Guest Opinion
Pollsters Call Conservation Funding a “Shell Game”
The Land and Water Conservation Fund fights back against the routine diversion of its monies to purposes other than preserving open spaces.By Lori Weigel and David Metz, Guest Writer, 8-23-11
![]() |
|
| Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. Photo by Roger Wollstadt, Flickr. | |
Editor’s Note: Since the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was created by the federal government in 1965, more than $17 billion of its funding has been diverted for uses other than land and water conservation, according to LWCF’s records. But this year it’s in the worst financial trouble of its life. A proposal in June to eliminate its 2012 budget was followed in late July by restoration of $25 million, still far below its customary annual funding. In June, Sen. Jeff Bingman (D-NM) introduced S. 1265, which would amend the act that created LWCF to provide for its consistent and reliable funding. It stipulates that not less than 1.5 percent of funding should be for securing public recreational access to federal lands, but its chances of enactment are considered to be slim. A broad-based coalition of groups is looking for Congress to bolster LWCF’s funding when the legislature reconvenes next month. Principals of two firms that conducted public opinion research on the issue offer their conclusions here.
What gets voters agitated when they talk about the federal budget?
Sure, voices rise one moment over “spending like drunken sailors” while at the next moment, voters howl over potential cuts to a host of government programs, most notably Medicare. But get past those now predictable, first-blush comments and you’ll hear that what’s really bothering American voters is the distinct notion they have been conned.
There’s a real sense that while they were worried about carbs versus calories, and Macs versus PCs, a fast one got pulled on the American people, and they may be stuck with the mess.
Just 18 percent of American voters say they approve of the job the U.S. Congress is doing, according to a June NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.
The underlying feeling is that over the years the leaders in Washington have used sleight-of-hand to fund and run the government, claiming to support things that voters value while spending the money on their own pet projects. This is in part what’s eroding confidence in government and Congress.
The electorate may be increasingly cynical about the budget process, loopholes, and special favors, but it is willing to give Congress a chance to clean up its act.
Case in point: The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), a fund derived solely from offshore oil and gas drilling fees, has always been intended to preserve America’s open spaces, provide recreational opportunities for all Americans and protect clean water.

View of Henry’s Lake in Idaho, a LWCF success story. Photo by Art Brom, Flickr.
While most Americans have never heard of the fund itself, they have probably experienced its investments in protecting national parks like Rocky Mountain, the Grand Canyon, and the Great Smoky Mountains, wildlife habitat, battlefields and other historic sites, working ranches and forests, and areas for outdoor recreation.
The fund has touched nearly every American, helping to protect state and local parks, trails and open space in 98 percent of the nation’s counties. Yet over the nearly half-century of the program’s history, Congress has consistently diverted LWCF monies for unrelated purposes, side-stepping the conservation commitment for these funds and putting the places Americans care about at greater and greater risk.
In national polling conducted by our bipartisan research team in July, American voters denounced this diversion of Land and Water Conservation funds.
Fully 85 percent said that we need to “honor Congress’ original commitment” to use a portion of the oil and gas fee payments for conservation purposes, while just 8 percent opted for the current practice of using these funds for other purposes.
At a time when so much divides our nation, the desire for Congress to stop raiding the fund unifies voters, cutting across all demographic, geographic and partisan lines.
And what do voters think should be done about it? They not only want Congress to stop digging a hole in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, they want them to fill it back up.
Among the vast majority of voters who reject the current practice of diverting money, most (60 percent) want Congress not only to stop taking money, but to repay what it has already taken over time.
Even more remarkably, voters’ commitment to the fund has grown stronger as our economic difficulties have persisted. Over the last three years, there has been an increase in support for continuing funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
That’s right, an increase in support for land and water conservation funding even at a time of heightened public anxiety about the deficit and spending.
In 2009, 81 percent of the nation’s voters voiced support for continued funding of LWCF, increasing to 86 percent last year, and to 88 percent today.
Voters’ response on this issue is not simply a demand for honest budgeting.
Our research has consistently shown that Americans—whether Democrats, independents or Republicans—value conservation as something that benefits them personally, in the form of clean air and clean water, opportunities for outdoor recreation, a vital source of family-supporting jobs for many communities, and a legacy to pass down to future generations.
Protecting the Land and Water Conservation Fund offers Congress a unique opportunity, not only to stop the type of budgeting shell game that has driven confidence in government to historic lows, but also to honor a long-standing commitment to protecting the nation’s most special outdoor places.
