Bidding a sad farewell the Land Water Conservation Fund

Much of the new land purchased by the federal government for conservation has been funded through the LWCF. The LWCF was funded by a portion of the fees the federal government collected for resource extraction from public lands. It has always been a political football wherein even though the money was supposed to be in dedicated account it would get raided when needed each session. Nevertheless it remained and despite political maneuvering large blocks of land got bought and protected. Some of the higher profile efforts in NH is the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge and the Silvio Conte NWF that is located along the watershed of the Connecticut river in NH and VT. Bothe of these areas have acquired large tracts of land in northern NH, VT and even in far western maine but few white mountain hikers know much about them as they are usually an extra hour or two north from a typical hikers territory.

The nice thing with the fund is it somewhat took funding an initiative out of the political game. If a worthy project came up a politician could support it and use the cover of the fund so that he wasn't tagged as a wasteful spender.

The house of reps elected not to reauthorize to continue to collect money in the fund this week so there will be no new revenues to the fund.

http://www.hcn.org/articles/congress-lets-sun-set-on-land-and-water-conservation-fund

From the limited reading I have done of late, this reauthorization defeat is more a states rights issue than driven by corporate greed. Unlike the East, the federal government did not hand off all the land to the states thus the government owns the majority of the land in many western states. The federal government in the past used to be fairly lose with control over the lands and the folks who leased rights treated (or mistreated) the land as their own. The federal government has increasing started to apply and enforce federal law on federal land and to many conservatives in those states, they object to federal control. The LWCF is convenient way for the government to buy more land and buy out inholdings to public land so defunding it reduces the governments ability to buy land.

I like Maine's model of land conservation: conservation easements. Funds are leveraged to protect far more land than outright purchase, "protection" being defined by parcel as to what is to be preserved and what is allowed with public recreational use usually a part of the easement. This can also allow private use by the owner for, say, logging, grazing, mining etc. in accordance with best practices and standards which are subject to some negotiation in the easement. Those uses are held to a higher standard than often the case before the easement, restrictions and bans placed on sensitive lands, and certain obligations on the part of the owner to maintain the land, e.g. road maintenance and standards for restoring the natural state when road no longer needed, fire breaks, and other requirements relative to that parcel.

Federal policymakers seem intent on controlling everything and then constantly complain about the lack of resources to do it.

Tools like conservation easements limit that control and reduce costs to the government, and us, the taxpayer. Makes too much sense to be adopted on a larger scale because of that one thing, government greed for power and control. Yes, there is a lot to be critical of under the heading of "corporate greed", but anyone who thinks government greed is any less egregious and pervasive needs to be a little more enlightened about what is going on.

Compare the North Maine Woods to the White Mountain "wilderness" areas. You get protection of old growth, shorelines and sensitive areas, recreational experience comparable to that of the wilderness and access for little more beyond first cost ... all without the lilliputian battle we now witness over a bridge.

I think it unfortunate that the LWCF was allowed to lapse and hope it will be reinstated before long. Understand and respect concerns about local vs. federal control, but think this vehicle has likely done a lot more good than harm over its life.

Stan said:

Federal policymakers seem intent on controlling everything and then constantly complain about the lack of resources to do it.

Tools like conservation easements limit that control and reduce costs to the government, and us, the taxpayer. Makes too much sense to be adopted on a larger scale because of that one thing, government greed for power and control. Yes, there is a lot to be critical of under the heading of "corporate greed", but anyone who thinks government greed is any less egregious and pervasive needs to be a little more enlightened about what is going on.

Compare the North Maine Woods to the White Mountain "wilderness" areas. You get protection of old growth, shorelines and sensitive areas, recreational experience comparable to that of the wilderness and access for little more beyond first cost ... all without the lilliputian battle we now witness over a bridge.

Click to expand...

Isn't this less of a matter of the LWCF and more one, generally, of federal lands management and policies? Getting rid of the former as punishment for differences over the latter is arguably akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Of course it could be that R's in Congress who made this move see it as a bargaining chip to spur changes in policy and management.

Driver8 said:

Isn't this less of a matter of the LWCF and more one, generally, of federal lands management and policies? Getting rid of the former as punishment for differences over the latter is arguably akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Of course it could be that R's in Congress who made this move see it as a bargaining chip to spur changes in policy and management.

Click to expand...

They could have used LWCF for more negotiated/purchased/donated easements instead of stirring up so much opposition in the first place. That's the part that really throws the baby out.

On the whole, I'm optimistic that land and features which need to be preserved will continue to be preserved, probably with more private input and control. The feds have been on an unsustainable path for a long time and things may get a lot worse before they get better.

Lands already owned by the federal government, and the West is checkerboarded with them quite extensively, don't need to be acquired ... just managed. The other squares on the checkerboard are owned by states and some privately, mostly stemming from grants to railroads made long ago. There have already been some creative exchanges of these squares (I think Idaho/Oregon might be the location of one example that took place in recent years) that preserved some sensitive and pristine places while putting appropriate lands into well managed production. We do need timber, beef, crops ...

By the way, the Bureau of Land Management has some terrific places out West that don't get much publicity. I'm most familiar with areas in Wyoming that have vestiges of surviving, and now growing, bison herds, herds of wild horses, antelope and deer playing, open range grazing and much isolated and unique geological features (Red Desert and Continental Divide Basins). Be prepared for solitude ... it is one of the largest "dark" areas on the continent ... and it is a long trek back if your car breaks down.

Back to the original topic, it is a big country and room for both conservation and production. We need both. And the feds don't have a monopoly on how best to do it ... not by a long shot.

Something tells me we've not seen the last of the LWCF. I agree with much of what you have to say, Stan, probably most. My concern would be cases where "local control" out west has correlated - as I gather, not a student of these matters - with no-fee grazing and very low charge timber harvesting, federal giveaways to private interests at the expense of the taxpayer. And my broader concern would be responsible conservation of the land and water resources for sustainable use.