A matter of priorities

Monday, Feb. 22, 2010 | 2:07 a.m.

Nevada’s parks and recreation areas would receive a 10 percent budget cut like other state services under Gov. Jim Gibbons’ plan to close the shortfall of nearly $900 million. Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, D-Las Vegas, has broached the idea of closing the state parks, or at least mothballing some of them to save money.

As Stephanie Tavares reported in Wednesday’s Las Vegas Sun, Horsford said the state could save roughly $8 million over the biennium by closing the parks. “It’s part of our quality of life, but the choice is between doing that or thousands of teachers laid off statewide, which is bad for education, bad for schools and bad for the economy,” he said.

It may seem overstated to pit parks versus teachers, but Horsford is doing what many lawmakers are doing — weighing priorities and considering ways to protect vital services. We would think the state should be able to find money to keep the parks up and running, but the fact that this is being considered raises the very real issue facing lawmakers — they have to weigh priorities and find ways to protect vital services. The state has a tight budget and a huge deficit.

Horsford’s proposal also illustrates a larger problem for the Legislature as it mulls over possibilities in the special session that Gibbons has called for. It will be difficult to make many cuts because of the significance of even relatively minor reductions.

Consider that parks help many rural counties economically. For several years, the state has promoted parks and recreation areas in Nevada to tourists, and closing the parks would hurt that effort. Daniel McLean, a professor of recreation and sports management at UNLV and an officer of the state’s Recreation and Parks Society, said visitors add significantly to local economies.

“For every dollar spent on that park, that dollar goes back into the economy multiple times,” he said, noting that visitors spend money on hotels, rental cars, gasoline, meals and souvenirs. “It can generate 15 to 20 dollars for the local economy. You take that out of the rural areas, and you’ve got a significant impact.”

The state spends just $5.3 million a year from the general fund on parks. A 2003 study found that parks generate $62 million for the state in park fees and visitor spending in nearby towns. Private businesses also operate at parks, and closure would be costly to them. The closure of Valley of Fire State Park in Clark County, for example, would cost businesses that operate there about $9 million.

Not only would closing parks hurt the economy, but it would eliminate an affordable recreation opportunity for Nevadans, offering camping, fishing and other outdoor activities. They also provide unique educational opportunity for students, who can learn about geology, biology and history, among other things. Closing, or even mothballing, state parks would leave them vulnerable to vandalism, notably of irreplaceable petroglyphs and archaeological treasures. As well, it would increase the risk of poaching and damage to environmentally sensitive areas. It would also be poor stewardship, leaving to deteriorate the investments the state has made in the parks.

Parks are a valuable asset to Nevada and shouldn’t be closed, but to even contemplate doing so shows the seriousness of the situation. Gibbons, for example, has proposed a series of draconian cuts to education and vital government programs, including social services.

No matter what lawmakers and the governor finally decide to do, the bottom line is disturbingly clear: There could be major ramifications for even what would seem to be relatively small cuts in the budget.