[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 27 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E216-E218]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      INTRODUCTION OF THE URBAN SPRAWL AND SMART GROWTH STUDY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 12, 2003

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing the 
``Urban Sprawl and Smart Growth Study Act.'' This bill, similar to one 
I introduced in the 107th Congress, is designed to shine a bright light 
on the influence of federal actions on urban sprawl and assure that 
federal agencies consider how their actions may add to this problem.
  Mr. Speaker, communities in Colorado and throughout the country are 
struggling to preserve their special charter and quality of life in the 
face of burgeoning populations. Especially in the West and South, 
extreme population growth has resulted in the continual build-out of 
cities and the loss of surrounding farmland and open space. In my 
state, this growth is also spreading along interstate highways into the 
mountain valleys and forested regions. The resulting sprawl is creating 
congested highways, more air pollution, overtaxed city services, and 
crowded schools and shopping centers.
  According to the recent census, Colorado is one of the most rapidly 
growing states. Between 1990 and 2000, the population growth in the 
United States was 13.1 percent. During the same period, Colorado's 
growth was 30.6 percent! And in many of our counties, the rate was even 
higher. What does this mean?
  The City of Broomfield has grown so much that it has now become its 
own county. Traffic is so heavy in the area that Congress appropriated 
$1 million to study a new interchange at the intersection of U.S. 36 
and Highway 287.
  The cities of Fort Collins, Loveland, and Greeley are growing so 
fast, it's becoming difficult to tell where one ends and the other 
begins. These three cities are likely to become one in the next 10 
years.
  The south Denver portion of Interstate 25 near the Tech Center not 
only services the many offices in that area, but metro area sprawl has 
added more houses and towns on that end of Denver. Traffic is always 
bad there, no matter what time of day, and rush hour starts earlier and 
last longer now too.
  Citizens in Colorado are asking their leaders to address the symptoms 
of sprawl and to

[[Page E217]]

help them control and manage growth more effectively. We got started 
with this effort in 1994, when then Governor Roy Romer initiated his 
``Smart Growth and Development Initiative.'' That initiative focused 
attention on the problems of sprawl, the unevenness of growth and 
development (some rural areas welcome more development), and the role 
of federal, state and local governments in creating and managing sprawl 
and its impacts.
  Other states from North Carolina and Georgia to California and Oregon 
have been experiencing similar growth problems. Many are developing 
processes and mechanisms to deal with these problems. Some states have 
used growth control legislation creating urban service areas. Others 
have relied on their local communities to slow down or temporarily 
cease the issuance of building permits. Many have appropriated funds or 
created sales tax initiatives to purchase and protect open spaces and 
agricultural lands.
  All of this has been done with an understanding that state and local 
governments are in the best place to plan for and manage growth and 
sprawl issues. Armed with zoning and other authorities, they are best 
suited to gauge the pulse of their citizens and determine where, when 
and how growth should best occur.

  But the efforts of state, local and tribal governments to plan for 
and manage urban growth and sprawl can be thwarted by actions taken at 
the federal level. A well-developed plan by a local community can be 
swept aside by the routing of a major highway or the construction of a 
poorly cited post office. The cumulative effects of a number of smaller 
federal actions and policies together create or foster the very sprawl 
that communities have fought so hard to control.


                          need for legislation

  The bill I am reintroducing today is designed to focus attention on 
the many federal decisions and projects that can either foster or 
ameliorate sprawl. It does this through the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA), one of our nation's premier environmental laws. It 
requires all federal agencies to evaluate their activities and projects 
for social and environmental impacts and thereby take steps to avoid or 
mitigate these impacts.
  Specifically, NEPA requires all federal agencies to include for all 
``major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the 
human environment' a detailed statement by the responsible official on 
the environmental impacts of the proposed action, any adverse 
environmental effects that can't be avoided, alternatives to the 
action, the relationship between local short-term uses of the 
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 
productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 
resources should it be implemented.
  This is what is essentially required of an environmental impact 
statement (EIS). It is not, itself, a decision making document but is 
meant to guide agencies in making important decisions.
  Generally speaking, most federal agencies have done a reasonably good 
job in implementing NEPA. However, when it comes to the cumulative 
impacts and indirect effects of federal actions--such as on sprawl--
much of the NEPA analysis has not been adequate. Too often, federal 
agencies look at the specific, localized impacts of a proposed project 
and neglect to review the broader ``spill-over'' impacts that it may 
have on a region.
  This observation was in fact identified in a September 2000 General 
Accounting Office report entitled ``Community Development: Local Growth 
Issues--Federal Opportunities and Challenges.'' This report looked at 
the various ways that federal actions can foster sprawl or assist 
communities to better address sprawl impacts.
  The report also noted that although NEPA provides that federal 
agencies review the ``indirect and cumulative'' impacts of federal 
actions or projects (such as sprawl), often that review is rather thin 
and not well explored. The report noted that when it comes to 
evaluating the ``indirect and cumulative'' effects of proposed federal 
actions (such as highways), ``few agencies consider the effect of a 
proposed [federal] project on growth'' in their NEPA reviews.
  Contributing to this is the fact that Federal agencies often 
substitute an environmental assessment for a full EIS. On average, in 
recent years, Federal agencies prepared 30,000 to 50,000 environmental 
assessments annually compared to only 500 to 700 EIS's.
  An environmental assessment is usually much shorter and less 
comprehensive than a full EIS. Generally, the purpose of the assessment 
is to help determine whether a proposed action would result in an 
impact significant enough to require preparation of an EIS. Unlike an 
EIS, however, the treatment of alternatives is often cursory. No formal 
public review or comment process is required. Indeed, it is difficult 
to obtain a copy of an assessment, since there is no requirement that 
it be made publicly available nor is it sent to a public repository.


                               CEQ STUDY

  The bill that I am introducing today will address these problems. 
Specifically, this bill would direct the Council on Environmental 
Quality (CEQ), the agency that implements NEPA, to study how well 
federal agencies evaluate sprawl impacts of proposed federal action in 
conducting their environmental reviews. CEQ has done this type of 
review in the past. In 1974, CEQ studied the impacts of sprawl and 
produced a report entitled ``The Costs of Sprawl.'' In 1981, the CEQ 
also looked at the loss of agricultural land due to sprawl in its study 
entitled ``National Agricultural Lands Study.''
  My bill would require the CEQ to update these studies by reviewing a 
variety of EISes and environmental assessments from at least 15 federal 
agencies. CEQ would analyze how well these documents have examined the 
impacts of proposed Federal actions on growth and urban sprawl. Among 
the programs to be reviewed are land management programs, such as those 
in the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture and Defense and the 
General Services Administration; transportation programs, such as those 
of the Federal Highway Administration and other agencies within the 
Department of Transportation; regulatory programs, such as those of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and development assistance 
programs such as those in the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, to name a few.
  The bill further requires the CEQ to involve the public in this 
review by holding hearings in at least different regions throughout the 
country that are experiencing an increase in urban sprawl. A city like 
Denver or Boulder would be a prime place, along with others in the 
northeast, south, mid and far west.
  Within 18 months, the CEQ would be required to provide a report to 
the Congress on its review. This report would include findings 
concerning the economic, environmental and land use effects of urban 
sprawl. It would describe how well federal agencies have been examining 
the sprawl impacts of their actions and projects, and make 
recommendations on how their environmental reviews can be improved.
  CEQ would also make recommendations for nonregulatory actions that 
Federal agencies can take to assist States and local communities in 
promoting the beneficial effects of smart growth and to minimize 
actions by the agencies that result in adverse effects of urban sprawl.


