The Sorry State of the Great Outdoors : New revenues are vital to deteriorating federal park system

Public polls consistently show that Americans, regardless of political affiliation, value our national parks as special resources. So it was surprising that the House GOP leadership stumbled so badly last week in pushing a measure to create a commission to recommend divestiture of marginal units of the national park system to state, local and private entities. The Republicans thought the bill was such a slam-dunk that they brought it up under suspension of rules, a situation that permits no amendments but requires a two-thirds vote. They were stunned when 67 Republicans--including many fiscal conservatives--bolted to join Democrats in defeating the bill 231 to 180.

Although the vote may have been affected by environmentalist scaremongering about shutting popular parks or even the Statue of Liberty, it was nonetheless a healthy sign that many Republicans have begun to see the political peril of the anti-environmental and anti-public-lands philosophy that drives some GOP factions.

The 369 parks, monuments, historic sites, recreation areas and other units operated by the National Park Service attract 270 million visitors a year. They are particularly popular with the elderly; little wonder that eight of Florida’s 15 Republicans in the House voted no. It’s not nice to mess with Yogi Bear.

CRUMBLING VILLAGE: But the time has come for Congress to focus on the larger issue, which is that the national parks are in woeful shape and grossly underfunded. The deferred-maintenance bill now totals $4 billion. Roads, sewers, historic buildings and other facilities are in great disrepair, the crumbling Giant Forest Village in Sequoia National Park being one California example.

The parks must become more self-supporting--by raising visitor fees and getting a larger cut of concession profits. Fees are absurdly low, $4 to $6 a carload, far less than the price of going to a movie, and 63 park units charge nothing. The Park Service receives only 2.7% of concession revenues, or about $18 million a year.

The Clinton Administration favors a fee bill by Rep. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.). It would charge by the person rather than carload and require fees at many sites now free. The fees, tripling to $100 million a year, would go into a trust fund for park repairs. A competing bill, by Rep. James V. Hansen (R-Utah), would raise and standardize user fees for all federal land agencies and require each park or forest to set them high enough to cover 75% of visitor costs. This has the potential to restrict public lands to the affluent, and we oppose it.

On concessions, there must be more competition in letting contracts for lodging, restaurants and other services to increase revenues to the government. The Administration supports a bill by Rep. Jan Meyers (R-Kan.) that eliminates the preferential right of renewal enjoyed by existing concessionaires; small operators like river guides would be exempted.

DEVELOPMENT ISSUE: A bill by Hansen retains limited preferential renewal, based on the contractor’s performance. A sticking point is whether a concessionaire will retain a “possessory interest” in buildings and other facilities it constructs on public land. The Administration would reduce that interest by depreciating improvements over time. All this raises the question of whether more development in parks should be encouraged, since possessory rights encourage more construction. Also, we are troubled that Hansen would lift almost all controls on what park concessions with monopolies could charge the public.

Hansen--chairman of the resources subcommittee on national parks, forests and lands--has useful ideas, but his recent behavior does not inspire compromise. Minutes after the House rejected the divestiture bill he revived it as a stealth budget amendment in committee. The vote that caused 67 Republicans to revolt should warn him that the public will not tolerate such a highhanded approach to national treasures.