The Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) is responsible for maintaining the state’s parks, which number at least 278 and serve more than 70 million visitors a year. Driven by budgetary concerns, a reduction of 70 parks was scheduled for July 2012 and could grow larger by year’s end if certain state revenue goals aren’t met. The department protects and preserves the biodiversity and the natural, archaeological, and cultural resources at park sites, and also provides a quality outdoor environment for present and future visitors to enjoy. The responsibility includes the construction and maintenance of infrastructure. The department is in the Natural Resources Agency.

Strategies to Maintain California’s Park System (Legislative Analyst’s Office)

California’s unique growth, fueled by the 1848 Gold Rush, gave rise to two competing ideas: first, an appreciation of its natural beauty and varied landscapes; second, the urge to dig, dam, cut and otherwise mine the rich resources found in the state. The first act of preservation came in 1864 when Yosemite was named a state trust (it’s now a National Park), but not until 1902 did legislation create the California Redwood Park Commission, with appointed members who would acquire lands full of old-growth redwoods to be preserved in Santa Cruz County.

The commissioners worked to purchase land from private owners and set up parks that would preserve the state’s forests for future generations. Other private groups raised funds to save sites of historical importance from development. In 1927, through the efforts of organizations like the Save-the-Redwoods League, a bill unanimously passed the Legislature and created the State Park Commission.

The first act of the commission was to push for a $6 million state park bond issue, approved by voters the following year. Landscape architect Frederick Law Olmstead (the designer of New York City’s Central Park) surveyed and listed potential parks in the state, and the commission began purchasing land.

By 1929, California had a dozen state parks and five historic monuments. John D. Rockefeller donated $1 million to set up Humboldt Redwoods State Park, and offered $1 million more to be matched by private donors. With such assistance, the state park system grew rapidly.

During the Depression, federally funded work programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and Works Progress Administration (WPA) supported the parks by building roads and public buildings, and hiring historians and architects to develop programs and facilities.

The post-World War II era brought a larger population with more leisure time to the state. By 1960, California owned 615,000 acres that held over 150 state beaches, parks and monuments, administered by the state’s Division of Beaches and Parks. Under the Gubernatorial Reorganization Act of 1961, that division merged with the Divisions of Recreation, of Small Craft Harbors, and of Natural Resources to form the Department of Parks and Recreation.

A $150 million bond act in 1964 allowed the state to purchase more lands, protecting wild areas from development. In 1974, California passed Proposition 1, a $250 million park bond issue. With all that money, the state by 1979 held 500 miles of lake shoreline, 200 miles of coastline, 87 miles of river frontage, 1,500 miles of riding and walking trails, and 14,000 campsites. An Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division and the Office of Historic Preservation were added to the department.

Between 1984 and 1993, the department spent $21 million building protection of the state’s resources with the Natural Heritage Stewardship and Statewide Resource Management programs. Faced with budget cutbacks in the 1990s, the department decentralized some areas, set up districts for smoother administration and centralized process management.

A $2.1 billion bond for the department passed in 2000. However, as budget issues have grown more important in California, voters have not approved the most recent ballot measures that would support the state’s parks. Proposition 21 would have added an $18 fee to vehicle registration, raising a projected half a billion dollars for state parks, but it was defeated in the November 2010 election.

A State Park System Is Born (DPR website)

The Department of Parks and Recreation maintains at least 278 state park units that see an estimated 72 million visitors per year. The units include state beaches, parks, historical sites and monuments, recreation areas, conservation areas, wilderness areas, state-owned seashores, nature reserves, culture reserves, underwater recreation areas, campgrounds, and vehicular recreation areas. The department’s website provides a searchable list of the parks by name, activity or geographic region. General plans and future actions for each park are also online. In addition, brochures, maps, safety guidelines, instructional materials and many other publications of the department are available at the Find a Park page.

Administering the parks includes choosing concessionaires, allowing film crews in, maintaining roads, facilities, and vehicles, providing first aid, IT, security, and many other services. Companies or individuals interested in providing these services can visit the department’s webpage Doing Business with California State Parks to find out more.

