S-500-116
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 428.
What it does
The bill would create the National Park Service Legacy Restoration Fund and direct 50% of federal energy development revenues into it each fiscal year from FY2020 through FY2024. Annual deposits would be capped at $1.3 billion per year. All money in the fund would be required to go toward addressing the National Park Service's highest-priority deferred maintenance projects — repairs and upkeep that have been postponed over time.
Who benefits
The approximately 330 million annual visitors to National Park Service sites would benefit from improved facilities, trails, roads, and infrastructure. Residents of communities near national parks would benefit from improved local economies tied to park tourism. Outdoor recreation and tourism businesses — hotels, outfitters, restaurants — near park sites would benefit from increased visitor activity. Future generations would benefit from preserved park infrastructure. Park Service employees would benefit from improved working conditions and facilities.
Who is hurt
Energy companies operating on federal lands could see a portion of their revenue redirected, potentially affecting their financial returns. Competing federal programs that currently receive energy revenue allocations — such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund or payments to states — could receive smaller shares if the 50% diversion reduces available funds. States that receive a share of federal energy revenues could see reduced payments depending on how the revenue split is structured. Taxpayers in states without national parks would contribute indirectly while receiving fewer direct benefits.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the National Park Service faces an estimated $12 billion maintenance backlog that has accumulated over decades, leaving roads, bridges, visitor centers, and historic structures in disrepair. They contend that using existing energy revenue — money already flowing to the federal government from oil, gas, and mineral development on public lands — requires no new taxes and does not add to the federal deficit. Supporters also argue the fund creates a dedicated, stable funding stream that removes park maintenance from the annual appropriations process, where it has historically been underfunded. They point out that national parks are a shared national asset visited by hundreds of millions of Americans and international tourists, generating billions in local economic activity, and that allowing infrastructure to deteriorate threatens both public safety and long-term economic value.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that redirecting 50% of energy revenues — up to $1.3 billion annually — away from other uses represents a significant reallocation of federal funds that could crowd out other priorities, including payments to states and existing conservation programs. They contend that creating a dedicated off-budget fund bypasses the annual congressional appropriations process, reducing legislative oversight and accountability over how the money is spent. Some opponents argue that the maintenance backlog reflects management inefficiencies within the Park Service that more funding alone will not fix, and that structural changes to park management would be more effective. Others raise concerns that tying park funding to fossil fuel revenues creates a structural dependency on energy extraction, potentially conflicting with broader federal land management and environmental goals.