December 13, 2007 | Read Time: 4 minutes
The National Park Service turns 100 years old in 2016, and Congress is considering a unique birthday present:
the promise of $100-million a year in federal funds to match $100-million a year privately raised.
But prospects for the passage of legislation that would provide for the matching funds are unclear, and critics of the bills say they don’t include provisions to ensure the money would be spent where the national parks need it most.
The National Park Centennial Challenge Fund Act was introduced in the Senate in April, and in the House in July.
The legislation would make available up to $100-million every year over the next decade to match donations from individuals, foundations, and businesses for projects and programs that would benefit the national parks.
In May, the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior, which oversees the park service, put out a call for “centennial challenge proposals” — plans developed by parks around the country in conjunction with a private organization, such as a local foundation, that would pledge at least half the needed money.
At the end of August, the Interior Department released a list of 201 certified projects with an estimated total cost of $370-million, $215-million of it pledged by private sources. The projects would be eligible for federal matching money if the legislation pass.
Among the projects are plans to build park trails, restore wildlife habitats, expand educational programs for kids, and improve visitors’ facilities.
In many cases, the groups that are raising money from private sources are so-called friends groups, local nonprofit organizations that seek support for particular parks.
Other environmental charities, foundations, colleges, and, in a few instances, state governments, are involved, too.
The projects range in size from a $2,000 project at Congaree National Park, in South Carolina, to provide science education to junior-high-school students to a $20-million ecological-restoration effort in Florida’s Everglades National Park.
The National Park Foundation, a nonprofit group created by Congress to support the parks, plans to take the lead in organizing fund-raising efforts and coordinating the private organizations that would be involved in the centennial projects.
Role of Donors
But getting donors and private organizations so involved in planning and sponsoring the projects is troubling to some National Park Service observers. The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, in Tucson, Ariz., and the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, in Washington, say they are concerned that spending on the new centennial projects will divert attention from the existing needs of the park service — including its $8-billion maintenance backlog.
The groups’ officials say they are also worried that the matching program would end up handing private donors too big a role in deciding how park money is spent.
“This becomes a donor-driven selection process,” says Jeff Ruch, executive director of the employees’ group. “It would inevitably eventually distort the park service’s operations and mission.”
Many of the centennial projects may be worthy additions to the national parks, Mr. Ruch says, but if they are not part of an overall park-service-led plan they could skew priorities.
“So you have donors that want to pay for hiking trails. That looks great,” he says. “But where, then, does the money come from to pay for the parking lot, the picnic area, the restroom at the head of the trail? It’s going to come from money that the park was going to spend on something else that it had deemed valuable before the donor-backed project came along.”
Tom Hill, director of special projects at the National Parks Conservation Association, a Washington advocacy group, says while the legislation allows the National Park Service to determine which projects to accept, it doesn’t give the service enough control over the whole process. For that reason, his organization is backing the National Park Centennial Fund Act.
Like the Centennial Challenge Fund Act, it provides for an additional $100-million annually for 10 years for special park projects and programs. The key difference is the federal aid would not be contingent on any private matching money.
“We’d like to tweak the bill a little so that it includes more to encourage philanthropic participation overall, but the point would be not to require a match, not to let private donations be the driving force behind the projects,” Mr. Hill says.
All three bills are expected to be considered by Congress next year.
