 |
|
 |
| ||
|
Habitat Sprawl Furrows Brows
Where some see a restored wetland, others see wanton habitat sprawl. The Farm Bureau Federation sued CALFED agencies last fall to halt all land and water purchases, arguing that plans issued by this state-federal effort to secure water supplies, protect the Delta environment and restore habitat for fish and fowl fail to account for impacts on agriculture. Hearings on the suits kicked off early this year, jumpstarting new dialogues about how much of whose land, and where, should be used to house people, grow food, conserve water and save the ecosystem.
"We think they can restore the environment without taking one million acres of farmland out of production," says the Farm Bureau's David Kranz. "They've already bought thousands acres of land, and there's money in the pipeline to buy more, but there's no real analysis in the CALFED plan of how much land they really need, and no adequate acknowledgement of the environmental impacts on agriculture."
No one seems to know exactly how much farmland already has, or will be, converted to habitat through CALFED. Since 1997, the CALFED Category III grant program for ecosystem restoration has funded and/or approved a total of 35,600 acres in land purchases and easements, not all of which was agricultural. As reported to the U.S. General Accounting Office, between 1997 and 2000 federal agencies acquired about 4,600 acres in conservation easements and 12,000 acres in land purchases, while non-federal entities acquired a total of 4,800 acres. Restoration projects approved in December 2000 add up to another 4,200 acres of conservation easements and 10,000 acres of land.
Zeroing in on the Delta’s 487,625-acre-primary zone (which includes land and water), 24,533 acres of fee title acquisitions (12 percent of the total zone) by public agencies and nonprofits have appeared on the local ledgers since January 1993. Acreage in such ownership jumped from 35,291 to 59,824 acres in that time period, according to staff report of the Delta Protection Commission.
Neither of these numbers seem to add up to a big grab for farms and private lands, compared to California’s 27.8 million acres of farms, cow pasture and range.
"Most of the land being bought is still being farmed, and will continue to be farmed," says CALFED’s new chief Patrick Wright. "If we hadn’t bought it, it might have been sold to developers."
Perhaps it’s what’s planned, more than what’s been accomplished, that has farmers worried. According to Kranz, the CALFED documents call for purchasing rights or buying 830,000-871,000 acres for the ecosystem restoration program, and 1.2-1.3 million for multi-species conservation. "So with some overlap, we think that's about a million for us to worry about, or about one eighth of California's irrigated farmland," says Kranz. CALFED says such numbers are overblown. "The number issue is really at the heart of the disagreement," says Dennis O'Bryant of the State Department of Conservation, who worked on the CALFED agricultural land losses mitigation package along with experts from the State Department of Food and Agriculture. "It's nowhere near a million acres, even in the worst, worst case. The range, for farmlands permanently converted to non-agricultural CALFED uses, is 180,000-243,000 acres, and it's unlikely the high end would ever happen." Any land affected by CALFED above and beyond this range will likely retain some or all agricultural values while serving other restoration goals.
In terms of mitigating for permanent losses, CALFED points to the 24 measures listed in its 2000 EIS/EIR. These measures are more general than the kind of eye-for-an-eye, acre-for-acre, mitigation that everyone’s used to, largely because so many specifics on what the mitigation is needed for were, and still are, unknown. Mitigation measures now on paper include support for farmer-initiated restoration projects and locally held agricultural conservation easements, and the use of wildlife-friendly farming methods instead of conversion to habitat. Measures also place a priority on restoring degraded public lands, or public lands with remaining potential for wildlife habitat development, first, before setting foot on any cropland.
"If the program in the next 2-3 years starts to ramp up on acquisitions, it won’t be effective unless we stick to our principles of easements and public lands first," says CALFED’s Wright.
"If it's a choice between restoring underused grazing land and prime farmland, CALFED would try to always take the former first," says O’Bryant "They can't fully mitigate, but this is better than anything else yet on paper."
