Conservation Funding
Ensuring adequate and reliable funding is an integral piece of supporting conservation efforts across the country. In the U.S., funding for conservation comes from all levels of government, from federal agencies to local initiatives. Conservation is funded by a variety of sources, including allocations from state general funds, established dedicated revenue streams, and grants and matching federal funds. Building on successful methods and filling gaps in state-level funding will be an important part of advancing the 30x30 goal.
What is conservation funding?
Read our report on Funding America’s Public Lands Future
At the state level, conservation funding enables state agencies to acquire and manage land, leverage federal grants that require matches, and provide support for community-level conservation efforts. Funding allocation and methods vary across Western states, since there is a wide range of responsibilities and opportunities. Demand for funding can depend on the percentage of land managed by the federal government within a state, which can be as high as 80%, as in Nevada, as well as the types of land and waters under state management, from state parks to wildlife management areas.
In the West, states have developed a variety of creative solutions to support conservation funding. Many of the tools used to generate conservation funding are not limited to conservation projects alone. Often, funding sources can be used for recreation access in addition to land acquisition or protected land management.
Why conservation funding?
Funding is often the primary barrier facing new conservation projects, such as those that include acquisition or restoration. Over the past two decades, state and federal investment in conservation has been steadily declining, even as the $887 billion outdoor recreation economy, which is supported by public lands, is stronger than ever. The 2021 Conservation in the West poll from Colorado College found that 92% of voters across eight Western states support finding money to protect land, water, and wildlife, despite state budget challenges.
Traditionally, a major source of conservation funding in the U.S. comes from the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts, which levy taxes of between 3% and 12% on hunting and fishing equipment, with revenue directed to state wildlife agencies. The entire budget of Wyoming’s Department of Game and Fish, for example, comes from hunting and fishing revenue. Sportsmen and women have been footing the bill for conservation for nearly a century, but as recreation trends shift, it’s no longer feasible to rely on these funding streams alone.
Conservation funding can be used to expand equitable access to nature. Implementation of conservation projects can have a significant and lasting impact when funding sources consider who benefits as a result. New Mexico’s Outdoor Recreation Division created a first-of-its-kind Outdoor Equity Fund that makes targeted investments to help more low-income youth, families, and people of color enjoy the outdoors. Similarly, Great Outdoors Colorado, the organization that implements the portion of Colorado’s lottery funds directed towards conservation and environmental stewardship, prioritizes equity and access in their grant-making process.
What are states doing?
Dedicated funding streams
Many of the most successful state-level conservation funding programs are the result of dedicated funding streams. This means that programs and agencies that receive these funds do not have to rely on annual budget allocations that can be impacted by budget changes and shifting legislative priorities from year-to-year.
Colorado has the strongest dedicated funding sources in the West, the largest of which is Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO). The program receives a portion of state lottery revenue to invest in conservation and recreation access projects throughout the state. Since 1992, GOCO has funded over 5,000 projects that span every county in the state, conserving 1.2 million acres. Half of the funding received by GOCO goes to Colorado Parks and Wildlife, helping to fund their activities, including management and acquisition of state land or conservation easements. The rest is administered in grants to local governments and land trusts to execute projects that align with GOCO’s values, including resource conservation, developing youth connections to the outdoors, stewardship, and equity. While funding varies from year to year, it has remained relatively stable over time. Colorado also has a Habitat Stamp, which costs $10.40 annually for anyone purchasing a hunting or fishing license. Funding from this program supports wildlife habitat in the state through acquisition and conservation easements.
Arizona’s Heritage Fund also uses lottery proceeds to fund conservation in the state. Created by ballot initiative in 1990, the original program designated $20 million of lottery revenue divided evenly between the Arizona State Parks Department and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. However, in 2010, legislation eliminated the state parks allocation in order to balance the budget. Although the state parks program was reauthorized in 2019, full funding has yet to be restored.
Nevada also has a strong funding mechanism in the form of a conservation bond program, originally instituted in 2001 and reauthorized in 2019. The original program, called “Question 1,” provided $200 million for conservation easements and land acquisition, as well as recreation management and trail development. After initial funding was nearly exhausted, the Nevada legislature passed AB 84 in 2019, which allocated another $200 million to sustain the bond program for another ten years. While not all projects are limited to conservation, at least $35 million is earmarked for grants to state agencies and local organizations for land acquisition. However, implementation of the new program is likely to be delayed, meaning it will be years before funds are available for conservation projects or matching federal grants.
The Habitat Montana program, passed through legislation in 1987, directs big game hunting license revenues to protecting wildlife habitat and expanding sportsmen and women access in the state. The program is a public-private partnership that works to protect land through conservation easements, and land acquisition if necessary. Funding from this program has been used to expand existing Wildlife Management Areas and acquire new ones. Habitat Montana generates between $5 and 6 million annually for conservation, as well as around $750,000 for maintenance work.
In Wyoming, the Wildlife and Natural Resources Trust Fund works to protect wildlife habitat throughout the state by leveraging other sources of funding. The trust was originally funded via legislative appropriation, and now operates on revenue from account earnings. On average, every dollar from the trust fund is matched by $6 from other sources. Projects include land acquisition and habitat management, preservation of open space, and active management such as prescribed burns and invasive plant mitigation.
Several other states have dedicated funding streams on a smaller scale for wildlife habitat improvements. While the funds raised in these programs do not go directly to land and water conservation, habitat improvements support biodiversity, a key element of the 30x30 goal, and these programs present opportunities to scale funding to include broader conservation efforts. In Wyoming, the legislature created a specialty license plate and Wildlife Conservation Account to fund conservation efforts related to transportation infrastructure. As a result, around $300,000 has been raised for over and underpasses, signage, and other projects to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions and protect wildlife. Wyoming hunting and fishing licenses must also be accompanied by the purchase of a conservation stamp, the cost of which was increased from $12 to $21 in 2021; the increase may raise $1.2 million each year for sportsmen and women access, as well as around $250,000 for wildlife conservation efforts such as wildlife crossings. In Utah, the Wildlife Habitat Account receives revenue from licenses, permits, stamps, and certificates of registration that funds habitat management. Permits to hunt and fish on any public land in New Mexico must be accompanied by the purchase of a Habitat Stamp, which funds projects like protecting water sources for wildlife or rebuilding rock formations in streams to protect fish habitat. The Habitat Stamp Program raises around $900,000 annually for habitat improvement projects that benefit wildlife, watershed health, and public land users. Montana recently legalized recreational marijuana and the ballot measure directed 50% of the tax revenue towards conservation, an estimated $18 million boost for public lands in the state in the first one to two years. However, Montana Governor Greg Gianforte is attempting to redirect tax revenue to drug treatment and economic development, departing from the direction approved by voters, so whether the revenue is ultimately directed towards conservation remains to be seen.
Budget allocation
There is variation across states in their funding levels for conservation agencies and programs through the general state budget allocation process. This process is vulnerable to budget cuts and shifting priorities within the legislature and governor’s office. In some cases, this can boost conservation funding; Colorado’s Governor Jared Polis has made expanding the state park system a goal and suggested allocating funding for that purpose in his 2021 budget. In many cases though, relying on annual appropriations has led to dwindling conservation funding. In 2020, many states in the West saw budgets negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Decreased conservation funding was exacerbated in states that rely on fossil fuel production, such as Wyoming and New Mexico, given that revenue from those activities helps fund conservation. While the needs of each state are different, some states, including Wyoming, Arizona, and Idaho, do not allocate any general funds for conservation and land management agencies, leaving them to rely on other sources, such as specialty taxes and dedicated revenue streams.
As states face budget cuts in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, it may seem that funding for private conservation is a low priority; in fact, the opposite is true. With the recent passage of the Great American Outdoors Act, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has more funding available than in the past, ready to be matched by state dollars. Without dedicated funding to match LWCF grants, states will be leaving money on the table that they desperately need to revitalize their economies and invest in the future.
Ability to leverage federal funds
An important piece of state-level conservation funding is the ability to leverage federal grants. Programs such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund require matching funds for projects, and the ability to provide those can bring millions of federal dollars into the state for land acquisition and conservation projects. States with dedicated funding sources, like Colorado and Nevada, can use those sources to attract LWCF and other grants, but other states risk missing out on federal investment in public lands and conservation.
New Mexico created the New Mexico Natural Heritage Conservation Act, a fund that was established to be able to leverage federal grant opportunities. In 2010, the Act designated $4.8 million to be administered by the Department of Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources. However, the funds have all been used and the program has not been replenished. In Utah, the LeRay McAllister Critical Land Conservation Fund matches grants for conservation at a ratio of 9:1, bringing over $223 million in conservation dollars into Utah since 1999. However, since the program relies on legislative appropriations, funding has dwindled over the past decade.
The Land & Water Conservation Fund
Since 1965, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has been a widely popular and effective tool for conservation in the U.S. Each year, the LWCF receives a portion of royalties from offshore oil and gas drilling revenue, which is used for national public land projects and state and local conservation grants. After decades of insufficient allocations, the LWCF was permanently reauthorized in 2019 and guaranteed full funding at $900 million annually in 2020, two major conservation wins that passed with strong bipartisan support. The state and local grants program matches funds to complete local conservation and recreation priorities, and LWCF dollars have supported projects in every county of the U.S.
Takeaways
In every state, the demand for conservation funding outweighs what’s available. Many states are facing tough choices for how to allocate limited resources, but even so, relying on variable general fund allocations from year-to-year for conservation is unsustainable and risks missing out on federal investment and revenue from the growing outdoor recreation economy.
Dedicated funding sources, passed through legislation or constitutional amendments, have proven to be the most effective way to maintain conservation funding despite impacts to general state budgets. Programs like Colorado’s GOCO and Nevada’s conservation bond have the highest impact, but smaller revenue streams, like dedicated taxes or specialty license plates or stamps, can direct hundreds of thousands of dollars towards conservation every year, as long as the legislation is clear in specifying its priorities and ensuring funds are explicitly directed to conservation.
With the harsh reality of dwindling budgets, states should look to leverage federal funding by setting aside funds to match grants, as well as direct funds to capitalize on the economic opportunities of the outdoor recreation economy. State parks, new trails, and improved access points can bring important benefits to local communities, generate tax revenue for local communities, and help the country reach the 30x30 goal.