On September 3, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law not only the Land and Water Conservation Act, but also the Wilderness Act. Environmental activists will certainly be commemorating the event – so shall I.
Let’s begin with the Land and Water Conservation Fund (enabled by the Act, LWCF for short). In 1964, America needed to pay some serious attention to conservation issues, and at the time, like the Wilderness Act, LWCF made perfect sense.
Revenues from oil produced on the outer continental shelf from federal ocean-bottom estate would be invested in outdoor recreation infrastructure – taking a one-time resource of petroleum and at least partially converting it into things future generations would enjoy and appreciate, forever.
Hey, LBJ promised us guns and butter with the Great Society – guns, butter and conservation? Mo bettah! So, LWCF was created, $100 million a year (back when a million bucks was real money), half going for cost-shared projects with state and local governments, while the other half was to go for federal land purchases.
Sure enough, Johnson’s Congress wasted no time bloating the program. In 1968, the limit was amped up to $900 million a year, which has gone to thousands of projects – buying and building boat ramps, tennis courts, parks, wildlife refuges, preserving Civil War battlefields, all to make sure America’s outdoor heritage isn’t paved over. And thank God for that.
But it’s important to remember that LWCF was born prior to the “Great Society” and today’s “entitlement era.” Even with the 1968 bloat, the $900 million a year was a cap on discretionary spending, not a mandatory entitlement.
To much Green angst, Congress has appropriated the entire amount only once in 50 years. Rather than be grateful for the money spent, environmentalists point at the $17 billion in royalties (as the National Wildlife Refuge Association puts it) “siphoned off to pay for unrelated federal expenses.”
Most upsetting to Greens, LWCF passed with a sunset clause. Under statute, LWCF is supposed to expire next year – like the Wilderness Act, it wasn’t supposed to be a forever program.
So today, Greens are lobbying hard to keep “their” dollars flowing, organizing the so-called “LWCF Coalition” in 2010. Despite the fact that America is now $17 trillion under and digging deeper, the LWCF Coalition wants Congress to set up a new, non-discretionary, mandatory $900 million a year entitlement.
Who might benefit? One hint – the Coalition has a website, initially registered to one Lesley Szynal, who for 17 years prior worked for Coalition member group Trust for Public Land. And while the Coalition includes many small grassroots groups, the political agenda is being set by the big fish: The Conservation Fund ($500 million in assets), Nature Conservancy ($6 billion), World Wildlife Fund ($412 million) and of course, TPL.
TPL “only” has about $280 million in assets, but brags about passing 25 ballot initiatives “generating more than $556 million in public funds” in 2013. Not membership money, public money. And TPL spent $913,000 in direct legislative lobbying in 2013 – because they’re a nonprofit with nothing to gain, eh?
Why might the Coalition want a permanent entitlement? Well, among other things, the Coalition claims “an accumulated backlog of deferred federal acquisition needs” of “around $30 billion.” Hmmm … at $450 million a year, the “backlog” would take 67 years to clear. Trouble is, the National Park Service maintenance backlog is claimed to be $12 billion. The Forest Service says its road maintenance backlog is $8.4 billion and counting.
Pardon me, but isn’t it irresponsible to talk of an empire-building “backlog” when just these two agencies are $20 billion behind in taking care of what they already “manage”?
And what about all the state and local parks and other amenities bought and built with LWCF funding? What kind of shape are those assets in today?
Fortunately, Congress is so messed up right now, enshrining LWCF as a special interest entitlement won’t happen without some serious shenanigans in the lame duck. Might the next Congress consider a new and more practical Land and Water Conservation Fund, focused on conserving what we now have? Perhaps.