Contents

• Introduction
• How the Fund Works
• Purposes of LWCF Appropriations
• Division Between Federal and State Purposes
Federal Land Acquisition
• Stateside Program
• Traditional State Grants
• Competitive State Grants
• Mandatory Appropriations
• Other Purposes
• Funding History
• Overview of Total Appropriations, FY1965-FY2018
• Overview of Mandatory Appropriations, FY2009-FY2018
• Overview of Discretionary Appropriations, FY1965-FY2018
FY1965-FY2016
• Allocation Among Land Acquisition, State Grants, and Other Purposes
• Legislative Activity
• Current Issues
• Level of Funding
• Reauthorization of LWCF Act Provisions
Mandatory vs. Discretionary Appropriations
• Maintenance vs. Acquisition
• Access for Recreation
• Stateside Program
• Other Programs

Summary

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 was enacted to help preserve, develop, and ensure access to outdoor recreation facilities to strengthen the health of U.S. citizens. The law created the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the U.S. Treasury as a funding source to implement its outdoor recreation goals.

The LWCF has been used for three general purposes. First, it has been the principal source of monies for land acquisition for outdoor recreation by four federal agencies—the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service. Second, the LWCF also funds a matching grant program to assist states in recreational planning, acquiring recreational lands and waters, and developing outdoor recreational facilities. There are two aspects to this "stateside" program: the traditional state grants and the more recent competitive state grants. Under theUnder this traditional state grant program, a portion of the appropriation is divided equally among the states, with the remainder apportioned based on need, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior. The states award their grant money through a competitive selection process based on statewide recreation plans and establish their own priorities and criteria. For FY2014-FY2016, Congress appropriated funds for a competitive state grant program in addition to the traditional state grant program. Each state awards its grant money based on its own outdoor recreation plan and priorities. The competitive state grant program, begun in FY2014, funds recreation projects in urbanized areas meeting certain criteria. Third, beginning in FY1998, LWCF has been used to fund other federal programs with related purposes, such as the Forest Legacy program of the Forest Service and grants under the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The LWCFUnder the LWCF Act, the fund is authorized through September 30, 2018, to accrue $900 million annually from multiple sources. However, nearly all of the revenue is derived from oil and gas leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Congress determines the level of discretionary appropriations each year, and yearly appropriations have fluctuated widely since the origin of the program. Of the total revenues that have accrued throughout the history of the program ($38.0 billion), less than half have been appropriated ($17.5The LWCF receives additional money under more recent legislation (P.L. 109-432, "GOMESA"). Throughout the history of the LWCF, $40.0 billion in revenues have accrued under both the LWCF Act and GOMESA.

Congress determines the level of funding for the three LWCF purposes through the annual appropriations process. These discretionary appropriations have fluctuated widely since the origin of the program. In addition, any funds deposited under GOMESA are mandatory appropriations for the state grant program. Mandatory appropriations were relatively small from FY2009-FY2017. They increased substantially in FY2018, and are expected to remain relatively high at least over the next decade, due to additional revenues from leasing in the Gulf of Mexico.

Less than half of the $40.0 billion in total revenues that have accrued in the LWCF have been appropriated ($18.4 billion). FY2001 marked the highest funding ever, with appropriations exceeding the authorized level by reaching nearly $1 billion. For FY2016FY2018, the most recent fiscal year, the total appropriation was $450.0 million.

The $17.5 billion appropriated throughout487.6 million (with $425.0 million in discretionary funds and $62.6 million in mandatory funds). The $18.4 billion appropriated through the history of the program has been allocated unevenly among federal land acquisition (61%), the state grant program (25%), and other purposes (14%). Similarly, federal land acquisition funds have been allocated unevenly among the four federal agencies. Under more recent legislation (P.L. 109-432), a portion of revenues from certain OCS leasing is provided without further appropriation to the state grant program. These mandatory appropriations have been relatively small thus far; they are expected to increase beginning in FY2018 due to additional revenues from leasing in the Gulf of Mexico.

agencies.

A variety of issues pertaining to the LWCF are the subject of legislation, hearings, and other debate. Some of them are being considered as part of deliberations over whether to reauthorize the LWCF beyond September 30, 2018. Issues include the optimal level of funding for LWCF overall and its individual components, whether to permanently reauthorizereauthorize provisions of the LWCF, and whether to retain discretionary appropriations or provide additional mandatory appropriations. Other issues involve whether LWCF funds should be used for additional purposes, such as maintenance, or set aside for particular priorities, such as securing additional access to federal lands for recreation. The priority of the state grant program vis-à-vis federal acquisition is being debated, as is the extent to which the fund should be used for other programs benefitting states.

---

Introduction

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965¹ was enacted to help preserve, develop, and ensure access to outdoor recreation resources. A main goal of the law was to facilitate participation in recreation and strengthen the "health and vitality" of U.S. citizens. The law sought to accomplish this goal by "providing funds" for federal land acquisition and for federal assistance to states infor outdoor recreation, including for recreation planning, acquisition of lands and waters, and development of recreation facilities.

The law created the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the Treasury as a funding source to implement theits outdoor recreation goals it set out. While the law. Currently, the fund receives $900 million annually under the LWCF Act, but these credited monies cannot be spent unless appropriated by Congress. The level of annual appropriations has varied widely since the origin of the fund in 1965. This authority for the fund to accrue $900 million annually is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2018.² While the LWCF Act initially did not specify the authorized level of funding, itthe law has been amended several times to specify and provide increasing levels of authorizations. The fund was first authorized atauthorization was raised to $900 million for FY1978; the authorization, and has remained at this level. The fund is currently authorized through September 30, 2018, to accrueaccrues revenues of $900 million annually from three specific sources. The LWCF accumulates revenues from, including the federal motorboat fuel tax and surplus property sales. To reach the annual authorized level, theThe fund accumulates the majority of its revenues from oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

Monies in the fund are available for outdoor recreation purposes only if appropriated by Congress, except that a portion of the appropriations for the state grant program is mandatory.² The level of annual appropriations has varied widely since the origin of the fund in 1965. Of current debate is whether to reauthorize the LWCF The LWCF receives additional money (beyond the $900 million) under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA),³ and these appropriations are mandatory. The authority for the LWCF to accrue revenues under GOMESA does not have an expiration date. Under GOMESA, the fund accrues revenue from certain OCS leasing, and these monies can be used only for grants to states for outdoor recreation. These mandatory appropriations had been relatively small through FY2017, but are estimated to have increased substantially in FY2018 and to remain relatively high at least over the next decade. Of current debate is whether to reauthorize provisions of the LWCF Act beyond September 30, 2018, and alter the operation of the fund. Alterations under discussion include whether to permanently reauthorize the LWCF Act, make all or a portion of the appropriations under that law, make the appropriations mandatory (rather than discretionary), direct monies to be used for particular purposes provided for in the LWCF Act, or amend the law to authorize the fund to be used for additional purposes.

different purposes. These questions are being debated by authorizing committees and during consideration of the annual Interior appropriations legislation.

Perennial congressional issues include (1) deciding the amount to appropriatetotal appropriation for federal land acquisition, determining the level of acquisition funds for each of the four agencies, and identifying which lands should be acquired; (2) deciding the level of funding for the state grant program; and (3) determining what, if any, other purposes should be funded through LWCF and at what level. The primary context for debating these issues traditionally has been the annual Interior appropriations legislation.

