[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12126-S12128]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 2185. A bill to improve Federal environmental policy by providing 
incentives for State and local growth management and land use programs, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


               THE LOCAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT INCENTIVES ACT

 Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, there has been considerable 
discussion in this Congress about assaults on our environment. But up 
until now, a serious, stealth assault that threatens our environment, 
our citizens' health, and quality of life has been essentially ignored.
  The threat I am referring to arises not from action that this 
Congress has taken. Rather, it comes from decades of Federal inaction 
in the face of haphazard development activities that are slowly 
degrading the landscape of our states and our communities.
  Mr. President, what I am referring to is the wholesale strip malling 
of America.
  If this trend continues unchecked, it will imperil our Nation's 
productive lands and natural resources, while turning the landscape 
into an unbroken expanse of suburban sprawl.
  This pattern of sprawling, uncontrolled development is in many 
instances promoted by the Federal Government. Despite the major impacts 
many Federal programs have on growth and land use, the Federal 
Government has largely turned a blind eye to the visual blight these 
programs spawn, let alone the environmental, health and economic 
impacts of unmanaged growth and development.
  Besides turning our landscapes into eyesores, unmanaged growth 
contributes to traffic congestion that snarls our highways, creating 
both additional stresses for commuters and additional exhaust emissions 
that degrade the quality of our air.
  Uncontrolled development not only hurts our citizens where they live 
and breathe, it also hits them in their wallets. Several studies have 
come out that show the costs of sprawling growth are significantly 
higher than

[[Page S12127]]

more compact, managed growth patterns. These studies show that 
taxpayers can save billions of dollars in public facility capital 
construction and operation and maintenance costs by opting for growth 
management.
  Time and time again, I'm asked at town meetings what I can do at the 
Federal level to help manage growth in my home State of Oregon, so our 
State doesn't get overrun by suburban sprawl.
  The answer, Mr. President, is not to create a new Federal program 
that will embroil the Federal Government in land use decisions that 
have historically been State and local issues. Rather, what we should 
do is create incentives to encourage and build on the State and local 
growth management efforts already underway.
  For example, Oregon's pioneering Land Use Act builds environmental 
and resource protections into the State's growth management and 
development strategies. But our State gets no credit for this 
innovative program from the Federal Government.
  As a result, Federal development projects in Oregon have to undergo 
Federal reviews that in many cases duplicate the process under State 
law. That's bureaucratic overkill.
  Oregon and other States that have similar programs should be 
recognized by the Federal Government both when new Federal development 
projects are undertaken in these States and when new Federal 
requirements are imposed.
  Today, I am introducing the Local Growth Management Incentives Act. 
This legislation will give Oregon and other States and localities with 
good growth management programs the credit they deserve.
  Under this legislation, States that have good growth management 
programs will get several incentives.
  First, the legislation directs Federal agencies to take steps to 
eliminate duplication of studies, environmental assessments, planning 
and other activities to the extent these actions have already been 
undertaken under a State or local growth management plan.
  Because the State of Oregon and many cities in our State have 
environmentally protective growth management programs, development 
projects in our State frequently have to go through layers of 
duplicative environmental reviews--first at the local level, and then 
at the State level, and then again at the Federal level. In some cases, 
virtually identical environmental analyses are required by the 
different levels of government, each according to different sets of 
regulations.
  Let me cite several examples affecting the Port of Portland in 
Portland, OR:
  The Port of Portland's proposed development of additional marine 
terminals at Hayden Island in the Columbia River has already undergone 
extensive reviews and analysis by the city of Portland and by our State 
agencies. But in order for this project to proceed to the actual 
development stage, it still must undergo still another round of reviews 
by two Federal agencies--the Army Corps of Engineers and the National 
Marine Fisheries Service. The port estimates that if it could just 
eliminate the duplicative requirements, two or more years of 
unnecessary delay could be avoided for this project .
  The port's efforts to identify better ways of handling materials 
dredged from around its docks and piers and from the Willamette River 
navigation channel is subject to two virtually identical, essentially 
independent environmental analyses, one by the State of Oregon and 
another by the Corps of Engineers. Avoiding duplication by allowing 
the Corps of Engineers to rely upon the State analysis could save 
considerable money for both the port and the Corps and expedite this 
project.

