California’s budget woes played out over the summer as word of the planned closure of 70 state parks, including Mono Lake and adjacent shoreline lands that compose the Mono Lake Tufa State Natural Reserve, spread far and wide. The Mono Lake Committee has been hard at work seeking solutions to change the state’s plan. The chance of success is looking very good, which is rewarding given the common closure responses we heard at Mono Lake over the summer: “no way,” “how can we stop this,” and “what are they thinking?”
Indeed, it remains unclear exactly what the thinking was behind the closure list released on May 13, 2011. The Committee submitted a public records request the next day, seeking the analysis that justified placing Mono Lake on the closure list. Earlier in the year the legislature provided 11 analysis points that must be considered, and our own internal review found Mono Lake to be strong on most points (there are no major infrastructure improvements needed, for example), although weak on fee collection. Interestingly, we still haven’t received the state’s analysis as of press time, despite further inquiries from our attorneys. The analysis, if it exists, should consider the many impacts of closing the Mono Lake Reserve. While adventurous visitors will always find their way to the water’s edge, actual closure is quite dramatic because state resources and oversight are removed. Among many things, two major visitor access points to the lake would be closed, ranger programs for the public would be discontinued, permitting of scientific studies and film projects on the lake would be shuttered, and coordination of volunteers and programs for visiting school groups would be discontinued. In a closure situation, many visitors planning their trips in advance would simply choose to visit other destinations, causing local economic damage.
Nonetheless, while the inclusion of Mono Lake on the closure list remains on shaky ground, there it is. And that means that decision makers needed to hear concerns from the public.
Committee members and Mono Lake fans have been writing letters and signing locally placed petitions all summer. We’ve delivered over 4,000 letters and signatures in Sacramento so far. “Delivered” truly means delivered: each Friday, Sacramento Policy Associate Betsy Reifsnider hand-carries a fresh stack of letters and petitions to Governor Jerry Brown, Parks Director Ruth Coleman, Mono County’s State Assemblymember Kristin Olsen, and State Senator Ted Gaines. Assemblymember Olsen’s staff is so used to Betsy’s weekly visits that they’ve started saying, “Oh there you are, we’ve been expecting you!” On one occasion, Assemblymember Olsen happened to be on hand to personally receive the thick stack of support and exclaimed, “Wow!”
Public concern—your voice—really makes a difference in these public issues. As a result of hearing so much support for Mono Lake, both Olsen and Gaines made their first visits to Mono Lake in the early fall, taking time to meet Mono Lake Reserve staff, experience the lake by canoe, see the great regional economic benefit of the Reserve, and discuss solutions with the Committee. The Governor and Parks Director Coleman also made private trips to the lake over the summer, and they are well aware that they need to help move solutions forward that remove Mono Lake from the closure list.
Seeking solutions to avert closure
Amidst the legal questions and public pressure against closure, the Mono Lake Committee has been working hard to identify solutions that will keep the Mono Lake Reserve open.
Parks in general, including the Mono Lake Reserve, need to look to three foundational elements for support: 1) the state Department of Parks & Recreation, 2) the community of park supporters, and 3) visitors to the park itself.
The parks agency of course is the key player, with the highly trained staff and depth of experience to manage the sovereign state lands and waters at Mono Lake sustainably for public enjoyment. Even though the agency’s budget is faltering, the presence of park rangers at Mono Lake is invaluable.
The community of supporters is the next major resource. In an era of dwindling state budgets, park advocates like Committee members need to step up and offer support. Happily, Mono Lake is very strong on this point, starting with the tens of thousands of Mono Lake advocates. A thriving volunteer program started by the Committee nine years ago serves the Reserve and makes programs and public contact happen that the state can no longer afford. Non-profit fundraising also substantially underwrites the Reserve’s operation.
The weak spot for the Mono Lake Reserve is the third foundation element: visitors. There are, of course, plenty of visitors—over 250,000 annually—and they are generally quite enthusiastic about Mono Lake. But while visitors spend money in town and benefit the local economy greatly, there are no visitor fees collected that go directly to the Reserve (the fee charged at South Tufa goes to the Forest Service). So when Sacramento decision makers look at their spreadsheets, they unfortunately give Mono the scarlet “no revenue” mark.
A modest user fee
The revenue-generation weakness at Mono Lake also holds the solutions that can keep the park open. User fees of some sort are a reasonable place to change the operating formula for the state park at Mono Lake, especially when you consider that an estimated 40% of visitors come from international and out-of-state locations, meaning they are enjoying the lake but are not part of the California taxpayer base that supports park operation. Could collecting a visitor fee equivalent to a coffee shop stop for a latte make a difference?
In the Committee’s discussions with State Parks administrators, we found the agency very receptive to bringing back the user fee as a way to change how business is done at the Mono Lake Reserve—and that change in business practices, in turn, is a firm basis for removing Mono Lake from the closure list. Given the low cost and high efficiency of the Reserve operation, adding a user fee to the already strong level of community support means it is possible to substantially strengthen the foundation of the Reserve and thus keep it open and operating.
In fact, a user fee was once charged at the state reserve access points to the lake. It was set aside in 1997 when South Tufa fees went into effect.
