Protect California’s habitat conservation fund before it’s too late
By Sen. Catherine Blakespear
Surviving millions of cars amid the spaghetti tangle of Southern California’s freeways is just one peril that mountain lions and other wild animals encounter in our ever-growing state. Combine this threat with other risks, such as more frequent and intense wildfires, pollution, habitat loss and fragmentation, and you get a true appreciation for why thousands of California voters in 1990 invested permanently in habitat conservation by supporting Proposition 117. That initiative created the Habitat Conservation Fund, which has enabled the state’s Wildlife Conservation Board to invest in restoring and acquiring more than half a million acres of California’s most treasured landscapes in every corner of the state through an annual state appropriation of $30 million. Unfortunately, that fund and the progress we’ve made is in jeopardy.
Given the significant budget problem our state faces this year, the fund was placed on the initial chopping block and was slated to end six years early. This proposal came even though just a few years ago, the Legislature extended the program because of the positive outcomes. Cutting the program would defy voter wishes and could jeopardize the progress made through decades of investment. While the state is grappling with a serious deficit and there is a need to tighten our state spending, there are both legal and policy reasons to reject this short-sighted proposal.
As a member of the budget subcommittee in the Senate with jurisdiction over natural resources issues, I have been vocal in my opposition to cutting the only reliable, ongoing, consistent source of funding for open space acquisition. I am joined by more than 50 diverse organizations ranging from hunting and fishing enthusiasts to land trusts to wildlife protection advocates that are pushing hard in Sacramento to ensure the final state budget agreement leaves the Habitat Conservation Fund intact.
First, the legal issue. Section 8 of Proposition 117 prohibits sweeping back into the general fund already appropriated Habitat Conservation Fund dollars. It also requires that any action taken by the Legislature must be consistent with and further the purposes of the initiative. Prematurely sunsetting the annual appropriation clearly does not further the habitat conservation purposes that voters supported.
The Habitat Conservation Fund has survived many economic downturns over the past few decades. It can also survive this one. Another notable characteristic of this fund is that it attracts millions of dollars in private philanthropy and serves as a local match to secure millions in federal funds.
The program has funded hundreds of projects that range from the world’s largest wildlife crossing now being built over Highway 101 in Agoura Hills, to a new trails gateway into Redwood National and State Parks, to an important ancestral land-return project in San Bernardino County. There are open space protection projects and wetlands restoration projects across the Sacramento and Central Valleys. In my own district, the Habitat Conservation Fund has helped restore and connect broken habitat linkages along Lusardi Creek. Across San Diego and Orange counties, more than 27,000 acres have been protected or restored with more than $75 million of Habitat Conservation Fund resources approved by the Wildlife Conservation Board.
Voters in 1990 couldn’t have predicted just how critical this funding is to us now. Habitat protection is among the strategies in our nature-based solutions arsenal that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by absorbing carbon from the atmosphere while doing right for the flora and fauna that California is known for.
Thousands of Californians have already called or emailed the governor and my legislative colleagues urging them to protect the Habitat Conservation Fund. I urge you to add your voice too.
Read it in the San Diego Union-Tribune.