As the summer’s stream of visitors squeezes into parking spaces and turn-offs at Acadia National Park, the U.S. Senate is debating a bill that someday could help park officials deal effectively with traffic congestion or the list of infrastructure problems grown longer because of budget cuts.

The legislative remedy is not higher taxes but corporate sponsorships. The new law would create partnerships between financially needy parks and companies eager to display a special new logo emblematic of their public spiritedness. If adequate safeguards against commercialization of the national park system can be built into the bill, it deserves support.

Across the country, the National Park Service manages 365 different sites, some of them obscure and tiny, others, like Acadia, are bursting from the influx of interested travelers. The service’s challenge has been to deal with the consequences of growing demand (Acadia now receives 3 million visitors a year) with less money. It is a lament familiar to every level of government.

Compounding the problem at popular parks of providing more services to greater numbers of people is the steady deterioration of existing infrastructure. Parks service officials have identified more than $4 billion in repairs and improvements that should be made just to maintain the current level of public satisfaction and to meet the expectations of vacationing families.

Given the current political climate and the perception that government will try to be frugal, even austere, the National Park Service sensibly concluded that a fresh infusion of revenue is unrealistic. However, help is available by merging the interests of the private sector, where there is money for worthwhile public investments, and those of the neediest facilities.

Superintendent Paul Haertel of Acadia participated in what he described as thoughtful discussions on the issue of commercialization. Refinements in earlier versions of the law have assuaged concerns that the opportunity for partnerships would be exploited and the results offensive to the public. The bill, he said, incorporates safeguards that should ensure private investment is directed to the parks responsibly and benefactors are acknowledged in a restrained and tasteful way.

As currently drafted, the bill relies on the congressionally chartered National Park Foundation to negotiate with a limited number of corporate sponsors (10 to 12 from different categories) for funding of projects across the country. Final approval of those arrangments would rest with the National Park Service, which presumably would place a premium on the integrity of its system and the importance of doing things right.

Funds could funnel to Acadia, for example, from an automobile or photographic film manufacturer to fund a mass transit program that could benefit all of Mt. Desert. With financial assistance from a corporation, the park and neighboring communities could form a partnership to provide centralized parking and bus transportation that would relieve summertime congestion throughout the island.

Money could just as easily and effectively be invested in stabilizing stone bridges on the carriage trails, restoring the Blue Duck building on Islesford or picking up the cost of environmental education for 4,000 school children when the Pew Foundation grant is exhausted at the end of this year.

This bill should be passed and its impact observed closely to ensure the good intentions of lawmakers are not abused. With diligence on the part of the park service, the chances of that happening, however, are remote.

Corporate sponsors want to cultivate public goodwill. Park managers want to invest in their facilities. There is mutual gain and shared self-interest in making use of this opportunity responsibly.