American Heritage Rivers:

Recreational Welfare for the 21st Century

by Joanna Waugh

Reprinted from Land Rights Letter 6/97

"[W]e must be committed to a new kind of government -- not to solve all our problems for us, but to give our people . . . the tools they need to make the most of their lives." President Clinton, February 4, 1997 State of the Union Address

Following the 1996 defeat of a bill to create the National Heritage Areas Partnership Program, Alvin Rosenbaum, chairman of the National Coalition for Heritage Areas, wrote to his colleagues: "[W]e must be prepared to accept a shortened step along the pathway many of us envision . . . [P]erhaps someday we will see . . . some other ‘national heritage corridor’ legislation and ideas for linking federal programs to the basic foundation of a designation program." "Someday" arrived on February 4th. In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton announced the American Heritage Rivers (AHR) program. The idea, said the Environmental Protection Agency in April public input sessions, is to "redirect existing federal resources" into riverfront projects that will "achieve . . . natural resource management, economic development, environmental protection and historic preservation." In other words, the American Heritage Rivers Program intends to accomplish, via presidential directive, what Congress refused to legislate in 1996.

Heritage Areas

R.J. Smith of Competitive Enterprise Institute described the heritage program in testimony before Congress as, "a clever way to obtain federal taxpayer dollars for local urban renewal projects . . ." Heritage areas are said to be regions with a distinctive sense of place, unified by large-scale resources, like river systems. They are designed to "encourage . . . the protection of a wide variety of environmental, scenic and cultural resources . . ." The President’s Committee on Sustainable Development envisions heritage development as a way to replace old, polluting, rust-belt industry with recreation and tourism projects that promote local history and culture, while protecting environmental resources. Legislation proposed in 1995 would have codified this concept, and directed the Interior Department to develop management "compacts" between federal agencies and local communities. Since private property makes up the bulk of most communities, the objective of these "compacts" is obvious. Alvin Rosenbaum wrote in 1996 that heritage areas were "environments where private property predominates, and will continue to predominate, but where change can be creatively guided . . ." It was the concept of "creatively guided" change that ignited the ire of the property rights movement in 1996. It viewed the heritage partnership program as nothing more than federal land use management.

Former National Park Service director, James M. Ridenour, predicted just such a reaction seven years before, when he declared that the heritage program "simply tries to do too much and threatens too many individual freedoms. I believe the heavy hand of big government will be clearly seen and defeated if such a bill is introduced . . ."

A Bridge Too Far

When President Clinton used a 90-year-old Indian antiquities act in September 1996 to create the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, heritage proponents saw a way to circumvent the will of Congress. Like so many Clinton proposals, however, the American Heritage Rivers program is nothing more than an old idea dressed up in new clothes. Ten Heritage Rivers are supposed to be named by fall, but of the more than ninety heritage areas already designated or proposed, at least one third are major river systems. Shrinking budgets have left federal agencies with no money to pump into these pork barrel projects. And President Clinton insists his new Heritage Rivers program will not increase federal spending or result in additional regulation.

The jury remains out on the regulatory issue. AHR Policy guidelines are still being developed by a coalition of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Office of Management and Budget, National Park Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Council on Environmental Quality, U.S. Forest Service, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency. A draft of the program’s criterion was released for public comment on May 19, tantalizingly without substance. Buried within the "Measurable Results" paragraph, however, were these goals: "protecting water resources . . . restoration of rivers, protection and highlighting historic and cultural resources, revitalization of local and regional economies, and/or implementing sustainable development within the river area." The draft says communities will accomplish these goals by "establishing stronger . . . partnerships with . . . federal agencies." On the topic of funding, President Clinton has instructed his Cabinet to "re-focus" federal grant money and technical assistance on American Heritage Rivers communities. But more than "resource re-direction" will be needed to fund this recreational welfare program. (During April public input session, the EPA said a "caseworker" will be assigned to each AHR project. That terms was changed in the draft criteria to "River Navigator.") For that reason, Heritage Rivers advocates have turned their sights on the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

LWCF

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was created in 1964 as a permanent financial source for local, state and federal park land acquisitions. Royalties from off-shore drilling fuel the Fund, which the National Park Service describes as "recycling the proceeds of natural resources development into natural resources protection." A $100 million annual appropriation was authorized by Congress in 1964, then boosted to $900 million a year in 1978.

