Land and Water Conservation Fund:
Overview, Funding History, and Issues

Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
August 13, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33531
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues

Summary
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 was enacted to help preserve,
develop, and assure 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 the principal source of monies for land acquisition for outdoor recreation by
the four federal agencies—the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and Forest Service. Congress typically identifies which areas are to be acquired
with the funds it provides. The LWCF also funds a matching grant program to assist states in
recreational planning, acquiring recreational lands and waters, and developing outdoor
recreational facilities. The states award their grant money through a competitive selection process
based on statewide recreation plans and establish their own priorities and criteria. Finally, in
recent years, beginning in FY1998, LWCF has been used to fund an array of other federal
programs with related purposes.
The LWCF is authorized to accumulate $900 million annually from designated sources, with most
of the money derived from oil and gas leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf. Congress
determines the level of 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 ($32.6 billion), less than half have been appropriated ($15.5 billion). FY2001
marked the highest funding ever, with appropriations exceeding the authorized level by reaching
nearly $1 billion. For FY2010, the most recent fiscal year, the appropriation was $450.4 million.
The $15.5 billion appropriated throughout the history of the program has been unevenly allocated
among federal land acquisition (63%), the state grant program (26%), and other programs (11%).
Similarly, federal land acquisition funds have been allocated unevenly among the four federal
agencies. More recent legislation (P.L. 109-432) provided that a portion of revenues from certain
OCS leasing are provided to the state grant program. These funds are to supplement any funds
appropriated from LWCF.
There is a difference of opinion as to the appropriate level of funds for LWCF and how those
funds should be used. Current congressional issues include deciding the amount to appropriate for
land acquisition and identifying which lands should be acquired; deciding the level of funding for
the state grant program; and determining which, if any, other programs to fund from the LWCF.
The primary context for debating these issues is Interior appropriations legislation. Other issues
of current debate include whether the LWCF should be permanently appropriated at the
authorized level of $900 million, and whether revenues from additional activities should be
directed to the LWCF.

Congressional Research Service

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
How the Fund Works............................................................................................................. 1
Purposes of LWCF Appropriations ........................................................................................ 2
Federal Land Acquisition ................................................................................................ 2
Stateside Program ........................................................................................................... 3
Other Purposes................................................................................................................ 5
Funding History .................................................................................................................... 5
Overview of FY1965-FY2010......................................................................................... 5
Allocation Among Land Acquisition, Stateside, and Other Purposes ................................ 9
Current Issues ..................................................................................................................... 10

Figures
Figure 1. LWCF Appropriations, FY1965-FY2010 ...................................................................... 6

Tables
Table 1. LWCF Appropriations, FY1965-FY2010........................................................................ 6
Table 2. Total LWCF Appropriations, FY2001-FY2010............................................................... 8
Table 3. LWCF Appropriations for Other Purposes, FY1998-FY2010....................................... 10

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 12

Congressional Research Service

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues

Introduction
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 19651 was enacted to help preserve,
develop, and assure 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 these goals by “providing funds” for federal acquisition and
development of lands and other areas and by “providing funds for and authorizing” federal
assistance to states in recreation planning, acquiring 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 the outdoor recreation goals it set out. The fund is currently authorized at $900 million
annually through September 30, 2015. The LWCF is a “trust fund” that accumulates revenues
from the federal motorboat fuel tax and surplus property sales. To supplement these sources to
reach the annual authorized level of $900 million, the fund accumulates revenues from oil and gas
leases on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). For many years, the OCS revenues have accounted
for almost all of the deposits.2
Monies in the fund are available for outdoor recreation purposes only if appropriated by
Congress, and the level of annual appropriations has varied widely since the origin of the fund.
One current issue is whether to provide permanent appropriations for LWCF, rather than continue
the current procedure of providing appropriations each year. Also of current debate is whether to
direct additional monies to LWCF, to be used for purposes provided for in the LWCF Act or for
other purposes. Perennial congressional issues include (1) deciding the amount to appropriate 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 programs should be funded through LWCF
and at what level. The primary context for debating these issues traditionally has been the annual
Interior appropriations legislation. For the most recent action on LWCF, see the “Land and Water
Conservation Fund” section of the most recent CRS report on appropriations for Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies.3
How the Fund Works
The LWCF is not a true trust fund in the way “trust fund” is generally understood in the private
sector. The fund is credited with revenues totaling $900 million annually, but these credited
monies cannot be spent unless appropriated by Congress. Unappropriated funds remain in the
U.S. Treasury and can be spent for other federal activities. From FY1965 through FY2010, about
$32.6 billion has been credited to the LWCF. About half that amount—$15.5 billion—has been
appropriated.4 Further, interest is not accrued on the accumulated unappropriated balance that has