How the Fund Works

The LWCF is not a true trust fund as is generally understood in the private sector. TheFor instance, the fund is credited with revenues totaling $900 million annually under the LWCF Act, but these credited monies cannot be spent unless appropriated by Congress (except a portion of the state grant funds). From FY1965 through FY2016, about $38.0 billion has been credited to the LWCF. Less than half that amount—$17.5 billion—has been appropriated, leaving an unappropriated balance of $20.5 billion in the fund.³ (See Figure 1.), as noted. Further, interest is not accrued on the accumulated unappropriated balance that has been credited to the LWCF. While some supporters assert that the LWCF was originally intended to be a revolving fund, whereby the money would be maintained in an account separate from the General Treasury that could accrue interest, this has not been the case. The fund's basic purpose has not been altered even though the authorizing legislation has been amended, most notably to raiseAlthough the LWCF Act has been amended, the fund's basic purpose has not been altered. Over time, notable amendments have raised the authorization ceiling and to mandatemandated that offshore oil and gas leasing revenues should make up any shortfall from other specified financing sources.

From FY1965 through FY2018, about $40.0 billion has been credited to the LWCF under both the LWCF Act and GOMESA.⁴ Less than half that amount—$18.4 billion—has been appropriated,⁵ leaving an unappropriated balance of $21.6 billion in the fund.⁶ (See Figure 1.)⁷

Figure 1. Total LWCFLWCF Total Receipts and Appropriations, FY1965-FY2016 FY2018 (in billions of dollars, not adjusted for inflation)

Source: Graphic created by CRS. The primary source for the data is the Department of the Interior (DOI) Budget Office, http://www.doi.gov/budget/budget-data.cfm. See the entry for "Land and Water Conservation Fund Receipts: MS Excel Spreadsheet." Data were updated by DOI on March 5, 2014, and by CRS usingDOI Office of Budget. Additional sources of information include the annual DOI Budget in Brief and congressional documents accompanying the annual Interior appropriations bill. Notes: OCS receipts and appropriations for Budget in Brief. See for example, DOI, Fiscal Year 2017: The Interior Budget in Brief, p. B-1, at https://www.doi.gov/budget. Notes: Amounts do not sum to totals shown due to rounding. OCS receipts and state grants reflect monies derived under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA; P.L. 109-432). , Division C, §105). Recreation fees were not deposited into the fund after FY1990, and are thus shown differently from other revenues that currently accrue to the fund.

Purposes of LWCF Appropriations

Appropriations from LWCF have been made for three general purposes: (1) federal acquisition of land and waters and interests therein;⁸ (2) the stateside grants (2) grants to states for recreational planning; acquiring recreational lands, waters, or related interests; and developing outdoor recreational facilities; and (3) related purposes.⁴9 Each year, Congress determines the total appropriations from the fund, and the amount provided for each of these three general purposes.

Division Between Federal and State Purposes The LWCF Act currently states that not less than 40% of the appropriations from the fund are to be available for federal purposes.¹⁰ However, as enacted in 1964, the LWCF Act generally had provided for the appropriations from the LWCF to be 60% for state purposes and 40% for federal purposes. The 1964 law stated that "in the absence of a provision to the contrary in the Act making an appropriation from the fund," the appropriation from the fund was to be 60% for state purposes and 40% for federal purposes. It further specified that during the first five years in which appropriations were made from the fund, the President could vary these percentages by not more than 15 percentage points to meet the needs of states and the federal government. The current language, providing for not less than 40% of funding for federal purposes,⁵ resulted from a 1976 amendment enacted as P.L. 94-422.⁶

Federal Land Acquisition

The LWCF remains In the conference report on the bill (S. 327), conferees expressed that "Generally, appropriations should continue to reflect the 60-40 allocation established by the Act." However, they noted the "inflexibility" of this division because "States may sometimes be unable to provide the amounts necessary to match their share of the appropriations from the fund," and thus might not be able to use their funding in a given year. In that case, additional funding should be provided to the federal agencies for acquisition in order "to preserve and protect" areas for future generations, according to the conferees.¹¹ At the time of the 1976 amendment, funds were being appropriated for federal land acquisition and the stateside program. Funding for other purposes did not occur until FY1998. Federal Land Acquisition The LWCF is the principal source of funds for federal acquisition of lands. Most federal lands are acquired (and managed) by four agencies—the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture, and the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the InteriorDOI. These four agencies manage about 95% of all federally owned lands.⁷12 Of these agencies, only the FWS has another significant source of acquisition funding. Specifically, under the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund the FWS has a permanently appropriated source of funding for land acquisition.⁸13 The BLM also has authority to keep the proceeds of certain land sales (primarily in Nevada) and use them for subsequent acquisitions and other purposes.

The LWCF Act provides that "unless otherwise allotted in the appropriation Act making them available," appropriations from the fund for federal purposes are to be allotted by the President for certain purposes.⁹14 These purposes include "capital costs" for recreation and fish and wildlife at water resources development projects; land acquisition in recreation areas administered by the Secretary of the Interior for recreational purposes; and land acquisition in national park, national forest, and national wildlife refuge system units. In practice, the appropriations acts typically identifyspecify the purposes for which the federal funds are to be used.

In many respects, the process for appropriating funds for federal land acquisition is similar from year to year. The Administration's annual budget submission from each of the four federal agencies typically has included proposals for lands the agencies seek to acquire with requested LWCF funds. The number of specific acquisitions sought by the agencies varies from year to year. The most recent budget requests—for FY2017—sought discretionary appropriations for 48 acquisitions by DOI agencies and 26 acquisitions by the Forest Service. The FY2017 budget requests also included a proposal for additional acquisitions with mandatory appropriations from the LWCF; this would require a change in law. Together, the three DOI agencies sought mandatory appropriations for 61 specific acquisitions and the Forest Service sought mandatory appropriations for 15 acquisitions. In total, for FY2017 the four agencies sought appropriations (discretionary and mandatory) for 150 acquisitions. By contrast, some recent requests have sought to fund a smaller number of acquisitions. For example, for FY2013, 34 acquisitions were sought for the three DOI agencies and 17 for the FS. Each agency typically chooses among many potential options in making its annual request. The requests also sometimes seek funding for certain types of acquisitions, such as those that would facilitate access to federal lands for recreation and sportsmen, as proposed in the FY2017 budget requests of the four agencies.¹⁰ Congress reviews agency requests, and then determines the funding level for each agency's acquisitionsmajor federal land management agencies generally identifies lands (or interests in lands) each agency seeks to acquire with LWCF funds. Each agency chooses among many potential options in making its annual request, through a three-level process involving identification and prioritization of acquisition projects by field, regional, and headquarters offices. However, the Administration sometimes does not seek funding for individual acquisition projects, as was the case initially in the FY2018 and FY2019 Trump Administration budget submissions to Congress.¹⁵ The Administration also might seek funding for certain types of acquisitions, such as those that would facilitate access to federal lands for recreation and sportsmen.¹⁶ Congress reviews agency requests, determines the total acquisition funding for each agency, and decides on the portion of funding (if any) for requested types of acquisition (e.g., access for recreation and sportsmen). Congress also typically identifies (in report language) the level of funding for each acquisition project sought by the Administration.

