PDA

View Full Version : Forest fund being quietly eviscerated



Tin Man
06-01-2006, 23:06
I guess since the Bushies want to sell land, they decided they didn't need to buy any more land. :-?

The following is from citizen-news (http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060531/OPINION01/60530045/1194).
Forest fund being quietly eviscerated


<!--Byline--><!--Timestamp-->published May 31, 2006 12:15 am

Early this month, the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, chaired by our own Rep. Charles Taylor, “zeroed out” of the federal budget money for the Land and Water Conservation Fund grants that states have used for local parks and recreation projects.
The subcommittee also approved only $26.8 million for federal land acquisition projects, less than one-third of the $83 million in the Bush administration budget and far short of the $220 million called for by more than 120 bipartisan members of Congress.
In addition, the Forest Legacy Program, which helps states conserve private forestlands from development, got only $9.3 million for four projects, less than a quarter of the $61.5 million President Bush requested for 31 projects in various states.
The full house later approved the Appropriation Subcommittee’s version of the bill, which is yet to be voted on in the Senate. North Carolina’s senators Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr could help to reverse the short-sighted handiwork of the House when they have an opportunity, which should come soon.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund was established in 1964 with receipts from offshore oil and gas leases. The LWCF Act gives Congress the authorization to provide up to $900 million annually to the fund.
But over the course of time, as a result of deficit budgets and policy changes, the money has gotten diverted to other uses.
Acquisitions made with the funds are intended for the purpose of preserving clean water, providing wildlife habitat and providing recreation opportunities for citizens.
During the 1970s the fund helped develop parks all over the country, including the Appalachian Trail, which stretches 2,150 miles along the mountain ridges from central Maine to North Georgia.
Altogether, the LWCF has funded the purchase of more than 150,000 acres along the Appalachian Trail, including acquisitions in the Pisgah and Nantahala national forests in Western North Carolina.
The Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Carl Sandburg National Historic Site have all benefited from federal LWCF grants. State grants from the LWCF have benefited Lake Julian Park, Martin Luther King, Jr. Park, Charles D. Owen District Park, Montford Recreation Complex, Lake Tomahawk, and the French Broad River Park.
With development pressure intensifying, it’s ever more critical to protect tracts of land for the purposes set forth in the act creating the LWCF — to provide recreation, to preserve scenic landscapes, to protect water quality and to provide wildlife habitat.
It’s a disappointment that instead of siding with the 120 bipartisan members of Congress who want $220 million for federal LWCF projects, Congressman Taylor was among the chief architects of the bill that reduced the funding below even the Bush administration request. We urge Sens. Dole and Burr to think about the legacy they and their peers will leave to future generations and to vote to increase the funding for land and water conservation.
<!--Vanity, Feedback--><!--Vanity, Feedback--><!--Vanity--><!--Feedback-->
<!--Feedback-->

papa john
06-01-2006, 23:09
Did you even read the news release? Bush isn't making these cuts...Congress is. In every statement above, the amount BUSH requested is being cut by Congress.

Tin Man
06-01-2006, 23:19
Did you even read the news release? Bush isn't making these cuts...Congress is. In every statement above, the amount BUSH requested is being cut by Congress.

Yes, but I said Bushies, not Bush. Bush started the cuts and his friends in Congress are cutting more.

papa john
06-02-2006, 00:15
OK whatever.

Tin Man
06-02-2006, 07:20
OK whatever.

LOL. I should not have editorialized. I merely wanted to share the news.

icemanat95
06-02-2006, 09:11
Hmmm in a period when we are spending billions to recover from a couple major hurricanes, are fighting insurrgencies in two countries, and looking at another serious hurricane season (though God willing it isn't looking to be nearly as bad as last year), folks are complaining about some temporary funding cuts?

Those funds will be re-instated in short order, maybe not in this budget year, but quite possibly in the next. It'll also be a miracle if the Democrats don't take the White House next election as well as recover a significant portion of the Congress and maybe even control. When that happens all these programs will get re-funded and then some.

It is a pendulum folks. It swings one way, then the other...most of the time it averages out over time. Don't get your knickers in a twist.

weary
06-02-2006, 10:43
Hmmm in a period when we are spending billions to recover from a couple major hurricanes, are fighting insurrgencies in two countries, and looking at another serious hurricane season (though God willing it isn't looking to be nearly as bad as last year), folks are complaining about some temporary funding cuts?

