Full Funding for the LWCF Has Enormous Public Support
- When asked whether some of the funds from offshore drilling fees should continue to go to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, an overwhelming majority of voters – 86 percent – are supportive (up 5 percent from the same question asked in June 2009).
- And a nearly equal number of voters view the fund as more important now in light of the recent Gulf oil spill. A striking 85 percent say that it is more important today that funds "from offshore oil and gas drilling should be used to protect our forests, rivers, lakes, wetlands, beaches and wildlife habitat."
- More than three-quarters – 77 percent – support funding LWCF at $900 million a year.
Support for funding the LWCF is equally strong in Colorado, according to a statewide poll** conducted in late June 2010:
- 78% of Colorado residents agree that some of the money from fees charged to oil and gas companies that drill offshore should be used to conserve natural areas and clean water, and to ensure access to outdoor recreation.
- When asked if they support or oppose drilling fees to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund to protect national parks and create recreation opportunities, 73% of Colorado residents agreed.
- When asked whether Congress should set aside a larger portion of oil and gas fees in order to provide full, dedicated funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund in legislation responding to the Gulf oil spill, 68% of Colorado residents voiced their approval.
