The Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) provides funding through 10 designated programs for wildlife habitat protection, restoration and public access projects oriented toward the wild. It oversees programs and projects designed to conserve and restore wildlife habitat, and provide people with recreational opportunities in these conservation areas. The board, located within the state Natural Resources Agency, purchases land and waterways, and rehabilitates these properties to natural conditions to restore wildlife habitat.

About the California Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB website)

WCB Programs (WCB website)

The Wildlife Conservation Act of 1947, signed into law by Republican Governor Earl Warren, created the board within the Department of Natural Resources as a nonregulatory body with a mission to acquire and restore land and water for the state’s fish and wildlife.

The Wildlife Conservation Board’s early organizational structure exempted it from annual budgetary line-item review by the entire Legislature, facilitating quick action that allowed it to move swiftly on purchases like the 8,600-acre Suisun Marsh-Grizzly Island Wildlife Area in the Sacramento River Delta area. Over the next 10 years, the board spent nearly $14.3 million to protect and/or restore more than 31,000 acres, with an emphasis on public access facilities.

Land was acquired for 31 projects and 150 development projects were funded, mostly to enhance hunting and fishing opportunities. The board gave special attention to building, stocking and maintaining fish hatcheries, and for the most part operated outside the public spotlight in an era before state and federal regulatory processes had much presence.  

From its inception, and throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the board’s priority was to connect people to the outdoors. Hunting and fishing were popular recreational activities in those days, so the board focused on projects designed to improve public access to the wildlife areas. These included fishing piers on the Pacific Coast from Crescent City near the Oregon border to Los Angeles almost 800 miles south. They also included thousands more acres of wildlife preserves, from the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County to areas north of Sacramento.

One of its early revenue sources was $750,000 a year paid by legal horse racing venues in California. In 1964, California voters passed the first bond act to benefit the board, which provided an additional $5 million to conserve beaches, parks, and other recreational and historical amenities. The board spent around $14.6 million over the 10 years between 1958-1967 on 184 development projects and 34 acquisitions of 6,257 acres of protected fishery and wildlife habitat. 

Since the late 1960s, people have become much more concerned about the environment.  The National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 and the California Environmental Quality Act, passed in 1970, have significantly changed how the board approaches conservation. The state later passed the California Endangered Species Act, which also greatly affects how the board works.

Since the 1970s, the board has placed more emphasis on protecting habitat for endangered species than on providing people with opportunities to hunt and fish. It also provides opportunities for public education and scientific research.

Voters approved three more bond measures in the 1970s, providing $31 million to help the board. Unlike the one passed in 1964, these measures focused on restoration efforts rather than conserving areas for recreational use. The board’s projects in this decade included: purchasing property to protect deer, bighorn sheep, coastal lagoons, marshlands, and desert land in the mountains above the Palm Springs area; more than 5,000 acres to preserve wildlife in northern California’s Siskiyou County; and still more fishing piers on the ocean.

The California Legislature in 1972 began supplementing the $750,000 a year budget derived from horse racing revenue with $300,000 to $600,000 from other funds, including revenue from fees some Californians voluntarily pay to have special environmentally-focused vehicle license plates. From 1968-1977, the board spent $19 million on 173 projects.

In the board’s fourth decade, voters approved two more bond measures, providing another $10 million for conservation efforts. Protecting endangered species and expanding ecological reserves continued to be the high priority it had become in the earlier 1970s. The decade from 1978-1987 saw an unprecedented expansion of the board’s efforts, with $100 million spent on 444 projects. The expenditures were evenly split between acquisition and restoration projects, with a special emphasis on conservation.

The board began acquiring “conservation easements,” which are property that is not entirely set aside for conservation, but on which development is restricted through an agreement between the board and the property owner. These efforts protected more than 15,000 acres of oak woodlands, desert and mountain habitats for such species as salamanders, shrimp, and bighorn sheep.

