|
li
<br />is
<br />I:
<br />ii
<br />� 7
<br />�1
<br />i�
<br />I
<br />i
<br />3 � ?i
<br />;a
<br />I;
<br />is Dep. Dir. Donald W. Murphy, who for eight years served as
<br />chief of the California state parks system under Gov. Pete Wil-
<br />son. Murphy blames the administration's failure to eliminate the
<br />maintenance backlog on a now - familiar culprit: 9 / 11. "When
<br />the President came in and made that pledge," Murphy said, "we
<br />weren't fighting a war."
<br />According to Murphy, the administration has put $2.9 bil-
<br />lion into deferred and cyclic (annual) maintenance over two
<br />and a half years. He dismisses arguments that this is insuffi-
<br />cient: "It's so easy to say, `We want more money. "' But the
<br />National Parks Conservation Association believes more money
<br />is critical. By its analysis, the administration took credit for
<br />some $330 million in roads - and - bridges money that had
<br />already been authorized before it took office. "They're just
<br />moving the money around," says NPCA boardmember Denis
<br />Galvin, the Park Service's second -in- command for many years
<br />and its acting director during the first four months of the Bush
<br />administration. "They're counting money that isn't new money.
<br />It was already there."
<br />The NPCA analysis shows that actual new money desig-
<br />nated solely to address the back-
<br />log came to only $363 million Funds for repairing
<br />after three years —about seven Fort Jefferson at Dry
<br />percent of that $4.9 billion back- Tortugas were cut.
<br />log Bush promised to eliminate by 2006. What is worse, NP CA
<br />argues, ,is that some of this money will have to go, not to reduc-
<br />ing the backlog, but to new. and unavoidable facility mainte-
<br />nance and construction needs."
<br />For park operations in fiscal year 2004, the administration
<br />asked Congress for $1,631,900,000, an increase of about four
<br />percent over the previous year. To that, Senate and House bills
<br />tacked on a few million dollars more. But a few million more
<br />wasn't good enough for the 28 U.S. senators who last May
<br />asked for $102 million more than the President was requesting.
<br />In a bipartisan message that included the signatures of eight
<br />30 PRESERVATION Januarffebruary 2004
<br />r
<br />prominent Republican legislators, the senators declared that
<br />the Park Service operatingbudget "has failed to keep pace with
<br />increasing demands being placed on our parks and is insuffi
<br />cient to adequately protect many park resources. Business
<br />plans developed for many of our parks illustrate an annual
<br />operating budget shortfall of $600 million, or one -third of what
<br />is needed for the service to fulfill its mission and operate the
<br />parks effectively."
<br />Of the $600 million shortfall, Dep. Dir. Murphy will say only
<br />that the figure "reflects an idealized state of the parks, not an
<br />accurate accounting of prioritized needs."
<br />However pinched the overall funding, dollars flow more
<br />smoothly when they lead to visitors' satisfaction with what is
<br />known as "windshield tourism" and recreating in a natural set-
<br />ting, But when the aim is cultural interpretation, historic
<br />preservation, or education, funding falls short —even though
<br />two- thirds of the Park System's 388 units are essentially cul-
<br />tural or historical.
<br />There are more than 26,000 historic structures in the national
<br />parks. Of these, nearly two- thirds are in need of serious repair,
<br />at a cost of more than $1 billion. Thousands of archaeological
<br />sites within the system are unrecorded or threatened by decay,
<br />vandalism, and theft. But the administration's budget request for
<br />cultural programs in fiscal 2004 is W0,000 less than the previ-
<br />ous year and shows a reduction in the full-time cultural staff as
<br />well. In the construction budget, of 17 projects requested by the
<br />administration and approved by the Senate but rejected by the
<br />House, a full dozen involved rehabilitation of historic sites or
<br />structures, including Gen. Grant's Tomb in New York City
<br />and the crumbling Fort Jefferson at Dry Tortugas National
<br />Park Mainella expressed concern for the Park Service's heritage
<br />mission: "We need to do better getting the word out about the
<br />importance of our cultural resources."
<br />esources. "
<br />MY INQUIRY INTO THE STATE OF THE PARKS has left me with
<br />more questions than answers. Is it possible that in another five
<br />or 10 years I might return to Great Smoky or Yellowstone, Ever-
<br />glades or Yosemite, and find them less threatened, the mainte-
<br />nance backlog reduced, the scientists no longer ignored, the
<br />budget readjusted to reflect the true value of these irreplaceable
<br />places? I hope so, but judging from what I have learned in the
<br />past year, I doubt it.
<br />The secretary of the Interior does not appear to share my con-
<br />cern. Last July, Norton delivered to the President a progress
<br />report emphasizing what she considered to be achievements,
<br />including the still- disputed figure of $2.9 billion spent on main-
<br />tenance and repairs. "There has been a lot of misinformation about
<br />our issues in the parks," the secretary said later in a conference call
<br />with the media. "Our report reveals the extent to which we are
<br />doing an excellent job in taking care of the parks." 1']
<br />John G. Mitchell is a former senior editor at National Geographic.
<br />a
<br />U
<br />w
<br />W
<br />J
<br />a
<br />W
<br />Z
<br />Z
<br />
|