Republicans signaled their support for a landmark conservation program, but want to make changes to the 50-year-old program that expires at the end of September.
Republicans and Democrats alike said they want to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is funded through federal oil and gas royalties. The program is supposed to receive $900 million annually, although that’s only happened once, and is used to fund easements for hunting and fishing, parks maintenance and other recreational activity.
But GOP lawmakers hinted they wouldn’t accept the program in its current form.
“I don’t think the LWCF is broken,” Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said during her panel’s hearing. “But as with any program there’s always room for improvement. This was a measure that was put in place 50 years ago and I think it is right and appropriate and legitimate to look at it in the context of how it is operating today.”
Environmental groups worry that Republicans intend to sell federal lands to the states as part of the GOP’s broader approach to public lands policy. Environmental organizations contend the federal government is a better steward of those lands, not least because it’s not subject to balancing its budget as the states are. But GOP lawmakers say the Interior Department has mismanaged federal land and allowed it to fall into disrepair.
But the dialogue was congenial, environmental group officials told the Washington Examiner. They held out hope that a deal could be reached to preserve the fund. Alan Rowsome, senior director of government relations with the Wilderness Society, said the changes Republicans seek wouldn’t require legislation and could be done through secretarial order.
“Rather deciding between the federal and the states, we need to be rising the boats for both. I think that’s what you were hearing,” Rowsome told the Examiner.
Still, Republicans said too much of the program’s money has shifted to the federal government rather than the states. They also contest the Interior Department’s practice of purchasing “inholdings,” which are blocks of private land surrounded by federally managed areas, instead of using the money to address an $11.5 billion maintenance backlog.
GOP lawmakers signaled they wanted states to get more of the money. They highlighted the declining share of the fund’s State Assistance Program, a competitive grant program with a one-for-one state match. The grant program received 14.7 percent of the program’s $305 million budget in fiscal 2014, down from 60 percent in 1976.
Those numbers are misleading, said Interior Deputy Secretary Mike Connor. He noted that while the federal share of funding has increased, a sizable portion of those dollars are funneled directly into grant programs that go to the states. Those efforts fund forest management, hunting and fishing easements, and urban parks.
“We’ve moved in that direction because I think we’ve got more flexible tools to deliver to the stateside entities,” Connor said. “Forty percent of the resources are really going to stateside.”
House Republicans, though, have indicated they want a larger dedicated share for the states. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop, R-Utah, is considering changes to the funding that would give the states a larger role while limiting federal land acquisitions.
One environmental official told the Washington Examiner that increasing direct funding to states wouldn’t be a deal-breaker. Many environmental groups are willing to negotiate with Bishop and, for that matter, with Republicans in general to ensure reauthorization. They view Bishop as invested and steeped in conservation policy and recognize that Republicans largely support the program.
The dispute is over what the federal government should do with the money it gets from the program. Western Republicans want to limit the federal government’s purchase of inholdings because it already controls large swaths of land. But Republicans east of the Mississippi — such as Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. — said the practice has helped make conservation areas whole.
“There’s a completely different attitude,” said Alexander, who suggested the East and West should have separate uses for LWCF money. “Why should one-size conservation policy fit every single state?”
Reed Watson, executive director of the Property and Environment Research Center, said he thought adding more land to the federal catalogue was inconsistent with improving the condition of the property it already manages. But he didn’t think the program, which has received about $300 million in funding over the last several years, should be used as a slush fund for parks maintenance.
“Raiding the Land and Water Conservation Fund to turn it into a maintenance fund is the wrong idea,” Watson said during the hearing. “But we need to do something.”
He agreed with the Obama administration’s argument that buying inholdings is likely to reduce maintenance costs by eliminating “checkerboarding,” which is when land adjacent to federal property is privately owned. But he suggested land swaps are just as effective and less costly.
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said addressing maintenance issues and acquiring more federal land are not mutually exclusive. The panel’s top Democrat also noted that roughly half of Interior’s maintenance backlog is covered through roads funding in the transportation spending bill and that Interior maintenance programs have been underfunded in past years.
Boosting maintenance funding would require offsets in the GOP-led Congress, which does not want to increase the federal deficit.
“I agree that we must find a way to increase maintenance funding, but I believe it’s a mistake to think that the only options we have are between land acquisition and maintenance,” Cantwell said.
