Saving California farmland: The politics of preservation

Landscape Planning, 9 (1982/83) 249-269 Elsevier Science Publishers B .V ., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

249

SAVING CALIFORNIA FARMLAND : THE POLITICS OF PRESERVATION

IRVING SCHIFFMAN

Department of Political Science, California State University, Chico, CA 95929 (U.S.A.) (Accepted for publication 8 November 1982)

ABSTRACT Schiffman, I ., 1983 . Saving California farmland : the politics of preservation . Landscape Plann ., 9 : 249-269 . Increased discussion in the United States concerning the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses has caused attention to be focused on how state and local governments are dealing with the problem . The discussion is particularly relevant to the state of California which, while possessing only a small percentage of the country's farmland, generates an agricultural output which is among the highest in the nation . This paper explores the conversion through urbanization of California farmland, the consequences of such conversion, the response - or lack of response - of the state and local governments, and the responsibilities which the state government must assume in order to protect its disappearing agricultural base . The most recent official estimate places the loss of farmland in California at 150 000 acres a year, 59 000 acres of which is prime land . This loss is likely to continue since much of the state's agricultural land lies in the path of urban development . Moreover, recent years have witnessed a shift of population growth to rural areas, threatening the continuation of agricultural productivity in regions previously immune from developmental pressures . The State of California, with the exception of providing tax incentives for farmers and supervising the use of farmland along the coast, has left to the cities and counties the responsibility of protecting its agricultural land . Decision-making at the local level, however, is highly political and based on parochial considerations . Because of the large amount of money to be made in converting farmland to urban uses, and the difficulties experienced by farmers operating on the urban fringe, the political pressures to re-zone land to urban uses are intense, The major control device utilized to protect agricultural land is large-lot zoning, but minimum-size parcels of 5 or 10 acres are not generally efficient for farming purposes and frequently end up as residential estates . Local governments have individually adopted a wide range of additional techniques to preserve farmland, some with noted success, but they do not generally constitute elements of a comprehensive approach to the problem . The full resources and authority required for an effective farmland protection program are located only at the state level of government . At present, however, there is insufficient political support to enable the state to take a more active role in this policy area .

INTRODUCTION

In the past few years, the preservation of agricultural land has become a controversial issue in the United States . Concern has grown over the extent 0304-3924183/$03 .00 ® 1983 Elsevier Science Publishers B .V .

2 50

to which farmland is being converted to urban and other uses, and over the effect this will have on the nation's ability to meet future needs . The controversy is not really new, however, only louder and of sharper intensity, due, perhaps, to a number of recent developments : the publication of a large number of books and periodicals concerned with the preservation issue ; the appearance of new politically-oriented preservation groups ; public perception of increased density and the loss of open space ; and the adoption of farmland preservation as part of the issue agenda of established conservation and planning organizations . A major stimulus to the current debate has been the work of the National Agricultural Lands Study (NALS), a prestigious interagency research group sponsored in 1979 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Council of Environmental Quality . The NALS was charged with the task of assessing the extent, causes, and consequences of conversion of agricultural land to other uses, and to make recommendations as to the administrative and legislative actions necessary, if any, to deal with the matter . Working with missionary-like zeal, the group collected volumes of information, published a continuing series of research reports and case studies and, exactly on the target date, issued its Final Report in January 1981 . The NALS, from its analysis of the data, concluded that the United States has been converting its agricultural land to non-agricultural uses at the rate of 3 million acres a year - about one million of which is from the nation's cropland base . The Report. emphasized that the continuing loss of cropland "in conjunction with other stresses in the U .S . agricultural system such as the growing demand for exports and rising energy costs, could seriously increase the economic and environmental costs of producing food and fiber in the United States during the next 20 years." The Study recommended the adoption of specific legislative and administrative initiatives by all governmental levels, and imposed a special responsibility on the states to take the lead in protecting agricultural land . Which brings us to the case of California . CALIFORNIA AND ITS FARMLAND

With over 24 million residents, California (Fig . 1) is the most populous state in the Union . It is the third largest in area, and has a gross product that surpasses that of any other state and all but a handful of countries in the world . Stretching almost 900 miles from the Mexican border to the Oregon state line, the Golden State contains within its 100 million acres a varied landscape of coastline, foothills, mountains, valleys, and deserts . From the northern foothills came the gold that sparked the early and raucous growth of the state, and from the fertile land of the Great Central Valley comes much of the agricultural produce that constitutes the foundation of its present wealth . Along its lengthy coastline, especially in Southern California and the San Francisco Bay area, reside over 90% of the population . Toward the

231

pig. 1 . California and its counties .

