chafee.
I'd just like to echo the comments that were made earlier
today about what a great role you have played in heightening
the awareness on environmental issues in this country, and
we'll miss you in your retirement in the dialog.
Senator Chafee. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rising. My name is Nelson Rising. I'm the CEO of
Catellus Development Corporation, a San-Francisco-based,
publicly traded, diversified real estate operating company with
holdings extensively throughout California, Dallas, suburban
Chicago, Denver, Portland, and Phoenix. We are developers.
I am speaking today on behalf of the National Realty
Committee, the NRC. Our members are a round table of the top
leaders of public and privately held real estate companies,
including owners, builders, lenders, managers, advisors, and
investors.
Our industry, not just our members, has a stake in well-
planned smart growth. I can tell this committee from personal
experience a well-planned community with strategies for
preserving quality open space and adhering to the principles of
smart growth offers better real estate investment opportunities
than communities with less planning discipline.
Today, State and local governments throughout the country
are attempting to establish policies that will encourage rather
than discourage smart growth. Higher densities near employment
centers and transit, convenient retail and entertainment uses
near residential districts, increased open space, and
pedestrian-friendly urban design solutions are all part of that
dialog.
As a Californian, I am particularly concerned about smart
growth. The Census Bureau tells us by the year 2025 California
will add the equivalent of the current population of the State
of New York. This expected growth----
Senator Chafee. Wait a minute. Let's have that one again.
That's an astonishing figure.
Mr. Rising. It is an astonishing figure. Nineteen million
new people are projected from the year 1995 to the year 2025.
That's the current population of the State of New York added to
the country's most populous State.
Senator Chafee. What's the population now? Let me guess.
Mr. Rising. About 32 million.
Senator Chafee. I was going to say 40. What is it, 32?
Mr. Rising. Yes. It will put us over 50 million people by
the year 2025.
And that growth and growth in other areas, which is
inevitable in this country, the NRC believes can only be
accommodated if we successfully adhere to the principles of
smart growth.
Today the issue before this committee is: what can
Washington do to respond to the public's growing demand for
smarter growth and more open space?
Clearly, local governments need to chart their own courses
in land use matters, but the NRC believes that there is an
important role for the Federal Government. The Federal
Government can advance policies and legislations that will
provide State and local governments additional resources to
grow smarter. It can assist in increasing the amount of
critical open space, and it can encourage, rather than
discourage, brownfields and urban core redevelopment, thereby
reducing pressures on greenfields. And it can reform existing
Federal laws and policies that inadvertently impede the ability
of States and local communities to grow in smarter ways.
While Washington can help, it is important to stress again
that the parameters of the Federal role need to be carefully
defined to ensure the paramount role of local governments in
this area.
With respect to increasing our open space, the NRC supports
the bipartisan effort now underway to fully fund the Federal
Land and Water Conservation Fund.
In addition, we also suggest the committee give the
Administration's Better America Bonds proposal serious
consideration that it deserves. Its basic premise seems to be
to us to be a good one: to offer local governments the
resources to help gain the leverage that additional bonding
authority can provide.
With funds from the bond issues, local governments can make
their own decisions about open space preservations, redevelop
their own brownfields properties, and address other
environmental issues.
Bond financing, whether locally or federally subsidized,
is, in our view, not only more cost-effective, but also a more
equitable way than using current appropriations of tax dollars.
It allocates the cost of acquiring greenspace over the life of
the bonds, and in that way ensures contributions from the
current and the next generation.
There are several ways the Federal Government can encourage
development of brownfields and redevelopment of our urban core.
The provisions of Senator Smith's Superfund bill from last
Congress and the provisions in Senator Lautenberg's current
standalone brownfield bill, S. 20, would go a long way toward
removing the specter of Superfund liability from the potential
brownfields transactions.
Business, municipal, and environmental groups have all
pointed that uncertainty regarding possible Superfund liability
remains a factor in favoring development outside urbanized area
into so-called ``greenfields.''
The law of unintended consequences should be considered by
this committee as you evaluate existing legislation that
inadvertently impedes the ability of local communities to grow
in smarter ways. The provisions of Senator Baucus bipartisan
Endangered Species Act bill approved by this committee in the
last Congress dealing with habitat conservation and no
surprises assurances would, in our view, facilitate smart
growth.
In a similar fashion, wetlands programs need to include a
safe harbor for projects that advance smart growth.
To summarize, the NRC believes the objective of achieving
smart growth needs to be factored into the implementation of
Superfund, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act,
as well as expanded Federal assistance in acquiring critical
open space.
While not under the jurisdiction of this committee, I would
be remiss if I did not point out that certain Federal tax
policies can also undermine the smart growth agenda. There are
three examples of this which I have put in my written
submittal, so I will not repeat them here.
Senator Chafee. Why don't you just touch on them briefly?
These are the tax suggestions.
Mr. Rising. Well, Mr. Chairman, the tax suggestions that I
would call to your attention first would be the ability to
expense the cleanup cost rather than capitalizing them. As it
relates to nonhistoric buildings, many infill sites have
nonhistoric buildings on them that are not slated for
restoration, but that the demolition costs are treated as being
added to the basis in the land, and therefore make it less
attractive to develop an infill site with a nonhistoric
structure than going out to the greenfields.
And the third issue, which is a very important issue, is
that the way the tax treatment of building improvements,
especially building improvements that would be energy
efficient, are amortized over the life of the building, as
opposed to over the life of the improvement, artificially
increasing the cost that would be associated.
Senator Chafee. You mean you think it should be deductible
in a couple of years or something?
Mr. Rising. Well, in the life of the--during the life of
the particular improvement. For example, the average lease in
the building is 7.3 years, and the tenant improvements are
depreciated over 39 years.
Senator Chafee. I see.
Mr. Rising. So the NRC is suggesting a 10-year depreciation
for building improvements, which would have a tremendous
advantage in rehabbing buildings in the urban core and make it
less attractive to----
Senator Chafee. Go outside.
Mr. Rising. [continuing] Rehab buildings on the suburban
fringe.
Senator Chafee. Well, I suppose, Mr. Moe, you favor that.
You mentioned taxes in your discussion, too.
Mr. Moe. Yes, Sir. I would strongly support what Mr. Rising
is saying. I think the tax code, in many cases, inadvertently
discourages the rehabilitation of existing buildings, both
historic and nonhistoric, and with slight modifications----
Senator Chafee. Because of what, this amortization period?
Mr. Moe. Yes, I think in part. But I think more subtly it
encourages new construction over rehabilitation in a lot of
ways, and that's why the tax credit that you and Senator Graham
are supporting I think would go a long way toward redressing
that in the tax code.
Senator Chafee. I'm going to poll you all here. Just raise
your hands.
It seems to me, as we've had this discussion here today--
you've heard the previous testimony of the county official and
the mayor--everybody seems to agree that we ought to do
something about helping the local communities clean up these
brownfields. That's a given, isn't it? Everybody wants that.
But the theme of much of this legislation that is coming
forward, as proposed by the Administration, is open spaces. But
these brownfields would, once cleaned up, I think the
objective, as certainly the mayor pointed out, would be to get
another industrial facility or manufacturing facility in there.
It wouldn't be an open space. It's not going to be a park,
apparently. Is that what you gather?
Mr. Garczynski. Senator, on behalf of the homebuilders, I
would hope that, if brownfields remediation and then the
liability issue could be taken away, that, not only for
industrial/commercial, but a revisit of housing into the city,
a good mix of housing, because I think the revitalization of
any city depends on having a balance of housing types, and what
better example do we have than right here with what Mayor
Williams is doing with Washington? A full range of housing
types are coming back into this city within the next year or
two. So I hope brownfields could be developed into residences,
as well as industrial/commercial sites with that liability
factor addressed.
Senator Chafee. Mr. Rising, what cities have--you ticked
off some cities there that you think have come back, are doing
a good job. As I recall, you listed San Francisco, Portland,
Boston. I guess I've got the page here. You mentioned San
Francisco, Portland, Boston, New York, and Chicago.
Mr. Rising. Yes.
Senator Chafee. You think they've done a good job in--but
certainly there's nothing to do with open spaces in any of
those cities.
Mr. Rising. What's interesting about that, in my written
submittal I talked about the reurbanization of America and how
important that is to deal with the environmentally sensitive
ways to deal with our growth, and the renaissance that have
taken places in the cities I listed in my written submittal is
really quite remarkable.
There are common characteristics. First, you have
attractive residential uses located near jobs. You have retail
and entertainment uses located near residential districts. You
have attention to the public realm. And you have open spaces
that are open to the public and accessible to the public in all
the cities I've mentioned.
What has happened is, because of the realities of the
commute time, because of the realities of the two-income
families, because of the realities of life in this decade and
moving on to the new millennium, people are recognizing that
cities that are livable are an attractive place to live, and in
many cases far superior to the commute that they were facing as
an alternative.
I think that----
Senator Chafee. Now, for instance, just take San Francisco,
which obviously you know a lot about.
Mr. Rising. Yes.
Senator Chafee. Are you suggesting that jobs for these
bright college graduates who have been to Berkeley or whatever
it is and then decide to live in San Francisco, where would
they work? I mean, you always think of the Silicon Valley, and
that's a long way from San Francisco. What is it, three-
quarters of an hour or something?
Mr. Rising. About that, Sir. The interesting point about a
smart growth principle, one of the most important ones, is
locating residential near transportation corridors.
We happen to be developing the largest property in the
history of San Francisco, with some 6,000 residential units,
and we are immediately adjacent to the CALTRANS station which
connects with the Silicon Valley. So we expect that our
residents----
Senator Chafee. This is in San Francisco, this development?
Mr. Rising. Yes.
Senator Chafee. Wow.
Mr. Rising. And so what we are looking at is the notion of
the transit, which links to the South Bay the Silicon Valley,
so we look that our residents will be, in some cases, living in
the Silicon Valley taking trains, in other cases working in the
CBD taking the mini-metro. But transit orientation to us is one
of the critical ingredients to a smart growth agenda.
Senator Chafee. Now, would those people take a subway or
whatever it is, a train, to Palo Alto or Silicon Valley?
Mr. Rising. We believe they will, Sir, because I think the
alternative of the commute, the unproductive commute by
automobile, especially a single-passenger automobile, is just
an unacceptable alternative.
Senator Chafee. How long would it take them, roughly, if
they got on the train?
Mr. Rising. Less than 45 minutes and more--depending on
time of day, more than double that by car.
Senator Chafee. Mr. Moe, I think that it seemed to me that
historic preservation tax credit is an important thing. The
objective would be to rehabilitate the buildings in the inner
city so people would come there and live.
Mr. Moe. Exactly. Mr. Chairman, the existing historic
rehabilitation tax credit that has been in effect since the
late 1970's has accounted for more than $17 billion in private
investment and the restoration of more than 26,000 buildings,
most of them for affordable housing.
We think that the legislation that you and Senator Graham
are sponsoring could do the same for privately owned
residences. It would do more to keep people living in inner
city neighborhoods by revitalizing the historic resources that
are there and attracting more middle class people back to the
cities, which they all desperately need.
So there is no question but that we think historic
preservation can play a major role in revitalizing cities and
reducing the demand for sprawl.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you all very much. There's a
lot of meat in your testimony here, and we'll look that over
carefully. Some of the things are tougher than others.
Obviously, the tax policy is out of our jurisdiction. When you
get into that rapid depreciation, it is very expensive. Now,
maybe it is a one-shot deal, but it is expensive. And
immediately you get confronted with, ``Where is your office at?
How are you going to pay for it?'' Those are the problems we
run into.
This has been very helpful. We thank you all very much for
coming. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the State of
New Jersey
Good Morning. Before I get to the substance of today's hearing, I
would like to say a few words about our distinguished Chairman, Senator
Chafee.Since we were last together, Senator Chafee announced he will
retire at the end of this session. I have some experience with that!
John, I know this was probably a hard decision. I know you will
spend the next 2 years working hard at this job, as will I, and I hope
we can work together on brownfields and other issues as a legacy.
Certainly your service on this Committee has been a focal point of
your work in the Senate.
Your contributions are many and will long be remembered. You have
often been a voice of reason in our deliberations and I hope we can
work productively together in the next 2 years.
Many of the environmental challenges we now face are complex. Your
decision to hold these hearings on open space and so-called ``sprawl''
issues recognize the changing face of America. I also regret the Budget
resolution markup has prevented my attendance.
As you know, I have long been interested in the issues of growth,
transportation and environmental protection. The bills discussed in
this hearing are important, and I have cosponsored one of them.
However, I would also like to call attention to S. 20, my brownfields
legislation, which has been mentioned by many of our witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, on January 19, 1999, I introduced S. 20, the
``Brownfields and Environmental Cleanup Act of 1999,'' along with 22
other Senators, including many of our colleagues from this Committee.
This legislation is designed to help turn abandoned industrial
sites into engines of economic development. Significantly, it would
also create open space and avoid sprawl because it encourages smart
growth and the re-use of industrial sites.
Mr. Chairman, I have been interested for a long time now in the
issue of these abandoned, underutilized and contaminated industrial
sites, commonly known as ``brownfields.''A brownfields cleanup program
can also spur significant economic development and create jobs.
In fact, the nation's Mayors have estimated that they lose between
$200 and $500 million a year in tax revenues from brownfields sitting
idle, and that returning these sites to productive use could create
some 236,000 new jobs.
Despite the traditional connection of Brownfields with cleaning up
urban areas, this issue is truly linked with the issues of sprawl,
smart growth and environmental quality for all of our citizens.
``Brownfields'' as we have come to know them, can be found anywhere--in
the inner cities, the suburbs and in rural areas.
And every time a business leaves a brownfield behind, and moves to
a new location, it creates a contaminated urban ``dead zone.'' It also
contributes to sprawl, occupies a ``greenfield,'' with widespread
impacts on transportation, air quality, open space, park lands and
farmlands.
Re-using brownfields--often lightly contaminated areas--for
industrial purposes is positive from a whole host of perspectives, and
I am committed to encouraging it.
This type of cleanup makes good environmental sense and good
business sense.
My bill, S. 20, would provide financial assistance in the form of
grants to local and State governments to inventory and evaluate
brownfields sites, and to establish revolving loan funds for cleanup of
these properties. It would therefore enable interested parties to know
what would be required to clean the site and what reuse would best suit
the property.
The loan funds would be loaned to prospective purchasers,
municipalities and others to facilitate voluntary cleanup actions where
traditional lending mechanisms may not be available.
The bill also would limit the potential liability of innocent
buyers of these properties, and it would set a standard to gauge when
parties couldn't have reasonably known that the property was
contaminated.
It would also provide Superfund liability relief to persons who own
property next door to a brownfields property, so long as the person did
not cause the release and exercises appropriate care.
Mr. Chairman, for several Congresses there has been bipartisan
interest in addressing brownfields, both in the Senate and in the other
body on the other side of the Capitol.
I am hopeful we can move this legislation forward in a cooperative
way with support of Members on both sides of the aisle and begin to
protect both the health and jobs of our citizens and our open spaces
for future generations.
I thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important issue,
and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
__________
Statement of Hon. Bob Graham, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak on the issues of open space and environmental
quality, an issue that is very important to the state of Florida.
Over the last 50 years, more than 8 million acres of forest and
wetlands in Florida, 24 percent of the land area of the state, were
cleared for development. Florida's population increased by more than 15
percent in just the last 8 years. The Sierra Club has identified five
cities in Florida as being among the ten cities of their size in the
Nation most affected by urban sprawl. In 1997, over 47 million tourists
visited Florida, spending $41 billion to enjoy our natural environment
and quality of life. As these statistics indicate, growth, sprawl, and
environmental quality are issues of great concern to Floridians.
In response to this tremendous growth in the human population, and
in order to preserve the natural environment of the state for future
residents and visitors, Florida created the Preservation 2000 program
in 1990. This program has resulted in the protection of one million
acres of land to date, and has expanded recreation opportunities,
enhanced eco-tourism, and brought new economic growth to the state.
Under Preservation 2000, the state works with local governments and
non-governmental organizations to protect recreational lands, preserve
water quality, and support state forests, parks, wildlife management
areas, and greenways and trails.
I understand that some of our speakers will be addressing various
proposals for the Federal Government to support open space and
environmental quality initiatives similar to Florida's Preservation
2000, and I look forward to discussing the merits of these proposals
and working with the members of the committee to identify an
appropriate Federal role.
__________
Statement of Honorable Paul Helmke, Mayor, Fort Wayne, Indiana
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I am Paul Helmke, Mayor
of Fort Wayne and Past President of The U. S. Conference of Mayors.
The Conference of Mayors represents more than 1,050 cities with a
population of more than 30,000.
Mr. Chairman, let me first thank you and other members of this
committee for holding these hearings today. ``Livability'' provides a
timely context for discussions on a number of issues of concern to the
nation's mayors and the citizens we serve.
When mayors speak of ``livability,'' they talk about reducing
crime, improving public education, helping kids and adults secure
better job and housing opportunities, improving the delivery of public
services, recycling brownfields, enhancing the local environment,
improving parks and libraries and making transportation systems work
for people. These are the issues squarely before local elected leaders
and largely drive our agenda.
To support the committee's consideration of these issues today, my
statement will:
provide some general observations and perspectives on livability
from the mayors' vantage point; offer some suggestions on the
challenges specifically before this committee, given your influence
over Federal surface transportation, infrastructure and environmental
programs, areas which are increasingly singled out in this debate; and
review some of the key issues on the mayors' agenda which I believe
relate to this broader debate.
Mayors' Perspectives
Mr. Chairman, we don't have a complete definition of
``livability'', but as a mayor, I know it when I see it. And,
certainly, I know it when I hear it, and it is something that is very
much on the minds of the voters in local communities.
For mayors and other local elected officials, you might say we are
in this business. One of the reasons we are here today is that citizens
in a very grassroots way are demanding something more from all of us,
their elected leaders. They want us to work harder to help improve
their quality of life, not just their standard of living.
All of this is pushing what have been historically locally oriented
issues on to the political agenda of State and Federal leaders, forcing
elected officials at every level to respond, and to be aware of how
past and current policies have sometimes created problems at the local
level.
In effect, voters are forcing their national legislators and
leaders to examine these Federal policies and respond to some of the
same concerns which have been before me, other mayors and local
officials. As a mayor, I would welcome your attention to these issues
and a more thorough examination of how these Federal policies influence
the lives of local citizens in their communities.
For some time, we have been urging partnerships with Federal and
State governments that genuinely respond to local needs and interests.
It seems that the ``livability'' concept provides a place-based and
people-based context for your review of issues that come before this
committee, be it transportation, air quality or water resources.
Mr. Chairman, contrary to some statements in the press, this
definitely is not a top-down movement. It is a local citizen or
grassroots movement, driven by all types of conditions throughout the
country. As a local official, I can assure you that this is not a
Democrat, Republican or Libertarian issue.
It appears this message is being amplified by the confluence of two
population segments. People in newly developed areas are clamoring for
improved services, managed growth and some relief from the increasing
burdens of auto dependency. People in built communities--largely
central cities, inner ring cities and urban counties--want more help
for their particular needs, like updated infrastructure and facilities,
including rehabilitation of parks and libraries, and pedestrian- and
neighborhood-oriented improvements. People in existing communities also
expect more attention to their needs now that we have spent more than
two generations investing in and building up the suburbs.
After much anxiety in dealing with the nation's economic
restructuring over the past several decades, there appears to be more
confidence about our economic future and, collectively, our voters are
demanding more attention to issues affecting their quality of life.
What is new about this issue is that it is finally finding a place
here in Washington, where debates have focused on sometimes more
distant matters. The front door issues--those issues before you when
you open your front door, and not just what you see on the front
pages--are knocking at your door.
brownfields
Let me provide an example of this, from my perspective as the mayor
of a community, which made the transition from a fort to a strong city
of 200,000. As President of The U.S. Conference of Mayors, I made
brownfields the top issue of my tenure as a leader of the nation's
mayors. I didn't call it ``livability'', but it is at the core of so
many issues in this debate.
``Brownfields redevelopment'' is really a metaphor for renewing our
partnership commitments to existing communities.
By recycling the thousands of brownfield sites in communities
throughout the nation, we can offer alternatives to simply plowing
under and paving over more pristine greenfields, be they farm land,
forests or open space.
And, in this way, we can better serve millions of people in
communities struggling with this challenge, places where many of us
live and work today.
Brownfields, so often in evidence as abandoned properties with all
of the outward signs of neglect, are a particularly powerful way to
call attention to the need to look at existing communities and policies
to help local leaders sustain their economies.
We recycle glass, paper and aluminum cans, but as a nation, we
don't fully recycle our land. We believe that existing communities have
the capacity to recycle land for reuse in future development, breaking
the cycle of developing pristine land or greenfields as a first choice.
Yet, there are obstacles in getting these sites cleaned up and
redeveloped. And, the difficulty in redeveloping these sites and
capturing all of the many community and economic benefits has also
hindered our ability to meet the many concerns of our citizens.
Pressing local issues--transportation, environmental quality, safety,
education, and neighborhood-oriented investments in schools, libraries,
ballfields and parks--can be addressed more readily through
redevelopment of these sites, as local economies are strengthened,
generating the resources to reinvest in our communities.
As a local leader, I can tell you we have been working hard to
recycle and restore these lands, attempting to offer developers,
business leaders, bankers and others new opportunities to invest and
grow in existing communities. But much more needs to done to turn the
perception of these ``dead zones'' in to prosperous and thriving uses.
A year and a half ago, I addressed the ``Brownfields 97''
Conference in Kansas City, where I said:
``Brownfields is the leading edge of what I believe will soon be
the nation's most pressing environmental concern: the loss of open
space--farmlands and forests--brought about by our continuing patterns
of urbanization.''
In discussing this issue, I frequently cite data from the American
Farmland Trust. For the 10-year period, 1982--1992, the United States
converted more than 4 million acres of prime farmland to urban land.
This is the real stuff--``prime farmland''--the kind of land that is
very productive.
In that period, we lost prime farmland that is larger in size than
the entire greater Chicago metropolitan area, which runs from Northern
Indiana to Southern Wisconsin. Or, farmland that is equal in size to
the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island. As Chicago Mayor Daley, a
former Conference President, so often says, ``The U.S. destroys more
farmland each year than any nation on earth.''
In the same 10-year period, all of the land which was developed,
including this prime farmland, is equal in size to the States of
Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware and one quarter of
Maryland.
I believe there is some urgency to the brownfields issue,
particularly when you step back and consider what is happening to
farmland and forests in proximity to our urban areas.
Brownfields redevelopment, for so many communities, is about making
sure that the land is productive again, unburdened by liability issues
and free to capture private sector investment in housing and job-
producing businesses. We see this as a cycle of potential renewal, with
rising property values and increasing tax receipts to build better
communities that our citizens want and expect.
Issues Before the Committee
Mr. Chairman, you have a full agenda on many of the issues in the
``livability'' debate, as you examine transportation, smart growth,
open space preservation, brownfields redevelopment and various
initiatives pertaining to these matters.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express the appreciation of the nation's
mayors for the personal attention and efforts you have made on our
behalf to move various legislative vehicles to address the concerns of
mayors and others on brownfields within the context of Superfund
reform. And, we also appreciate the members of this committee for their
leadership. Senator Bond, in his capacity as Chair of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, has
been very supportive of local efforts to move brownfields redevelopment
forward. Senator Lautenberg has been involved with this issue before
most people even knew what brownfields were and we appreciate his
strong leadership on our behalf.
I am hopeful that legislation will finally move through the
Congress this year to provide communities with the tools and resources
to more readily reclaim and recycle the thousands of brownfields sites
all across the country. I know from the committee record and statements
that members of this committee fully appreciate the importance of
getting these properties back in to productive use. I also know that
this issue will be revisited by the committee in the coming months.
transportation
Let me turn to the transportation arena, and again use this
opportunity to thank Chairman Chafee, Senator Moynihan, who played such
an instrumental role in enacting ISTEA, and the committee members for
your leadership in enacting TEA-21.
The Conference of Mayors in its testimony before this committee and
our work in support of ISTEA renewal, urged a balanced investment
between highways and transit, and flexible funding, as well as
continuation of programs like Enhancements and the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality program and continued emphasis on system
preservation. But the key message that Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell
delivered on behalf of the mayors was the continuing need for
partnership in addressing the nation's transportation infrastructure
needs, urging that the ISTEA framework be used as the basis for this
partnership.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to recognize this committee and its
leadership in making this partnership stronger under TEA-21. Also, by
continuing policies and programs such as the Interstate Maintenance
program and the Bridge Program, you kept the focus of the new law on
system preservation.
Keeping what we have in good repair is very much in tune with what
voters are asking for. Recently, the Rebuild America Coalition
conducted a national survey and found that an overwhelmingly majority
of the respondents believe that keeping existing road surfaces in good
condition and free of potholes was more important than building new
highway capacity in dealing with congestion. These findings affirm some
of the issues we have discussing today in that voters want more
attention to keeping what we have in better condition, as one of the
ways to better serve citizens in existing communities.
Most of these transportation elements have been strongly supported
by local elected officials, through investments in the CMAQ program to
better air quality, in the Enhancements program to better integrate
transportation facilities into our communities, in the Bridge Program
to rehabilitate these facilities, and in increased investment in public
transportation.
The Conference of Mayors would offer several recommendations on how
the committee might followup on these and other matters.
First, we encourage the committee to hold field hearings and
conduct more oversight on State efforts in implementing TEA-21. Under
ISTEA, local officials were concerned that many of the key programs of
most direct interest to local communities, like CMAQ, Enhancements,
Safety, had the lowest obligation rates compared to other programs of
higher priority to the States. Moreover, with the unexpected gap in
fiscal year 1999 between apportionments and obligation authority (more
than 13 percent), defunding of these programs could get worse under
TEA-21. If you take CMAQ funding, for example, it is troubling that
with more than one-half of the 1,050 U.S. cities with a population of
30,000 or more in nonattainment with ozone, we continue to see States
using the Act's flexibility to move funding obligations away from CMAQ-
eligible activities. Poor air quality where millions of Americans live
is high on our ``livability'' agenda. Second, we are working with the
States all across the country to ensure that funds under TEA-21 are
fairly distributed within the States, an effort we call our ``Fair
Share Campaign.'' In effect, local officials are often asking why
funding fairness stops at the State lines. We have preliminary data
that shows that under ISTEA two out of every three metro areas--where
about 80 percent of the nation's population resides--were donors. As we
look at livability issues, we as local officials know that we can't
address these issues if we never get access to the resources to make
the improvements our citizens want. We are hopeful that U.S. DOT's
expected planning regulations will operationalize the Act's ``revenue
forecast'' provisions, directing States to jointly develop forecasts of
TEA-21 funding with MPOs. This is really a ``right to know'' for local
officials about what funds may or may not be available for
transportation projects and needs in their local areas. Third, we don't
see States taking full advantage of the flexible funding aspects of
TEA-21. For example, we have more than 200 communities/regions
throughout the country planning, engineering or building new rail
projects, the highest level of interest in rail projects at any point
in the nation's history. We also know that many of these projects won't
get built unless State DOTs take more advantage of the Act's flexible
funding features, using core program funds in support of these
investments. In large and small markets, rail investment is being
sought by local elected leaders as one of the preferred ways to manage
development patterns, combat highway congestion and improve mobility in
their respective regions. Finally, we also hopeful that the States will
use some of the Act's flexibility to make resources available to local
areas for transportation infrastructure improvements in support of
brownfields redevelopment. In our 1998 Brownfields Survey, we found
many respondents citing the need for transportation improvements, such
as upgrading and modernizing existing facilities, as necessary to
facilitate investment at brownfield sites.
One of our biggest challenges in the transportation arena has been
State transportation department officials, who historically denied the
linkage between transportation investment and development patterns.
TEA-21 certainly provides the tools and the laboratory, but it doesn't
guarantee success. That is up to local elected officials working with
the Governors and State transportation officials to use the tools you
have provided.
But, as a key partner in this equation, it is helpful to those of
us at the local government level to have this committee fully engaged
in monitoring our progress under TEA-21 and how these substantially
increased resources are deployed. This committee has many other
policies--clean air, water quality, flood control--that are advanced or
harmed by State and local actions in the transportation arena.
environmental programs
Given the committee's involvement with the financing of
environmental infrastructure through State Revolving Funds to the
States, particularly the Wastewater Revolving Fund, the Conference
would suggest some actions related to the issues before the committee
today:
first, it would be helpful to have U.S. EPA prepare information for
the committee on the distribution of these funds within areas of the
State, offering some perspective on how existing communities,
particularly in urban areas are faring under the program; second, it
would be useful to know from the agency if these resources are
promoting outward development or aiding in redeveloping existing areas;
and finally, the Conference is supportive of proposals to redirect some
portion of these funds toward wet weather problems, such as municipal
stormwater and combined sewer overflow improvements, changes which will
help serve continuing clean water needs among existing communities.
Mr. Chairman, we know that some of our development patterns are
exacerbating our ability to tackle stormwater and flood control needs
in areas all across the country. We are also learning more about how
these development patterns might be infringing upon our surface and
groundwater supplies. This is an area where we would like to work with
the committee to examine these issues in further detail.
On clean air, the Conference has been very engaged in a number of
issues involving implementation of this Act. For example, we have been
concerned about the potential effects of the new air standards on
brownfields redevelopment. As a result, the Conference has been working
on a project with U.S. EPA, the Economic Development Administration,
and several cities, including Chicago, Dallas and Baltimore, to analyze
the relationship between brownfields redevelopment and achievement of
clean air standards.
I would also call the committee's attention to the Administration's
proposal, the Clean Air Partnership Fund, which calls for first ever
funding of $200 million in fiscal year 2000 to help communities fund
clean air projects and deploy new technologies. This investment is
particularly important to local areas which in the past have only had
access to CMAQ funds for mobile source efforts. From a local
perspective, we welcome any additional Federal commitments to help us
meet the increasingly complex air issues before our communities.
parks
Finally, let me note that open space preservation and parks
development are areas where the mayors have been very supportive. We,
however, will continue to press for more attention on urban parks as
the ``Lands Legacy'' Program and other proposals move forward.
We all know that preservation of open space has important
implications for the work of this committee as you continue to grapple
with transportation, air quality, water quality and nonpoint source
pollution, flood control and water resources. Mr. Chairman, I would
encourage members of this committee to engage in this debate, given
your considerable jurisdictional interests in seeing successful
initiatives in this area.
Mayors' Agenda
Mr. Chairman, let me close with some comments on the mayors'
agenda.
During my tenure as Conference President, I talked extensively
about farmland and open space preservation and the need to recycle
America's land through brownfields redevelopment. Conference presidents
for five successive years have been pressing for a stronger Federal
partnership on brownfields. We see the Administration's proposal for
``Better America Bonds'' as a response to local leaders, like myself
and others, who have championed a more aggressive Federal commitment to
local efforts in this area.
Knoxville Mayor Victor Ashe, who served as President of the
Conference before me, personally championed the cause of the stateside
program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and urban parks,
with these issues finally receiving some attention in recent months,
nearly 4 years later. Mr. Chairman, you may recall that he met with you
on this subject. Quite frankly, we were disappointed that there was so
little emphasis on urban parks in the Administration's plan, but in the
whole we believe there is a need for a broader Federal commitment in
this area. We are pleased to see that Chairman Murkowski is proposing
to fully fund the stateside LWCF program and fund urban parks at a much
higher level.
I have already noted elements in the transportation area. I would
just reiterate our desire to see State officials use these resources to
partner more fully with local officials in funding locally determined
transportation projects, such as new rail starts and other alternative
transportation projects as well as broader commitments to system
preservation, safety, enhancements and air quality.
Mayors have advanced brownfields redevelopment as one of the
cornerstones in our ``livability'' agenda, an area which I have
discussed in some detail. Mr. Chairman, next month the Conference will
release its Second Annual Report on Brownfields. Among the more
interesting findings of this report will be a projection on how many
people these responding cities can absorb without adding substantially
to existing infrastructure. In this survey, 110 cities estimate that
they can absorb more than 3.5 million new residents, a capacity which
substantially exceeds 1 year of the nation's population growth. Tapping
just a portion of this potential capacity in existing communities could
save taxpayers billions of dollars in future capital and operating
costs.
We see brownfields as part of a broader agenda, which includes
reducing crime and community-based public safety, improving public
education along with community-wide responses to the needs of school
age kids, emphasizing arts, cultural and other unique community assets,
and renewing our infrastructures, like schools, parks, housing and
transportation facilities. In the whole, these issues respond directly
to what we as mayors believe our citizens are seeking in their daily
lives, concerns which are increasingly characterized as ``livability''.
I also helped launch our Joint Center for Sustainable Communities,
an historic partnership of The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the
National Association of Counties, to look at how cities and counties
can work together more effectively on many of the issues we are
discussing today. We are making real progress on these challenging
issues.
Closing Comments
As a mayor who is completing my twelfth and final year of service,
I can attest that cities have certainly seen some tough times, with
both the perceptions and realities of crime-ridden neighborhoods,
failing schools and infrastructure. At the same time, we have been hard
at work dealing with these issues, changing both perceptions and the
realities of these urban ills. And, mayors and local citizens will tell
you that we are experiencing positive change in communities all across
the country. We are confronting rising expectations, and rightly so, on
how we can improve the everyday quality of life.
Some of this success can be attributed to the new style of local
elected leadership and a new energy among our citizenry. And,
undeniably, mayors and other local leaders will tell you that new and
continuing partnerships with the Federal and State governments are
making a real difference in our communities.
It seems all of us are figuring out that our standard of living is
not the same thing as our quality of life.
The Washington Post reported last week that demand for close-in
addresses is outpacing available housing, as people look for
alternatives to ever-growing commutes here in one of the most congested
markets in the nation. Senator Larry Craig is described as leaving his
larger home in Mount Vernon for a smaller house on Capitol Hill,
cutting his 1-hour commute by car to a 13-minute walk. He is quoted as
saying, ``I can get up in the morning and my wife and I can be together
for breakfast. It truly added an hour of quality time to our day.''
Senator Craig's quote may best express what this issue is all
about.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to share our views
with the committee on this important subject.
__________
Statement of Hon. Terry Kauffman, Commissioner, Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania and Chair, Smart Growth Committee and Land Use and Growth
Management Subcommittee, National Association of Counties
Quality of life concerns, the high cost of providing services and
infrastructure, and the depletion of farmland and environmental
resources are topping the priority list of many of my fellow county
commissioners around the country, and counties are increasingly being
called upon to make difficult decisions in this arena. Traditional
assumptions about the benefits of unrestrained growth are being
challenged--assumptions, for example, that all development is good
development--and county officials are looking for new approaches to
better direct the way their counties are growing.
The country in general is also beginning to experience an explosion
of concern about current development patterns. The rapid rise of
residential and commercial development on the outskirts of our town
centers raises uneasiness about the health of our farmland, our water
and air resources, the open and wild places, and the functionality of
our neighborhoods--basically the essence of what makes a community a
vital and pleasant place to live.
In my county, suburban sprawl, over the last three decades, has
depleted our farmland and natural resource base, and threatened the
lifestyle of our Amish and Mennonite communities--the very things that
make Lancaster County so unique and so appealing.
Important on the list of growth-related problems is the financial
burden that residential sprawl is placing on county governments, which
supply services and infrastructure to new housing, often without a
comparable tax base to cover the costs. We are struggling with these
issues, and it is very important that we step forward to assert our
role as leaders. We are on the front lines when it comes to making the
decisions that shape our communities. And, as the government closest to
the people, it makes sense for us to do so.
We are aware that some are encouraging the Federal Government and
State legislatures to take the decisions about land use out of the
hands of elected officials and place them in the hands of appointed
regional bodies or State entities who would establish growth or
planning policies applicable to all local governments. State mandates
or preemption of local land use decisionmaking has already happened in
some States.
For example, in Tennessee, counties and cities have been mandated
to adopt state-designed growth plans by July 2001. In Florida, state-
appointed regional water districts have a great deal of authority to
approve or deny certain land uses. On the other hand, States like
Virginia make it very difficult for counties to manage growth,
requiring, for example, specific authorization from the legislature
before a county is allowed to impose ``impact'' fees on developers.
The approach of the National Association of Counties (NACo)--on
whose behalf I am speaking today--is to better equip counties make
decisions about ``smart'' growth alternatives for themselves. What do
we mean by ``smart'' growth? NACo believes that it includes efforts
that accommodate growth in a way that integrates fiscal prosperity and
environmental quality, and efforts that enhance the unique attributes
of counties that are valued by the community. In particular, NACo
supports comprehensive local land use planning as a mechanism for
achieving ``smart'' growth'' because we believe that how we use our
land directly affects our ability to maintain a high quality of life
for existing and future residents NACo's Board of Directors recently
listed Smart Growth as a priority issue for the next 3 years. Our
Western Interstate Region has established a goal of providing tools to
western counties to manage growth and develop sustainable policies. In
conjunction with the Sonoran Institute, we will be working with county
officials in 11 western States to promote effective growth management
that balances environmental, economic and community concerns.
We have been holding extraordinarily popular workshops and working
team sessions at our conferences for the last 2 years, and are hearing
over and over from our members that growth management is one of the
most significant challenges facing county officials. NACo recently
established a Smart Growth Committee, which I am honored to chair, to
guide our activities over the next year, and we expect to be developing
tools and techniques that counties can use to implement their plans.
At the same time, we recognize that we derive our legal authority
primarily from State government, and without the necessary ability to
control land uses, we will remain limited in our ability to implement
our comprehensive plans and manage growth in a manner appropriate to
the character of our communities.
Information from the nation's counties indicates that there are
States that do not grant their local governments authority to make land
use decisions. The 1998 NACo Operations Survey Analysis showed that
only 66 per cent of the counties surveyed had authority to do
comprehensive planning. Only 40 per cent had the ability to do
transportation planing and only 22 per cent had the power to collect
impact fees. These figures show that some State legislatures have
failed to give us the tools we need to manage our growth.
In my own State of Pennsylvania, counties are not allowed to
control land uses; zoning authority is vested in the boroughs and
municipalities. Similar laws are found in Ohio and Michigan. Other
States like Virginia require each county to petition the State
legislature for specific authority to control growth--authority that if
not granted, prohibits the county from enacting local ordinances. Every
State has its own distinct land use statutes; some States simply fail
to respect local autonomy and authority. We urge all States to provide
enabling legislation to allow county governments to adopt whatever
tools are needed to manage their own growth. In addition, States should
provide incentives for local governments to work together, so that the
traditional tensions between municipalities and counties can be
overcome.
On the Federal level, we see other policies that indirectly limit
local land use decisionmaking. For example, Federal facilities like
post offices are generally exempt from local zoning ordinances. Federal
regulations on endangered species, air pollution, landfill siting, and
stormwater management sometimes put portions of land in our counties
``off limits'' for development, even when those areas may be more
appropriate locations for some land uses than others.
NACo recently revised our national policies on preemption to firmly
oppose any efforts of Congress or regulatory agencies to impose
prescriptive requirements that intrude on local decisionmaking. This is
especially applicable to land use decisions, and we will continue our
campaign to object to any Federal activities that preempt our
authority.
Managing growth, I want to emphasize, shouldn't mean stopping
development or closing the door to new residents. A comprehensive
growth management system can provide a framework that enables counties
to balance and accommodate diverse and competing interests. Unlike
traditional subdivision platting and zoning which are two dimensional,
growth management adds a third dimension--timing, or the pace of
growth.
We have some good models to look at around the country, and I
wanted to spend a minute reviewing a few of those with you. Let me
start with my own county.
Despite Lancaster County's lack of authority over zoning, we have
been able to accomplish a great deal. Our strategy was to create an
``urban growth boundaries'' beyond which only farm activities were
allowed. The County, through sheer persuasion--and some significant
financial assistance--has convinced most of the municipalities to
include the urban growth boundary in their comprehensive plans, and so
far it seems to be working. Within the urban growth boundaries, the
County monitors development, actively promotes affordable housing and
reasonable densities, and encourages the planning and development of
infrastructure to support development. We also assist the
municipalities by assigning a professional planner to help them draft
and implement their urban growth boundaries and zoning ordinances.
Counties in other States, like Erie County in New York and Pierce
County in Washington State have developed a series of interlocal
agreements with their municipalities to develop ``urban growth area
policies'', providing guidelines for the county and municipal
comprehensive plans.
Another growth management technique is not new, but is being
increasingly used across the country--an impact or development fee on
land developers. As you know, this is a very controversial topic, but
about 22 States allow it and local governments keep seeking such
authority from State legislatures. Impact fees can help reduce the
pressure on counties to approve subdivisions before the roads, schools,
and water and sewer lines are installed.
Other techniques--critical areas designation or performance
standards for environmentally sensitive lands, designation of
regionally important resources--like historical or natural areas--all
can be useful in managing and directing growth.
Another key technique is the transfer or purchase of development
rights. With this tool, the county is allowed to sever the rights of
the property owner to develop a piece of property from that parcel and
transfer those rights to other property. Therefore, a farmer can sell
his development rights in a rural area, and the rights can be exercised
by the developer in another part of the county that has water and sewer
connections, as well improved roads. The farmer agrees to establish a
conservation easement on the property, forever preventing any future
development.
Another increasingly popular technique is outright purchase of open
spaces by local and State governments. There were over 200 new
referenda passed around the country in the last election where voters
agreed to new bond issues or programs for purchasing green spaces.
These acquisition programs are very popular with the voters because
they promise to preserve natural resources, and many States are
devoting State general funds to help protect such areas.
On the Federal level, we are hearing about some interesting
proposals for additional funding and assistance, and we welcome the
Federal concern about growth management. We would look with favor on
programs that assist us with acquiring land, purchasing development
rights, and obtaining staff expertise. We also would like to see a
national clearinghouse of information about alternative land use
planning practices and programs.
We would only caution that any Federal funding be careful to
respect local land use decisionmaking. The questions that we will be
asking in evaluating any new Federal programs or Federal funds are the
following: ``Will they be consistent with local comprehensive land use
plans? Can we take advantage of Federal programs because they
complement what we do, or will Federal growth management goals conflict
with the goals we have established within our communities?'' We hope
the answers will always be ``yes''.
In conclusion, there are a wide variety of tools, both already
available and in the proposal stage, that hold a promise for better
management of our land resources and better control over growth. But we
have to be careful that in the effort, local governments decisionmaking
isn't pushed aside, and that our authority to determine what our
community looks like isn't relegated to merely advisory. We look
forward to working with this committee toward that end.
__________
Statement of Richard Moe, President, National Trust for Historic
Preservation
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today about the issue of community
growth and environmental quality. My name is Richard Moe and I am
President of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a nonprofit
membership organization, chartered by Congress in 1949. The National
Trust for Historic Preservation works to revitalize America's
communities by preserving our heritage--the buildings, neighborhoods,
downtowns and landscapes that link us with our past and define us as
Americans. Our mission is summed up in a short phrase: ``Protecting the
Irreplaceable.'' Sprawl destroys the irreplaceable, which is why the
National Trust is concerned about sprawl--and why I am pleased to
appear before this committee today. On behalf of our 275,000 members,
the National Trust advocates for the protection of the built
environment as well as natural landscapes of historic and cultural
significance. The integrity, indeed, the very existence of these
resources, are threatened by poor planning and inappropriate
development.
America today is engaged in a great national debate. It's a debate
about sprawl. The central question in the debate is this: Will we
continue to allow haphazard growth to consume more countryside in ways
that drain the vitality out of our cities while eroding the quality of
life virtually everywhere? Or will we choose instead to use our land
more sensibly and to revitalize our older neighborhoods and downtowns,
thereby enhancing the quality of life for everyone?
The debate touches every aspect of our lives--the quality of the
natural and built environments, how we feel about the places where we
live and work and play, how much time we have for our family and civic
life, how rooted we are in our communities. I believe that this debate
will frame one of the most important political issues of the first
decade of the 21st century. Ultimately, its outcome will determine
whether the American dream will become a reality for future
generations.
Preservation is in the business of saving special places and the
quality of life they support, and sprawl destroys both. It devours
historic landscapes. It makes the strip malls and subdivisions on the
edge of Washington look like those on the edge of Albuquerque or
Birmingham or any other American city. It drains the life out of older
communities, stops their economic pulse and often puts them in
intensive care--or sometimes even the morgue.
Sprawl reminds me of Justice Stewart's remark about pornography:
It's hard to define, but you know it when you see it. In simple terms,
sprawl is the poorly planned, low-density, auto-oriented development
that spreads out from the edges of communities. But it is best defined
by the way it affects us in our daily lives.
Winston Churchill said, ``We shape our buildings, and then our
buildings shape us.'' The same holds true for communities: The way we
shape them has a huge impact on the way we feel, the way we interact
with one another, the way we live. By harming our communities, sprawl
touches us all--and one way or another, we all pay for it.
We pay in open space and farmland lost. Since 1950 the State of
Pennsylvania has lost more than 4 million acres of farmland; that's an
area larger than Connecticut and Rhode Island combined. Metropolitan
Phoenix now covers an area the size of Delaware. It's estimated that
over the next 45 years, sprawl in the Central Valley of California will
affect more than 3.6 million acres of America's most productive
farmland.
We pay in time lost. A study last year reported that each of us
here in Washington spends about 59 hours a year--the equivalent of a
week and a half of work--stuck in traffic. The price tag for time and
fuel wasted is roughly $860 annually for every man, woman and child in
the Washington area. In Los Angeles, the average speed on the freeways
is expected to drop to 11 miles per hour by 2010. A new term--''road
rage''--has been coined to describe drivers frustration over traffic.
We pay in higher taxes. Over the decades, we've handed over our tax
dollars to pay for infrastructure and services--things like police and
fire protection, water and sewer lines, schools and streetlights--in
our communities. Now we're being asked to pay higher taxes to duplicate
those services in sprawling new developments, while the infrastructure
we've already paid for lies abandoned or under used in our older city
centers and suburbs. Even worse, local governments use our tax dollars
to offer incentives and writeoffs to sprawl developers--in effect,
rewarding them for consuming our landscape and weakening our older
communities.
Finally, we pay in the steady erosion of our quality of life. Inner
cities have become enclaves of poverty. Long, frustrating commutes
leave us less time with our families. Tranquil neighborhoods are
destroyed by road-widening. Historic landmarks get demolished and
carted off to the landfill. Every place winds up looking more and more
like Noplace. These signs point to an inescapable fact: Sprawl and its
byproducts represent the number one threat to community livability in
America today. And in a competitive global marketplace, livability is
the factor that will determine which communities thrive and which ones
wither. Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Solow puts it this way:
``Livability is not some middle-class luxury. It is an economic
imperative.''
Sprawl is finally getting the attention it deserves. It was the
subject of major initiatives announced by the President and the Vice
President in back-to-back speeches in January.
Bipartisan caucuses focusing on smart growth and community
livability have been formed in both the House and Senate. Governors
across the political spectrum have announced programs to control sprawl
and encourage smart growth. The Urban Land Institute, the American
Institute of Architects, the National Governors Association, and
foundations and nonprofit organizations of every stripe hold seminars
and workshops on sprawl. Last November, voters from Cape Cod to
California overwhelmingly approved some 200 ballot initiatives related
to growth management and urban revitalization.
All this attention is welcome. Sprawl is a national problem, and it
needs a national debate. But the debate shouldn't focus on finding a
national solution, because there isn't one. There are two essential
elements in any effective program to combat sprawl: sensible land-use
planning and the revitalization of existing communities. These are
issues traditionally and best handled at the State and local levels--
and that, in the end, is where the fight against sprawl will be won or
lost. But the Federal Government also has a crucial role to play in the
process.
There are obviously many factors such as crime, drugs and bad
schools and public services that have helped propel the exodus of
people and jobs from our central cities, but that exodus has been
greatly facilitated--even accelerated--by the effects of Federal
policies. Sometimes these effects have been intended and sometimes they
have been inadvertent, but in most cases they have been profound.
Because the Federal Government has contributed so heavily to the
problem, it has a clear duty to help find solutions.
It can--and should--do so in four ways:
First, it should correct policies that encourage or reward sprawl.
The direct role of Federal policies and investments in promoting
suburban development at the expense of cities is difficult to pin down.
It's never been systematically studied. But we do have a very good idea
where to look, because sprawl-friendly policies and practices exist in
almost every Federal agency. I'll mention only a few examples.
The Federal tax code, in all its complexity, is heavily tilted
toward new development and the consumption of open space. The tax code
has historically subsidized upper middle class homeownership in the
suburbs. It needs to put at least as much emphasis on promoting
opportunities for revitalization and stabilization of older
communities. Federal tax policy needs to provide incentives--which are
currently lacking--for middle-class and moderate-income households to
become urban homeowners.
Nearly 17 million people work directly or indirectly for the
Federal Government. With a work force that size, decisions about where
the government locates its offices can have a huge impact on a
community's economic health. Executive Order 12072, signed by President
Carter, and Executive Order 13006, signed by President Clinton, require
the General Services Administration and other Federal agencies to look
first at downtowns and historic buildings and areas when considering
where to locate Federal facilities. Since the 1980's, there has been a
growing trend toward Federal agencies leaving downtowns and locating in
new suburban developments.
Unfortunately, implementation of these executive orders has been
spotty and inconsistent, with agency heads continuing to pressure the
GSA for locations in new developments. Right now, for example, in the
small, economically depressed town of Glasgow, Montana, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture is putting its county of lice in a new
building that will be constructed in pasture land on the edge of town.
A suitable downtown building was available, but USDA rejected it
because the parking lot is a block away instead of right next door.
Relocating post offices to suburban sites can also deal a body blow
to a small-town Main Street--and put historic buildings at risk as
well. Because post offices serve an important role in the social and
business life of many towns, the U. S. Postal Service needs to give
communities more say in where these essential facilities are to be
located. I want to take this opportunity to commend Senator Baucus, who
along with Senator Jeffords and Congressman Blumenauer, has championed
the Post Office Community Partnership Act, which would establish
minimum citizen involvement requirements that would apply to the
renovation, relocation, closing, or consolidation of post of rices, and
requires the Postal Service to comply with any local zoning or building
codes imposed at the State or local level.
The list goes on and on, but the biggest offender of all is Federal
transportation policy, which can be summed up in a short phrase: ``feed
the car, starve the alternative.'' As Jessica Mathews wrote a while ago
in the Washington Post, ``Americans are not irrationally car-crazed. We
seem wedded to the automobile because policy after. . . policy. . .
encourages us to be.'' Transportation officials generally try to
``solve'' problems by building more roads--an approach which is often
like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt.
People need transportation choices and communities need balanced
transportation systems. Historically, Federal policy hasn't done a good
job of offering them--but that is changing, thanks to your leadership,
Mr. Chairman, and this committee's, in building on the vision of ISTEA
through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
TEA-21 encourages planning that looks beyond irrelevant political
boundaries and allows for greater citizen and local government
participation in making transportation investment decisions. Now that
TEA-2 1 is law, we need to move forward with the hard work of
implementation at the State and local levels to fulfill its promise.
First and foremost, however, fulfillment of the goals of TEA-21
provides a great opportunity for the Federal Department of
Transportation to take a leadership role in urging the States to take
full advantage of this landmark legislation.
Second, the Federal Government should reward States and communities
that promote smart growth and help revitalize existing communities.
Being anti-sprawl is not being anti-growth. The question is not
whether our communities should grow, but rather how they will grow.
More and more people--private citizens and public officials alike--are
realizing that the answer to that question lies in sensible land-use
planning.
Three States have recently launched different efforts to manage
sprawl. Last May, Tennessee passed a law that requires counties and
municipalities to adopt ``growth plans'' which, among other things, set
firm boundaries for new development and public services. Closer to
home, Governor Glendening's Smart Growth initiative in Maryland is one
of the most innovative--and potentially one of the most significant--in
the country. Under Governor Whitman's leadership, residents of New
Jersey have approved up to $98 million in tax revenue annually for
conservation and historic preservation; over 10 years this measure will
protect a million acres of land--a marvelous gift to future
generations.
We should encourage efforts like these in other States. I suggest
that we design a Federal ``smart growth scorecard''--a system that
favors sensible, sustainable growth and evaluates the effectiveness
with which States and communities meet that test. States that amend
their building codes to make them more ``rehab-friendly'' or that
remove their constitutional ban against the use of State gas tax
revenues for mass transit projects, for example, are taking positive
steps to fight sprawl and restore communities. They ought to be
rewarded. The Federal scorecard would give States credit for
initiatives such as these and would give smart-growth projects an edge
in the competition for Federal funds.
Third, the Federal Government should promote regional cooperation
as a key to effective control of sprawl.
Metropolitan areas now contain close to 80 percent of the total
U.S. population. Half the people in this country now live in just 39
metropolitan areas. But governmental structures in no way reflect this
reality.
Urban decline and sprawl are practically guaranteed wherever there
is a balkanized system of local jurisdictions. There's a perfect
example right here in Washington, where our metropolitan area is a
patchwork quilt comprising two States, the District of Columbia, a
dozen counties and a score of municipalities--each with its own budget,
each following its own agenda.
When it comes to sprawl, city limits and county lines are often
meaningless marks on a map. Limited jurisdiction makes it hard for
local government to deal with an issue of this magnitude, and efforts
to control sprawl in a limited area often just shift the problem from
one community to another. It's like trying to stop a flood with a
picket fence.
States need to encourage local governments in the same region to
better coordinate their land-use and transportation plans, and the
Federal Government can help a great deal by simply providing basic
information that regions need. Much of this information--dealing with
things such as the geographic mismatch between workers and jobs and the
extent of out migration from cities to suburbs--already exists, but it
is difficult and expensive for localities to obtain. That's a fairly
easy problem to fix, and the Federal Government ought to do it.
While regionalism by itself does not curb sprawl, it can moderate
one of the engines of sprawl: the costly bidding wars between
neighboring jurisdictions for sprawl-type development that holds out
the hope for new tax revenues. Admittedly, the performance of some
regional governments has been lackluster, but in other areas--Portland,
Oregon, for example--regionalism is making a difference in addressing
the problems of sprawl and poorly managed growth. Encouraging and
assisting similar efforts all over the country should be a cornerstone
of Federal policy.
Happily, both Congress and the Clinton Administration are taking
steps to utilize Federal policy to promote responsible growth.
Enterprise zones and empowerment communities, the HUD Homeownership
Zones program, brownfields, and other programs are intended to spur
reinvestment in older areas. The ``Livability Agenda'' recently
announced by Vice President Gore proposes a major initiative to reduce
barriers to regional governance and to hind local partnerships that
pursue smart growth strategies across jurisdictional lines. This will
be the first flexible source of funding provided by the Federal
Government to promote smarter metropolitan growth.
Controlling sprawl is only half the battle, which brings me to the
fourth thing the Federal Government should do: provide incentives for
reinvestment in existing communities.
Discussions about the plight of the cities often overlook a simple
fact: When people leave the city it's not necessarily because they love
sprawl or hate urban life, but because leaving is the rational thing to
do. More than anything else, urban flight is an indictment of bad
schools, crime and poor public services. As if this ``push'' weren't
enough, people are ``pulled'' out of the city by policies and practices
that make homes and infrastructure in the suburbs less expensive and
easier to build.
In place of this ``push-pull'' combination, we need public policy
that favors existing communities. Fifty years ago the government began
to offer economic inducements to families that wanted to flee to the
suburbs; it's time to offer those same kinds of inducements to entice
middle-class residents to return to, or stay in, the city.
It all comes down to choosing where to make investments. If the
Federal Government chooses to pour Finding into more outer beltways and
more suburban infrastructure, sprawl will continue to spread like an
epidemic. But if the government makes a commitment to existing
communities, it can have an enormous, positive impact on the critical
need to keep people in urban neighborhoods and give others a reason to
move back to the city.
One way to do this is by enacting the Historic Homeownership
Assistance Act, which you, Mr. Chairman, have championed here in the
Senate, along with Senator Graham. This legislation would extend a
Federal tax credit to homeowners who renovate homes in historic
districts, giving residents of older neighborhoods incentives to stay
and invest in their community's future, and providing an incentive for
others to move back into the city. By offering a way to put
deteriorated property back on the tax rolls while making homeownership
more affordable for lower-income residents, this legislation could
greatly benefit communities all over the country. Obviously, this one
act won't solve America's urban problems--but it can help, and a step
in the right direction is better than standing still.
This is the missing piece of the Administration's Livability
Agenda, which includes a heavy focus on the preservation of open space.
There's no question that we need to speed up our efforts to protect
open space and farmland through land trusts, easements, the purchase of
development rights and other means. I should also mention at this point
that the National Trust endorses the Permanent Protection for America's
Resources 2000 Act, legislation introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer and
Congressman George Miller that would fully fund the Historic
Preservation Fund, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and other
programs and make them true trust funds by taking them ``off budget.''
Yet while saving greenspace is a very good thing, but it's not
enough by itself. We could buy all the open land in the country and
still not solve the problem of sprawl. The National Trust supports
expanding eligible activities for the Administration's proposed Better
America Bonds program to include infill construction on brown fields,
and historic preservation. The proposed Lands Legacy Program should be
broadened to include full funding of the Historic Preservation Fund at
$150 million for Fiscal Year 2000.
We also need to focus energies and resources on reclaiming the
streets and neighborhoods where people live--the towns, inner cities
and older suburbs that we've neglected so badly for the past half
century. We must develop housing policies and programs that advance the
goal of economic integration of our communities and lessen the
concentration of poor households in inner-city areas. We must attract
middle-income families back to the towns and cities, and we must
generate reinvestment in lower income neighborhoods. At a minimum, we
need to protect the Community Reinvestment Act, which requires that
financial institutions help meet the credit needs of their communities,
including low and moderate income areas, consistent with safe and sound
lending practices. CRA is currently threatened by banking modernization
legislation that has been reported out of the Senate Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs Committee.
In fighting sprawl, we're dealing with an issue that undermines
many of the national goals and values that we've embraced over the
years. The provision of affordable housing, improved mobility, a clean
environment, the transition from welfare to work, the livability and
economic health of our communities--all of these are undermined by
sprawl. In fact, there is scarcely a single national problem that is
not exacerbated by sprawl or that would not be alleviated if sprawl
were better contained.
We can continue turning much of our nation into a tragic patchwork
of ruined cities and spoiled countryside, or we can insist on sensible
Federal policies that strengthen communities instead of scattering them
randomly across the landscape. I want to commend you,
Mr. Chairman, and your colleagues, for demonstrating leadership on
this issue by holding this hearing.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before this
committee.
______
Responses by Richard Moe to Additional Questions from Senator
Lautenberg
Question: Many people have pointed out the connection between
abandonment of inner cities, particularly in areas where possible
contamination of a former industrial or small business site may make
redevelopment difficult, and urban sprawl.
Do you think that having legislation which would help providing
funding for site investigations and loans for cleanup would help
encourage re-use of these sites? Would this then help alleviate
pressure to develop in new, outer areas? Would legislation which
relieved purchasers of such sites also help encourage re-use of these
sites? Specifically, would the legislation I introduced earlier this
year, S. 20, help achieve these goals?
Response. The National Trust believes that appropriate additional
incentives for the cleanup and redevelopment of abandoned industrial
sites would be beneficial for the revitalization of cities and the
redirection of investment from new outer areas to older urban
neighborhoods. Environmental remediation is a significant input cost to
redevelopment and, we understand, a principal reason why new
development in untouched greenfields is more economically attractive to
developers.
The National Trust urges Congress to pursue appropriate legislative
remedies, but as this subject is outside of our realm of expertise, we
are not in a position to endorse any legislative proposals at this
time.
__________
Statement of Kathryn Hohmann, Director, Environmental Quality Program,
The Sierra Club
Mr Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Kathryn
Hohmann. I'm Director of the Sierra Club's Environmental Quality
Program. I'm very grateful that the committee has asked the Sierra Club
to offer testimony on the critical issue of sprawl.
The Sierra Club is a national, grassroots environmental
organization. We are the country's oldest environmental organization,
with more than a half-million members who belong to more than 65
chapters and 450 groups.
Our Board of Directors biannually polls our membership to determine
what issues are of greatest concern to our grassroots activists across
the country. What we discovered was that while every place in America
is unique, the problem of sprawl is ubiquitous. Sprawl and
overdevelopment are threatening Connecticut's Traprock Ridges and
California's San Mateo Creek in Orange County; New Jersey's Highlands,
Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay and Puget Sound salmon in Washington
State. Our activists chose sprawl as one of the worst threats facing
their communities, and the Sierra Club adopted the Challenge to Sprawl
campaign as one of our top priorities at the local, State and national
level. But this work is not new; our members have been collaborating
with local communities for more sensible development in a locally
driven, publicly supported, grassroots campaign to stop sprawl. The
goal of our program is to help communities pursue development that
doesn't come at the expense of our clean air, clean water, open space,
wildlife habitat, and public health and safety.
The public is clearly concerned about urban sprawl and its
consequences to the quality of their environment and their daily lives.
A key component of the Sierra Club's campaign to fight sprawl has been
oriented toward supporting local efforts. These efforts have focused on
educating the public about steps that they can take to combat this
menace and organizing the various stakeholders to create a clear public
demand for actions to curb sprawl, protect open space and promote smart
growth. Some examples of these local campaigns follow.
In Utah, we're fighting urban sprawl, air pollution, and wetlands
destruction by organizing and energizing local opposition to the
proposed Legacy Highway, focusing and amplifying demand by the citizens
of Salt Lake City, hunters and anglers, and family farmers for stronger
measures to halt urban sprawl. Through the media, organizing community
events, and hiring experts to expose the local metropolitan planning
office's faulty modeling, elected officials were convinced to develop
anti-sprawl open space preservation plans. More recently, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has come out in opposition to the
Legacy Highway, a move we applaud.
In Georgia, we are working with homeowners, conservationists, and
others to rein in uncontrolled growth and highway construction by
pushing for environment-friendly transit alternatives. We helped to
generate support for shifting priorities for new transportation
projects in the Atlanta Region from road construction to alternatives
such as commuter rail transit and pedestrian facilities. Sprawl has
emerged as a local priority issue--the Governor is discussing smart
growth, and homeowners associations are working to improve local
environmental law enforcement, including tree protection and
sedimentation control.
In Arizona, we are working to preserve the Sonoran desert and other
remaining natural areas by helping our neighbors fight suburban sprawl
and reckless development. We successfully combined our organizing
outreach with our outings program by taking members of the media to the
top 10 endangered natural areas in and around Phoenix. In addition, we
developed a comprehensive Arizona sprawl report, which documents the
problems associated with urban sprawl and advances policy
recommendations.
In Washington, DC and Virginia, we are fighting sprawl by promoting
public transit and smart growth that saves taxes, prevents pollution,
and protects open space--with the particular goals of securing long-
term protection for Chapman Forest and stimulating opposition to the
12-lane Inter-County Connector. In Washington, DC, promoting urban
reinvestment and fighting suburban sprawl has become a prominent part
of the agenda. In central Virginia, our ``Tale of Two Counties'' slide
show has stimulated serious study by several counties on how to
preserve open space and farmland. We continue to work closely with the
Mattaponi American Indian Tribe in Virginia to defeat the King William
Reservoir that would promote sprawl development.
The Sierra Club employs a variety of techniques designed to educate
communities on the impacts of sprawl. ``Sprawl Costs Us All'' reports
have been published in Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin to highlight
the local economic consequences of sprawl. Elected officials, the media
and volunteers have taken ``Tours de Sprawl,'' which illustrate the
best and worst types of development. ``Tours de Sprawl'' have been
conducted in Arizona; Washington DC; Madison, WI; Richmond, VA; and
Chicago.
Although these have been very successful efforts, local efforts
alone are not enough. The problems of sprawl can only be solved by a
concerted and continuing effort at the local, State and Federal levels.
The causes, costs and consequences of sprawl go far beyond the
issues that the environmental community has traditionally faced. But in
order to deal with sprawl, we need to understand how inter-related
problems like traffic gridlock, urban livability and global climate
change ultimately are. It was, after all, our founder John Muir who
said that ``when we try to pick out anything in the universe, we find
it hooked to everything else.'' So just as sprawl has presented us with
broad, far-reaching problems, we will need to bring to bear long-term,
innovative and cost-cutting solutions.
Traffic congestion is one consequence of sprawl. Sprawl gives
people no choice but to drive further to get from home to work. In
Washington, DC, the time commuters spent stuck in traffic climbed 69
percent between 1982 and 1994--and you can bet they didn't make up for
that increased time by working fewer hours. Longer commutes lead to
parents who are more tired and have less time available to spend with
their children. In Atlanta, where motorists now lead the Nation in
miles driven per person per day, air pollution is so bad the area has
lost Federal highway funds for failing to meet clean air standards.
Worsening water pollution is another consequence of sprawl. One of
the most damaging aspects of sprawl is run-off from pavement. As
America's green space gets bulldozed by developers, polluted run-off
adds sediment and chemicals into our waterways, degrading our drinking
water and spoiling recreational opportunities like fishing and
swimming. In Seattle, development around Puget Sound is being blamed
for the polluted water and habitat destruction that has resulted in the
proposed Endangered Species listing of chinook salmon.
Our wetlands--nature's water filters and flood-stopping sponges--
are vulnerable, too. Each year in the U.S., we allow more than 100,000
acres of wetlands to be destroyed. Some of those wetlands are the last
wild places in our communities, and some serve as nurseries for
abundant, multi-billion dollar fisheries, but they are going fast.
Wetland destruction has been shown to increase flooding in Illinois and
other States.
Sprawl threatens our rural legacy, too. And the rate of development
is accelerating. The American Farmland Trust reports that we are losing
1 million acres of farmland per year to sprawl.
There are economic, as well as environmental consequences to
sprawl. Planners in Minneapolis-St. Paul estimate it will cost $3.1
billion for just the new water and sewage services that will be needed
to accommodate projected growth between now and 2020. And crowded
schools are a legacy for many families in suburbs today.
Sprawling suburbs burden local communities by demanding higher
taxes for new water and sewer lines, extra schools and buses, expanded
police and fire protection.
Who pays for the big sewer line out to the middle of nowhere?
Residents in the existing parts of town and us taxpayers, that's who.
Sprawl costs our cities and counties millions of dollars, and those
costs are not offset by the taxes paid by the new users. Instead,
sprawl forces higher taxes on existing residents, some of them cash-
strapped seniors or other low-income taxpayers.
Urban areas and older, declining suburbs don't escape the harmful
effects of sprawl. As families flee to the countryside, a city's tax
base disappears, forcing mayors to raise taxes on remaining taxpayers
to pay for city services. And the so-called ``brownfields'' don't get
cleaned up, because businesses are given incentives to relocate to
outer ``greenbelts.'' Sprawl destroys downtown commerce by pulling
shoppers from once-thriving locally owned stores and restaurants to
large regional malls. Unemployment, lowered property values, and fewer
investment opportunities all result when cities lose their vitality and
livability.
Sprawl is serious, it's hurting us all, and it's getting worse--
fast. That's why last November, voters from California to Cape Cod--
Democrats and Republicans alike--approved more than 150 ballot
initiatives dealing with growth management, land use and urban
revitalization. In New Jersey, voters--even in the State's tax-adverse
Republican counties--overwhelmingly approved the use of a billion
dollars in tax revenue to conserve open space and farmland.
Solving the sprawl problem will require innovation, and government
will need to play a role. But what is needed is not more government,
but more government leadership. In fact, the State, local and Federal
Government will need to do less of some things. Government must stop
building highways that encourage sprawl and stop subsidizing wetlands
destruction and home construction in floodplains where perennial losses
are costing taxpayers billions of dollars. Government must stop giving
grants and tax incentives that encourage developers to fragment
wildlife habitat and countryside, and avoid locating Federal facilities
outside of existing developed areas.
Governments must also play a positive role. For example, States can
encourage or require comprehensive planning and can channel State funds
to existing urban areas. The Federal Government can be constructive,
too, by putting real funding into transportation choices, and then
supporting taxpayer incentives for transit use.
The Federal Government can also support conservation easements that
allow landowners to donate development rights to their land to
conservation organizations. In turn, those landowners may receive
income--property--and estate-tax relief. The Federal Government can
reform the policies that allow construction, and reconstruction, in
flood plains, listening to its own experts in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency who warn against future disasters if this wrong-
headed policy continues. And the Federal Government can halt the
practice of rubber-stamping wetlands destruction when developers want
to build in these precious areas. Comprehensive, speedy cleanup of the
``brownfields'' in urban areas could also help in our battle against
sprawl.
Congress can act to usher the Clinton Administration's Livable
Communities and Land Legacy programs initiatives into law. Full funding
for innovative programs such as the Better America Bonds would be a
great first step.
The Better America Bonds would allow the Federal Government to
partner with local communities to finance environmental protection and
reduce sprawl. These bonds would allow local governments and nonprofit
organizations to buy land at today's prices and forgo interest payments
for 15 years. This means that communities can act now to preserve the
places they hold dear, whether it's a fishing spot along a stream or a
wildlife haven in a forest.
The Better America Bonds program will provide $700 million in new
tax credits, but it would be much more than that. It would be, over 5
years, nearly $10 million in bonding authority for communities to shape
own their futures in a way that's environmentally positive.
We believe that the Better America Bonds could help local
governments purchase land or work to repair environmental damage,
creating healthier, safer, greener communities. Bondholders will
receive an annual Federal tax credit in lieu of interest payments.
Local governments, or their nonprofit partners, will pay off the
principal at the end of the 15-year term of the bonds.
Our local communities are now using bonds for their infrastructure
needs, so why not use them to pay for long-term benefits like
preserving open space? Better America Bonds could complement our
Federal land acquisition programs by allowing us to finance local land
and water conservation. The control stays in communities; the Federal
role is limited to assisting with financing for qualified projects.
Local governments or nonprofit groups will manage land and
improvements. The Sierra Club urges this committee to support this
innovative program.
Providing special protections for our most precious wildlands, from
national treasures like the Mojave National Park and Preserve to the
``small and sacred places'' in our very backyards, is an essential tool
for easing the effects of sprawl. For over a hundred years, we have
been setting aside special places so that they may be preserved for
future generations. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (``LWCF''),
which provides funds for State and Federal land acquisition, has been a
valuable tool in these efforts for almost 40 years.
However, only a fraction of the annual $900 million promised to the
LWCF from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas revenues has ever made it
into the Fund's yearly budget. Obtaining full and permanent funding for
the LWCF is a top priority for the Sierra Club and we are pleased to
see all the bills being considered by Congress share this goal. We
welcome efforts to pass legislation that will ensure protection of our
nation's special places and wildlife.
Senator Boxer's ``Resources 2000 Act'' (S. 446) most clearly
embodies the principles we believe are essential for OCS-related
conservation legislation. We strongly support the bill's full funding
levels for both Federal and stateside LWCF. This level of funding will
allow us to purchase valuable wildlands from willing sellers, providing
much needed added protection for our most precious National Wildlife
Refuges, Parks, Forests and BLM-managed protected areas. Landmark
efforts would include further protection of such spectacular places as
the Mojave and Joshua Tree National Parks, the Maine Woods, and the
Everglades National Park. Resources 2000 would provide $450 million in
stateside funding as well, giving States and local governments the
resources they need to fight the effects of sprawl, and set aside
valuable wildlife habitat and open space.
The Sierra Club supports efforts to provide funding for wildlife
conservation and protection, as well as programs for urban parks and
recreation, historic preservation, coastal and marine resources
restoration, and farm and rangeland conservation. Senator Boxer's bill
would provide $1.3 billion in funding for these valuable programs.
Finally, we strongly support the Endangered and Threatened Species
Recovery title of S. 446. Resources 2000 would provide $100 million
annually in dedicated funds to assist private landowners in the
development and implementation of endangered and threatened species
recovery agreements. Unlike other proposed landowner incentives
programs, S. 446 applies only to programs that contribute to the goal
of recovery and would be restricted to purely voluntary activities not
otherwise required under law.
We also applaud Sen. Feinstein's efforts to guarantee full and
permanent funding for both the LWCF and the Urban Parks and Recreation
Recovery Program (``UPARR'') and recognize that her continued support
on this issue is essential. Sen. Feinstein's ``Public Land and
Recreation Reinvestment Act'' (S. 532) represents a positive step
toward full and permanent funding for the LWCF and UPARR.
We are pleased that many sponsors of the various OCS-related
conservation bills appear committed to working together to devise
effective conservation legislation. It is encouraging that all parties
share the goal of crafting legislation that provides full and permanent
funding for the LWCF and other valuable conservation programs. However,
we maintain serious concerns about several provisions in one of these
bills, S. 25 by Senators Landrieu and Murkowski.
Although S. 25 shares the goal of funding important natural
resource protection and wildlife programs, it does so at the expense of
our coastal environment. In its current form, S. 25 ties funding from a
new State and local government matching grants program, created from
offshore drilling revenue, directly to the proximity of offshore oil
and gas development. This may provide a substantial incentive for
coastal States and local governments to promote stepped-up production.
In addition, through this new fund, the Murkowski/Landrieu bill
lavishes a disproportionate share of the public's money on a half dozen
States and shortchanges the rest of America. To the contrary, Resources
2000 distributes funds from the LWCF, as well as other new programs
funded from offshore drilling revenues, equitably across the country.
We are also deeply concerned about the restrictions this bill
places on LWCF funds. The bill would place a ban on land purchases in
excess of $5 million without further Congressional approval.
Acquisitions in the Mojave National Preserve have already been
authorized and the seller there is ready and willing. A nonprofit
conservancy organization is willing to contribute substantial amounts
to acquire these inholdings. All that is needed to permanently protect
these valuable lands is the LWCF money. The proposed restriction would
hamper our ability to protect this special place and tie the hands of
Federal land managers, restricting their ability to carry out
activities already authorized by law.
In addition, S. 25 requires that two-thirds of yearly funding be
spent east of the 100th meridian. We oppose this arbitrary geographic
limitation, as it also interferes with land managers ability to
effectively protect our most valuable wildlands, and will impede years
of progress on several ongoing projects in the West. A third
restriction on the use of Federal LWCF funds would prevent acquisition
outside the exterior boundaries of our current land management system,
seriously impeding the creation of any new units in our Federal lands
protection system. For instance, a program for Everglades restoration
that has been years in the making would be effectively discontinued, as
a key element to the program is land acquisition outside Park
boundaries for water storage capacity.
Some local communities are light years ahead of the Federal
Government when it comes to building healthy, livable communities, and
that's the way it should be. Communities that used smart growth
policies to guide their growth have seen great rewards. A study by the
Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments showed that Michigan
communities with smart growth policies saved $53 million in road costs,
$33 million in sewer costs, cut housing costs by 6.4 percent and
reduced the destruction of open land by 12 percent.
But communities can't stop sprawl on their own. The Federal
Government must stop subsidizing sprawl and start developing solutions
to the environmental, health, and economic consequences of continued
sprawl. The Sierra Club looks forward to working with this committee
and the rest of Congress to develop and pass policies that will stop
sprawl from hurting us all.
Healthy, livable suburban communities are not an impossibility.
They are what Americans are demanding for their families, for their
future.
Thank you.
__________
Statement of Steven Hayward, Senior Fellow, Pacific Research Institute
for Public Policy
I am Steven Hayward, senior fellow with the Pacific Research
Institute in San Francisco, and until a few weeks ago a visiting fellow
in urban issues at the Heritage Foundation. The Pacific Research
Institute studies a wide range of issues in political economy, and
favors policies that employ market remedies and individual incentives.
I have been conducting research and writing about growth management and
environmental issues for more than 10 years.
The best way to begin putting the current debate on urban sprawl
into some context is to make recourse to that proverbial barometer of
public sentiment, the taxi driver. Not long ago I was in a taxi on
route from Lindbergh Field in St. Louis to an appointment in St.
Charles County, which is where the suburban sprawl of the greater St.
Louis area is taking place. Looking for some local insight, I asked the
driver what he thought about what was going on there. ``Man,'' he told
me, ``they're building so fast out here there isn't going to be any
land left.'' I asked where he lived. ``I live in the City of St.
Louis,'' he told me; but he quickly added without any prompt from me:
``But I'm going to move out here. The quality of life is so much
better; you get much more value for your housing dollar.''
This is what social psychologists have long termed ``cognitive
dissonance'' the ability to keep two contradictory thoughts in mind and
be relatively untroubled by it. As Jim Johnson, recently retired as
chairman of Fannie Mae, neatly summarizes it: The American people are
against two things they're against sprawl, and they're against density.
What I want to suggest is that there is a lot of cognitive dissonance,
misperception, and lack of proportion in the current discourse about
sprawl, open space and agricultural land preservation, and urban form.
One should begin with a quick reference to aggregate land use
statistics. The total amount of urbanized or built-up land is less than
5 percent of the total land area in the continental U.S., and the rate
of land being developed, based on U.S. Geological Survey estimates, is
about 0.07 percent. Some evidence suggests that the rate of ``sprawl''
is actually lower today than it was in the 1950's and 1960's. The
``sprawl index,'' a simple comparison of population growth and the rate
of urbanization, has actually declined since 1980. Moreover, since the
end of World War II, the amount of land set aside for parks,
wilderness, and wildlife has grown twice as fast as urban areas. In
1969, there were 2.6 acres of conservation land for every acre or
urbanized land; today there are about 4 acres of conservation land for
every acre of urbanized land. (These figures exclude national parks and
agricultural conservation land programs.) And private land conservation
efforts are booming.
These kind of aggregate national statistics are almost irrelevant
to the politics of the issue. I am reminded of President Roosevelt's
famous quip to critics of the long-run effects of the New Deal:
``People don't eat in the long run; they eat every day.'' Similarly,
nearly every piece of open space that yields to the bulldozer occurs in
the line of sight of a populated area where people live now, and the
change and disruption it brings locally trumps the fact that the land
area in question represents a statistically miniscule portion of the
whole.
The aversion to rapid change is the dominant social fact behind the
controversy over sprawl, and it is enhanced by a second powerful social
fact: the increasing latitude for choice that people have today. Thirty
years ago, for example, our phones were the property of the monopoly
phone company; today we choose our long distance provider. While the
main story line of modern life I expanding choice and opportunity,
rapid urban growth is seen as narrowing our range of choice and
diminishing our control over our own destiny. In its most acute form,
we are less able to choose when and where to drive because of traffic
congestion. And when people do not have a sense that they can control
events themselves, they earnestly wish that someone else the government
would.
Most of the ideas that make up the conventional wisdom on the
subject at the moment, such as urban growth boundaries and, to a lesser
extent, the bundle of ideas that go under the banner of ``smart
growth,'' are misguided, because they misperceive much of what is
happening in urban areas (especially the increase in traffic
congestion), and as remedies they would be ineffective in solving the
main problems associated with growth.
Explaining why this is so would take a lot longer than 5 minutes,
so let me mention the single most important reason for being cautious
about embracing ambitious land-use regulation schemes or other measures
that will distort the land market. A century of experience with
regulation of various kinds has taught us that regulation typically
favors the affluent and the organized over the less affluent and less
organized. There are few groups less organized or represented than the
people who would benefit from the houses and jobs that do not yet
exist. Many of the advocates of ``smart growth'' will tell you that
this is not a debate about growth per se, but is a debate about the
form growth should take. While I take them at their word at this, I
think we are being naive if we fail to recognize that growth management
schemes can easily become the machinery of negation by existing
residents. To pick a nearby example, the angry voters attending Fairfax
County Commission meetings are not arguing over the form of
development: they simply want less of it because, as several told the
Washington Post a few months ago, our housing values are stagnant
because the county is allowing too many homes to be built.
Everyone's favorite model for enlightened growth management these
days Portland, Oregon is starting to show the same kind of exclusionary
effects that have long been observable in the boutique regions of
Boulder, Colorado, and Santa Barbara and Marin Counties in California:
disproportionately rising housing prices (see table below), and signs
that in-migration is being deterred, which is no doubt what many
Oregonians had in mind all along. The Wall Street Journal recently
carried a short news item regarding the rising number of people moving
out of Oregon the only western State where this can be observed.
Federal policy, whether funding for open space purchases, or
infrastructure policy such as ISTEA, should guard against the potential
for exclusionary effects. This is very difficult to do. A more
effective alternative to land use regulation would be variable rate
road pricing, which would not only affect individual incentives for the
time of day and amount of driving people do, but would also become a
factor in site-selection decisions for business location. Both would
help encourage more compact and efficient use of land and roads.
Median Home Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing
1990 1998 90-98% Cost
Increase Index\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland.................................................... 79,500 160,000 102.0 121.7
Salt Lake City.............................................. 69,400 133,300 92.1 96.5
Phoenix..................................................... 84,000 121,900 45.1 103.3
Las Vegas................................................... 93,000 130,800 40.6 104.7
Denver...................................................... 86,400 149,100 72.6 103.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 1996 HCI, U.S Census Bureau (median income related to median housing prices; U.S. average = 100)
Note the contrast with the ``sprawling'' cities of Phoenix and Las Vegas.
__________
Statement of Gary Garczynski, National Association of Home Builders
Where We Live, Work and Play
The concept of ``Smart Growth'' has exploded onto the national
consciousness as one of the most critical issues confronting America
today. It touches on choices we Americans hold close to our hearts--
where we live, work and play, the education of our children, commute
times to work, and the economic and job opportunities created by new
growth in our communities. It is an idea that addresses the questions
of how best to plan for and manage growth, when and where new
residential and commercial development as well as schools and major
highways should be built and located and how to pay for the
infrastructure required to serve a growing population.
In its broadest sense, Smart Growth means meeting the underlying
demand for housing created by an ever-increasing population and
prosperous economy by building a political consensus and employing
market-sensitive and innovative land-use planning concepts. It means
understanding that suburban job growth and the strong desire to live in
single-family homes will continue to encourage growth in suburbia. At
the same time, Smart Growth means meeting that housing demand in
``smarter ways'' by planning for and building to higher densities,
preserving meaningful open space and protecting environmentally
sensitive areas.
The key elements of NAHB's Smart Growth strategy include the
following:
Anticipating and planning for economic development and growth in a
timely, orderly and predictable manner;
Establishing a long-term comprehensive plan in each local
jurisdiction that makes available an ample supply of land for
residential, commercial, recreational and industrial uses as well as
taking extra care to set aside meaningful open space and to protect
environmentally sensitive areas;
Removing barriers to allow innovative land-use planning techniques
to be used in building higher density and mixed use developments as
well as in-fill developments in suburban and inner-city neighborhoods;
Planning and constructing new schools, roads, water and sewer
treatment facilities and other public infrastructure in a timely manner
to keep pace with the current and future demand for housing, and
finding a fair and broad-based way to underwrite the costs of
infrastructure investment that benefits the entire community;
Achieving a reasonable balance in the land-use planning process by
using innovative planning concepts to protect the environment and
preserve meaningful open space, improve traffic flow, relieve
overcrowded schools and enhance the quality of life for all residents;
and
Ensuring that the process for reviewing site-specific land
development applications is reasonable, predictable and fair for
applicants and contiguous neighbors.
Most important, Smart Growth is understanding the aspirations of
Americans--the very people comprehensive growth plans are intended to
serve--while protecting the environment and quality of life for all
Americans. Where do people want to live? What type of homes do they
want for themselves and their children? What can they afford? What
types of jobs and economic opportunities do they seek and expect?
Ironically, the concept of Smart Growth has emerged on the 50th
anniversary of the nation's 1949 National Housing Act, the landmark
bill in which Congress first set forth the national goal of ``providing
a decent home in a suitable living environment for every American
family.''
Housing's Record Accomplishments
Since then, the achievements of the housing industry have been
nothing short of remarkable. In the past 50 years, home builders have
built nearly 75 million new homes and apartment units, or three of
every four housing units in the country today. Millions more have been
remodeled and rehabilitated. The homeownership rate has increased from
44 percent to a record 66.3 percent today. And, in recent years, a
strong economy, low interest rates and improvements in the housing
finance system have opened the door to homeownership for millions of
minorities and immigrants previously unable to buy a home. The quality
of new housing has also improved steadily over the past 50 years,
making today's new homes more comfortable, more durable, easier to
maintain and much more energy-efficient than ever before.
The benefits of this housing growth reach far beyond the housing
market. New housing construction has helped lift the nation's economy
to new heights, creating millions of jobs in home building-related
industries each year. It has expanded the tax base and generated
billions of dollars of tax revenues for local governments, and
triggered spending for goods and services that accounts for about 4
cents of every dollar spent in the U.S. annually. It has also
contributed greatly to individual financial security, allowing
America's 69 million home-owning households to accumulate $5 trillion
in home equity, which accounts for close to half the net worth of those
households.
But the job of housing America is far from complete. The nation's
population is projected to grow by about 30 million people over the
next 10 years. More than a million new households are being formed
annually. America's home builders will have to construct between 1.3
and 1.5 million new housing units each year just to meet the underlying
demand for shelter during the next decade. This does not include the
additional housing units and support required to meet the housing needs
of more than 5 million Americans who still live in substandard housing
or pay more than 50 percent of their incomes for rent.
Building a Political Consensus
How well we plan for projected increases in households, changing
demographics and lifestyles and an expanding economy will have a major
impact on the quality of life in years ahead. When used properly as a
planning tool, Smart Growth can help expand homeownership opportunities
and allow Americans to obtain the home and lifestyle of their dreams.
There are some, however, who want to turn Smart Growth into a tool to
stop or slow growth. Such a move would penalize and put at greatest
risk those living at the edge of housing affordability--the young,
minorities, immigrants and moderate-income families who are just now
taking advantage of today's economic prosperity and low interest rates
and are entering the homeownership market in record numbers.
It is also worthwhile to note that residential and commercial
growth is fluid--meaning that when it is stopped in one place, it will
inevitably occur somewhere else. The forces of no growth are, in part,
responsible for the leapfrog development patterns of the past.
Attacking past development patterns and blaming builders does not
recognize the fact that public policy dictates where development
occurs. Such political rhetoric is not only wrong and counterproductive
but it polarizes the very people who should sit down together and work
out solutions on Smart Growth.
Understanding where people want to live and the homes they want to
live in is the first step in mapping the patterns of growth for America
in the decade ahead. Seeking common ground and building a political
consensus must follow. This discussion should start in each local
jurisdiction--city, county or township--because the politics of growth
are uniquely local and because the authority to determine land use is
vested in local government. While general planning principles are
useful, the actual planning tools and strategies selected will vary
according to local market conditions.
The Federal Government's role should be to encourage--not mandate--
local communities to adopt long-term comprehensive plans that will meet
the demand for new housing, public infrastructure and other services in
the decade ahead. The concept of purchasing open space should not be
used to block the path of development, a move that would exacerbate the
leapfrog development patterns of the past.
``Smart Growth'' Principles
The National Association of Home Builders endorses the concept of
Smart Growth as outlined in this statement. When used appropriately and
in concert with market forces, Smart Growth can serve as a blueprint
for planning and building an even better America in the years ahead. To
assist local communities in developing Smart Growth plans, NAHB
supports and encourages implementation of the following concepts:
Meeting the Nation's Housing Needs: As a fundamental part of any
``Smart Growth'' plan, a community must plan for and accommodate its
anticipated growth in economic activity, population and housing demand
as well as ongoing changes in demographics and lifestyles. For example,
when setting aside meaningful open space, a local community should
rezone other land to assure there is an ample supply of land available
for residential development. For the nation, annual increases in
population mean that America's home builders will have to construct
between 1.3 and 1.5 million new housing units per year to meet the
underlying demand for shelter. Meeting this demand for shelter and
increasing homeownership opportunities are compelling national goals
that must be addressed in every community's comprehensive growth plan.
It is the responsibility of every community to plan for and embrace the
growth that is naturally triggered by economic prosperity. I11Providing
a Wide Range of Housing Choices: NAHB recognizes the basic right of
every American to have a free choice in deciding where and in what kind
of home to live. In poll after poll, Americans continue to show a
strong preference for single-family homes in a suburban setting. In
fact, when asked in a recent survey whether they would prefer a single-
family home on an individual lot in an outlying suburban market versus
a smaller townhouse located near the urban core and closer to work and
mass transit, the vast majority of prospective home buyers chose the
detached single-family home. Communities should recognize these basic
preferences as part of any comprehensive planning process. NAHB
supports planning for growth that allows for a wide range of housing
types to suit the needs and income levels of a community's diverse
population, while recognizing ``smart ways'' to manage growth by
permitting higher densities, preserving open space and protecting
environmentally sensitive areas. And while recent gains in
homeownership rates are commendable, the dream of owning a home or
simply finding decent, affordable housing is still an ongoing struggle
for millions of American families. Any Smart Growth planning process,
therefore, should provide for affordable housing at all income levels.
A Comprehensive Process for Planning Growth: NAHB supports
comprehensive land-use planning that clearly identifies land to be made
available for residential, commercial, recreational and industrial uses
as well as land to be set aside as meaningful open space. Such plans
should protect environmentally sensitive areas as well as take into
account a community's projected economic growth rate, demand for new
housing and expanded infrastructure--road, schools and other
facilities--required to serve a growing population. Builders, land
developers and other industry members should be encouraged to lend
their expertise and participate in the design and periodic review of a
community's comprehensive planning process.
Planning and Funding Infrastructure Improvements: NAHB encourages
local communities to adopt balanced and reliable means to finance and
pay for the construction and expansion of roads, schools, water and
sewer facilities and other infrastructure required to serve a
prosperous community. Planning major infrastructure improvements--
particularly transportation--requires cooperation across governmental
boundaries to resolve issues. Reducing traffic congestion, relieving
overcrowded classrooms and providing other public facilities and
services are absolutely essential components of any ``Smart Growth''
plan. Ensuring that the construction of schools, roads and other
infrastructure keeps pace with the anticipated growth in population and
economic activity is one of the biggest challenges facing local
communities today. Appropriate bodies of government should adopt
capital improvement plans (with timing, location and funding elements)
designed to fund necessary infrastructure required to support new
development. Ensuring that infrastructure is funded equitably and that
the cost is shared equitably throughout all segments of the community--
existing residents as well as newcomers--is an even greater challenge.
Using Land More Efficiently: NAHB supports higher density
development and innovative land-use policies to encourage mixed-use and
pedestrian-friendly developments with access to open space and mass
transit. To generate greater public support for this type of
development, however, will require a change in thinking by people
opposed to higher density development in their own backyards, by local
governments that have erected barriers to higher density development
and are easily influenced by citizen groups opposed to any new growth
and by typical housing consumers who continue to favor a single-family
home on an individual lot.
Revitalizing Older Suburban and Inner City Markets: NAHB recognizes
that revitalizing older suburban and inner city markets and encouraging
in-fill development is universally accepted as good public policy. But
even under the best of conditions, in-fill development will satisfy
only a small percentage of a community's demand for new housing. The
joint effort announced on Feb. 4 by Vice President Al Gore, the U.S.
Conference of Mayors and NAHB to construct 1 million additional market-
rate housing units in the nation's cities and inner-ring of the suburbs
over the next 10 years is an achievable goal. But to reach that goal,
the Administration and nation's cities will have to work closely with
the housing industry to overcome major impediments, such as aging
infrastructure that makes redevelopment costly and difficult, and
Federal liability laws that increase risks for builders involved in the
redevelopment of ``brownfield'' sites. Making cities safe from crime,
improving the quality of schools and creating employment opportunities
are prerequisites for rebuilding the nation's inner cities and for
encouraging people to return to them.
As we prepare to enter a new millennium, our nation faces many
challenges. One of the most significant is ensuring that, as our
population grows and our economy prospers, growth and development occur
in a smart, orderly and predictable fashion. The nation's home builders
and the 197,000 members of the National Association of Home Builders
are committed to pursuing reasonable and market-driven ``Smart Growth''
strategies that will meet the nation's housing needs, expand
homeownership opportunities, help revitalize the nation's cities and
inner suburbs, and build attractive and livable neighborhoods and
communities and an even more prosperous America in the 21st century.
______
[Press Release From the National Association of Home Builders]
Smart Growth Strategies Must Account for Home Buyer Preferences, Local
Needs
Washington, March 17.--Communities seeking to embrace Smart Growth
land-use strategies need to adopt locally specific, comprehensive plans
that take into account home buyer preferences, housing demand, and
public infrastructure requirements, the National Association of Home
Builders (NAHB) told Members of Congress today. The Federal Government
should encourage, though not mandate, such plans.
Testifying before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
on the topic of Smart Growth, NAHB Vice President/Secretary Gary
Garczynski said that since the politics of growth are uniquely local
and the authority to determine land use is vested in local government,
Smart Growth planning should start in local jurisdictions. ``The
Federal Government's role should be to encourage--not mandate--local
communities to adopt long-term comprehensive plans that will meet the
demand for new housing, public infrastructure and other services in the
decade ahead,'' he said.
Garczynski, who has 30 years of experience in the building and land
development business, said the 197,000-member NAHB supports
``reasonable and market-driven land use strategies that will meet the
housing needs of this country while expanding homeownership
opportunities, revitalizing cities and building attractive
communities.'' As an example, he cited a newly formed partnership among
NAHB, the nation's mayors, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development and the Office of Vice President Al Gore. The partnership's
goal is to build new homes in the nation's cities and inner-ring
suburbs.
Garczynski identified six key elements of NAHB's own Smart Growth
Strategy, including:
1. Anticipating and planning for economic development and growth in
a timely, orderly and predictable manner;
2. Establishing a long-term comprehensive plan in each local
jurisdiction that provides ample land for residential, commercial,
recreational and industrial use while also protecting open space and
environmentally sensitive areas;
3. Removing the regulatory and planning barriers that stop
innovative planning and hinder mixed-use, infill and inner-city
development;
4. Planning and constructing new schools; roads and other public
infrastructure to keep pace with the current and future demand for
housing, and finding an equitable way to pay for that infrastructure
without pitting existing residents against future residents;
5. Achieving balance in the planning process by using innovative
planning concepts to achieve Smart Growth's goals and enhance the
quality of life for all residents; and??
6. Ensuring that the process for reviewing site-specific land
development applications is reasonable, predictable and fair for
applicants and neighbors.
``Smart Growth starts by recognizing where people want to live and
the homes they want to live in,'' said Garczynski. ``We must remember
that in survey after survey, Americans continue to show a strong
preference for single-family homes in a suburban setting.''
Garczynski also urged Congress not to mistake no-growth agendas for
Smart Growth, saying the greatest risk of such policies is that they
will compromise housing affordability, especially for first-time
buyers, minorities, immigrants and median-income families.
``No-growth or slow-growth policy is ultimately self-defeating,''
he said, because eliminating opportunity doesn't eliminate demand.
``More than a million new households are formed in this country every
year, and home builders will have to construct between 1.3 and 1.5
million new housing units annually to meet demand through the next
decade.''
______
[Press Release from the National Realty Committee]
Targeted Federal Reforms, Investments Could Advance ``Smart Growth'' in
Cities, Suburbs
By supporting investments in open space and reforming policies that
undermine local efforts at more effective land-use planning, Federal
policy makers can help America's communities address sprawl-related
concerns and improve their quality of life and competitiveness,
National Realty Committee testified today before the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee.
As a result of smart growth planning policies, many cities are
experiencing a ``kind of renaissance,'' NRC Environmental Policy
Advisory Committee Chairman Nelson C. Rising advised members of the
Committee. ``San Francisco, Portland, Boston, New York and Chicago
demonstrate a rich mixture of residential and job-intensive commercial
and retail uses, attention to the public realm and plenty of open
space. Similarly, suburban areas with a strong jobs housing mix, easily
accessible retail and office districts, transit- and pedestrian-
friendly neighborhoods, and substantial amounts of open space are also
flourishing.''
Rising is chief executive officer of Catellus Development
Corporation, a publicly traded, diversified real estate company based
in San Francisco. The company has a portfolio of 21 million square feet
of income-producing properties and land that would support 18,000
residential units and approximately 48 million square feet of
commercial space located throughout California, as well as in Dallas,
suburban Chicago, Denver, Phoenix and Portland.
Rising also said the Clinton Administration's proposed ``Better
America Bonds'' would allow local governments to ``make their own
decisions about open space preservation, redevelop their own
brownfields properties and address other environmental issues.'' He
added that bond financing is a cost-effective and equitable mechanism
for encouraging smart growth because it allocates the cost of acquiring
green space over several generations.
For communities across the country, smart growth is an issue of
competitiveness. ``In today's tight labor markets, communities that
seek to attract top employers must demonstrate that they can offer a
quality of life that will help companies recruit and retain the best
work force they can,'' Rising said. For commercial real estate, he
said, ``well-planned communities with strategies for preserving quality
open space offer better investment opportunities than communities with
less planning discipline.''
As Real Estate's Roundtable, National Realty Committee is the
country's leading public policy advocate for income-producing real
estate. NRC's members are top business leaders from more than 200
publicly and privately owned companies across all segments of the
industry, including owners, builders, lenders, managers, advisors and
investors.
__________
Statement of Nelson Rising, Catellus Development Corporation
Thank you Chairman Chafee, Senator Baucus, members of the
committee. My name is Nelson Rising. I am the CEO of Catellus
Development Corporation, a San Francisco-based publicly traded,
diversified real estate company. The company has a portfolio of 21
million square feet of income-producing properties, and land that would
support 18,000 residential units and approximately 48 million square
feet of commercial space located throughout California, as well as in
Dallas, suburban Chicago, Denver, Phoenix and Portland. I am speaking
today on behalf of the National Realty Committee (NRC). NRC's members
are top business leaders from more than 200 public and privately owned
companies across all segments of the real estate industry, including
owners, builders, lenders, managers, advisors and investors.
Our entire industry not just our members has a stake in smart well-
planned growth. I can tell you from personal experience that well-
planned communities with strategies for preserving quality open space
offer better real estate investment opportunities than communities with
less planning discipline. As you may know, many cities today are
experiencing a kind of renaissance. The success stories include places
like San Francisco, Portland, Boston, New York and Chicago that
demonstrate a rich mixture of residential and job-intensive commercial
and retail uses, attention to the public realm and plenty of open
space. Similarly suburban areas with a strong jobs-housing mix, easily
accessible retail and office districts, transit- and pedestrian-
friendly neighborhoods, and substantial amounts of open space are also
flourishing. In other words, smart growth is already beginning to
demonstrate its value in the market place.
For many communities across the country the ability to facilitate
smart growth, and the quality-of-life issues encompassed by that term,
is not so much a luxury, as it is a necessity. Indeed, it's a matter of
competitiveness. In today's tight labor markets, communities that seek
to attract top employers must demonstrate that they can offer a quality
of life that will help companies recruit and retain the best work force
they can. For example, in Atlanta, Georgia, it was a real wake-up call
for the city when Hewlett Packard decided not to pursue a substantial
campus expansion citing worker complaints over traffic congestion and
related problems. NRC Executive Committee member, Michael R. Buchanan,
who is a senior executive of Bank of America, noted at a recent Atlanta
forum on smart growth that business leaders are sometimes among the
first to recognize the serious consequences to their communities of a
deterioration in key quality of life indicators.
The first question that needs to be answered is how can communities
best accommodate the absolute certainty of additional growth while
maximizing its most beneficial elements. No one is against the jobs,
local tax revenues, more affordable housing and other amenities that
well-planned development can provide. But, at the same time, citizens
are increasingly demanding that growth be facilitated without
increasing local income taxes to pay for infrastructure costs, without
increasing traffic congestion to unacceptable levels and without
degrading environmental resources, including open space. As a
Californian I am particularly concerned about how to address this
issue. The Census Bureau tells us that by the year 2025, California
will add the equivalent of the current population of the State of New
York. This expected growth as well as growth in other areas around the
country can only be accommodated successfully if we are attentive to
the principles of smart growth.
The next question is what can Congress and the rest of the Federal
Government do to respond to the public's growing demand for smarter
growth and more open space. The answer is that it can advance policies
and legislation that will provide State and local governments
additional resources to grow smarter; and it can reform existing
Federal laws and policies that inadvertently impede the ability of
States and local communities to grow in smarter ways. While Washington
can help, the parameters of the Federal role need to be carefully
defined to ensure local governments continue to chart their own paths.
In addition, it's essential to respect the law of unintended
consequences. I don't need to tell you that Federal involvement in
local land use issues while already significant has sometimes been
unpopular, unproductive, or both.
I am not an expert on existing Federal programs, but I understand
there is a bipartisan effort underway to fully fund some of the most
critical existing conservation programs including the Federal ``Land
and Water Conservation Fund.'' NRC supports that effort. In addition, I
suggest the committee give the Administration's ``Better America
Bonds'' proposal the serious consideration it deserves. Its basic
premise seems to me to be a good one: to offer local governments the
resources to help gain the leverage that additional bonding authority
can provide. With the funds from the bond issues, local governments can
make their own decisions about open space preservation, redevelop their
own brownfields properties and address other environmental issues. Bond
financing whether locally or federally subsidized is, in my view, not
only more cost effective but also more equitable than using current
appropriations of tax dollars. This is because it allocates the cost of
acquiring green space over the life of the bonds. In that way it
ensures contributions from the current and the next generation. After
all, our children or our children's children will also be benefiting
from the preservation efforts we pursue today.
Another constructive step this committee could take is to ensure
Federal policies advance rather than inadvertently undermine the
efforts of communities to pursue their vision of smart growth. To a
degree I know I may be preaching to many of the converted here because
the ESA and Superfund bills passed out of this committee in the last
Congress would have gone far to resolve some of the impediments I will
touch on here. I'm speaking here especially of the brownfields
provisions in Senator Smith's Superfund bill or, for that matter, the
very similar provisions in Senator Lautenberg's current stand-alone
``brownfields'' bill, S. 20. I also believe the provisions of the
bipartisan ESA bill approved by this committee in the last Congress
dealing with habitat conservation planning and the ``no surprises''
assurances would facilitate smart growth.
To encourage landowner participation in smart growth planning,
Federal land-use laws such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the
wetlands provisions of the Clean Water Act should offer safe harbors to
landowners that participate constructively in achieving the goals of
the statute. By that I mean regulatory certainty should be offered to
landowners whose projects advance environmental and economic objectives
in tandem. With the prospect of greater certainty regarding what the
rules are and how long they will remain in effect, landowners become
far more motivated and constructive partners with local, State and
Federal regulators whether the issue is recycling brownfields
properties or pursuing habitat conservation planning. Certainly
California's experience with development agreements and the experience
of other States with so called ``vested rights'' agreements bear this
point out.
More specifically, business, municipal and environmental groups
have all pointed out that uncertainty regarding possible Superfund
liability no matter how remote remains a factor favoring developments
outside of urbanized areas and in so-called ``greenfields.'' By the
same token legal concerns regarding the ability of Federal regulators
to make good on their no-surprises assurances under ESA inhibits some
landowners from participating in habitat conservation planning. As for
the wetlands program administered by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers, no one seems to have
proposed a safe harbor for smart growth in that arena. As a result,
national policies still favor preserving tiny wetlands in the middle of
retail or office projects even when the development occurs in highly
urbanized areas. NRC is of the view that smart growth, including in-
fill projects, could be advanced if the Federal Government offered
those types of projects greater opportunity to mitigate wetlands
impacts offsite including use of mitigation banking. In addition, there
appears to be new thinking at EPA regarding the Clean Water Act's
stormwater runoff provisions which causes us great concern. A potential
Federal land use program under consideration at EPA may be focused on
controlling the way individual projects are planned at the site level.
Such a program bears the risk of micro-managing local land use in a
very unproductive fashion and on a more comprehensive scale than the
wetlands or endangered species program.
Environmental and land use laws are not the only ones that may
inadvertently undermine smart growth. Federal tax policies also require
reconsideration in light of smart growth objectives. I recognize these
laws are not within the immediate jurisdiction of this committee.
However, if you will indulge me I would like to offer some examples of
how the IRS code can undermine the kind of development usually
characterized as ``smart growth.'' It is the peculiar way the tax code
treats the renovation of existing buildings. And it actually adds to
the pressure to build new buildings usually in so-called
``greenfields'' outside existing urban areas. Very briefly, today's
depreciation rules for real estate don't differentiate between the
economic useful life of improvements to leased space and the tax life
of the overall building structure. As a result, current tax law
dictates a depreciable life for leasehold improvements of 39 years the
depreciable life of the entire building even though most lease terms
average only 7 years. The implication of this policy is that the cost
of upgrading existing space in existing buildings is artificially high.
This increased tax cost adversely affects the modernization of
buildings for example, by incorporating more energy efficient
components. This enhances demand for brand new development at the
suburban fringe and contributes to the deterioration of urban centers
with older building stock. To fix this anomaly we recommend a cost
recovery period for leasehold improvements of 10 years, a period
somewhat longer than the average lease term.
Similar problems exist with the tax treatment of demolition costs
for nonhistoric structures and environmental cleanup expenses problems
that affect many environmentally desirable in-fill development
projects. Under current law, demolition costs and the unrecovered basis
of any demolished structure must be capitalized and added to the basis
of the land, rather than deducted. This tends to discourage acquisition
of land that includes a structure which must be demolished (in part or
in full) to construct a more suitable improvement. This is because the
cost of demolition is not recoverable until the underlying land is
sold. More appropriate tax treatment would permit demolition costs to
be added to the basis of the new building and amortized over a
reasonable period (60 months) or at least depreciated over the life of
the building.
Like demolition expenses, costs to clean up land purchased in a
contaminated State must be capitalized and added to the basis of the
nondepreciable land. The 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act provided immediate
expensing of brownfield cleanup costs in empowerment zones and other
high poverty targeted areas. This tax treatment should be made a
permanent part of the tax code and should be extended in some fashion
to nontargeted areas as well. If not immediate deductibility, then more
rapid amortization periods, such as 60 months, would be appropriate. As
with demolition expenses, requiring that environmental cleanup costs be
capitalized is a disincentive to the acquisition and redevelopment of
sites in some already urbanized areas.
To sum up, I would simply say that smarter growth and more open
space conservation would not only bring environmental benefits but also
economic ones. I note that the Democratic and Republican leadership of
this committee are both senior members of the Finance Committee. We
would encourage you to share some of these economic issues with your
colleagues on that committee as well. Our members stand ready to assist
you in advancing these objectives with rational Federal policies. I
would be happy now to take any questions you may have.
Thank you.
__________
Statement of Meg Maguire, Scenic America
On behalf of the Scenic America Board, our 3000 members, and 15
state scenic conservation organizations \1\ I am writing in strong
support of S. 446, Permanent Protection for America's Resources 2000.
Scenic America's mission is to preserve and enhance the scenic
character of America's communities and countryside. This exceptional
bill will help communities throughout the Nation take steps to preserve
natural beauty and their distinctive character by restoring urban parks
and historic buildings, acquiring land for recreation and conservation,
and conserving fish, wildlife and endangered species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State affiliate organizations in CA, FL, KY, MI, MO, NC, OH,
TX; associated organizations in AL, IL, MN, MT, NJ, TN, VA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I speak from direct experience about the legislation under
consideration. From 1977-1981 I served as Assistant Director and Deputy
Director of the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS) at
the U.S. Department of the Interior. HCRS administered the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF),
and we authored and then administered the Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery Program (UPARR).
Scenic America request three changes in the bill which we believe
will strengthen it and respond to pressing unaddressed needs and
opportunities.
First, we request that Sec. 3 (7) Findings and Purpose
include also the growing threat to our scenic heritage which is rapidly
obliterating America's rich diversity of places.
As billboards, inappropriately sited cellular towers, strip
development and sprawl malls erase treasured vistas, our parks and
wilderness areas have too often become enclaves of beauty within a sea
of visual blight. Polls show that Americans are distressed, not only
about the loss of open space, but also the loss of community character.
Second, to address this issue, we request that the Land
and Water Conservation Fund be amended to include acquisition of less-
than-fee interests, such as easements, to protect threatened scenic
areas associated with national, state and local recreation and
wilderness areas.
Acquisition of scenic easements can contribute immeasurably both to
our recreation experience and to other conservation and preservation
goals, while retaining the working landscapes that are such an
important part of our heritage. This country now has a great deal of
experience with easements which we did not have when the LWCF was
enacted in 1965 or when it was amended in 1978. In addition to the
large national organizations such as the Nature Conservancy, the Trust
for Public Land and the Conservation Fund, there are over 1200 local
land trusts in America today which have established guidelines and
procedures for monitoring and enforcement of easements, and for dealing
constructively and creatively with local land owners on a range of
issues. In addition, extensive use of easements in the Adirondack State
Park and the New Jersey Pinelands has shown that less-than-fee
interests in land can accomplish both public and private objectives.
Moreover, the opportunity to leverage Federal funds for recreation and
scenic conservation have never been better as the private sector--
corporations and foundations alike--show unprecedented interest in
saving the American landscape.
Third, we support a strengthened planning requirement for
L WCF which requires state plans to be coordinated fully with other
statewide and local land use, transportation, conservation and
preservation plans.
It is imperative that we avoid the kind of insulated, overly
statistical outdoor recreation plans which too often the states have
produced. Rather, outdoor recreation plans should ensure that outdoor
recreation goals are fully integrated into all aspects of state
planning. In so doing, the state agencies administering the LWCF
program should seek to involve political leaders and leaders in all
affected areas in the planning process.
One of my responsibilities at HCRS was to approve state plans for
recreation and historic preservation. While there were many excellent
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans (SCORP), too often
they were full of statistics to justify different types of sports
facilities, with little reference to the larger land use context.
Furthermore, while the public always had the right to comment on
recreation plans, in relatively few states was the public meaningfully
involved in planning.
Planning must be a key element in a reinvigorated LWCF. It should
be based on the best integrated planning models, not on outmoded
recreation models of the past. Both nationwide and state plans should
reflect the most visionary thinking about the present and the future,
look beyond local concerns to include a regional perspective across
state lines, and be so good and so valuable to decisionmakers that they
serve to guide government actions at all levels. Contemporary state
outdoor recreation plans should complement smart growth strategies,
metropolitan transportation plans, fish and wildlife conservation
plans, and community revitalization plans throughout the state.
Furthermore, state outdoor recreation plans of the future should
propose innovative ways of leveraging the Federal investment through
other sources of funds, both public and private.
Scenic America strongly supports S. 446 because we believe that the
comprehensive provisions in these companion bills will be a powerful
catalyst to preserve and enhance the distinctive character of our
communities and countryside in the 21st century.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
OPEN SPACE AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:32 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John H. Chafee
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Chafee, Lieberman, Boxer, Thomas, Baucus,
and Bennett.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. I want to welcome everyone here today.
We have several panels and a total of 10 witnesses, so we
will be moving right along.
This is the second day of hearings on open space and
environmental quality. Yesterday's hearing provides an
introduction to the issues of open space, sprawl, and
environmental quality. Today's hearing provides an opportunity
to explore specific Federal proposals that are addressed to
these issues and are likely to be raised during consideration
of the budget resolution.
There are numerous proposals that address various aspects
of sprawl and development. I'd like to just mention several of
the broadest ones.
Senators Landrieu and Boxer have each done a tremendous job
in developing S. 25, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, and
S. 446, the Resources 2000 Act. These bills each seek to
redirect approximately 50 percent of the receipts from the oil
and gas drilling in the outer continental shelf from the
Federal Treasury to specific State and Federal programs.
While these bills do not directly address the problems of
land development and sprawl, they each have significant funding
for programs that can be used to promote smart growth, open
space, conservation, and habitat protection.
Several narrower bills have also been introduced to address
specific aspects of open space and farmland conservation.
Senator Feinstein has S. 532, to provide mandatory spending
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund at its fully
authorized level of $900 million.
Senator Leahy has introduced S. 333, a bill to allow
matching Federal grants for acquisition of conservation
easements for preserving farmland.
Last, Senator Lautenberg has introduced S. 20 relating to
brownfields redevelopment.
The Administration has developed two initiatives to address
open space and environmental quality--the Lands Legacy
Initiative and the Livability agenda.
I will now note that Administrator Browner of EPA was here
only 2 weeks ago, so this committee has had an opportunity to
hear about the Better America Bonds program, and I hope to
focus today on other aspects of the Administration's proposal.
I'd like to say a word on jurisdiction. While most of these
proposals fall in the jurisdiction the Committees on Energy and
Natural Resources, Agriculture, or Finance, the Committee on
Environment and Public Works has a keen interest in how these
bills progress. Several provisions of these bills address
subjects under this committee's jurisdiction, and my staff is
engaged in ongoing discussions with staff of other committees
at this point.
As with yesterday, we have a wonderful gathering of
witnesses. Senators Landrieu, Feinstein, and Leahy will discuss
their bills, and we're honored to have Parris Glendening,
Governor of Maryland, also join us. I look forward to hearing
their testimony, as well as that of our other witnesses.
I'm delighted that Senator Lieberman is here, as well as
Senator Boxer. If you'd like to have a brief statement, Senator
Lieberman, why don't you go ahead.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, I'd
ask unanimous consent to a longer statement that I would have
included in the record.
Senator Chafee. Fine.
Senator Lieberman. I'd just thank you for holding this
series of hearings, and thereby putting this committee into a
leadership position in the dialog here in Congress on how we,
as a Nation, can quite literally shape the landscape of our own
lives.
The dialog has been percolating up from our towns and
States for some time now as people begin to confront basic
questions of livability and breatheability, about the
encroachments of development and the erosion of open space,
about the cost to our families and to our own sense of place.
These are very interesting, different kinds of public
concerns. I must say that I find them--very often in
Connecticut, sometimes campaigns give you, in addition to other
things, a reading actually on what people are thinking. As I
went around with State legislative candidates in Connecticut
last fall, Mr. Chairman, I asked, ``What are people talking to
you about?'' And over and over again the question was, ``Open
space''--a concern that, in some ways, the glories of a good
economy and a good life--which is to say, development--are now
going on in a way that seems unplanned and unmindful of the
sensibilities of people's lives, and they are yearning for
leadership from government to help them--not to stop
development, but to help them to order it and to preserve the
openness, the space which certainly, in a State like
Connecticut, defines and elevates life there.
So I think there are a lot of interesting questions, a lot
of interesting opportunities. Clearly, we are going to be
focusing today and throughout this Congress on the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, which has represented a strong
commitment of the Congress to conserve natural treasures and
preserve open space. Because the program is authorized to fund
Federal, State, and local conservation and recreation
activities, the Fund is definitely an avenue through which the
Federal Government can help States and localities choose how
and where to conserve open space and how and where to develop
and redevelop their communities.
Sadly, over the last years the State portion of the Fund
has gone unfunded, and I do think that fully funding the Land
and Water Conservation Fund would be a tremendous step forward
in meeting our obligation to help the States respond to this
rising and broadly felt concern, not about the health of the
environment, but also about the preservation of livability
communities.
I look forward to the witnesses today, Mr. Chairman, and I
thank you again for your leadership.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lieberman follows:]
Statement of Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing and
leading a dialog here in Congress on how we as nation will choose to
quite literally shape the landscape of our lives.
This dialog has been percolating in our towns and our States for
some time now, as the new millennium approaches and as concerns grow
about the livability and breathability of our communities, about the
encroachments of development and the erosion of open space, about the
costs to our families and to our larger sense of place.
We have not yet quite reached an open revolt over the loss of open
space. But I know that in my State of Connecticut and in many areas
across the country, a lot of people are worried about what the future
holds in terms of land conservation and basic health of our
environment, and not just in suburbia but in urban and rural settings
as well. Their angst was reflected in the high number of ballot
initiatives that popped up across the Nation last year dealing with
urban sprawl, smart growth proposals, and land conservation, and
registered resoundingly in the passage of most of these initiatives.
In Connecticut, we recently passed an Open Space and Watershed Land
Grant Program with the goal of preserving roughly half a million acres
in open space--amounting to one fifth of the entire State's land mass--
by the year 2023. Right now, there are 115 active and growing land
trusts in Connecticut already working hard to protect and preserve
lands in their own backyards. And in our urban areas, coalitions are
forming to redevelop brownfields and reengineer transportation systems
to help us revitalize these struggling communities, making them more
attractive, accessible and neighborly.
Behind much of this debate about open space and ``smart growth'' is
an evolution of the traditional land use and preservation agenda. In
the case of the New Fairfield Land Trust, it's as clear as their
mission statement, which they describe not just as preserving the land
but ``Preserving Our Future.'' Throughout the country there is a
pervasive sense that if we don't take action to develop our natural
spaces wisely, the very heart and soul of our communities could be in
jeopardy. The relationship between humankind and the land has evolved
over the years from taming the wilderness, to conservation, to
preservation, and to the environmentalism of recent decades that
incorporates strong social and public health influences. Now, as the
pressures of modern living bear down on us, our society is increasingly
turning to wild and open spaces not just for physical health and
sustenance, but in search of a balanced relationship with our
surroundings that nurtures the soul of our neighborhoods.
To respond to these concerns, we will have to engage in our own
policy balancing act. On one hand, our goals will require the
protection of valuable natural resources and landscapes that we enjoy
and hope to preserve for our children and grandchildren. On the other
hand, it is imperative that we improve the every day quality of life in
all communities so that those who live in urban and suburban areas can
enjoy the benefits of a healthy environment.
Inherent in the call to preserve our natural environment and
cultural heritage is a need for community renewal and an improved
quality of life. For example, there is a building frustration with
congested roads that cause us to risks our lives, pollute our air, and
waste our time. By driving further on crowded highways to multiple
jobs, schools, daycare, and stores, we're losing touch with our
neighbors and our sense of community.
Urban sprawl and the loss of open space has not happened over
night. As our economy has evolved from its industrial base, we've
naturally spread outward again. We've built more houses, and needed
more cars and roads. We've left our cities as jobs fled and crime and
deteriorating schools proliferated. Thriving urban centers gave way to
expanding suburbs, and with all these changes, we haven't as a nation
taken stock of what we have lost. But we do know that if we fail to
confront unplanned community growth, the loss of open space and loss of
community will continue. We also know that if we fail to properly
steward our coasts, forests, fields, and streams, we may lose the
productivity that generations have depended upon--risking not just our
farms and fisheries, but our way of life. And ultimately, if we
continue developing everywhere, we risk creating what some have called
a geography of nowhere.
The good news here is that American people are becoming more
conscious of these threats, and have begun to conceive responses. State
bond initiatives to finance open space conservation efforts are a
start. Continued cleanup and redevelopment of abandoned industrial
sites and inner cities represent steps forward. Regional transportation
planning decisions that reduce traffic congestion are essential to
assuring both a healthy environment and livable communities.
One thing that has been made clear in this growing dialog is that
local and state input to the decisionmaking process is critical. The
people who live near threatened land are in the best position to value
it and commonly devise the most creative conservation and development
alternatives to it. But it is also clear that these folks can't do it
alone. We need a bigger vision to solve today's problems. And we need
to think broadly, recognizing that healthy communities rely on a mosaic
of relationships, infrastructure and institutions in order to thrive.
The challenge of planning for a sustainable future is clearly a
national responsibility, deserving of a collective, collaborative, and
thoughtful response.
One of the issues that we will be hearing about today and
throughout this Congress is funding of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. The Fund represents the commitment of all Americans to conserving
natural treasures and preserving open space. Because the program is
authorized to fund Federal, State, and local conservation and
recreation enhancement activities, the Fund is an avenue through which
the Federal Government can help States and localities choose how and
where they conserve open space, develop, and redevelop their
communities. Sadly, over the past 5 years, the State portion of the
Fund has gone unfunded. Fully funding the Land and Water Conservation
Fund represents a golden opportunity to make good on our obligation to
leave future generations a healthier environment and more livable
communities.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and
participating in a constructive dialog with my colleagues in the year
ahead as we address challenges and capitalize on opportunities to
wisely shape the landscape of our lives.
Senator Chafee. I'm familiar with what you're talking
about, because you go north from Hartford up toward Greenfield,
Deerfield, and that area, you see those lovely tobacco fields
gradually being gobbled up. They're just a natural--they're
flat as the palm of your hand.
Senator Lieberman. Yes.
Senator Chafee. And absolutely marvelous soil there, but it
is very tempting for developers to come there, and I guess
there's not much money in primarily tobacco leaves for the
wrappings for cigars, and I guess that has decreased.
Senator Lieberman. Oddly, Mr. Chairman, although I know
this is not the focus, this is how short-range decisions can
have not only unintended economic consequences, but also land
use consequences, because when cigars were less popular, the
wrapper leaf, which is grown in Connecticut, was not as
valuable and land was not as valuable, and a lot of the tobacco
farms were sold for development. Of course, now the cigar has
made a thundering return to popularity--an aromatic, I should
say, return to popularity, and those fields would have been
probably more valuable today to grow tobacco, and also would
have been more attractive to the eye than the development that
has occurred on them.
Senator Chafee. Senator Boxer?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for holding this hearing.
It is a good time, because yesterday I want to let you know
that in the Budget Committee, in a bipartisan way, we made room
for these initiatives, and it wasn't that easy. We had a lot of
debate about it.
Senator Chafee. How much money? Do you remember?
Senator Boxer. Well, we didn't put a specific amount. We
just said that room will be made if there is agreement for
this. It would be mandatory spending.
Senator Chafee. From the land and water conservation?
Senator Boxer. We just said it wouldn't count against the
caps.
Senator Chafee. OK.
Senator Boxer. It would be mandatory. So I'm very happy
about that. As I say, it was a very big debate, but it's good.
And so what we're doing here today is not theoretical. I think
we have a good chance of enacting some of these pieces of
legislation.
I want to welcome Senators Landrieu and Leahy. I hope
Senator Feinstein will be here. I know she had had the flu, and
I hope she makes it here.
I want to say that I ask unanimous consent that my full
statement be placed in the record.
Senator Chafee. Fine.
Senator Boxer. And, Mr. Chairman, also, if you would place
the testimony that EPA had prepared for its delivery today, if
we could put that in the record.
Senator Chafee. Fine.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
I know that we've had some Californians who have testified
here yesterday and we will have more today, and I want to
welcome them. In California, as I always remind everyone,
including myself, where we have 33 million people, we're
expecting a population of 50 million people by the year 2020,
so when we talk about livability and smart growth, this isn't
something that we have the luxury of thinking about, we've got
to do something about it. That's why I'm optimistic that we see
so many bills before us in a bipartisan way dealing with making
more resources available, not only for open space and smart
growth initiatives, but to permanently protect our natural
heritage and to help preserve farmlands and many issues that
have, frankly, been ignored, in my opinion.
Congressman George Miller and I introduced the Permanent
Protection for America's Resources 2000 Act, and I thank you
for mentioning it in your opening remarks. We call it,
``Resources 2000.'' In the Senate it has been endorsed by
Senators Biden, Feinstein, Kerry--John Kerry--Lautenberg,
Sarbanes, Schumer, Torricelli, and I'm trusting many more will
join.
I think the fact that there are many bills out there--
Senator Leahy's bill, Senator Landrieu's bill, Senator
Feinstein's bill, and others--is very promising. I know Senator
Murkowski has teamed up with Senator Landrieu on their bill.
And, as I say, the Budget Committee recognized this bipartisan
effort.
Sometimes I like to think about where we would have been
without Teddy Roosevelt in the beginning of the 20th century.
Without him, we wouldn't have had Grand Canyon, Mirror Woods,
Crater Lake, and it seems to me we need to not only look back
and say how wonderful that was, but look ahead and say, ``We've
got a job to do.'' And if we don't do it, then people will be
looking back at us and saying, ``Why didn't they act before
everything disappeared?''
Every year, three million acres of farmland and more than
170,000 acres of wetlands disappear, and every day 7,000 acres
of open space are lost forever. Senators Lieberman and Chafee
were pondering that fact. Well, I think it is time to do
something about it, and I know that you agree with me on that
point.
We have a dedicated source of funding. In 1964 Congress
looked at the offshore oil revenues. They are supposed to be
used for a noble purpose of open space purchase, and it hasn't
really happened. So the fact is, we get about $4.6 billion a
year from oil and gas drilling on the outer continental shelf.
The Miller-Boxer bill, which is the largest of the bills,
allocates only half of that to protect our resources.
And, very quickly, I want to tell you in my closing minute
what our bill does, because it is the broadest-sweeping bill:
$100 million for urban parks and recreation, $350 million to
restore native fish and wildlife, $250 million to restore
Federal lands that are polluted or damaged, $300 million to
protect and restore the health of our oceans--we've never done
that before--$150 million to protect our vanishing farmlands
and open space, $100 million to purchase habitat to help
endangered species recovery, and $150 million every year to
restore and protect our historical and cultural heritage
through fully funding the historic preservation fund. And, of
course, in addition to that, we have the $900 million a year
for land and water conservation, as was envisioned by Congress
in 1965 when the Fund was established. Half of that would go to
the States every year.
So the good news is that fund has collected over $21
billion since 1965, Mr. Chairman, and the bad news is only $9
billion has been used for its intended uses. So this is an
opportunity for us. Mr. Chairman, I can't imagine a better
legacy for you. You've done so much for the environment. I'd
love to work with you to see if we could do even more.
Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer and EPA testimony
follows:]
Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from the State of
California
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this series of
hearings. It is appropriate that Congress has finally decided to take a
serious look at an issue that local communities have been dealing with
for years--sprawl and smart growth.
I want to start by welcoming our Senate colleagues, Senator
Landrieu and Senator Feinstein. It is pleasure to have both of you here
with us today and I look forward to hearing your comments.
I would like to thank two Californians who testified yesterday--
Nelson Rising from the National Realty Committee and Steve Hayward from
the Pacific Research Institute. I would also like to welcome another
California who will be testifying on the final panel today--Ralph
Grossi from American Farmland Trust.
I am pleased to see that Californians seem to be at the forefront
of this issue.
This is an issue for all Americans who know that we can grow the
economy to grow and also protect and defend the beauty and history of
our nation.
The record number of successful ballot initiatives directed at
protecting open space and slowing suburban sprawl in the last election
is an expression of the importance of these issues in people's everyday
lives. In Ventura County, California, for example, citizens
overwhelmingly supported a ballot initiative providing that
agricultural and rural lands outside the city boundaries could not be
developed until the year 2020. Development after that point may take
place only with the approval of voters.
It is because of this overwhelming support for preservation of our
open space and smart growth initiatives, that Congressman George Miller
and I introduced the Permanent Protection for America's Resources 2000
Act. Cosponsors in the Senate include Senator Joe Biden, Senator Dianne
Feinstein, Senator John Kerry, Senator Frank Lautenberg, Senator Paul
Sarbanes, Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Bob Torricelli.
I know there are many bills out there and this is good. On both
sides of the aisle--we are finally talking about making a permanent
commitment to America's natural resources. That can only happen if our
States and local communities are able to make long term planning
decisions.
As the 20th Century began, one of the greatest conservationists of
all time, Theodore Roosevelt, was our President. From 1901 to 1909,
Teddy Roosevelt set aside places that millions of Americans still enjoy
today.
If not for Teddy Roosevelt's leadership, we might have lost such
national treasures as the Grand Canyon, Muir Woods, and Crater Lake.
These natural monuments stand as a lasting testament to TR's foresight
and pioneering work in environmental preservation.
As the 21st Century approaches, we must renew our commitment to our
natural heritage. That commitment must go beyond a piecemeal approach.
It must be a comprehensive, long-term strategy to ensure that when our
children's children enter the 22nd Century, they can herald our actions
today, as we revere those of President Roosevelt.
Preservation in the 21st Century goes beyond protection of such
wonders as Yosemite and Yellowstone. It must be include an urban park
in East Los Angeles where children can play basketball, a farm in
Tulare County that can continue to grow oranges or a historic building
in Orange County that can be restored.
Today, our natural heritage is disappearing at an alarming rate.
Each year, nearly 3 million acres of farmland and more than 170,000
acres of wetlands disappear. Each day, over 7000 acres of open space
are lost forever.
Across America, parks are closing, recreational facilities
deteriorating, open spaces vanishing, historic structures crumbling.
Why is this happening? Because there is no dedicated funding source
for all these noble purposes--a source which can be used only for these
noble purposes.
The Miller-Boxer bill offers the most sweeping commitment to
protecting America's natural heritage in more than 30 years. It will
establish a dedicated funding source for resource protection.
A major funding source for resource protection already exists. Each
year, oil companies pay the Federal Government billions of dollars in
rents, royalties, and other fees in connection with offshore drilling
in Federal waters. In 1998 alone, the government collected over $4.6
billion from oil and gas drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf .
The Miller-Boxer bill would allocate a total of $2.3 billion every
year from oil drilling revenues for permanent protection of America's
resources. It provides:
$100 million every year for urban parks and recreational
facilities;
$350 million to restore native fish and wildlife;
$250 million to restore Federal lands that are polluted
or damaged;
$300 million to protect and restore the health of our
oceans;
$150 million to protect our vanishing farmlands and open
space;
$100 million to purchase habitat to help endangered
species recovery;
And $150 million every year to restore and protect our
historical and cultural heritage through fully funding the Historic
Preservation Fund.
The Historic Preservation Fund was established by Congress in 1977,
to provide a dedicated source of funding to preserve our significant
historic properties. And although Congress is authorized to spend $150
million from OCS revenues annually for this purpose, less than 29
percent of funding has been appropriated since 1977. That is more than
$2 billion that could have been used to help restore the treasures of
our nation scattered across the many States. In California, there's the
Old Mint Building in San Francisco, Manzanar National Historic Site,
and Mission San Juan Capistrano. Our bill would ensure that funds would
be spent on their designated purpose.
Finally, the bill designates $900 million each year to purchase
land by fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund as
envisioned by Congress in 1965 when the Fund was established. Half
would go to the States.
The good news is that Fund has collected over $21 billion since
1965. The bad news is that only $9 billion of this amount has been
spent on its intended uses. More than $12 billion has been shifted into
other Federal accounts.
The funding Congress has made available has allowed us to purchase
some key tracts of land, but we have missed golden opportunities to buy
critical open space because the Land and Water Conservation Fund was
critically underfunded.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this series of hearings. I
look forward to working with you and other members of this Committee
and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on this critical
issue. This is necessary and important legislation that will benefit
our Nation's natural heritage, and leave a lasting legacy for future
generations.
Mr. Chairman, it's a chance to work across the aisle for all the
people.
______
Statement of J. Charles Fox, Assistant Administrator for Water,
Environmental Protection Agency
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am Chuck
Fox, Assistant Administrator for Water at the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I am very pleased to provide
comment about the idea of open space and how it relates to
environmental protection, water quality, and the Administration's
Livability Agenda.
The Administration has been working to assemble the building blocks
of a new approach to livable communities over the past several years.
Let me mention two of these initiatives.
EPA and other Federal agencies are providing resources and tools to
state and local governments to cleanup and redevelop brownfields--
abandoned, potentially contaminated properties. EPA's effort has
provided $65 million in grants to 250 communities, leveraged more than
$1 billion in redevelopment investment, and created more than 2,000
jobs nationwide. Through the Brownfields National Partnership, more
than 20 Federal agencies have collaborated to provide financial and
technical support for local brownfields efforts.
Highlights of other Federal partners providing brownfields support
include: the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through
the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and Brownfields
Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grants; the Department of
Commerce's Economic Development Administration with planning and
economic development grants; and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE) providing expertise in environmental assessment and
cleanup projects.
To help communities restore and revitalize rivers and riverfronts,
the Administration established the American Heritage Rivers initiative.
Through this initiative, 14 rivers have been designated to receive a
``river navigator'' whose job will be to help the community realize its
vision by coordinating existing Federal programs. The Administration
will be assisting local residents, communities, and other stakeholders
to restore the health of their river and riverfront, promote economic
revitalization, and preserve the cultural and historic heritage of the
river.
The Livability Agenda
The Administration's Livability Agenda will provide communities
with new tools and resources to: preserve green spaces for clean water
and air and enhanced quality of life; ease traffic congestion; restore
a sense of community by fostering citizen and private sector
involvement in planning; promote collaboration to develop regional
growth strategies; and enhance economic competitiveness.
To ensure that communities can grow according to their own values,
the Administration's Agenda observes these key principles:
Communities know best. Land use decisions are--and will
continue to be--made by local entities.
The Federal Government should inform, not dictate,
patterns of future growth. Government can supply information, tools and
resources to empower citizens and communities by helping them envision
different strategies. Government can also provide incentives for
communities to work together to address challenges of growth and
development.
Our Livability Agenda also includes: transportation enhancements;
regional smart growth partnerships; schools as community centers;
community-Federal information partnerships; and regional crime-data
sharing. It focuses broadly on a range of issues to improve the quality
of life in a community and touches on important parts of our daily
lives--the safety of our homes and streets, our commute to work, the
schools where our children learn to read, and the parks where we relax.
Better America Bonds
A critical element of the Livability Agenda is the Better America
Bonds program. The Better America Bonds Program will provide
communities with an additional tool to preserve their open spaces,
protect their water, revitalize their blighted urban areas, and improve
their quality of life, in a manner that works best for them.
Better America Bonds can be used in three ways: First, Better
America Bonds will further brownfields cleanup and reuse by providing a
new source of flexible funding for communities' brownfields projects.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors pointed to a lack of capital for local
governments as the leading barrier to the clean-up and re-use of
brownfields. Better America Bonds will supplement existing brownfields
funding with bond proceeds, thus increasing the funds available for
brownfields assessment and redevelopment. This spares green space by
reusing already developed properties and restores green space by
cleaning up contaminated properties at a time when we are losing over
700 acres per day of open space and farmland to development.
Second, State, Tribal and local governments, working alone or in
partnership with land trusts and other nonprofit organizations, can
create or restore urban parks, preserve suburban green spaces, and
protect threatened farmland and wetlands by acquiring title or
purchasing conservation easements using these new bonds.
Finally, Rivers, lakes, coastal waters, and wetlands can be
restored or protected, streamside zones can be repaired and land can be
acquired to reduce polluted runoff or protect drinking water sources.
Land conservation for environmental protection is not a new
concept. There are several examples of existing State and local
initiatives that could be assisted by Better America Bonds.
In 1990, Florida approved the Preservation 2000 program after a
commission concluded that the most effective way to accomplish
environmental protection is to enhance state land acquisition programs.
Since then, $2.4 billion in bonds have been approved and more than 1
million acres of land have been acquired. These actions have helped
improve water quality and foster smarter growth.
In North Carolina, the General Assembly recognized that restoring
and protecting water resources depended upon their ability to restore
riparian buffers, purchase conservation easements, restore degraded
lands, and create a system of greenways. The Charlotte Observer stated
that the Charlotte region is at the forefront of a national trend,
``linking conservation with pragmatism . . . paying to protect water
sources now rather than try to filter out pollutants later.''
The City of Auburn, Maine, is maintaining drinking water quality
standards, and avoiding the need for structural filtration, by
purchasing land, conservation easements,
Senator Chafee. Senator Baucus?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say how impressed I was with
yesterday's hearing. The mayor from--was it Indianapolis?
Senator Chafee. Fort Wayne.
Senator Baucus. Fort Wayne, Indiana, as well as the county
commissioner from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, I thought
were most helpful in giving detailed and nonpolitical examples
of how sometimes the Federal Government gets in the way in land
use planning, and I just wanted to tell you, Mr. Chairman, how
wise it was for you to schedule those witnesses.
Today we're going to learn more how the Federal Government
can be a partner more than how the Federal Government, as we
learned yesterday how the Government got in the way. Today
we'll learn more how it can be a partner with States and local
governments to preserve open space.
I was struck with a major piece--it was ABC or NBC News the
night before last on open space and what architects are doing
in city planning to help make better use of space, and one
thing that really struck me is getting rid of those garage
doors when you drive up to the front door of a house and
putting them in back of the house, not in the front so much.
But urban sprawl and space is a huge problem. We spend an
awful lot of time in our cars driving. It's not that we're
against cars; we just want an option besides cars. It's back to
city planning. And with open space planning in States like
mine, we want to make sure that we continue to have the open
space and it is not destroyed, as it often is.
I'm especially pleased that Chris Montague of the Montana
Land Reliance will be one of the witnesses later on. I look
forward to his testimony.
Montana Land Reliance, Mr. Chairman, has done a terrific
job in my home State of Montana. They're somewhat similar to
other groups which have done a lot of work with easements--very
creative. Nature Conservancy is another national organization
that comes to mind which I think does excellent work. I know
that Senator Landrieu is particularly interested in Land and
Water Conservation Fund, which is another tool. There are many,
many tools. The Administration's Better America Bonds is still
another.
And we are finally in this country, I think, beginning to
turn the corner and starting to address these questions in a
very solid, positive way, and this hearing is going outstanding
help make that happen, and I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:]
Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend you for holding these hearings,
to consider how we can maintain the quality of life in growing
communities.
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 20 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 reexamine 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.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Thomas?
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to
make a few comments. I wasn't able to be here all the time
yesterday, and I have a hearing today, but I think there's lots
of things we're talking about here that are particularly
useful, and I support many of these ideas, particularly such as
non-game protection in the west, where the game and fish
commissions have generally been funded by hunting licenses, so
these species that are non-hunting haven't had any resources to
deal with them, and so I think that's a great idea.
I'm chairman of the Parks Subcommittee. By the way, we
claim a little jurisdiction over this, as you know, over in
Energy and intend to exercise that. But I think we need to do
something with the States side, certainly. The national parks
do not have the total responsibility for recreation, and if we
can put parks into a total package to where the State and local
parks do more of the recreation and the national parks do more
of the maintenance of resources and cultures, why that's where
we ought to be, and I think that would be there.
Open space is great. Open space is a little different in
Connecticut than it is in Wyoming. I think we have to be a
little careful how we do this. You were talking about driving
from here to here. Well, drive from Matistse to Byron, Wyoming,
and it would be quite different than it is in Rhode Island. So
I hope we're careful, as we talk about land acquisition and as
we talk about doing open space things, that we recognize the
Federal Government should not have the heavy hand.
You're talking about partnerships. I hope they're equal
partnerships and not one horse and one dog partnerships, like
it often is.
So I guess my point is that I think there's some real good
things here, but we need to handle them differently in
different parts of the country.
For example, I think increasingly people in the west are
beginning to understand that agricultural prosperity has a heck
of a lot to do with open space. If ranchers go broke, then
those ranches are subdivided into housing. If they can be
effectively operated, they are open space. There are a lot of
things of that kind.
Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that you are undertaking this. I
simply want to again just say repetitiously that one size does
not fit all.
Senator Chafee. Well, I think you're absolutely right, and
I think that was the theme that was expressed yesterday by the
county commissioner and by the mayor of Fort Wayne, and I think
you're absolutely right when you call to our attention that the
prosperity of the beef industry, or whatever it might be,
results in open space being preserved, and if those ranches go
broke, pretty soon they are subdivided into--it's hard to call
them ``lots,'' but housing anyway.
Senator Baucus. Big lots.
Senator Chafee. Big lots.
Senator Baucus. Ranchettes.
Senator Chafee. Ranchettes.
Yes, Sir, Senator Bennett?
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I'm
going to have to leave because I made an agreement to preside
over the Senate at 10, but I appreciate the opportunity to make
a comment before I do go.
People think of Utah as a rural State--Wyoming, Utah,
Montana, and so on. We are the second most-urbanized State in
the Nation. Of our population, 80 percent resides within a
corridor no more than 20 miles wide and no more than 50 miles
long.
Senator Chafee. What's the most urbanized?
Senator Bennett. Nevada, I guess.
Senator Baucus. Nevada is.
Senator Chafee. Is that right?
Senator Bennett. Yes.
Senator Baucus. Yes.
Senator Bennett. And, ironically, we have only about 15
percent of the State available for private ownership and use.
The rest of it is all--the Federal Government owns two-thirds
of the State. The State owns a good chunk, the school trust
lands, and so on. So we know about open spaces, even though we
are heavily urbanized. Within 15 minutes of downtown Salt Lake,
you can be in open space virtually any direction you go. Now,
if you head for the salt flats, you are in open space you don't
want to be in, because it will not sustain any kind of life out
there, but, nonetheless, it is open.
So this is not an issue. Growth very much is an issue. We
are one of the most rapidly growing States, and we are eating
up our available land, so we are very much concerned about
this.
I want to share with you the result of a survey of Utah
households, over 500,000 questionnaires sent out by a group
called ``Envision Utah'' that has been working on this issue
for a couple of years, recognizing that we are going to have to
handle an additional two million people, which for us would be
doubling our population, within a relatively short period of
time, and where are we going to put them.
So this group has been working on this issue and doing some
really fascinating things. I won't take the time to describe to
you some of their activities. But the results of their
questionnaire, as they talked to Utahans about who should be
responsible for dealing with this issue, 46 percent said people
like you and me--in other words, they want it local. Another 30
percent said State and local government. Only 3 percent liked
the idea of the Federal Government being involved in these
decisions.
I think that is a very interesting commentary here. We have
had previous Federal experience. Superfund was launched with
all excitement about how the Federal Government was going to
help solve this problem. Some of our most difficult problems in
Utah are Superfund sites that have been preserved as Superfund
sites, almost as if they were national treasures, for years and
years and years. Perhaps the concern about the Federal
Government being the primary engine here is based on experience
with the Federal Government's inability to solve local
problems.
So I compliment you on the hearings and I apologize to our
witnesses that I won't be able to hear all of what they have to
say. I'll read their testimony carefully. But I would be
derelict in my duty to represent my constituents if I didn't
point out that they would prefer that the Federal Government
become a facilitator for local efforts, rather than the
dictator of the way this thing ought to be done.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much, Senator. As you
know, of course, we're delighted that you've joined this
committee, because you can contribute a lot to it, and
Superfund has been an issue we have been wrestling with, and
I'm sure we're going to deal with it again this year and see if
we can't get some success with it. Obviously, the cleanup in
the brownfields is a tremendous part of that whole effort.
Now, we are delighted that we're going to have eventually,
I believe, three Senators, but certainly we have two here now,
and we welcome both Senator Landrieu and Senator Leahy, so,
Senator Landrieu, why don't you proceed?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY LANDRIEU, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by
saying that I have a lengthy statement for the record that I'd
like to put in the record, but I'm going to just summarize in
my comments and be available to answer any questions that the
members will have.
Let me begin, though, by thanking you, Senator, sincerely,
for your interest and your work in this area. As several of us
began to develop this bill over 2 years ago, I want to say that
your counsel, your advice was critical in the development of
this initiative, and particularly your good words that were put
in the record over a year ago on the floor of the Senate helped
us to design and bring this issue to this point today, and so I
want to thank you.
I also want to thank publicly Senators Murkowski, Lott,
Breaux, Cleland, Johnson, Mikulski, Cochran, Sessions, Bond,
Gregg, Bunning, Lincoln, and Bayh for their efforts in working
on Senate Bill 25, which has been introduced on this subject.
Senator Thomas had to leave, but, as the subcommittee chair of
Parks, he and his staff have been very interested and helpful.
And I want to thank Senator Murkowski, particularly, as the
chairman of Energy, because this, as you have seen from this
testimony here from the East Coast to the west coast, it is
going to have to be done with the idea in mind that one size
doesn't fit all, and that's the way that many of us are trying
to design a bill that will work, that will be good for our
Nation.
I want to just read, as I begin, one paragraph from the
``New York Times'' editorial of June 16, 1997, that actually,
Mr. Chairman, as I've shared with you, helped me to focus on
the significance of this endeavor. It is very brief, but I want
to read it for the record.
It says, ``More than 30 years ago, Congress passed a quiet
little environmental program that offered great promise to
future generations of Americans. Conceived under Dwight
Eisenhower, proposed by John Kennedy, and signed into law by
Lyndon Johnson, the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund
was designed to provide a steady revenue stream to preserve
irreplaceable lands of natural beauty and unique recreational
value.''
Royalties from offshore oil and gas revenues would provide
the money, giving the program an interesting symmetry. Dollars
raised from one depleting resource would be used to protect
another.
``Since its inception, the Fund has helped acquire seven
million acres of national and State park land, developed 37,000
recreation projects. Its notable triumphs include the Cape Cod
National Seashore, the New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve,
and the national park in Minnesota. But the program fell
apart.''
Mr. Chairman, the bill that I've offered with many of my
colleagues and other bills that have been offered is an attempt
to put this program back together, to do it now before it is
too late, to provide funding for this country that will be a
permanent source of funding, to do something we actually should
have done 30 or 40 years ago, but it is never too late to do it
right.
That's what this bill attempts to do. It attempts to define
and to set aside a permanent source of funding, and we have a
good source, and that source is the offshore oil and gas
revenues.
Since 1955, the year that I was born, the Federal
Government has taken $120 billion in mineral resources, and
that money has been put in the Federal Treasury and spent on
ongoing operating, nonrelated areas.
Not only has Louisiana been shortchanged, because we have
provided 90 percent of these resources, but Texas and
Mississippi and Alaska and other producing States have been
shortchanged, but, in my opinion, so have all the States been
shortchanged, because this money has not been used for
environmental investments.
That's what we are here for--to talk about a permanent
source of funding that will provide, I hope, $2 billion, at
least, maybe more, to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund
fully, to fund coastal impact assistance. Two-thirds of our
population live along our coasts. Those States and cities need
additional help for beaches, for coastal impact assistance--
whether or not there is oil and gas drilling, there are great
needs--and to fully fund our wildlife and conservation efforts
for game and for non-game sources, as well as our urban parks
and historic preservation.
I just want to show you, Mr. Chairman, because I think you
and also Senator Boxer and Senator Lieberman would appreciate
seeing, in Louisiana this is the largest cypress tree left in
North America. Most of the cypress trees were cut down over 100
years ago, as you have similar for the redwoods. This is the
largest cypress tree left. Right now, there is a part of land
called ``Cat Island'' that Georgia Pacific owns that could be
purchased if there was a steady stream of revenue in the Land
and Water Conservation Fund. It is unlevied. It is part of the
only part of the Mississippi River left that is unlevied that
is a natural sort of cypress swamp.
I could show you 1,000 pictures from every State in the
Union about land like this that we need to purchase, and that's
why there is some urgency. But we have to do it in a way that
recognizes that in Wyoming or Nevada, 90 percent of the land is
already owned by the Government. In Louisiana, only 4 percent
of the land is owned. And so politically we've got to craft a
bill that works for the whole country and recognizes the great
differences.
I'll only end my testimony with this. I also want to say as
emphatically as I can how fiscally irresponsible I think it is
for this Nation to take taxes from a nonrenewable resource,
because 1 day our oil and gas wells will be dried up. We hope
in Louisiana that's not in the near future, and I know
California has a different view. But we want to see this
production done in an environmentally safe way.
But I have to say it is fiscally irresponsible for this
Nation to take these moneys generated and spend them on
nonrelated recurring expenses and not reinvest them back for
our children and our grandchildren. And so that is the beauty
of this proposal. Just as was outlined by this ``New York
Times'' editorial written by a wonderful environmental writer--
and I've talked to him personally and thanked him for spurring
my thinking more clearly on this issue--but we need to do it
together.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's what we are all here
today to try to do. It is a fiscally responsible thing to take
these dollars and make the investment for our future, and I
thank you for the chance to testify this morning.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much, Senator. I know
you have long been interested in this subject, and you and I
have had many discussions in connection with it.
Senator Leahy, we welcome you here.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF VERMONT
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope you won't
mind if I share with the committee what I told you privately on
the floor yesterday, and that is I understand but am sorry to
see your decision to retire.
Senator Chafee. Aren't you nice. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. You are among the absolute best that New
England has sent to the U.S. Senate.
Senator Chafee. Why restrict it to New England?
[Laughter.]
Senator Leahy. I may need votes from people from the other
parts of the country on some other issues coming up.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much.
Senator Leahy. I always assume that New England sends the
best to the country, anyway.
Senator Chafee. That's a good come-back.
Senator Baucus. But not entirely accurate.
[Laughter.]
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, I think you will find your
colleagues agree that you are among the best of the best, and
we appreciate having you here.
Last year you and I were fighting a bill on the Senate
floor that would have taken away local land use and zoning
decisions from local officials and communities, and I think
this Congress is starting out on a much better foot, and I
think these hearings help that a great deal.
We should redouble our efforts to equip communities with
the tools they need to plan growth and promote better central
business districts. People around the country demonstrated
their support for open space conservation and urban
revitalization last fall at polls by approving 124 measures
dedicating local and State revenues for these goals around the
country.
In Vermont, we have been assembling a workbox of tools to
help communities with land use planning, but if you don't have
Federal support it is like trying to build a house with
toothpicks.
We've all seen the impact of urban sprawl in our States. It
sometimes steals unbidden into our midst. It's sort of like
kudzu--you don't see it coming at first, but you sure see the
result once it hits you.
Sprawl is not incremental development, it is transforming
development. It clots our roads, compounds the cost of the
infrastructure we need, takes its toll on the environment,
sucks the lifeblood from the very character of our communities,
and it costs us all.
Let me talk about two programs that are working right now
to help local communities.
Mr. Chairman, last week you and I were joined by 40 other
Senators in sending a letter to the Budget Committee to support
full funding of allocations to States and communities for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. I hope we can pass
legislation to meet the original intent of the fund.
Last year, Governors identified more than 500 projects
which could have benefited from a higher level of funding from
the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Another approach that began in Vermont but is now a
national program is the farmland protection program. As you
know, we are losing farm and forest land across the country at
an alarming rate. We had an original pilot program in Vermont
known as the ``Farms of the Future'' program. That effort has
supported the decisions of thousands of farmers who have chosen
to protect their farms from development and preserve their way
of life for generations to come. It has been overwhelmingly
successful.
If we funded this this year, it could ensure the protection
of prime agricultural and forest land across the country.
I have introduced S. 333 to reauthorize the farmland
protection program at $55 million a year. This map of Franklin
County, Vermont, shows how well the farmland protection program
can work. Those green patches are where we have used the
farmland protection. This is some of the best agriculture soil
in our State.
Senator Chafee. When you say the farmland protection, is
that where you buy up the development rights?
Senator Leahy. That's right.
Senator Chafee. Who buys them? The State or the county?
Senator Leahy. No. It would be the State will buy them up.
We don't have a county form of government, as such, in Vermont,
but the State and the local communities would do that. We use
either farms for the future or farmland protection program for
this.
A lot of this would have been just developed and lost.
We've got plenty of room to develop for what we need for
manufacturing and anything else, but we only have so much very
good agricultural soil, and we have to implement policy
changes.
I'm going to introduce the Downtown Equity Act of 1999 to
help bring Federal buildings or Federal facilities into
downtown when that is at all possible. We recently had one
again in Vermont which went out into an area that is where
people are very concerned about growth, bypassing some areas
where downtowns need revitalization. Sometimes downtown areas
have difficulty competing in the Federal procurement process
because of higher costs, and this may well help them--at least
give them a level playing field that would allow Federal
agencies to factor in the cost of siting a place, encouraging
them to consider downtown.
So these are all areas--Mr. Chairman, I will put my whole
statement in the record, but what prompts me to have my concern
about this, as a native Vermonter, I saw in 1993 the National
Trust for Historic Preservation put our entire State on its
list of endangered places because it was so concerned that we
would lose our character by sprawl.
Having grown up in a small city where you had a very active
downtown that kept a sense of community, where I delivered
newspapers to most of the businesses downtown as a child, I
know how much it added to the character of our State--a very
good character--and I would hate to see that lost. At least
give us the tools so it doesn't have to be lost.
I commend you for having these hearings, and Senator
Baucus, who has also been a leader in this area.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Leahy. I'm going to have to go to another hearing.
Senator Chafee. Fine. We know that other people have
apartments. Senator Landrieu, if you have an appointment--if
you can stay, we can have some questions perhaps.
Senator Feinstein, you are welcome. Glad you are here.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to echo Senator Leahy's compliment to you. I don't
want to take it back. As a matter of fact, I only wish you
would try the other side of the aisle for the remaining time
you have here.
Senator Chafee. Put 24 years in there, too?
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Senator Chafee. I don't know.
Senator Feinstein. You will be missed.
Senator Chafee. Aren't you nice. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. And by those of us on the other side of
the aisle, as well.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
Senator Feinstein. Mr. Chairman, you have three bills
before you, and the bill I'm going to speak about, my bill, is
probably the most modest of the three.
I want particularly to compliment my friend and colleague,
Senator Boxer, for her initiative and for the Permanent
Protection for American Resources Act, which she has authored,
and I'm very proud to be a cosponsor of that bill.
My bill, if you will, sets a kind of basic menu for
handling the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It is termed,
``The Public Land and Recreation Investment Act,'' and it
really takes off after some of the basics. These basics are
that Congress has historically spent less than it has on the
Land and Water Conservation Act, in 1999 appropriating only
$328 million. And since the water conservation fund was
created, Congress has really spent only $9 billion of the more
than $21 billion the Fund has raised.
This underspending----
Senator Chafee. How much does it bring in a year? Do you
know, Senator?
Senator Feinstein. Beg your pardon?
Senator Chafee. How much goes into the Fund a year? Do you
know?
Senator Feinstein. Yes, $900 million.
Senator Chafee. So $900 million comes into the Fund every
year?
Senator Feinstein. That's right.
Senator Chafee. From the offshore receipts?
Senator Feinstein. That's right.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. So this underspending has created a huge
backlog in Federal acquisition of environmentally sensitive
lands. The cost of acquiring in-holdings in national parks,
wildlife refuges, national forests, and other public lands
totals over $10 billion. In addition, the Federal Government
receives $600 million in requests for land and water
conservation funding each year.
Now, this Fund also is authorized to fund grants to States
for acquisition of park lands and recreation facilities.
Historically, about a third of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund has gone to States, but State grants have gone unfunded
since 1995.
And another important part of this, which I used at least a
half a dozen times while I was mayor of San Francisco, that has
gone unfunded in recent years is the UPARR program, the Urban
Parks and Recreation Recovery program, which was originally
authorized at about $150 million a year.
What my bill would do is amend the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act to say that the $900 million collected by
the Land and Water Conservation Fund each year would be
automatically appropriated to the Land and Water Conservation
Fund and the urban parks and recreation recovery program. So
that appropriation becomes automatic every year, that $900
million is available. These funds would be used to acquire and
preserve natural areas, open space, park land, wildlife
habitat, and recreation areas.
This bill would also provide that 40 percent of the funds
provided under this act be spent on State grants, so, of the
$900 million, 40 percent, $360 million, would be spent on State
grants. This would establish a floor. Additionally, it would
require that the States pass through 50 percent of the grants
they receive directly to local governments.
It would provide that 10 percent of the funds provided
under this act be allocated to the urban parks and recreation
recovery program, the UPARR program, and it would require the
President to submit an annual priority list to Congress for
expenditure of funds provided under this act.
The land and water conservation funding will be spent on
the President's priorities unless Congress specifies a
different order or list of priorities each year.
It would change requirements for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund State grants programs, including a new
requirement for States to develop State action agendas that
identify their top conservation and recreation acquisition
needs--in other words, each State must prioritize its needs
every 4 years.
And it would provide something that has never happened
before, and that is that Indian tribes would be recognized
collectively as one State for the purpose of the State grants
programs, and thereby these programs would be accessible to
Indian tribes.
It would amend the UPARR Act to allow funds to be spent for
construction of recreation facilities and acquisition of park
land, and it would make other technical changes to update this
act for the 1990's.
So, in essence, what my bill seeks to do is set a floor, a
basic menu, if you will, to say that each year--particularly
now that we have a surplus--at least $900 million will be
appropriated for these purposes. Of that, 40 percent will go to
the State. Indian tribes will be one State collectively, and be
able to use this money. Of the moneys, 10 percent would go
through to the local directly to local governments.
Senator Chafee. And ``local'' meaning cities; is that
right?
Senator Feinstein. Excuse me, that's right, to cities.
Senator Chafee. All right.
Senator Feinstein. And that States would have to pass
through 50 percent of the grants they receive directly.
Senator Chafee. Is that 50 percent of the----
Senator Feinstein. State money, of the 40.
Senator Chafee.--40?
Senator Feinstein. Of the 40 would go directly through to
local governments.
So, in essence, we have tried to sort of very carefully set
a menu, if you will, as to how this $900 million would be used
each year, but we would use the $900 million.
Last year, Congress only appropriated $328 million. I
believe there's $13 million in the so-called ``backlog'' that
has not been appropriated.
I look at this as the most modest of the bills before you,
as I say, as a menu of how to proceed. I think it is prudent. I
think it is wise. And if the committee doesn't see fit to pass
another bill, I think this bill makes a lot of sense.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much, Senator.
First of all, I want to congratulate you for all the work
you did on that--I guess you call it the ``headwaters forest.''
Senator Feinstein. Headwaters forest. That's right.
Senator Chafee. Boy, that was a terrific job. And does it
seem to be--is it over now? Have you won?
Senator Feinstein. It is over. We----
Senator Chafee. There seems to be a lot of backing and
filling.
Senator Feinstein. It is a done deal, as they would say,
Mr. Chairman, and now we've got to make it work.
Senator Chafee. Great.
Senator Feinstein. But we have essentially protected for
all time the largest stand of historic ancient redwood forest
in this country in private ownership.
Senator Chafee. Well, isn't that marvelous. All of us
congratulate you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. I know you worked very hard on it, along
with Secretary Babbitt and, I guess, the Governor.
Senator Feinstein. The Governor of California.
Senator Chafee. Both Governors.
Senator Feinstein. Right. Actually, we had a very good team
of State and Federal people trying to pull this thing together.
It was very difficult because all of this land is private land
and you can't just take it without paying for it.
Senator Chafee. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. And so to work out something which made
sense for those people that needed the jobs and all of us that
wanted to preserve the ancient redwood, was very important.
Senator Chafee. Good for you. Well, you should feel very
satisfied.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Senator Landrieu, as I understand your
bill, it gives the money to States with very broad criteria. I
guess there is some concern--I thought you made a very
appealing presentation here when you said, ``Why shouldn't we
use money that comes from a depleting resource to restore other
resources?'' But I'm not sure that--and perhaps you can help me
on this--that your bill would necessarily do that. Some have
expressed concern--and I think the environmental community
might voice it as we go along here today--that your bill
creates drilling incentives. Is that so?
Senator Landrieu. Thank you for asking that question,
because I'd like to clear up a couple of things and respond to
your question.
As you know, this bill has been introduced, different
versions of it, many years before, and it met with some
resistance for many reasons. Because of that, we have taken out
the drilling incentives in this bill so that it becomes a
revenue-sharing bill. It is not a pro-drilling bill; neither is
it an anti-drilling bill. I have urged my colleagues to
consider coming to terms with that, since there are some States
that are pro-drilling and others that are not, to come together
on a revenue-sharing bill.
We had to come up with a way, Mr. Chairman--I'm glad
Senator Feinstein is here to hear this--because I was happy to
see that she was able to be crucial to the development of that
purchase of the redwoods.
But we need to remember, the money that enabled us to do
that came from offshore oil revenues, basically, from Louisiana
and Texas. We are producing 90 percent of the money in the
Fund. Louisiana is producing 90 percent of the offshore oil and
gas revenues, and currently. As you know, interior States, like
Wyoming and Montana and Colorado, get to keep 50 percent of
mineral revenues. But the coastal States that drill don't get
to keep any of their revenues.
So we are urging is this Congress to recognize the
contribution that Louisiana and Texas and other States make,
allowing in the formula, as we spread this money around the
States, to reinvest back for impact assistance.
I just left ports in my State, Mr. Chairman, and I have to
tell you that 1,000 trucks a day--I mean, this money just
doesn't get into the Treasury by magic. There are hundreds of
helicopters, thousands of trucks that transport this industry
from onshore to offshore. The helicopters don't come from
Honduras or Guatemala, they come from Louisiana and Texas to
make this drilling possible. This activity raises the money to
purchase the redwoods and Cat Island and the Montana parks and
Yellowstone.
Any bill that we develop has to recognize the contribution
that the coastal States make, whether they drill or not, and we
can add some additional language that will make it clear that
that's for impact assistance and environmental investments.
I know that you are sensitive to the fact that this money
is produced from oil revenues derived off the coast of
Louisiana. It looks like that's the way it is going to be for
the next 30 or 40 years, and any bill that is developed should
recognize the tremendous contribution of this income to the
Fund.
Finally I will say, since it is your State that we used as
an example, Louisiana already has lost an area greater than the
State of Rhode Island off of our shore, not only from offshore
oil and gas development, but the leveeing of the Mississippi
River for ports and waterways.
I can plead with the members to understand the impacts of
these developments. Any bill that we design should recognize
that--not encourage drilling, nor discourage it--but be
revenue-neutral.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
I notice my time is up.
Senator Baucus, do you have a question of the panel?
Senator Baucus. Yes, very briefly.
First, I very much commend both of you for trying to
increase the amount of funds that go to these general
purposes--land and water conservation purposes and open space
and sprawl kinds of purposes. I think now the Congress has
appropriated about $200 million, roughly, to Land and Water
Conservation Fund. Do you know is that about the right amount?
Senator Feinstein. It's $328 million last year.
Senator Baucus. Yes. And both your bills would direct $900
million a year.
Senator Landrieu. Well, the authorization is $900 million,
but we've never met that.
Senator Baucus. Right.
Senator Landrieu. I think 1 year in 30 years.
Senator Baucus. Right. But both your bills would direct
that that would be spent----
Senator Feinstein. Appropriate. That's right.
Senator Landrieu. Yes.
Senator Baucus.--which I commend. I mean, it is--I firmly
believe that that's something that we should to.
The question really is--and I don't think it can be
answered here--is the formula, you know, and how we divvy it up
and what discretion is given to whom--to States, local
communities, and even the Congress, for that matter. And,
obviously, any formula has to be fair to all parts of the
country.
I don't want to get into all the details here, but I would
expect that coastal States do get some offshore revenue.
Senator Landrieu. We don't get any.
Senator Baucus. With State taxation of some revenue.
Senator Landrieu. Because when you're outside of--that's
what is so important.
Senator Baucus. But let's say not offshore, but inshore.
Senator Landrieu. Well, you get inshore, but----
Senator Baucus. Or whatever the opposite of offshore is.
Senator Landrieu. Yes, but it is important to say you do
get some inshore revenues, but, because the Federal Government
has passed this deepwater royalty relief, it is moving the
drilling far offshore, like 50 miles, way past any State's
borders, and so the States like Texas and Louisiana that are
supporting that deepwater, which can be done in more and more
environmentally sensitive ways, are not getting any tax
revenues, and so that's part of what we're trying to solve with
our efforts here, to reinvest back in those coastal communities
and also share with other States that don't have drilling, to
be fair, that they should be able to make their choice.
I think Senator Glendening is going to represent the views
of many of the Governors, republicans and democrats, about that
point, and the State's discretion to use some of these moneys,
which is important.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate that. Again, it's just a
question how we divvy it up.
Senator
Senator Feinstein. Senator Baucus, what my bill tries to do
is establish that formula, and what it essentially says is 50
percent would be spent on Federal projects, 40 percent would be
spent on State projects, 10 percent on local projects.
Senator Baucus. Right.
Senator Feinstein. Of the money going to the State, half of
it would go down to the locals. So it doesn't make any judgment
as to where it should go, but it does establish that formula,
and then, finally, it provides that Indian tribes could be seen
as a State.
Senator Baucus. What guidelines do you provide in your
bill?
Senator Feinstein. I beg your pardon?
Senator Baucus. What guidelines do you provide? Can a State
receive the money and spend it for any purpose, or----
Senator Feinstein. For the normal purposes, I don't think
we--well, to acquire and preserve natural areas, open space,
park land, wildlife habitat, and recreation areas.
Senator Baucus. All right.
Senator Feinstein. Those are the guidelines.
Senator Baucus. Thank you. I suppose the Appropriations
Committee loves it.
Senator Feinstein. I beg your pardon?
Senator Baucus. I suppose the Appropriations Committee
loves it?
Senator Feinstein. Well, we'll see.
Senator Baucus. Yes. Thank you very much.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. They're both good bills. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. There is no question but what your bill is
somewhat different here----
Senator Feinstein. Right. Very different.
Senator Chafee.--in that, under your--what Senator
Landrieu, as I understand it, is saying is that her State is
doing a lot of offshore drilling and is producing a lot of
revenue for the Federal Government.
Senator Landrieu. That's correct.
Senator Chafee. At the same time, this is at a cost. Trucks
come rumbling down through these--when I was in college, I
worked in south Louisiana--I guess I told you that--in a place
called ``Baratara'' on a drilling rig.
Senator Landrieu. Yes.
Senator Chafee. And I know that down in a place called
Lafitte----
Senator Landrieu. Port Luchan, yes.
Senator Chafee. Way, way down in there in a parish--I
forget the name of the parish.
Senator Landrieu. Plaquemines Parish and Jefferson.
Senator Chafee. In any event, I worked there one summer to
get strong. I read an article in----
Senator Landrieu. That will do it.
Senator Baucus. Did it work?
Senator Chafee. I don't know. I survived all right. But it
was a tremendous experience. Boy, when you change a bit down,
coming out of the hole when you're down there around 5,000 feet
and you run that pipe up in 90-foot sections, it is a ballet on
the floor of the drilling rig. Everybody has a duty, and it is
a--there's one big boss. He's the driller. You snap when he
tells you to do something.
In any event, so what you want is money to come in and
repair these roads that have been damaged, or you're trying to
do something to bring back the sections just out where the
Mississippi empties.
Senator Landrieu. Yes.
Senator Chafee. Well, I don't think, under Senator
Feinstein's proposal, money would be coming to the States for
those purposes. I think we've got a difference here. Under
Senator Feinstein's proposal, I'm not sure--we've got 50
States. How would you divide up the--and I'm all for the $900
million a year, but how would you divide it amongst the States?
Maryland is represented here. Is it some need criteria? But
once you do that you get a subjective definition and it gets
very tricky.
Senator Feinstein. You divide it based on 30 percent
equally and the rest on need.
Senator Baucus. What does ``equal'' mean?
Senator Chafee. I suppose on population or square miles?
Senator Feinstein. Yes. Of the total amount, 30 percent
would be divided equally among the States, whatever that----
Senator Chafee. You mean Rhode Island would get as much as
California?
Senator Feinstein. Yes, 30 percent of it. Of the $900
million, 30 percent would be divided equally among----
Senator Chafee. You divide that by 50?
Senator Feinstein.--all of the States, and the rest would
be on the basis of individual proposals by the States.
Senator Chafee. I see. All right. Well, this is very
interesting.
Go ahead.
Senator Baucus. I don't quite understand. If 30 percent is
divided equally--30 of the 50 percent; is that correct?
Senator Feinstein. That's correct.
Senator Chafee. You divide 30 by 50 being the States?
Senator Feinstein. That's correct.
Senator Baucus. Thirty of the 50?
Senator Feinstein. That's right.
Senator Baucus. Then the remaining 70 of the 50 is divided
according to----
Senator Feinstein. Proposal.
Senator Baucus. I don't--what does that mean?
Senator Feinstein. Need.
Senator Baucus. I'm sorry?
Senator Feinstein. The way it is done now, essentially,
Senator.
Senator Baucus. Well, now it is done----
Senator Feinstein. The requests come from the White House.
Senator Baucus. Right.
Senator Feinstein. The requests come from the Congress.
Senator Baucus. Right. But so much is earmarked today by
Congress, and I'm just curious who determines need. How is need
determined?
Senator Feinstein. The Administration and the Congress
would determine the need. There isn't a need necessarily
spelled out in the bill. There isn't a needs test spelled out
in this bill.
Senator Baucus. Well, your staff person may have a little
more to add here. She's ready there to assist you.
Senator Landrieu. Can I add one thing while----
Senator Chafee. Sure.
Senator Landrieu. One thing I was thinking, our bill,
Senate Bill 25, simply attempts--and the environmentalists here
can correct me, but we attempt just to fully fund--and we don't
quite get there, but we could, with a little tweaking of this
formula--to fully fund the land and water conservation the way
it was developed 30 years ago, which is basically half of it
goes to the Federal Government, approximately, to spend on land
purchases anywhere under the discretion of the Federal
Government and the Congress, through a system, and then the
other part of it goes to the States, based, I think, on
population, and there's a formula on population and land mass,
I think, primarily. So our bill doesn't really change that. It
might tweak it a little, but in our bill it just fully funds
the land and water conservation, because I, frankly, believe
the States should have some discretion in the way their park
systems are developed, and the Governors and the mayors and the
county commissioners, and, in addition, it adds some money to
urban parks, is the best way I can explain it, so that some of
that money, instead of just going to the States, goes to some
urban parks for expansion.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you both very much for coming. We
appreciate it. These are thoughtful ideas. You've obviously put
a lot into it, and I, personally, am very enthusiastic about
it.
Thank you.
Governor, won't you please step forward? We're delighted
you are here.
We're delighted to have Governor Parris Glendening here of
the State of Maryland, and he's right out in the front lines as
a Governor. He just went through a big reelection.
Do you have term limits? Can you run again, or is that it?
Governor Glendening. We have term limits. I also have a
wonderful lieutenant Governor, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, so
we're confident.
Senator Chafee. So you can have, what, two 4-year terms
back-to-back?
Governor Glendening. That's correct.
Senator Chafee. Suppose you are out for 4 years? Can you
come back?
Governor Glendening. No.
Senator Chafee. You can't?
Governor Glendening. No.
Senator Chafee. Wow.
Governor Glendening. Eight years is enough to leave an
impact in there.
Senator Chafee. All right. Why don't you go to it, please.
STATEMENT OF HON. PARRIS N. GLENDENING, GOVERNOR, STATE OF
MARYLAND
Governor Glendening. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, let me thank you for the opportunity to discuss the
land use issues here today, and, more specifically, Maryland's
smart growth anti-sprawl program. We will have a statement
submitted, so I'll summarize portions of that.
Senator Chafee. Fine.
Governor Glendening. Senator, let me also add my regrets of
your decision to retire, but my compliments in terms of what
you have done for this country. Your leadership for individuals
with disabilities and for health care for poor children, and
especially in the environment, has been very significant.
Senator Chafee. How nice. Thank you.
Governor Glendening. We will all miss you.
Senator Chafee. I appreciate those kind comments.
Governor Glendening. It is a pleasure to be able to speak
here for a few minutes about one of my favorite topics. It has
all different kinds of names. Some people call it ``livability
communities,'' some say ``sustainable growth.'' We in Maryland
call it ``smart growth.'' But it is really a national movement
toward more sensible land use patterns, which gives us an
opportunity, I think, as we go into the new century, to really
make a positive change in what our country will look like in
the future.
In the last 50 years, Americans have acted as if moving out
there somewhere was the same as moving up, and in the process
we have taken our natural resources for granted. We've paid too
little attention to what has happened on agricultural land,
where farms are fragmented by development, or what happens to
forests and wildlife that lives in them when they are destroyed
by roads or malls.
Across the nation, we've let too many of our great and
historic cities and communities collapse, and this has been
done, in part, through indifference to urban needs that has
fueled a great flight to the suburbs.
As we debate where we are in the suburbs and the central
cities, we must remember that we really cannot be a suburb to
nothing.
Those of us who have studied the causes of sprawl
understand that government policies, even well-meaning
policies, too often have caused or perpetuated the very
patterns of development that we are now trying to reverse. Two
good examples, the interstate highway system, which opened up
our entire country, as combined almost exactly in time with the
G.I. loan system that permitted veterans to buy homes
throughout this country.
What has happened, of course, is that those two policies
inadvertently made sprawl development financially viable for
both developers and for home buyers. Now these patterns of land
use have increased land pollution and have almost negated the
introduction of dramatically cleaner cars. They cost taxpayers
literally hundreds of billions of dollars for every year to
create redundant highway and other infrastructure.
In Maryland--and I know this is true for so many States--we
have often followed an unwritten rule that directed State funds
to new suburban developments first at the expense of our older
communities and neighborhoods. In fact, it has become a hidden
form of entitlement. No matter where a developer wants to
build, the State pitches in, even if it hurts our established
communities.
Let me tell you one quick story. My wife, Francis Ann, is
from Cumberland, Maryland, up in the western part of our State.
When we were courting a good number of years ago we used to go
up there on the weekends and spend with her parents. We would
go downtown on Friday night and we'd wander around. The theater
would be open. The shops would be there, the coffee lounge and
other lounges, and it was a wonderful time just to meet in a
small town.
Subsequently, a developer came in and proposed a huge new
regional shopping center outside of town up on the side of the
mountains. In order to make that financially viable, the State
of Maryland put up $14 million to help build that road. Within
2 years, the downtown Cumberland area started to decline
dramatically, and when you go there you see, like so many of
our smaller towns, a dramatically under-utilized community.
We have started to reverse these trends in Maryland by
addressing what we think to be one of the fundamental decisions
behind development forces, and that is simply the bottom line,
the cost line.
We have decided that if government policies had
inadvertently encouraged sprawl by making it cost-effective,
then new government policies could encourage investment in
existing communities and in smart growth centers by making it
more expensive to further sprawl.
People make bottom-line decisions. Homemakers do, builders
do, investors do, and therefore I think our goal ought to be to
change that bottom line.
We have, in effect, made our $17 billion State budget an
incentive fund for smart growth. We've outlined--and I think
these have been distributed to you--the details in this report
here of exactly how we are doing so.
For development outside of the smart growth areas, we
simply say the State will not help out. I'm sorry, but it will
not. If you are building out there and if you are tearing up
one more farm or forest, then you pay the cost for roads,
water, or sewage park and other development costs. But,
instead, if you invest in existing communities, then you not
only avoid those costs, but you will have access to tax
credits, grants, low-interest loans, and other bottom-line
impacting incentives.
Let me emphasize, it is not our intention to stop growth.
We do not want no growth or slow growth. In fact, we want to
continue economic growth in Maryland. Indeed, our economy is
booming. We are now the third-highest family income in the
Nation, and our unemployment rate is at a 10-year low. But we
simply no longer will approve State funding for capital
projects or operating projects that are not in accordance with
smart growth program. We will not use tax dollars to subsidize
sprawl.
If you think about the statistics, the American farmland
trust says that the United States is losing 45.5 acres of green
space every hour. In Maryland, if we continue going the way we
are now, in the next 25 years we would lose more open space
than we did in the first 350 years of our existence.
I'm proud that we have laid this foundation for protection
of the green infrastructure with our smart growth. We may be a
leader, but so many other States are doing the same things.
Republican Governors like Mike Leavitt, for example, of Utah,
or Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, are leaders in this
area. Governor Tom Carper of Delaware, Roy Barnes of Georgia,
making major efforts to stop sprawl.
Let me suggest that I and my fellow Governors would
appreciate the support of the national government. We believe
there are four key areas in which we can work as partners: the
continued expansion of effective programs that work; second, to
emphasize the location of government facilities; third, to use
a sprawl versus reinvestment test for decision; and, fourth, to
rethink some of the broader policies that are in place.
If I might, very briefly, when I talk about continuing
expanding effective programs, programs like the conservation
reserve enhancement program, which provides Maryland with about
$200 million over the next 20 years to provide forest buffers
along our waterways. I stress, by the way, we're not just
asking for money. The legislature approved our program for $140
million for purchase of development rights for 70,000 acres
during the course of the next 4 years.
There are a number of new programs being proposed that do
the same type of thing. I wanted to praise members of the
Clinton Administration, as well as this Congress, for the
support of those programs. The Better America Bonds program,
for example, which will help us purchase greenspace development
rights and restore urban areas; community transportation cost,
a $10 billion proposal to relieve congestion and improve air
quality--these type of programs do work and we support them
very strongly.
The second approach for the Federal Government to adopt, I
believe, is a policy that emphasizes location of public
facilities, of national government facilities, and smart growth
areas. The Federal Government should make it a practice to
locate new offices in central business districts, and
especially in communities where revitalization efforts are
already underway.
Sometimes, relatively simple acts, like keeping a post
office or a courthouse downtown, rather than building out in
the suburbs, can have a significant impact on the economic
viability of a community.
Let me just tell you, when we came in, for example, in the
State of Maryland, we pay 50 percent of school construction,
the State does. The first priority was set for new schools in
new communities to accommodate growth. We've reversed that
entirely, and first priority now says for schools in existing
communities. When I came in, 43 percent of the funding for
State support for education for school construction went into
existing communities. Today, more than 80 percent does.
Likewise, I remember a great debate in the small town of
Hagerstown, where the judges had decided to build a new
courthouse out on the interstate highway so it would be more
convenient for them and they would have more parking. We
reversed that decision. That courthouse is now under
construction in downtown Hagerstown.
The third step I think that would work is for a simple test
on policy decisions. Does this program lead to reinvestment in
an established community, or does it contribute to sprawl? That
is the law of the land in Maryland now, and we think it would
do well nationwide.
Once you begin reviewing policy decisions from that
perspective, you will realize how many government actions have
a significant impact on sprawl by either protecting or
threatening open space, by either reinvesting or disinvesting
in established areas.
Smart Growth tests applied to virtually every decision
involving allocation of resources in Maryland has revealed a
tremendous impact of the hidden cost of sprawl.
And, finally, I believe we must look anew at several broad
policies at the Federal level. Certainly, we support national
water and air pollution standards, but I think we must go even
further, adopting standards, for example, minimum national
standards for animal waste runoff.
On the lower eastern shore, which is Delaware, Maryland,
and Virginia, the large poultry industry, which is expanding
tremendously, plays havoc with our ability to regulate animal
waste runoff because of the fact that they can move a few miles
and go from one State to another. I believe minimum standards
at the national level are required.
I would also suggest----
Senator Chafee. That's awful tough to get.
Governor Glendening. I understand that.
Senator Chafee. That's a tough one.
Governor Glendening. Senator, I certainly do understand
that. We've had our battles just in one State, and I know how
difficult that is.
Senator Chafee. I mean, the view is that this is a State
matter and they don't want the Feds to come in and tell them
what to do.
Governor Glendening. Senator, I understand that. If I might
just add real quickly--and I know this isn't the committee that
is going to take the lead on that issue, but I would also say
the nature of agriculture in some areas is changing. These
super hog farms, these concentrated poultry farms have a
devastating impact on water supply. West Virginia poultry
expansion, for example, is now impacting the Potomac River. The
hog farms that come up across in North Carolina, for example,
have had a significant impact in the development of pfiesteria
outbreaks and things of this type. So somewhere or other I do
hope we can work together on this, but I appreciate the
sensitivity of what you're saying.
I would also add, as a last point, I think we have to look
at some existing policies.
On the air pollution policies, for example, under Federal
direction we have indicated nonattainment areas. These
nonattainment areas are often the very areas where we want
investments in jobs--in our State, for example, places like
Baltimore. And, because they are nonattainment, we tend to
force the development, the growth, and the jobs out to those
very areas where we do not want sprawl.
I think we are going to have to, obviously, protect the air
quality, but revisit some of these policies.
Let me just note that all across the country people are
starting to understand the devastating impact of sprawl. We
must make change. It is not going to be easy. Just as an
example, in the middle of our State, in a small, rural area, we
have designated several years ago a combined public safety
training center in a small community called Sykesville. That
center, if built, would generate about 140,000 trips per year
down small, rural roads. You put 140,000 cars on the small
roads, and demand becomes for a 4-lane highway. You put the 4-
lane highway, and the demand becomes, ``Let's put the shopping
centers and development, because, after all, this farm is on a
4-lane highway.''
We just canceled that training center, and, in doing so,
you would have thought the world ended in terms of the outrage.
I have not had one single person ever come up to me and say
they want more sprawl, but when you try to make change it is
very difficult.
I often make the statement, ``Everyone wants to go to
heaven, but no one wants to die to get there.'' And I think
that that's the point where we are today. We've got to make
some fundamental changes in policy if we are going to stop the
sprawl, reinvest in our existing communities, and I believe
now, more than ever, the public is attuned to the changes that
must be made.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
Senator Chafee. Well, Governor, those are very constructive
thoughts. You had specifics in there for us, and that's what
we're really looking for.
Senator Landrieu, if you'd like to sit up here, we'd love
to have you.
Senator Landrieu. I have to slip out, but I wanted to say
to the Governor that he has been a big help.
Senator Chafee. Fine. Thank you.
I know exactly what you're talking about. In my home town,
we had a downtown post office, a red brick, splendid building
with finials over the windows, and it just looked like a post
office ought to look. Well, what did they do? They build a new
post office just on the outside of town. You have to drive to
it. People from Main Street can't walk there. And it just was
exactly what you said--parking determined the thing.
But I'm sure that if they had really put their mind to it,
they could have worked out better parking for the existing post
office.
As you say, the bottom line seems to drive so many things.
You've given tremendous leadership. When I see some of the
things you've done, you must have had some royal battles in
your legislature to get these through, didn't you?
Governor Glendening. Senator, we did, but I'm pleased that
so many legislators did stand up. The fact that we were
withholding the budget probably helped a little bit, but I know
they would have done the right thing under any circumstances.
Senator Chafee. But the homebuilders must have been
distressed, weren't they?
Governor Glendening. Some were and some were not. Many of
the homebuilders, through their organizations, were very
supportive. Remember, we're not seeking in any way to curtail
growth, or even economic growth; we're simply trying to
redirect it with higher densities in appropriate areas, with
redevelopment, with carefully planned development.
Our economy is booming. In fact, right now, under this
program, the homebuilders are having the best year that they've
had in well over a decade.
Senator Chafee. What is the county--what county is it of
yours that I saw is one of the fastest-growing in the Nation?
Governor Glendening. Percentage-wise, in southern Maryland
we have several of the rural counties there that are very
rapidly growing, and the fastest one was up in Carroll County,
the very place we're trying to put some of the brakes on this.
I think those are probably the ones that were written up
recently.
Senator Chafee. Yes.
Senator Baucus?
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I might say, Governor, as you were speaking I was reminded
of local efforts in a particular time in Montana, Helena. The
local leaders have a breakfast every Thursday morning. They
call it ``Helena Pride.'' It has been the catalyst for good
growth development and smart growth, as you're talking about.
The business leaders, Chamber of Commerce, and some of the
government officials, and sometimes a county commissioner is
there, but they've got tremendous energy and spirit. There are
two or three who just keep focused on proper development of
Helena.
I must say, as a consequence, in the last several years
they have done a terrific job getting a Federal building
correctly located. It was going to go way off in the outskirts,
and they're able to now keep it downtown. In addition, another
big development coming up to--utilizing some old abandoned
space, again downtown. A lot of it is just local. They've just
really worked hard, this group. And I know of groups around the
country to do that. That opportunity is always there.
Don't you think, too, that, as we seek Federal funds in
various ways--you mentioned several Federal programs--a lot of
this is really dependent upon perhaps even more dollars raised
elsewhere, to the degree that dollars are necessary. It's
private sector, State, local, maybe bonds, and so forth.
For example, it is a bit different, but in Montana, again,
when we are acquiring space for, say, elk habitat, or a
considerable amount of land adjacent to Yellowstone Park, to
protect the wildlife in the park, it has been partly land and
water conservation funds, but it has been a lot of--Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation fund has been a major conservancy, and
Montana Land Reliance. There's just a lot of different sources
of money, and the Federal dollars really is not the lion's
share at all in a lot of projects I've seen that are
successful.
I wonder if you could just comment on that?
Governor Glendening. Well, first of all, I want to
congratulate you in terms of your earlier example. That's
exactly what we've got to do is reinvest in existing
communities. Of course, this is going out all across the
country.
Second, I believe your basic assumption is absolutely
correct, and that is if we are going to be successful we need
partnerships on this, not only partnerships on Federal, State,
and local, but the private sector and the nonprofit sector
involved in a big way.
Some of our greatest successes in Maryland have come from
exactly those type of partnerships.
I would add two things, however. We can put a series of
tools in place to help make those partnerships more successful.
We do things in terms of tax credits, other incentives, low-
interest loans, and things of that type.
The other part of it, however, is we want to make sure that
governmental policy doesn't, on the one hand----
Senator Baucus. Right.
Governor Glendening.--say we should stop sprawl, and on the
other hand encourage it. And that's about the very locations
and all that we're talking about, whether it's a courthouse or
whether it is a road, or whatever, that can be so helpful in
that area.
Senator Baucus. Is there a role here for bonding authority?
I know the Administration is proposing this Better America
Bonds proposal. Have you used bonding authority in various
ways? And is it helpful here? And could you also briefly
comment on the Better America Bonds?
Governor Glendening. We have used this in Maryland in terms
of using State bonds, significant State bonds. The proposal
that we have, that the legislature adopted also 2 years ago, we
said, ``Not only let's stop the sprawl, but let's buy the
development rights,'' and we created the rural legacy program,
in which we are buying about $145 million worth of open space.
Most of that is bonded.
It is similar, for example, of what Christine----
Senator Chafee. State bonds?
Governor Glendening. State bonds.
Senator Chafee. And do they get overwhelming approval?
Governor Glendening. We do not need referendum of State
bonds in Maryland.
Senator Chafee. I see.
Governor Glendening. The legislature approved them
overwhelmingly, similar to what Christine Todd Whitman did in
New Jersey, and theirs actually went to referendum, as well,
and got approval.
The build Better America Bonds would work tremendously for
two reasons. One is in terms of making the capital available,
and two, of course, is the interest cost on that. We are very
supportive. We want to work with you on that program. It would
help us significantly.
And I would emphasize--and this is not only true in
Maryland, but for--27 of the Governors in their State of the
State messages 2 months ago talked about sprawl and preserving
open space as being a major issue facing those States.
We are prepared to put significant money up to help be a
partner, not just to stand there for a hand-out, and something
like the bond program would help us do exactly that.
Senator Baucus. You mentioned people want to go to heaven
but don't want to die to get there.
Governor Glendening. Yes.
Senator Baucus. What are some of the major points of
opposition you've encountered? And could you give us some
suggestions as to how to deal with that? To a degree, everybody
on this panel is the faithful. We're trying to figure out how
to get something accomplished here.
Governor Glendening. Well, the general opposition comes
from a concern about are we somehow or other going to erode
local planning, local land use, or whatever.
Senator Baucus. Right.
Governor Glendening. That's why we took the approach of
saying we're not going to put another series of regulations in;
we're going to try to give incentives and disincentives in
terms of growth patterns. And that's why we were able to pull a
majority together for that.
Having said that, when you get to specific application of
yes or no on a project, quite candidly, I think it takes some
strong leadership willing to take a little bit of heed on it.
Just as one quick example, way down on the lower eastern
shore a county was getting ready to rebuild its courthouse,
decided to put the courthouse out on the highway, away from the
very small town of Snow Hill.
A small group of citizens petitioned that to referendum.
County commissioners changed their mind. And in the referendum
it was approved that it stays back in the town.
It goes back to the same thing, Senator, that you were
talking about in parking. I flew down, in fact, a couple days
before the election, before the referendum, and said the State
will pick up the additional cost of the parking if the citizens
vote to put that in town and pay the cost. I was pleased that
it was approved overwhelmingly.
It took a lot of people to stand up and say, ``We
understand there may be some reasons to move it out there, but
you're going to destroy what we're trying to do,'' and people
understood and came together.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Isn't that wonderful? Well, thank you very
much. Obviously, Governor, you've taken a strong lead in this.
It is interesting, the statistics you gave about in the State
of the State messages or addresses of the legislature. What did
you say, over half of the States----
Governor Glendening. Twenty-seven. Yes.
Senator Chafee. Twenty-seven of the Governors mentioned
sprawl and doing something about it, and obviously you are
doing a lot about it. These suggestions you gave us are very
helpful. Thank you very much.
Governor Glendening. Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. We appreciate your coming.
Now could we have Mr. David Hayes?
Let me just explain here, we're going to get started with
Mr. Hayes. There is a vote at 11, but we'll get what time we
can. Both of us will have to go over and vote. I hope you can
come back, Senator?
Senator Baucus. I can't.
Senator Chafee. Oh, dear. But we're going to move right
along with these remaining witnesses. We've got Mr. Hayes, and
then five other witnesses, and everybody will get their chance.
I would ask that everybody restrict their testimony to the 5
minutes.
Go to it, Mr. Hayes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID HAYES, COUNSELOR TO THE SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is David Hayes. I'm counselor to Secretary Babbitt
of the United States Department of the Interior. I appreciate
the chance to testify this morning.
I've prepared a written statement that I would appreciate
having put in the record, along with some written statements of
other government agencies with an interest in this issue--EPA,
HUD, Department of Transportation, and others.
Senator Chafee. We will definitely do that.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me say at the outset that we very much appreciate the
opportunity, as the Administration, to testify on this very
important topic of open space, urban sprawl, and the quality of
life issues that have been discussed this morning and that
confront our Nation today.
We very much applaud the careful and close look that this
committee is taking on this issue.
As you know, the Administration has launched two important
and complimentary initiatives to address this set of issues.
The first is the Lands Legacy Initiative, and the second is the
Livability Initiative. I'd just like to offer some highlights
about each if I could very briefly.
First, the Lands Legacy Initiative. This is an initiative
that would provide tools to protect critical lands across
America to help keep our treasures safe, while also helping
States and local communities, including tribal governments, to
preserve local greenspaces and strengthen protection for
coastal areas.
Under this initiative, we hope to work with you to secure a
permanent funding stream under the Land and Water Conservation
Fund and to use the full authority of the Fund for these
purposes.
There are several unique features in the Administration
proposal, Mr. Chairman.
First, it continues the tradition that this committee and
others have supported of using Federal funds to help protect
America's treasures. This is the traditional use, if you will,
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the interchange
that you had, Senator, with Senator Feinstein on the headwaters
provides a prime example of how these funds have been used to
set aside America's treasures.
The Administration's proposal would increase the funding
aspect of this part of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to
over $400 million. And we have targeted a variety of additional
acquisitions that, in consultation with the Congress, we
believe would be appropriate, including, just by way of
example, and certainly not by way of exclusion, 450,000 acres
of valuable desert-unique property in the Mojave desert and
adjacent to Joshua Tree National Monument; the protection of
Civil War battlefields that are much in the news; the addition
of inholdings into wildlife refuges in the northeast, in
particular; additions to the Everglades, and the buffers that
are needed to protect that important ecosystem.
So, working together in the partnership that the
Administration has had with the Congress in identifying special
projects, we want to continue and enhance that.
Second, though, and probably more pertinent to this
morning's discussion is that the Administration's Land Legacy
Initiative proposal recommends for the first time in several
years substantial funding for State, local, and tribal programs
that will help address the issues of open space, community
planning, and sprawl from a local perspective.
This is, in essence, a revitalization of the State side of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has not been funded
in recent years. We are proposing that it should be funded, and
that the Feds essentially provide the dollars but not the
direction.
It is our hope that, through a variety of grant mechanisms,
State and local entities will come forward with good plans for
acquiring property that will assist in open space protection,
in outdoor recreation, in wildlife habitat, and in coastal
wetlands preservation. We have a $150 million program in terms
of State land acquisition initiatives, a $50 million program
for open space planning grants to provide communities with the
wherewithal to make their own decisions as they see fit, $80
million to help local communities acquire property that will
help with the preservation of wildlife under the Endangered
Species Act, again providing the local communities with the
wherewithal to work with the Federal Government and together to
complement wildlife habitat resources.
Third, the Lands Legacy proposal that the Administration
has put forward has a special emphasis on protecting oceans and
coasts, and I want to emphasize that in light of the
discussions this morning.
Our sister agency, NOAA, is the lead on this aspect of the
Lands Legacy Initiative. We are proposing significant financial
support for the protection of marine sanctuaries, and, probably
even more pertinent here this morning, significant grants to
coastal States to pursue smart growth strategies, again the
philosophy being that the Feds are helping with the funding of
local enabling initiatives to address the issues of sprawl and
growth.
Finally, on the Lands Legacy side, before I move to
Livability quickly, the Lands Legacy proposal we have is
essentially to enhance our traditional role of acquiring
treasures for posterity, with a deep bow to States and
communities, assisting them financially and otherwise to
address the serious problems that are facing them.
The second major program that the Administration has put
forward in this regard is the Livability Initiative that the
Vice President announced recently. Livability is a broader
concept in which we are trying to address a range of issues,
including greenspace, traffic congestion, restoring a sense of
community, and enhancing economic competitiveness for our
communities.
The principles that are behind the Livability Initiative
are that communities know best, and this is responsive to the
concerns that have been expressed before, that the Feds don't
know best in this regard. We agree. And what we want to do as
the Federal Government is essentially help inform and enable
local communities where we can.
Examples would include supplying information to local
communities to assist in the growth management issues that face
them, providing incentives for communities to work together to
obtain funding for open space, and to align actions that the
Federal Government is taking to make them consonant with local
government interests. The examples that have been mentioned
this morning of the Federal facilities going into the downtowns
as opposed to the suburbs is an excellent one.
Under the Livability Initiative, we have offered a number
of programs that honor these principles and would help
implement them. Time is too short to go into the details.
They're mentioned in my written testimony, as well as the
testimony of other agencies.
I will mention one, though, just by way of example, and it
emphasizes the point of the Federal Government perhaps
providing tools to State and local communities to help make
their decisions better, and that is our Department of the
Interior's United States Geological Survey's amazing expertise
in terms of mapping. They have the ability to provide extensive
data collection on water quality, watersheds, land use, etc.,
and they have put together an urban development program that
provides significant information to local developers about
growth patterns.
Government Glendening has used this program to his benefit
in the State of Maryland, and we would propose to enhance that
program to provide internet-ready access to local governments
to have the benefit of the mapping and analytical data that the
Federal Government has at its disposal through the USGS.
That's just one example of many programs that we are
bundling under the Livability agenda.
So I'll close there, Mr. Chairman. We, as the
Administration, stand here with ideas, energy, and proposals to
work with you to advance the ball on this important set of
environmental issues, and we look forward to doing that in the
weeks ahead.
Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much for that
testimony, Mr. Hayes.
I'm a little confused here. As I understand it, what you
are planning to do is to have the appropriations from the Land
and Water Conservation Act total, as I understood, $900 million
a year; is that correct?
Mr. Hayes. That's correct, Senator.
Senator Chafee. And then I look at--I'm not sure things add
up right. I may have made a mistake here. As I understand,
we've got the lands in legacy. That's $579 million. I'm looking
on page--well, it's entitled, ``President Clinton's Land Legacy
Initiative,'' of your testimony that was submitted here. Do you
know----
Mr. Hayes. Yes.
Senator Chafee. Are we on the same page here? It is
entitled, ``President Clinton's February 1, 1999.''
Mr. Hayes. Yes. I've got it.
Senator Chafee. OK. Now, if you go down to just the
paragraph in front of, ``Saving America's National Treasures,''
you see that the Lands Legacy will be administered by the
Department of Interior, $579 million, the Department of
Agriculture, $268 million, Department of Commerce, NOAA, $183
million.
Well, that all adds up, if I am adding it correctly, to
$1,030,000,000.
Mr. Hayes. Right.
Senator Chafee. Now, where would the money for that come
from?
Mr. Hayes. Well, I think I can clarify. I hope I can,
Senator.
The Lands Legacy Initiative is more than the $900 million
Land and Water Conservation Fund, and essentially what we have
done is work through the budget process with offsets of other
programs to essentially bundle a variety of programs together
called ``Lands Legacy.''
Senator Chafee. I see.
Mr. Hayes. The core is that $900 million, but, as you can
see from this paragraph, I should say it doesn't really point
that out probably as explicitly as would be helpful to the
committee.
Senator Chafee. Well, I guess my question is this: how much
is the Administration asking from the Land and Water
Conservation Act? It makes a lot of difference. Obviously, if
the Administration is aboard on this thing----
Mr. Hayes. Right.
Senator Chafee.--it makes life much easier for us.
Mr. Hayes. We are asking for full mandatory funding of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is $900 million.
Senator Chafee. Per year?
Mr. Hayes. Yes.
Senator Chafee. Well, that's splendid. That's very
important. Well, then, it behooves us to get more familiar with
each of these. One is the Lands Legacy, and the other I find a
little less tangible, the Livability agenda. And I suppose to
the local communities the biggest thing they are doing there is
this information partnership that you mentioned before, and how
the communities can maximize open space and habitat protection.
Senator Bennett, do you have any questions you'd like to
ask?
Senator Bennett. No.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you. You've given us something
to chew on here, Mr. Hayes, and we appreciate it, and we're
delighted the Administration is so enthusiastic about these
things because, as I say, the push from the Administration--
now, they've got to stay in there.
Mr. Hayes. They will, Senator. We view this as a very
exciting coalescence of interests.
And, if I could, you mentioned the better American bonds,
obviously, Senator, as part of the Livability Initiative, as
well.
Senator Chafee. That's right. OK. Fine. Well, thank you
very much for your testimony, Mr. Hayes. We appreciate it.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Chafee. Now, if the next panel could come forward,
I'd appreciate it. Mr. Falender from the Appalachian Mountain
Club; Mr. Chris Montague from Montana Land Reliance; Mr.
Peterson, who has certainly testified here plenty of times
before, from the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies; Mr. Roy Kienitz from Surface Transportation; and
Ralph Grossi from American Farmland Trust.
As I mentioned before, we will probably be interrupted by a
vote, which was scheduled for 11, but I don't know what's
happening.
[Bells.]
Senator Chafee. There we go. I think it is best if I just
zip right over and vote. Are you going to be around?
Senator Bennett. Yes, I can be around.
Senator Chafee. Well, do you want to come and take over,
and I'll go over and vote and come right back.
Senator Bennett. OK.
Senator Chafee. Fine. Why don't you go to it and I'll be
right back.
Senator Bennett [assuming the Chair]. All right. Very good.
You'll face a different orientation, the Senator from Utah
than the Senator from Rhode Island, but I'll keep quiet.
Go ahead, Mr. Falender.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW FALENDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE
APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB
Mr. Falender. Senator, thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify today.
My name is Andrew Falender. I am the executive director of
the Appalachian Mountain Club.
The Appalachian Mountain Club is the Nation's oldest
conservation and recreation organization. Our 82,000 members
live primarily in the area from Maine down to Washington, DC,
but you might be interested in knowing the State that has the
fastest growth of our membership is your State. This past year
we increased from eight members in your State to 14 members in
your State. Primarily, though, our members are from Maine to
Washington.
Senator Bennett. The magic of percentage calculations.
Mr. Falender. That's right, sir.
We focus on not only protecting, but also enjoying and
wisely using the mountains, rivers, and trails of the region in
our Nation.
In our view, the work of conserving and caring for special
outdoor places absolutely must, as people have said this
morning, be a bipartisan partnership. It must engage
businesses, nonprofit organizations, and the government at the
Federal, the State, and, as you point out, the local levels.
As many of you here know, the Federal commitment over the
last number of years has been somewhat shaky. As our chart to
my left indicates, if you look at the 10 years between 1987 and
1997, spending for LWCF during this period of time averaged
$230 million against the $900 million authorized.
To put this in context, in 1 year, 1995, one corporation,
WalMart, spent $580 million buying former farms and forests for
their new stores. So WalMart spent $580 million, our Federal
Government averaged $230 million.
Well, let's look to the future, though. You don't need to
look too far to see that American people do now understand this
urgent need--and I'd like to reinforce that it is an urgent
need.
As Senator Lieberman pointed out this morning, this past
November voters did vote in referendums. They did vote for open
space. Of the 147 referendums, 84 percent did pass. But this
won't do the job without Federal assistance.
We must take on a Federal responsibility in three areas.
First, there are lands of national significance, whether it is
Glacier, Yellowstone, Acadia, Denali.
Then, second, we must assist the States where local
resources are not sufficient, and I point out, as examples, the
northern forest of New England, the Appalachian highlands, the
Mississippi River Basin, the Everglades, the Great Lakes--lands
of national significance.
Third, we must provide support for urban areas, where, as
we've heard over and over again this morning, sprawl is such a
problem.
We are very enthusiastic about the current momentum for a
strong Federal role in open space protection, and we urge this
committee to adopt a set of principles.
We'd like to see, in each of these proposals, at least $900
million of permanent funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
Second--and to get at your point this morning, Senator--
we'd like to see an allocation of 40 percent Federal grants, 40
percent on the traditional State grants, and 20 percent to a
competitive State grant process for those projects of national
significance. Therefore, 60 percent address the type of survey
that you were talking about.
Third, we'd like to see yearly permanent funding for the
forest legacy program at $50 million, UPARR and historic
preservation at $150 million, and wildlife conservation at $350
million, with the priority in wildlife conservation on land
protection.
Fourth, we would like to see no new restrictions on the
uses of land and water conservation funds.
And, fifth, legislation should not allow funds to be used
for environmentally damaging activities.
Well, let's look at those individual initiatives. And I
have this chart that you might try to follow as I talk about
three of the proposals.
S. 25, which Senator Landrieu was talking about this
morning, makes a significant commitment to open space funding,
and we feel she deserves--she and the cosponsors deserve the
highest level of congratulations for bringing this forward.
We do have concern that we think that there are incentives
in this legislation that would increase oil and gas drilling
and, obviously, these must be removed.
I was very interested in Senator Landrieu's comments and
very reassured when she said she was interested in working to
try to remove any incentives that might be there.
Second, we are concerned that there is a prohibition on
LWCF funding except in existing inholdings, and there also is a
cap on appropriations for any single project that would exceed
$5 million. Both of these we strongly encourage to be removed.
And in her legislation we would like to see the $680 million
annually taken up to the full funding level of $900 million.
Moving on to S. 446, in summary, I can say this legislation
does meet the majority of the principles that I discussed
earlier, and we are very supportive of this proposal.
Third, if we look at President Clinton's Land Legacy
Initiative, our greatest concern is the 1-year budget approach
that has been taken in this proposal, and I was pleased again
with Mr. Hayes statement this morning that he sees this
evolving into permanent funding, which we see as critical.
We also feel strongly that the President's initiative
should fully fund LWCF at $900 million, and, as I've said
before, 60 percent should be reserved for State grants through
the combined formula and the competitive grant approach that I
described.
So, in closing, I would like to thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify today and the leadership of this
committee in revitalizing our Nation's commitment to open space
funding.
We look forward to working with you on this issue in the
future.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Let me just ask a clarifying question. It doesn't
necessarily go to the issue here, but I have to ask it anyway.
Your comments about drilling incentives, is it fair for me
to assume that you are opposed to all oil drilling?
Mr. Falender. No, Sir. We feel that we should not have a
piece of legislation whose purpose is to provide mitigation for
the drilling to have the secondary possibly unintended
consequence of motivating States to increase that drilling.
We most certainly are not taking the stand that anything
should occur here which would specifically discourage the
drilling that is occurring.
Senator Bennett. But you do take the position there should
be no new oil wells drilled?
Mr. Falender. On the offshore issue, we feel very strongly
that we would not like to see any new legislation motivate
increased drilling.
Senator Bennett. Aside from the legislation, if somebody
decides they can drill under the present regulatory
circumstance and make a profit so it would be worth their while
in doing that, you would be opposed to any--in other words, you
would prefer--I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I
want to understand where you are. I think what you are telling
me is that you would support legislation that would say there
would be no new offshore drilling of any kind.
Mr. Falender. If we looked at the overall energy situation
in this country, our recommendation would be that we would like
to see the No. 1 priority be given to finding ways to decrease
the use of fossil fuels. Second, for those fossil fuels that
are mined or drilled, we would like to see those taken from the
areas that are least sensitive from an ecological perspective,
and that would lead us to the conclusion that the offshore
wells would not be on the list of areas where we'd like to see
that drilling occur.
Senator Bennett. Of course, you realize what you're saying
is increased imports.
Mr. Falender. As I said, the priority in our mind----
Senator Bennett. I'm not trying to argue with you. I just
want to know where you are. Basically, you're saying that you
would prefer that, unless we can get away from fossil fuels
altogether, we satisfy our energy needs with increased imports?
Mr. Falender. The possibility of increasing imports most
certainly is one of the options that needs to be on the table.
We feel very strongly that, whether we're talking about
imported oil or domestic oil, it is important to be sensitive
to what system is in place to motivate either ecologically
sensitive drilling versus drilling in areas that have a higher
probability of causing damage. So if there are imports, we most
certainly would like to see any effort that would be possible
by this Congress or this Administration to discourage those
imports coming from offshore drilling.
Senator Bennett. All right. I won't pursue it.
I'm going to have to go vote. Senator Chafee is obviously
not back, so the committee will stand in recess until the
chairman returns.
Thank you. I apologize to the others.
[Recess.]
Senator Chafee [resuming the Chair]. All right. If we could
get started, Mr. Montague, you're on, Montana Land Reliance.
I know if Senator Baucus didn't get the opportunity to
greet you, I know he'd like to. He certainly has made favorable
comments about your organization. Why don't you go to it.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS MONTAGUE, EASTERN MANAGER, MONTANA LAND
RELIANCE
Mr. Montague. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Chris
Montague. I'm with Montana Land Reliance. We thank the
committee for the opportunity to speak on issues related to
preserving and protecting our Nation's open space today.
Special thanks to Senator Baucus for inviting us.
I hope that the testimony will give the committee
additional ideas as it debates how to protect open space in our
Nation, and also gives it a western perspective on what is
happening in the west.
I'd first like to give the committee a brief introduction
to the Montana Land Reliance. We were founded in 1978. We are a
privately funded, nonprofit land trust that utilizes donated
conservation easements and other tools to permanently protect
Montana's private lands.
With the help of 324 land owners, we have been able to
protect just over 322,000 acres of private land in Montana.
This represents roughly 20 percent of all protected land by
local, State, and/or regional land trusts across the United
States.
Within that acreage, we have permanently protected 620
miles of stream and water frontage, over 116,000 acres of elk
habitat, over 5,200 acres of wetlands, and over 131,000 acres
in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem.
Again, all of this protection has been completed with
private conservation easements, and our customer base is
typically ranchers and farmers.
The private landowners that make up our customer base are
facing incredible economic and estate tax pressures to develop
their land. A vast majority are what we call ``land rich but
cash poor.'' They typically own a tremendous resource that they
cannot afford to keep. Although the following statistics are
Montana-specific, everyone is aware these issues and problems
are not inherent to our State.
In 1970, Montana had fewer than 700,000 residents. By 1995,
the State's population had risen to just over 870,000 and is
projected to top one million by the year 2000 or 2001. At first
glance, I realize this does not seem to be an overwhelming
amount of growth; however, this growth has not been evenly
dispersed across the State. Certain areas, especially those
around designated wilderness areas and along riparian zones,
are undergoing population increases as high as 25 percent.
In other words, people are moving into the prettiest places
they can find, and these places are usually the ones that are
the most fragile or are our most productive agricultural lands.
The amount of land in agriculture in Montana declined by
more than three million acres between 1974 and 1994, and the
number of farms and ranches has declined by more than 11
percent in that same time period. In Montana, over the 10-year
period between 1983 and 1993, 11,000 subdivision proposals were
reviewed by the State by State and county government. These
numbers do not include 20-acre or larger parcels which, until
1993, in Montana required no subdivision review, and that type
of development, those 20-acre ranchettes, has skyrocketed since
then.
Most communities view rural subdivision development as a
positive economic influence on their communities.
Interestingly, however, a study done by Montana State
University and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition found that for
every dollar of revenue raised from new rural residential
property, the county government and school district spent $1.47
for roads, public education, police and fire protection, and
other services. Conversely, agricultural land and open space
required only $0.25 worth of service for every $1 it
contributes.
Simultaneously, land values in Montana and the west have
risen dramatically. Recent news accounts in Montana show 10-
year property tax appraisal increases averaging 43 percent. The
economic pressures to convert open and agricultural land to
residential property has intensified significantly in certain
areas of Montana, and, I think it is safe to say, throughout
the west.
The good news is that Montana leads the way in private land
protection through conservation easements. As of 1997, Montana
had permanently protected over 670,000 acres. The bad news is
that this represents only about 1 percent of the 55 million
acres in private ownership in the State. And the average age of
these owners is 59 \1/2\. Over the estimated 20-year period
this amount was protected, well over three million acres left
agricultural production or open space and have either been
developed or are headed that way. In the next 10 to 15 years,
given the average age of ownership of private lands in Montana,
we are going to see a huge turnover in land.
Depending on the tools available to the conservation and
land trust community, much of this land will be threatened.
Currently, the battle to protect open space in Montana is being
lost at a rate of roughly 5 to 1, and in some regions by a
margin of 8 to 1.
So what does all this mean? Why should anyone be concerned
about a place or region that has so much land and open space?
For several reasons, the most important being that Montana, and
generally the west, has a unique opportunity to make a
difference before it is really too late, before we lose all of
our most precious agricultural land, river frontage, fisheries,
habitat, and open space. We are not here today to say that
development and growth are evil. They are not. We are here
today to ask, as you debate these issues, that you give the
private land trust community the additional tools to compete
and fight against inappropriate development. Give us the added
strength to give our farmers, ranchers, and private landowners
more options to subdivision as an economic way out.
The initiatives and ideas we present today will, we
believe, substantially help in protecting the open lands of our
heritage. Should these additional tools be made available, we
are confident, based on our work last year, that we could
immediately double, and, over the next few years, even triple
our conservation output each year.
All of these additional tools could be easily added to the
current construct of conservation easement law or 170-H of the
tax code. These ideas are simple and private, and, if made
quickly, will, we believe, have an immediate positive impact on
private land conservation in this country.
First, the majority of our customers cannot use the income
tax deduction benefit associated with the donation of a
conservation easement. We're fast becoming a tool only the very
wealthy can use. We propose a tax credit of between 50,000 and
100,000 if a land owner does not have the means to use the
deduction. We would propose that to qualify for this tax
credit, 50 percent of the land owners total income be derived
from agriculture.
Second, allow the same deductibility for C corporations as
for all other forms of business. Currently, a ranch and a C
corp structure may only deduct 10 percent of net income, as
opposed to 30 percent for all other types of ownership. We feel
this tool, alone, would have allowed us to protect an
additional 20,000 to 30,000 acres in Montana last year.
Third, the Congress in 1997 wisely increased the unified
tax credit, and particularly with conservation easements gave
additional State tax relief if a land owner lived within a 25-
mile radius of a metropolitan or wilderness area.
This boundary should be larger to not only give us added
tools for land farther out from these areas, but to also reward
the land owner who is willing to protect his or her land
``ahead of the curve.''
Any public moneys raised for conservation easements should
be matched funds or donations to allow the government's money
to go farther and do more conservation. Furthering land
conservation is the right thing to do. We applaud the committee
for its role and eventual action. Land owners generally are
also interested in doing the right thing. They don't want to
lose their land or have it cut into ranchettes. But we need to
be able to offer them reasons not to when they are faced with
huge economic and estate tax pressures. We need to be able to
compete in that atmosphere. We need to be able to compete
against rural development.
We have a great opportunity, especially in the west, to
make a major impact on land and open space conservation now. I
hope we will be given the tools to do so.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Max Peterson.
STATEMENT OF MAX PETERSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm testifying today, as you know, on behalf of the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which
basically represents the 50 State fish and wildlife agencies.
Mr. Chairman, we submitted to you a more lengthy statement
that, if you'd make available for the record, I'd be glad to
brief my statement.
Senator Chafee. Go to it.
Mr. Peterson. OK. We appreciate your invitation to appear
today to talk about open space, community health, and
environmental quality, and also, Mr. Chairman, to express our
strong support for the bill, S. 25, the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act that was discussed earlier by Senator
Landrieu.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that S. 25 is the most sweeping
and important wildlife funding bill in this half century and
will go a long way toward conserving our Nation's fish and
wildlife and provide much in demand conservation education and
wildlife-associated recreation.
We really appreciate the work of Senator Landrieu, Senator
Murkowski, Senator Lott, Senator Breaux, and other cosponsors
in bringing this to the table, and also express appreciation to
Senator Boxer and others who have introduced S. 446. And we
also appreciate President Clinton's Land Legacy, because all of
these recognize one central fact--that it is a good idea to use
offshore oil, a depleting resource, to invest in conservation.
The question is how to do it and what mechanism to use, what
formulas to use, and so on.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that you would use your skills
that are well-known in this Congress to help bring these
together and pass a bill that, when you and I retire and go to
something else, we'll find this as a part of a very important
legacy.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, in reflection about your long
career, I also have on my wall a Navy reserve promotion that
was signed by you when you were Secretary of the Navy.
Senator Chafee. I remember it clearly.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Peterson. I think that was before the time of auto
pens, so you might really have signed it.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that you recognize, certainly, and
have made an eloquent statement last year about the compelling
need to adequately fund fish and wildlife activities at the
State level. If we don't do that, we can simply look forward,
as years go by, to more and more species becoming threatened
and endangered, with all the resulting social, economic, and
other consequences.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that one thing that
defines S. 25--it is basically built around non-regulatory,
incentive-based programs so we can work with private land
owners. Two-thirds of this country is in private ownership. We
can work with people on development rights, easements, and on
agreements to keep that open space and make it available for
wildlife, and to improve the quality of life, but we can't do
that without dedicated, reliable funding that comes year after
year. Such funding allows groups like Mr. Montague's to get the
private sector funds to make this possible. It's simply not
either possible or feasible or even desirable to try to acquire
all the land. That's not really what is in the public interest,
in many cases. We simply want to keep it an open space,
productive agriculture, usable by fish and wildlife, usable for
open space.
I would submit that community health and environmental
quality and habitat for fish and wildlife go hand in hand.
In the area where I live, people come to visit the little
town of Leesburg. What many remember is the open space and the
wildlife that's associated with it. Just an open space without
the benefit of any wildlife there would be a fairly drab kind
of an environment.
The States are the frontline managers of fish and wildlife,
and you know what has happened since 1937 with the passage of
the Plinton-Robertson Act, and later the Dingell-Johnson Act in
bringing back all of these game species.
We can do the same thing for the non-game species, but we
simply have to have funding to do it. We don't know the habitat
requirements of many species right now. You can't design a
program for species without understanding their habitat
requirements.
So the S. 25 that provides this non-regulatory incentive-
based program, plus fully funding the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, plus providing impact aid and title one to
communities we think is the balanced kind of thing that must be
done to be successful.
I want to comment just real quickly on S. 446, because we
really appreciate the fact that it does contain provisions for
funding of State-based wildlife conservation.
We are concerned about two or three things in the bill, and
we've outlined them in our statement. One is costly planning
requirements; second is about funding for native fish and
wildlife. We really don't know, particularly in the East, what
species of fish and wildlife that are native. For example, the
peregrine falcon that we are working hard to bring back is not
a native species at all. It's a hybrid, as far as we can tell.
And when I talk to States up and down the eastern seaboard and
I say, ``What can you say about which of these species are
native,'' they say, ``Well, some 100 years ago people were
bringing in additional species, particularly of fish. We don't
know which are native and non-native.''
And we also don't know, if you've got a non-native species
present, does that mean you can't do a project that would be
beneficial in that ecosystem?
The other things that we think are of great importance, but
not addressed in S. 446, is conservation education and
wildlife-associated recreation. In my view, Mr. Chairman, in
now almost 50 years in the resource business, unless we instill
in our young people ideas of conservation of land and open
space and so on, everything we do will be for naught.
Senator Chafee. Well, I agree with you on that, Max. I
appreciate it. Are you about wound up here? We've got to move
along.
Mr. Peterson. I'd just say one other thing. We are also
encouraged by the Land Legacy, but we are puzzled, as you were,
about how it adds up. For example, the way I added it up,
there's only $563 million of that $1.030 billion that is
authorized under current Land and Water Conservation Fund law.
So the balance of that, if it is going to be done under Land
and Water Conservation Fund, requires fundamental amendments of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We don't know whether
that has been brought forward or quite where that stands.
Senator Chafee. We'll have to take a look at that one.
Mr. Peterson. OK. Mr. Chairman, again, thanks for the
opportunity to work with you. We hope that we can do so in the
remaining Congress to make this come about.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
Roy, we welcome you back. Roy Kienitz has been on the staff
of this committee for many years. We are glad you are here.
STATEMENT OF ROY KIENITZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT
Mr. Kienitz. Thank you, Sir.
Senator Chafee. And watch the clock----
Mr. Kienitz. We'll do.
Senator Chafee.--because, regrettably, as you know from
experience, it is the last people that testify that always get
short shrift, so we're trying to make sure that Mr. Grossi has
some----
Mr. Kienitz. I'm very familiar with the clock.
Once again, I'm Roy Kienitz, and I'm from the Surface
Transportation Policy Project, and we're a coalition of
nonprofit groups around the country, more than 200 of them,
working on transportation policy relief for communities.
In the past 2 days, you have heard people echo what a lot
of elections and polls have really shown recently, that there's
more and more people who look at smart growth, in any one of
its many names, as a way to really improve the fiscal health,
the environmental quality, and overall quality of life for
people and communities all over.
One way to support smarter growth is to do what a lot of
States have done, which is focus public infrastructure funding
in existing communities. This is certainly the cornerstone of
the Maryland smart growth program that Governor Glendening
outlined this morning, but it is also being used around the
country in New Jersey and in Oregon.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, we worked on TEA-21 a lot and
really supported the infrastructure maintenance funding
programs in the Federal transportation law for that particular
reason. A lot of Federal money has gone into subsidizing sprawl
over time, and many States are now looking at that with their
State progress, and we still think there's a role for a Federal
program to have a similar kind of emphasis.
I'll talk about our four or five priority areas in a
moment, but we just want to reiterate the fact that this is
something that is coming up from the bottom. It is a citizen
thing, first, and then it becomes a local government thing, and
in a few States it is becoming a State government thing, and
now finally we are here talking about it in Washington.
There has been a lot of talk recently about how this is the
elitist pointy-headed planners trying to tell everybody what to
do, and I think that this is one of those cases where that
couldn't be more wrong.
We have, I think, five specific recommendations for what we
think the Federal Government could do.
First, we really believe that these Better America Bonds
are a good idea. It's a low-cost way for the Federal
Government, for a tax expenditure cost of only about $700
million, to provide $10 billion in funding to go out to places
to do what they want to do. And if we are going to have tax
legislation in the Finance Committee this year or next, we
think that this is something that is very doable and really
responds to people's needs locally, and it addresses both sides
of the sprawl equation, preservation of open space at the
fringe and reinvestment at the core. So we think that's a
highly important program, which falls under the name of the
Livability agenda, but this I think is the biggest and most
important part of that.
Second, on the question of reinvestment in the core, we
think that protection of the Community Reinvestment Act--
frankly, something that has not been mentioned this morning--is
a tremendously important thing. That's the jurisdiction of the
Banking Committee, but may end up on the floor of the Senate at
some point, and we would just commend people's attention to
that. That has brought a huge amount of capital from the
private sector into inner city areas where people make deposits
in banks but weren't getting a lot of lending back from them,
and we think it is a reasonable approach. There's a ``New York
Times'' editorial on that subject from 2 days ago which I'll
put in the record, if you don't mind.
Third, another proposal that was in the Administration's
Livability agenda which hasn't gotten much attention is
something called, ``The America Private Investment
Corporation.'' That is a counterpart to what we've had for a
long time, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. A good
friend of mine ran that for a while.
That program tries to bring the model of OPIC into American
communities of figuring out a way to support businesses and
lend them working capital to try to get them off the ground,
and we think that would have a big benefit in terms of making
existing core areas in both small towns and large urban areas
competitive with suburban development.
Fourth, obviously, we support efforts to revitalize the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, provide guaranteed spending
of the dollars that are going into that fund, and distribute
the resources from it in a balanced way, both to land
acquisition for parks and to easements to preserve open space,
whether it is farm or ranch land or other lands, historic
preservation resources.
Obviously, Senator Boxer's bill on that subject is one that
we have supported. Senator Landrieu's bill I think has a lot of
merit, also. We get a little nervous about impact aid, because
we don't know what that is going to go for. The bill speaks
about spending the money for infrastructure. The purpose of
this program was always envisioned as environmental remediation
for drilling, and so we want to make sure that it stays on
that.
Finally, there is a program in TEA-21, Mr. Chairman, that
you helped support and that Senator Wyden was instrumental in
creating, which is part of the Livability agenda, to increase
the transportation and community pilot program from $25 million
a year to $50 million, and we certainly support that.
There are some other transportation-related proposals in
there, like increasing funding for air quality projects in TEA-
21. We understand that has some formula implications, and,
therefore, is a difficult thing to do, but we think that at
least the proposal is a good one.
And, finally, transportation is just a big piece of this
equation, and transportation really, in terms of sprawl and the
disinvestment of central cities and using open space has been
part of the problem for a long time, but increasingly it is
being part of the solution, whether that is transit-oriented
development in Oakland, California, or bus pass and greenway
systems in Chattanooga, Tennessee, or even the types of
projects that people in Salt Lake City are putting forward
now--transit investments and the work of Envision Utah.
We view that as exactly the model. Go to people locally,
ask them what they want, and then let the Federal Government
help out as a partner.
Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Roy. I think that's
very helpful.
Mr. Grossi?
STATEMENT OF RALPH GROSSI, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST
Mr. Grossi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Ralph Grossi. I am president of the American
Farmland Trust. I am the managing partner of a family farm that
has been in the dairy, cattle, and grain business in northern
California for over 100 years.
Senator Chafee. How many milkers have you got? Do you know?
Mr. Grossi. Three hundred.
Senator Chafee. Boy.
Mr. Grossi. That's a small dairy in California, as you
probably know.
Senator Chafee. Well, that's milkers. How many totally have
you got?
Mr. Grossi. About 700 head.
Senator Chafee. Yes.
Mr. Grossi. Anyhow, American Farmland Trust, as you know,
is a national organization with about 34,000 members who are
working to stop----
Senator Chafee. I'm a member.
Mr. Grossi. Pardon?
Senator Chafee. I'm a member.
Mr. Grossi. I know you are. That's why I said, ``As you
know.'' I appreciate your support over the years.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Mr. Grossi. While we are strong advocates of local land use
decisionmaking, we believe there is a vital role for the
Federal Government to assist local communities that are
struggling to protect their natural resources while
accommodating growth, and I think that is an important
component of this whole discussion.
As Roy indicated, this really is a local issue, but there
is a huge role for the Federal Government. It simply makes
sense for America to protect its best land, because it is the
land that provides the Nation's food and fiber, but also much
of our scenic open space, wildlife habitat, and much more.
But it isn't only the farmland being paved over that should
be a concern, because for every acre developed, two or three
more acres have new suburban neighbors who don't understand the
problems and the noise and the dust of normal farming
operations, creating more tension between agriculture and the
rest of our society.
Mr. Chairman, there are three essential steps that I want
to talk about today in creating smart growth strategies.
First, this has to be addressed at the local level.
Communities must envision their futures and plan
comprehensively to make that vision a reality. Good strategic
frameworks that provide the assistance for communities to do
that are in order. Too often, while local leaders work to bring
new business to a community, they overlook the fact that
agriculture is a true wealth generator, an industry that brings
value to the community from renewable natural resources.
A recent surge in local and State efforts to protect
farmland suggests rapidly rising concern over its loss. In
recent years, Governors Engler, Voinovich, Ridge, Pataki,
Wilson, Whitman, Cooper, Glendening, and Carper, and many
others have supported or initiated farmland protection
initiatives to address this problem.
Governor Glendening talked this morning of his smart growth
initiative. You should know that a key component of that smart
growth initiative is a program called ``rural legacy,'' which
seeks to compensate land owners who will not be allowed to
subdivide their property but will keep their land in
agriculture forever. That's an important part of the political
dynamic of smart growth, as well.
But let's not get caught up in the numbers. Yes, we are
losing about a million acres of farmland a year in the United
States. Nearly a half of that is prime and unique farmland. We
pave over about a billion tons of topsoil annually in this
country.
But let's not get caught up in those numbers. The fact is
that every year we do continue to squander some of the Nation's
most valuable farmland and natural resources. The reality is
that we don't know whether the new technologies that promise to
replace that land will ever fulfill those promises. But we do
know that those technologies will be better applied on highly
productive land than on marginal land farther out on the
fringes that require higher levels of energy, fertilizer, farm
chemicals, and labor per unit of input.
Simply put, it is in the Nation's best interest to keep the
best land for farming as an insurance policy against the
challenge of feeding an expanded population in the 21st
century. The responsibility falls on the communities, large and
small, all across the Nation, which you can assist.
The second essential step I want to point out in creating
smart growth strategies is the elimination of subsidies that
support sprawling development over our best farmland and
natural resources. Public policy should not favor untrammeled
consumption of land, nor should they drive development out of
America's cities.
We subsidize sprawl in this country, and the bottom line on
that second recommendation is that someone--hopefully this
committee and others--will take a hard look at the policies
that are now promoting sprawl. Too often, the taxpayer pays
twice. First, we subsidize a certain kind of land use behavior,
creating a problem, such as plowing out of the plains, the
sodbusting of the plains, or transportation corridors that
intrude into agricultural areas. Then we come back with another
program to try and solve the problem--the conservation reserve
program or the transportation enhancements program.
Once subsidizing the development and then----
Senator Chafee. We've got to watch this clock here.
Regrettably, I do have another appointment.
Mr. Grossi. Let me just wrap up then.
Senator Chafee. Good.
Mr. Grossi. The third point is the most important point.
We believe that it is long past time to take a look at the
role of private landowners in this mechanism. We have to find
ways to support the things that they do. Our private
landowners, Mr. Chairman, are providing many amenities to our
communities that are important to smart growth--the open
spaces, the corridors, the buffer areas around our Civil War
battlefields and parks, these are all real values, real
products produced by farmers, and we have to find a way to
reward that kind of behavior and compensate those that are
willing to make permanent commitments to protecting those
important corridors.
For that reason, we are supporting the Resources 2000 Act,
and Senate Bill 333, of which you are a cosponsor. We
appreciate that.
Let me just wrap it up. We think that any successful
policies that emerge at the Federal level should have three
things in common.
One, they should be consistent in the implementation of
programs that influence local planning efforts. In other words,
don't send mixed signals.
Second, be willing to eliminate counterproductive subsidies
that are making the job more difficult for our communities.
And, third, increase the incentives to private land
stewardship.
Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much.
Each of you have given specific suggestions, which are very
helpful to us here.
Mr. Montague, you talked about the provision we did last
year--I guess it was last year--dealing with those who put
their land into--put easements on their land and then we give
them some assistance in the estate tax.
Mr. Montague. Correct.
Senator Chafee. That, as you noted--I think they have to be
within X miles of a----
Mr. Montague. Twenty-five miles.
Senator Chafee.--metropolitan area. I was the one who
principally worked on that legislation, with the Piedmont
Environmental Association, and we worked--in that situation it
seemed wise to have the metropolitan area in there. I don't
know whether that is an inhibition for other places. For
example, from your State, I suppose there must be areas that
don't qualify.
Now, we have the wilderness provision in there, but would
you like to see that thing changed, or eliminated, perhaps?
Mr. Montague. I would like to see the boundary expanded, or
we'd like to see the boundary expanded out. We feel that it is
a tool that, if somebody is outside of that 25-mile boundary,
it is tool that we can't use to do conservation easements and
protect that ground.
Senator Chafee. Yes.
Mr. Montague. Right now Montana--pretty much all of western
Montana is covered under the 25-mile radius of wilderness area/
metropolitan area. Eastern Montana is completely out.
Senator Chafee. Because they're too far away?
Mr. Montague. That's right. We only have three counties
that qualify as metropolitan areas.
Senator Chafee. Well, this is very helpful. Every one of
you have done a good job here. We're going to look these things
over. And none of these things are going to happen overnight,
as you know. And I think you've all paid attention to one of
the key elements, which is the request--Senator Bennett so
aptly phrased it--in paying attention to the locals. We can't
have, as you mentioned, the Feds come in and do everything, and
we've got to give a lot of latitude.
But there's no question but what this subject is becoming
far more important and discussed, and I think Roy or somebody
said it is a bottoms-up proposal. It certainly is. In my State
now they've formed--they held a meeting on grow smart and they
had 700 people that showed up, which is a big crowd for us.
That's a good turnout--bigger than I've ever seen at a
republican rally out there.
[Laughter.]
Senator Chafee. Anyway, Senator Bennett, could you wind up
things?
Senator Bennett. Yes, and I just have a quick----
Senator Chafee. Because, regrettably, I have to leave.
Thank you all very much.
Senator Bennett [assuming the Chair]. I just want to
comment. I'm fascinated and heartened by this conversation. In
my State, the environmental groups will not attend a meeting if
there is a farmer present. If the Farm Bureau is there, SUWA
won't come. The war between the environmental groups and
agriculture has been waging probably for a generation, and has
reached that point of bitterness.
Now, most of the members of the Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance do not live in Utah. Many of them have never been to
Utah. But, nonetheless, they feel so strongly about these
issues that we have this kind of experience. Some of the people
in rural Utah, farmers, said they came back here to talk to a
Senator, who shall remain nameless, who was a cosponsor of the
Utah Wilderness Act, who is not from Utah, and when they tried
to talk they were told by the staffer--the Senator, himself,
did not meet with them--``You people shouldn't be on the land
at all. You have no right. This land belongs to all of the
people of the United States, and you come here and complain
about the way we are treating you. You shouldn't even be there.
You are despoiling the land by living there.''
I quote to them an experience that I had when I was running
for the Senate, where I was in a small, rural Utah town, came
out of the restaurant where we were having dinner, and I was
down there looking for political support. I'm a city slicker. I
was not raised on a farm. I didn't know anything about this.
And the woman that I had been talking to said, ``Bob, look
around.'' I didn't have the slightest idea what she had in
mind. So I dutifully looked around. What did you see? Well, I
didn't see anything.
She said, ``It's pristine, isn't it?'' I said, ``Yes, the
land is gorgeous and it is pristine.'' And she said, ``My
family and I have been making our living off this land for five
generations. Tell us we don't love the land. Tell us we have to
get off to allow somebody else to come in and, in the name of
open space, get rid of us.''
So, Mr. Grossi, I am delighted to have you here. I am
delighted to have a real, live farmer here. And I'm delighted
to see farmers and environmentalists sitting at the same table
and actually talking to each other instead of each turning the
other way lest they be contaminated by the contact.
If this effort can get rural people and those that feel
strongly about environmental issues to sit down at the same
table and talk to each other, instead of take out ads in the
``New York Times'' and scream at each other--which has been the
pattern in my State--it will be a very useful thing.
You wanted to comment?
Mr. Grossi. Senator, let me, if I may, comment on it. I
think that hopefully the examples you've given will be fewer as
we move forward. I think we can draw some energy from the fact
that in your neighboring State of Colorado there are very good
things happening between, for example, the Colorado Cattleman's
Association and the environmental groups. They've formed their
own land trust and are working with groups to take easements.
The same thing is happening in California, and now the Michigan
Farm Bureau is now working with environmental groups and urban
mayors to work partnerships. So there are some positive things
evolving.
Could I suggest that I think we have to start thinking
differently about these issues, because those of us in
agriculture are not against preserving the environment or
preserving endangered species. It's not a question of what
society wants to do, it is how is it going to get done. Who is
going to pay the price?
In our organization, it is a pretty simple principle. It is
that those who benefit should share in the cost, so that we
don't heap all of the cost of achieving an environmental goal
on the individual landowner, which, of course, is what
regulatory mechanisms do.
We have to have a balance, and when you have a balance
everyone comes to the table. It's the way Governor Glendening
got everyone to the table, by having his purchase of
development rights program with his smart growth program so
that it appeared--and I think there is--some fairness in the
process to both sides. I hope that's where we go with these
discussions, is start talking about fairness. Who pays to
achieve community goals on private land?
Senator Bennett. I would hope the same thing. The attitude
that we're getting in Utah is they say, ``Get those people off
the land, build a fence around it, and let it go back to its
natural state.'' I keep pointing out there's no such thing as a
natural state. Nature changes the land continually, whether it
is earthquakes or flood or droughts or whatever. There is no
``natural state'' for the land.
In my State, I can show you examples where, if the
cattlemen go off, drought comes back, and it goes back to being
a desert.
Now, maybe you say it's better off being a desert, but when
it was a desert it didn't support any wildlife, it didn't
support any economic activity. It was dry and arid and dead.
And now the areas where they're doing wise management with the
cattle, the wildlife has come back, water has come out. There's
greater watershed coming out of the area than there ever was
before. But there are some who say, ``No, that isn't its
natural state because there are human beings on it.''
Yes?
Mr. Falender. I just wanted to exemplify your point,
Senator, and say that not only am I pleased to be at the same
table with Mr. Grossi at the end, but we even are friends and
find ourselves serving on similar organizations. So we hope
that the model in the northeast, which I feel is very
definitely one of collaboration, can most certainly move
forward in what we're talking about here this morning. It's
your very point that if we all work together and appreciate
where each other is coming from, I think we can really
accomplish so much together.
Senator Bennett. One of the differences is the land in the
northeast is privately owned, and in the State of Utah that's
not the case.
Mr. Falender. As you probably know, the challenges of
working together on private land can be significant, too.
Senator Bennett. Yes. Well, unless anyone else has a final
statement you want to make----
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Chairman, I would commend to you S. 25,
the Title III, which deals with wildlife, which is based
entirely on a nonregulatory, incentive-based program of working
with land owners. I think you know that we are original
sponsors of the ``Seeking Common Ground'' initiative between
livestock interests and wildlife interests in the West. That
initiative has done some great things to reduce polarization,
and so on, where it has been given a try. But S. 25 is not
based on primary Federal land acquisition; it is based on
keeping people on the land, having them manage it well so there
will be wildlife there.
So we would commend to you looking at S. 25, which the
counterpart in the House was endorsed by the Farm Bureau in
testimony recently.
Senator Bennett. I am glad to hear that, and I will look at
it.
Thank you all for your testimony. The committee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Mary L. Landrieu, U.S. Senator from the State of
Louisiana
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999. It is with a sense of pride
and great enthusiasm that I am before the distinguished members on the
Environment and Public Works Committee to present what may well be the
most significant conservation effort of the century. Working with my
colleagues in the Energy Committee, as well as other members for over a
year, we have put together a compelling and balanced bipartisan piece
of legislation. I am pleased to be joined on this measure by my
colleagues, Senators Murkowski, Lott, Breaux, Cleland Johnson,
Mikulski, Cochran, Sessions, Bond, Gregg, gunning, Lincoln and Bayh.
The Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 will provide impact
assistance to coastal States, aid to State parks and conservation
initiatives as well as aid to wildlife. Currently, nearly 100 percent
of the funds that the Federal Government receives annually from Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas development goes to the Federal
treasury. The treatment of these revenues is different from the
treatment of the revenues from Federal oil and gas development onshore.
Under the Mineral Funds Leasing Act, 50 percent of the revenues from
Federal oil and gas development onshore is distributed annually to the
``host'' State in an effort to mitigate the impacts associated with oil
and gas development. A glaring discrepancy exists for coastal States
that have adjacent Federal offshore oil and gas activity.
The time has come to take the proceeds from this nonrenewable
resource for the purpose of reinvesting a portion of these revenues in
the conservation and enhancement of our renewable resources. To
continue to do otherwise, as we have over the last 50 years, is
fiscally irresponsible. In this bill, my cosponsors and I propose to
take 50 percent of these revenues, as we do in onshore areas, for the
purpose of making wise investments in our environment. The Conservation
and Reinvestment Act of 1999 proposes three distinct reinvestment
programs.
Title I dedicates 27 percent of the annual Federal oil and gas
revenues to coastal impact assistance. The coastal impact assistance
program contained in Title I is different from any previous plan
considered by Congress and is based on the October, 1997
recommendations of the OCS Advisory Committee to the Department of the
Interior.
Title I provides coastal impact assistance to all coastal States
and territories, not just those States that host Federal OCS oil and
gas development. The funding goes directly to States and local
governments for improvements in air and water quality, fish and
wildlife habitat, wetlands, or other coast resources. These revenues to
coastal States will help offset a range of costs unique to maintaining
a coastal zone for specific enumerated uses. The formula for allocating
this revenue is based on population, miles of coastline and proximity
to production. A portion of the State's allocation is paid directly to
coastal counties, parishes and boroughs. These coastal impact
assistance funds can be used for environmental mitigation and
infrastructure services associated with offshore activity, as well as
for coastal environmental purposes by States that do not produce oil
and gas. While there has been some discussion about the intent of using
this formula, I would like to take this opportunity to assure all the
members of this committee that this legislation is neither pro-drilling
nor anti-drilling. This is a revenue sharing bill--uniquely. I
recognize, however, the concerns raised by my colleagues and interested
parties regarding the proximity formula, and I would like to work with
them on that point.
Title II provides a permanent stream of revenue for the State and
Federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as well as for
the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. Under the bill,
funding to the LWCF becomes automatic at 16 percent of annual revenues.
Receiving just under half this amount, the State side of LWCF will
provide funds to State and local governments for land acquisition,
urban conservation and recreation projects--all under the discretion of
State and local authorities. The Urban Parks and Recreation program
would enable cities and towns to focus on the needs of its populations
within our more densely inhabited areas with fewer greenspaces,
playgrounds and soccer fields for our youth. Stable funding, not
subject to appropriations, will provide greater revenue certainty to
State and local planning authorities. A stable baseline will be
established for Federal land acquisition through the LWCF at a higher
level than the historical average over the past decade. Federal LWCF,
which is the one Federal program explicitly designed to help States and
communities preserve open space, will receive just under half of the
amount in this title of the bill. And, nothing in this bill will
preclude additional Federal LWCF funds to be sought through the annual
appropriations process. LWCF dollars will be used for land acquisition
in areas which have been and will be authorized by Congress. Property
will be acquired on a willing seller basis. The bill will restore
Congressional intent with respect to the LWCF, the goal of which is to
share a significant portion of revenues from offshore development with
the States to provide for protection and public use of the natural
environment. While there have been some provisions added to the bill
that elicit varying responses from members and groups,
I firmly believe that a compromise exists on the Land and Water
Conservation Fund that will garner broad support.
Finally, the wildlife conservation and restoration provision in
Title III of this bill guarantees funding of 7 percent of annual OCS
revenues for wildlife conservation initiatives, through the Pittman-
Robertson Act. This program enjoys a great deal of support and would be
enhanced without imposing new taxes.
These funds will be allocated to all States for wildlife
conservation for non-game and game species, with a principle benefit
realized through the prevention of species from becoming endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act. I look forward to working
with the Chairman and other members of this committee to make this
program happen.
I believe that this measure will be a major step forward in the
nation's effort to conserve and enhance our coastal areas as well as
other special areas that will be important to future generations, as
well as for irreplaceable wildlife resources. I also wanted to take
this opportunity to commend the efforts of Senators Boxer and Feinstein
who have introduced similar measures which address some of the same
issues as those highlighted in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of
1999.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
[From the New York Times, June 16, 1997]
Revive the Conservation Fund
More than 30 years ago, Congress passed a quiet little
environmental program that offered great promise to future generations
of Americans. Conceived under Dwight Eisenhower, proposed by John F.
Kennedy and signed into law by Lyndon Johnson, the Federal Land and
Water Conservation Fund was designed to provide a steady revenue stream
to preserve ``irreplaceable lands of natural beauty and unique
recreational value.'' Royalties from offshore oil and gas leases would
provide the money, giving the program an interesting symmetry. Dollars
raised from depleting one natural resource would be used to protect
another.
Since its inception, the fund has helped acquire seven million
acres of national and state parkland and develop 37,000 recreation
projects. Its notable triumphs include the Cape Cod National Seashore,
the New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve and Voyageurs National Park
in Minnesota. But the program fell apart during the Reagan
Administration and has yet to recover. Of the $900 million that has
flowed to the fund from oil and gas royalties each year since 1980,
Congress has seen fit to appropriate only a third, and in some years
far less. The rest has simply disappeared into the Treasury, allocated
for deficit reduction.
The biggest losers have been the States. Over time, appropriations
have been split about evenly between Federal and State conservation
projects. But for 2 years running, not a dime has gone to the States--
again for budgetary reasons. This has been hard on New York, which
needs Federal help to buy up valuable open space threatened by
development in the Adirondacks and elsewhere.
Now, quite suddenly, this legislative stepchild has acquired a
bunch of new friends. As part of the recent budget deal, Republican
leaders agreed to add $700 million to the $166 million that President
Clinton had requested for the new fiscal year. The Republicans had been
getting heat from Governors back home and saw a chance to polish their
environmental image. For his part, Mr. Clinton needed about $315
million, to complete two important Federal purchases, both strongly
supported by this page--$65 million to deliver on his pledge to buy the
New World Mine on the edge of Yellowstone National Park, the rest to
acquire the Headwaters Redwood Grove in California from a private
lumber company.
That would still leave several hundred million dollars for other
Federal projects and for the States--but only if the House and Senate
appropriations committees honor the outlines of the budget deal and
commit a sizable share of the money to State projects. State officials
have been descending upon Washington in recent days to plead their
case. Gov. George Pataki has written every Member of Congress and, last
week, the New York State Parks Commissioner, Bernadette Castro,
testified at hearings convened by Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska.
We trust that Mr. Murkowski and others, in Congress will pay
attention. The States have been starved of their fair share for far too
long. At the same time, however, the legitimate needs of the states
should no be used as an excuse to deny Mr. Clinton the funds he needs
to carry out important Federal projects. Mr. Murkowski, an Alaska
Republican, who has long been at odds with the environmental community
over issues like the Tongass National Forest and the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, is typical of many Western politicians who believe
that the Federal estate is already large enough. He is particularly
disturbed by the notion that Federal funds will be used to consummate
the Yellowstone and Headwaters agreements, which be described last
month as Federal ``land grabs.''
Here is a question for Mr. Murkowski. If The Yellowstone mine site
and the Headwaters redwoods do not fit the description of
``irreplaceable lands of natural beauty'' envisioned by Congress when
it established the Land and Water Conservation Fund, what does? We
applaud Mr. Murkowski's promise to do what he can to restore the fund
to full funding and thus recapture its original promise. But he and his
colleagues should be open-minded enough to let those funds flow to
those projects, State or Federal, that are most urgently in need.
__________
Statement of Hon. Patrick Leahy, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to share ideas with
the committee at this timely and valuable hearing. Last year, you and I
were fighting a bill on the Senate floor that would have taken away
local land use and zoning decisionmaking from local officials and
communities.
This Congress is starting out on a much better foot. I commend you
for convening these hearings to talk about the loss of open space and
the toll that takes in our cities and towns and on the environment.
Congress should redouble its efforts to equip communities with the
tools they need to plan growth and promote central business districts.
People across the country demonstrated their support for open space
conservation and urban revitalization last fall at polls by approving
124 ballot measures dedicating local and State revenues for these
goals.
In Vermont, we have been assembling a workbox of tools to help
communities with land use planning. But without Federal support, these
efforts are like building a house with toothpicks.
We have all seen the impact of urban sprawl in our States, whether
it takes the form of large multi-tract housing development spread or
unbounded retail strips jammed with national superstores and super-
sized parking lots.
Sprawl often steals unbidden into our midst, and it quickly wears
out its welcome, much the same way our friends in the South have come
to regard kudzu. Sprawl is not incremental development; it is
transforming development. It clots our roads, compounds the costs of
the infrastructure we need, takes its toll on our environment, and
sucks the lifeblood from the very character of our communities. In one
way or another, sprawl costs us all.
I would like to highlight two programs in particular that are
working--right now--to help local communities through voluntary
conservation efforts that deserve our continued support.
In Vermont, we have lived through several situations where Federal
agencies have chosen sites outside of downtown areas to locate new
buildings. In one case, the Federal agency selected a lot within an
area that already is coping with some of the most difficult problems
associated with sprawl and high population growth in our State.
Unfortunately, this scenario plays out far too often. Downtown
areas have difficulty competing in the Federal procurement process
because of the higher costs associated with downtown areas.
Consequently, the sites outside of downtown areas win contracts,
and slowly but surely we contribute to the sprawl cycle and squander
one of our most precious resources--open space--and the environmental
benefits that go with it.
The ``Downtown Equity Act of 1999'' offers States another tool to
combat sprawl by implementing a new system of evaluating bids that
places downtown areas on an even footing with surrounding areas.
The new system would direct Federal agencies to produce procurement
guidelines that offer a level playing field for central business
districts. My bill would also allow Federal agencies to factor into
their cost accounting the benefits of locating new facilities in city
centers, such as maintaining historic development patterns and
invigorating our downtown areas.
Conserving open space and revitalizing downtowns are two
complementary approaches to curbing sprawl. Our communities themselves
will decide which, if any, of the approaches they want to take, as they
consider what they want to look like in 10 or 20 years.
Again, I want to thank you Mr. Chairman for convening this hearing
today. The problems of sprawl has been brewing for far too long,
striking at the core of what makes Vermont unique in the hearts and
minds of Vermonters and of our many visitors.
In 1993, the National Trust for Historic Preservation put the
entire State on its list of endangered places, hoping to preserve some
of the character that makes Vermont a special place.
The decisions to prevent or limit sprawl will always be made
locally. But the Federal Government can do much to help our communities
act on their decisions. And the Federal Government must stop being an
unwitting accomplice to sprawl.
__________
Statement of Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator from the State of
California
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you very much for
this opportunity to testify today regarding the need to preserve
America's shrinking open space and the Public Land and Recreation
Investment Act, which I introduced earlier this month. It is
tremendously heartening to see a growing bi-partisan consensus view
that America's open spaces, wildlife habitat areas, and places of
stunning natural beauty need to be preserved for future generations. I
particularly thank my colleague from California, Senator Barbara Boxer,
for her leadership on this issue and her sponsorship of the Permanent
Protection for America's Resources Act, of which I am a cosponsor.
By now, I am sure that all of you are well aware of the importance
of preserving open space, and of its continuing disappearance from
America's landscape. As numerous witnesses have already testified,
development is eating into our nation's forests, farmlands, and
wetlands.
S. 532, the Public Land and Recreation Investment Act, addresses
this problem by ensuring permanent funding for two of our nation's pre-
eminent conservation and recreation programs: the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act.
Specifically, the bill provides $900 million annually, without further
appropriation, for these critical programs.
Fifty percent of the funding-$450 million per year--will be
allocated to the Federal Government, so that we may continue to acquire
prime conservation and recreation land, habitat areas, and open space
in and around national parks, refuges, forests, and other public lands.
Forty percent of the funding-$360 million a year-will go to the
stateside grants program of the LWCF. The stateside grants program has
helped States acquire over 2 million acres of park land and open space
over the years, but Congress has not funded it since 1995. Reviving the
stateside grants program will give States a critical boost in their
efforts to preserve key open space, recreation, and wildlife habitat
areas.
In an effort to make the stateside grants program more effective,
the Public Land and Recreation Investment Act also institutes a new
requirement that States develop a plan for conservation, open space,
and conservation; requires States to pass through 50 percent of the
grants they receive to local governments; and, for the first time,
allows Indian tribes to receive LWCF funding.
Finally, the bill directs 10 percent of LWCF funding, or $90
million per year, to the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act. UPARR
targets parks and recreation funds where, arguably, they are needed the
most-cities where recreational facilities are deteriorating or
nonexistent. Under this bill, for the first time, cities will be able
to use UPARR funds to acquire land for conservation and recreation
purposes.
I introduced the Public Land and Recreation Investment Act for
three key reasons. First, I believe strongly that the LWCF and UPARR
should continue to play a central role in preserving sensitive land
from development. The LWCF works. Since 1965, it has helped to preserve
nearly 7 million acres of America's most special places. Rather than
inventing new programs to preserve open space, why not concentrate
first on fully funding the programs we already have?
Second, I introduced the Public Land and Recreation Act because I
wanted to preserve the LWCF for the purposes for which it was intended-
land acquisition at the Federal, State, and local level. Some of the
LWCF-related proposals that are currently pending in Congress would
make dramatic changes in the program that would significantly impair
the Federal Government's ability to acquire land.
I certainly understand the fact that sprawl is a local issue, and
this bill gives State and local governments the tools to address it.
But the Federal Government has a role to play here; otherwise, we would
not be in this hearing room today. To compromise the Federal
Government's ability to acquire land, particularly at a time when open
space issues are absolutely critical, seems at best short-sighted.
Finally, I felt it was important to have a moderate, relatively
low-cost alternative on the table should other proposals pending in
Congress prove too expensive or too controversial. We have a golden
opportunity this year to make an unprecedented commitment to open space
and habitat preservation. Senator Landrieu's bill, Senator Boxer's
bill, and the President's Lands Legacy Initiative and Better America
Bonds proposal all would dramatically increase our investment in public
lands. But these proposals, as you know, are expensive, and each has,
in its own way, drawn some political heat.
I would hope that if we cannot agree on a new, broad-based
conservation initiative, or if we cannot find money in the budget to
``do it -all,'' we can at least make a commitment to fully fund LWCF
and UPARR. These are highly successful programs, and they enjoy a broad
base of support. It is time that we fulfill the extraordinary promise
of the LWCF. I believe that doing so is key in preserving our most
special land, at the Federal, State, and local level, from development
and sprawl.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify before the
committee.
__________
Statement of Hon. Parris Glendening, Governor of the State of Maryland
Thank you Chairman Chafee and distinguished members of the
committee. It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss land use issues
in this nation, and, more specifically, Maryland's Smart Growth/Anti-
Sprawl program and Neighborhood Conservation initiative.
Before I begin, I will take a moment to express my appreciation to
Senator John Chafee. When you retire at the end of your term in 2000,
you will leave behind a powerful legacy of strong leadership on
critical issues: Health care and housing for low income children and
their families; Helping people with developmental disabilities realize
their full potential; And of course providing for a cleaner
environment. I thank you for your dedication to these issues.
It is a pleasure to be here and to speak about one of my favorite
topics. Whether we call it Livable Communities, Sustainable Growth, or
as we call it in Maryland Smart Growth, this national movement toward
more sensible land use patterns offers us a genuine opportunity to make
positive, lasting change as we begin a new century.
For 50 years, Americans have acted as if moving out is moving up.
In the process, we have taken our natural resources for granted. We
have paid too little attention to what happens to agricultural
communities when farms are fragmented by development. Or what happens
to forests, and the wildlife that lives in them, when they are
destroyed by roads or malls. Across this nation, we have let too many
of our great and historic cities and towns collapse. This has been
done, in part, through an indifference to urban needs that has fueled
the great flight to the suburbs. We must remember that we cannot be a
suburb to nothing!
Those of us who have studied the causes of sprawl understand that
government policies, even well-meaning policies, too often have caused
or perpetuated the very patterns of development we are now trying to
reverse. For example, the Interstate Highway System provided the United
States with perhaps the best national road network in the world. That
highway system is so good, in fact, that it has literally paved the way
for long-distance commuting from virtually any corner of this nation.
The Interstate program--combined with the G.I. Bill that made low
interest mortgage loans available to returning World War II veterans--
were great programs, but they inadvertently made sprawl development
financially viable for developers and home buyers.
Now, those patterns of land use have increased air pollution that
has virtually negated the introduction of dramatically cleaner cars,
and they have cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars for new,
and often redundant, highway or other infrastructure costs.
In Maryland--and I know this is so in many other States--we too
often followed an unwritten rule that directed State funds to new
suburban developments first, at the expense of our older communities
and neighborhoods. It was a hidden form of entitlement! No matter where
a developer wanted to build, the State pitched in to help. Even if it
hurt our established communities. I can remember when my wife Francie
and I were courting, we would have dinner on Friday nights with her
parents, then go into downtown Cumberland. Plenty of open stores,
coffee shops, movie theaters, people walking around, etc. A perfect
Norman Rockwell small town setting on a Friday evening. Then some
developers wanted to build a big shopping mall just outside Cumberland,
and the State pitched in with $12 million for roads and other
infrastructure. Within a year from when this mall was built on the side
of the mountain, stores in downtown Cumberland shut down, some closed
at 5 or 6 p.m., and it looked like a ghost town. Now we are spending
millions more in State dollars to revitalize the same downtown
Cumberland we helped to destroy by providing funding for the mall!!!
We are reversing these trends in Maryland by addressing the
fundamental driving force behind development decisions: bottom-line
cost. We decided that if government policies had inadvertently
encouraged sprawl by making it cost-effective, then new government
policies could encourage investment in existing communities and Smart
Growth centers, and make it more expensive to further sprawl. People
make bottom-line decisions. Homebuyers do. Builders do. Investors do.
Therefore, it must be our goal to change the bottom line.
That is why we turned our $17 billion per year State budget into an
incentive fund for Smart Growth. First through State law in 1997, and
then by Executive Order in 1998,
we refocused the State's financial resources on our established
communities and neighborhoods. For development projects outside of
those areas, we are saying, ``Sorry, the State will not help out! If
you building out there, and tearing up one more farm, then you pay for
roads, water and sewage, schools, parks, and other development costs.
But, If you invest in our existing communities, then you will avoid
those costs, and you will have access to tax credits, grants, low-
interest loans, and other bottom-line impacting incentives.''
Let me emphasize: It is not our intention to stop growth. We do not
want ``No Growth,'' or even ``Slow Growth.'' In fact, we want economic
growth in Maryland, and our economy is booming. We have the third
highest family income in the nation,
and stand at a 10-year low in unemployment. We simply will no
longer approve State funding for capital projects not in accordance
with our Smart Growth Program. We will not use tax dollars to subsidize
sprawl.
Think about this statistic: The American Farmland Trust says the
United States is losing 45.6 acres of green space an hour. That is a
loss of more than one acre every 2 minutes! In Maryland, if growth
patterns do not change, new development will consume as much land in
the next 25 years as it has during the entire 350-year history of the
State. This simply cannot be allowed to continue.
Think about it: We carefully plan for and invest in our capital
infrastructure roads, schools, water, and sewer lines. We also
carefully plan for and invest in our human infrastructure education,
health services, and care for our disabled and elderly. We must equally
understand the need to care for and invest in our environmental
infrastructure . . . our green infrastructure our forests, fields,
farms, rivers, lakes, bays and streams. I am proud that we already laid
a sound foundation for the protection of our green infrastructure with
Smart Growth.
Maryland may be a leader in this effort--but we are not alone. This
is neither a regional issue, nor a politically partisan one. All over
the country my counterparts on both sides of the aisle are addressing
the same or similar problems: Republican Governors like Mike Leavitt of
Utah and Christie Todd Whitman of New Jersey are dealing with the
adverse effects of sprawl development and working to protect and
preserve green space; Democratic Governors like Tom Carper of Delaware
and Roy Barnes of Georgia are doing great things regarding
transportation and land-use; And Independent Governor Angus King of
Maine is working to address the threats from unplanned and unchecked
sprawl development before the quality of life in his State is
permanently damaged.
My fellow Governors and I are on the front lines, but there are
some critical steps that only the Federal Government can take to help
us win this battle against sprawl. I see four key areas: 1. Continue
and expand effective programs; 2. Emphasize the location of government
facilities; 3. Use a ``sprawl vs reinvestment'' test for decisions; 4.
Rethink some broader policy issues.
First, continue and expand effective programs like the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program [CREP], which is providing Maryland with
$200 million to protect forest buffer along our waterways. I stress
that we are not just asking for money. We are making a significant
investment as well. The State is investing approximately $140 million
over first 5 years of our Rural Legacy program to protect close to
70,000 acres threatened by development.
Additionally, new programs like the Livable Communities initiative
can be a helpful way for the Federal Government to be a partner with
State and local governments on this issue. Just think what a strong
Livable Communities partnership could mean to all our States: The
Better America Bonds could unleash $9.5 billion in investments to
preserve green space, restore urban areas, and protect water quality.
In Maryland, this would help us expand our Rural Legacy and Brownfields
programs. Community Transportation Choices is a $9.9 billion proposal
to ease congestion and improve air quality. As most members of Congress
already know, the Washington area suffers from the second worst traffic
congestion in the nation. In Maryland, this initiative would help us
meet our goals of doubling mass transit ridership, improve existing
roads, and exploring new technology-based options to reduce congestion.
And the Regional Connections Initiative would provide $50 million in
matching funds to enact Smart Growth strategies. This would help us
revitalize existing communities. An important aspect in the Livable
Communities approach is the emphasis on keeping land use decisions with
local government. A solid Livable Communities partnership will give the
States and local jurisdictions many of the tools they need to combat
sprawl.
The second approach the Federal Government can adopt is emphasizing
the location of government facilities in Smart Growth areas. The
Federal Government should make it a practice to locate new offices in
central business districts especially in communities where other
revitalization efforts are already underway. Sometimes relatively
simple actions like keeping a Post Office on Main Street rather than
building a new one outside of town can make a large difference in
whether a community's downtown business district remains viable. We are
following this policy in Maryland: Before I took office only 43 percent
of our school constriction budget went toward renovating and
modernizing our older schools . . . today well over 80 percent is
dedicated to older schools in established communities. And Court Houses
and County Buildings from Berlin on the Eastern Shore to Hagerstown in
Western Maryland are being built downtown, supporting our
neighborhoods.
The third step the Federal Government can take it to apply a simple
test to policy decisions: ``Does this reinvest in an establish
community or does it contribute to sprawl.'' Once you begin viewing
your policy decisions from this perspective, you will realize how many
governmental actions have a significant impact on either protecting or
threatening open space, on either reinvesting or disinvesting in
established areas, on either fighting sprawl or assisting sprawl. This
Smart Growth test needs to be applied to virtually every decision we
make involving the allocation of resources. The hidden costs of sprawl,
and the benefits of reinvesting in older areas, must be taken into
account.
Finally, we must look anew at many broad policies at the Federal
level. Certainly we must have water and air pollution standards. We
must also adopt minimal national standards for animal waste run-off to
prevent competition between States that ultimately results in lowering
pollution standards in order to attract business. But we must also look
at policies that are grounded in laudable goals like cleaner air and
water, but that have unintended consequences that actually make them
worker counter to their intentions. For example, disallowing growth in
``nonattainment'' areas often has the effect of forcing growth away
from areas we want it like Baltimore and to ``greenfields'' where we do
not want it. We need the flexibility to target the appropriate
investments to the right areas and away from open space.
I conclude with an observation: There are still those who do not
understand that Smart Growth programs are about a different future;
about a different vision for a better America. The fact is, we are
going to have growth--so our choice is clear: We can either hide our
heads in the sand and ignore it, and then face the consequences of
unplanned growth. Or we can plan for a better future. I choose the
latter. And I am confident that you will as well.
Change will not be easy. We had a Public Safety Training Center
project in the planning stages for over a decade, but as we began to
look at things thinking Smart Growth first, we realized that the
location is not consistent with our Smart Growth Program. We are still
building it, it's going to be better than originally planned, but it
will be in a location that is consistent with Smart Growth and
preventing future sprawl. And now there is a great hue and cry in the
community and the Maryland General Assembly about relocating this
center. But at some point we have to make the tough decisions about
Smart Growth today so we can prevent future sprawl and over-development
tomorrow. I am reminded of the old saying ``Everybody wants to go to
heaven, but nobody wants to die to get there.''
Quite frankly, change will take time. There is no overnight
solution. It will require changes in attitudes as well as in the way we
do business at every level of government; local, State, and Federal.
And frankly, it will take years before we begin to see change. But we
will change. There is too much at stake.
I will leave you with one final thought. Last month, Bill Hudnut,
the former Mayor of Indianapolis and now a Senior Fellow with the Urban
Land Institute, spoke before the Natural Resources Committee of the
National Governors' Association,
which I have the honor of chairing. His message to the Governors
was one of urgency: We must begin to address the multiple challenges
embodied in the movement known as ``Smart Growth'' before it is too
late. He told an old North American Indian saying:''We do not inherit
the land from our ancestors; we bequeath it to our children. In other
words, we are not owners but stewards of our environment. As
protectors, we must remain determined to pass the environment to future
generations in a better state than we found it. Thank you again for
inviting me to speak with you today.
__________
Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation
pamphlet issued by the maryland office of planning
Priority Funding Areas
In much the same way that a family decides to save or spend its
limited resources, the State is prioritizing its spending. In the past
year, each county and municipality has been working to analyze its
future growth needs. With the assistance of Models and Guidelines
prepared by the Maryland Office of Planning, counties have used tools
such as existing zoning, comprehensive plan maps, and water and server
plans to define their ``Priority Funding Areas.'' These are locally
certified areas where growth is planned, infrastructure is already in
place, and that are consistent with criteria established by the Smart
Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act. By investing funds only in
these areas, the State will save taxpayer dollars, protect open space
from sprawl development and preserve its heritage. Focusing State
investments and programs will strengthen neighborhoods, support the
entrepreneurial spirit and create job opportunities. County certified
Priority Funding Areas soon will be in place along with those
designated by the legislation in order to provide a high quality of
life for our children.
Rural Legacy
Marylanders are united in their desire to protect the environment
through Smart Growth policies. They have underscored their sentiments
with creative proposals to preserve forests, open spaces, wildlife
habitats and agricultural lands. Their recommendations also will create
greenbelts around existing communities and protect sensitive areas,
such as the Chesapeake Bay and its stream corridors from the hazards of
development. In the first year of the Rural Legacy Program,
partnerships made up of local governments, land trusts and land owners
submitted 20 competitive applications requesting funds to purchase and
protect over 53,000 acres of land. This overwhelming response will put
the Rural Legacy Program well on its way to achieving its goal of
preserving 200,000 acres by the year 2011.
The Rural Legacy Program is providing the funding and focus to
strategically identify and permanently protect the State's most
valuable remaining term land and natural resource areas before they are
forever lost to development. Through this toward thinking land
conservation program, the State hopes to preserve land at a pace equal
to that of development. With programs like Rural Legacy, Marylanders
today are insuring a high quality of life - clean air and water,
outdoor recreation, and a rich cultural heritage - for Nature
generations.
Voluntary Cleanup and Brownfield Programs
The future is bright for industrial sites once buried In a haze of
pollution and legal uncertainty. Private companies have begun using the
State's Voluntary Cleanup and Brownfields Programs to assess, cleanup
and redevelop abandoned or underutilized sites so that they may once
again be a productive part of our economy. Cleanup will make a marked
difference in the quality of our air, water, and community life as a
whole. Redevelopment of these sites takes the effort a step further by
bringing jobs back to already developed but abandoned industrial areas
and by increasing tax revenues.
Companies from across the State continue to express interest in the
Voluntary Clean-up and Brownfields Programs by requesting applications
to participate. In the year since the Smart Growth initiatives became
law, companies have submitted a total of 31 applications to participate
in the Voluntary Cleanup program. These applications have a potential
to clean-up approximately 610 acres of prime commercial land in Anne
Arundel, Washington, Prince George's, Montgomery, Cecil and Carroll
counties, and the cities of Cumberland and Baltimore. Twelve of these
applications have been approved; two currently are being remediated;
and, cleanup has been completed on six sites.
The Job Creation Tax Credit
Dozens of small and mid-sized businesses are creating full time,
permanent jobs for residents across the State. Thanks in part to the
availability of Job Creation Tax Credits in Smart Growth areas, nearly
91 businesses have or will soon create nearly 19,422 new jobs in
established communities or those targeted for new growth. These jobs
must pay at least 150 percent of the current $5.15 minimum wage but are
averaging a higher rate of $41,500 per year. Jobs created are in fields
as diverse as computer technology, publishing, warehousing, health care
and manufacturing. The Job Creation Tax Credit contains two Smart
Growth components. In Revitalization Areas, the tax credit rate is
doubled; in Designated Neighborhoods within Priority Funding Areas, the
minimum new job threshold is reduced from 60 to 25 full-time jobs.
The success of this program means more family supporting jobs for
Marylanders and the rejuvenation of our older neighborhoods. As
additional businesses take advantage of this incentive, State and local
governments will continue to save more taxpayer dollars by using
infrastructure that is already in place rather than build costly new
infrastructure to support sprawl development. Moreover, as businesses
expand our economy will grow even stronger.
Live Near Your Work
Employees of an increasing number of businesses and institutions in
Maryland are eligible to receive a minimum of $3,000 toward the
purchase of their home using a new initiative called the Live Near Your
Work Program. These funds are being made available through a unique
partnership. The State is contributing $1,000, which is being matched
by the local jurisdiction and the employer, each of which is
contributing a minimum of $1,000 to employees who purchase homes close
to their places of work.
The benefits of the Live Near Your Work Program are clear:
neighborhoods are strengthened through increased homeownership,
commuting costs are reduced, and important relationships are forged
between employers and their surrounding communities. Through this
incentive, participating employers are offering their work force an
improved quality of life that will in turn create a renewed sense of
community within Maryland's existing neighborhoods.
In less than 1 year of operation, 31 employers in six Maryland
jurisdictions have partnered with the State to offer this neighborhood
revitalization incentive. Buoyed by the success of the Live Near Your
Work Program, the State will make another $300,000 available for fiscal
year 1999 so that additional employers and employees can take advantage
of the opportunity to promote homeownership and invest in Maryland's
older communities.
Smart Growth Initiatives
Maryland has created a tapestry of policies and programs to
protect, preserve and economically develop established communities and
valuable natural and cultural resources. Many were developed over
several decades but in 1997, Governor Glendening's landmark Smart
Growth initiative provided an umbrella under which these diverse
programs are unified. Local and State governments continue to develop
and refine these programs and policies to best meet their needs. The
following section provides an overview of programs that complement the
goals of Smart Growth.
Priority Funding Areas.--This component of the Smart Growth
legislation defines where State and local governments encourage
economic development and growth. Beginning October 1, 1998, the State
must direct funding for growth related projects to these ``Smart Growth
Areas.'' Contact: James Noonan, Maryland Office of Planning (410/767-
4570)
Educational Outreach and Assistance.--Information about Smart
Growth and educational activities. Smart Growth video available.
Contact: Thomas Bass, Maryland Office of Planning (410/767-4578)
Models and Guidelines.--This series of publications provides
innovative planning and community development techniques. It is offered
in hard copy or via the Internet (www.op.state.md.us) Contact: Scribner
Sheafor, Maryland Office of Planning (410/767-4575)
Technical Assistance.--Technical and financial assistance to local
governments for planning, environmentally responsible ``green''
development practices and related activities. Contact: Scribner
Sheafor, Maryland Office of Planning (410/767-4575) or Maryland
Department of Natural Resources: Mark Bundy(410/260-8720)or Theresa
Pierno (410/260-8710)
Graduate Program in Smart Growth.--Contact: Tracy Stanton,
University of Maryland (301/405-6358)
Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act of 1992.--
This Act requires that local Comprehensive Plans be updated
periodically and be consistent with ``Visions,'' local zoning,
subdivision ordinances other plans. A citizen commission oversees
implementation. Contact: Gail Moran, Maryland Office of Planning (410/
767-4554)
Neighborhoods
Live Near Your Work.--A program providing employees of
participating employers $3,000 toward buying homes near their
workplace. Contact: John Papagni, Department of Housing and Community
Development (410/209-5807 or 800/756-0119)
Quality Community Surveys.--An interactive process of determining
resident's visual preferences about community. Contact: Beth Robinson,
MTA (410/767-8352)
Housing Development Programs.--Financial assistance to construct
elderly and family rental housing in designated areas. Peter Engel,
Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (410/514-7481
or 800/756-0119)
Neighborhood Partnership Program.--A corporate tax credit program
to promote private investment in neighborhood revitalization
activities. Contact: Glenda I<:eel, Department of Housing and Community
Development (410/ 514-7241)
Smart Growth/Smart Ideas Homeownership Initiative.--An innovative
program providing 4 percent interest rates for home mortgage in select
neighborhoods. Contact: Fran Makle, Maryland Department of Housing and
Community Development (410/514-7530; or 800/638-7781)
Maryland Mortgage Program.--A tool to strengthen neighborhoods
through IONV interest home mortgages for working families. Contact:
Fran Makle, Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development
(410/514-7530 alar 8()0/638-7781)
Main Street Maryland.--A new comprehensive, downtown revitalization
program to strengthen economic potential in traditional main streets
and neighborhoods. Initial participants include Mount Rainier,
Cumberland, Oakland, Easton, and Baltimore's Charles Village.
Additional communities to be designated. Contact: Cindy Stone, Maryland
Department of Housing and Communities Development (410/514-7256)
Neighborhood Business Development Program.--This program provides
loan and grant gap financing for small business startups or expansions
in designated revitalization areas. Contact: Dottie Myers, Maryland
Department of Housing and Community Development (410/514-7288 or 800/
756-0199)
Neighborhood Stabilization Preservation Act of 1998.--A three-year
demonstration program providing participating home buyers in Hillendale
(Baltimore County) or Waverly (Baltimore City) with an 80 percent
property tax credit. Contacts: Hillendale--JoAnne Holback, Baltimore
County Neighborhood Housing Services (410/769-8820); Waverly--Dennis
Taylor,Baltimore City Department of Housing and Community Development -
(410/396-3474)
Neighborhood Conservation Program.--A revitalization program to
assist with road improvement projects--streetscapes, curbs, gutter,
repaving & lights--that improve mobility and facilitate local plan
implementation. Contact: Yolanda Takesian, Department of Transportation
(410/865- 1287)
Retrofit Sidewalk Program.--Up to 100 percent moneys for sidewalks
along State highways in revitalization areas at the request of local
governments. Contact: Dennis German, Maryland Department of
Transportation (410/545-8900)
State Facilities Planning and State Purchases.--Growth management
strategies used in selecting sites for State facilities and assessing
options between the new construction and renovation of State buildings.
Department of General Services Contacts: Michele Rozner (410/767-4960);
Steve Cassard (410/767-4330); Tom Genetti(410/767-4214); or Bob Cheeks,
(410/767-4440)
Job Creation
Job Creation Tax Credit.--State tax credits for businesses
providing new permanent, family supporting jobs in designated areas.
Contact: Jerry Wade, Maryland Department of Business and Economic
Development (410/767-6438)
Enterprise Zones.--Tax breaks offered to businesses locating or
expanding in State-designated areas. Enterprise Zones automatically are
designated as Priority Funding Areas, thus eligible for State
infrastructure funding under the 1997 legislation. Contact: Jerry Wade,
Department of Business and Economic Development (410/767-6490)
Maryland Heritage Preservation and Tourism Areas.--Matching grants,
State tax credits and broad program support for public/private
partnerships to develop and implement cultural tourism opportunities
Cumberland's Canal Place is the only certified participant; others are
designated and await certification. Contact: Bill Pencek, Department of
Housing and Community Development (410/514-7604)
Business Assistance and Permit Coordination.--A program to
facilitate environmental permit and assistance with environmental
program compliance. Contact: Sue Battle, Maryland Department of the
Environment (410/631-3772)
Public Schools.--State funding to help local governments construct
or renovate public schools. Emphasis is placed on necessary renovation
of existing schools. Contact: Yale Stenzler or Barbara Strein, Public
School Construction Program (410/767-0610)
The Aging School Program.--Complete funding is provided to address
the capital needs of aging school buildings. Contact: Barbara Strein,
Maryland Public School Construction Program (410/767-0619)
Public Safety
Hotspot Communities Initiatives.--A crime fighting strategy
targeted to locally designated areas for new police officers, probation
agents, nuisance abatement teams, after school activities, citizen
patrols and other proven enforcement and prevention strategies.
Contact: Amanda Outings, Governor's Office of Crime Control and
Prevention (410/321-3521)
Community Policing.--Block grants for training/facilitating local
police and citizen crime prevention and protection. Contact: Adam Gelb,
Lt. Governor's Office (410/974-2804) or Michael Sarbanes, Governor's
Office of Crime Control and Prevention (410/321-3521)
Expanded Police Activities.--Coordinated and expanded State Police
activities to provide safe communities, reduce violence and provide a
climate for local economic development and growth. Contact: Doug Ward,
Maryland State Police (410/653-4257)
Gun Control.--Comprehensive approach to reduce gun-related violent
crimes. Contact: Adam Gelb, Lt. Governor's Office (410/974-2804) or
Michael Sarbanes, Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention
(410/321-3521)
Transportation
Smart Growth Transit Program.--Multi-agency effort to provide funds
to stimulate private investment adjacent to major transit facilities.
Goal is to create high density, mixed-use pedestrian development that
promotes efficient land use and increases transit ridership. Contact:
Jim Peiffer, Maryland Department of Transportation (410/767-3906)
Transit Plus.--Incentive program allowing employers to provide up
to $65 per employee, per month in discounted tax-free transit benefits.
Contact: Buddy Alves, Maryland Department of Transportation (410/767-
8750)
Preservation
Rural Legacy Program.--This Smart Growth grant program protects
large rural greenbelts from sprawl through the purchase of easements/
development rights from land owners. Contact: Grant Dehart, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources (410/260-8403, program line or 410/260-
8425, direct line)
Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation--Agricultural
Easements.--A program to preserve agricultural lands, provide
production of food and fiber, curb the extent of urban sprawl and
protect lands as open space. Contact: Paul Scheidt, Maryland
Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (410/841-5860)
Maryland Environmental Trust--Environmental Easements.--This
program conserves, improves, stimulates and perpetuates environmentally
significant lands. Contact: James Highsaw, Maryland Environmental Trust
(410/514-7900)
Maryland Historical Trust--Historic Preservation Easements.--An
easement program to protect historic properties. Easements may be
required as condition of Trust grants, loans or State bond funds and
provide financial incentives for property owners. Contact: Michael Day,
Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (410/514-7629)
Maryland Historical Trust Grant Fund and Historic Preservation
Revolving Loan Fund.--Grants and loans for acquisition, rehabilitation
and restoration of historic property as well as historic preservation
education, promotion, research and survey activities. Contact:
Elizabeth Hughes, Maryland Department of Housing and Community
Development (410/514-7617)
Program Open Space.--A State program designed to acquire park land,
forests, and natural, scenic and cultural resources for public uses.
The program has already acquired nearly 158,000 acres. Contact: Grant
Dehart, Maryland Department of Natural Resources (410/260-8403, program
line; 410/260-8425, direct line)
Forest Conservation Program.--Establishes forest conservation and
forestation standards for local authorities to enforce during
development. Contact: Marian Honeczy, Maryland Department of Natural
Resources (410/260-85
Buffer Incentive Program.--Provides landowners with one-time $300
grants per acre to plant forest stream and waterway buffers to reduce
non-point source pollutants. The program also provides public education
programs. Contact: Donald VanHassent, Maryland Department of Natural
Resources (410/260-8504)
Forest Legacy Program.--Identifies and protects environmentally
important and threatened forest lands for traditional uses of private
lands. Contact: Donald VanHassent, Maryland Department of Natural
Resources (410/260-8504)
Stewardship Incentive Program.--Financial assistance through
reimbursable cost-sharing to help private forest land owners implement
specific forest management practices such as tree planting, wildlife
habitat enhancement, riparian and wetland habitat enhancement and
recreational opportunity development. Contact: Donald VanHassent,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (410/260-8504)
Conservation Resource Enhancement Program.--A federally funded
voluntary program to encourage farmers to remove crop land, plant
buffer strips and restore wetlands along Maryland's tributaries.
Contact: Royden Powell, Maryland Department of Agriculture (410/841-
5865)
Farm Land Preservation Atlas.--Atlas of farm preservation shows
relationship and implications of land use, zoning, development
pressure, easements,-conservation zones and soils. Contact: Daniel
Rosen, Maryland Of lice of Planning (410/767-4569)
Environmental
Brownfields.--The following three programs are designed to better
facilitate redevelopment of former industrial sites:
Voluntary Cleanup: Process for property clean up.
Contact: Jim Metz, Maryland Department of the Environment (410/631-
3493)
Brownfields Program: Economic assistance for contaminated
properties. Contact: Steve Lynch, Maryland Department of Business and
Economic Development (410-767-6390)
Brownfield Site Assessment: Site assessments for vacant
and underutilized brownfield sites. Contact: Art O'Connell, Maryland
Department of the Environment (410/631-3493)
Hazardous Mitigation Assistance.--Hazard mitigation funds for
eligible individuals, State agencies and non-profit organizations for
projects eliminating or lessening repetitive disaster or flood damage
problems. Contact: Evalyn Fisher, Maryland Emergency Management Agency
(410/486-4422)
Water and Sewage Infrastructure Financing.--This program redirects
water quality capital financing to facilitate community revitalization
and to. support growth within these communities. Program also funds
needed water and wastewater projects in the more rural and less ambient
areas of the State. Contact: Virginia Kearney, Maryland Department of
the Environment (410/631-3574)
State Air Emission Offset Banking and Trading Program.--A program
to promote the establishment of a State reserve for environmental
improvement. It encourages development and redevelopment in Smart
Growth areas. Contact: Diane Franks, Maryland Department of the
Environment (410/631-3240)
Ecosystem Management Assessment Program.--A new program to
demonstrate cost-effective conservation programs and practices to best
manage property and structures for a healthy environment. Contact:
Ronald Gardner Maryland Department of Natural Resources (410/260-8813)
__________
Statement of David Hayes, Counselor to the Secretary, Department of the
Interior
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department of the Interior
regarding the Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative, and those
aspects of the Livable Communities Initiative which Interior programs
support. The Department of the Interior is a lead agency for the Lands
Legacy initiative, which I will discuss in more detail below. Lead
agencies for the Livability Initiative are the Department of
Transportation, HUD and EPA. Interior administers one program that is
included in the Livability Initiative and has other complementary
efforts, and I will discuss those in my testimony as well. However, for
a complete understanding of the Livability Initiative, I refer the
committee to the written statements of Transportation and EPA that will
be submitted for the record.
Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative
At the start of this century, President Theodore Roosevelt called
on Americans to save the best of our natural endowment for all time.
His legacy is seen all across America in National Parks, National
Forests, and our National Wildlife Refuge System. President Clinton's
Lands Legacy Initiative renews America's commitment to its natural
environment. The initiative requests $1 billion, within a balanced
budget, to expand Federal protection of critical lands across America,
helps States and communities preserve local green spaces, and
strengthen protections for our oceans and coasts. The President also
has committed to work with the Congress on legislation that would
provide a permanent funding stream for these purposes of about $1
billion per year.
The initiative provides roughly equal funding for Federal and non-
Federal conservation efforts, representing a 124 percent increase over
fiscal year 1999 funding. It includes $900 million from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which draws revenues from Federal
offshore oil leases.
The intention is to allow the Federal Government to work with the
many others who care about our natural resources and greenspace to
achieve the next stage in conservation in this country. This vision
recognizes that different areas and communities need different kinds of
tools to achieve their conservation goals. It also recognizes that
Federal land acquisition is a part, but only one part, of the
nationwide effort at conservation. States, local communities, and
Tribes must make decisions and receive the funding to achieve the goals
that they themselves set.
Thus, the Administration proposes to provide a range of flexible
tools to States, local communities, and Tribes to address their various
open space needs. The initiative includes funds for Federal land and
water acquisition to protect our natural treasures, as well as funds to
States, local governments, and Tribes for farmland protection,
preservation of working forests, wildlife habitat protection, urban and
suburban greenways, and coastal environmental needs. Thus, in addition
to the Department of the Interior funding discussed in more detail
below, the Administration's budget requests additional funding for the
Department of Agriculture's Farmland Protection, Forest Legacy, and
Urban and Community Forestry programs, and NOAA's National Marine
Sanctuaries, Coastal Dredge Area restoration, and Fisheries Habitat
Restoration.
Department of the Interior's fiscal year 2000 Budget
The Department's fiscal year 2000 request for Interior Federal land
acquisition will concentrate on five major areas, including the
California Desert, Civil War Battlefields, the Lewis and Clark Trail,
refuges in the Northern Forest, and the Everglades. A total of $295
million is requested for these and other priority Federal land
acquisition projects. Another major emphasis is on efforts to allow
States and localities to continue to grow while conserving and
recovering imperiled wildlife species. $80,000,000 is requested for
States and local governments for habitat conservation planning, land
acquisition, candidate conservation agreements, Safe Harbor Agreements,
and other collaborative strategies.
In America today there is a resurgent sense of the need to preserve
open space and the quality of life of our communities. The Initiative
includes $150 million for a competitive grants program that will assist
States, local governments, and Tribes to preserve open space, and is an
opportunity for us to establish new partnerships with these entities to
enrich our cities, towns, and suburbs. This program could provide
dramatic results by leveraging Federal funds with non Federal
resources. The proposal also calls for $50 million for grants to States
to support open space planning. We expect to work with Congress in
framing a viable program that will result in increased open spaces,
green ways, and other areas for outdoor recreation, urban parks,
wildlife habitat, and coastal wetlands.
$80 million is provided for the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund
to support Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) development. These HCPs
set aside undisturbed open space for habitat for endangered or
threatened species and enable urban planners to take wildlife and open
space considerations into account when planning for future development.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is developing HCPs in several urban
areas, including San Diego, Tucson, and Sacramento. I would like to
describe one example that I think illustrates how Federal expertise
teamed with local partners can yield a powerful planning tool that
contributes significantly to the goals of the Livability agenda.
San Diego County has a greater number of threatened and
endangered species than anywhere in the continental United States. In
March, Secretary Babbitt announced the San Diego Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Program (HCP) which aims to acquire and preserve
about 172,000 acres of habitat over the next 50 years. This area is
adjacent to the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge and is comprised of
large blocks of interconnected habitat that would mitigate the impacts
of continued urban development located mostly outside of the preserve
boundaries. The plan emphasizes the protection and management of
habitats rather than focusing preservation efforts on one species at a
time. The HCP will allow 85 species (20 listed species and 65 unlisted
species) to survive as the San Diego area continues to grow. About half
of the acreage needed for the program is already publicly owned or
destined for public ownership. Much of the rest is expected to be
bought over the next years from willing sellers or deeded by landowners
in exchange for development rights on other habitat lands. As part of
this HCP, San Diego County can now approve developments in sensitive
habitats as long as developers follow the HCP rules, which include
compensation for such damage by preserving other habitat.
Administration's Lands Legacy Principles
Turning now to our proposal regarding the development of
legislation to provide a permanent source of funding for the
conservation of America's land resources, the Administration has
developed the following Principles that will guide our work with
Congress in developing legislation that will provide a lasting legacy
for future generations of Americans. These Principles are as follows:
Legislation must create a permanent funding stream,
within the context of a balanced budget, of at least $1 billion
annually beginning in fiscal year 2001.
Legislation should specify a generally equal allocation
of funding between 1) Federal land acquisition; and 2) funding for
State, local, and tribal governments to acquire, protect, or restore
open space, greenways, urban and community forests and parks, wildlife
habitat, coastal wetlands, farmland protection and sustainable forests.
Legislation should provide funding for various tools for
State, local, and tribal communities to protect their open space and
natural resources in the manner most appropriate to their area,
including the ability to acquire less than fee simple interest in land.
The range of tools and programs should be similar in scope to those
proposed in the President's Budget for fiscal year 2000.
Legislation should protect wildlife by providing funding
to support the health and diversity of habitat for at-risk and nongame
species.
Legislation should provide support for open space
planning that is integrated with other planning, land protection, and
smart growth efforts. Funding to States and tribes for planning must
encourage consideration of open space preservation, habitat protection,
and the identification of appropriate corridors for growth.
In recognition of the unique environmental needs of
coastal States, legislation should include specific programs and
partnerships designed to assist in coastal environmental protection,
conservation, and restoration. The range of tools and programs should
be similar In scope to those proposed in the President's Budget for
fiscal year 2000. This allocation must be equitable considering the
national needs of all States, and should not preclude the coastal
States from competing for the other general grants available to all
States.
Legislation must provide incentives for leveraging the
Federal funding to State, local, and tribal governments to the maximum
extent possible through matching funds, and partnerships with
governmental or private, non-governmental entities including land
trusts.
The program established by the legislation should contain
no incentive for additional offshore oil or gas exploration or
development, which should continue to be governed solely by existing
law and procedures.
Administration's Livability Agenda for the 21st Century
The Lands Legacy Initiative is complemented by a second
Administration initiative, the Livability Agenda, that was launched by
Vice President Gore in January, 1999. The Livability Agenda grew out of
many of the same concerns as the Lands Legacy program--the need to
preserve open space and improve the quality of life in our communities.
While these two programs complement each other, they differ in their
focus: the Lands Legacy Program is primarily concerned with natural
resource protection, while the Livability Agenda encompasses a broader
array of issues that relate to quality of life, including
transportation, safe streets and economic competitiveness. Through the
Livability Agenda, the Administration aims to help communities across
America grow in ways that ensure a high quality of life and strong,
sustainable economic growth. This program provides a comprehensive
array of resources and tools to support local organizations and
agencies facing the challenges raised by rapid growth.
As part of the Livability Agenda, the Administration is also
proposing a new program, the Community/Federal Information Partnership
(CFIP), that would enhance existing technological capabilities and
provide communities with greater access to planning information. A
multi-agency program, CFIP, will be coordinated by the Department of
the Interior through the Federal Geographic Data Committee. The CFIP
would make new informational tools, including Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) technology, more readily available at the local level to
help communities make more informed, collaborative decisions about
regional growth. The program would provide matching grants to local
agencies and organizations to build their capacity to use GIS
technology. In addition, the program would improve public access to
existing geographic information in Federal agencies. CFIP will put
tools and resources in the hands of communities to make decisions that
affect its citizen's quality of life with the best available
information.
In addition to CFIP, the Department of the Interior has other
existing programs that address many of the goals of the Livability
Agenda. As the government's largest land management agency, the
Interior Department has developed expertise through a number of its
programs that can help communities maximize open space for wildlife and
habitat protection as well as for recreational uses. The Interior
Department also has substantial data collection and mapping expertise
that, along with its other programs, can provide powerful tools to
communities as they engage in planning decisions at the local level.
I would like to use this opportunity to highlight a few examples
that I think illustrate how the Department of the Interior helps
improve the quality of life for our citizens.
The National Park Service has a variety of programs that assist
local efforts to develop and maintain open space. UPS Rivers, Trails
and Conservation Assistance Program is designed to help local groups
undertake conservation projects such as protecting rivers, developing
trails and other recreational opportunities. Since its founding in
1988, the Rivers and Trails program has collaborated with over 1000
local groups to work on more than 700 conservation projects in all 50
States.
The Department of the Interior is also at the forefront of some of
the country's most advanced data collection and mapping efforts
designed to gather information on watersheds and developing urban
areas. Data on water quality, watersheds, land use, geological
features, natural hazards, and hazards mitigation are collected by the
United States Geological Survey. This information is then made
available to local communities via the Internet. These resources
provide invaluable tools to local communities engaged in land use
planning.
USGS Urban Dynamics Research Program uses geographic,
topographic and land-use information to document land use change in
many metropolitan areas. Urban dynamic information services serves as
an important tool for city and county planners, regulators and
developers in understanding the influence of roads, highways, and
industry on urbanization. USGS has provided data and mapping
information on urban growth patterns to local and regional agencies in
the San Francisco-Sacramento and Baltimore-Washington areas. Work on
other metropolitan areas is currently underway.
These programs and many others within the Department bring
technical and in some cases direct financial assistance to local
organizations and agencies that are engaged in local planning and open
space protection activities.
In addition, many of the other agencies' Lands Legacy programs
compliment the Livability Agenda, including USDA's Forest Legacy, Urban
and Community Forestry, Farmland protection and Smart Growth
Partnership programs, and NOAA's coastal zone, fisheries, and estuarine
reserve programs.
This concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer your
questions.
______
president clinton's lands legacy initiative:
forging a conservation vision for the 21st century, february 1, 1999
President Clinton proposes a $1 billion Lands Legacy. initiative to
expand Federal protection of critical lands across America, help States
and communities preserve local green spaces, and strengthen protections
for our oceans and coasts.
This landmark initiative represents a 124 percent increase over
fiscal year 1999 funding. It includes $900 million from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), marking the first time any
Administration has requested the full $900 million funding from LWCF,
which draws revenues from Federal offshore oil sales. To sustain these
efforts in the new century, the President commits to work with Congress
to create a permanent funding stream beginning in fiscal year 2001.
The Lands Legacy initiative continues the Clinton-Gore
Administrations strong efforts to save Americans natural treasures.
And, by providing significant new resources to States and local
communities, it forges a new conservation vision for the 21st century--
one that recognizes the importance of preserving irreplaceable pieces
of our natural legacy within easy reach of every citizen.
Lands Legacy will be administered by the Department of the Interior
(DOI), $579 million; the Department of Agriculture (USDA), $268
million; and the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOM), $183 million. It will be coordinated
with the Administrations complementary Livability Agenda'' through
interagency cooperation and consultation.
Saving America's Natural Treasures
Federal Acouisitions--The initiative increases Federal land
acquisition funding through the Land and Water Conservation Fund by 26
percent to a total of $413 million ($295 million for DOI, and $118
million for USDA). In recent years, the Administration has dedicated
LWCF funds to protecting Yellowstone National Park from mining, saving
ancient redwoods in California's Headwaters Forest, preserving Civil
War battlefields, completing the Maine-to-Georgia Appalachian Trail,
and acquiring more than 100 other natural and historic sites across the
country. Priorities for fiscal year 2000 include acquisition of over
450,000 acres in California's Mojave Desert, additions to wildlife
refuges and national forests in New England, lands critical to the
ongoing restoration of Florida's Everglades, and protection of Civil
War battlefields.
Helping States and Communities Preserve Green Spaces
Land Acquisition Grants.--Lands Legacy includes $150 million
through LWCF for matching grants to State, local and tribal governments
for acquisition of land and easements for urban parks, greenways,
outdoor recreations, wildlife habitat, and coastal wetlands. The DOI
program retools the LWCF State grants program for Smart Growth and open
space preservation. Grants will be awarded on a competitive basis, with
priority going to projects consistent with statewide Smart Growth
plans.
Open Space Planning Grants.--The initiative proposes a new $50
million program of matching grants to State and tribal governments to
develop open space preservation and ``smart growth'' strategies. States
and tribes would use a variety of data and tools to identify priority
areas for urban development, farmland, and conservation. The program,
administered by DOI, would award grants competitively, with priority
going to proposals that tie State and tribal plans to regional
strategies for managing the economy, job growth, and infrastructure
development.
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund.--The initiative
proposes $80 million--a $66 million increase--for State and local
government land acquisition to protect threatened and endangered
species. By supporting Habitat Conservation Plans and other flexible
tools under the Endangered Species Act, the Fund promotes collaborative
strategies that sustain both wildlife and economic development. The
program is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI).
Forest Legacy Program.--To protect private forest land that
provides critical wildlife habitat and is threatened by development,
the initiative proposes $50 million--an increase of more than six-
fold--for matching grants to States for the purchase of permanent
conservation easements. Use of protected lands for forestry and
compatible activities is permitted. The program is administered by the
U.S. Forest Service (USDA), and the proposed funding would protect
about 150,000 acres.
Urban and Community Forestry.--The initiative proposes $40
million--a 29 percent increase--for matching grants to States and
communities to establish, maintain, and expand urban and community
forests and related green spaces. The program, administered by the
Forest Service, operates in partnership with 8,000 volunteer
organizations in more than 10,000 communities. The proposed funding
would support 75,000 projects in more than 10,000 communities.
Farmland Protection Program.--To protect farmland and sustain rural
economies, Lands Legacy would provide $50 million in matching grants to
States, communities, and tribes for the purchase of permanent
conservation easements on farmland threatened by development. The
program, administered by USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) was created by the 1996 Farm Bill. Through mid-1998, $35 million
in Federal funding had leveraged an estimated $230 million in
easements, protecting about 127,000 acres.
Smart Growth Partnership.--Lands Legacy proposes a new revolving
loan program to support acquisition of land and easements in rural
areas. The Partnership, administered by USDA, would make loans to
intermediate borrowers (State, local and tribal governments ), which in
turn would lend funds to rural businesses, land trusts and other
nonprofit organizations. Proposed funding of $10 million would support
$50 million in loans. Priorities are supporting Smart Growth''
strategies and helping owners of underproducing forest land at risk of
sale improve forest productivity.
Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery.--The initiative proposes $4
million in matching grants and technical assistance for the restoration
of parks in economically distressed urban communities. The program,
administered by the National Park Service (DOI), awarded over 1,200
grants from 1978 to 1995 but has remained unfunded since 1995.
Protecting Our Oceans and Coasts
National Marine Sanctuaries--Lands Legacy proposes $29 million--a
107 percent increase--to strengthen protections at 12 marine
sanctuaries off California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, North Carolina, Texas, Washington, and American Samoa,
and plan for future marine sanctuaries. The funding will allow NOM to
accelerate the adoption and implementation of management plans for
existing sanctuaries and expand outreach activities with coastal
communities.
Coastal Zone Management Act Program--To help promote Smart Growth''
strategies along Americans coasts, the initiative proposes $90 million,
a 55 percent increase, to help coastal States implement community-based
projects for environmentally sound economic development and mitigate
urban sprawl. Competitive grants can be used by coastal communities to
acquire lands, protect wildlife habitat, protect life and property from
coastal hazards, revitalize ports and urban waterfronts, and reduce
polluted runoff.
National Estuarine Research Reserves System--The initiative
proposes $19 million, a 375 percent increase, to expand a network of
critical estuaries representing all the biological regions along
Americans coasts. NOM provides guidance and matching funds to States to
acquire land, protect resources, and conduct research and education.
Twenty-two reserves in 19 States and territories manage about 500,000
acres. The proposed funding would help support additional sites
doubling the protected acreage.
Coral Reef Restoration--Lands Legacy proposes $10.3 million--a $10
million increase--to protect fragile coral reefs from pollution and
other human impacts. NOM, in conjunction with States, territories, DOI,
and other Federal agencies, would restore injured reefs in Puerto Rico,
Florida, Hawaii, and U.S. territories; and develop a coral nursery to
grow donor material and other restoration techniques.
Coastal Dredge Area Restoration--The initiative proposes $10
million for NOM to work with States, communities, and the Army Corps of
Engineers to use material dredged from ports and shipping channels to
restore coastal habitats. Dredging is critical to keep shipping lanes
open and deepen channels to accommodate larger ships. Safely reusing
dredge spoils benefits the environment and reduces disposal costs.
Fisheries Habitat Restoration--To restore declining fisheries, the
initiative proposes $25 million for NOM's National Marine Fisheries
Service to support community-based habitat restoration projects that
restore, acquire, and protect critical fish habitats. Efforts would
focus on on-the-ground restoration partnerships in regions that
participate in the National Estuary Program, the National Estuarine
Research Reserve Program, or have multiple threatened or endangered
species.
__________
Responses by David Hayes to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. What specific criteria will be used to judge the plans
and applications for funding submitted by State and local governments?
What policy directions will those criteria drive local governments
toward?
Response. The Department of the Interior plans to develop the
criteria for distribution of the conservation grants through a public
process that seeks input from all interested parties, including State,
local, and tribal governments and Congress. While it is premature to
foretell the outcome of this process, consideration may be given to
projects that protect open space, green ways, wetlands, wildlife
habitat, coastal environments, and recreational opportunities these
lands provide, and that are consistent with State, tribal, regional,
and local community open space protection and growth plans. However, we
do not anticipate that grants would be available for facility
construction or rehabilitation.
Question 2. What type of compliance monitoring will be used? For
how long? What repercussions would there be for plans/projects deemed
out of compliance?
Response. The Department of the Interior is not seeking any new
authorities for compliance requirements. The Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) is clear about compliance requirements. The
Department anticipates that compliance will be monitored the same way
that the traditional LWCF grants are monitored, grantees will need to
comply with the terms of the grant in perpetuity. Communities can apply
for conversion, with the approval of the Secretary and identification
of equal and equivalent lands.
Question 3. For lands purchased for open space or wetlands, is
public access to those lands ensured? Allowed? Are such lands purchased
exclusively in willing buyer, willing seller situations?
Response. The specific operating plan of the conservation grants
program would likely allow and ensure public access in a manner that
does not degrade the purposes for which the grant was approved. Just
as, under the traditional State-side of the LWCF, public access,
broadly defined, is ensured and allowed. The criteria for selection of
grants will be done in a public process. This program, as with the
existing State-side LWCF grants, will make every effort to ensure,
through the use of the open space planning requirements and the
competitive grants process, that the lands purchased are from willing
sellers, but it is not the intent to preempt local government zoning,
open space, and conservation authorities.
__________
Statement of Andrew J. Falender Executive Director, Appalachian
Mountain Club
Mr. Chairman, Senators. thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. My name is Andrew Falender and I am the Executive Director of
the Appalachian Mountain Club. the nation's oldest conservation and
recreation organization.
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 fiscal year 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
nonprofit 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 percent 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 50 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 10
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 10 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:
1) 40 percent provided to the Federal side of the program ($360
million annually)
2) 40 percent provided to the state-grants program ($360 million
annually)
3) 20 percent allocated to a competitive state-grants process for
projects and lands of clear national significance to be allocated
outside of the population-based formula ($180 million annually). This
provision is essential to land protection in many regions of the
country especially those in the East, like the Northern Forest (ME, NH,
VT, NY) and Appalachian Highlands (CT, NY, NJ, PA) where there are
large areas of clear national significance in States with small
populations. Given the small number of Federal lands in these regions
and the cultural interest in local and State involvement in land
protection, there is a special need to provide competitive grants
through the state-side program.
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 percent 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 percent 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 fiscal year 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 Protection for America's Resources 2000
S. 446, Permanent Protection forAmerica'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 percent 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 percent ($450 million) to 60 percent ($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 1-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 percent 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.
______
Responses by Andrew Falender to Additional Questions from Senator Boxer
May 10, 1999
Committee on Environment and Public Works
415 Hart Senate Office Building
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510-6175
Dear Senators: Thank you for the opportunity to reply to Senator
Boxer's question regarding the need to acquire new public land given
the current backlog of maintenance on our existing national lands. I do
believe that it is critical for our nation to continue and, in fact,
increase our investment in open space protection. Americans across the
country are feeling the pressure of increased development and a growing
population. This pressure is leading to loss of farmland, forests,
parks and habitat. Investments made in protected open space today
ensure that our children will-have places to play, that wildlife will
thrive, and that our ecosystems will continue to provide the critical
role of clearing our water and air. While the current maintenance
backlog in our national parks, wildlife refuges and forests must be
addressed, this should not be accomplished at the expense of
investments in open space protection. If we ignore the need for funding
to acquire critical lands today we will be shortchanging future
generations as many of these special places are lost forever to
development or other pressures.
The public demonstrated their support for significant investment in
open space protection in last November's elections. Of the more than
200 open space ballot initiatives put before voters, 70 percent passed,
making more than $7 billion available for open space protection. The
nation's Governors and mayors have joined with the public in calling
for increased open space protection dollars and have strongly endorsed
full funding of LWCF with an equitable allocation to the state grant
program. Regions like the Northern Forest of Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, and New York and the Highlands of Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
New York and Connecticut desperately need LWCF funds to prevent loss of
farm and forest land to development and to guarantee recreational
access for future generations.
The state grant program is especially important in the Northeast.
When Congress created LWCF in 1964, a promise was made to the American
people to work with the states to meet state, local and community
conservation needs. This matching grant program proved to be cost-
effective and efficient: tens of thousands of projects ranging from
town ballfields to state forests have been protected through leveraged
investments maximizing the impact of scarce Federal dollars. However,
since the mid-1980's, state-side LWCF funding has withered from a
trickle to absolutely zero Finding since fiscal year 1995. The result
is a huge-backlog.of recreational, cultural, and community projects
just as population pressures are putting our nation's resources most at
risk.
As the Northeast's population grows, increasing pressure is
building on our remaining forestland and open space in the Northern
Forest and Highlands regions. This trend threatens our ability to count
on the land for jobs, outdoor recreation, wildlife habitat and scenic
beauty. The need for LWCF funds in the Northern Forest and the
Highlands has never been greater.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Senator Boxer's
question. Please do not hesitance to contact me with additional
inquiries.
Sincerely,
Andrew J. Falender.
__________
Statement of Chris Montague, Eastern Manager, Montana Land Reliance
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Montana Land Reliance, we thank you
and the committee for the opportunity to speak on issues related to
preserving and protecting our nation's open space. Our special thanks,
as well, to Senator Baucus for extending us the invitation today. I
hope my testimony today will not only give the committee additional
ideas as it debates how to protect open space, but also will give it a
western perspective on these issues.
I would first like to give the committee a brief introduction to
the Montana Land Reliance. Founded in 1978, we are a privately funded,
nonprofit land trust that utilizes donated conservation easements and
other tools to permanently protect Montana's private lands. With the
help of 324 landowners, we have been able to protect just over 322,000
acres of private land in Montana. This represents roughly 20 percent of
all protected land by local, State and/or regional land trusts across
the United States. Within that acreage we have permanently protected
620 miles of stream and river frontage, over 116,000 acres of elk
habitat, over 5,200 acres of wetlands and over 131,000 acres in the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Again, all of this protection has been
completed with private conservation easements. And our customer base is
typically ranchers and farmers.
The private landowners that make up our customer-base are facing
incredible economic and estate pressures to develop their land. A vast
majority are what we call ``land rich, but cash poor.'' They typically
own a tremendous resource that they cannot afford to keep.
Although the following statistics are Montana-specific, as you are
all aware, these issues and problems are not inherent to our State. In
1970, Montana had fewer than 700,000 residents. By 1995, the State's
population had risen to just over 870,000 and is projected to top one
million by the year 2000 or 2001. At first glance I realize this does
not seem to be an overwhelming amount of growth. However, this growth
has not been evenly dispersed across the State. Certain areas,
especially those around designated wilderness areas and along riparian
zones are undergoing population increases as high as 25 percent. In
other words, people are moving into the prettiest places they can find.
And these places are usually the ones that are the most fragile or are
our most productive agricultural lands.
For example, the amount of land in agriculture declined by more
than three million acres between 1974 and 1994 and the number of farms
and ranches has declines by more than 11 percent in the same time
period. In Montana, over the 10 year period between 1983 and 1993,
11,000 subdivision proposals were reviewed by State and county
government. These numbers do not include 20 acre or larger parcels,
which until 1993, required no subdivision review. And that type of
development skyrocketed during that period and is still high today.
Most counties view rural subdivision development as a positive
economic influence on their communities. Interestingly, however, a
study done by Montana State University and the Greater Yellowstone
Coalition found that for every dollar of revenue raised from new rural
residential property, the county government and school districts spent
$1.47 for roads, public education, police and fire protection and other
services. Conversely, agricultural land and open space required only 25
cents worth of service for every dollar it contributes.
Simultaneously, land values in Montana and the West have risen
dramatically. Recent news accounts in Montana show 10-year property tax
appraisal increases averaging 43 percent! The economic pressures to
convert open and agricultural land to residential property has
intensified significantly in certain areas of Montana, and, I think
it's safe to say, throughout the West.
The good news is that Montana leads the way in private land
protection through conservation easement. As of 1997, Montana had
permanently protected over 670,000 acres. The bad news is that this
represents only about 1 percent of the 55 million acres in private
ownership in the State. And the average age of these owners is 59 lid.
Over the estimated 20 year period this amount was protected well over 3
million acres left agricultural production or open space and have
either been developed or are headed that way. In the next 10 to 15
years, given the average age of ownership of private lands in Montana,
we are going to see a huge turnover in land. Depending on the tools
available to the conservation and trust community much of this land
will be threatened. Currently, the battle to protect open space in
Montana is being lost at a rage of roughly 5 to one and in some
regions, by a margin of 8 to 1.
So, what does all this mean? Why should anyone be concerned about a
place or a region that has so much land and open space? For several
reasons, the most important being that Montana and, generally, the
West, has a unique opportunity to make a difference before it's really
too late. Before we lose all of our most precious agricultural land,
river frontage, fisheries, habitat and open space. We are not here
today to say that development and growth are evil. They are not. We are
here today to ask as you debate these issues that you give the private
land trust community the additional tools to compete and fight against
inappropriate development. Give us the added strength to give our
farmers, ranchers and private landowners more options to subdivision as
an economic way out.
The initiatives and ideas we present today will, we believe,
substantially help in protecting the open lands of our heritage. Should
these additional tools be made available, we are confident, based on
our work last year, that we could immediately double and, over the next
few years, triple our conservation output each year.
All of these additional tools could be easily added to the current
construct of conservation easement law, or 170(h) of the Tax Code.
These ideas are simple and private and if made quickly will, we
believe, have an immediate, positive impact on private land
conservation in this country.
First, a majority of our customers cannot use the income tax
deduction benefit associated with the donation of a conservation
easement. We are fast becoming a tool only the very wealthy can use. We
propose a tax credit of between $50,000 and $1000,000 if the landowner
did not have the means to use the deduction. We would proposes that to
qualify for this tax credit, 50 percent of the landowner's total income
be derived from agriculture.
Second, allow the same deductibility for C-corporations as for all
other forms of business. Currently, a ranch in a C-corp structure may
only deduct 10 percent of net income as opposed to 30 percent for all
other types of ownership. We feel this tool alone would have allowed us
to protect and additional 20,000-30,000 acres in Montana last year.
Third, the Congress in 1997 wisely increased the Unified Tax Credit
and, particularly with conservation easements, gave additional estate
tax relief if the landowner lived within a 25 mile radius of a
metropolitan (defined as a county with 50,000 or more residents) or
wilderness area. This boundary should be larger to not only to give us
added tools for land farther out but to also reward the landowner who
is willing to protect his or her land.
Any public moneys raised for conservation easements should be
matched funds to allow the government's money to go farther and do more
conservation. We would recommend a 2 to 1 match.
Furthering land conservation is the right thing to do. We applaud
the committee for its role and eventual action. Landowners, generally,
are also interested in doing the right thing. They don't want to chop
up their land, but we need to be able to offer them reasons not to when
they are faced with huge economic and estate tax pressures. We need to
be able to compete in that atmosphere. We need to be able to compete
with rural developers. We have a great opportunity, especially in the
West, to make a major impact on land and open space conservation. I
hope we will be given the tools to do just that. Thank you Mr. Chairman
and members of the committee.
__________
Statement of of Max Peterson, Executive Vice President, International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Max Peterson, Executive Vice-
President of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies. As you know, all 50 State fish and wildlife agencies are
members of the Association. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss open space, community health, and
environmental quality and to express the strong support of the
Association for S. 25, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act.
The Association sincerely appreciates the efforts of Sen. Landrieu,
Sen. Murkowski, Sen. Lott, Sen. Breaux and the other cosponsors, in
bringing this far-sighted conservation proposal to the table, which
will provide consistent and dedicated funds to the States to conserve
our fish and wildlife resources, provide for the protection and
restoration of our coastal habitats and living resources, fund land and
water conservation activities at all levels of government, and provide
much needed recreational opportunities for our citizens, thus resulting
in economic growth to our communities.
The Association is also encouraged that Sen. Boxer and others have
recognized many of these same needs in introducing S. 446, the
Resources 2000 Act. We do have concerns about the focus, legislative
construct, and funding levels in S. 446 which I will share with you
later in my testimony. Finally, we appreciate President Clinton's
initiative (Land's Legacy Initiative) and his commitment to work with
Congress to bring these programs under permanent, indefinite
appropriation. We are disappointed and concerned, however, that the
Administration's initiative is deficient in not providing wildlife
funding to the States, and will address that later. As you know, the
need in the States for wildlife programs reflected by the various
proposals are significant, they enjoy widespread public support, and
our children and their children will thank us for the commitment we
make to ensure the conservation and vitality of America's natural
resources. Without a program to address the vast array of species
through a prevention approach, the result will simply be more and more
species declining to the point of being threatened or endangered.
The Association, founded in 1902, is a quasi-governmental
organization of public agencies charged with the protection and
management of North America's fish and wildlife resources. The
Association's governmental members include the fish and wildlife
agencies of the States, provinces, and Federal Governments of the U.S.,
Canada, and Mexico. All 50 States are members. The Association has been
a key organization in promoting sound resource management and
strengthening Federal, State, and private cooperation in protecting and
managing fish and wildlife and their habitats in the public interest.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, community health, environmental quality,
and fish and wildlife health go hand-in-hand, since we all share the
same habitat and depend on the same land, air, and water for our
sustenance. We believe the dedication to ensuring the conservation of
fish and wildlife resources and their habitats at the State and local
level will help ensure the quality of life for our communities. Open
space not only provides for fish and wildlife habitat, but for people
to enjoy, appreciate, and learn about fish and wildlife and their
needs. Our State fish and wildlife agencies are dedicated to working
with the appropriate State, county/local and appropriate Federal
Government agencies to facilitate smart growth, the antidote to urban
sprawl.
Let me cite one example. A little more than 2 hours from
Washington, DC, our State fish and wildlife agency is working
cooperatively with other public and private organizations to protect
not only globally significant wetland and wildlife habitat, but also
contributing to the quality of life for the citizens of the area,
through facilitating enlightened land use planning decisions, providing
technical information and assistance to landowners in conserving
habitat, etc. The area to which I refer is the Delaware Bay and Cape
May Peninsula, New Jersey.
The Delaware Bay and Cape May Peninsula are among the most
important migratory bird stopover areas in the world. The reasons are
numerous:
The fall flight of migratory birds through Cape May not
only includes over 150 species of passerines and 21 species of raptors,
but also woodcock and over 30 species of migratory butterflies and
dragonflies.
The spring stopover of shorebirds through the Delaware
Bay, one of the top three in the world, includes over 15 species, some
making round trip flights of over 20,000 miles.
Both fall and spring migrants gain weight while stopping
ova in this coastal habitat and this weight can be crucial to the
success of their migration. Shorebirds double their body weight before
flying nonstop to arctic breeding grounds. The primary resource is
horseshoe crab eggs and the bay is the only place in the world where
crabs occur in sufficient number to produce enough eggs for birds to
gain more than 3-5 percent of their body weight/day.
The Cape May peninsula and the Delaware Bay is one of the
most popular nature-based destinations in the country. An estimated $30
million in the fall and an estimated $5-$10 million in the spring are
spent each year by visiting birders alone.
The wide diversity of bird species requires a wide array
of habitats, distributed over a large part of the bayshore and
peninsula. In other words, the birds require a functioning ecosystem
right in the very heart of the New York-Washington coastal megalopolis.
A major portion of the U.S. human population, nearly 15 percent, is
within a 3-hour drive of this area. This adds incredible pressure in
almost all areas of potential impact: land development, disturbance,
contamination, and catastrophic oil spills. But if we are to protect
this stopover habitat, we must also conserve the ecosystem in which
these habitats occur.
In consequence, the bay and peninsula have been the subject of
numerous protection attempts. In the last 15 years we have seen nearly
every major national program play some role in protection. The bay has
been designated a RAMSAR site, a WEAN Hemispheric site, an EPA Estuary
of National Significance, and a TNC Last Great Place, to name a few. It
has been ranked near the top of several land acquisition programs
including the Land and Water Conservation Fund program, a North
American Waterfowl Management Plan Joint Venture, as well as the New
Jersey State Green Acres Program. The areas include four National
Wildlife Refuges including the recent Cape May National Wildlife
Refuge, three different wild and scenic rivers (two sections of the
river and one tributary), many State Wildlife Management Areas on both
sides, and a large number of parcels held by private conservation
organizations.
Yet despite this extraordinary protection, there are dear signs of
major needs for these wildlife species that remain unsatisfied. The
fall migration is threatened because nearly 40 percent of all migratory
bird habitat has been lost between 1972 and 1992, the period of
greatest protection activity.
These habitats can only be conserved with a significant increase in
efforts and programs directed at the problems which results in habitat
loss. The New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife has piloted a
number of projects using funds from private foundations and mitigation
agreements that with stable and significant funding can lead to
permanent of these globally significant habitats.
These pilot projects suggest the conservation of both the spring
and fall flight of migratory birds can be accomplished with new
programs aimed at an increased involvement of citizens, municipal and
local governments, and an additional emphasis by State fish and
wildlife and land management agencies.
Detailed mapping of significant wildlife habitat areas can be made
widely available, and characterized not only as key habitat for
wildlife, but as indicators of our community quality of life. These
maps can be based on satellite imagery and could be redone regularly to
provide feedback to community organizations on the real impact of the
conservation of these habitats.
This regional scale mapping can be used to facilitate the
coordination of State and Federal level activities that include
consideration of migratory birds such as land agreements, easements or
acquisition, and application of conservation and habitat management
programs. This is just one of hundreds of examples where open space,
smart growth and the needs of wildlife can and must be seen as
complementary activities.
At the county and municipal level, State fish and wildlife agencies
can assist land use planners in the development of land use ordinances
that reduce impact to migratory birds and recommend zoning
classifications to protect areas of greatest importance. This could
include, for example, recommending small but significant changes to the
minimum amounts of land cleared for each new house or the width of
setbacks for roads and property.
At the private landowner level, State fish and wildlife agencies
can affect habitat in several ways. For large private landholdings, the
agencies can develop non-regulatory, incentive based management plans
that protect bird habitat while still achieving landowners' goals. To
encourage protection, the plans would take advantage of existing
financial incentives from other agencies such as farmland conservation
programs under the Federal farm bill and other State and Federal
programs. Landowners of key wildlife habitat can also be referred to
programs of conservation easements, or purchase of development rights
or land acquisition if they are interested in long-term conservation.
These owner-friendly programs have worked quite well to keep open space
and provide important wildlife habitat.
Backyard habitat for migratory birds can also be created or
enhanced by working with individual homeowners. Our agencies can work
with developments that are adjacent to important habitat areas and
several have created State programs to certify backyard wildlife
habitat. State fish and wildlife agencies can also work with developers
to certify entire new developments as migratory bird sanctuaries.
Working with homeowners has the additional benefit of creating habitat
in areas where much habitat has already been lost, namely housing
developments.
All of these efforts require a consistent dedicated funding source
to enhance State-based wildlife conservation, conservation education
and wildlife associated recreation. The Association believes that S.
25, and its House companion H.R. 701, will provide the funds and the
flexibility to the States to accomplish these goals. As you know, the
need for a State like New Jersey, which I just described, is much
different than a western State that has millions of acres of public
land where the challenge may be to better understand the thermal cover
needs of wildlife during cold winters and encourage planting of shrubs
and evergreen trees for winter shelter in key areas.
Mr. Chairman, I know that you are well aware of the longstanding
commitment and priority of the Association to secure the necessary
funds so that the State fish and wildlife agencies can address the
needs of all fish and wildlife species in their States, including
conservation education and wildlife associated recreation needs. As you
know, the States have principal and broad authorities for the
conservation of fish and resident wildlife within their borders, even
on most public lands. Congress has given the Federal executive branch
agencies (USFWS and NMFS)certain statutory conservation obligations and
responsibilities for migratory birds, anadromous fish and listed
threatened and endangered species, but this responsibility remains
concurrent with State jurisdiction. As Secretary Babbitt once remarked
before this committee, States are the front-line managers of fish and
wildlife within their borders.
You are also well aware of the long history and strong commitment
of support for funding State fish and wildlife programs by the
sportsmen and women of this country through their purchase of hunting
and fishing licenses, and contributions from excise taxes they pay on
sporting arms and ammunition, fishing tackle and other equipment,
import duties on fishing tackle and pleasure boats, and gasoline excise
taxes on outboard motor and small engine fuels. These funds are
apportioned to the States under permanent appropriation in the form of
matching grants under the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 and the
Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux Act of 1950 and 1984, respectively. These
license and excise tax funds are the principal source of funds for
State fish and wildlife programs. Our successes under this legislation
are well known from restoration of white-tailed deer and pronghorn
antelope to wild turkey and wood duck and striped bass. There have been
corollary benefits to species other than those that are hunted and
fished, from the conservation of habitat, etc. However, there simply
have not been either sufficient or dedicated funds for the State fish
and wildlife agencies to adequately address the conservation needs of
so called ``nongame'' species, which constitute approximately 90
percent (over 2000 species) of the vertebrate species in the United
States. S. 25 will position the State fish and wildlife agencies to
duplicate the tried and true success of the Pittman-Robertson and
Wallop-Breaux programs with species such as the cerulean warbler,
bluebirds, loggerhead shrike, American goldfinch, bog turtle, and
species of frogs and salamanders that are declining. Responding to
early warning signs of decline in these species by addressing life
needs and habitat requirements through cooperative nonregulatory
programs with private landowners will not only conserve the species but
also help avoid the social and economic disruption associated with
listing species as threatened or endangered. Most threatened and
endangered species come from this universe of so called nongame
species, which makes sense if you think about it, because we have not
had adequate funds to address these nongame species needs, whereas we
have had the funds for game and sportfish species conservation. The
more we know about declining species the quicker we can respond with a
broad array of incentive-based, non-regulatory programs that gives us
maximum flexibility in working with the landowners to allow them to
meet both their land management objectives and fish and wildlife
conservation objectives. This preventative conservation approach just
makes good biological sense and good economic sense.
Seven years ago when the Association made a commitment to secure
funding for comprehensive wildlife programs in the States, we began to
enlist a support coalition that has now grown to over 3000
conservation, business and other organizations. Our ``Teaming With
Wildlife'' initiative, as we called this endeavor, built up tremendous
grassroots support around a funding mechanism patterned after Pittman-
Robertson and Wallop-Breaux that would extend existing excise taxes on
sporting arms, ammunition and fishing equipment to other outdoor
recreational gear at a very modest level. However, this user-fee
approach did not gain the bipartisan political support in Congress
needed for success. There was broad bipartisan recognition of the need
for these funds and the merits of the proposed State based wildlife
conservation, conservation education and wildlife-associated recreation
programs, but not for the funding mechanism. S. 25 has married these
needs with those of coastal habitat and living resource conservation,
and a recommitment of Congress to funding the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act, all from
a portion of revenues from gas and oil leases and royalties from the
Outer Continental Shelf. We particularly appreciate that S. 25
addresses funding to all of these needs at the State level.
Before I comment on S. 25, S. 446 and the Administration's
initiative specifically, let me summarize again for you the needs in
the States for wildlife conservation, conservation education and
wildlife associated recreation.
More than 90 percent of the funds that States have for
wildlife comes directly from anglers and hunter which means that less
than 10 percent of State fish and wildlife agency funding is for the
conservation of 86 percent of our nation's nongame wildlife species.
State agencies have barely enough funding from established game species
funding sources to support vital conservation programs. While wildlife
budgets for all 50 States add up to approximately $1 billion annually,
nongame funded programs, lacking a similar dedicated funding source,
have many unsatisfied needs. Thirty-two States operate nongame
conservation, recreation, and education programs on less than 5 percent
of their fish and wildlife budgets. S. 25 will provide the States with
the funds to achieve preventative conservation through collecting good
information (from fish and wildlife surveys and inventories),
implementing appropriate management and habitat conservation endeavors,
and retaining the State fish and wildlife agencies ability to work with
greater flexibility with private landowners in a non-regulatory,
incentive based manna.
Dwindling fish and wildlife species and habitat directly
affect some of the fastest growing forms of outdoor recreation.
Wildlife viewing is the number one outdoor activity in the United
States and has become a billion-dollar industry. Hiking participation
has rise 93 percent and camping 73 percent in the past 12 years.
Nature-based tourism is escalating at a higher rate than any other
segment of tourism worldwide.
Impressive participation statistics translate into
billions of dollars of economic activity each year:
Wildlife watchers spent $29 billion in State and local
economies during 1996, a 39 percent increase ova 1991 spading,
according to the latest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey.
Watchable wildlife recreation supports $22.7 billion in
salary and wages and more than one million jobs.
A documented upswelling of interest in conservation
education programs is both good news and represents a challenge as
State fish and wildlife agencies are hard-pressed to keep up with the
public demand for technical assistance for private landowners,
developers and local governments, informational materials on wildlife,
landscaping for wildlife, and requests on where to view wildlife.
Innovative wildlife education programs enjoy positive responses, but
often lack sufficient funding. Funds under the Conservation and
Reinvestmant Act will enable all 50 States to support increased
recreation and education participation. Local communities will benefit
from increased tourism. Nature tourists will extend their stay an extra
day or two if they discover more wildlife watching opportunities during
their visit. Finally, a caring citizenry is essential to the success of
all wildlife conservation efforts and maintaining the natural systems
that support us.
The Association estimates $1 billion or more in additional funding
needs annually for all 50 States for these programs. However, even a
half billion dollars will have a significant positive benefit for 2,000
nongame species, as well as benefit many other species as well. Game
and nongame species share the same habitat and both usually benefit
from conservation efforts such as restoring wetlands, stream
rehabilitation or habitat restoration.
Funding State conservation, recreation and education efforts
together makes economic and social sense. To sustain the growth in
nature-based tourism and outdoor recreation requires an investment in
our nation's wildlife and land and water base. Particularly,
opportunities dose to urban and rural communities for fishing, hiking,
wildlife viewing and outdoor recreation programs are becoming
increasingly important for families and communities. Enhanced
conservation education efforts will facilitate better-informed citizens
and assure a high quality of life for people and wildlife.
S. 25 will provide the appropriate funds to the States to satisfy
these very vital needs.
Mr. Chairman, here are the reasons the Association strongly
supports S. 25 and believes it will help meet open space and quality of
life goals for millions of Americans while contributing to
conservation, conservation education and wildlife related recreation
programs.
S. 25 recommits the United States to a policy of
dedicating revenues from the use of non-renewable resources into
securing the status of living renewable resources, conserving land and
water resources, and providing recreational opportunities for our
cities and local communities, through a permanent, indefinite
appropriation to fund state-based programs. We are working closely with
bill sponsors to fine-tune the language in S. 25 which addresses the
question of whether any of these revenues could be a potential
incentive to States to encourage more drilling. The sponsor's goal is
to ensure that no incentive is in the bill and that with regards to
drilling in OCS waters, the bill is ``drilling neutral''.
S. 25 builds on the support the States have relied on for
decades from our Nation's hunters and anglers to finance State fish and
wildlife programs by broadening this funding support to a permanent
indefinite appropriation from a general revenue source, the leases and
royalties on Outa Continual Shelf gas and oil extraction. We support
the use of the very successful Pittman-Robatson Act as the means of
apportioning the funds to the States under a separate subaccount, to be
used for the purposes of enhanced comprehensive fish and wildlife
conservation, conservation education, and wildlife associated
recreation programs. This is a proven, efficient system.
S. 25 will permit the States to avoid the economic and
social disruption from listing species as endangered by taking
preventative conservation measures early on to address life needs and
habitat requirements of declining fish and wildlife species before they
reach a level where listing is necessary to protect sham.
S. 25 focuses decisions on spending priorities at the
local (not Washington) level, where States and communities are in the
best position to know what those needs and priorities are. We must
facilitate local identification of issues and problem solving, not top-
down prescriptive solutions.
S. 25 allows States to work with private landowners in a
non-regulatory, incentive-based manner to achieve their land management
objectives consistent with good conservation for fish and wildlife
species.
S. 25 allows and positions local communities to take best
advantage of robust fish and wildlife populations through nature-based
tourism opportunities (bird watching tours, hiking tours to natural
vistas, etc.) thus providing local economic support to those
communities.
S. 25 builds on our citizens' strong sense of stewardship
about their land by making them a part of the problem solving and
implementation of solutions.
Through ensuring the conservation of good habitat for
fish and wildlife, the programs funded by S. 25 will ensure the quality
of life for our citizens and future generations, since we all rely on
the same life support systems.
S. 25, in addition to wildlife programs, will provide
funds for coastal restoration and enhancement programs, wetlands
restoration, coastal zone management efforts, and environmental
remediation from the impacts of on-shore landing of OCS gas and oil,
through the proper location, placement and mitigation of pipelines,
roads, and other infrastructures needs.
S. 25 restores certainty to the stateside aspect of the
Land and Wata Conservation Fund program so that conservation and
recreation projects of highest State and local priority are satisfied.
Let me now comment on S. 446, the Resources 2000 Act. The
Association is Encouraged that S. 446 has a title that contains
provisions for funding to the States for state-based enhanced wildlife
conservation. We are also encouraged that S. 446 seeks to use certain
OCS revenues under a permanent, indefinite appropriation.
However, we do have several serious concerns about some specific
provisions of S. 446. First, the OCS source funds in S. 446 are limited
to only royalties and revenues from wells in Western and central Gulf
of Mexico OCS waters that are producing as of January 1, 1999. We
understand that this is the bill sponsors' way of Assuring that this
bill is in no way a potential incentive to encourage further OCS
drilling, and even though further (after January 1, 1999) OCS
exploration and drilling will continue both within and outside of these
areas, none of the revenues will go to fund the programs under this
bill, rather, they will be deposited in the Federal treasury. The
consequence of the S. 446 language would be very self-limiting and
guarantee substantial reductions over time in the amount of money
available to fund conservation efforts. We believe that the price and
supply of oil and natural gas (and not the portal for grants to the
States) is the driving deeming of new exploration and drilling, which
is corroborated in the recent Congressional Research Service report on
OCS Oil and Gas Leasing and Revenue gB10005, January 1999).
Our second concern is that the native fish and wildlife
conservation and restoration title in S. 446 amends the 1980 Fish and
Wildlife Conservation (Federal nongame) Act, instead of Pittman-
Robertson, and makes $100-350 million available to the States for
native fish and wildlife conservation starting with $100 million and
ramping up over 6 years to $350 million. The amendments to the 1980 Act
replace the existing ``nongame fish and wildlife'' language everywhere
with ``native fish and wildlife'', and add an additional purpose to
preserve biological diversity by mainlining an assemblage of native
fish and wildlife species. The definition of native fish and wildlife
could be a significant problem because it includes only species that
currently or historically occur in an ecosystem, and are not there as a
result of introduction. It also gives the Secretary of the Interior
final decision authority as to what is a native species. It is
virtually impossible to substantiate the origin of many of our
indigenous fish species and this definition could exclude spending
money which would be beneficial to salmon restoration, for example.
Further, many fish species firmly established in our Potomac River
drainage, such as the smallmouth and largemouth bass, channel catfish,
rock bass, and several species of sunfish, were introduced many years
ago from other parts of the country. No one really knows the origins of
other species. Also, the restoration of the Forum peregrine falcon was
from a captive-bred source of hybrid North American-European-African
peregrine falcons, which under this definition in S. 446, would not be
eligible for funding conservation activities therefore. It is not at ad
clear whether a project which would benefit native species plus other
species of uncertain origin would be eligible for funding. We doubt
that ``native'' is a workable legal definition because there are
hundreds of species whose status as native is uncertain and it is
virtually impossible in many cases to carry out a project which would
not benefit some non-native species.
Our third concern with this title of S. 446 is that, while the
elaborate and rather prescriptive planning requirements in the 1980 Act
may have been appropriate in 1980, most States have already recognized
the need to look comprehensively at the resource base, habitat
availability, land use activities, and user demand in their State, and
have prepared a strategic plan for the fish and wildlife resources in
their State, after due and appropriate public review and participation.
We believe that the States do not need to be legislatively directed to
do more planning, but are ready and prepared now to spend money on the
ground to address conservation needs. Some have responded to these
concerts of ours by suggesting that if the States already have a plan,
it should facilitate quick approval. Our concern is that with a fairly
elaborate planning process requirement, if any entity disagrees with
the Secretary's approval of the State plan, there are enough legal
hooks to hang litigation on, which could cause significant delays in
getting funds to the State for immediate on-the-ground conservation
activities.
Our fourth concern with this title of S. 446 is the availability of
funds, which start at $100 million and are ramped up to $350 million
over 6 years. We know that our needs are much greater than even $350
million, and conclude that $100 million is simply not adequate to
address those needs. Funding commensurate with the States' significant
needs should be available from the startup, as we have outlined earlier
in this statement.
Our final concern with this title in S. 446 is that the 1980 Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Act does not authorize funding for either
conservation education or wildlife associated recreation. We have
earlier stressed the needs in these two arenas also, and are
disappointed that no funds are made available for those purposes in S.
446.
Mr. Chairman, before I close, let me briefly comment on the
Administration's Land Legacy Initiative. At this point we have little
information on the specifics of the components of that proposal. We
have seen only a summary of programs and dollars at this point. There
are good proposals in this initiative which can contribute to
conserving open space, and enhancing community health through improving
environmental quality. Yw have heard about those from others who have
testified today. The Administration's initiative does not address the
large and growing fish and wildlife conservation needs of our States
and communities today. As you know, habitat acquisition is only a part
of the solution. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, \2/3\ of our land in
the United States is in private ownership, and it is neither
appropriate nor are we simply able to afford to purchase the habitat
necessary to consave our fish and wildlife resources for future
generations. Experience has shown we must understand the needs of
particular species of wildlife in order to work with private landowners
as well as public agencies to meet those needs. A key part of the
puzzle missing from the Administration's proposal is Title m of S. 25,
providing permanent and dedicated funding for state-based enhanced
wildlife conservation, conservation education and wildlife-associated
recreation programs. Without that, the Administration's proposal is a
glass half-full and will not be successful in restoring America's
wildlife.
We are also concerned that the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
lacks the statutory authority for spending on the programs contemplated
under the Lands Legacy Initiative. We would suggest that there are more
appropriate statutes and funding sources for many of the
Administration's proposals.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude my remarks by reiterating our strong
support for S. 25. This could be the most comprehensive piece of
conservation legislation in our lifetime. Thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today and I would be pleased to respond to any
questions.
______
Responses by Max Peterson to Additional Questions from Senator Boxer
More than 1800 species of fish and wildlife receive little or no
attention from state and Federal conservation programs because they are
not classified either as game species or on the endangered species
list. Unfortunately, more and more of these species are finding there
way onto the endangered list every day.
Question 1. Mr. Peterson, do you think there is a need to take a
more comprehensive approach to conserving big-diversity and to
undertake a comprehensive planning process that allows you to most
efficiently target this new money toward unmet wildlife conservation
needs, like non-game and endangered species?
If not, how do we ensure that states are not going to simply take
this money to fund existing programs that have not be able to address
the declines in non-game species? What percentage of Pittman-Robertson
money currently is spent on non-game and endangered species?
Response. Senator Boxer, yes, the IAFWA has long record the reed
for consistent, percent and dedicated funds to enhance state-based fish
and wildlife conservation programs to enable the States to
comprehensively address the unmet needs of all fish and wildlife.
We are very interested in proposals that would provide adequate and
consistent funds to address the vast number of non-game species that
without adequate funding could decline and some become threatened or
endangered. That goal has been the primary focus of the Association's
``Teaming With Wildlife'' initiative, which has been among the highest
priorities of the Association for the last 7 years. We have long
advocated that preventive conservation efforts that address the life
needs and habitat requirements of declining species in response to
early warning signs of decline will not only preclude the need to list
species as endangered, but also help minimize the social and economic
impacts associated with such listings. The State fish and wildlife
agencies largely have the technical experience and expertise to do this
now, but have lacked the necessary funds to satisfy this goal. Building
on our successes for game and sportfish species under the Pittman-
Robertson and Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux programs, we can achieve
the same success for nongame species such as bluebirds, wading birds,
bog turtles, cerulean warblers, and many species of frogs and
salamanders that are exhibiting population declines. While these
nongame species have received some corollary benefit from programs
funded under Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux, there
simply have not been sufficient funds to adequately address the larger
suite of fish and Wildlife species in the States. The Conservation and
Reinvestment Act (S. 25) will provide these funds to the States to
accomplish state-based enhanced and comprehensive wildlife
conservation, conservation education, and wildlife associated
recreation.
We do not believe it is either necessary or a good strategy to
require a new comprehensive planning process as a part of the current
legislation.
Most State fish and wildlife agencies have, or are in the process
of developing, a comprehensive strategy to fulfill their obligation to
their citizens to conserve the fish and wildlife resources of their
state. Most States have assessed their fish and wildlife resource base,
detected habitat availability/security, looked at land uses, and
factored in user demand in order to identify what actions are necessary
to secure the future of their fish and wildlife resources. The result
is that States are generally prepared now to speed money on the ground
for conservation, and do not need to be directed to spend money on
federally prescribed comprehensive planning. Both S. 25 and H.R. 701 do
require a 5-year program that addresses conservation, conservation
education and wildlife related recreation.
States are acutely aware of funding needs for nongame species and
have used everything from nongame income tax check-off to Duty license
plates in an attempt to provide fuming. These funds, however, are
generally neither consistent nor predictable enough to build a program
around. Is is also clear that strong state coalitions and public
expectations are that most of the funds will be spent to benefit
nongame species. Because many habitat programs, condensation education
ant wildlife recreation benefit both game and nongame species, it is
often impractical to draper a nongame/game distinction.
We have just completed a report on state wildlife diversity
Findings and expect to publish it in late April or early May In
response to your last question within question one, we provide here
some of the preliminary results from that survey. In 1997-98, 24 states
spent S12 7 million of Pittman-Robertson funds on programs targeted at
wildlife diversity (nongame, endangered species and watchable
wildlife). In addition, $92 million of Wallop-Breaux ferris were spent
in this arenas and $16.6 million of hunting and fishing license sales
Suffice it to say that these Finds are simply inadequate to address the
needs of those species. Out State fish and wildlife agencies estimate
needs for fish and wildlife conservation, consolation education, and
wildlife associated recreation at between $7501 and $1B per year for
sill states. Annual Pittman-Robertson Ending is now about $150-175
million dollars per year.
Question 2. How are we going to guarantee that enough money will
address unmet wildlife conservation needs particularly as they relate
to non-game species?
Response. We are confident that states will use the money to
address high priority needs which in all states include a substantial
number of non-game species. In making the ``Teaming With Wildlife''
initiative a high organization priority, the Association recognized,
and is committed to fulfilling the needs of nongame wildlife as the
highest Finning priority for these funds. The over 3,000 grassroots
organizations supporting this initiative, and the citizens in each and
every state, will ensure through their continued participation with the
State fish and wildlife agency in establishing program funding
priorities, that the funds are spent to satisfy comprehensively the
unmet needs of fish ant wildlife conservation, conservation education,
and wildlife associated recreation. Further, the Secretary of Interior,
under the language in S. 25, must find that the State fish and wildlife
agency has a comprehensive program to address the unmet needs of fish
and wildlife, in order to approve funds for that State under the
Conservation arid Reinvestment Act.
The State fish and wildlife agencies are comfortable with the
current language in S. 25, but would consider language which would
emphasize (not earmark or exclusively direct) spending for nongame
species, as long as the discretion on spending priorities remains with
the State fish and wildlife agency. As you may know, Pittman-Robertson
funds that are provided by excise taxes on hunting supplies and
equipment is not restricted to game species. We do not favor placing
restrictions on OCS Finds either.
__________
Statement of Roy Kienitz, Executive Director of the Surface
Transportation Policy Project
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify before the
committee today.
My name is Roy Kienitz and I am the Executive Director of the
Surface Transportation Policy Project. We are a nonprofit coalition of
200 groups working to ensure that transportation investments improve
environmental quality, boost economic efficiency, and improve access to
opportunities for all individuals.
Over the past 2 days, you have heard people echo what recent
elections and polls have already told us that a growing number of
people believe that curbing haphazard sprawl and promoting smarter
growth are critical to maintaining the fiscal health, environmental
quality, and overall quality of life of their communities.
One way to support smarter growth is to be more efficient about
utilizing public infrastructure and services that have already been
paid for, such as roads and transit, water and sewer lines, and other
utilities. This approach is already the cornerstone of several smart
growth initiatives such as those in Maryland, Oregon and New Jersey.
As we determine what action to take, we should be reminded that
calls for smart growth originated first from citizens, then localities
and States not from Washington. They have also come from all portions
of the political spectrum. As such, we think it is reasonable for the
Federal Government to provide the tools necessary to help communities
meet their own smart growth goals. These tools should enable local and
State governments to both preserve open space and revitalize existing
communities.
Specifically, we have the following recommendations for Federal
action:
First, we support the current proposal for Better America Bonds.
These bonds would carry no interest for 15 years, and offer the fiscal
leverage to enable local, State and tribal governments to preserve open
space, create or restore urban parks, clean up contaminated land, and
stimulate construction and renovation projects in existing communities.
Representing roughly $10 billion in bond authority, these flexible
financing tools represent a major opportunity to revitalize our central
cities, while also helping small towns and suburbs gain control over
runaway sprawl. Broad support is already forming behind these Bonds,
and they have even elicited a positive reaction from House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster.
Second, to support the continued revitalization of central cities,
Congress must oppose any efforts to undermine the Community
Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to invest deposits back into the
communities from which they come. Since 1977, this law has strongly
contributed to the renaissance of many older urban neighborhoods,
alleviating the pressure for ever-outward development and
infrastructure spending at the fringes of our metropolitan areas. This
law also helps to ensure that residents of less affluent communities
can share at least some of the investment benefits that their personal
savings generate something that most people take for granted.
Third, to bring more large-scale private investment to low-income
urban communities, we also support the proposal for a new American
Private Investment Corporation which would provide preferential
financing packages to businesses that invest in urban areas. This
proposal, which is modeled on the existing Overseas Private Investment
Corporation, would provide a needed boost to attract private investors
to areas that would benefit greatly from new development or
redevelopment.
Fourth, to give communities another tool to help preserve open
space and improve parks, we propose to strengthen the Land and Water
Conservation Fund by boosting its funding by several hundred million
dollars per year. These funds would pay for the acquisition of green
spaces across the Nation and would come to communities in the form of
flexible grants, loans and easements. We understand that there are a
number of proposals before the committee to boost funding for this
program, and Senator Boxer's is clearly a standout.
Finally, since smarter growth also means better coordination
between transportation and land use decisions, we hope the committee
can support an increase in funding for TEA-21's Transportation and
Community and System Preservation Pilot Program (TCSP) to $50 million
for the next year. We applaud Senator Wyden's leadership on creating
this program, which is currently funded at $25 million per year to
support local efforts like traffic calming, transit-oriented
development, and the creation of downtown intermodal centers. Even
before the first round of grants has been awarded, it is obvious that
there is enormous demand for this program. The US DOT received over 500
proposals from local governments requesting more than $400 million in
assistance. Increased funding would enable US DOT to support a greater
number of worthwhile projects.
The TCSP program underscores the fact that transportation spending
plays an especially important role in supporting smart growth. For this
reason, we appreciate the Administration's proposal to increase funding
levels for transit, transportation assistance for workers getting off
welfare, and other programs, although we recognize that such programs
fall under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. Similarly, we
applaud efforts to secure increased funding for the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, but understand that
this introduces a number of complications relating to the funding
formulas that were negotiated in TEA-21.
In conclusion, the Federal Government has a critical role to play
in providing financing tools to help local, State and tribal
governments achieve their smart growth goals. While it is difficult to
claim that any one metropolitan area in America is the embodiment of
smart growth, there are hundreds of places that are striving to
preserve open space, reduce the fiscal costs of runaway sprawl and
create livable places for all residents. We need more examples like the
City of Chattanooga's downtown revitalization and greenway plan, New
Jersey's open space initiatives, and Oakland, California's transit-
oriented development at its Fruitvale light rail station. Wherever the
place and from whatever end of the political spectrum, localities are
asking for assistance on smart growth, and the Federal Government has a
great opportunity to help.
Thank you.
______
[From the Washington Post, March 17, 1999]
Mischief From Mr. Gramm
Cities that were in drastic decline 20 years ago are experiencing
rebirth, thanks to new homeowners who are transforming neighborhoods of
transients into places where families: have a stake in what happens.
The renaissance is due in part to the Federal Community Reinvestment
Act, which requires banks to reinvest actively in depressed,and
minority areas that were historically written off. Senator Phil Gramm
of Texas now wants to weaken the Reinvestment Act, encouraging a return
to the bad old days, when banks took everyone's deposits but lent them
only to the affluent. Sensible Members of Congress need to keep the
measure intact.
The Act was passed in 1977. Until then, prospective home or
business owners in many communities had little chance of landing loans
even from banks where they kept money on deposit. But-according to the
National Community Reinvestment Coalition, banks have committed more
than $1 treason to once'' neglected neighborhoods since the Act was
passed, the vast majority of it in the last 6 years.
In New York City's South Bronx neighborhood, the money has turned
burned-out areas into havens for affordable homes and a new middle
class. The banks earn less on community-based loans than on corporate
business. But the most civic-minded banks have accepted this reduced
revenue as a cost of doing business--and as a reasonable sacrifice for
keeping the surrounding communities strong.
Federal bank examiners can block mergers or expansions for banks
that fail to achieve a satisfactory Community Reinvestment-Act rating.
The Senate proposal that Mr. Gramm supports would exempt banks with
assets of less than $100 million from their obligations under the act.
That would include 65 percent of all banks. The Senate bib would also
dramatically curtail the community's right to expose what it considers
unfair practices. Without Federal pressure, however, the amount of
money flowing to poorer neighborhoods would drop substantially,
undermining the urban recovery.
Mr. Gramm argues that community groups are ``extorting'' money from
banks in return for approval, and describes the required paperwork as
odious. But community organizations that build affordable housing in
Mr. Gramm's home state heartily disagree. Mayor Ron Kirk of Dallas
disagrees as well,-and told The Dallas Morning News that he welcomed
the opportunity to explain to Mr. Gramm that ``there is no downside to
investing in all parts of our community.''
In a perfect world, lending practices would be fair and the
Reinvestment Act would be unnecessary. But without Federal pressure the
country would return to the era of redlining, when communities cutoff
from capital withered and died.
__________
Statement of Ralph Grossi, President, American Farmland Trust
Mr. Chairman, American Farmland Trust (AFT) appreciates this
opportunity to provide your committee with our views on the loss of
open space and environmental quality. I am Ralph Grossi, president of
AFT and the managing partner of a family farm that has been in the
dairy, cattle and grain business in northern California for over 100
years. American Farmland Trust is a national, nonprofit organization
with 34,000 members working to stop the loss of productive farmland and
to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment.
American Farmland Trust applauds the bipartisan movement now
underway across the Nation to promote ``smart growth.'' While we are
strong advocates of local solutions to land use issues, we believe
there is a vital role for the Federal Government in assisting local
communities that are struggling to protect farmland while accommodating
growth. In nearly half of the States there are aggressive efforts
underway to protect farmland, both for its importance to local
economies and as a tool in controlling sprawl.
This nation's productive agricultural land deserves the same
protection that you, Mr. Chairman, have worked so tirelessly to afford
to our other important natural resources. It simply makes sense for
America to protect the land that provides the nation's food and fiber,
offers scenic open space, provides wildlife habitat, and reflects
America's heritage. We must not lose sight of the constant threat to
farmland posed by sprawling, unplanned growth.
But it isn't just the farmland being paved over that should be of
concern to agriculture. Another reason why sprawl matters is its
influence over the pattern of development. Because, for every acre of
farmland developed, 2 to 3 more acres now have a subdivision next door.
And agriculture is at risk when it has too many neighbors.
Most suburbanites simply don't want to put up with manure odors,
noise, dust and drifting farm chemicals--the inevitable byproducts of
production agriculture. Some don't think twice about helping themselves
to some apples from the orchard across the road; or about letting their
dogs run free to harass or maim dairy cows. An increasing number of ex-
urban refugees are suing farmers for doing what they've always done--
when there was nobody around to complain. Now, the Supreme Court has
ruled that ``right to farm'' laws, which try to prevent homeowners from
suing farmers, are an unconstitutional ``taking'' of private property--
the homeowners property, not the farmers'!
Mr. Chairman, there are three essential steps to creating ``smart
growth'' strategies that will benefit everyone: farmers and ranchers,
urban dwellers and suburban residents.
First, American communities must envision their futures, and plan
comprehensively to make that vision reality. A good strategic framework
should include planning for agriculture along with plans for urban
redevelopment, suburban transportation, and other challenges of growth.
Too often, while local leaders work to bring new business to a
community they overlook agriculture as a true ``wealth generator''--an
industry that brings value to the community from renewable natural
resources. In many traditional farm communities citizens are awakening
to the prospect that this important, consistent economic base is at
risk; and they recognize that one of the solutions is to ensure that
the land base is protected. This calculus has little to do with the
global food supply, but everything to do with the value of farming to
local economies.
The recent surge in local and State efforts to protect farmland
suggests rapidly rising national concern over the loss of farmland and
the environmental benefits it provides. In last November's elections 72
percent of 240 initiatives to protect farmland and open space were
approved by voters across the nation. In recent years Governors Engler,
Voinovich, Ridge, Pataki, Wilson, Whitman, Weld, Glendening and others
have supported or initiated farmland protection efforts to address this
problem. Nearly every day this year major newspapers have carried
articles about sprawl and ``smart growth,'' frequently citing farmland
protection as one of the key components of the latter. And the
President highlighted the need to help communities protect ``farmland
and open space'' in his State of the Union speech.
Recent studies by American Farmland Trust have documented that more
than 80 percent of this nation's fruits, vegetables and dairy products
are grown in metropolitan area counties or fast growing adjacent
counties--in the path of sprawling development. And a 1997 AFT study
found that over the past decade 1,000,000 acres of farmland were lost
to urban uses each year. The loss of soil to asphalt--like the loss of
soil to wind and water erosion--is an issue of national importance.
But one should not get caught up in the ``numbers game''. The fact
is that every year we continue to squander some of this nation's most
valuable farmland with the expectation that this land can be replaced
with imports, or with new technologies that promise to help maintain
the productivity gains of the past half century. The reality is that we
don't know whether new technologies will keep pace. What we do know is
that whatever those technologies will be, it is likely that they will
be more efficiently applied on productive land than on marginal land
where higher levels of energy, fertilizer, chemicals and labor per unit
of output are required. Simply put, It is in the nation's best interest
to keep the best land for farming as an insurance policy against the
challenge of feeding an expanding population in the 21st century.
The second essential step to creating smart growth strategies is
the elimination of subsidies that support sprawling development over
our best farmland. Public policy should not favor untrammeled
consumption of land, nor should they drive development out of America's
cities.
While most of the policy decisions that lead to sprawl are made at
the State and local level, these decisions are often based on economic
incentives created by Federal activity. The sad fact is that our
current patterns of low-density development are the result of 50 years
of government policy decisions, direct government funding, and
government-influenced private finance and credit decisions. In most
American cities, the mix of these policies and market forces creates a
strong economic push toward an ever-expanding suburbia at the expense
of our core urban and inner suburban areas.
Federal transportation policy is an illustrative example. Highway
building enhances the tendency to sprawl. Local roads, a principal
lifeline for many rural residents, receive disproportionately little
funding for priorities such as maintenance. Instead, funds are
disproportionately being spent on new or expanding highways at the
edges of metropolitan areas where fewer people live. Meanwhile, poor
pavement conditions, transit operations, and other transportation needs
in suburbs and cities go largely unmet.
A recent study of tax, transportation and development policies in
the Atlanta area, conducted by AFT and the Georgia Conservancy,
pinpoints several factors that favor suburban over urban development.
[I ask the Chair to please include the report's executive summary in
the record.] Of the nine different policies and other factors studied,
land cost--affected by highway construction--was by far the leading
factor in driving development out of the city and into suburban areas.
Transportation investments in highways are not the sole cause of
sprawl, but they are contributors. They are part of a web of factors
that result in the paving of more than one million acres of farmland
per year, and disinvestment in urban cores and inner suburbs.
The good news is that the Federal Government is providing tools to
combat the unwanted side effects of these policies. In the landmark
1991 transportation bill affectionately known as ``ISTEA'' and in the
TEA-21 bill that reauthorized it last year, a small but important sum
is set aside to support alternatives to the highway system and reduce
its negative effects on society. The law authorizes billions of dollars
through the Transportation Enhancements program for bicycle and
pedestrian trails, acquisition of scenic or historic easements, and
mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff.
How ironic though, that the taxpayer has to pay twice--once by
subsidizing sprawl, and a second time to offset its negative impacts.
We strongly urge you to take a critical look at the wide range of
public subsidies that continue to induce this unwanted land use
behavior.
The third and final essential step to creating smart growth
strategies is to enlist the support of private landowners. Local, State
and Federal agencies, along with private organizations must work with
landowners to help them protect the best lands, including farmland. In
fact, working with private landowners should become the foundation of
future conservation policy, because the future of the American working
landscape will depend upon it.
For the past quarter century conservation goals in our country have
been largely achieved by either imposing additional regulations or
through government purchase of private land. However, these actions
have failed to resolve conflicts over important problems--like species
or farmland protection, for example--that rely on the participation of
thousands of private landowners. At AFT we very strongly believe that
in the 21st century new approaches to land conservation will be needed
that address the concerns of private landowners and bring them into
partnerships with the American public to achieve broad community goals
on private land. And do it in a manner that shares the cost between
those who steward the land, and those who benefit from a well-managed
private landscape.
America cannot--indeed should not--buy all the land that needs
protecting. So the support of farmers and ranchers for conservation
policies is absolutely critical because they own the land that plays
such a vital role in producing conservation benefits for all Americans
to enjoy.
As farmers we are proud of the abundant supply of food and fiber we
have provided Americans and millions of others around the world; and we
are pleased that well-managed farms also ``produce'' scenic vistas,
open spaces, wildlife habitat and watershed integrity for our
communities to enjoy. And in many instances, our farms and ranches
serve as crucial buffers around our parks, battlefields and other
important resources. These are tangible environmental goods and
services that farmers should be encouraged to produce, and for which
they should be appropriately rewarded. It is only fair that the cost of
producing and maintaining these goods should be shared by the public
that benefits from them.
A number of bipartisan proposals contain provisions that move us in
that direction. We support the Resources 2000 Act and S. 333 because
these bills recognize the role that private landowners play in the
stewardship of our natural resources, protecting their property rights,
while compensating them for the environmental goods they produce for
the public. And we thank Chairman Chafee for his cosponsorship of S.
333.
The purchase of development rights approach proposed by these bills
provides an innovative, voluntary opportunity for appropriate local
agencies to work with landowners by offering them compensation to
protect the most productive farmland--farmland that is critical to both
the agricultural economic base of our rural and suburban communities
and the environmental values provided by well-managed farms.
These bills would leave protected lands on the local tax rolls,
contributing to the local economy. The value of this approach to local
communities cannot be understated. AFT has conducted more than 40 Cost
of Community Services Studies around the country. In every case, these
studies have shown farmland provides more property tax revenue than is
needed in public services, while sprawling residential development
almost always requires more in services than it pays in taxes.
As more communities struggle with the problems of suburban sprawl,
private lands protection is emerging as a key strategy of smart growth.
The techniques proposed by the Resources 2000 Act and S. 333 add an
element of fairness to the difficult challenge of achieving public
goals while balancing private property rights. They are a reasonable
balance to the regulations that often lack fairness when applied alone.
In fact, many communities are finding that implementing a purchase of
development rights program actually strengthens support within the farm
community for zoning and other necessary regulations.
Mr. Chairman, during this Congress you will have unprecedented
opportunities to develop policies to encourage smart growth. This
process is not about Federal meddling in local affairs--as some critics
have charged--but rather about who reaps the benefits and who carries
the burdens of the status quo pattern of sprawl. Any successful policy
must: (1) be consistent in the implementation of programs that
influence local planning efforts; (2) be willing to eliminate counter-
productive subsidies that are making the job more difficult; and (3)
increase the incentives that reward stewardship on this nation's
private lands.
Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to testify today,
and I look forward to working with you to establish a truly farmer-
friendly conservation policy.
______
Responses of Ralph Grossi to Additional Question from Senator
Lautenberg
Question. Many people have pointed out the connection between
abandonment of inner cities, particularly areas where possible
contamination of a former industrial or small business site may make
redevelopment difficult, and sprawl into areas such as farmlands. Do
you think that having brownfields legislation which would help provide
funding for site investigations and loans for cleanup would help
encourage re-use of these sites? Would this then help alleviate
pressure to develop in new, outer areas such as farmlands? Would you
support legislation which helped encourage re-use of these sites?
Response. American Farmland Trust believes that development is both
inevitable and desirable. However, it simply makes sense that
development should not occur on our most productive land. Instead,
development should be steered to both marginal land and toward
abandoned urban cores including brownfields sites.
We view protection of farmland and brownfields site abandonment as
two sides of the same coin. To the extent that we subsidize development
on our farmlands, we subsidize the abandonment of our urban centers. By
promoting cleanup of brownfields sites and the economic redevelopment
of our downtown areas, we relieve some of the pressure to subdivide our
farmland. American Farmland Trust would support legislation to
encourage the reuse of brownfields as one part of a broad effort to
address the national problem of farmland loss.
______
Responses of Ralph Grossi to Additional Questions from Senator Boxer
Question. With regard to purchasing development rights, why do you
think the Federal Government should help fund what many may consider a
local concern?
Response. While it is true that most of the decisions resulting in
sprawl are made at the State and local level, these decisions are often
based on economic incentives created by Federal activity. The sad fact
is that our current patterns of low-density development are the result
of 50 years of government policy decisions, direct government funding,
and government-influenced private finance and credit decisions. In most
American cities the mix of these policies and market forces creates a
strong economic push toward an ever-expanding suburbia.
Recent studies by American Farmland Trust have documented that 80
percent of this nation's fruits, vegetables and dairy products are
grown in metropolitan area counties or fast growing adjacent counties
in the path of sprawling development. And a 1997 AFT study found that
over the past decade over 400,000 acres of prime and unique farmland
were lost to urban uses each year. The loss of soil to asphalt--like
the loss of soil to wind and water erosion--is an issue of national
importance. It is thus certainly appropriate for the Federal Government
to help local communities protect this critical national resource.
Question 2. Aren't conservation easements just another tax loophole
for wealthy landowners? Do small farmers really benefit?
Response. No, conservation easements are not a tax loophole for the
rich. A conservation easement is simply the legal contract attached to
the deed to the property ensuring that the agreement not to subdivide
is binding on current and all future landowners. When a landowner
donates an easement to an NGO or government agency he/she is entitled
to certain tax benefits; however, since nominal tax rates are now below
40 percent a landowner receives only partial compensation for the value
given up. Hence, the public is getting more then double its investment
in conservation for tax benefits given.
More importantly, in the case of purchased conservation easements
such as with the Farmland Protection Program and as envisioned in
Miller/Boxer, landowners are paid a fair price for development value
foregone. American Farmland Trust's studies of State programs that have
been in place for more than two decades show that such programs have
been a tremendous help in lowering the price of land so that young,
entry-level farm families could acquire farmland at near agricultural
prices. Furthermore, these studies show that landowners have used these
funds to make investments in their operations including, upgrading to
more efficient facilities, expanding operations, paying down debt,
improving waste management systems, etc. The bottom line: these funds
for conservation easements have largely been re-invested contributing
to the economic health of local communities in each of the States that
have such programs.
Question. 3. Our title in the bill provides permanent funding for
an already existing program--the Farmland Protection program. How
successful has this program been to date? Is it popular with the
States?
Response. The Farmland Protection Program authorized $35 million
for matching grants to State, local and tribal entities that purchase
conservation easements from willing sellers. The program has been
enormously successful and has helped to permanently protect more than
120,000 acres of America's best farm and ranch lands from sprawling
development. By rewarding local initiative, FPP funds have been
leveraged nine-times over at the State and county level. Because the
FPP is a voluntary program that compensates landowners and protects
property rights it has also proven to be enormously popular with
landowners. In fact, it is oversubscribed by 600 percent--more than any
other USDA conservation program.
The FPP has also encouraged a number of States including
California, New Hampshire and Ohio to initiate their own state-level
purchase of development rights program. This expanded activity at the
State level will perhaps be one of the most enduring and important
legacies of the FPP.
__________
Statement of Eugene A. Conti, Assistant Secretary for Transportation
Policy, Department of Transportation
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to review the role and importance of the Department of
Transportation's programs in the Clinton-Gore Livability Initiative.
The Clinton-Gore Livability Initiative is a bold new effort to
engage the American people on a subject of profound significance to the
country. It is about the future of our cities, suburbs, and rural
areas. It is about how these places will become and remain prosperous
and healthy, and help our people fulfill their expectations for their
quality of life.
The Administration's Livability Initiative starts with the premise
that continued growth is key to our economic competitiveness and that
strong communities are essential to our quality of life. These
initiatives rest on the bedrock principle that communities know best
that land use and infrastructure decisions are best made at the local
level. Our effort is a comprehensive attempt to provide communities
with an array of tools and resources, from which they can select to
preserve green spaces, ease traffic congestion, promote regional
cooperation, improve schools, and enhance economic competitiveness.
These tools and resources will help enable communities to grow
according to their own values.
Toward this end, the Administration has proposed several
strategies. The first strategy helps communities preserve open space
through a new ``Better America Bonds'' program. It will provide $700
million in new tax credits for state and local bonds to build more
livable communities. These new ``Better America Bonds'' will leverage
nearly $10 billion of investments in our communities over the next 5
years and will help communities reconnect to the land and water around
them and also enhance economic competitiveness by redeveloping
brownfields.
Second, the Administration is taking new steps to ease traffic
congestion so, for example, parents can spend more time with their kids
and less time stuck behind a steering wheel. This proposal builds on
the success of TEA-21 in supporting state and local efforts to reduce
air pollution and ease traffic congestion.
Third, the Administration is taking new steps to promote regional
cooperation, so entire regions work together for smart growth and
competitiveness. Issues like traffic, air pollution, and jobs don't
recognize defined borders, and neither should our solutions. The
Regional Connections initiative seeks to promote cooperation among
neighboring communities and thereby aid in the development of truly
regional game plans for smarter growth.
Finally, the Administration is proposing a number of other targeted
initiatives that, along with transportation, help communities maintain
their sense of community as they keep pace with rapid growth. These
proposals, totaling $100 million, advance the goals of excellence in
school facilities, sound growth management information, and public
safety all fundamental elements of a livable community.
Transportation plays a critical role in this initiative. By
providing the means for connecting people with goods, services, and one
another, transportation serves as the nation's arteries through which
flows all that sustains our people and binds them together as a nation.
Also importantly, the movement of people and goods must be done in as
safe a manner as possible at all times.
In exercising its stewardship over various transportation modes and
programs, the Department of Transportation places great reliance upon
the ability of states, localities, the private sector and private
citizens to work together to make transportation work for this country.
It is critically important that communities and their citizens
determine their own visions for the future and the means to achieve
them. The transportation planning process establishes the community
forums necessary for elected officials and citizens to find common
ground in meeting their needs and fulfilling their hopes for the
livability of their communities.
As this planning process guides states and localities in developing
transportation plans and programs to serve their people, it links
safety concerns, land use development, environmental quality, attention
to the needs of disadvantaged populations, and economic development
into an integrated approach to community livability.
This integrated approach, rooted in decisionmaking at the local and
state levels, with transportation as a key element, is precisely the
means to achieving better communities that the Clinton-Gore initiative
contemplates. Just as transportation planning relies on state and local
decisionmaking to achieve transportation goals, the Livability
Initiative recognizes that different communities face different
circumstances and provides resources so that they can plan and achieve
their own development goals.
Last year the Congress, working closely with the Administration,
enacted the visionary Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21). This committee is to be commended for its leadership role in
preserving the best of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991 and shaping a new comprehensive measure, TEA-21, for the
beginning of the new century. TEA-21 supports communities and states as
they choose transportation facilities and services that best meet local
transportation priorities, through TEA-21's metropolitan and statewide
transportation planning processes. Communities can choose how to use
Federal transportation dollars in conjunction with other community
efforts to achieve new, more livable patterns of growth. A balanced
transportation system is only one of a number of ingredients in
community viability. Transportation planning works side by side with
the development of decent housing, commercial investment, parks and
recreation areas, good schools, and effective public safety to make our
localities good places to live, work, and raise families.
TEA-21 gives communities and states many opportunities that can be
used to meet the nation's mobility needs and improve its quality of
life. Funds authorized for the National Highway System, Surface
Transportation Program, and transit programs each have broad
eligibility and flexibility so that states and local areas can tailor
the use of Federal funds to best meet their needs whether they be for
transit, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, highways, ride-sharing
programs, safety projects, intermodal connections or other
improvements. We are committed to helping state and local
transportation agencies develop projects and services that reduce
pollution and are more compatible with the environment. Specific TEA-21
programs give states and communities even more tools to carry out
projects for enhanced livability. These include:
New and enhanced safety grant programs, with a special
focus on reducing drunk driving and increasing seat belt use, encourage
states and communities to improve highway safety standards and reduce
the human cost of motor vehicle crashes.
Transportation Enhancements and Transit Enhancements
funds can be used to help communities improve the cultural, aesthetic
and environmental qualities of their transportation systems.
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program (CMAQ) can be used to fund transportation projects to help
communities meet national ambient air quality standards or to maintain
compliance with the standards.
The Transportation and Community and System Preservation
Pilot Program (TCSP) provides grants to demonstrate ways to make
communities more livable and research funds to help investigate
relationships between transportation and land use.
Intelligent transportation system technology will help
make communities more livable by reducing traffic congestion, managing
traffic flows of people and goods, and assisting with local responses
to transportation emergencies.
Transit programs strengthen opportunities for alternative
forms of transportation and accessibility. In particular, the Job
Access and Reverse Commute program will fund transportation projects
that help lower-income workers and those making the transition from
welfare rolls to payrolls get to their jobs.
Elected state and local officials are pursuing smart growth and
revitalization initiatives that can use these Federal tools. The
growing interest in smart growth was demonstrated by the successful
ballot initiatives in over 200 communities last year. The Congress has
also acted by establishing bi-partisan task forces on livability and
smart growth in both the House and the Senate.
The Department of Transportation's programs and activities work in
close partnership with those of other Federal agencies to provide
states and communities with a combination of resources and tools. For
example, state and metropolitan transportation plans must conform to
state air quality plans approved by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to ensure that our air is getting cleaner. Cities and counties
that have established enterprise communities and empowerment zones to
spark new life in long dormant and neglected areas know how
transportation can contribute to getting workers to jobs and customers
to goods and services. Communities seeking to preserve the heritage of
the past and to build a prosperous future can bring together such
programs as DOT's Transportation Enhancement Program and Treasury's
historic preservation tax credits with HUD's Community Development
Block Grant program to turn deteriorated neighborhoods into attractive
places to live and work. Such local partnerships give added power and
reach to any single agency's contribution.
The Livability Initiative, particularly its transportation
components, combines what we can do now with what we must do in the
future to make sure that the places in which we live will remain the
places in which we will want to live. The Administration is proposing
several important enhancements to existing transportation programs and
initiatives.
Proposals in the President's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget would increase
funding for transit, CMAQ, transportation enhancements, the TCSP pilot
program, and Job Access/Reverse Commute grants. These additional funds
will encourage transportation alternatives, and support critically
important environmental, safety and research and technology programs.
The proposed increase in funding reflects our commitment to reduce air
and water pollution and make transportation more compatible with the
environment. It will help maintain a balance in funding between highway
and transit, consistent with TEA-21. Increased CMAQ funds will help our
communities carry out activities that help them meet and maintain air
quality standards. The increased TCSP pilot program funds will help us
meet the tremendous popular demand for the program DOT had over 500
applications, which totaled over $400 million, for Fiscal Year 99 TCSP
funds.
Other elements of the Livability Initiative the Better America Bond
program and the Regional Connections program complement the existing
programs of DOT. By providing added financial power to states and
localities to preserve open space, rehabilitate parks, and reclaim
brownfields, the new bond program will enhance the quality of community
life, while transportation programs can make sure that people have the
access they need to these spaces. By improving regional cooperation and
fostering public-private partnerships, the Regional Connections program
will boost the effectiveness of regional planning, which can lead to
better decisions about transportation and land use choices.
In too many places, Americans have become disconnected from their
communities--from being able to walk quietly and peacefully in
neighborhoods without enduring the roar of traffic or unsafe road
conditions; from getting to their jobs and shopping areas and back to
their homes easily without sitting for hours in gridlock; from living
close to the places where they work and play, worship and learn; from
experiencing the nation's heritage in its historic buildings and
places; and from enjoying clean air, pure water, and green open spaces.
The Livability Initiative is about helping Americans reconnect with
these essential values.
__________
Livability at the Ballot Box: State and Local Referenda on Parks,
Conservation, and Smarter Growth, Election Day 1998
(By Phyllis Myers, State Resource Strategies)
a discussion paper prepared for the brookings institution center on
urban and metropolitan policy, january 1999
I. Overview
On November 3, 1998, voters from California to New Jersey approved,
often with large majorities, more than 70 percent of two hundred-plus
state and local ballot measures to protect, conserve, and improve
parks, open space, farmlands, historic resources, watersheds,
greenways, biological habitats, and other environmental enhancements in
communities and regions across the country. The measures will trigger,
directly or indirectly, more than $7.5 billion of new state and local
money.
News about votes for such close-to-home referenda typically does
not travel far. Yet these local votes caught the attention of such
national and business media as The New York Times, USA Today, The
Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, Reuters, CNN,
PBS, and Dow Jones. Regional and city newspapers, too, featured
articles on these ballot measures in reports on races for Governor, the
state legislature, and key local posts. The local votes were quickly
described as part of a national, dramatic grassroots rebellion against
sprawl, an urgent call for preserving land, and a clear message of
support for smart growth policies.
Two months later, with the benefit of complete data and more time
for reflection, it is evident that the array of conservation ballot
proposals and outcomes last Election Day was more varied than the
initial post-election reports suggested. The 240 referenda identified
in 31 states asked voters to approve a basket of finance and regulatory
actions ranging from conventional park and recreation funding to
purchase of farms and coastal areas to adding green infrastructure in
growing communities on the edge of expanding metropolitan areas. A
number of measures are part of comprehensive statewide and regional
land conservation, habitat restoration, watershed protection, historic
preservation, and outdoor recreation programs. Other measures are
important elements in broad programs aimed at containing sprawl and
reining in metropolitan growth. Contrary to past election years, an
increasing number of measures this year moved beyond traditional land
acquisition and involved the purchase of easements to restrict future
development of privately owned, productive farmland. These measures
appeared on ballots in older, declining urban neighborhoods as well as
growing communities, and in rural areas as well as metropolitan
regions.
The Election Day 1998 results are more than a sudden happening.
While last fall may have been a record year for the number of approved
ballot measures (and level of funding) in support of smarter growth and
environmental improvements, the sentiment these measures reflect has
been building up over decades as people and jobs continue to move from
older cities and suburbs to farther out communities at the metropolitan
fringe. In the late 1980's and through the 1990's, citizens and
professionals sounded increasingly louder alarms about the deleterious
effects of these settlement patterns on farm and forest resources,
biological diversity, watersheds, scenic assets, access to nature and
outdoor recreation, and the economic health and sustainability of
established communities and resource-based economies.
Advocates, continuing to push for more responsive Federal, state,
and local policies and programs, have awakened often dormant land-
related authorities and resources. By the century's end, these efforts
have resulted in increased funding for strengthened park and
conservation programs in about a dozen states as well as hundreds of
counties, cities, and towns.
Since financing for such programs at the state and local levels
often requires voter approval, grassroots ballot measures provide an
informative window into debates across the country on the pace,
quality, and direction of development and voter sentiment on parks,
conservation, and growth. Yet, because of their decentralized nature,
ballot measures were unexamined until recently.
This paper examines and summarizes the results of a new
comprehensive survey of the November 1998 crop of state and local
ballot measures for parks, open space, and environmental improvements.
The paper also compares these findings with that of a similar survey
conducted in 1996, the first systematic effort to track these measures.
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Phyllis Myers, ``Voters Go for the Green,'' Greensense
(published by the Trust for Public Land), Spring 1997, p. 3. Myers
conducted a limited survey in 1997 for a report published by the
National Conference of State Legislatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major findings include:
There were 240 state and local conservation ballot
measures identified in 1998, over 50 percent more than those identified
in the 1996 survey.
Voters approved 72 percent of these measures, a success
rate similar to that in 1996. In recent years, conservation finance
measures have attracted the highest rates of approval among capital
measures put before voters. Information on comparative approval rates
for other capital spending ballot measures in 1998 is not yet
available.
These measures triggered more than $7.5 billion in new
state and local conservation spending. Voters directly approved $4.5
billion in conservation and growth-related spending to be raised from
bonds and recurring revenue sources. \2\ In addition, Florida voters
approved a constitutional amendment that clears the way for renewing
Preservation 2000. This popular 10-year, $3 billion program is the
nation's best-funded state land conservation initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Money estimates are approximate. They include authorized
bonding authority and pay-as-you-go estimates where available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of these conservation measures approved funds to
help leverage additional sources of public moneys. For instance, Martin
County, Florida, approved a one-cent sales tax to help leverage Federal
funding to restore the Florida Everglades. New Jersey and Massachusetts
approved state funds and more flexible enabling authority to help
leverage local initiatives.
The approved measures supported a wide range of
conservation and community enhancement activities. New Jersey's high-
profile constitutional amendment to set aside $98 million a year for
the next 30 years to help protect half of the state's developable land
was the most ambitious and far reaching of these 240 ballot measures.
While anti-sprawl sentiments prompted approval of some measures to
raise funds solely for land acquisition, most of the ballot referenda
reflected a broader spectrum of activities, such as facility renovation
in older cities; development of trails and greenways linking cities and
rural areas; construction of soccer fields in public school complexes;
upgrading of water systems; restoration of habitat for endangered
species; and even construction of mental health facilities.
The number and outcome of these conservation and growth-
related ballot measures varied by region. The Northeast, which has the
nation's strongest traditions of land conservation and largest numbers
of organized constituencies, had the most measures on the ballot (111)
and the highest approval rate (86 percent). The West, now experiencing
the nation's fastest growth rates, showed significantly increased
ballot activity (56) and higher approval rates (68 percent) since 1996.
The South continued to have the fewest conservation ballot measures,
and the approval rate in the Midwest declined from 1996.
Last fall's ballot measures included approvals for urban
growth boundaries. Although most ballot measures provide funding for
conservation programs and projects, a slew of urban growth boundaries
were handily approved in California's Bay Area and Ventura County.
Regulatory restrictions on development outside the limit lines, say
advocates, provide the only sure way to assure compact, defined urban
areas and productive, sustainable agricultural zones.
Voters continue to be tax averse. The only new statewide
tax on the ballot, in Georgia, failed. Approved statewide finance
measures involved renewals of popular conservation programs (Minnesota
and Arizona), environmental programs financed by bonds repaid from
general revenues (Alabama, Michigan, and Rhode Island), or pledges of
revenue set-asides from existing tax sources (Arizona, Oregon, and New
Jersey). New local bonds and taxes fared better, perhaps because
residents identified more closely with the projects that would be
funded.
Conservation ballot measures elicited strong constituency
and grassroots engagement. Some hard-fought grassroots ballot measure
campaigns saw a ratcheting up of their budgets and the level of
involvement by national and statewide interest groups, including
conservation organizations, planners, farmers, realtors, and
developers. In several instances, sharp divisions developed within as
well as between the groups on tactics and goals.
Some caveats about the ballot study should be noted. The 240
measures are not presented as a representative sample of the array of
conservation actions reverberating in state houses, county seats, and
city and town halls or the tens of thousands of governments in the
country. For the most part, these ballots reflect activism on parks and
conservation issues, with citizens either working alone or with
government officials to put initiatives on the ballots.
But other place-based constitutional and statutory requirements,
traditions, and political considerations also account for what measures
may come to ballot in one place and not in another. Minnesota and
Connecticut lawmakers approved significant new conservation funding
programs this year without triggering a requirement for voter consent,
for example. Throughout the country, state legislatures are revising
and revisiting laws governing conservation easements, local option
taxes for conservation and open space, support for agriculture,
partnerships with nonprofits, developer impact fees, and other tools
and strategies where direct voter approval is not needed.
II. The Survey Results
State Resource Strategies, a private conservation policy consultant
firm, conducted the survey of state and local parks, open space, and
growth-related ballot measures appearing on Election Day ballots in
November 1998. Relying on methods similar to those employed in 1996,
the survey methodology combined electronic research with extensive
interviews of state and local government officials, stakeholders in
various campaigns, national advocacy organizations, and the media.
Overall, the success rate of state and local parks and conservation
referenda identified in the survey was 72 percent, similar to that in
1996. Moreover, the 1998 survey identified 240 measures, more than 50
percent more than in 1996, triggering approximately twice as many new
state and local dollars (see Charts 1 and 2). Geographically, there are
important regional differences (see Charts 3 and 4). In both 1996 and
1998, the Northeast had the largest number of conservation ballot
measures. The 1998 group included a bundle of local measures approved
in New Jersey, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and eastern Long Island. The
Northeast has had a longer tradition than the rest of the country in
planning and citizen involvement in conservation advocacy.
The South still had the fewest measures on local ballots, and the
Midwest's approval rate declined somewhat, despite some successes in
growth-related conservation levies.
An important new regional trend was the increase in dollars
committed to parks, trails, resource protection, and open space in the
West, where the nation's highest growth rates create unprecedented
pressures on limited water, spectacular scenery, and long-held
conservative traditions about property and government spending.
Colorado's Douglas County, which floated a $160 million open space
bond, led the list for approved large-scale funding in the region.
Voters also overwhelmingly approved more modest first-time open space
and trails bonds in fast-growing Bernalillo and Santa Fe Counties, New
Mexico, and Park City, Utah, site of the 2002 Olympics.
Statewide Measures
Of 13 statewide measures, 10 resulted in favor of conservation
interests: 9 finance measures were approved while one proposal in
Oregon was defeated. In 1998, more of the approved statewide measures
were initiated or supported by the state's Governor than in earlier
years. Governors, including New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman,
paid unprecedented attention to land conservation, environment, and
growth-related initiatives in their state-of-the-state speeches early
in 1998. Thus, fewer referenda appear to have been placed on last
year's ballots as a result of citizen signature campaigns, although
private environmental, conservation, and civic groups played an
important role in formulating proposals and campaign strategies.
The following is a typology of the 1998 state and local
conservation ballot measures, arrayed by finance strategy.
General Obligation Bonds
Several state referenda asked voters to approve issuance of long-
term general obligation bonds. Such debt financing is typically favored
for capital investments in public infrastructure whose life extends
over a period of years. There is strong competition for a share of the
state's general obligation bonds, which are backed by the full faith
and credit of government and carry the lowest interest rate. Most but
not all states require a referendum for general obligation bonds.
Revenue bonds, which are repaid with funds earned by the financed
activity or pledges of an assured source of revenue, typically do not
require voter consent. Bond funds cannot be spent on operations,
routine maintenance, and programs.
1. Alabama: Improving State Parks and Historic Sites
Voters approved by three to one a constitutional amendment to issue
a $110 million general obligation bond to develop, acquire, and
renovate the state's parks and historic sites. This is the first
statewide capital investment bond floated for Alabama's park system
since the 1960's. The system, which has relied on user fees, has a
large backlog of infrastructure and facility repair needs. Six million
dollars is targeted for historic sites across the state.
2. Michigan: Protecting the Environment and Natural Resources
Voters overwhelmingly approved a $675 million Clean Michigan
Initiative general obligation bond, supported by Governor John Engler,
to finance environmental and natural resources protection programs to
clean up and redevelop contaminated sites, protect and improve water
quality, improve parks, prevent pollution, abate lead contamination,
reclaim and revitalize community waterfronts, enhance recreational
opportunities, and restore lakes, rivers, and streams. Debt costs will
be covered through annual appropriations. The largest amount, $335
million, is targeted to brownfields.
3. New Mexico: Defeating Environmental Protection
Citizens voted against two small, narrowly focused statewide bond
measures one for $620,000 to purchase endangered species habitat, and
the other for $1,030,000 to finance a heritage center and trail system
for the proposed El Camino Heritage Area along the Rio Grande River.
Authority to issue bonds for land purchases to protect endangered
species was approved by state lawmakers several years ago, mainly at
the urging of The Nature Conservancy.
4. Rhode Island: Protecting Farmland, Parks, and Open Space
Rhode Island voters easily approved, by a two to one majority, a
$15 million bond for protecting farmland and acquiring and developing
bikeways, greenways, and state parks. The measure provides $5 million
for state farmland easement purchases and park improvements and $10
million for regional and local bike paths and greenways, with an
emphasis on local matching grants for projects consistent with the
state's Greenspace and Greenway Plan. A few months before the vote,
Governor Lincoln Almond announced support for a $50 million parks,
watershed, and open space initiative that will finance the purchase of
35,000 acres by 2010.
``Pay-As-You Go'' Measures
Pay-as-you-go measures provide ongoing funding from dedicated
revenues such as taxes on property and sales, lotteries, or other
sources. Because such financing facilitates multi-year planning and
does not incur borrowing costs, these ``stable funding sources'' enjoy
considerable appeal. A drawback (depending on the source) is the
prospect of lower revenues when the economy slows down. Also, most
revenues, even when earmarked, must be appropriated annually and are
vulnerable to diversion to other activities. Greater protection for
revenues may be secured (if state law permits) through constitutional
provisions for a tightly controlled trust account into which revenues
are deposited without requiring annual appropriation. Or, following
approval of an assured dedicated source of annual funding, the
anticipated revenue flow may be bonded to provide access to more funds
upfront.
1. Arizona: Conserving Land
This constitutional amendment, approved by 53 percent of voters,
provides for the appropriation of $220 million for 11 years primarily
to finance purchases of easements and full title to environmentally
sensitive state-trust lands. This funding, to be matched by local and
private sources, is an important element in Governor Jane Hull's
Growing Smarter legislative package of planning and zoning reforms.
This growing interest in conservation has placed new tensions on the
state's management of millions of acres of state trust lands,
particularly those in the path of urban development. The state must now
balance its responsibilities for managing its land legacy with
maximizing trust earnings to support public education. The
environmental community was divided in its support for the business-
supported Growing Smarter program. A competing initiative backed by the
Sierra Club would have authorized urban growth boundaries and developer
impact fees, which are prohibited in the approved measure.
Arizona voters also handily approved continuation of the state's
lottery, which has, since 1990, contributed $20 million annually to a
Heritage Fund that is equally divided between state parks and wildlife
programs.
2. Georgia: Rejecting New Taxes for an Environmental Protection Fund
Voters said ``no,'' by a margin of 54 to 45 percent, to a proposed
1 percent increase in the real estate transfer tax to finance a new
land, water, wildlife, and recreation heritage fund approved by state
lawmakers and supported by popular outgoing Governor Zell Miller. The
measure, which would have raised an estimated $40 million a year for 4
years for the fund, was backed by a coalition of leading national and
statewide conservation, recreation, and historic preservation
organizations.
3. Minnesota: Protecting the Environment and Natural Resources
More than three-quarters of Minnesota citizens said ``yes'' to a
25-year extension of Minnesota's Environment and Natural Resources
Trust Fund to 2025. Established in 1988, the ``perpetual and
inviolate'' trust fund is structured to create a sustainable endowment
to support such activities as: habitat protection, watershed planning,
river cleanup, wetlands restoration, trails and parks, and
environmental education. Thus far, the fund has awarded 177 grants and
disbursed some $82.8 million from its annual set-aside of 40 percent of
net lottery proceeds, while contributing steadily to a growing
endowment. The fund is expected to generate revenues reaching $50
million a year by 2010. A 20-member legislative commission oversees the
fund's budget and strategic plan; a citizens committee appointed by the
Governor advises the commission.
4. New Jersey: Preserving Open Space
New Jerseyans approved, by two to one, a set-aside from existing
sales tax revenues to help protect half of New Jersey's developable
land, a million acres, in the next decade. The measure also authorized
bonding of the annual set-aside, which is expected to help secure a $1
billion bond to help accomplish the land protection goal. Billed as
``pennies for preservation,'' this measure was advanced by Governor
Whitman as part of a comprehensive statewide initiative to revitalize
older cities, invest in existing infrastructure, and foster balanced
economic development. The statewide ballot measure was complemented by
votes in 55 counties and towns to increase or levy modest property
taxes or issue bonds for farmland protection, historic preservation,
open space acquisition, and stewardship.
5. Oregon: Protecting Parks and Natural Habitats
Two-thirds of Oregon voters approved a citizens initiative to
earmark an estimated $45 million annually from an existing lottery set-
aside for 15 years for ``Parks and Salmon.'' Specifically, the moneys
will be equally divided between creation and renovation of state parks,
historic sites, and beaches, and a new fund to restore and enhance
native salmon habitat, river corridors, watersheds, and wetlands. The
fund will be managed under a single state agency, to be designated in
the next legislative session. The agency's mission will also include
the implementation of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, which
is being developed in concert with Federal agencies and other
stakeholders. The state's plan to protect habitat and rescue endangered
species around Portland and Eugene enhances the Willamette Valley's
much discussed growth management efforts.
new authority/regulation
1. Florida: Financing Conservation Land Purchases and Recreation
More than 70 percent of Florida's voters approved a constitutional
amendment that permanently extends the state's authority to issue
revenue bonds to finance land acquisition and outdoor recreation
improvements. Revenue bonds, repaid by a set-aside from the state's
lucrative documentary tax on real estate sales, have financed the
state's expiring $3 billion, 10-year Preservation 2000 program. The
popular program has facilitated the acquisition of a million acres of
environmentally sensitive land and, according to local studies, spurred
new businesses, increased land values, attracted eco-tourists, and
saved public funds by reducing the need for costly infrastructure to
serve outlying residential development. During the state's
gubernatorial campaign, both major candidates gave strong support to a
successor program, which is likely to allocate a larger share of funds
for urban and metropolitan open spaces, recreation, and trails.
