The Maritime Washington National Heritage Area — which now
encompasses about 3,000 miles of saltwater shoreline in Western
Washington — was created yesterday within a wide-ranging lands bill
signed into law by President Trump.
Maritime Washington National
Heritage Area encompasses most of the saltwater shoreline
throughout Western Washington.
Map: Maritime Washington NHA feasibility
study
Created to celebrate the maritime history and culture of Puget
Sound and Coastal Washington, the Maritime Washington NHA is the
first designated area of its kind in the United States to focus
entirely on maritime matters.
The designation is expected to provide funding to promote and
coordinate maritime museums, historic ships, boatbuilding, and
education, including discussions of early marine transportation and
commerce in Washington state.
“We are thrilled about this,” said Chris Moore, executive
director of the nonprofit Washington Trust for Historic
Preservation. “The stories we want to convey are important to so
many people.
Two members of the Washington’s congressional delegation — Reps.
Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor, and Dave Reichert, R-Auburn — are
expressing confidence that the Land and Water Conservation Fund
will be reauthorized.
But with so many dollars on the line for conservation purposes,
many supporters are growing nervous about when it will happen and
what the final bill will look like. After all, what could possibly
go wrong in a Congress famous for getting nothing done, with less
than 100 days left to go before the law expires?
The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a major source of money
for recreation and habitat-protection projects across the country,
ranging from building local swimming pools to buying land for
national parks. Since 1965, more than 41,000 grants have provided a
total of about $4 billion, divided among every state and five U.S.
territories. For a list of completed projects in Washington state,
check out “50 Years of
Success” by the Washington Wildlife and Recreation
Coalition.
The Land and Water Conservation
Fund receives $900 million a year, about halfway up the lowest
line. The short bars show spending, compared to revenues from
drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. (Click to enlarge)
Graph:LWCF Coalition
The current law places $900 million a year into the fund, but in
recent years only a fraction of that ever gets appropriated —
roughly between one-fourth and one-half. If not appropriated, the
money disappears into the general Treasury for other spending.
Revenues put into the fund come from royalties paid by energy
companies for drilling for oil on the outer continental shelf, so
no tax dollars are involved. As President Obama and others have
stated, the program allows money coming from the extraction of
natural resources to go into protecting natural resources.
In a conference call yesterday, Kilmer recounted how the fund
has helped bring businesses to Washington state, as employers look
for places with natural beauty and recreational opportunities. He
noted that in his previous life he worked for the Pierce County
Economic Development Board helping employers site their
businesses.
“Just like in real estate, location matters,” Kilmer said.
“Access to natural beauty matters. Something our region has is a
natural environment that you won’t find anywhere else, and
innovators and employers are attracted to the Pacific
Northwest.”
Kilmer said it is “hard to overstate the importance” of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund. He promised to work hard to have it
permanently authorized.
Reichert delivered a similar message, saying he helped gather
signatures in support from more than 200 representatives from both
parties.
“I want to reassure everyone… we are going to continue to fight
this fight back here,” he said. “We think it is absolutely critical
to invest in the LWCF … and support public land conservation
efforts.”
I did not get a clear picture of how the political battles are
shaping up, nor whether reauthorization is likely before the fund
expires at the end of September. But we can get some clues from
remarks by key leaders in the House and Senate, as well as
testimony in public hearings.
At one end of the spectrum, Washington’s Sen. Maria Cantwell has
proposed legislation, S. 890,
that would not only reauthorize the law but require permanent and
dedicated funding at the full amount of authorization. If Congress
fails to appropriate the funds, presumably the money would stay in
the fund unless redirected to another program.
Separate bills in the Senate and House (S.
338 and H.R.
1814) would not go as far. They would make the fund permanent
but would not change the appropriation process. A provision would
be added to the law to require that 1.5 percent of the
appropriation, up to $10 million, would be set aside for opening up
public access to recreation.
In the Senate, an amendment to the Keystone XL pipeline bill,
which would do what S. 338 proposes, nearly passed with 59 votes,
one vote shy of the required 60 votes to pass in today’s Senate.
That is seen as decent support in the Senate, but nobody is
predicting what will happen in the House.
Republicans, who are in control of the committees, could shape
any bills that they decide to bring to a vote and move to
floor.
Rep. Tom McClintock, a Republican from California, chairs the
Subcommittee on Federal Lands Oversight of the House Natural
Resources Committee.
“This 50-year old act expires in September, offering the 114th
Congress an opportunity to thoroughly examine its mission and
impacts and to make adjustments accordingly,” McClintock said in a
hearing in April on the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
McClintock raised objections about buying more federal land when
there is a serious backlog of maintenance projects needed to meet
standards for fire prevention, fire suppression, wildlife
management and facilities maintenance. Money that goes to states,
on the other hand, comes under greater accountability because of
the funding match provided at the local level, he said.
The funding is entirely discretionary, he noted, so it is
“incumbent upon Congress” to decide whether to support additional
funding for the purchase of federal lands.
