Credit U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, with resuming the discussion on renewal of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which expired at the end of September when Congress failed to reauthorize the program first proposed by Sen. Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson some 50 years ago.

That’s about all you can give Bishop credit for.

Prior to the program’s expiration, U.S. Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, successfully moved a comprehensive bipartisan bill through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that would have permanently reauthorized the fund.

The Land and Water Conservation fund, among its provisions, uses royalties from offshore oil and gas drilling operations to fund acquisition and development of parks and other public lands. Projects that had been identified in advance for next year would have filled in gaps along the Pacific Crest Trail and secured conservation easements for 165 acres of historic farmland at the Ebey’s Landing National Historical Reserve on Whidbey Island, and as well as conservation easements that would protect working forests near Mount St. Helens.

In the past, this hasn’t been a controversial program, and the fund has won reauthorization every time it came before Congress. The same is likely true today. Groups like the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition believe Cantwell and Murkowski’s bill has more than enough votes in the Senate to pass. And the fund has bipartisan support, including that of Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Washington, in the House.

But Bishop has vowed not to allow the Senate bill to move out of his committee — he won’t even allow hearings on the legislation — and instead has offered his own bill for discussion that would fundamentally change the intent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and put an end to much of its work in securing public lands for recreation and conservation and aiding efforts to preserve working forests and farms.

Bishops’s bill would only reauthorize the fund for seven years, and, as the Senate bill had similarly provided, would require 45 percent of the money go toward state and local projects rather than property acquisitions of federal land. But Bishop would further restrict funding for federal acquisitions, such as that for national parks and national recreation areas, to just 3.5 percent of the fund, making it impossible that enough funding would be available for almost any project. Additionally, Bishop’s bill would laughably restrict property acquisitions west of the 100th meridian, which roughly splits the country in half, to just 15 percent of what funding it would allow.

Instead, Bishop’s bill seeks to divert money to promote offshore oil and gas exploration and streamline permits for oil companies.

Would Bishop suggest, rather than taking the family to a national park, vacationing at an offshore oil rig?

If he and others are concerned that more of the fund’s money go toward park and recreation projects at the state and local level, Cantwell and Murkowski’s bill provides a fair and equal distribution between federal and state land projects. Leaders in the Senate and House should allow votes on that legislation.

Bishop’s bill, rather than offering suggestions for reforms worth consideration, comes off as more obstructionism meant only to play to conservatives in Utah.