                              CONSULTATION

  The bill also does one other very important thing. It would require 
greater interaction between the federal agencies and those persons 
affected by agency decisions.
  As the effect of federal actions or projects will be most acutely 
felt at the state and local level (including by Indian Tribes), it is 
critical that federal agencies work with them to ensure that growth and 
urban sprawl effects are addressed in Federal environmental reviews.
  In that regard, the bill would require federal agencies to be more 
open early in the process of preparing environmental assessments as 
well as EISes. Agencies would be required to notify persons that may be 
significantly affected by the proposed action, including each State and 
local government, Indian tribe and private property owner. Agencies 
must conduct discussions with such persons on their proposed actions 
and alternatives, and seek to address their concerns, if any.
  This process would assure a more thorough NEPA analysis if a state 
governor or a lead local or tribal governmental official requested the 
preparation of a full EIS, due to the proposed project's impact on 
urban sprawl. Although the decision is not dictated by such a request, 
the agency would be required to give it great weight in deciding to 
whether to do an EIS.
  Through this process, state, local and tribal governments extra power 
to make sure that the sprawl impacts of federal actions or projects are 
thoroughly identified and reviewed--and potentially mitigated or 
addressed. In so doing, the bill would help communities plan for and 
manage such impacts to their communities and help federal agencies 
develop actions and projects that do not exacerbate sprawl.
  Obviously, this bill addresses just one federal dynamic related to 
sprawl. There are hosts of other ways that the federal government can 
help communities address sprawl issues and retain their quality of 
life. These include federal assistance for open space purchases, 
providing incentives to preserve and keep agricultural land productive, 
affordable housing assistance, alternative energy planning, mass 
transit options, and so on.
  But the first step in helping communities grapple with growth and 
sprawl is to give them the tools they need and to make sure that 
federal policies and action are not working at cross purposes. My bill 
is an attempt to increase the coordination between federal actions and 
local efforts so that communities can

[[Page E218]]

preserve the quality of life for their citizens and still grow in a 
positive, more sustainable and livable fashion. It is our obligation as 
federal officials to make sure the federal role is similarly positive, 
complementary and preserves quality of life.

           Overview--Urban Sprawl and Smart Growth Study Act


                                SUMMARY

       Federal actions and projects can significantly impact the 
     ability of States, Tribes and local governments to plan for 
     and manage growth and urban sprawl. The Urban Sprawl and 
     Smart Growth Study Act would help address these impacts in 
     two ways:
       (1) Direct the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to 
     review how well federal agencies are considering the impacts 
     their actions have on urban growth and sprawl; and
       (2) Require Federal agencies to give greater weight to the 
     input of state, local and tribal officials in considering 
     these impacts.


                               BACKGROUND

       One mechanism to address the federal role in sprawl is the 
     National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This Act requires 
     federal agencies to analyze the social and environmental 
     impacts of major actions and to take timely steps to avoid or 
     minimize these impacts. A September 2000 GAO report, 
     ``Community Development: Local Growth Issues--Federal 
     Opportunities and Challenges'' identified this mechanism and 
     noted that federal agencies could do a better job of 
     reviewing projects for sprawl impacts.
       What the bill does:
       Smart Growth Study: The bill would require the Council on 
     Environmental Quality (CEQ) to review environmental documents 
     of at least 15 federal agencies and examine how well they are 
     considering urban sprawl and growth impacts of their 
     projects.
       Public Participation: In conducting this review, CEQ would 
     be required to hold at least 5 public hearings throughout the 
     country to gather public input on the adequacy of the review 
     of growth and sprawl impacts of federal action or projects.
       Smart Growth Report: CEQ would be required to issue a 
     report to Congress on its findings and make recommendations 
     on how federal agencies could do better in incorporating 
     potential sprawl impacts in environmental reviews.
       Comments on Sprawl: Agencies would be required to include 
     written comments of sprawl impacts of federal actions or 
     projects as part of Federal environmental documents.
       State, Local and Tribal Governmental Consultation: In 
     preparing environmental documents, federal agencies would 
     notify affected state, local and tribal governments, who 
     could then request that the agency conduct a more thorough 
     environmental analysis under NEPA if the project would have 
     an effect on sprawl. Federal agencies would be required to 
     give great weight to such requests and document their 
     decisions in writing.
       What the bill does NOT do:
       Amend or alter NEPA: The bill does not amend or otherwise 
     alter NEPA and the rules and procedures adopted under this 
     law.
       Address the Totality of the Federal Role on Sprawl and 
     Growth: The bill does not attempt to address the full range 
     of federal policies and actions that can have effects on 
     growth and sprawl; it focuses on the environmental analyses 
     that are required under NEPA.
       Overturn any particular Federal Action or Project: The bill 
     does not overturn past Federal decisions, but would increase 
     the coordination between federal actions and local efforts so 
     that communities can preserve the quality of life for their 
     citizens and still grow in a positive, more sustainable and 
     livable fashion.

                          ____________________