THE LAND AND WATER Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a visionary and bipartisan program established by Congress in 1964 to create parks and open spaces; protect
wilderness, wetlands, and refuges; preserve wildlife habitat; and enhance recreational opportunities.
From parks to playgrounds, wilderness to wetlands, bicycle paths to hiking trails,
LWCF has helped communities acquire nearly seven million acres of parkland,
water resources and open space. LWCF has also underwritten the development of
more than 37,000 state and local park and recreation projects. Authorized at
$900 million annually, LWCF is one of the most important conservation tools ever
designed.
A Vision Whose Value Endures
The need for a mechanism like LWCF first became apparent in the 1950s, when a
shortfall in federal funding threatened to limit protection for places where
Americans could experience and enjoy the outdoors. In 1958, Congress - with the
full support of President Dwight D. Eisenhower - created the Outdoor Recreation
Resources Review Commission.
Chaired by Laurance Rockefeller, the commission documented the increasing need Americans
felt for quality and accessible outdoor recreation, as well as threats to the
open spaces and natural resources most appropriate to provide that recreational
experience. When the commission issued its 1962 report, Outdoor Recreation for
America, one of its chief recommendations was that Congress should establish a
source of funding to safeguard important natural areas and provide outdoor
recreation opportunities for all Americans.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund was later proposed by President John F.
Kennedy. In a letter to Congress, he stated:
Actions deferred are all too often opportunities lost, particularly in safeguarding our
natural resources. I urge the enactment of this proposal at the earliest
possible date so that a further significant step may be taken to assure the
availability and accessibility of land and water-based recreation opportunities
for all Americans.
Although Congress did not enact the Land and Water Conservation Fund while President
Kennedy was alive, his letter sparked the bipartisan process that led to
enactment of LWCF in 1964, under President Lyndon Johnson. The success of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund's process of distributing money - and the
popularity of the projects that LWCF made a reality - created pressure to
increase the amount of money in LWCF. Congress in 1968 made offshore oil and gas
drilling lease proceeds a source for LWCF, and in 1977 increased the amount of
funds available to $900 million per year.
LWCF and the Federal Appropriations Process
In January of every year, the president submits his budget to Congress outlining
spending priorities for land acquisition. This budget includes a specific
request for LWCF and a list of acquisitions for each land management agency for
the coming fiscal year. Congress is then entrusted with "appropriating
funds for land purchases by the administrative agencies." (In other words,
Congress then lets agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the
National Park Service know how much money they can spend to acquire or protect
land.)
The House and Senate appropriations committees subsequently make funding allocations
to thirteen subcommittees, including the Interior appropriations subcommittees
that fund LWCF. The House Interior subcommittee holds hearings on the budget
request and then "marks up" the bill, that is, makes changes and
amendments prior to recommending the bill to the full committee sometime in May
or June. The full committee follows the same procedure, after which the bill is
considered for a full House vote.
The Senate holds its own hearings, mark-ups, and full Senate vote in June and July.
The House and Senate appropriations bills always differ in spending amounts and
priorities, so the two congressional chambers conference, or meet, to come up
with a final fiscal year Interior appropriations bill in August or September.
Congress then negotiates with the administration to come up with a final bill
that is voted on and sent to the president for enactment.
How Federal Agencies Get LWCF Funding
In early spring of every year, the regional offices of the National Park Service,
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land
Management begin the annual process of prioritizing land acquisition needs for
their agencies. After taking into account a variety of factors, including cost,
probability of development, and local support, among other criteria, they
develop prioritized "wish lists" that are forwarded to their
Washington, D.C. headquarters sometime in late summer.
The headquarters staff identifies its priorities and sends them to the Land
Acquisition Working Group, which is composed of the Assistant Secretary of the
Interior for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; the Assistant Secretary of the Interior
for Land and Minerals Management; and the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for
Nature, Resources, and Environment. The working group sends the prioritized
agency lists to the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) at the completion of
the congressional session. 0MB critiques the lists and returns its opinion
immediately prior to Thanksgiving. The agencies have until mid-December to
appeal OMB's decision. The finalized fiscal year land acquisition spending
amount is presented as part of the president's budget the first week of the
following January.
How Federal Land Agencies
Prioritize LWCF Projects
Each year, Congress allocates money for specific federal LWCF projects. But how does
a project make it up the LWCF ladder in the first place? If you are advocating
for purchase of a parcel of land through the federal LWCF program, be aware of
the general criteria federal agencies use to determine the viability of a project. You must be able to answer a majority of the following questions in the affirmative if your project has any chance of surviving the LWCF process:
-
Is the owner a willing seller who wants the land to be in public ownership?
-
Is the current owner's expectation of the value of the property the same as the
appraised fair market value?
- Does the purchase meet a public need?
Is there a threat of incompatible commercial or private development if the
parcel is not purchased?
-
Does the purchase meet National Park Service, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife
Service or Bureau of Land Management objectives?
-
Is there active support for the project among the local community, including
elected leaders?
-
Does the state's congressional delegation support the project?
-
Do local and national conservation groups support the project?
Other factors, such as availability of funds, protection of wildlife and habitat, and
preservation of historic or prehistoric sites, among others, play into the
decision-making process. Contact the appropriate land management agencies for
specific criteria on how they prioritize LWCF projects.
