Bill would give public more sway over Fresno river parkway — and that’s a good thing
For far too long, key stakeholders have largely been excluded from the state-funded effort to create public access along the San Joaquin River.
Who are these key stakeholders? Oh, nobody. Just the average, everyday citizens of Fresno and Madera counties, a group that is underrepresented on the San Joaquin River Conservancy governing board.
Assembly Bill 559, authored by state Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula, helps balance the scales. If signed into law, the bill would give the public more sway over the development of the 22-mile river parkway between Friant Dam and Highway 99.
That’s a good thing, right? Regrettably, many local politicians don’t see it like that. Those opposed to AB 559 includes the Boards of Supervisors in both Fresno and Madera counties. Who’d prefer to keep their hands on the rudder and the public’s off.
Certainly, none of them would frame the discussion that way. They’re much more apt to bemoan the loss of “local control” (a red herring) while arguing how they’re the ones elected to represent all the community stakeholders.
In a perfect world, sure. Just not in the one we’re living in. In the real world, “local control” hasn’t gotten us very far. Three decades after the San Joaquin River Conservancy was formed, progress on the parkway remains slow and piecemeal. And for the most part, those same elected officials who claim to represent you and me side with special interests.
There was no more blatant example than the imbroglio over the River West Fresno Open Space Area, a quagmire that took several years to wade through because politicians on the SJRC governing board kowtowed to the residents of an upscale subdivision that borders the 290-acre property.
AB 559, which heads to the Senate floor after clearing the Senate Appropriations Committee, makes the board’s membership more representative of the populations it serves while revising the appointments process so that seats don’t go years without being filled. (Update: The bill passed the Senate floor by a 56-15 vote on Sept. 2 and now heads to governor’s desk.)
Lastly, and most controversially, it opens the positions of board chair and vice chair to all voting members and scraps the rotation between local elected officials.
Arambula’s bill doesn’t fundamentally change how the SJRC operates or taps state bond money to acquire properties within the parkway’s 5,900-acre footprint. Future additions will still come from willing sellers — not from any threat of eminent domain.
It simply ensures more public voices are included in the decision-making process over a regional authority funded by taxpayer dollars. Nothing wrong with that.
Representation for Native American tribes, youth
The SJRC governing board currently has 15 members. AB 559 bumps that number to 16. New seats would be granted to a member of a local Native American tribe (about time) as well as a “youth” member aged between 18 and 26. At the same time, the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District and Madera Irrigation District would rotate on a two-year alternating basis rather than both having permanent seats.
AB 559 still provides for three public members: a Fresno County resident, a Madera County resident and a city of Fresno resident. However, instead of stipulating that the Fresno and Madera county seats go to a riverside property owner, the bill broadens the criteria. Any representative of a local nonprofit that supports “outdoor recreation, conservation, environmental justice, or social justice issues” is eligible.
By my math, that’s five seats allocated to average, everyday citizens compared to three. And dropping the “property owner” stipulation on two of them is long overdue. The state’s second-longest river belongs to all of us.
Just as crucially, Arambula’s bill fixes the appointment process so that seats don’t sit vacant for years. Madera County has gone without a citizen representative on the SJRC governing board since 2017. Why? Because the county’s Republican supervisors keep submitting nominees that invariably get rejected by California’s Democrat governors.
AB 559 helps solve that logjam by granting county supervisors one year to submit a list of “at least two individuals” every time a public seat comes open. If they fail to do so, the state legislative leaders get to appoint someone from a list submitted by local nonprofits.
Loss of “local control” on river board a red herring
As previously mentioned, the most contentious provision is the one that opens the chair and vice chair positions to an annual election, rather than rotate them among elected officials from Fresno County, Madera County and the city of Fresno.
Instead of questioning the change, we should be asking why the river conservancy is the only one of the 11 state conservancies set up in a manner that ensures local politicians always hold the reins.
Fears have been expressed that if the chair and vice chair positions are open to all members, state bureaucrats could end up in charge. Nonsense. Most of those folks live outside the region; they won’t even run.
If those leadership positions are elected, it’s far more likely a local politician or one of the public members gets the most votes. That’s democracy.
Congressman Jim Costa, who authored the legislation that created the SJRC, told me he’s concerned elected officials would be “less engaged” if they weren’t in charge and that the dialogue required to get complicated land deals done would be “more difficult, not easier.” (Costa has not taken a formal position on AB 559.)
Sorry, I don’t buy that reasoning.
Now that the state kicked down $15 million for San Joaquin River parkway operations and maintenance (we can thank Arambula for that, too), several more properties will soon open or have their days and hours extended. It’s an optimistic time for residents that have longed for more access to California’s second-longest river.
A reconfigured SJRC board under AB 559 would continue that momentum — while giving average citizens more say in the process.
Editor’s note: This column has been updated to better reflect Rep. Costa’s position.
This story was originally published August 29, 2021 at 5:00 AM.
