[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ FW: Fwd: LWCF President Sign-on Extension - DO NOT SIGN!!

Enviro-Mich message from Doug Cornett <drcornet@up.net>

"The prevailing philosophy seems to be that if there is money to be had,
just take it and don't ask where it came from.  TWW members and allies
(many of whom are on public payroll) have been devoting significant
resources and time to organizing and lobbying for CARA.   Did you even know
that they are speaking for you?"


Regarding the LWCF sign-on letter to President Clinton, Peter McKeever and
Tom Woiwode state that they are not asking you to endorse the LWCF/CARA
legislation.  Yet, in a November Action Alert sent by McKeever (found
below), it is stated that the CARA legislation is fully supported by
Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation (AHR) - the very organization
McKeever works for!  Action Alerts from GREEN and Sierra Club's Maryland
Chapter state that CARA is the WORST part of the LWCF/CARA compromise bill!
(Also posted below)

I maintain that the LWCF/CARA compromise bill is BAD legislation and THAT
is what your organization supports by signing-on to the Clinton letter.

Don't let Woiwode or McKeever fool you!  I invite Mr. McKeever or Mr.
Woiwode to debate the merits of the sign-on letter on this list-serve if
they are so confident that GREEN or the Sierra Club's Maryland chapter is
wrong in their analysis of the bill.


Doug Cornett
Northwoods Wilderness Recovery

P.S.  If you've signed AHR's letter to Clinton, you might want to
reconsider and have your organization's name removed by the Jan. 5, 2000

NOTE:  This post is Michigan-specific because Michigan would receive at
least $13 million annually for conservation projects from the legislation.

Tom Woiwode wrote:

Doug Cornett responded to the earlier message by suggesting this was "bad
legislation" and should not be endorsed.  Attached is the response from the
coordinator of the LWCF initiative in the Midwest.  Please note that the
sign-on request is not directly tied to any piece of legislation; it focuses
on full funding of LWCF.


>FROM:   Peter McKeever, Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation, Midwest 
>Outreach Coordinator
>Here is the latest on CARA.  More information will follow, but NOW is the 
>time to take action.  CARPE CARA.
>Everybody should contact as many members of the committee as you can...don't 
>drop this because your member is not on the committee.
>Read on, and then go for it!
>Future generations will thank us for having worked so hard to pass this 
>bill.  If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at
>**************PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY*******************
>The House Resources Committee is planning to mark-up CARA next Wednesday,
>Nov. 10!  This is the moment we've been waiting for! Congratulations to all 
>of you for your great efforts.  This is the time when we can push LWCF
over a 
>big hurdle!
>This is our chance to thank members of the Resources Committee who support
>CARA, reaffirm their support for the vote and ask for the support of those
>that are still uncommitted. 
>Getting the bill out of committee, without any amendments, with a strong
>of support is our immediate goal!!! 
>When this happens there are probably enough votes to pass it on the floor.  
>Best estimates are that the full House will pass CARA if it gets through the 
>committee.  Your work is paying dividends; invest a bit more time and energy 
>Most of the issues that have kept CARA bottled up have been resolved.
>Chairman Don Young and Ranking Democrat George Miller are eager to move
>ahead.  We're at the critical juncture we've glimpsed for months on the
>horizon. Now is the time to harness our collective energy and push CARA over
>the hump.
>A handful of property rights groups that primarily oppose additional Federal 
>land acquisition as part of Title II have vowed to defeat CARA during
>Unless we express our support for CARA as loudly and passionately as these
>very activist groups, we may lose critical support.  Republican support
>particularly will be essential to getting a successful vote out of committee
>and then bring the bill to the floor.  
>Our mission is clear, and time is short!
>We need to convince all members of the Resources Committee to vote for CARA.
>We've all worked hard to get this far . . . let's roll up ourselves and make
>sure CARA receives the support it deserves.
>The most important thing you can do is call, fax or e-mail members of the
>Resources Committee and urge them to pass CARA out of the committee without 
>any amendments.  Some amendments may be submitted; the bill now is a 
>consensus which has broad support; amendments which serve narrow interests 
>may throw that broad support out of balance.  
>Attached is the list of members of the House Resources Committee. Send this 
>message to colleagues, friends and family in other states and encourage them 
>to do the same.
>Additionally, the Resources Committee is accepting comments via email at:
>CARA@mail.house.gov . Let's make sure they hear loud and clear of our
>support for the bill.
>Here are 10 reasons to support CARA:
>1) CARA is the most sweeping and significant piece of conservation
>legislation in half a century.
>2) CARA will provide much needed funding for greenbelts, playing fields,
>trails, and neighborhood parks.  Outdoor recreation is essential for healthy
>families and boosts the quality of life for all Americans.
>3) The bipartisan bill before the committee is the result of extensive
>negotiations between Republican and Democratic leaders.  It is sensible,
>moderate, consensus legislation!
>4) CARA has the support of a huge coalition of businesses, conservation
>groups, sportsmen's organizations, and municipal leaders.  Forty-nine
>governors have expressed their support for the basic concepts in the bill. 
>5) CARA keeps decision-making at the local and state level, not in D.C.
>6) CARA will help protect and restore the nation's coastline.  It will help
>states and coastal communities mitigate the impacts of offshore oil and
>other types of development.
>7) More than 125 members of the House and 21 members of the Senate are
>cosponsoring CARA.  CARA's time has come!
>8) CARA provides a way to invest revenues from the depletion of the
>nation's oil reserves into something of lasting value for all Americans.
>9) By providing increased funding for wildlife programs, CARA will reduce
>the need for costly and disruptive endangered species listings.  It will
>help ensure that common species remain common.
>10) Sportsmen will no longer be the only ones contributing financially to
>wildlife conservation programs. 
>Call, e-mail or fax as many members of the Resources Committee as possible.
>Tell them why you support CARA.  Pass this message on to as many people as
>you know.  If you have friends or family in states with Resource Committee
>members, please send them this message.
>On the next page is the contact information you need.

>From: "Roger Featherstone" <RFeather@albq.defenders.org>
>Organization: Defenders of Wildlife
>On Top of the Hill, Week of November 15, 1999
>GREEN's Legislative and Policy Report

>As many of you already know, the House Resources Committee was engaged 
>in negotiations on a compromise bill to spend Outer Continental Shelf 
>(OCS) oil revenues.  Negotiators finally reached agreement on a bill 
>that would combine features of Representative Don Young's CARA bill and 
>Representative George Miller's Resources 2000 and it was marked up in 
>committee on Wednesday, November 10.  The good news is that this bill 
>provides some $900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and 
>$150 million for conservation easements and species recovery.  It would 
>also provide $1 billion for coastal impact assistance, $350 million for 
>stateside wildlife conservation, and some $600 million for urban parks 
>and recreation, historic preservation, and a variety of other programs. 
>The compromise draft bill removes many of the CARA restrictions on 
>federal land acquisition that had been such a stumbling block in 
>reaching a compromise.  This bill offers the promise of a lot of money 
>that could potentially do a lot of good things for a lot of people.  
>While there is a lot of money to help the environment in this bill, 
>there is also a lot of money that could potentially be used for 
>environmentally damaging activities.  The new compromise CARA bill is 
>very much a double-edged sword.
>Despite of all its benefits, this new bill is an unacceptable bill.  
>Like CARA it contains substantial incentives for off-shore drilling and 
>could serve to open sensitive new areas, especially in Alaska, to oil 
>drilling.  In addition, there are inadequate restrictions on how the 
>coastal impact money could be spent.  This could result in large 
>amounts of money spent on infrastructure and other environmentally 
>damaging coastal development.  Similarly, much of the money for 
>stateside wildlife conservation would go to states with no assurance 
>that a significant amount would be spent on non-game wildlife or to 
>help threatened and endangered species.  And, while it does authorize 
>LWCF spending, it does not provide guarantees that all the money will 
>actually be spent, leaving the LWCF subject to the functional 
>equivalent of the yearly appropriations process that has critically 
>underfunded it for the last two decades.
>While many in the environmental community see this new bill as an 
>historic opportunity to permanently fund the LWCF, we are in a very 
>dangerous situation as this bill moves to the House floor for 
>consideration, probably sometime early in the next session of Congress. 
>The current strategy of many environmental groups is to try and fix the 
>problems enumerated above once the bill gets to the House floor.  The 
>real danger is that with so much money on the table, some groups and 
>other interests, including a majority in Congress and the President, 
>will support a compromised bill even if all the bad provisions are not 
>GREEN continues to support Representative George Miller's Resources 
>2000 bill which already has 107 cosponsors in the House of 
>Representatives.  Grassroots activists all across the country have 
>worked long and hard to advance Resources 2000.  H.R. 798 has full 
>permanent funding for the LWCF without any of the environmentally 
>damaging provisions contained in the bill that the House Resources 
>Committee has just marked up.  Like all of the environmental groups, 
>GREEN wants to see full and permanent funding for the LWCF and more 
>money spent to protect and restore endangered species and non-game 
>wildlife.  GREEN supports efforts to accomplish those objectives but 
>believes that in the current Congress trying to "fix" this comprise 
>CARA bill is a very risky endeavor.  That is why GREEN continues to 
>recommend that grassroots activists continue to push Resources 2000 as 
>the best legislative vehicle to permanently fund the LWCF and to serve 
>as a standard against which legislation such as this compromise bill 
>can be measured.
>Action: Call your Representatives and Senators and ask them to become 
>cosponsors of either Representative George Miller's Resources 2000 H.R. 
>798 or Senator Barbara Boxer's S. 446.  Let them know that there is 
>overwhelming support among the American people for full permanent 
>funding for the Land and Water Fund and that Resources 2000 is the best 
>legislative vehicle to provide for that funding.  Let them know that 
>you and your family want Resources 2000.  You can reach your 
>congressional legislator by calling the Capitol switch board at (202) 
>If you would like to see if your Representative is already a cosponsor 
>of H.R. 798 check out the Thomas website:
>For the U.S. Senate and S. 446 see:
>TOOLS: For evaluating this new draft bill, you can see a side-by-side 
>comparison of the Miller/Boxer and Young/Landrieu bills on GREEN's 
>website: <http://www.defenders.org/inter14.html>.

Newly Hatched "Conservation and Reinvestment Act/CARA" -- Lands Legacy or
the Frankenstein of Conservation Legislation?

During the closing days of the 1999 Congressional Session, the House =
Resources Committee passed a long-awaited "compromise" bill for =
permanent and mandatory funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) with royalties from offshore oil production on the Outer =
Continental Shelf (OCS).  House floor action and/or Senate markup is =
anticipated early in the next session.  Despite glowing reports fed to
the press by supporters,  this is no time for environmentalists to =
rejoice. A closer look reveals that despite numerous improvements this
"compromise" -- the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), HR 701--
still might better be described as a Faustian Bargain sure to make =
Alaska coasts and wilderness the new national sacrifice area to our =
wanton energy consumption. 

Offshore oil development brings with it water pollution, air pollution,
and the potential for spills, as well as onshore roads, pipelines,
refineries and other infrastructure that pose a major threat to fish and
wildlife habitat and to the environmental quality for human residents.
The hostile and fragile Arctic environment takes centuries to repair this
kind of harm. Yet for the past few years the two titans of North Slope
oil production, BP Amoco and ARCO, have been seeking to expand into 10
million offshore acres of the Beaufort Sea, at the very doorstep of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - their wish may be granted very soon
after Congress returns in early 2000.


Title I of the new CARA still contains language that spells danger for
marine and coastal habitat and living resources.  Specifically, CARA
provides major incentives for oil development in sensitive frontier =
areas off Alaska.  It appears that the allocation scheme excludes leased
tracts within the moratorium areas on which there was no production as of
1/1/99 from the calculation of which states get money and how much they
get, a helpful step forward.  

However, since Alaska (outside of Bristol Bay) is not subject to the
moratorium, the state will have a major incentive to accept new leasing,
given that 50% of its allocation will be based on leasing.  The direct
pass-through to local governments of 50% of a state's allocable share is
particularly damaging.  The proximity-based incentives remain and will
provide a major incentive for local governments in Alaska AND OTHER
PRODUCING STATES to accept more =
leasing and development.

"Qualified OCS revenues" appears to exclude revenues from all tracts =
(leased and unleased) within the moratorium areas on which there is no
production as of 1/1/99, which is a helpful clarification.  However, 
under the definition, revenues from leasing and production in Alaska =
outside of Bristol Bay would apparently be used to fund all titles of the
bill. This creates a major incentive for all the many beneficiaries of
the bill, including Maryland's public lands and wildlife programs,  to
support accelerated leasing and development in Alaska in order to provide
revenues for the activities funded by the bill.


Title I provides for "coastal impact assistance" through revenue- sharing
with OCS states.  While the bill authorizes good uses of the money, there
is a catchall use that would allow funds to be spent on =
construction projects that could further harm coastal areas and with no
restriction on the amount. By allowing open-ended funds from offshore oil
royalties for projects that involve dredging, filling wetlands, and
coastal armoring,  the $1 billion pot of money diverts 27% of the
nation's offshore oil revenues from our national treasury to a massive,
unrestricted and potentially destructive pork barrel for oil states
(several hundred million annually to Louisiana). And by allotting a
relatively minor portion of this money to be distributed to other coastal
states including Maryland,  Mr. Young has purchased their acquiescence.
The effect is to invite major environmental harm to coastal and marine
ecosystems and the fisheries they support, especially in the Gulf of
Mexico and Alaska.  Shared revenues should instead be clearly earmarked
for coastal conservation, most especially the restoration of Louisiana's
ravaged coastal wetlands.

Title II  provides permanent mandatory funding for  LWCF until 2015, =
three years after the Presidential deferral of new lease sales ends.   =
Approval of expenditures for individual projects still remains with =
Congressional appropriators.  Of course,  Congress could have voted full
appropriations for FY2000 under current law, but they did not and have
not for over a decade.   Instead, the Alaska and Louisiana delegations
have used LWCF to mask a wholly different agenda.

Although Title III  provides much needed state wildlife money it fails to
detail the kind of planning that was so carefully worked out  by =
state wildlife and game agencies, nor does it make providing for =
non-game needs a priority. 

To top it all off, the oil companies, who have habitually avoided making
their full royalty payments and have been granted various royalty
deferrals and tax breaks by Congress, would not have to pay one
additional cent.

Regrettably Maryland's Department of Natural Resources, =
wildlife-affiliated businesses, and even some conservation groups, have
been so eager to assure that LWCF is permanently funded and that their
programs receive some secure new monies that they have taken the bait and
joined forces in a full-scale coalition campaign known as "Teaming with
Wildlife" (TWW) that omits mention of these inconvenient facts. The
prevailing philosophy seems to be that if there is money to be had, just
take it and don't ask where it came from.  TWW members and allies (many
of whom are on public payroll) have been devoting significant resources
and time to organizing and lobbying for CARA.   Did you even know that
they are speaking for you?

A flawed outcome with far-reaching adverse consequences for our nation's
coasts, Alaska's wilderness, and the Federal Treasury can only be avoided
by vigorous action on the House floor, in the Senate, and by President
Clinton to eliminate the "poison pills" still tucked so skillfully into
HR 701.


**** write or call our State Congressional Delegation and the =
President and urge them to see to it to that LWCF AND WILDLIFE FUNDING BE
DONE RIGHT OR NOT AT ALL!  Tell them that incentives for drilling and
slush funds for infrastructure must be deleted from any land =
conservation legislation that relies on offshore oil revenues.


For side-by-side comparision of LWCF bills currently in Congress: =

For more information and factsheets on HR 701 and the Congressional =
moratorium on offshore leasing:  Vivian Newman,  tel. 410-442-5639; =
email: newviv@erols.com)

--------- End forwarded message ----------

ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"