In addition to two more bond measures totaling $131.3 million, the annual $750,000 yearly from horse racing and a smaller amount from the Environmental License Plate Fund, the board received a new funding source in 1988. That year, funds started coming from the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Surtax Fund. All of this paid for nearly 700 environmental protection and conservation projects from northern California to the Mexican border.

In 1990, California voters made wildlife conservation an even higher priority when they passed the California Wildlife Protection Act, which provides the board an additional $21 million annually to work with until July 1, 2020. This legislation also specifically required the board to acquire native oak woodlands to protect deer, mountain lions, wetlands to protect salmon and trout, and other habitats for other endangered species.

The legislation also gave the board the authority to award grants to local government agencies and non-profit organizations for their own environmental protection projects. It also entitled the board to sell, exchange and lease property, to accept monetary and land donations, and to purchase easements, leases, development rights and other interests in land.

Through all of this, the board was able to partner with local governments and private entities, such as organizations, corporations, and small businesses such as farmers. These partnerships further the mutual goals to protect wildlife. Landowners donating property receive a tax credit equal to 55% of the property value. The board doubled its expenditures from 1988-1997 over the previous decade, spending $216 million on 689 projects.  

One of the most recent partnerships, forged in 2010, involved non-profit conservation groups, private foundations, corporations and other government agencies serving both California and Nevada. This partnership protected Independence Lake in Nevada from development by allowing the Nature Conservancy to purchase it for $15 million from long-time owner Nevada Energy. California’s interest in this project is that Independence Lake supplies drinking water to many of its residents.

Initiatives passed in the early 20^th century started with the Safe Neighborhood, Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000, which allocated $265.5 million for the board’s projects. In 2002, two more bond acts provided the board another $1.2 billion, and in 2006, the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act allocated $440 million.

In Plumas and Sierra counties, in northeastern California, these bonds allowed the board to acquire easements on 22,722 acres to protect a deer migra­tion corridor from the threat of development. It also added 13,014 acres to the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area north of Sacramento.

The 2006 ballot initiative also created the board’s official Forest Conservation Program.

Previously, the board created Natural Heritage Preservation Tax Credit Program, the Oak Woodlands Conservation Program, the Rangeland, Grazing Land and Grassland Protection Program; all of these at the direction of the state legislature.

Although the economic downturn beginning in 2008 has forced the board to consider new funding resources, such as market-based carbon credits, it continues to support a wide variety of new projects. In September 2011, the board announced it had earmarked $43.6 million for 19 new projects.

Wildlife Conservation Board: Celebrating 60 Years of Success (WCB Reports)

The Wildlife Conservation Board consists of the president of the Fish and Game Commission, the director of the Department of Fish and Game and the director of the Department of Finance. Three members of the California Senate and three members of the Assembly serve as a legislative advisory committee.

The Department of Wildlife Conservation operates 10 programs. Most of these programs provide grants or other financial incentives to projects that help accomplish the specific goals of that program.

These programs are the:

Riparian Habitat Conservation Program, which protects trees and other plants normally found on stream beds and flood plains. Although California has already lost much of this habitat to development, scientific studies show it is crucial to sustaining species of fish and other wildlife, so this program’s goal is to restore riparian habitat areas back to their natural state, as well as preserve that which has not yet been developed. The program was created in 1991.

Forest Conservation Program, which, with funding created by a voter initiative passed in 2006, promotes both the environmental integrity and economic stability of California’s native forests through conservation efforts and better management of commercial forests. This conserves the state’s drinking water supply and habitat for other plants, fish and other wildlife in the forests.

Inland Wetlands Conservation Program, which exists in partnership with the Central Valley Joint Venture to protect migratory birds flying through California’s Central Valley.

Ecosystem Restoration on Agricultural Lands, which helps farmers develop practices that allow wildlife to co-exist on areas being farmed. Many farmers are willing to do this but don’t have the financial resources to do so without the help of this program.

