The state and the Boston region have many outstanding parklands —and maintaining them requires a regular infusion of funding.

How are we doing?

In 2000, Massachusetts ranked near the bottom among all states in natural resources spending per capita: 44th out of 50 states.  The Bay State also ranked 48th in its annual budget allocation for natural resources, as a proportion of the total state budget.  Funding for environmental and natural resources purposes declined during much of the 1990s, falling by about $15 million.  During the flush times of the late 1990s, the state increased spending on environment programs enough to boost total spending to about $250 million in 2001 (in 2004 dollars), about the same level it was in real terms at the previous high in 1989.  But the recent fiscal crisis led to a cut in the environment budget to about $180 million.  The FY2005 environment budget was 33% lower than the 1989 budget in real terms.  Viewed another way, environmental spending has decreased from a high of 1.4% of the state budget to only 0.7%.

The budget cuts have impacted both the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).  DEP was cut by 19 percent since 2002 and DCR by 37 percent since 2001.  This has resulted in the reduction or elimination of programming and services.  For example, DEP is no longer proactively identifying hazardous waste sites and has reduced the monitoring of water quality.  There are fewer park rangers, and trail maintenance has declined.  The Department of Agricultural Resources (DAR) has barely begun to implement the Children and Families Protection Act of 2000, intended to protect children against exposure to toxic pesticides.  While all agencies have created short-term savings by temporarily scaling back programs to function within the parameters prescribed for them, the environmental agencies cannot continue to protect public health, safety, and the environment on such limited resources.