In a short, to the point, and politically understandable statement, the National Parks Conservation Association applauded the National Park System's share of the stimulus package funding. But it added that much more work needs to be done across the park system.
Tom Kiernan, NPCA president, said the spending of some $750 million on "America’s crumbling national park infrastructure" is "recognition on the part of our elected officials of the importance of national parks to our economy, our quality of life, and our future."
“This is a very strong step toward restoring our national parks by 2016, the centennial of the National Park Service. Much remains to be done, so we look to the continued support of the new administration and Congress to address the parks’ many critical needs, including funding and finalizing the pending National Park Centennial Challenge—a public-private partnership program," Mr. Kiernan added.
The approved funding is about one-third of the $2.5 billion worth of needy, ready-to-go projects across the National Park System identified by NPCA with help from National Park Service staff. While the House of Representatives approved $2.25 billion for the parks, the Senate balked at such a high figure and the lesser amount was endorsed.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
It would be really interesting to understand what some of the primary motivations among the various Congresspersons and their staffers were for the NPS getting the lower figure. Some questions that would be worth investigating - did some of the Senators questions whether the NPS had sufficient support staff in place to spend the money quickly? Did some of the Senators believe that some of the identified "ready-to-go" projects were ready-to-go because they were low-priority or not sufficiently meritorious enough to have been funded previously? Do some of the Congressmen have ongoing questions regarding cost control and efficiency in the National Park Service, and so are trying to use tight budgets as a proxy for greater cost effectiveness measures in the Park System? I don't necessarily have any answers for this, but two things do strike me as very intersting about the above article:
- the NPS seems to have gotten a surprisingly low figure relative to the needs identified by Park Advocates like the NPCA, especially when, say, compared to the funding received for other National priorities in the bill like Education and Transportation Infrastructure spending, which are receiving spending increases of nearly a doubling in total funding or more for some programs within those areas. Surely spending on the National Parks would be just as stimulative as those other two categories, and certainly the NPCA routinely argues that the needs of National Parks is just as important as those areas, and yet as a percentage of budget the NPS is receiving much, much less, and certainly much, much, less in absolute dollar terms...
- the NPCA seems to have meekly applauded the $750 million as "a very strong step" rather than criticizing the $1.5 billion in cuts from the House version of the bill. The NPCA is normally a fierce advocate for fully-funding the Park System, and yet the NPS ended up with only about 1/3rd of what the House was willing to give them. So why not a stronger stance from them on this? This stimulus bill was perhaps a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address any backlog of needs for the Parks and to "make Parks a priority." Quite simply, it didn't happen, and the NPCA seems nevertheless reasonably happy with that.... Very interesting....
I've been thinking a little bit more about the incongruity of this statement, and I can't help but wonder what the reaction might have been if this underfunding had come out of a Republican Congress and Republican Administration? I know that the NPCA is officially "nonpartisan", and I don't want to accuse them of explicit bias, but we all have our sympathies and that can certainly subtly color one's reaction. In this case, it is certainly worth noting the differences between the "yes, but" reaction to the Bush Administration's Centennial Challenge Announcement and the "very strong step" reaction to the Obama Administration and a Democratic Congress not making the National Parks a priority compared to spending on transportation infrastructure, education, and health care in the stimulus package....
I am not sure "a lot of money" spent within the National Park system is money well spent (But I guess that wasn't the premise upon which the stimulus package was built). The hierachy within the National Park system has in the past stepped on many a Senator/Congresman's toes whenever one would question what was going on within the Park. How many times can you step on one's toe (especially if he/she holds the purse strings) before they will withhold the funds that create the "power to be." Well, its' happened. Learn to work with people rather than against people and you may get what you want.