Similar views were expressed by Alaskan Sen. Lisa Murkowski,
Republican chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
“I fully support reauthorizing this act, this year, in a way
that reflects changing needs and evolving viewpoints about
conservation in the 21st century,” Murkowski said during a
hearing in April.
“As we look to reauthorize LWCF, I believe that it makes sense
to shift 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,” she said.
“This is the best way to put our nation’s recreation system on the
path of long-term viability.”
She stressed her support for state programs and for increasing
public access to federal lands.
In that same hearing, Washington’s Sen. Maria Cantwell, the
Democrats’ ranking minority member on the committee, said it is not
necessary to choose between maintenance and purchase. Maintenance
is already authorized, she said, and Congress decides how much to
spend on maintenance.
“Nearly half of the National Park Service’s estimated backlog is
attributed to needed repairs for roads and highways within the
national parks,” she said. “The single biggest improvement we could
make in reducing the maintenance backlog would be to increase the
funding level in the transportation bill for park roads.”
The Land and Water Conservation Fund is flexible, she argued. It
provides money for states to buy and develop local recreation
projects and to protect habitat for endangered species.
The fund also provides money for the Forest Legacy Program to
purchase development rights from private timberland owners to keep
the property in a forest condition.
On that point, more than 2,100 acres of forestland adjacent to
both Green Mountain and Tahuya state forests in Kitsap and Mason
counties were protected from development in 2009 with a $3.3
million purchase of development rights from Pope Resources. See
Kitsap Sun, Aug. 12, 2009.
In the latest round of funding, an effort is moving forward to
protect 20,000 acres of forestland between Shelton and Allyn in
Mason County. The plan is to take up to 10 years to buy the
development rights from Green Diamond Resource Company, which will
continue to manage the land under a federally approved habitat
conservation plan.
As for extra money for state projects, Cantwell pointed out that
a relatively new program, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act,
provides a dedicated source of funding for state grants. Money from
drilling in the Gulf of Mexico places up to $125 million a year in
the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
In a column published by the
Kitsap Sun, Washington State Sen. Christine Rolfes,
D-Bainbridge Island, said the Land and Water Conservation Fund is
important for protecting public property in every corner of the
state, including a land purchase to improve degraded water quality
in Lake Quinault near the coast.
Rolfes said she worries that in this “highly charged political
climate,” opponents of public lands could block spending from the
fund by failing to authorize its renewal.
“If they succeed,” she said, “the loss won’t be abstract — it
will be real and immediate.”
The video below, produced by The Nature Conservancy, makes an
argument for continuing the purchase and protection of public
lands.
I can’t believe it’s been nearly four years since we’ve held a
discussion on Water Ways about how commodities markets may affect
the price of gasoline at the pump.
I guess I’ve been watching and waiting for something to happen.
Well, a couple weeks ago, Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell began
stirring the pot again.
Here’s what she said during a March 29 hearing of the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee:
“I definitely believe that we should get these asset class
investors out of this market. Saying that we are going to allow a
bunch of investors to treat the commodities market like they want
to treat the rest of Wall Street from a securities and investment
perspective I think is the wrong idea for commodities, something
particularly as vital as gasoline.”
UPDATE, OCTOBER 15
President Obama signed the Coast Guard Authorization Bill today.
For details, check out the news
release from U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell.
—–
President Obama is expected to sign a sweeping authorization
bill that reorganizes U.S Coast Guard operations, increases
maritime safety rules and calls for improved oil-spill prevention
and response in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
It seems this bill has something for everyone, at least among
those of us living in coastal states. By skimming through the
Coast
Guard bill or reading
a summary, you get an idea of just how sweeping these changes
will be for the Coast Guard.
The legislation, largely written by Sen. Maria Cantwell of
Washington, was blocked by Republican leaders in the Senate for the
past four years. To get approval, several provisions were stripped
from the bill in the Senate. Then in the House, many of these ideas
were put back in and ultimately approved when it came back to the
Senate.
What are the most important parts of the bill? Well, that
depends on whether you are involved in the Coast Guard, the
shipping industry, the fishing fleet or just want to protect
against oil spills or terrorists. Continue reading →
It’s not really new, this plan to protect the “last best salmon
habitat,” as proposed in a bill submitted to Congress by Washington
Sen. Maria Cantwell and several of her fellow senators. See my
story in
today’s Kitsap Sun.
The legislation is called the Pacific Salmon Stronghold
Conservation Act.
Cantwell acknowledges that the focus of the bill is consistent
with a basic principle of conservation biology: protect the best
first. See Cantwell’s
press release.
In Washington state, “Critical areas ordinances,” adopted by
local governments as a requirement of the Growth Management Act,
require protection of fish and wildlife habitat, not just for
endangered species. But these are considered minimal standards,
probably not the kind of protection envisioned by the new Salmon
Stronghold Act.
While the idea of protecting the best is not new, this may be
the first time anyone has proposed a dedicated pot of money for
such a cause, money to be overseen by a partnership of state and
federal officials throughout the region.
