CANYON VILLAGE, Wyo. – The U.S. House and Senate are set to consider legislation that would direct royalties from energy development on federal lands and waters to address a $12 billion backlog in deferred maintenance in national parks.
Phil Francis, chair of The Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, says preserving parks is important, in part, because more than 330 million people from all parts of the globe visited parks last year, generating nearly $40 billion in economic impact.
"Yellowstone and Grand Teton, they're economic engines, because people love them,” Francis states. “They're special places, special enough that people will take their vacations and spend their money and spend their time to go see part of America's treasures."
Visitors to national parks in Wyoming spent $928 million in 2018 alone, which Francis says supports gateway community businesses, workers and local tax coffers.
National Park Service sites in Wyoming are in need of more than $770 million in deferred maintenance costs, for roads, trails, boardwalks, plumbing and other critical infrastructure.
Former Yellowstone Deputy Superintendent Steve Iobst says deferred maintenance creates safety concerns for visitors and staff.
Road maintenance accounts for about half of Yellowstone's total backlog needs, which Iobst says are mission critical for emergency vehicles responding to medical incidents or traffic accidents.
He adds loss of boardwalk segments also has restricted access to key sites.
"Boardwalks are not in very good condition,” he stresses. “There have been some closures of segments of boardwalk, therefore not allowing access by the visitors to Yellowstone to see the geothermal areas."
A 2018 poll conducted for The Pew Charitable Trusts found more than 75 percent of Americans want Congress to pass funding that would pay for repairs at National Park Service sites.
More than half of lawmakers in the U.S. House and more than a third of the Senate currently support legislation to do just that.
Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
get more stories like this via email
Wyoming is one of several Western states where some lawmakers arguing states should have more control of the federally managed public lands within their borders, many of which contain oil, gas and mineral reserves.
Wyoming House Bill 118 would prohibit Wyomingites and the state from entering into any exchange or sale leading to a net gain for federal agencies of either land or mineral rights.
Gabrielle Yates, public land program manager for the Wyoming Outdoor Council, said the bill runs counter to state policies, which mandate lands be managed for "optimum, sustainable revenue production" and recognize land values are assessed by more than just acreage.
"House Bill 118 would hinder future access opportunities by limiting common sense land deals, while hurting the rights of landowners to sell their land to whoever they choose," Yates contended.
The push for legislation comes after the U.S. Supreme Court last month declined to hear a Utah lawsuit arguing control of public land by the Bureau of Land Management within its borders is unconstitutional. Wyoming, Alaska and Idaho issued an amicus brief in support of Utah's case. House Bill 118 passed the House and could be in a Senate committee as early as this week.
Senate Joint Resolution 2, which failed a third reading in the Senate by just two votes, would have demanded Congress transfer all public land and subsurface resources in Wyoming to the state. Yates pointed out it failed after an "overwhelming" number of Wyomingites spoke out against it.
"Several senators spoke to the fact that this issue was what their constituents were most passionate about this session," Yates reported. "People in Wyoming really value their public lands."
She noted sales of Wyoming trust lands benefit schools and students, like the $100 million sale of the 640-acre Kelly Parcel added to Grand Teton National Park in December.
get more stories like this via email
Groups that fight to protect public lands are criticizing the Trump administration's new review of all oil, gas and mining on public lands.
National monuments in California protect about 4 million acres of land.
New U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has ordered a 15-day internal review of these sites, which conservation groups warn could be a first step toward altering their boundaries to allow fossil-fuel and mineral extraction. And yet, Daniel Hart, director of clean-energy and climate-resiliency policy at the National Parks Conservation Association, said this would do little to address the "energy emergency" recently declared by President Donald Trump.
"The timeline from starting a lease sale until oil and gas is pumping, and then refined and into the markets, is a long time," he said. "It would not immediately do anything to lower gas prices."
In the past, Carrizo Plain National Monument on the central coast has been eyed for oil and gas development. Other national monuments in California whose boundaries could be re-evaluated include the two newest, Chuckwalla and Sattitla, along with 13 others across the state.
Hart said these public lands are crucial for wildlife habitat and recreation. He pointed out that they pump billions of dollars into the outdoor economy.
"They protect both natural and cultural resources. They are a great place for our shared histories," he said. "But also, there's a public benefit: They support the outdoor recreation economy, especially in rural states."
Across the United States, 24 million acres of public land are already leased to oil and gas companies for fossil-fuel extraction, with more than 12 million acres under active drilling. The NPCA says key monuments outside of California that risk losing protections include Devils Tower in Wyoming and the Dinosaur and Hovenweep national monuments in Utah.
Disclosure: National Parks Conservation Association contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy & Priorities, Climate Change/Air Quality, Endangered Species & Wildlife, Environment, Public Lands/Wilderness, Water. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
As the Trump administration considers oil, gas and mining on lands owned by all Americans, including in national monuments designated under the Antiquities Act, advocates for public lands warn that some places protected for more than a century could be at risk.
Daniel Hart, director of clean energy and climate policy for the National Parks Conservation Association, says most Coloradans don't want federal protections stripped from places such as Dinosaur National Monument. He says time and again, millions of people have spoken out in defense of America's national monuments.
"They support the outdoor recreation economy, especially in rural states. Those communities nearby are heavily supported by the people who come in and out of these national monuments," he said.
The Trump administration's "Unleashing American Energy" order aims to solidify the United States as a global energy leader by removing what it calls burdensome regulations. Hart said unrestrained and speculative energy development could damage or destroy national monuments -- including Aztec Ruins, Bears Ears, Devils Tower, Hovenweep, Grand Canyon Parashant, Grand Staircase-Escalante and more.
The United States became the world's leading oil producer under the Biden administration, and Hart does not believe there is a need for opening up national monuments for drilling. Some 24 million acres of public lands are already leased to oil and gas companies for fossil-fuel extraction, yet just half are currently active.
"And some lease sales have gone without a bid over the past four years even. The oil industry didn't feel that they needed the land, or they had enough already," he added.
The National Parks Conservation Association is calling on Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to take all national monuments off the table under the new order. Hart said even drilling on lands adjacent to protected areas can lead to industrial contamination of interconnected waterways.
"There's still streams and waters in the Southwest that are unusable by people and animals. That's also a problem with the wildlife, when we tear up their corridors with some of this development for energy," he concluded.
Disclosure: National Parks Conservation Association contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy & Priorities, Climate Change/Air Quality, Endangered Species & Wildlife, Environment, Public Lands/Wilderness, Water. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email