Although America's national parks account for less than 1/13th of one percent of the federal budget, the open spaces that belong to us all are generally high on budget cutters' lists.
The overall appropriation for the National Park Service is nearly $400 million less, or 13 percent smaller, than it was 10 years ago, according to the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA).
If the the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction can't come up with a budget plan by Nov. 23, says the NPCA, national park budgets could be cut by as much as another 9 percent.
And that, says the parks advocacy group, would likely do dramatic damage to not only our natural public resources, but also the U.S. economy.
Courtesy of Todd M. Edgar & U.S. National Park Service
In dollars, the super committee automatic cuts would mean around $231 million less for national parks, which now have a combined $2.6 billion budget.
That reduction would come on top of nearly $140 million in cuts made for fiscal 2011.
"If the super committee process fails there will be real consequences for our national parks, jobs, visitors and communities across the country," said Craig Obey, senior vice president of government affairs for the NPCA. "The federal deficit debate should be about smart budgeting that strengthens communities, produces jobs, and protects the heritage that binds us as a national community."
Obey discussed the dwindling national park money in connection with the National Parks Conservation Association's new report Made in America: Investing in National Parks for Our Heritage and Our Economy.
In arguing for increased rather than reduced funding for America's national parks, the report says that the parks system produces nearly 270,000 private sector jobs nationwide. Add to that the money spent by the 281 million visitors a year from around the world.
But budget cuts could undercut the economic contributions of the parks and would likely devastate smaller parks, says the report:
"The axe does not fall equally on all parks. Large parks with heavy visitation and lots of employees can often shift money or use fees collected from visitors to maintain needed capacity and improve visitors' experiences — though likely at the cost of delaying maintenance projects or other work. Smaller parks can;t afford those strategies, and frequently just have to go without seasonal employees who are usually visitors' first point of contact. … For some smaller parks, it's surprising how little money makes the difference between a park that's fully functional and one that's barely operating."
Joining Obey at a press conference to release the report were others concerned about the economic effects of any drop in visitors to the country's popular national parks.
Obey cited data showing that the money going into the parks returns $4 in economic benefit for every $1 spent, resulting in a total direct annual contribution of $13.2 billion to the U.S. economy.
"I'm a Republican, a former two-term county mayor in a county that is the northern gateway to the Great Smokey Mountain National Park," said Iliff McMahan, former mayor of Cocke County in Tennessee. "The park is a driver for economic activity in our area."
You also might find these items of interest:
baba lua
I have the malchance of living within close proximity of a National Park. In Manitoba, they treat surrounding communities with complete disregard and respect. They discuss the establishment of resource centers in our areas in order to lessen the gab between academics and locals.
They are not liked and any cut to their superiority and inflated egos will be applauded.