Users of off-highway vehicles can find the data on state vehicular recreation areas (SVRA), as well as safety reports, grant information and resource management data, at a separate site.

An Office of Community Involvement promotes fuller use of park facilities by all Californians, and a page for volunteers invites the public to be a part of park programs. The department also has many programs for children, educational resources for families and schools, foundations, planning documents, safety requirements, etc., which can be reached through links on a park management page.

A State Parks Commission is responsible for classifying park units, approving general plans for use and development of each park, and establishing general policies for the director of the department. The commission also formulates a comprehensive recreational policy, reviews concession contracts, determines where hunting may be dangerous, approves the sale of alcoholic beverages in parks, recommends and approves certain projects under funding guidelines, and more.

The department typically gets most its money from bond funds. In 2011-12, more than half of the department’s outlay, or $505 million, came from voter-approved bonds, including $212.5 million from 2006’s Prop. 84 fund, which is nearing the end of its existence. Prop. 84 money is used for acquisition, development, restoration, nature education and research facilities.

In addition to bond money, the department received $269.7 million from special funds and $119 million from the state’s General Fund.

The state has allocated $21.8 billion in bond money for resource management since 1996, which includes outlays for parks and recreation. As of February 2011, all but $3.6 billion of the money had been obligated or spent and only a fraction of that was earmarked for parks.

Most of the budget money covers salaries and expenditures, with only $87.1 million going toward infrastructure.

Resources Bond Overview (Legislative Analyst’s Office) (pdf)

3-Year Budget (pdf)

2011-12 Budget (Ebudget)

Quick Facts (DPR website) (pdf)

Who Gets Blamed When Parks Close Because the Budget Is Cut?

In 2008, the governor’s office announced that 48 state parks might close due to budget cuts. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger threatened to close all state parks in the following year. The number of anticipated closures dropped, partly due to public outcry, and partly due to innovative partial closures and other cost-cutting methods. No parks were completely closed in 2008, 2009, 2010 or 2011, at least not permanently—but more than half saw seasonal or partial shutdowns.

Proposition 21 would have saved the parks by adding $18 to the vehicle licensing fee to go into a trust for the state parks, but was voted down in the 2010 election.

Governor Jerry Brown announced in January 2011 that $22 million would be cut from the Department of Park and Recreation’s budget. In May, the department presented a list of 70 parks to be closed. Originally, the closures were to take place in July, then September, and finally, in July 2012.

Parks and Recreation Department Director Ruth Coleman received heavy criticism for not developing a plan to deal with the cuts and closures that seemed to be unavoidable. CalWatchdog wrote, “There are many in state government who have grown numb to threats of cuts, and didn’t take Governor Jerry Brown’s cutbacks seriously.”

Coleman’s detractors say she has not written a thorough plan for park closures, nor has she revealed how or why particular sites were chosen.

A letter to the governor from the State Parks Peace Officer Management Association called Coleman “an honorable person” who was “largely absent in making sense of the new economic realities.” The group represents about 125 park superintendents and supervising rangers, and claimed that 93% of their membership want a new director.

The criticism may not be fair. The Sacramento Bee points out—in a news article, not an editorial—that Coleman has “struck financial partnerships with nonprofits and corporations. In recent months, such deals have saved nine parks from closure next year.”

“According to some, the failure is not about state park programs or park managers, but instead is a failure to deliver a park closure plan to the Legislature—despite having years to develop one,” CalWatchdog reported. “It is not clear whether Coleman took Brown’s budget reduction seriously. But it is clear that her top people did not. . . . They didn’t even go through the motions of pretending to care.”

California State Parks Said to Face Biggest Threat in 150-Year History (by Pete Thomas, Los Angeles Times)

California Park Closures Light Fire Under Director (by Katy Grimes, CalWatchdog)

California’s State Park Managers Ask Jerry Brown to Replace Parks Director (by Matt Weiser, Sacramento Bee)

Public Parks Can Remain Open and Spend Less (by Dakin Sloss, California Common Sense)

Parks in Crisis (Save Our State Parks)

Playing with the Rules to Hunt on State Lands

As a state park, Tolowa Dunes does not allow hunting. If the Department of Parks and Recreations reclassifies Tolowa Dunes as a recreation area, licensed hunting could be permitted. Several groups have taken extreme positions on reclassification.