Though CALFED is quick to argue that it's acquiring land from those who want to sell it, according to Kranz, willing sellers can be made. "It's analogous to urban sprawl. If my neighbors don't like to see the tractor out there, or the dust I stir up, or the noise I make, and they complain enough, eventually I won't want to fight them anymore, I'll become a
willing seller. The same is true for being next to a wildlife refuge. Once creatures wander across the road enough, agencies will begin imposing restrictions on their neighbors, and they'll get more willing sellers, especially if they buy up enough land in concentrated areas," he says.
Of course buying up farms isn’t the only way to accomplish restoration goals. Everyone seems to agree on a partnership approach whenever possible, where farmers and conservationists work together to create and maintain habitat. Dozens of existing programs already promote such partnerships through resource conservation districts, joint ventures, duck clubs and the like.
"As long as our restoration projects are viewed as either ecological, on the one side, or agricultural, on the other, there won’t be success," says Wright. "Seeing the multiple benefits in every project is the ticket to making this work."
"As we move forward with CALFED implementation, I see greater opportunities for partnerships with agriculture," says State Food & Ag's Steve Shaffer, who is also on CALFED’s selection committee for restoration projects. Shaffer notes that the governor's current budget for CALFED programs would fund five new positions in his department: one will make sure "there's a voice for production agriculture at the interagency policy level" he says, and one will assist with environmental analysis and mitigation for specific projects affecting agriculture. (The three others will be technical support staff skilled in water efficiency, wildlife-friendly farming and watersheds.)
"The Farm Bureau has a right to have concerns about the cumulative and redirected impacts on agriculture," says Shaffer, "But there’ll be a chance to address them during CALFED implementation. The devil is in the details."
"I think the agricultural community has a tremendous opportunity with CALFED to protect thousands of acres of farmland forever, through the restoration program, through mitigation, and through beefing up many existing agricultural preservation programs," says Tim Ramirez of the office of the State Secretary for Resources. "We know we need to spell these details out more clearly, and we will."
Details may not provide what water war veterans say the Farm Bureau Federation is really after with its lawsuit: more water for ag than is currently in the CALFED package. Insiders say faced with less water than they were looking for, environmental impacts on farmland, which must be considered under CEQA and NEPA, are as good a lever as any for the Farm Bureau to grab.
"Nobody expects there to be much dam building, we know it won't fly," says Kranz. "But we're only just getting by, after six straight wet years. If we get five dry ones, along with 21 million new souls, we'll be in a world of hurt."
The hurt for ag land, at least to the naked eye, has as much to do with urban as habitat sprawl. According the state's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring program, the amount of agricultural land converted to urban uses since 1984 is about the equivalent of a city the size of Fresno (312,306 acres, or 40,170 acres per year), while conversion to "Other" uses (a category that includes not only wildlife habitat, but also new ranchettes, feedlots, mines and land left idle for six years) is not even in the same ballpark, according to O'Bryant. More recent mapping zeroing in on irrigated farmland, in particular, shows that 21,664 acres were converted to urban uses between 1996 to 1998 in California, while conversion to the "other uses" category totaled 18,809 acres. One-third of this amount was due to the idling of farmlands, either in anticipation of development into urban uses or for reasons concerning the market, water supply or salinity.
With all this urban conversion going on, not to mention substantial acquisitions for habitat restoration, it’s no wonder the Farm Bureau is concerned about whether all the agencies have any idea how much land is being moved around, and for what.
"The lawsuit reflects the frustration farming interests have about not being heard during CALFED’s planning process, more than the merits of the suit itself," says Wright. "We hope to change that by encouraging the development of regional forums where local interests can play a more active role in shaping the program."
One of those regional forums may be the Delta Protection Commission, part of the CALFED family. "As CALFED shifts into implementation gear, it needs to commit to a better monitoring strategy for cumulative impacts to agriculture," says the Commission's Margit Aramburu. "We need to identify exactly what is the baseline, what are the impacts, what the need is for mitigation, and how to match that with some kind of ag land protection program for the Delta. It’s time to move this onto the front burner."
Contact: CALFED (916) 654-1334; David Kranz (916)561-5550; Dennis O'Bryant (916)322-5954 or Steve Shaffer (916)654-1765
[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]
Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project