LWCF and S 47….When is 40% NOT 40%
As the President signs S 47, permanent re-authorization of LWCF with a 40% set aside for state programs the question remains.. What did Congress mean when it said 40% for states. NASORLO was told the original compromise said it was for state outdoor recreation grants through the State Assistance Program of LWCF. Which meant if the total LWCF, not counting GOMESA was 500 million, 200 million would be for state outdoor recreation grants. 200 hundred million would be for federal land acquisition and Congress would have 100 million for state grants, federal land acquisition or other programs. ( remember in 1998 Congress allowed non outdoor recreation focused programs to be funded by LWCF. Forest Legacy, Endangered Species and Battlefield protection the most recent ) Since those additional programs were less that 100 million, the expectation was they would be funded from the remaining 20 %.
However, we were told the final compromise DID NOT SPECIFY what exactly state grants or programs were and left that up to the Appropriations Committee and Leadership in the future. So, if they needed more federal land acquisition than the 40% provided, or if they wanted to add more programs to the LWCF, they could designate Forest Legacy, Endangered Species and Battlefields, ” State Programs ” and add them to the state 40%, thereby reducing the amount of LWCF for state outdoor recreation grants to the states and territories.
Attached is a summary ( done quickly, relatively accurate for your review, as I understand the Act ) of what that means to the state grants program in different scenerios.. 1. Current distribution of recently approved fy 19 funds, as we understand them to be. 2. Forty percent applied to the current 435 million FY 19 appropriations, with GOMESA not impacted. 3. Forty percent applied to the FY 19 funding levels, including adding 71 million of GOMESA to the calculation. 4. Forty percent applied to the FY 19 funding, adding GOMESA into the calculations and funding the ” other ” programs from the state share. These are presented so you understand the situation states and territories are in related to the re-authorization in S 47.
The states and territories are in a better position than before, as we have PERMANENT reauthorization and a recognition of the state programs in the Act. But we will need to be vigilant and be strong and consistent advocates for the program to ensure the ” intent ” of S 47 to provide states and territories with a consistent and equitable share of LWCF for only outdoor recreation grants is maintained.
