Updated March 27, 2020
Legislative Proposals to Address National Park Service
Deferred Maintenance
Congress has debated ways to address the National Park
Preservation Fund (54 U.S.C. §§300101 et seq.). After
Service’s (NPS’s) substantial backlog of deferred
these and other distributions, the remainder of federal
maintenance—maintenance that was not performed as
energy revenues are deposited in the General Fund of the
scheduled or as needed. NPS’s maintenance backlog has
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. In general, the deferred
grown over the past two decades and is estimated for
maintenance funding proposals would draw from the
FY2018 (the most recent year available) at $11.9 billion.
energy revenues that are credited to the Treasury as
The backlog’s impacts on park resources and on visitor
miscellaneous receipts after other distributions are made.
enjoyment and safety have been ongoing issues of concern
for some Members of Congress and other stakeholders, as
For example, S. 3422 would deposit annually into a federal
they seek to preserve the parks as “crown jewels” of the
lands deferred maintenance fund 50% of federal energy
nation’s public lands system and to ensure their continued
revenues credited as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury,
contribution to the outdoor recreation economy. Legislative
up to a cap of $1.9 billion, over five years. The bill would
interest has focused primarily on federal funding sources to
provide 70% of the funding to NPS; 15% to the U.S. Forest
address the backlog, although some stakeholders have
Service; and 5% each to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
suggested the backlog could be meaningfully reduced
the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Indian
without major federal funding increases—for example, by
Education for its schools.
reprioritizing current uses of NPS discretionary
appropriations, improving the agency’s capital investment
Budget and Appropriations Issues
strategies, or increasing the role of nonfederal partners in
S. 3422 and other 116th Congress bills would make the
park funding and management.
deferred maintenance funding available to the NPS and/or
other agencies without the need for further appropriations
Legislative Proposals for an NPS Fund
(i.e., as direct, or mandatory, spending). Budget
Multiple bills in the 116th Congress would establish a
enforcement requirements present procedural hurdles for
special fund to address NPS deferred maintenance (and, in
these proposals. For example, in scoring S. 500, the
some cases, deferred maintenance of other land
Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would
management agencies as well). Two bills—H.R. 1225 and
increase net direct spending by more than $6 billion over 10
S. 500—have been reported from committee. A more recent
years. Therefore, given existing budget rules, the bill would
measure incorporating elements of both these bills, S. 3422,
be subject to certain budget points of order if not offset (for
has been placed directly on the Senate calendar. Other 116th
example, by cuts in direct spending or increases in
Congress bills (e.g., S. 2783, H.R. 4294) also would
revenue).
provide funding for NPS deferred maintenance.
In contrast, S. 1460 in the 115th Congress would have
Most of the proposals would draw on revenues from energy
created an NPS fund in which amounts would be available
development on offshore and/or onshore federal lands as
to NPS only to the extent appropriated in annual
the primary source of funding to address the backlog.
discretionary appropriations laws. Although this approach
Depending on the funding source specified in a given bill,
would have avoided budget enforcement requirements
these revenues could be derived from both conventional and
associated with mandatory spending, any monies
renewable natural resources, including oil, gas, coal, wind,
appropriated from the NPS fund in annual appropriations
solar, and others. Federal energy revenues are collected
laws would have counted against limits to discretionary
under various laws, at several stages of the development
spending, such as the statutory limits established under the
process. For example, companies may pay bonus bids to
Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25).
secure leases for energy development, rents on energy
leases prior to production, and royalties during production.
A number of stakeholders have contended that NPS
maintenance projects, which often require multiyear
Federal energy revenues currently are disbursed to multiple
investments, are hampered by the agency’s heavy reliance
recipients under various laws. Some of the revenues are
on discretionary appropriations, which are uncertain from
shared with states and tribes; other portions go to federal
year to year. These stakeholders seek greater funding
funds, including the Land and Water Conservation Fund
certainty through mandatory appropriations for NPS
(LWCF; 54 U.S.C. §§200301 et seq.), the Reclamation
deferred maintenance. Others contend that discretionary
Fund (43 U.S.C. §§391 et seq.), and the Historic
funding provides an important level of congressional
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Legislative Proposals to Address National Park Service Deferred Maintenance
oversight over each year’s funding that would not be
revenues could be affected by changes in oil prices and
present if funds were provided outside that annual process.
energy use patterns attributed to the evolving COVID-19
(coronavirus) outbreak.
Tradeoffs in Uses of Energy Revenues
Most of the bills described above share the basic concept of
Is a Deferred Maintenance Fund Needed?
addressing deferred maintenance through federal energy
NPS currently uses a number of funding sources, including
development revenues. Supporters of such proposals have