Those funds will be re-instated in short order, maybe not in this budget year, but quite possibly in the next. It'll also be a miracle if the Democrats don't take the White House next election as well as recover a significant portion of the Congress and maybe even control. When that happens all these programs will get re-funded and then some.

It is a pendulum folks. It swings one way, then the other...most of the time it averages out over time. Don't get your knickers in a twist.
Sorry. Iceman, It is not as simple as that. Maine was to be the recipient of a significant piece of these new funds. Maine land sales are booming at the moment. These proposed purchases were the result of lengthy negotiations and carefully crafted agreements. Delays are likely to mean the deals are off and the land goes to developers.

Most of these projects are three way deals, involving private conservation groups, the state and Forest Legacy funds:

For instance, according to the Bangor (Maine) Daily News a few days ago:

"Two Maine projects are among the 31 included in the president's funding request. Ranked No. 1 on his list is a plan to add 3,688 acres to Grafton Notch State Park. The land is surrounded by the park and includes a portion of Old Speck Mountain and a major snowmobile trail. The Trust for Public Land has negotiated an agreement with the landowners to buy the land, which it intends to turn over to the state. Three million dollars is needed to complete the deal. The president's budget includes $2 million for Grafton Notch. If Congressional Republicans make their cuts stick, the Grafton Notch expansion will die.

"The other Maine proposal on the president's list is the Lower Penobscot Forest project, an effort to protect more than 42,500 acres near the Sunkhaze National Wildlife Refuge. The Nature Conservancy and Forest Society of Maine are negotiating with private landowners to buy two parcels in Great Pond and Amherst.

"The land is the largest undeveloped forest block in central Maine in an area where new housing developments are being built at an increasingly rapid pace. The Nature Conservancy plans to buy another 11,000 acres next to the federal refuge to manage as an ecological reserve. The president's budget includes $2.2 million for this project, which is expected to cost $15 million."

Weary

Tin Man
06-03-2006, 00:16
Well said Weary. I would add that, in general (and I hate generalizations) over time, the price of land goes up faster than budget dollars set aside to purchase that land. Therefore, delaying land purchases, in addition to losing the land to developers, could mean that smaller tracts of land are purchased in the future and potentinal contributing to further loss of land to developers.

Sly
06-03-2006, 00:38
LOL. I should not have editorialized. I merely wanted to share the news.

Yeah leave the editorializing for the editors! ;)

domnokmis
06-03-2006, 15:43
Don't get your knickers in a twist.too late for that...

Cookerhiker
06-03-2006, 18:15
Hmmm in a period when we are spending billions to recover from a couple major hurricanes, are fighting insurrgencies in two countries, and looking at another serious hurricane season (though God willing it isn't looking to be nearly as bad as last year), folks are complaining about some temporary funding cuts?

Those funds will be re-instated in short order, maybe not in this budget year, but quite possibly in the next. It'll also be a miracle if the Democrats don't take the White House next election as well as recover a significant portion of the Congress and maybe even control. When that happens all these programs will get re-funded and then some.

It is a pendulum folks. It swings one way, then the other...most of the time it averages out over time. Don't get your knickers in a twist.

Keep in mind that the purchase of forest lands (subject of this thread) are supposedly financed by a dedicated funding source - the Land & Water Conservation Fund which is replenished not by general taxes but by royalties from exploitation of public lands. So it's disingenuous to say that money isn't available because of Katrina, etc. Of course, the Bush Administration is collecting all the royalties it should from off-shore drilling, logging, etc. but the point is, there's a paper balance in the fund.

weary
06-04-2006, 01:53
....Of course, the Bush Administration is collecting all the royalties it should from off-shore drilling, logging, etc. but the point is, there's a paper balance in the fund.
Not so. Some oil royalties were mistakenly left out of contracts during the Clinton years. Bush, if I remember right, is opposing reimposing the royalty payments, despite the record oil prices.

Cookerhiker
06-04-2006, 11:59
Not so. Some oil royalties were mistakenly left out of contracts during the Clinton years. Bush, if I remember right, is opposing reimposing the royalty payments, despite the record oil prices.

You're correct about Clinton starting the royalty relief and excuse my glaring typo from inadvertently omitting "not" between "is" and "collecting." Obviously I dashed off that post!