Cantwell is quick to point out that the bill doesn’t need to
take away from ongoing efforts to restore salmon.
“While current federal salmon recovery efforts focus on
recovering salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act aiming to
restore what we’ve lost, the Salmon Stronghold Act aims to protect
what we already have,” said Cantwell. “This legislation complements
ongoing recovery efforts to ensure the future viability of healthy
wild Pacific salmon runs for generations to come.”
Bill Ruckelshaus of the Puget Sound Partnership endorses the
concept:
“This bill is an excellent complement to the Endangered Species Act
and international salmon treaties. By protecting the best remaining
Pacific salmon ecosystems throughout their range, wild salmon
cannot only survive, but thrive, for generations to come.”
Download a copy of the bill and check out some additional
background on the Web site of the Oregon-based Wild
Salmon Center.
Get ready for a furious congressional debate over energy for the
next three weeks. Democrats appear ready to give in to the
drill-drill-drill mentality, but only on the condition that clean
energy be part of the picture.
One idea is to drop the federal moratorium on drilling off the
Atlantic and Gulf coasts in exchange for revoking subsidies to oil
companies and shifting those dollars into research and development
of solar and wind power.
Zachary Coile, a reporter for the
San Francisco Chronicle, calls the political posturing “a chess
match over energy with high stakes for both the November elections
and the nation’s energy future.”
He writes in today’s editions:
Kevin Book, a senior energy policy analyst at FBR Capital
Markets, said he’s betting the only energy legislation that’s
likely to pass is an extension of the tax credits for wind and
solar, which expire at the end of the year and are popular with
both parties.
“The Republicans could still potentially strike a deal, but it’s
not clear whether the Democrats have any incentive,” Book said.
“They can paint Republicans as objecting to cutting a deal –
particularly as all the political analysis suggests they are going
to come back next year with the upper hand” by picking up seats in
the House and Senate in November.
Two members of Washington’s congressional delegation — U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee,
D-Bainbridge Island, and U.S.
Sen. Maria Cantwell — have thrust themselves into the middle of
this debate. Inslee, who wrote a book on the clean-energy
revolution, has complained about the stranglehold that oil
companies have on the Bush administration. (Watch video on his site.)
Cantwell has spent a lot of time looking into possible market
manipulations that may have led to artificial spikes in gasoline
prices earlier this year.
On Thursday, an official with the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission is expected to testify before Congress, according to
David Ivanovich of the Houston
Chronicle.
“If the agency were to uncover real evidence of market
manipulation, that could spark its own congressional stampede,”
said Ivanovich, also quoting David Book.
I continue to be fascinated with the possibility that a few
speculative traders could dramatically affect oil prices the way we
have seen over the past month.
I’m still learning about futures markets for oil, but now Robert
McCullough of McCullough Research has released a statistical
analysis of recent changes in prices in the futures and spot
markets. McCullough was an investigator who exposed Enron’s energy
market manipulation several years ago. (See
Portland Tribune article.)
Now, McCullough is working with U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, who is
doggedly pursuing legislation designed to shed new light on the way
oil markets work. Read on for down for Cantwell’s press release or
read McCullough’s
report (PDF 460 kb) at his Web site.
I have another question that I’ve been pondering: Most people
seem to agree that it will take seven to twelve years to bring oil
to market from offshore wells. But some supporters say
congressional approval would have an immediate impact on oil
prices, because the markets would anticipate an increased
supply.
If that’s true, wouldn’t a crash program to wean the country off
oil with alternative energy supplies have an even greater impact on
oil prices, since the markets would anticipate a dramatic and
permanent drop in demand? I’m just wondering.
I recently asked readers of Watching Our Water Ways to refer me
to books or magazine articles that would help me understand oil
speculation. While I don’t want this blog to turn into “watching
our oil ways,” I became interested in oil speculation while writing
a
story about offshore drilling and have been interested ever
since.
The subject of oil speculation was brought out of the closet by
Congress, and U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee told me that he became convinced
during recent hearings that speculation is a major force driving up
the price of oil. It appears a growing number of people agree with
this assessment.
A lot of my questions about markets were answered last week in a
press packet released in conjunction with a new campaign by the Air
Transport Association, which wants to get oil speculation under
control.
The press packet (PDF 684 kb), which includes loads of
questions and answers, lists of officials and companies involved in
the campaign, quotes from outside experts and congressional
testimony,
And the video of the press conference announcing the
campaign.
The organization, of course, is speaking from a position of self
interest, but some airline officials are saying officials in the
Bush administration don’t seem to understand how markets work and
how speculation is driving up the price of oil.
The industry group is calling for what Inslee, Sen. Maria
Cantwell of Washington and other lawmakers have said are needed
restrictions on the commodities and futures markets. Unless you
know a lot more about commodities than I did before getting into
this issue, you may find that information in the press packet is a
lot of help. Here are the basic actions being requested: