Unless Congress averts a staggering budget "sequestration" early next year, the National Park System will be devastated by underfunding that could force the Park Service to shutter more than 100 parks, according to the National Parks Conservation Association.
The NPCA drew that conclusion after the Obama administration on Friday released a report from the Office of Management and Budget that projected how the sequestration -- a slashing of government budgets aimed at reining in the federal deficit -- could impact government agencies. That report said the Park Service would have 8.2 percent of its annual budget, or $218 million, cut under sequestration if Congress doesn't act to more deliberately cut costs.
“Make no mistake that if Congress fails to prevent this cut, national parks and local communities who depend on their business will suffer,” NPCA President Tom Kiernan said in a release. “We are deeply concerned that this cut could lead to the closure of more than a hundred parks.”
According to the parks advocacy group, the park system already suffers "from an annual operations shortfall of $500 to $600 million, which means there are insufficient rangers and other staff to care for our national treasures and serve visitors. Park budgets have already been slashed over the last two years, and as Congress debates how to address the deficit, the report out today clearly indicates that our national heritage is at risk in the near future."
The OMB report projects that under sequestration the Park Service would have $183 million cut from its daily operations budget, $13 million from its construction budget, $5 million from its National Recreation and Preservation program, $8 million from Land Acquisition and State Assistance program, $5 million from its Historic Preservation program, and $4 million from other programs.
"NPCA’s analysis indicates that the cut of $183 million to the operation of national parks would very likely lead to the furloughing—or indefinite closure—of national parks," the group's release said. "A cut of this magnitude would also likely lead to the loss of many park rangers, particularly during the busy visiting season."
“Not only would the National Park Service have fewer rangers to educate visitors, plan visits, and respond to emergencies, but parks would not have the funding they need to adequately maintain hiking trails, protect wildlife, preserve historic buildings, or keep visitor centers and campgrounds open for visitors to enjoy,” said Mr. Kiernan.
NPCA has pointed out that the Park Service budget represents just 1/14th of 1 percent of the overall federal budget. At the same time, the group says, national parks "support $31 billion in private-sector spending and 258,000 jobs each year."
“Our national parks are at a crossroads. Making the right choice to invest in national parks will not only protect our national park legacy, but benefit local economies and communities nationwide,” the NPCA president said.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Same world, Rick.
I'm both a combat veteran and a retired psychiatric nurse. Trust me, I'm as aware of the ugly in the world as any; much more aware than most. I have the scars. It's a difference though, a significant difference, in how we view and approach things.
Away from you and I, our differences, and our personal sturm und drang, the original question was about the parks and the effect of lower funding for the NPS. Some will dispute this-versus-that priority internal to the NPS - old stuff versus new stuff, top heavy management versus boots in the mud, and so forth - but one fourteenth of one percent is miniscule to the overall budget. Efforts should be maintained to increase the NPS budget, and simultaneously work to spend it better.
And the best way to do that would be to grow the economy at a faster pace. Raising tax rates, increasing regulation, putting burdensome and unwanted healthcare mandates on business and individuals, subsidizing ineffiecient technologies, blocking domestic energy development, printing money and failing to generate a budget hasn't and won't do that.
Interesting math, that would mean we have 1.419 billion jobs in the US, that's 4-1/2 jobs for each American...
Re the title:
Obama Administration Report Says "Sequestration" Would Cut $218 Million From NPS Budget
It was the administration that propsed sequestration in the first place. Now its complaining about it? Typical.
Actually, anonymous: "The Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (STA) (P.L. 112-155) requires the President to submit to Congress a report on the potential sequestration triggered by the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to propose, and Congress to enact, a plan to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion, as required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA)."
I wouldn't think that's complaining as much as meeting Congress's requirement. And what's wrong with pointing out the pitfalls of Congress's inaction?
Hopefully, in the weeks ahead we'll see both the Congress and the White House act with more statesmanship than political gamesmanship.
Kurt,
Let me rephrase. Your (NCPA and other progressives) candidate's administration proposed the sequestration (though he lied about it afterwards) and now YOU (NPCA and I am guessing you personally) are complaining about it - but not putting the blame where it lies.
It came from the House of Representatives:
The House passed the Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011 by a vote of 269–161. 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it.