Among the hardest dictums for regulatory planners to swallow is this: possession is 90%. Nonetheless, it's a truism not lost upon a growing number of state conservancies, which have shown that acquisitions are among the best ways to safeguard California's natural resources and open spaces. And even though there has been grumbling about a perceived bias for funding of north state acquisitions over Southern California ones, recent history does not appear to support the complaint. The state's oldest conservancy is the Wildlife Conservation Board, the purchasing arm of the Department of Fish and Game. The WCB buys habitat and linkage corridors with the express goal of preserving sensitive habitat, restoring habitat, and providing public access to areas for fishing and hunting. Since its inception in 1947, the board has purchased more than 630,000 acres, a land area almost the size of Sacramento County. No summarized inventory of the acreage of projects based on a north-south split exists. But a review of projects by county might raise the question of whether there is a preponderance of WCB projects in Northern California. Arguments about north-south resource sharing loom large in California's history. But Executive Director John Schmidt scoffs at the idea that the WCB's acquisitions have been imbalanced. "You have to look at the cost of the project verses the resource gains," said Schmidt. "We look at the cost and benefit of acquisitions all over the state." Although geography is understood as a background factor in purchasing decisions, conservancy planners strive to rise above regionalism. Still, in the expenditure of public moneys, politics are unavoidable. Conservancy officials all agree that land costs and population-based political power are both greater in Southern California. They also acknowledge the historical predominance of state offices and their professionals in the north. And that may have led to some imbalance in acquisition efforts in the past. Take, for example, DFG's regional office distribution. Of six regional offices, four serve Northern California. And because the acquisition recommendations using WCB funds are forwarded out of the regional offices, it could be argued that 66% of the projects considered likely come from the four northern regions. But Schmidt is quick to point out that all the state's resources are valued, and that favoritism plays no part of the picture. He cited the Santa Rosa Mountain project in the Riverside County desert as a case-in-point. The ongoing effort, begun in 1975 to protect Bighorn Sheep habitat, has resulted in the single largest property acquisition on the WCB's ledger — a total of 28,000 acres secured in the steep terrain southeast of Palm Springs. But intangible evidence of bias still lingers. Schmidt himself remarked that "there's not much open space in LA County," ignoring the fact that only half of the populous but expansive jurisdiction is actually urbanized. A visit to the Board's web site highlights four current partnership acquisition projects — every one of them in Northern California. Just as the WCB is tied to the Department of Fish and Game's official goals, the Coastal Conservancy implements the California Coastal Act and answers to the Coastal Commission. A look at Coastal Conservancy activities appears to flatly dispel any notion of a northern bias. Though no formal inventory of land acquisition exists for the agency, recent purchases in the south state speak for themselves. In March, the Conservancy announced two major Ventura County acquisitions, the Ormond Beach wetlands and the Mandalay Dunes. According to California Coastal Conservancy spokesman Dick Wayman, the $17 million Ormond Beach purchase of some of the last Southern California coastal wetlands represents the largest expenditure on one project during the agency's 20-year history. Coastal Conservancy Planner Peter Brand suggests that the emergence of two circumstances gave rise to the Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project, a unique regional effort being carried out by the well-regarded land trust. First, a broad public understanding of the importance of wetlands developed, driven in part by federal Clean Water Act implementation that has raised coastal wetland protection to the top of the Conservancy's agenda. Highly publicized development battles over Bolsa Chica in Orange County and Playa Vista in Los Angeles underscore the public concern over wetland development. Second, the emergence of substantial sums of money from Southern California port expansions — required by environmental permit conditions — has leveraged Conservancy acquisition efforts. And, as Brand admitted, the south state has powerful friends in Sacramento these days. Both Gov. Davis and Resources Secretary Mary Nichols forged their political careers in Los Angeles. As conservancies gain strength, regional rivalries will probably dwindle —– in direct relationship to Southern California's growing political clout. Of four new regional state conservancies adopted by the Legislature during the last five years, three are in the south state. Regionalism aside, land acquisition for conservation is immensely popular. "People understand that conservancies are a successful model of how to protect and manage land resources," said the Coastal Conservancy's Wayman. The rise in land trust support and power is none too soon. "People in our business," said Brand, "realize that this is the last best chance to save these resources."