Hunting enthusiasts, for example, are all for it. “A group of well-connected hunters say they have historic rights to the site,” reports the Northcoast Environmental Center (NEC). Historic rights? The hunters feel that, since Tolowa Dunes was not a state park before 2001, their previous, decades-long use of the place to hunt waterfowl constitutes historic rights.

Other groups object. Tolowa Dunes was the homeland of the Tolowa Indians, and in 1853 became site of the second-largest massacre of Native Americans in the U.S. The remains of 450 massacre victims lie in a fenced area of the park. “Hunting here is like digging through the ash pits of a World War II concentration camp, or carrying a gun onto a cemetery,” said Loren Bommelyn, a member of the Tolowa tribal council.

Environmentalists make up another group that—with a few exceptions—objects to hunting on the land. The California Waterfowl Association and their lobbying group protested hunting when it occurred, even after the site’s designation as a park.

That’s right—hunting has gone on since Tolowa Dunes became a state park. To placate angry hunters, the department colluded with the Department of Fish and Game, trading property between them during hunting season so that the duck hunters could still prowl the dunes and shoot waterfowl. Lawyers point to California State Government Code 14673, which allows the sale of land between state agencies.

“Environmental activists question State Parks’ interpretation of this code,” the NEC website points out. To quote:  “‘You shouldn’t be able to transfer a state park for a few months to allow illegal hunting. This subverts the process of a state park,’ said Wendell Wood, a Tolowa Dunes volunteer, who is also associated with some of the local environmental groups protesting hunting.”

“There was never any transfer of land, just a transfer of management authority,” a spokesperson for the Department of Fish and Game clarified. “There was an interagency agreement subsequent to the purchase of the land. Fish and Game managed the site during hunting season. State Parks oversaw the land the rest of the year.”

And indeed, the Tolowa Dunes State Park website describes the north and south parts of the park, then says, “Between the state park segments lies land under the stewardship of the California Department of Fish and Game.”

The NEC article continues, “State Parks acknowledges there was an interagency agreement that authorized Fish and Game to oversee the area during hunting season and that this document was consummated for a number of years after the land became a state park. Whether the agreement authorized a land swap or just a transfer of management remains in question.”

Conflict Over Hunting Rights Sullies Tolowa Dunes (by Amy Coombs, Northcoast Environmental Center)

Tolowa Dunes State Park (DPR website)

Deferred Maintenance

Much of the public focus on budget problems at the Department of Parks and Recreation has been on service cutbacks and outright closures. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger threatened to close 200 parks and 70 were on the chopping block all through 2011.

But the park system is also suffering from neglect as maintenance is deferred throughout the state. In addition to regular maintainance of trails, roads, campgrounds, facilities, habitats and other infrastructure, the Parks department maintains thousands of historic buildings which require preservation, rehabilitation and, at times, reconstruction. 

It has been an ongoing problem for years and in 2011, it was estimated that the park system had a deferred maintenance backlog of $1.3 billion.

Historic Building Condition Assessment (DPR website)

California State Park Closures: Even Parks That Remain Open Are in Bad Shape (by Ilsa Setzoil, KPCC)

Keep Our State Parks Open (California League of Conservation Voters)

City of Bell Runs Up Big Tab

One year after the Los Angeles Times ran its first investigative story in July 2010 exposing possible widespread corruption by Bell city officials in Southern California, the state lodged a claim for return of nearly $500,000 in grant money awarded there by the Department of Parks and Recreation.

The department demanded return of the money after a parks auditor alleged that the Bell city council had not approved contracts, that contracts were awarded without required competitive bidding and conflicts of interest existed. The grants at issue totaled $4.8 million and were awarded in 2003 and 2004.

The city teetered on the verge of bankruptcy all through 2011, with a $4 million deficit reported in August. Fired City Administrator Robert Rizzo, who was paid $1.5 million a year in salary and benefits, and seven other former Bell officials were charged with various counts of corruption, including voter fraud, misappropriation of public funds and falsifying public documents.

