Author:  Christine Hall - Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) - In the waning days of 2001, the Senate passed a $600
million-a-year bill designed to conserve habitat and open space in a way
that doesn't hurt farmers and local economies. Still, opponents call it a
"land grab" that gives state bureaucrats and environmental groups the power
to call the shots over private property.

The American Wildlife Enhancement Act of 2001 was passed by voice vote in
the Senate on Dec. 20 as an add-on to an existing law, the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act (CARA).

But Michael Hardiman, a lobbyist for the American Land Rights Association,
dubs it the "Condemnation and Relocation Act."

"Reinvestment" is a just a euphemism, said Hardiman.

"In other words, you're going to seize property and hand out grants to your
friends," he said.

CARA and the new Senate bill work by granting federal tax collars to a
variety of conservation groups, with state land management agencies getting
the lion's share of the money. State agencies can then condemn a property
owner's land and use CARA grant money to compensate the property owner for
what the agency deems is the land's "fair market value."

Landowners argue that what the government calculates as fair market value is
far below the land's real market value. They also complain that their only
option in challenging a government agency's decision is to take the
government to court - a long, arduous and expensive process for the average
landowner.

According to Hardiman, the Senate bill's success was due to the deft
political maneuvering of the bill's chief sponsors, Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and
Bob Smith (R-N.H.). The duo was able to get a voice vote on the bill the
afternoon the Senate adjourned for the year.

Also, Hardiman said Reid and Smith were successful in recruiting a key
conservative -Michael Crapo (R-Idaho) - to co-sponsor the bill as a favor to
Smith, whom Hardiman believes is trying to court liberal voters to win a
2002 primary challenge from fellow N.H. Republican, Rep. John Sununu.

With Crapo signed on, said Hardiman, other conservative senators assumed the
bill would not harm landowners.

Susan Wheeler, a spokesperson for Crapo, said the lawmaker "is good friends
with Sen. Smith, as he is with a number of members of Congress, [but he]
would not sign onto a bill as a favor to a senator that would abrogate
private property rights."

Wheeler did agree with Hardiman that Crapo stood out among the bill's
otherwise liberal-to-moderate co-sponsors. "It is an interesting group," she
said.

But, said Wheeler, Crapo believed the bill was "consistent with...allowing
states to make [conservation] decisions. The bill does not go after private
property [and] there is no federal land acquisition in the bill; it's only
at the state level.

"The senator would have preferred to see more debate on this bill," Wheeler
added. "But no senator stepped forward to place a hold on the bill or seek
debate."

The American Land Rights Association, a Washington state group, plans to
mobilize its members against the House bill, which goes even further than
its counterpart passed in the Senate.

The pending House bill spends more ($3.1 billion annually versus $600
million) and sets up a trust fund for the CARA program in which the money is
automatically spent, instead of requiring Congress to agree on spending
every year.

Also, the House bill, which land rights groups call "full CARA," has
"additional threat[s]," as Hardiman puts it. It allows state agencies to
designate urban parks and recreation land as conservation areas.

Spokespeople for Senators Reid and Smith did not return calls seeking
comment.