- March 8, 2012 Coalition Applauds Senate for Dedicated Conservation Funding
- February 13, 2012 Coalition Applauds President's Continued Support for Conservation Funding
- December 17, 2011 Conservation, Business and Sportsmen Groups Applaud Congressional Efforts to Protect LWCF Funding in FY12 Budget
- July 25, 2011- New Bipartisan Poll Shows Overwhelming Support Across America for Land and Water Conservation Fund
- July 13, 2011- National Bipartisan Poll Memo
- May 31, 2011- Over One-Third of the U.S. House of Representatives Sign Letter Supporting Funding for LWCF
- April 14, 2011- Conrad Anchor Testimony Release
- December 20, 2010 - Senate Urged to Join House and Pass Bill with Full Funding for Conservation Program »
- August 3, 2010 - Senate Urged to Join House and Pass Bill with Full Funding for Conservation Program »
- July 15, 2010 - House Committee Passes Bill Securing Funding for Conservation and Recreation Program »
- April 16, 2010 - America's Great Outdoors Conference Focuses on Need for Vital Land, Recreation Funding »
- February 1, 2010 - Obama's Budget Includes Key Funding for Land & Water »
- November 6, 2009 - Senate Bill Would Fulfill Longstanding Promise for Conservation and Recreation Program »
- September 17 , 2009 - Coalition Supports Conservation at House Hearing »
Congress should see land-water fund as investment it is
The New Mexican
Posted: Sunday, June 05, 2011 - 6/2/11
The federal Land and Water Conservation Fund was, and is, a great idea: Urged on by then-interior secretary Stewart Udall, Congress created it as a savings account for protecting our country's continually threatened natural places.
The money for it came from a small portion of royalties the government charges offshore oil drillers. For the past decade or so, Congress has authorized $900 million a year to build the fund. But authorizing is one thing; appropriation — Congress' spending or investing function — is another: Our senators and representatives have approved barely over $300 million a year.
New Mexico Sens. Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall, along with Reps. Ben Ray Luján and Martin Heinrich, have argued for full funding, only to be undercut by crafty colleagues who figured, "let's make do for less" — yet claim, per authorization, to be pumping three times as much money into the fund.
New Mexico gets a good share of the scrimped amount: About $200 million has gone into protection of the Valles Caldera National Preserve, the Organ Mountains, Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, Petroglyph National Monument, and El Malpais National Monument.
But that $200 million, over 40-plus years, works out to less than $5 million a year. Felizmente, there's other funding for our national parks, forests, grasslands, waterways and wildernesses — but when so much of our national patrimony is in disrepair, it's clear that it's getting offhand, or backhand, treatment.
And now with a bipartisan Scrooge bloc looking high and low for somewhere besides America's military-industrial beneficiaries to engage in budget-cutting, many in Congress are shortsightedly determined not to give the land-and-water fund its authorized support. After all, it's been such a cash cow to milk for general-purpose spending ...
What's especially sad about such attitude is that the fund is an investment — in, among other things, the tourism/recreation industry. Forget such things as wildlife protection and restoration of threatened drinking water, if some members of Congress choose to treat fellow beings and public health so callously; but at least pay homage to the money spent by visitors to scenic lands and outdoor-activities attractions.
The West and the Appalachians might offer most of the tourist-attracting scenery, but every state has a stake in federal recreation sites and routes in their direction. And the whole country benefits from healthy lifestyles typified by folks getting outdoors, near or far.
A letter to an interior subcommittee, signed by Reps. Luján and Heinrich among a hundred or so representatives, notes that outdoor recreation contributes $730 billion a year to our nation's economy, and accounts, directly or indirectly, for more than 6 million jobs. Land-and-water-fund investments help make and keep places attractive to our get-out-and-have-fun population, and to overseas visitors as well.
Appropriations decisions are fast approaching. We salute our senators and representatives for their land-and-water-fund advocacy, and wish them their persuasive best in making a case for greater — and firmly dedicated — investment in protecting priceless resources.
Posted: Sunday, June 05, 2011 - 6/2/11
The federal Land and Water Conservation Fund was, and is, a great idea: Urged on by then-interior secretary Stewart Udall, Congress created it as a savings account for protecting our country's continually threatened natural places.
The money for it came from a small portion of royalties the government charges offshore oil drillers. For the past decade or so, Congress has authorized $900 million a year to build the fund. But authorizing is one thing; appropriation — Congress' spending or investing function — is another: Our senators and representatives have approved barely over $300 million a year.
