In a move not entirely surprising, U.S. Rep. Don Young of Alaska has proposed legislation to create a mechanism for states to take over management of national parks and other federal lands.
It's not surprising in that a number of states -- Utah, Colorado, Arizona, South Dakota, New York, and Tennessee -- stepped up last week to underwrite the costs of reopening parks in their states during the government shutdown.
As written, the legislation would require a state to put up at least 50 percent of the costs of running the national park in question to have its petition considered by the Interior secretary. If a state provided 55 percent of the costs of operation, it would receive 55 percent of the revenues that park generated. States would not be given title to the land.
States that gain such authority could relinquish it by writing the Interior secretary and asking to be relieved of its authority. The secretary also could void the agreement if the state defaults on payments or is found to have breached its agreement.
Introduced this past Tuesday, the bill has no cosponsors.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
These were some of Young's comments regarding the Park Service this past May:
"Having the states run the national parks would save money and would and also give local residents a closer-to-home official with whom to air complaints, Young said. As he envisions it, states should have the option of taking over if they are able to run the parks on half the budget that the park service spent the previous season."
http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/rep-young-states-running-national-parks-would-save-money/article_1f079ac6-b3c7-11e2-819f-0019bb30f31a.html
This legislation seems to reflect his sentiments.
What would Utah's parks look like if Utah ran them?
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57012532-82/bagley-cartoon-facebook-lake.html.csp
ec - my point was that lawyers on both sides of these issues would have a field day with this one. What constitutes a "tougher law" (state vs. federal) is subject to interpretation, especially when it comes to items such as oil and gas activity, logging and mining. If there isn't a specific law dealing with that activity in a specific park, would any state law regulating that activity in that location be more "restrictive," and therefore the law that applies?
Some of that debate would center around the bill itself. Does Rep. Young intend to mean "laws" in the narrow sense (Acts of Congress, signed by the President) or in the broader sense that includes "regulations" (written by agencies to implement the provisions of laws.)?
The wording of "laws" that cover national parks (such as 16 U.S.C. § 1a-1) tends to be rather broad, while regulations (such as 36 CFR ) offer more specific guidance.
Then there's the potential for lengthy legal wrangling over the "congressional intent" of Mr. Young's bill. His intention is clearly for the states to be in control of public land decisions - and revenue. If you consider potential income from sale of oil and gas, other minerals and timber from public lands in Alaska alone, you're talking some serious money.
One has to wonder if this bill isn't primarily political grandstanding by Young, who sees an opportunity based on the recent shutdown controversy to score points with some his constituents.
That is quite the stretch. States already have authority over and responsibility for management of State Parks. Would you claim that Federal law is not supreme in those?
BTW - I have seen folks claim the states wouldn't have the funding to maintain a National Park. Anybody have the number for the capital improvement deficit at state parks?
In Nebraska, we had to close some State Parks for the fall and winter months to meet parks budget. This is the first time I can remember this happenning. Many people were upset.
West Virginia State Parks:(6.6M visitors in 2012)
"Nearly 200 of the park system's almost 1,500 buildings are 75 years or older, Depression-era structures included in the backlog of needed repairs. A legislative audit recommended infusing at least $3 million each year for major repairs to chip away at maintenance and renovations that total tens of millions of dollars."
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/science/article/Lawmakers-review-funding-needs-for-W-Va-parks-4909544.php
According to this WV legislature bill, the maintenance backlog is at least $25M in the state park system.
http://legiscan.com/WV/text/SCR57/id/816940/West_Virginia-2013-SCR57-Introduced.html
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/06/30/4322935/state-parks-fall-victim-to-tight.html
"The nation’s 7,975 state parks sit in a precarious position with shortened seasons, new admissions fees and threatened closures brought on by budget turmoil in recent years."
Maintenance Backlogs:
South Carolina- $155M
Texas -$400M-$700M
New York - $1B
Illinois- $750M
Kansas - $26M
California- $1B+
Missouri- $400M
Looks like at least $4B.
States $4 billion for 7975 units.
NPS $12 billion for 401 units.