2 52

east, in the High Sierras, are located all or part of 3 national parks, 6 national forests and vast stretches of unspoiled wilderness . Delivery of water from the rain-drenched north to the dry south has given hope to some of turning even more of the one-sixth of the state that is desert into farmland and urban and vacation settlements . The agricultural productivity of California is enormous (Fig . 2) and it is one of the state's greatest resources . It is made possible by a combination of long growing seasons, rainless summers, deep alluvial soils and - more recently - massive water projects . According to the California Department of Finance (1981), agriculture contributed $13 .5 billion to farmers in 1980 . The state's farm exports that year were over $4 billion . California produces over 200 different agricultural commodities and leads the United States in the

Fig . 2 . Major agricultural producing areas in California .

253

production of 51 of these . The state grows nearly all of the almonds, apricots, dates, figs, nectarines, olives, pomegranates and walnuts in the nation . It grows over 90% of the country's grapes, three-quarters of its tomatoes, lettuce, avocados and cauliflower, and two-thirds of the nation's celery, peaches and cantaloupe . This amazing degree of productivity emanates from an agricultural base which, proportionate to the rest of the country, is not that large . The U .S . Census of Agriculture (1978) estimates "land in farms" in California at 33 .3 million acres, which is a little more than 3% of the nation's farmland . The amount of cropland is estimated at 11 .7 million acres, of which 8 .6 million acres are irrigated . According to the U .S . Department of Agriculture (1980), there are 7 .8 million acres of prime agricultural land in the state, most of which (6 .5 million acres) is cropland . THE LOSS OF FARMLAND

Although estimates vary as to how much farmland California is losing each year to development, no one doubts that urban growth patterns in the state have had a heavy impact on agricultural land . The most recent assessment of agricultural land conversions is that of the NALS Task Force (1980), which reports that between 1967 and 1977, the state lost roughly 1 .5 million acres of farmland to urbanization, new transportation, and water storage facilities (150 000 acres annually). Of this amount, 59 000 acres a year represent lost prime agricultural land, that is the land which, because of soil quality, growing season and moisture supply, is best suited for producing food and fiber . In 1949, the 9 counties which make up the San Francisco Bay area contained 2 .8 million acres of agricultural land . Since then, according to People for Open Space (1980, p . 9), about 708 000 acres have gone out of production and another 23 000 acres are being converted to urban uses each year . Similar - if less drastic - patterns of farmland conversion can be found in the areas surrounding the cities of San Diego and Santa Barbara . The U .S. Department of Agriculture projects that the soil-rich San Joaquin Valley will lose 407 000 acres of irrigated land between 1972 and 2000, and that the state will lose over one million acres of prime land in the next 20 years (Sacramento Bee, 1980, p . 1). In recent years, conservationists have also had to direct their attention to those rural areas in the state where development on farmland has been of limited scale . The 1980 U .S. Census confirmed that population growth in California has begun to shift to the east and to the north, away from the crowded and expensive urban centers along the coast . The northern counties of the state are experiencing greater percentage increases in growth than the counties in the south, with much of that growth taking place in the Sierra foothills and Central Valley . A study by Schiffman (1982) of 12 rural counties in northeastern California found an average growth-rate in the past decade of 29%, or 3 times the rate of the 1960-1970 period . Of special

2 54

significance from a preservationist viewpoint is the fact that a majority of the new residents are settling on unincorporated county land rather than moving into cities . If it is true, as reported by Sokolow (1977), that many of the newcomers have left urban areas in order to enjoy the quality of country life, we should expect to see - and, in fact, are seeing - increased pressure to convert rural land (both agricultural and non-agricultural) to low-density home sites . From an economic perspective, California has been able to mitigate the depletion of its agricultural base by bringing new farmlands into production . In the main, this has been accomplished through the completion of 4 major water developments - the California State Water Project, Colorado River Project, Owens River Valley System and the Central Valley Project (see Fig . 3) . All of these involve the translocation of great amounts of water over hundreds of miles . In this way, between 1960 and 1972, California had an annual net gain of about 56 000 acres of farmland (Office of Planning and Research, 1974) . However, even if one were to assume the availability of a large farmland reserve (which is questioned by some), the prospects for major new water projects to benefit agriculture are not bright . A key element in converting acreage to farmland is the availability of high-quality water . Presently, about 85% of the water allotted and put to use in California - 31 million acre feet -goes to agriculture (Cothem, 1977, p . 3) . The crushing defeat by state voters in June 1982 of the proposal to build the Peripheral Canal - a 43-mile waterway designed to divert 700 000 acre feet of water from the Sacramento River and ship it south - showed that not only are northern Californians exceptionally protective of their water resources, but that state-wide taxpayer resistance to the high cost of new water developments must also be taken into account . At the federal level, Congress has not authorized a major new water project since 1976 . Further, as California's population continues to grow, municipal and industrial uses of water will compete with farmers for a larger share of present and proposed water supplies, and their demands will be backed up by a more powerful political base . Of course, the preservation of farmland in urbanizing areas provides other benefits to Californians than the products of its soil ; benefits which are not realized, for example, by the replacement of Bay Area farmland with reclaimed desert . The loss-statistics cited above fail to reveal the social and environmental costs of agricultural land conversion . Among these costs are the disappearance of aesthetically pleasing countryside and its wildlife habitat ; the loss of areas where groundwater can be replenished and air pollution dispersed ; the reduced opportunities for suburbanites to know and learn from the followers of a more simple and self-sufficient lifestyle ; and the use of increased energy to truck agricultural produce longer distances to consumers, In many areas, agricultural open space serves to separate cities from one another and, thereby, contributes to the urban dweller's sense of community identity . Indeed, the issue of the loss of open space near cities may be of

25 5

Fig . 3 . Major water-project developments in California .

2 56

greater concern to urban supporters of agricultural land preservation than the effect of farmland conversion on the food supply or the state's economy, The likelihood that California will lose a great deal more of its farmland to urban expansion is very real, since most of California's best farmland lies within counties designated by the federal government as Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, that is locations containing a city of 50 000 or more and the outlying area with which it is socially and economically integrated (University of California, 1978, p . 35) . It is in such areas that the suburbanrural conflict is intensified, as a diminishing source of "open" land becomes the object of competition among residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses . Once residential development begins to take place next door to producing farmland, it quickly becomes obvious that farming and suburban living are not compatible . On the one hand, farmers complain of trespassing, vandalism, theft, and stray dog problems visited upon them by their urban-oriented neighbors, while on the other hand, these same neighbors blame the farmer for noise, dust, odors, aerial spraying, flies and smoke from agricultural burning (Thompson, 1981). Where farmers are confronted with the negative spillovers of urbanization, the continuation of agriculture is placed in jeopardy. Moreover, as shown by Healy and Short (1981), land converted to commercial or industrial use typically commands several times its price for agriculture . The spillover problem and the increase in land prices, taken together, results in a situation in which many farmers are unwilling to make long-term investments in agricultural structures or machinery because they expect (and, perhaps, hope) that their land will eventually be urbanized . THE ABSENCE OF STATE LEADERSHIP

For a while it appeared that state government in California would assume a major responsibility in the effort to preserve agricultural land . Responding in large part to the concerns raised over the explosive urbanization of agricultural lands in the Santa Clara Valley from 1955 to 1970, 115 measures were introduced in the California State Legislature which dealt, in whole or in part, with the preservation of agricultural or other open-space land (Davies, 1972, p . 12) . The only legislation of significance to pass, however, was a preferential farmland assessment law, The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 . Still in effect, and known as the Williamson Act after its initiator, the measure allows landowners to contract voluntarily with cities and counties to keep their property in agricultural or open-space uses in return for property tax assessments based on the actual (rather than the potential) use of the land . The contracts are enforceable for a 10-year period and are automatically renewed each year for another 10 years in absence of the landowner's giving notice to the contrary . Land under contract is placed in agricultural preservation zones, where it is restricted to agricultural, recreational, open space or other compatible uses . The state pays a set fee to the local governments to compensate them for the reduced property taxes collected .

257

The success of the Williamson Act in the preservation of farmland is mixed . Although, as of 1980, 16 179 000 acres were under contract (including 5 million acres of prime agricultural lands as defined in the Act), nearly one-half of the eligible urban prime land in the state is not covered by the Williamson Act Program (Coughlin and Keene, 1981, p . 206). Owners of these lands, located in areas of appreciating land prices and subject to the discomforts of urbanization, apparently do not want to be locked into current agricultural use . Their failure to participate has led some observers to conclude that the Act is more effective in assisting owners of large rural acreages that are in little danger of being lost to urbanization than it is in keeping in farm production those lands which are subject to urban pressures (Hansen and Schwartz, 1975 ; Roberts and Brown, 1980) . Beyond the passage of the Williamson Act, the State of California has done relatively little to preserve its existing agricultural base . In 1975, then Assemblyman Charles Warren introduced legislation to require cities and counties to map out farmland reserves according to guidelines set up by the state . Lands considered "prime, unique or important" under U .S . Soil Conservation Service rules would have been covered . A new state agency, the Agricultural Resources Council, would have reviewed and certified local plans, and development within reserved areas would have been forbidden . Tax assessors would have been ordered to appraise the land according to farm value only, and the state would have returned to the local governments some of the lost revenue . The bill received support from many urban legislators, but farming interests and rural governments opposed the measure and it was defeated, Attempts in later sessions of the legislature to enact laws similar to the Warren bill were unsuccessful and in 1978, with the passage of Proposition 13, the effort came to an abrupt halt . Proposition 13, an amendment to the California Constitution, reduced the amount of property taxes which local governments could collect and subsequently forced the legislature to "bail out" revenue-short cities and counties . Faced with opposition from rural interests on the one hand and budget difficulties on the other, state representatives became unwilling to consider new preservation programs which would require the appropriation of state monies . The absence of strong leadership on the issue by the state's two most recent governors, Ronald Reagan and Jerry Brown, has no doubt contributed to the legislature's lack of interest in continuing the debate . An additional - and important - reason for the failure of the legislature to implement a farmland preservation program has been the opposition of the "Voice of Agriculture" in the state, the California Farm Bureau Federation . A federation of 52 county farm bureaus, the Bureau has consistently fought any proposal which would seriously constrain the land-use decision-making authority of local officials. This position reflects the traditional concern of farmers with freedom in the use of their property and their belief that local office holders (particularly at the county level) are more likely than state bureaucrats to be responsive to their wishes . The Bureau is frequently joined

