farmers. It will do a lot of other things as well, not the least of which is 

 to provide $8,000,000 to improve wildlife habitat on federal lands in the 

 State because the feds themselves seem to be unable to get the budget to 

 do it for us. 



The bond issue, to me, is an educational device. We have a lot of 

 voters in our State, and if we are lucky enough to pass It people will have 

 shown by voting that they understand very clearly that the vitality and 

 the future of the quality of their lives and their great-grandchildren's 

 lives hinges on this kind of a new priority in government spending. 



In the face of Proposition 13 we're arguing there's a difference 

 between spending and investing. The third step: We're going after 

 excess oil revenues, duplicating Montana's example. I called Dorothy 

 Bradley a time or two to ask how Montana established its severance tax on 

 coal. We now have a bill moving through the Legislature that will 

 designate a share of the excess oil revenues for resource management. 



California is a new sheikdom because of recent changes in oil pricing 

 structure. Alaska, Texas and Louisiana are as well, I guess. Our goal is 

 to get $150,000,000 a year in new funds for resource management and 

 alternative energy devlopment from that fund. That will be about 

 one-third of the fund. Five years ago the Legislature wouldn't even have 

 listened to us if we had made such a proposal, but the Sagebrush 

 Rebellion, RARE II and all the other conflicts have enabled us to help 

 people understand the realities of finite resources and limited carrying 

 capacities. 



And the people who really count in making decisions for the future 

 are the urban voters and the urban legislators. Cattlemen and others 

 clinging to past traditions of exploitation without reinvestment are the 

 modern counterparts of General Custer when he went into the Little 

 Bighorn. They're galloping away and they're going head-on into this 

 urban vote, and those people are beginning to understand, beginning to 

 shake their heads in puzzlement at grazing price structures, mineral 

 leasing practices and other forms of mismanagment that have been allowed 

 to continue, including understaffing of key federal land management 

 agencies. I think the Forest Service, the BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service 

 are excellent managers, and far from wanting them wiped out of existence, 

 I want them to get the kind of budgets that will allow them to manage 

 their lands so the landscape will be productive 100 years from now. 



In shaping up our own house we are also aggressively beginning the 

 pursuit of federal agencies, requiring that they upgrade the productivity 

 of their lands. When minorities in Los Angeles realize that the Forest 

 Service last year sent $60,000,000 from logging on California lands, net, 

 back to the federal general fund but didn't get enough in return to 

 replant the trees in the areas they cut, they start to get concerned about 

 the future of their lands. It's at that point that we, you, I, the urban 

 voters and the federal agencies, have a remarkable opportunity to 

 cooperate and avert another disastrous battle of the Little Bighorn 



