There is some merit in saying that the Federal Farm Bill is the “greatest conservation opportunity you’ve never heard of,” which is how the National Wildlife Federation and the Planning and Conservation League describe it. If you haven’t been following the progress of the Farm Bill in the Congress, that’s not unexpected. In the past, the Farm Bill was mostly about subsidies to farmers who produced cotton, wheat, corn, tobacco, and other commodity crops. That didn’t really mean much here in California, though there are some California cotton and rice farmers who have gotten lots of money through its subsidy programs.

Most recently, efforts have been made to transform what the Farm Bill does, so it isn’t just a massive giveaway program for those who grow commodity crops. If properly structured, the Farm Bill could go a long way towards helping California achieve its land use and conservation goals. I’ve put links to more information on the KUSP website, so you can find out about programs like these:

• The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
• The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)
• The Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP)
• The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
• The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

The 2007 Farm Bill has not yet been “finalized,” but a version has passed the House of Representatives. In September, the Senate will get its opportunity to address Farm Bill policies. There is still time for you to weigh in with Senators Boxer and Feinstein.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

NWF Website on the Farm Bill
http://online.nwf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=
FarmBill_Homepage&JServSessionIdr011=em28e18gr1.app2a

The Environmental Defense Website on the Farm Bill
http://environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=103

California Coalition For Food and Farming Website
http://www.calfoodandfarming.org/

If you’d like to attend a PCL/NWF workshop on the Federal Farm Bill, scheduled for September 12, 2007 in Sacramento, contact Melanie Schlotterbeck at mschlotterbeck@pcl.org.

In 1982, Herman Marks willed the “Marks Ranch” property, located along Highway 68 in Monterey County, to St. John’s College. The idea was that St. John’s would use the property for a West Coast campus. The Marks family had a strong commitment to conservation, having donated the 10,000 acres that now constitute the Forest of Nisene Marks State Park, in Aptos, and 120 acres to expand Point Lobos State Park on the Monterey Peninsula, and 1,200 acres to create the beginnings of Toro County Park, right next door to the Marks Ranch.

Unfortunately, St. John’s never proceeded with the campus development contemplated by Herman Marks. Instead, the school sold an option to the developers of the Las Palmas subdivision, located on River Road, with the plan being to extend that kind of cut and fill subdivision “over the hill” onto the Marks Ranch property.

This is where community participation kicked into play. Community efforts led by LandWatch Monterey County effectively stopped the development proposal. St. John’s then took the opportunity of selling the property to the Big Sur Land Trust, which brought the land back to a conservation objective.

Two weeks ago, the public learned that the Marks Ranch property will become part of Toro County Park, truly a “win-win-win” proposition. This wouldn’t have occurred without citizen action to say “no” to an inappropriate development proposal.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Article in Salinas Californian
http://www.californianonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/
article?AID=/20070724/NEWS01/70724017

The LandWatch Website
http://www.landwatch.org

The Big Sur Land Trust Website
http://www.bigsurlandtrust.org/index1.html

St. John’s Website
http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/asp/home.aspx

The Salinas Californian reported on July 23rd that the Monterey County Agricultural and Historic Land Conservancy had received $1.9 million dollars in grants to protect 471 acres of farmland north of King City. A grant received from the State Department of Conservation, and another grant from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (which is a federal agency), will be used to acquire an agricultural conservation easement on the Coburn Ranch.

An agricultural conservation easement is a voluntary, legal agreement between a landowner and another party, in which the landowner receives money, and in return for the money agrees permanently to protect the agricultural value of the property. In this case, the development limitation agreement cost the Conservancy about $4,000 per acre of land protected.

Unfortunately, voluntary easement programs aren’t the “final answer” to farmland protection. Because they are “voluntary,” those landowners who care more about maximizing their development profits than protecting farmland choose not to participate. And then there’s the money. There just isn’t enough. At the cost of $4,000 per acre for an easement, it would cost $1.7 billion dollars to extend easements throughout the entire Salinas Valley.

To protect farmland, strong land use policies are absolutely required.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

State Department of Conservation Website
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/index/

List of State Easement Projects
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/cfcp/
stories/easement_projects.htm

Natural Resources Conservation Service Website
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

Salinas Californian Article
http://www.californianonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/
article?AID=/20070723/NEWS01/70723014

Acreage figures for the Salinas Valley
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/gpu/reports/
area/central_salinas_valley.htm.
There are about 430,000 acres of agricultural and in the Salinas Valley.

The Monterey County Agricultural and Historic Land Conservancy was founded in 1984, and operates almost “below the radar,” as a private, nonprofit organization. Preserving agricultural land is its No. 1 priority, and it's very successful at what it does, as a review of the State Department of Conservation list of easement projects demonstrates. The Conservancy doesn’t have a website. You can contact the Conservancy by emailing its Executive Director, Sherwood Darington, at melanie@schlotterbeck.net.

“Smart Growth” advocates are fond of talking about a “jobs housing balance,” with the idea being that economic and job growth ought to be accompanied by housing growth. In fact, job growth does drive residential growth. The problem is that it often drives it into another region entirely, promoting the sprawling patterns that have come to typify development California style.

The effects of job growth in the Silicon Valley are felt as far South as Southern Monterey County, and as far West as Santa Cruz County (and that’s as far West as you can go). They’re found as far East as San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced Counties, and San Benito County, immediately adjacent to the Silicon Valley, is certainly not immune. Recent news stories in the Hollister Free Lance detail the kind of San Benito County controversies that are coming to the fore. You can get the references below.

On Tuesday, July 24th, for instance, a community group called “Concerned Citizens of San Benito County” brought in their attorney, Zan Henson, who practices from a law office in Carmel Valley, to object to plans to change the way existing growth restrictions work. Major developments in San Benito County have to get voter approval, and the Board of Supervisors is thinking of making this vote come at the “end,” instead of at the “beginning” of the process. As the Concerned Citizens noted, this would tilt the tables in the developers’ favor.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

The Hollister Free Lance Newspaper has two separate sections on “growth management” issues
http://www.hollisterfreelance.com/news/default.asp?s=1770
http://www.hollisterfreelance.com/news/default.asp?s=1439

Latest Hollister Free Lance Article on Growth Changes
http://hollisterfreelance.com/news/contentview.asp?c=220811

Map of California Counties
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.
metrotown.info/img--site/maps-usa-calif/state-county-maps/
map-calif-county19dpc8c.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.metrotown.info/
usa-california/california-state-counties-map.html&h=923&w
=815&sz=84&tbnid=YrIoTlz2geaU7M:&tbnh=147&tbnw=130&prev=/
images%3Fq%3Dcalifornia%2Bcounties%26um%3D1&start=2&ei=
0Z-rRs-fDpOQoASrqs3gBQ&sig2=3BMkLXGIWHAX03wNrOBGKg&sa
=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2

The State Legislature is currently in “recess” mode, and is officially scheduled to reconvene, to take up Committee and Floor business, on Monday, August 20th. The end of the current Session is on Friday, September 14th, and any bill not passed by both Houses by that date is “dead” for the year, though such a bill will probably be eligible to be taken up at the start of the next Session, in January 2008.

A number of important bills affecting land use policy are pending action. Right at the top of the list is Senate Bill 375, by State Senator Darrell Steinberg. SB 375 is currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which means that it has passed from the Senate to the Assembly, and then has survived policy scrutiny in both the Assembly Local Government Committee and the Assembly Transportation Committee.

SB 375 would try to advance good land use planning by tying future transportation funding to the adoption and implementation of what are called “preferred growth scenarios.” Land use plans would have to prevent development on farmlands and on important habitat lands, while simultaneously establishing a land use pattern that would reduce vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, as a way of meeting the state’s goal of reducing the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

SB 375 is worth your review. You can get more information below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Information on SB 375
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number
=sb_375&sess=CUR&house=B&author=steinberg.