On paper, LWCF shows a balance of $13 billion. In reality, appropriations are subject to congressional whim, which has been hostile the last few years.

Since its inception, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been used to purchase 2.3 million acres of land, and to provide $3.2 billion in 37,000 matching grants to state and local governments. This grant program is of particular interest to AHR proponents. Land and Water Conservation Fund grants have been used to build tennis courts, ballfields and playgrounds in Montgomery, Alabama; fishing piers, boat docks and picnic areas in Renton, Washington; an artificial kayak and rafting channel in South Bend, Indiana; over one hundred miles of bike/hike trails in Custer, South Dakota; and 150 Nebraska swimming pools. When all these projects are factored together, it turns out that LWCF money has been used to acquire not 2.3 million, but a whopping 7 million acres of land for public use -- an area the size of New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

Congress has allocated less than $25 million each year for LWCF’s grant program since 1996.

That is about to change. Under pressure from environmental groups, Senator Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, will hold hearings on increased federal funding of recreation projects. (Senator Murkowski seems to think that tossing green groups this bone will moderate their attacks on logging and mining issues.) In the House of Representatives, Congressman James Hansen (R-Utah), chairman of the National Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee, is said to be a big fan of LWCF’s grant program. He predicts "strong bipartisan support to provide recreation opportunities for all Americans."

What Hansen and Murkowski will really provide is federal subsidy to one of the fastest growing economic sectors in America -- the recreation industry. In 1982, Americans spent more on recreation than the federal government did on national defense. Biking has tripled since the early 1960s. Over 26 million Americans hike; over half the population walks for pleasure. The number of people using federal property for river-related activities more than doubled between 1976 and 1984. In Colorado, river-running brings in $50 million a year, canoeing generates $20 million in Arkansas, and the recreation industry pumps $300 million per year into Oregon’s economy. No wonder the Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association joined a coalition of 150 organizations to lobby Congress for increased Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations. Companies that produce and sell recreation equipment stand to gain measurably if demand for their goods and services increases.

American Whitewater Affiliation, Partnership for National Trails, American Hiking Society, Appalachian Mountain Club, and International Mountain Bicycling Association are just a few of the groups pushing for more publicly-funded recreational opportunities. "Do you want more places to ride?" Queries International Mountain Bicycling on the Internet. "Acquire them! The nation’s biggest pot of money for land acquisition is the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

[W]rite your Congresspersons and ask them to increase the appropriations level back to the $900 million level, with a 50/50 split between the feds and the states. With that kind of money, this nation could preserve a lot of open space and establish many trails. It will benefit our nation more than a couple . . . B-2 bombers."

Heritage Lollipops

Heritage programs, like President Clinton’s American Heritage Rivers, also benefit special interests in other ways. During the early 1990s, controversy over the siting of a new regional airport raged in communities along the Illinois/Indiana border, south of Chicago. The proposal was eventually dropped, but residents around Lake Calumet wanted to make sure it never resurrected. They formed the Calumet Ecological Park Association (CEPA), and began lobbying Congress and for designation as a heritage park. They claimed federal recognition would be a "powerful engine to revitalize our economy," but the real reason was plainly spelled out in a brochure. Federal designation, "would resolve the constant struggle by residents to save their neighborhoods from destruction by massive schemes, such as the . . . airport, and the continual onslaught of the waste disposal industry." The group claims to have no intention of formally acquiring parkland; it just wants to close and seal all landfills in this heavily industrialized area.

CEPA also wants Indiana’s Grand and Little Calumet River corridors included because they link up with the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore to the east. "It’s not going to be your traditional park," said one Forest Service representative. CEPA’s public affairs director, Marian Brynes, agreed. "It’s a land-use plan," she declared.

President Clinton wants Congress to appropriate $166 million to the Land and Water Conservation Fund for 1998. By law, sixty percent of that money is supposed to be earmarked for state grants. When those figures are coupled with the National Park Service’s $2.75 million budgetary request "to create a coordinated heritage areas program," it becomes clear what the Clinton Administration has in mind. The President intends to hand out heritage designations like lollipops, in the same way he hands out disaster relief funds through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Only this time, Clinton will buy the presidential election for Al Gore.