You are here

Coalition Of National Park Retirees Warns Of Congressional Overreach That Could Impact National Parks



You can add the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees to the groups that are concerned about efforts by U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop to dismantle many of the nation's environmental laws in the name of border security.

In a release this week the Coalition says legislation being pushed by the Utah Republican would “have the potential to devastate 54 of America’s national parks, historic sites, national monuments and other popular park icons and negatively impact the nation’s economy.”

H.R. 1505, the mistitled “National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act,” would gut a century’s worth of proven federal lands protection, potentially opening up millions of pristine acres of national parks to off-road vehicle use, road construction, air strips and helipads, fencing, base installations, and other disruptions, the release said.

The measure would suspend the enforcement of almost all the nation’s environmental laws on all lands under the jurisdiction of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture within 100 miles of the northern border with Canada and the southern border with Mexico.

It would change the targeted national park and other federal areas into security zones and leave priceless resources unprotected.  

"Such dramatic changes to the integrity of our national parks and forests would almost certainly damage local economies, which have evolved to depend on the tourism, jobs, and related economic benefits generated by these national assets," the Coalition said. "Why would families seeking the natural and cultural wonders and transformative outdoor experiences of our national parks choose to visit such Border Patrol-controlled areas criss-crossed by new roads, penetrated by noisy all-terrain vehicles, and dominated by tactical infrastructure?"

Among the  National Park Service areas that fall within H.R. 1505’s proposed 100-mile zone of potential devastation are Acadia, Big Bend, Carlsbad Caverns, Cuyahoga Valley, Glacier, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Guadalupe Mountains, Isle Royale, Joshua Tree, North Cascades, Olympic, Saguaro, Theodore Roosevelt, Voyageurs, and Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. 

The combined total acreage of these 15 parks is 21,657,399, nearly 25 percent of the overall footprint of the U.S. National Park System, according to the Coalition. They are located within the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, and Washington.

“This legislative proposal is perhaps the most direct assault on national parks ever to be advanced at any level in any Congress in U.S. history," said Coalition Chair Maureen Finnerty. "It threatens to literally stop all enforcement of several landmark environmental and conservation laws that NPS uses to manage and protect the National Park System and to serve millions of park visitors.   The outrage here is that national parks and other U.S. crown jewels could end up being trashed in the name of achieving national security gains that are fictitious.” 

Among the 36 laws that would be expressly suspended within 100 miles of the borders with Canada and Mexico are virtually all environmental, historic preservation, wildlife, pollution, and tribal protection laws, including the National Park Service Organic Act, 1916 (the act that requires park areas to be managed for conservation and enjoyment so as to leave them unimpaired);  the Wilderness Act, 1964; the National Environmental Policy Act, 1969;  the National Historic Preservation Act, 1966;  the Endangered Species Act, 1973; the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts;  the Archeological Resources Protection Act, 1979.  All these laws are critically important to maintaining the integrity of America’s national parks.

H.R. 1505’s remaining provisions are no less extreme.  For example, the Coalition said, the bill independently provides “immediate access” to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol for road, equipment, and infrastructure construction and motorized vehicle use on national parks and all the other lands under the jurisdiction of both the Secretary of Agriculture, home of the U.S. Forest Service, and the Secretary of the Interior, home of the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management.  

In addition, the bill prohibits these Secretaries from “impeding, prohibiting or restricting activities of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol” on national parks or any of the other lands.  Thus, even without the cynical waiver of virtually all environmental laws within 100 miles of the northern and southern borders, this bill achieves essentially the same result, and applies throughout the entire United States, through its remaining provisions, the retirees said.

Furthermore, in light of the interagency collaboration and achievements made under existing authorities, this legislation is not needed.  Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified on March 8, 2012, that the bill “is unnecessary, and it’s bad policy.”

And officials from the U.S. Border Patrol testified against the bill in Congress on July 8, 2011, explaining that “U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enjoys a close working relationship with the Department of Interior (DOI) and Department of Agriculture (USDA) that allows us to fulfill our border enforcement responsibilities while respecting and enhancing the environment. We respect the missions of these agencies, and we recognize the importance of preserving the American landscape.

"Our agencies have formed a number of agreements that allow us to carry out both of these missions. CBP believes that efforts to reduce the number of illegal aliens crossing the border have lessened environmental degradation and have assisted with recovery of damaged resources, and we are fully committed to continuing our cooperative relationships with DOI and USDA to further this good work.”  

Two studies by the Government Accountability Office also disagreed with Rep. Bishop's contentions that environmental laws are standing in the way of border security.

You can see the testimony online at this site.

H.R. 1505 is only one of several pending bills that similarly threaten national parks and other park, refuge, and wilderness lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture in the name of border security. For example, Senators McCain (R-AZ) and Kyl (R-AZ) and Representative Quayle (R-AZ) are sponsoring amendments to the authorization legislation for the Department of Homeland Security that would have also have devastating impacts on national parks and other federally protected lands and are unwarranted for national security.

Ms. Finnerty pointed out that “while the other bills do not have the express waiver of virtually all environmental laws like H.R. 1505, they accomplish essentially the same result by allowing the Border Patrol to make decisions on activities like motorized patrol and construction of roads and infrastructure in national park and other conservation areas."

"It may be that these bills are too radical for Congress to pass or the President to sign as stand-alone bills, thus making it the far greater danger that Congress will tack the park-wrecking provisions onto another must-sign piece of legislation, like an appropriations bill," she added. "All these bills are terrible policy, unnecessary for national security, and must be stopped.”


Once again, Rob Bishop is interested more in advancing his standing among ultra-conservative Utah ranchers, developers, and others who stand to gain from his rabid opposition to all things associated with Federal management of lands.  "Border Protection" is a sham intended to disguise his intentions from gullible Americans.

The truth is that wilderness areas along the border actually INCREASE the success rate when it comes to capturing illegal entrants.

Not surprised this came from someone in Utah

Several points here are not mentioned. Our southern border ecosystems are already being destroyed by illegal entrants trashing, burning and trampling the border. When one adds the increasing risk of terrorism being imported in the form of drugs, weapons, biological agents, infectious diseases it makes even more sense to control the borders. I find it hard to believe the doomsday tone of this writers take on this issue. The fact is, we are placing the nation at grave risk by not controlling the border as every other nation on earth does.
The EPA is already out of control and many of its activities unconstitutional. Portraying conservatives as wanting to destroy the ecosystem, pollute the water, dirty the air, feed grandma dog food and getting to be an overly used and tiresome lie. Wake up my lefty friends.

You know what I think, Lee? You and Rob are brothers, lol! Kind of like the Bechel Bros. I'd like to meet the middle brother. He might have more in common with the middle majority of americans. BTW, what do you think of John Wayne:)?

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