Beilenson Asks $28 Million to Buy Mountain Parkland

Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Los Angeles) asked a House subcommittee Thursday to approve at least $28 million next fiscal year to buy land for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, which would get no land acquisition funds under the Reagan Administration’s budget proposal.

Beilenson, testifying before the Interior subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, said the Administration’s proposal is “shortsighted,” because if “we delay purchasing the land, we will end up spending more for it later--and we will get less of it.”

Beilenson, author of the legislation that created the mountain park in 1978, was joined by Reps. Howard L. Berman (D-Studio City) and Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica) in calling for a land purchase budget of $28 million to $34 million for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1. He said the money would be used to purchase high-priority tracts in Solstice, Topanga, Trancas and Zuma canyons.

Size of Recreation Area

The national recreation area encompasses 150,000 acres of public and privately owned land between Griffith Park and Point Mugu State Park in Ventura County. Park plans call for eventual federal ownership of 35,000 acres, of which about 11,000 acres have been purchased at a cost of $65 million. That includes the current fiscal year’s acquisition budget of $8 million, all of which has been spent by the National Park Service.

For five years out of six, the Reagan Administration has recommended that no money be spent for more land for the mountain park. The Administration’s budget for the next fiscal year provides the National Park Service with no money to buy land anywhere, except in cases where property has been condemned.

In formal remarks submitted to the subcommittee, Beilenson said the mountain park “has the potential to be the most frequently visited unit of the entire National Park System,” because Los Angeles “will be the U.S.’ most heavily populated metropolitan area by the turn of the century.”

‘No Better Use of Funds’

As a result, said Beilenson, “in terms of providing outdoor recreational opportunities for the greatest number of people . . . there is probably no better use of National Park Service funds.”

Beilenson said that land not purchased for the park would be developed. And, “because that land is particularly prone to fires, floods and mud slides, we are almost certain to be paying exorbitant amounts in federal disaster relief,” he said.