1 Act of Sept. 3, 1964; P.L. 88-578, 78 Stat. 897. 16 U.S.C. §§460l-4, et seq.
2 Executive Branch “moratoria” (issued on May 28, 2010, and July 12, 2010) on deepwater drilling are unlikely to
affect the availability of OCS revenues for the LWCF.
3 The most recent report is CRS Report R41258, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations,
coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
4 These figures are from the Office of Budget, Department of the Interior, at http://www.doi.gov/budget/
budget_general/bgindex.html. Under the entry for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, MSExcel Spreadsheet, see
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues

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 a separate account 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 raise the funding ceiling
and to mandate that offshore oil and gas leasing revenues should make up any shortfall from other
specified financing sources.
Purposes of LWCF Appropriations
Appropriations from LWCF have been made for three general purposes: (1) federal acquisition of
land and waters and interests therein; (2) grants to states for recreational planning; acquiring
recreational lands, waters, or related interests; and developing outdoor recreational facilities; and
(3) related purposes.5 Each year, Congress determines the total appropriations from the Fund, and
the amount for each of these three general purposes.
The LWCF Act states that not less than 40% of the appropriations from the fund are to be
available for federal purposes. This language resulted from a 1976 amendment, at a time when
funds were being appropriated for federal land acquisition and for the stateside program. Funding
for other federal purposes did not occur until FY1998. This provision replaced language in the
LWCF Act that had provided 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. That language had 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 points to meet the needs of states and the federal government.
Federal Land Acquisition
The LWCF remains the principal source of funds for federal acquisition of lands for outdoor
recreation. 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 Interior.6
These four agencies manage about 95% of all federally owned lands. 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.7
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

(...continued)
the table entitled Land and Water Conservation Fund Receipts, Appropriations and Unappropriated Balances Reported
by Treasury
.
5 Hereafter, these purposes are referred to respectively as (1) federal land acquisition, (2) the stateside program, and (3)
other purposes.
6 For an introduction to these agencies and their responsibilities, see CRS Report R40225, Federal Land Management
Agencies: Background on Land and Resources Management
, coordinated by Ross W. Gorte.
7 For more information on the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, see the FWS land acquisition section of CRS Report
RL34273, Federal Land Ownership: Current Acquisition and Disposal Authorities.
Congressional Research Service
2

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues

for certain purposes.8 These purposes include water development projects with recreational
benefits; land acquisition in areas administered by the Secretary of the Interior for recreational
purposes; land acquisition in national park, national forest, and national wildlife system units. In
practice, the appropriations acts typically identify the purposes for which the federal funds are to
be used.
The process for appropriating funds for federal land acquisition is similar from year to year. The
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. For instance, for FY2011 the three
DOI agencies are seeking 93 acquisitions while the FS is seeking 31 acquisitions. By contrast, the
FY2009 requests sought to fund relatively few acquisitions─10 for the three DOI agencies and
none for the FS. The large backlog of potential acquisitions provides each agency with options in
its annual request. Congress reviews agency requests, then determines which areas will be
acquired and the funding level it will provide for each acquisition. In general, most of the funds
have been earmarked to specific sites. For instance, in FY2010 Congress specified funds for 136
acquisitions by the four federal agencies.
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.”9
In recent years, Congress typically has provided the agencies with a portion of the acquisition
funding for one or more related purposes. 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 the
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.
Appropriations law typically provides that LWCF funds 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.10
Stateside Program
Another portion of the LWCF, administered by the NPS, provides matching grants to states
(including the District of Columbia and U.S. territories) for 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 FY2010, 41,425 grants
have been provided to state and local governments for outdoor recreation projects. This figure
includes 7,517 grants for acquisition; 26,985 grants for developing recreation facilities; 3,009

