You are here

House Interior Appropriations Budget Carries Ill Winds for National Park System

Share

 

With all the drama surrounding the White House negotiations to raise the nation's debt limit without doing further damage to the country's fiscal profile, legislation still working its way through the House of Representatives understandably takes a backseat.

But as crafted, the proposal concerning Fiscal Year 2012 funding for the Interior Department stands to do more than a little harm to the National Park Service's fiscal fitness, and also threatens to degrade the watersheds that drain into the Colorado River as it runs through Grand Canyon National Park.

"In its current form, it's deeply damaging to our national parks, Grand Canyon in particular," John Garder, the National Parks Conservation Association's budget and appropriations legislative representative, said Monday.

As it stands, the bill would, if enacted, reduce overall funding for the Park Service, weaken air and water regulations that are needed to protect park resources, and stall efforts to let the agency acquire a private 1,400-acre inholding in Grand Teton National Park.

The legislation, which was scheduled to be considered by the full House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, has drawn criticism from a number of groups concerned about its environmental impact.

Trout Unlimited issued a release last week that condemned the bill, saying it "cuts funding for essential conservation programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund and North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and contains harmful riders that undermine the Clean Water Act and other protective rules for rivers and streams."

“Fishing and hunting generate $76.7 billion annually in economic activity in the U.S.,” said Steve Moyer, vice president for government affairs at Trout Unlimited.  “We can’t expect to sustain this powerful economic engine if we’re removing the very conservation programs that make it run.”

At the Natural Resources Defense Fund, Scott Slesinger, the group's legislative director, said the legislation "is a contract on America masquerading as a spending bill. It’s nothing short of a declaration of war on our most basic health protections."

"It would do away with fundamental safeguards that keep our air, water and lands clean. Worse than making deep budget cuts, the bill is chock full of gratuitous policy riders that are unprecedented in number and scope. They have no place in a budget -- or anywhere else.”

Back at NPCA, Mr. Garder said one of the most egregious riders, or amendments, to the bill would block efforts to continue a moratorium on new mining claims on 1 million acres surrounding Grand Canyon National Park for 20 years.

“What really put us over in the edge in opposing this bill were the policy riders, in particular one that would undermine protections for the Grand Canyon," he said during a phone call from his Washington, D.C., office.

The proposed 1 million-acre buffer was identified "through a public process that allowed for public comment, and 300,000 people commented and the determination was that it is appropriate for the protection of Grand Canyon and for the 25 or so million people who rely on the Colordao River for drinking water and their uses," said Mr. Garder.

If the moratorium is not put in place and uranium mining claims are allowed, “It is not unfathomable to imagine that those who are hiking around the Grand Canyon would have to note in which streams there is uranium contamination and carry their own water," he added.

Conservation groups are not the only organizations that support the 20-year moratorium, said Mr. Garder, noting support for it from the Metropolitan Water District of Los Angeles, the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the Central Arizona Project, and Native American tribes in the Southwest.

Other sections of the proposed legislation the NPCA takes issue with include:

* Efforts to weaken or remove Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases;

* Efforts to weaken EPA regulation of coal ash;

* Efforts to weaken oversight of stormwater discharges, something that can lead to degredation of waters such as the Chesapeake Bay;

* Cuts to the Land and Water Conservation Fund that would zero out funding for Park Service lands acquisition;

* A $7 million cut in National Park Service funding.

“That is less than 1 percent," Mr. Garder said of the $7 million, "but it is on top of the cuts that park operations received last year. Something that concerns us is backtracking on funding for an account that is essential to ensuring our parks operate essentially.”

The Park Service already is underfunded by roughly $600 million a year, according to the NPCA, and this proposed cut, while small, would nevertheless have to be absorbed by the parks, he said.

Without the LCWF land acquisition funding, the Park Service also might not be able to move forward with the $107 million purchase from the state of Wyoming of 1,400 acres inside Grand Teton. The administration had been counting on the LCWF funds to start the purchase with a $10 million downpayment in the coming fiscal year, according to Mr. Garder.

“But when there is an effort to prevent any new land acquisition projects in FY12, that’s going to seriously undermine that multi-year effort, and the threat of development there should not be underestimated," said Mr. Garder. "It’s critical that this bill go through if we’re going to prevent the building of trophy mansions or subdivisions in the middle of Grand Teton National Park.”

The House measure also carries an 18 percent cut to the Park Service's construction budget, which the president had already reduced by $50 million in his budget proposal, said the NPCA budget analyst.

“If you look at the suite of those (construction) needs, there are some projects in there that are clearly very important for the protection of visitor safety and the protection of the historic and natural resources,” Mr. Garder said.

For instance, at Grand Canyon National Park there's a $16 million need for a storage system for potable water for park visitors, and at the Statue of Liberty National Monument there's a need for asbestos abatement work, roofing, sidewalk repairs, and seawall repairs that alone are estimated to cost nearly $11 million, he said.