  The port is currently planning further development and expansion at 
the Portland International Airport, the port's marine terminals, and 
several port-owned general aviation airports, all of which contain 
wetland areas. These activities could be facilitated, without 
diminishing environmental protections, if the State of Oregon's 
extensive process for addressing the environmental impacts associated 
with wetlands could be relied upon by the appropriate Federal agencies.
  Under my legislation, Federal agencies would have to incorporate, as 
part of the reviews they require, any relevant reviews and analyses 
already conducted under State and local programs. This would save the 
project sponsors considerable time and expense compared to starting the 
Federal reviews essentially from scratch.
  The net effect of this provision is that Federal development projects 
reviewed and approved under good State and local programs can avoid 
redundant Federal reviews that increase costs and cause delays with no 
environmental benefits. If environmental safeguards are already in 
place under State law, these protections should be recognized when it 
comes time to develop federally supported projects in the State.
  Second, States and localities with good growth management programs 
will be eligible for extensions of up to 1 year to comply with new 
Federal requirements, when this additional time is needed to integrate 
a new Federal requirement with the State or local growth management 
program. However, additional time would not be provided if an extension 
of time would adversely affect public health or the environment.
  This incentive recognizes that good growth management programs offer 
a more comprehensive and more long-term approach to protecting our 
environment than many of the specific requirements imposed by Federal 
environmental programs. At the same time, coordinating Federal 
requirements with State and local programs is hard work, as two leading 
growth management experts point out in their recent book ``Land Use in 
America.'' For this reason, we should give those States and localities 
that are undertaking this difficult, but ultimately rewarding effort 
the extra time they need to do it right.
  The same amount of additional time granted to the State or locality 
would also be provided to any private party in that jurisdiction who is 
subject to a compliance deadline under the new Federal requirement, 
unless this would adversely affect public health or the environment. 
While States and localities are working to meld their programs with 
Federal requirements, private parties should not be subject to double 
jeopardy by having to comply first with a Federal requirement and then 
subsequently with a different requirement after the State or locality 
modifies its program to meet the new Federal mandate.
  Third, Federal agencies conducting development projects and other 
activities affecting growth must ensure that their activities are 
consistent with States' and localities' growth management programs. 
This provision, which is modeled on a similar consistency requirement 
in the Coastal Zone Management Act, empowers States and localities by 
giving them the ability to affect Federal activities that could 
undermine State and local efforts to manage growth locally.

  Fourth, my legislation amends the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act [ISTEA] to give priority for discretionary spending 
under ISTEA to any State or locality that has a growth management 
program that meets the eligibility criteria set out in the bill. Giving 
States and localities with good growth management programs priority for 
ISTEA funding will not only provide a financial incentive to establish 
these programs, it will also help reduce Federal, State, and local 
transportation costs and even help reduce air pollution from motor 
vehicles.
  The legislation I am introducing is the beginning and not the end of 
a process. It is my hope that the Local Growth Management Incentives 
Act will begin a discussion on what the Federal Government should be 
doing to address the impacts Federal actions have on growth and land 
use. In the next Congress, I will be looking for additional incentives 
to offer States and localities so they will develop their own programs 
to manage growth.
  In summary, I think there is an appropriate role for the Federal 
Government to help States and localities to manage growth so we have 
smart growth, instead of either uncontrolled sprawl or NIMBY [Not In My 
Back Yard] efforts to block any kind of growth. I am introducing my 
legislation today in an effort to jumpstart a dialog on how the Federal 
Government can promote well-managed, sustainable growth that will best 
serve our environment, our citizens' health and, our

[[Page S12128]]

Nation's economic well-being in the 21st century.
                                 ______