Blue Carbon for Our Planet Act: Protecting Coastal Habitats that have the Ability to Store Carbon2/21/2022 The Blue Carbon for Our Planet Act was introduced in the Senate on November 18, 2021 by Senator Lisa Murkowski [R-AK] on behalf of herself and Senator Whitehouse [D-RI]. Senators Murkowski and Whitehouse co-chair the Oceans Caucus. The Bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. An identical Bill was introduced in the House by Representative Suzanne Bonamici [D-OR-1] on behalf of herself, Bill Posey [R-FL-8], Donald Beyer Jr [D-VA-8], and Brian Mast [R-FL-18]. The House Bill was read twice and referred to the Natural Resources, Science, Space, and Technology, and House Administration committees.
THE BILL: S.3245 H.R.2750 “From Rhode Island to Alaska, our oceans are in trouble. The coastal wetlands that make up the first line of defense against climate change are rapidly disappearing. Our bipartisan bill would help preserve the tidal marshes, mangroves, seagrasses, and kelp forests that provide a natural buffer to rising seas and absorb vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere” -- Senator Whitehouse. What does the Bill do? In short, the Blue Carbon for Our Planet Act is an effort to protect, restore, and conserve the nation’s blue carbon ecosystems. Blue carbon is a term that is used to describe carbon that is sequestered and stored by the world's oceans and coastal ecosystems. Examples of these habitats include mangroves, tidal marshes, wetlands, seagrasses and kelp forests -- all ecosystems that help stabilize the coasts. These habitats can capture carbon from the atmosphere and other sources and can store it in both the biomass for years to decades, and in soils for hundreds to thousands of years. To accomplish these protection and restoration efforts, the Bill would establish the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Coastal Blue Carbon, which would oversee the development and maintenance of a national map of these ecosystems, including specific habitat types, condition, size, and protected status, among other things. The map would also portray an assessment of the potential for carbon sequestration, methane production, and net greenhouse gas reduction in each area. The goal is that this will be a tool for local-level conservation, planning, and restoration efforts. Additionally, the IWG would work to identify barriers to conserving and restoring these coastal blue carbon ecosystems, including climate-induced vulnerabilities such as sea-level rise and ocean acidification. The IWG will work in collaboration with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to create a national strategy for studying the effects of human and environmental stressors (including climate change) on the ability of these systems to sequester carbon and thrive. The strategic plan will include federal investments in multiple aspects of coastal blue carbon ecosystem projects, from fundamental research to their development, and deployment. They will also place an emphasis on data availability and accessibility, including from the Coastal Carbon Data Clearinghouse. From this work, the Group will then establish national priorities to conserve and restore blue carbon ecosystems. For these efforts, the Bill authorizes $15,000,000 each year from Fiscal Years 2022-2026. Why was it proposed? Coastal blue carbon ecosystems like mangroves and tidal marshes provide numerous benefits to society and the environment. They protect coastal areas from flooding, help to retain soil and beach sand, and prevent erosion. Additionally, the ecosystems help to purify the surrounding water, provide a home to resident fish and wildlife, and can fuel local economies. As the severe and unrelenting impacts of climate change worsen, these ecosystems, where present, serve as a buffer and provide some coastal protection while simultaneously removing carbon from the atmosphere. Therefore, as the impacts from climate change continue to become more severe with stronger and more frequent storms and rising sea levels, restoration and conservation efforts in these areas are essential for building resilience. The climate crisis on Earth today is caused by humans burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas. Burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide (CO2) into the air, which can seep into the ocean (1). The National Academies recently released a study focused on the importance of understanding methods and technologies for removing carbon dioxide from seawater in order to provide information on how to restore impacted environments and the integrity of existing technologies. For a more in-depth breakdown, check out the National Academies report (2). Benefits The Blue Carbon for our Planet Act provides a bipartisan and natural effort to help the United States reach a net zero carbon goal by 2050. Protecting and conserving these valuable ecosystems not only accesses a natural capture for atmospheric carbon, but preservation of these areas also is essential for maintaining coastal ecosystems and surrounding wildlife. Ensuring