Farm Bureau Policies 2022
No. 432 Energy Development
No. 429 Government Support of Development Rights Programs
through theuseof incentive-basedprograms (e.g.,WilliamsonAct) andnot through cumbersome governmental regulations. The cancellation of Williamson Act contracts should only be approved under extraordinary circumstances. The non-renewal process represents a landowner’s contrac- tual right and is the preferredmethod of exiting aWilliamson Act contract. We view inappropriate cancellations of Williamson Act contracts as a violation of those contracts between the landowner, county and state. We support the closingof any loophole in theWilliamsonAct that couldbeusedtounderminetheprogram’sintegrity.Landusesthatre- sult inthecessationofagriculturalpursuitsoncontractedlandclearly undermine the program’s integrity and should never be allowed in agriculturalpreserves.CertificatesofComplianceonantiquatedsub- divisionsmapsor government landpatents shouldnot beallowed to subvert aWilliamson Act contract. The construction of new rental residentialunits,unrelatedtotheagriculturaloperation,shouldnotbe allowedon landenforceably restrictedbyaWilliamsonAct contract. We also believe that definition of “recreational activities,” as definedunder theWilliamsonAct, should exclude uses that result in the cessation of agricultural pursuits on contracted land or that have negative impacts on adjacent agricultural lands. Williamson Act-contracted land should not be acquired by a government entity or joint powers authority to expand parks or wildlife refuges. These uses are incompatible with the continued agricultural use of surrounding contract properties. Furthermore, habitat enhancement projects onprivate contracted lands should not be allowed to continue if the project hampers farming on the neighboring properties. Energy projects located on Williamson Act contracted lands should be incidental and accessory to the agricultural operation and should not impede or reduce the pro- ductive agricultural capacity of the land for future uses. WilliamsonAct contractsmust be compliedwith by all succes- sors in interest of the owner. The restrictions onuse apply equally to land acquired by Native American Indians and the Bureau of Indian Affairs should not allow contracted land to be taken into trust status until the nonrenewal process has run in its entirety. We do not support government-mandated deed restrictions, but in the event they occur, due compensation shouldbeprovided commensurate with the economic impact of the restriction. There shouldbe amechanismtopermit the sale of development rights foraperiodof timelessthanperpetuitysolongasall suchtrans- actions remain voluntary. We support legislative efforts to provide substantial income and property tax relief to farmers and ranchers who voluntarily agree to convey conservation easements or enter intoenforceable restrictions similar toWilliamsonAct contracts, but with longer terms. Deductions for qualified charitable donations of conservation easements should be allowed to be carried forward until fullyutilized.Weurgeall countygovernments toofferFarmland SecurityZone(FSZ)contractstolandownersrequestingparticipation. Weopposegovernmentpurchaseof productiveagricultural land for the purpose of leasing it back to growers to produce food, fiber andother agricultural products. Fee titleof productive agricultural land should remain in private ownership. (Rev. 2011) No. 427 Growth Management Urban development should not be allowed to exceed infra- structure capacity, includingwater supply availability, wastewater disposal or drainage capacity. Urban development should not be allowed toresult in thedegradationof airquality, or groundwateror surfacewaterquality.We support the integrationof airquality stud- ies andwater development in any growthmanagement strategies toachieve significant reductions inurbanization-relatedemissions and encourage increased investment in water development and other essential infrastructure. (Rev. 2001) No. 428 New Towns New towns shouldonly be allowed inareas that arenot suitable for agriculture.However, in theevent newtowns areproposed, they should be located and designed to assure that adverse impacts on agricultural land, such as competition for water, canbe satisfacto- rilymitigated. Furthermore, the town’s drainage shoulddisposeof its salt load without causing long term salinity problems either in groundwater or indownstreamsurfacewaters. They shouldbe self- supporting in typical city services andutilities required, including, but not limited to, schools, police and fire protection and sewer, water and solidwaste disposal, and established on existing public roads or transportation corridors. In addition, any new town proposal should also be required to plan for an appropriate ratio of employment opportunities to residents andprovidehousing for all, includingpersons providing services within the community. We support limitingentitlements for newtowns to five yearsun- less infrastructure is installed and lots are sold. (Rev. 2000)
Newly proposed uses for any previously acquired utility ease- ments should require additional compensation to the landowner. We should use all available means to protect land from trans- mission and utility corridors where workable alternate routes not passing through agricultural land are available. When underground utility or transmission lines are installed, costs should not be borne by all utility company customers but shouldbepaidforbythecustomersrequestingundergroundservice. We seek todevelopanorderlyplan for the consolidation, devel- opment and placement of transmission lines across agricultural land so that the lines will have the greatest degree of compliance with present land use patterns. We believe the California Energy Commission and the Public UtilitiesCommissionshouldwork together todevelop responsibil- ity and authority to seekmutual cooperation between private and public utility companies. Weurge theuseof existing lines and rights-of-way or upgrading of existing lines to transport power. We believe that any new development of energy resources or expansionof utility transmission facilities shouldbe conductedon existing public lands. Where suitable public land is not available, we urge the support of lease/rent of new utility easement as an alternative to a single payment for condemned land. (Rev. 2002) No. 433 Historical Use of Rights-of-Way All changes inuseand/orownershipof rights-of-waymusthonor the reversionary rights and revert to original parcels. The local gov- ernment agency which receives certification for interimusemust be responsible for right-of-waymaintenance andpolicing. (1997) No. 434 Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program The California Department of Fish andWildlife should accept habitat enhancement funds asmitigation insteadof requiring land acquisitions. (Rev. 1999) No. 435 Recreation