It's just a guess, but Resources Secretary Michael Chrisman and Fish and Game Commissioner Michael Sutton soon may be sweating in their seats while being grilled by state senators over Sutton's alleged conflicts of interest and the funding of the Marine Life Protection Act.

Sen. Dean Florez, a Democrat from Shafter, is a powerful man, and it's not nice to try and dupe powerful men.

Florez is the state Senate Majority Leader and also recently was named the Democratic caucus chairman of the new budget oversight committee. Considering the state's dire financial situation, that is one very important job that Sen. Florez has taken. He'll be in charge of reaching into the state's wallet for funds, and he's going to want to know what is worthwhile and what isn't. And right now he's asking probing questions about the Marine Life Protection Act that calls for a statewide network of marine protected areas and no fishing zones off California.

Florez joined other state senators such as Sen. Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego) and Sen. Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga) in the search for answers about the MLPA process and its funding. California Fish and Game Commissioner Dan Richards of Upland initiated the questions months ago when he asked the Department of Fish and Game to provide a detailed analysis of the costs of potential fishing closures off the coast of California.

Commissioner Richards now has been joined by these key state senators who want to know how this fisheries Act, which was passed in 1999, went from potentially costing the state $250,000 a year to a projected cost of $30 million to $40 million a year once all the marine protected areas are in place. Thus far, closures are in place off the Central Coast, and the environmental impact report for the North Central Coast was released this week by the Department of Fish and Game. The Fish and Game Commission will vote on those closures later in the year.

Florez' questions surfaced in a big way Saturday night at a Coastside Fishing Club fundraiser in San Rafael. Florez' topic was, according to sources there: "The runaway cost of the MLPA and the special interests running the process."

Florez told the recreational anglers he will call a hearing to look deeply into MLPA process to see why the projected costs went from $250,000 a year to an estimated $35 million per year to run. He told the anglers he has the blessing of Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D ??? Sacramento) to go forward with the investigation. Florez will call Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman before the Committee and ask him about MLPA funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest.

Florez told the group he wants to know why Commissioner Michael Sutton failed to list his income from the Monterey Bay Aquarium on state Form 700 during the Commission vetting process.

Florez specifically said he wants to find out if Sutton, who is an officer at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, has conflicts of interest regarding the Marine Life Protection Act. Sutton once was an officer in the Packard Foundation, and the Packard Foundation, through the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, is funding the MLPA process. Thus far, the RLFF has poured over $18 million into the MLPA process to keep it going at a time when state funds are shrinking. The Packard Foundation also gave over $123 million over three years to the Monterey Bay Aquarium, where Sutton works.

Sources close to the MLPA process say Chrisman, Sutton and MLPA Initiative staff, particularly executive director Ken Wiseman, are growing increasingly nervous about questions about Sutton's conflicts of interest and the funding of the process.

Sources say Wiseman has resorted to calling key members of the South Coast Stakeholders Group, which is in the process of forming fishing closures off Southern California, and has asked that they tone down their criticism of the funding and the process.

Chrisman and Sutton have both gone on record saying it's not important that the money isn't there to fund the MLPA. Sutton was quoted saying if the Fish and Game Commission waited for money from the Legislature, no fish and game regulations would ever pass.

Meantime, the state is in the throes of deep budget cuts, mandatory furlough days for state employees. It faces a $42 billion deficit that could grow to $50, depending on the outcome of voter propositions set for May.

Sources indicate the Department of Fish and Game has been ordered to complete detailed reports about what has been spent on the MLPA process, what is being spent now and what will it cost to implement all the fishing closures and marine protected areas once this process is complete.

The DFG reported back to the Commission at Commissioner Dan Richards' request earlier on the estimated costs of the entire MLPA, and that's how the figure of $30 million to $40 million was reached. That money would cover the necessary scientific monitoring, law enforcement and public outreach.

All this for a DFG that recently had to stock sub-catchable trout, some with parr markings, in Southern California and Eastern Sierra waters because it couldn't afford trout food at its hatcheries.