We Need To Talk About The Land And Water Conservation Fund

The second part in a series about the pro-public lands world's failure at meeting the moment through policy

If I was describe to you a piece of legislation that generates only about one-fifth its intended budget, a sum that’s barely outperforming its historic average and decreases each year, which a billionaire trying to privatize our system of public lands is attempting to turn into his personal slush fund, and that was used to greenwash the image of a Senator who just tried to sell off millions of acres of public land, you’d probably agree that it was a pretty flawed piece of legislation, right? But that’s exactly what the Great American Outdoors Act has turned into. Why, then, do nonprofits, advocates, and Democrat politicians still insist on billing it as a major accomplishment?

That’s the topic of this second installment in a four-part series I’m writing about the pro-public lands world’s problematic inability to communicate effectively or even accurately about the policies guiding the future of public lands. A problem that prevents the public from gaining a full understanding of these issues, short circuiting attempts at advocating for more effective policy. And also one that has led to the creation of ineffective rules and laws that are failing in this current moment to protect those public lands. Yesterday, I talked about the Roadless Rule. Today, it’s time for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the Great American Outdoors Act.

It probably helps to start with some history here. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created in 1965 for the purpose of acquiring more public land, establishing easements, and fostering recreational access and ecosystem conservation, in the benefit of the American public. It draws funds from royalties levied on offshore oil and gas extraction, so operates without cost to taxpayers. In 1978, Congress authorized an annual deposit of $900 million into the fund, money that could then be a drawn from as Congress appropriated an annual budget for the program.

Since 1965, LWCF has funded 46,000 projects, touching every state and county in America. In that time, it’s added eight million acres of new parks and recreational land. You can find a map of those projects at this link. If you’ve ever parked at a trailhead, put in at a fishing access site, visited a park, or otherwise recreated outdoors, you’ve benefited from LWCF.

Some math: Adjusted for inflation, $900 million at the beginning of financial year 1978 would be equivalent to $4.34 billion today. Even as oil and gas production and profits in this country have expanded astronomically, the amount drawn from them for LWCF has remained at 1978 levels.

LWCF appropriations varied heavily between 1978 and 2019. I adjusted the amount appropriated to LWCF for each of those years to 2025 values, then averaged those totals, resulting in an average inflation adjusted appropriation of $802 million in today’s money.

In 2019, Representative John Lewis (D-GA), yes that John Lewis, introduced a bill called the Great American Outdoors Act in the House of Representatives. It proposed the establishment of a Legacy Restoration Fund, granting that $1.9 billion in annual appropriations drawn from royalties assessed on energy extraction from public lands and waters, and devoted that money to addressing the ballooning maintenance backlog on public lands. It also set out to permanently appropriate LWCF funding, allowing that budget to be spent as the executive branch saw fit, while retaining the ability for Congress to direct its spending to specific projects if it voted to do that.

In 2020, GAOA was introduced in the Senate by Cory Gardner (R-CO). It drew immediate, bipartisan support, with 59 Senators signing on as co-sponsors. The Senate went on to pass it by a vote of 73-25, the House in a vote of 310-107, and President Trump signed it into law that August.

One of those 59 co-sponsors in the Senate was Steve Daines (R-MT). Upon the bill’s success, he took credit, and used its broad popularity to successfully campaign for re-election against three-term Montana Governor Steve Bullock.

The pro-public lands world helped Daines do that. Despite the fact that Daines didn’t write, introduce, or sponsor the measure, all manner of organizations lined up to support his claim to its success.

“Today, U.S. Senator Steve Daines secured Senate passage of his bipartisan conservation bill, the ‘Great American Outdoors Act’ out of the Senate,” reads a press release issued by the Senator’s office in 2020. “Daines’ bill provides full, mandatory funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and addresses the national park and public lands maintenance backlog.”

“We’re grateful to Senator Daines for his leadership and dedication in guiding the Great American Outdoors act through the Senate,” stated The Nature Conservancy.

“Mystery Ranch appreciates Senator Daines leadership in support of this Bill not only for the state of Montana but also for the nation’s public lands and National Parks,” stated that brand’s spokesperson.

“The Trust for Public Land is especially grateful to Senator Daines for all his work,” stated TPL.

“Thank you Senator Daines for leading on this important issue,” stated Microsoft.