Rangeland, Grazing Land and Grassland Protection Program, which prevents areas designated for these purposes from being converted to non-agricultural uses, and helps ranching remain an economically feasible livelihood for livestock owners. The program was created in 2002.

Oak Woodlands Conservation Program, which funds projects proposed by landowners, conservation organizations and local government agencies to protect the many areas in the state where oak trees grow. In many cases, these oaks are on agricultural properties whose owners would like to continue ranch or farm operations, but find it increasingly financially difficult to do so.

Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program, which is a generalized program covering all habitat conservation and restoration projects that don’t meet the criteria of any of the above programs. This includes restoring fish hatcheries and various native habitats.

Land Acquisition Program, which carries out the board’s original purpose of acquiring land specifically so it can be conserved for wildlife habitat. The board acquires land on behalf of the Department of Fish and Game and can also give funds to other government entities or nonprofit organizations for purchases. It only acquires land from willing sellers.

Natural Heritage Preservation Tax Credit Program, which is designed to help California deal with a projected 24% growth rate between 2010 and 2020. It protects wildlife habitat, parks and open space, archaeological resources, agricultural land and water by providing state tax credits for land donations, conservation easements or water rights. The program has generated $48.2 million in tax credits and the donation or transfer of more than 7,967 acres since its implementation in 2001.

Public Access Program, which works with local government to develop access to wildlife habitat for hunting, fishing and other recreational activities. These would include fishing piers, boat ramps, access roads, trails, visitor centers and other features. 

The board’s 2011-12 budget allocated $4.6 million for personnel and operations, and $56.7 million to capital outlays for its projects. The board’s projects are funded primarily by the bond measures voters passed in 2002 and 2006. The largest expenses funded by these bonds are the allocations the board gives other entities, primarily allocations to non-profit conservation organizations, to purchase land that will be withheld from development in perpetuity. These organizations include the San Francisco-based American Land Conservancy, the Kings River Conservancy (for a fishing access project on the Kings River) and many others. Land purchasers have also been local government agencies.

The board’s capital outlays are typically divided into three categories: acquisitions, conservation easements, and restoration and public access. Because allocations for these expenses come mostly from bond funds (some older than others) shared with other state entities, the amount available for the Wildlife Conservation Board varies from year to year. For instance, in 2008 the board had used up most of its prior bond funding sources and was mostly reliant on Proposition 84—the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006. That year, around $62 million went to acquisitions of wildlife habitat via the Department of Fish and Game and other partners, another $25 million was spent on restoration and public access on almost 13,000 acres, and more than $20 million was allocated to conservation easements to protect wildlife habitat on 17,000 acres. 

The board often has an opportunity to leverage its state bond resources by obtaining matching funds from other sources. In 2008, it obtained another $143 million in partner contributions. Altogether, 45% of its total expenditures came from the board’s own resources, 27% from the federal government, 19% from other state and local sources and 9% from private and non-profit groups.

3-Year Budget (pdf)

2008 Annual Report (WCB website) 

Gualala River Forest

In September 2011, the Wildlife Conservation Board approved a 14,000-acre conservation easement along the Gualala River’s forest lands in Mendocino County. It is paying a Virginia-based land trust organization, The Conservation Fund, $19 million for the easement that, in the words of the Friends of the Gualala River, “will permanently protect this working forestland from fragmentation and development.”

California Watch, which wrote about the project, noted the board had the support of the Sierra Club, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, cities in Mendocino County, and numerous other government agencies and non-profit entities, but it was not without opposition. A principal opponent was the Mendocino Redwood Company, which questioned the appraisal used by the board and the board’s general lack of transparency. The board had hired an independent company to review its original appraisal, and the reviewer raised questions of his own.

Summarization of data “was less than desired” and, while meeting “minimum requirements” of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, the reviewer nonetheless raised specific concerns about missing information including: inadequate zoning descriptions, poorly described site characteristics and regional/area data that wasn’t relevant to the subject property. In the end, though, the reviewer did not contest the appraisal’s property value.