25S

in its efforts by another major agricultural interest group, the California Cattleman's Association . While opposing direct state involvement in local land use, the Bureau has recently supported legislation which would provide local and state officials with information on agricultural land conversions, legislation to require the state Office of Planning and Research to prepare non-binding guidelines for local planning agencies, and a "Right to Farm" law limiting the ability of urban residents to sue farmers for "nuisances" caused by their commercial operations . Bills embodying all of these demands have been passed by the state legislature . It is difficult to believe, however, that withou, additional remedies these measures will make any significant contribution to a solution of the farmland conversion problem, THE STATE AND COASTAL AGRICULTURE

One bright spot in the state's role in farmland preservation has been the performance of the California Coastal Commission in the saving of coastal agriculture . Although the soil is generally not of high quality, some 445 000 of the total 1.3 million acres in the coastal zone are suitable for agriculture (Los Angeles Times, 1981) . Its mild weather combined with the persistent coastal fog makes the area fit for such uses as cattle grazing, nursery products and specialty crops ; artichokes, broccoli and brussel sprouts, for example, do very well in the coastal environment (see Fig . 4) . The pressure to develop the coastal zone, particularly areas close to population centers, has been immense and very successful . Not unlike the value of the loss caused by the conversion of agricultural land adjacent to urban areas, the value of this loss cannot be measured in production dollars alone . The social and environmental costs of coastal development include the profound and irreversible changes in the character and beauty of a rural and dramatic landscape . The forerunner of the Coastal Commission - the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission - was established in 1972 through a vote of the California electorate . It was a tremendous victory for state environmental groups who, frustrated with the legislature's inability to deal with the intense rate of development along the coast, took the matter directly to the people . Following an intensive political campaign, the Coastal Initiative was approved by 55% of the voters. Under the new law, the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and 6 regional commissions were set up and given authority, lasting 3 years, to develop a plan for the California coast and regulate land use within a 1000yard-wide coastal zone stretching the length of the state . In 1976, the completed Coastal Plan became the basis for the California Coastal Act . The Act replaced the Conservation Commission with a permanent Coastal Commission, and provided for the phasing-out of the regional agencies . More significantly, and after hard lobbying by the affected local governments, the Act provided for the return to coastal cities and counties of the responsibility

259

Fig . 4 . Strawberries, one of the specialty crops grown in the coastal area, being harvested in Salinas, Monterey County, of issuing coastal development permits, but only after their adoption of a Local Coastal Program acceptable to the Commission . The LCP consists of a locality's land-use plan for its portion of the coastal zone and the regulatory techniques necessary for its implementation . The LCP must be certified by the Coastal Commission to assure its consistency with the objectives and policies set forth in the Coastal Act . Until a jurisdiction's LCP is certified, the Commission retains control over land use along its coast . It is this authority to certify LCP's and to set the conditions under which they will be accepted, as well as the power to grant or deny development permits in the interim, that has allowed the Commission to play a major role in the preservation of farmland in the coastal zone . The Coastal Act policies enforced by the Commission establish agriculture as a priority use in the coastal zone, along with coastal-dependent industry . The Act directs that "the maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in agricultural production" and that non-prime lands must not be converted to non-agricultural use unless continued or renewed agriculture is not feasible or unless such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development . The Act requires that conflicts be minimized between agricultural and urban land uses through the establishment of stable boundaries and defined buffer areas, and limits conversion on the periphery of urban areas to those parcels with the least agricultural viability .

