The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) is seen by many in this state and around the country as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But dipping our hands in this pot now could have a very negative effect on our state and country in the future.
The legislation, passed by the House and now under consideration by the Senate in the final days of the appropriations process, would set aside, in a new big-government entitlement program, $45 billion from offshore oil royalties for federal land purchases, managing endangered species and other environmental expenses.
Indeed, the prospect of $30 million a year, Wyoming's reported share, to use for the welfare of our wildlife and wildlands is very appealing in a state that depends so heavily on these resources. The $3 billion per year bill is even more appealing to its authors whose states get much bigger shares than Wyoming.
CARA also naturally has the support of President Clinton. It is an essential part of his Lands Legacy program. Presidential candidate Al Gore, who would reap a huge political harvest should this bill pass, is also a strong supporter. But there are a few important points that are being obscured by both the monetary and environmental greenery.
CARA requires a set expenditure even in years when little or no money is received from offshore drilling - and some of the states who will benefit the most will oppose any offshore drilling.
Without CARA there will still be expenditure of some of the offshore royalty money, but it would be done in a fiscally prudent manner that includes annual review and oversight subject to a balanced budget.
CARA would mandate federal agencies spend an enormous amount of revenue over 15 years toward one purpose without Congressional oversight. But in a recession or when cash flows change we need flexibility. The environment is very important but this need must be balanced with priorities like Medicare, Social Security, schools, highway safety and construction national defense and others.
"What about the budget surplus?" you might ask. This bill commits federal dollars years into the future whether there is any "surplus" or not. If there is "extra" money, I think we should use it first to pay down the national debt. Paying down the national debt is one of the most recognized ways to continue the growth of the economy.
Let's take a closer look at the funding source, offshore royalties, and ask another question. If offshore federal mineral royalties can be divided among the states through a formula, why can't the onshore monies be reallocated? If that happens, Wyoming will lose a significant portion of one of our largest sources of revenue for state and local government. You see the widespread support for CARA because everyone gets a piece of the pie. The craving for onshore mineral royalties would be no less ravenous and it would be just as difficult for Western states, with our low populations, to prevent once we set this precedent with CARA.
There are a host of other serious problems that we could face through the shortsightedness of CARA. Wyomingites have long complained about the increased control of our wildlife and wildlands by the federal government. It stands to reason that the more money we take from the federal government the less say we will have on how it is used. There is no guarantee that landowners will not be forced to sell their lands. There is no provision to compensate counties for taxes lost as private land becomes federal land.
Traditional uses of the land such as hunting, fishing and other multiple use could be compromised under CARA. Sure the money sounds good now, but we need to carefully weigh the risks of losing more of our independence and ability to manage the open spaces and wildlife that is so important to us.
I can see this legislation fueling a national hunger for dollars even for projects with little or no conservation value. So I ask, doesn't this money sound like the proverbial free lunch?