Board Executive Director John Donnelly noted the appraisal’s deficiencies but defended it as accurate. Chris Kelly of the Conservation Fund said, “The project is an excellent and cost-effective expenditure of the funds.”  Karen Finn, program budget manager for the state Department of Finance's environment unit, said appraisals were an art form “so you do have some kind of judgment and subjectivity in them.”

Sandy Dean, president of Mendocino Redwood Company, may not be an art lover. He wrote letters to Donnelly complaining about the appraisal and the reviewer. Dean questioned the appraiser’s assumption that residential housing was the highest and best use for the land, and chastised the reviewer for what he perceived were internal contradictions. “The appraisal review cites various shortcomings of the appraisal, and then concludes that the areas were at least minimally addressed,” he wrote. “Is minimally addressed the right standard for appraisals justifying the expenditure of $20 million of state funds?”

The appraisal was actually the second one conducted by the board. An earlier appraisal had drawn the attention of the state’s Department of General Services, which wondered if the assessment was too high. While agreeing to a new appraisal and an independent review, the board also acknowledged a chorus of complaints about a lack of transparency in the process.

In one letter from the Mendocino Redwood Company president to Donnelly about another unreleased project appraisal, Dean had warned that the board needed to “allow for adequate public review . . . before the money is spent.” He called for more openness about the board’s criteria for making investments because “the present process results in the WCB simply reactively buying what comes for sale, while the crucial rationale for these purchases remains a mystery.”

Conservation Easement Will Protect 14,000 Acres of Gualala River Forest (Friends of Gualala River)

Is California Paying Too Much to Preserve Mendocino Forest? (by Susanne Rust, California Watch)

Independent Gualala Appraisal (RMG Appraisers)

Letter to WCB Executive Director (Mendocino Redwood Company President Sandy Dean) (pdf)

Messy Malibu Cleanup

The Wildlife Conservation Board’s multi-faceted approach to conservation sometimes puts it at odds with would-be partners.

In 2010, the board finalized an award of a $4 million grant to a group that wanted to restore a lagoon in Malibu. The lagoon had been transformed in the 1930s when California Department of Transportation workers dumped tons of soil and debris there while widening the Pacific Coast Highway. A major restoration was attempted in 1983, with new channels cut and seeded with salt-marsh plants. A popular walkway that utilized wooden bridges was constructed through the lagoon. But not everyone was happy with the work, which included planting of non-native plants from the Channel Islands, and its effect on the area.

 “Malibu Lagoon is impaired,” according to Heal the Bay President Mark Gold. “Everything, from water quality, high fecal-bacteria counts, high nutrient concentrations and low dissolved oxygen. Under the Clean Water Act, there has to be something to improve the water quality.”

The new restoration project was a decade in the making and had received preliminary support from the WCB as far back as 2007. The California Coastal Commission gave the Department of Parks and Recreation permission in October 2010 to temporarily drain the 12-acre section of the lagoon and use bulldozers to reconfigure it. The plan, spearheaded by the environmental group Heal the Bay, was to remove sediment, a pathway through the lagoon and non-native vegetation that was contributing to stagnant water and poor ecology. Plants appropriate for a salt marsh would then be planted.

Supporters of the project include the California Conservancy, the Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains, Surfrider Foundation and the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Foundation.

A month later, when the board voted in November to pay a big chunk of the restoration, the non-profit Wetlands Defense Fund showed up in opposition, arguing that the project was too aggressive. “For some reason, there's a body of scientists who think that the way to restore a wetland is to dredge it out and start over,” Wetlands Defense Fund Director Marcia Hanscom said. She took aim at Heal the Bay. “I'm sure they understand clean water. They understand plastic [bag] bans. They don't understand coastal wetland ecosystems, wetland ecology.” 

