Support for the Coast

There was relief in the California Coastal Commission earlier this year when Gov. George Deukmejian’s annual budget was released, because the governor proposed no cutbacks in the commission staff for 1988-89. But that leaves the commission far from content. The governor’s repeated cuts in prior years are taking their toll.

So it is that Commission Chairman Michael Wornum, a former legislator, is seeking a $518,000 budget increase for a total commission allocation of slightly less than $10 million. If there is no crash budget-cutting because of the state revenue short fall, the Legislature should approve this request and the governor should resist the temptation this time to veto the lawmakers’ increase.

The governor, who came to office pledging to do away with the commission, repeatedly has whittled away at it over the years, causing a staff reduction of more than 50 since the 1982-83 budget year, to the current total of 110. The professional staff has been cut by 25%, according to Legislative Analyst Elizabeth G. Hill. The commission also was forced to close its North Coast office in Eureka. In 1987 the governor even vetoed $319,000from a budget that he himself had submitted earier in the year.

The governor has argued that the workload declines as the commission certifies local coastal plans. But commission officials and Hill say that this is not the case. At the current rate the local coastal-plan segments will not be approved for another 12 years. The local plans must be reviewed periodically. The commission has an increasing backlog of enforcement actions. And the commission’s meeting agenda is as busy as ever. Without additional help, the commission will not be able to fulfill its duties as required by law.

Without a strong California Coastal Commission to oversee the local planning process and to en force both state and local planning decisions, the California coast may once again fall prey to the sort of uncontrolled development that led to the passage of the coastal initiative by the voters in 1972. No matter how much the governor dislikes the state program, the people of California have expressed their support for it time and again. The Legislature should reiterate that support firmly with the budget supplement.