NPS discretionary appropriations requested for FY2025/Congressional Research Service
While the House of Representatives couldn't alter the flow of funding to the Greater American Outdoors Act that helps federal land managers tackle backlogged maintenance projects, the chamber did make significant cuts into the National Park Service's two main accounts that fund ongoing construction, repairs, and maintenance.
According to the Congressional Research Service, "[T]wo discretionary appropriations subactivities (“Line-Item Construction and Maintenance” in the Construction account and “Repair and Rehabilitation” in the [park operations] account) have been primary sources of discretionary funding for NPS DM. For FY2024, P.L. 118-42 provided $191.6 million for these two subactivities, a 27 percent drop from FY2023. For FY2025, H.R. 8998 would provide $57.8 million for Line-Item Construction and Maintenance—28 percent less than FY2024— and did not specify amounts for Repair and Rehabilitation."
It has been the inability of the Park Service to stay on top of routine maintenance that contributes to the maintenance backlog.
The CRS said that the Biden administration has asked for $3.576 billion in discretionary appropriations for the National Park Service for fiscal 2025, which starts October 1. The request is 8 percent higher than NPS’s FY2024 discretionary appropriation of $3.325 billion, the service said.
"On July 11, 2024, the House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 8998 (H.Rept. 118-581), with $3.115 billion for NPS for FY2025. This amount is 13 percent less than the administration’s request and 6 percent less than the FY2024 appropriation," said CRS.
Comments
Until the NPS makes significant reforms, cut the allocations to $0. Enough is enough.
Your comment begs elucidation, AJ. What reforms would you like to see?
It has been the inability of the Park Service to stay on top of routine maintenance that contributes to the maintenance backlog.
Normal folks would think that a "construction" fund would well, fund construction. At the NPS, "construction" is fungilb.
In any case, construction is < 10% of the DISCRETIONARY budget from year to year, so a cut there isn't that big of a deal.
As a first step, what should be done is to cut NPS's funding of non-federal projects to $0. Why is a federal agency funding projects that have nothing to do with the federal gov't? This is about 10% of NPS's discretionary funding, so it could replace the cuts in "construction"
And no more new parks, preserves, sites, leases, or other additional responsibilities for the NPS. NO MORE.
Well, don't forget that many of those non-federal programs that the NPS supports were created by Congress, as are new units of the park system (along with monuments the president creates through The Antiquities Act).
So, is it really the Park Service that needs to be reformed, or Congress and presidents?
With the overcrowding in so many of our national parks, I would certainly not make such a rash statement as "no more parks." Congress could prioritize parks funding over, say, beach nourishment projects that protect the mansions of rich people.
The upcoming election is going to be one of the most important in all of U.S. history.
It's far more than just funding for our parks at stake here.
The choice is literally between sanity and pure INsanity. Between democracy and fascism.
And if INsanity loses, he has promised a "bloodbath" and several extremist websites are already advising readers to stock up on ammo.
It's gonna be UGLY no matter how November's first Tuesday turns out.
The choice is literally between sanity and pure INsanity.
No, it's not "literally" anything like that. Literally, it's an election. That's all. How does holding an ELECTION constitute a threat to democracy? You make no sense.
The upcoming election is going to be one of the most important in all of U.S. history.
Exteremists say that every 4 years. You survived 2017-2021, and 2021 - presenet; we'll survive 2025 - 2029.
Nice job with the fatalism though, Henny Penny. And it's always informative when you describe your poltical opponents as crazy. That way, you don't have to actually debate the issues. How convenient!
Are you referring to NPS's Community Assistance grants, as one example? It largely funds non-federal groups and sites.
The Antiquities Act can only be used to protect FEDERAL properties--there's no requirement that this protection must be performed by the NPS.
But yes, Congress needs to be reformed. Can you cite one example where the Congress wanted a new parks/preserve/site, and the NPS told Congress "no"? The fact is, is that the NPS NEVER says no to more responsibiltiiites--it's almost as if the NPS wants to take on more so that it can complain about more funding.