A television ad campaign has been launched in a bid to prevent an overhaul of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
An ad campaign has been launched in a bid to convince Congress not to overhaul the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which for decades has been sending millions of dollars out across the country for state, local, and federal recreation and conservation projects.
The television ads were produced for the Western Values Project. They criticize opposition to the popular program from U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, a Republican from Utah who used his position as chair of the House Natural Resources Committee to block its reauthorization and is now proposing “reform” legislation that would, in effect, gut the LWCF, the group said.
The ads are part of a six-figure ad campaign that includes a national television spot that was to air during Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate and separate ads targeting three members of the House Committee on Natural Resources: Dan Benishek (R-Michigan), Tom MacArthur (R-New Jersey), and Dan Newhouse (R-Washington). The local ads will run in the member’s districts leading up to a committee hearing on proposed changes to the LWCF from Rep. Bishop on November 18.
Since its inception in 1965, the fund has made possible local hiking trails, water trails and ballparks, as well has gone to purchase inholdings in national parks, and helped support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor economy. Overall, it has provided roughly $17 billion for conservation projects in every state, including for iconic national parks like Rocky Mountain National Park and Grand Canyon National Park; important historic sites such as Gettysburg National Military Park and Mount Vernon; and other areas like forests, wildlife refuges, wetlands, and local parks and playgrounds.
“Our country’s parks and recreation areas are national treasures that should not be subject to hijacking by a single, rogue Member of Congress,” said Chris Saeger, director of Western Values Project. “The Land and Water Conservation Fund deserves full funding and permanent reauthorization – not gamesmanship that will jeopardize future generations’ access to some of our country’s most beloved natural resources.”
Comments
I don't see where this bill makes any changes to the funding mechanism. Perhaps you could point out where it says annual appropriations are required.
Also Kurt, I might note looking at your ring charts, it would appear that some 20% already goes to "other purposes" - that is other than land acquisition. So the drop is far less than inferred. And again from the ring charts, the most notable change is the relationship of state acquisitions versus federal acquisitions. Eyeballing it looks like under the old system 55-60% was federal and 10-15% was state. Bishop's proposal (again eyeballing the chart) put state acquisition at 50% (including urban grants) vs fed allocations of about 15%. I suspect that shift from feds to states is the stronger driver of the objections than the actual small reduction in land acquisition.
None of it is designated to exploration. That money could go entirely to education and innovation that could help the environment. Bishop would have no control over that and he would have no control over whether it is 20, 25 or 50. That is up to the Interior Department - as is the case today.
Before Bishop's revised legislation, none of LWCF went to the energy industry, and yes, I think "education" falls under the energy industry when the funding would to fund "offshore energy education grants" and not some other general education sector.
Why not conservation grants? Why not fund energy education through the Energy Department budget?
I would agree that the graph is a bit nebulous, but then, the congressman had it created. Why leave the current "allocations" so nebulous, and get so detailed with his revisions?
As to what the congressman could or could not control, by setting those limits at "not more than 3.5 percent" on conservation initiatives, he's trying to legislate how the money is spent. He's already starting out low. And assuring it doesn't go higher.
As for funding, the fund was created to hold $900 million a year. But Congress has failed to meet that level. So on one hand, you're right, there's no change in the funding mechanism. There should be, to make it mandatory.
But beyond that, he's proposing to divert a third of the mythical $900 million to purposes that were never envisioned in the legislation. That should be a concern.
But the "other" expenditures were intended? Be honest. The complaint isn't that funds are going away from land acqusition - the funds are going away from Federal land acquisition. That's is what is bugging (collective) you. Again, its not about preserving land - its about who is controlling it.
". . . except perhaps the attempts of those that are trying to game the system."
Exactly, Comrade.
Now you're getting close. Any time Congress starts messing around with something that has been working well, it opens the door wide to all those gamers. Rob Bishop is one of the chief gamers, as Kurt has so ably pointed out.
Didn't a famous Hollywood B-movie actor once say something like, "The most dangerous words in the English language are, 'I'm from Congress, and I'm here to help you.'"
Congresspeople like Bishop deliberately write vague bills. That gives them all kinds of slither space to game the system. They are not only masters at gaming it, they are one who write the rules for the games they play.
Furthmore Kurt, you noted the funding has actually been well short of the $900 mil. As I read the legislation, Congress can allocate to the fund and to the extent they don't, the offshore leasing fees automatically kick in to make up the difference. Obviously they have been short of the $900 million. Wouldn't investments that expand offshore development lead to higher leasing fees and thus more funds into LCWF? Once again, it is ideological objections to fossil fuels that are trumping your commitment to land conservation. A classic case of cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Once again you have proven the failure of your civics teacher. Congress writes the laws. The executive branch (and its unelected bureacracy) executes them. Bishop will have no ability or slither space to game the system.