the security of these areas will also play a major role in natural resilience as society continues to adapt to the demands of a changing climate over the next several years. This includes stabilizing coastlines as sea levels rise, and also providing a natural buffer to protect coastal communities in severe weather events. Challenges One key challenge to this legislation is that it will take a lot of work and time to map the ecosystems and ensure functionality of datasets. Additionally, Congress at the moment is focused on other major priorities, like federal budget appropriations for FY22 and FY23, as well as passing some version of Build Back Better and the Supreme Court nomination process all during an election year. Patience for passing this legislation will likely be key. The reality of Congress (what the outlook of this bill looks like) Govtrack notes that this Bill has a 13% chance of becoming law (3). This Bill was introduced and is supported by members of both Republican and Democratic parties, indicating a Congressional acknowledgement that coastal ecosystems have an important impact on areas regardless of party lines. Want to advocate? This Bill currently has 2 co-sponsors in the Senate, Senators Whitehouse [D-RI] and Susan Collins [R-ME]. In the House, the 7 co-sponsors include Bill Posey [R-FL-8], Donald Beyer Jr. [D-VA-8], Brian Mast [R-FL-18], Chellie Pingree [D-ME-1], Derek Kilmer [D-WA-6], Peter DeFazio [D-OR-4], and Jared Huffman [D-CA-2]. Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
0 Comments
President Biden’s Build Back Better Act was introduced in the House on September 27, 2021 by Representative John A. Yarmuth (D-KY-3). The Bill was sent to the House Committee on the Budget. While this Bill holds a lot of important changes, one notable section on mining stimulated significant discussion in the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, which was focused on reforming the General Mining Law of 1872.
“I know we can pursue mining reform responsibly, bearing in mind mining’s importance to our national defense and economic security” -- Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy Chair, Joe Manchin (D-WV) Why is hardrock mining important? Mining has been critical to the development of the United States, and encompasses everything from national defense to economic security. Hardrock mining in particular is the process of extracting essential elements such as copper, gold, iron, uranium, phosphate, and more from rock (2). It provides critical materials necessary for many essential products on the market, including smartphones, laptops, solar panels, airplanes, car parts, and more. The need for minerals is increasing exponentially as the demand for low carbon energy solutions requiring hardrock minerals increases. What is the mining law of 1872, and why Congress is proposing updates Originally, the Mining Law was set in place as part of the California Gold Rush and other mining booms. The purpose was to encourage westward expansion by allowing people to stake claims to mineral deposits such as gold, silver, copper, and others found on land that is owned by the United States (3), without being taxed. Individuals only had to pay a $100 holding fee and could obtain a mineral permit for $2.50-$5 per acre of land. This entitled them to the mineral resources on this land. Though some amendments have been made to the law, the part that does not require any tax on hardrock mining on federal lands has not been updated, and is certainly out-dated. Unlike other mining industries including oil and gas that are required by law to pay a federal royalty tax on crude oil and gas taken from federal lands, mining companies currently do not have to pay a royalty. Though it is known that minerals mined on federal land bring in millions of dollars of revenue each year, the data are poorly constrained since agencies don’t collect royalty fees. As a result, there is no concrete data about how profitable mines are. Additionally, there are over 500,000 abandoned hardrock mines in the US that are having significant environmental impacts on our watersheds, wildlife and landscapes (5). While there is the possibility that ~$5 billion could be devoted to abandoned mine reclamation from the combination of appropriations and reconciliation this year, it is estimated that it will take over $50 billion to clean up these mines and mitigate the damage that has already been done. THE BILL: Build Back Better Act: H.R. 5376 What does this part of the Bill do? Section 70807 of the Bill proposes changes to hardrock mining in the United States. First, it would provide funding of $2.5B for 2022-2031 to assist with abandoned mine land cleanup. The funds would help to assess, decommission, and reclaim the land. Additionally, the Bill would provide $3M in funding to the Bureau of Land Management to prevent environmental damage from mining. These funds would be available until 2031. A major portion of this part of the bill is dedicated to adding an 8% gross royalty tax to the income from mining claims covered under the Act. The royalty