For more than 50 years, the Land and Water Conservation Fund was one of the United States’ bedrock programs articulating a commitment to investing in “outdoor-recreation resources” that strengthen the “health and vitality of the citizens,” according to the bill establishing the fund in 1964. Since then, the LWCF has dedicated nearly $17 billion to state and federal efforts – including more than $150,000 in Montezuma County – to protect and dedicate land to outdoor recreation. However, Congress failed to reauthorize investing in the program before it expired at the end of September. Lawmakers should move quickly to correct that mistake.
The LWCF is widely beloved by citizens and decision-makers across political divisions. Congress missed an opportunity to ensure that the investment continues uninterrupted. Divisions over how the fund, which is derived from off-shore leasing proceeds, is allocated ultimately derailed what should have been a slam dunk. Federal land purchases are a critical component of the fund’s investments and speak to its core. The LWCF’s original goal was to ensure that federal lands be preserved for outdoor recreation and use in perpetuity, so that past, present and future generations can access and enjoy them. That suggests continued expansion of this land-and-water network is to society’s benefit — and should be the primary emphasis for allocating LWCF dollars.
Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Denver, has been a leader in the Senate calling for permanently reauthorizing the program under its historic formula, and Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, supported Bennet’s bill to that effect. It failed by one vote.
That is owed to a move among some, including Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Cortez, to overhaul the program with more emphasis on state grants and maintenance for existing federal lands. While there is no shortage of need for investing in infrastructure that supports national parks and other public treasures, streamlining the LWCF to that purpose would short-circuit its clear intent of expanding while also protecting resources available to all Americans. This, more than maintenance and upkeep, will contribute to Americans’ “health and vitality” in perpetuity.
Rather than legislatively narrow its use, Congress should reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund with its broad scope intact and appropriate its funding each year according to the needs of the day. If that includes infrastructure investment one year and significant federal land purchases the next, all the better. By limiting the LWCF’s scope to emphasize maintenance and upkeep, Congress undermines its intent. Instead, it should adequately fund the agencies responsible for maintaining federal lands and not attempt to shift that burden to a program intended to expand the country’s outdoor resources.
A program with a 50-year legacy of success, the LWCF’s efficacy speaks for itself. Bennet has been a steadfast advocate for reauthorizing the program that has invested in America’s outdoors and the individuals, communities and economies that rely upon outdoor opportunities. Colorado is certainly prime among such states, and Gardner has rightly recognized the importance of LWCF investment here and throughout the United States. Tipton should urge his colleagues in the House to restore the LWCF according to its existing formula meant to prioritize investment.
