With Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, vague on details concerning his plans for reducing the federal deficit and shrinking government, speculation is running heavy, and it's not encouraging for the National Park System.
Though Mr. Romney's website doesn't go into specifics, it does say that when it comes to domestic energy exploration, he supports developing the country's "cornucopia of carbon-based energy resources."
And that's a concern to more than a few folks.
The Center for American Progress last week speculated that a Romney administration would place at least five national parks in danger -- Theodore Roosevelt, Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, Grand Teton, and Arches -- with its domestic energy plans. Gas and oil development is on the doorstep of Theodore Roosevelt, uranimum interests want more access to the public lands surrounding the Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon is threatened by a coal strip mine, Grand Teton is bordered by a national forest with significant natural gas resources, and Arches also is surrounded by potential energy resources, the Center noted.
A Romney presidency would no doubt be welcomed by some Western governors and lawmakers who resent federal ownership of large parts of their states and believe the lands should be relinquished to the states.
In Utah, to cite perhaps the most strident example, Gov. Gary Herbert and the Legislature are demanding that the federal government give to the state by the end of 2014 some 30 million acres of public lands for the state to manage or sell as it saw fit. A similar movement is under way in Arizona, where a November ballot initiative calls for the state to gain "sovereignty over federal public lands in Arizona, including Grand Canyon National Park."
The platform the GOP adopted at last week's national convention calls for much the same, stating that "Congress should reconsider whether parts of the federal government’s enormous landholdings and control of water in the West could be better used for ranching, mining, or forestry through private ownership."
At The Wilderness Society, Nada Culver earlier this year voiced her organization's concerns over efforts to rekindle a Sagebrush Rebellion in the West.
"It's hard to believe it could happen," Ms. Culver said of the states' efforts to gain control of federal lands.
While supporters of these efforts have in some areas created a perception that "this is some kind of groundswell of local opinon," she went on, "it's certainly our experience that that's not a groundswell of local opinion and that there's plenty of opinion around all of these states of people who value these lands for what they are and what they represent."
Driving the movements, offered Ms. Culver, is "a small group of people, some of whom are in it because they see a value. There are people who see the short-term benefit to themselves, if you're an oil and gas company that would like to do some tar sands leasing in the Grand Staircase-Escalante (National Monument), which seems to have a host of these draws, I think you see the short-term benefit and you miss the long-term benefit to the community and to the West."
At the same time, the Obama administration has tried to work with Western states to both preserve areas worth preserving while also allowing multiple-use of the federal landscape, she said.
"This administration has bent over backwards to try to look at what local communities want on the federal lands," said Ms. Culver. "They were calling it the Crown Jewels initiative where (Interior Secretary Ken) Salazar reached out to every state in the West, every county commissioner, all the (congressional) delegations, the tribes, asking for input on places that they would like the federal government to protect as wilderness or other legislative areas, and everybody but Utah I think put in a few areas. That was this administration trying to avoid that stigma and trying to say 'we can continue to do this collaboratively' and really trying to overcome that problem. So I think that's not a legitimate fear right now, that any administration is going to come in and try to overrule everybody locally. I think that lesson's been learned."
At the National Parks Conservation Association, David Nimkin said the Utah legislation, although it would allow the federal government to retain control of national parks in the state, could in theory allow energy development right up to the parks' boundaries.
"We look at national parks increasingly as parts of larger landscapes, and even the idea of buffers is even insufficient to contemplate how the parklands fit into larger eco-regions," said Mr. Nimkin, the advocacy group's Southwest regional director. "So the idea that you would have really dramatically alternative uses on public lands immediately adjacent to the national parks is really quite terrifying."
Such possibilities could be in direct conflict with the National Park Service's stated desire to "(P)romote large landscape conservation to support healthy ecosystems and cultural resources."
"If they (the state) could have a freer hand on where you drill, where you mine, where you graze, enabling more off-road use, etc., without having to go through the dreaded NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process or any of that stuff, I think they would feel that they could develop a much higher level of ongoing revenue, not just a one-time benefit from a land sale."
Beyond land use, there are increasing concerns that budget decisions by a Romney administration would hamstring the Park Service, among other federal agencies and programs.
At Bloomberg News, writer Richard Rubin said the Republican's promise to balance the budget would lead to national parks, federal housing programs, and other entitlement programs and federal services being forced to absorb a 25 percent funding cut.