would be 4% for mines with a preexisting plan of operations on federal land on the date the bill is enacted. The royalty would not be applied to small mines, or miners that had a gross income of <$100,000. Additionally, the Bill would introduce a Reclamation Fee, or the “dirt tax”, which would be a fee of 7 cents/ton of material displaced by hardrock mineral activities that’s paid to the Secretary of the Interior. Displaced materials include any waste or unprocessed ore that’s moved from its original location when mining happens.The Bill would require the mining company to report on and notarize the amount of material it displaces. If improperly reported, mines could incur a $10,000 penalty. There would also be a claim maintenance fee of $200 imposed for any unpatented mining claim, mill or tunnel site on federal lands. Benefits Mining law reform overall would help in the pursuit of more responsibly mining critical materials. New mining laws that impose a royalty could directly help to address abandoned mine lands by creating a fund for reclamation. Additionally, they would provide for reasonable land management, while also ensuring a fair return to taxpayers for utilizing public lands. Challenges The process of mining is an extremely controversial practice. While it provides essential minerals and materials for the economy and modern technologies, it also is extremely destructive. Not all land is economical to mine, so it takes vast areas of exploration to find the best places to mine. These ideal locations may cross important waterways used for drinking or recreation, sensitive ecosystems, or local communities. The waste discharged from mining, such as acid mine drainage (6) or elevated levels of metals, can have extremely detrimental effects on the surrounding ecosystem and the health of local communities. While mining can take place legally on federal lands, the harmful impacts of mining such as contamination, noise, dust, blast vibrations, and more can extend beyond geopolitical borders. Challenges will also vary with the material being mined. A challenge specific to Uranium mining includes ensuring the proper handling of radioactive materials and properly disposing of waste. It also involves a major environmental justice issue - Indigenous Nations such as the Navajo living in proximity to uranium mining operations have been severely impacted by exposure to uranium via abandoned mines and mine waste out West (7). While this Bill addresses the need for a reclamation fund to clean up abandoned mines, it does not fully address their challenges and concerns. Unless another economically viable alternative is proposed, as minerals are needed for modern technology, mining will happen somewhere on Earth. The majority of mining in the West is done on federal lands. If laws are not crafted carefully and responsibly such that they do not protect US workers, the United States will not be able to compete on a global scale, mines will likely be forced to close, mining communities will suffer, and the US will be more dependent on other nations for these critical resources. While this would help the health of US residents, it could be at the detriment to countries elsewhere mining with even less responsible laws. While a “dirt tax” on earth moved could be a viable way to make sure that companies don’t do more damage than necessary, depending on the way the tax law is written it could also be harmful since a lot of material has to be moved in the exploration process before it is known whether or not there are viable mineral resources for mining. If the dirt tax is implemented, companies will be forced to divert more funds toward their tax, and away from exploration which could impact the mining supply chain. The reality of Congress Republicans and Democrats alike agree to varying extents that the Mining Law of 1872 is outdated and in need of reform. Both sides agree that some type of royalty makes sense, as the taxpayers are not receiving any benefit from hardrock mines operated on federal lands as they do for similar coal, oil, and gas operations (8). The ideas proposed in Reconciliation may not become law, but they promoted a hearing to discuss updates to the mining law and discussion of what appropriate changes should look like (8). Want to advocate? Does this Bill resonate with you? Do you want to see it become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? You can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
The Monarch Action, Recovery, and Conservation of Habitat Act of 2021 was introduced in the Senate on March 17, 2021 by Senator Jeff Merkley [D-OR] on behalf of Senators Wyden [D-OR], Whitehouse [D-RI], Booker [D-NJ], Van Hollen [D-MD], and Padilla [D-CA], where it was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. An identical bill was introduced the same day by Representative Jimmy Panetta [D-CA-20] in the House, where it was referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry. This Bill was previously introduced in the 116th Congress and received substantial Democratic support, but did not receive a vote.
