The Land and Water Conservation Fund and the states: a fork in the road.

After a decade of near neglect, the continued viability of the once-thriving Land and Water Conservation Fund state assistance program is in doubt. Appropriations for state and local grants have dropped so significantly since the early 1980s that some states now question the merits of continued participation, given administrative expenses and other requirements. The spending priorities advanced by Congress and the administration continue to deprive the states of a reasonable equal proportion of available funds and jeopardize the entire state-assistance program.

A considerable amount of the state and local land and facilities available today were protected through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Since its inception in 1964, the fund has reinvested through grants to states more than $3 billion from outer continental shelf oil and gas leases and royalties, acquiring and developing recreational areas for public enjoyment. Grants have protected more than 2.3 million acres of land and supported more than 25,000 basic recreational facilities in every state and territory in the nation. Every American has benefitted directly from an LWCF-assisted project, many on a daily basis.

At its peak in the late 1970s, appropriations for state grants accounted for at least 50 percent of total LWCF appropriations and were as high as $359 million. Local, state and federal governments were full partners in planning and financing land conservation and recreation for constituencies through the cooperative development of a nationwide recreational network. The program was a catalyst to expand investment at all levels of government and made great strides toward the goal of accessible, close-to-home, high quality recreation for all Americans.

This legacy is in jeopardy. Demand continues to rise while financial support for public park and recreation systems has eroded. Federal appropriations for state assistance have slipped over the decade to less than ten percent of total LWCF appropriations. Coupled with other competing state and local fiscal pressures, the demise of a national reinvestment strategy is resulting in an astounding investment deficit. The full impact of this underinvestment has not yet, in fact, been fully realized, but there are many who believe that the quality of life of future generations is being sacrificed.

A survey by the National Recreation and Park Association, completed in 1990 and covering fiscal years 19901994, revealed that an estimated $6.87 billion was needed by LWCF-eligible state agencies to rehabilitate existing park and recreation facilities, acquire land and begin new construction. At the local level, the degree of need increases considerably. Local governments estimate capital investment needs of $30.4 billion for rehabilitation, land acquisition and development, but expected less than half of that to be available--from any source. It should be noted that these estimates were made prior to current economic conditions, which have crippled many state and local budgets.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund, and its parallel urban park recovery program, could not and should not be expected to satisfy these needs. Rather, as a catalyst for local and state investment, private philanthropy and other contributions, this program is invaluable. The partnership that once helped to address this need has now disintegrated to the point that federal legislators face mounting demand for a greatly expanded federal system, increasing federal management costs in perpetuity.

The re-creation of fiscally and politically viable local-state-federal partnerships for resource conservation and recreation access would ultimately diminish the reliance on an entirely federal solution to recreation and land conservation needs, and better serve the recreation consumer.

A partial solution advanced by U.S. Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) is to legislate an automatic "emergency" appropriation of $1 billion per year for the next five years for both federal land acquisition and grant assistance to state and local governments. Johnston's proposal (S.721) would set the state portion at $200 million per year. While this initiative does not represent a long-term solution, it is imperative for addressing the immediate crisis of investment.

An informal NRPA survey of state recreation liaison officers earilier in response to the Johnston initiative again made apparent the pressing needs for recreation investment in land and infrastructure in every state. State officials were asked to identify three types of "emergency" projects: Those which were a top priority but lacked funding, those which were at risk of development for non-recreational purposes and those which were critical to the needs of underserved populations. Because of the extended period of minimal allocations, NRPA also sought an estimate of the amount of funding each state could realistically spend starting in FY94, should $200 million actually become available.

Twenty responses were, as one would expect, varied. Constant throughout, however, was the daunting backlog of important rehabilitation, construction and acquisition projects needed by both state and local systems.

All states replied that they would easily be able to spend, at a minimum, their estimated portion of the $200 million. Thirteen respondents described specific projects for which immediate funding was critical; others simply documented the hundreds of million of dollars of funding requests currently on file. Despite years of minimal apportionments, most states continue to receive requests for LWCF assistance that far surpass the state allocation.

