This is the latest from Sierra Club about the TWW/CARA/Resources 2000
issue. The Iowa DNR endorses the two CARA bills (HR 701 in the House and
S 25 in the Senate), although Director Paul Johnson has serious concerns
about these bills.
Sierra Club feels that there are major problems with both of these bills
and we support Resources 2000, the Miller/Boxer Bills.
Please read this material and contact your legislator. If you need phone
numbers, contact me at [log in to unmask]
========================================================
The CARA bill will likely be marked up in Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee this week, and IT APPEARS THE SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT THEY
WILL BE OFFERING IS EVEN WORSE THAN THE ORIGINAL S. 25 - obviously we are
vigorously opposing the bill at this point. Please call or e-mail if you
have any questions or comments. Thanks again for your help.
The Sierra Club message is simple: the Sierra Club supports efforts to
provide full and permanent funding for the LWCF and other conservation
programs; but such efforts must NOT create incentives for new or
accelerated offshore oil production, create new threats to our coastal
environment, or undermine the goals of the LWCF.
This information provides some more detail on the bills, as well as on
dangers of offshore oil production and how the CARA bill threatens
sensitive coastal areas. (If you would like more information on the
offshore threats, contact [log in to unmask])
Dana Wolfe, Associate Representative, Sierra Club Land Protection Program
(202) 675-6690, [log in to unmask]
=========================================================
Resources 2000: Wildlands and Wildlife for the Future
For over a hundred years, Americans have been setting aside special places
to preserve them 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 forty years. But the
LWCF has been drastically underfunded by Congress over the years. As a
result, America's precious wild places are being lost. This year, several
proposals are being considered in Congress to save our wildlands -- by
revitalizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund and providing an array of
funding for land protection and habitat restoration.
Resources 2000: A Plan to Protect Wild Places (WE SUPPORT THIS)
"Resources 2000", offered by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) and Sen. Barbara
Boxer (D-Calif.), would fully and permanently fund the LWCF, fulfilling the
promise made almost 40 years ago to protect and enhance our prized natural
treasures. The bill would ensure that the LWCF receives its full $900
million annually and it takes the Fund "off-budget" to assure full funding
each year.
H.R. 798 and S. 446 would also establish a permanent $350 million fund for
fish and wildlife conservation planning, $300 million to protect and
restore marine fish and wildlife, and $100 million to assist landowners who
voluntarily contribute to the recovery of endangered and threatened
species.
The legislation would also include $100 million for LWCF's urban companion,
the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program; $150 million for the
Historic Preservation Fund; $250 million for federal lands restoration; and
$150 million for farmland and open space preservation.
=======================================================
A Word of Caution About "CARA"
Sierra Club strongly supports initiatives to revitalize the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and direct offshore oil revenues to the protection and
restoration of our wildlands.
However, we have concerns about legislation in the House and Senate, the
"Conservation and Reinvestment Act" (CARA), which claims conservation goals
similar to Resources 2000, but could in fact harm our environment.
H.R 701 and S. 25 would also permanently fund the LWCF and provide
permanent funding for wildlife protection at the state level. However,
these bills may create incentives for coastal states to undermine the
current moratorium on new offshore oil leasing, and to accelerate offshore
production in offshore areas currently under production. The bill does not
exclude these sensitive areas as designated revenue sources. It would even
allocate money to state and local governments based on proximity to
offshore oil production. CARA would direct roughly $1 billion to coastal
states in the guise of "impact assistance," the bulk of which would go to
a few states with oil and gas production off their coasts. This new fund
would not ensure that funds are used for environmental restoration. In
fact, some states have already identified port development and highway
construction as priority projects.
In addition, CARA would place new and damaging restrictions on the use of
federal LWCF funds. For instance, the legislation requires that if the cost
of a proposed acquisition exceeds $1 million (House) or $5 million
(Senate), the project must be sent back to Congress for authorization. CARA
would also limit LWCF acquisitions to areas within existing protected
units, hamstringing efforts to restore ecosystems and create new parks and
refuges.
We also need to get out the message that one of these LWCF bills, the
"Conservation and Reinvestment Act" ("CARA"), contains provisions that
could be harmful to the environment. Because CARA would provide funding
for wildlands protection and coastal restoration, there has been some
confusion as to why the Sierra Club opposes it. Naturally, Sierra Club
activists are excited about the prospect of a comprehensive package for
funding the protection of our natural heritage. But we are concerned that
CARA will create incentives for new or accelerated offshore oil drilling,
and that new "coastal impact assistance" will actually be used for building
environmentally-damaging infrastructure projects.
Dana Wolfe, Associate Representative, Sierra Club Land Protection Program
(202) 675-6690, [log in to unmask]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
|