THE BILLS: S.809 H.R. 1983 "For generations, we on the central coast of California have had a front row seat to the migration of the monarch butterfly. Unfortunately, we are now witnessing the dramatic decline and potential extinction of this magnificent pollinator all across North America,” -- Congressman Panetta What would the Bill do? The purpose of this Bill is to protect western monarch butterflies that live and breed west of the Rocky Mountains, across California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Utah. The Bill is focused on the western population because while the eastern population of monarchs is also declining, the western population is declining more rapidly. The Bill would mainly provide funds for management plans, community outreach, and conservation efforts such as protecting, restoring, and managing habitats of these butterflies. Habitats could include migration paths, overwintering areas, or breeding places. A Western Monarch Butterfly Conservation Grant Program would provide local or Tribal government agencies, research institutes, or nonprofits funding for projects that would directly contribute to conserving and recovering the western monarch butterfly population. Additionally, the Bill would establish and set aside $12,500,000 every year for FY 2022-2026 for the Western Monarch Butterfly Rescue Fund. Finally, the Bill would create a collaboration between the Department of the Interior and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to implement the Western Monarch Butterfly Conservation Plan, which was prepared by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (1) and allocate $12,500,000 for each FY 2022-2026. Why was it proposed? Monarch Butterflies are one of the most widely recognized insects in North America, and are important for ecological, educational and inspirational reasons, but their populations have declined significantly over the last 30 years. The Western monarch population (west of the Rocky Mountains) has seen a >99% decrease over the last 30 years, and the Eastern monarch (east of the Rocky Mountains) has declined 80% in the last 20 years (2). Monarchs are pollinators, which are critical for the reproductive systems of most flowering plants. Flowering plants are important because they provide a source of food (fruits, vegetables and nuts) (3), generate a significant amount of the world’s oils and essential raw materials, prevent soil erosion and stabilize landscapes, and increase carbon sequestration helping to reduce greenhouse gases (4). The declining monarch population parallels habitat loss for other pollinators as well, signaling a collapsing ecosystem, which has vast impacts on human health. Additionally, each year, monarchs embark on an 3000 mile annual migration through Canada, the United States, and Mexico. This migration inspires interest in the natural world, is the basis for intellectual studies, and attracts significant tourism. Over the course of 3-4 generations, monarchs move north each spring from the South and West US toward the northeast (5). In mid-August, the super-generation of monarchs move south, traveling up to 50 miles a day (6). These butterflies are at an extremely high risk of extinction due to loss of milkweed, destruction of their native habitats, and climate change. Monarchs in Mexico used to be heavy enough to break branches (5), but Congress noted that in 2020, there were only 1,914 western monarch butterflies, which was a new historic low. Another threat to monarch populations is climate change, which causes more intense weather events. More severe weather can impact migration, since rain, wind, and colder temperatures can inhibit flying (6). Additionally, in California, the increased intensity and spread of wildfires can burn native plants and destroy air quality (7). There are a number of other reasons why monarch populations are declining so rapidly as well. Monarch caterpillars rely on milkweed to grow and develop. Habitat conversion along migration paths especially along the coast, illegal logging in areas where butterflies spend their winter (known as overwintering), and adverse land management practices destroy populations of milkweed and other nectar plants vital to monarch survival. Additionally, pesticides such as glyphosate and neonicotinoid insecticides often kill monarchs (7). The use of herbicides is important for weed