[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E729-E730]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

INTRODUCTION OF THE URBAN SPRAWL AND SMART GROWTH STUDY ACT

______

HON. MARK UDALL

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Thursday, May 3, 2001

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Urban
Sprawl and Smart Growth Study Act. This bill is designed to shine a
bright light on the influence of federal actions on urban sprawl and
assure that federal agencies consider how their actions may add to this
problem.
Mr. Speaker, communities in Colorado and throughout the country are
struggling to preserve their special character and quality of life in
the face of burgeoning populations. The expected benefits of moderate,
planned growth are being overtaken by the economic and environmental
costs of rapid, unmanaged growth. Especially in the West and South,
extreme population growth has resulted in the continual build-out of
cities and the loss of surrounding farmland and open space.
In my state, this residential and commercial growth is also spreading
along interstate highways into the mountain valleys and forested
regions. The resulting sprawl is creating congested highways, more air
pollution, greater energy consumption, overtaxed city services, and
crowded schools and shopping centers. Local governments are facing
rapidly increasing demands for costly public services that accompany
such growth.
According to the recent census, Colorado is one of the most rapidly
growing states. Between 1990 and 2000, the U.S. population grew by 13.1
percent. During the same period, Colorado's growth was 30.6 percent!
And in many of our counties the rate was even higher.
What does this mean? Let me highlight some issues that are occurring
in my district north of Denver.
The growth of businesses and homes along US Highway 36, the major
road between Denver and Boulder, is causing tremendous pressures on
this roadway and greatly increasing congestion and traffic woes. The
communities along its route are working together to address this
problem, and I have been doing what I can to help by securing funds for
the reconstruction of one of the more complex and troublesome
overpasses near Broomfield. Clearly the Federal government can and
should have a helpful role in addressing transportation issues like US
Highway 36.
The growth has also created the risk that communities along Denver's
Front Range will ``grow together'' and thereby create an unending
metropolis from Fort Collins in the north to Colorado Springs in the
south. The communities in this region are doing what they can to
control this development and preserve their special character. But they
could use help from the Federal government to make sure that Federal
policies do not hamper their ability to keep their communities intact.
Indeed, these problems are neither inevitable nor incurable. Citizens
in Colorado are asking their leaders to address the symptoms of sprawl
and to help them control and manage growth more effectively. We got
started with this effort in 1994, when then Governor Roy Romer
initiated his ``Smart Growth and Development Initiative.'' That
initiative focused attention on the problems of sprawl, the unevenness
of growth and development (some rural areas welcome more development),
and the role of federal, state and local governments in creating and
managing sprawl and its impacts.
Other states from North Carolina and Georgia to California and Oregon
have been experiencing similar growth pressures. Many are developing
processes and mechanisms to deal with these problems. Some states have
used growth control legislation creating urban service areas. Others
have relied on their local communities to slow down or temporarily
cease the issuance of building permits. Many have appropriated funds or
created sales tax initiatives to purchase and protect open spaces and
agricultural lands.
All of this has been done with an understanding that state and local
governments are the best place to plan for and manage growth and sprawl
issues. Armed with zoning and other developing management authorities,
they are best suited to gauge the pulse of their citizens and determine
where, when, and how growth should best occur.
But the efforts of state, local and tribal governments to plan for
and manage urban growth and sprawl can be thwarted by actions taken at
the federal level. A well-developed plan by a local community can be
swept aside by the routing of a major highway or the construction of a
poorly sited post office. The cumulative effects of a number of small
federal actions and policies together may create or foster the very
sprawl that communities have fought so hard to control.

Need for Legislation

The bill I am introducing today is designed to focus attention on the
many federal decisions and projects that can either foster or
ameliorate sprawl. It does this through the existing requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), one of our nation's
premier environmental laws. NEPA requires all federal agencies to
evaluate their proposed activities and projects for social and
environmental impacts and to take timely steps to avoid or mitigate
these impacts.
Specifically, since 1970 NEPA has required all federal agencies to
include in the planning stages for all ``major federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment'' a
detailed statement by the responsible official on the environmental
impacts of the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects that
can't be avoided, alternatives to the action, the relationship between
local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and
irretrievable commitments of resources should it be implemented.
This analysis is what is essentially required in an environmental
impact statement (EIS). It is not the only document required for agency
decision-making, but is meant to guide agencies to consider potential
environmental impacts and alternatives in making important decisions.
Most federal agencies have done a reasonably good job in implementing
NEPA. However, when it comes to considering the cumulative impacts and
indirect effects of federal actions--such as on sprawl--much of the
NEPA analysis has not been adequate. Too often, federal agencies look
at the localized short-term impacts of a proposed project and neglect
to review the broader ``spill over'' impacts that the activity may have
on a region, especially when viewed cumulatively in relation to other
ongoing or planned actions influencing regional growth and development.
This observation was in fact identified in a September 2000 General
Accounting Office report entitled ``Community Development: Local Growth
Issues--Federal Opportunities and Challenges.'' This report looked at
the various ways that federal actions can foster sprawl or assist
communities to better address sprawl impacts.
The report also noted that although NEPA requires that federal
agencies review the ``indirect and cumulative'' impacts of federal
actions or projects (such as sprawl), often that review is rather thin
and not well explored. The report noted that when it comes to
evaluating the ``indirect and cumulative'' effects of proposed federal
actions (such as highways), ``few agencies consider the effect of a
proposed [federal] project on growth'' in their NEPA reviews.
Contributing to this weakness is the fact that Federal agencies often
substitute a less rigorous environmental assessment (EA) for a full
EIS. On average, in recent years, Federal agencies prepared 30,000 to
50,000 EAs annually compared to only 500 to 700 EISs.
An EA report is usually much shorter and less comprehensive than a
full EIS. Generally, the purpose of the assessment is to help determine
whether a proposed action would result in an impact significant enough
to require preparation of an EIS. Unlike an EIS, however, the treatment
of alternatives is often cursory. No formal public review or comment
process is required for EAs. Indeed, it is often difficult to obtain a
copy of an EA report, since

[[Page E730]]

there is no requirement that it be made publicly available or sent to a
public document repository.

CEQ Study

The bill that I am introducing today will address these problems.
Specifically, this bill would direct the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ), the agency that implements NEPA, to study how well
federal agencies have been evaluating sprawl impacts of proposed
federal actions in conducting their environmental reviews.
CEQ has done this type of review in the past. In 1974, CEQ studied
the impacts of sprawl and produced a widely-praised report entitled
``The Costs of Sprawl.'' In 1981, the CEQ also looked at the loss of
agricultural land due to sprawl in its ``National Agricultural Lands
Study.''
My bill would require the CEQ to update these studies by reviewing a
variety of recent EISs and EAs from at least 15 federal agencies. CEQ
would analyze how well these documents have examined the impacts of
proposed Federal actions on growth and urban sprawl.
Among the programs to be reviewed are land and facility management
programs, such as those in the Departments of Interior, Agriculture and
Defense and the General Services Administration. Also transportation
programs, such as those of the Federal Highway Administration and other
agencies within the Department of Transportation; infrastructure
programs of agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers and some
within the Environmental Protection Agency; regulatory programs, such
as those of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and development
assistance programs, such as those in the Department of Housing and
Urban Development and Department of Commerce, to name a few.
The bill further requires the CEQ to involve the public in this
review by holding hearings in at least five different regions
throughout the country that are experiencing an increase in urban
sprawl. A city like Denver or Boulder would be a prime place, along
with others in the northeast, south, mid and far west.
Within 18 months, the CEQ would be required to provide a report to
the Congress on its review. This report would include findings
concerning the economic, environmental and land use effects of urban
sprawl. It would describe how well federal agencies have been examining
the sprawl impacts of their actions and projects, and make
recommendations on how their environmental reviews can be improved.
CEQ would also make recommendations for nonregulatory actions that
Federal agencies can take to assist States and local communities in
promoting the beneficial effects of smart growth and to minimize
actions by the agencies that result in adverse effects of urban sprawl.
The bill would also require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
to provide written comments of any proposed federal action or project
on its potential for causing sprawl. This provision will clarify EPA's
oversight role to make sure federal agencies are looking at the sprawl
effects.