“Today, with Senator Daines’ help to pass the Great American Outdoors Act, we are one step closer to ensuring our parks can continue to provide safe and enjoyable conditions for millions of visitors, support local communities and protect the resources that help tell our nation’s stories,” stated the National Parks Conservation Association.

“Senator Daines’ diligence to preserve our parks and public lands has paid off with Senate passage of the landmark Great American Outdoors Act,” stated the Pew Charitable Trust.

“The National Park Foundation thanks Senator Daines for his longtime support of Montana’s majestic national parks, and his leadership on behalf of our special places,” stated the National Park Foundation.

“We thank Sen. Daines for his work to get us to this point,” stated The Wilderness Society.

But Republicans never had any plans to treat GAOA, or LWCF funding as anything more than a campaign tool.

Then Secretary of the Interior, current reader of this newsletter David Bernhardt never even bothered drawing up a list of projects to fund with the program’s newfound budget, but did immediately set out to subvert its goals by authoring a secretarial order immediately following the election that granted state and local governments veto power over any funding directed at their jurisdictions.

“This demonstrates that the Trump administration was only ever interested in using the Great American Outdoors Act to influence the election, and isn’t actually interested in effective governance,” Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) told me over the phone at the time.

The Biden administration set out to correct that immediately, issuing an order on February 11, 2021 that revoked Bernhardt’s order, and reaffirmed LWCF’s mission and funding. The program’s $900 million annual spending was then treated as a matter of normal business, until earlier this year, when Trump returned to power.

In June, as part of its annual budget request, the Department of the Interior proposed diverting a large portion of LWCF spending to “maintenance,” a use not provided for in any of the legislation that has established or funded the program. With few specifics, what might constitute “maintenance,” was very much up in the air. Could it include, say, a really nice set of doors for the secretary’s office? Or could it be considered “maintenance” to remove records of slavery from National Park Service historic sites?

That request was denied, so now Burgum has issued an order narrowly interpreting how LWCF money can be spent. Secretarial Order 3443:

• Restricts land acquisitions funded by LWCF to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service, leaving out the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service, which have recently been targeted by both the Secretary and Senator Daines for disposal and development.

• Reestablishes Bernhardt’s order that state and local officials be given veto power over any LWCF spending in their jurisdictions.

• Allows states to use LWCF grants to purchase federally-managed public lands. State ownership of public lands is largely a euphemism for selling that land off to private developers.

Everyone in the pro-public lands space is, of course, surprised and aghast at this recent turn of events. How could they possibly have seen this coming?!

Even as they’ve sat by and watched Republicans turn LWCF into little more than a propaganda tool, the pro-public lands world continues to talk about GAOA as a “once in a generation” investment in public lands, and keeps claiming it fully funded LWCF.

Mentioning anything along the lines of $900 million only being one-fifth the budget it was in 1978 it met with nothing but pearl clutching. I’ve never before compared that current $900 million spend to the historic average appropriation, but only increasing the average funding for a government program by $100 million just doesn’t feel all that once in a generation to me. I’ve explored the topic at greater length previously, but GAOA’s Legacy Restoration Fund has also been such a failure that the total maintenance backlog on public lands has almost doubled while it’s been in effect.

Aided by the disinformation our world continues to put out, Daines is busy preparing a new plan to use it to again campaign for reelection. Never mind that he allegedly collaborated with Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) to try and sell millions of acres of public land. Never mind that he continues to try and eliminate the Wilderness Study Areas that are crucial to conserving Montana’s abundant wildlife populations. Daines has a new plan for greenwashing his image, and this time it’s called the America The Beautiful Act.

That act will actually reduce those already inadequate funds intended to address public lands maintenance backlogs. But that won’t be the messaging.

Will pro-public lands groups again fall for this con, and again work to reelect our worst enemies? Or can we learn to be a little more effective with both our messaging and our understanding of policy? Next in this series I intend to address the Public Lands Rule, followed by tying all of this together with changes we can all make to the ways we talk about public lands and policy, as well as genuinely effective solutions we can pursue to fix this current moment. Stay tuned for more.

Top photo: NPS

Upgrading to a paid subscription is an investment in the future of independent reporting on public lands and the outdoors. Doing so enables journalism like this to remain free, so that it can change the most minds possible. It also buys personal access to Wes, who will use his experience and his extensive network of subject matter experts to guide your gear purchases, help plan your trips, and save you money. You can read more about what Wes is doing on Substack at this link.