Hanscom’s group was joined by Access for All and Coastal Law Enforcement Action Network (CLEAN) in filing a lawsuit in December to stop the project. Hanscom said 4,000 people had signed a petition to stop the work and argued, “We don’t agree that you have to kill nature to save it. Endangered fish will die; that’s not restoration.”

In May 2011, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith agreed and temporarily blocked the start of work until he had a chance to fully review the case. He wrote in his decision: “The harm that would result from the project approved by the California Coastal Commission would be severe. . . . Petitioners have shown to the satisfaction of the Court that many species and their habitat would not recover.”

But then, in October, the judge changed his mind and ruled that the Coastal Commission had “analyzed all feasible alternatives to the project’ and chose the one that was “least damaging to achieve the goals.” 

The project is scheduled to begin in 2012.

Malibu Lagoon Restoration Project Receives Final OK (by Tony Barboza, Los Angeles Times)

Malibu Lagoon Dredging War Erupts Between Heal the Bay and Wetlands Defense Fund as Coastal Commission Decides Fate (by Tibby Rothman, LA Weekly)

Wildlife Conservation Board OKs Funding for Malibu Lagoon Proposal (by Bill Koeneker, Malibu Surfside News)

Lawsuit Filed to Stop Malibu Lagoon Project (The Malibu Times)

Malibu Lagoon Cleanup Turns Messy (by Noaki Schwartz, Associated Press)

Judge Halts Construction of Misguided Malibu Lagoon Project (Wetlands Defense Fund) (pdf)

Judge Delays Malibu Lagoon Restoration for at Least a Year (by Tony Barboza, Los Angeles Times)

Judge Rejects Malibu Lagoon Lawsuit (by Jonathan Friedman, Malibu Patch)

The Battle for Malibu Lagoon (by Hillel Aron, LA Weekly)

Malibu Lagoon Plan OK'd (by Hillel Aron, LA Weekly)

Market-Based Solutions in the Wild

The Wildlife Conservation Board relies on large bond issues approved by the voters to fund most of its activities, so the economic downturn beginning in 2008 has raised concerns about establishing a firm financial base for the future. One potential option being explored is market-based carbon credits.

In 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill 32, California’s attempt to comply with the international Kyoto Protocol for reducing greenhouse gasses. Among its provisions, the law set up a cap-and-trade emissions market for polluters to buy credits for their activities from emission-reduction sectors of the economy, like agriculture and forestry. As the state formulates regulations to control this new market, private industry and government are exploring new ways of financing projects using these new funding sources.

A large portion of credits are expected to come from the carbon-storing capacity of forests. For instance, new rules approved in 2010 by the state Air Resources Board for the sale of so-called carbon credits provides credits to timber companies that replant trees in forests they have clear-cut. The companies can then sell the credits to polluters in other parts of the state.

One of those polluters is Pacific Gas & Electric. PG&E has a program called ClimateSmart that allows customers to pay a little extra each month to fund the purchase of carbon credits. Some of those purchases are from The Conservation Fund, which owns a large swath of forest in Mendocino County. The Virginia-based conservation group bought the land with $50 million in loans and grants facilitated by the Wildlife Conservation Board.

Some environmentalists construe the deal as using taxpayer dollars to encourage the clear-cutting of forests that the state had expressly designated as protected from such activity as part of the loan/grant deal.

One commenter to an article on the issue by California Watch summarized the deal this way: “PG&E customers foot the bill so that PG&E can buy carbon credits from a ‘conservation group’ that used public money to buy land that it is planning on selling to . . . investment firms or timber companies. Land that comes with a . . . protocol that allows The Conservation Fund to clear-cut the property to its absolute legal limit. . . . Customers pay, so at the end of the day they can pat themselves on the back, PG&E pays nothing and gets to quiet its critics, and some Virginia based firm makes a fortune off land the customers payed (sic) for before it turns around and sells it off to some timber company to clear-cut. Makes sense.”

