Leading off: Ag’s Future In Peril

In the aftermath of the Great Recession, though there’s no real feeling that it’s ended here in California, we’ve got some tough decisions to make. Severe reductions in revenue streams to government coffers at all levels, from federal right down to the local school board, means spending cuts will have to be made.

It’s really bad, as I said, in California. Newly elected Governor Jerry Brown — and talk about déjà vu, the youngest governor in state history has now become the oldest — released his proposed budget last month, and it’s a doozy. To his credit, Brown refrained from a lot of the sleight-of-hand maneuvers of his predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. I was really disappointed in the “Governator” when he employed one-time budget moves that amounted to nothing more than a high-stakes shell game. But Brown is shifting many government functions away from the state and onto local governments, and that’s no better. Passing the buck: A time-tested political tradition.

Lost in all this posturing is the relatively small spending on agriculture. Or at least it’s small, just less than $100 million, when you look at the big picture. Brown’s budget, after all, calls for cuts totalling $12.5 billion. But the cuts to agriculture affect all Californians, and it’s incumbent on those of us who love agriculture to try and get that point across.

Beware Of Quick Fixes
It’s not just about food, either. The old saying, that it’s hard to criticize a farmer when your mouth is full, is definitely true. But cuts to certain agricultural programs, while painful, will for the large part be only temporary. Or at least we can only hope so. Land use decisions, however, are for all intents and purposes, permanent. I don’t know about you, but I can’t recall the last time I saw an old shopping mall or condo complex bulldozed to make way for a planting of Pinot Grigio or an almond orchard.

In California, as it is in many states, loss of ag land is a big issue. Interestingly, the number of people in the state and the number of acres of ag land has pretty much flip-flopped in the interim between Brown administrations. While population has jumped from about 24 million to 37 million in that time, ag acreage has dropped, from about 31 million to 25 million. And that last number would have dropped a lot lower were it not for the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act.

This act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments which are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. Local governments receive an annual subvention of foregone property tax revenues from the state. There are currently more than 16 million acres enrolled in the Williamson Act.

Brown proposes to revert the $10 million previously appropriated in 2010-11 for the Williamson Act to the General Fund. This would be a huge mistake, potentially changing the face of the Golden State forever. I urge Californians to please contact your local representatives and tell them how you feel. If you live and farm in another state, be on the lookout for budget fixes that affect land use. Short-term decisions can have long-term consequences.

I’d be interested in hearing any ideas on this issue, including if you’re from outside California but are faced with a similar situation. Please feel free to leave your comments below.