The Natural Resources Agency serves as caretaker of the state’s natural and historical resources. The cabinet-level agency, based in Sacramento, oversees 27 departments, boards, commissions and conservancies tasked with protecting and restoring the state’s coastline and lakes, forests, fish and wildlife habitats, farmlands, mineral deposits and energy sources as well as setting ocean and coastal policy, adapting to climate change, encouraging sustainable living and promoting outdoor recreation. The Department of Water Resources, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection are the three largest departments in the agency. 

Early government efforts to protect the state’s natural resources include the creation of the State Board of Forestry by the California Legislature in 1885. While many of the state’s resources were nominally under the purview of the federal government, residents grew to prefer more control closer to home as the state’s population and needs grew in the early 20^th century.  As demand mounted for protection of the state’s wildlands, the State Forester was empowered in 1905 to appoint local fire wardens and maintain a fire patrol for emergencies.

Water rights also have a long history in the state. From the days of streams running through Mexican pueblos, to gold miners diverting water for sluicing, to the spreading crops of the Central Valley and the burgeoning cities of the coast, the young state’s courts were tested with disputes. A Water Commission was founded and adopted by voters in 1913 to make recommendations regarding California’s water laws. The Department of Water Resources was created in 1956 by Governor Goodwin Knight, combining several smaller water authorities, after severe flooding across Northern California.

The growth in recreational boating in the mid-20^th century led to the Small Craft Harbor Law in 1957 and the formation of the Division of Small Craft Harbors, the predecessor to the Department of Boating and Waterways, to oversee the public’s boating safety and provide facilities to address the growing interest.

While several such departments have been around for decades, the agency itself was formed as the Resources Agency in October 1961 as an umbrella to coordinate the state’s varied roles in safeguarding its diverse resources.

Increasingly in the mid-1900s, voters were able to help decide where the state directed its attention and money in the natural resource realm as the initiative process allowed California’s special interests to propose spending priorities for ballot approval.

In 1960, voters approved a $1.75 billion general obligation bond to finance construction of the State Water Project (SWP), the system of reservoirs, aqueducts and pumps that transports water from the state’s north to the south.

Proposition 50, a $3.44 billion water bond passed in November 2002 and the largest natural resources bond ever passed in California, was the first successful water bond placed on the ballot by initiative.

In 2006, voters approved $9.5 billion in bonding capacity for natural resources.

The Resources Agency adopted its current name of California Natural Resources Agency on January 1, 2009, to better reflect its primary mission of protecting the state’s natural resources.

History Of The California State Water Project (DWR website)

California State Water Project Milestones (DWR website)

General History (by Mark V. Thornton, Cal Fire website)

A Brief History (Department of Boating and Waterways website)

New Year Brings New Name for California’s Natural Resources Agency (Western Farm Press)

Departments

Department of Boating and Waterways

The Department of Boating and Waterways provides public access to the state’s waterways and promotes water safety. Funded by vessel registration fees, boating fuel tax dollars and boating facility construction loan payments, programs include officer training and funding for local and state agencies that provide boating law enforcement; boater education for students and non-students; loans to build marinas and grants to build launch ramps; aquatic pest control in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; and coastal beach erosion control. The department helps potential sailors with advice on such things as how to buy a used boat.

As part of his cost-cutting efforts, Governor Jerry Brown proposed in January 2012 to merge or eliminate several departments. The California Department of Boating and Waterways is on the chopping block, and not for the first time. The plan is to eliminate the department and merge its functions with the Department of Parks and Recreation. The California Boating and Waterways Commission would be eliminated. The Marina Recreation Association asked its members to contact legislators and oppose the proposal.

The department’s budget is $69 million for 2012-13.

State Considers Cuts to Boating Department (by Kathy Portie, Big Bear Grizzly)

Department of Conservation

The Department of Conservation works to balance today’s economic needs with tomorrow’s obligations to the environment by encouraging the wise use and conservation of energy, land and mineral resources. As the state’s population grows, the department’s land conservation team promotes orderly growth of residential development while preserving crop land through conservation easement grants, tax incentives to keep land in agriculture or open space, and farmland mapping and monitoring. Department geologists gather data on earthquakes and map faults and related hazards. One team assures that mining operators plan to restore the land and pay for it while another oversees the building, operation and closure of oil, gas and geothermal wells. The Mineral Resources Project keeps track of mineral deposits, and the Mining and Geology Board represents the public’s interest in the department’s activities.

The department’s budget is $74.7 million in 2012-13.

One department publication for those new to the state: What to do in an earthquake

Department of Fish and Game

The Department of Fish and Game maintains native fish, wildlife and plant species and their habitats for their ecological value and their benefits to people. The department is responsible for recreational, commercial, scientific and educational uses of fish and wildlife. The department manages 739 properties including 110 wildlife areas, 130 ecological reserves, 11 marine reserves and 20 fish hatcheries.

The Environmental Review and Permitting Programs monitor the effect of development and other human activities on wildlife habitats. The Office of Spill Prevention and Response handles spills of oil and other harmful materials.  The Invasive Species Program works to reduce the negative effects of non-native invasive plants and animals on wildlands and waterways. CalTIP (Californians Turn In Poachers and Polluters) is a confidential secret witness program that encourages the public to call with information that could lead to the arrest of poachers and polluters.

As part of his 2012-13 budget, the governor is proposing to eliminate the following:  the Salton Sea Restoration Council;  the California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout; the Commercial Salmon Review Board;  the State Interagency Oil Spill Committee;  the State Interagency Oil Spill Review Subcommittee; and the Abalone Advisory Committee.

