Waiting continues on park closures | TahoeDailyTribune.com
YOUR AD HERE »

Waiting continues on park closures

Greyson Howard / Sierra Sun
And Adam Jensen / Tahoe Daily Tribune

Once again, the expected list of state park closures has been delayed.

Roy Stearns, deputy director of communications for California State Parks, said the decision-making process has proven more complicated in picking the roughly 100 parks to close to make up for the state budget shortfall.

Earlier this summer, the California Legislature voted to take $8 million from state parks’ funding, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger took another $6.2 million in line-item vetoes, leaving state parks to look for roughly 100 parks of the state’s 279 to close.



“We want to make sure we get it right,” Stearns said. “There’s been a huge amount of discussion and analysis.”

California State Parks is now aiming to make the announcement next week, but Stearns said that could change.



“We see the closure list as a working document, so we can make changes if possible,” Stearns said.

Twenty parks are still taking reservations, making them relatively safe from closure, Stearns said. No Tahoe/Truckee area parks are on that list.

“Those are the giant Southern California beaches that get millions of visitors and the reservoirs that get other funding,” Stearns said.

Other reservations are on hold for 30 days.

Once the list comes out, different parks could close at different rates, taking up to a few months before being closed, Stearns said. Others could go faster, depending on how easy it is to transfer staff and shut down operations.

How the state could effectively shut down vast tracts of public land remains undecided.

Without knowing which parks will be slated for closure, it’s impossible to say exactly how the public would be prevented from using the closed parks, said Pam Armas, California State Parks Sierra District supervisor.

A memorandum from the California Department of Parks and Recreation Legal Office this week notes the likelihood that closed parks will be used anyway, leaving the state susceptible to significant liability.

“Turning a blind eye to public use of a closed park is problematic,” according to the memo. “As a public entity, state parks can be held responsible for dangerous conditions that it should have known existed on its property, as well as those it actually knew existed.”

Increased risk of wildfires, marijuana plantations and other dangers to the public from improperly maintained parkland are what can be expected once closures are made, according to a statement from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, an advocacy group for federal and state employees.

“Closing parks may be far more expensive than keeping them open and operating,” Karen Schambach, the California coordinator for the group, said in the statement. “Paradoxically, in order to avoid losses of life and property, California will need to spend its supposed savings to keep families out of beaches, parks and recreation areas.”

The group contends the state park system is the unwitting victim of partisan bickering that has surrounded the state’s beleaguered budget.

“It is clear that the consequences of park closures have not been thought out – a glaring oversight that is only going to make a bad situation worse,” Schambach said. “We have pointed out that there are ready alternatives to state park shutdowns if only the factions in Sacramento will set aside their turf wars.”

Outside of California State Parks, environmental and conservation organizations are looking for long-term solutions to the state park budget and closures.

Jerry Emory, director for the California State Parks Foundation, said they’re still trying to gain traction with a $15 vehicle licensing fee that would not only fund all state parks, but help catch up on a $1.2 billion deferred maintenance log.

The San Jose Mercury News reported the Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society, Trust for Public Land, Save-the-Redwoods League and others have raised nearly $1 million toward placing a measure on the November 2010 ballot for the $15 license fee.


Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

Readers around the Lake Tahoe Basin and beyond make the Tahoe Tribune's work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.

For tax deductible donations, click here.

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User