“Many of those jobs are contracted to businesses, and so there is a direct jobs loss component when you are reducing the ability for the Park Serivce to engage in some of those contracts to do some of those basic repairs,” said Mr. Garder.

How the legislation will fare after the House Appropriations Committee deals with it remains to be seen, he said. The full House might take it up next week, or possibly not until September. And the Senate has not even started its work on the Interior Appropriations measure, he said.

Of course, the lawmakers could find themselves having to go back to square one, depending on how negotiations over the nation's debt limit go with the White House.

Comments

ecbuck wrote,

"Whether there are larger influences is immaterial. Taxes are an influence and will impact the price of oil. It may not be the largest influence but it has an influence just like every other cost the oil companies incure."

[color=#000000]Ugh.  Take another look at the The NY Times article above or my many highlights of the key passges.  The NYT paraphrases the final part of the Congressional Research Service report, which discusses how discontinuing the subsidies would have a negligible effect on oil prices—see the part about “relative magnitudes” (pp. 3-4).  (i.e. The effect on oil prices would be of such small magnitude relative to the other macroeconomic forces at work that it could not be separated (i.e. identified).)  So, to say that larger influences is "immaterial" to the price of oil is clearly contradicted by the evidence, unless of course you want to ignore what the report says.  But you're right to the extent that there would be an "effect," albeit a neglible one.  So, to go back to the original point of the conversation: I'd be willing to give up subsisides to the oil industry in order to better fund our national parks, and based on the CRS report (among others), if this were to happen, I wouldn't be forced to "walk to my favorite national park."
[/color]


I don't know how this thread ended up as an apology for Big Oil but judging by the spelling abilities and logic of the corporate defenders I wouldn't believe a word they write.  (Where's the evidence for "$300 billion in investments by Exxon"?)  I suppose a benefit to parks from the petroleum industry would be financing from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.  But of course full funding for land acquisition will never happen while Congress is owned lock, stock and barrel by the plutocracy and their (the plutocrats') fundamentally flawed hangers-on.


It seemed to me that ecbuck was supporting the American economic system, that includes the oil companies and everyone else drawing a paycheck in this country.  Maybe it would be an appropriate article for this site to post the financial records (including the golden handshakes) of (at least) the major environmental organization and NPS.  I know people in the environmental community that are as motivated by profit as anyone, including the oil companies.  A great gig, they tell me (sorry Mr. Kellett:).Being a perfect speller isn't all it's cracked up to be.   Common sense, yes, a refreshing concept.  Do they teach that in schools, lol? 


"First of all, let the record show that President Obama is right and the GOP is wrong about these tax breaks. They make the economy less--not more--efficient and do nothing to reduce prices at the pump."--Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, senior fellows at the Cato Institute. Forbes 5/3/11. http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/02/eliminate-oil-subsidies.html

"The oil and gas industries argue that their tax breaks encourage them to locate and extract more oil and gas, allowing the industry to increase supply and thus keep energy prices down below the level they would otherwise reach.  But whatever one thinks of this argument, it totally falls apart when oil is selling at over $100 a barrel.  By any relevent measure, oil and gas companies are wildly profitable, and have huge incentives to find and sell more oil.  Repealing the tax subsidies that they enjoy will not change this."--Jeff Hooke and Steve Wamhoffe, Citizens for Tax Justice, 4/29/11. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/energy20110429.pdf


"[color=#000000] So, to say that larger influences is "immaterial" to the price of oil is clearly contradicted by the evidence,"[/color]

[color=#000000]Once again you have twisted someone's words.  I never said that larger influences were immaterial.  I said their existence was immaterial to whether taxes had an influence.[/color]

[color=#000000]"[/color][color=#000000]unless of course you want to ignore what the report says"[/color]
[color=#000000]I haven't ignored the report but I have pointed out its flaw.  The report only considered the impact on supply and did not consider what a corporation might do to make up for its higher costs.
[/color]


"(Where's the evidence for "$300 billion in investments by Exxon"?)"
On their balance sheet. 


Kurt,
I don't think "common sense" has much if anything to do with personal theories or agendas. Example:  If your boat is sinking you fix the hole and bale, NOT throw the buckets of water in someone else's boat.  Lot's of nonsense around with none of it "common," I believe.  


Westerner, the point, of course, is how one approaches an issue. And in that regard I do think personal theories or agendas can influence whether you see something as being based in common sense, or is rather nonsensical.
I wasn't implying above that one side or the other in the Cape Hatteras matter, or in the oil company scenario, is lacking common sense. Only that one's personal point of view can lead them to believe that their argument and underlying evidence is built entirely of common sense and therefore sound, while opposing views are nonsense.
Example: I think it's nonsense that folks hide their comments in anonymity, while those folks might have a common sense reason for doing so;-)


The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.