Sportsmen can find information on how to buy a hunting or fishing license, where to hunt, where to fish—and for what—and related regulations.

The department’s budget is nearly $391 million in 2012-13.

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) is the state’s fire line—protecting residents, property and more than 31 million acres of wilderness from disaster.  When desert winds sweep through the state’s canyons and spark wildfires, Cal Fire is in the news as anxious residents look for salvation from flying embers.

But the department, which includes the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM),  is busy even when flames aren’t on the horizon.  The department also responds to natural and man-made disasters such as earthquakes, floods, hazardous materials spills and terrorism threats.

Cal Fire’s budget of $1.2 billion for 2012-13 is the third-largest in the agency.

Department of Parks and Recreation

Some of the finest environmental jewels in the nation come under the eye of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, which manages more than 270 park units. While the state is known for its lofty redwood groves and sun-warmed beaches, the treasures overseen by this department also include the opulent Hearst Castle and the vestiges of colonial Russia. Most of the department’s spending isn’t on the state’s iconic natural landmarks, though, but at the city level. The department is partially self-supporting, recouping about a third of expenses through park entrance fees, parking fees, campground fees and other user charges.

The department is budgeted at $517.8 million for 2012-13. The budget act includes a $22 million general fund reduction, expected to result in the closure of up to 70 state parks as of July 1, 2012.

The department makes it possible to reserve a campsite  at a state park online and see the amenities at each park.

Department of Water Resources

If the state is in a drought, the Department of Water Resources should be the first to know. The department evaluates existing water sources, forecasts future water needs and explores potential solutions to meet the state’s water needs for personal use, irrigation, industry, recreation, power generation, and fish and wildlife. The department also works to prevent and minimize flood damage, ensure the safety of dams, and educate the public about the importance of water and its efficient use. Its most important functions include updating the state’s water plan; overseeing the State Water Project; and protecting life and property from flooding.

Watching over the state’s water supply is the largest component of natural resources spending in California, totaling $2.5 billion in 2012-13.

California Conservation Corps

The California Conservation Corps (CCC) employs young men and women, ages 18 to 25, for a year to protect and restore California’s environment, respond to disasters and, in the process, become stronger workers, citizens and individuals. The corps was created in July 1976 by Governor Jerry Brown, who envisioned it as “a combination Jesuit seminary, Israeli kibbutz and Marine Corps boot camp.” It became a permanent state agency under Governor George Deukmejian in 1983. CCC was modeled after the original federal Civilian Conservation Corps, created in 1933 by President Franklin Roosevelt, which itself might have been inspired by California’s work relief program started two years earlier.

The Corps’ budget is nearly $93 million for 2012-13.

Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)

CalRecycle is the state’s “green” department—specializing in recycling, waste reduction and product reuse. Officially known as the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, CalRecycle encourages the conservation of California’s resources and promotes innovation in technology to encourage economic and environmental sustainability.

The governor’s 2012-13 budget recommends transferring CalRecycle to the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA).  Hazardous waste, electronic waste, used oil, used tires and landfill permits are typically not considered natural resources but wastes, which should be regulated under the state EPA, it points out.

With a budget of $1.4 billion for 2012-13, the department is the second-largest by expenditures in the agency.

Learn where to recycle beverage containers, electronic items or used oil, buy recycled materials, reduce junk mail, or compost a garden.

Boards and Commissions

California Coastal Commission The Coastal Commission aims to protect, conserve, restore and enhance environmental and human-based resources of the California coast and ocean. It is an independent, quasi-judicial state agency established by voter initiative in 1972 (Proposition 20) and made permanent by the California Coastal Act of 1976. Most development that affects the use of land or public access to coastal waters requires a coastal permit from the Coastal Commission or the local government.

Colorado River Board of California

The Colorado River Board of California represents California’s rights to, and interests in, resources provided by the 1,450-mile-long Colorado River, and works with other state governments, Native American Indian tribes and federal agencies with a shared interest in the river. About 17 million Californians receive water and hydroelectric electricity energy from the Colorado River.

Fish and Game Commission

The Fish and Game Commission formulates policy for guidance of the Department of Fish and Game, regulates aspects of commercial fishing, oversees the establishment, and regulates the use, of wildlife areas and ecological reserves, and determines the terms and conditions under which permits and licenses are issued by the department. The commission has a complicated, and at times contentious, relationship with the department, upon which it relies for research and guidance, while providing an appeals process for department decisions.  

Native American Heritage Commission

This nine-member commission oversees Native American graves and sacred sites in California, making sure they are protected from destruction, notifying tribes when human remains or grave goods are found, and in the case of ancient graves, determining which Native group will become custodian of human remains and artifacts. The commission also watches over shrines, churches and other sites sacred to Native Americans that are on public property, and maintains a list of these sites.

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which is in the Natural Resources Agency, is a planning and regulatory body created in 1965 in response to growing concerns by local residents about the bay’s long-term future in light of shrinking and contamination from unregulated filling. The commission maintains the San Francisco Bay Plan and issues or denies permits for development, filling and dredging within its designated regional authority. Its activities include developing strategies for dealing with the impacts of the rising sea level from climate change.

State Lands Commission

The State Lands Commission manages more than 4 million acres of property received from the federal government. This includes tide and submerged lands, state school lands, beds of navigable waterways and swamps plus the energy and mineral resources contained within them. Its stewardship includes economic development (leasing properties to companies and utilities), protection, preservation, removal of hazards and restoration. Through its policies, the commission tries to ensure balanced use of the state’s resources, bringing in revenue while complying with environmental and other laws.

Wildlife Conservation Board

The Wildlife Conservation Board provides funding through 10 designated programs for wildlife habitat protection, restoration and public access projects oriented toward the wild. It oversees programs and projects designed to conserve and restore wildlife habitat, and provide people with recreational opportunities in these conservation areas. The board purchases land and waterways, and rehabilitates these properties to natural conditions to restore wildlife habitat.

Other boards and commissions include:

·         California Energy Commission

·         Delta Protection Commission

·         Central Valley Flood Protection Board

·         Board of Forestry

·         Mining and Geology Board

·         Parks and Recreation Commission

·         State Historical Resources Commission

·         State Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission

·         California Boating and Waterways Commission

Conservancies

Baldwin Hills Conservancy

The Baldwin Hills Conservancy facilitates the acquisition and management of public lands by third parties in the heart of metropolitan Los Angeles, helping provide recreational opportunities while protecting and restoring the area’s natural habitat within its 2,065-acre boundaries. Baldwin Hills, long the site of oil drilling and environmental degradation, is the last, large undeveloped area of open space in urban Los Angeles County. Its 450 acres of parkland include the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area, the Ladera Ball Fields, the Vista Pacifica Scenic Site, Culver City Park and Norman O. Houston Park. The hills are situated at the center of a diverse demographic area; the population within a three-mile radius is 36% African American, 29% Latino, 23% Anglo and 8% Asian.

California Tahoe Conservancy

The California Tahoe Conservancy seeks to develop and implement programs through acquisitions and site improvements that enhance the water quality, scenic beauty and recreational opportunities in the Lake Tahoe Basin. It provides grants and directly funds soil erosion prevention and watershed restoration while improving public access by acquiring lakefront property, constructing pedestrian and bike paths, and building public access facilities. It is not a regulatory agency and its jurisdiction extends only along the California side of Lake Tahoe. The conservancy works with the federal government, Nevada, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, local governments and various entities to implement the Environmental Improvement Program, a 1997 agreement that committed $900 million over 10 years to acquisitions and capital improvement projects in the basin.

Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy

The Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, established in 1991, acquires land as open space in the mountainous lands around the Coachella Valley in Southern California. Its 21-member board—three federal, nine state and nine local—promotes habitat priorities in an area which stretches from Palm Springs to the Salton Sea.

Coastal Conservancy

The Coastal Conservancy, established in 1976, has undertaken more than 1,800 projects along the 1,100-mile California coastline and around San Francisco Bay. The conservancy and its staff of 75 have put $1.5 billion to work revitalizing urban waterfronts, solving complex land-use problems, protecting agricultural lands, protecting and improving wetlands, streams and watersheds, and buying and holding valuable coastal and bay lands.

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy is the primary state agency overseeing  habitat restoration, ecosystem protection and economic well-being for the 740,000-acre estuary. The conservancy’s 13-member board works to protect and preserve agriculture, increase opportunities for tourism and recreation, and fortify the Delta against natural disasters like earthquakes and floods. The conservancy also works to improve water quality; the Delta provides drinking water for  25 million users statewide. It works in conjunction with the Delta Stewardship Council (whose main function is creation and maintenance of the Delta Plan) and the Delta Protection Commission (which facilitates program development and legislative initiatives).

San Diego River Conservancy

The San Diego River Conservancy is an independent, non-regulatory government agency established by the California legislature to preserve, maintain and restore the San Diego River watershed. Led by a 13-member board of state and local representatives, the conservancy is charged with the main goal of land acquisitions from private landowners who are willing to sell or donate habitat land and wetlands in need of management and conservation. California’s smallest state agency—it has only two full-time employees—is charged with protection or creation of recreational areas and open space, improvement of water quality, natural flood conveyance, historical/cultural resources and educational opportunities. The 440-square-mile San Diego River watershed is plagued with urban pollution, as well as subjected to intense development and wildfires.

San Gabriel & Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy

The San Gabriel & Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, created in 1999, preserves open space and habitat to provide for low-impact recreation and educational uses, wildlife habitat restoration and protection, and watershed improvements in eastern Los Angeles County and western Orange County. The conservancy, and its 20-member governing board, has no power of condemnation or authority of local zoning laws.

San Joaquin River Conservancy

The San Joaquin River Conservancy was established in 1992 to develop, operate and maintain the San Joaquin River Parkway, which runs along either side of the river from Friant Dam to Highway 99 in Madera and Fresno counties. In the process, it helps protect, enhance and restore the river’s habitat, acquiring and developing land while promoting public access, recreation, and environmental and ecological protection through balanced restoration efforts.

Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy

The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, established by the state Legislature in 1980, is dedicated to acquiring land in Southern California with the main goal of forming an extended system of “urban, rural and river parks, open space, trails and wildlife habitats” and making those areas easily accessible to the public. The conservancy’s original territory consisted of the Santa Susana Mountains, Santa Monica Mountains and the Simi Hills, all of which are located in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. The territory has since been extended to include parks in the Verdugo Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Puente Hills and San Rafael Hills. The zone in which the conservancy can acquire land is 450,000 acres.

