[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 7198-7200]
[From the U.S. 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

                         Thursday, May 3, 2001

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Urban 
Sprawl and Smart Growth Study Act. This bill 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 character and quality of life in 
the face of burgeoning populations. The expected benefits of moderate, 
planned growth are being overtaken by the economic and environmental 
costs of rapid, unmanaged growth. 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 residential and commercial growth is also spreading 
along interstate highways into the mountain valleys and forested 
regions. The resulting sprawl is creating congested highways, more air 
pollution, greater energy consumption, overtaxed city services, and 
crowded schools and shopping centers. Local governments are facing 
rapidly increasing demands for costly public services that accompany 
such growth.
  According to the recent census, Colorado is one of the most rapidly 
growing states. Between 1990 and 2000, the U.S. population grew by 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? Let me highlight some issues that are occurring 
in my district north of Denver.
  The growth of businesses and homes along US Highway 36, the major 
road between Denver and Boulder, is causing tremendous pressures on 
this roadway and greatly increasing congestion and traffic woes. The 
communities along its route are working together to address this 
problem, and I have been doing what I can to help by securing funds for 
the reconstruction of one of the more complex and troublesome 
overpasses near Broomfield. Clearly the Federal government can and 
should have a helpful role in addressing transportation issues like US 
Highway 36.
  The growth has also created the risk that communities along Denver's 
Front Range will ``grow together'' and thereby create an unending 
metropolis from Fort Collins in the north to Colorado Springs in the 
south. The communities in this region are doing what they can to 
control this development and preserve their special character. But they 
could use help from the Federal government to make sure that Federal 
policies do not hamper their ability to keep their communities intact.
  Indeed, these problems are neither inevitable nor incurable. Citizens 
in Colorado are asking their leaders to address the symptoms of sprawl 
and to 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 pressures. 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 the best place to plan for and manage growth and sprawl 
issues. Armed with zoning and other developing management 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 sited post office. The cumulative effects of a number of small 
federal actions and policies together may create or foster the very 
sprawl that communities have fought so hard to control.


                          Need for Legislation

  The bill I am introducing 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 existing requirements of 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), one of our nation's 
premier environmental laws. NEPA requires all federal agencies to 
evaluate their proposed activities and projects for social and 
environmental impacts and to take timely steps to avoid or mitigate 
these impacts.
  Specifically, since 1970 NEPA has required all federal agencies to 
include in the planning stages 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 analysis is what is essentially required in an environmental 
impact statement (EIS). It is not the only document required for agency 
decision-making, but is meant to guide agencies to consider potential 
environmental impacts and alternatives in making important decisions.
  Most federal agencies have done a reasonably good job in implementing 
NEPA. However, when it comes to considering 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 localized short-term impacts of a proposed project and neglect 
to review the broader ``spill over'' impacts that the activity may have 
on a region, especially when viewed cumulatively in relation to other 
ongoing or planned actions influencing regional growth and development.
  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 requires 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

[[Page 7199]]

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 weakness is the fact that Federal agencies often 
substitute a less rigorous environmental assessment (EA) for a full 
EIS. On average, in recent years, Federal agencies prepared 30,000 to 
50,000 EAs annually compared to only 500 to 700 EISs.
  An EA report 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 for EAs. Indeed, it is often difficult to obtain a 
copy of an EA report, since there is no requirement that it be made 
publicly available or sent to a public document 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 have been evaluating sprawl impacts of proposed 
federal actions 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 widely-praised report entitled 
``The Costs of Sprawl.'' In 1981, the CEQ also looked at the loss of 
agricultural land due to sprawl in its ``National Agricultural Lands 
Study.''
  My bill would require the CEQ to update these studies by reviewing a 
variety of recent EISs and EAs 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 and facility management 
programs, such as those in the Departments of Interior, Agriculture and 
Defense and the General Services Administration. Also transportation 
programs, such as those of the Federal Highway Administration and other 
agencies within the Department of Transportation; infrastructure 
programs of agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers and some 
within the Environmental Protection Agency; 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 and Department of Commerce, to name a few.
  The bill further requires the CEQ to involve the public in this 
review by holding hearings in at least five 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.
  The bill would also require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
to provide written comments of any proposed federal action or project 
on its potential for causing sprawl. This provision will clarify EPA's 
oversight role to make sure federal agencies are looking at the sprawl 
effects.


                              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.
  Since 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 these levels of government to 
ensure that potential 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 EAs as well as EISs. 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 gain 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 on their communities and also help 
federal agencies to 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 
proposed federal policies 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 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 our 
overall quality of life.
  I submit a brief outline of the bill's provisions.

           Overview--Urban Sprawl and Smart Growth Study Act

                          (By Rep. Mark Udall)


                                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: EPA would be required to include 
     written comments of sprawl impacts of federal actions or 
     projects during the course of their reviews 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

[[Page 7200]]

     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.

     

                          ____________________