management, but destroys monarch habitats (5) and can be toxic to both butterflies and caterpillars. The EPA has provided educational materials about best management practices for reducing pollinator pesticide exposure, such as applying pesticides in the evening when pollinators are not active, and checking wind conditions prior to applying pesticides. Improving the amount of native milkweed and pollinator plants and protecting butterfly habitats would help to bring back the population and also help other essential pollinators. This would help to restore a balanced ecosystem and have far reaching impacts. Benefits Protecting the western monarch butterflies has benefits beyond this organism, helping to stabilize the ecosystem that supports our everyday lives. Specifically, monarchs help to provide pollination services to substantial crops such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts, which in turn helps agricultural productivity, boosting both the United States and the global economy. Additionally, there are relatively simple steps that can help to support the monarch population. Milkweed is a beautiful, native, flowering plant that is easy and cheap to plant and maintain. Increasing the milkweed population along migration pathways, and encouraging households to use it in their gardens, is a simple and easy step to help increase vital habitat space for monarchs. There are other nectar plants as well that can provide variety to gardens while still supporting monarchs and other pollinators. Challenges This Bill helps to address US land management, but saving these western monarch butterflies will require international collaboration between the US, Mexico, and Canada. Additionally, many people are using hybrid plants in their gardens instead of native plants for aesthetics, but these hybrids may not have the pollen, nectar, and scent that attracts butterflies. There are many other crises at the moment, and Congress has been focused on critical topics such as pandemic relief and climate change. As such, there may not be as much support for this Bill as there would be at other times. The monarch population is strongly impacted by changing climatic conditions. While restoring essential habitat by planting milkweed and other pollinators is important, in order to protect pollinators like the monarch, we also need to address the larger climate crisis. The Reality of Congress The outlook according to GovTrack’s estimated likelihood of passing: 4% How Republicans see it: in the 117th Congress, one Republican has supported the Bill so far. How Democrats see it: in the 117th Congress, the Bill has lots of Democratic support, and because of the one Republican supporting the Bill, Democrats are calling it ‘bipartisan’ (9). Want to advocate? Does this Bill resonate with you? Do you want to see it become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? In the Senate, the Bill is co-sponsored by Jeff Merkley [D-OR], Ron Wyden [D-OR], Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI], Cory Booker [D-NJ], Chris Van Hollen [D-MD], and Alex Padilla [D-CA]. Senators Tammy Duckworth [D-IL] and Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] have also co-sponsored. In the House, Representatives Salud Carbajal [D-CA-24], Rodney Davis [R-IL-13], Alcee Hastings [D-FL-20], Nanette Diaz Barragan [D-CA-44], Raul Grijalva [D-AZ-3]*, Sara Jacobs [D-CA-53], Chellie Pingree [D-ME-1], Ro Khanna [D-CA-17], Brad Sherman [D-CA-30], Thomas Suozzi [D-NY-3], Mike Thompson [D-CA-5], Peter A. DeFazio [D-OR-4], Anna Eshoo [D-CA-18], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Earl Blumenauer [D-OR-3], Alan Lowenthal [D-CA-47], James Himes [D-CT-4], Eleanor Holmes Del. Norton [D-DC-At Large], and Zoe Lofgren [D-CA-19] have co-sponsored the Bill. Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
The Restoring Resilient Reefs Act of 2021 was introduced in the Senate on January 26, 2021 by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), on behalf of himself and Senators Scott (R-FL), Hirono (D-HI), and Schatz (D-HI). The bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. An identical bill was introduced in the House by Representative Darren Soto (R-FL) and referred to the Subcommittee on Natural Resources.The bill had unanimously passed the Senate in December 2020, but was stalled in the House. It has been reintroduced with the 117th Congress.