California, for example, documented 834.9 million in highest priority, at-risk state projects and $20 million (a very conservative estimate, officials noted) in local project needs for which funding was unavailable. This list included only the top six of 81 projects, totalling $907 million identified for a possible bond act initiative.

Idaho cited eight emergency projects totaling $7,925 million which are considered "greatly at-risk" if funding is not soon available. One 80-acre parcel in Coeur d'Alene is in the heart of one of the most heavily used recreation areas in the Northwest, according to state officials. It is one of the few remaining properties available which has access to the Spokane River and Lake Coeur d'Alene. Idaho has another 49 "top priority" projects for $19.75 million.

North Carolina officials estimate that an apportionment of $4.35 million would help satisfy the top priority emergency needs for both acquiring land and improving facilities, but overall documented local recreation needs are closer to $1 billion; state needs are about $233 million. Ohio has $31 million in local project requests that cannot be funded, as well as $2 to $3 million in state projects.

Maryland officials identified $7.85 million in at-risk projects. Breezy Point Beach along the Chesapeake Bay, for example, is the longest stretch of bayfront beach available to the public in the area, and currently serves thousands of residents and tourists a year. It is within 30 miles of both Washington, D.C., and Annapolis, in the fastest growing county in all Maryland. If acquired by private developers, there would be no major public beach remaining in all Calvert County.

Minnesota lists 20 projects totaling $20 million in matching assistance which have been identified as a top priority by the statewide comprehensive recreation plan but remain unfunded. Both Missouri and Mississippi responded that a minimum of $5 million from LWCF was needed given the number of unfunded requests they receive yearly. In Missouri, the recent flood likely escalated park and recreation needs considerably. Montana could match $3 million annually for state and local park systems characterized as "in rough shape" both financially and physically. Florida, which cited more than $1.65 billion in new construction, renovation and repair and land acquisition needs, replied they could easily obligate a minimum of $10 million per year to local governments.

Alaska has a documented need of more than $5.32 million for fiscal year 1994, including many projects "on the shelf" from lack of funding over the past few years. Rehabilitating six existing high-demand facilities tops Alaska's list of high-priority projects, totalling $3.15 million in requested federal assistance. Seven community projects were listed as critical to underserved youth populations in rural areas.

Iowa responded that its' three cost-sharing programs, the marine fuel tax fund, fish and game trust fund and the Iowa's recreational trail grant program, could, according to state officials, "move much faster if LWCF funding assistance was increased above the current token level."

The apportionment for New York if $200 million were appropriated is estimated at $11.1 million, which, according to state officials, would address only 15 percent of the acquisition, reconstruction and expansion needs at both the state and municipal level. In Illinois, the LWCF apportionment represents only five percent of the total request level, with all available money being passed through to local agencies. New Jersey responded that it would have little difficulty matching $20 million per year for an indeterminate period.

No state expects the federal government to satisfy all open space and public recreation needs. Many states have recently and will continue to pass park bond issues or funding legislation for park and recreation purposes. But a re-evaluation of the long-term merits of governmental funding priorities must occur. Policymakers at all levels of government must understand the connections that exist between park and recreation investment and myriad social and natural resource issues.

The long-term merits of park and recreation investment go beyond physical resources. Public recreation capital investment result in other benefits with social and economic value--mental and physical health, community cohesion and delinquency prevention, among others. Recreation investments must be seen in the context of other costs which are softened by a physically active public and by creative alternatives to youth boredom. Medical research, for example, has shown that national health costs--an estimated $751.8 billion for 1991--could be contained through active recreation. The incarceration of youth costs the nation about $2 billion annually, according to the Senate juvenile justice subcommittee last year.

The nation is at a policy and fiscal "fork in the road." One route, of course, could begin the restoration of a partnership hailed by many as one of the best in government.

The other route is difficult to imagine.