CNPSR Talking Points on 2008 Proposed Budget for NPS

KEY MESSAGE:

  1. Taking care of America’s national parks using public appropriated funds should be a national priority

ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION’S PROPOSED BUDGET:
The Good News:

  1. (If passed) this budget represents by far the largest operating increase in the 90-year history of the U.S. National Park System.
  2. This budget provides a significant re-focusing of money into the annual operational funding needs in national parks and makes a dent in the parks’ crippling $800 million annual shortfall.
  3. This budget appears to provide for a significant restoration of the staffing (especially seasonals) in parks that has been declining over the past 4-6 years.
  4. This is clearly one aspect of the Administration’s budget request that deserves, and has the potential to receive, Congress’s bipartisan support (particularly in light of the strong support parks have received from members of Congress from both parties).
  5. CNPSR credits Secretary Kempthorne and Director Bomar for leadership and strong advocacy for the national parks, and for focusing on operational needs at the park level. Credit is also due to the members of Congress who have repeatedly highlighted and sought to address the funding crisis in our parks.
  6. There is an $8 million increase for the US Park Police, which is also very badly needed.


On the Other Hand…:
  1. The overall increase (new money) in appropriations is only about 2% above 2006 actual levels; and only about $14 million higher than the 2002 actual appropriation.
  2. Of the $230 million “increase” in park operations, $211 million is at the expense of other NPS programs including historic preservation, construction and major maintenance, and land acquisition and state assistance, compared to the 2006 actual appropriation.
  3. Overall spending on infrastructure investment in ’08 would be over $80 million lower than in ‘06. This might not be “all bad” given that new construction is never accompanied by enough maintenance and operations dollars in the ONPS budget.
  4. CNPSR has significant concerns about the “matching donations” provision in the proposed budget. [See CNPSR’s letter to Congressman Dicks, dated February 16, 2007]
  5. Requiring NPS to find private sector funds to support basic capital improvements/maintenance will skew what projects get done. Requiring fundraising for basic infrastructure maintenance will put greater emphasis on projects appealing to private investment (new visitor centers, rehabilitation of premier historic sites), but is likely to work against basic park needs such as utility systems or roads.
  6. The proposed budget needs to be enhanced with additional LWCF money to purchase key inholdings from willing sellers.