THE BILLS: S. 46 H.R. 160 What do these bills do? The goal of these identical, bipartisan bills is to reauthorize and modernize the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, and establish the United States Coral Reef Task Force. The Coral Reef Conservation Act expired 15 years ago, and was implemented to protect our nation’s reefs. The new bill directs five years of federal funding and technical assistance to states feeling the impact of reef degradation. The goal is to preserve, sustain and restore the United States coral reef ecosystems that have been stressed by human-accelerated changes (e.g. increased temperatures, increased acidity, coral bleaching, coral diseases, water quality degradation, invasive species, poor fishing practices). Additionally, the bill requires the development of scientific information to assess threats, monitor conditions, and propose innovative science-based management solutions to reef degradation. The bill also incentivizes state and local investment in coral reef management capacity and conservation projects through Coral Reef Stewardship Partnerships. A Coral Reef Task Force will be established to lead, coordinate and strengthen Federal Government actions and initiatives to conserve, preserve and restore our coral reef ecosystems using mapping, monitoring, research, conservation, mitigation, and restoration strategies. It will be made up of voting (1) and non-voting (2) members. The task force will work in coordination with state, tribal, local government, nongovernmental and academic partners as appropriate. The task force will provide a report to appropriate Congressional committees each year summarizing recent management and restoration activities in each State as well as updated estimates of economic activity. The report will be made publicly available. The Act also establishes the National Coral Reef Management Fellowship program, specifically to provide year long fellowship funds and guidance to those with an intent to pursue a career in marine services, have leadership potential, hold a college degree or have equivalent experience in biological sciences or marine management, and is proficient with writing and speaking skills. The goal is to encourage future leaders to provide management. Why were they proposed? Coral reef systems are invaluable. They provide natural coastal protection, along with billions of dollars in food, jobs and recreational opportunities world wide (3). Additionally, although they occupy <0.1% of the world’s ocean area, they host ~25% of all marine life, and over 500 million people rely on them for food, revenue and protection. They are the rainforests of the sea. The diversity of these ecosystems is dependent on the corals. Reef building corals occur due to a symbiotic relationship between the coral and an algae called zooxanthellae. The algae live in the coral polyps and create oxygen for the coral, and the coral provides the essential protection needed for the algae to live by a process called photosynthesis (4, 5). This process is slow, and on average, corals only grow 0.3-2 cm a year. Live corals are often vibrantly colored, due to the algae, and attract diversity by providing food and shelter for other organisms. Increased water temperatures by 1-2 degrees can cause corals to expel their algae, a process called coral bleaching (6). In this scenario, the coral loses its color, and ultimately starves without the algae. As a result, the entire ecosystem can collapse. Benefits The bill reauthorizes existing federal programs to continue the essential efforts to halt reef degradation. It calls for scientific research and expertise into monitoring and protecting coral reefs, which will help to expand maps of reef areas and where the most at-risk areas are. It also calls for coral reef emergency plans and best response practices for outbreaks of disease, invasive species, and natural or human-made disasters, so that responders are prepared to immediately handle any emergency. The bill provides funding for state and local community conservation and restoration projects, so that through this bill, activities will also include making sure Federal laws related to the management of coral reef systems are upheld. This includes the taking of corals or surrounding organisms. A benefit of this bill is that it will attempt to identify reef-safe anchors and advance public awareness of reefs to prevent damage to reef systems from boats and other vessels. Challenges Reef degradation is a challenge for warmer coastal areas of the United States like Florida and Hawaii, but it is also a global challenge. Unfortunately, degradation is happening at an unprecedented speed. Scientists predict that without significant changes, we could see 90% of the world’s reefs disappear by 2050. Tropical coral reef coverage has declined 30-50% since the 1980s, and ~75% of the world's reefs are currently facing significant stress (7). Bleaching events have become increasingly more severe, with the worst occurring from June 2014-May 2017. The Great Barrier Reef (Australia) lost half of its coral to bleaching, and other reefs lost >90% of their coral (7). While bleaching events used to be rare, they are now becoming common, and reefs do not have time to recover between bleaching events. Additionally, the bill only provides funding for five years, and would have to be reassessed after this timeline. Want to advocate? Do these bills resonate with you? Do you want to see them become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? The Senate bill has three cosponsors: Brian Schatz [D-HI], Mazie Hirono [D-HI], and Rick Scott [R-FL]. The House bill has five co-sponsors: Ed Case [D-HI-1], Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen [R-AS-At Large], Brian Mast [R-FL-18], Jennifer Gonzalez-Colon [R-PR-At Large], and Stacey Plaskett [D-VI-At Large]. Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
The Great American Outdoors Act was introduced by Representative John Lewis (D-GA) on behalf of twelve original cosponsors* referred to the Ways and Means and Financial Services committees on March 28, 2019. This bill was passed in the House 310 yea to 107 nay, and passed in the Senate 73 yea to 25 nay. The bill became Public Law No: 116-152 on August 4, 2020.