Consultation

The bill also does one other very important thing. It would require
greater interaction between the federal agencies and those persons
affected by agency decisions.
Since the effect of federal actions or projects will be most acutely
felt at the state and local level (including by Indian Tribes), it is
critical that federal agencies work with these levels of government to
ensure that potential growth and urban sprawl effects are addressed in
Federal environmental reviews.
In that regard, the bill would require federal agencies to be more
open early in the process of preparing EAs as well as EISs. Agencies
would be required to notify persons that may be significantly affected
by the proposed action, including each State and local government,
Indian tribe and private property owner. Agencies must conduct
discussions with such persons on their proposed actions and
alternatives, and seek to address their concerns, if any.
This process would assure a more thorough NEPA analysis if a state
governor or a lead local or tribal governmental official requested the
preparation of a full EIS, due to the proposed project's impact on
urban sprawl. Although the decision is not dictated by such a request,
the agency would be required to give it great weight in deciding to
whether to do an EIS.
Through this process, state, local and tribal governments gain extra
power to make sure that the sprawl impacts of federal actions or
projects are thoroughly identified and reviewed--and potentially
mitigated or addressed. In so doing, the bill would help communities
plan for and manage such impacts on their communities and also help
federal agencies to develop actions and projects that do not exacerbate
sprawl.
Obviously, this bill addresses just one federal dynamic related to
sprawl. There are hosts of other ways that the federal government can
help communities address sprawl issues and retain their quality of
life. These include federal assistance for open space purchases,
providing incentives to preserve and keep agricultural land productive,
affordable housing assistance, alternative energy planning, mass
transit options, and so on.
But the first step in helping communities grapple with growth and
sprawl is to give them the tools they need and to make sure that
proposed federal policies are not working at cross purposes. My bill is
an attempt to increase the coordination between federal actions and
local efforts so that communities can preserve the quality of life for
their citizens and still grow in a positive, more sustainable and
livable fashion. It is our obligation as federal officials to make sure
the federal role is similarly positive, complementary and preserves our
overall quality of life.
I submit a brief outline of the bill's provisions.

Overview--Urban Sprawl and Smart Growth Study Act

(By Rep. Mark Udall)

SUMMARY

Federal actions and projects can significantly impact the
ability of States, Tribes and local governments to plan for
and manage growth and urban sprawl. The Urban Sprawl and
Smart Growth Study Act would help address these impacts in
two ways:
(1) Direct the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to
review how well federal agencies are considering the impacts
their actions have on urban growth and sprawl; and
(2) Require Federal agencies to give greater weight to the
input of state, local and tribal officials in considering
these impacts.

BACKGROUND

One mechanism to address the federal role in sprawl is the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This Act requires
federal agencies to analyze the social and environmental
impacts of major actions and to take timely steps to avoid or
minimize these impacts. A September 2000 GAO report,
``Community Development: Local Growth Issues--Federal
Opportunities and Challenges,'' identified this mechanism and
noted that federal agencies could do a better job of
reviewing projects for sprawl impacts.
What the bill does:
Smart Growth Study: The bill would require the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) to review environmental documents
of at least 15 federal agencies and examine how well they are
considering urban sprawl and growth impacts of their
projects.
Public Participation: In conducting this review, CEQ would
be required to hold at least 5 public hearings throughout the
country to gather public input on the adequacy of the review
of growth and sprawl impacts of federal action or projects.
Smart Growth Report: CEQ would be required to issue a
report to Congress on its findings and make recommendations
on how federal agencies could do better in incorporating
potential sprawl impacts in environmental reviews.
Comments on Sprawl: EPA would be required to include
written comments of sprawl impacts of federal actions or
projects during the course of their reviews of Federal
environmental documents.
State, Local and Tribal Governmental Consultation: In
preparing environmental documents, federal agencies would
notify affected state, local and tribal governments, who
could then request that the agency conduct a more thorough
environmental analysis under NEPA if the project would have
an effect on sprawl. Federal agencies would be required to
give great weight to such requests and document their
decisions in writing.
What the bill does NOT do:
Amend or alter NEPA: The bill does not amend or otherwise
alter NEPA and the rules and procedures adopted under this
law.
Address the Totality of the Federal Role on Sprawl and
Growth: The bill does not attempt to address the full range
of federal policies and actions that can have effects on
growth and sprawl; it focuses on the environmental analyses
that are required under NEPA.
Overturn any particular Federal Action or Project: The bill
does not overturn past Federal decisions, but would increase
the coordination between federal actions and local efforts so
that communities can preserve the quality of life for their
citizens and still grow in a positive, more sustainable and
livable fashion.

____________________