Trump signs Great American Outdoors Act - Trump BTFOs anti-conservationists with bipartisan support

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-trump-signs-great-american-outdoors-act
(Archive)

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is expected to sign a bipartisan bill Tuesday that would spend nearly $3 billion on conservation projects, outdoor recreation and maintenance of national parks and other public lands.

Supporters say the measure, known as the Great American Outdoors Act, would be the most significant conservation legislation enacted in nearly half a century.

The bill would spend about $900 million a year — double current spending — on the popular Land and Water Conservation Fund, and another $1.9 billion per year on improvements at national parks, forests, wildlife refuges and rangelands.

Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, called the bill “one of the biggest wins for conservation in decades.”

“We have a generational opportunity to ensure America’s crown jewels are protected,” he said, adding that the bill would ensure all tools available are used to help the nation respond to the climate crisis and protect landscapes, clean water and clean air.

At a time of intense partisan disagreements, “it is perhaps more necessary that ever to demonstrate we can still bridge the divide … and work together to find common ground,” said Grijalva, a Democrat. “This bill goes beyond politics. It’s about ensuring that we pass along a legacy of public lands.”

Supporters say the bill will create at least 100,000 jobs, while restoring national parks and repairing trails and forest systems.

“At a time when our country needs to create jobs and rebuild local economies while also protecting nature and places where everyone can recreate outdoors, the Great American Outdoors Act answers the call on all fronts,” said Jennifer Morris, CEO of The Nature Conservancy, an advocacy group.

“There couldn’t be a more important time than now to improve parks, protect birds and wildlife, and create jobs in every state across the country,” added Sarah Greenberger, senior vice president for conservation policy of the National Audubon Society.

While bipartisan, the bill was led in the Senate by Gardner and fellow GOP Sen. Steve Daines of Montana. Gardner and Daines are among the Senate’s most vulnerable incumbents, and each represents a state where the outdoor economy and tourism at sites such as Rocky Mountain and Yellowstone national parks play an outsize role.

Daines and Gardner persuaded the president to support the bill at a White House meeting this year, even though Trump has repeatedly tried to slash spending for the Land and Water Conservation Fund in his budget proposals. Trump soon tweeted his support for the bill, saying it “will be HISTORIC for our beautiful public lands.″

Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., said permanently and fully funding the conservation program “will be a monumental victory for conservation and the places where we all get outside.″ He cited studies showing that each dollar spent by the fund creates an additional four dollars in economic value.

Visitors cannot enjoy national parks such as Yellowstone and Yosemite “if the bathrooms don’t work, if the trails and campgrounds aren’t open, or if the roads are in disrepair,″ Heinrich said. “These places that we all cherish deserve better.″

The bill’s opponents, mostly Republicans, complained that it would not eliminate an estimated $20 billion maintenance backlog on 640 million acres of federally owned lands. The bill authorizes $9.5 billion for maintenance over five years.

“The Great American Outdoors Act is a perfect example of Washington playing political games,” said Utah Rep. Rob Bishop, the top Republican on the natural resources panel. He accused the bill’s supporters of taking “a bipartisan and popular idea to fix our parks and spur job creation” and combining it with “a divisive measure” on land and water conservation “that will increase our debt” and do little for economic recovery.

“At a time when America is putting a record amount of debt on the backs of future generations to cope with COVID-19, now is not the time for reckless spending or new mandatory programs that have nothing to do with the pandemic or stimulating growth,” Bishop said.

But Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., said the bill would strengthen the recreation economy, a key driver of jobs across the country. It also will address environmental justice by creating green spaces near low-income communities and communities of color across the country, Beyer said.

“It is a win for outdoor recreation, for the economy, for wildlife and for the country,” he said.

Here's a link to the bill itself.
(Archive)

And here's a link to a quote sheet from a press release by the Land and Wildlife Conservation Fund.
(PDF attached)

The press release quotes enthusiastic support from the Nature Conservancy, the Pew Charitable Trusts' Restore America's Parks campaign, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Park Foundation, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable, the Wilderness Society, the Conservation Fund, the American Hiking Society, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the Trust for Public Land, the RV Industry Association, the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy, Environment America, the Appalachian Trails Conservancy, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Evangelical Environmental Network, the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Partnership for the National Trails System, the Public Lands Alliance, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and the American Society of Landscape Architects.

Finally, link to the speech given at the signing itself.

tl;dr: Trump signs bipartisan bill funding the National Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Indian Education, and to provide dedicated funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. There has been a long backlog of deferred projects for years especially as funding to the Land and Water Conservation Fund has tended to be appropriated for other purposes. American parks #1.
 

Archivos adjuntos

It sounds like the bipartisan agreement to preserve US national parks was fluff. One cannot agree to sustain the health of national parks without "debt." Didn't they have debt for 20+ years, don't pin it on natures.
 
The Sierra Club is conspicuously absent from the list of supporters.... ™🤔

Yeah, their Ballotpedia page implies they're mostly focused on supporting energy initiatives, giving support to dems, and working against republicans.

On the other hand, in a recent Washington Post article (archive) their associate director of the Outdoors for All campaign gave tepid support for it:

“We have so much bipartisan support — the Senate, the White House and now the House,” Cunningham said. “You don’t have to go far in your district to find a public space that has been created by the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Outdoor recreation, hunting and fishing. Everyone in South Carolina has benefited from this project.”

That last part is debatable, said Joel Pannell, associate director of the Outdoors for All campaign at the Sierra Club. About 100 million Americans can’t find a playground or green space in a 10-minute walk from home, Pannell said.

“It’s an environmental justice issue, a civil rights and human rights issue,” Pannell said, stressing that most of those people are African American and Latino. It makes the coronavirus pandemic more stressful, he said.

“They are being hit hardest because they don’t have the mental relief to go to parks,” Pannell said. “They return to neighborhoods that don’t have that same access.”

The Great American Outdoors Act should change that, Pannell said. “Now that we have this increase in funding, we should be addressing how we can protect areas from development and invest in green areas where it’s needed most,” he said.

They seem more interested in social justice stuff than pure support for conservation at this point. Hell, they're dealing with their own problems right now relating to that. (Archive)
 
Good. Conservation is one of the few things I don't mind going into debt for. If we're throwing trillions at Covid shutdown, we can throw a few fractions of 1% at maintaining forests too.

I'm curious about the Republican objections, though. There's too much talk about creating jobs, which shouldn't be the focus of conservation projects. And it looks weird that the money spent on the Conservation fund is less then half of the maintenance outlays. I'd prefer a bill that sets aside and preserves more land, or expands existing parks, and I can't tell which way this one will work out.
 
Good. Conservation is one of the few things I don't mind going into debt for. If we're throwing trillions at Covid shutdown, we can throw a few fractions of 1% at maintaining forests too.

I'm curious about the Republican objections, though. There's too much talk about creating jobs, which shouldn't be the focus of conservation projects. And it looks weird that the money spent on the Conservation fund is less then half of the maintenance outlays. I'd prefer a bill that sets aside and preserves more land, or expands existing parks, and I can't tell which way this one will work out.
If you're ever curious about why Republicans object to environmental projects, a mosie down to here and looking at top donors will usually illuminate why. Neil Breen is unironically right.
 
Even my dumb blue ass supports this. It's at least a step in a good direction.

Trump not good, but not all bad.

Agreed. This is a fantastic move that everyone can enjoy

Good. Conservation is one of the few things I don't mind going into debt for. If we're throwing trillions at Covid shutdown, we can throw a few fractions of 1% at maintaining forests too.

I'm curious about the Republican objections, though. There's too much talk about creating jobs, which shouldn't be the focus of conservation projects. And it looks weird that the money spent on the Conservation fund is less then half of the maintenance outlays. I'd prefer a bill that sets aside and preserves more land, or expands existing parks, and I can't tell which way this one will work out.

Agreed. I am all for more national parks and public outdoor recreation land.
 
B B BUT DRUMPF IS BAD! COLBERT SAYS SO!! HE CANT BE GOOD!!!
EVGF1dfX0AI94hL.jpg
 
Even my dumb blue ass supports this. It's at least a step in a good direction.

Trump not good, but not all bad.

I wanted to post about it because you know no mainstream media is going to cover this despite being something most Americans support and agree with. I imagine regardless of what happens with 2020, people will look back in 20 years and say this was something with actual tangible benefits to the lives of Americans. It's hard to get that perspective with the contemporary blitz against Trump and a focus on all things coronavirus.
 
There's too much talk about creating jobs, which shouldn't be the focus of conservation projects.
This, I think, I can partially explain. Maintaining the forests largely revolves around cleaning around the trees so they don't overcrowd and starve themselves out. Aka: selective logging.

This creates jobs because the parks and forest service contract these jobs out to firms that hope to take that wood and get some money out of it. They tend to be smaller firms with a small band mill, but still, it would create a job demand in the forestry and sawmilling industries.
 
If we’re going to be taxed, have it go to a bunch of bullshit, and have fuck all to show... well I at least want the place to look nice and have something to show.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo