 |
|
|
|
Alaska Outdoor Council News (Jan-Mar 1999)
Federal Funds for Everybody
FEDERAL BILLS INFLAME INHOLDERS, TANTALIZE TREE-HUGGERS, GRATIFY STATE GAME DEPARTMENTS
Analysis by Dick Bishop
S.25 by Sen. Murkowski and HR701 by Rep. Young propose similar sweeping changes in allocation of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil revenues. Their respective bills differ in some details but the big picture is as follows:
One-half of OCS revenues would go to federal treasury (all OCS revenue goes there now).
About 40% of OCS revenues would be divided up mainly between states. Additionally tribes and village corporations would share the equivalent of one state's portion.
About 10% of the total (about $350 million) would go to federal land management agencies for land acquisition in & near National Forests, Parks, Refuges, etc.
Money going to states would be used in broad programs: 1) Coastal/marine impacts; 2) Land & Water Conservation Fund to acquire and develop recreation lands and facilities; 3) Urban parks and recreation programs; 4) wildlife conservation programs.
All states would get significant funds while coastal states would get a larger share. Alaska would be eligible for about $131 million per year (based on 1997 revenues) according to Murkowski and Young. Of that, about $16 million would be available for fish and wildlife conservation programs (#4 above)
All this money would be provided with no further dalliance by Congress - no competition, appropriation, or allocation. No vetoes by a President. Regulations on use of the money are spelled out in the bill and would be administered largely by the Interior Department. For example, wildlife conservation projects require the Interior Secretary's approval, and no more than 10% of the State's funds can be used for law enforcement.
Strongest objection to the proposal comes from private property rights advocates. The bills require "willing sellers" within federal enclaves; expending 2/3rds of the money in the eastern half of the U.S.; and no condemnation with this money.
But, property rights proponents point to situations in Alaska and elsewhere when inholders finally became "willing sellers" because increasing federal rules made their private lands inaccessible and/or unusable-not to mention of no value to the private sector. Who but the feds would buy them? Draconian, but real life. This needs fixing.
State funds could also be used to buy private property, not bound by the federal "willing seller" requirement.
The purpose of the money for wildlife conservation is strongly slanted toward non-game programs. It is an alternative to the former "Teaming with Wildlife" scheme that failed. The Murkowski and Young bills allow use of the monies on game as well as non-game, but do not provide specific protections of traditional uses. Such protection might include a prohibition on closing acquired lands to hunting, fishing, and/or trapping.
The Murkowski and Young bills are being copied in part by other politicians who know a winning political plan when they see it. But these players are no friends of fishers, hunters and trappers. They are Rep. George Miller (HR798), Sen. Boxer (S.446), Sen. Feinstein (S.532) and President Clinton (Lands Legacy Initiative).
Given this array of "sympathizers" a major worry is whether HR701/S25 can be improved, or will be further compromised in the political process.
Be informed! Don't allow yourself to be snowed by CARA.
Email us with questions or comments about this web site.
All pages on this website are ©1999-2006, American Land Rights Association. Permission is granted to use any and all information herein, as long as credit is given to ALRA.