How States Get LWCA Matching Grants
To be eligible for matching grants, every state must prepare and regularly update a
statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan (SCORP). SCORPs include
inventories or assessments of current recreation resources (local, state and
federal) within a state; identify needs and new opportunities for recreation
improvements; and set forth a five-year action agenda to meet the goals
identified by citizens and elected leaders. The appropriate field office of the
National Park Service then approves this plan. All grant applications submitted
must be in accord with the priorities listed in the action plan. To make the
connection between the SCORP and concrete project proposals, each state also
develops an "open project selection process" that contains a set of
project ranking selection criteria and a timetable for funding availability and
application deadlines.
In most years, all states receive individual allocations of LWCF grant funds based
on a national formula, with state population being the most influential factor.
Thereafter, states initiate a statewide competition for the amount available
(including the new year allocation, any previous year allocations and any
amounts "recovered" due to cost underruns on earlier projects funded),
which is awarded via 50/50 matching grants. Applications are received by a state
until its specified deadline date. Then they are scored and ranked according to
the project selection criteria so that the top-ranked projects (up to the total
amount available that year) are chosen for funding. Successful applications are
forwarded to the National Park Service for formal approval and obligation of
federal grant monies.
How States Prioritize LWCF Projects
Outdoor recreation needs far exceed available funds, which means that not every worthy
conservation or recreation area will receive LWCF funding. Remember that state
recreation liaison offices determine which projects receive funding and which do
not. If you are advocating for LWCF funding of a locally sponsored project, it
is important to understand your state's recreation priorities. Generally, you
need to be able to answer the following questions in order to meet the criteria
states look for in approving LWCF grants:
-
Does the project assist in accomplishing the overall purpose of the LWCF
program? The stateside LWCF program was created to help states acquire and
develop lands with high recreation potential before these lands are put to other
uses. Every project must meet this basic criterion.
-
Does the project relate to the statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan (SCORP)?
All approved state LWCF projects must meet the criteria set forth by that
state's overall recreation plan—and local recreation master plans—to ensure
that coordinated planning is occurring among state, regional and local
recreation departments. Also, this process allows for increased public
participation in determining community recreation facilities.
-
Does the project provide recreation uses more appropriately administered by a
public agency rather than a private enterprise? Facilities should be designed to
serve the broadest and most diverse spectrum of age groups and minority and
special populations.
-
Can the local municipality or authority provide the matching grant? There can be
no question as to the financial ability of the sponsoring local government for
meeting its matching obligation.
-
Can the state or local entity provide for adequate operation and management of
the proposed project area? The state, municipality or other public recreation
authority must be able to operate and maintain the area for the public for the
life of the project.
In addition to the above general criteria, each state may use other competitive
ranking criteria, including type and use of the proposed project, urgency that
the area will be lost to recreation, cost potential and implementation time,
among others. Contact your state recreation liaison office to find out how they prioritize stateside
LWCF projects.
A House United:
Working Together to Permanently Fund LWCF in the 106th Congress
When Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
Program (UPARR) advocates began working to assure substantial new funding for
America's resources, few in Congress or elsewhere gave us much chance for any
real success. But the coalition we built in support of parks, recreation,
coastal and marine protection, land management and wildlife was unlike anything
Congress had seen in decades, and it worked to produce important achievements of
which we can all be proud.
Ultimately, a $12 billion, six-year commitment to conservation, mirroring the proposed
Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), was enacted by the 106th Congress. The
package, called the Land Conservation, Preservation, and Infrastructure
Improvement Fund (LCPII), was passed as part of the FY2001 Interior
Appropriations law. It provides more than $1.4 billion in the first year,
increasing during the six years to $2.4 billion in annual funding for a variety
of conservation initiatives. Included are LWCF's federal and state programs,
funding for urban parks under UPARR, conservation easements, wildlife and
endangered species protection, historic preservation and coastal protection
programs.
No aspect of the long fight for additional park and recreation funding generated
more raised eyebrows than the alliance between House Resources Committee
Chairman Don Young (R-AK) and me. Given that each of us favored different but
complementary components of the overall package, it was an alliance that made
complete sense.
Through much of the 1990s, I promoted the idea of long-term and substantial funding
increases in two particular areas: land preservation and recreation. The promise
to fund lands programs, made more than thirty years ago by the Congress in
return for offshore oil development, had been largely ignored, and these worthy
programs had received more than $12 billion less in funding than what had been
pledged. In addition, the Congress had precipitously slashed funding for the
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program, which provides matching grants for
urban athletic programs and facilities. As a result, hundreds of backlogged applications had piled up from cities throughout the country.
As the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA - HR 701) took shape, an agreement
was struck to fully fund federal and state land acquisitions under the Land and
Water Conservation Act. The agreement also included a sizeable increase in
annual UPARR funding. Although some opposed the LWCF plan because they feared it would
constrain private property rights, we developed a plan that ensured land
purchases while protecting_legitimate property concerns.
The funding in the 2001 Interior Appropriations bill, while less than we had hoped
and clearly inadequate to meet the need (especially with respect to the
stateside LWCF program), will nevertheless allow us greatly expanded resources
to fulfill the dream of preserving our parks and public lands. It is evident
that state and local officials still have a formidable task to persuade members
of Congress that the stateside LWCF program merits the level of funding CARA
proponents endorsed, and that is an important and urgent effort.
The expanded UPARR program offers an opportunity to rebuild and expand athletic
fields and mentoring programs. Just as importantly, it will encourage important
political alliances involving sporting goods manufacturers, professional sports
teams and others who have not typically been engaged in resource initiatives but
who played a crucial role in CARA and in securing the funding package. Building
on those alliances and the creativity that characterized the CARA campaign will
not only ensure the expanded funding Congress has promised over the next five
years, but will increase our chances for the much longer term commitment we all
had sought.
