Tightening the Green Belt : Congress May Not Fund New Acquisitions in Santa Monica Mountains

WASHINGTON —  There used to be certain things one could count on in the wilds of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area: Flowers would bloom, wildlife would breed and bundles of expansion money would arrive from Capitol Hill.

This year, however, Uncle Sam is proving to be far more unpredictable than Mother Nature.

For the first time in more than a decade, the budget proposals under consideration in Congress set aside no expansion money for the Santa Monica Mountains, an area that has grown substantially since the park’s creation in 1978.

The slash in funding is a remarkable turnaround for a park system that once led the nation in its appropriations, with a total of $62 million coming in during the five years from 1989 to 1993. It also raises the prospect that the sprawling park system may have grown roughly as big as it’s going to get.

“I think the danger is that as the federal government is downsized, urban parks could become the easy target,” said Dave Brown, conservation chairman of the Sierra Club’s Santa Monica Mountains Task Force, who traveled to Washington recently to monitor the budget picture. “In the squeeze to reduce the budget, we are facing a problem.”

When next year’s federal budget comes from the printers in the coming months, lawmakers say, it will not have a cent designated to buy any more of the costly land surrounding the recreation area, which extends 43 miles from Point Mugu State Park in Ventura County to Los Angeles’ Griffith Park.

Instead, the House Appropriations Committee has cut the National Park Service’s $83-million national expansion request down to $14.3 million, with none of the money earmarked for any specific parks. Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee put the figure at $44.2 million, but senators divvied up all but $7 million for specific parks, the Santa Monicas not among them.

Once budget negotiators nail down a figure, it will be up the Interior Department to dole out the limited money, and the Santa Monicas will have to compete with scores of other projects.

Backers of the Santa Monicas remain hopeful that the recreation area will qualify for some funding, given the Clinton Administration’s past support for the park. But they acknowledge that the allocation will likely be far less than in the past.

Compounding the problem, the recreation area’s expansion fund is already $1.3 million in the red because the National Park Service tapped into the account to help pay for the 1993 fires. The House failed to include a reimbursement in the supplemental appropriations bill it recently approved, officials said.

In what has become an annual ritual, a coalition of environmental groups this year requested $8 million for the Santa Monicas in next year’s budget. The Clinton Administration, meanwhile, included $4.3 million in its budget proposal for the 1996 fiscal year.

In an appearance before the Appropriation Committee’s Interior subcommittee in March, Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills) requested an amount somewhere in between.

“We hope that, despite the severe budgetary constraints we will be operating under this year, you will continue to provide as much funding as possible to help secure the land the National Park Service still needs to acquire to have an adequate land base for the park,” Beilenson testified.

The federally owned land in the recreation area has grown to about 21,000 acres, with a 314-acre site adjoining Paramount Ranch the most recent purchase. But the Park Service has set a goal of 36,000 acres. Park officials had intended to use next year’s expansion money to acquire property along the Backbone Trail, in Zuma and Trancas canyons, and for various other areas.

Brown of the Sierra Club considers the remaining purchases critical.

“There are still canyons and views that are not complete,” he said. “Developments could still ruin the illusion one gets in the Santa Monicas that you escaped the city.”

The pared-back expansion funds have been criticized by some backers of the Santa Monicas on Capitol Hill, who consider the cuts a shortsighted move for such a critical urban expanse.

“Clearly, this is unwise,” said Beilenson, who wrote the legislation that created the park and has remained its chief legislative booster. “We’re saving so little money by reducing the acquisition of parklands. We have an opportunity now to acquire land that won’t be available in the future. It makes sense to buy it now when the prices are lower.”

But other lawmakers contend that park expansion is a luxury the country cannot now afford, especially with budget-cutters targeting countless essential programs.

“We’re going to have to eat a little more hamburger and a little less sirloin,” said Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley), pointing out that the Santa Monicas have in some past years received more money than all other parks combined.

Gallegly said the belt-tightening the Santa Monicas may feel is being felt far and wide, across the National Park Service and the entire federal bureaucracy.

“There is a lot of critical land that needs to be purchased. There’s no doubt about it,” Gallegly said. “But we have to set priorities just like the head of a household does in balancing putting food on the table and a new station wagon.”

Despite the drying up of expansion money, the financial situation for the Santa Monicas is not as bleak as it might have been.

The original House budget proposal called for a five-year moratorium on all land acquisitions, which would have ended future purchases through the year 2001. And although the Santa Monicas may not expand much in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, the park will receive enough money to continue with current programs.

The Park Service’s operating budget is expected to receive roughly the same amount next fiscal year as it now receives--$1.1 billion. That means the Santa Monicas’ $3.7-million budget is expected to be preserved next year.

A separate bill under consideration in the House has raised major concern among Santa Monicas supporters with its proposal to set up a mechanism to sell off Park Service properties not deemed of national significance. However, Beilenson remains confident that the Santa Monicas could make the case that the recreation area is a national treasure worthy of federal oversight.

So far, the budget wrangling has not attracted much public outcry, officials say, largely because of the behind-the-scenes nature of the budget process.

“The vast majority of people who use the park are largely unaware of the political situation,” Beilenson said. “Until a park or a program falls on hard times and they can see it, people really don’t get up in arms about it.”

There is one budgetary tidbit that parks advocates hope will emerge from the negotiations intact.

By pressing his Republican colleagues, Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City) managed to add $248,000 to the House appropriations bill for the William O. Douglas Outdoor Classroom, a program that brings tens of thousands of school children in Los Angeles and Ventura counties to the Santa Monicas every year for nature hikes.

In the Senate, that figure was trimmed to $236,000.

“This is about the bleakest time I’ve seen around here,” lamented Joseph T. Edmiston, executive director of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. “As programs are being cut left and right, $248,000 is a big deal.”

* EPA VOTE: House OKs curbs on Environmental Protection Agency. A1