Another commenter saw it differently: “As an avid environmentalist, and resident of rural California, I am tired of having to depend upon the 20% of the economy that the social sector and government make up to meet our mutual environmental objectives, and would like to find a way to leverage our market economy, that other 80%, to improve conservation outcomes.”  

Forty-seven environmental and conservation groups, including Sierra Club California and the Center for Biological Diversity, protested the Air Resources Board rules on clear-cutting as encouraging aggressive timber management and bad practices in the wilderness. But other groups, like The Nature Conservancy and the Environmental Defense Fund, support the approach. 

PG&E Green Program Helps Preserve Forests, but So Did Taxpayers (by Susanne Rust, California Watch)

How to Weigh in on the Carbon Debate (California Watch)

Garcia River Forest: Sustainable Forestry and Climate Change (The Conservation Fund)

Farm of the Future (U.S. Department of Agriculture)

Case Study: Conservation Fund (The Conservation Fund)

Can't See the Smog for the Trees? (Rare Earth News)

Timber Companies Stand to Benefit from New Climate Law (by Mark Schapiro and Sarah Terry-Cobo, California Watch)

The California Carbon Market (New Forests)

California Air Resources Board Grants Forest Clearcutters a Free CO2 Pass (by Mark Mardon, California Progress Report)

Secrecy by the Board

After months of negotiations, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Governor Gray Davis, Cargill Inc. and four large philanthropic foundations reached accord in November 2002 on a landmark deal involving the Wildlife Conservation Board paying $100 million for Cargill salt-making ponds in the San Francisco Bay area in anticipation of restoration as salt-water marsh lands. The announcement of a deal had been delayed three months while the sides wrangled over the details and how the additional $35 million restoration would proceed, and then they wrangled some more in the three-month lead-up to the board’s final vote in February 2003.

A lot of information was being exchanged between parties to the negotiations and planning, but supporters and critics of the plan complained that not enough information was being made public to determine if the proposed sale and restoration was fairly priced or responsibly planned.  Nine days after the November meeting, and after intense lobbying by the San Jose Mercury News, the Davis administration released key details on the deal.

But the issue of secrecy in deals involving the board, especially revolving around appraisals, has persisted.

Board Critics

Those who criticize the board for holding its cards close to the vest, say the resulting lack of transparency means higher prices and worse restoration projects. Private developers who might want to compete in the process are effectively locked out, while government conducts ill-informed negotiations. The public is denied an opportunity to study and comment upon the deal in a timely fashion. Millions of dollars in public money is being spent on property deals while real estate officials shuffle back and forth through a revolving door between government, private industry and nonprofit organizations. Complaints abound from timber companies in the north that appraisal frequently overestimate the non-developable qualities of land.

In 2004, when the board pledged $34.5 million toward a $95 million deal to prevent large-scale development of the Hearst Ranch on the central coast, the complicated agreement was criticized by state Senator Wesley Chesbro, whose request for an up-front inventory of natural resources was rejected by the Coastal Conservancy (another party to the agreement). “I’m concerned about what is going to be conserved and how,” he said. “I want to make sure we know what the taxpayers are buying.”

The Hearst deal was contentious for a host of environmental reasons, but it was also plagued by accusations that the state was paying too much money. While the independent State Legislative Analyst complained about the lack of access to the natural resources list, it also raised serious questions about the confidentiality surrounding the appraiser’s report: “We also recommend that the results of the audit and any written records of the deliberations of the Audit Committee should be made public. This strengthens the state and public’s oversight in protecting its investment.”

Three years later, in 2007, the legislative analyst wrote a report condemning “limits on the public disclosure of appraisal–related information” that works to the detriment of the public and legislative oversight. It singled out the Cargill salt-ponds purchase in 2002 as an egregious example of what happens when documents are kept secret. “In disciplinary hearings . . .   the administrative law judge found that the appraiser’s assessment of the property’s value was ‘based largely upon unstated extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions.’ ”

After the report came out, Republican state Senator Dave Cogdill, the only licensed appraiser in the Legislature, added his concerns: “What happens is that the agencies shop appraisers until they get a number that the buyer is willing to accept. The bond money they are using doesn't come out of their budgets. There hasn't been enough oversight.”

