Land and Water Conservation Fund necessary to protect parks and water: Stand by state senators for their work on failed legislation

2012-07-30T06:15:00Z 2012-07-30T08:09:53Z Land and Water Conservation Fund necessary to protect parks and water: Stand by state senators for their work on failed legislationGuest column by DEB LOVE
July 30, 2012 6:15 am  • 

A July 10 article (“120 acres (and a legend) purchased for Glacier National Park”) told the colorful story of one of Glacier National Park’s first park ranger and his moonshiner wife. The Doody homestead is now part of Glacier National Park and will be forever preserved in the park.

As the article mentions, the property is protected because money was made available through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The LWCF is an important tool for conservation. It does not use taxpayer dollars and instead is funded through royalties from offshore oil and gas leases. The LWCF was created in by Congress 1964 to protect our parks, forests and water, and to improve access to public lands for recreation, fishing and hunting. But the fund has been consistently raided and used for other purposes.

Recently Congress missed a golden opportunity to fix the raiding on the LWCF when it failed to pass legislation to protect the fund. Despite broad bipartisan support in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, a provision to dedicate the LWCF spending for two years was dropped in the final version of a transportation spending package.

More than 255 senators and representatives from both parties, including Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester, both D-Mont, supported the LWCF funding provision. They understand the direct links between conserving our outdoor heritage and helping local communities that depend on tourism and outdoor recreation. They also know that protecting ranches and working forests maintains our traditional way of life while supporting long-term economic vitality.

They were part of a strong effort to ensure that LWCF funding stops being raided and is directed for the purpose for which it was created almost 50 years ago. Unfortunately, despite these best efforts, it did not make it in the final bill.

In addition to the recent protection of the Doody homestead, the LWCF has protected properties and enhanced permanent public access elsewhere in Montana. Along the Rocky Mountain Front and across the Blackfoot and Swan valleys, the LWCF is helping communities keep ranches operating, maintain private working forests, and conserve our favorite rivers, trails, and recreation areas.

While protecting our parks and forests, the LWCF also promotes economic growth by boosting tourism. For example, the Lolo and Flathead national forests combined are visited more than 2 million times each year, and generate around $91 million in local spending. Glacier National Park attracts over 2 million visits annually, contributing $112 million in recreation spending to Montana’s economy. The LWCF investments at places like the Doody homestead protect the integrity of our public lands while reaping direct benefits in economic vitality across our state.

For now, the LWCF will continue to depend on unpredictable and low funding through the annual appropriations process. Last year, the LWCF received about one-third of the authorized $900 million and far less than what is needed to meet demands to protect our public lands. This affects landowners who would pursue a conservation outcome for their property, but face a constant state of limbo as the LWCF funding gets taken away for other uses.

Montanans of all walks of life stand by our two senators to continue to fight for the LWCF and our outdoor heritage. They joined many of their fellow congressmen in fighting hard for the LWCF in the final transportation bill. Although these efforts ultimately did not succeed, I applaud their leadership and dedication to helping Montana families to defend our outdoor heritage and the community vitality it supports. I urge them to continue to keep up the good fight.

Deb Love is the Northern Rockies Director of the Trust for Public Land. Visit

Copyright 2015 All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(3) Comments

  1. Dave Skinner
    Report Abuse
    Dave Skinner - July 31, 2012 6:17 pm
    Greens have tapped into LWCF as their private slush entitlement. They were really counting on those guaranteed 700 million for two years slipped into a rider, just like they want the 900 million of full funding made mandatory and permanent. I mean, the government should buy more land when it's doing such a WONDERFUL job with what it already has?
    255 senators and congs supported this under-the-table extension of LWCF -- but that means 280 did not. LWCF has run its course, hopefully.
  2. mtmike
    Report Abuse
    mtmike - July 31, 2012 2:56 am
    That about sums it up.
  3. Dub
    Report Abuse
    Dub - July 30, 2012 11:37 am
    Deb---I feel bad that you didn't get the full $900 million, gosh what will you do?? You and the Nature Conservancy have destroyed the economies in every small town you have targeted. I guess we should feel lucky that you and all your out of state land trusts have moved into Montana to "save" us dumb Montanans from ruining everything. Will our future generations be better off when every thing is under government control? The government has a very poor track record of making anything work so why should we trust them now. You and several other land trusts are the only people making money now but then again you know how to tap into our tax dollars and when your are done, you will leave and move on to other areas where there are large groups of unsuspecting victims.
Missoulian Civil Dialogue Policy

Civil Dialogue Policy for Commenting on

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Comments can only be submitted by registered users. By posting comments on our site, you are agreeing to the following terms:

Commentary and photos submitted to the Missoulian ( may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Missoulian or its parent company. See the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks on other site users are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on

You may not post copyrighted material from another publication. (Link to it instead, using a headline or very brief excerpt.)

No short policy such as this can spell out all possible instances of material or behavior that we might deem to be a violation of our publishing standards, and we reserve the right to remove any material posted to the site.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick