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.