Author: Bradly Torgan

Arizona made
a colossal blunder last month, one that provides a cautionary tale for
California.  As a result of
legislative raids on its funds in order to fill gaps elsewhere, the Arizona
Parks Board voted to shut down two-thirds of Arizona’s state parks.  Four have already been shuttered.  Thirteen more are slated for closure
between now and June.  If
additional funds aren’t found by then, the remainder of the system will also be
padlocked.  Sound familiar?

California’s
state parks dodged that bullet last year. 
A cut to the Department of Parks and Recreation’s $140 million general
fund allocation was initially expected to lead the full closure of close to 100
state parks.  The outcry was great
enough, though, that the administration ultimately indicated that the savings
could be realized through other means such as adding to a deferred maintenance backlog
already over one billion dollars, delaying the purchase of new equipment, and
reductions in park operations instead of outright closures. 

At the federal level, it’s called the “Washington Monument Strategy.” When bureaucrats are threatened with budget cuts, they say they have no choice but to close important facilities or eliminate the most publicly recognized programs in their respective agencies, as the National Park Service might do with the Washington Monument. Even though it’s often successful, many consider the ploy to be nothing more than a bluff. Sadly, it’s no bluff for California State Parks.

While a direct cut of about $16 million, 11% of its General Fund allocation, may seem modest, the inevitable result will be the full or partial closure of a substantial number of California’s 278 state parks. Most accounts put that number at near 100.

How did we get here? Ironically, State Parks is a victim of its own efficiency, having learned to make do with less long before the current crisis. State budget deficits in the early 1990’s led to the elimination of nearly 600 positions and a streamlining of the Department’s structure to eliminate an entire layer of middle management. During the economic boom times in 2000, fees were decreased by nearly 50%, while the General Fund allocation was increased by some $30 million to make up for the lost fee revenue.