One good thing did come from Assembly Member Warren’s efforts. If you’ll go to the KUSP website, you’ll find references to the State’s farmland mapping program. This impressive program, overseen by the State Department of Conservation, documents where the best farmland is located, and also documents how it’s being converted to non-farming uses. Anyone who wants to work on farmland preservation, in any part of California, will find the farmland mapping program invaluable.

It is sad, though, that state political leaders decided, ultimately, not to save farmland, but to document its loss!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Online Archive: Papers of Charles Warren
http://findaid.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt8m3nd0c4

State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/index.htm

The essence of self-government is that we decide for ourselves what we think we ought to do. This means that we enact laws (after debate and discussion, of course) which tell us, individually and collectively, what the rules are going to be. If we decide (after that debate and discussion) that we ought to protect farmland, then we enact laws that require farmland to be protected. Such a law would, of course, prevent farmland owners from converting their farmland into subdivisions and shopping malls (and from making a lot of money by doing so). Strong landowner opposition, at both the state and the local levels, is really why strong farmland protection rules have generally not been enacted.

Instead of a clear rule against farmland conversion, California has a voluntary system, called the Williamson Act. The idea is that farmland owners will get a tax break if they voluntarily restrict the use of their land to agriculture. That system is certainly better than nothing; however, it really only works if the local government that maintains the restriction is serious about enforcing the terms of its Williamson Act contracts. Today, on the Consent Agenda of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, the Board is agreeing to modify existing Williamson Act contracts, to allow certain landowners to develop their land in a way that the current contract wouldn’t permit.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

California’s Williamson Act
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/lca/index.htm

Williamson Act – Laws, Regulations, and Court Cases
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/lca/lrcc/index.htm

Monterey County Board of Supervisors Agenda, 7-18-06
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/cttb/agenda.htm

I’ve been talking, this week, about various ways to protect farmland. The most straightforward way is to establish a rule that says that farmland will be used for farming. That certainly can be done. It’s both legal and constitutional to establish such a rule, but it’s politically difficult. In California, there have been a number of efforts to protect and preserve our farmlands, as a matter of basic state policy, but these efforts have generally not been successful. We are mapping farmland conversion, documenting our losses, and we’ve established a Williamson Act program that gives farmland owners a voluntary right to restrict the development of their farmlands, but we have never really “bitten the bullet” and adopted a strong and consistent rule, on a statewide basis, that says that our commercially-productive farmlands should be maintained in agricultural use. Without that basic commitment to farmland protection, our efforts are always what might be called a “work around.”

Voluntary programs to acquire agricultural conservation easements are one of the “work arounds.” These programs are voluntary, but establish binding legal commitments to protect farmland. In the Central Coast Region, the Monterey County Agricultural and Historical Land Conservancy has had particular success. Now it seems that the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County is doing some great work, with specific success in the Pajaro Valley.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Monterey County Agricultural and Historical Land Conservancy
http://www.mcahlc.com/

Land Trust of Santa Cruz County
http://www.landtrustsantacruz.org/

Passing Farmland On For Generations
http://www.landtrustsantacruz.org/

Land Trust Newsletter Article on Pajaro Valley Farmland Conservation Program (Page 4)
http://www.landtrustsantacruz.org/webdocs/
newsletters/Landmarks_Summer_2006.pdf

California has never established a clear commitment to farmland preservation. At least not at the state level. Without a clear commitment at the state level, each local agency is allowed to legislate for itself. Some have done better than others, and I think it’s fair to say that Santa Cruz County has probably adopted the strongest agricultural land protection policy in the state.

The root of the problem is that while preserving agricultural lands for agricultural use is definitely in the public interest, it is not always in the interest of the individual landowner. If you own agricultural land, which is commercially productive when used for agriculture, this by definition means you can make money farming your land. However, you may be able to make more money by turning your land into a shopping center, subdivision, or auto mall. Land use policies are public policies. Should our public policy be to do what’s best for the public, or to have a rule that lets each individual property owner maximize his or her own individual economic advantage? Santa Cruz County has definitely opted for the former approach. Here’s what Measure J, enacted by the voters in 1978, says about farmland protection:

It shall be the policy of Santa Cruz County that prime agricultural lands and lands which are economically productive when used for agriculture shall be preserved for agricultural use.

That really is straightforward. And it works!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

* The word “radical” is based on the Latin, and the word really means “root.” The Santa Cruz County farmland protection program established by Measure J is “radical” because it gets at the root of the problem, by making the public interest prevail over the interests of individual land owners.

Measure J – See Santa Cruz County Code, Title 17
http://ordlink.com/codes/santacruzco/index.htm

The Story of Measure J
http://www.landwatch.org/pages
/publications02/081802MeasureJstory.pdf

As the Executive Director of the Planning and Conservation League, I get to see, up close and personal, how difficult it is to enact straightforward policies, at the state level, to achieve the public interest. One way to do it is to bypass the Legislature completely, and to go directly to the voters of the state. The initiative powers of the people, provided for in the State Constitution, are intended to give ordinary citizens the right to take action for the public interest, when their elected representatives don’t seem prepared to do what the majority of the state’s voters want. The Planning and Conservation League, as a matter of fact, has a long history of going to the voters on behalf of the environment. If you’ve ever enjoyed walking through Pogonip, above the City of Santa Cruz, you’ve experienced one of the benefits of the CALPAW initiative, sponsored by PCL.

The voters of the state do want to protect and preserve commercially productive farmland. That’s what the polls say, anyway. Maybe it’s time for a statewide initiative that can stop the suburbanization of our most important agricultural areas. Something straightforward. Something simple. Something that says, as a matter of state policy, that we, as Californians, are committed to the business of agriculture; that we’re in it for the long run; and that converting our commercial farmlands into subdivisions just doesn’t make sense! That’s all easier said than done, of course, but it can be done!

Send me an email with your questions, comments, and suggestions.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

You can contact Gary Patton at PCL by emailing him at: gapatton@pcl.org