Sierra Nevada Conservancy

The Sierra Nevada Conservancy is charged with conserving and restoring the 25 million acres in 22 counties—one-fourth of California—that lie along the Sierra Nevada mountains. It works with federal, state and local governments, as well as non-profit organizations, to protect the natural, cultural and historic resources of the region. The conservancy encompasses one of the most biologically diverse regions in the state, and is the state's principal watershed, supplying about 65% of California’s water. The region provides half of California’s annual timber yield, is home to 60% of the state’s animal species and half its plant species, hosts 50 million visitors a year, and is the only place on Earth you can gaze upon nature’s largest living thing: the Giant Sequoia. The conservancy has no regulatory power.

Councils

·         Delta Stewardship Council

·         Ocean Protection Council

Programs and Projects

·         Bay Delta Conservation Plan

·         California Biodiversity Council

·         Salton Sea

·         Stewardship Council

·         Enforcement Responsibilities

Data Services

·        The California Environmental Resources Evaluation System (CERES) allows access to electronic data on California’s  environments from multiple sources with the aim of improving environmental analysis and planning.

·        California Environmental Information Clearinghouse (CEIC)

Divisions

·         Bonds & Grants

·         Energy & Climate Change

·         Legal Affairs

·         Legislation

·         Oceans

·         Small Business Liaison

What the Natural Resource Agency has spent money on in recent years has depended heavily on where its money has come from. Once largely dependent on money from the state’s general fund and, to a lesser extent, federal funding, the natural resource budget has increasingly come from general obligation bond funds—about three-quarters of the $13 billion spent during the 2000s. (Most of the rest derives from user fees and  special fund revenues.)

Increasingly dictated by bond issues, spending on capital projects has risen and fallen based more on voter sentiment than on legislative discussion. Spending on parks and recreation, for example, swelled after the passage of Proposition 12 in March 2000 then dropped toward the end of the 2000s as bond revenue for those activities dried up. Spending on flood protection increased with the passage of flood prevention bonds in 2006.

The share of spending on state projects versus local assistance in any given year also shifts with the availability of bond funds.

Such civic causes as clean water and new parks have been hard for Californians to resist in the new century, especially capital improvements on a local level. They have voted for nearly $20 billion in general obligation bonds for such things as park projects, land conservation, wastewater treatment and safe drinking water infrastructure, as well as flood management and other water management infrastructure, since 2000. 

Paying for that debt has itself become a major cost for the state. General obligation bond debt-service costs are the largest single general fund expenditure for the Natural Resources Agency, totaling over $700 million in 2009-10 and growing to approximately $900 million in 2010-11—a fourfold increase since 2000-01.

What the Natural Resources departments have to show for the money spent is land—either acquired, preserved or restored. In the 2000s, the departments —led by the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Wildlife Conservation Board and the State Coastal Conservancy—acquired a total of 1.5 million acres for $2.8 billion to preserve or rehabilitate environmentally sensitive areas or expand state parks.

Money also went to repair or upgrade new facilities such as levees, dams, fire stations and state park structures. Funding from a flood control bond issue in 2006, for example, helped the Department of Water Resources fix up166 flood management sites and 117 other sites. Since 1990, Cal Fire has replaced about 60 of its 476 structures.

ne last big area of spending has been water-related infrastructure to meet increasingly stringent federal environmental regulations, including the local management or treatment of storm-water runoff and wastewater.

The spending area that experienced the biggest growth in expenditures is resource conservation. In 1979, 17% of total expenditures went to resource conservation activities. By 1999, it was 41%. Public safety activities came in a close second with resource development, which relied more on the erratic passage of bonds, seldom receiving more than 37% of total spending.

The unpredictability of bond funding has meant that the impact of the state’s spending has been harder to track.

Some bond measures, such as Proposition 84, are specific about what the money must be spent on; of $540 million authorized for the protection of beaches, bays and coastal waters, $360 million was identified for specific purposes. Others bond issues, such as Proposition 1E, give more flexibility to lawmakers. Also making it difficult to track the result of spending is that spending from some bond issues flows directly from the department while spending from other bond issues must go through specialized boards and commissions, each with their own criteria for setting guidelines and granting money.

The proposed 2012-13 budget includes $7.8 billion for all the programs in the Natural Resources Agency; of that, $1.9 billion would come from the general fund—out of total general fund expenditures of $92.5 billion—and the rest from other funds. That is a reduction from $10.3 billion in the 2011-12 fiscal year.

The administration of the Natural Resources Agency is budgeted at $47.7 million for 2012-13. That’s a drop from $173.2 million in 2011-12, partly due to a drop-off in funding from the 2006 water-related bond funds.

Natural Resources Budget Summary (pdf)

3-Year Budget (pdf)

A Ten-Year Perspective: California Infrastructure Spending (by Mark Whitaker, Legislative Analyst’s Office)

Fiscal Realities: Budget Tradeoffs in California Government (by Tracy M. Gordon, Jaime Calleja Alderete, Patrick J. Murphy, Jon Sonstelie, Ping Zhang, Public Policy Institute of California) (pdf)

California State Budget (Sunshine Review)

Inappropriate Spending

An audit of Proposition 50 by the Department of Finance revealed that money from the bonds it authorized was spent for the executive director of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy to have an airport “Red Carpet Club” membership, for other personal travel-related expenses and for expenses unrelated to protecting coastal watersheds, according to a 2009 report by the Little Hoover Commission, an independent state oversight agency.

The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy spent $150,000 from the bond to pay lawyers to defend a lawsuit filed by local residents, says the same report. Another audit found that the California Coastal Conservancy bond funds were spent for lobbying and employee perks, such as transit subsidies and yoga and weight loss programs.