2. Oregon: Blocking Potential Efforts to Stymie Growth Management
Decisions
Voters defeated a constitutional amendment that was vigorously
opposed by advocates of Oregon's innovative land use law. The measure
would have enabled 2 percent of voters, or 25,000 persons, to petition
for legislative approval of an administrative rule. Inaction by
lawmakers would have killed the rule unless it were approved again by a
state agency and adopted by state lawmakers the following year. The
measure was seen as especially directed against urban growth
boundaries. This is a ``confusing and unnecessary'' measure, said the
Salem Statesman, arguing that laws in place provide numerous
opportunities for public involvement in administrative decisions.
Local Measures
Of the 240 measures identified in the survey, 226 ballot measures
were considered in counties, towns, cities, and special districts. Of
these, 163 measures were approved, amounting to about one-fourth of the
total estimated dollars approved by voters on November 3rd. While the
local measures represent a small proportion of funding approved last
year, they are a telling indicator of growing grassroots interest in
conservation, outdoor recreation, and open space funding and programs.
While most of the approved measures provide dollars directly through
bonds or pay-as-you-go authority, the approved measures also include 19
regulatory and 4 advisory measures.
The majority of local ballot measures involved conservation
finance. They included 49 bonds and 91 pay-as-you-go measures 76
property tax assessments (many in New Jersey) and 15 miscellaneous
taxes, including set-asides from general sales taxes, real estate
transfer fees, and a lodging tax. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Statistics on the number and amount of bonds versus pay-as-you-
go measures are approximate, since communities may bond an ensured
annual revenue flow to provide more money upfront. This is not always
evident in the ballot measure. Jefferson County's $160 million bond,
for example, which will finance land purchases to curtail sprawling
growth around Denver, is secured by a local sales tax approved by
voters at an earlier election.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonds
The bonds include a nearly $76 million park and greenway general
obligation issue in Austin, Texas, an important element in the city's
smart growth initiative. \4\ Austin's smart growth strategies include
incentives for development in selected priority zones, neighborhood
involvement in community investments, and purchase of parklands,
greenways, and open space. Bond financing of green improvements was
proposed to increase recreational services for under-served residents
in lower-income neighborhoods and attract new residents to these
communities. Austin voters also approved a $19.8 million revenue bond,
financed by utility rate increases, that will buy more land in the
west, where settlement impinges on water quality and threatened
species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Austin's program seeks to modify the path of growth away from
environmentally sensitive areas in the city's western sections and
encourage revitalization of the downtown and principally poorer, ethnic
neighborhoods in the east.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smaller bonds for parks and open space were approved in: fast-
growing Johnson County, Kansas, to buy land for the first regional park
in two decades; in Arlington and Fairfax Counties, Virginia, for
facility development as well as parkland acquisition; in Wake Forest,
North Carolina, a growing bedroom community outside of Raleigh, for
land acquisition and park improvements, and in Bernalillo and Santa Fe
Counties in New Mexico for open space, trails, and historic spaces.
Two city park bonds on the November ballot were rejected in
Portland, Oregon, and Los Angeles, California. Since a sizable regional
park and open space bond had been approved in Portland a few years ago,
voters may have been confused about the need for this measure. In Los
Angeles, the measure failed because the 59 percent vote in favor of the
bonds was not enough to meet the two-thirds majority required by the
state to approve this spending increase.
Bonds to finance park improvements were approved in Denver,
Colorado, and Eugene, Oregon. The Eugene measure will retrofit older
neighborhoods with playgrounds and sports facilities and acquire land
for new parks in growing neighborhoods. A Eugene planning official says
green amenities help ease pressure to relax Eugene's urban growth
boundaries as population in the city's urban neighborhoods increases.
Pay-As-You-Go Measures
Fifteen towns in Cape Cod approved new 3 percent property tax
assessments to finance open space acquisition. Most towns had earlier
rejected a real estate transfer tax proposal to fund land banks.
Realtors who opposed that initiative delivered on a promise to support
a tax that shared the burden. An editorial in The Cape Codder advised
readers that the assessment about $50 a year on average was a sound
investment to protect property values.
In Ohio, where most parks are managed by independent districts that
seek funding directly from voters, expanding suburbs near Cincinnati,
Akron, and Columbus approved property tax measures to finance
conservation and nature-based recreation. Although the ballots are
technically ``replacement levies'' and do not involve an increase in
the tax rate, these measures will raise significantly more money
because property values have risen since the rate was last approved.
Several measures around the country, including the property tax
assessments in Cape Cod, real estate transfer taxes in Long Island,
local sales tax set-asides for parks in Missouri, and county open space
bonds in New Mexico, illustrate the pivotal role that state enabling
authority is playing in expanding community funding options for
conservation. Recently approved state enabling authority, all of which
required voter consent, triggered some 30 new revenue streams for parks
and open space in the November 3rd election.
Regulations
In recent years, increasing attention has been given to non-
regulatory, incentive-based, voluntary measures for conservation.
However, voters' support in November 1998 for new regulations may have
revealed public frustration with underfunded voluntary measures and a
growing desire to better control zoning changes, public infrastructure
investments, and other government decisions perceived to encourage
development of land on the edge of metropolitan areas.
Voters in seven communities in California's rapidly growing Bay
Area and Ventura County stood almost solidly behind the adoption of
urban growth boundaries to draw a firm line between development and
outlying agricultural land. The Ventura County measure prohibits
rezoning of agricultural land in unincorporated areas for the next 20
years, unless approved by another public vote. For the first time, says
Jim Sayer of Greenbelt Alliance, a leading advocate for the Bay Area's
15 growth boundaries, more limit lines have been initiated by voters
than by officials. In Sayer's view, this gives people more clout in
difficult decisions ahead that will impact on the effectiveness of the
boundaries. California, unlike Oregon, has no statewide law requiring
consistency among levels of government with growth boundaries.
Voters turned down a citizens' initiative in San Diego City and
County, California, that would have rezoned almost 600,000 acres of
rural agricultural lands to 40 and 80 acre parcels. San Diego is the
site of the nation's most ambitious effort to guide development on the
basis of science-based conservation plans designed to protect habitat
for multiple species while providing developers with assurances about
future development. The Sierra Club and others view the massive
rezoning as a stronger way to restrict development on sensitive lands.
Critics claimed that it was unfair to small farmers, a theme that
appeared elsewhere in the country in opposition to measures that would
have financed purchase of farmland development rights.
San Diego voters did approve two amendments to the general plan
which allow more urbanization of several thousand acres of ranchland as
well as provide mitigation for lost sensitive habitat, including $160
million for a new preserve and recreational open space. The amendments
were presented to voters as arising from a consensus of environmental
organizations and the local planning board.
Voter distrust of official decisions is evident in several other
measures. Residents of Scottsdale, Arizona, approved a charter
amendment calling for a public vote before lands placed in the Sonoran
preserve are sold or leased. Voters in Southhampton, New York, said
``yes'' to a measure calling for a public vote on any proposed changes
to protected lands. Residents in Clark County, Nevada, the fastest
growing region of the U.S., affirmed a conservation plan for managing a
large desert preserve, which also calls for voter consent to proposed
changes.
Advisory Ballots
Advisory ballots are, as the name implies, placed on the ballot to
provide elected officials with a sense of voters' views on proposed
measures, especially when they involve new taxes. While officials are
not bound to follow voters' decisions, they may either commit in
advance to do so or feel it is politically wise to do so.
There were a few advisory measures in 1998. In Scottsdale, Arizona,
the advisory measures concerned doubling the size of McDowell Sonoran
Preserve, a protected area of scenic mountains and desert, where
purchases are financed by a sales tax set-aside. In California's Bay
Area, the measure sought public opinion on expanding the East Bay
Regional Park District to include spectacular coastal lands in San
Mateo County. Both measures were decisively approved. Another measure
sought voter advice in Clark County, Nevada, on whether to finance
water system improvements with utility rate increases alone or in
combination with a sales tax increase. Voters opted for the latter.
Failed Measures
Of the 240 measures in this survey, 67 failed at the ballot box.
Three of these were statewide measures and 64 were local measures. In
general, failed measures are perceived to result from an overly narrow
focus, too little preparation, or overconfidence in voter support for a
vague green measure. For these reasons, it is not unusual to see a
measure defeated by voters in previous elections resurface and be
approved after its provisions and campaign strategy have been
redesigned.
The reasons for the defeat of two of these conservation measures in
1998 one statewide and one local are more complex. In these two
measures, supporters knowingly ventured into risky territory, backing
new taxes in regions where political support for conservation and land
acquisition had been weak. The high-stake outcomes generated
substantial resources to campaigns by both advocates and opponents.
These defeats, described below, serve as a reminder of the difficult
challenges that remain despite growing popularity for conservation and
smarter growth.
1. Georgia: Real Estate Transfer Tax
The Georgia measure, fashioned by an alliance of national and state
conservation, environmental, historic preservation, and recreation
groups, proposed a 1-percent increase in the real estate transfer tax
to finance a Land, Water, Wildlife, and Recreation Heritage Fund
approved by state lawmakers earlier in the year. The modest fee
increase, a doubling of the existing rate, would have raised about $40
million a year for 4 years. Promoted as a land acquisition legacy for
outgoing Governor Zell Miller, the measure earmarked 75 percent of the
funds for land acquisition and 25 percent for recreation grants.
Campaign officials attributed the defeat to the difficulty of
getting public approval for a tax increase and to opposition by realty
and building interests to using the real estate transfer tax for
conservation. Supporters argued that the real estate transfer tax had a
logical nexus with real estate activity and financed a number of well-
regarded programs elsewhere in the country, often with the support of
business interests who saw its value in encouraging quality
development. Opponents said that the tax unfairly selected certain
people to pay for conservation, especially elderly homeowners and young
buyers, raised the cost of housing, and dampened the economy.
The modest size of the proposed tax increase was an issue. It
failed to lure support and also may have diminished fervor among
advocates, given the breadth of activities covered in the initiative.
In addition, garnering support for a growth-related tax proved
difficult in a state with varied growth challenges. Sprawl was a major
campaign theme in the Atlanta region, which was recently ranked by the
Sierra Club as the nation's most egregious example of formless,
unplanned expansion. In the state's poorer rural communities with
stagnant economies, however, the major themes and messages were clean
air, clean water, and family values, not sprawl.
In retrospect, close observers also questioned the campaign
strategy which relied on well-financed TV spots and heavy mailings,
editorial endorsements, and support from such luminaries as Jimmy
Carter, but failed to cultivate the grassroots sufficiently. In the
last weeks of the campaign, opponents, including real estate interests
and developers, mounted an effective neighborhood campaign with
billboards, yard signs, stickers, and peer-to-peer phone calls largely
directed against the tax, not the issues.
2. Washtenaw County, Michigan: Property Tax Assessment
The measure in Washtenaw County, Michigan, advanced by a coalition
of farmers and urban, planning, and conservation interests after
several years of study, proposed a small property tax increase for 10
years. Projected to raise some $3.5 million annually, the multi-pronged
measure proposed to spend 75 percent of the revenues for land
conservation, including buying open space and development rights to
farmland, and 25 percent for urban revitalization and planning.
In the post-election reprise, supporters saw the unexpected defeat
mostly as a sign of resistance to a new tax but also to the complexity
of the proposal. ``We failed to communicate the vision that connects
the pieces,'' observes Keith Schneider of the Michigan Land Use
Institute. A media photo opportunity showing urban mayors from Detroit
and Ann Arbor in a farmers' market intended to demonstrate the common
interests of farmers and cities may have backfired. Opponents argued
that the measure unfairly placed the economic burden of land protection
on small farmers and relayed this message through quiet networking
among farmers and others in the last weeks of the campaign.
Explaining its failure to endorse the measures, the influential Ann
Arbor News agreed that poorly planned growth created ``aesthetic,
economic, transportation, and other public-service problems,'' but
questioned the efficiency of using public funds for voluntary purchases
of farmland development rights, although it also recognized that some
``randomness'' was inevitable in a program crafted to work with willing
sellers.
Schneider also believed that state support would have been helpful
in leveraging local support. In Massachusetts, the Governor held out
$15 million in state matching grants as incentives for Cape Cod towns
that voted for land banks.
As in Georgia, opponents of the Washtenaw measure said that they
supported the goals of the measure but disagreed with the approach.
III. Implications of the 1998 Survey
Both the 240 state and local conservation measures on the ballot in
November 1998 and the $7.5 billion revenues they will trigger may be a
record. Although the only comparative data are from a 1996 survey,
there are solid reasons to support this conclusion.
Decentralizing trends over the past decade have seen states and
local governments take on a more active programmatic and finance role
in many policy areas. Federal programs to assist environmental and
community development programs have either been cut back or re-crafted
to better respond to and leverage state and local successful models. At
the state level, consumer confidence and low interest rates have helped
increase the pace of residential and commercial development at the
suburban edge and have provided the wherewithal to finance the
conservation side of a balanced growth agenda. Also, tax limit measures
have increased the number of finance measures that go to ballot to
override the limit or allay officials' nervousness about raising taxes.
While the trends have been building up for some time, there is
clearly a difference in the tempo today. The November 3 ballot measures
provide a window into that difference.
1. Communities throughout the country are showing a willingness to
finance green infrastructure with locally raised revenues.
While the details vary between Cleveland and Akron, Ohio; Dade
County, Florida; Barnstable County, Massachusetts; Bernalillo County,
New Mexico; the Front Range, Colorado; Portland, Maine; and Portland,
Oregon, citizens are showing a willingness to pay for close-to-home
conservation measures. Mainstream political leadership for these
measures is growing. Rapid transfer of information through the media
and the internet provides real-life examples to stimulate other
communities with similar concerns about conservation and growth.
2. Although it is useful to look at these ballot measures as a
whole, it is also important to understand their variety in finance
methods, governance, and political alliances and strategies.
While a number of measures in the survey are garden-variety funding
for parks and recreation funding, others are influenced by broader
visions and alliances that, at their most ambitious, would integrate a
multi-dimensioned conservation program into other state programs for
revitalizing cities, economic development, and increased equity.
The measures do not all fit easily in a land acquisition or anti-
sprawl template, although a number do. Rather, they reflect a spectrum
of programs supported by the alliance working to craft and campaign for
these measures. The package may include tourism, farmland preservation,
watershed protection and water quality, brownfield conversion, easement
purchases, endangered species protection, historic preservation, and
new trails.
The measures may include dollars for urban as well as suburban
parks, and facility renovation as well as land acquisition, and funds
for operations as well as capital investments. However, sometimes a
narrowly focused measure has the greatest chance of approval.
3. This election saw an increase in regulatory measures, although
most of the measures provide funding for incentive-based voluntary
programs and projects.
The increase in regulatory ballot measures such as urban growth
boundaries and a proposed massive rezoning of agricultural land in
California, expansion and management of an Arizona preserve, and a
substantial increase in developer impact fees in Bozeman, Montana may
represent public frustration at the failure to enact broader incentive-
based programs, or the shortcomings of existing planning and land
purchase programs. These regulatory measures may also show the
continued validity of the planners' mantra, ``you can't buy it all,''
and the importance of both regulatory and incentive-based programs in
balanced growth.
4. Despite the high approval rate for these conservation measures,
they are not easy wins.
Conservation ballot measures are political as well as financial
actions, and a high success rate reflects astute crafting of measures
and campaigns. Voters are not simply saying ``yes'' to green measures.
Successful measures typically are quite specific about purpose,
projects, funding, and process how the measures will be implemented,
where, how much they will cost, and what the decision process will be.
Some conservation ballot measures benefit from the advice of
professionals working for such conservation groups as the Trust for
Public Land, Nature Conservancy, Conservation Fund, and American
Farmland Trust. This election also was accompanied by national and
state farming, realtor, and development associations increasing their
monitoring of local measures; campaign spending rising on all sides;
and important differences about land issues and tactics emerging within
and among constituencies. ``Our members are divided on these issues,''
a spokesman for the National Association of Home Builders remarked,
``so we have not adopted any national position.''
5. While the ballot measures and the campaigns show increased
mainstream support for conservation and financing tools and dollars,
they do not by themselves constitute a call for the complex measures
needed to achieve change in urban and metropolitan form.
By their very nature, these ballot measures at best set the stage
for the broader convergence of land conservation with growth
management, as demonstrated by the expanded programs advanced by
Governor Parris Glendening in Maryland and Governor Whitman in New
Jersey. In New Jersey, voters approved long term state and local
financing for conservation measures, not the whole program to promote
jobs, create affordable housing, restore brownfields, assure good
schools, and foster inner city and suburban equity.
The outcome of decisions on all these programs, and their
integration in an effective, financed state plan will have considerable
bearing on whether the New Jersey measure simply moves growth around
(which still could be an important accomplishment) or seriously reins
in metropolitan settlement.
California editor William Fulton writes, ``Land use is a funny
business. You can pass a ballot initiative, but you can't stop the
conversation.'' While urban growth boundaries are designed to be the
last word, they are ``not an end but a beginning,'' says Fulton, urging
people on both sides of this hard-fought election to ``get on with
it,'' accepting the boundaries as the basis of Ventura County land
policies yet recognizing that growth and change will not stop. He
points to positive decisions on housing and retail siting forced by a
divisive earlier boundary election and growing consensus among former
opponents. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Los Angeles Times, November 15, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As exemplified by California's urban growth boundaries and New
Jersey's dramatic billion-dollar land initiative as well as hundreds of
large and small programs around the country, the challenge ahead for
states, localities, and the Nation as a whole lies in translating the
ballot box statements into actions and alliances for on-the-ground
change in the older settled areas and edges of America's expanding
metropolitan regions.
__________
Letter from Thomas B. Stoel, Jr.
March 26, 1999.
Sen. John Chafee, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am an environmental attorney and consultant
here in Washington. I have studied the issue of urban sprawl and
broader issues of land management in connection with a book I am
writing on U.S. environmental policy. I have written an article on
urban sprawl that is scheduled to appear in the May 1999 issues of
Environment magazine.
My work has led me to the conclusion that the Federal Government
should do more to help states and localities address the problem of
urban sprawl. I request that the enclosed statement suggesting the need
for specific actions, including the enactment of a law establishing a
Federal program of grants to support appropriate state land-use
planning efforts, be included in the record of the Committee's March
17-18 hearing on open space and environmental quality. You are to be
congratulated for holding this important hearing.
Thanks very much for your attention. I was sorry to hear of your
decision to leave the Senate. You have been an outstanding leader in
the field of environmental protection.
Sincerely,
Thomas B. Stoel, Jr.
______
Statement of Thomas B. Stoel, Jr.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee members: Thank you for
allowing me to submit a statement at this very important hearing. Urban
sprawl has serious adverse impacts on our environment and quality of
life. It has assumed a prominent place on the political agenda. It is
important that the Federal Government play an appropriate role in
dealing with it.
I am Thomas B. Stoel, Jr., an environmental attorney and consultant
in Washington, D.C. I have studied the issue of urban sprawl and
broader issues of land management in connection with a book I am
writing on U.S. environmental policy. I have written an article on
urban sprawl that is scheduled to appear in the May 1999 issue of
Environment magazine.
The most important point I wish to make is that we cannot reach
good decisions about the role of the Federal Government unless we
recognize that urban sprawl is a regional phenomenon. Urban sprawl
occurs when low-density commercial and residential development extends
farther and farther from central cities. In the absence of governmental
action, the location and shape of sprawl in a metropolitan region
depends on economic imperatives and does not correspond to political
boundaries.
Since sprawl is a regional phenomenon, it follows that some form of
regional control is necessary if we are to alter the pattern of low-
density sprawl. That proposition is endorsed by many of the leading
experts in the field. Jonathan Barnett, a professor of urban design,
asserted in his book The Fractured Metropolis that regional regulation,
in the form of an urban growth boundary, is essential because ``Without
the boundary there is a continual tendency for urbanization to leapfrog
outwards, seeking cheaper land prices, fewer rigorous regulations, and
less community opposition.'' Anthony Downs an urban affairs expert at
the Brookings Institution, has said: ``Relying solely on individual
communities to adopt growth management plans without any overall
planning or coordination is like relying on a group of subcontractors
to build a house with no overall blueprint.'' Richard Moe, the
President of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, who
testified at this hearing, declared in his book Changing Places that
actions by states are essential because `` [s]tates alone have the
ability to see the regional picture and have the legal reach to sort
out complicated political and economic issues.''
Much of the testimony before this Committee concerned the need to
preserve open spaces and green spaces. That is an important objective.
Saving green spaces makes life more livable for those who live nearby,
helps to conserve wildlife and ecosystems, and reduces water pollution.
But preserving green spaces won't change the pattern of sprawling
development in a metro area unless those green spaces form an effective
regional barrier in the form of a greenbelt. Otherwise, we may do no
more than create green islands in a sea of sprawl, a pattern that is
apparent in the region around Washington, D.C.,and in other
metropolitan areas.
There also was testimony about the desirability of steering
development toward central cities and brownfield areas. That too is a
desirable goal. But in view of the complex economic and social forces
that are responsible for urban sprawl, making brownfields development
easier and more attractive may have a relatively small impact on the
overall course of sprawl in a metropolitan region.
When our society is faced with difficult problems, we sometimes
pour resources into actions that are appealing and popular but are
incapable of effecting real solutions. We cannot afford to let this
happen with regard to urban sprawl because of failure to recognize its
true character.
Many people find it difficult to acknowledge that sprawl is
regional in nature and requires regional answers. After all, urban
sprawl is a problem of land use, and many Americans believe that land
use should be dealt with at the local level. Yet it is evident that
city and county of finials, acting within the boundaries of their
individual jurisdictions, cannot solve important problems associated
with urban sprawl. They can alleviate some of the effects of sprawl,
through such actions as acquiring green spaces. But they cannot act
effectively to prevent other consequences, such as traffic congestion
stemming from metropolitan traffic patterns and increased water
pollution due to runoff from low-density subdivisions in many parts of
a metropolitan region.
In theory, sprawl might be addressed through voluntary cooperation
among the political jurisdictions within a metro area. However, that
approach does not appear to have succeeded in any large metropolitan
region in this country, and it is easy to understand why. Every large
metro area consists of numerous cities, counties, and towns, with
different interests that are bound to conflict. The political of
finials charged with representing the interests of those jurisdictions
will be reluctant to give up their power to make key decisions.
Powerful economic forces are sure to object to a binding regional pact.
Together, these factors seem certain to prevent the long-term, areawide
cooperation that would be required to deal effectively with sprawl.
The Federal Government has recognized the need for areawide
cooperation when there is a strong Federal interest. The governmental
authorities in major metro areas are required to cooperate, via a
Council of Governments, in combating air pollution and designing
transportation systems that depend on Federal funding. But it is
generally conceded that the Federal Government should not play such a
prominent role concerning other aspects of sprawl. Americans do not
want so many decisions to be made in Washington. Most of those who
recognize the regional nature of urban sprawl have concluded that the
best approach is for states to provide a framework that permits
effective regional actions. A number of U.S. states have acted in this
way. Their methods have varied. Hawaii, with it unique geographical
setting, places most of the power over land use in the hands of the
state. Oregon requires each city in the state to designate an urban
growth boundary. Maryland and other states use state powers, including
the power to distribute state funds, to create incentives for
localities to direct growth in ways that reduce sprawl, an approach
known as ``Smart Growth.''
Against this background, what role should the Federal Government
play? Most of the actions recommended by witnesses and Senators at this
hearing make sense; indeed, many of them would confer benefits that
extend beyond the alleviation of sprawl. Those actions include full
funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund; Better America Bonds
and other elements of the Clinton Administration's ``Livability
Agenda''; and careful examination of relevant Federal policies and
actions, including decisions regarding the siting of Federal
facilities, to ensure that they do not contribute to sprawl.
Desirable as they may be, none of these actions would do much to
encourage states to address the regional dimension of sprawl. To
achieve that objective, I recommend that the Congress enact a law
establishing a Federal program of grants to support appropriate state
land-use planning efforts. The grant program I am recommending would be
similar to the one established by the Federal Coastal Zone Management
Act (CZMA), enacted in 1972. The CZMA has been highly successful, and
is a major reason why every coastal state now engages in planning for
its coastal zone.
Almost three decades ago, in 1970, President Nixon proposed to the
Congress a statute like the one I am suggesting. Designed by Nixon's
environmental adviser Russell Train and Train's staff at the
President's Council on Environmental Quality, that law would have used
the prospect of Federal grants to induce states to undertake land-use
planning efforts aimed at controlling development on lands that
fulfilled important natural or aesthetic needs. An important goal of
the statute I am recommending would be to encourage states to recognize
the regional nature of urban sprawl and create frameworks that
facilitate regional planning in areas that are threatened by sprawl.
No state would be required to apply for the planning grants I am
recommending. Nor would the law I am suggesting prescribe the kind of
land management program that participating states should ultimately
adopt. The Coastal Zone Management Act, for example, simply requires
that a qualifying management program must include certain planning
processes and coordination mechanisms; that it must define ``what shall
constitute permissible land uses and water uses within the coastal
zone''; and that it must identify ``the means by which the State
proposes to exert control over [those] land uses and water uses.'' See
16 U.S.C. sec. 1455.
The statute proposed by President Nixon was passed by the Senate
but eventually was defeated in the House, after opponents mounted a
deceptive scare campaign. Had that law been enacted by the Congress a
generation ago, it is unlikely that our country would have experienced
so much of the low-density sprawl that is troubling our citizens today.
We cannot afford to allow sprawl to continue unchecked for another
generation. The success of the Coastal Zone Management Act suggests
that a program of Federal planning grants would be an effective,
nonintrusive way of encouraging states to address this very important
problem.
__________
Statement of Mary Anne Piacentini, Executive Director, Katy Prairie
Conservancy, Houston, TX
Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee: I appreciate the
opportunity to provide comments on the problems and solutions to the
environmental impacts of growth in the Houston, Texas area. The Katy
Prairie Conservancy is a nonprofit organization located in Harris and
Waller Counties, Texas. The Conservancy is committed to preserving a
sustainable portion of the Katy Prairie for its wildlife and for all
Texans, forever.
The Katy Prairie, designated a Biosphere of International
Significance by the United Nations, is home to the densest
concentration of migratory waterfowl in North America--serving as the
wintering ground for birds in the Central Flyway. The Prairie also
provides habitat to migrating shorebirds and raptors such as Peregrine
Falcons and Bald Eagles along with more than 200 species of birds,
including songbirds, herons, and ibises. In addition, the Prairie
provides cover and food for 55 species of mammals, such as the White-
tailed Deer, and 55 species of reptiles and amphibians, such as the
Red-eared Slider Turtle. In addition to its habitat value, the
Prairie's rice fields, wetlands, and creeks offer critical flood
protection downstream.
The Katy Prairie once covered more than 500,000 acres. Since 1978
more than 160,000 acres of Prairie have been lost to development.
Today, there are only 200,000 acres of remaining prairie. A seemingly
insatiable demand for residential homes in the area and the proposed
extension of the Grand Parkway from Interstate 10 north of Highway 290,
have fueled a tremendous amount of land speculation on the prairie.
Developers have the funds to develop the Katy Prairie now. We do not
have the funds to protect the prairie.
If we are to save the Katy Prairie we must raise millions of
dollars from private and public funding sources. We have recently
embarked on a major fundraising campaign to enable the Conservancy to
purchase or protect at least 30,000 acres and ideally 60,000 acres. To
date, we have only 2,000 acres under ownership or protection.
The only thing we lack to accomplish our goals is money. The Better
America Bonds program would allow the Katy Prairie Conservancy and its
partners funding to secure the land today.
We support the Better America Bonds program and encourage you to
support this program to help local communities protect special places
like the Katy Prairie.
__________
Statement of John Griffiths, Chairman, Metro Parks and Greenspaces
Advisory Committee, Beaverton, OR
Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee: I appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the problems and solutions to the
environmental impacts of growth in the greater Portland, Oregon area,
an area that encompasses 1.3 million residents across three counties
and 24 different cities. In addition to our current population,
projections show our area adding 720,000 new residents by the year
2040. My home county (Washington County) has, at times, been listed as
the fastest growing county in the United States because of its high
tech boom.
Portland's metropolitan area is unique within our country in that
the citizenry has seen fit to create a single agency to provide for
region-wide growth planning, transportation planning, and open-space
preservation. Known as Metro, this agency occupies a niche above the
county level but below that of the state. While Metro has done a good
job on the planning side, its small tax base has limited its ability to
provide open space preservation to the extent of its charter. An
exception is a $ 135,000,000 bond measure passed in 1995 to fund
Metro's open space acquisition in 14 ``regionally significant'' target
areas. At present 4,000 acres have passed into public ownership. By the
time the funds are exhausted it is expected to that a total of 6,000
acres will have been purchased.
While admirable, the above acquisitions just scratch the surface.
The exhaustion of the bond funds will leave large gaps within the
regional target areas that can easily be developed by private parties
without reference to the surrounding public ownership. Also, the recent
Endangered Species listing of salmon runs in our region will require
the acquisition and restoration of thousands of additional acres of
streamside and spawning grounds. Finally, there is a plethora of
smaller requirements within the region for which funds are not
available at all. At present I am party to a grassroots movement
dedicated to stopping a high-density residential development that is
surrounded on three sides by the only nature park in our county. This
development will lead to the severe degradation of the park, an asset
treasured by the community. The park would not now be under this threat
if funding had been available to acquire the parcels in question.
The only item we lack to meet our obligations is funding. Otherwise
the will, the drive, and the intent are there. Local bonds cannot do
the job alone. New requirements that successful Oregon bond measures be
accompanied by at least a 50 percent voter turnout have added to the
risk of acquiring funds in this manner. The Better America Bonds
program would allow Metro and Portland's municipalities significantly
increased resources for and a relatively risk-free method of meeting
their greenspace preservation obligations.
I support the Better America Bonds program and encourage you to
support this program to help local communities protect their special
places. . . before they're gone forever.
__________
Statement of Eric Draper, Senior Vice President for Conservation
Campaigns, National Audubon Society
Lessons from Florida: Growth Management Relies on $4 Billion Investment
in Public Land
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on
Community Growth and the Environment. Audubon is a family of nearly one
million members and supporters, 515 chapters and more than 100
sanctuaries and nature centers dedicated to education and advocacy on
behalf of birds, wildlife and habitat.
My testimony follows the March 3 voter approval by 66 percent of a
$150 million environmental bond issue in Palm Beach County, Florida and
the November, 1998 statewide vote by 73 percent for permanent extension
of Florida's $300 million a year land preservation program. Having led
the campaigns on those two issues and other legislation and referenda
creating bond programs as a solution to local growth challenges, I feel
uniquely qualified to address the subject of your hearing.
Environmental bonds are so popular in Florida, the Governor and the
leaders of each house and each party have competing proposals--all of
them extending our state's investment in public land by billions of
dollars.
My comments will lead to five points. First, growth as represented
by residential and commercial development outside town centers is
taking a heavy toll on habitat. Second, lessons from places such as
Florida show that citizens support both growth and habitat protection
at the same time. Third, in-fill strategies such as brownfields
redevelopment take pressure off habitat. Fourth, water resource
restoration is a vital, but largely unaddressed issue in community
growth strategies. Finally, the smartest of smart growth ideas is to
finance open space programs with a new Federal environmental bonding
program.
habitat loss is a major impact of growth
As a community-based organization Audubon is on the front line of
the environmental impacts of urban and suburban growth. Our members
attend zoning meetings, challenge development permits, buy land and
restore habitat. The problems of sprawl are a very real challenge for
almost every Audubon chapter. The experience of seeing a favorite
birding spot cleared is common to most active Audubon members. From our
ranks come many of the local leaders whose common plea is to save some
for the birds and wildlife. Loss of habitat is occurring in virtually
every part of the nation. Birds migrate and need places to nest, stage
and winter. Forests, prairies, swamps and fields all provide home to
birds. Yet, more than 90 watchlist species are in critical decline
because of habitat loss. Our members are very concerned.
Growth of human communities usually comes at the expense of natural
communities. Residential and commercial development alters habitat.
While creating new space for people is necessary, we see benefit of
growth strategies that set aside some special places and open space.
Our recommendation is Congress enact a program to help communities
finance local land and water resource protection.
the public supports investments in growth management
I would like to share some observation and conclusions reached over
the past decade in Florida. Our state ranks near the top in population
growth and the conversion of farmland and habitat into residential and
commercial development. We've gone from about 3 million people in the
early fifties to over 15 million today and may hit 20 million in
another two decades. Every year we build 800 miles of roads, add 730
classrooms and build more jails. Yet, we find only more traffic
congestion, school crowding and packed prisons. Every day we lose 450
acres of forest and 410 acres of farmland. This in a state with a
landmark growth management law.
In 1985, the Florida Legislature attempted to bring growth,
environmental protection, education planning and infrastructure into a
single strategic statewide policy. Each of the 430 cities and counties
was required to have a land use map designating areas of
infrastructure, housing plans, conservation areas and groundwater
protection and other elements. Maps show urban service areas where
infrastructure is provided and growth is planned. Florida's rules
specifically discourage ``the proliferation of urban sprawl.''
Many local governments used their plans to designate conservation
and recreation lands or open space. To pay for land protection local
governments turned to voters to seek approval of property tax increases
to back land acquisition bonds. With a 90 percent approval rate, 20
counties and several cities have generated a nearly $ 1 billion in
local funds for land protection.
During same period the Legislature created a program called
Preservation 2000 which calls for $3 billion in environmental land
bonds. Since 1990, Florida has issued bonds worth $300 million a year,
spending in several years more than the Federal Government spent
nationwide on land acquisition. Approximately one million acres of land
have been purchased under auspices of Preservation 2000, much it
designated by local government plans.
The relationship between land protection bonds and growth
management has been profound. In the fragile Florida Keys, growth has
been limited to 200 units a year in spite of 25,000 vested lots. The
local government uses state funds to buy development rights. The Green
Swamp's 200,000 acres, source of Tampa's drinking water and four
rivers, are off limits to developers but landowners can sell
conservation easements to the state.
The lessons from Florida show that land protection plans in many
cases follow but don't precede development pressure. Governments tend
to wait to buy the last of available open space instead of investing
wisely before the market is overheated. Where bonds have allowed
government to get in front of the development curve, we now have
forests and parks worth many times their purchase price. Where
protection efforts fell behind, we are paying inflated prices for
remaining fragments of habitat and open space.
The most important lesson from Florida's $4 billion investment in
local and state land protection bonds is that it has allowed
preservation to move along the same path as economic growth which
creates the flow of government revenue to pay off the bonds. Florida's
ever-expanding budget has easily absorbed all of the bond payments.
urban infill requires investments in remediation and restoration
Two other Florida examples support the concept of environmental
bonds. The Governor's Commission on a Sustainable South Florida has
recommended in-fill strategies for Southeast counties. Residential
development now borders the levies that hold water inside the
Everglades. Holding the development line at the levies requires
redevelopment of land near the coast, including former industrial and
hazardous waste sites. Throughout Florida, redirecting growth into
revitalized urban cores and previously developed coastal areas will
take pressure off habitat.
Florida also faces a large challenge with restoring our aquatic
systems, many of which were damaged through ill-conceived drainage
schemes. Water resource protection and restoration can yield economic
and environmental benefits for decades but require costly public works
projects. Revitalization projects offer excellent opportunities to
correct previous mistakes in handling storm water and drainage.
Wetlands and urban watersheds can be recreated to make water resources
a value-added component of urban neighborhoods. Requiring developers to
shoulder the costs of watershed improvement and brownfield remediation
creates a barrier to redevelopment. Bonds supported by tax credits
provide an excellent tool for urban infill, brownfields and extensive
water resource protection.
environmental bonds--smart tools for livable communities
Florida, and other state and local governments could benefit from
environmental bonds leveraged by tax Federal tax credits. federally
supported bonds would help state and local governments finance the
costs of open space and water resource protection and brownfields
remediation. Comparable to other programs such as the successful Low
Income Housing Trust Credit and Qualified Zone Academy Bonds,
communities could issue environmental bonds by pledging Federal tax
credits in lieu of interest payments.
State and local governments facing rapid expansion of population
and urban boundaries need to freeze the costs of land protection while
increased revenue from growth creates the means to pay. Environmental
bonds backed by Federal tax credits will allow land values to be locked
in at present prices while minimizing carrying costs. Tax credits are
an excellent method of leveraging outcomes. The availability of tax
credits will create a market for both institutional and private
investors looking for secure, income-producing opportunities.
There is a pent-up demand for new tools and techniques to help
communities deal with the pressures and problems of growth and with the
challenges of land and water restoration. The most immediate and
obvious solution is to authorize a program of bonds backed by tax
credits limited to financing open space and land and water remediation.
As with the Florida experience, growth and protection can proceed on
parallel paths. Thank you.
__________
[From The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, March 18, 1999]
The President's Sprawl Initiative: A Program in Search of a Problem
(By Wendell Cox)
For decades, American urban areas have grown in land area much more
than they have grown in population. This geographic expansion is often
attributed to increasing dependence on the automobile and construction
of the interstate highway (freeway) system. A relatively new school of
urban planners, the ``new urbanists,'' blame the expanding urban area
for a number of problems, including increased traffic congestion,
higher air pollution, the decline of central cities, and a reduction in
valuable agricultural land. (New urbanist policies also go by the label
``smart growth''). Moreover, new urbanists believe that more spacious
urban areas typical of the United States are inherently inefficient
relative to more compact cities, exhibiting higher costs for
infrastructure and public services.
Recently, the issue of ``urban sprawl'' received top billing at a
White House event at which President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al
Gore announced their Livable Communities Initiative, which, it was
promised, would reduce traffic congestion, promote cleaner air,
preserve open spaces, and retard urban sprawl. To achieve these
objectives, Clinton and Gore propose to provide the suburbs with
additional funds for mass transit and loans to buy land for parks and
greenbelts. Their initiative also would assign to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development the responsibility for encouraging and
financing ``smart growth'' strategies to encourage ``compact
development'' and regional cooperation.
The New Urbanism
New urbanist literature often touts Europe's more compact and more
densely populated urban areas as being superior to those in the United
States. The new urbanist vision includes:
Establishment of urban growth boundaries (UGB).
Channeling urban development toward ``in fill''
(undeveloped areas within the urban growth boundary).
``Transit oriented development'' along urban rail
corridors, higher population density, and higher employment density.
Little if any expansion of street or highway capacity.
Retail developments less oriented toward the automobile
(smaller stores with less parking located generally in town centers
rather than suburbs).
The new urbanists believe that these strategies will produce a more
compact city in which automobile dependency, traffic congestion, and
air pollution are reduced. New urbanist concepts have been incorporated
into a number of state laws and regional planning policies. In the
United States, the most advanced model of new urbanist policies can be
found in Portland, Oregon, where a long-range plan has been adopted by
an elected regional government. \1\ This plan involves an urban growth
boundary; \2\ concentrated employment and high-density housing
patterns, such as town houses and apartments; significant expansion of
the light rail system; and little street or highway expansion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The regional government has ultimate control over land use and
zoning issues and requires that local municipal plans and ordinances
conform to the regional plan.
\2\ The urban growth boundary requirement was imposed by state law
in the 1970's. At that point, the urban growth boundary was established
well outside the limits of development. In recent years, development
has approached the urban growth boundary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New urbanist policies, especially as adopted in Portland, have
evoked considerable interest among legislators, local officials, and
civic leaders around the world. There are, however, difficulties with
new urbanism, both in terms of analysis and in terms of policies.
Analytical Difficulties
The facts demonstrate that major tenets of the new urbanism rest on
false premises. Contrary to new urbanist doctrine, for example:
Traffic congestion is greater, not less, in the compact
city
Higher concentrations of urban residential and employment density
will produce higher concentrations of automobile traffic (and air
pollution). This is already evident. Contrary to new urbanist claims,
traffic congestion is already worse in urban areas with higher
densities.
Urban areas with higher levels of traffic congestion, as
measured by the Federal Governments Roadway Congestion Index, have
higher population densities (see Chart 1). \3\ This is to be expected,
since higher density means less road space on which to accommodate the
high volume of private vehicle traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Calculated from 1996 Roadway Congestion Index as developed by
the Texas Transportation Institute of Texas A&M University for the
United States Department of Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit-oriented development increases traffic
congestion. Except in a very few centers, such as Midtown Manhattan and
Chicago's Loop, \4\ a majority of trips are by automobile. The
overwhelming majority of travel to proposed transit-oriented
developments--which include high-density housing, retail, and
employment located around transit stations, especially rail--will be by
automobile (new employment centers attract from six to 100 times as
many automobile commuters as transit commuters). The higher
concentrations of employment and residences therefore must bring an
increase in automobile trips in the area. This will strain road space,
slowing traffic and increasing pollution as a consequence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Private vehicles (automobiles and trucks) carry more than twice
as many work trips as transit to all but nine central business
districts in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air pollution is greater, not less, in the compact city
Higher levels of air pollution are associated with higher
densities, not lower densities. Generally, the greater the intensity of
air pollution, the higher the population density (see Chart 2). \5\ As
transit-oriented development increases traffic, it will reduce speeds
and increase pollution, because higher pollution is associated with
slower, more congested traffic. To the extent that new urbanist
policies are implemented, air pollution is likely to be increased
relative to levels that would be experienced in less dense
environments. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Randall O'Toole, ``Dense Thinking,'' Reason, January 1999,
based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data.
\6\ Because of the continuing improvement in air pollution that is
attributable to improved vehicle emission technology, aggregate levels
of air pollution could be reduced from present levels even with the
higher concentrations of automobile traffic that would result from new
urbanist policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cities are not crowding out agricultural production
Expanding urban areas do not threaten agricultural production Since
1950, U.S. agricultural acreage has fallen by 15 percent, while
production has risen by more than 105 percent (see Chart 3). The area
required for agricultural production has declined, quite independently
of urban expansion.
Between 1960 and 1990, the area taken out of agricultural
production was greater than that of Texas and more than eight times the
area consumed by expanding urban areas (see Chart 4). At current rates
of urban expansion, it would take more than 250 years to urbanize the
amount of agricultural land taken out of production between 1960 and
1990. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Typical of the invalid data on which new urbanist proposals are
based, President Clinton indicated that ``farmland and open spaces are
disappearing at a truly alarming rate. In fact, across the country, we
lose about 7,000 acres every single day.'' This might be alarming if it
were true. Such a rate would consume an area the size of Ohio every
decade. In fact, however, the President's figure is off by a factor of
nearly three. See ``Remarks by the President and Vice-President on
Announcement of Lands Legacy Initiative,''January 12, 1999; available
on the Internet at www.whitehouse.gov/WH/New/html/19990112-1036.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is more to urban land expansion than interstate
highways
Urban expansion is far too complex to be blamed simply on the
automobile and interstate highways. First of all, urban interstates
largely were not open until the early 1960's (the Interstate Highway
Act was enacted in 1956). Yet the suburbs already were gaining
population at the expense of the central cities.
During the 1950's, the major central cities that did not expand by
annexation lost approximately 5.0 percent of their population. Similar
rates of pre-interstate urban population loss occurred in the 1960's
(7.2 percent) and 1980's (5.7 percent). \8\ Only during the 1970's was
the rate significantly higher, at 14.6 percent. Other factors, such as
escalating crime rates, the urban riots of the 1960's, and declining
educational performance in central city school districts, probably were
much more responsible for flight from the central cities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ With lower population growth projected for the United States,
it is expected that the rate of urban land expansion will continue to
decline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, the 1970's, during which urban flight was the greatest,
followed closely on the urban unrest of the 1960's and was also a
period of particular deterioration with respect to the crime rate and
educational performance. Additional contributing factors included
higher central city taxes, lower quality central city services, and
increasing affluence, which allowed people the option of living in
larger houses on larger lots.
Lower public service costs are associated with lower, not
higher, densities
Despite the popular misconception, public service costs tend to be
lower where population densities are lower. \9\ There are a number of
reasons why the reality differs from the theory on urban costs. For
example, the larger, more dense local government units tend to have
larger bureaucracies, and their political processes are more
susceptible to special-interest control. Both of these factors tend to
increase costs. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For example, see Helen F Ladd, ``Population Growth, Density and
the Costs of Providing Public Services,'' Urban Studies, Vol. 2 (1992),
pp. 273-295, and Wendell Cox, Local and Regional Governance in the
Greater Toronto Area: A Review of the Alternatives, City of Toronto,
1997.
\10\ Cox, Local and Regional Governance in the Greater Toronto
Area: A Review of the Alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Smart growth'' could be no growth
Increasing density and growth restrictions are likely to have a
negative impact on economic growth in metropolitan areas adopting new
urbanist policies. For example, even Portland's new urbanist regional
government (Metro) found that higher densities and lower automobile
usage rates appear to be associated with ``higher housing prices and
reduced housing output.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Metro Measured (Portland, Ore.: Metro, 1994), p. 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of higher housing prices, new urbanist policies are
likely to make the American dream of home ownership more elusive. By
limiting housing output, they are likely to limit job creation in
construction trades and allied fields. Further, discouraging
construction of additional suburban shopping centers can be expected to
raise the cost of living while retarding job growth even more. Broad
implementation of new urbanist policies could well bring to the United
States the economic stagnation that afflicts Europe, where minimal job
creation and high unemployment are associated with a high cost and less
competitive economy.
Portland's policies will produce more traffic congestion
and air pollution, not less
Portland's new urbanist policies will not deliver lower levels of
traffic congestion and air pollution. Portland's regional government,
Metro, has stated that ``[W]ith respect to density and road per capita
mileage it (Los Angeles) displays an investment pattern we desire to
replicate.'' \12\ In fact, Portland is well on the way to replicating
the traffic congestion problems of Los Angeles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Ibid., p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic congestion in Portland already is approaching that of the
New York metropolitan area--which is 15 times larger--and Portland
projections indicate that, even after building five additional light
rail lines, \13\ traffic volumes will use by more than 50 percent by
2015. It is estimated that Portland's Roadway Congestion Index will
rise to 1.62 from its current 1.16 (see Chart 5). This would represent
a worse level of traffic congestion than is currently experienced by
Los Angeles (which has the highest Roadway Congestion Index in the
nation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ It is less than certain that these lines will be built. In
November 1998, voters in Portland turned down a bond issue to build the
next line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland seems to have chosen a future with two million cars in 500
square miles instead of 600 square miles. It can be expected that air
pollution will be greater as a result. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Vice President Gore has provided another example of the
invalid data used to promote the new urbanist agenda. In a September 2,
1998, speech to the Brookings Institution, he indicated that ``a new
light rail system has attracted 40 percent of all commuters'' in
Portland. In fact, Census Bureau data indicate that only 5.4 percent of
commuters used transit and that the vast majority of these commuters
were on buses, not light rail. During the 1980's, when light rail was
opened, transit's work trip market share dropped by one-third in
Portland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe is suburbanizing, too
European cities are suburbanizing, despite their higher population
densities, more comprehensive transit systems, higher gasoline prices,
lower income \15\ and more focused cities. \16\ Like their American
counterparts, many European central cities have lost population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
purchasing power panty basis.
\16\ Christian Gerondeau, Transport in Europe (Boston, Mass.:
Artech House, Inc., 19975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No freeways enter the central city of Pans, which has one
of the world's most intensive rail transit systems. Yet Pans's central
city population loss and suburban population explosion mirror those of
Philadelphia, a metropolitan area that has experienced similar overall
growth (see Chart 6). At the same time, both traffic congestion and air
pollution are severe. Average automobile travel speed in the city of
Paris is 12.5 miles per hour. \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inner London and Manhattan (inner New York) lost similar
percentages of population over a period of 40 years until 1990-1991 (25
percent and 24 percent, respectively).
The cities of Copenhagen, Liverpool, Manchester, and
Glasgow lost approximately 40 percent of their population in the past
40 years. By comparison, Detroit and Cleveland lost 45 percent, Newark
lost 39 percent, and Washington lost 32 percent. In each of these
European and American cities, all growth was suburban growth.
The central city of Stockholm has lost 16 percent of its
population since 1950, with all growth occurring in the suburbs.
The same pattern is occurring in other developed nations as well.
While San Francisco's population was rising by 1 percent
from 1970 to 1990, Toronto's fell by 8 percent and Montreal's fell by
20 percent.
Tokyo's population has fallen by more than two million
since 1960, with all population growth occurring in the suburbs.
Central area populations have fallen in virtually all cities in the
developed world. \18\ In most cases, the declines are masked by
population added through annexation or consolidation. In fact, central
area depopulation and suburban expansion have been occurring for some
time. Inner London began losing population between 1901 and 1911, while
Manhattan began losing population between 1910 and 1920. Central area
depopulation was first noted in Philadelphia between 1820 and 1830, as
people moved to the suburbs. \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In North America, only one city that has not annexed new
territory and was fully developed by 1950 has increased in population:
Vancouver??
\19\ Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of
the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 318.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The depopulation of central cities in Europe and other developed
nations is particularly notable because these cities generally did not
face important factors that contributed to the depopulation of U.S.
central cities, such as high crime rates, urban riots, forced busing,
falling education standards, freeways, and home mortgage tax
deductions. In addition, Europe's much stronger land use policies,
higher suburban land costs, and overall higher cost structure might
have been expected to forestall suburbanization.
Europe's comparatively high public transit market share has led to
the mistaken impression that transit is gaining at the expense of the
automobile. This is not the case. European automobile use has grown at
three times the U.S. rate since 1970, largely as a result of increasing
affluence.
In recent decades, transit market shares have dropped from even
higher levels in Europe as increased affluence has made the automobile
affordable for more people. In Europe (as in the United States), urban
rail's record in attracting people away from automobiles has been
insignificant: No such transfer has taken place. \20\ Europe's trend
toward higher automobile dependency and lower transit market shares is
following U.S. trends by a decade or two, just as its rising affluence
has followed U.S. trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Gerondeau, Transport in Europe, p. 87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urban growth boundaries will not reduce traffic congestion
or contain growth
By imposing urban growth boundaries, new urbanists hope to force
higher densities and infill development. No material increase in
density is likely to occur, except where the urban growth boundaries
encompass wide expanses of undeveloped land (as was the case in
Portland when its urban growth boundary was established).
Even Portland's draconian policies are projected to increase
densities to a level less than that of Los Angeles. Portland will
continue to have densities barely one-quarter those of Paris, which is
highly automobile dependent except in the inner city. While new
urbanist policies may produce small reductions in average automobile
miles traveled per capita, the increasing traffic congestion is likely
to generate a more than compensating increase in the average hours per
capita traveled by automobile. This will increase air pollution and
retard the quality of life by reducing leisure time.
Urban growth boundaries have a long history of failure with respect
to containing growth.
Queen Elizabeth I established an urban growth boundary in
London in 1580. \21\ Development continued outside the urban growth
boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Stephen Inwood, A History of London (London: MacMillan, 1998),
p. 192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
King Louis XIII established an urban growth boundary in
Paris in 1638. It failed to contain development, as did subsequent
urban growth boundaries established by Louis XIV and Louis XV. \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Johannes Willms, Paris: Capital of Europe (New York: Holmes &
Meyers, 1997), p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
London imposed an urban growth boundary by purchasing a
``Green Belt', surrounding the city in the 1930's. Since that time,
London's population density inside the Green Belt has fallen as 1.5
million people have left the city, Inner London's population dropped 43
percent, while that of outer London (the pre-1940 suburbs inside the
Green Belt) rose 12 percent. Population in the surrounding counties
increased 273 percent \23\ as development ``leapfrogged'' across the
urban growth boundary to exurban areas beyond the Green Belt (see Chart
7), The 1931 census indicated that 19 percent of the population was
outside what was to become the Green Belt, The 1991 census showed that
more than one-half of the population was in the outer counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ This compares to national population growth of 22 percent over
the period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fundamental Problem
Despite all the criticism, America's spacious urban areas provide
significant advantages. Their very geographical expansion has provided
a safes; valve that has kept travel times relatively stable. \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Peter Gordon and Harry W. Richardson, ``The Costs and Benefits
of Sprawl,'' The Brookings Review, Fall, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average peak hour commuting time fell approximately 6
percent from 1969 to 1995 (from 22.0 minutes to 20.7 minutes). \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Calculated from Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The automobile has improved travel times. According to
the United States Department of Transportation, one of the most
important reasons that average commuting time has not increased
materially over the past 25 years is that people have abandoned transit
services for automobiles, which are considerably faster. \26\ The
average transit commute trip takes approximately 80 percent longer than
the average automobile commuter trip (see Chart 8). \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Our Nation's Travel: 1995 NPTS Results Early Report, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, September
1997.
\27\ Calculated from Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey,
1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The flexibility of the automobile has improved the
efficiency of labor markets, making a much larger market of employers
and employees conveniently accessible to one another.
The competition provided by large suburban shopping malls
and retailers has lowered consumer prices.
The spacious urban area, with its increased retail competition and
more efficient labor markets, has helped to create a comparatively low-
cost economy in the United States. It is likely that these advantages
have contributed to America's unparalleled standard of living. \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ According to the latest OECD data, the United States had the
highest gross domestic product per capita of any major nation (on a
purchasing panty power basis, which measures cost of living). One small
nation was higher: Luxembourg, with 418,000 people (1996), would rank
94th if it were a U.S. metropolitan area, just ahead of Modesto,
California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not to suggest that traffic congestion is not a problem.
But today's urban motorist experiences much greater mobility and speed
than can be provided by any practical alternatives. The question is not
how governments are going to force people out of their cars, but
whether capacity will be provided for the traffic growth that will
occur regardless of which measures are adopted. Unless the automobile
is accommodated, traffic can and will get much worse. Few places in the
United States experience the intractable traffic congestion that is a
day-to-day occurrence in the largest centers of Europe, despite higher
densities, rail transit, and strong land use controls.
The fundamental problem with the new urbanism is that, despite
aggressive planning policies, it is incapable of either increasing
densities or materially improving the match between origins and
destinations sufficiently to make alternatives to the automobile
viable. Much stronger land use policies and much higher densities in
suburban Stockholm failed to produce the anticipated reliance on rail
transit, as automobile use continued to increase substantially. \29\ It
is ``neither certain nor self evident'' that new urbanist policies, if
they were to occur, would reduce traffic congestion. \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Sir Peter Hall, in Cities in Civilization (New York: Pantheon,
1998), pp. 842-887, describes the resistance of Stockholm area
residents to planning dictates which required that suburban development
be on rail lines and at higher housing densities. In recent years, most
new housing has been single-family detached, and automobile dependency
has increased.
\30\ Randall Crane, ``Travel by Design,'' Access: Research at the
University of California Transportation Center, Spring, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Suburbanism
The new urbanist city would be only marginally more dense than
today's spacious city, and travel patterns would be little different.
The overwhelming majority of travel would continue to be by automobile.
Even more than today, American urban areas would remain far below the
``critical mass'' that would generate significant ridership and too
dense to avoid intractable traffic congestion. As a result, consistent
with the plans of Portland, the higher density would worsen traffic
congestion. The simple fact is that more cars in a more compact area
mean more traffic and more air pollution, not less.
A more appropriate term than ``new urbanism'' might be ``new
suburbanism.'' At most, new urbanist policies will produce small
enclaves of somewhat higher density surrounded by a sea of low-density
suburbs. New urbanist policies could hasten the coming of a new
suburbanization, with a much less dense urban sprawl than already has
been experienced. More people are likely to choose to live outside the
urban growth boundary, in smaller communities which gradually will
become larger and more urban. More businesses are likely to locate
outside major urban areas. Residents inside urban growth boundaries
will make longer journeys to shop at the new, larger retail
establishments in exurban areas.
New urbanist policies are being proposed at the very time that
information technology (such as the Internet) threatens to make urban
centers less important. Already, major urban centers have few
advantages over medium and smaller sized urban areas. Generally, these
smaller areas have virtually everything that major centers have except
for international airports.
Conclusion
Previous generations of urban planners imposed their visions of a
better city through policies such as urban renewal and construction of
high-rise public housing. These planners believed in their theories
just as devoutly as do today's new urbanists. It is not impossible that
to analysts a quarter century from now, the new urbanism will seem
every bit as anti-city as any of the failed policies of the past.
OPEN SPACE AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Las Vegas, Nevada.
GROWTH AND LIVABILITY IN THE LAS VEGAS VALLEY
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m. in the Las
Vegas City Council Chambers, Las Vegas, Nevada, Hon. Harry Reid
[acting chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Senator Reid.
Also present: Senator Bryan and Representative Berkley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Reid. The Committee on Environment and Public Works
of the U.S. Senate is called to order. Ladies and gentlemen, we
welcome you to this hearing.
I spent the Fourth of July in Searchlight, and Monday
night, late, about 10 o'clock at night, I came over the hill,
Railroad Pass; usually I make those trips to Searchlight and
come back in the daytime. This was the first time in a long
time that I had come over that hill at night, and it was
stunning, what I saw. To think what it used to be, and what it
now is: as far as you could see to the left, as far as you
could see to the right, were lights, lights of the metropolitan
area of Las Vegas. It was impressive to look down on the little
town that I used to call ``small,'' Henderson, where I came to
go to high school out of Searchlight. It used to be a little
industrial community. It is now the second largest city in
Nevada. It recently passed Reno as the second largest city in
Nevada. That's part of the panoramic view that Landra and I saw
as we came over the hill. Gone was the Las Vegas that, as
recently as 1970, was the 200th largest city in the United
States population list. Now, of course, it is the most popular
resort destination in the United States, and perhaps in the
world--Las Vegas, a place that becomes home for a day or two,
or three or four, for hundreds of thousands of people from
around the world.
The growth in Clark County has been all over Clark County.
Little Mesquite has grown 400 percent in the last 7 years. We
have had to provide land for the city of Mesquite on two
separate occasions so that they would not wipe out their
greenbelt, to provide a place for them to grow, and now we are
legislatively looking to give them more land, because the
growth in Mesquite is insatiable, it seems.
People are coming to southern Nevada for lots of reasons.
One is their jobs. There is affordable housing. We have no
State income tax. There is very nice and warm weather, as we
have recognized the last few days. And, of course, there is
entertainment galore, and a healthy climate with more than 300
days per year of sunshine. It's a great place to live.
However, all this breathtaking growth has come at a price.
In recent years we have begun to see daily traffic jams, once
unheard of. I traveled from my office about 7 o'clock last
night to go up and visit my daughter in the Summerlin area.
There was a traffic jam; at 7 o'clock t night there was a
traffic jam.
Of course, we have developed air quality problems. We have
been working for more than a decade now on water quantity
problems, water quality programs. We have a vanishing green
space. In short, we are a metropolitan area.
So I think it is incumbent on all of us to do what we can
to maintain the high quality of life that we have come to
expect in southern Nevada. It is a part of our life that we
want to maintain. Of course, we have traffic problems; of
course, we have water quantity problems; of course, we have air
quality problems. But still, it is a great, great place to
live, and we have to make sure that we maintain that. We have
to make sure that we learn from the experiences of others in
other communities, how they developed problems that really got
so far out of hand that they couldn't handle them. We need to
be able to handle our problems.
The Federal Government owns 87 percent of the land in the
State of Nevada. Whether we like it or not, the Federal
Government is a player in what goes on in Nevada. But we have
to make sure that the Bureau of Land Management, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of
Transportation, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Army Corps of
Engineers--and on and on, with the different Federal agencies--
that they are partners with State and local government.
Frankly, I think that those of us who work in Washington would
recognize that that has not always been the case.
One of the reasons for this hearing is to do what we can to
make sure that that partnership is something that is now part
of the portfolio of all Federal agencies that work in Nevada,
that they are partners with State and local governments. The
future of southern Nevada rightfully belongs to southern
Nevadans, and we have to make sure that the Federal Government
understands that. Gone are the days, we hope, when the
different levels of government in southern Nevada could get
away with working independently. We have to make sure they work
with one another.
This committee, under whose auspices we are holding this
hearing, is the Committee on Environment and Public Works. I am
going to be very fortunate in the next Congress, when I will be
the lead Democrat on the committee. I will replace the ranking
member now, Max Baucus, who will become the chairman of the
all-important Finance Committee. That's why I am very happy
that Senator Baucus has seen fit to have one of his staff here
today. I am happy that he is here representing the Environment
and Public Works Committee, but all of you who are involved in
gaming recognize the importance of the Finance Committee, and
he will be the lead Democrat on the Finance Committee in the
next Congress.
[The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows:]
Senator Reid. I have a couple of housekeeping items that I
want to go over before we start this hearing this morning.
First of all, Dina Titus, who has been a local leader on
growth issues, is unable to be here this morning. She is out of
the city, but she sent a letter; this will be made a part of
the permanent record. I am very grateful for the work that
Senator Titus has done. She is certainly one of the pioneers in
recognizing the problems of growth in this area.
[The referenced letter from Senator Titus follows:]
Senator Reid. This is an official hearing of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee. Everything that is said
here today will be taken down and will be part of an official
record of the U.S. Senate. All written statements in support of
this hearing--or in opposition to what we talk about here--will
be made a part of the permanent record, and we are going to
make sure that this will be part of my web site. People will be
able to dial in and pick up on everything that takes place
here.
As I indicated, Chris Miller, working for Senator Baucus,
is here today. We appreciate that very much.
Senator Chafee, the full committee chairman, was unable to
be here, but Senator Chafee has participated in hearings like
this previously in Nevada. We had a hearing where he chaired
that hearing. As some of you may recall, we really amazed him
and caused wonder in his mind about the growth problems in
southern Nevada. I believe that hearing was one of the main
reasons we were able to do so well in the last surface
transportation bill, because of his holding the hearing in
southern Nevada a year and a half or so ago.
You will see up here some lights. We're going to try to
make sure that everyone testifies no more than 5 minutes. You
will be able to tell because a red light will come on when
you've used up your time.
We're going to begin the hearing today with my colleagues
from Washington, Senator Bryan and Congresswoman Berkley.
Congressman Gibbons was unable to be here today.
As you know, Senator Bryan and I have had a longstanding
relationship and friendship. I personally am going to miss him
very much 18 months from now. He has been a great leader in
these issues relating to growth. The fact is that he lived in
Las Vegas and saw firsthand what Las Vegas used to be like. I
used to come over once in a while for groceries from
Searchlight with my parents, but he has seen this phenomenal
growth take place.
Congresswoman Berkley, of course, also as a young girl
recognized what took place and what is now taking place as she
has hit the ground running in Washington as a Member of
Congress in my old Congressional District.
Senator Bryan is a member of the U.S. Senate.
Welcome. I hope you can spend some time up here,
participating in the questions and whatever else is necessary.
You are invited to come up if you like.
Senator Bryan?
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD H. BRYAN, A UNITED STATES SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Bryan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Let me just preface my comments by commending you not only
for convening this hearing, but for the leadership you have
provided on the committee on which, as you point out, you will
soon be the ranking member. I don't think people understand how
important that is to us in southern Nevada, but that gives you,
as you know, Mr. Chairman, the premiere role in every piece of
legislation that is processed by the committee, and that is
extremely important for us in southern Nevada. We are fortunate
to have you in that position.
Let me just ask unanimous consent that my full statement be
made a part of the record so that we can compress the time and
allow some of our other witnesses, perhaps, to engage in
greater dialog with us.
As you were parting the veil of nostalgia and we were
looking back on our own youth, you are so right, southern
Nevada today is profoundly different. The mantra of our school
years was that Nevada was the least populated State, that there
was one person for every square mile, that everybody could be
seated in the Los Angeles Coliseum for a sporting event, every
person in Nevada.
Well, that is not the reality of today. I remember the
first time that I heard the word ``smog'' sometime in the early
1950's, and I thought, well, what is this? I didn't understand
it. I think people in Nevada did not comprehend what we were
talking about.
Well, that was then, and today is now. And managing this
unprecedented growth in a manner that sustains development and
provides and promotes a healthy environment is perhaps the
greatest challenge that we face in southern Nevada. The growth
has been extraordinary, as we all know, unprecedented. No other
part of the country has experienced this level of growth, and
it becomes a real challenge--traffic congestion, school
overcrowding, infrastructure delivery, air quality, land use
planning are a handful of issues that currently confront
community leaders.
I think, Mr. Chairman, you are extremely wise to convene
this hearing in a city hall because primarily those issues
affecting our growth are decisions which local community
leaders, our local elected officials, will make. But I think
you are also quite correct in indicating that because of the
extraordinary presence of Federal agencies--the 87 percent that
you made reference to--there is a role for the Federal
Government to play in a partnership relationship. You and I
have begun that role with the passage of legislation which we
sponsored last year, the Southern Nevada Public Lands Act,
which provides a unique framework, the primary purpose of which
was to strengthen the role of local government planning with
respect to any disposal of BLM lands the metropolitan area.
That has not historically been a dialog that has matured as we
had hoped, and with this legislation, none of those parcels can
be disposed of without the concurrence of the affected local
political subdivision, and all of the proceeds from the sale of
those parcels remain here in Nevada; 5 percent, as you know,
toward our State School Fund; 10 percent to the Southern Nevada
Water Authority, and the remaining eighty-five percent either
for the acquisition of additional environmentally sensitive
lands for recreational purposes, or to enhance and improve
those existing Federal recreational facilities which clearly
have an impact on a quality of life issue which I think is so
important for southern Nevada.
So I am delighted to be here with you, and I would like to
share a part of the program, but I'm not going to be able to
stay for the full time, Mr. Chairman.
Again I commend you on your leadership. I think this is
terribly important for all of us in southern Nevada, and I look
forward to working with you and our colleagues who speak next
on this important growth-related issue that affects our State
and our community.
Senator Reid. Congresswoman Berkley?
STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY BERKLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Ms. Berkley. Thank you, Senator Reid, for giving me the
opportunity to speak this morning. I want to commend you for
helping our southern Nevada communities focus on the issue of
livability. It is great to see our new Mayor, the Chairman of
the Clark County Commission, a number of concerned citizens and
representatives from local government here today, as well.
I believe we must build a partnership that will help us
solve the problems associated with growth, and maintain our
reputation as one of the best metropolitan areas in which to
live and raise families.
We are uniquely challenged by growth in this community. It
is no secret that we have the fastest-growing population and
one of the fastest-growing economies in the Nation. Whether you
live in the city of Las Vegas, Henderson, Clark County, or
North Las Vegas, you know that the landscape is changing day-
to-day with construction and roadbuilding.
The question all of us here today are confronted with is,
how do we keep from being consumed by our own growth? Growth is
a great indicator of prosperity and opportunity, and we have a
lot of both here in the valley. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a 7
percent annual growth rate. When I tell my colleagues in
Congress about our growth rate and dynamic economy, they just
shake their heads. They feel challenged by population increases
of 1 or 2 percent. It really catches their attention when I
tell officials in Washington how we have over 70,000 new
residents a year coming into the valley, and that there is no
end in sight.
I have no greater mission than to be sure that the key
policymakers in the Federal Government understand the critical
growth-related needs of southern Nevada. Both of our Senators,
both of you, both Senator Reid and Senator Bryan, have done an
outstanding job in this regard, and I am proud to be working
with the two of you on the House side.
We have seen dozens of communities around the Nation fail
under the pressures of growth. We need look no further than to
southern California, and I don't want to pick on our neighbors
to the west, but they lost their battle to growth. Think of Los
Angeles and you think of sprawl, pollution, congestion, and
crime, and we don't want to become another L.A., not another
statistic.
I believe our local government officials in southern Nevada
have done a good job in keeping ahead of the growth curve. Our
quality of life remains high and opportunity abounds; yet, we
will have to redouble our efforts if we are going to keep ahead
of the curve.
Clearly, important steps are being taken in the right
direction. Just yesterday, Clark County leaders announced a
long-range plan to provide parks and recreational facilities to
meet the demands of a growing population over the next two
decades. Southern Nevada's population is going to expand
inevitably from the current 1.25 million or so, to 2 million-
plus. Fortunately, there is a growing movement in this country
and in this community to avoid the mistakes other cities have
made in the past. Citizens, corporations, and all levels of
government are pulling together to improve the livability of
our communities.
Livability covers a number of topics. It means preserving
green space and recreational facilities. It means building
modern schools. It means providing better transportation and
protecting our air and our water. It means making our streets
safer and promoting economic opportunity across our
communities.
I strongly support proposals currently being discussed in
Congress to provide resources for local community planning,
transportation, school construction, green space, and helping
our police. Citizens and their local elected officials have the
responsibility to make the decisions about what each community
needs and how to spend their resources, while those of us in
Congress have the responsibility to make it a priority to
provide the needed assistance.
I want to thank you again, Senator Reid, for inviting me
here today. I feel this forum is extremely helpful in setting a
course for a livable Las Vegas well into the next century so
that my children and my children's children will be able to
grow up in a truly livable community.
Thank you very much.
Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Shelley.
Richard, you are welcome to come up here.
Shelley, thank you very much for your participation.
Most of this morning's witnesses are well known to southern
Nevadans because they live here, they have jobs that require
them to spend much of their time in the valley. So I am not
going to spend a lot of time in introductions, but I would ask
that Administrator Fernandez, Mayor Goodman, Commissioner
Woodbury, and Mr. Bunker approach the podium here, to my right.
We have a guest from Washington today, and that's Nuria
Fernandez. She is the Deputy Transit Administrator for the
United States Department of Transportation. She is second in
command in the Federal transit funding and advocacy agency,
overseeing an annual budget of almost $5 billion. Much of this
money provides desperately needed funding for transit systems
such as the CAT system we have here in Clark County. She came
to the Department of Transportation from the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. There are a lot of bad
things said about Washington--Mayor Barry and all that kind of
stuff--but the fact of the matter is that the transit authority
in Washington is one of the premiere transit authorities, if
not the premiere transit authority, in the entire country, if
not the world. People who come to Washington and ride on our
``subway system,'' as we call it, find it the best.
So we are very happy to have you here today. The Federal
Transit Administration captures the essence of the interrelated
problems of congestion, air quality, and ensuring that American
workers have physical access to the job market. A booming
economy is meaningless if workers have no way to get to work.
So we are happy that Ms. Fernandez is here.
Mayor Goodman, we are very happy to see you. Let me say,
Mayor, that I have been very impressed with your statements
since you were elected. Your enthusiasm for the city has caught
the attention of the country, as captured by People Magazine in
a full-page spread. In you very short tenure as Mayor you have
already brought great recognition to the State of Nevada and
the city of Las Vegas.
Let me just say that your predecessor really did some
things that I think set the framework for other good things to
be done. Travelling to work today, I looked up at the big
Federal Building that is being constructed. You know, without
her help, that would never have come to be. We fought for that
land down there, and she didn't have the support of the council
all that time, but as Mayor she took the leadership and fought
for that land, and now we have that courthouse going up there.
Of course, the great county complex is a direct result of her
getting the railroad to give up that land. So we look forward
to the work that you're going to do.
Let me just say to people here, Oscar Goodman is a great
trial lawyer, as we all know. I think a lot of people don't
know about his greatest asset, which I think is his sense of
humor.
Oscar, I can remember a lot of things that you have said
that made me laugh, but one thing that I will never forget is
this. We were at the back of the very crowded Justice Court
when it was held in the old Las Vegas County Courthouse. It was
really crowded, a summer day, the air conditioning was lousy,
and we were both standing up, waiting for our cases to be
called. He looked at me and he said, ``Harry, are you still
working out?'' I said, ``Yes.'' He said, ``It sure doesn't look
like it.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Reid. Anyway, I remember that, Oscar.
The third member of our panel is Chairman Bruce Woodbury of
the Clark County Commission. Chairman Woodbury has been a great
advocate, in my eyes, if for nothing else--and there have been
many other things--for transportation. I held a transportation
summit here a number of years ago where we brought in people
from all over the world, literally, to testify, to talk about
problems of transportation. What we were trying to do is
forecast what the future would be if we did something about
transportation, and if we didn't do something about
transportation. Bruce Woodbury, representing the county, looked
at what needed to be done. Really, the county has done
miraculous things.
There have been massive construction projects without
Federal involvement that the county has done on their own. They
went to the State Legislature, got permission to change the
law; the law was changed. The great entrance into the airport,
that was done with the county's money. The Beltway is basically
being done by the county.
So you have really done tremendous things. Even though
there are traffic problems, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, think what they would be without the vision of Bruce
Woodbury, who has really been the leading advocate of doing
something about traffic in Clark County. So I very much
appreciate your work there.
Richard Bunker really needs no introduction. He has been a
fixture in southern Nevada for many years, not only with the
Resort Association, but now with the Colorado River Commission
and countless other important functions.
I guess I would say about Richard Bunker, the main reason
that I personally requested that he testify today is that there
have been many, many things happen in Nevada, and especially in
southern Nevada, over the last 20 years. There isn't a major
thing that has taken place--and I've talked about some of them
here, with the loop around the city, the entrance to the
airport, the great progress that we've made with water--it
doesn't matter what we talk about, Richard Bunker has been
involved in it, very quietly, behind the scenes. You never see
Richard Bunker out giving speeches. He's been the County
Manager, the City Manager of Las Vegas. Richard Bunker is truly
somebody who gets things done without a lot of accolades going
his way. He deserves a lot more credit than he's been given.
So, Richard, I appreciate your being here to share the
perspective and role of the resort industry on the issues that
we've talked about.
We are going to ask you first, Ms. Fernandez, to give your
statement, and then we're going to have Mayor Goodman and right
down the table there, please.
Ms. Fernandez?
STATEMENT OF NURIA I. FERNANDEZ, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Fernandez. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of
Congress. Thank you for inviting me to be here today to testify
on the Administration's Livability Initiative and the important
role that the Department of Transportation plays in this
agenda. With your consent, I would like to submit my statement
for the record.
Senator Reid. That will be the order.
Ms. Fernandez. Thank you.
We at the Department of Transportation recognize that
transportation can be an important factor in restoring a sense
of community, in bringing people together, and in enhancing the
human and natural environment. We have just begun to realize
what can be accomplished in our communities through thoughtful
consideration of a mix of transportation solutions and creative
approaches.
We cannot achieve any of these key national priorities--
linking Americans to jobs, health care, and education--without
efficient transportation systems. The challenges that we face
do not stop at our borders. We are looking at intermodal,
flexible, intergovernmental partnerships and a strong
commitment to safety, environmental protection, enhanced
planning, and strategic investment. In partnership with our
colleagues in the States and the communities and with the
private sector, we believe that we can respond to the challenge
of creating livable communities.
The Clinton-Gore Livability agenda will help communities
across America grow in ways that ensure high quality of life
and strong, sustainable economic growth. This initiative will
strengthen the Federal Government's role as a partner with the
growing number of State and local efforts to build livable
communities by ensuring coordination on new Livability
Initiatives, improving coordination of existing programs,
generating new ideas, and conducting appropriate outreach to
constituent groups. This is a cause that we at the U.S.
Department of Transportation have been addressing in one form
or another even before the inception of ISTEA--sprawl, and its
effect on our communities.
The reason why transportation has a role in curbing sprawl
and why the Federal Government is involved is very simple. As
we look at the problems created by sprawl and the need to
stabilize and revitalize our first-ring suburban city centers
while maintaining a vital urban core, we must realize that
sprawl creates a quality of life problem. The Department of
Transportation's Livability Initiative will help communities
use DOT-funded programs more effectively to include an active
and participatory planning process that results in
transportation facilities and services that are well-designed,
customer-friendly, and community-oriented, linking safety,
growth strategies, environmental quality, and economic
development.
Our role is to make it easier for communities to get the
tools they need to build the way they want to. Airports, mass
transportation, and highway construction provide millions of
jobs and billions of dollars in economic impact across the
Nation. All of these infrastructure improvements have been
accomplished within the context of environmental regulations
and land use policies that have changed how we do business.