New Mexico Sens. Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall, along with Reps. Ben Ray Luján and Martin Heinrich, have argued for full funding, only to be undercut by crafty colleagues who figured, "let's make do for less" — yet claim, per authorization, to be pumping three times as much money into the fund.
New Mexico gets a good share of the scrimped amount: About $200 million has gone into protection of the Valles Caldera National Preserve, the Organ Mountains, Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, Petroglyph National Monument, and El Malpais National Monument.
But that $200 million, over 40-plus years, works out to less than $5 million a year. Felizmente, there's other funding for our national parks, forests, grasslands, waterways and wildernesses — but when so much of our national patrimony is in disrepair, it's clear that it's getting offhand, or backhand, treatment.
And now with a bipartisan Scrooge bloc looking high and low for somewhere besides America's military-industrial beneficiaries to engage in budget-cutting, many in Congress are shortsightedly determined not to give the land-and-water fund its authorized support. After all, it's been such a cash cow to milk for general-purpose spending ...
What's especially sad about such attitude is that the fund is an investment — in, among other things, the tourism/recreation industry. Forget such things as wildlife protection and restoration of threatened drinking water, if some members of Congress choose to treat fellow beings and public health so callously; but at least pay homage to the money spent by visitors to scenic lands and outdoor-activities attractions.
The West and the Appalachians might offer most of the tourist-attracting scenery, but every state has a stake in federal recreation sites and routes in their direction. And the whole country benefits from healthy lifestyles typified by folks getting outdoors, near or far.
A letter to an interior subcommittee, signed by Reps. Luján and Heinrich among a hundred or so representatives, notes that outdoor recreation contributes $730 billion a year to our nation's economy, and accounts, directly or indirectly, for more than 6 million jobs. Land-and-water-fund investments help make and keep places attractive to our get-out-and-have-fun population, and to overseas visitors as well.
Appropriations decisions are fast approaching. We salute our senators and representatives for their land-and-water-fund advocacy, and wish them their persuasive best in making a case for greater — and firmly dedicated — investment in protecting priceless resources.
The money for it came from a small portion of royalties the government charges offshore oil drillers. For the past decade or so, Congress has authorized $900 million a year to build the fund. But authorizing is one thing; appropriation — Congress' spending or investing function — is another: Our senators and representatives have approved barely over $300 million a year.
New Mexico Sens. Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall, along with Reps. Ben Ray Luján and Martin Heinrich, have argued for full funding, only to be undercut by crafty colleagues who figured, "let's make do for less" — yet claim, per authorization, to be pumping three times as much money into the fund.
New Mexico gets a good share of the scrimped amount: About $200 million has gone into protection of the Valles Caldera National Preserve, the Organ Mountains, Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, Petroglyph National Monument, and El Malpais National Monument.
But that $200 million, over 40-plus years, works out to less than $5 million a year. Felizmente, there's other funding for our national parks, forests, grasslands, waterways and wildernesses — but when so much of our national patrimony is in disrepair, it's clear that it's getting offhand, or backhand, treatment.
And now with a bipartisan Scrooge bloc looking high and low for somewhere besides America's military-industrial beneficiaries to engage in budget-cutting, many in Congress are shortsightedly determined not to give the land-and-water fund its authorized support. After all, it's been such a cash cow to milk for general-purpose spending ...
What's especially sad about such attitude is that the fund is an investment — in, among other things, the tourism/recreation industry. Forget such things as wildlife protection and restoration of threatened drinking water, if some members of Congress choose to treat fellow beings and public health so callously; but at least pay homage to the money spent by visitors to scenic lands and outdoor-activities attractions.
The West and the Appalachians might offer most of the tourist-attracting scenery, but every state has a stake in federal recreation sites and routes in their direction. And the whole country benefits from healthy lifestyles typified by folks getting outdoors, near or far.
A letter to an interior subcommittee, signed by Reps. Luján and Heinrich among a hundred or so representatives, notes that outdoor recreation contributes $730 billion a year to our nation's economy, and accounts, directly or indirectly, for more than 6 million jobs. Land-and-water-fund investments help make and keep places attractive to our get-out-and-have-fun population, and to overseas visitors as well.
Appropriations decisions are fast approaching. We salute our senators and representatives for their land-and-water-fund advocacy, and wish them their persuasive best in making a case for greater — and firmly dedicated — investment in protecting priceless resources.