A Shared Vision For Our Future

In a stunning development, Congress is prepared to set aside roughly $2 billion a year to preserve open spaces, protect wildlife and set aside environmentally sensitive areas. The money, which comes from offshore oil and gas royalties, would fund an unprecedented land conservation program.

In the past, federal conservation money was used for big projects, like the North Cascades National Park in Washington and the Sawtooth National Recreation Area in Idaho. But the money also was used for thousands of smaller state and local government projects, such as the purchase of Tubbs Hill in Coeur d’Alene.

Between 1965 and 1995, the Land and Water Conservation Fund gave state and local governments 37,000 grants worth a total of $3.2 billion, and provided $5.6 billion to acquire new federal recreation lands.

These land purchases - especially on the local level - were instrumental in building the high quality of life we’ve come to expect in the Inland Northwest. For example, nearly 80 percent of Idaho’s local recreation facilities and almost all of its state parks benefitted from this money.

However, state and local funding was eliminated by Congress in 1994, being diverted to pay down the national debt. Without that federal money, outdoor recreation facilities have started to deteriorate. The backlog of construction and needed repairs is increasing.

Congress can, and should, reverse that trend. And because of strong, bipartisan support, it appears likely to happen. Given the highly politicized nature of federal land management, it sounds almost too good to be true: liberal Democrats saying they want to avoid sniping, and conservative Republicans agreeing on the need to work cooperatively.

The likelihood of reaching a compromise seems greater because there appears to be no significant constituency that’s opposed to the idea. “In this case, we’re dealing with something that’s motherhood and apple pie,” Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, told the Associated Press in an interview last week.

The details of how to spend the money are still very much in dispute. Despite the differences, it’s significant that lawmakers have never been so eager to spend so much money for land conservation.

Democrats want most of the money to go for new parkland, suburban green spaces and wildlife protection. Republicans are backing a proposal that would funnel some of the money into coastal states that have offshore oil drilling. A “classic congressional bargain” could emerge, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt told the AP. “There’s no question the money is available.”

Babbitt already has a $295 million shopping list of 86 priority projects, including buying 450,000 acres in California’s Mojave Desert, along with forests in New England and property in the Florida Everglades.

But much of the money also would go to state and local governments, to buy land for urban parks, wildlife habitats and coastal wetlands, and to plan for environmentally friendly urban growth.

We desperately need to preserve open spaces to maintain the quality of life for future generations. We applaud Congress for recognizing this need and encourage its members to act accordingly.