Earlier this week, Sam McLaughlin, a reporter for the Arizona Daily Sun, noticed a troubling detail in the appendix of a proposed package of programming cuts from President Donald Trump’s budget director.
The package recommends $564 million in cuts from the US Geological Survey, of which over $250 million would come from something called the Ecosystems Mission Area.
McLaughlin joined The Show to discuss.
Full conversation
SAM DINGMAN: Sam, tell us what these cuts would mean here in Arizona.
SAM MCLAUGHLIN: Yes. So the proposal to cut funding for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area could have some significant repercussions here in Flagstaff. And that's because one of the facilities operated by the Ecosystems Mission Area is the Southwest Biological Science Center and its subsidiary, the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center.
The Southwest Biological Science Center provides research that's used by other Department of Interior land management agencies all over the West, and the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, or GCMRC, provides a lot of data focus specifically on the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, and it informs the management of the dam and is the basis really for all of the decision making on how to operate that dam in a way that will protect the natural and cultural resources downstream.
DINGMAN: And the recommended cuts to these programs are quite severe. Tell us what the implications would be if these cuts were implemented.
MCLAUGHLIN: That's correct. The Trump administration is proposing a 90% or greater cut to the funding for the Ecosystems Mission Area. And likely if those cuts went through, we would see the science center in Flagstaff shutting down. It's sparking some fear in our community.
And there's two parts to that. There's, on one hand, a fear for losing the scientific mission, the work, the research that these employees have been working on for decades.
And on the other hand, there's fear about what will happen to the community members who work there. Folks who are employed locally, who have raised families locally, bought houses locally, if their jobs were to be swept out from underneath them abruptly as these cuts might lead to, that could be a really significant impact for the community.
DINGMAN: And one of your sources, I believe, also tells you that there might be some economic ripple effects, right, because there's tourism associated with the work that these science centers do. And there are local contractors and service providers who participate in that, who would all of a sudden lose their revenue streams as well, right?
MCLAUGHLIN: Yes. And it's hard to say exactly what the scale of that economic ripple would be. But there are outfitters here that, as you mentioned, contract with GCMRC to facilitate research trips. The center spends money locally provisioning those trips. And of course, as I mentioned, you've got employees who are buying houses, working here, contributing to the local economy. And if the center were to shut down, there's no guarantee that all of those folks would be able to remain in Flagstaff.
DINGMAN: Now, these centers were both created, if I'm not mistaken. As a result of an act of Congress.
MCLAUGHLIN: Yes. I'm not 100% certain about the Southwest Biological Science Center. However, the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center is definitely the result of the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992, and that was passed by Congress, in response to the recognition that building and operating Glen Canyon Dam, was significantly changing what the ecosystems downstream of the dam looked like and could potentially jeopardize the future of Grand Canyon National Park.
And so the monitoring and research center was established to ensure that dam operations are conducted in a way that preserves the values for which the park was originally established.
DINGMAN: So in the case of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, how much does the fact that it was established via an act of Congress way into its potential fate here? I mean, is that grounds on which they might be able to challenge these budget cuts?
MCLAUGHLIN: It seems like it could be potential grounds for challenging these budget cuts. One of the tricky parts here is that this situation is defined almost as much by what we don't know as what we do know. These cuts were proposed not through an extensive public hearing process or anything like that. These are all, you know, being recommended by, you know, a limited number of actors in President Trump's inner circle.
But I do think the fact that the center originated with an act of Congress does provide, you know, some stronger ground for advocates of its continued operations to stand on and fight from.
DINGMAN: Yes, and somewhat confusingly, in a statement provided to you by the Department of the Interior for your piece, they said, quote, “Interior proudly supports President Trump's one big, beautiful bill, a historic America first budget that delivers middle class tax cuts, unleashes American energy, secures our borders and invests in the infrastructure and security of our public lands.” Which is ostensibly what something like the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center would seem to support.
MCLAUGHLIN: Yes. There's, you know, I think an obvious contradiction between the official statements that are being released by spokespeople on behalf of these federal agencies and the actual proposals for what to do with these federal agencies that we are seeing reflected in budget bills and other sources.
DINGMAN: Last question for you, Sam. We have talked a little bit about the economic implications of this. What about the scientific implications? What did your sources tell you about that?
MCLAUGHLIN: Everyone that I spoke to for this article was worried about the impact that this would have on the long term quality of the science that underpins decision making about the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River. And they emphasized that there are many different groups who rely on the research and the data provided by GCMRC, from river outfitters and recreation lists to the National Park Service itself, to the Bureau of Land Management, to Native tribes, to downstream Colorado River water users.
And if there were to be any interruption or cessation of the center's research and data gathering work, we could lose really valuable insight into how the river and its surrounding ecosystems are functioning, and we could lose the ability to predict accurately in the future how the river and its surrounding ecosystems, respond to things like climate change to external stresses, to the ways that we manage Glen Canyon Dam. All of that is dependent on gathering consistent and accurate data over a long period.