8 16 U.S.C. §460l-9(a).
9 16 U.S.C. §460l-9(b).
10 In the past, LWCF funds were among the first to be borrowed for wildland fire fighting when funds appropriated for
fire fighting are insufficient. Borrowed funds typically were repaid in a subsequent appropriations bill.
Congressional Research Service
3

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues

grants for redeveloping older recreational facilities; 677 state planning grants for studies of
recreation potential, need, opportunity, and policy; and 3,237 grants for a combination of these
activities. Recipients have acquired 2.6 million acres.
Acquisitions funded through LWCF 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 replacement
lands are substituted. Conversions occur due to changing state needs, such as to use park lands to
build schools, widen roads, and develop civic facilities. The NPS approves about 50-75
conversions yearly nationwide, according to the agency.
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.11 The formula calls for a portion of the appropriation to be divided equally among the
states.12 The remaining appropriation is to be apportioned based on need, as determined by the
Secretary.13 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.
States have up to three years to use the money—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.
To be eligible for a grant, a state must prepare and update a statewide recreation plan. This plan
usually addresses the needs and opportunities for recreation and includes 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, and in practice it is sent to the NPS for approval. The states
award their grant money through a competitive 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. States send their top-ranked projects to the NPS for formal approval and obligation
of grant money. Under law, payments to states are not to cover more than 50% of a project’s
costs, and in practice states typically receive a 50% federal payment. The remaining cost is to be
borne by the state.14
Additional monies are provided for state grants under provisions of the Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act of 2006.15 Specifically, 12.5% of the revenues from certain OCS leasing in the Gulf
of Mexico is directed to the stateside program in accordance with the terms of the LWCF Act.

11 16 U.S.C. §460l-8.
12 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.
13 The apportionment among states (including the District of Columbia and U.S. territories) for each of the last nine
fiscal years—FY2002-FY2010—is on the NPS website at http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/funding.html.
14 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.
15 §105, Division C, P.L. 109-432.
Congressional Research Service
4

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues

The funds are to be in addition to any amounts appropriated by Congress for LWCF. The money
is available without further appropriation, and is available until expended. An estimated $8.2
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 $0.9 million in revenue from such OCS leasing was
dispersed to the stateside program in FY2010, and $0.7 million is projected to be dispersed in
FY2011. The funds are available to the states until expended, unlike the three-year duration of the
funds appropriated annually for the stateside program.
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.”16 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 programs”
specified to be funded from LWCF, Presidents have sought funds for a variety of programs and
Congress has chosen which, if any, other programs 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 programs, including the maintenance needs of the
four land management agencies, FS highway rehabilitation and maintenance, the Historic
Preservation Fund, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, FS State and Private Forestry
programs, FWS State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, and FWS Cooperative Endangered Species
Grants.
Funding History
Overview of FY1965-FY2010
Total annual appropriations from the LWCF have fluctuated widely since the origin of the
program over four decades ago (see the bar graph in Figure 1 and Table 1 below). Until FY1998,
LWCF funding rarely exceeded $400 million; from FY1977-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.17 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 programs.

16 16 U.S.C. §460l-9(a).
17 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.
Congressional Research Service
5





















Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues

Figure 1. LWCF Appropriations, FY1965-FY2010
(in millions of dollars)
1000
900
State Grants
800
Federal Agencies
Other Purposes
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Source: The primary source for these data is the DOI Budget Office; data updated May 29, 2009. See the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, MSExcel spreadsheet, on the Budget Office’s website at http://www.doi.gov/
budget/budget_general/bgindex.html (visited on July 30, 2010).
Notes: The graph does not reflect $76 million provided for the transition quarter from July 1, 1976, to
September 30, 1976.
Table 1. LWCF Appropriations, FY1965-FY2010
(in millions of dollars)
Land
State
Other
Fiscal Year
Acquisition
Grants
Programs
Total
1965 $6 $10 $0 $16
1966 $38 $84 $0 $122
1967 $36 $59 $0 $95
1968 $40 $64 $0 $104
1969 $64 $48 $0 $112
1970 $66 $65 $0 $131
1971 $168 $189 $0 $357
1972 $102 $259 $0 $361
1973 $113 $187 $0 $300
1974 $5 $71 $0 $76
1975 $122 $186 $0 $308
1976 $136 $181 $0 $317
1977 $356 $182 $0 $538
Congressional Research Service
6

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues

Land
State
Other
Fiscal Year
Acquisition
Grants
Programs
Total
1978 $491 $314 $0 $805
1979 $361 $376 $0 $737
1980 $202 $307 $0 $509
1981 $108 $180 $0 $288
1982 $176
$4 $0 $180
1983 $220 $115 $0 $335
1984 $227 $75 $0 $302
1985 $213 $74 $0 $287
1986 $121 $47 $0 $168
1987 $176 $35 $0 $211
1988 $150 $20 $0 $170
1989 $186 $20 $0 $206
1990 $212 $20 $0 $232
1991 $309 $33 $0 $342
1992 $294 $23 $0 $317
1993 $256 $28 $0 $284
1994 $228 $28 $0 $256
1995 $189 $28 $0 $217
1996 $137
$1 $0 $138
1997 $158
$1 $0 $159
1998 $896
$1 $72 $969
1999 $328
$0 $0 $328
2000 $406 $41 $20 $467
2001 $449 $90 $456 $995
2002 $429 $144 $105 $677
2003 $316 $97 $116 $529
2004 $165 $94 $230 $488
2005 $164 $91 $204 $459
2006 $119 $30 $213 $362
2007 $120 $30 $216 $366
2008 $129 $25 $101 $255
2009 $152 $19 $104 $275
2010 $278 $40 $133 $450
Source: The primary source for this data is the DOI Budget Office; data updated May 29, 2009. See the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, MSExcel spreadsheet, on the Budget Office’s website at http://www.doi.gov/
budget/budget_general/bgindex.html (visited on July 30, 2010).
Notes: The graph does not reflect $76 million provided for the transition quarter from July 1, 1976, to
September 30, 1976.
Congressional Research Service
7

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues

Another spike occurred in FY2001, when 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 106th 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 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.
Total LWCF appropriations, and the funding levels for each federal agency and the stateside
program, have declined since the peak in FY2001. Table 2, below, lists appropriations from
FY2001 to FY2010 and shows this decline for each federal agency and the state grant program.
During this decade, appropriations declined by 74% from the FY2001 peak to the FY2008 low,
while ending the decade in FY2010 with a 55% decrease.
Table 2. Total LWCF Appropriations, FY2001-FY2010
(in millions of dollars)
Purpose
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010
Land Acquisition










Bureau of Land
$52.3 $49.9 $33.2 $18.4 $11.2 $8.6 $8.6 $8.9 $14.8 $29.7
Management
Fish and Wildlife
$121.2 $99.1 $72.9 $38.1 $37.0 $28.0 $28.0 $34.6 $42.5 $86.3
Service
National Park Service
$124.8
$130.0
$74.0
$41.7
$55.1
$34.4a $34.4 $44.4 $45.2 $86.3
Forest
Service
$150.9 $149.7 $132.9 $66.4 $61.0 $40.9 $41.9 $41.2 $49.8 $63.5
Total Land Acquisitionb $449.2 $428.8 $316.0c $164.6 $164.3 $119.2 $120.4 $129.1 $152.2 $277.9
State Grants
$90.3 $143.9 $97.4 $93.8 $91.2 $29.6 $29.6 $24.6 $19.0d $40.0
Other Programs
$455.9 $104.6e $115.5f $229.7g $203.5 $213.1 $216.1 $101.3 $104.1h $132.5
Total $995.4
$677.2e $528.9fc $488.1g $459.0 $361.9a $366.1 $255.1 $275.3 $450.4
Source: The primary source for this data is the DOI Budget Office; data updated May 29, 2009. See the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, MSExcel spreadsheet, on the Budget Office’s website at http://www.doi.gov/
budget/budget_general/bgindex.html (visited on July 30, 2010).
a. The NPS land acquisition and total appropriation figures are reduced by $9.8 million due to the use of prior
year funds for NPS federal land acquisition.
Congressional Research Service
8

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues

b. Figures for FY2006, FY2007, and FY2010 include appropriations for DOI Departmental Management for
land acquisition appraisal services that are not shown in the figures above. The respective amounts are $7.3
million, $7.4 million, and $12.1 million.
c. This figure includes $3 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs for Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements
that is not shown in the figures above.
d. This figure has been reduced by $1.0 million due to the use of prior-year funds.
e. This figure reflects a $25 million rescission of FY2001 funds for State Wildlife Grants.
f.
This figure reflects a $40 million rescission of FY2002 funds for the Landowner Incentive Program and a $10
million rescission of FY2002 funds for the Private Stewardship Grants Program.
g. This figure includes $5 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs settlements and $5 million for FWS resource
management.
h. This figure has been reduced by $8.0 million due to the use of prior-year funds.
Allocation Among Land Acquisition, Stateside, and Other Purposes
The $15.5 billion appropriated from the fund through FY2010 has been unevenly allocated
among federal land acquisition, the stateside program, and other purposes, as shown on the bar
graph above. The largest portion of the total—$9.7 billion (63%)—has been appropriated for
federal land acquisition. The four federal land management agencies have received differing
portions of this $9.7 billion. Specifically, the NPS has received $4.2 billion (43%); the FS, $2.6
billion (27%); the FWS, $2.1 billion (21%), and the BLM, $0.8 billion (8%).
The stateside program has received the second largest portion of LWCF appropriations—$4.1
billion (26% of the total, which includes funds for grant administration and funds under
GOMESA). 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.
Since FY2000, funding for the stateside program has ranged from a low of $19 million (FY2009)
to a high of $144 million (FY2002). Stateside funding has averaged 13% of total LWCF
appropriations since FY2000, and 8% of LWCF funding from FY2006 to FY2010.
Other purposes have received the remaining portion of total LWCF appropriations—$1.8 billion
(11%). No funds were provided for other purposes until FY1998. By contrast, 30% of LWCF
appropriations from FY1998 through FY2010 have been for other programs. While the funds
have been provided for various purposes to different agencies, the FWS and FS have received the
largest shares: about $1.1 billion and $436 million respectively of the $1.8 billion appropriated
for other purposes since FY1998.
Both the dollar amount and percentage of LWCF appropriations provided to other purposes have
varied widely throughout this period, as shown in Table 3 below. The current 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 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
Congressional Research Service
9

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues

million for other programs of a total request of $378.7 million. Congress appropriated $101.3
million for other programs of a total of $255.1 million.
Table 3. LWCF Appropriations for Other Purposes, FY1998-FY2010
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal
Total LWCF
Appropriation for
Other Programs as % of
Year
Appropriation
Other Programs
Total Appropriation
FY1998 $969.1
$72.0
7%
FY1999 $328.2
$0
0%
FY2000 $466.9
$20.0
4%
FY2001 $995.4
$455.9
46%
FY2002 $677.2
$104.6
15%
FY2003 $528.9
$115.5
22%
FY2004 $488.1
$229.7
47%
FY2005 $459.0
$203.5
44%
FY2006 $361.9
$213.1
59%
FY2007 $366.1
$216.1
59%
FY2008 $255.1
$101.3
40%
FY2009 $275.3
$104.1a 38%
FY2010 $450.4
$132.5
29%
Source: The primary source for this data is the DOI Budget Office, data updated May 29, 2009. Visited on July
30, 2010.
a. This figure has been reduced by $8.0 million due to the use of prior-year funds.
Current Issues
There are differing opinions as to the appropriate level of LWCF appropriations and what these
funds should be used for. The LWCF has broad support from resource protection advocates, many
of whom seek stable and predictable funding through consistent levels of appropriations or
permanent appropriations. Most of these advocates seek higher appropriations in general. The
Obama Administration, for instance, proposed increased LWCF funding for FY2010 and FY2011,
with the goal of having LWCF appropriations reach $900 million in FY2014. 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.
Bills to provide permanent appropriations for LWCF, rather than continue the current procedure
of providing appropriations each year, are pending in Congress. Some of the bills, such as H.R.
3534 and S. 2747, provide for permanent appropriations at the authorized level of $900 million
for all years. At least one other bill, S. 3663, would provide for permanent appropriations of $900
million for FY2011-FY2015. In other fiscal years, either a lesser amount or none of the
Congressional Research Service
10

