How many presidential homes should be in the National Park System?/NPS
Editor's note: Harry Butowsky spent more than three decades working for the National Park Service as an historian. With the NPS facing a maintenance backlog of billions of dollars, and a budget that struggles to keep up with needs, he questions not only whether a hold should be placed on additions to the National Park System, but whether some culling of the system needs to be done.
It is time to rethink the direction and management of the National Park System. It is time to ask if the system has grown so large that it is unmanageable and not fundable.
In the 99 years since the founding of the National Park Service, the National Park System has grown from less than 20 parks to an enormous bureaucracy far beyond what Stephen Mather and Horace Albright envisioned; it has become much more complex than preserving and managing park sites.
The Park Service now has responsibility for managing a broad range of programs; its legislative mandate has grown to include clean air and water, protection of archaeological resources, historic preservation, endangered species, wild and scenic rivers, 40 national heritage areas, large cooperative landscape projects, and environmental protection. The National Park System has expanded from a collection of the great scenic parks to hundreds of diverse sites and programs.
The list of new responsibilities is endless. As the Park Service's mission has grown in complexity, so too has the enormousness of the issues the agency faces - along with the cost of maintaining these programs.
We now have 407 National Parks and $11.5 billion in a maintenance and budget short fall. Not enough you say? Then just wait for the President or Congress to create another 20 or 30 national park units.
If you do not think this will happen then think again. A quick search of the web will uncover many potential new national monuments and parks under consideration.
So how many parks are enough? Why stop at 450 units? Why not go to 500 units? After all, what is a little maintenance and staff shortage when there are so many potential sites for national parks?
For some supporters of the National Park Service, growth is good and not a problem. In his recent essay, Preserved and Enlarged Forever (The George Wright Forum, Vol. 32 No. 1, 2015), Rolf Diamant offered his opinion that new parks will not degrade the system and that growth is not only inevitable but good. The money may not be there today, but it will follow.
Well, let me offer another opinion and let us face the facts. We have too many national parks now and cannot afford them all. As an agency the National Park Service needs to make the dollars fit the number of parks we have. The obvious answer is to start divesting ourselves of some marginal units. Yes, we need to get rid of parks and not add to the total. There is nothing new or radical about this. It has been done in the past and it can and must be done now.
The Case for Delisting Units
Anyone wanting to understand this statement should read, Gone, But Not Forgotten: the Delisted units of the National Park System by Alan Hogenauer, and Former National Park Service Units: An Analysis by Barry Mackintosh.
In his article, Mr. Mackintosh states that, "Between 1930 and 1994, 23 units of the National Park System were transferred from National Park Service administration to other custody." (Not included in this number are areas authorized but never established as park system units, such as Georgia O'Keeffe National Historic Site and Zuni-Cibola National Historical Park).
So, let us accept the fact that the National Park Service has delisted parks in the past for many reasons.
Why should we do this now? I will give you're an overriding reason. We have a maintenance backlog of $11.5 billion that is growing and not likely to get better in the future.
The National Park Service is not the only government agency with a large maintenance backlog. One has only to look at the recent tragedy in Philadelphia with the derailment of the Amtrak express to New York and the failure of Congress to vote additional funds to repair the Amtrak system to see the larger government-wide dimension of this problem. While the ultimate cause of this train derailment has not yet been determined, a mandated braking system for the curve in Philadelphia was not in place.
Along with the maintenance backlog, we have a staffing crisis. There are not enough people to staff the front desks, do interpretive tours, and provide for critical maintenance and visitor protection services in the parks. Money and people simply do not match the need of the agency.
If we are going to delist parks then, let's take presidential units as one example. We have no fewer than 27 units commemorating presidents. The question to be answered is: why do we need each of these units? The next question is, why do some presidents have parks commemorating their presidency but not all presidents (for example, why Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton but not the Bushes, Reagan, Nixon, or Ford? In 2017, will we need to establish an Obama Birthplace NHS?)
We should examine the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site and ask why can't it be turned over and managed by the Carter Foundation? The same can be said for President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home National Historic Site being managed by the Clinton Foundation. The Reagan Ranch is not a National Historic Site, yet it is being managed by the Young America's Foundation. Both Mount Vernon and Monticello are managed by private entities (Mount Vernon Ladies' Association and Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., respectively). Both are no less nationally significant than other presidential sites, yet neither have a National Historic Site designation, nor are they NPS managed, and yet they are well-maintained, ably interpreted, and highly regarded.
The same can be said for Civil War parks and battlefields. Brices Cross Roads National Battlefield Site is just one acre in size, yet adjacent to this site is a 1,330-acre property managed by the Brice's Crossroads National Battlefield Commission, Inc.
Why can't the one-acre National Park Service site simply be turned over to the Commission to have them manage?