2 60

In practice, Coastal Commission staff work closely with local officials to ensure that their LCP's comply with the state farmland preservation policies and to help them develop innovative approaches to carry out those policies . Thus, cities and counties with land within the coastal zone have adopted implementation techniques not in general use in other California localities . These techniques include : exclusive agricultural zones in which only agriculturallyrelated uses are allowed ;the use of performance standards wherein the density of development on rural parcels is determined on the basis of agricultural productivity, environmental constraints and availability of public services ; the requirement of agricultural buffers (transition zones, setback lines, fencing, vegetation, natural borders, cluster housing and other regulatory and landscaping devices) to ensure that urban and agricultural uses do not adversely impact upon one another ; and the use of open space easements so that, where possible, the landowner is allowed some development -usually of a clustered nature - provided he agrees to convey to a public body or land trust a restrictive easement guaranteeing that the remainder of the land will be retained in agriculture or open space . While statistics are not available to document how much agricultural land has been saved because of the Coastal Act, there is no question but that the splitting of agricultural parcels has been severely limited and the urbanization of coastal farmland has declined . Beyond it success in the coastal area, however, the innovative ideas generated by the Coastal Commission have aroused interest in a number of non-coastal communities in the state . Planning ordinances prepared with the aid of Commission staff are frequently looked upon by inland planners as models that deserve to be followed, and would he, were the process of land-use control of a less political and parochial nature . FARMLAND PRESERVATION AND LOCAL POLITICS Inevitably, farmland preservation raises the issue of land-use control and in California - as in most of the nation - land-use control is primarily a matter of local politics . The California Constitution delegates to local governments in the state the authority to promote the health, safety and welfare of their citizens . Implicit in this delegation is the authority to plan for, and regulate the use of, land in their jurisdictions, a responsibility which California cities and counties have been exercising for over 50 years . The state retains the right to institute some conditions concerning how the land-use control function shall be carried out and, in fact, has done so on a number of occasions . For example, it has required each locality to adopt a General Plan and to institute an environmental assessment process, but other than influencing the procedural context for local planning practices, the legislature has generally not involved itself in the substance of city and county planning . Because land-use control is a function of the local political process, and because success in local politics is generally dependent upon satisfying local

26 1

needs, land-use policy-making in California - again, as in most of the nation has assumed a parochial character . Locally-elected office holders have little to gain politically by considering that their community exists within a wider social, economic or environmental world . Each city and county, for example, is free to make individualized decisions concerning how the agricultural land under its control shall be used, without taking into account the cumulative effects such decisions will have on regional, state or national needs . The pressure on local officials who must decide on applications to convert agricultural land to more intensive (and profitable) uses is often considerable, particularly since the state has not sought to limit local discretion in this area . Additionally, the absence of mandatory guidelines or state review authority deprives local decision-makers of the ability to deny politically sensitive landuse applications while placing the blame on a higher level of government . A significant degree of pressure emanates from the fact that much of the agricultural land is located in rural areas where a laissez faire attitude toward property rights has been a long tradition ; governmental intervention in land use has never been easy to sell in such places . Seondly, because in many instances the difference between the market value of the land and its agricultural value is very high, politically astute developmental interests (e.g. investors, speculators, developers, builders and farmers) are prepared to expend a great deal of resources to obtain a favorable decision . Thirdly, once urban development has encroached upon agricultural areas, farmers are able to make rational and sympathetic arguments why they should not be forced to farm in "the shadow of suburbia ." Fourthly, in many rural areas the planning commissioners and local legislators, to whom farmers wishing to sell out or split off a parcel or two are appealing, are friends and neighbors and not distant officials ; it is often hard for them to say "No ." A final contention, which has been heard quite often of late, is that development on city land and subject to city regulations and fees is too costly, and that "affordable housing" is more attainable when built on less expensive rural land under county controls . Supporters of agricultural land preservation have, of course, created arguments and pressures of their own, although they are generally not able to bring to the conflict the level of resources available to their opponents . One argument of increasing weight involves the cost of delivering services to new residential developments as opposed to the economic and fiscal benefits which agriculture contributes to the community . Following the passage of Proposition 13 and the reduction in property-tax collections which it mandated, preservationists have begun to point out the fact that agriculture is a productive use of land which pays taxes and in return demands very little in the way of governmental services . Farming results in less traffic, fewer school children, less frequent calls for police and fire protection, and less demand for water supply or sewer services than residential sub-divisions . Proponents are able to cite an increasing number of fiscal impact studies which conclude, in the words of one of them, that "not only do new homes not pay their own way,

2 62

but they replace agriculture which more than pays its own way" (Goldman et al ., 1976, p . 25) . Farmland preservation advocates are also able to use the judicial system as a two-edged sword in order to encourage the implementation of strict agricultural zoning . On the one hand, they seek to impress upon local officials the fact that under the decisions of the California courts, communities are encouraged to institute stringent and innovative land-use control measures to protect agricultural and open space resources . In general, the state courts have ruled that if a zoning classification does not deprive an owner of all reasonable use of his property, and it is in conformance with a valid planning objective, it will be upheld (see Agins vs . City of Tiburon, Cal . Supreme Court, 1979) . On the other hand, these same preservationists regularly resort to the courts (or threaten to do so) in an attempt to overturn local zoning decisions which fail to protect agricultural land . Often such suits are brought (or threatened) on the grounds that the decision violated the state mandate that zoning be consistent with the land-use plan, or that the decision-makers failed to comply with the terms of the state environmental impact law, or both . Political conflicts over land-use decisions take place not only within jurisdictions but between them as well . Unlike cities in other states, California cities do not possess extraterritorial zoning powers and thus are frequently dependent upon county decision-makers for the success of their land-use plans . For example, a city whose goal it is to preserve the county farmlands on its west side can encourage -through zoning, annexation and infrastructure policies - development to the east . The county government, however, in implementing its own planning objectives, may decide to ignore the city's wishes and re-zone the agricultural land to urban uses . The city may then be forced eventually to annex the developing area, if only to regain control of the growth process on its border . The above scenario can be, and frequently is, reversed . Land near to a city but zoned by county officials for agricultural use may, at the request of the landowner, be annexed by the city and its zoning changed to an urban classification . In such a case, the county has little to say in the matter . Indeed, over the years a vast amount of prime agricultural land has been lost to the expansion of cities through annexations . The growth of the City of San Jose, converting the Santa Clara Valley into "Silicon Valley", is the classic example . FARMLAND PRESERVATION AND LOCAL PRACTICE

