facebook pixel

Which California parks should remain under state control?

by on April 23, 2013

The Redwood National and State Parks on the North Coast are an example of how California can co-manage its cash-strapped state parks system. Photo: Ilya Katsnelson.
The Redwood National and State Parks on the North Coast are an example of how California can co-manage its cash-strapped state parks system. Photo: Ilya Katsnelson.

In the wake of a high-profile report urging California State Parks to give up its antiquated management structure and shift some control over to local agencies, park officials and nonprofits called the recommendations realistic and tried to calm the public’s fears over potential changes to the park system.

“We certainly don’t want any of the iconic parks with our redwoods, deserts and state beaches to pass out of state hands,” said Roy Stearns, deputy director of communications for California State Parks. “We’re just looking more strongly for creative ways to add revenue to sustain the system.”

The Little Hoover Commission, a bipartisan state agency appointed by the Legislature to evaluate the effectiveness of state programs, released a report in late March filled with recommendations to support the survival of state parks in the midst of the budget crisis.

The most controversial? A plea to transfer management of the more “locally serving” state parks over to local agencies such as nonprofits, cities and counties. This practice can already be seen at several state parks that were in danger of being closed before local organizations stepped in to maintain the sites, said Stuart Drown, executive director of the 13-member Little Hoover Commission.

Jack London State Historic Park. Photo:  David Gallagher.

Jack London State Historic Park. Photo: David Gallagher.

The Valley of the Moon Natural History Association, for example, took charge of Jack London State Historic Park after the state announced in 2011 that it no longer had the money to keep the park open.

But the question still remains of how best to decide which parks should be run by local groups and which ones should stay under management of the state.

While Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the California State Parks Foundation, called the Little Hoover Commission report “sensible,” she remained concerned whether the decision to turn over a park to a local agency can be made objectively.

“In a time of economic scarcity, there is the fear that the decision would be made on money and political expediency alone as opposed to objective criteria tested with the public,” she said. “I don’t think what they have suggested is inappropriate but it’s a question of if it will be implemented well.”

Stearns said the state is already in the process of putting together an independent blue ribbon committee to make these decisions and others regarding the funding and government structure of state parks. The group, which will be represented by a cross section of experts in business, environmental resources and other fields, is expected to form in the next month and have a draft plan by March 2014.

There is some public fear that the state will just start giving away its parks, said Carolyn Schoff, president of the California League of Park Associations. But she called that a misperception of report’s recommendations.

“People are saying they don’t want to lose their parks — but the point isn’t to get rid of parks,” she said. “The report is saying to reevaluate the parks and see if they are better run at the local level. To look at a different constellation of partners is a good solution.”

Stearns said he couldn’t find anything in the Little Hoover report to disagree with and added that the state is already working with nonprofits, local governments and volunteer groups to keep the parks running.

The nonprofit Friends of China Camp is now operating China Camp State Park in Marin. Photo: Rene Rivers.

The nonprofit Friends of China Camp is now operating China Camp State Park in Marin. Photo: Rene Rivers.

Taking any parks completely out of state hands to turn them over to these groups would require the Legislature to step in, he said. Many questions would have to be answered: Can a local city or group afford to take over these parks? Do they even want to? Who can take over the park if they don’t?

Drown, of the Little Hoover Commission, said state parks that do not have nonprofit or city government support could partner with nearby a national park. The report cited the 133,000-acre Redwood National and State Parks in Crescent City as an example of successful joint management between the state and U.S. National Park Service since 1994.

“The report is a good starting point but it doesn’t have easy or immediate answers,” Schoff said. “Leaving state parks to the status quo is not an option, even if we have to look outside of the norm of what we are used to seeing.”

Dhyana Levey is a contributor to Bay Nature. 

See more articles in: State Parks Crisis

Most recent in State Parks Crisis

See all stories in State Parks Crisis


Jeff Miller on April 23rd, 2013 at 9:27 am

California has plenty of money to keep our state parks open and well-managed, but chooses not to. The proposed state parks budget for next year ($576 million) is just one-half of a percent of Governor Brown’s proposed budget. Meanwhile the Governor is pushing a $20-70 billion peripheral tunnel project to divert more water from the Sacramento River and destroy the Delta ecosystem. The off-road vehicle division of state parks has illegally hidden tens of millions they will use to destroy publicly funded lands, rather than for state parks we all can enjoy. The state’s spending priorities are insane. We need to get state parks funding away from corrupt politicians like Brown and pass a license fee that will pay for our parks.

Maggie on April 23rd, 2013 at 10:27 am

I agree with Jeff Miller!

Jack Ellwanger on April 23rd, 2013 at 9:53 pm

Since all the malfeasance was exposed, and promises made to fix State Parks, nothing good has been done. The new people have just circled the wagons to protect the bureaucratic status quo. And we all know bad that has been. The administration of our parks has been abominable. They have been in the business of shutting out the public, ignoring natural resources and stealing money. This new budget is a terrible insult to the people of California. The parks foundation does not speak for Californians. It is just a shill for the parks administration. We need a complete shakedown of State Parks and a thorough public visioning process.

The Olmsted Park Fund on April 24th, 2013 at 10:57 am

Agreed. California has plenty of money and somehow has chosen to hold our parks hostage. Governor Browns’ snide remarks upon the finding of the scandalous funds “This is the first problem I’ve ever seen where actually people in government saved money,” shows he missed the point. We were out counting pennies and holding bake sales when it was all a political game. To say this has been a slap in the face is an egregious understatement. As to locals partnering with parks, it’s all well and good in theory, but the state still has a lot to prove.

Dhyana Levey on April 25th, 2013 at 10:05 am

Thank you everyone for your comments. I’ll be writing more stories about the state parks budget problems over the next several months and would like to get more input from the public. If you’d like to get in touch with me directly, I can be reached at dlevey@sfpublicpress.org

Leave a Comment





Bay Nature