"By putting Social Security off limits to cuts, promising to boost defense spending by as much as much as $150 billion a year, and holding the line on taxes, all other spending would have to take a hit of about 29 percent by 2016, by one estimate. If that were spread across-the-board, it would translate to 8,000 fewer employees to staff and maintain the national parks..." wrote Mr. Rubin.
Until the Romney team makes its intentions better known, concerns over how public lands are managed and funded can't be minimized.
Comments
GreenSalsa, that's what I took from your first post, but the question remains valid. It's unfortunately much too rare an occurance when an industry puts cooperation with others ahead of its bottom line. It does happen, but not very often.
Even if the Romney-Ryan ticket is elected and tries to pursue a scorched-earth policy against federal discretionary spending, as I think the Ryan plan calls for, major institutional obstacles would loom in the way. Unless the Republicans had 60 votes in the Senate, for instance, bills could be filibustered.
Still, someday Congress and the President may be bent on paring back the National Park System and have the votes to do it. Which is why the National Park Service is wise to be doing small things now to widen its base of support, like proposing a mountain bike singletrack trail at Big Bend National Park. A support structure that relies on a band of somewhat elderly and almost exclusively Caucasian traditional recreationists—the type who favor hiking and canoeing only—won't hold down the roof if an ideological hurricane blows. So the NPS is doing the right thing to reinforce the structure now, while the winds are relatively calm. I think it can do this without ruining the parks by allowing even more motor-dependent mass tourism in them than already exists.
Lee Dalton--you have to remember what industry is in the business of--making money. They are "living breathing organizations" that need to make a profit. If US business continue to have to deal with enviornmental issues (without some level of compensation) then they will take their business overseas to survive. There are lots of countries out there that don't place any level of enviornmental protection as a standard. I think we (the US) would do better to invest in OUR business through tax credits to keep people working here.
Honestly the biggest problem is not with business, but with the average citizen who is driven soley for the cheapest product. If you believe in a product, AND THE MANNER IT WAS MANUFACTURED, we (the US population) must be willing to support that product with our checkbooks.
Agreed, Green. That's why I try very hard to find things Made In America. (But it sure is difficult.) And it's why I don't shop at WalMart.
Although I agree with you, and realize that companies need to make a profit, I also know that any company that commits to doing it can do their work in an environmentally responsible manner. If a company decides to work with the environmental regulations rather that fight them, they can -- and do -- profit. It's more a matter of attitude than anything else. The excuse that there are other countries that don't bother with environmental concerns is a hollow cop-out. It's like saying "Those people aren't wearing safety belts in their car, so I won't do it either."
That's why I also try to learn which local businesses are environmentally responsible and do all I can to patronize them.
Romney/Ryan would be the best thing that could happen to America and our parks. Obama is killing our country economically. Parks do no one any good if you cannot afford to go. Time to get back on track. Don't buy into the media propoganda that the left is always "right" and the right is "dangerous." Simply not true. Our nation has never been more divided than it has the last 4 years under the "rule" of the "great uniter."
Seeing how Romney is clueless as to the extent of the predicted impacts of global warming, it can't be good for the world.
Richard
Could you provide Romney's statements on global warming predictions that warrants you calling him clueless? I suspect he is quite aware how wrong those predictions have been to date.
Romney/Ryan would be the worst thing that could happen to America and our parks. Congress is killing our country economically. Parks do no one any good if you cannot afford to go. Time to get back on track. Don't buy into the media propoganda that the right is always "right" and the left is "dangerous." Simply not true. Our nation has never been more divided than it has the last 4 years under the "rule" of the "make Obama a one-term President" Congress led by the likes of Mitch McConnell and John Bohener.
But the stock market and those who can afford to invest are doing very well. GM is still alive and more oil leases have been opened to bidding than under any previous administration. Environmental laws are still being enforced. Thousands of jobs were saved which delivered America from the depths of a real depression. All Americans finally have at least the opportunity to obtain health care and health insurance without being forced into bankruptcy. Despite the fact that most of the increased spending that is blamed on Obama actually comes directly from policies placed by previous administrations, the actual rate of increase of Federal spending is the lowest it has been since the Reagan administration.
It's frustrating that with so many sites available where facts can be checked against claims made by candidates and radio personalities, so few people make the effort to learn the truth.
If we could just get Congress to try to do what would be best for nation rather than doing their best to uphold extreme ideology rather than what is best for the country, then we might actually be able to look forward to a secure and safe future. Based on what we've heard from the candidates who are courting the extreme right, the chances of that are very slim if those guys actually win. America, our people and parks, will be the losers.