You are here

What Do GOP Politicians Have Against Protecting National Park Landscapes?


A Republican congressional candidate in North Dakota has suggested drilling for oil and natural gas beneath Theodore Roosevelt National Park. But then, Rick Berg is only the latest GOP candidate to cast eyes on a national park for energy exploration.

Two years ago Fred Thompson, then running for the Republican presidential nomination, thought it wouldn't be a terrible idea to drill for oil beneath Everglades National Park if the resources merited it. Mr. Thompson, whose campaign was short-lived, allowed that, "I don't think anybody really prefers to drill at all anywhere," before adding, however, that "(N)obody wants to see $100 oil, either."

And then, of course, just about two weeks ago the upstart Joe Miller, who defeated Lisa Murkowski for the U.S. Senate nomination in Alaska, dreamed about the federal government turning over its holdings in Alaska -- including the national parks there -- so Alaskans could mine them for what they're worth.

So, really, Mr. Berg is just catching on to this idea of throwing open park entrances to drilling rigs and roustabouts. The irony in his case, though, is that Theodore Roosevelt, though a Republican, was very much a conservationist when it came to natural resources.

"There can be nothing in the world more beautiful than the Yosemite, the groves of the giant sequoias and redwoods, the Canyon of the Colorado, the Canyon of the Yellowstone, the Three Tetons; and our people should see to it that they are preserved for their children and their children's children forever, with their majestic beauty unmarred." Theodore Roosevelt

Now, after Mr. Berg's comments to the Fargo Forum's editorial board -- “There’s a huge opportunity right now to take those mineral assets that are on the federal government’s balance sheet and shift them to Social Security” -- made the news, his staff quickly jumped in to qualify his statement.

"He never said we're going to put rigs up in a park; that's just ridiculous," Berg spokesman Tom Nelson told The Hill. "If there’s technology that would allow you to horizontally drill and it wouldn’t affect anything in the park, that would be something to talk about."

Apparently Mr. Nelson didn't hear the uproar when the Bush administration's Bureau of Land Management wanted to issue oil and gas leases near Arches and Canyonlands national parks and Dinosaur National Monument in Utah late in 2008.

Nor is he apparently up on drilling technology. Horizontal drilling has been around for decades, and back in the 1980s such techniques were being eyed for drilling beneath the surface of Canaan Valley State Park in West Virginia.

But as the recent boom in the practice in the East to tap natural gas deposits in Marcellus shales has indicated, there can be problems with waste-water and groundwater impacts.

And, as analysts have concluded, horizontal drilling isn't necessarily light on the land if hydraulic fracturing is part of the equation to stimulate oil and gas flows.

Hydraulic fracturing requires 3 million to 8 million gallons of water per well. The water must be trucked in and stored on site, and the wastewater containing drill fluids, brines and heavy metals must be disposed of properly. A typical 3 million gallon hydrofrack produces 15,000 gallons of chemical waste, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

In Pennsylvania, this waste is stored on site in pits until trucks remove it. The storage ponds can produce noxious odors, harming neighbors’ use and enjoyment of their property. Disposal of the brine wastewater remains a problem. Spills are common.


The GOP simply doesn't care about anything except ensuring healthy returns for their benefactors.

GOP: Gas Oil Plutonium

You are so right! Republicans would be drilling on the front lawn of the White House if they thought they would make more money for their oil industry friends! The have no respect for wilderness areas and wildlife as demonstrated by all their ideas.

Though I am no lover of recent GOP policy, I'm also no lover of the distance between the Right and Left in this country right now. That gap makes it difficult for reasonable discourse to occur and keeps good policy from implementation. The GOP has a history (as Kurt pointed out above... Thanks, Teddy!) of supporting conservation issues, including park issues. The parks belong to the nation, not just one political affiliation. It may be more constructive to woo the GOP back to its centrist, conservation roots than to blow fire at them for such unrealistic and obviously absurd ideas as the ones these politicians have thrown out.

I think sometimes the Right throws out these silly ideas just to have the Left over-react in an emotional way, giving them the opportunity to frame the debate as being about "cheap oil vs. environmentalism"... a gross oversimplification of a complex issue. I don't think Kurt's article above does this (over-react), but others do in political discourse, leaving little more than shrill screams in the air between the Right and the Left and no real policy to move forward.

The parks have historically been under attack from its borders. Now with helicopter tours and cloud seeding and horizontal drilling and water table pollution, they are under attack from above and below. There was a time when politicians LED THE WAY for the protection of our land. Now they seem to be vastly out of touch with the needs of our future American generations. I hope those in the GOP who know better will grab their balls and speak up against such foolish notions and bring their party back to a place they can be proud of.

Kurt, I hate to be a nitpicker, but in Teddy Roosevelt's quote above, you left the "un" off "unmarred". Without it, the quote reads entirley different.

Bogator, good eyes. I figured when you cut and paste, you don't have to double-check the quote.

That said, here's one that's more appropriate:

"We have become great because of the lavish use of our resources. But the time has come to inquire seriously what will happen when our forests are gone, when the coal, the iron, the oil, and the gas are exhausted, when the soils have still further impoverished and washed into the streams, polluting the rivers, denuding the fields and obstructing navigation." Theodore Roosevelt

I think part of the problem is that many people who are not GOP as you label them do not want drilling ANYWHERE. So there is discussion about alternatives. I agree it does not make sense to go onto national park land to do so, but if people were not so against it ANYWHERE, those kinds of propositions would not come up.

I'm looking forward to the day when conservationist Republicans return to Congress. Back in the 1960s and 70s I saw them standing up for national parks and wilderness. Representative John P. Saylor (Republican of Pennsylvania) was an outstanding advocate for the parks. A group called Republicans for Environmental Protection is now laying the foundation for a resurgence.

Add comment


This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

National Parks Traveler's Essential Park Guide