Why It Matters
Congress continues to debate how the Land and Water Conservation Fund's $900 million in annual mandatory spending should be used as lawmakers review the Trump administration's allocations and proposals for the conservation fund, which also has accumulated a $22.3 billion unappropriated balance. The fund, established by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, was transformed by the Great American Outdoors Act of 2020, which made its $900 million annual revenue stream available as mandatory spending rather than requiring Congress to appropriate the money each year.
The Trump administration subsequently proposed redirecting hundreds of millions of dollars toward deferred maintenance at federal land agencies, but Congress rejected that approach for the current fiscal year and continues to review the administration's selection of federal land acquisition projects.
The Big Picture
Nearly all of the $900 million annual deposit comes from oil and gas leasing revenues on the outer continental shelf. Since fiscal year 1965, roughly $48.1 billion has been credited to the fund, but only $25.8 billion has been appropriated, leaving an unappropriated balance of approximately $22.3 billion.
Before 2020, Congress typically appropriated far less than the $900 million deposited annually under the LWCF Act, treating that money as discretionary spending. The Great American Outdoors Act changed that by making the $900 million available without further appropriation. The accumulated $22.3 billion balance remains credited to the fund until it is appropriated or otherwise reduced by law.
The fund's statutory mandates divide spending between major purposes. Not less than 40 percent must be used for federal purposes, primarily land acquisition by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service, while not less than 40 percent must go toward financial assistance to states. At least 3 percent of annual appropriations under the LWCF Act, or $15 million, whichever is greater, must be used for acquisitions that foster recreational access to federal land.
The Trump administration sought to significantly change how that money was used in its budget request for the current fiscal year. The proposal would have directed approximately $387 million, or 43 percent of the $900 million available under the LWCF Act, toward deferred maintenance. The Interior Department's portion included $276.1 million for deferred maintenance at the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service.
Congress did not adopt that approach. The current fiscal year's appropriations law did not provide LWCF funding for deferred maintenance and provided more funding for federal land acquisition than the administration requested. For the next fiscal year, both the president and the House Appropriations Committee have proposed allocations of the $900 million among existing LWCF programs and purposes.
The dispute reflects a broader debate over whether LWCF dollars should remain focused on conservation, land acquisition, and outdoor recreation or be expanded to address maintenance needs on existing federal lands. The Great American Outdoors Act separately created the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund to address deferred maintenance, but its authority to receive annual deposits ended after fiscal year 2025.
The Bottom Line
The Trump administration allocated fiscal year 2025 LWCF funding after P.L. 119-4 did not provide an alternate congressional allocation, consistent with a provision of the Great American Outdoors Act that gives the president allocation authority under those circumstances.
Congress has since asserted its own priorities. The current fiscal year's appropriations law rejected the administration's proposal to use $387 million in LWCF funding for deferred maintenance, and the House Appropriations Committee has reported H.R. 9171, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for the next fiscal year. CRS says Congress continues to review the administration's selection of federal land acquisition projects and debate whether the fund's purposes should be broadened, narrowed, or otherwise altered.
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article