Golf’s Stock Continues to Rise in the State Capitol

Roughly 10 years ago I found myself in a meeting of the California Alliance for Golf (CAG) in which we got stuck in a lengthy debate about the need to draft and file letters of support and opposition to bills. I decided to break up the debate by interjecting that I could write beautiful letters of support or opposition in my sleep, but that the point of such letters is not their fine craftsmanship, but rather whether anyone cares a whit what the organization submitting them thinks.

As I hand over the reins of SCGA Public Affairs to my longtime partner in the effort, Kevin Fitzgerald, and his new partner, Morris Thomas, I can say that the folks in Sacramento do indeed now pay heed to what California’s 3.2 million golfers think about the relationship between the game they love and the regulations and laws promulgated in the state capitol.

Case in point from this year’s Assembly session: When introduced by Assembly Member Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) February 16, AB 3192 contained a provision that would have banned the use of all nonorganic pesticides and fertilizers on golf resorts in California’s Coastal Zone.

The bill defined “golf resorts” as golf courses attached by ownership/ management to resorts with at least 300 rooms. At minimum, Pebble Beach, Terrenea, Pelican Hill, Aviara, Monarch Beach and La Costa would have come under the prohibition. Torrey Pines could have come under it as well, since the two adjoining on-site hotels may have had sufficient direct business connection to trigger the necessary nexus.

The California Alliance for Golf (CAG) did not follow suit with the hospitality sector and California Chamber of Commerce in opposing the entirety of the bill, much of which dealt with labor and other issues not of direct concern to a golf-centric advocacy alliance, but did file an “oppose unless amended” letter with the Assembly Natural Resources Committee — unless amended to remove the blanket ban on the use of all nonorganic pesticides and fertilizers in favor of language consistent with these facilities’ ability to continue offering high-quality golf experiences, including Pebble Beach’s ability to host five U.S. Opens in the next 16 years and an annual Tour stop, as well as La Costa’s continuing ability to host the NCAA national golf championships.

Lo and behold, Mr. Muratsuchi did indeed amend the provision that animated the golf community’s opposition, turning the original prohibition into a qualified authorization as follows:

The use of any nonorganic pesticide or fertilizing material at, or on any part of, any major coastal resort is authorized on areas of a course only when applied in a manner consistent with established integrated pest management principles and where no alternative fit for intended use and proven effectiveness is available. Where nonorganic pesticide or fertilizing material is used, the major coastal resort shall use the least toxic alternative possible in the smallest quantity possible.

Other amendments were made to include a redefinition of what constituted a “golf resort,” which reduced the number of such “resorts” affected, including Pebble Beach; a clarification of the protocols for selecting the “independent qualified consultants” who were to perform the periodic audits that remained central to the bill’s prescriptions; and the replacement of the bill’s initial private action of enforcement with an administrative protocol under the auspices of the Coastal Commission — all three changes in addition to the one above that animated the golf community’s opposition that made the bill something the California golf community could comfortably live with.

Initially stalled, AB 3192 did then pass out of its policy committees of reference but ultimately failed in the Appropriations process. But given that this was the second running of this bill and bills often come back in multiple sessions before they become law, should some version of this bill return in 2025, it is almost certain to return as it was amended in 2024 to golf’s satisfaction.

If you conclude from this episode that once irrelevant, golf is at least now on the State Legislature’s radar screen, I think you’ve concluded correctly. Whether AB 5, AB 2257, AB 1572, AB 672, AB 1910 and now AB 3192, golf’s interests have been heard and in at least these recent instances, heeded.

I might even be so bold as to suggest that golf has found a formula that can be scaled up to a much more robust advocacy presence in the future.