In his written testimony to the commission, Natural Resources Agency Secretary Mike Chrisman said that after the release of the findings, funds were returned for all ineligible expenses and the agency’s operating procedures and organizational structures were changed to better monitor bond expenditures.  However, the commission pointed out that no statutes exist that allow the state to impose a fine or a penalty for inappropriate spending.

Says the report: “When asked whether or not the Natural Resources Agency had ever sought legislation that would impose a penalty for inappropriate use of bond money, a representative from the agency said that because the incidents were relatively minor, the agency did not deem it necessary to have an enforceable statute. Current bond law simply requires the money to be recovered.”

Bond Spending: Expanding and Enhancing Oversight (Little Hoover Commission) (pdf)

Exploitation of Landmark Environmental Law

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been credited with helping preserve swaths of the Sierra Nevada, Mojave Desert and coastline. The state law requires developers to put projects through due environmental diligence, which can then be challenged in court. The law’s intent was to allow a single state resident to protect an endangered species. But savvy business interests have adopted the act to halt competitors’ projects and anti-development activists have used it to stymie projects in their neighborhoods.

“It’s just that it’s so easy for a competitor or for somebody with some sort of rival interest to file that lawsuit and create delays and try and discourage the development and get more favorable terms or get bought off,” the Milken Institute’s Kevin Klowden said.

One such example is the University Gateway development near the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. When the developer Urban Partners proposed erecting a new complex to house 1,600 students, rival Conquest Student Housing sued under CEQA. Conquest’s CEQA appeals went away when Urban Partners brought racketeering charges in federal court. 

As Dan Rosenfeld, formerly with Urban Partners, told the Los Angeles Times: “These are the laws that allow a solo bird-watcher to protect an endangered animal, but they’re being used by a sophisticated real estate entity to kneecap the competition.”

The Public Policy Institute of California says that less than 1% of all California projects deal with CEQA lawsuits, but “developers say they spend millions ‘bulletproofing’ their environmental documents to fend off a challenge.” 

In September, Governor Jerry Brown signed a law to allow a football stadium proposed for downtown Los Angeles to avoid drawn-out CEQA litigation. He signed a second bill to grant other major projects the same treatment and a third in October to ease the requirements for some urban projects that otherwise meet planning standards.

Environmental groups are alarmed by the legislation, fearing inroads on CEQA’s environmental mandate under the scare tactic that the act is a job killer. Business groups argue that modifications to CEQA have been too narrow.

Firms Turning to Environmental Law to Combat Rivals (by Nicholas Riccardi, Los Angeles Times)

Developer Compares Environmental Suits to Al-Qaeda Bombs (by James Brasuell, Curbed Los Angeles)

Laws That Shaped L.A.: How the California Environmental Quality Act Allows Anyone to Thwart Development (by Jeremy Rosenberg, KCET)

Lobbying Scuffle Shows Price of Influence

In 2009, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, worried about the cost of complying with AB32, a 2006 law that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, decided to beef up its advocacy efforts in Sacramento. It voted to bring in the author of the global warming bill, Los Angeles Democrat and former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, to advise the department’s team of lobbyists.

But the proposal drew fire from DWP critics, and the five-member panel that oversees the DWP asked its executives to explain the need for a contract worth up to $2.4 million with Conservation Strategy Group, which serves as a lobbyist and bond adviser to the utility. Under the proposed contract, the lobbying firm, which was to receive as much as  $600,000 a year, would retain Nunez’ firm, Mercury Public Affairs, as a subcontractor for $120,000 a year. The DWP ended up dropping its plan to hire Nunez and drastically scaled back its contract with the lobbying firm.

The dustup brought into the public eye, however briefly, one of the most influential players in the state’s process of making environmental policy. Conservation Strategy Group counts among its clients the Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, CALFED Bay-Delta Program, Wildlife Conservation Board, Coastal Conservancy, Department of Conservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, Department of Water Resources and the State Water Resources Control Board.

Joseph Caves, partner at Conservation Strategy Group, is at the center of most of the big-money environmental deals in the state and exerts a profound influence on environmental policy, according to Capitol Weekly. “Caves’ expertise is figuring out funding sources for environmental projects and convincing voters to support them” including the pending $11.1 billion water bond, it says. Caves was the principal author of Propositions 50 and 84 and instrumental in the development of Propositions 12, 13 and 40, says the firm’s website.

Conservation Strategy Group

Capitol Weekly’s Top 100 List (Capitol Weekly)

DWP Proposes Hiring Former Assembly Speaker Nuñez to Help Lobbyists (by David Zahniser,  Los Angeles Times)

DWP Drops Plan to Hire Former Assembly Speaker as Consultant (by David Zahniser,  Los Angeles Times)

Freeman Report: Cooking (the Books) With Hot Air (by Ron Kaye, Ron Kaye L.A.)

Lobbying Firm Summary, Conservation Strategy Group (National Institute on Money in State Politics)

The Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012

The biggest water bond since California voters approved Proposition 84 in 2006 was expected to be on the November 2012 after being postponed two years.

The $11.1 billion bond package includes restoration money for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, whose fish populations have been devastated by water diversion for agriculture, and for new dams and reservoirs.

Unlike the 2006 pre-recession vote, however, this bond measure was facing an uphill battle—adding to an already burdensome debt service at a time when education and social services were being hit with budget cuts.

Opponents of the measure point to what they call “pork” including $100 million for a Lake Tahoe watershed restoration, bike trails and public access and recreation projects and $20 million for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands in Huntington Beach for interpretive projects for visitors.

Cal Watchdog points out that the bond would beef up the Delta Stewardship Council into a super agency with land-use police powers—sort of a Coastal Commission of the Bay Delta area, with wide powers to usurp land-use decisions.