We look at the Nation's transportation system as a multiple
of modes, complimenting each other and working together as a
whole for the benefit of all users. The Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century has made it possible for us to fund
programs that are compatible with the development goals and
objectives of metro areas, small communities, and rural
America.
But none of this would have been possible if it were not
for the leadership of the Chairman, Senator Reid, and his role
in the Environment and Public Works Committee, winning the
enactment of TEA-21.
TEA-21 gives State and local governments even greater
responsibility for planning all aspects of their transportation
systems, and more funding flexibility to pursue their goals.
The Federal Transit Administration, under its Livable
Communities Initiative, has demonstrated that locating family
friendly facilities at intermodal and transit terminals, such
as child and elderly care, police substations, health care
facilities, one-stop job centers, and commercial retail
development, can lead to transit-oriented development. Across
the Nation we can point to successful projects that resulted
from public participation, in cooperation with the private
sector and the Federal agencies. These partnerships not only
leveraged the Federal resources, but resulted in job creation
and access to jobs and services, providing continued growth and
vitality to communities.
In the Las Vegas area, the Department has been working with
the Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County to
complete all of the Federal requirements necessary to receive a
favorable ranking and rating for their transportation projects.
The streetscape improvement programs and the city and county
support of high-density transit-oriented development is a good
start toward making this project a reality.
The Las Vegas area has also taken advantage of the Federal
Highway Administration's Transportation Enhancement and Scenic
Byways Program to fund improvements in the region, ensuring
that the regional and State highways become more scenic byways.
Aviation-related matters in this region involve cooperative
efforts between the Federal Aviation Administration and
McCarran International Airport to put into effect noise
abatement measures around residential and school zones, while
continuing to meet the vital air transportation needs of this
thriving region.
The Department of Transportation is committed to creating
partnerships with communities by instituting a wide variety of
programs, starting with identifying and disseminating the most
useful information, evidence, tolls, and techniques available
for integrating transportation and land use planning; convening
a regional transportation task force to initiate a dialog on
the effects of urban sprawl and congestion on the region's
economy and its residents' quality of life; selecting ten
localities across the country to partner with as they expand
their existing livability efforts; develop stringent aircraft
noise standards to reduce noise in areas proximate to airports;
and establish a Center for Global Climate Change, because we
recognize that one-third of the greenhouse gasses are
introduced by transportation. This would help us develop
strategies to achieve gas emission reductions through
multimodal policies that are inclusive of technology, and
market-based land use strategies.
The transportation component of the Livability Initiative
combines what we can do now, under present programs, with what
we must do in the future to make sure that the places in which
we live will remain the places in which we want to live. By
working together, we can design transportation systems that
create safe communities, a stronger economy, and a better
quality of life and prosperity for all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I would
be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Reid. Thank you. Remain seated and we will have
some questions for you.
Mayor Goodman?
STATEMENT OF HON. OSCAR GOODMAN, MAYOR, CITY OF LAS VEGAS,
NEVADA
Mayor Goodman. Chairman Reid, Senator Bryan, welcome back
to the city of Las Vegas. We are truly honored to have you here
at City Hall today. With your consent, Senator Reid, I would
like to submit my statement for the record.
Las Vegas, as you know, is a world-class tourist
destination and one of the fastest-growing cities in the
Nation. We have had an average annual growth rate exceeding 6
percent for the past 10 years. The population of the city
itself has nearly doubled during the past decade. We have
reached a population of approximately 465,000 citizens within
the city limits alone.
As a rapidly growing city, Las Vegas has been characterized
as a ``sprawling'' city. However, using some measures of
sprawl, that may not be the case. For example, land consumption
is seen by many as an indicator of sprawl; however, in Las
Vegas, growth in land consumption mirrors growth in population.
In fact, between 1990 and 1998, the city has increased the
number of built acres by 50 percent, while at the same time
increasing the population by 75 percent.
In many cities, development of single family homes on half-
acre lots or larger contributes to sprawl. In Las Vegas,
average lot size has been steadily declining. Since 1990, the
average lot size for new single-family homes in Las Vegas is
approximately one-eighth of an acre.
Depending on how one defines sprawl, Las Vegas may or may
not be a sprawl city. But is it a smart growth city? That
depends, in part, on how the city's residents perceive their
quality of life. Based on a 1998 survey, 50 percent of our
citizens are concerned with the effects that growth is having
on their quality of life. More than two-thirds feel the pace of
development is a contributing factor. Sixty-two percent of our
citizens support implementing smart growth measures, while only
9 percent want to stop growth. People appear to appreciate the
benefits of growth, while looking for strategies to minimize
the negative impacts on their quality of life. Eighty percent
believe a regional planning agency would be most effective in
addressing growth issues.
According to our 1999 Quality of Life survey, the
attributes having a positive effect on quality of life are fire
protection, libraries, shopping opportunities, parks and
recreational areas, climate, and police force. In general
quality of life overall ratings, based on a survey of citizens,
65 percent rate our quality of life as good to excellent; 29
percent, fair; 5 percent, bad; and 1 percent, very bad.
Those attributes that give our citizens the greatest
concern are traffic congestion, water quality, crime rates, air
quality, and cost of health care.
Las Vegas may exhibit growth patterns that some experts
would consider to be inconsistent with smart growth. For
example, there is some evidence that our development pattern
creates pressure on at-risk neighborhoods. As a result of rapid
growth at the edge of town--some 71 percent over the last 4
years--the majority of public and private resources are being
drawn away from our older neighborhoods. Others would argue,
however, that these low-income transitional neighborhoods offer
housing opportunities for folks to get a leg up on the economic
ladder.
This is why the City's new comprehensive plan will focus on
downtown and urban core areas. At the direction of the City
Council, the plan will enhance the quality of our daily lives
while continuing to accommodate growth and change in new and
creative ways. This public planning process will refocus city
policy toward encouraging infill development and downtown
redevelopment. This is the logical thing to do.
Our new plan will focus not just on what goes where, but
how it all goes together and what it looks like. Urban planning
and urban design will become increasingly important as we
mature into a 21st century city.
Nothing is more important to me and my new administration
than revitalizing downtown. We must make our citizens proud of
downtown again. We will strive to build a new downtown that
includes entertainment, shops, cafes, and new residential
neighborhoods.
Now, the great opportunity exists to build an exciting new
sports arena and related facilities right downtown. Steve Wynn
has told us that he will bring a major league sports team to
town if we can deliver a new stadium on the Union Pacific site.
We will be very careful to make sure that the new development
enhances existing downtown development and is linked to mass
transit.
In the next decade or so, we will run out of buildable
greenfield lands within our city. This is a fact; we are
landlocked. We must now begin to incorporate new residential
opportunities within the older, urban core of our city. This
will encourage vitality and diversity. If the city of Las Vegas
wants to continue to grow, it must begin to look inward for new
development opportunities.
A truly successful downtown must include thousands of units
of new housing, and also integrate daily shopping needs, like a
supermarket, within easy walking distance. We must build new
downtown neighborhoods oriented toward making a truly urban
lifestyle.
You know, we have folks moving from all over the Nation and
the world to join us here in Las Vegas. We must strive to build
a world-class city that serves our diverse population and
provides for all their daily needs and big expectations.
Families move here for the climate, for good-paying jobs, for
affordable housing, and for the low cost of living. But what
else is missing that we need to strive for? Better schools,
more parks, a performing arts center, maybe even an art museum,
to name a few. At the same time, we must revitalize our older
in-town neighborhoods by finding ways to empower our citizens
to take control of their streets and neighborhoods. Some of our
strongest communities reside within our oldest neighborhoods
surrounding downtown Las Vegas. We must encourage young
families and professionals to return to our urban
neighborhoods. This will strengthen our inner city and lessen
our dependence upon building new infrastructure. This will help
free up our capital budgets for building parks, playgrounds,
community centers, and walkable streetscapes lined with trees.
Wouldn't it be great to be able to walk to a bookstore or
ice cream shop after dinner? Shouldn't our kids be able to walk
to school, or to the movies on Saturdays, without having to
cross six or eight lanes of traffic?
The city must encourage the public and private sectors to
work hand-in-hand to devise one seamless mass transit system
for the whole Las Vegas Valley. This is good for downtown Las
Vegas, and good for the Strip resorts and Clark County. And
thanks to you, Commissioner Woodbury, for your efforts. The
city will also begin to look at redevelopment opportunities
surrounding our future fixed guideway transit stations. We can
imagine new monorail stops surrounded by shops and cafes,
townhouses, lofts, and courtyard apartments.
Why can't we continue to upgrade our system of roads and
highways, and also begin to mingle our land uses so that some
folks can live and work in the same neighborhoods? Why can't we
become less dependent on our cars and offer other
transportation alternatives that are good for our environment?
Do we need to pave our way out of our transportation problems?
The city supports the design and construction of a high-
speed train linking downtown Las Vegas to Los Angeles. This is
good for our downtown businesses and good for our citizens. It
is important that Las Vegas optimize its role as a tourist
destination, advance its position as the hub of southwest
development, and serve as a model city for sustainable
development patterns.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the city of
Las Vegas is not the poster child for sprawl. We are clearly a
young, vibrant, 20th century frontier town built around the car
and technology. And--I must emphasize this point--we are
determined to take the actions necessary to mature into a
world-class city for the 21st century. Las Vegas is
unquestionably the most exciting city on the planet, and I am
very proud to be serving as its new Mayor.
Thank you very much.
Senator Reid. Commissioner Woodbury?
STATEMENT OF BRUCE WOODBURY, CHAIRMAN, SOUTHERN NEVADA PLANNING
COALITION
Mr. Woodbury. Thank you and good morning, Senator Reid,
Senator Bryan. Thank you for this opportunity to participate
and thank you for all that you do for our community.
My name, for the record, is Bruce Woodbury. I am currently
the chairman of the Clark County Board of Commissioners.
Additionally, I also currently serve as the chairman of the
Regional Transportation Commission and the new Regional
Planning Coalition. All of our cities and the county are
represented on these regional boards, and I am happy to know
that my friend, Mayor Goodman, is a member of each of these
boards, and I look forward to serving with him. I know that he
will be an outstanding public servant.
The focus of my remarks today will be on how we in the Las
Vegas Valley have come to understand that maintaining a
vibrant, livable community, a growing, sustainable economy, an
efficient transportation system and a healthy environment are
issues that are all closely tied to one another. Given this and
the fact that these issues affect all aspects of our community,
we understand that a regional problem-solving approach is
necessary to each of these issues.
We will hear today from a number of our colleagues in local
government about all that we are attempting to do, working with
our citizens, to meet the challenges of providing a high
quality of life in the fastest-growing community in America.
Others will talk about land use, community planning, water,
transportation, and so on. I've been asked to focus chiefly on
that which is fundamental to us all, the quality of the air
that we breathe.
It is well known that we have struggled in recent years
with two pollutants, carbon monoxide and inhalable
particulates, like PM10. We are confident, however, that our
local efforts will result in air quality that meets all of the
nationally established standards.
While recognizing that we need to do a good deal more in
this area, and that efforts are ongoing, we also need to
recognize that through a combination of our local efforts and
partnerships with our Federal and State counterparts we have
made substantial progress in important respects. Despite the
effects of explosive growth, I want to touch on just a couple
of representative examples in this regard.
In the recent past some of us have been involved with two
locally created consensus-based efforts to define for ourselves
the sources of our air quality problems and to find the best
methods of addressing them. We have established the Clean Air
Task Force, and then our Clean Air Task Force II, which came up
with a Clean Air Action Plan in two stages, with over 140
recommendations, most of which have been implemented or are in
the process of being implemented.
We have some charts that we are furnishing, and you can see
from chart 1 that the recommendations have included, as
examples, more stringent controls on automobiles and diesel
trucks; use of cleaner fuels; aggressive regulation of
construction sites; very strong regulations pertaining to
industrial sources; fireplace controls, as well as mass transit
improvements and locally funded regional transportation
facilities. Currently, we are looking at additional major
improvements in mass transit and a strong public-private
partnership to build a fixed guideway system.
Everyone knows that traffic jams and pollution go together.
The Regional Transportation Commission and NDOT have been
working together, with the help of you Senators and the
Congressional delegation and the Federal agencies, to fund
significant expansions of important roadways and highway
systems, including improvements to the Spaghetti Bowl and the
widening of I-95. And as indicated by you, Senator, Clark
County is funding a 53-mile beltway solely with local tax
dollars. These improvements in transportation infrastructure
will reduce carbon monoxide and improve our air quality.
I mention these programs because they show that in Clark
County, all of the local entities are willing to take strong
local action without the necessity of mandates, and therefore
need to be able to chart our own course in meeting the
environmental and transportation needs of this community.
As you can also see from chart 2, despite our significant
growth, we have made substantial progress in meeting the carbon
monoxide standard. We believe that with additional diligent
local efforts, and through our continued partnerships with our
Federal and State counterparts, we can meet both the carbon
monoxide standard as well as the PM10 standard. We think this
can be done through a combination of cleaner fuel requirements,
more motor vehicle emissions testing, regional dust control
programs, and improvements in our transportation and mass
transit infrastructure.
We do, however, need your help. We would hope that Congress
would understand the need to keep Federal funds flowing to
areas struggling to meet air quality standards. Additionally,
we believe that the Tier II tailpipe standards proposed by the
EPA are important in meeting our goals.
Certainly, we believe that local government is best suited
to make important decisions about air quality improvement
measures and priority transportation issues. Federal
intervention, as compared with cooperation, is almost always
unwarranted, time-consuming, and counterproductive. Many here
will recall that the Board of County Commissioners decided in
1998 to accelerate construction of the Beltway around Las
Vegas. W learned that the fastest way to move ahead with this
project was to ``de-Federalize'' it. While there were many who
were skeptical, we worked successfully with the Federal Highway
Administration to regain local autonomy over the project.
Working with our own Public Works Department, in partnership
with the cities, we have opened eight miles of southern
Beltway, and early next year we hope to complete the entire
southern segment and be well under way with the western and
northern segments of the Beltway, and we plan to complete the
initial facility by 2003, which is 10 years ahead of the FHWA
timetable. This should be of tremendous benefit, not only in
terms of our transportation, but our air quality issues.
Finally, we want to proactively work to prevent ozone and
fine particulates from becoming serious problems in the Las
Vegas Valley. We would like very much to see changes in the
Federal EPA regulations that would allow us to use cleaner
fuels before the area exceeds the standards in question.
Senators I appreciate this opportunity to provide local
perspective on this important issue. I also would be happy to
entertain any questions that you might have.
Senator Reid. Mr. Richard Bunker, President of the Nevada
Resort Association?
STATEMENT OF RICHARD BUNKER, PRESIDENT, NEVADA RESORT
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bunker. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bryan, I would like to
request that my comments be submitted for your record. I would
like to digress from those comments for just a moment to
express to you, Senator Reid, my appreciation and the
appreciation of this community for your efforts on the Colorado
River. Were it not for those efforts, I am afraid that today
our discussion would be entirely on the lack of water in the
Las Vegas Valley; but because of your efforts, we are happy to
be on the road to a water supply that will take us well into
the next century.
And Senator Bryan, I would like the members of our
community to know of the great effort that you have provided to
the gaming industry, starting with the employee meal issue,
dealing with the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of
the Treasury. Without those efforts, our industry would have
been significantly damaged. To you we express our great
appreciation. Thank you very much.
Senators if my thoughts today are heard because of who I
represent, I hope you understand that they are driven by my
love and affection for this community. I have lived in southern
Nevada for my entire life, growing up here as a boy. My
children and grandchildren call southern Nevada home. I know,
Senators Reid and Bryan, you share my experiences in growing up
in a small desert town, going to school, on to college, all the
time watching the town grow into a city and then a thriving
metropolis with now more than 1.1 million people.
For most of all that time Las Vegas was the most livable of
communities. We were an enviable blend of the best aspects of a
small town and the amenities more closely associated with big
city life. We had a sense of being a small town wherein
everyone knew each other and cared for each other. But we had
the luxury of living amid the excitement that can only be found
in the ``Entertainment Capital of the World.'' And the success
of our unique brand of resort community has led to incredible
economic prosperity. In the last 10 years the number of
tourists visiting Las Vegas has gone from a little more than 17
million people per year in 1988 to 30.6 million in 1998. Hotel
space has nearly doubled in a similar time period, going from
61,000 rooms in 1988 to more than 106,000 by the end of 1999.
Those millions of visitors, tourists, and conventioneers
have increased taxable resort revenues by nearly 100 percent,
going from $6 billion in 1990 to $11 billion last year.
Furthermore, investments of billions of dollars have gone into
new megaresorts such as the Mirage, which started it all, to
our most recent examples of Bellagio, Mandalay Bay, and the
soon-to-be-opened Paris.
As you can well imagine, very much like other communities
which have experienced exponential growth, the issues quickly
turn to those of livability, as infrastructures become
strained, social schisms begin to emerge, and environmental
consequences begin to be felt. The shadows cast by growth and
prosperity are always economic, social, and environmental. In
Las Vegas, at least, these consequences have been held to a
minimum, in large measure due to the resort industry.
The resorts are more than just the sum of concrete, steel,
casino tables and slot machines; they are the product of
creativity and, more importantly, commitment to this community.
The resorts are where hundreds of thousands of Nevadans work
each day. According to a recent report by the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas, the hospitality industry employs more than
300,000 Nevadans directly, an increase of nearly 50 percent in
the last decade. Not only do these jobs provide livable incomes
to hundreds of thousands of new Nevadans, they provide some of
the basic social needs in the form of health insurance and
pension benefits. The impact is staggering, with nearly one of
every three adults you meet employed directly by the tourism
industry and many more employed as a result of the economic
expansion and diversification made possible by this flourishing
industry. That prosperity has been an economic success story
which is the envy of the country. And the industry I represent
is justly proud of the role we play.
We do far more, however. Due to Nevada's tax structure the
gaming industry provides the backbone for all State and local
finances. As all of you know Nevada does not have a State
income tax, or other broad-based revenue generators. The taxes
levied on the gaming industry provide more than $22 billion in
Federal, State, and local taxes, and account for nearly 50
percent of Nevada's general fund budget. Moreover, our
customers contribute to the sales, gasoline and other user-
based taxes.
As strong as our industry is and as large as our
contribution is to State and local finances, there are public
needs still not being met. In education--kindergarten through
12th grade and higher education--and in the public health
arena, programs are still underfunded. Many infrastructure
needs still exist. As public officials all of you know that
there is never enough revenue to fund the many legitimate,
worthy public programs. But you also realize that equity must
exist in how the tax burden is distributed. Herein lies a
quintessential shortcoming in Nevada's system.
Whereas the economic base has diversified, that
diversification has not been visible in the distribution of the
tax burden. Governor Guinn has taken the lead and is in the
process of a top to bottom review of State spending to ensure
that public funds are being spent wisely, efficiently and
within the priorities he and the State Legislature have
determined. The Governor has indicated that he will also review
State finances--who pays the taxes and who doesn't. As I stated
earlier, an examination of our State revenue picture will
reveal that the gaming industry is more than meeting its
obligations to our community. I also believe that this
examination will reveal that other sectors of the economy are
virtually escaping responsibility.
We in the resort industry have met our obligations. Over
and above our tax contribution, we have directly invested in
meeting environmental challenges and social and cultural
demands that have confronted our hometown. We have always been
the first to step up to the plate--not the last to bat. We will
continue to provide good jobs with the necessary healthcare and
retirement benefits to our employees. As we watch the funding
debate, we in the resort industry will be particularly
interested in how any new burdens, if they must come, will be
apportioned. If fairness and concern for the health of our
economy drive this debate we would expect that new burdens
would not be added to those businesses which already pay the
lion's share of today's taxes before those enterprises escaping
the tax collector are asked to match our contribution.
As this committee examines the question of what makes a
livable community, I would suggest that the bedrock of any
community that calls itself livable is a sustainable, growing
economy which provides good, solid jobs. Without that
stability, we cannot ever hope to address our social and
environmental challenges. The time has come for those sectors
of our economy who so richly share in the prosperity and who
desire the same ``livable community'' to accept the
responsibilities that are rightfully theirs to share as well.
Thank you very much.
Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Bunker.
Mayor Goodman, I was impressed with your view as to the
need to revitalize downtown Las Vegas. For those of us who have
worked down there and seen the problems develop, you are
absolutely right in your description of how the town has kind
of changed.
Give us some of your preliminary thoughts as to what can be
done to revitalize. You have talked about the gray idea; I have
been an advocate of this for years, but I don't think we've had
the population base to do it before. But that's the sports
arena; you've talked about that.
What are some of the other ideas you've had at this early
stage of your administration to revitalize downtown?
Mayor Goodman. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the most
important thing that the downtown can provide is a center for
social discourse, something that has been missing in Las Vegas.
I have lived here for 35 years myself, and I have found that it
hasn't been a community where people have been able to get
together. I envision that downtown will become that type of
community where we will have coffee shops, art stores,
galleries, music stores, tree-lined streets, places where
people can get together and have discussions about things that
are important in life--philosophical, governmental, and
otherwise.
In order to do that, redevelopment is necessary. We are
going to have to have affordable housing downtown, and we are
going to have to entice businesses to come downtown and take a
risk with us that, in fact, that dream can become a reality. I
intend, with the help of the council and the help of staff, to
entice ``clean'' businesses, nonpolluting industry, Silicon
Valley type of businesses into downtown Las Vegas. We will be
able to have brainpower infused in our community, bright
people, folks who are interested in seeing the community grow
and who will help us with the tax burden that Mr. Bunker has
alluded to.
It is going to take a concerted effort on the part of the
citizenry who are responsible for enticing those businesses to
get those folks down here. And it is going to be a community
effort, Chairman Reid; it cannot be done by the city alone.
Smart people look for certain things when they are going to
move into a new community. Smart people want good schools. So
the school district is going to have to step up and get
involved in providing an educational system that will be
satisfactory to smart people coming here to Las Vegas. The
university is going to have to work together with these
businesses in order to give them the backup. I have been told
that cities like Atlanta have actually gone to MIT and to
Harvard and solicited professors to come down there in order to
get a chair established so that businesses such as Silicon
Valley businesses will move to Atlanta.
Las Vegas is the greatest town in the world. It is the best
city in the world. There is no reason why we shouldn't have
those businesses here. There is no reason they should be going
to Tucson and to Scottsdale, to Atlanta, and to Salt Lake City.
They should be coming here to Las Vegas. And it is part of my
vision, and my mission, and my goal to have them here.
Senator Reid. Two thoughts I would have. First of all,
taking from your prepared statement, you used the word ``urban
lifestyle.'' And that is something that is really unheard of in
southern Nevada. But there are places that have really done
well with an urban lifestyle. Across the river from the
District of Columbia is something that is called Crystal City.
It is an urban lifestyle; it is a congested area where people
live together in high-rises and other types of apartment
complexes and condominiums. That's urban lifestyle.
I was in Florida doing some work and visited one of my
friends who lives in a condominium. I was really impressed with
it. That is truly urban living. But that is a lifestyle that
some people in southern Nevada, if they had the opportunity,
would take advantage of.
The other thing I would like to say, Mayor, is I have been
very impressed with Dr. Moore of the community college. I was
out at the Charleston campus yesterday. But, I wish I had
thought of it yesterday, I would have asked him, and I think it
is something that you and the council should get involved in, I
think we need a community college campus in downtown Las Vegas.
I would hope that you and the council would really press Dr.
Moore that there are people who would love to be able to take
some courses in downtown Las Vegas. People live down there,
people work down there, they could go very conveniently after
work rather than drive up to the Cheyenne campus or up to the
Charleston campus. So I that think that would also be something
that would really add a great deal to downtown Las Vegas.
Senator Bryan, I used my 5 minutes. Your turn.
Senator Bryan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
delighted to welcome Oscar as the new Mayor. He and I had a
relationship some years ago when we were partners, and we are
going to be partners again, Oscar, at a little higher level,
and I look forward to that relationship.
Mayor Goodman. Thank you.
Senator Bryan. Bruce Woodbury and I grew up here, and it is
always nice to see Bruce.
And Richard Bunker probably is the only person here that
may be a bit longer in the tooth than I; by that I mean, he has
lived here longer than I have and is just a couple of years
older.
I have just a single question to ask, Mr. Chairman, because
I know you have got a full agenda. In the relationship between
the Federal Government and State and local Governments, there
has always been a dialog in terms of what is the appropriate
role for the Federal Government, State and local Governments.
That dialog has changed in recent years and Senator Reid I
think sounded an appropriate theme when he used the word
``partnership.'' In legal terms, we are not talking about a
master-servant relationship, we are talking about entities who
have responsibilities that are specifically within their
province or jurisdiction or authority.
My question to each of the local witnesses, Mayor, Richard
Bunker, and Chairman Woodbury, is that if you had a wish list
of those things that you would like us to do, those things that
you would like us not to do, tell us what you think we ought to
do or not do at the Federal level in terms of working on this
concept of providing a community that is livable and a
lifestyle that all of us want.
As you, Mayor Goodman, described your concept of this urban
center, I am sure the thought occurred to Chairman Woodbury and
Richard Bunker that that is the community we knew and grew up
with. That is the way it was. That was the urban center. And it
is a real challenge, and I admire you and your administration
in terms of your commitment. But just tell us, each of you,
what would you like us to do? What would you like us to refrain
from doing? If you have got a list, if you want to submit that
to us later, I am sure Senator Reid will open the record so
that we will give you an opportunity to do so.
Mayor Goodman. I guess I will start off since I am the baby
of the group here. Having been in office for about 10 days, I
think the magic word is money. I have to familiarize myself,
and our city manager, of course, is well aware of the moneys
that are available. I hope that we can squeeze every Federal
cent out of you and get it here into downtown Las Vegas, every
cent that is available. I am going to look at that very
carefully because it would be a shame if there were money there
that could help us with solving all the problems that we have
here. Where we could use that money for the redevelopment
process, I would hope that it will be made available to us.
Senator Bryan. Oscar, anything else on the wish list?
Money, that's legitimate. Anything else?
Mayor Goodman. At this point in time, I'm going to defer to
my colleagues.
Senator Bryan. OK. Bruce, I know you echo the Mayor's view
that money is helpful. I know it is fungible; it can be used by
both the city and the county, as I understand the way that
concept works. So I am sure you will want to add a note there.
Mr. Woodbury. Thank you, Senator. I think we could probably
sum up our wish list in terms of unlimited resources that you
would provide and unlimited autonomy and flexibility that you
would also give us. We know that is not necessarily in the
cards. But we do think, and I think we share with you the
feeling, that local communities need to have autonomy, they
need to have flexibility. No two communities are alike. There
is no other community in the world like the Las Vegas area,
like Clark County, Nevada. We need to be able to have local
solutions, working with our local citizens on issues that
confront us.
With regard to issues like air quality, I mentioned that we
now feel some constraint in that we would like to be able to at
least consider using certain types of cleaner fuels in our
community, yet we are being told by EPA that our air is not
dirty enough yet in some respects to be able to use that
cleaner fuel. Well, we would like, of course, to be able to
keep it from deteriorating to that effect and have the
flexibility that other communities have that have been
considered more serious in nonattainment to use some of those
solutions now rather of waiting until the problem gets worse.
With regard to issues like transportation, you have both
been great champions for our community in providing Federal
funds, both for our highway and our freeway system, but also
for mass transit. We have an authorization for a very
substantial amount of money for our fixed guideway system. We
would like to be able to have the flexibility of forming a
public-private partnership. As you know, the private sector
here in the community, members of the resort community that
Richard represents have stepped forward and are working with us
to provide a monorail system, and they are talking about
expanding it. We would like to be able to use the Federal funds
enablement and work with the private sector to consider some of
the private sector contributions as part of the local match and
make this not only a public-private partnership, but a Federal-
local partnership in a railway recognizing our local needs that
are somewhat unique.
Senator Bryan. That's very helpful. Thank you.
Richard, you have a private as well as a public sector.
Mr. Bunker. Senators, the biggest thing that comes to my
mind is that local government of ten, 20 years ago was very
reliant on the Federal Government for financing and for funding
of projects, and, because of that, there was a lot of Federal
control. Well, as you well know, in the last 5 to 10 years,
that is not the case anymore. The best example I can think of
is the $2 billion project that these communities in southern
Nevada have entertained to develop the water infrastructure.
Unfortunately, the bureaucracies have not recognized that they
are not still funding a lot of the things that are going on in
local government. And because of that, they become sometimes a
problem to deal with.
Now, I would suggest this to you. Nevada, historically, as
you have recognized, has always been small; we haven't had a
lot of people. We have had to depend on our congressional
delegation. And it is only here in the last few years that we
have had sufficient seniority that we have been able to do
those things. And as I reiterated at the beginning, your
opportunity to bring the bureaucracy to the bargaining table on
things such as employee meals and things of that nature have
been critical to us. Those things have been very important
because by ourselves many times we have not been able to do
that. Senator Reid, the same way on the Colorado River.
And with the proliferation of gaming around the country, we
know that we are now on everyone's radar screen. You know what
the exercise is; you come up with a pet project, the first
thing you have to do is isolate and determine where the money
is going to come from to take care of the project. And so, in
those areas, we think there is tremendous opportunity for this
type of comity to exist between local government, the
businesses, and the congressional delegation, because we feel,
at least I feel, that you are our access to the Federal
bureaucracy which many times we have difficulty in dealing
with.
Senator Bryan. Thank you very much. And Mr. Chairman, thank
you very much.
Senator Reid. We are going to miss tremendously Senator
Bryan's position on that Finance Committee. As you know, we
have no one in the House on the Ways and Means Committee. And
with, as you have said, every pet project that comes up in
Congress, they look for an offset and they are looking very
closely now at gaming. That is a real problem for us in the
future. For other than the personal reasons for Senator Bryan
leaving the Senate, that is certainly a governmental reason
that we should all be concerned.
A couple of things. First of all, I hope everyone saw the
newspapers today. Newspapers around the country are talking
about the fact the Federal Government is going to join with
local Governments in attempting to do something about diesel,
the busses and the trucks spewing out all the garbage that they
do. You will see in the newspapers today a graph that shows the
limited number of vehicles but the huge amount of pollution
that they inject into our environment. I would hope that
county, city, and State Government would join with EPA in
working to do away with that. It would make pressure on
automobiles much less because, certainly, diesel fuel vehicles
have not done their fair share.
Finally, Administrator Fernandez, I would like you to talk
to us a little bit about the Access to Jobs Program. And also,
if you would, be specific about what the administration's
Livability Program agenda is, in relatively short fashion if
you could, because I know the Livability Program is something
you have worked hard on.
Ms. Fernandez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be
glad to do so. The Access to Jobs Program was created following
the welfare-to-work Welfare Reform Act. The intent was to
identify funding that would be made available to different
communities, to what we call urban areas, non-urban areas,
which are under 200,000 population, and rural areas, to
institute programs that would provide transportation services
to individuals who were making a transition from the welfare
rolls to payrolls. The Access to Jobs Program, this past few
months we made our announcement of several grants that were
made available throughout the country for localities had
submitted applications, a total of $75 million available
throughout the country.
In the President's budget that was submitted to Congress
for fiscal year 2000, we had asked for an increase in that
program to $150 million. We are still hopeful that we will get
that amount because the demand for services, for access to
training opportunities, for access to child care facilities so
that the mothers can drop their kids off and get the training
that they need so they can be productive members of the
society. It is a very important program. We have developed a
number of training materials on the program that we have been
sharing with communities across the Nation to help them
structure through ``tool boxes'' programs that would help their
community specifically and also on a national basis help the
Government work with States on this transition from welfare-
to-work.
The Transportation for Livability Initiative is comprised
of a series of ``tool kits.'' What it is, in fact, is to help
us demonstrate that transportation contributes to improving the
quality of life in communities. With that as its intent, we
have developed a tool kit where we will be organizing a number
of Best Practices. These are success stories that we have seen
across the country. We have been able to determine that just a
small investment in mass transportation funds, just a small
investment in transportation enhancement funds can make a great
difference in the quality of life, in the way that the
community looks, in the way that the community has access to
town centers, has access to recreation, has access to jobs.
The tool kit will be a series, as I mentioned before, of
Best Practices. It would also include a web site and some
training programs that we are going to be packaging and making
available to all communities across the Nation so that they can
take advantage of the Federal funding, and not just limited to
the Department of Transportation, but identifying the resources
that are available in other Federal agencies; in Health and
Human Services Department, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Department of Labor. All of these departments together with the
Department of Transportation have a series of initiatives and
certainly have funding available through grants to make our
communities livable.
So it is our intent to compile all this information in a
series of catalogues, put it into a tool box and make it
available over the next few months. But immediately, what we do
have in TEA-21, what was afforded to us in TEA-21 is the
ability for areas that are over 200,000 in population to use 10
percent of their formula dollars for transportation
enhancement; that is, to put in bus shelters, to build
sidewalks, to restore historic sites, former rail steeples, and
other things that would add quality of life, not only
pedestrian pathways but bicycle pathways, overpasses, and
landscaping improvements. So there are funds today that can be
made available to improving the quality of life and creating
the town center concept that all of us are calling for.
Senator Reid. Is Virginia, is the city manager still here?
She is probably hiring or firing somebody right now.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reid. But I would hope that you would have an
opportunity to meet with the city manager and the Mayor, if he
has time, and, of course, anyone at the county level. I think
while you are here you should certainly be a resource if you
have time to spend with these individuals, because this is
really a community where these programs should be of tremendous
help.
I would like to thank everyone on this panel for their
excellent testimony.
We are going to take about a 5-minute break now. I would
ask that the next panel would work their way toward the podium.
Ms. Mary Kincaid, who is the Chair of the Southern Nevada Water
Authority, will be accompanied by Pat Mulroy, the General
Manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority; Mr. Robert
Lewis, President, Nevada region, Kaufman and Broad/Lewis Homes;
and Mr. Jacob Snow, the Executive Director of the Clark County
Regional Transportation Commission. If you will all come
forward, we will begin this panel in about 5 minutes.
This committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Senator Reid. The committee will come to order.
As most of you know, Mary Kincaid is a member of the Clark
County Commission, she is chair of the Southern Nevada Water
Authority. She has had a long history of public service in
southern Nevada, having served for many years on the City
Council of North Las Vegas, which is also a rapidly growing
community. As indicated, she is accompanied by Pat Mulroy, who
is Executive Director of the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
And as Richard Bunker said earlier, this hearing today is not
focused on water. That is tremendous that it is not focused on
water. And one of the reasons it isn't is because of Pat
Mulroy, who is one of the leading proponents of water in the
entire United States. She is a friend of George Miller, who is
the leading Democrat on the Interior Committee, the Natural
Resources Committee, as it is now called, in the House. She is
looked to to testify on various issues around the country
because of her expertise on water. Southern Nevada has been
very fortunate to have Pat Mulroy guiding the destiny of water
in southern Nevada.
Robert Lewis is president of the Nevada region of Kaufman
and Broad Home Corporation. He is a local developer and now has
gone national. Lewis Homes was a family owned business. They
have done so well and built so many homes throughout Nevada,
and we expect their good name to be continued even though they
now have gone national in joining the Kaufman and Broad
Company.
The final member of the panel is Jake Snow, the new
Executive Director of the Regional Transportation Commission,
the organization that not only runs the local bus system, but
is also the metro planning organization for all of Clark
County. Which means that his new job gives him control over
both highways and transit in southern Nevada. So we are very
fortunate that he is here today. He comes to the RTC after
having worked as assistant director of aviation for Clark
County where he and Randy Walker worked together to build
Terminal-D and help continue the great airport that we have and
working under the direction of the County Commission.
Commissioner Kincaid?
STATEMENT OF MARY KINCAID, CHAIRMAN, SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER
AUTHORITY
Ms. Kincaid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I am
Mary Kincaid and I am a member of the Board of County
Commissioners. I am here today representing the Southern Nevada
Water Authority, which I am chairman of. I have lived in the
Las Vegas Valley for over 50 years and have a great interest in
what is going on in this community.
I wanted to thank you for asking me to testify about how we
have managed our most precious public resource, water. And
excuse me if I brag just a little bit about the Southern Nevada
Water Authority because it is truly just a remarkable example
of how regional cooperation among local governments can produce
significant results. The member agencies of the Southern Nevada
Water Authority are the Big Bend Water District in Laughlin,
the cities of Boulder City, Henderson, North Las Vegas, and the
Clark County Sanitation District, and, of course, the Las Vegas
Valley Water District which serves Clark County and the City of
Las Vegas, and we have representatives from both of those
entities.
It was not all that long ago that the municipalities and
the County acted like they do everywhere else in the west, we
fought over water. Under the old paradigm, the State Colorado
River Commission divvied up Nevada's share of the Colorado
River to each city and water purveyor based upon projections of
need. As you can appreciate, each entity wanted the most water
it could get so our ``need'' estimates became somewhat
inflated.
Furthermore, because of the time tested water doctrines of
``first in time is first in right'' and ``use it or lose it,''
each water purveyor sought to beat the other to the well, so to
speak, with the biggest and best plan to quickly use up all of
our water. Because the town of Laughlin had the lowest water
right priority, they faced the absurd prospect that in the
event of a drought on the Colorado, the town's entire supply
could be lost while the residents of the Las Vegas Valley
continued to enjoy watering their lawns and washing their cars
twice a week.
Needless to say, under such a system the ethic of water
conservation was almost nonexistent. As we in southern Nevada
raced toward the precipice of exhausting our then available
supply, we finally woke up and came to our senses. The
fundamental principle which we came to realize is that for the
good of the community as a whole, each of us must surrender our
water weapons and end the water wars.
Beginning in May 1989, with the help of a water management
consulting firm called Water Resources Management Inc., the
leaders of each city and County water and waste water agency
began a process which led to the establishment of the SNWA on
July 25, 1991. During this 2 year process, there were some
difficult days of negotiation, mediation, and realization. What
emerged from the process over several months was a new
paradigm--share and share alike. And this was almost unheard of
in the water world.
The SNWA is a regional governmental body which has been
vested by all of its member agencies with the responsibility to
manage southern Nevada's water without regard to arbitrary
jurisdictional boundaries or the old rules which encouraged us
to squander and waste our most precious resources. We have
agreed to abandon water right priorities among purveyors. We
agreed upon a division among the purveyors of the State's
remaining allocation of Colorado River water. We have developed
a shared shortage agreement to protect Laughlin and other
entities. We have agreed to common water conservation standards
to be applied everywhere. We are pursing jointly additional
supplies of water which will be shared by all.
A second significant and important accomplishment was
enactment by the 1993 Nevada legislature of a new law which
reconstituted the Colorado River Commission with three members
from the SNWA. This important reform recognizes that with
respect to our involvement outside with other Colorado River
States we are all Nevadans; our objectives should be unified
into a single strategy for the benefit of southern Nevada.
Two years later, the 1995 legislature provided yet another
layer of cooperation by transferring responsibility for the
southern Nevada water system from the Colorado River Commission
to the SNWA whose member agencies deliver water directly to the
customers.
While these institutional reforms may not appear to be all
that significant, all it takes is a quick look at the water
wars which are occurring in California to understand the value
of uniting in cause and purpose. Our successes have been
significant. Every entity has enacted far-reaching water
conservation ordinances which have already achieved a 16
percent reduction in water use, with a goal of 25 percent by
the year 2005. We have consolidated our water resources, both
ground water and Colorado River water, to add in effect an
additional 300,000 acre feet of supply which will take us to
the year 2025.
We have embarked upon the largest water system expansion in
the country and have amazingly garnered the support of 74
percent of the electorate of Clark County for a quarter cent
increase in the sales tax to pay for it. Our new water system
will provide new delivery capacity sufficient for decades. It
will improve our water quality and offer greater reliability.
Again, I want to thank the committee for this chance to
explain how the SNWA has become a leader in the west in
managing our water resources. We have proved that with water
that the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. Thank
you very much.
Senator Reid. We will next hear the testimony of Patricia
Mulroy, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA MULROY, GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN NEVADA
WATER AUTHORITY
Ms. Mulroy. Mr. Chairman, Senator Reid, I am truly grateful
to be here this morning and to be able to discuss with you a
subject that comes up quite often--growth and water. And on a
personal note and for the record, I think it is important for
southern Nevadans to realize that in many ways our water
situation is due to your intervention at the Federal level and
the tremendous help that you have given this community in
solving its water problems, both in the past and you continue
to do so in the future.
There exists a commonly held myth in some of the rapidly
growing areas of the southwest that growth can and should be
controlled through the measured allocation of water. Indeed, we
have all seen the national news magazine stories and the major
newspaper articles which tell a story of how Las Vegas is
experiencing blockbuster growth without any regard for its most
finite resource, water. Well, I am here to tell you a little
different story. As explained to you by Commissioner Kincaid,
this community has accomplished water management reforms which
other States only talk about.
First, I would like to debunk the notion that you can
control growth with water. In 1973, the Department of Interior
had it right when it published the following statement:
``According to a study prepared for the National Water
Commission, water development and regional economic growth are
not necessarily connected. Ample water supplies for agriculture
and/or municipal-industrial use, the existence of water based
recreational resources, the availability of low cost
hydroelectric power, do not provide in and of themselves a
sufficient condition for economic growth. Furthermore, in some
situations they may not even be necessarily conditions for such
growth to occur. Accessibility to major markets, availability
of quality labor supply, transportation costs and alternatives,
and climate all play a role in establishing conditions
favorable to growth. The fact that an ample water supply may
not, under certain conditions, be necessary for growth is
indicated by the rapid rate of economic growth in certain so-
called `water short' areas of the west and southwest.''
In other words, people do not follow water; rather, water
tends to follow people. Our own experience at the Las Vegas
Valley Water District is an excellent example of this fact.
Many will recall that in 1991, after several years of explosive
growth in population and water deliveries to our customers, we
reached a point where our current contract for Colorado River
water was fully committed. On February 14, 1991, the Board of
the Water District reached the difficult decision that it could
no longer issue ``will serve'' water commitment letters to
developers and it imposed a temporary suspension of new
commitments for water until such time as additional water
resources could be obtained to meet new commitments.
As you can appreciate, this suspension was very
controversial and many in the community called upon us to
continue making new commitments based upon an expectation that
we would get additional resources. In this town, that is called
``betting on the come.'' This course is exactly what California
has done in recent years and, unfortunately, much to its
detriment. While we were determined that we could negotiate a
new contract for more Colorado River return flow water from the
Secretary of the Interior, both the timing and the amount was
very much at issue. Ultimately, after many months, a contract
for Nevada's final allocation of Colorado River water was
signed and the suspension was thankfully lifted.
That suspension of water commitments lasted from February
1991 until March 1992, just over 1 year. One might expect that
with such a significant time period where no new water was
available that growth would slow down. Well, that was not the
case. For the 9 years from 1989 to 1998, the total population
increased by 67 percent and, fortunately, our water use only
increased by 52 percent. During the 1 year period of suspension
and the year that followed, there was no appreciable drop in
population growth or water deliveries. It is important to
remember that without our excellent conservation results those
water use numbers would have been even higher.
So what happened? In a market economy, the law of supply
and demand will always rule. When the supply drops and the
demand remains constant or increases, the value of the
commodity increases and the need to find creative, cooperative
solutions with your neighbors becomes an imperative. Yes,
scarcity challenges the status quo. Shared supplies like the
Colorado River that in an era of abundance can be managed as
distinct and separate pieces must now be viewed from their
totality. Success, just as had been proven in the creation of a
global economy, rests in creating a larger interlocked
hydrocommons. As utopian as this may sound to some, the
creation of the Arizona Water Bank and the opportunity that
Nevada has to share in that storage capacity bear witness to
the fact that the impossible is achievable when the need to do
so is great enough.
Water cannot and should not be viewed by local, regional,
or Federal elected officials as a mechanism as control or
manage growth. It is a vital resource that is required to
sustain life, and therefore people will always find a way to
obtain it, even if it means the dissolution of tried and true
paradigms. Using water as a tool to accomplish a livable
community would be like trying to sculpt the David with a chain
saw or paint the Mona Lisa with spray paint.
I want to commend the local elected officials in this
community for their recognition of this reality. Growth
management is an important issue which must be addressed
through more precise, direct local tools, such as regional
planning, parks and trails, ordinances to preserve open space,
common-sense zoning and housing density limits, and agreements
with the private sector for master plan communities with set
aside land in advance for the important needs of the public.
That is smart growth. Thank you.
Senator Reid. We will now hear from Robert Lewis,
president, Nevada region, Kaufman and Broad.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. LEWIS, PRESIDENT, NEVADA REGION, KAUFMAN
AND BROAD HOME CORP.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Like many of the others speaking
before you today, I am here not only as one of those involved
in the growth of our community, but also as a resident enjoying
a quality living environment for myself and for my family.
Over the years we have experienced tremendous growth in our
valley, and with this growth has come strains on our
infrastructure and changes to our lifestyles. What is
remarkable to me is how well our community has been able to
accommodate this tremendous rate of growth. Through the effort
and cooperation of the public and private sectors, we have
maintained a thriving economy, improved the quality of life for
our residents, and turned what otherwise might have remained a
hostile desert into one of the most desirable living
communities in the country. We have had to tolerate some
growing pains along the way, because progress rarely comes
without some inconvenience. But overall, we have an awful lot
to be proud of.
Senator Bryan asked what the prior panel felt the role of
the Federal Government should be. I would like to offer some
comments in that regard. The activities of the Federal
Government in land-use decisions should be those that are
necessary to enforce the provisions of the Constitution, such
as those relating to property right, the rights of citizens to
freely locate, and to protect against unlawful discrimination.
Further, the Federal Government should continue striving to
achieve its national priority of providing decent, safe, and
affordable housing for our citizens. Beyond this, it would seem
that land-use decisions are best made at the local level. The
suggestion that the Federal Government should become involved
in ``smart growth,'' whatever that term means, is somewhat
frightening to me. Local governments are far better equipped to
deal with land-use decisions.
Over the years, the Federal Government has played a
dominant role in protecting our environment, and for the most
part the results have been satisfactory. However, it seems the
time has come to put some balance into the process. Some
agencies and some regulations have grown to the point of being
overly burdensome and out of balance with other needs. In some
cases, opponents of growth have abused the regulatory process
to further their own agendas. As current regulations are
enforced and new regulations proposed, I would like to see some
cost-benefit analysis performed to assure that the burden of
the regulation does not exceed the benefit hoped to be derived.
In particular, I am concerned that some of the regulations
relating to air quality, water quality, waste water treatment,
wetlands, accommodating the disabled, and protecting our
endangered species impose costs and time delays way beyond the
benefits provided. Compliance with overly burdensome
regulations strains our ability to provide infrastructure
necessary to accommodate those choosing to move to our
community, and it diverts our limited resources from more
beneficial uses. As relates to the housing industry, such
regulations drive up the cost of housing, thereby denying
housing opportunities to many families.
I am further concerned if unreasonable regulations
adversely affect our ability to attract new industry to
southern Nevada. Our economy is fragile because of its level of
dependence on one industry. We need to attract new industry to
diversify our economy and maintain its vitality. We should not
allow concerns about attainment of perhaps unreasonable Federal
standards to discourage industry from locating here.
Discussions of Federal regulations also brings up the issue
of unfunded mandates. If the Federal Government chooses to
impose costly requirements on us, then the Federal Government
should also be sure that adequate revenue sources are available
to comply with these requirements. To do otherwise would limit
the ability of our local governments to provide the other
infrastructure and services expected from them.
Since the Federal Government is such a major land owner in
Nevada, what it does with its land impacts all of us. I am
happy to see that the BLM will again be selling parcels of land
in developing areas. A significant impact on the cost of
providing infrastructure has resulted from the necessity to
leap frog over BLM parcels. Allowing some of the proceeds from
BLM sales to be returned to the local governments is a fair way
to reimburse for the costs of providing the infrastructure that
enhanced the values of the BLM parcels. I am also pleased that
BLM will be working with local governments on decisions
relating to the disposition of such parcels.
The auction of BLM parcels is a much better choice than
disposition of land through the exchange process. The history
of the exchanges seems to be that the government overpays for
the property being acquired and undervalues the property being
disposed of. This is not only a bad deal for the taxpayers, but
also unfair to those who must acquire land in the marketplace.
An area our industry would welcome help from the Federal
Government is in regard to tort reform. The housing industry
throughout the country has been attacked by trial lawyers
promoting litigation as a means of generating unconscionable
legal fees. The consequence has been that in many places
liability insurance is prohibitively costly or unavailable.
Many builders are unwilling to build attached for-sale housing
because of a fear of class action suits. The result is that a
sufficient quantity of affordable housing is not being built.
A final area of concern I have is the speed with which we
are able to respond to our growth needs. We are growing fast in
southern Nevada which means that we need to act fast to provide
the infrastructure we need to support this growth. We need new
roads, highways, water systems, sewer systems, and so forth
built now. To whatever extent the Federal Government can assist
in providing funding and in expediting the process will be
beneficial to all of us. Delays are costly both in terms of
money and in terms of the quality of life for our residents.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you, and I
will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Mr. Lewis.
We will now hear from Mr. Jacob Snow, Executive Director of
the Clark County Regional Transportation Commission.
STATEMENT OF JACOB SNOW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLARK COUNTY
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Mr. Snow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Bryan was here
earlier and he mentioned that he enjoys the dubious distinction
of being the longest in the tooth of this panel today that is
testifying. I think despite the fact that Commissioner Kincaid
and Ms. Mulroy look younger than I am, I bear the dubious
distinction of probably being the shortest in the tooth today.
And hopefully I won't find out that I have bitten off more than
I can chew.
This is the second day on the job for me in this new
position, so it is a great privilege and honor for me to be
here and provide some testimony before you today on livable
communities. I have lived in a number of places around the
country and around the globe and this is the place where I call
home.
What we are doing at the Regional Transportation
Commission. Since 1990 we have added more than half a million
people to our population in southern Nevada. And as a result of
that, back in 1990 when we wanted to go to work it averaged
about 16 minutes to get there, and in 1998 that average figure
has more than doubled; it has grown to thirty-four minutes to
get to work. Now what are we as the metropolitan planning
organization, the primary transit service provider doing about
that issue?
Well, rather than just tell you, we have a tape that we
would like to show you to show you what we have done in the
past. If we could start that tape now, please. I am going to
show you what we have done in the past and what we are doing
now.
This is the CAT bus system that started off in December
1992. During the first year of operation in 1993, we had
approximately 13 million people ride the CAT bus system. Since
then we've grown exponentially, about 35 percent per year. In
1998, we had more than 46 million people ride the CAT bus
system. Significant growth. Most of our growth is fueled by
local demand. Eighty percent of our ridership comes from the
residential areas and the neighborhoods. That is where much of
our demand is based.
Now the Las Vegas strip is a little bit different. It is
unique in transit in this country that we have a route that
runs along the strip. It runs 24-hours a day, 7 days a week. We
have about a million people per month on those strip routes. It
is a very important source of transportation for us.
Our CAT fleet, that you see on the screen right here, has
296 coaches that are fully ADA-compliant. All of our buses are
equipped with bicycle racks. We average more than 35,000 bikes
on our busses each month, and that exceeds the averages for the
ecotopia capitals of the Pacific Northwest, Seattle,
Washington, and Portland, Oregon. We are very proud of that
fact, promoting a new modality.
Now what you see on the screen, this isn't part of our
fixed fleet, these are the CAT paratransit service busses.
There is 120 of them, all in compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. We provide curb-to-curb service for the
growing mentally and physically disabled population in southern
Nevada. This CAT bus paratransit fleet runs exclusively on
compressed natural gas, a very clean burning fuel. It is the
largest alternatively fueled fleet in the State and that helps
Clark County meet some of the air quality goals that
Commissioner Bruce Woodbury was talking about, who is also the
chairman of the Regional Transportation Commission.
What you see on the screen now on the right is the bus we
want you to focus on. That is the CAT Car. It is not really
part of our fixed route system, CAT CAR stands for Citizens
Aided Transit Community Access Route, nor is it part of our
paratransit system; it is kind of a hybrid between the two. It
runs on a fixed route on a set schedule but it gets off those
major roadways to provide front door drop-off and pick- up
service to major medical facilities, like you see UMC here, as
well as major commercial facilities like the malls, and major
recreational facilities. We have one route that operates in the
Las Vegas area, we added one in Henderson last year, we are
adding one in Summerlin right now. We meet extensively with the
community to get impact from them and input from them on how
this service ought to be operated, where it ought to go, and
how it ought to function.
We also have some specialty bus services that we provide--
downtown circulator routes, express routes to get across town
along the strip, and some enterprise zone routes that are
focused on where the jobs are. And that meets a special niche
in our community.
What you are seeing on the screen now are the plans for the
expansion of the downtown transportation center. That is our
only transfer hub in our transit system. It is right to the
west of us. We would like to thank you particularly, Senator
Reid, for your efforts in TEA-21 in getting a special project
so that we could look at adding a new transfer terminal station
on the southern end of the resort corridor. That southern
transfer hub is in the environmental review phase right now.
When it is complete we will be able to add a lot of additional
amenities that we don't now enjoy in this downtown
transportation facility. It will offer new transfer options for
the community as well. We are greatly looking forward to that.
We cannot continue to rely on building roads and putting
busses on the road to meet our growing congestion and air
quality concerns. We need to do more. And so for the future, we
are launching a project called CAT Match Commuter Services. It
is a transportation demand management program that is designed
for area businesses and their employees. Through the use of
computer matching, participants can receive free transportation
information on convenient carpool, vanpool, transit, biking, or
walking alternatives. We don't care if they rollerblade to work
or if they ride their skateboard, just as long as they are not
one individual in their car trying to get to work.
We need to provide incentives for people to be able to do
this successful. Through the use of a club ride card we will be
able to have employers provide their employees with
preferential parking onsite discounts from local merchants and
monthly cash prizes. We think that is a significant incentive.
We also need to provide incentives for the employers. And
through TEA-21 there is now the capability for participating
employers to reduce their payroll expenses by up to 15 percent
per participating employee. We think that is a significant
incentive.
That is what we have done, what we are doing now, and what
our plans for the future are to reduce congestion and improve
air quality in southern Nevada.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, you know that in the past I
have spent much of my career in the air transportation
industry. There is a gentleman that you know, his name is Herb
Kelleher, the chairman and chief executive officer of Southwest
Airlines, and Mr. Kelleher is very proud of the fact and he
brags that Southwest Airlines, because of their low fares, has
brought the freedom to fly to the American public. I am here to
tell you today, Mr. Chairman, that the Citizens Area Transit
System has provided the freedom to ride for southern Nevadans.
So many times we see where both parents in the family need
to work and they do not have access to two vehicles or even one
vehicle. CAT gives them the freedom to get to work and to get
to day care. For the tens of thousands of disabled people in
our community, the CAT paratransit system not only gives them
freedom, but a new found independence and a feeling of self-
reliance because they do not have to rely on family or friends
to get them where they need to go. And even with these
increased commute times that we see today, even for the well-
healed commuter, the CAT system gives an alternative to a long,
torturous, and difficult commute.
We do not think that we need to look to the Federal
Government to solve all of our transportation and growth
problems. But we do think the Federal Government plays an
appropriate role in funding transit and transit-related
infrastructure. And we look forward to continue working with
you in that regard. We also think there is some merit to
providing incentives to local governments who promote transit-
friendly land-use policies.
That is my testimony, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Reid. Thank you very much.
Ms. Mulroy, former Senator Simon, he retired a year or so
ago, has written a book on water. He has become kind of the
world conscious trying to develop the recognition that water is
so important that wars are not going to be fought in the future
over land, but over water. To make a long story short, I am
going to send him a copy of your statement. I think it really
indicates some of the things that can be done and the fact that
growth cannot be controlled, generally speaking, by simply
cutting back the water.
What you did not talk about, we cut your time down, is what
has happened in northern Nevada. The Little Truckee River
supplies the water for the northern part of the State and it
has not stopped growth up there even though when someone wants
to build a home they have to come up with water. An acre foot
of water up there costs as much as $6,000. So I appreciate very
much your testimony.
Would you mind sharing with us some of the things that have
been done to have water consumption decline by as much as 16
percent in southern Nevada. What are some of the things that
you have initiated?
Ms. Mulroy. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to
share with you some of the successes here in southern Nevada.
Conservation is a very difficult subject for any community to
embrace because it means changing lifestyles, it means changing
attitudes, and, quite candidly, it means changing the ethic of
an entire community.
In southern Nevada, we have very much achieved that. The
local elected officials deserve a huge amount of credit for
some of the courageous ordinances and courageous measures that
they have put in place to achieve that conservation. We have a
four-tiered rate structure, we have ordinances that limit the
time of day when you can water during the summer months when
our landscaping eats so much of our precious water supply. We
have communities that have adopted turf limitations in new
construction. We are offering cash to our customers for
removing their grass. We are now going to embark in partnership
with the Federal Government on a new innovative program to give
people new washing machines that are front-loaders in order to
reduce the amount of water that they use in laundering. The
list is limitless.
We spend millions of dollars every year promoting water
conservation in everything we do and in our way of thinking
here in southern Nevada. The community has stepped up to the
plate in a miraculous way, both on a voluntary basis and, quite
candidly, in being supportive of the regulatory measures that
had to be put in place in order to create a level of fairness
for everyone.
Senator Reid. The last thing I would like you to touch
upon, we hear so much about green space, you were in Washington
recently doing a television show and on that show you talked
about the Las Vegas Springs Preserve or Big Springs, whatever
we want to call it. Talk to us a little bit about that.
Ms. Mulroy. The Las Vegas Springs Preserve is a once in a
lifetime opportunity for a generation of southern Nevadans or
many generations of southern Nevadans to restore and bring back
the birthplace of southern Nevada. There aren't a lot of
communities that can actually point to one specific location
where the community was born and from whence it sprang. Here in
Las Vegas we have that opportunity.
There are 180 acres nestled in the middle of urban Las
Vegas and on that acreage we are going to create a central park
very much Nevada style with an area designated for a large
desert botanical garden, with restoring the original ecosystem
that existed up in that area when it all began many, many years
ago. In fact, this site goes back to the early Anasazi. If you
wander the site, you can find arrowheads still lying there on
the ground untouched, you will find original chimneys from
ranch houses, you will find original chicken coops. Much of
what was Las Vegas still remains there very much untouched.
We will replicate the historical experience of what it was
like to be in Las Vegas at the turn of the century and to be
one of the early settlers. It is an experience that the
community has embraced. There is a foundation that has been
created that--Janey Greenspun Gail is the chairman of that--
which will by the year 2005, which is Las Vegas' centennial,
allow the water district board, in partnership with the
foundation, to give back to Las Vegas its birthplace and allow
future generations of Nevadans to see where it all began.
Senator Reid. Thank you very much.
Mr. Snow, tell us about some of the plans that RTC has for
the future. You did an excellent job through the presentation
that we saw on film about what the RTC is now doing. But what
are some of the plans that you have to deal with growth and
development?
Mr. Snow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I would like to
answer that question in terms of talking about the letters RTC.
They stand for Regional Transportation Commission. But really
the 'R,' in my book, stands for roads. We are looking at a
policy now where we will be advancing $200 million worth of
funding to accelerate the construction of the Las Vegas beltway
and other projects in the principal arterials here in southern
Nevada. That will be a little bit of a departure from previous
policy. We are looking at working with Clark County who is
constructing the beltway and doing that. Now that's the R
portion.
The ``T'' I think we could call it transit. We have about
300 busses on our fixed route system right now. We are going to
need to expand that considerably. The resort corridor area, if
you could just imagine three new Maryland Parkways and four new
Tropicana Avenues going through the resort corridor from
downtown to the end of the strip, that is what is going to be
needed in the next 20 years to meet surface transportation
needs. There just isn't the right-of-way to do that there, so
expansion of our bus transit system is going to be a major
mission for us. We are going to need to go from 300 busses now
to at least double that and then some to meet that transit
demand. We are also looking, as my chairman of the Regional
Transportation Commission Bruce Woodbury talked about, and as
the Mayor of Las Vegas talked about, we are looking at a fixed
guideway system in this community as part of the equation. We
are looking at a park and ride lots as part of the equation.
And then the final component is the ``C'' which really is
our MPO function, it is community transportation planning. This
transportation demand management program that we are kicking
off where we are providing incentives for the private sector. A
lot of people along the resort corridor don't have I think the
employee parking that they would like to have. If we can work
with carpools, vanpools, and transit system to get employees
into and out of that area, that would be very beneficial. About
93 percent of the area's population lives outside the resort
corridor but 50 percent of the jobs are in the resort corridor.
So that is really our big transportation challenge. So if
we can work with building roads, with transit, and with
transportation demand management, getting people out of their
cars into these ride-sharing programs, then I think we will be
able to meet the demand, and that is what our plan for the
future is.
Senator Reid. I am not going to ask the question Senator
Bryan did of Pat Mulroy or Jake Snow about what can I do to
help. You always ask plenty and----
[Laughter.]
Senator Reid. So there is no need to invite those
questions.
Thank you all very much.
Our final panel this morning consists of Mr. Tom Stephens,
Director of the Nevada State Department of Transportation, who
is here by direction of Governor Guinn; Mr. Allen Biaggi,
Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection; Mr.
Jim Gibson, Mayor of the City of Henderson, Nevada, and also
chair of the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority; and
Mr. Jay Bartos, president, Friends of Red Rock Canyon. If you
would all be seated and make yourself comfortable. We will
first hear from Mr. Tom Stephens, we will then hear from Mr.
Biaggi, Mayor Gibson, and then Jay Bartos.
Would you please proceed, Mr. Stephens.
STATEMENT OF TOM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Stephens. For the record, my name is Tom Stephens. I am
the Director of the Nevada Department of Transportation. I
really appreciate the invitation to be here today.
Growth is the driving issue in Las Vegas Valley, as we have
heard, and it has been for over 50 years. In the 30 years since
1970, when the current ``Spaghetti Bowl'' interchange of I-15
and US 95 was built, the population of Las Vegas Valley has
grown by over 400 percent. In 1970, Las Vegas, and I'm talking
about the whole area, was the 115th largest metropolitan area
in the country, and by next year it will be the 32nd largest
after passing New Orleans. San Antonio and Indianapolis are not
far ahead of us.
As we all know, the main force behind the growth has been
the expansion of the gaming industry. But it has also been
encouraged by the extremely favorable business climate in
Nevada, not only for gaming but for all industries. Las Vegas
is the most attractive and most modern major city in the world.
Hundreds of thousands of people walk down its streets everyday
just to marvel at its architecture. Las Vegas has some of the
most desirable residential areas in the Nation, and every year
tens of thousands of Americans move here to retire.
Many good things have been done to accommodate all of this
growth. Las Vegas has developed one of the Nation's finest
water systems, and we just heard about that water system. Most
of the large residential areas are part of planned communities,
and urban sprawl has been kept amazingly under control
considering the unbelievable rate of growth. The foresight of
requiring dedication of right-of-way for wide boulevards along
section and quarter section lines until this decade has helped
Las Vegas avoid the degree of traffic gridlock associated with
other cities its size. The publicly owned bus system, which we
just heard about, was not even in existence at the beginning of
the decade, is now recognized as the finest of its size in the
Nation. New freeways have been built to the north and east, and
a beltway is being constructed around the city with local
funds.
Yet all is not rosy. Traffic congestion is a daily
occurrence and commute times have increased dramatically. Air
quality is a major issue. People living along the freeways are
demanding relief from the constant noise.
I represent a highway perspective. First and foremost, I
would like to thank Nevada's congressional delegation, and
especially you, Senator Reid, for the support you gave to
Nevada last year in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century. Nevada is now the recipient of $70 million more per
year in Federal highway funds. This is a 62 percent increase
over the previous Federal highway funding contained in the
Intermodal Transportation Equity Act of 1991.
This hearing is on livable communities. And the question
today is what the Federal Government can do to help us make Las
Vegas a more livable community.
I have five items that I would like to just tick off,
things I have thought of that maybe we could use more help
with. That may sound a little ungrateful because you have given
us so much help in the past, but I won't hesitate to ask for
more. I will be like the RTC.
First and foremost, if you can help us speed up our efforts
to eliminate traffic gridlock by streamlining the environmental
review process. This streamlining is called for in TEA-21, but
the process appears to have been bogged down now. Often the
environmental processes seemed to be used as a way to slow down
and try to kill a highway project by opponents who have little
real concern for the environmental issues involved. I think if
we can identify the true environmental issues and streamline
this process, we will be far ahead in meeting our growth
demands.
Second, make the air quality--and I would like to qualify
my testimony here--make the air quality testing requirements
more reasonable so that we can concentrate our resources on
more important air quality problems. For example, even though
there have been great improvements in carbon monoxide levels in
Las Vegas in the last 10 years, and the chart that Chairman
Woodbury showed demonstrated that, the basin is still
considered to be in nonattainment because we continue to have
two or three incidents a year when levels exceed the standard
instead of at just one single site, not throughout the whole
valley, but at just one site. The carbon monoxide levels for
the whole valley are judged on just one location on a couple of
days a year.
We should be concentrating more efforts on control of dust
or PM10, which is a worse pollutant in terms of livability than
carbon monoxide at just one site. This does not mean that
carbon monoxide isn't important, but we are getting it down to
minuscule levels and not paying enough attention to other
problems which may be more serious.
Third, streamline the Federal delivery requirements for the
popular ``enhancement program,'' which includes such things as
sidewalks, bicycle paths, landscaping, and restoration of
selected historic buildings, which all improve the livability
of the community.
Fourth, remove the prohibition on the use of Federal funds
to retrofit noise walls along the freeways. This will greatly
improve the livability of those impacted by freeway noise.
And fifth, and I am adding this to my testimony, protect
the preference given to Federal lands States in the
distribution of the public lands highway discretionary fund.
This is under attack now in the rulemaking that is going on at
the Federal Highway Administration with the thought that we are
going to distribute all the money throughout the country
somehow equitably. Well, I would suggest to you the west is
where that money is supposed to be spent and that is where the
bulk of it should be spent.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. This
is an important issue to the Nevada Department of
Transportation and to everyone who lives in Nevada.
Senator Reid. Thank you.
We will now hear from Mr. Allen Biaggi, Administrator,
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection.
STATEMENT OF ALLEN BIAGGI, ADMINISTRATOR, NEVADA DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Mr. Biaggi. Thank you, Senator Reid, and thank you for
holding this hearing today on growth and livable communities.
In my testimony this morning, I would like to outline some of
the tools the State of Nevada has available to assist local
governments and citizens to make our communities better places
to live and improve environmental quality for the residents and
visitors of the State.
As you are no doubt aware, in Nevada land use planning and
zoning are primarily county and city issues. Our State
legislators have wisely recognized that such activities are
best done at the local level. Consequently, limited authority
over these issues is granted to State Government. We do,
however, have certain resources and programs available to
assist local governments in making these difficult decisions.
Some of these resources have been in place for some time, some
are very new; an outcome in fact of the 1999 legislative
session.
One long-standing tool is Section 208 of the Federal Clean
Water Act which has been in place for over two decades and
contains provisions to address long-term community planning as
it relates to water quality. In Nevada, a number of
jurisdictions have taken responsibility for the development of
these plans, including Clark County Comprehensive Planning, the
Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency for Washoe County, the
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency for the Lake Tahoe Basin, and
the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection for the
remaining portions of the State.
Section 208 Plans must address municipal and industrial
waste water treatment needs and priorities of the area for a
twenty-year period and include alternatives for waste water
treatment, for land acquisition for treatment systems for waste
water collection, for urban storm water runoff control, and
provide for the financial mechanisms for the development of
such treatment works.
The planning process is designed as a cooperative effort
involving local, State, and Federal agencies as well as the
public. The process is initiated with the preparation of a
draft waste water management plan which is solicited for public
comment. Once public comments have been received and integrated
into the plan, the agency submits it to the State and
ultimately to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency for
certification. This plan then controls the issuance of
discharge permits and other water quality activities including
the funding of waste water improvement projects from the State
Revolving Loan Program.
Most importantly, however, the 208 plan must identify open
space and recreational opportunities that can be expected from
improved water quality, including considerations of potential
land use associated with treatment works. An excellent example
here in the Las Vegas area is the national award winning
wetlands area established by the City of Henderson. This unique
area combines waste water treatment while providing habitat and
sanctuary for a variety of birds and animals. It is also
becoming more and more recognized by the public as an area for
experiencing the unique desert wetlands ecosystems which were
historically in place in the Las Vegas Wash.
Clark and Washoe Counties have aggressively pursued the
planning process to meet growth needs in their respective
communities. Amendments to these plans have to date been well-
conceived and have limited the water quality impacts of
continued growth. For another example, the Las Vegas Bay at
Lake Mead was not meeting water quality standards in the 1980's
and recreation was limited in that portion of the lake. Through
the planning process, local agencies designed, at great
expense, and built upgrades to existing waste water treatment
plants to improve water quality while at the same time
expanding capacity to meet the needs of growth. Today plant
discharges have increased, yet the receiving waters and overall
water quality have been improved. Because of these
improvements, the State is now considering modifying the
beneficial uses in the Las Vegas Bay to include swimming.
The 1999 session of the Nevada Legislature brought about a
number of changes related to livable communities planning and
urban redevelopment. Senator Dina Titus introduced, the
legislature passed, and Governor Guinn signed into law Senate
Bill 363, which is commonly called Nevada's ``brownfield''
bill, which will be administered by the division to remove
barriers and encourage the reuse of lands that contain
environmental contamination. Through this process we can help
revitalize our urban cores, encourage environmental clean-ups,
and reduce the need for development of virgin, undisturbed
lands.
The 1999 session also passed a series of bills that will
change the way we approach regional planning in Nevada,
especially as it relates to air quality. Through the concept of
regional planning coalitions, a process has been created to
broadly organize and empower an umbrella planning entity that
allows cities and counties to jointly work together on
resource-based issues. Planning efforts of State agencies will
be coordinated and circulated through these regional planning
coalitions which are geared to seeking innovative planning and
development solutions outside the framework of conventional
planning strategies. This is a dramatic step forward especially
for air pollution with obviously is transient and does not
recognize political boundaries.
These are but a few examples of what we have available to
assist in making our communities in Nevada better places to
live from a resource perspective. The Nevada Division of
Environmental protection and the State of Nevada stands ready
to assist and help in any way possible.
Again, I want to thank you and the committee for your
interest in this very critical and important issue. Thank you.
Senator Reid. Thank you very much.
Our next witness will be Mayor Jim Gibson, the chairman of
the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBSON, MAYOR, CITY OF HENDERSON, NEVADA,
AND CHAIRMAN, SOUTHERN NEVADA STRATEGIC PLANNING AUTHORITY
Mayor Gibson. Senator Reid, thank you very much for the
invitation to participate in these proceedings. We recognize
the important contributions you have made to the southern
Nevada community during your years of service in the State and
in the Nation's Capitol.
As you may know, just last week the U.S. Census Bureau
announced that the City of Henderson led the Nation for the
eighth straight year in population growth, with a 135 percent
increase in population during the decade of the 1990's. It is
an understatement to say that the City of Henderson is impacted
by growth.
I am glad to hear today's speakers discuss issues such as
air quality, water quality, and transportation. In a recent
survey of Henderson residents, these regional issues topped
their list of the top growth-related concerns. As the Mayor of
Henderson, I can tell you that these regional issues are also
my top concerns.
This past decade, we rolled up our sleeves and we tackled
the issues of growth. Cities in our position know that the
growth management battle includes radical views and proposals.
For southern Nevada the battle cry began 3 years ago when State
proposals to control, or even stop, growth were pushed to the
forefront of public discussion. We heard calls to place a
growth restrictive ring around the valley, to dramatically
increase development fees to slow growth, and even to place a
moratorium on building permits. Some of these proposals made
their way to the State Legislature where State representatives
considered replacing local government authority to manage
growth issues with State mandates.
In 1997, the Nevada State Legislature recognized that
growth is a local issue, best managed by those governments most
closely connected to its challenges and responsibilities. Led
by the efforts of State Senator John Porter, a clear majority
adopted Senate Bill 383, creating the Southern Nevada Strategic
Planning Authority. The 21-member authority consisted of
elected representatives from southern Nevada city councils and
the Clark County board of commissioners along with southern
Nevada business leaders and residents. They included a broad
based representation, representatives from Clark County, the
cities of Henderson, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Boulder City,
and Mesquite, and citizen representatives from each community,
the home builders, the Nevada taxpayers association, the Nevada
resort association, the environmental community, minorities,
labor, chamber of commerce, and the Nevada Development
Authority.
The authority members were charged with developing a 20-
year strategic plan for the Las Vegas Valley. The plan brought
together a variety of public and private members with strong
individual interests to reach consensus on both a vision for
the future of the valley and an action plan to get us there.
The final product, the Strategic Plan, was presented to the
1999 Nevada State Legislature. The plan identified 12 areas
impacted by existing and future growth, and included goals,
objectives, and strategies to address each of these issues. No
southern Nevada entity had ever undertaken a comprehensive
study of this scope from a regional perspective, and the
recommendations contained in the final plan represent an
historical and significant local initiative in dealing with
growth and quality of life issues.
Throughout this process, the authority members agreed that
local government handling local problems, with regional
collaboration on regional issues, is by far the most effective
solution to sustaining livable communities and enhancing the
quality of life for our residents. Regional collaboration on
issues of regional importance became an effective tool for
addressing issues such as transportation, environment, economy,
and education.
Most importantly, we recognized that a cookie-cutter
approach to individual community standards, such as parks and
recreation and land-use planning, is not always appropriate, or
beneficial, as our citizens desire that we continue to resolve
problems in our communities. For example, I mentioned earlier
that the City of Henderson residents were satisfied with local
community standards, but their priority concerns were regional
in nature. It is clear that the City of Henderson alone could
not adequately address our residents' top priorities without
regional collaboration.
Lead by local governments, business leaders, and citizens,
the authority's regional effort has received national praise.
In the 1998 Urban Land Institute's publication ``Smart
Growth,'' the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority is
highlighted as a regional approach to smart growth initiatives.
Locally, many of the recommendations included in the strategic
plan have already been adopted. One such initiative is the
creation of the Southern Nevada Planning Coalition, composed of
elected representatives from local governments whose charge is
to oversee the implementation of the recommendations included
in the strategic plan.
The City of Henderson continues to work proactively in
addressing our growth-related issues. In a recent agreement
between the City of Henderson and Clark County, both
jurisdictions agreed to jointly plan along jurisdictional
boundaries for consistency in transportation, land-use, and
future utility siting. This is another first for southern
Nevada and represents the kind of intergovernmental
collaboration necessary to meet the challenges of growth while
maintaining and enhancing the quality of life for our
residents.
In reflecting on our accomplishments over the last 2 years,
we have seen an incredible paradigm shift in how local
governments interact to address issues of growth. It became
incredibly clear that disjointed or unplanned growth without
regard to whether people enjoyed living here in the Las Vegas
Valley does not serve the public interest. The authority
members are proud of our hands-on consensus-based approach as
this diverse group had to learn how to delve into tough issues
and arrive at decisions together. The challenge we successfully
faced was to define what quality of life means to the people
who live here so that the right strategies could be pursued to
protect and improve our lives.
In the final analysis, we found that our strategic planning
process got to the heart of what concerns most cities across
the Nation, while the debate regarding quality of life issues
is elevated to a national level. The recent dialog surrounding
the Administration's Livability agenda hits at the very core of
issues covered during our 2-year strategic planning process. We
mirror the Livability agenda's concerns in addressing the
preservation of open and green spaces, clean air and water,
safe places for families to work, play, and relax, easing
traffic congestion, enhancing citizen and private sector
involvement in planning, collaboration between neighboring
communities in promotion of economic competitiveness. Our
desired outcomes are the same--how do we protect and enhance
our quality of life.
Our completed strategic plan and its legacy of regional
collaboration is evidence that these tough issues can be
resolved locally. Perhaps the authority's strategic plan will
be useful as a blueprint for local cooperation and solutions to
effectively address growth. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Mayor.
