96th Congress - March 14, 1980 - 2nd Session - OMB Recommends Zero Funding for Urban Parks and Land & Water Conservation Fund

Sep 21, 2026

Upload by Aria

March 14, 1980 (96th Congress, 2nd Session) reports federal budget and legislative developments affecting conservation, environmental litigation venue, energy financing, and hazardous materials oversight. The Office of Management and Budget recommends zero funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and UPARR, cutting appropriations while raising concerns about land acquisitions. It also summarizes House markups of ocean-related bills, Senate hearings on energy loan programs, and Senate and House actions concerning environmental suit sites and related transportation authorizations.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

OMB Recommends Zero Funding for Urban Parks and Land & Water Conservation Fund

House Subcommittees Mark Up Three Ocean Bills

Environmental Suit Sites Subject of Senate Subcommittee Hearings

Hearings Held on Energy Loan Program

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act Reauthorization is Subject of House Subcommittee Hearings

96th Congress March 14,1980 2nd Session ## OMB Recommends Zero Funding for Urban Parks and Land&Water Conservation Fund Much to many conservationists'alarm,the Office of Management and Budget(OMB)hasrecommended to the White House zero funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund andthe Urban Park and Recreat1on Recovery Program(UPARR).This is a cutback of $580 millionfor the Fund and $125 mi1lion for the UPARR. The Fund is responsible for the federalacqufsition of lands for the Park Service,Forest Service,the Bureau of Land Managementand the U.S.Fish and W11d1ife Service.Land acquisitions originally planned for 1981include additions for such areas as:Cuyahoga Valley,Appalachlan Trail,Big Cypress,01ympic,Santa Monica,Wertheim Refuge,Sawtooth,Alpine Lakes,Arapaho,King Range andthe Missour River. Conservationists are concerned that if the authorized areas are notpurchased next year,they will be developed or have a greatly inflated price by 1982. It is not known at this time what President Carter's final recommendation for theFund and the UPARR wil1 be. ## House Subcommittees Mark Up Three Ocean Bills Subcommittees of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee held final markupon three bi11s March 6. Two were H.R.6614,which provides authorization for the Sea GrantProgram during fiscal 1981-1983,and H.R.6615,which amends and authorizes the NationalOcean Pollution Research and Development and Monitoring Planning Act of 1978 for fiscal1981.A11 nine amendments offered to the two bil1s,among them one to extend Sea Grantcoverage to the Great Lakes offered by Rep.Gerry Studds(Mass.),were accepted,and thebills were approved for full Committee action. The third bi11,H.R.6616,which authorizes the Marine Protection and Research andSanctuaries Act,was approved with two amendments offered by Rep.Studds. The firstamendment raised the Envfronmental Protection Agency's author1zation for ocean dumpingenforcement from $1.039 million to $3.039 mi1lion.The second amendment increased theresearch authorization for title II(ocean dumping)to three years.The three bi11s wi11be considered March 19 by the full Committee. ## Environmental Suit Sites Subject of Senate Subcommittee Hearings On February 20,the Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Senateenvironmental suits in Federa1 Courts to be brought in courts outside Washington,D.C. S.737,introduced last March by Sen.Paul Laxalt(Nev.),and S.1472,introduced inJuly by Sen.Dennis DeConcini(Ariz.),would both amend Federal venue statutes(Chapter 87of Title 28 of the U.S.Code)so as to requfre plaintiffs to bring environmental andresource conservation suits that are not 'national"in scope in the federal court districtwhere the impact or Injury occurs.Proponents of the bills argue that the legislationwould increase local invoivement in decision-making,be more convenlent travelwise forwitnesses,thus saving 1itigants money,and reduce "Washington"involvement in "1ocal"issues. However,according to NWF General Counsel Joel Thomas,the primary effect of enactingeither proposal would be to produce "wasteful, time-consuming, expenslve,andnon-productive 1itigation"simply to determine such things as what is "national"in scopeand what 1aws are "environmental 1aws.""Procedural 1itigation [of this sort]doesn'thelp resolve the real issue,"according to Thomas,who feels that the present venueprovision of the U.s.Code is sufficient to handle the "problem",1f there is one.D.C.Courts already are transferring cases that are essentlally local in nature. "The Federatlon fails to understand why environmental cases should be chosen forspeclal venuetreatment…why not labor,tax,welfare,or many other types of cases?" The Slerra Club,Environmental Defense Fund,and the Georgetown Law Center alsotestified against s.737 and S.1472. ## Hearings Held on Energy Loan Program On March 4,the Senate Select Committee on Small Business held hearings on a b111which would increase the solar

FAQs

What funding does OMB recommend reducing for conservation programs in 1980?

OMB recommends zero funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR), describing a cut of $580 million for the Fund and $125 million for UPARR.

What do the House subcommittees do regarding ocean-related legislation?

They mark up three bills (H.R. 6614, H.R. 6615, and H.R. 6616), accept amendments including expansion of Sea Grant coverage for the Great Lakes, and approve the bills for further full-committee action.

How does S.2224 relate to energy policy and what is the SBA’s position?

S.2224 would increase SBA funding for solar energy and energy conservation loans. The Administration opposes it, arguing the SBA already administers many lending programs and that additional subsidies may not be necessary.

Sep 21, 2026

Upload by Aria