Republicans are signaling the changes they want to a landmark federal conservation program that must be reauthorized before the year ends.
GOP lawmakers want states to get more control of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a 50-year-old program that is funded by offshore oil-and-gas drilling royalties. That’s a shot at environmental groups and Democrats who want to see the program maintained in its current form. The program is used for building easements, maintaining Civil War battlefields and restoring wetlands.
The drama is already playing out on Capitol Hill.
Last month, program supporter Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., filed an amendment on legislation authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline that would have permanently reauthorized the program. At first, enough Republicans crossed the aisle to get the 60 votes needed for passage. But that changed at the last second.
Sens. David Perdue and Johnny Isakson of Georgia and Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas pulled back, sending the amendment to failure. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski told them that permanent reauthorization would taint the Keystone XL bill in the House.
“This was going to be a poison pill with the House,” the Alaska Republican told reporters recently. “But I think what was reflected was very strong support.”
That’s only mildly comforting for the program’s proponents.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill and traveling to red states that have benefited from the program for the past year, a nod to the emphasis and lift the Obama administration believes the full $900 million reauthorization requires.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been fully funded just once, fetching $306 million in both fiscal 2014 and 2015. The royalties that are supposed to go toward the trust have often been treated as a slush fund for the general Treasury. Boosters say the financial uncertainty has kept states away from the often rigorous and time-intensive application process for projects.
“This program is oversubscribed at every level,” said Amy Lindholm, a senior Land and Water Conservation Fund specialist with the Wilderness Society. “So only the best of the best and the most universally supported in their communities can get the funding.”
Republicans are looking into tweaks. Many are dissatisfied with the states’ share and the federal government using a bulk of its funds to acquire more land.
“If problems are going to be solved, we have to think differently,” said House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop, R-Utah, whose panel has jurisdiction over the program. “The voices talking about [the conservation fund] right now lack creativity.”
Bishop said he wants better oversight of how the federal funds are used. He contends those dollars would be better spent maintaining roads, trails and buildings at facilities managed by the Interior Department, and that more funds should be given to states to enhance local infrastructure and recreation opportunities.
Lindholm, however, said states have plenty of control through the appropriations process. Congress prioritizes the types of projects the Land and Water Conservation Fund can support each year, and she noted easements have received priority in recent years because there has been an interest in promoting conservation on private land.
“I think the formula is very flexible, and the Appropriations Committee can change that every year,” Lindholm said.
Still, funds flowing to states have declined over the years, said Emily Lande, a public lands policy specialist with the National Wildlife Federation. That’s a function of several factors.
The federal government must receive at least 40 percent of the revenues from the fund. On top of that, the program’s state and federal appropriations are set separately. And the state portion is funded by matching grants, so if states with strained conservation budgets aren’t putting up the money, they can’t get much back.
“I would rather see them plus up the account. Until they apply the program as written, it’s really hard to start making changes,” Lande said. “I’d be fearful of making changes to the formula.”
Much of the federal dollars are spent buying “inholdings,” which are plots of private land put up for sale that are surrounded by federal forests and parks, Lindholm said. She said buying those parcels is necessary to maintain the integrity and character of federal lands.
Burr echoed those calls on the Senate floor, saying, “This is not about a land grab. This is about providing contiguous pieces of land that have national value. This is not about creating new national parks.”
