National parks budget mostly a shell game
Oregon Register-Guard
March 2, 2007
GUEST VIEWPOINT
By Robert Mutch
Given the glowing reviews of President Bush's proposed 2008
budget for national parks in a Feb. 21 Register-Guard editorial
and elsewhere, and anticipating National Park Service Secretary
Mary Bomar's visit to Capitol Hill to sell this plan, we should
carefully scrutinize the budget first and see what facts we can
glean from it.
Of the proposed $230 million "increase" in park operations, $211
million is actually at the expense of other national park
programs. The old shell game is done today with a spreadsheet. A
closer look shows that maintenance and construction, historic
preservation, state assistance and land acquisition will be
reduced; the budget moves money around rather than increasing
overall benefits.
Our second concern is a proposal that would match potential
private contributions with tax dollars, dollar for dollar, up to
$100 million a year for 10 years. This drastically alters the
way we have funded our national parks for more than 100 years.
This plan forces the park manager into the role of panhandler.
With a mandate to reach the annual goal of $100 million in
donations, managers may seek donations from sources beyond the
appropriate philanthropic ones. This could open the door to less
altruistic investors in our national parks. Over time, this
could result in parks being far less public and far more
private.
Look what has happened to public television, which now replaces
vanishing government funding with commercials. So, too, might
sponsors advertise themselves in the parks.
These donors also might feel they have the right to dictate how
parks are to be maintained and operated. Philanthropy quickly
could turn into philandering.
The long and proud tradition of true philanthropy in national
parks should always be considered an added value, above the
necessary core level of publicly funded service and protection
in our national parks. Voluntary contributions should never be
construed as a replacement for federal support.
Requiring the National Park Service to find private sector funds
to support basic capital improvements and maintenance also could
skew which projects get done. There likely will be greater
emphasis on "show me" projects to honor private investors - such
as new visitor centers or rehabilitation of prominent historic
sites, rather than meeting dire park infrastructure needs, such
as utilities or roads.
In our analysis, the overall increase in "new" money for the
national parks is only 2 percent above 2006 levels. By contrast,
the 2007 cost of living adjustment for Social Security was 3.3
percent.
William Steel dedicated much of his life to getting Crater Lake
established as a national park, ensuring it was protected from
special interests and helping visitors to appreciate its
extraordinary beauty. Many others following in his footsteps
have given much - educators, scientists and concerned citizens.
Let us in turn follow in their footsteps and ensure that Crater
Lake remains our park for generations to come.
Robert Mutch (robmutch@yahoo.com) of Eugene is executive
director of the Crater Lake Institute. Ron Mastrogiuseppe of
Agency Lake, president of the institute, and Owen Hoffman of
Tennessee, a member of the institute board, helped prepare this
essay. The Crater Lake Institute's Web site is at
www.craterlakeinstitute.com.
