 |
|
 |
| ||
|
Seeds of Discontent Yield Harvest of Cooperation
Several programs aimed at restoring and protecting North Bay wetlands became lightening rods this spring for farmers and others frustrated by what they see as an accumulation of government regulation that is making agriculture in the area economically unfeasible. In the wake of protests that included heated public meetings, one such program - the S.F. Bay Commission's North Bay Wetlands Protection Program - is launching a new effort to work with area landowners to try to develop a wetlands protection plan they can live with.
The North Bay program is a partnership between the Commission and local governments to develop information and tools that will help the governments protect wetlands through their general plans and ordinances. The Commission created the program in response to a recommendation in the S.F. Estuary Project's 1993 Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Bay and Delta that local governments should become more involved in wetlands protection. Some landowners see this and other North Bay programs as part of a government master plan. "There is common talk that the government wants to eliminate private ownership of baylands altogether and restore the entire area to wetlands," says Norm Yenni, manager of a Sears Point family farm. "All the regulations make it so hard to farm now that it makes you just want to get out of business. You're willing to sell out."
This spring, hearings on the Commission program's background reports became a forum for grievances against the government, despite the fact that the first report merely identified existing land uses and designations and the second described wetlands and where they are located. The North Bay program, "got tarred by history," says the Commission's Jeff Blanchfield, noting that the program has little or nothing to do with the issues that most irk the landowners.
The landowners' chief complaints focus on the Endangered Species Act and mitigation requirements for levee maintenance. Many of them of are still smarting over a 1990 dredging permit that required them to create a new tidal marsh as mitigation for potential disturbance of clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse habitat. Although the marsh was ultimately created at no cost to them through an agreement brokered by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, they say it set a bad precedent by requiring mitigation for practices that have been going on for over a hundred years. The landowners also say they have been shut out of planning processes such as the Commission's program, citing a three minute time limit on public comment at meetings as particularly offensive. "This is my land, my livelihood and my life they're talking about and they're telling me I can have three minutes to comment?," says Jim Haire, whose family has farmed on Skaggs Island for 57 years. At the same time, they say, the sheer number of wetlands planning efforts underway in the North Bay - there are at least six - makes keeping up with developments difficult, especially when trying to run a farm. "I can't sit in a hundred committee meetings," says Yenni. "I've got to sit on a tractor sometimes."To give themselves some leverage, the landowners recently formed the North Bay Agricultural Alliance. According to Haire, the Alliance has approximately 40 members.
The Commission is not the sole focus of landowner discontent. Moments of conflict have also punctuated meetings of the U.S. EPA's North Bay Forum, which coordinates the wetland and watershed resource management and regulatory activities of 13 government agencies.
EPA's Paul Jones says he is sympathetic to the landowners' concerns. He notes that the EPA program has been trying for several years to increase landowner involvement and provide a forum for information sharing between the landowners and the agencies. "Obviously there is work to be done in this area, but we look forward to more communication and a better working relationship," he says.
Despite a situation that some describe as "volatile," a fair number of participants agree that the combined weight of state and federal regulations creates a heavy burden on North Bay farmers. "These guys have been through a lot with regulatory agencies," say Blanchfield. "There are things we can do to help farmers and landowners protect habitat on their property and make it less painful to comply with regulations," he says, citing special tax treatments and conservation easements as possible tools. Blanchfield says the first step is to establish a committee of farmers who will work with the Commission to develop a background report on agricultural problems, needs and wetlands compatibility.
Although a few of the landowners have taken extreme positions - including one who declared that his ranch was a sovereign territory and threatened to sue BCDC for $100,000 per acre in damages - many of them seem willing to rely on plowshares instead of swords. On May 8, the Agricultural Alliance voted to work with the Commission, although the details have yet to be worked out. However, warns Haire "this is not going to be a fast process. Agriculture should have been sitting at the table from the start, and we're not going to be able to catch up in a month or two." The timing is terrible, he adds, noting that spring and summer are particularly busy times for farmers.
Blanchfield says he's hopeful that with communication and cooperation, both wetlands and farms can be saved. "We have always said that agriculture in the North Bay is compatible with wetlands values," he says. "I really think that we are on the same page and just don't know it."
Contact: Jeff Blanchfield (415)557-3686 or Jim Haire (707)224-9379
[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]
Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project