Water Bond Would Impose Bureaucracy (by Wayne Lusvardi, Cal Watchdog)

California Water Bond (2012) (Ballotopedia)

California Water Bond Pushed Back to 2012 (by Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times)

Jerry Brown Says November Water Bond Vote Might Need to Be Delayed  (by Anthony York, Los Angeles Times)

Gov. Jerry Brown Is Facing Tricky Environmental and Energy Issues in California (by Margot Roosevelt, Los Angeles Times)

Water Bond Offers Nearly $2 Billion in “Pork” (by Wyatt Buchanan, San Francisco Chronicle)

Should User Fees Fill Holes in the State Budget?

As the state dealt with decreased revenue and downgraded credit in the first decade of the new century, it looked once again to a perennially attractive source of alternative funding: user fees. The programs of the Natural Resource Agency are especially appealing targets for legislators looking for extra revenue. After all, many of the programs that account for the bulk of the state’s spending­—such as K-12 schools, prisons and health and human services—aren’t great sources of fees.

The idea of shifting the cost of a program or service onto those who benefit from it the most typically sits well with conservative lawmakers and tends to gain favor in times of tight budgets and high deficits. Liberals, on the other hand, typically prefer to spread costs more broadly under a belief in the common good.

As general fund revenues were diverted to core programs such as education and health and social services during the recessions of the early 1980s and the 1990s, various resource program fees, such as those for parks and recreation, were raised to replace them.

In 1979, earmarked revenues from fees and program-related assessments made up only 15% of total funding. By 1995, that amount had risen to about 50%.

Most recently, the state boosted day-use parking fees $2 to $5 and overnight camping fees $10 to $21 in 2009, for example, while residents in rural areas with high fire danger must pay a fee for Cal Fire’s services under a 2011 law.

California’s Natural Resource Programs: Where Does the Money Come from and Where Does It Go? (by J. Fred Silva, Public Policy Institute of California) (pdf)

Those Who Benefit Most Should Pay More

“In these dire economic times, we can no longer afford to keep our fees at their current levels,” state parks Director Ruth Coleman said in an August 2009 news release. “The people of California understand that by charging more, we will be able to keep more parks open and preserved.”

Likewise, when Governor Jerry Brown signed off on the $150 fire protection fee on about 850,000 rural homes in July 2011, he wrote, “A fee consistent with the ‘beneficiary pays principle,’ such as the one intended in this bill, can achieve significant General Fund savings.”

Brown said that because the state provides fire protection for those structures, services should be funded by the landowners in these areas.

The trend toward fees can be found in other agencies as well. Despite reducing the vehicle license fee in 2011, the state raised the fixed registration fee to $46 from $34 to pay for the Department of Motor Vehicles, for example. Students at California State University and  University of California campuses face tuition hikes of about 20% in 2011-12 over the previous year while community college students will pay $10 per unit more.

“The only other opportunity for revenue is following a different philosophy, which is the user pays through user fees,” Democratic state Senator Mark Leno, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, told the Sacramento Bee. “We no longer care about the common good.”

California Lowers Taxes, Raises Fees (by Kevin Yamamura, Sacramento Bee)

State Park Camping and Day-Use Fees to Increase, Partners Sought to Help Keep More Parks Open (California Department of Parks and Recreation website) (pdf)

Don’t Hit up Users to Fund State Obligations

Faced with the alternative of boarded-up park entrances or closed fire stations, many people can’t help but choose fees as the better option, however reluctantly. But opponents of the trend toward relying increasingly on user fees point out that the burden often falls unfairly and hits those of modest incomes.

At Folsom Lake in summer 2011, for example, Daniel Maningas told the Sacramento Bee that while he didn’t mind paying $30 for a one-night campground fee, the day-use fee was so steep that he parks his truck for free off state property when he rides his mountain bike in the Bay Area.

“You’re there only a couple hours, and you’re going to pay $10?” said Maningas, a transmission mechanic from American Canyon. “That kind of hurts in the pocket.”

The rural fire-protection fee was challenged in February 2012 by Republican state Senator Ted Gaines. Many of those affected said the fee was a double taxation, since they already paid for local fire protection. Others pointed out that the fee was the same whether the homeowner lived in a shack on the foggy coast or an estate in dry brushland.

The arguments against fees get stronger when the fee assessed doesn’t directly benefit the person who pays but goes to fund another area of government. Such was the case with Proposition 21, a ballot initiative in November 2010 that aimed to establish a $18 vehicle license surcharge to fund state parks. Surcharged vehicles would get into parks free.

Opponents said the fee was really a tax, since everyone would pay for it, but not everyone would go to a state park.

“That’s an awful lot of money,” said Peter Foy, chairman of Americans for Prosperity in California. “And you’re taking it out of every single person who drives a car. It hits the poor the hardest, because I’m required to pay this just to register my car.”

Wrote Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; “Instead of reducing the size of government to fit these difficult times, this new car tax will allow politicians to play a cynical budget shell game that could still leave our state parks dilapidated while diverting hundreds of millions of dollars into other government programs.”

The proposition failed at the ballot box. There was no estimated $500 million injection into the parks budget. The state intends to close 70 of its 278 parks in late 2012.

