California Elections : $776-Million Park, Wildlife Plan Bids for Voter Support

Not since 1914 has any group outside the Legislature placed a statewide bond measure before voters. But that has changed this year, as a coalition of environmentalists has decided to take matters into its own hands.

The conservation coalition collected 700,000 signatures and qualified Proposition 70 for the June 7 ballot. The measure calls for the sale of general obligation bonds to create the $776-million California wildlife, coastal and park conservation fund.

Out of this would come $414 million to improve, preserve and expand more than 75 specific park and wildlife projects statewide, as well as another $362 million for a potpourri of general park needs.

The projects, spread throughout California and equally divided between north and south, include $25 million to buy land to protect views along the Big Sur coast, $30 million for property in the Santa Monica Mountains, $5 million for planting trees in cities, $148 million for purchasing and improving land for fish and wildlife, including property for endangered species.

There is money for the Tijuana River Valley, for Los Angeles County beaches and Orange County open space, as well as for Central Valley wetlands, the Hope Valley near Lake Tahoe and redwood state forests.

Supporters of the ballot initiative, such as Lucy Blake, executive director of the California League of Conservation Voters, claim Proposition 70 “is the most significant land-use initiative” in California since 1973, when the landmark California Coastal Act was approved. That act--which established protection of coastal lands as a state priority--led to the establishment of the California Coastal Commission.

But critics of Proposition 70, mainly the California Farm Bureau Federation, the state Chamber of Commerce and the California Cattlemen’s Assn., deride it as a “park barrel” measure which, in return for petition signatures or campaign dollars, provides a little something for everyone without regard for cost.

As a result, say opponents, the proposition sets a dangerous course for the state by engaging in “pocketbook park planning” without involving Gov. George Deukmejian and the Legislature.

It was, however, frustration with the political process in Sacramento, and more specifically with the park policies of Deukmejian, that led to the initiative.

Proposals Allowed to Die

Gerald Meral, executive director of the Planning and Conservation League, which more than any other group is responsible for Proposition 70, said that two years ago his group and other environmentalists lobbied for three major park bond measures. But the proposals died in negotiations between the Democratic-controlled Legislature and the governor, and were not included in the package of bond measures placed on the 1986 ballot.

That legislative process, said Meral, cheated parklands and wildlife habitat at a time when the state’s population--which this decade has been expanding at an average rate of about 540,000 a year--makes buying land important. Opportunities for such purchases are dwindling, he noted.

Faced with this political problem, Meral and other environmentalists and conservationists turned to the state’s initiative mechanism. In doing so, they adopted the strategy of other citizens and special-interest groups who in recent years have relied on the ballot initiative process to achieve their political goals.

To qualify for the ballot, the coalition, which calls itself Californians for Parks and Wildlife, used an unusual signature-gathering technique, offering local groups the opportunity to include their pet projects in the bond measure in return for financial support and signature-collecting efforts.

Support All Projects

Conscious of criticism about their methods, Proposition 70 supporters insist that all the projects have merit and that several land purchases have nothing to do with any quid pro quo. And they point to the $220 million that would be made available to local and state agencies to spend with no strings attached.

Blake, from the League of Conservation Voters, is emphatic in defending the initiative’s strategy. “I think it was a very good way of doing it,” she said. “It rewarded those organizations and citizens that have been working to preserve land in their area.”

Opponents of the bond measure, including the Deukmejian Administration, say any spending plan of the magnitude embodied in Proposition 70 should be subjected to public debate in Sacramento and the traditional way of ranking projects based on give-and-take evaluations of parkland needs.

Deukmejian on Friday came out against the measure, calling it “reckless and excessive.”

He and members of his Administration say they would rather work through the traditional legislative process. The state Department of Parks and Recreation notes that while it agrees with the funding priority of some projects in the proposition, such as for Big Basin Redwoods and Mt. Diablo state parks, it does not for others, such as Chino Hills and Anza-Borrego state parks.

Amounts at Issue

Additionally, Henry R. Agonia, director of the state Parks and Recreation Department, said that in some cases “the amounts alloted are either too low or far greater than the department might choose if it were to recommend an allocation.”

Clark Biggs, a Farm Bureau spokesman who is also in charge of operating the day-to-day activities of the anti-Proposition 70 organization, Citizens for Honest Park Planning, said: “The whole process (of signature-gathering) is upside down. This smacks of back-room politics where special-interest groups set the priorities on their pet projects.”

C. W. H. (Kip) Solinsky, resources director for the state Chamber of Commerce, goes even further. He claims the spending limitations the initiative would place on the governor, in particular the $414 million in precisely identified projects, raise constitutional questions. While declining to be more specific, he said the initiative “is begging a lawsuit.”

Proposition 70 marks a departure from Deukmejian’s philosophy on parks. At the core of that debate is the issue of buying parkland versus developing holdings the state already has.

Supporters of the initiative say they have made sure that about two-thirds of the money would be earmarked for buying land, with the other third set aside for general parkland development. Opponents claim they cannot find more than 10% of the proposal’s funds specifically devoted to development.

Question of Priorities

“The question is what is California going to be like in 200 years?” said proposition-backer Blake. “The population is growing quickly. And this is putting a lot of stress on our remaining areas. From our viewpoint, preservation of land has to be the first priority in the next 50 years. We can always make them nicer.”

With rare exceptions, voters have traditionally favored statewide parkland bond measures. Only two have been defeated in the last 24 years.

Californians for Parks and Wildlife has spent about $500,000 so far and expects to spend another $200,000 on a modest media campaign involving mainly radio commercials and direct mailers.

Endorsed by 36 Cities

Its list of endorsements includes 36 cities, from Los Angeles and San Diego to Sacramento and Santa Cruz; 17 counties, and 22 state Senate and 37 Assembly members, both Democrats and Republicans. Among those signing the sample ballot in favor of the proposition are Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) and his chief Democratic challenger, Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy. Joining them is former President Gerald R. Ford.

In contrast, opponents have a shoestring operation. Citizens for Honest Park Planning has no full-time employees, a budget of about $15,000 and a media campaign that targets newspaper editorial boards.

“They certainly have some heavy hitters signing their ballot arguments,” lamented Biggs. “It’s tough going against motherhood and apple pie.”

WHERE THE MONEY WOULD GO This is a list of projects that would be funded by Proposition 70.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Anza-Borrego Desert State Park--$5 million to buy more land for park.

Baldwin Hills--$10 million for expansion of state recreation area.

Bolsa Chica--$1.5 million for expansion of park on the bluffs above Huntington Beach, and wetlands restoration.

Brea Heights Recreation Area--$5 million for a new regional park.

Chino Agricultural Preserve--$20 million for preservation of dairy and open space lands in San Bernardino County.

Chino Hills State Park--$7 million to complete existing park.

Hurkey Creek Park--$400,000 to expand regional park in Riverside County.

Indian canyons--$19 million for creation of new state park in Indian Palm Oasis Canyon in Riverside County.

Irvine--$4 million to buy open space strip from mountains to the sea in Irvine.

Laguna greenbelt--$10 million for buying open space around Laguna Beach.

Los Angeles County beaches--$10 million for development of public access and facilities.

Riparian areas--$10 million to buy land along rivers in Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties.

Riverside Citrus State Historic Park--$10 million for expansion.

Santa Ana River Trail--$1 million to buy right-of-way for a trail along the river in Riverside County.

Santa Barbara County--$7 million to buy parkland, wildlife habitat, coastal areas and farmland.

San Diego County urban canyons--$10 million for acquisition of canyons for open space and recreation.

San Dieguito River--$10 million to purchase land in the north stretches of this river valley in San Diego County.

Santa Monica Mountains--$30 million for acquisition of parkland.

Santa Susana Mountains State Park--$10 million for expansion of state park.

Sycamore Canyon Park--$1 million for expanding a city park in Riverside.

Tecate Cypress Forest--$4 million to buy native plant habitat in Orange County.

Temescal Canyon Trail--$1 million for acquisition of right-of-way for trail from Elsinore to Corona.

Tijuana River--$10 million to buy land in the river’s southern valley.

NORTHERN AND

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA Anderson Marsh State Park--$1 million to expand the park in Lake County.

Big Basin Redwoods/Castle Rock State parks--$2 million to add land to existing parks in Santa Cruz County.

Big Sur--$25 million to buy land and easements to protect views in Big Sur, Monterey County.

Brovelli Woods--$300,000 for acquisition of riparian habitat near Stockton.

Carquinez Shoreline Park--$1.5 million for developing this park in Contra Costa County.

Delta Meadows--$2 million to expand a state park in the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta.