Lori Weigel is a partner in the political and public affairs research firm, Public Opinion Strategies. David Metz is a partner in the public policy-oriented opinion research company, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.





Comments
You yourselves write that most Americans have never heard of LWCF. They have no clue what it is, when it was written, why it was written, what the original funding sources were (including sales of SURPLUS FEDERAL PROPERTY), and most of all, who primarily benefits.
When the federal government can't take care of what it already has, and the states on cost share are having a heckuva time funding maintenance of existing recreational facilities bought in part with LWCF free money match grants, then it is no wonder that the 40 year old LWCF (with a 40 year sunset clause for a reason) has run its course.
To turn LWCF into a pure entitlement, when entitlements are killing the country, is rentseeking special interest politics at its most blatant.
If land trusts could cajole their own members to cough up the loot for the "agenda," that would be fine. But TNC LTA etc etc can't pry the funds loose from that constituency (which shows the depth of real committment) so they want to gouge off the "free money" from offshore? Psht.
And sadly for the land trusts, a good portion of Congress does in fact understand LWCF. Thank God.
But now LWCF is targeted for federal consolidation programs such as the Buff Commons and the Restore North Woods Park or whatever Rox Quimby calls it. You've read the Our Vision, Our Values memo, or been watching the hype-fest over America's Great Outdoors? It's all about getting a bill passed that will 1.) get rid of the sunset clause in LWCF, and 2.) disappear any Congressional oversight -- meaning not only will Congs have less pork to lard around, but no say whatsoever in the gross level of expenditure.
With no involvement by elected officials, who is left? You bet yo momma's ax, it will become a mutual-admiration slush fund for land trusts and their bureaucratic partners. $450 million a year guaranteed for expanding the federal estate, one already poorly managed? And how much of that "cost share" will be state level conservation easement sort-of-things? A bunch.
Sorry. LWCF has run its forty-year course.
By the way, who actually paid for this polling research? Pollsters don't do this for free, ya know.
"While most Americans have never heard of the fund itself,..." but yet 85% of those polled agree with it. Sorta snaps one's neck with a great big, "WHAT?????" Perhaps if the Tides Foundation tax exempt money were devoted to more important purposes.
And I can spell "flamer," too.
By the way, I found the source document, so to speak. LWCF Coalition put out a press release July 25.
TNC people are quoted, as is former Udall staffer Gas Perricone of the "Bull Moose" front group, dangfino who funds him.
Contact flunkies for the press release include Trust for Public Land staff and a pr contact for CARE/NPCA/NWRFA (depends on which week and which contract, I guess) Wilderness Society etcetera etcetera.
Astroturf wasn't invented yesterday, I guess.
For instance, for Lewis & Clark county in MT, these projects have benefited from LWCF funding:
LEWIS & CLARK CO. FAIRGROUNDS
MO. RIVER-WOLF CREEK CANYON REC.
HELENA CUNNINGHAM PARK
HELENA MEMORIAL PARK
EAST HELENA POOL
HELENA TENNIS COURTS /D
HELENA - HORSESHOE COMPLEX
HELENA - MCHUGH LANE PARK A
HELENA SPORTS COMPLEX A/D
BILL ROBERTS MUNIC GOLF COURSE
HELLGATE SRA
CHINAMAN'S RECREATION AREA
but couldn't the local tax base support those worthy projects?
Dave, you could just get your first real job instead of grifting and calling it journalism and that could be your contribution.
I paid into my "nice fat pension". Incidentally a government employee who went to work after the government switched to social security as retirement does not receive what a congress person receives, they get well under a thousand per month.....even if their salary was close to what a congress person made, and they paid a percentage of that salary every month for their retirement. I think those who went to work for the government before get a salary based on what they would get as Social Security. I have no idea how it is figured nor if they are also eligible for Medicare nor how that would be billed if they are.
So are you willing to tell us how you have made your living??? Bet not. Sending out glorified begging letters for grants and donations is a little hard to brag about.
There are conservation groups standing in the wings - the lavish millionaire parties they throw as 'fundraisers' and then invite the likes of Monsanto, Cargill, BP remind us of the Wall Street/investment banking parties on taxpayer dollars. No wonder. Graduates of that system - perhaps most notably Goldman Sachs - are now into "conservation," indicating merit to the saying that leopards don't change their spots - only their prey.
one of these days you'll be caught away from your rock. But not far, the sun should dry and stiffen the slime that covers you.