 |
|
|
|
Journal of Commerce (New York), 5/26/1999
Reprinted in the Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), 6/12/99Guest Opinion
CLEAN OCEANS AND HOCKEY RINKS
David A. Ridenour ([email protected]) is vice president of The National Center for Public Policy Research, Washington, where he oversees environmental and regulatory policy.
Only politicians would try sell the idea that the best way to reduce environmental threats to the oceans is to spend more money on ice hockey rinks, parks and other recreational facilities in cities. But that's precisely what some elected officials are trying to do with a bipartisan bill called the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 (CARA), introduced ostensibly to offset the environmental effects of offshore oil and gas drilling.
Put forward in the House by Reps. Don Young, R-Alaska, and John Dingell, D-Mich., and in the Senate by Sens. Frank Murkowski, R- Alaska, and Mary Landrieu, D-La. CARA would allow coastal states to keep a portion of the $4 billion to $5 billion in royalties generated annually from drilling on the outer-continental shelf (OCS). Although it was originally envisioned that OCS revenues would be split between the states and the federal government, the states never got much money. Last year, the six states with OCS drilling collected just $65 million -- less than 2 percent of all OCS revenues. The royalties have instead ended up in the federal government's general fund where -- until recently -- they were used to mask the real size of the budget deficit.
The idea of sharing royalties with coastal states makes sense, since these states are the most vulnerable to the environmental risks of oil drilling.
As Mark Van Putten, president of the National Wildlife Federation noted in recent congressional testimony, the lion's share of environmental impacts from OCS drilling are borne by America's coastal zones. These zones "provide important spawning habitat for commercially valuable fisheries and harbor a disproportionate fraction of rare and endangered wildlife."
Yet coastal states aren't the only ones that would benefit from CARA. While the bill would set aside 27 percent of OCS revenues for mitigation of environmental impacts, another 23 percent of the revenues would be allocated to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a federal program used to buy private land for outdoor conservation, recreation and development projects, including urban parks and basketball courts. One wonders what the scientific basis is for building city parks, hockey rinks and the like to help reduce the environmental harm caused by offshore drilling operations. Given the vast quantity of midnight basketball courts funded by Congress over the past decade to cure the nation's crime problem, it's a wonder there is any pollution in the oceans at all. The real reason for such funding, of course, is politics. Because only six states have OCS drilling, CARA can't pass with the votes from them alone. So the sponsors of the bill decided to sweeten the deal -- particularly for states with large congressional delegations.
Under CARA, more than 25 percent of the Land and Water Conservation monies would be distributed equally to states, 8.4 percent would be granted based on state population size, 16 percent would be reserved for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program and 28 percent would be reserved for Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture land acquisition in the Eastern United States.
CARA's sponsors have also worked to get environmentalists and the Clinton administration on board. The land acquisition called for in the bill certainly fits in nicely with the administration's Lands Legacy and Livable Communities initiatives, which seek to preserve open spaces to curb urban sprawl. Transferring more land from private hands to the government also appeals to environmentalists.
But these purchases have property rights groups concerned.
Sponsors of CARA insist that bill doesn't threaten property rights because it requires "willing sellers" for land purchases. But government officials have become quite adept over the years in applying regulations, using legal maneuvers and targeting land purchases to convert unwilling sellers to willing ones.
The Alaska National Interest Lands and Conservation Act, for example, was also supposed to protect property owners' rights -- including the rights of miners.
But as Ray Kreig, who owns land within several national parks, noted in recent congressional testimony, "Within only seven years of passage of ANILCA, the National Park Service acquiesced to a friendly lawsuit filed by environmental organizations and mining in all Alaska's national parks was shut down. The miners then suffered years of "insincere and biased mining claim validity determinations -- all designed to exhaust the resources of claim holders and increase their risk and expense."
So much for willing sellers.
Even if CARA could protect property rights, it is still unclear how buying a retiree's land in the Adirondacks or land outside cities to stop suburban development will benefit our oceans. But that's not what CARA is really about: It's about congressmen bringing dollars home to their districts.
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.