East Bay regional parks--$10 million for expansion of existing parks in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

East Bay Shoreline State Park--$25 million would be used to help create a new state park along the shore of San Francisco Bay in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

Feather River--$1 million to buy land riparian habitat along the Feather River in Yuba, Sutter and Butte counties.

Hayward Hills--$1.5 million to acquire land on Walpert Ridge in Hayward, Alameda County.

Henry Coe State Park--$3 million for additions to the park in Santa Clara and Stanislaus counties.

Hope Valley--$4 million for preservation of this mountain valley in Alpine County.

Lake Berryessa--$1 million to buy wildlife habitat at this Napa County lake.

Lake County Park--$400,000 to creat a new regional park.

Little Franks Tract--$4 million to complete development plan for this state recreation area in Contra Costa County.

Marin County agricultural lands--$15 million for preserving farmland along the coast and near existing parks.

Marin County Open Space District--$5 million for acquisition of wetlands, wildlife habitat and open space land.

Midpeninsula open space--$10 million for continued expansion of open space in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

Mill Creek--$500,000 for preservation of old growth Douglas fir and other trees in Humboldt County.

Monterey County agricultural preservation--$4 million to buy farmland in the Salinas and Pajaro valleys.

Monterey County coast--$1.5 million to buy wetlands and wildlife habitat.

Monterey County open space--$2 million to complete Garland Ranch Regional Park and to acquire land in Bixby Creek watershed.

Mt. Diablo--$4 million to expand a state park in Contra Costa County.

Mt. Tamalpais--$2 million to buy land adjacent to this state park in Marin County.

Napa open space and wetlands--$2 million for acquisition of wetlands at Napa Marsh.

Nipomo Dunes--$14 million to purchase wetlands, parklands and more dunes at Nipomo Dunes in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties.

Pescadero Marsh--$1 million to buy land next to a state wildlife area in San Mateo County.

Pogonip Greenbelt--$15 million to buy open space area between city of Santa Cruz and Henry Cowell State Park.

Robert Louis Stevenson State Park--$2 million to expand the park in Napa County.

San Joaquin River--$5 million to purchase parkland and riparian habitat along the river from Friant Dam to California 99 in Fresno and Madera counties.

Sacramento County--$6 million for acquisition of parkland along rivers and streams.

Sacramento River--$4 million to buy wildlife habitat along the river in various counties.

Sanctuary Forest--$4 million to preserve old-growth redwoods and trees in the Mattole River watershed in Mendocino and Humboldt counties.

San Francisco Bay wetlands-$13 million for buying wetlands along the bay, with at least $8 million to be spent south of the San Mateo Bridge.

San Mateo County coast--$8 million for purchase of open space, park and wetlands south of Half Moon Bay.

Santa Cruz agricultural lands--$1 million to preserve farmlands in Santa Cruz County.

Sonoma County--$8 million to preserve wetlands and wildlife habitat along San Francisco Bay and the coast.

South Yuba Trail and Malakoff Diggings State Park--$2 million for expansion of this state park in Nevada County.

Stanislaus, Tuolumne, San Joaquin and Merced rivers--$2 million to buy riparian habitat along these rivers.

Vacaville ridgelands--$1 million for creation of a mountain ridgeline park around Vacaville, Solano County.

Yolo County--$2 million for purchase of wetlands and riparian and wildlife habitat in the city of Davis.

STATEWIDE City creeks--$5 million to continue program of preserving these streams.

City trees--$5 million for existing tree planting in urban areas.

Coastal Conservancy--$30 million for land acquisition and conservation programs.

Contributions to local agencies--$150 million for general park needs allocated on a population basis.

Historic preservation--$11 million for ongoing state historical grants program.

Inland wetlands--$25 million to continue program of preserving non-coastal wetlands.

Marine fisheries and animals--$1 million for Department of Fish and Game boats and protection of sea otters, marine birds and fisheries.

Monarch butterflies--$2 million for buying monarch butterfly wintering sites.

Redwood state parks--$12 million for expanding existing redwood park system.

Salmon and steelhead--$10 million for protection of these native fisheries.

State park acquisition--$5 million mainly for buying land surrounded by state parks.

State park development--$50 million for development of new and existing state parks.

Trails--$6 million to help local agenices buy and develop land for trails.

Trout protection--$6 million to protect wild trout fisheries.

Wildlife and natural areas--$50 million for wildlife and native plant habitat acquisition and conservation.