Give The Parks To The Greens

At first glance, there seems little reason for our side to find opportunity in California's fiscal disaster. The state's finances are in even relatively worse shape than that of the federal government and a Republican governor bears more than a little responsibility for the mess.

Californians owed tax refunds may not get themÑat least not anytime soon. Sacramento plans to pay some state vendors in IOUs rather than cash because the municipal debt markets will no longer accommodate the state's desire for even greater borrowings.

Some parts of the state's massive budget are being cut and herein lies an opportunity with the potential for establishing an important precedentÑand not just in California. Closure of certain state programs will allow private and voluntary organizations to demonstrate their superior ability to deliver services commonly thought to be the natural province of the state.

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that

Some world-famous parks like Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park may not open this year . . . because work on a new bridge to the campground was halted, part of a $6 million renovation project that state officials have ordered frozen along with hundreds of millions of dollars in other state infrastructure projects. Dan and Vickie Coughlin of Torrance, Calif., face not camping in the park with their daughters, ages 10 and 13, for the first time since they were born. When they were advised they couldn't book reservations, "it just broke my heart, and my kids almost cried," said Ms. Coughlin.

Historically, Pfeiffer Park has been so popular that campground reservations have usually had to be made seven or more months in advance and this recession has not noticeably dampened enthusiasm for it.

There seems little doubt that the $6 million in capital funds required to complete the new bridge and other renovations could be repaid with interest if the many future years of revenues from the investment were dedicated to paying off the costs of construction.

If Pfeiffer Park were managed by a private organization, admissions would be priced and capital budgets administered to maximize the value of the park.

This may sound obvious enough but this is not the way the state has managed the park historically and, given the incentives inevitably faced by both state bureaucrats and politicians, is not the way the park could be managed under state ownership.

When property is owned by the state and the state is unable to borrow, even straight-forward value-creating opportunities are forfeit.

So, what to do?

Some of America's most intrepid environmental thinkers have pondered such problems even before state and federal finances became black holes.

Bozeman, Montana-based John Baden has often made the case that environmentalist organizations rather than government bureaucracies should be put in charge of managing important and ecologically sensitive federal lands.

Indeed private, voluntary organizations like The Nature Conservancy already do a superb job of managing seventeen million acres within the US and an incredible 117 million acres in thirty other countries. The Nature Conservancy has purchased environmentally important private lands and managed them to protect wildlife and wilderness.

John Baden's case for having private organizations also manage state properties was compelling but three years ago the sort of political catalyst necessary to overturn more than a century and a half of government ownership did not exist.

Here is a project for California state legislators now.

Propose that the right to manage Pfeiffer State Park and other capital starved state parks be offered to environmental organizations willing to front the capital expenses necessary to keeping them open and maintaining environmental standards at least equal to those of the state of California currently.

In return, the environmental organization would get to keep the revenues from campers wishing to enjoy the park and any other revenues they could raise by managing the park on a sustainable basis.

Ideally, the best arrangement would confer full ownership of the park to a private organization. Given the less than perfect governance mechanisms of environmental organizations though, the optimal arrangement would also involve a way for competing environmental organizations to challenge the incumbent organization for control if it fails to manage the park well.

Would this work? Emphatically, yes!

How can Jevons be so sure? Because there are quite a few examplesÑand not just The Nature Conservancy---of private environmental organizations managing sensitive wildlife areas more successfully than the federal or various state governments.

More on that soon…..