Should the 1-acre Tupelo National Battlefield be part of the National Park System??NPS
Tupelo National Battlefield is one-acre in downtown Tupelo. Again, why can't this unit be turned over to the city of Tupelo? We have more than 70 units of the National Park System that commemorate the Civil War. I would suggest that in this era of declining revenue, the Park Service is managing too many parks dedicated to this history - let's have state or private entities manage some of these units.
Let's consider the issue of the growing number of parks that interpret the Internment of Japanese Americans in World War II. Do we need four Japanese-American Internment units (Manzanar, Minidoka, Tule Lake and Honouliuli)?
What is the true value of having four units and possibly another unit at Heart Mountain in Wyoming. (The National Park Service has given the Heart Mountain Wyoming Foundation some grant money to help them in their goal to manage the site.) Minidoka and Tule Lake lack interpretive integrity (most especially Tule Lake, since the small site is surrounded by the rather run-down town of Newell). Minidoka has no extant buildings, with a few original structures now located on adjacent farming properties, but they've all been radically altered from the original.
I don't see why scarce NPS funds should be spread out so thin to so many sites pertaining to this theme instead of focusing funding on making Manzanar the premier site to interpret this theme.
The real and only viable option in my opinion is for Congress to set up a park "closing" commission similar to the base closing commission established several years ago to get rid of substandard and excess military facilities. Closing in this case could include either delisting units or transferring ownership. In essence, the principal focus of this commission would be to evaluate what our current National Park System should comprise and provide recommendations to the Park Service director for future designations to 'round out' the system.
While I'm advocating a leaner National Park System, this commission should also evaluate the merits of transferring ownership of non-NPS managed National Monuments (BLM, USFS, etc.) to National Park Service jurisdiction, if such a transfer would help to improve site integrity (Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument is a recent example of a transfer from BLM to NPS jurisdiction).
The Case for Transferring Ownership
Perhaps the National Park Service can adopt a Parks Canada approach - have units declared national historic sites/parks (future and existing designations alike) and yet have other entities simply manage those sites. In Canada, there are 972 National Historic Sites, but only 168 are administered by Parks Canada - private and provincial entities manage the vast bulk of the designated National Historic Sites in Canada - why couldn't the same approach be taken here in the U.S.?
The important fact to keep in mind here is that all monies and personnel savings should remain with the National Park Service and be distributed to the remaining parks. There is no reason to close facilities if we lose the money saved.
Of course, one possible political risk of divesting NPS units would be some folks wanting to turn money-making parks over to the states - Grand Canyon National Park certainly comes to mind. Such a move would weaken the remaining parks by the loss of this asset (beyond the fiscal perspective, the knowledge gained by staff managing this park would preclude employees transferring that knowledge to other park units when they are relocated), so there are indeed risks of such a process being hijacked for political purposes.
Does that mean we should not have this discussion and take a comprehensive look at the system and see if our current system adheres to the ideals that Mather and Albright envisioned? I think we owe it to them to have that discussion.
Comments
For someone who spent more than three decades in the NPS, I find his lack of understanding about how the NPS is funded queer, if not shocking. Congress does not simply throw a bag of money containing a fixed amount at the NPS and tell them to figure out how to allocate it (oh, if only!)
Conservative taxpayers grousing about the overall cost of the system or pieces thereof - I get that, even if I don't agree. Questions of relevancy or diluted mission or remaining site integrity or applying the right tool for a job should always be examined. But Mr. Butwosky's financial argument in this piece is nonsensical and not reality-based. Adding additional units does not squeeze the NPS budget further, the NPS budget is built from the bottom up not the top down. The reality is, if we went back to a National Park System consisting of what ever arbitrary number of units that existed at the point at which you want to freeze time, they would continue to be unappreciated and underfunded by Congressional action in rough proportion to today's system. Removing units from the National Park System would also remove the moneys allocated for that unit, to be spent or saved according to other priorities of the political left or right as applicable. And shifting costs from one agency to another, or from one unit of government to another, does not in the end save money.
And while I'm at it:
"An era of declining revenue"? Excuse me?
"Obama's Birthplace NHS"? Oh jeez, nice birther dig. I think you are better than this.
"The truth is that there is plenty of federal money available."
Greece, here we come...
I do know budget. And, the NPS should stop adding so many new units. It's basically using the already overtaxed populous to pacify egos or pay back political favors taking on all these monuments and small sites. Sure, staffing these places will give some people jobs in economically depressed areas, but the cost of the federal government administering it is like paying $50 for a hamburger, when you can buy one for $5 from the public sector. And, with massive growth, there comes massive debt and lots and lots of maintenance. This is far more costly and long term than the aquisitions are showing yet, being still in their inception before visitor centers and interpretive programs and so forth . When one administration adds so many new units in the course of two terms, increasing the number of NPS holdings by 15-20% (and not done yet!), ask yourself- is the economy improving by the same percentage in that same time span? You wouldn't be surprised if you learned that the only reason the NPS aquired many of our less interesting properties was due to a state or private foundation, or county "dumping" their liabilities on the federal budget and the US taxpayer? Why shouldn't we dump the ones that nobody goes to and that have nothing to ofeer that is not already represented elsewhere in the park service?
Much of Prof. Butowsky's logic makes perfect sense to me, but then I don't always buy what the snake-oil salesman is selling, even if he/she does have a great commercial. Cause when you take it home, you'll find it's not that useful or interesting or well-made and doesn't cure gout or ricketts, so you just got ripped off.
The bigger the federal government grows, the less efficient it becomes. The NPS is no exception. Many agencies are pathetically underperforming becuse there are too many programs and policies, too many pieces of the puzzle, to be able to complete a normally simple task.
"Greece, here we come..."
Of course the U.S. government has plenty of money. Too much of it is being spent in the wrong places, instead of on national parks. But there is little danger of us experiencing the financial problems faced by the Greek government.
However, the situation with the National Park System budget is similar, in that an extreme austerity has been artificially imposed by regressive ideologues. In both cases, people are rebelling against this destructive and unnecessary policy.
"Of course the U.S. government has plenty of money." Seriously, that's the first I heard about it."Too much of it is being spent in the wrong places." Well, on that we might agree. How about the interest on our $18 trillion debt? Unfunded liabilities through the Baby Boom Generation total another $125 trillion--and change. That's right. There is a t there, not a b. We are talking about debt such as this nation has never seen--even after paying for World War II.
And don't forget state indebtedness. Illinois's bonds are rated junk. Chicago? Only $20 billion in arrears against an annual budget of $3.5 billion. Accordingly, the mayor just proposed building a casino in order to keep making pension payments. A payment of $634 million was due last week. California? Broke, although Jerry Brown won't admit it. Only six annual budgets ($500 billion) in arrears. What about the other 48 states? Don't believe what you read in the papers. Most of them are struggling, too.
The wheels aren't coming off the bus; they're off the bus, and the bus has already smashed into a tree. We just won't admit that our concussion is really a broken neck. In either case, I love it when my party--the D party--starts talking about the Tea Party and the R Party's "waste." Here in Washington State, our two liberal, feminist senators can't wait to bring home the bacon, either. Can you say 100 new tankers for the Air Force? For that we thank Patty Murray. Thank you, Patty, and the Boeing Company thanks you, too. And don't forget the Everett Naval Base, Bangor Submarine Base, and Joint Base Lewis-McChord. Government "waste?" We live on it, and have ever since World War II. Shut the waste down? Spend the money more "wisely?" Invest more in the national parks? By now, Senator Murray is laughing so hard she can't see straight. But yes, the joke's on the taxpayers, who also believe those commercials on television hawking payday loans with an interest rate of 300 percent.
"How about the interest on our $18 trillion debt?"
Alfred, from what I have observed, the so-called debt "crisis" is a myth that has been perpetuated by Wall Street and corporate elites who hate government and want to downsize it so they can make more money. They are soulmates of the austerity advocates who have engineered the National Park Service "backlog." The terrible things that have been predicted to happen as a result of the federal debt "crisis" have not happened. In fact, the economy continues to recover and the debt is going down. See, for example, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/opinion/Paul-Krugman-An-Imaginary-Budg... State financial problems have been largely due to impacts from the nationwide economic recession, as well as regressive tax-cutting, such as that in Kansas.
There is a real economic crisis in America: extreme wealth inequality. The elite debt scolds hope we will keep focusing on the imaginary debt "crisis" and do nothing about the wealth inequality crisis. See, for example, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/joseph-stiglitz-inequality_n_17...
Regardless, we obviously agree that a lot of federal money is being spent on wasteful programs. That is because there is strong political pressure to support those programs, coming from relatively few corporations and individuals who benefit economically from those industries. We need to build political pressure to divert a small portion of that wasteful spending to fund the National Park System, which benefits far more people and sustains far more jobs. There are a couple of hundred million park visitors out there who can to help create that political pressure, if they are aware of the problem and organized for action. That is what needs to happen.
This topic has produced some of the best Traveler comments I can remember in a long time.
The last two by Dr. Runte and Michael Kellet are excellent examples of the REAL PROBLEM because, although they seem to be at nearly opposite poles of the universe, BOTH of them are 100% correct.
There are so many special interests, greedsuckers, liars, career politicians (who embody all of the first three) and others who profit by manipulation of truth and fairness that there might be no solution anywhere short of mass extinction of the human race --- something we humans are working hard to achieve.
As a historian, Harry ought to know better. Who will be in charge of culling? Your Steamtown is my Pinnacles. And who is going to halt the steady growth of the System? The Congress? Hah! They will continue to add to the System based on pressures from local communities who see tourism as an economic driver. Besides, almost anyone on NPT can name at least a half dozen or so places that deserve to be part of our preserved and protected heritage and which fully meet the suitability and feasibility criteria established in the management policies. No, Harry, you missed the mark in this essay.