Summary of LWCF Hearing in House 11-18-15

Bishop held a hearing on his controversial proposal to greatly curb the acquisition of new federal lands and to guarantee a much larger chunk of LWCF funding goes to states to fund projects like ballparks, trails and urban parks (Greenwire, Nov. 5).

The proposal was hailed by state park advocates who argued it restored Congress’ original intent in enacting the program in 1964 that the stateside program receive 60 percent of all LWCF investments. It also drew plaudits from a community college official from Houston who touted the bill’s provision to fund the education of new offshore oil and gas workers whose industry funds LWCF.

But Kris Sarri, a top budget official at the Interior Department, criticized the bill for setting “overly prescriptive, top-down and arbitrary limits” on the purchase of federal lands and for subsidizing the oil and gas industry, which she characterized as “a departure from a foundational principle of the act.”

Bishop said his draft bill is still subject to change but that he will stand firm on sending many more LWCF dollars to states.

“A blind reauthorization, for any length of time or permanently, is simply reauthorizing a status quo that’s out of balance and wrong,” he said. “My agenda is for us to finally think big and do something that actually helps people.”

To bolster his case, Bishop’s staff today posted letters from the National Governors Association, National Association of Counties, and National Recreation and Park Association that endorsed efforts to restore LWCF funding to stateside grants.

“This funding not only maintains the original intent of LWCF, but supports the execution of statewide conservation and recreation goals and increases public access to outdoor recreation opportunities,” Govs. Matt Mead (R) of Wyoming and Jerry Brown (D) of California wrote on behalf of NGA in a letter yesterday to leaders on Bishop’s panel and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

One of today’s witnesses, Tom Wolfe, a former lobbyist for state park directors, said Bishop’s proposal offers a “needed and long overdue opportunity to restore what was clearly intended to be a priority of the LWCF act.”

Wolfe said advocates for state funding have been outgunned by the “nuclear-armed goliath of the LWCF coalition,” which has lobbied Congress to maintain LWCF’s current funding formula that lets appropriators decide how to allocate the money among federal land purchases, conservation easements, stateside grants and other conservation programs.

Stateside funding has been “hijacked” by land conservation advocates at the expense of outdoor recreation, he said.

William Bryan, who testified on behalf of Missouri State Parks and the National Association of State Park Directors, said provisions in Bishop’s bill guaranteeing 45 percent of LWCF go to stateside grants is “a positive step toward re-invigorating the original intent of this landmark legislation.”

Yet the legislation drew pushback from Travis Campbell, CEO of Far Bank Enterprises, a fly fishing manufacturer in Washington state who serves on the board of the Outdoor Industry Association. He criticized the bill’s funding prescriptions.

“It is important we do not place undue limits on key federal, state and local grant programs under LWCF,” he said. LWCF investments should remain “explicitly” for conservation and recreation, he said.

Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) said the bill’s provision to send 20 percent of LWCF money to offshore oil and gas permitting and workforce development is a “massive subsidy” on top of the billions of dollars the industry already receives annually in tax breaks. If LWCF were funded at its $900 million annual authorized amount — which Bishop said he could support — the bill would divert $180 million from conservation to drilling, Tsongas said.

Missing from today’s hearing were voices from a bevy of conservation, recreation and sportsmen advocacy groups that sent letters and statements this week opposing Bishop’s bill. They include the Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Lands, League of Conservation Voters and many others with significant lobbying muscle on Capitol Hill.

Those voices will eventually get the spotlight, as committee ranking member Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) today requested Bishop allow a second hearing on the bill so Democrats can call their own witnesses. Bishop agreed to honor that request, pursuant to committee rules.

“Congressman Bishop continues to stand in the way of popular sentiment,” said Athan Manuel, a public lands advocate for the Sierra Club, in a statement this morning. He accused the chairman of “driving proposals to undercut the core mission of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to protect our public lands.”

Bishop’s proposal is unlikely to pass Congress in its current form, given the strong resistance by Democrats and key pro-LWCF Republicans, some of whom face tight re-election races.

Future funding for LWCF, which expired Sept. 30, is now in the hands of appropriators who in the coming weeks will be negotiating an omnibus fiscal 2016 spending bill.

A key question is whether they will continue funding the program at its current level of roughly $300 million and whether they will hew to its recent funding allocation — with about half the funds going to land acquisition and the rest shared by states, forest easements and endangered species grants.

Republican appropriations leaders in both chambers have signalled plans to shift more funds to states.