You are here

Television Ad Campaign Launched To Prevent Overhaul Of Land And Water Conservation Fund

Share

Published Date

November 12, 2015

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

 now proposing "reform" legislation that would, in effect, gut the LWCF, the group said.

Which is an absolute lie?  It would have no such effect.  The vast majority of the funds would continue to go toward the original targets of LWCF. 


Sorry. ec, any reeform authored by Bishop would gut the act.  He's famous for that.


Good.

It's nice to see that there are still some in America who are able to see things that have values that simply cannot be measured in dollars and cents.  And some who can see beyond the propaganda and lies of those who worship money.

 


Rick - perhaps you should read the reform.  Please tell me what provision "guts" the LWCF.  It really hurts your credibility when you object solely on the basis of the author.  


From today's Deseret News -- Utah's conservative newspaper.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865641355/Rep-Rob-Bishop-says-attack-...

 


And not a piece of evidence Bishops proposals will "gut" anything, except perhaps the attempts of those that are trying to game the system.  


Who's trying to game the system, EC? Does the congressman have proof? At least his own explanation of his bill shows what he's trying to do and provides the paper trail.

He would divert at least 20 percent to the oil industry for exploration, innovation, and yes, education (jobs for the oil industry, not the conservation industry). So will it be 20, or 25, or 50 percent? Hard to say at this point.

In essence, he's stacking the board against the original intent of the legislation by ensuring more would go towards the energy industry (at least 20 percent) and PILT payments ("not less than" 15 percent), while holding down conservation payments:

* "not more than 3.5 percent" for deferred maintenance/operation and cleanup needs on federal lands;

* "not more than 3.5 percent" for federal land and water acquisitions;

* "not more than 3.5 percent" for the Forest Legacy Program;

* "not more than 3.5 percent" for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, which provides grants to states "and territories to participate in a wide array of voluntary conservation projects for candidate, proposed, and listed species."

"Not more than" doesn't guarantee those programs would get anything, while "not less than" leaves the door open for a whole lot more than what he's suggesting.

Look closely at the above chart. Rep. Bishop creates at least two new funding streams that weren't coming out of LWCF in the past: The funds for the oil industry and the PILT payments. Combined, they would take at least 35 percent of the $900 million, or roughly a third. And if those in charge of managing his preferred LWCF decided those two aspects should get more dollars, which programs would suffer?

The conservation programs.


And Bishop's bill doesn't provide mandatory funding of LWCF. This from the National Recreation and Park Association:

The bill would reauthorize LWCF for seven years and does NOT include any mandatory funding. So, each program would continue to be subject to the whims of the annual appropriations process in Congress.

To be clear, NRPA is very pleased with the treatment of state assistance and urban community parks in Chairman Bishop's draft bill and that he recognizes that additional resources should be going to support conservation and recreation in and near the communities where 80 percent of Americans now reside.
However, we are deeply concerned to see additional programs included, which are not consistent with the stated purposes of the original act -- conservation and recreation. Our concern isn't with the objectives – we understand the importance of PILT, in particular – but they shouldn't be taking up a full third of the limited funding which is annually available to the LWCF to address them.


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.

Your support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

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

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.