Historically, local governments in California showed little concern with the preservation of agricultural land . Land was zoned under some variation of the residential, commercial and industrial classifications, and whatever was left over was usually designated "Rural Residential", "Agriculture" or "Unclassified", categories in which almost any type of development could take place . This system was entirely agreeable to the farmers, who desired as little

263

Fig . 5 . Farmland on the urban fringe, overlooked by urban dwellings near Escondido, San Diego County,

governmental control over their properties as possible . In the 1950's, however, major residential incursions began to occur in agricultural areas (see Fig . 5), and farmers found their operations obstructed and themselves branded as "nuisances" by their new neighbors . Worse, the county assessor, viewing all the development, started to treat the farmlands in the area as potential subdivision sites and taxed them accordingly . Farm-owners responded by petitioning the state legislature for relief from the high assessments and, locally, by demanding more restrictive zoning . They were not, of course, of one mind on the latter subject and many -particularly those in the path of development - would not support restrictions which might prevent them from selling out to a developer when the time was right . Once the protection of agricultural land became a legitimate planning concern, most California communities adopted the implementation technique of establishing minimum lot-sizes in agricultural areas ; it remains the most popular method used to protect farmland . In theory, the minimum lot-size chosen is based on the acreage needed to sustain commercial agriculture in the area. In practice, the size reflects the compromises made necessary in the political process . In some areas, usually quite far from urbanization pressures, minimum lot-sizes of 640, 320 or 160 acres can be found . Closer to developing areas, however, the minimum lot-sizes are of much smaller dimensions, According to Mahan (1982), two-thirds of California counties use minimum lot-sizes of 10 acres or less in agricultural areas and fully half of the state's 58 counties allow minimum lot-sizes of 5 acres or less in such locations .

2 64

Fig . 6 . Single-family homes encroaching upon irrigated farmland near the city of Gilroy, Santa Clara County .

Unless the zoning of the property is exclusively agricultural, any person purchasing a minimum-lot parcel is permitted to build a single-family house, regardless of the actual use of the property (see Fig . 6) . As a result, minimumlot zoning frequently produces "ranchettes" of 5 or 10 acres which are generally not suitable for efficient farm use . In the San Francisco Bay area, suburban estates of 40-100 acres have been carved out of land zoned to protect agriculture (People for Open Space, 1980) . While such low-density land-uses may preserve some semblance of open space, they do nothing to foster the local farm economy and eventually lead to the type of urban-rural conflicts that make continued farming difficult . In California, there appears to be no shortage of buyers for "ranchettes" or suburban estates, nor of landowners willing to sell for such purposes . Beyond the serious problem of parcelization, California communities find it politically necessary to entertain demands for rural-oriented development, such as recreation-based sub-divisions . The challenge is to locate such development in areas that pose the least threat to commercial agriculture . The Tulare County Rural Valley Lands Plan (1975) provides one of the more innovative approaches to this challenge outside of the coastal zone . Located in the rich San Joaquin Valley, Tulare is the second largest agriculturally productive county in the nation . The Plan is a key element of its farmland protection program . It establishes minimum lot-sizes of 20-80 acres throughout the valley, and sets forth detailed criteria for re-zoning valley lands for rural-

265

residential use . Under the Plan, development proposals are evaluated on the basis of 15 categories (e.g. amount of farmland removed from protection, quality of soils) and "suitability" points are issued . If a proposed development accumulates too many points, it is disapproved . Tulare County also makes use of a technique which is designed to channel conventional sub-divisions into established urban areas and away from productive farmland . Called an Urban Area Boundary, it is a statement of planning objectives and an accompanying land-use map which both the county and city agree to adopt as part of their land-use or General Plan . The objectives establish that the city will act as the prime provider of urban services and that the county will prohibit all but rural-oriented development outside of the urban boundary shown on the map . Tulare County has such agreements with all 8 of its cities, and has prepared boundary-line maps to control the growth of its unincorporated population centers as well . The urban area boundary method is being increasingly utilized in California, in part because of county government concern over the cost of servicing urban developments . In 1981, according to the state's Office of Planning and Research, 26 counties reported adopting some form of limit line or growthzone for urban development . Such adoptions should help to reduce the number of interjurisdictional disputes over development on the urban fringe as well as deter major urban encroachments into rural areas . Moreover, if strictly enforced, establishment of urban area boundaries should have the effect of shifting a good deal of land speculation activities (and resulting land price increases) from designated agricultural areas to areas designated for urban development. The effect such boundaries might have on parcelization, however, is less certain . A further review of the efforts of California cities and counties to control the conversion of farmland turns up a variety of additional planning and regulatory techniques used by one or several of them . These include variable density zoning, rural planned development, "in-filling" of vacant urban spaces, conditional zoning, and "Right to Farm" ordinances . These techniques, however, do not generally constitute elements of a comprehensive approach toward protecting farmland from the pressures of urban growth, parcelization and rural-oriented development . Rather, it soon becomes apparent that, lacking any meaningful guidance from the state, California localities are individually casting about for various mechanisms which will enable them - consistent with the local political balance - to provide (or appear to provide) some protection for their agricultural resources . A final note on preservation techniques . One innovative approach to saving farmland, the land trust, completely sidesteps the politics of agricultural land conservation . The land trust is a private, locally based, non-profit, tax-exempt corporation, which is legally empowered to accept and manage land for the purpose of preserving its open space and natural character . Organized and governed by community residents, it accepts donations of development rights from landowners interested in preserving the present character of their proper-

