These funds exist because public land is central to US conservation strategy and the strategy is expensive.
LWCF, for more than 60 years, has improved wildlife habitat and hunting and fishing access in every state across the nation. LRF, since 2020, has paid for maintenance and repairs of facilities and infrastructure on public lands.
The main points of debate over these two funds are straightforward. Land is a valuable asset. The amount you need depends on your purpose for it. For every acre you own, you must pay for its management. Improvements such as roads, fences, buildings, and utilities, cost more for upkeep.
LWCF and LRF are how the US answers the first and the last challenges: how much we need and how we pay for the upkeep of improvements. The middle challenge - land management - is still debated and decided in annual budgeting.
As any landowner also knows, the necessary decisions are difficult, and the money required is often hard to come by. The US decided on a bargain in Congress that would dedicate money to upkeep (the LRF) alongside a guarantee of the maximum spending on acquisition (LWCF). This is what the Great American Outdoors Act did in 2020, signed by President Trump. The law sets annual LWCF spending at $900 million (which is money collected by the US from offshore energy development income). LRF spending (from tax revenue) was set at $1.9 billion annually for fiscal years 2021 to 2025, totaling $9.5 billion over the five-year period.
Naturally, WSF and its many partners supported the Great American Outdoors Act and applauded its enactment. Just as obviously, the size of the challenge is still pressurizing the issue.
Even if everyone agreed on the importance of conservation (and what it is), this is a challenging situation. As there is no singular agreement on the meaning and priority of conservation it is worse.
Because the estimated cost of deferred maintenance was nearly $20 billion in 2020 and has since increased to more than $30 billion, there is a question whether we need to spend more and if so from what source of funds. Senators Steve Daines (MT-R) and Angus King (ME-I) have introduced a bill to reauthorize and expand the LRF.
Because some people question the need to buy more land, there is an idea of moving money from LWCF to LRF. That idea became public recently through a leak of a draft policy for doing just that and met loud opposition.
Someone more concerned with reducing fire risks and improving habitat quality may have the idea of moving money from either LWCF or LRF to management. We have not seen that yet but could.
And, of course, there is the idea of selling public land. The proposal to do that earlier this year would have put some of the proceeds into deferred maintenance but most of it would have gone into the general treasury where it would most likely have been lost to any part of a public land solution.
None of the variables in this spending puzzle are easy to adjust, but one lies beyond WSF’s ability even to try. A greater number of Senators and Representatives who understand and support conservation would hold the entire Congress to optimizing the value of public lands instead of cannibalizing it to pay for something else. As a 501(c)(3), WSF cannot engage in elections. We can and will continue to influence decisions, but with that we must also try to adjust expectations of how fast we can expand the public land estate while catching up on maintenance and management.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Greg Schildwachter is a professional conservationist advising clients on policy, leadership and strategy, and philanthropy in conservation. He works with highly committed individuals and organizations to achieve breakthroughs on issues in wildlife, land, and water.