At the same time, generic concerns about further acquisition of privately owned land by the federal government, as well as concern about expanded public ownership at specific sites, have grown more visible, especially in regions of the country where federal ownership is concentrated. These concerns involve preferences for public or private ownership, as well as the effects of public ownership on local tax revenues. The debate also has become more complicated as resource protection is discussed increasingly in terms of both considering larger areas, such as ecosystems, landscapes, or watersheds, rather than smaller sites or components, and managing systems where only a portion of the land is anticipated to be in public ownership. Managing larger areas under multiple ownerships usually involves a greater number of interests, and successful efforts depend on cooperation and partnerships. These changes in the debate generally mean that resource protection is more complicated than deciding an order of priorities for land acquisition.
Supporters wish to make the LWCF a true trust fund.
The annual appropriations process has proven to be unpredictable. During the years in which Congress and the Administration were trying to reduce the deficit, Congress made only limited funds available and earmarked almost all appropriations to specific projects or sites. Opponents of these proposals believe that any surplus should be spent on other priorities, that further federal land acquisitions should be limited, or that this funding should not be exempt from the annual appropriations process. With the deficit now replaced by a surplus, the discussion of solutions has increased, and supporters believe that change is possible. In the 106 th Congress, several bills to accomplish the same goal for LWCF were introduced.