On the Natural Resources Defense Council website, a photo of a mother and baby polar bear appears next to a solicitation for monthly contributions of $15 or more.

On the Humane Society of the United States website is a photo of a dog chained to a tree. Next to it is a solicitation for monthly donations.

On the website of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is a parade of photos of puppies and kittens scrolling onto the screen, along with a solicitation for donations.

These are desperate times for these nonprofits, or so one would think.

Yet these three environmental groups have combined net assets of more than $1.3 billion, according to their Internal Revenue Service filings.

No matter, the fundraising drumbeat continues for them and other environmental groups, many of them with tens of millions of dollars in assets.

A Capital Press review of IRS documents found that 20 environmental groups active in the West have combined net assets of nearly $2 billion.

So much for the stereotype of the struggling nonprofit spending its last dollar to save the planet.

This is the money machine that environmental nonprofits have built. Many are remarkably well-heeled through the largesse of individual donors and foundations.

Some billionaires have started their own environmental foundations. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has set up the $10 billion Bezos Earth Fund, which has joined with 10 other donors in a $5 billion pledge to carry out the global 30×30 effort, a plan to protect 30% of the planet by the year 2030.

He has also given $60 million to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to “restore” the Northern Great Plains grasslands and the longleaf pine forests in the southeastern U.S. That foundation probably didn’t need the money. It already had net assets of $286 million, according to its 2021 IRS Form 990.

Many environmental groups seem to spend more time in courtrooms than in the environment. They sue federal and state governments and private companies, alleging that they have broken a law. Sometimes, they even work out a deal with the government on a “sue-and-settle” plan that will allow them to dictate new regulations and do an end run around the public process that is normally required.

Note the recent secret deal the Biden administration made with environmental plaintiffs on the lower Snake River dams. Another even more far reaching closed-door deal is the plan to rewrite how pesticides are used nationwide.

If environmental groups are successful in court taxpayers have to pay their legal bills under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

And here’s the kicker. If an environmental organization has hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank, it can still get a check even though wealthy individuals or companies are not eligible to receive payment for their expenses when they win.

We do not oppose wealth. Nor do we oppose environmental groups that are focused on solving actual problems. Wasn’t that the original basis for environmentalism?

But it just seems that some “nonprofits” spend more time filling their coffers than they do helping the environment. Some spend millions of dollars each year raising more money.

And because they are nonprofits, taxpayers bear the burden of subsidizing these rich groups.

The U.S. House Natural Resources Committee is investigating these groups and where they get their money. Major contributors are currently allowed to remain anonymous.

We might also suggest that Congress take a close look at why taxpayers should be forced to subsidize these rich groups and their rich donors.