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues

appropriations would be permanently appropriated. These bills contain differing provisions as to
how the appropriations would be allocated.18 Numerous other bills contain provisions to direct
additional funds to the LWCF. The sources of these additional funds are varied among the bills,
and include payments for oil and gas leasing in particular areas of the Outer Continental Shelf,
payments for wind and solar energy development on federal land, and a tax on single-use carry
out bags. The bills also contain varying provisions on what the additional funds could be used for.
They include purposes currently authorized by the LWCF Act, namely land acquisition and the
stateside program, as well as new purposes, such as natural resource adaption to the effects of
climate change.
Others seek reduced levels of funds for LWCF based on varied concerns. They include concerns
about further acquisition of privately owned land by the federal government either generally or at
specific sites, especially in the West, where federal ownership is already concentrated. The
concerns involve preferences for private ownership, limits that federal agencies may place on
uses of private lands, and reduced local tax revenues that result from public ownership. Some
opponents believe that maintaining (and rehabilitating) the land and facilities that federal agencies
already own should take priority over further acquisitions. Since federal agencies cannot use
LWCF funds for maintenance, supporters of this priority favor more funding to other accounts
that can be used for maintenance and less for LWCF.
If funding for land acquisition is relatively low, choices may be more difficult and there may be
more competition for limited funds. Since the early 1990s, the appropriations debate has grown
more complicated as perspectives on resource protection have changed. Alternatives to
acquisition which may provide potentially lower levels of protection but at less cost (such as
easements) have become more widely used by federal agencies. Also, resource protection is
discussed increasingly for either larger areas with multiple landowners—such as ecosystems,
landscapes, or watersheds—or for managing systems where only a portion of the land is in public
ownership. In these complex situations success depends on cooperation and partnerships, and the
LWCF may be viewed as less critical or looked to as one component in cooperative protection
efforts.
One area of congressional focus has been the stateside program, with debate over the level of
funds for grants. The Bush Administration did not request funds for new stateside grants for
several years on the grounds 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, and large federal deficits require a focus on core federal
responsibilities. At least one pending bill (H.R. 2916) seeks to prohibit stateside funds from being
used to acquire land or make improvements in state or local parks. Stateside supporters assert that
the program contributes significantly to statewide recreation planning; state leadership in
protection and development of recreation resources; and long-term outdoor recreation overall, and

18 For instance, H.R. 3534 states that the House and Senate Appropriations Committees may
provide by law for the allocation of monies in the fund to activities eligible under the LWCF Act.
S. 3663 would require the President to submit with his annual budget a priority list for federal land
acquisition. Appropriations are to be made for those acquisitions unless Congress enacts
legislation containing an alternate list. If the congressional list provides for less funding than is
available, projects on the President’s list will also be funded. By contrast, S. 2747 does not address
how the appropriations would be allocated.
Congressional Research Service
11

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues

particularly through locally sponsored projects 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.
Another focus has been on which, if any, programs other than land acquisition and stateside
grants should be funded through the LWCF. Some seek to channel LWCF funding to a broader
array of programs to protect federal lands. For instance, the 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
programs, although generally fewer than the Bush Administration. Traditional fund beneficiaries
have expressed concern about expanding the uses of appropriations if that expansion is
accompanied by reductions in the amount available for federal land acquisition or state grants.

Author Contact Information

Carol Hardy Vincent

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
chvincent@crs.loc.gov, 7-8651


Congressional Research Service
12