Trinity opposes state cut of farm land program

Trinity County has joined many of its Northern California neighbors in opposing a state budget proposal to eliminate the $34.7 million the state annually gives to counties for keeping land agricultural under the Williamson Act.

In a recent letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Board of Supervisors wrote that the preservation of agriculture and open space "is not just a local priority; it is and must remain a state priority for land use, for local food security, for greenhouse gas reductions and to protect one of California's greatest natural resources, the fertile ground beneath our feet."

Under the 40-year-old Williamson Act program, landowners can have their property assessed at a lower value if they agree to keep their land in farming or open space for at least 10 years. Since 1971, the state has provided for partial replacement of local property tax revenue lost as a result of the Williamson Act, but there is currently a state budget proposal to quit providing those payments known as subvention funds to the counties.

Trinity County only receives about $22,000 a year in Williamson Act subvention funds, but county supervisors noted it is a very important program to other rural counties in the North State. Supervisor Wendy Reiss said that "while the amount to us is small, it is huge to our neighbors and we need to show support to the other rural counties."

Supervisor Judy Pflueger objected to the state's "idea of turning (the cost) back onto the counties. Counties need to stand together and quit letting the state push us around. We need to support our neighbors."

She added there is a lot of agricultural land to the north of Trinity County "where it would make a big difference," and she acknowledged having part ownership of a ranch in Siskiyou County that could be impacted by what the state decides to do. For that reason, she recused herself from voting on the letter to the governor.

Supervisor Roger Jaegel noted there are several large ranches in the Hayfork area that would be negatively affected by elimination of the Williamson Act tax advantage.

Supervisor Jeff Morris, who penned the letter to the governor, said he believes doing away with the Williamson Act subventions is bad for the planning process.

"The easiest way to have more ag land developed in California is to have the subventions go away — that would encourage owners to turn their land into development," he said.

Supervisor Howard Freeman said the proposal to gut the Williamson Act "is bad for the nation. The reduction in farm and ranch lands would have far-reaching consequences for the nation, increasing costs for those products."

The board's letter to the governor urges retaining the Williamson Act as a vitally important program that has helped guide land use decisions and preserve California farmland for current and future generations.

It notes that without the support of the subventions, small family farmers and ranchers will feel even more pressure to sell their property to land developers and additional pressures will come to bear on cities and counties to move in the same direction.

It adds that the $34.7 million associated with the program would amount to only a small budget savings for the state and that "unraveling this very important planning and conservation tool that is the Williamson Act will not be a step forward and flies in the face of" other legislation aimed at promoting smart growth, sound land use and local food production and distribution.