skip to main content

Natural Resources Defense Council

Switchboard

Damon Nagami's Blog

Budget Woes Place California’s State Parks in Jeopardy

Budget Woes Place California’s State Parks in Jeopardy

San Onofre State Park (by: Pamela Marches)

California's magnificent state park system is facing the most severe budget cutbacks in its 100-plus year history. Saddled with a $24.3 billion deficit, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has set forth a shortsighted proposal to slash funding for state parks by $70 million next year, and eliminate it entirely the following year. This means that about 80% of the parks will be shut down, starting as early as September. To put this in perspective, the public will soon be losing access to about 1.3 million acres of parkland - a vast expanse larger in area than the Grand Canyon and akin to closing down the entire state of Delaware.

The list of parks that will be closed is eye-opening. From the oldest state park (Big Basin Redwoods, 1902) to the largest park by acreage (Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, over 600,000 acres - about double the size of Los Angeles), every corner of the state will be affected. In southern California alone, we are on the verge of seeing forty parks close down indefinitely, including two sorely needed urban parks in the densely populated, racially and economically diverse neighborhoods of downtown L.A. - Los Angeles State Historic Park (aka the Cornfield) and Rio de Los Angeles State Park (aka Taylor Yard). The parks closure proposal also comes on the heels of an announcement that the Los Angeles Unified School District will cancel all summer school classes, a virtual one-two punch to L.A.'s youth.

Some parks can remain open because they are supported by boating or off-highway vehicle gas taxes, or are operated locally or by concessionaires. However, the vast majority of California's treasured state parks will be forced to close, putting millions of acres of spectacular landscapes and vistas, historical landmarks and cultural relics, and low-cost recreational facilities off-limits to Californians.

These are clearly trying times, and this year's unprecedented budget challenges are forcing the governor and Legislature to have to make some very difficult decisions. Education, healthcare and other essential public services are certain to experience painful cuts. But the massive scale of cutbacks proposed by the Governor is by far the worst the state park system has had to endure in its long history. The proposal fails even to make economic sense, as the general fund budget for state parks amounts to less than one-tenth of one percent of the state budget. Our state parks serve as an enormous economic engine, attracting 80 million visitors a year and generating revenues of $2.1 billion in direct expenditures and $4 billion more in indirect spending. In exchange for comparatively small savings, the state would lose these tremendous sources of revenue, as well as thousands of jobs statewide.

Our state parks provide inexpensive recreation opportunities, much-needed managed habitat for plants and wildlife, valuable open space for urban dwellers, and an enviable variety of natural landscapes and scenery. It would be a shame to lose these important benefits because of this profoundly shortsighted proposal. The California State Parks Foundation (CSPF) has mounted a campaign to reject the Governor's plan - you can click here to find out more and take action. There is also a budget hearing in Sacramento today, where CSPF, NRDC, and other groups will be sure to fight to keep our state parks open for all Californians to enjoy.

Tags:
california, openspace, schwarzenegger, stateparks, urbanparks

(bookmark or email this entry)

Comments

Bob BaranJun 2 2009 05:30 PM

I am not sure how they can keep people out of the parks.
What is to stop someone from driving out to Borrego?
Are they going to fence all 600,000 acres?


Bob

Bernie CUllenJun 3 2009 12:11 AM

How is access to the Parks currently managed? Is there a revenue stream as there is for many of the National Parks? If not, why not? The "it's only 0.1 per cent argument" is not helpful. That logic would guarantee no cuts, ever. The question is how to quickly replace the tax payer subsidy with an appropriate user fee - where user fees are not already in place. If the volume of visitors is as you indicate, there should be no difficult closing the revenue gap.

Damon NagamiJun 3 2009 01:21 PM

Bob,

You're right that "closing" the parks won't actually stop people from using them. In fact, the state would have to spend part of its "savings" from this proposal on patrolling to minimize vandalism and monitoring for wildfires. The LA Times published a thoughtful editorial this morning ( http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-parks3-2009jun03,0,5009643.story ) that makes exactly these points, i.e., that closing the parks "might be more trouble and expense than it's worth."

Bernie,

Some parks are, in fact, self-sustaining through user fees, concessions, and/or arrangements to be operated by local jurisdictions. These parks - there are 59 of them - will remain open. However, the other 220 parks rely solely on state General Fund money, which is eliminated under the Governor's plan. You may wish to check the CA State Parks website ( http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21491 ) or that of the CA State Parks Foundation ( http://www.calparks.org/ ) for information on user fees and park management.

Thank you both for your comments.

Bernie CullenJun 4 2009 12:13 AM

Damon:
Have you looked at the report on concessions ( http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/22374/files/concessions_annual_report_07-08.pdf )? The vast majority of these concessions are not paying sufficient rent to cover the cost of managing of their contracts!! They are contributing little if anything to the Parks. There are a few big "winners" but the rest look frankly amateurish. I suspect that the management of these concession contracts consumes a signifcant portion of the $11million the concessions generate - though I am open to be proved wrong on this. Given the 80 million visitors you cite, there is no reason why the Parks cannot be self-funding. This is what the Foundation should focus on rather than simply carrying on business as usual. Something is not working!

SuzanneJun 10 2009 05:22 PM

The state park system is a profitable enterprise. The state park system also brings families together. They are what make California Great. Save California State Parks from Closure The Petition - a web site - has lots of thoughts on what the state parks means to them. Several organizations also are working hard to save the parks. The parks were started in the mid 1880's, weathered even the Great Depression, and are profitable. As such, we need to save a park - save the future - for our state parks.

Comments are closed for this post.

We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.

Clean Energy Common Sense

Fresh Conversation

Feeds: Stay Plugged In