The state may face some stiff competition for reclaiming lost money. The poor, working-class city was allegedly bilked out of more than $5.5 million. Rizzo, himself, sued the city for back wages he lost after his dismissal.

Bell Owes Nearly $500,000, California Parks Department Says (by Jeff Gottleib, Los Angeles Times)

Robert Rizzo Sues Bell, Says City Had No “Cause” to Fire Him (by Abby Sewell, Los Angeles Times)

Lawyer: Robert Rizzo Was Victimized, Not City Of Bell (Associated Press)

Chutzpah: Ex-City Manager Sues Bell (by Matt Reynolds, Courthouse News Service)

By the end of 2011, the ideas floated by the state’s Senate Republican caucus about privatizing state parks had not led to any proposed legislation.

In October 2011, Governor Brown signed AB 42 into law, which allows the department to partner with a nonprofit group for the operation of one or more parks. The bill requires annual reports and an annual public meeting about each park, and includes measures that ensure accountability and transparency. It also states that all revenues received from the park will be used to maintain the park.

Another bill, SB 580, targeted newly-acquired land that the department gets as a gift or through public funds. SB 580 said that land thus acquired could not be used for anything other than park purposes, however it failed in committee.

AB 42 (California Legislative Information)

SB 580 (California Legislative Information)

Should Parks be Privatized?

Billion-dollar bond initiatives, millions in taxpayer dollars, a large parks department bureaucracy, long legislative debates, thousands of public employee manhours spent and lots of public angst.

Perhaps there are private solutions to California’s vexing parks and recreation problems.

No—We Must Preserve Our Parks for Everyone

When Frederick Olmsted, designer of New York’s Central Park and a lifelong advocate of preserving Yosemite Valley, argued for keeping the national treasure out of private hands, he argued: “Without means taken by government to withhold them from the grasp of individuals, places favorable in scenery to the recreation of the mind and body will be closed against the great body of the people.”

Whether it’s the use of user fees, donations from non-profit organizations, or innovative partnerships with private enterprise, the fear expressed by advocates is that once the public abdicates responsibility for the parks they will lose access to them.

After listing several state parks that have been saved from closure by innovative agreements with nonprofit organizations and donations from concerned citizens, Peter Fimrite of the San Francisco Chronicle asks, “How will these agreements work over time? If parks remain open using donations, what is the incentive for legislators to put money for parks in the general fund budget? And who is going to stop a rich crook or pot dealer from taking a park off the closure list and using it for fiendish pursuits?”

Fimrite acknowledged that “Park officials and watchdog groups promised that no criminal will ever get his or her clamps on a park, but the situation is desperate nevertheless.”

Many groups are adamantly opposed to privatization. According to the Red Green and Blue blog: “Privatization is horrible public policy that will result in the destruction of our public trust resources. Privatization is part of a well orchestrated campaign by the 1 percent to take away public resources from the 99 percent.”

Others agree. “No matter how carefully California lawyers write up the contracts, private entrepreneurs will insist on complete control of access, hours, terms of employment, and future considerations. It's the future considerations that are the killers,” warns East County Magazine. “It would be better for everyone to lock the gates, buy an umbrella insurance policy, and keep the public out. The wildlife would not mind, and if and when California get its finances in order it would still hold title to these lands.”

What public parks advocates fear is the attitude expressed by Paul Benedict at his War of Words blog. “It's California's rejection of free market principles that is the heart of this problem. California's parks should not cost taxpayers a dime. The value of park services to Californians should be determined by the supply and demand curve. Raise the park prices until the crowds decrease. Find out how much it is worth to California State residents to access particular parks which require the more expensive services and upkeep.”

People with limited resources need not apply for admission.

