Legislators lining up to support land buyback plan

Tuesday, May 9, 2000 | 11:21 a.m.

SUN STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS

WASHINGTON -- In an election year and with billions of dollars in the offing, many lawmakers are rushing to support legislation that calls for creating a $3 billion annual conservation fund for land purchases, wildlife protection and restoration of coastal beaches.

The massive land conservation measure, which is expected to pass the House when it comes up for a vote probably Wednesday, would earmark nearly $45 billion over 15 years for a myriad of projects from wetlands restoration and endangered species protection to buying parkland and building ballparks in suburbia.

The measure could bring $50 million to Nevada.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., is a co-sponsor of the bill that "makes a permanent commitment" by the government to provide conservation funding promised long ago, said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., one of the bill's architects. Already 314 of the 435 House members have signed onto it.

A third of the money would be used to deal with coastal environmental problems, such as beach erosion and mitigating losses and environmental damage from offshore oil drilling. Louisiana, California, Florida, Texas and Alaska would benefit significantly.

But the measure has some Republican conservatives, mainly from the intermountain West, steaming over property rights.

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said he supports the concept of the bill, but will try to amend it on the floor to favor rural counties such as those in Nevada that are landlocked by federal property. Gibbons said he favors a plan to allow rural counties to shift federal lands into the hands of private property owners so rural counties can expand economically.

But other Republicans opposed the bill outright. The bill amounts to a "blank check" to take private property, Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage, R-Idaho, complained Monday at a news conference. "If this bill passes it will become the death knell to the Republican majority. Our grass roots will become discouraged (over) ... the impact it will have on private ownership."

What has incensed property rights advocates most is that one of their own, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, a leading champion of property rights, is among the most vocal cheerleaders -- and one of the principal co-sponsors -- for the House bill.

Young calls the concerns about property rights "utterly ridiculous" and maintains the bill specifically protects landowners from having to give up their land.

But even the critics acknowledge House approval is virtually assured as lawmakers find it hard to oppose a bill that will funnel billions of federal dollars to their states while letting them show support for the environment during an election year. The Clinton administration, which announced its own, more modest $1.4 billion "land legacy" initiative last year, supports the bill, although would like some changes.

The Senate has its own competing versions of the House bill. While Sens. Harry Reid and Richard Bryan, both Nevada Democrats, support the concept of using federal funds to protect fragile lands, they favor an alternate bill sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., that would favor more payment-in-lieu-of-taxes monies going to rural counties. The Senate has not scheduled a vote on the bill.

The House bill's projected annual spending programs include:

The money would come from the $4 billion to $5 billion the federal government collects annually from government oil leases, especially drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska.

Senators involved in budget and appropriations matters are worried about the bill's cost.

Current distribution plans would make coastal states with offshore oil drilling the biggest winners: Alaska, $163 million; California, $324 million; Louisiana, $311 million; Texas, $236 million; Florida, $141 million. But every state would get some money, even landlocked Vermont, $8.9 million, and Kansas, $13.5 million.

Sun reporter Mary Manning contributed to this story.