*The twelve original cosponsors in addition to Rep. Lewis are Reps. Mike Kelly (R-PA), Richard Neal (D-MA), Kevin Brady (R-TX), Suzan DelBene (D-WA), Jackie Walorski (R-IN-2), Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Darin LaHood (R-IL), Thomas Suozzi (D-NY), Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), Judy Chu (D-CA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Brendan Boyle (D-PA). THE LAW: H.R.1957 What does this law do? This bipartisan law allocates money to the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund and the Land Water Conservation Fund to support maintenance projects on federal lands that were put on hold, in hopes of aiding the restoration of our national parks and federal land. This law is relevant to projects from 2021-2025 within the National Park Service (70% of funds), the Forest Service (15%), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (5%), the Bureau of Land Management (5%), and the Bureau of Indian Education (5%). The law provides funds for these maintenance projects using revenues from oil, gas, coal, or alternative or renewable energy development on federal land. Each year from 2021-2025, 50% of the energy development revenues will be deposited into the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund but won’t exceed $1.9 billion for any fiscal year. The law will also provide permanent guaranteed funding, $900 million, for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. No less than 65% of funds will be allocated for non-transportation projects. Any funds remaining can be put toward transportation projects such as improving unpaved roads, bridges, tunnels, and parking areas. None of the funding will be allowed for land acquisition, bonuses to employees, or replacing annual discretionary funding for maintenance at an agency. Why was it proposed? Over 325 million people visit our national parks each year, and currently, ~70% of park infrastructure, like historic buildings and campgrounds, is over 60 years old (1). While park entrance fees cover some maintenance costs (2), the goal of this law is to reduce the ~$12 billion (1,3) backlog of important maintenance projects that have been deferred. National park tourism has increased 50% since 1980 with a relatively flat budget (2), leading to poorly maintained infrastructure. Without significant repairs to roads, trails, restrooms, water treatment systems, visitor facilities, etc. parks will not be able to keep up with the increasing popularity and demand. Benefits This is the largest land conservation legislation to pass into law in a generation (1, 3). National Parks and other federal agency lands will be supported with funds to complete projects, protect natural historic sites and access to these places, and create better experiences for all. Additionally, these funds will not draw from taxpayer dollars to push more funding toward the parks. Investing in National Parks helps to create jobs and sustain existing employment, and boost local economies (4). Challenges The law only provides maintenance funding for five years, which could lead to significant future deferred maintenance backlogs as the federal state continues to expand, if we do not ensure proper maintenance. The law also does not focus on maintaining routine maintenance, which if unchecked also becomes deferred maintenance (1). Additionally, as indicated by H.R. 8288 Improving the Not-So-Great American Outdoors Act, there’s more work to be done. Other shortcomings described in H.R. 8288 that could be addressed are fairness and parity for eastern states, strengthening commitments to urban recreation, establishing logic in funding priorities, transparency in funding allocation, appropriate consequences regarding funding sources, and ensuring availability of funds for maintenance backlogs (5). Want to advocate? Although this bill has become law, advocacy is still important. Sending “thank you” notes or emails to your legislators who support a bill, an Executive Order, or other legislative efforts are powerful tools in forming relationships, and tells your legislator that they are representing their constituents’ needs. We encourage people to reach out to their legislators with appreciation, questions, or concerns. Footnotes:
|