Prop 21: Raise Vehicle Fees for State Parks (by Carlos Granda, KABC)

Arguments For and Against Proposition 21 (California Voter Guide) (pdf)

California Proposition 21, Vehicle License Fee for Parks (2010) (Ballotpedia)

State Park Camping and Day-Use Fees to Increase, Partners Sought to Help Keep More Parks Open (California Department of Parks and Recreation website) (pdf)

California Lowers Taxes, Raises Fees (by Kevin Yamamura, Sacramento Bee)

California State Park Fees to Increase at Many Locations Next Week (by Patrick McGreevy and Amy Littlefield, Los Angeles Times) 

Improve Accountability of Projects

In 2009, nearly $10 million was budgeted to improve the park entrance and redevelop day use features at Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park, and the state committed more than $5 million for a new visitor center at Calaveras Big Trees State Park. But at that same time, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was proposing to close both parks as part of his budget-cutting plan.

It sounds like the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. But in California’s budgeting process, the two-track process isn’t a mere accident; it is standard operating procedure. Park infrastructure improvements are funded with bond money, park ranger salaries and park operations are not.

That dichotomy is one reason the Natural Resources Agency has come in for criticism about its expenditures. But there are other reasons that the accountability of the agency’s programs is especially hard to track, according to the Little Hoover Commission.

Bond-funded programs in some state agencies result in roads or schools—results that are easy to document.

“It is more difficult to track and assess the effectiveness of bond programs in other parts of government, particularly in the natural resources area, where bond money is spent on less tangible infrastructure projects such as habitat restoration or water quality improvement,” says the commission’s report.

For example, the state has spent some $1.6 billion in bond money under the CALFED Bay Delta program to improve water quality and reliability and restore the ecosystem in the Delta.  But water is still in short supply and endangered fish species are plummeting. It is difficult to track how the money was spent, what outcomes were achieved and whether taxpayers will be paying for these expenditures long after the value has diminished.

Additionally, says the report, natural resource bond money has been spent more liberally on project planning and science—specifically for studies or plans to determine ecosystem restoration, flood control or water supply needs. As one witness told the Little Hoover Commission, “Wouldn’t you think you would do a plan first, and then go ask for the money?”

Witnesses told the Commission that accountability and transparency could be improved by setting up an independent commission to oversee spending of bond money on water programs (See below).

The Little Hoover Commission also recommended that a similar benefit to the agency as a whole could be obtained with a revived California Natural Resources Commission, modeled after the California Transportation Commission.

Bond Spending: Expanding and Enhancing Oversight (Little Hoover Commission) (pdf)

Reconstitute the California Water Commission

The increasingly piecemeal, even random, approach to natural resources spending that has developed with the heightened dependence on bond funding has led to some suggestions to improve the process.

Between 1996 and 2006, for example, California voters enacted seven bonds authorizing more than $20 billion for various natural resource investments, most  to improve water quality and prevent flooding. But the benefits from that money invested aren’t clear, said the Little Hoover Commission, even as policy-makers in 2009 began again discussing a water bond for a statewide vote. Part of the problem is that the projects to be funded by the bond proceeds aren’t laid out in the measure but are left to the Legislature to determine. Another part is that bond money sometimes funds the planning and research programs to pinpoint needs. The commission was told that sometimes the bond measures appear to be “money in search of a mission.”

It was not always clear what the bond measure would fund; details are often buried in the fine print of the measures’ descriptions. Voters have enacted five bond measures totaling more than $16 billion since 1996 that included the words “clean water,” “clean drinking water” or “water quality” in the title.  But did those voters intend that money to go to build aquariums and other similar facilities in various locations across the state, including potentially $5 million for a new aquarium in Fresno? The word “aquarium” did not show up until page 143 of the 192-page voter guide for the November 2006 election. “Nor was it easily apparent that $2 million of the Proposition 84 money dedicated to the preservation of beaches, bays and coastal waters would be used to construct a replica of the historic ship San Salvador for the Maritime Museum Association of San Diego,” says the report.

Bonds aren’t considered the best tool for funding ongoing operations, such as updating the California Water Plan, which must be done every five years, or conducting evaluations of projected climate change impacts on the water supply and flood control systems for the Climate Change Program.

Mindy McIntyre, who served as the Planning and Conservation League’s water program manager at the time she testified before the commission,  emphasized the need for sustainable funding for ongoing programs with an example:  Proposition 1E allocated money to shore up eroded levees to provide flood protection in Northern California. However, dropping rocks on levees that were positioned as part of a plan to move sediment quickly during the Gold Rush era will not provide long-term protection. McIntyre testified that if the state wants better flood protection on a long-term basis, it needs a plan for flood management. 

One solution was offered by Natural Resources Agency Secretary Mike Chrisman and Department of Water Resources Director Lester Snow. They suggested reviving the dormant California Water Commission—established in the late 1950s to oversee the construction of the state water project then broadened in the late 1970s to provide input on water resources. Chrisman and Snow recommended the commission be resurrected as the California Natural Resources Commission to allocate money from the water bonds. The commission would hold public hearings and develop rules and an overarching plan to spend the money. 

Reviving the California Water Commission could improve planning and transparency in the bond allocation process, address cross-cutting issues and bring greater accountability to the  programs, recommended the Little Hoover Commission. It could provide the strategic thinking on how and where to spend money and to set statewide priorities.

Bond Spending: Expanding and Enhancing Oversight (Little Hoover Commission) (pdf)

Prioritize Natural Resource Spending and Find Alternative Tools for Financing

Despite increased spending on land purchases and infrastructure repair in the 2000s, the state still faces a growing backlog of deferred maintenance and aging infrastructure. Examples include:

·         Aging fire stations and other facilities under Cal Fire. The department estimates roughly 20 projects need to be completed every year for the next 20 years.