discretionary appropriations, park entrance fees, allocations
expressed the broad principle that federal land conservation
from the Department of Transportation, and donations, to
and maintenance are appropriate uses of monies derived
address deferred maintenance. NPS does not aggregate the
from federal land development. In this respect, supporters
total amount it receives and uses each year for deferred
have likened the proposed funding to other congressionally
maintenance, but agency officials, as well as some
mandated uses of federal energy revenues related to
Members and other stakeholders, have stated repeatedly
conservation purposes, such as the LWCF and the Historic
that available funding has been inadequate to meet
Preservation Fund. In particular, they contend that NPS
maintenance needs. In recent years, Congress has increased
maintenance is a worthy use for these revenues given the
NPS’s discretionary appropriations to address deferred
park system’s highly valued natural and cultural resources
maintenance. NPS has stated that these funding increases,
and its contributions to the outdoor recreation economy.
while helping the agency with some of its most urgent
Supporters have further emphasized that these types of
needs, have been insufficient to address the total problem.
proposals would not reduce energy revenues shared with
the states or with other federal programs under current law.
Although many observers agree that further action is
needed, not all support addressing deferred maintenance
Opponents of proposals to use federal energy revenues for
through overall NPS funding increases. Some recommend
NPS’s (and other agencies’) deferred maintenance have
reorienting existing funding to prioritize maintenance over
cited varying reasons. Some support using these revenues
other purposes. For example, some Members have
for other federal programs and purposes. Others have
suggested that Congress appropriate more funds for unmet
questioned the concept on the basis of environmental
NPS maintenance needs and less from the LWCF for NPS
concerns, particularly related to the potential contributions
land acquisition, and/or that Congress amend the LWCF
of fossil fuel development to climate change. They have
Act to expressly authorize or require use of LWCF funds
contended that this approach may incentivize activities
for deferred maintenance. For more information, see CRS
whose climate impacts would have negative consequences
Report RL33531, Land and Water Conservation Fund:
for parks over time.
Overview, Funding History, and Issues.
Still others have contended that energy revenues currently
Some observers also have suggested that NPS deferred
going to the Treasury, a majority of which come from
maintenance could be at least partly reduced through
offshore oil and gas development, should be shared in
improved asset management strategies. NPS has taken steps
higher proportions with coastal states, given costs incurred
over the past two decades to improve its asset management
by these states to support extraction industries and to
systems and strategies. The Government Accountability
address environmental challenges such as wetland loss.
Office, in its report GAO-17-136, recommended further
They point out that coastal states receive a lower share of
improvements. In the 115th Congress, H.R. 1577 would
offshore revenues than is provided to states hosting onshore
have required an evaluation of NPS’s Capital Investment
federal energy production. Some Members of Congress,
Strategy, including a determination of whether the strategy
along with the Obama and Trump Administrations at times,
is achieving its intended outcomes and any
have countered with the view that revenues generated in
recommendations for changes.
federal waters belong equally to all Americans and that
their distribution should reflect national needs regardless of
Other recommendations that might not require additional
geographic location.
federal funding include those to incentivize private
donations to NPS, address obstacles to NPS asset disposal,
Another question has been whether federal energy revenues
or increase the role of nonfederal partners in park
remaining as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury each
maintenance and management, among others. Some
year (after other distributions are made) would be sufficient
Members of Congress have expressed a preference for
to have a meaningful impact on NPS’s backlog. Data from
actions along these lines, whereas other Members have
the Department of the Interior show that federal revenues
questioned whether changes that do not include a
from natural resource extraction that were credited as
significant funding increase would be sufficient to address a
miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury during the FY2010-
backlog that stands at multiple billions of dollars.
FY2019 period ranged annually from $2.2 billion to $8.2
billion, with almost all of these amounts coming from
Further Reading
energy-related activities. Whether future years’ revenues
For additional information, see CRS Report R44924, The
would be similar to, less than, or greater than those of past
National Park Service’s Maintenance Backlog: Frequently
years is uncertain and would depend on multiple factors,
Asked Questions, and CRS Report R43997, Deferred
including oil and gas prices, production levels, and federal
Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies:
energy leasing policies, among others. For example, future
FY2009-FY2018 Estimates and Issues.
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Legislative Proposals to Address National Park Service Deferred Maintenance

IF10987
Laura B. Comay, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy


Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10987 · VERSION 6 · UPDATED

---