The LWCF Act restricts appropriations to those acquisitions that have been previously authorized by law. However, it allows LWCF appropriations to be used for pre-acquisition work where "authorization is imminent and where substantial monetary savings could be realized."¹¹

In recent years, Congress typically has provided the agencies with a portion of the acquisition funding for one or more related activities. For instance, funds have been provided for acquisition management to cover the costs of land purchases, such as appraisals and title research. Acquisition funds also have been provided to cover the costs of land exchanges, as well as the17

Appropriations laws typically provide that LWCF funds for land acquisition remain available until expended, meaning the funds can be carried over from fiscal year to fiscal year. Often an appropriation is not used in the fiscal year provided, because the process for completing a land acquisition has many components and often takes more than one year. These components generally include an appraisal of the value of the parcels, evaluations of the resources contained within the parcels, and title research.

The Administration typically seeks, and appropriations laws have typically provided, a portion of each agency's acquisition funding for one or more related activities. For instance, funds have been provided for acquisition management, costs of land exchanges, and acquisition of lands within the boundaries of federal land units ("inholdings") that may become available throughout the year. Further, in some cases funds have been appropriated for "emergencies" or "hardships," for acquisition of lands from an owner who must sell quickly and where the agency determines there is a need to purchase the lands quickly.¹²

Appropriations laws typically provide that LWCF funds for land acquisition remain available until expended, meaning the funds can be carried over from fiscal year to fiscal year. Often an appropriation is not used in the fiscal year provided, because the process for completing a land acquisition has many components and often takes more than one year.

Stateside Program

Traditional State Grants

Another portion of the LWCF, administered by the NPS, provides matching grants to states (including the District of Columbia and U.S. territories) for 18 Stateside Program

Another portion of the LWCF consists of grants to states (including the District of Columbia and U.S. territories) for outdoor recreation purposes. There are two types of grants: traditional and competitive. Both programs are administered by the NPS. Under the traditional grant program, both discretionary and mandatory appropriations are divided among states by the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the NPS). Under the competitive grant program, begun in FY2014, the NPS awards discretionary grants to urbanized areas meeting certain criteria. Under both grant programs, states may "sub-award" grants to state agencies, local units of government, and federally recognized Indian tribes.

Traditional State Grants The traditional grant program provides matching grants to states for outdoor recreation planning, acquisition of lands and waters, and facility development. Grants are provided for outdoor recreation purposes only, rather than for indoor facilities such as community centers. Through September 30, 2013, state and local governments received 42,216 grants for outdoor recreation projects. This figure includes 7,680 grants for acquisition; 27,382 grants for developing recreation facilities; 3,190 grants for redeveloping older recreational facilities; 3,259 grants for a combination of these activities; and 705 state planning grants for studies of recreation potential, need, and opportunity.¹³More than 42,000 grants have been provided throughout the history of the program (since FY1965), with a majority used for developing new recreation facilities or redeveloping older facilities. Acquisitions funded through LWCF state grants must remain in recreation use in perpetuity, unless the Secretary of the Interior approves of the conversion of the land to another use and acceptable replacement lands are substituted. Conversions occur due to changing state or local needs, such as to use park lands to build schools, widen roads, and develop civic facilities. The NPS approves aboutroughly 50-75 conversions yearly nationwide, typically involving a portion of the area funded with an LWCF state grant.¹⁴

Appropriations to the state grant program typically do not include earmarks or other directions to the NPS to guide how these funds should be distributed or spent. The Secretary of the Interior apportions the appropriation for state grants in accordance with a formula set out in the LWCF Act.¹⁵19 The formula calls for a portion of the appropriation to be divided equally among the states.¹⁶20 The remaining appropriation is to be apportioned based on need, as determined by the Secretary.¹⁷21 Under law, the determination of need is to include the population of the state relative to the population of the United States, the use of outdoor recreation resources within a state by people outside the state, and the federal resources and programs within states. In current practice, population is the biggest factor in determining state need. No state can receive more than 10% of the total appropriation.

Discretionary appropriations for traditional state grants typically are included in the annual Interior appropriations law, without earmarks or other directions to the NPS to guide how these funds should be distributed or spent. States have up to three years to use the moneydiscretionary appropriations—the federal fiscal year in which the apportionment is made and the next two fiscal years. It is rare for a state not to use the money during this time, according to the NPS. Under law, the Secretary is to reapportion any amount that is not paid or obligated during the three-year period.

In addition, mandatory appropriations are provided for the traditional state grants only. Specifically, under GOMESA, 12.5% of the revenues from certain OCS leasing in the Gulf of Mexico is directed to the stateside program to be used in accordance with the terms of the LWCF Act. States generally can receive up to $125.0 million in annual stateside appropriations through FY2056, except that the maximum is $162.5 million for each of FY2021 and FY2022. The money is to be in addition to any discretionary amounts appropriated by Congress for the LWCF. Further, these funds are available to the states until expended, unlike the three-year duration of the discretionary funds appropriated annually for the stateside program.²²

To be eligible for a grant, a state must prepare and update a statewide outdoor recreation plan. This plan must address the needs and opportunities for recreation and include a program for reaching recreational goals. It generally does not include specific projects. Under law, the plan is required to be approved by the Secretary; this responsibility has been delegated to the NPS. The states award their grant money through a competitive, open project selection process based on their recreation plans and their own priorities and selection criteria. They can use the money for state projects or for pass-through to localities or tribes. States send their ranked state or local projects to the NPS for formal approval and obligation of grant money. Under law, payments to states generally are limited to 50% or less of a project's total costs. The remaining cost is borne by the state or local project sponsor.¹⁸

Competitive State Grants

For FY2017, the Obama Administration proposed that $12.0 million of the requested appropriations for state grants ($110.0 million) be provided through a competitive grant program. This figure would be level with the FY2016 appropriation. For several recent fiscal years, the Administration also had proposed that a portion of the appropriations for state grants be provided competitively.¹⁹ Congress first appropriated $3.0 million for a nationally competitive grant program in FY2014 and later appropriated the same sum for FY2015, in each case from a total of $48.1 million for stateside grants.

As developed by the NPS, this new LWCF "Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program" was to provide grants23 Competitive State Grants In FY2014, Congress first appropriated a portion of the LWCF (discretionary) stateside funds for a new nationally competitive outdoor recreation grant program to be developed by the NPS. Congress has continued to fund a competitive program each year, with funding increasing from $3.0 million in FY2014 to $20.0 million in FY2018. Currently, the NPS's "Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program" provides grants to states for land acquisition and development for outdoor recreation projects inthat are in or serve densely settled areas with populations of 50,000 or more. Priority was to be24 Priority is given to communities that are economically disadvantaged or underserved in terms of outdoor recreation opportunities, and to projects that engage and empower youth including through opportunities for employment and training, among other priorities. Under the 2016 grant announcement, the NPS expects to issue a total of 30 grants totaling $15.0 million (the combined FY2015 and FY2016 appropriations). Grant amounts are up to $75,000 for recreational planning and range from $250,000 to $750,000 for acquisition and development. Projects and that have sizable populations who are economically disadvantaged. Under the 2018 grant announcement, other factors for project selection include the extent to which the projects directly connect people to the outdoors; create jobs; engage community members; involve public-private partnerships; and require coordination among the public, government, and private sector.²⁵ In 2018, the NPS expects to issue between 25 and 35 grants totaling $13.3 million,²⁶ with individual grants ranging from $250,000 to $750,000. In addition to meeting the requirements in the grant announcement, projects are required to comply with the LWCF Act and other program requirements that apply to the traditional state grants. Such requirements include a nonfederal funding match (generally of at least 50% of project costs), and land use for outdoor recreation in perpetuity except with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, as noteddiscussed above.²⁰

Mandatory Appropriations

Mandatory monies are provided for state grants under provisions of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA).²¹ Specifically, 12.5% of the revenues from certain OCS leasing in the Gulf of Mexico are directed to the stateside program in accordance with the terms of the LWCF Act. Under GOMESA, states could receive up to $125.0 million in mandatory funding. The money is available without further appropriation, and it is to be in addition to any discretionary amounts appropriated by Congress for LWCF. Further, it is available to the states until expended, unlike the three-year duration of the funds appropriated annually for the stateside program.

