[Senate Report 104-35]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        Calendar No. 58
104th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 1st Session                                                     104-35
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                 STERLING FOREST PROTECTION ACT OF 1995

                                _______


    April 7 (legislative day, April 5), 1995.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Murkowski, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 223]

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 223) to authorize the Secretary of the 
Interior to provide funds to the Palisades Interstate Park 
Commission for acquisition of land in the Sterling Forest area 
of the New York/New Jersey Highlands Region, and for other 
purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 
without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                         purpose of the measure

    The purpose of S. 223, as ordered reported is to authorize 
the Secretary of the Interior to provide funding to the 
Palisades Interstate Park Commission in order to facilitate the 
acquisition of the Sterling Forest in New York.

                          background and need

    The Sterling Forest is a 30-square mile expanse of 
undeveloped property in Orange County, New York, in the New 
Jersey/New York Highlands region. At 17,500 acres, Sterling 
Forest is the largest remaining privately owned tract of 
undeveloped land within an hour's drive of New York City. Due 
to its proximity to metropolitan areas, the Sterling Forest is 
visited each year by millions of people for its outdoor 
recreational opportunities. A segment of the Appalachian Trail 
winds its way along the northern edge of the forest. The forest 
is also important for its wildlife and watershed values.
    In 1990, the Sterling Forest Corporation (the 
``Corporation''), a subsidiary of a Swedish consortium which 
owns the Sterling Forest property, circulated a development 
proposal to hereby communities. The proposal set a development 
policy for the forest, with a goal that by 1995, construction 
on over 14,000 residences begin. This proposal would create 
jobs for over 20,000 people, and would also dedicate 75 percent 
of the forest to open space.
    The New York portion of the Sterling Forest is considered 
to be a critical component of the Northern New Jersey 
watershed. The Wanaque and Monksville Reservoirs receive water 
from the forest, providing potable water to 25 percent of New 
Jersey residents, or over two million people. When the North 
Jersey Water Supply Commission (the ``Commission'') learned of 
the development proposal, it voiced immediate concern to the 
Corporation that development in this area would threaten the 
watershed with an increase in effluent and non-point source 
pollution. Engineers for the Commission maintained that such 
development would cost New Jersey hundreds of millions of 
dollars in water purification expenses.
    Approximately 2,400 acres of Sterling Forest, located in 
Passaic and Bergen Counties, New Jersey, is managed by the 
Palisades Interstate Park Commission (the ``PIPC''), an entity 
that was founded in 1900 and federally-recognized in 1937. The 
PIPC currently owns and manages twenty-three parks and historic 
sites in New York and New Jersey. S. 223 would authorize the 
Secretary of the Interior to provide $17.5 million to the PIPC 
to purchase part of the Sterling Forest, thus preserving the 
watershed. The states of New York and New Jersey are expected 
to provide additional funds to make this acquisition possible. 
The PIPC would manage the acquired land as part of 80,000 acres 
currently under its supervision.

                          legislative history

    S. 223 was introduced by Senators Bradley and Lautenburg on 
January 12, 1995. Similar legislation was introduced in the 
House on January 4. In the 103d Congress, an identical measure, 
S. 1683, was favorably reported by the Committee, although no 
further action was taken.
    At the business meeting on March 15, 1995, the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 223 favorably reported, 
without amendment.

           committee recommendations and tabulation of votes

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open 
business session on March 15, 1995, by a majority vote of a 
quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 223 without 
amendment.
    The roll call vote on reporting the measure was 13 yeas, 3 
nays, as follows:
        YEAS                          NAYS
Mr. Murkowski                       Mr. Thomas
Mr. Hatfield \1\                    Mr. Grams
Mr. Domenici                        Mr. Burns
Mr. Craig
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Jeffords
Mr. Johnston
Mr. Bumpers
Mr. Ford
Mr. Bradley \1\
Mr. Bingaman*
Mr. Akaka
Mr. Wellstone

