The Sierra Nevada's rural communities share more than 400 miles of the granite mountain range and an unswerving conviction that the region should not be dictated to from afar.
But that independent streak threatens to scuttle a five-year effort to create a Sierra Nevada Conservancy, which could funnel millions of dollars to the economically depressed region while protecting its vaunted scenery and natural resources.
Two bills in the Assembly that would create a conservancy could be defeated as a result of the region's reluctance to cede authority to outsiders and because of fear that too much land will be put off-limits to hunting, fishing, livestock grazing and other traditional activities.
At the same time, a broad-based group of regional conservation and business groups says a conservancy for the Sierra is long overdue and points to the state Coastal Conservancy and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy as models.
"This is the last major conservancy that is outstanding for California," said Assemblyman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), who is sponsoring one bill. "It's a matter of when this happens, not if. The forces are coming together. I have a feeling that this is the best chance we've had in years and we shouldn't squander the opportunity."
Today, eight regional conservancies across the state vie for millions of dollars in bond funds to increase recreational opportunities, shore up water systems and fund local planning.
No one denies such financial assistance is needed in the Sierra, where population is projected to triple by 2040, recreational visits are up 75% since 1989, and the northern Sierra's traditional logging economy is a shadow of its former self.
But solutions are stalled in part because even those who support the creation of a Sierra Nevada Conservancy hold differing visions of projects a conservancy might fund. And, the two Assembly bills diverge on such fundamental issues as the Sierra's boundary, the makeup of the conservancy's board and how much local control would be retained.
Tim Leslie (R-Tahoe City), sponsor of the other bill, said it's a struggle to convince Sierra residents that a conservancy is desirable, even one that might give the area an economic boost.
"This is an area that is conservative and mistrustful of government, for good reason, I might add," Leslie said. "This is a group of strong-willed, independent mountain folks who have already seen 80% to 85% of their community in public ownership. To sell this, we've got to eliminate the fear of state domination."
But Sierra residents must weigh their philosophical objections against the realization that they are penalizing themselves financially.
They don't have to look far to see the benefits localities are reaping. Indeed, two of the conservancies operate in the heart of the region. The Tahoe Conservancy, for example, has taken in $250 million since its inception in 1984.
While much of that money has gone to improve the clarity of Lake Tahoe, one of the Sierra's most treasured natural assets, none of those funds have been available for regionwide improvements.
"The Sierra has 20% of the state's land mass but receives less than 2% of state funds for land acquisition and conservation easements," said Izzy Martin of the nonprofit Sierra Fund. "We miss out because we don't have a seat at the table. The value of a conservancy is getting a seat at the table."
While much of conservancy funding goes to preserve land, in the Sierra it could also be used for new storm drains and improved water sanitation.
What makes the Sierra conservancy proposal so tantalizing is its broad support elsewhere. Politicians across the state say they favor it, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who made the establishment of a Sierra Nevada Conservancy part of his environmental platform.
The governor's staff is pushing for a compromise between the two bills, according to the sponsors.
Three issues separate the measures: the extent of the Sierra's boundaries -- Laird's bill takes in more territory and includes the southern section of the Cascade range -- the composition of the conservancy's governing board and the ability of local governments to veto conservancy projects.
The first two points appear to be negotiable. Laird said he is likely to amend his bill to require that the conservancy board is equally weighted with local residents and members appointed by the governor, just as the Leslie bill now mandates.
But the issue of local opt-out -- a key component of Leslie's bill -- may be a deal-breaker. People on both sides of the debate see little chance of success for legislation that would allow county supervisors and local planning commissions to veto proposals by a conservancy that uses state funds.
Historically, conservancies have been created to represent the interests of all Californians in looking after the well-being of the state's special places.
