Derrick Z. Jackson: Bipartisan boost for parks

Apparently, things are so bad for the nation’s parks that some Republicans took a timeout last week from the bitter partisanship over health care and their general blockade on climate-change legislation and helped Congress pass a $32.2 billion spending measure that boosts funding 17 percent.

Hard-line Republicans wailed that the spending was too much. But enough Republicans, such as Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, understood what Americans want.

“My preference, if I were the king, I wouldn’t spend this much money on this bill this year,” Alexander told Congressional Quarterly. “This is a tough time. But I doubt Americans will begrudge spending on national parks.”

Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Bob Bennett of Utah warmly embraced the tens of millions of dollars coming to their states. Maine, for example, will see funds for coastal seabird protection, expansion of the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, further land conservation in the Baxter State Park region, sewer infrastructure in Portland and lake invasive species removal.

But you did have to chuckle when Bennett said, “I am pleased that Congress recognizes the need for these important projects.” He should have said that he was pleased his fellow Republicans finally woke up.

This bipartisan renaissance should be the beginning of recognition and restoration of parks, refuges and forests to a proper national priority.

It is an interesting crack in the polarization of Washington, particularly since in other environmental issues, Murkowski and Alexander are among the leading Republicans trying to force the Democrats to accept a climatechange bill that would hasten the building of new nuclear power plants, still a radioactive issue with environmentalists because of the waste produced.

The crack was there because the Bush administration had created a national embarrassment that not even a critical number of Republicans could ignore, especially in states like Alaska, Utah and Maine, home of some of the nation’s signature parks and scenic spots.

According to this year’s bipartisan National Parks Second Century Commission report, the National Park Service says that the parks were operating at an annual deficit of $750 million. They are funded at about $2.5 billion a year, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the federal budget.

The backlog of deferred maintenance and construction projects had reached $8 billion, and the backlog of deferred land acquisitions to build protection for the parks had reached $2 billion. “Key properties inside parks are now on the market,” the report said. “Their owners would very much like to sell them to the parks, but these opportunities are being lost.”

The new bill raises Park Service funding to $2.7 billion a year, a pleasant rise, but still paltry in the face of severe funding declines. Consider these comments three years ago by Bill Wade, chairman of the executive council of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees and former superintendent of Shenandoah National Park: “Forget about cutting the flesh or any fat. We are now cutting deeply into the sinews and bones of our national parks.”

Among the agencies receiving major boosts are the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Wildlife Refuge System. The measure also included a 35 percent increase for the Environmental Protection Agency and a 67 increase for programs to study climate change.

President Barack Obama, the Democrats and the Republicans who have chosen to go along are to be commended. When Republicans praise funding boosts for parks and refuges, there is hope. Why, we might even one day restore the flesh and fat to our wild places.

Contact the writer: jackson@globe.com

« Columns

Share