Columnist Paula DelGiudice: Congress shows support for wildlife

Paula DelGiudice

Thursday, July 29, 1999 | 10:26 a.m.

Paula DelGiudice's outdoors notebook appears Wednesday. Reach her at PDelGiudice@compuserve.com.

Earlier this month the House of Representatives made a significant leap forward in assuring the future of wildlife and wild places. It passed by a vote of 213-202 an amendment to the FY 2000 Interior Appropriations Bill to provide $30 million for the states under the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It's been five years since funds that are allotted by law have actually been appropriated for their intended use.

While it's not a fait accompli (the Appropriations Bill must now go through a House-Senate conference committee and back to the floor of both houses for final approval) it's a good indication that the mood in Congress to fund conservation is improving.

The LWCF was created by Congress in 1965. It has been the nation's most significant funding source for federal acquisition of park and recreation lands, and for matching grants to state and local governments for the acquisition and development of outdoor recreation areas and facilities.

The LWCF receives the bulk of its revenues from federal oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf ($4 billion annually), and from the federal motorboat fuel tax, surplus property sales and federal outdoor recreation user fees.

The monies appropriated from the fund for federal purposes can be used for such things as: public acquisition of land and water by the National Parks System, or as authorized by the Secretary of the Interior for outdoor recreation purposes; public purchase of private in-holdings within national forests and wilderness areas; public acquisition of areas for the preservation of species of fish or wildlife that are threatened with extinction; and other acquisitions.

The state/local LWCF funds generally can be used to acquire land, build or repair recreation or park facilities, provide riding and hiking trails, enhance recreational access and provide wildlife and hunting areas.

During its history, the LWCF has been responsible for conserving seven million acres of natural areas and developing more than 37,000 parks and recreation facilities in every county of the country. Unfortunately, in the past few years Congress has failed to appropriate adequate funding for the LWCF. Instead, funds that should have gone to the LWCF were used for other purposes, such as reducing the federal budget deficit.

In the past four years, the state/local portion of the LWCF, which funds close-to-home recreation needs such as pools, playgrounds, picnic areas, basketball courts, ball fields, and riding and hiking trails, has received no funding at all.

This vote is significant in two ways: First, Congress has traditionally appropriated either no or very little money to the states from the LWCF. Also, the vote shows that support for the funding of LWCF is mounting, because last year a similar vote was defeated.

There seems to be widespread agreement in Congress that funding for recreation and protection of wildlife and wild places is important. Funding the LWCF is supported by many, though there isn't agreement on how best to make it work. At least lawmakers are headed in the right direction with a revenue stream that was intended to be used for parks, recreation and wildlife all along.

For the past few years, the funding needs of wildlife management have grown as wildlife habitat has diminished.

Heretofore, much of the management of wildlife was centered on game that was hunted or fished, or was a threatened or endangered species. Historically, the funding for game animals came from hunting and fishing license fees and excise taxes on sporting equipment. This funding mechanism was wonderful for restoring game populations, but often left a controversial void.

Non-game species make up more than 90 percent of the wildlife in our country, yet funding for their management has often been minute. Sportsmen have often been resistant to the management of non-game animals or fish because they didn't want their "dollars" to go toward something that wouldn't end up in their bag.

While appropriating funds for part of the LWCF is an indication that Congress is headed in the right direction, there are several bills that have been introduced into Congress which address conservation needs using Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing revenues.

Final legislation should embrace several key points: One is that the funding source is permanent and not subject to the whims of the appropriations process; another is that the LWCF should be funded at close to $900 million annually (the amount authorized), that the states should receive 50 percent of the LWCF funds, and Outer Continental oil and gas drilling lease revenue should fund conservation. Also, coastal states should receive funding for environmental restoration and conservation.

In Nevada, if H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act introduced by Rep. George Miller, D-CA, was enacted as an example (based on estimated total Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease revenues of $2.8 billion for the year 2000), it would mean $13,668,008 for Nevada -- $4,957,390 for the state LWCF portion, $4,773,838 for the federal LWCF portion, $3,931,225 for wildlife conservation and $5,555 for urban parks.

Conservation funding using this revenue stream is a proposal that everyone can support because we all stand to benefit. Now there's a real legacy to carry into the next millennium.