We will now hear from Mr. Jay Bartos, president, Friends of
Red Rock Canyon.
STATEMENT OF JAY BARTOS, PRESIDENT, FRIENDS OF RED ROCK CANYON
Mr. Bartos. Thank you, Senator. The Friends of Red Rock
Canyon, as I am sure you know, is an organization of volunteers
devoted to the protection of the Red Rock Canyon National
Conservation Area. Our 200 or so volunteers are there to assist
the Bureau of Land Management by leading hikes, presenting
nature programs for adults and children, teaching teachers
about Red Rock, building and maintaining trails, and a host of
other jobs. We all come from a wide variety of backgrounds but
we do all have one thing in common--our love for one of
Nevada's natural treasures.
The growth of Clark County is mirrored by the changes at
Red Rock over the years. For 1,000 years or so the area was
used by Native Americans for food and shelter. In the early
days of Las Vegas, some of the area was homesteaded. In 1960,
as recreational use increased, the State became interested in
preserving the land, and by the early 1970's a combination of
State and Federal actions had led to protection for some 62,000
acres.
The focus of the area was changed from recreation to
conservation in 1990, reflecting the need to better protect the
increasingly popular area. Continued population growth led to
the expansion of the conservation in 1994 to 195,610 acres
while there was still something there to conserve.
There are now well over a million visitors a year and Red
Rock Canyon is being affected. Just as the increase in
residents and visitors strains our own local infrastructure and
our nerves, the ever-increasing use of the roads and trails at
Red Rock creates strains there. Perhaps more so, because the
fragile desert is easily destroyed by people who wander off the
trails in search of ever-elusive solitude. Those resulting
unofficial trails multiply rapidly, scarring the land and
contributing to a number of environmental problems.
Outdoor recreation should provide rejuvenation, a physical
and mental re-creation, if you will. That becomes less likely
to happen as more visitors create more conflict. Hikers,
bikers, climbers, riders all compete for space and a piece of
nature. As the city creeps ever closer, the numbers of people
with easy access to the canyon will increase, and, inevitably,
each person there views his or her desired use of the areas as
the right and proper one.
The effects of increasing numbers of people on desert
plants and animals are often not evident until almost too late
to reverse. There hasn't really been a lot of research in this
area, so often things that happen do catch us by surprise. For
instance, the population of ravens has increased in the Mojave
Desert as reliable sources of food--people--increase. The
tidbits they provide will allow the birds to stay around and
breed more often than they would otherwise. And the young
desert tortoises, the tortoises being a threatened species
themselves because of habitat destruction, now find themselves
under a more direct threat. It takes several years for the
tortoise shell to harden enough to resist a raven's beak, and
with more and more of the clever, sharp-eyed ravens about, all
too many of the young tortoises simply wind up as a quick
snack.
Coyotes thrive where people live and are especially happy
to see well-watered suburbs in the desert. Rather than
decimating their natural prey, however, they prefer to go after
something a little slower and a little less clever--our cats
and dogs. This creates a people versus animal scenario the
coyotes can only lose.
In fact, as we know, plants and animals are impacted by
growth throughout the county, not just in the Red Rock area. A
proposed conservation plan devised by the county and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service is designed to allow continued
development in areas containing threatened plant and animal
species, beginning with some 79 already on the list. This could
be a good first step to ensuring that those species do not go
out of existence, but only as long as funding is adequate for
proper monitoring. And I might also add that increased funding
for the Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies at UNLV,
whether that money comes from the State, from the university
itself, or from the Federal Government, would go a long way in
pointing out prospective problems that could be cutoff before
they become too impossible to solve.
Air pollution, of course, is a county-wide problem edging
ever closer to Red Rock. If you climb Turtlehead Peak on a
winter's day, chances are you will see Las Vegas enveloped in a
yellow and brown cloud. With houses and casinos being built
right to the edge of the conservation area now, how long will
it be before Turtlehead Peak itself is covered by this same
air? We have heard a lot today about various programs and
projects underway to make sure this air is clean and kept
clean. Well, let's hope that the county, prodded by the
Environmental Protection Agency, can keep this from happening.
A greater push toward alternative fuels and better mass
transit, as we have also heard about today, would be a start
along that road.
Any change of direction can only happen if certain things
come together. Education perhaps is No. 1. People recognize the
problems caused by growth but too often will just throw up
their hands in helplessness when faced with solving those
problems. They just seem too big. Showing that solutions can
come a step at a time encourages action. In dealing with
environmental issues, sometimes simply showing how everything
is connected can open eyes.
And finally, I think good political leadership is a must.
The changing emphasis on regional cooperation, which we have
heard today, again is something that has become more and more
prevalent over the last couple of years to tackle the many
regional issues. Too many local politicians remain local; they
talk a lot about managing growth while doing too little about
it.
A 1996 University of Nevada poll indicated that 81 percent
of southern Nevadans are looking for growth to slow or, at
worst, stay the same. We have heard today about any number of
initiatives designed to make our growth smarter. Mayor
Goodman's inner-city proposal would be one that would greatly
benefit both the human inhabitants of Las Vegas and the plant
and animal inhabitants of the county. Hopefully, these and
others will be successful.
And Senator, one thing, as long as everyone is here asking
for money, that you could perhaps initiate is ensuring the
funding for the BLM, as they manage Red Rock Canyon, is
constant as more and more personnel are needed that are not
covered by the fee demonstration program. And also a suggestion
that the Rainbow Gardens recreation area over on the other side
of town is kept as a project going full force. And not to
forget Lake Mead as a national recreation area which is in dire
need of personnel and all kinds of things that only Federal
funding can bring. So that would be my only plea for money.
I thank you for inviting me here today.
Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Mr. Biaggi. In Reno I
hear a lot of problems about the ravens. I hear now you talking
about southern Nevada raven problems. What should we do about
it?
Mr. Bartos. I know in the past there has been proposals to
have a hunting season on ravens, as there has been for crows
which also present a number of problems. I am not sure what the
solution is other than that if you are looking toward balancing
the turtle population, the raven population. As long as there
are people here, the ravens are going to thrive simply by
finding those alternative sources of food.
Senator Reid. I think it would be a real benefit to me and
I think the Congress if the recreation community would get
together, that includes the hunters and the people who are
interested in backpacking and other such things, and try to
come up with some solutions. For us to do anything with the
ravens, it is an international treaty that we are talking
about, that is the reason they are protected.
Mr. Bartos. I am not sure there is anything we can directly
do to affect the ravens in that way. But I am happy to say that
here in Las Vegas, for instance, as the Bureau of Land
Management was setting forth their new proposal to set how Red
Rock Canyon would be run in the future, there was a lot of
cooperation among the various groups.
Senator Reid. I am talking specifically about ravens, I am
still on ravens. I cannot remember as a boy in Searchlight ever
seeing a raven or a crow, I can't tell the difference. But now
there are lots of them.
Mr. Bartos. There are lots of them.
Senator Reid. That is one of the prime desert tortoise
habitats we have and little turtles get devoured, as you have
indicated, by these big voracious appetites these big black
birds have. So you could be a help to us if you could come up
with some ideas as to what could be done to control the raven
population.
Mr. Biaggi, I think one of the things we didn't talk about
that we should have talked about is the work that you have done
on the Sunrise landfill. I think that is tremendous. The State
has worked very hard in trying to come up with some kind of a
solution to that problem. We are hopeful that can come about.
Talking about a quality of life issue, I think that is
certainly one.
We have this huge landfill up here that should, if it were
handled properly, be a recreational site. Right now, having
been there and smelled it, you could not be very close to that
and keep your lunch down. So I am glad that the State has
worked with us in trying to come up with a solution to that. We
thought we had something worked out, as you know, but it didn't
work out. Maybe the county's most recent solution might work.
That is up to the county. Otherwise, as you know, the penalties
are ongoing with the national Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. Biaggi. I appreciate that, Senator. I think what you
are seeing at the Sunrise landfill is where environmental
protection will be going in the future, and that is a
collaboration of local, State, and Federal activities to
recognize and resolve environmental problems. We could not do
it all at the local and State level and the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency has become involved. We
certainly will continue to work with them and their efforts to
address the problems posed by that facility.
Senator Reid. You certainly should have a good
understanding of Nevada Division of Environmental Protection.
You have been there for almost 20 years, isn't that right, and
now you are its administrator. So we appreciate your good work.
Administrator Stephens, a number of our witnesses have
talked about air quality problems in the valley as one of their
biggest concerns. In your testimony, you refer to both the
carbon monoxide and particulate matter, basically dust.
Referring now just to carbon monoxide, what can the Federal
Government be doing to help local communities combat this type
of air pollution?
Mr. Stephens. I think you mentioned one new step that is
coming out now is with the diesel. The biggest strides in
controlling carbon monoxide and air pollution in general has
been at the source, which is the automobile. The cafe standards
for automobiles have gone a long way. Now you are doing
something with diesel. I think you need to look at the sport
utility vehicles which are classified as trucks and have a much
lesser standard than the automobile. I think that is where the
key to this is.
I think stopping highway construction so that we have giant
traffic jams is not going to be the method of controlling air
pollution, at least as far as carbon monoxide is concerned. So
I think the standards that you set at the source are the best
way to go after it. But then you also have to look at other
issues too.
Senator Reid. We tend to focus on fixed air polluting
structures. You can look and see the smoke coming out of a
stack. But we all recognize, or we should recognize that the
vast, vast, vast majority of the air pollution comes from
automobiles and trucks and busses. That is why I was so happy
to read today that there is going to be an effort made to do
something about busses and trucks. You know, you are behind
them and they take off and that black stuff belches out. We
need to do something about that. You would agree with that,
wouldn't you?
Mr. Stephens. Absolutely. The legislature passed a bill
recently to set up a special air quality commission in southern
Nevada to study the issue, and they talked about the three
pollutants that you already know the Federal Government
regulates, carbon monoxide, particulates, and ozone, but they
also added a fourth, and that is the urban haze issue that they
are going to take a look at. Of course, that is what most
people see when they look at the air and that they are
concerned about. And the diesel I think is especially
contributing to the visible pollutants.
Senator Reid. One thing we have not talked about today is
noise pollution. Tell us a little bit about the sound wall
project. I worked very hard to get some money for some sound
walls. But tell me why it is difficult to put up sound walls.
Mr. Stephens. Well, to start with, they are retrofitted. As
you know, many of our highways have steep slopes next to them.
Where would you put the wall? How would you secure the
foundation? Especially if you are already on a bridge, you
cannot put a big sound wall on either side of a bridge without
overloading the bridge. So there are certain restrictions there
that make it very costly to go in and retrofit sound walls in
many areas.
We have a program where we believe that the noise issue is
not just a highway issue, it is also a land-use issue. If you
allow subdivisions to go in right next to highways or apartment
houses without requiring any kind of noise mitigation, I think
that the people who control the land-use have contributed to it
too.
And so we have a program where we have a matching program
between local communities and NDOT. But at the same time, in
the National Highway System Act of 1995 there was a prohibition
against use of Federal money for retrofit of sound walls. We
are going ahead and doing a retrofit program for Henderson, and
we were going ahead with State and local funds before we got
the additional Federal funds that, because it was a specific
appropriation, got around that NHS prohibition. But the
prohibition is still there in the law. I think communities
should have a right to take a look at using some Federal funds
to do this as well as State and local funds.
Senator Reid. The last question I would like to ask you is
tell us what is going on with Interstate 15. I was out here
today and one of the news channels indicated that I think it
was next Monday was the 25th anniversary of I-15 being opened
through the Las Vegas area. As we know, this is the lifeline of
southern Nevada economy, but also the southern California
economy. They used to think it was just our problem but when
their trucks cannot move on the roadways it interferes with
their commerce also. So tell us what is happening with the
Nevada Department of Transportation work with California and
the Federal Government to get the widening projects moving
along more rapidly, and what else is going on to help travel on
I-15.
Mr. Stephens. And that is essential to our economy. The 40
miles in Nevada from here to Primm, we are working on the first
seven miles now and should have it widened, this is from the
airport connector to Lake Mead Drive, should have that widened
to six lanes total instead of four lanes by the end of the
year. As you know, the Barstow interchange in California, they
have been working on that for the past several years and we
hope this fall----
Senator Reid. That is the one I missed the plane ride to
go----
Mr. Stephens. Right. Yes.
Senator Reid. That is a little private joke, if Jane Ann is
still in the audience.
Mr. Stephens. But we expect that to be open this fall and
hopefully we will have a dedication ceremony out there.
Senator Reid. That will be completed this fall?
Mr. Stephens. Yes.
Senator Reid. Tell us why that will help the traffic
between L.A. and Las Vegas.
Mr. Stephens. That is a big bottleneck right there where I-
40 and I-15 come together in Barstow. Basically, you have got
two 4-lane interstates that come from the east and all come
together in Barstow and they are going through a totally
inadequate interchange, and then they continue on on the other
side of Barstow as a 4-lane highway. Well, it doesn't take any
type of a highway engineer or someone of greater intelligence
even to figure out that when you take eight lanes of traffic
and run it down to four you have the classic bottleneck. The
start of the bottleneck is right there where they join together
and that is what the first project is all about. Nevada
contributed money to that, and you were instrumental in getting
a great deal of Federal money to make that project possible in
the 1991 ISTEA.
The next project that we have to do is between the other
side of Barstow and Victorville, where it is four lanes all the
way. We need to expand that to a six lane highway at least.
Nevada has offered to contribute $10 million of its Federal
appropriation toward that project. I think Congressman Jerry
Lewis got $24 million for that project earmarked in TEA-21. I
am sure you were absolutely helpful in what was going on with
that because we contributed some of Nevada's money to that and
I think you had control over some money going----
Senator Reid. Is that project going to go forward?
Mr. Stephens. Yes, that is. But it is going forward at a
slower pace than we would like, just like the first project
went through. Because even though this is absolutely critical
to Nevada, in the whole California scheme of affairs, the
projects around Barstow and the high desert are not as high a
priority for them as other urban projects.
Senator Reid. San Francisco and, yes.
Mr. Stephens. The other thing is we are working on the
truck climbing lanes, the design of that, between Jean and
where we leave off with the six lane portion here, and then we
are going to go ahead with the entire widening out to Primm.
For example, just the other day we had a really bad accident
out there. Now, I don't know whether that would have been
helped if that had been a six lane road, but there were seven
people killed. It is a very high accident road both between
here and Primm and between Primm and Barstow.
Senator Reid. When might there be hope of that being done?
Mr. Stephens. Well, as far as our side of the thing, I
believe that we will have that done within 5 years, if you
don't hold me to it. We are working on it right now. We are
doing environmental studies. It might be even shorter than
that.
Senator Reid. Tell us about the road from here to Pahrump,
how are we doing there?
Mr. Stephens. The road from here to Pahrump is going along
very well. We hope to have an opening ceremony I believe in
September for the four lane divided highway, which will really
reduce the accidents out there. That 17 miles of four lane
divided highway will be open and I think that we are going to
be scheduling a dedication of that. The improvements in the
road to Pahrump have been tremendous over the last 6 or 7
years. And, again, you have been instrumental in getting the
public lands highway discretionary grants which have made that
possible. Otherwise, I don't think that would have been
competitive with the urban needs.
That is why it is so important to make sure that they don't
start distributing these public lands highway moneys based on
some sort of geographical rather than a Federal lands issue. In
Nevada, 87 percent of the State is owned by the Federal
Government. The next highest State in the continental United
States I believe is 67 percent.
Senator Reid. Alaska I think is----
Mr. Stephens. Well, Alaska, yes, and Arizona is in there.
But turn that around and that makes the figure more dramatic.
Thirteen percent of the land in Nevada is private land. The
next lowest State has more than double the private land in
Nevada.
This program is absolutely critical to us. Nevada is kind
of like we are an island nation because of all the vast areas
of Federal land in between. And unlike Hawaii which doesn't
have to build highways between their islands, they just use the
ocean, here we have to build highways across the Federal land
to get across. We think that there is a legitimate equity for
having the Federal Government give us special funding to help
us fund these roads that have to go across these Federal lands
which we cannot tax and cannot use.
Senator Reid. Mayor Gibson, we appreciate very much your
taking the chair of the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning
Authority. That is certainly something that not only involved
in that organization are all the local entities, but certainly
the Federal Government will take note of what decisions are
made by your organization. It is very important to the future
of this area. And one of the reasons for this hearing is to
make sure that the Federal Government and its entities work as
partners with State and local government. So congratulations on
your new job. I know you did not have much else to do.
That concludes the hearing. We appreciate everyone's
attendance. We look forward to input from each of you in the
future. This information, as I have indicated earlier, will be
taken by the court reporter, as has been done, and the
information will be shared with the various members of the
Environment and Public Works Committee.
This is the first stage of an ongoing dialog that I want to
have on these issues. As I have indicated, I grew up here. I
want to make sure that this community stays a community that is
one that I look to with pride, as I do. Even though when I came
over the hill from Searchlight railroad pass and looked down on
this tremendous growth, not only did I look with amazement and
awe, but also with great pride at the work that has been done
here. This is a wonderful community and I never tire of
bragging about it. This is a community though that we have to
be very careful to preserve and that we work together to make
sure that we do have a livable community in the years to come.
This concludes this hearing. The committee stands in
adjournment.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Richard Bryan, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada
Let me just preface my comments by commending you not only for
convening this hearing, but for the leadership you have provided on the
committee on which, as you point out, you will soon be the ranking
member. I don't think people understand how important that is to us in
southern Nevada, but that gives you, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the
premiere role in every piece of legislation that is processed by the
committee, and that is extremely important for us in southern Nevada.
We are fortunate to have you in that position.
As you were parting the veil of nostalgia and we were looking back
on our own youth, you are so right, southern Nevada today is profoundly
different. The mantra of our school years was that Nevada was the least
populated State, that there was one person for every square mile, that
everybody could be seated in the Los Angeles Coliseum for a sporting
event, every person in Nevada.
Well, that is not the reality of today. I remember the first time
that I heard the word ``smog'' sometime in the early 1950's, and I
thought, well, what is this? I didn't understand it. I think people in
Nevada did not comprehend what we were talking about.
Well, that was then, and today is now. And managing this
unprecedented growth in a manner that sustains development and provides
and promotes a healthy environment is perhaps the greatest challenge
that we face in southern Nevada. The growth has been extraordinary, as
we all know, unprecedented. No other part of the country has
experienced this level of growth, and it becomes a real challenge--
traffic congestion, school overcrowding, infrastructure delivery, air
quality, land use planning are a handful of issues that currently
confront community leaders.
I think, Mr. Chairman, you are extremely wise to convene this
hearing in a city hall because primarily those issues affecting our
growth are decisions which local community leaders, our local elected
officials, will make. But I think you are also quite correct in
indicating that because of the extraordinary presence of Federal
agencies--the 87 percent that you made reference to--there is a role
for the Federal Government to play in a partnership relationship. You
and I have begun that role with the passage of legislation which we
sponsored last year, the Southern Nevada Public Lands Act, which
provides a unique framework, the primary purpose of which was to
strengthen the role of local government planning with respect to any
disposal of BLM lands the metropolitan area. That has not historically
been a dialog that has matured as we had hoped, and with this
legislation, none of those parcels can be disposed of without the
concurrence of the affected local political subdivision, and all of the
proceeds from the sale of those parcels remain here in Nevada; 5
percent, as you know, toward our State School Fund; 10 percent to the
Southern Nevada Water Authority, and the remaining eighty-five percent
either for the acquisition of additional environmentally sensitive
lands for recreational purposes, or to enhance and improve those
existing Federal recreational facilities which clearly have an impact
on a quality of life issue which I think is so important for southern
Nevada.
So I am delighted to be here with you, and I would like to share a
part of the program, but I'm not going to be able to stay for the full
time, Mr. Chairman.
Again I commend you on your leadership. I think this is terribly
important for all of us in southern Nevada, and I look forward to
working with you and our colleagues who speak next on this important
growth-related issue that affects our State and our community.
__________
Statement of Hon. Shelley Berkley, U.S. Representative from the State
of Nevada
Thank you, Senator Reid, for giving me the opportunity to speak
this morning. I want to commend you for helping our southern Nevada
communities focus on the issue of ``livability.'' It is great to see
our new Mayor, the Chairman of the Clark County Commission, a number of
concerned citizens and representatives from local government here
today, as well.
I believe we must build a partnership that will help us solve the
problems associated with growth, and maintain our reputation as one of
the best metropolitan areas in which to live and raise families.
We are uniquely challenged by growth in this community. It is no
secret that we have the fastest-growing population and one of the
fastest-growing economies in the Nation. Whether you live in the city
of Las Vegas, Henderson, Clark County, or North Las Vegas, you know
that the landscape is changing day-to-day with construction and
roadbuilding.
The question all of us here today are confronted with is, how do we
keep from being consumed by our own growth? Growth is a great indicator
of prosperity and opportunity, and we have a lot of both here in the
valley. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a 7 percent annual growth rate.
When I tell my colleagues in Congress about our growth rate and dynamic
economy, they just shake their heads. They feel challenged by
population increases of 1 or 2 percent. It really catches their
attention when I tell officials in Washington how we have over 70,000
new residents a year coming into the valley, and that there is no end
in sight.
I have no greater mission than to be sure that the key policymakers
in the Federal Government understand the critical growth-related needs
of southern Nevada. Both of our Senators, both of you, both Senator
Reid and Senator Bryan, have done an outstanding job in this regard,
and I am proud to be working with the two of you on the House side.
We have seen dozens of communities around the Nation fail under the
pressures of growth. We need look no further than to southern
California, and I don't want to pick on our neighbors to the west, but
they lost their battle to growth. Think of Los Angeles and you think of
sprawl, pollution, congestion, and crime, and we don't want to become
another L.A., not another statistic.
I believe our local government officials in southern Nevada have
done a good job in keeping ahead of the growth curve. Our quality of
life remains high and opportunity abounds; yet, we will have to
redouble our efforts if we are going to keep ahead of the curve.
Clearly, important steps are being taken in the right direction.
Just yesterday, Clark County leaders announced a long-range plan to
provide parks and recreational facilities to meet the demands of a
growing population over the next two decades. Southern Nevada's
population is going to expand inevitably from the current 1.25 million
or so, to 2 million-plus. Fortunately, there is a growing movement in
this country and in this community to avoid the mistakes other cities
have made in the past. Citizens, corporations, and all levels of
government are pulling together to improve the livability of our
communities.
Livability covers a number of topics. It means preserving green
space and recreational facilities. It means building modern schools. It
means providing better transportation and protecting our air and our
water. It means making our streets safer and promoting economic
opportunity across our communities.
I strongly support proposals currently being discussed in Congress
to provide resources for local community planning, transportation,
school construction, green space, and helping our police. Citizens and
their local elected officials have the responsibility to make the
decisions about what each community needs and how to spend their
resources, while those of us in Congress have the responsibility to
make it a priority to provide the needed assistance.
I want to thank you again, Senator Reid, for inviting me here
today. I feel this forum is extremely helpful in setting a course for a
livable Las Vegas well into the next century so that my children and my
children's children will be able to grow up in a truly livable
community.
Thank you very much.
__________
Statement of Nuria I. Fernandez, Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration, Department of Transportation
__________
Statement of Hon. Oscar Goodman, Mayor, City of Las Vegas, NV
are truly honored to have you here at City Hall today. With your
consent, Senator Reid, I would like to submit my statement for the
record.
Las Vegas, as you know, is a world-class tourist destination and
one of the fastest-growing cities in the Nation. We have had an average
annual growth rate exceeding 6 percent for the past 10 years. The
population of the city itself has nearly doubled during the past
decade. We have reached a population of approximately 465,000 citizens
within the city limits alone.
As a rapidly growing city, Las Vegas has been characterized as a
``sprawling'' city. However, using some measures of sprawl, that may
not be the case. For example, land consumption is seen by many as an
indicator of sprawl; however, in Las Vegas, growth in land consumption
mirrors growth in population. In fact, between 1990 and 1998, the city
has increased the number of built acres by 50 percent, while at the
same time increasing the population by 75 percent.
In many cities, development of single family homes on half-acre
lots or larger contributes to sprawl. In Las Vegas, average lot size
has been steadily declining. Since 1990, the average lot size for new
single-family homes in Las Vegas is approximately one-eighth of an
acre.
Depending on how one defines sprawl, Las Vegas may or may not be a
sprawl city. But is it a smart growth city? That depends, in part, on
how the city's residents perceive their quality of life. Based on a
1998 survey, 50 percent of our citizens are concerned with the effects
that growth is having on their quality of life. More than two-thirds
feel the pace of development is a contributing factor. Sixty-two
percent of our citizens support implementing smart growth measures,
while only 9 percent want to stop growth. People appear to appreciate
the benefits of growth, while looking for strategies to minimize the
negative impacts on their quality of life. Eighty percent believe a
regional planning agency would be most effective in addressing growth
issues.
According to our 1999 Quality of Life survey, the attributes having
a positive effect on quality of life are fire protection, libraries,
shopping opportunities, parks and recreational areas, climate, and
police force. In general quality of life overall ratings, based on a
survey of citizens, 65 percent rate our quality of life as good to
excellent; 29 percent, fair; 5 percent, bad; and 1 percent, very bad.
Those attributes that give our citizens the greatest concern are
traffic congestion, water quality, crime rates, air quality, and cost
of health care.
Las Vegas may exhibit growth patterns that some experts would
consider to be inconsistent with smart growth. For example, there is
some evidence that our development pattern creates pressure on at-risk
neighborhoods. As a result of rapid growth at the edge of town--some 71
percent over the last 4 years--the majority of public and private
resources are being drawn away from our older neighborhoods. Others
would argue, however, that these low-income transitional neighborhoods
offer housing opportunities for folks to get a leg up on the economic
ladder.
This is why the City's new comprehensive plan will focus on
downtown and urban core areas. At the direction of the City Council,
the plan will enhance the quality of our daily lives while continuing
to accommodate growth and change in new and creative ways. This public
planning process will refocus city policy toward encouraging infill
development and downtown redevelopment. This is the logical thing to
do.
Our new plan will focus not just on what goes where, but how it all
goes together and what it looks like. Urban planning and urban design
will become increasingly important as we mature into a 21st century
city.
Nothing is more important to me and my new administration than
revitalizing downtown. We must make our citizens proud of downtown
again. We will strive to build a new downtown that includes
entertainment, shops, cafes, and new residential neighborhoods.
Now, the great opportunity exists to build an exciting new sports
arena and related facilities right downtown. Steve Wynn has told us
that he will bring a major league sports team to town if we can deliver
a new stadium on the Union Pacific site. We will be very careful to
make sure that the new development enhances existing downtown
development and is linked to mass transit.
In the next decade or so, we will run out of buildable greenfield
lands within our city. This is a fact; we are landlocked. We must now
begin to incorporate new residential opportunities within the older,
urban core of our city. This will encourage vitality and diversity. If
the city of Las Vegas wants to continue to grow, it must begin to look
inward for new development opportunities.
A truly successful downtown must include thousands of units of new
housing, and also integrate daily shopping needs, like a supermarket,
within easy walking distance. We must build new downtown neighborhoods
oriented toward making a truly urban lifestyle.
You know, we have folks moving from all over the Nation and the
world to join us here in Las Vegas. We must strive to build a world-
class city that serves our diverse population and provides for all
their daily needs and big expectations. Families move here for the
climate, for good-paying jobs, for affordable housing, and for the low
cost of living. But what else is missing that we need to strive for?
Better schools, more parks, a performing arts center, maybe even an art
museum, to name a few. At the same time, we must revitalize our older
in-town neighborhoods by finding ways to empower our citizens to take
control of their streets and neighborhoods. Some of our strongest
communities reside within our oldest neighborhoods surrounding downtown
Las Vegas. We must encourage young families and professionals to return
to our urban neighborhoods. This will strengthen our inner city and
lessen our dependence upon building new infrastructure. This will help
free up our capital budgets for building parks, playgrounds, community
centers, and walkable streetscapes lined with trees.
Wouldn't it be great to be able to walk to a bookstore or ice cream
shop after dinner? Shouldn't our kids be able to walk to school, or to
the movies on Saturdays, without having to cross six or eight lanes of
traffic?
The city must encourage the public and private sectors to work
hand-in-hand to devise one seamless mass transit system for the whole
Las Vegas Valley. This is good for downtown Las Vegas, and good for the
Strip resorts and Clark County. And thanks to you, Commissioner
Woodbury, for your efforts. The city will also begin to look at
redevelopment opportunities surrounding our future fixed guideway
transit stations. We can imagine new monorail stops surrounded by shops
and cafes, townhouses, lofts, and courtyard apartments.
Why can't we continue to upgrade our system of roads and highways,
and also begin to mingle our land uses so that some folks can live and
work in the same neighborhoods? Why can't we become less dependent on
our cars and offer other transportation alternatives that are good for
our environment? Do we need to pave our way out of our transportation
problems?
The city supports the design and construction of a high-speed train
linking downtown Las Vegas to Los Angeles. This is good for our
downtown businesses and good for our citizens. It is important that Las
Vegas optimize its role as a tourist destination, advance its position
as the hub of southwest development, and serve as a model city for
sustainable development patterns.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the city of Las Vegas
is not the poster child for sprawl. We are clearly a young, vibrant,
20th century frontier town built around the car and technology. And--I
must emphasize this point--we are determined to take the actions
necessary to mature into a world-class city for the 21st century. Las
Vegas is unquestionably the most exciting city on the planet, and I am
very proud to be serving as its new Mayor.
Thank you very much.
__________
Statement Bruce Woodbury, Chairman, Clark County Board of Commissioners
Good Morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is
Bruce Woodbury and I am currently the Chairman of the Clark County
Board of Commissioners. Additionally, I also serve as the Chairman of
the Regional Transportation Commission and the New Regional Planning
Coalition. All of our cities and the county are represented on these
regional boards. I appreciate the invitation to testify this morning.
The subject of today's hearing is one which is important to everyone;
rich, poor, Republican, Democrat, married, single, young and old. The
focus of my remarks today will be on how we in the Las Vegas Valley
have come to understand that maintaining a vibrant, livable community,
a growing, sustainable economy, an efficient transportation system and
a healthy environment are issues that are closely tied to one another.
Given this and the fact that these issues affect all aspects of our
community, we understand that a regional problem solving approach is
necessary.
You will hear today from my colleagues in local government about
all we are doing to meet the challenges of providing a high quality of
life in the fastest growing community in America. Others will talk
about land use, community planning, water, transportation, etc. I want
to focus chiefly on that which is fundamental to us all, the quality of
the air we breathe. We have struggled with two pollutants for many
years--carbon monoxide and inhalable particulates (or PM10). We are
confident, however, that our local efforts will ultimately result in
air quality that meets all of the nationally established standards.
In recognizing that we need to do more in this area, I would also
like to state that through a combination of our local efforts and
partnerships with our Federal and State counterparts, we have made
substantial progress in improving our air quality despite the effects
of explosive growth. I would like to touch on just a couple of
representative examples.
In the recent past, I have been involved with two locally created,
consensus based efforts to define for ourselves the sources of our air
quality problems and the best methods of addressing them. Our Clean Air
Task Forces I and II came up with a Clean Air Action Plan with over 140
recommendations, most of which have been implemented. As you can see
from Chart 1, the recommendations included, as examples, more stringent
controls on automobiles and diesel trucks, use of cleaner fuels,
aggressive regulation of construction sites, better enforcement of
regulations pertaining to industrial sources, fireplace controls, and
car pooling, mass transit improvements and locally funded regional
transportation facilities. Currently we are looking at additional major
improvements in mass transit and a public/private partnership to build
a fixed guide way system. We all know that traffic jams and pollution
go together. RTC and the NDOT have been working together to fund
significant expansions of important roadways and highways including the
improvements to the Spaghetti Bowl and the widening of I-95, and Clark
County is funding a 53-mile beltway solely with local tax dollars.
These improvements in transportation infrastructure will reduce carbon
monoxide and improve our air quality. I mention these programs because
they are representative of the fact that in Clark County we are willing
to take strong local action without mandates and therefore, deserve the
right to chart our own course in meeting the environmental and
transportation needs of this community.
As you can see from chart 2, despite our significant growth, we
have made substantial progress in meeting the carbon monoxide standard.
It is important to point out however that new and improved roadways are
not enough. We believe that with additional diligent local efforts, and
through our continued partnerships with our Federal and State
counterparts, we can meet the carbon monoxide standard as well as the
PM10 standard. We believe this can be done through a combination of
clean fuel requirements, more motor vehicle emissions testing, a
regional dust control program and improvements in transportation and
mass transit infrastructure.
We need your help however. We would hope that Congress would
understand the need to keep Federal funds flowing to areas struggling
to meet air quality standards. Additionally, we believe that the Tier
II tailpipe standards proposed by the EPA are important in meeting our
goals.
Certainly, we believe that local government is best suited to make
important decisions about air quality improvement measures and priority
transportation issues. Heavy handed Federal intervention, as compared
with cooperation, is almost always unwarranted, time consuming, and
counterproductive. You will recall that the Board of County
Commissioners decided in 1998 to accelerate construction of the beltway
around Las Vegas. We learned that the fastest way to move ahead with
this project was to ``de-Federalize'' it. While there were many who
were skeptical, we worked successfully with the Federal Highway
Administration to regain local autonomy over the project. Working
through our own Public Works Department we have opened eight miles of
the southern beltway and early next year we hope to complete the entire
southern segment and be well under way in the western and northern
segments. We expect to complete the initial facility by 2003, which is
10 years ahead of the FHWA timetable. this will be a tremendous benefit
to our community.
Finally, we want to pro-actively work to prevent ozone and fine
particulate levels from becoming serious problems in the Las Vegas
Valley, and would like to see the changes in Federal EPA regulations
that would allow us to use cleaner fuels before the area exceeds the
standards in question.
I appreciate this opportunity to provide local perspective on this
important issue.
We would be happy to entertain any questions that you might have.
__________
Statement of Richard W. Bunker, President, Nevada Resort Association
Good morning. Senator Reid, members of the committee, my name is
Richard Bunker and I am President of the Nevada Resort Association. The
Nevada Resort Association is the largest association of resort casinos
in Nevada, representing over 50 properties throughout our State.
If my thoughts today are heard because of who I represent you
understand that they are driven by my love and affection for this
community. I have lived in Southern Nevada for my entire life, growing
up here as a boy. My children and grandchildren call southern Nevada
home. I know, Senator Reid, you share my experiences, growing up in a
small desert town, going to school, on to college, all the time
watching the town grow into a city and then a thriving metropolis of
now more than 1.1 million people.
For most of all that time Las Vegas was the most livable of
communities. were an enviable blend of the best aspects of a small town
and the amenities re closely associated with big city life. We had a
sense of being a small town wherein everyone knew each other and cared
for each other. But we had the luxury of living amid the excitement
that can only be found in the ``Entertainment Capital of the World''.
And the success of our unique brand of resort community has led to
incredible economic prosperity. In the last 10 years the number of
tourists visiting Las Vegas has gone from a little more than 17 million
people per year in 1988 to 30.6 million in 1998. Hotel space has nearly
doubled in a similar time period, going from 61,000 rooms in 1988 to
more than 106,000 by the end of 1999.
Those millions of visitors, tourists, and conventioneers have
increased taxable resort revenues by nearly 100 percent, going from $6
billion in 1990 to $11 billion last year. Furthermore, investments of
billions of dollars have gone into new megaresorts such as the Mirage,
which started it all, to our most recent examples of Bellagio, Mandalay
Bay, and the soon-to-be-opened Paris.
As you can well imagine, very much like other communities which
have experienced exponential growth, the issues quickly turn to those
of livability, as infrastructures become strained, social schisms begin
to emerge, and environmental consequences begin to be felt. The shadows
cast by growth and prosperity are always economic, social, and
environmental. In Las Vegas, at least, these consequences have been
held to a minimum, in large measure due to the resort industry.
The resorts are more than just the sum of concrete, steel, casino
tables and slot machines; they are the product of creativity and, more
importantly, commitment to this community. The resorts are where
hundreds of thousands of Nevadans work each day. According to a recent
report by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, the hospitality industry
employs more than 300,000 Nevadans directly, an increase of nearly 50
percent in the last decade. Not only do these jobs provide livable
incomes to hundreds of thousands of new Nevadans, they provide some of
the basic social needs in the form of health insurance and pension
benefits. The impact is staggering, with nearly one of every three
adults you meet employed directly by the tourism industry and many more
employed as a result of the economic expansion and diversification made
possible by this flourishing industry.
That prosperity has been an economic success story which is the
envy of the country. And the industry I represent is justly proud of
the role we play. We do far more, however. Due to Nevada's tax
structure the gaming industry provides the backbone for all State and
local finances. As all of you know Nevada does not have a State income
tax, or other broad-based revenue generators. The taxes levied on the
gaming industry provide more than $22 billion in Federal, State, and
local taxes, and account for nearly 50 percent of Nevada's general fund
budget. Moreover, our customers contribute to the sales, gasoline and
other user-based taxes.
As strong as our industry is and as large as our contribution is to
State and local finances, there are public needs still not being met.
In education--kindergarten through 12th grade and higher education--and
in the public health arena programs are still underfunded. Many
infrastructure needs still exist. As public officials all of you know
that there is never enough revenue to fund the many legitimate, worthy
public programs. But you also realize that equity must exist in how the
tax burden is distributed. Herein lies a quintessential shortcoming in
Nevada's system. Whereas the economic base has diversified, that
diversification has not been visible in the distribution of the tax
burden.
Governor Guinn has taken the lead and is in the process of a top to
bottom review of State spending to insure that public funds are being
spent wisely, efficiently and within the priorities he and the
legislature have determined. The Governor has indicated that he will
also review State finances--who pays the taxes and who doesn't.
As I stated earlier, an examination of our State revenue picture
will reveal that the gaming industry is more than meeting its
obligations to our community. I also believe that this examination will
reveal that other sectors of the economy are virtually escaping
responsibility.
We in the resort industry have met our obligations. Over and above
our tax contribution, we have directly invested in meeting
environmental challenges and social and cultural demands that have
confronted our hometown. We have always been the first to step up to
the plate--not the last to bat. We will continue to provide good jobs
with the necessary healthcare and retirement benefits to our employees.
As we watch the funding debate, we in the resort industry will be
particularly interested in how any new burdens, if they must come, will
be apportioned. If fairness and concern for the health of our economy
drive this debate we would expect that new burdens would not be added
to those businesses which already pay the lion's share of today's taxes
before those enterprises escaping the tax collector are asked to match
our contribution.
As this committee examines the question of what makes a livable
community, I would suggest that the bedrock of any community that calls
itself livable is a sustainable, growing economy which provides good,
solid jobs. Without that stability, we cannot ever hope to address our
social and environmental challenges. The time has come for those
sectors of our economy who so richly share in the prosperity and who
desire the same ``livable community'' accept the responsibilities that
are rightfully theirs to share as well. Thank you.
__________
Statement of Commissioner Mary Kincaid, Chairman, Southern Nevada Water
Authority
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, I am Mary Kincaid and I am a member of the Board of
County Commissioners for Clark County and I serve as Chairman of the
Southern Nevada Water Authority. The SNWA member agencies are;
Big Bend Water District in Laughlin;
Boulder City;
City of Henderson;
City of North Las Vegas;
Clark County Sanitation District; and
The Las Vegas Valley Water District which serves Clark County and
the City of Las Vegas.
I thank you for asking me to testify today about how we in southern
Nevada have managed our most precious public resource, water. Please
excuse me if I brag just a little bit about the Southern Nevada Water
Authority because it is truly a remarkable example of how regional
cooperation among local governments can produce significant results.
Water Wars
It was not all that long ago that the municipalities and the County
acted like they do everywhere else in the west, we fought over water.
Under the old paradigm, the State Colorado River Commission divvied up
Nevada's share of the Colorado River to each city and water purveyor
based upon projections of need. As you can appreciate, each entity
wanted the most water it could get so our ``needs'': estimates became
somewhat inflated. Furthermore, because of the time tested water
doctrines of ``first in time is first in right'' and ``use it or lose
it'', each water purveyor sought to beat the other to the well, so to
speak, with the biggest and best plan to quickly use up all our water.
Because the town of Laughlin had the lowest water right priority, they
faced the absurd prospect that in the event of a drought on the
Colorado, the town's entire supply could be lost while the residents of
the Las Vegas Valley continued to enjoy watering their lawns and
washing their cars twice a week.
Needless to say, under such a system the ethic of water
conservation was almost nonexistent. As we in southern Nevada raced
toward the precipice of exhausting our then available supply, we
finally woke up and came to our senses.
Birth of the Southern Nevada Water Authority
The fundamental principle which we came to realize is that for the
good of the community as a whole, each of us must surrender our water
weapons and end the water wars. Beginning in May 1989, with the help of
a water management consulting firm called Water Resources Management
Inc. (WRMI), the leaders of each city and county water and wastewater
agency began a process which led to the establishment of the SNWA on
July 25, 1991. During this 2 year ``WRMI'' process there were some
difficult days of negotiation, mediation and realization. What emerged
from the WRMI process over several months was a new paradigm, ``share
and share alike''.
The SNWA is a regional governmental body which has been vested by
all of its member agencies with the responsibility to manage southern
Nevada's water supplies without regard to arbitrary jurisdictional
boundaries or the old rules which encouraged us to squander and waste
our most precious resource. We have agreed to abandon water right
priorities among purveyors. We agreed upon a division among the
purveyors of the State's remaining allocation of Colorado River water.
We have developed a shared shortage agreement to protect Laughlin. We
have agreed to common water conservation standards to be applied
everywhere. We are pursuing jointly additional supplies of water which
will be shared by all.
Partnership with the State of Nevada
A second significant and important accomplishment was the enactment
by the 1993 Nevada Legislature of a new law which reconstituted the
Colorado River Commission with three members from the SNWA. This
important reform recognizes that with respect to our involvement
outside with other Colorado River states, we are all Nevadans, our
objectives should be unified into a single strategy for the benefit of
southern Nevada.
Two years later the 1995 Legislature provided yet another layer of
cooperation by transferring responsibility for the Southern Nevada
Water System from the Colorado River Commission to the SNWA whose
member agencies deliver water directly to the customers.
While these institutional reforms may not appear to be all that
significant, all it takes is a quick look at the water wars which are
occurring in California to understand the value of uniting in cause and
purpose. Our successes have been significant. Every entity has enacted
far reaching water conservation ordinances which have already achieved
a 16 percent reduction in water use with the goal of 25 percent by
2005. We have consolidated our water resources, both groundwater and
Colorado River water, to add in effect an additional 300,000 acre feet
of supply which will take us to 2025. We have embarked upon the largest
water system expansion in the country and have garnered the support of
74 percent of the electorate of Clark County for a .25 cent increase in
the sales tax to pay for it. Our new water system will provide new
delivery capacity sufficient for decades, improve water quality, and
offer greater reliability.
Conclusion
Again I want to thank the Committee for this chance to explain how
the SNWA has become a leader in the west in managing our water
resources. We have proved with water that the whole can be greater than
the sum of its parts. Thank you.
__________
Statement of Patricia Mulroy, General Manager, Southern Nevada Water
Authority
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to be here today to discuss a subject
which comes up quite often: growth and water. There exists a commonly
held myth in some of the rapidly growing areas of the southwest that
growth can and should be controlled through the measured allocation of
water. Indeed, we have all seen the national news magazine programs and
the major newspaper articles which tell a story of how Las Vegas is
experiencing blockbuster growth without any regard for its most finite
resource, water. Well, I am here to tell a little different story. As
explained to you by Commissioner Kincaid, this community has
accomplished water management reforms which other States only talk
about.
Water and Growth
First, I would like to debunk the notion that you can control
growth with water. In 1973, the Department of the Interior had it right
when it published the following statement:
``According to a study prepared for the National Water Commission,
water development and regional economic growth are not necessarily
connected. Ample water supplies for agriculture and/or municipal-
industrial use, the existence of water based recreational resources,
the availability of low cost hydroelectric power etc., etc., do not
provide in and of themselves a sufficient condition for economic
growth. Furthermore, in some situations they may not even be
necessarily conditions for such growth to occur.
. . . Accessibility to major markets, availability of quality labor
supply, transportation costs and alternatives, and climate all play a
role in establishing conditions favorable to growth. . . . The fact
that an ample water supply may not, under certain conditions, be
necessary for growth is indicated by the rapid rate of economic growth
in certain so called ``water short'' areas of the west and southwest.''
In other words, people do not follow water; rather, water tends to
follow people. Our own experience at the Las Vegas Valley Water
District is an excellent example of this fact. Many will recall that in
1991, after several years of explosive growth in population and water
deliveries to our customers, we reached a point where our current
contract for Colorado River water was fully committed. On February 14,
1991, the Board of the Water District reached the difficult decision
that it could no longer issue ``will serve'' water commitment letters
to developers and it imposed a ``temporary suspension of new
commitments for water'' until such time as additional water resources
could be obtained to meet new commitments.
As you can appreciate, this suspension was very controversial and
many in the community called upon us to continue making new commitments
based upon an expectation that we could get additional resources. In
this town that is called ``betting on the come''. This course is
exactly what California has done in recent years to its detriment.
While we were determined that we could negotiate a new contract for
more Colorado River return flow water from the Secretary of the
Interior, both the timing and the amount was at issue. Ultimately,
after many months a contract for Nevada's final allocation of Colorado
River water was signed and the suspension was lifted.
The suspension of water commitments lasted from February 1991 until
March 1992, just over 1 year. One might expect that with such a
significant time period where no new water was available, that growth
would slow down. Well guess what? For the 9 years from 1989 to 1998,
the total population increased by 67 percent and our water use
increased by 52 percent. During the 1 year period of the suspension and
the year that followed, there was no appreciable drop in population
growth or water deliveries. And it's important to remember that without
our excellent conservation results, those water use numbers would have
been even higher. What happened?
Supply and Demand
In a market economy, the law of supply and demand rules. When the
supply drops and the demand remains constant or increases, the value of
the commodity increases and the need to find creative, cooperative
solutions with your neighbors becomes an imperative. Yes, scarcity
challenges the status quo. Shared supplies, like the Colorado River,
that in an era of abundance can be managed as distinct and separate
pieces must be viewed from their totality. Success, just as it has been
proven in the creation of a global economy, rests in creating larger
interlocked hydro commons. As utopian as this may sound to some, the
creation of the Arizona Water Bank and the opportunity that Nevada has
to share in that storage capacity bear witness to the fact that the
impossible is achievable when the need to do so is great enough.
Conclusion
Water cannot and should not be viewed by local, regional or Federal
elected officials as a mechanism to control or manage growth. It is a
vital resource that is required to sustain life and therefore people
will always find a way to obtain it, even if it means the dissolution
of tried and true paradigms. Using water as a tool to accomplish a
livable community would be like trying to sculpt the David with a chain
saw or paint the Mona Lisa with spray paint. I want to commend the
locally elected officials in this community for their recognition of
this reality. Growth management is an important issue which must be
addressed through more precise, direct, local tools such as regional
planning, parks and trails, ordinances to preserve open space, common
sense zoning and housing density limits, and agreements with the
private sector for master planned communities which set aside land, in
advance, for the important needs of the public. This is Smart Growth.
__________
Statement of Robert E. Lewis, Kaufman and Broad Home Corp., Nevada
My name is Robert Lewis. I am President of the Nevada Region of
Kaufman and Broad Home Corp. and Lewis Homes. We develop land and build
homes in Nevada as well as in numerous other States. I have lived in
Las Vegas for over 26 years, and my companies have built over 30,000
homes in southern Nevada. Like many of the others speaking before you
today, I am here not only as one of those involved in the growth of our
community, but also as a resident enjoying a quality living environment
for myself and for my family.
Over the years we have experienced tremendous growth in our valley,
and with this growth has come strains on our infrastructure and changes
to our lifestyles. What is remarkable to me is how well our community
has been able to accommodate this tremendous rate of growth. Through
the effort and cooperation of the public and private sectors, we have
maintained a thriving economy, improved the quality of life for our
residents, and turned what otherwise might have remained a hostile
desert into one of the most desirable living communities in the
country. We have had to tolerate some growing pains along the way,
because progress rarely comes without some inconvenience. But, overall
we have an awful lot to be proud of.
The Federal Government has been a major player in southern Nevada
throughout the years not only in its regulatory role, but also as a
major employer and as a major landowner. To the extent that it is the
purpose of this hearing to reevaluate the role of the Federal
Government in Nevada, I would like to offer my observations and
suggestions.
The activities of the Federal Government in land use decisions
should be only those that are necessary to enforce provisions of the
Constitution such as those relating to property rights, to the rights
of citizens to freely locate, and to protect against unlawful
discrimination. Further, the Federal Government should continue
striving to achieve its national priority of providing decent, safe,
and affordable housing for our citizens. Beyond this, it would seem
that land use decisions are best made at a local level. The suggestion
that the Federal Government become involved in ``Smart Growth,''
whatever that term means, is frightening. Local governments are far
better equipped to deal with land use decisions.
Over the years, the Federal Government has played a dominant role
in protecting our environment, and for the most part the results have
been satisfactory. However, it seems that the time has come to put some
balance into the process. Some agencies and regulations have grown to
the point of being overly burdensome and out of balance with other
needs. In some cases, opponents of growth have abused the regulatory
process to further their own agendas. As current regulations are
enforced and new regulations proposed, I would like to see some cost/
benefit analysis performed to assure that the burden of the regulation
does not exceed the benefit hoped to be derived.
In particular, I am concerned that some of the regulations relating
to air quality, water quality, wastewater treatment, wetlands, the
disabled, and endangered species impose costs and time delays way
beyond benefits provided. Compliance with overly burdensome regulations
strains our ability to provide infrastructure necessary to accommodate
those choosing to move to our community, and diverts our limited
resources from more beneficial uses. As relates to the housing
industry, such regulations drive up the cost of housing thereby denying
housing opportunities to many families.
I am further concerned if unreasonable regulations adversely affect
our ability to attract new industry to southern Nevada. Our economy is
fragile because of its level of dependence on one industry. We need to
attract new industry to diversify our economy and maintain its
vitality. We should not allow concerns about attainment of perhaps
unreasonable Federal standards to discourage industry from locating
here.
Discussion of Federal regulations also brings up the issue of
unfunded mandates. If the Federal Government chooses to impose costly
requirements on us, then the Federal Government should also be sure
that adequate revenue sources are available to comply with these
requirements. To do otherwise will limit the ability of our local
governments to provide the other infrastructure and services expected
from them.
Since the Federal Government is such a major land owner in Nevada,
what it does with its land impacts all of us. I am happy to see that
BLM will again be selling parcels of land in developing areas. A
significant impact on the cost of providing infrastructure has resulted
from the necessity to leap frog over BLM parcels. Allowing some of the
proceeds from BLM sales to be returned to the local governments is a
fair way to reimburse for the costs of providing the infrastructure
that enhanced the values of the BLM parcels. I am also pleased that BLM
will be working with local governments on decisions relating to the
disposition of such parcels.
The auction of BLM parcels is a much better choice than disposition
of land through the exchange process. The history of the exchanges
seems to be that the government overpays for the property being
acquired and undervalues the property being disposed of. This is not
only a bad deal for the taxpayers, but also unfair to those who must
acquire land in the marketplace.
I would be pleased to see more public/private cooperation as it
relates to Federal facilities in southern Nevada. For example, our
industry specializes in providing housing. To whatever extent we can
participate in providing needed military base housing, we cannot only
save the government a considerable amount of money, but also can
provide better quality housing than is likely to be produced through
other government procurement practices.
An area our industry would welcome help from the Federal Government
is in regard to tort reform. The housing industry throughout the
country has been attacked by trial lawyers promoting litigation as a
means of generating unconscionable legal fees. The consequence has been
that in many places liability insurance is prohibitively costly or
unavailable. Many builders are unwilling to build attached for-sale
housing because of a fear of class-action suits. The result is that a
sufficient quantity of affordable housing is not being built.
A final area of concern I have is the speed with which we are able
to respond to our growth needs. We are growing fast in southern Nevada
which means we need to act fast to provide the infrastructure we need
to support this growth. We need new roads, highways, water systems,
sewer systems and so forth built now.
To whatever extent the Federal Government can assist in providing
funding and expedite the process will be beneficial to all of us.
Delays are costly both in terms of money and in terms of the quality of
life for our residents.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you, and would be
happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
__________
Statement of Tom Stephens, Director, Nevada Department of
Transportation
Growth is the driving issue in the Las Vegas Valley and has been
for over 50 years. In the 30 years since 1970, when the current
``Spaghetti Bowl'' interchange of I-15 and US 95 was built, the
population of Las Vegas Valley has grown by over 400 percent. In 1970,
Las Vegas was the 115th largest metropolitan area in the country and by
next year it will be the 32nd largest after passing New Orleans. San
Antonio and Indianapolis are not far ahead.
As we all know, the main force behind the growth has been the
expansion of the gaming industry. But it has also been encouraged by
the extremely favorable business climate in Nevada, not only for gaming
but for all industries. Las Vegas is the capital of capitalism. And the
capitalists have been very responsible. Las Vegas is the most
attractive and most modern major city in the world. Hundreds of
thousands of people walk down its streets everyday just to marvel at
its architecture. Las Vegas has some of the most desirable residential
areas in the nation, and every year tens of thousands of Americans move
here to retire.
Many good things have been done to accommodate all of this growth.
Las Vegas developed one of the nation's finest water systems. Most of
the large residential areas are part of planned communities, and urban
sprawl has been kept amazingly under control considering the
unbelievable rate of growth. The foresight of requiring dedication of
right-of-way for wide boulevards along section and quarter section
lines until this decade has helped Las Vegas avoid the traffic gridlock
associated with other cities its size. The publicly owned bus system,
which did not even exist at the beginning of the decade, is now the
finest of its size in the country. New freeways have been built to the
north and east, and a beltway is being constructed around the city with
local funds.
Yet all is not rosy. Gridlock is a daily occurrence and commute
times have increased dramatically. Air quality is a major issue. People
living along the freeways are demanding relief from the constant noise.
I represent a highway perspective. First and foremost, I would like
to thank the Congress and especially Nevada's Congressional Delegation
for the support they gave to Nevada last year in the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century or TEA-21 as we have come to know it
by. Nevada is now the recipient of $70 million more per year in Federal
highway funds This is a 62 percent increase over the previous Federal
highway funding contained in the Intermodal Transportation Equity Act
of 1991.
This is a hearing on livable communities. The question today is
what can the Federal Government do to help us make Las Vegas a move
livable community.
First, help us speed up our efforts to eliminate traffic gridlock
by streamlining the environmental review process. This streamlining is
called for in TEA-21, but appears to be bogged down. Often times the
environmental process seems to be used as a way to slow down and try to
kill a highway project by opponents who have little real concern for
the environmental issue involved.
Second, make the air quality requirements more reasonable so that
we can concentrate our resources on more important air quality
problems. For example, even though there have been great improvements
in the carbon monoxide level in Las Vegas in the last 10 years, the
basin is still considered to be in nonattainment because we continue to
have two or three instances a year when levels exceed the standard
instead of just one at only a single site. The carbon monoxide levels
for the whole valley are judged on just one location on a couple of
days a year. We should be concentrating more efforts on control of dust
or PM10, which is a worse pollutant in terms of livability than carbon
monoxide at one site.
Third, streamline the Federal project delivery requirements for the
popular ``enhancement program,'' which includes such things as
sidewalks, bicycle paths, landscaping, and restoration of selected
historic buildings, which all improve the livability of the community.
Fourth, remove the prohibition on the use of Federal funds to
retrofit noise walls along the freeways. This will greatly improve the
livability of those impacted by freeway noise.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. This is an
important issue to the Nevada Department of Transportation and to
everyone who lives in Nevada.
__________
Statement of Allen Biaggi, Administrator, Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection
Senator Reid, Senator Chafee, my name is Allen Biaggi and I am the
Administrator of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. I
appreciate the interest the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works has shown on livable communities and growth and the quality of
America's urban and rural areas and I would like to thank you for
holding this hearing in Las Vegas.
In my testimony this morning, I would like to outline some of the
tools the State of Nevada has available to assist local governments and
citizens to make our communities better places to live and improve
environmental quality for the residents and visitors of the State.
As you are no doubt aware, in Nevada, land use planning and zoning
are primarily county and city issues. Our State legislators have wisely
recognized that such activities are best done at the local level.
Consequently, limited authority over these issues is granted to State
government. We do have however, certain resources and programs
available to assist local governments in making these difficult
decisions. Some of these resources have been in place for some time,
some are very new; an outcome in fact of the 1999 session of the Nevada
Legislature.
One long standing tool is Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water
Act which has been in place for over two decades and contains
provisions to address long term community planning as it relates to
water quality. In Nevada, a number of jurisdictions have taken
responsibility for the development of these plans including Clark
County Comprehensive Planning, the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning
Agency for Washoe County, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency for the
Lake Tahoe Basin and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
for the remaining areas of the State.
208 Plans must address anticipated municipal and industrial waste
water treatment needs and priorities of the area for a twenty-year
period and include alternatives for waste water treatment, land
acquisitions for treatment systems, waste water collection, urban storm
water runoff control and a program to provide the financial mechanisms
for the development of such treatment works.
The 208 planning process is designed as a cooperative effort
involving local, State and Federal agencies as well as the public. The
process is initiated with the preparation of a draft waste water
management plan which is solicited for public comment. Once public
comments have been received and integrated into the plan, the agency
submits it to the State for certification. We then review the plan and
if the required elements are in place and ensure it adequately
addresses water quality, the State certifies the plan and submits it to
EPA for final approval. This plan then controls the issuance of
discharge permits and other water quality activities including the
funding of wastewater improvement projects from the State Revolving
Loan Fund.
Most importantly however, the 208 plan must identify open space and
recreation opportunities that can be expected from improved water
quality, including considerations of potential land use associated with
treatment works. An excellent example here in the Las Vegas area is the
national award winning wetlands area established by the City of
Henderson. This unique area combines wastewater treatment while
providing habitat and sanctuary for a variety of birds and animals. It
is also becoming more and more recognized by the public as an area for
experiencing the unique desert wetlands ecosystems which were
historically in place in the Las Vegas Wash.
Clark and Washoe County have aggressively pursued the 208 planning
process to meet the growth needs of their respective communities.
Amendments to these plans have, to date, been well conceived and have
limited the water quality impacts of continued growth. Another example;
the Las Vegas Bay at Lake Mead were not meeting water quality standards
in the 1980's and recreation was limited in that portion of the lake.
Through the 208 planning process, local agencies designed and built
upgrades to existing waste water treatment plants to improve water
quality while at the same time expanding capacity to meet the needs of
growth. Today, plant discharges have increased yet the receiving waters
and overall water quality has been greatly improved. Because of these
improvements, the State is now considering modifying the beneficial
uses in the Las Vegas Bay to include swimming.
The 1999 session of the Nevada Legislature brought about a number
of changes related to livable communities, planning and urban
redevelopment.
Senator Dina Titus introduced, the Legislature passed and Governor
Guinn signed into law Senate Bill 363 (commonly called Nevada's
Brownfields Bill) which will be administered by the Division of
Environmental Protection to remove barriers and encourage the reuse of
lands that contain environmental contamination. Through this process,
we can help revitalize our urban cores, encourage environmental clean
ups and reduce the need for development of virgin, undisturbed lands.
The 1999 Legislative session also passed a series of bills that
will change the way we approach regional planning in Nevada especially
as it relates to air quality. Through the concept of regional planning
coalitions a process has been created to broadly organize and empower
an umbrella planning entity that allows cities and counties to jointly
work together on resource based issues. Planning efforts of State
agencies will be coordinated and circulated through these regional
planning coalitions which are geared to seeking innovative planning and
development solutions outside the framework of conventional planning
strategies. This is a dramatic step forward especially for air
pollution which is obviously transient and doesn't recognize political
boundaries.
These are but a few of the examples that we have available to
assist in making our communities in Nevada better places to live from a
resource perspective. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
stands ready to assist and help in this effort in any way possible.
Again, I want to thank you and the Committee for your interest on this
very critical topic.
I would be happy to answer questions you may have.
__________
Statement of Jim Gibson, Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority
Just last week, the U.S. Census Bureau announced that the City of
Henderson led the Nation for the eighth straight year in population
growth, with a 135 percent increase in population. It is an
understatement to say that the City of Henderson is impacted by growth.
I'm glad to hear today's speakers discuss issues such as air quality,
water quality and transportation. In a recent survey of Henderson
residents, these regional issues topped their list of top growth-
related concerns. As the Mayor of Henderson, I can tell you that these
regional issues are also my top concerns.
This past decade, we rolled up our sleeves and tackled the issues
of growth. Cities in our position know that the growth-management
battle includes radical views and proposals. For Southern Nevada the
battle cry began 3 years ago when State proposals to control, or even
stop growth, were pushed to the forefront of public discussion. We
heard calls to place a growth restrictive ``ring around the valley'',
to dramatically increase development fees to slow growth, and even to
place a moratorium on building permits. Some of these proposals made
their way to the State Legislature, where State representatives
considered replacing local government authority to manage growth issues
with State mandates.
In 1997, the Nevada State Legislature recognized that growth is a
local issue, best managed by those governments most closely connected
to its challenges and responsibilities. The Legislature, with a clear
majority vote, passed SB 383, creating the Southern Nevada Strategic
Planning Authority. The 21 member Authority consisted of elected
representatives from Southern Nevada City Councils and the Clark County
Board of Commissioners along with Southern Nevada business leaders and
residents. The Authority members were charged with developing a 20-year
Strategic Plan for the Las Vegas Valley. The plan brought together a
variety of public and private members with strong individual interests
to reach consensus on both a vision for the future of the valley and an
action plan to get us there.
The final product, the Strategic Plan, was presented to the 1999
Nevada State Legislature. The Plan identified 12 areas impacted by
existing and future growth, and included goals, objectives and
strategies to address each of these issues. No Southern Nevada entity
had ever undertaken a comprehensive study of this scope from a regional
perspective, and the recommendations contained in the final plan
represents a historical and significant local initiative in dealing
with growth and quality of life issues.
Throughout this process, the authority members agreed that local
government handling local problems, with regional collaboration on
regional issues, is by far the most effective solution to sustaining
livable communities and enhancing the quality of life for our
residents. Regional Collaboration on issues of regional importance
became an effective tool for addressing issues such as: transportation,
environment, economy, and education. Most importantly, we recognized
that a cookie-cutter approach to individual community standards, such
as parks and recreation and land use planning, is not always
appropriate, or beneficial, to our citizens if we lose the authority
and responsibility inherent in a municipality to resolve community
problems. For example, I mentioned earlier that the City of Henderson
residents were satisfied with local community standards, but their
priority concerns were for regional in nature. It is clear that the
City of Henderson alone could not adequately address our residents' top
priorities without regional collaboration.
Lead by local governments, business leaders and citizens, the
Authority's regional effort has received national praise. In the 1998
Urban Land Institute's publication, ``Smart Growth'', the Southern
Nevada Strategic Planning Authority is highlighted as a regional
approach to smart growth initiatives. Locally, many of the
recommendations included in the Strategic Plan have already been
adopted. One such initiative is the creation of the Southern Nevada
Planning Coalition, composed of elected representatives from local
governments, whose charge is to oversee the implementation of the
recommendations included in the Strategic Plan.
The City of Henderson continues to work proactively in addressing
our growth-related issues. In a recent agreement between the City of
Henderson and Clark County, both jurisdictions agreed to jointly plan
along jurisdictional boundaries for consistency in transportation,
land-use, and future utility siting. This is another first for Southern
Nevada, and represents the kind of intergovernmental collaboration
necessary to meet the challenges of growth while maintaining and
enhancing the quality of life for our residents.
In reflecting on our accomplishments over the last 2 years, we have
seen an incredible paradigm shift in how local governments interact to
address issues of growth. It became incredibly clear that disjointed or
unplanned growth, without regard to whether people enjoy living here in
the Las Vegas Valley, does not serve the public interest. The Authority
members are proud of our hands-on, consensus-based approach, as this
diverse group had to learn how to delve into the tough issues and
arrive at decisions together. The challenge we successfully faced was
to define what ``quality of life'' means to the people who live here so
that the right strategies could be pursued to protect and improve our
lives.
In the final analysis, we've found that our Strategic Planning
process got to the heart of what concerns most cities across the Nation
while the debate regarding quality of life issues has elevated to the
national level. The recent dialog surrounding the Administration's
Livability Agenda hits at the very core of issues covered during our 2
year Strategic Planning process. We mirror the Livability Agenda's
concerns in addressing the preservation of open and green spaces, clean
air and water, safe places for families to work, play and relax; easing
traffic congestion; enhancing citizen and private sector involvement in
planning; collaboration between neighboring communities; and promotion
of economic competitiveness.
Our desired outcomes are the same: how do we protect and enhance
our quality of life? Our completed Strategic Plan and its legacy of
regional collaboration is evidence that these tough issues can be
resolved locally. Perhaps the Authority's Strategic Plan will be useful
as a blueprint for local cooperation and solutions to effectively
address growth.
__________
Statement of Jay Bartos, President, Friends of Red Rock Canyon
The Friends of Red Rock Canyon is an organization of volunteers
devoted to the protection of the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation
Area. Our 200 or so volunteers are there to assist the Bureau of Land
Management by leading hikes, presenting nature programs for adults and
children, teaching teachers about Red Rock, building and maintaining
trails, and a host of other jobs. We all come from a wide variety of
backgrounds but we do all have one thing in common--our love for one of
Nevada's natural treasures.
The growth of Clark County is mirrored by the changes at Red Rock
over the years. For 1,000 or so years the area was used by Native
Americans for food and shelter. In the early days of Las Vegas, some of
the area was homesteaded. In 1960, as recreational use increased, the
State became interested in preserving the land, and by the early 1970's
a combination of State and Federal actions had led to protection for
some 62,000 acres.
The focus of the area was changed from recreation to conservation
in 1990, reflecting the need to better protect the increasingly popular
area. Continued population growth led to the expansion of the
conservation in 1994 to 195,610 acres while there was still something
there to conserve.
There are now well over a million visitors a year and Red Rock
Canyon is being affected. Just as the increase in residents and
visitors strains our own local infrastructure and our nerves, the ever-
increasing use of the roads and trails at Red Rock creates strains
there. Perhaps more so, because the fragile desert is easily destroyed
by people who wander off the trails in search of ever-elusive solitude.
Those resulting unofficial trails multiply rapidly, scarring the land
and contributing to a number of environmental problems.
Outdoor recreation should provide rejuvenation, a physical and
mental re-creation, if you will. That becomes less likely to happen as
more visitors create more conflict. Hikers, bikers, climbers, riders
all compete for space and a piece of nature. As the city creeps ever
closer, the numbers of people with easy access to the canyon will
increase, and, inevitably, each person there views his or her desired
use of the areas as the right and proper one.
The effects of increasing numbers of people on desert plants and
animals are often not evident until almost too late to reverse. There
hasn't really been a lot of research in this area, so often things that
happen do catch us by surprise. For instance, the population of ravens
has increased in the Mojave Desert as reliable sources of food--
people--increase. The tidbits they provide will allow the birds to stay
around and breed more often than they would otherwise. And the young
desert tortoises, the tortoises being a threatened species themselves
because of habitat destruction, now find themselves under a more direct
threat. It takes several years for the tortoise shell to harden enough
to resist a raven's beak, and with more and more of the clever, sharp-
eyed ravens about, all too many of the young tortoises simply wind up
as a quick snack.
Coyotes thrive where people live and are especially happy to see
well-watered suburbs in the desert. Rather than decimating their
natural prey, however, they prefer to go after something a little
slower and a little less clever--our cats and dogs. This creates a
people versus animal scenario the coyotes can only lose.
In fact, as we know, plants and animals are impacted by growth
throughout the county, not just in the Red Rock area. A proposed
conservation plan devised by the county and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is designed to allow continued development in areas containing
threatened plant and animal species, beginning with some 79 already on
the list. This could be a good first step to ensuring that those
species do not go out of existence, but only as long as funding is
adequate for proper monitoring. And I might also add that increased
funding for the Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies at UNLV,
whether that money comes from the State, from the university itself, or
from the Federal Government, would go a long way in pointing out
prospective problems that could be cutoff before they become too
impossible to solve.
Air pollution, of course, is a county-wide problem edging ever
closer to Red Rock. If you climb Turtlehead Peak on a winter's day,
chances are you will see Las Vegas enveloped in a yellow and brown
cloud. With houses and casinos being built right to the edge of the
conservation area now, how long will it be before Turtlehead Peak
itself is covered by this same air? We have heard a lot today about
various programs and projects underway to make sure this air is clean
and kept clean. Well, let's hope that the county, prodded by the
Environmental Protection Agency, can keep this from happening. A
greater push toward alternative fuels and better mass transit, as we
have also heard about today, would be a start along that road.
Any change of direction can only happen if certain things come
together. Education perhaps is No. 1. People recognize the problems
caused by growth but too often will just throw up their hands in
helplessness when faced with solving those problems. They just seem too
big. Showing that solutions can come a step at a time encourages
action. In dealing with environmental issues, sometimes simply showing
how everything is connected can open eyes.
And finally, I think good political leadership is a must. The
changing emphasis on regional cooperation, which we have heard today,
again is something that has become more and more prevalent over the
last couple of years to tackle the many regional issues. Too many local
politicians remain local; they talk a lot about managing growth while
doing too little about it.
A 1996 University of Nevada poll indicated that 81 percent of
southern Nevadans are looking for growth to slow or, at worst, stay the
same. We have heard today about any number of initiatives designed to
make our growth smarter. Mayor Goodman's inner-city proposal would be
one that would greatly benefit both the human inhabitants of Las Vegas
and the plant and animal inhabitants of the county. Hopefully, these
and others will be successful.
And Senator, one thing, as long as everyone is here asking for
money, that you could perhaps initiate is ensuring the funding for the
BLM, as they manage Red Rock Canyon, is constant as more and more
personnel are needed that are not covered by the fee demonstration
program. And also a suggestion that the Rainbow Gardens recreation area
over on the other side of town is kept as a project going full force.
And not to forget Lake Mead as a national recreation area which is in
dire need of personnel and all kinds of things that only Federal
funding can bring. So that would be my only plea for money.
I thank you for inviting me here today.
__________
Letter from Dina Titus, Nevada State Senator
__________
Statement of the Sierra Club
Las Vegas is like no place else on earth. This is true for many
reasons, positive and negative. In recent weeks, reports have shown
that Las Vegas stands out as experiencing some of the most phenomenal
growth in the country. Some of the consequences of this growth have
impacted the quality of life we enjoy--we've seen more traffic
gridlock, more air pollution and more threats to our desert
environment.
The air we breathe, the water we drink, the open spaces we enjoy
and the wildlife we want to protect all contribute to the quality of
life in Las Vegas. Let's work together to enhance these things rather
than talk about how to undermine them.
Some have suggested that the environment take another hit through
relaxation of environmental protections. Although we understand and
appreciate the need for flexibility and increased local controls in
many areas, we do not believe that enforcement of environmental
protections is the place to be flexible. Our goal as a nation should be
to help communities pursue development that doesn't come at the expense
of our need for clean air, clean water, open spaces, wildlife habitat
and public health and safety.
Our message to you is quite simple. Increased local control and
innovation is a wonderful thing, but not if it interferes with the full
enforcement of environmental protections.
Urban Sprawl
Las Vegas is the fastest growing city in the U.S. We gain a new
resident every 9 minutes and our land use size grew 238 percent between
1990 and 1996. The citizens of Las Vegas are concerned about the
explosive growth that we have experienced and its consequences to the
quality of our environment and our daily lives.
In Las Vegas, the Sierra Club is working to educate the public
about steps they can take to combat sprawl. We are working to bring
together the various stakeholders to develop a picture of what we can
specifically do to respond to the clear public demand to curb sprawl,
protect wild places and promote smart growth, instead of growth at all
costs. The Sierra Club supports ``Smart Growth'' solutions that can
save taxpayer dollars, prevent pollution, and protect wild places. Now
more than ever we need creative, long-term solutions to the
consequences of urban sprawl.
Clean Air and Transportation
The larger a community gets, the farther people are likely to have
to travel to work. The most common way to travel in Las Vegas is by
car. The sheer number of cars on the road in Las Vegas causes traffic
congestion and in turn, increased air pollution. Currently the answer
has been ``build more roads''. This is a trend that we do not support.
Las Vegas is a city that boasts about being a city of the future,
but our attitude toward transportation is rooted firmly in the
automobile dependent past. It is time for Las Vegas to truly become a
city of the future. It is absolutely critical for government to promote
environmentally friendly transportation alternatives instead of relying
on new highway construction to relieve traffic congestion. For
instance, we are supporting the ``no-build'' alternative in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement on the widening of U.S. Highway 95. In
addition, we do not support any of the three proposed bridges near
Hoover Dam as a valid alternative Colorado River crossing. We need to
solve the transportation problems--not proliferate them with more roads
and more cars.
Las Vegas is currently out of compliance with national air quality
standards for particulate matter (PM10) and carbon monoxide. On ``bad
air'' days, warning are issued over television and radio telling is it
is not safe for our children to go outside for gym class! It is our
belief that without the threat of the Environmental Protection Agency
watching over their shoulder, little would be done to improve the air
quality in Las Vegas. The protection of clean air is not just a
visibility or appearance issue, it is a serious health concern and
there is a lot of work to do before we can call the air in Las Vegas
clean and healthy.
Clean Water
The Clean Water Act should be aggressively enforced by all agencies
with water management responsibilities and should not be weakened.
Point-source pollution should be eliminated, best management practices
for air and water-borne pollutants should be developed, and adequate
funding should be provided to implement control of non-point sources.
The news has been full of stories about how the Sunrise Landfill
near the Las Vegas Wash has been leaking pollutants into the air and
water. Less than a year ago, severe storms and flooding left a 4.5 mile
trail of garbage from the landfill through the Las Vegas Wash. The Wash
flows directly into Lake Mead, upstream from the intake valve for the
Las Vegas water system.
The Las Vegas Wash itself is a major concern for Las Vegans. In
1972, the Wash supported about 2,000 acres of wetlands. Development has
encroached on the Wash to the point that there are only a few hundred
acres left. Those acres are still in danger from developers who take
advantage of the ``growth at all costs'' mentality. The Wash is also in
danger from polluted run-off. There is more run-off than ever and fewer
acres of Wash to dilute and clean the ground water before it enters
Lake Mead and the Colorado River. We have lost vast stretches of
marshlands and the plants and animals who lived there.
Land Use
Nevada has one of the highest percentages of public lands in the
country, yet Las Vegas is far below the national average when it comes
to parks, open spaces, trails, and green and brown spaces. It is more
important than ever that we make the creation and protection of open
spaces a priority. Some parts of the valley are doing a better job than
others because it has been given priority in their planning efforts. We
must remember that public lands need to be managed to benefit the
public, not a handful of developers.
What Can Government Do?
In some things, government should do less:
stop building highways that encourage urban sprawl;
stop subsidizing wetlands destruction;
stop giving grants and tax incentives that encourage
developers to fragment wild areas and habitat;
stop the practice of rubber stamping wetlands destruction
when developers want to build in these precious areas.
But there are some things the government should do more of:
recognize that the public says that the environment is a
major concern to them and their families;
States should require real comprehensive, regional
planning;
the Federal Government should put real funding into
transportation choices and support taxpayer incentives for public
transit use;
support conservation easements that allow landowners to
donate the development rights for their land to conservation
organizations, and receive income, property, and estate tax relief;
fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund;
make it easier to get a wetlands classified as a
protected wetlands;
provide sufficient funding for wildlife conservation and
protection as well as programs for urban parks and recreation, historic
preservation, and farm and rangeland conservation;
Some communities are way ahead of the Federal Government in dealing
with urban sprawl. Las Vegas is not one of them. Elected and appointed
officials should encourage communities to come up with local,
innovative solutions to the problems of urban sprawl, but not at the
expense of full enforcement of environmental protections that guard our
families health, the air we breathe, the water we drink and the quality
of life so important to all of us.