Private Funds for Calif. Public Parks Questioned (by Peter Fimrite, San Francisco Chronicle)

Will California Privatize Its State Parks? (by Dan Bacher, Red Green and Blue blog)

Don’t Privatize Parks! (by Will Power, East County Magazine)

Yes—Privatization Is a Great Alternative and It Saves Money

According to the state senate’s Republican caucus, “It appears that the private contractual operation of state parks, while keeping them in public ownership, could save taxpayer funds, improve park maintenance, and keep parks open into the future.”

A list of the benefits, according to the caucus, includes:

·     Savings in labor. An example: “Parks rely heavily on law enforcement to staff their facilities when in many cases an around-the-clock law enforcement presence is not necessary.” Private companies could hire civilians for duties that don’t require a peace officer’s presence.

·     Besides taking the park off the state’s ledger once privatization occurs, “the state can receive lease payments in return. It is common for contractors to pay 10% or more of gate receipts.”

·     “Improved maintenance. Private entities, particularly profit-earning ones, have an incentive to clean and maintain their facilities to encourage visitation.”

·     “Potential expanded facilities.” The caucus points out that with a long-term lease, companies could be persuaded to not only expand facilities but perform long-deferred maintenance and renovation.

·     “Reduced risk of park closures or service cutbacks.”

“This is not a radically new idea.” The Coyote blogs’s ParkPrivatization site points out that the US Forest Service began privatizing public lands in California over 30 years ago, keeping strict control over quality, facilities and fees “while harnessing the lower costs and innovation of private operators.” ParkPrivatization and Coyote blog are the editorial outlets of a company that operates campgrounds and recreational facilities for state and federal agencies under long-term contracts. “Private companies do operate large portions of a number of parks . . . under the close supervision of California State Parks. . . .

In fact, more than any other state in the nation, California already has the expertise and infrastructure in place to manage a private park operations program.”

“We are not talking about handing parks over to private entities to do with as they please—these highly structured relationships that substantially reduce costs because private operators can clean the bathrooms and do the landscape maintenance and staffing far less expensively than a public agency.”

“The government cannot efficiently manage anything,” blogs Nick Kump in Hogue News. After citing other organizations and complaining that there is “so much waste and bureaucracy that it is amazing that any of the state parks are able to make money at all,” Kump says, “When an organization or business is run by an individual to make money, they are a lot more careful because if the venture loses money there is no taxpayer safety net to fall back on or money to borrow from next year’s budget.”

“Closing any of our State Parks is a shame,” according to Kump, and few would disagree.  Privatizing them “could be a solution to help ensure that Californians get to enjoy State Parks for years to come.”

Briefing Report: Should State Parks Always be State-Run? (Republican Caucus, California State Senate)

Can Private Management Keep State Parks Open in California? (Park Privatization)

Should California Privatize State Parks? (by Nick Kump, Hogue News)

Closing California's State Parks: Communism Fails Again (by Paul Benedict, War of Words)

Anthony L. Jackson, 2012-2014

Ruth Coleman, 2002-2012

Rusty Areias, 1999-2001

Patricia Megason, 1998-1999

Donald W. Murphy, 1991-1997

Henry Agonia, 1987-1991

William Briner, 1983-1987. Briner’s confirmation hearing in 1984 was delayed until he issued a public apology to anyone who was offended by what they may have thought were ethnic slurs. He resigned over accusations of “openly and routinely” using racist and sexist slurs.

Carol Boyd Hallett, 1983. Hallett, a former assemblywoman, failed to be confirmed by the State Senate, but later became an ambassador and was appointed Customs Commissioner by President George W. Bush.

Russell Cahill, 1977-1980. Cahill presented a plan for allowing nude sunbathing at some state beaches. Before that controversy was settled, he resigned—days after the arrest of three men accused of plotting to assassinate him.

Herbert Rhodes, 1975-1977

William Penn Mott, Jr., 1967-1975. During Mott’s tenure, the state’s Division of Beaches and Parks became the Department of Parks and Recreation. The department doubled in size during his leadership.

Fred L. Jones, 1965-1967

Charles DeTurk, 1961-1965. DeTurk headed the Division of Parks and Beaches, one of the Department of Parks and Recreation’s predecessors. He resigned; critics said DeTurk was simply too kind and not tough enough to fight for state money and legislation that would benefit his department.