    \1\ Indicates voted by proxy.

                      section-by-section analysis

    Section 1 entitles the bill the ``Sterling Forest 
Protection Act of 1995.''
    Section 2 sets forth Congressional findings regarding the 
Sterling Forest area.
    Section 3 states the four purposes of the Act are 1) to 
establish the Sterling Forest Reserve to protect significant 
watershed, wildlife and recreational resources within the New 
York-New Jersey highlands region; 2) to authorize Federal 
funding through the Department of the Interior for a portion of 
land acquisition costs: 3) to direct the Palisades Interstate 
Park Commission to convey lands and interests in lands acquired 
within the Reserve to the Secretary of the Interior, and; 4) to 
provide for the management of the Sterling Forest Reserve by 
the Palisades Interstate Park Commission.
    Section 4 defines certain terms used in the Act.
    Section 5(a) states that upon certification by the 
Palisades Interstate Park Commission (the ``Commission'') to 
the Secretary of the Interior (the ``Secretary'') that the 
Commission has acquired sufficient lands or interests therein 
to constitute a manageable unit, the Sterling Forest Reserve 
(the ``Reserve'') shall be established.
    Subsection (b) states that the Reserve shall consist of 
lands depicted on a map described in the subsection, and such 
map will be available in the offices of the Commission and the 
National Park Service.
    Subsection (c) states that, subject to conditions set forth 
in subsection (d) the Secretary shall transfer appropriated 
funds to the Commission for the acquisition of lands and 
interests therein within the Reserve.
    Subsection (d)(1) sets forth conditions of funding to which 
the Commission must agree prior to the receipt of any Federal 
funds authorized by this Act. Should the Commission fail to 
manage the lands in the Reserve in a manner consistent with 
this Act, the Commission will convey fee title to such lands to 
the United States. The subsection further requires the consent 
of the owner of lands or interests therein prior to their 
acquisition with Federal funds made available pursuant to this 
Act. In addition, if the Commission is unable to acquire all of 
the lands within the Reserve, it is directed to acquire all or 
a portion of the lands refereed to in section 5(b) before 
proceeding with the acquisition of any other lands within the 
Reserve. Finally, the subsection requires the Commission to 
convey conservation easements for specific lands identified on 
the map referred to in section 5(b) to the United States within 
30 days after the acquisition of such lands.
    Subsection (d)(2) states that funds may be transferred to 
the Commission only to the extent that they are matched from 
funds contributed by non-Federal sources.
    Section 6 states that the Commission shall manage the lands 
within the Reserve in a manner consistent with the Commission's 
authorities and with the purposes of this Act. The section 
further requires the Commission to prepare a general management 
plan for the Reserve within 3 years after the date of enactment 
of this Act, which shall be submitted to the Secretary for 
approval.
    Section 7 authorizes to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary to carry out this Act, except that not more than 
$17,500,000 may be appropriated to the Secretary for transfer 
to the Commission for the purpose of the acquisition of lands 
and interests therein within the Reserve.

                   cost and budgetary considerations

    The following estimate of costs of this measure has been 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, March 17, 1995.
Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed S. 223, the Sterling Forest Protection Act of 1995, as 
ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources on March 15, 1995. Assuming appropriation of the 
necessary sums, CBO estimates that the federal government would 
spend $17.7 million over the next several years to implement 
this bill. S. 223 would not affect direct spending or receipts; 
therefore, pay-as-you-go scoring procedures would not apply.
    S. 223 would establish the Sterling Forest Reserve in New 
York once the Palisades Interstate Park Commission has acquired 
a sufficient portion of the surrounding 17,500-acre area to 
manage the reserve effectively. The commission would administer 
the reserve and would have three years in which to submit a 
general management plan to the National Park Service (NPS). The 
bill would authorize the NPS to transfer funds to the 
commission for land acquisition, providing that the commission 
agrees to certain conditions involving management of the lands. 
Finally, section 7 of the bill would authorize the 
appropriation of up to $17.5 million for land acquisition, as 
well as whatever sums are necessary to carry out other 
provisions of the legislation.
    Assuming that the entire amounts authorized for land 
acquisition would be appropriated as needed by the commission 
and that a like amount could be raised from nonfederal sources 
as required under section 5, CBO estimates that the NPS would 
transfer $17.5 million to the commission over the next several 
years. An additional $200,000 would be spent by the commission 
to prepare a management plan over the 1996-1998 period, 
assuming appropriation and transfer of the necessary sums.
    Enactment of this legislation would have no impact on the 
budgets of state or local governments.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).

                      regulatory impact evaluation

    In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following 
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in 
carrying out S. 223. The bill is not a regulatory measure in 
the sense of imposing Government-established standards or 
significant economic responsibilities on private individuals 
and businesses.
    No personal information would be collected in administering 
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal 
privacy.
    Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the 
enactment of S. 223, as ordered reported.

                        executive communications

    On March 21, 1995, the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources requested legislative reports from the Department of 
the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget setting 
forth Executive agency recommendations on S. 223. These reports 
had not been received at the time the report on S. 223 was 
filed. When these reports become available, the Chairman will 
request that they be printed in the Congressional Record for 
the advice of the Senate.

                        changes in existing law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no 
changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 223, as ordered 
reported.
                    MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR BURNS

    The Sterling Forest legislation raises several serious 
questions which have not been resolved to our satisfaction. On 
its face, S. 223 raises the issue of federal takings in the 
most fundamental way. And because it simultaneously proposes 
the creation of a ``federal reserve'', encumbering the entire 
landholdings of a single, private landowner, while 
characterizing public acquisition under that legislation as 
requiring ``the consent of the owner of the land or interest in 
land'', it raises a serious question of intention.
    With respect to takings, this proposal could depress the 
value of a privately owned property that is the acquisition 
``target'', by encumbering it with the ``federal reserve'' 
designation prior to consummation of a public acquisition, and 
even prior to a determination of how much land within that 
``reserve'' will be acquired. Furthermore, the ``rolling 
acquisition'' scenario envisioned under the legislation could 
interfere with the landowner's use of those lands not 
immediately acquired.
    Creation of a ``reserve'' implies a continuing federal 
interest in all of the Sterling Forest property for an 
indeterminate amount of time. This could be perceived as 
restricting the owner's ability to use the remaining lands, 
even if the entire property were not acquired; could influence 
local land use authorities' decisions affecting development on 
those lands not acquired but in the ``federal reserve''; and 
inevitably would be used by opponents of any proposed 
development of the non-acquired lands to try to block approvals 
or permits that the landowner would need.
    We are also advised that the proposed legislation contains 
factually erroneous ``findings'' with respect to the ``target'' 
property, and the alleged impacts of proposed development of it 
on New Jersey's water supply.
    While we will not detail these challenged findings, there 
is evidence in the record to dispute allegations as to the 
impact of proposed development on water supply, endangered 
species, water quality, open space and the Appalachian Trail. 
We do not believe the Committee has sufficient information to 
legislate these findings, much less report a bill with the 
implications addressed above.
    Should this legislation in its current form be enacted, the 
owner, the Sterling Forest Corporation, has indicated that it 
could undermine the ongoing process of designing an 
environmentally responsible land use plan and pursuing the 
local land use approvals to implement that plan. It could 
create an unacceptable cloud on the owner's title to the land, 
that could interfere with, if not preclude, any meaningful 
negotiation by the owner for the sale of the property, 
including negotiations between the landowner and a public 
agency.
    Finally, because the legislation appears not to provide an 
authorization sufficient to acquire all of the property in a 
single transaction, we have to question its real purpose. For 
these reasons, we will oppose it.
                                                      Conrad Burns.