In 2010, five years after the Hearst deal was completed, California Coastal Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas was still complaining about secrecy. “I have no idea whether the Hearst Conservation is working or not. There is no transparency here.”

Controversy over board secrecy continued into 2011. In September, Mendocino Redwood Company President Sandy Dean complained to the board about not having access to an appraisal of Gualala River forest property before questions about it were finally raised by an independent reviewer who found “no viewing of the subject, no verification of subject facts . . . no verification of market data or comparable data, all information accepted as true facts.” Dean wrote that “the public deserves full disclosure of the appraisal analysis supporting these multimillion dollar deals before the money has left the state coffers.”

Hearst Deal Preserves Ranch But Frustrates Environmentalists (by Paul Shigley, California Planning and Development Report)

Wildlife Board OKs Hearst Deal (by Tim Reiterman, Los Angeles Times)

State Report Criticizes Hearst Ranch Deal (by Kenneth R. Weiss, Los Angeles Times)

Proposed Hearst Ranch Conservation Transaction (Legislative Analyst’s Office) (pdf)

Improving the Appraisal Function in Resources Land Acquisitions (Legislative Analyst’s Office)

Report Finds Flaws in Way California Buys Parklands (by Paul Rogers, Mercury News)

Hearst Plan’s 5th year: Nothing New (by Kathe Tanner, San Luis Obispo Tribune)

Sept. 7, 2011 Letter to MWC Executive Director (Mendocino Redwood Company President Sandy Dean) (pdf)

Board Defenders

Wildlife Conservation Board Executive Director John Donnelly argued in October 2006, just before voters went to the polls to vote on a $5.4 billion bond measure for water projects and park land, that a certain amount of secrecy was necessary for it to do its job properly. “The private property owners—not only the big guy but the little guy—have a right to confidentiality,” he said. Without it, sellers would be scared away. “You could potentially create a lot of hardship and undue hassle to the landowner. Some landowners don't even want their neighbor to know they are selling to the state.”

Some critics of state agency transparency, or lack of it, say this lack of clarity results in the state paying a higher price than is necessary. It’s a good government argument that when made by developer interests can obscure their own self interest as evidenced by a letter to the board in 2007 from six forest managers from north coast timber companies. It read, in part, deals “have been completed at prices that were too high for private operators to compete, even as there are models of successful private stewardship in the same area.”

Demands for more disclosure of documents (especially appraisals), more public discussion, more open negotiations, broader inclusion of potential buyers and greater transparency in general belie the repeated success of the board to broker thousands of successful deals across the state to preserve wildlife habitats and sensitive ecological environs. Its opponents are often private property owners, businesses and developers with their own personal interests who could reasonably be construed to have their own personal reasons for slowing or stopping the board’s activities.

Executive Director Donnelly has made it clear that he is open to reform.  “I'm comfortable with the way our process works now. I think it's defensible,” he said. “If proposed legislation or other suggested reforms come out saying that we can improve things, then we'll evaluate them at that time.”

Cargill Accord on Salt Ponds Hammered Out (by Douglas Fischer, Oakland Tribune)

$100 Million Cargill Deal Opened to Public Scrutiny (by Paul Rogers, San Jose Mercury News)

Secrecy Over Land Assailed, Defended—Prices Questioned in Taxpayer Deals (Prop 84) (by Paul Rogers, San Jose Mercury News)

Land Deals Protect Fake Threats (by Cal Watchdog Editor Steven Greenhut, Orange County Register)

Feb. 22, 2011 Letter to MWC Executive Director (Mendocino Redwood Company President Sandy Dean) (pdf)

Al Wright, 2000 – 2006

John Schmidt, 1982 – 2000

Chet Hart, 1973 – 1982