·         Fish hatcheries under the Department of Fish and Game. Twenty-one are an average of  50 years old. Roads, parking lots, dams, water delivery systems and public buildings at wildlife conservation sites are also suffering from deferred maintenance.

·         The local wastewater infrastructure in the state is similarly aging.

·         Aging levees require significant upgrades to meet federal and state standards. Upgrades for six cities in the Central Valley alone are estimated to cost $5 billion.

·         Deferred maintenance projects at the Department of Parks and Recreation is projected to grow to $2 billion by 2020.

These demands are likely to exceed available funds, especially with the state’s growing debt-service obligations and the pressure of other budget priorities. The Legislative Analyst’s Office in August 2011 recommended the Legislature consider options to prioritize spending and identify alternative financing tools for resources infrastructure.

Setting priorities:  In tight times, spending bond proceeds on anything but well-justified needs is a luxury. The Legislature must better scrutinize bond expenditures, making sure they are an appropriate funding method for the need and that they meet pre-set legislative priorities. If renovation and deferred maintenance backlogs are an agreed-upon priority, for example, then spending on land acquisitions would be decreased appropriately. Otherwise, new infrastructure is being built that the state can’t afford to maintain.

Make the beneficiary pay: The Legislature has stated its intention that the cost of programs with broad public benefit be covered by state public funds while those with limited scope be paid for by those who benefit directly. By boosting the cost of parking permits at state beaches, for example, the Department of Parks and Recreation has adopted that policy, while residents in rural areas with high fire danger must pay a fee for Cal Fire’s services under a 2011 law.

The LAO suggests that private beneficiaries of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program pay their share of costs, including those related to ecosystem restoration and conveyance. How costs are split between the state and local governments for infrastructure that benefits local residents, such as levees and local parks, is also ripe for review.

A Ten-Year Perspective: California Infrastructure Spending (Legislative Analyst’s Office)

Broaden Approach to Save Endangered Species

The rapid decline of salmon and the steady increase in the number of endangered fish species show that a new approach is needed to manage California’s aquatic ecosystems, according to a book released in February 2011 by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), “Managing California’s Water: From Conflict to Reconciliation.”  In its assessment, the current situation is bleak.

The book’s authors—who include a team of scientists, engineers, economists and legal experts from PPIC, three University of California campuses, and Stanford University—propose moving away from the current strategy: taking desperate action to save one species at a time under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. Instead, they argue that a broader approach is more promising: creating better conditions for many species and addressing the multiple causes of aquatic ecosystem decline.

More than 80% of the state’s 129 native fish species are extinct or imperiled, say the authors, and that loss is expected to accelerate with the continuing influx of invasive species, increasing diversions of water and losses of cold-water habitat.

That decline reflects a broader failure of water management in California, say the authors. Decades of efforts to stop the decline of native fish species have been well-intentioned but piecemeal. Not only have they not been successful but they threaten the reliability of water supplies and flood management projects. Environmental demands compete with agricultural and urban water users. Current policies fail to meet needs for reliable, high-quality water supply, healthy ecosystems and flood protection. Add climate warming into the forecast and the challenge becomes dire.

 “We’re waiting for the next drought, flood, or lawsuit to bring catastrophe,” says co-author Ellen Hanak, senior fellow at PPIC. “But if we take bold steps now, we can move from an era of conflict to one of reconciliation, where water is managed more flexibly and comprehensively, to benefit both the economy and the environment.”

The book’s authors recommend three solutions:

·        Shift the focus from individual species to broad ecosystems by removing or setting back some levees to promote seasonal flooding, reducing the discharge of contaminants, limiting introduction of invasive species and improving the environmental performance of some dams while removing others.

·        Use a wider range of tools to manage water supply, quality and flooding. Rely less on major public works—dams, levees, conveyance facilities and treatment plants—and more on urban conservation, groundwater banking, water transfers, pollution management and flood management.

·        Integrate California’s fragmented water management system by creating regional stewardship authorities that could coordinate functions better than the hundreds of local and regional agencies that separately manage supply, quality, floods, and habitat—often leading to confusion and missed opportunities. 

Broad Slate of Reforms Proposed to Manage California Water (Public Policy Institute of California) 

Lester A. Snow, 2010. Snow, appointed in January 2010 after serving as director of the Department of Water Resources, left later in the year to work for Resources Law Group LLP as director of integrated resource management.

Mike Chrisman, 2003 – 2010. Left to work at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Mary D. Nichols, 1999 – 2003. Nichols is chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board.

Douglas P. Wheeler, 1991 – 1999

Gordon K. Van Vleck, 1983 – 1990

Huey D. Johnson, 1976 – 1982

Claire T. Dedrick, 1975 – 1976

Norman B. Livermore, 1967 – 1974

Hugo Fisher, 1963 – 1965. Fisher, whose title with the State Resources Agency was administrator, served in the state Senate from 1959 – 1962. After his tenure at the agency, Governor Pat Brown appointed him Superior Court judge, where he served for 16 years. He resigned from his Superior Court judgeship in 1983, six months after being censured by the state Supreme Court for repeatedly holding one-sided meetings outside the courtroom with attorneys in a case. He was arrested for drunk driving in 1987, the third time in six years, after fleeing the scene of a two-car collision. He was arrested aboard his sailboat, located nearby at Harbor Island marina. He was sentenced to 120 days in jail, had his driver’s license suspended and was ordered to abstain from drinking alcoholic beverages.

William E. Warne, 1961 – 1962. (Title was Administrator)