As California reckons with a projected budget deficit upwards of $25 billion, the largest state park system in the United States is in big trouble.

Under a plan proposed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, eighty percent of California's State Parks would close for a projected budget savings of just $143 million, or .62 percent of the estimated budget shortfall.

Critics call the scheme a short-term fix with only marginal immediate impacts on the state budget. More importantly, they argue, shuttering 220 state parks and beaches would create hidden costs for the state and have potentially devastating impacts for the local communities in which they operate.

For many rural communities, state parks and the businesses that thrive upon them -- equipment outfitters, B&Bs, restaurants, retail stores -- are important sources of revenue, California Assemblymember Pedro Nava told me during a Tuesday phone conversation.

As an alternative to large-scale park closures, Nava and his fellow Democrats proposed a State Parks Access Pass, an additional fee of $15 on all non-commercial vehicle registrations. In exchange, everyone who has a vehicle registered in the state would be provided with free entry to all California State Parks.

Day use fees currently range from $4 to $14 for most vehicles currently entering state parks.

"Most Californians really understand that the state parks are beautiful jewels in the state crown. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask drivers to tack on a few dollars to their registration fees," said Nava.

The economics of closing parks

Opponents of the Governor's plan claim that closing parks will do more harm than good. And they make some good points. A recent analysis by California State University, Sacramento found that park users spend an average of more than $57 per visit. Across the system, this amounts to a more than $4.2 billion in positive economic impacts.

"There is no way it is not more expensive to close the parks than to leave them open," said Licia Peck, of Felton, California. Felton is a small community nestled in the Redwoods seventy miles south of the San Francisco, and home to Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park, one of the parks slated for closure under the plan.

Peck does not know whether or not she will still be able to ride her mountain bike in the park "Will it become unsafe for me to go inside because the land is unmanaged and there are no park rangers there?" she asked.

"It still costs money to not use that land," said Peck. "To keep people from abusing that land it will cost money. Somewhere, somehow it will cost money to the State of California."

Peck's parents who just visited her this month from Ohio said they hoped the park wouldn't close. But if it did she said, "We'll most likely go meet somewhere else, like Montana or something."

Assemblymember Nava is particularly concerned about losing revenue from would-be park visitors, or as is the case in his district, beach visitors.

"Many state parks provide recreation for not just residents but also for visitors from California and throughout the country," said Nava, who stressed the tremendous economic value and public good provided by the State Park system.

Whether it's a sunny Pacific beach or a redwood park, vacated lands will incur all kinds of maintenance costs, according to Nava. "Wear and tear caused by natural processes will be much more expensive to remedy than ongoing maintenance."

How do you close a park anyway?

The potential closure of parks also extends to miles of state beaches, effectively shutting off access to as much as 30% of the California coastline. But closing down a beach is no easy task, and closing down beaches is exactly what this proposal would attempt.

"It's not a very wise approach because you can't lock off a state park, there are no fences or defensible barriers around these parks," said Assemblymember Nava, "people will continue to venture into these parks and beaches knowing the areas will not be policed or patrolled."

"You may close a parking lot," said Nava, "but you can't put a padlock on a redwood tree. You'll never be able keep people out."

And in some cases, even closing up that parking lot may not be so easy for the State. In June, the National Park Service wrote a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger indicating that, should the parks close, the federal government could take control of six parks that occupy property conveyed to the state under the Federal Lands to Parks Program.

In the letter, National Park Service Pacific Region director Jon Jarvis indicated that any acreage donated to a state under the Federal Lands to Parks Program "must be open for public park and recreation use in perpetuity." And that any land found to be unavailable for such use may revert to federal ownership "for re-disposal."

Unless there is a late breakthrough or deal brokered soon, the park closures seem likely.

Nava said there has been some suggesting that outstanding budget issues would be resolved by this weekend and the legislature could, under the most optimistic circumstances, vote on the Governor's budget as early as Sunday or the first part of next week. A budget that could also include the state's first offshore oil leases in 40 years.

And what about that proposed alternative of the $15 fee tacked on to every license plate registration in the state? "The governor has resisted those efforts, unfortunately," said Assemblymember Nava.

Follow Tim Hurst on twitter
Images via Mr Phil Price; g-hat