Imperial County to cancel Williamson Act

Issue Date: March 3, 2010

By Steve Adler

Farmer Ronnie Leimgruber says a vote by Imperial County supervisors to end renewals of Williamson Act land-conservation contracts will cause long-term damage to the county's farmland. Photo: Joselito Villero, Imperial Valley Press

As counties struggle to continue providing Williamson Act property tax provisions to farmers despite withdrawal of the state's $27.8 million funding support, the program's shaky platform suffered an unexpected blow when the Imperial County Board of Supervisors voted last week not to renew contracts with farmers when they come due next Jan. 1. Imperial became the first California county to vote to cancel the land-conservation program.

One of the biggest surprises relating to the Imperial vote was its timing, observers said, because the board had until Nov. 1 to make the decision in order for it to go into effect.

"Since the supervisors acted in haste, it appears that they want to be last in and first out of the program, because I believe they actually were one of the last counties to adopt the Williamson Act," said John Gamper, California Farm Bureau Federation land use and taxation director.

The act, which was created nearly 45 years ago, protects more than 16.5 million acres of farmland.

Farmers who enroll in the Williamson Act enter into a 10-year or 20-year contract with the county, by which they promise to keep the land in agriculture rather than opting for some other land use, such as commercial or residential development. In exchange, the land is taxed based on its agricultural income, its acquisition value under Proposition 13 or its current market value, whichever is lower. The contracts automatically renew for the full 10 years each Jan. 1, unless counties vote not to renew them.

Gamper said it's too early to know what effect the Imperial action might have on other counties and state government: Could the vote prompt supervisors in other counties to take similar action sooner rather than later, or, on the other hand, might it encourage the state Legislature to restore funds that the state provides to help counties offset the reduced property tax revenues?

Linsey Dale, executive director of the Imperial County Farm Bureau, said she is concerned about the precedent the county supervisors made by taking their vote so early in the year.

"It was very unfortunate that the supervisors chose to make this decision prematurely. They didn't have to issue non-renewals until November. And the supervisors are going off of the assumption that the funding will not be there without seeing that yet," Dale said.

"I'm thinking from a statewide perspective that when you start knocking counties out of the program, it could have a domino effect, which we don't want to have happen across the state," she said.

Imperial County farmer Ronnie Leimgruber spoke to county supervisors prior to their vote of non-renewal. He also urged the board not to take its action several months before the Nov. 1 deadline for non-renewal notices. He told supervisors that his concern is one shared by farmers around the state: that farming and development don't mix well.

"There is a viewpoint here that we don't need the Williamson Act in the Imperial Valley because we are so rural and we don't have the urban sprawl yet. But my sentiments are that the Williamson Act could prevent that from happening five, 10, 20 years down the road," he said. "I know that it isn't going to happen overnight, but it is really hard to farm next to a residential neighborhood or industrial-type development."

Despite the concern expressed by Dale, Leimgruber and others, the Imperial board voted 3-1 in favor of the motion not to renew.

Possible restoration of state funding for Williamson Act subventions is on the agenda of this week's meeting of the state Senate Local Government Committee. CFBF President Paul Wenger, who is scheduled to testify before the committee, said that Farm Bureau has been a strong advocate on behalf of the Williamson Act.

"It is truly a sad day that we are discussing the continued relevance of what many consider to be California's most important environmental protection law, be it past, present or future," Wenger said.

"Imagine what California would look like today without the act," he said. "We would be living with far more urban sprawl and air pollution, more leapfrog suburban development and low-density, ranchette subdivisions, all at the expense of our state's most precious resource and those that produce much of our food.

"The idea that the state no longer needs the Williamson Act is a little like saying that we don't need the three strikes law any more because it has worked so well. The laws that provide public safety, like food security, are far too important to simply cast aside because they've been so effective over time," Wenger said.

Gamper pointed out that, based on conversations he has had with county supervisors around the state, it is imperative that state funding be restored at some level in the 2010-2011 budget. Agricultural counties such as Yolo, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, Kern, Madera, Merced, and possibly Stanislaus and San Joaquin, might back away from the Williamson Act if no state funding is forthcoming, he said.

"If the counties do decide to do a blanket non-renewal of all contracts in the county, landowners do have the option to protest the non-renewal. That allows them to keep their Williamson Act value until there is less than six years remaining in the non-renewal phase-out. So for four additional years, they keep their use valuation," he said.

Gamper said the state Legislature likely will not pay too much attention to Williamson Act funding until it deals with the current budget crisis.

"The Legislature is currently working to close the $6 billion shortfall in the current budget year. Then there is a projected $13 billion to $15 billion hole in the 2010-2011 budget. We are looking optimistically at June or July before we get a new state budget," he said.

Gamper also questioned the wisdom of cutting the funding for a program that is so beneficial for counties, the state, landowners and the environment.

"To think that they could lose the entire land conservation program for an amount that is so minuscule in a budget of the magnitude of $80 billion to $100 billion. The state share of Williamson Act funding is $27.8 million, which is around three-hundredths of 1 percent of the state budget," he said.

(Steve Adler is associate editor of Ag Alert. He may be contacted at sadler@cfbf.com.)

Permission for use is granted, however, credit must be made to the California Farm Bureau Federation when reprinting this item. Top