How would reviving the user fee work? The concept under discussion is to charge a per-vehicle parking fee at the Old Marina site, starting in 2012. Collection would be through a self-pay system. While state park fees generally go to Sacramento, the arrangement at Mono Lake would focus on returning revenue directly to the operation of the Mono Lake Reserve. This would be accomplished by the Reserve working with its specially-designated cooperating partner organization, the non-profit Bodie Foundation, which would collect the fees, cover basic site operational costs, and invest the remainder in funding the state park ranger that runs the Reserve on the ground.
Other parks on the closure list may seek other approaches, such as swapping operating duties and costs between agencies. Even non-profits now have the opportunity to take over operation of a state park thanks to new legislation. But none of these approaches comes with money, meaning once again that park-generated fees are key to continued operation.
Moving a solution forward is urgent as decisions to revise the park closure list are being made this fall. The Committee is optimistic that implementing a solution at Mono Lake will keep the Reserve open, under the expert care of state park rangers, and ready for all of us to visit and enjoy next summer.
What if there was a donation tube instead of a fee collection tube? It could even show an address to send donations to for people who don’t carry much cash with them. That would bring in some funds and it would do so without enforcement costs.
What a thorough article. Great work from the MLC staff. I’ve always felt that people tend to pay better attention to something that is modestly priced rather than free. I have everything crossed for this proposal.
best
joe
I totally agree that people value things more if they have an investment in it. Nothing is free in this world, we have to pay dues one way or another for everything, including breathing fresh air and drinking fresh clean water. It is our job to care for our planet and protect it as we do our families, friends, pets — the things we love.
How can a nominal price be too much if a person has to travel to get there and stay? That all costs something too. The bottom line is – we need to protect that which we wish to exist.
I also agree with what has been stated about supporting what we use- and like the idea of keeping the funds at Mono Lake. I wonder if a special annual pass could be created for frequent visitors based on donation, through the Committee. I’m sure there would be enough interest.
We are in wholehearted agreement with the suggested user fee. Instead of a “parking” fee, how about an “entry” fee (per carload)? There is something negative about parking fees but it is hard to object to an entry fee to a site as majestic as Mono Lake.
Agree that an “entry fee” is more acceptable than a “parking fee”. The latter will only encourage folks to park along the road rather than in the lots –
And a donation pipe is an excellent idea! Put them at all 3 major points of entry – North beach, South Tufa, and the Old marina site on the SW side. Be sure to explain in a sign that the donation would stay at the Lake!!
It’s sad to arrive at this situation of having to defend our wonderful parks but who can deny that installing a user fee wouldn’t be a great idea. Particularly if it can keep mono Lake opened for folks to continue using and to be able to appreciate.
As overseas visitors ourselves, my husband and I wouldn’t object to a user fee since this is an area of outstanding beauty that we love. Mono is a hidden treasure that inspires loyalty in those who do discover it and to keep it safe is a prize worth paying for.
User fee that stays at Mono Lake is a good idea, a donation pipe at the parking lots is an easy to use idea. One reason I’m A Mono Lake Commetee member is to keep Mono Lake as it is (or better).
Thanks all for the comments and ideas. Collecting donations at the visitor access sites via a donation tube or similar system is a good idea, in fact so good that such a system has been in place for several years. Unfortunately the amount collected is pretty small. One perspective on this is that voluntary donations seem to come more from repeat visitors who are big Mono Lake fans than from folks who are on one time visits, probably to many sites in the Eastern Sierra and California. Both types of visitors seem to be mostly willing to pay a small fee though, so that’s why a (required) fee is part of the discussion. Thanks again for the great discussion so far!
Mono Lake is extremely important to me and on my father’s side of American Indians, who are native to the Mono Basin. I have written countless letters along with my friends to Governor Brown and Mono County’s State Assemblymember Kristin Olsen, and State Senator Ted Gaines. Assemblymember Olsen’s staff is still to be addressed from my father and my family. It is important to donate to the Mono Lake Committee, but I would like to see where that money is going, besides a tax write off. Geoff, Executive Director, can you reply to me on that @ my email above.
Sincerely,
Karen Hess
First, I’m a firm believer is collecting funds as close to the user of the attraction as is reasonable. I’m in favor of the donation drop or access fees.
However, the reasonablness of fees has to be considered. I recently drove across Nevada and found they have instituted site visitation fees, which is OK. My objection is only to have fees commensurate with the time a visitor is likely to spend at a given site. Nevada is charging $7 at sites one passing through might spend 20 minutes. I find that unreasonable.
As many visitors are passing through the Mono Lake area, perhaps making several short stops, something like a $5-day access fee for all sites could work.
Kevin
I had sent a suggestion to the Governor’s Office that, where a viable and willing support agency (Such as the Mono Lake Committee) exists for those parks slated for closure, the administration of the park be turned over to that agency. The template for this concept is the Presidio Trust that was delegated to take over administration of the former Presidio Army post under oversight of the National Park Service. My vision is that the support agency be tasked with having the park operating costs break even over the course of 2 to 4 years else face closure. The key here is viable and willing.
I’ve heard nothing from the Governor’s office. Does anyone else share my vision? Is this “do-able?” I’m afraid this may well be our only hope of saving the park!