SCHWARZENEGGER: YEAR TWO, THE HONEYMOON IS OVER
Following the 2003 recall of Governor Gray Davis, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was widely perceived as a breath of fresh air. The two could hardly be more different. While Davis was a lifelong public servant with a reputation for micromanagement and a striking lack of charisma, Schwarzenegger had never held public office, but his persona and reputation are larger than life.

During the campaign, Schwarzenegger presented himself as that rarest of political animals--a moderate Republican--and expressed his support for environmental protections. And in his first year in office, he did distinguish himself as one of the most environmentally sensitive Republicans in the state, earning a 58% rating from the California League of Conservation Voters--far above the average for Senate Republicans (1.5%) and Assembly Republicans (6%). Yet as we enter the second legislative session of his term, the signals are changing.

CAUTION: SHARP RIGHT TURN AHEAD
The elections of 2004 marked a sharp increase in the Governor's anti-environmental activities. Despite earlier suggestions that he would oppose the measure, Schwarzenegger actively campaigned for Proposition 64, a measure placed on the ballot by big business that removed consumer and environmental groups' ability to sue polluters and other rogue corporations for breaking the law. With the governor's support, this initiative passed with 59% of the vote.

More recently, in early January the Governor released the first of his proposals to reorganize state government. Of greatest concern to the environmental community is the proposal to eliminate 88 different boards and commissions, including the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, the Mining and Geology Board, and several other entities with conservation-oriented mandates.

EPIC and other conservation organizations strongly oppose the elimination of the Board of Forestry. Although we often disagree with the actions of the Board, the meetings are open and provide the public with opportunities to monitor the development of forest regulation. Abolishing the Board and allowing the Department of Forestry to write the Forest Practice Rules has no discernible benefits--it will be more expensive and less accessible to the public--but it will increase the timber industry's influence and ability to roll back environmental protections.

If there are no cost savings, why is the Governor proposing to eliminate these boards? One obvious answer is political payback to his supporters. For example, the largest timberland owner in the state (Sierra Pacific Industries) is also one of the Governor's biggest donors. But that's probably not the whole story.

It may be that the proposal is dead on arrival in the Legislature because it requires the Senate and Assembly to vote up or down on the whole package, and there are plenty of bad ideas in the proposal. However, many people expect the Governor to use the rejection of this package of anti-environmental, anti-consumer proposals as part of his effort to characterize the Legislature as obstructionist--and to justify taking his initiatives directly to the voters in the November special election. Although most of the potential initiatives are not yet being circulated, many contain language that would be potentially devastating for environmental protection in California.

Given the Governor's sharp tilt toward big business and polluters in recent months, everyone will need to remain vigilant. EPIC will continue to work with other conservation and public interest organizations to monitor these evolving proposals and resist any attempts to roll back environmental protections in California. We will keep you posted as these proposals take shape.

Paul Mason is the forestry lobbyist for Sierra Club California, an EPIC Board member, and former EPIC staff.