2 66

ty . The development rights are transferred to the trust through conservation easements and in return the landowners are entitled to various state and federal tax advantages . Land trust organizations have been established in 9 northern California counties and are in the process of formation in several more . They have been especially active in protecting grazing land along the coast . The San Francisco-based Trust for Public Land provides educational materials and conducts training programs for interested citizens . CONCLUSION

Farmland in California continues to disappear at a significant rate, 150 000 acres a year according to the most recent estimates . From the north to the south of the state, on once productive agricultural land, now sit sub-divisions, shopping centers, computer factories and "ranchettes" . If the trend toward rural population growth continues, development pressures will no longer be focused primarily on agricultural land in the path of expanding suburbs and on the fringes of large cities, but will occur near small towns and reach deep into the heart of largely agricultural areas . The burden of protecting California's farmland lies with its local governments, many of whom lack the resources and expertise sufficient to meet the responsibility, and all of whom must confront the preservation challenge in a charged political environment . Where do we go from here? Throughout the history of American federalism, state governments have frequently assumed responsibility in areas of policy-making when local governments were either unwilling or unable to deal with issues of regional or state-wide import . If it is accepted that the conversion of farmland to nonfarm uses raises problems whose consequences reach beyond any individual locality, then it follows that the determination as to how land should be allocated between agricultural and non-agricultural uses must reflect more than the preferences of a local political majority . In other words, where farmland preservation is concerned, it is time for California to move away from a locally managed land-use system and toward a stronger state role in the planning and implementation of land-use policies . However, the rationale for state intervention transcends the failure of cities and counties to halt the conversion of farmland to urban uses . The forces that threaten the disappearance and productivity of agricultural land are complex, and while urban pressures play a major role in the process, they are not solely at fault : soil erosion, groundwater depletion, salinization, overgrazing and crop damage due to air pollution also contribute greatly to the problem, as do such economic factors as the inability of persons to enter into fanning because of the high market value of farmland . It is primarily at the state level of government that these multiple concerns can be dealt with most comprehensively and, to the extent possible, the necessary resources applied to their solution . In searching for a role to play in the mitigation of the specific problem of

26 7

farmland conversion, California may choose from a number of options, most of which are in effect in other states of the Union . The options range from actions by the state government alone to major intervention in local decisionmaking. These options can be implemented separately or can constitute elements of an integrated attack on factors affecting the use and productivity of agricultural land . The option or options chosen by the state will, of course, reflect the political support which can be generated for each approach . State activity only

(a) Develop a state Agricultural Land Preservation Policy to guide state taxation and capital investment decisions . (b) Initiate a multi-million dollar bond program and use the proceeds to purchase development rights of farmland in designated areas . (c) Assist new and continuing farm operators to purchase high-priced farmland in designated areas through loans at below-market interest rates . State and local : advisory

(a) Require inclusion of an Agricultural Land Preservation Element in local General Plans and establish non-mandatory guidelines to be followed in its preparation . (b) Provide information and technical assistance to cities and counties involved in implementing farmland preservation programs . (c) Require Environmental Impact Reports on projects affecting agricultural land to address the effects of the proposed development on the regional farmland supply and the mitigation measures which will be taken to reduce significant loss . State and local : compulsory

(a) Establish a state Agricultural Land Agency to draw up an Agricultural Land Preservation Plan . Enact compulsory guidelines, derived from the Plan, and require local implementation policies to be in conformity with them . Provide a review mechanism to ensure that local land-use ordinances and permit-decisions conform to the guidelines . (b) Establish a state Agricultural Land Agency to draw up an Agricultural Land Preservation Plan . Require that applications for development in areas listed in the plan as "critical" must be approved by the state agency . Otherwise, local control is unaffected . (c) Establish regional Farmland Conservation Commissions (e .g. San Francisco Bay area, Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley) with authority to develop regional preservation plans and to supervise development on agricultural land either through direct approval of development proposals or through review of local conformity with Commission guidelines .