Population growth and concurrent shrinkage of the work week has increased the demand for recreational space, jeopardizing the agricultural productivity of land in favor of its incidental rec- reational capability. We recognize the need for sound programs of outdoor recre- ational development. It is our desire to cooperate with the public agencies responsible for such programs. It is also our desire to see that agricultural interests are adequately protected when recre- ational uses are proposed in agricultural areas. To this endwe recommend: (1) that representatives from agriculture be included on commissions and committees concerned with planning rec- reational programs; (2) that private enterprise be afforded every opportunity to de- velop and operate recreational facilities when and where feasible andwhen compatible with agricultural activities; (3) that local units of government assume the responsibility for andcosts related topublic recreation, includingplanning, develop- ment, liability, public safety and control; (4) that regional entities conform to local general plans when proposing trail access to private or public lands; (5)Recreationaldevelopmentsincludepublicsafetyconsiderations, including lawenforcement andemergency services access, lighting, fencingandsignage, asnecessary, todeter access toprivateproperty; (6) that regional entities give serious consideration to the detri- mental physical impacts (garbage, fencedamage, compaction, crop damage, etc.) aswell as the liability to the landowner inherentlycre- atedby locating trails adjacent toor throughprivate property; and (7) that established governmental recreational programs be- come self-sustaining. We recognize the potential to develop free enterprise recre- ational activities. Legislation is neededwhichwould: (1) provide that there be no duty of care by the landowner or operator to trespassers; (2) place a reasonable limit on the amount of liability to guests resulting fromdamages causedby ordinaryhazards suchas falling rocks, tree limbs, and irregular terrain; (3) encourage the Fish and Wildlife Department to license ranchers in the growing and harvesting of game as a business; (4) prevent implieddedicationof property rights resulting from the use of property by persons not so specifically authorized; and (5) encourage that stock fishof comparable quality be purchased fromprivatehatcheriesiftheyarecompetitivelypricedinrelationtothe cost of rearingsuch fishthroughexisting federal andstatehatcheries.
If any type of government financing is instituted to fund the purchase or transfer of development rights programs, we believe the following provisions are essential: (1) The programsmust be voluntary; (2)They shouldbe indefinedareaswithemphasison theurban/ rural interface; (3) State or federally funded programs should require man- datory local matching funds to insure local participation and cost effectiveness; (4) Specific authorizationmust bemade so that customaryhus- bandry practices can bemaintained; and (5) These fundsmay not be used to facilitate the transfer of pri- vately owned land to public agencies. (89/Rev. 2001) No. 430 Land Use Planning and planning implementation should give due con- sideration to the following: (1) That agriculture is a basic industry making an invaluable economic contribution, and the encroachment of incompatible uses into agricultural areas should be prevented; (2) That agricultural land should be recognized and ac- corded a high priority in county and city general plans and zoning ordinances; (3) That we support local planning which accommodates or- derly, logical contiguous patterns of urban development. To help contain urban sprawl and protect our agricultural resources, re- sponsible government agencies should discourage urban devel- opment of agricultural land unless the local jurisdiction has dem- onstrated efficient use of existing incorporated areas. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) should be required to recognize existing infill and density with specific evaluation find- ings of eachprior toapprovingapetitionor application for a sphere of influence change, annexationor other action that includes pro- ductive agricultural land; (4) That we oppose establishment of urban “leap frog” centers in the state’s agricultural areas without due consideration of the adverse effect on ongoing agricultural operations and the fiscal resources of the local government; (5) We oppose the acquisition of land in rural areas when its transfer to trust status by the Bureau of Indian Affairs is for the purpose of building casinos or conducting tax exempt businesses; (6) That the operations of farmers should be allowed without needless restrictions; (7) That the approval of growthmanagement plans should rec- ognize economic as well as environmental factors; (8) That thedemandandneed for foodwill increasewith thean- ticipatedworldwide growth inpopulation. Therefore, the recogni- tionof farmlandasan important resourceshouldbeahighpriority; (9) That agricultural lands shall not be designated open-space or viewshed for land use planning purposes; and (10) The development of brownfields, urban properties that have been contaminated with toxic or other substances, can help reduce the pressure to convert agricultural land to new development while enhancing economic development and improving the quality of life. We support the implementation of a public policy strategy to assist in the reclaiming of land with real or perceived problems of contamination. We believe regulatory streamlining and reducing the costs of cleanup are essential for the success of any brownfield initiative, although in no case should the reclamation and development of brown- fields be allowed to adversely affect water supplies or nearby agricultural land. The implementationof planning for agriculture shouldbeaided by assessment practices which recognize the current agricultural uses of land. (Rev. 2008) No. 431 Viability in Agriculture We believe that a viable agricultural property is best defined as land with appropriate economic and natural resources, which when subject to prudent management, and considering adjacent land uses, is justifiably retained in agriculture. We do not believe that the price paid by the current owner of agriculturally zoned property shouldbe the sole consideration indeterminingwhether the subject property is agriculturally viable. Thecurrentuseofanagriculturalparcel shouldnotbethesolede- termining factor inestablishing itseconomicviability. Small parcels shouldberecognizedasacomponent inthefiscal schemeof farming and ranching operations. Decisionmakers should recognize the cumulative impact of the continual creationof small parcels onour state’s agricultural resource base. The creation of small agricultural parcels shouldbe basedonappropriate local landuse. (Rev. 2008)
January 26, 2022 Ag Alert 33
Powered by FlippingBook