By VIRGINIA STROM-MARTIN / Press Democrat
Are California’s state parks becoming an “enterprise” organization and less of a traditionally funded state department? The answer, found in the Parks Forward Report, seems to be “yes.”
While “establishing a stable funding structure for California parks” is stated as a priority, the implementation action lists: “advance efficient operations, increased revenue generation and ongoing General Fund support for the Department.” There is no goal of increasing support from the general fund, which has fallen precipitously over the last two decades.
In 1979, the general fund share of state park’s total operating budget was 91 percent. By 1999, it had dropped to 64 percent. Today it is below 24 percent. This change is driving what parks must do to continue to exist in order to accommodate a growing population.
The Parks Forward Commission is looking to the public to fill in the hole that now exists in our parks’ budget. As stated in the conclusion of the report, accomplishing California parks’ mission requires a “new paradigm,” one that “embraces the many partners in the state that share parks’ goals.”
While this is a worthwhile and necessary goal, it does not address the disinvestment in state parks we have seen by our state Legislature.
In October 1999, I chaired a legislative hearing at the Sebastopol Community Center. The topic was state park user fees. State Park Director Rusty Areias, Assembly Budget Committee Chairwoman Denise Ducheny, members of the Legislative Analyst’s Office and members of the public attended. Among the recommendations made by the committee were the following: “User fees can be an unreliable basis for budgeting estimates, since they can fluctuate significantly based on weather, the overall economy and other factors affecting park usage.
“Since the state park system benefits all Californians and preserves a public trust for future generations, the allocation of general fund dollars for a large percentage of state park costs is appropriate.”
That year, day-use fees were reduced statewide. Fast forward to 2016, and we have the Sonoma Coast fee collection proposal by state parks, which was revised with input from local nonprofits over the course of several meetings. Eight dollars a day to walk on the beach or hike in the hills is anathema to the mission of state parks, which is to create “opportunities for high quality outdoor recreation.” While there may be some justification for fees associated with park amenities, most of these sites where fees are being proposed have none.
I sympathize with what the park administration is being asked to do, but the real problem is with the serial and chronic underfunding of our parks by the state’s elected leaders.
Presently there are 280 park units serving 75 million visitors. Parks owns more than 1.6 million acres of property with a deferred maintenance obligation of more than $1.3 billion. Parks and recreation are not just frills to be addressed when there is money left over from other government services. No other state is blessed with the biodiversity we have in our mountains, deserts and beaches, and we attract businesses because of it.
A budget is a statement of values. It is important that parks be seen as an integral part of the state’s infrastructure and quality of life. Like our roads, schools and water systems, our natural resources deserve a prominent place in our state’s budget.