2 68

Implementation of any of the above-listed options would, obviously, constitute an advance beyond present policies . It is, however, the compulsory options that are most consistent with the call of the National Agricultural Lands Study for states to assume a leadership role in the preservation of farmland . Realistically, though, the prospect that the state of California will implement one of the compulsory options is not favorable, at least not in the near future . Although a recent public opinion poll showed a large percentage of Californians to be concerned over the loss of farmland and open space (Field, 1977), no organized state-wide constituency has developed to work for legislation to deal with the problem . Reflecting, in part, the absence of such a constituency, there is not a majority in the State Legislature that would vote to preserve agricultural land by controlling the actions of local government . Until such a majority is constructed, residents of California, the nation and, indeed, the world, must continue to look to the cities and counties of the Golden State to make knowledgeable decisions which will balance parochial demands with the wider public interest, and which will be sensitive to the needs of future generations . Will it matter to local officials to know that the world is watching? REFERENCES Agins vs . City of Tiburon, 1979 . 24 Cal . 3d 166 . California Coastal Act, 1976 . California Public Resources Code, Sections 30000-30900 . California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, 1975 . California Coastal Plan . Sacramento, December, 443 pp . California Department of Finance, Financial Research Section, 1981 . California Statistical Abstract, Sacramento . California Land Conservation Act, 1965 . California Government Code, Sections 5120051295 . Cothern, J .H ., 1977 . California's Drought . Economic and Social Issues . University of California Cooperative Extension, Berkeley, June-July, pp . 1-11 . Coughlin, R .E . and Keene, J .C., 1981 . The Protection of Farmland : A Reference Guide for State and Local Governments . Prepared for the National Agricultural Lands Study, U .S . Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 284 pp . Davies, R .D ., 1972 . Preserving Agricultural and Open Space Land : Legislative Policy Making in California . Institute of Governmental Affairs, University of California, Davis, 150 pp . Field, M ., 1977 . California Public Opinion About Controlling Urban Sprawl and Rebuilding Central Cities . Field Institute Report, No . 77 .007, San Francisco, CA, December, 27 pp . Goldman, G .E ., Shulman, R . and O'Reagan, M ., 1976 . Alternative Land Use Policies for Preservation of Agriculture in West Marin . Division of Agricultural Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, 74 pp . Hansen, I . and Schwartz, S .L ., 1975 . Landowner behavior at the rural urban fringes in response to preferential property taxation . Land Econ ., 51 : 341-354 . Healy, R .G . and Short, J .L ., 1981 . The Market for Rural Land : Trends, Issues, Policies . The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC, 306 pp . Los Angeles Times, 1981 . Coastal Farmers Find Subdivisions More Profitable Than Crops . 14 May .

269 Mahan, L ., 1982 . Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances : Dynamic Duo for Conserving Agricultural Land . Office of Planning and Research, State of California, Sacramento, June, 14 pp . National Agricultural Lands Study, 1981 . Final Report, U .S . Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 108 pp . National Agricultural Lands Study Task Force, 1980 . Where Have All the Farmlands Gone? U .S . Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, May, 24 pp . Office of Planning and Research, State of California, 1974 . Prime Agricultural Lands Report, Sacramento, 16 pp . Office of Planning and Research, State of California, 1981 . Saving the Good Earth : What California Communities are Doing to Conserve Agricultural Land . Sacramento, March, 21 pp . People for Open Space, 1980 . Endangered Harvest . San Francisco, CA, 80 pp . Roberts, N . and Brown, J .H . (Editors), 1980 . Property Tax Preferences for Agricultural Land . Allanheld Osmun, New York, 136 pp . Sacramento Bee, 1980 . Death of Our Farmland . 9 November. Schiffman, I ., 1982 . Alternative Techniques for Controlling Land Use : A Guide for Small Cities and Rural Areas in California . Draft Edition . Northern California Institute of Local Government, California State University, Chico, 72 pp . Sokolow, A .D ., 1977 . California's new migration to the "Cow Counties" . California J ., 8 :348-350 . Thompson, E ., Jr ., 1981 . Farming in the Shadow of Suburbia : Case Studies in Agricultural Land Use Conflict . National Association of Counties Research Foundation, Washington, DC, 18 pp . Tulare County, California, 1974 . Urban Boundaries Element to the Tulare County General Plan . 20 pp . Tulare County, California, 1975 . Rural Valley Lands Plan . 16 pp. University of California Agricultural Issues Task Force, 1978 . Agricultural Policy Challenges for California in the 1980's . Division of Agricultural Science, University of California, Berkeley, 137 pp . U.S . Department of Agriculture, 1980 . Soil Conservation Service . Basic Statistics : 1977 National Resources Inventory, April 1980 Addendum, Washington, DC . U .S . Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census . 1978 Census of Agriculture, Washington, DC .