An estimated $8.4 million in proceeds from pertinent OCS leasing was collected in FY2008 and disbursed to the stateside program in FY2009. Since then, the disbursements to the stateside program under this authority have decreased. An estimated $0.1 million in revenue from such OCS leasing was disbursed to the stateside program in FY2016, and $0.8 million was projected to be disbursed in FY2017.²² DOI expects that mandatory appropriations will increase "significantly" beginning in FY2018, due to additional revenues from leasing in the Gulf of Mexico.²³

Other Purposes

As noted above, the LWCF Act lists the federal purposes to which the President is to allot LWCF funds "unless otherwise allotted in the appropriation Act making them available."²⁴ A portion of the LWCF appropriation has been provided for other federal purposes (i.e., other than land acquisition) in FY1998 and each year since FY2000. Because there is no set of "other purposes" specified to be funded from LWCF, Presidents have sought funds for a variety of purposes and Congress has chosen which, if any, other purposes to fund from LWCF. For instance, for FY2008, President George W. Bush sought LWCF funds for 11 programs within the FWS, FS, and other agencies, and Congress provided funding for two of these programs. Since FY1998, the LWCF has been used for a broad array of other purposes, such as maintenance of agency facilities (including deferred maintenance), the Historic Preservation Fund, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, the FS Forest Legacy program, FWS State and Tribal Wildlife grants, and FWS Cooperative Endangered Species grants.

Funding History

Overview of FY1965-FY2016

Total annual appropriations from the LWCF have fluctuated widely since the origin of the program about 50 years ago (see Figure 2 and Table 1, below).²⁵ Until FY1998, LWCF funding rarely exceeded $400 million; from FY1977 to FY1980, funding ranged from $509 million (FY1980) to $805 million (FY1978), and averaged $647 million annually. LWCF appropriations spiked dramatically in FY1998—to $969 million—from the FY1997 level of $159 million. FY1998 was the first year that LWCF appropriations exceeded the authorized level of $900 million.²⁶ They included $270 million in the usual funding titles for land acquisition by the four federal land management agencies; an additional $627 million in a separate title, funding both the acquisition of the Headwaters Forest in California and New World Mine outside Yellowstone National Park; and $72 million for other purposes.

Figure 2. Annual LWCF Appropriations, FY1965-FY2016 (in millions of dollars, not adjusted for inflation)

Source: Graphic created by CRS. The primary source for the data is the DOI Budget Office, http://www.doi.gov/budget/budget-data.cfm. See the entry for "Land and Water Conservation Fund Receipts: MS Excel Spreadsheet." Data were updated by DOI on March 5, 2014, and by CRS using the annual Department of the Interior Budget in Brief. See for example DOI, Fiscal Year 2017: The Interior Budget in Brief, p. B-1, at https://www.doi.gov/budget. Notes: The graph does not reflect $76 million provided for the transition quarter from July 1, 1976, to September 30, 1976.

Another spike occurred in FY2001, when discretionary appropriations again exceeded the authorized level and totaled nearly $1 billion. This record level of funding was provided partly in response to President Clinton's Lands Legacy Initiative, which sought $1.4 billion for 21 resource protection programs including the LWCF. It also was provided in response to some congressional interest in securing increased and more certain funding for the LWCF. The 106^th Congress considered legislation to fully fund the LWCF and to make it operate like a private -sector trust fund. Such proposals sought to divert offshore oil and gas revenues to a Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) Fund and to permanently appropriate receipts credited to the LWCF, among other related purposes.

When it became clear that CARA legislation would not be enacted, Congress included aspects of the legislation in the FY2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations law (P.L. 106-291). These provisions established the Conservation Spending Category (CSC), with the LWCF as a major component in the CSC. The CSC provisions set a target for total funding for all the component programs in FY2001 at $1.6 billion, including $1.2 billion through Interior appropriations and $400 million through Department of Commerce appropriations. Under law, the target was to increase each year until it reached $2.4 billion in FY2006. However, Congress generally did not use the CSC structure in appropriating funds to the LWCF and related programs. The CSC was authorized in Interior Appropriations law through FY2006, while the Commerce Appropriations law authorized it for only FY2001.

Over the last decade, FY2007 to FY2016, total LWCF appropriations ranged from a low of $255.1 million in FY2008 to a high of $450.4 million in FY2010. The FY2010 high was about half the authorized level, as was the $450.0 million appropriated for FY2016, the most recent fiscal year. The appropriation for land acquisition of all agencies ranged from $120.4 million in FY2007 to $277.9 million in FY2010, and it most recently was $246.9 million, in FY2016. Stateside program appropriations fluctuated between $19.0 million in FY2009 and $110.0 million for FY2016, with the FY2016 level more than twice as high as any other year during the 10-year period. Appropriations for both land acquisition and the stateside program were lower for each fiscal year from FY2007 to FY2009 than for each subsequent fiscal year. The appropriations for other purposes were at a low of $74.2 million in FY2013 and a high of $216.1 million in FY2007. They exceeded $100.0 million in each of the first four years of the period (FY2007-FY2010) but were lower than $100.0 million in each subsequent year (FY2011-FY2016). Table 2 lists annual appropriations, and the funding levels for acquisition of each agency, the stateside program, and other purposes, from FY2007 through FY2016.

Allocation Among Land Acquisition, State Grants, and Other Purposes

The $17.5 billion appropriated from the fund through FY2015 has been unevenly allocated among federal land acquisition, the stateside program, and other purposes, as shown in Figure 3. The largest portion of the total—$10.7 billion (61%)—has been appropriated for federal land acquisition. The four federal land management agencies have received differing portions of this $10.7 billion. Specifically, the NPS has received $4.5 billion (42%); the FS, $2.9 billion (27%); the FWS, $2.3 billion (21%); and the BLM, $0.9 billion (9%).²⁷

The stateside program has received the second-largest portion of LWCF appropriations—$4.4 billion (25% of the total, which includes funds for grant administration). In the early years, more funds generally went to the stateside program than to the four federal agencies combined. For instance, stateside appropriations exceeded federal land acquisition appropriations during 12 of the 16 years from FY1965 to FY1980. The stateside program has declined as a portion of total LWCF appropriations since the early 1980s, and received no appropriations (except for program administration) from FY1996 through FY1999. Stateside funding has averaged 13% of total LWCF appropriations over the last decade (FY2007-FY2016).

Other purposes have received the remaining portion of total LWCF appropriations—$2.5 billion (14%). No funds were provided for other purposes until FY1998. By contrast, 29% of LWCF appropriations from FY1998 through FY2016 have been for other purposes. The FWS and FS have received the largest shares: about $1.4 billion and $0.9 billion, respectively, of the $2.5 billion appropriated for other purposes since FY1998. (See Figure 3.)

Figure 3. Total LWCF Appropriations by Type and Agency, FY1965-FY2016 (in billions of dollars, not adjusted for inflation)

Source: Graphic created by CRS. The primary source for the data is the DOI Budget Office, http://www.doi.gov/budget/budget-data.cfm. See the entry for "Land and Water Conservation Fund Receipts: MS Excel Spreadsheet." Data were updated by DOI on March 5, 2014, and by CRS using the annual Department of the Interior Budget in Brief. See for example DOI, Fiscal Year 2017: The Interior Budget in Brief, p. B-1, at https://www.doi.gov/budget. Notes: Amounts do not sum to totals shown due to rounding. State grants reflect monies appropriated under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA; P.L. 109-432).

Both the dollar amount and percentage of LWCF appropriations provided to other purposes have varied widely since FY1998, as shown in Table 3. The dollar value of the appropriations for other purposes was much higher in FY2001 than any other year, when these appropriations were used to fund programs in the Clinton Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative. The highest percentage of funds provided for other purposes occurred in FY2006 and FY2007, in response to President George W. Bush's request for funding for an array of other programs. In some years, Congress has appropriated significantly less for other purposes than the Administration has requested. For instance, for FY2008 the Bush Administration sought $313.1 million for other purposes of a total request of $378.7 million. Congress appropriated $101.3 million for other purposes of a total appropriation of $255.1 million.

Legislative Activity

A variety of measures pertaining to the LWCF have been introduced in the 114^th Congress.²⁸ The authorization for the LWCF to accrue $900 million in revenue was extended from September 30, 2015, to September 30, 2018, by a provision in P.L. 114-113.²⁹ Some bills would further extend this authority or make it permanent.

Other provisions of pending bills would provide permanent appropriations at the authorized level and a procedure for allocating such permanent funding among accounts, programs, and projects. As noted above, currently, varying amounts of discretionary appropriations are provided each year in appropriations laws. Other provisions of bills specify that $900 million in mandatory appropriations would be provided in addition to the mandatory appropriations under GOMESA. Currently, the mandatory appropriations under GOMESA count toward the $900 million authorized amount. Still other bills would make changes to GOMESA regarding mandatory appropriations for the stateside program.

Some bills direct how LWCF funds would be used. Several bills specify that a portion of LWCF funding would be used for acquisitions that increase access to federal lands for recreational purposes, such as hunting and fishing. The bills differ as to whether they provide for a minimum percentage or dollar amount of funding; pertain to authorized, appropriated, or requested funding; and contain other provisions affecting LWCF. Other measures would set in law a division of funds between federal purposes and state purposes or would expand the federal purposes for which LWCF appropriations could be used.

Measures establishing new Treasury funds would make additional monies available from these funds for LWCF purposes. Finally, under some measures, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture would be required to consider common criteria in selecting lands to acquire.

Table 4, below, identifies selected provisions of 114^th Congress bills pertaining to the LWCF. Many of the bills shown in the table are pending before committees, but several are at subsequent stages of legislative action. Specifically, S. 338, S. 405, S. 556, S. 2011, S. 2089, and S. 2165 are on the Senate calendar. S. 2012 is in conference; the Senate-passed bill contained LWCF-related provisions, as reflected in Table 4, whereas the House-passed version did not.

Current Issues

Through legislation, hearings, and other debates, Congress is considering an array of issues related to the LWCF. Some of these issues arise in the broader context of whether to reauthorize the LWCF. Several issues are summarized below.

Level of Funding

There are differing opinions as to the optimal level of LWCF appropriations. The LWCF has broad support from resource protection advocates, many of whom seek stable and predictable funding through consistent levels of appropriations. Most of these advocates seek higher appropriations in general. For instance, for several years the Obama Administration proposed appropriations of $900 million for LWCF. Some advocates have specific priorities, such as higher acquisition funding for one of the four federal agencies, the state grant program, or a particular site or area. Advocates of higher federal land acquisition funding promote a strong federal role in acquiring and managing sensitive areas and natural resources.

In addition, there is broad opposition to the LWCF based on varied concerns, with opponents generally seeking reduced levels of funds for LWCF. Some opponents seek to reduce the size of the federal estate and minimize further federal acquisition of land either generally or at specific sites, especially in the West, where federal ownership is already concentrated. Other concerns involve preferences for private land ownership or state and local ownership and management of resources, impacts of federal land ownership on uses of private lands, and reduced local tax revenues that result from public ownership. For instance, for FY2016, the House Budget Committee supported reducing the federal estate, giving state and local governments more control of resources within their boundaries, and maintaining existing resources rather than establishing mandatory funding for the LWCF.³⁰ Others have sought LWCF reductions as part of a broader focus on reducing the federal deficit or on the grounds that there was inadequate cooperation among LWCF programs and between LWCF and other programs.³¹

Mandatory vs. Discretionary Appropriations

Some advocates of higher LWCF funding seek partial or full permanent appropriations. For instance, the Obama Administration proposed $900 million for LWCF for FY2017 through a combination of discretionary ($475.0 million) and mandatory ($425.0 million) appropriations. Further, the Administration proposed amending current law to appropriate mandatory funding of $900 million annually beginning in FY2018.³² c. This figure has been reduced by $5.9 million due to the use of prior-year funds. Current Issues

Through authorizing and appropriations legislation, hearings, and other debates, Congress is considering an array of issues related to the LWCF. Several of these issues are summarized below.

Level of Funding

There are differing opinions as to the optimal level of LWCF appropriations. The LWCF has broad support from resource protection advocates, many of whom seek stable and predictable funding through consistent levels of appropriations. Most of these advocates seek higher appropriations in general. For instance, for several years the Obama Administration proposed appropriations of $900 million for LWCF. Some advocates have specific priorities, such as higher acquisition funding for one of the four federal agencies, the state grant program, or a particular site or area. Advocates of higher federal land acquisition funding promote a strong federal role in acquiring and managing sensitive areas and natural resources.

In contrast, there is broad opposition to the LWCF based on varied concerns, with opponents generally seeking reduced levels of funds for LWCF. Some opponents seek to reduce the size of the federal estate and minimize further federal acquisition of land either generally or at specific sites, especially in the West, where federal ownership is already concentrated. Other concerns involve preferences for private land ownership or state and local ownership and management of resources, potential impacts of federal land ownership on uses of private lands, and reduced local tax revenues that result from public ownership. For instance, the House Committee on the Budget has supported reducing the federal estate and giving state and local governments more control of resources within their boundaries.³⁶ Others have sought LWCF reductions as part of a broader focus on reducing the federal deficit. Reauthorization of LWCF Act Provisions

Under the LWCF Act, the authority for the LWCF to receive $900 million in revenues annually is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2018.³⁷ Congress is debating whether to extend this authority, and if so whether to authorize a short, long, or permanent extension. Many LWCF advocates favor relatively long or permanent extension, on the assertion that the program has been successful across the nation for more than 50 years in protecting valuable lands and resources and providing lands and infrastructure needed for public health, recreation, and tourism. They contend that continuity and stability of the land protection and recreational opportunities that LWCF supports are important national goals, and ones that will help communities to attract businesses, new residents, and tourists. They note the sufficiency of LWCF's dedicated funding stream for supporting the program.

Some proponents of a short-term extension or of expiration assert that the LWCF currently has sufficient funds to meet the nation's land acquisition and recreation needs for many years to come. They point to the relatively large balance of unappropriated monies in the LWCF that Congress could appropriate, as well as to the substantial levels of mandatory funding that are anticipated under GOMESA for the stateside program. For others, structural reforms of the program would be needed before a long-term extension might be viable, such as to direct funding away from federal land acquisition and to other activities, such as maintenance of federal lands and facilities or programs that support states. Others favor depositing the OCS revenues in the General Fund of the Treasury (rather than in the LWCF) to support federal activities generally or specific priority programs.

Mandatory vs. Discretionary Appropriations Some advocates of higher LWCF funding seek partial or full permanent appropriations of monies under the LWCF Act. For instance, the Obama Administration proposed $900 million for LWCF for FY2017 through a combination of discretionary ($475.0 million) and mandatory ($425.0 million) appropriations. Further, the Obama Administration proposed amending current law to appropriate mandatory funding of $900 million annually beginning in FY2018.³⁸ As attributes of the mandatory approach, advocates cite the certainty and predictability of program funding generally and in particular in fostering the ability of agencies to undertake multiyear, large-scale, and collaborative acquisitions.³³39 They also note the existence of a dedicated funding stream for LWCF at the authorized level of $900 million and the original intent of Congress that revenues to the fund be used for the LWCF Act's purposes. Questions include how to offset any new permanent appropriations and how to allocate permanent appropriations among different LWCF programs and purposes.

Proponents of discretionary appropriations support retaining Congress's authority to determine annually the level of funding needed for LWCF overall and for the various program components. They note that through the discretionary process, the need for LWCF appropriations can be assessed in comparison with other natural resource programs and broader governmental needs. This approach also provideshas been valued as providing recurring opportunities for program oversight.

For instance, the House Committee on the Budget has supported keeping land acquisition funding as discretionary to allow for regular oversight.⁴⁰

Maintenance vs. Acquisition

There are differing opinions as to how LWCF funds should be used. Some Members and others have asserted that maintaining (and rehabilitating) the land and facilities that federal agencies already own should take priority over further acquisitions. They sometimes cite the deferred maintenance needs of the agencies as requiring funding through additional sources, including LWCF.³⁴ For instance, in an opening statement, the chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources expressed interest in shifting "the federal focus away from land acquisition, particularly in Western states, toward maintaining and enhancing the accessibility and quality of the resources that we have."³⁵ Further, a 113^th Congress House bill (H.R. 5220) sought to bar funding for federal acquisitions while authorizing funding for maintenance.

41 Some cite the deferred maintenance needs of the agencies as a higher priority than acquisition, and one that requires funding through additional sources, including LWCF.⁴² As an example, the Trump Administration did not initially seek funding for individual acquisitions by agencies in FY2019, asserting that at a time when DOI has "billions of dollars in deferred maintenance, land acquisitions are lower priority activities than maintaining ongoing operations and maintenance."⁴³

Supporters of retaining a strong LWCF role in acquisition cite a continued need to preserve iconic resources and provide additional opportunities for public recreation and other land uses. They assert economic benefits of federal land ownership and improvements of federal land management through consolidation of ownership.³⁶44 In addition, since federal agencies cannot use LWCF funds for maintenance, some supporters of this priority favor more funding to other accounts that can be used for maintenance while retaining the LWCF for acquisitions.³⁷45 Such accounts are within the land management agency budgets as well as within the Department of Transportation (for roads).

Access for Recreation

While the public has access to most federal lands, some areas have limited access or are unavailable to the public. This is sometimes the case because private or state lands, or geographical features such as mountains or rivers, limit or block public access. Proponents of enhanced recreational access have sought to amend the LWCF Act to set aside a portion of funding for federal acquisitions for this purposeaccess purposes. The focus has been on acquisition of lands and interests (e.g., easements and rights of way) that support recreational access for hunting and fishing, among other recreational pursuits. Proponents cite insufficient opportunity for recreating in some areas and broader health, economic, and other values of recreating on public lands.

Opposition to such a set-aside could relate to concerns about the extent of federal land ownership, preferences for prioritizing LWCF for other purposes, or satisfaction that the agencies are sufficiently prioritizing recreational access. According to BLM, for instance, "nearly 100 percent of LWCF funding over the past several years has been used for projects that enhance public access for recreation."³⁸46 For the Forest Service, 39 of the 40 acquisitions completed in FY2014 with LWCF funding provided improved access or legal access where none existed, according to the agency.³⁹47 However, the extent to which agencies prioritize acquisition funding for recreational access might vary among all agencies and from year to year.

Stateside Program

One area of congressional focus has been the level of funds for the stateside program. In some years, Congress and/or the Administration have not supported funds, or have supported relatively low levels of funds, for new stateside grants. Reasons includeCited reasons have included that state and local governments have alternative sources of funding for parkland acquisition and development, the current program could not adequately measure performance or demonstrate results, the federal government supports states through other natural resource programs, and large federal deficits require a focus on core federal responsibilities.

Stateside supporters contend that the program contributes significantly to statewide recreation planning, state leadership in protection and development of recreation resources, and long-term outdoor recreation in areas that are readily accessible to communities. They see the program as a way to help fiscally constrained local governments and leverage state and local funds for recreation. Further, advocates assert that investments in recreation save money in other areas; for instance, they say that these investments promote healthier lifestyles and thus save health care expenditures.⁴⁰

48 Some prefer state acquisition (and development) of lands with LWCF funds over federal acquisition of lands.

Whether to amend the LWCF Act to specify a percentage or dollar amount of the appropriations for the stateside program is part of the, and if so, the optimal level, are under debate. The level of discretionary funding for the stateside program is likely to be of continued interest in part due to the expectation of increasedsubstantial increase in mandatory funds for the program under GOMESA, beginning in FY2018.

WhetherAnother issue under consideration is whether to change the way that funds are apportioned to the states has been under consideration. Under the traditional state grant program, a portion of the appropriation is to be distributed equally among the states, with the percentage varying depending on the total amount of appropriations. Further, the Secretary of the Interior has discretion to apportion the balance based on need, and population has been the biggest factor in determining need. ForSince FY2014-FY2016, Congress has approved a portion of the state grant funds for a competitive grant program. The extent to which the state grant program should be competitive, and the criteria that should be used in any competitive program, are of ongoing interest.

Other Programs

Another focus has been which, if any, purposes other than federal land acquisition and stateside grants should be funded through the LWCF. As discussed above, whether to use the fund for maintenance has been under examination. Some seek to channel LWCF funding to a broaderan array of land protection purposes. For instance, the George W. Bush Administration sought LWCF funds for cooperative conservation programs through which federal land managers partner with other landowners to protect natural resources and improve recreation on lands under diverse ownership. The Obama Administration also has supported the use of LWCF funds for other purposes, although generally fewer than the Bush Administration. Some proposals seek to enhance funding for programs that benefit states, with a shift of resources from federal lands to state grant programs.

Still other proposals would provide LWCF funding to a more diverse programs and activities.⁴⁹

A factor in the debate has been the unappropriated balance in the fund, and whether to allow these funds to be used for broader purposes beyond those currently authorized. Traditional fund beneficiaries and others have expressed concern about expanding the uses of appropriations, particularly if that expansion is accompanied by reductions in the amount available for federal land acquisition or state grants.

Author Contact Information

Footnotes

See H.Rept. 94-1468 on S. 327, p. 16.

17. 39://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/funding.html.

44.

1.	Act of September 3, 1964; P.L. 88-578, 78 Stat. 897. 54 U.S.C. §§200301 et seq. The text of the law had been codified at 16 U.S.C. §§460l-4 et seq. It was recodified under P.L. 113-287 to 54 U.S.C. §§200301 et seq.
2.	Monies provided to the state grant program under §105, Division C, P.L. 109-432 are permanently appropriated, as discussed below.
3.	These figures are derived primarily from the Office of Budget, Department of the Interior, http://www.doi.gov/budget/budget-data.cfm. See the entry for "Land and Water Conservation Fund: MS Excel Spreadsheet." These data were updated by DOI on March 5, 2014, and by CRS using the annual Department of the Interior Budget in Brief. See for example DOI, Fiscal Year 2017: The Interior Budget in Brief, p. B-1, at https://www.doi.gov/budget.
4.	Hereinafter, these purposes are referred to respectively as (1) federal land acquisition, (2) the stateside program, and (3) other purposes.
5.	At the time of the 1976 amendment, funds were being appropriated for federal land acquisition and the stateside program. Funding for other federal purposes did not occur until FY1998.
6.	In the conference report on S. 327, enacted as P.L. 94-422, conferees expressed that "Generally, appropriations should continue to reflect the 60-40 allocation established by the Act." However, they noted the "inflexibility" of this division because "States may sometimes be unable to provide the amounts necessary to match their share of the appropriations from the fund." In that case, additional funding should be provided to the federal agencies for acquisition in order "to preserve and protect" areas for future generations, according to the conferees.For information on the impact of a September 30, 2018, expiration of provisions of the LWCF Act, see CRS In Focus IF10323, Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): Frequently Asked Questions Related to Provisions Scheduled to Expire on September 30, 2018, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]
3.	P.L. 109-432, Division C, §105.
4.	To date, nearly all of the monies have accrued to the fund under the LWCF Act. Specifically, of the $40.0 billion that has accrued from FY1965-FY2018, an estimated $168.7 million was derived from receipts under GOMESA. The estimate of receipts under GOMESA was determined from data provided by the DOI Office of Budget.
5.	To date, nearly all of the appropriations have been discretionary funds provided under the LWCF Act. Specifically, of the $18.4 billion that has been appropriated from FY1965-FY2018, an estimated $75.0 million was mandatory funding under GOMESA. The estimate of mandatory appropriations was determined from the annual budget justifications of the NPS at https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/budget.htm.
6.	Figures on total receipts, total appropriations, and the unappropriated balance were derived primarily from data provided by the DOI Office of Budget. Additional sources of information include the annual DOI Budget in Brief and congressional documents accompanying the annual Interior appropriations bill.
7.	In this figure and throughout this report, amounts may not sum to totals shown due to rounding.
8.	An interest in land is something less than full ownership, such as an easement or mineral, timber, or water rights.
9.	Hereinafter, these purposes often are referred to respectively as (1) federal land acquisition, (2) the stateside program, and (3) other purposes.
10.	54 U.S.C. §200304.
11.
712.	For an overview of these agencies, see CRS In Focus IF10585, The Federal Land Management Agencies, by [author name scrubbed]. For information on the extent of federal land ownership by these agencies and the Department of Defense, see CRS Report R42346, Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed].
813.	For more information on the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, see the FWS land acquisition section of CRS Report RL34273, Federal Land Ownership: Acquisition and Disposal Authorities, by [author name scrubbed] et al.
914.	54 U.S.C. §200306(a).
10.	The Administration includes recreational access as among the general benefits of the LWCF request for FY2017, stating that $506.5 million (in discretionary and mandatory funding) will support conservation, access by sportsmen, and recreation on federal lands. However, $21.2 million of this total is specifically "to improve access for sporting and recreation," according to the Administration. See U.S. Department of the Interior, Fiscal Year 2017: The Interior Budget in Brief, p. DH-18, at https://edit.doi.gov/budget/appropriations/2017/highlights. Hereinafter referred to as the FY2017 Interior Budget in Brief.
1115.	Congress subsequently requested that the Trump Administration submit prioritized acquisition project lists for consideration during the appropriations process.
16.	For example, such funding was sought by the Obama Administration and appropriated for FY2017 (among other years).
54 U.S.C. §200306(b).
1218.	In addition, in FY2018 and in other recent years, a portion of the NPS appropriation has been specified for the American Battlefield Protection Program for grants for nonfederal acquisition of lands (and interests) in eligible battlefields. For additional information on these acquisition grants, see the NPS website at http://www.nps.gov/abpp/grants/grants.htm.
13.	These figures were provided by the NPS in a communication to CRS on July 14, 2014, and are the most recent available.
14.	This information was provided by the NPS in a communication to CRS on July 14, 2014.
15 Also in FY2018 and in other recent years, a portion of the FWS appropriation has been specified for Highlands Conservation Act grants, which provide federal matching funds for land acquisition by a state entity for land protection in partnership with the federal government. For additional information on these grants, see the U.S. government grants website at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/search-grants.html?keywords=highlands. 19.	54 U.S.C. §200305(b).
1620.	Specifically, the law provides that 40% of the first $225.0 million, 30% of the next $275.0 million, and 20% of all additional appropriations are to be apportioned equally among the states.
1721.	The apportionment among states (including the District of Columbia and U.S. territories), for FY2002 through FY2014FY2016, is on the NPS website at httphttps://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/statefundingstatus.htm. The apportionment among states for FY2017 is on the DOI website at https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretary-zinke-announces-943-million-states-parks-and-outdoor-recreation-through-land. The apportionment of mandatory appropriations for FY2018 is on the NPS website at https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1207/secretary-zinke-announces-over-61-million-for-states-to-support-parks-and-outdoor-recreation.htm. The apportionment of discretionary appropriations for FY2018 has not been made as of the date of this report.
22.	Under provisions of the LWCF Act (54 U.S.C. §200305(b)(4)), states have three years to use the discretionary appropriations. Under provisions of GOMESA (P.L. 109-432, Division C, §105(e)(2)), the mandatory monies remain available until expended.
23.	For more information on the stateside program, see the Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Program: Federal Financial Assistance Manual on the NPS website at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/upload/lwcf_manual.pdf.
24.	Urbanized areas consisting of 50,000 people or more are identified by the Bureau of the Census as part of the decennial census. The most recent list, following the 2010 census, was published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2012, at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/03/27/2012-6903/qualifying-urban-areas-for-the-2010-census.
25.	An April 13, 2018, grant announcement is on the U.S. government grants website at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/search-grants.html?keywords=outdoor%20recreation%20legacy.
26.	This total reflects an appropriation of $12.0 million for FY2017 and some unused funds from FY2016.
27.	54 U.S.C. §200306(a).
28.	For information on "other purposes" funded by LWCF throughout its history, see CRS Report R44121, Land and Water Conservation Fund: Appropriations for "Other Purposes", by [author name scrubbed].
29.	Another $0.1 billion (1%) of the total appropriations for federal land acquisition was provided to other agencies or offices (e.g., to the Office of the DOI Secretary, for land appraisal services).
30.	The stateside program received $124.0 million (29%) of the LWCF discretionary appropriations for FY2018 ($425.0 million), but $186.6 million (38%) of total LWCF appropriations (discretionary and mandatory) for FY2018 ($487.6 million).
31.	The stateside program received 18% of the LWCF discretionary appropriations from FY2009 to FY2018, but 19% of total LWCF appropriations (discretionary and mandatory) during this 10-year period.
32.	OCS receipts collected in one fiscal year are appropriated from the LWCF in the following fiscal year.
33.	These estimates were provided to CRS by the NPS, Office of the Comptroller, on March 16, 2018.
34.	The LWCF had accumulated receipts sufficient to cover an appropriation exceeding the annual authorization. Specifically, in 1997 the LWCF had a balance of $11.9 billion in unappropriated receipts, which represented the difference between the receipts into the fund and the appropriations from the fund since its creation. Appropriations also exceeded the authorized level in FY2001.
35.	These provisions established the Conservation Spending Category (CSC), with the LWCF as a major component in the CSC. The CSC provisions set a target for total funding for all the component programs in FY2001 at $1.6 billion, including $1.2 billion through Interior appropriations and $400 million through Department of Commerce appropriations. Under law, the target was to increase each year until it reached $2.4 billion in FY2006. However, Congress generally did not use the CSC structure in appropriating funds to the LWCF and related programs. The CSC was authorized in Interior Appropriations law through FY2006, while the Commerce Appropriations law authorized it for only FY2001.
36.	House Committee on the Budget, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget—Fiscal Year 2016, H.Rept. 114-47 on H.Con.Res. 27, p. 119. The Committee's reports on budget resolutions for subsequent fiscal years (FY2017-FY2019) expressed a similar view.
37.	54 U.S.C. §200302.
38.	U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fiscal Year 2017: The Interior Budget in Brief, p. DH-68, at https://www.doi.gov/budget.
18.	For more information on the stateside program, see the Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Program: Federal Financial Assistance Manual on the NPS website at http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/manual/lwcf.pdf.
19.	See, for example, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2013, pp. LASA-34-35.
20.	A March 9, 2016, NPS press release announcing the grants is at https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/release.htm?id=1791. The grant announcement is on the U.S. government grants website at http://www.grants.gov/view-opportunity.html?oppId=282085.
21.	§105, Division C, P.L. 109-432.
22.	U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2017, p. M-LASA-G-1, https://www.doi.gov/budget.
23.	Ibid. Revenues generated in one year are available in the next year.
24.	54 U.S.C. §200306(a).
25.	Figures in Table 1 and elsewhere in this report do not always add to the totals indicated due to rounding.
26.	The LWCF had accumulated receipts sufficient to cover an appropriation exceeding the annual authorization. Specifically, in 1997 the LWCF had a balance of $11.9 billion in unappropriated receipts, which represented the difference between the receipts into the fund and the appropriations from the fund since its creation.
27.	About $100 million (1%) of the total appropriations for federal land acquisition was provided to other agencies or offices (e.g., to the Office of the DOI Secretary for land appraisal services).
28.	In addition to the measures discussed in this section, amendments pertaining to LWCF have been considered in the 114th Congress. For instance, the Senate considered LWCF-related floor amendments to S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act. One such amendment sought to permanently reauthorize the LWCF and dedicate not less than 1.5% of LWCF appropriations for recreational access. Another amendment to S. 1 sought to express the sense of the Senate that reauthorization of the LWCF should be a priority and include "improvements to the structure of the program to more effectively manage existing federal land." Neither amendment was agreed to by the Senate. Further, House and Senate committees have held oversight hearings on LWCF. See, for example, "Federal Land Acquisition and its Impacts on Communities and the Environment," House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Federal Lands, April 15, 2015, http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=398249, and "Reauthorization and Potential Reforms to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)," Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, April 22, 2015, http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=9a8c795c-f8fe-4168-af7c-1a89ff5a3fee.
29.	See Title VIII, Division O, P.L. 114-113, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016.
30.	House Committee on the Budget, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget—Fiscal Year 2016, H.Rept. 114-47 on H.Con.Res. 27, p. 119.
31.	See, for example, the report of the House Appropriations Committee on H.R. 2584, providing FY2012 appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: H.Rept. 112-151, pp. 14-15.
32.	U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fiscal Year 2017: The Interior Budget in Brief, p. DH-68, at https://www.doi.gov/budget.
33.	Testimony of Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior Michael Connor, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Hearing on the Reauthorization and Potential Reforms to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), hearing, 114th Cong., 1st sess., April 22, 2015, http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=9a8c795c-f8fe-4168-af7c-1a89ff5a3fee.
3440.	For information on the deferred maintenance estimates of the land management agencies over ten years, see CRS Report R43997, Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies: FY2005-FY2014 Estimates, by [author name scrubbed].
35House Committee on the Budget, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget—Fiscal Year 2019, H.Rept. 115-816 on H.Con.Res. 128, p. 46. The Committee's reports on budget resolutions for earlier fiscal years (e.g., FY2016-FY2018) expressed a similar view. 41.	Statement of Senator Lisa Murkowski, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Hearing on the Reauthorization and Potential Reforms to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), hearing, 114th Cong., 1st sess., April 22, 2015, http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=9a8c795c-f8fe-4168-af7c-1a89ff5a3fee.
3642.	For information on the deferred maintenance estimates of the land management agencies over 10 years, see CRS Report R43997, Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies: FY2007-FY2016 Estimates and Issues, by [author name scrubbed] and CRS Report R44924, The National Park Service's Maintenance Backlog: Frequently Asked Questions, by [author name scrubbed].
43.	Office of Management and Budget, An American Budget: Major Savings and Reforms, Fiscal Year 2019, p. 56.
See, for example, Host of Fresh Tracks and On Your Own Adventures Randy Newberg, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Federal Lands, Federal Land Acquisition and its Impacts on Communities and the Environment, hearing, 114th Cong., 1st sess., April 15, 2015, pp. 2-4, http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/newbergtestimony.pdf.
3745.	Statement of Senator Maria Cantwell, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Hearing on the Reauthorization and Potential Reforms to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), hearing, 114th Cong., 1st sess., April 22, 2015, p. 3, http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=9a8c795c-f8fe-4168-af7c-1a89ff5a3fee.
3846.	Statement of Bureau of Land Management's Deputy Director for Operations Steve Ellis, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Legislative Hearing on S. 556,, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015, hearing, 114th Cong., 1st sess., March 12, 2015, p. 6, http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=f46d20ea-6d78-4c4a-a582-2881bbb5abca.
3947.	Testimony of the Forest Service's Deputy Chief for National Forest System Leslie Weldon, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Legislative Hearing on S. 556,, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015, hearing, 114th Cong., 1st sess., March 12, 2015, pp. 5-6, http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=f46d20ea-6d78-4c4a-a582-2881bbb5abca.
4048.	As an example of testimony supporting increased funding for the stateside program, see Prepared statementStatement of Administrator, Wyoming State Parks Administrator and Vice President of the National Association of State Park Directors Domenic Bravo, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Federal Lands, Federal Land Acquisition and its Impacts on Communities and the Environment, hearing, 114th Cong., 1st sess., April 15, 2015, pp. 1-2, http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bravotestimony.pdf.
49.	As examples from the 115th Congress, H.R. 343 would authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to use LWCF funding to provide financial assistance to entities to carry out park and infrastructure projects. H.R. 5170 would authorize LWCF funding for deferred maintenance, critical infrastructure, visitor services, and clean-up efforts on FS, NPS, FWS, and BLM lands; the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program; and promotion of off-shore energy exploration, innovation, and education, among other activities.