Land and water money

Whatever level of funding Maine chooses for the purchase of land or conservation easements, it will need matching money to extend its buying power. For several years, the federal government has been indifferent or opposed to helping states, but this year is different. The key for Maine’s delegation is to make sure the money is spent fairly and broadly.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund — the federal pot of money used for land purchases and, when fully funded, worth $900 million annually — is divided in two, with some of the money going to federal purchases and some for state deals. At least, that was how it was supposed to work. Instead, since 1995, no money had been appropriated for the state side — until now.

Why both parties suddenly want to shower money on states to buy land is an open question. They may have noticed last November that of the 200 state and local ballot initiatives that would dedicate $7 billion for conservation, farmland preservation and urban revitalization, more than 70 percent passed. That’s about as clear a mandate to Congress as the nation will ever give.

The LWCF began 35 years ago as a trade off: in exchange for the depletion of offshore oil and gas resources, revenues from their sale would be used to conserve other natural areas. The funding has never been consistent, however, and Congress has more often found other uses for the money. In fact, a hurdle Congress must clear in the current rush to fund the program is the caps on the federal budget, which require offsets in spending elsewhere.

Congress currently is considering four proposals to fund the program, but the most important source of funding may come directly through the federal budget, for which Sen. John Chaffee of Rhode Island successfully presented an amendment that will put $200 million in the state account of LWCF. The budget originally had only $1 million in this account. Both Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins co-sponsored this valuable legislation.

Other proposals, one by Reps. Don Young of Alaska and Rep. John Dingall of Michigan, another by Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Frank Murkowski of Alaska, would put more money into the state side of the fund but also dedicate much of that money to states with offshore drilling. This is a bad idea for at least two reasons: it narrows a program that is supposed to help the entire nation, and it penalizes states that do not have the offshore oil and gas industry.

Better to return to the original intent of LWCF, to provide the means to preserve “irreplaceable lands of natural beauty and unique recreational value. Nationwide, voters have decided to spend money on local and state projects they know are worthwhile. It is a clear signal for Congress to help accomplish this.