You are here

Traveler's View: Proposed Overhaul Of Land And Water Conservation Largely Ignores Conservation

Share

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, chair of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Editor's note: This corrects in 9th paragraph that the draft legislation would create a "competitive urban parks and recreation matching grant program" that would be available for communities with at least 100,000 residents, and notes that 30 percent of the overall Statewide Assistance Grant Program would be available for programs in communities with at least 20,000 residents. In 14th paragraph, corrects "million" to "billion."

U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop got it wrong when he titled his overhaul of the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund the ‘‘Protecting America’s Recreation and Conservation Act," which he notes could be called the "PARC Act" for short.

Judging from its provisions -- fortunately still in draft -- it would be more accurate to title it, "Drilling The Continental Shelf And Ignoring The Federal Domain Act."

The Utah Republican made it clear in September that the status quo when it came to the LWCF was not going to stand, stating that "(A)ny reauthorization of LWCF will, among other improvements, prioritize local communities as originally intended.”

What he didn't say then, but which his draft legislation now makes clear, is that the "local communities" he wants to help have little to do with conserving the country's land and water resources as a bipartisan Congress agreed to do back in 1965 when the LWCF was first enacted.

Fifty years ago the vision was to protect watersheds, help communities create park lands, and conserve open spaces with the end goal of creating and providing "quality and quantity of outdoor recreation resources as may be available and are necessary and desirable for individual active participation in such recreation and to strengthen the health and vitality of the citizens of the United States..." 

In other words, that Congress was interested in clean water, community parks, ballfields, healthy forests, and public health through recreation.

Mr. Bishop seems not to share such ambition. While he argues that over the last five decades the original intent of the LWCF was skewed, that more money was going to federal land acquisition than for state projects, he doesn't try to rebalance the funding flow as he sees it but rather would redirect a large portion of the revenues raised through fees from off-shore drilling projects to open up more off-shore drilling. 

Rep. Bishop, who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, while agreeing to fund the program at $900 million for seven years, would:

* Creates a "competitive urban parks and recreation matching grant program" for communities of at least 100,000 residents.

Though laudable that the legislation shows interest in urban parks and recreation, that 100,000-resident benchmark would effectively prevent any city in Wyoming from competing for the funds; all but one city in Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, North Dakota, and New Mexico; all but two in Nebraska, and; all but four in his home state of Utah. Overall, the legislation would commit 45 percent of the $900 million to stateside assistance programs, with 30 percent of that amount available to cities with at least 20,000 residents. That 20,000-resident threshhold would deny many Western towns an opportunity to benefit from the program.

* Dedicate at least 20 percent for "promoting off-shore energy exploration, innovation, and education. Part of this effort would be to "streamline" the permitting process for off-shore oil and gas exploration.

If any provision of this draft measure turns the original LWCF legislation on its head, it would be that one.

* Provide "not more than" 3.5 percent for addressing the deferred maintenance and clean-up needs on federal lands. 

Does Mr. Bishop, who notes that the outstanding needs currently total almost $20 billion, truly believe that this small percentage will make significant inroads into that debt, especially when he would require that "20 percent of those funds must be used in conjunction and matched by a non-governmental organization"?

* Provide up to 3.5 percent for federal land acquisitions, as long as the properties considered for purchase are surrounded on at least 75 percent of its borders by federal lands,  and that 33 percent of these funds are used to "secure or enhance public access on existing Federal lands for hunting, recreational fishing, or recreational shooting."

* Provide at least 15 percent of the total to support the federal PILT -- Payment in Lieu of Taxes -- program that reimburses county governments for not being able to assess taxes on federal lands.

Not surprisingly, the draft measure was condemned by the National Parks Conservation Association.

“We’re alarmed this bill will only further threaten America’s national parks," said John Garder, the group's director of budget and appropriations. "It would effectively dismantle one of America’s most successful conservation tools on the cusp of the Park System Centennial. We urge Chairman Bishop to reconsider this damaging proposal and instead give the public what it has been asking for—an intact conservation fund that will ensure the continuing protection of America’s best idea – our national parks.”

As the draft legislation still needs to go through committee action, we can only hope a measure more in keeping with the original intent of the 1965 legislation rises to the surface.

Comments

No, Bishop didn't get it wrong when he named his bill.  He was just lying again.  It was another political smokescreen of the kind used by too many of our Congress members.  It's nothing but one more cheap attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of unwitting Americans in hopes few of them will notice the real motives behind their bills.

P. T. Barnum would be very proud of Rob Bishop.

This is why we need watchdogs like the Sierra Club, NPCA, SUWA, Traveler and others that will bark loudly and try to alert us when the burglars of Congress are prowling in our back yards.

Watching the video clip brought another wave of the nausea that sweeps over me almost any time I hear Bishop at work.  He blames "this administration" or "the Obama administration" just about any time he opens his mouth, completely ignoring any history of other administrations and Congress itself.  Why?  Because in many parts of his Congressional district, the idea of a black Muslim president is front and center and a good number of his "patriotic" constituents lap up any of his pronouncements that play to their paranoia. 


EC, you're correct on the 5 percent, but of the 45 percent set aside for stateside assistance grants, 30 percent would be for cities with at least 20,000 residents, which cuts out a lot of Western communities.

As for the operations and maintenance backlog, that should have been almost "$20 billion," not million. I've corrected both.


Though laudable that the legislation shows interest in urban parks and recreation, that 100,000-resident benchmark would effectively prevent any city in Wyoming from competing for the funds;.....

Actually they could compete for 55% of the funds.  {edit}  As I read this section only 5% is committed to cities over 100,000.  (page 22 line 4) The only 45% number is the minimum to go to all states.

Does Mr. Bishop, who notes that the outstanding needs currently total almost $20 million, truly believe that this small percentage will make significant inroads into that debt,

3.5% of $900 million would pay off the entire $20 million and much more. [edit]  and for clarification that is $900 million PER YEAR for seven years.  That totals $220 million.  I think that would pay off $20 million in "debt"

Whats your complaint with the federal land acquisition and PILT?  And what is wrong with encouraging more of the activity that is generating the dollars for this fund to begin with?

 

 


which cuts out a lot of Western communities.

It doesn't cut them out, they can still compete for 70% of the state allocated funds.  As to the $20 billion, I don't believe it is the purpose of the LWCF to fullfill that wish list. 

Any expansion on your thoughts on PILT and the federal land acquisition clause?


I guess it depends on how you interpret the wording, EC. To me it limits it to communities above 20,000.

As for the backlog, I was just pointing out that on one hand he notes how large it's become, but then only allocates a very small percentage. Frankly, Congress needs to tackle it with a direct appropriation.

As for PILT and land acquisition, I was just noting that they were part of the measure.


To me it limits it to communities above 20,000.

Are you saying you believe that communities under 20,000 wouldn't be eligible for any money?  I don't think it says that at all.

As for PILT and land acquisition, I was just noting that they were part of the measure.

OK, I thought you were objecting to them.  So I guess I am somewhat perplexed by your objection to the legislation.  Other than not funding $20 billion for the NPS/NFS/BLM wish list (for which it was never intended) what is the problem?

 


What don't I like aside from cutting $150+ million for land acquisition, or devoting at least 20 percent, and possibly more, for offshore energy exploration, or admitting there are $20 billion worth of operational and maintenance needs out there already, but giving them but 3.5 percent, or making it a bit more difficult for communities to receive assistance?


Could you cite the section that cuts $150 mil from land acquisition?  Explain why you wouldn't want to develop more resources (through offshore drilling, research and education)  to fund such a program.  As to the $20 billion,  I guess we could oppose any bill on the basis it doesn't address the $20 billion wish list.  That's not what the LWCF was intended to do so objecting because it doesn't do it is somwhat disingenuous. 


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.