California Environment Essay, Research Paper
A
key environmental challenge not only in the Central Valley but also in all of
California is how to protect and preserve both the regions agricultural
resources and its coastal boundaries. California is a unique state; we are
basically a bunch of states/separate regions that are all encompassed under one
defined boundary. We have a large coastline, industry, agriculture, mountains,
forests, deserts, valleys, large and small cities, and major interstate trade
and transportation systems. Two things distinguish our agricultural resources
from others: our coastline, and our states geographic diversity in regards to
other states. As the state grows the question of where to put things is brought
up. The pressures of urban sprawl in California have been evident for many
years. The combination of California’s growing environmental awareness, and its
refocus on agricultural importance have prompted many policy tools to protect
not only agriculture, but our coastlines as well. Over the years, many policy
tools have been proposed; some have been accepted and others for various reasons
(political, economic, and other) have not. Two existing tools for protecting
agricultural lands and our coastlines are; The Williamson Act/Land Conservation
Act and the California Coastal Act. Each are intended to protect California’s
resources. To combat the pressures of urban sprawl on California’s agricultural
lands, the California Land Conservation Act was passed in 1965. It was nicknamed
the Williamson Act for its writer, Assemblyman John Williamson of Bakersfield
(Mayer, Fence 2). The law was originally designed to keep agricultural lands in
agriculture. This was proposed by offering property tax breaks for farmers and
ranchers through a ten-year contract. This idea of protecting privately owned
farmland from development for ten years through an agreement between the
farmers, the county and the state, appealed to many. The popularity of this act
is evident throughout California. In Kern County there is more than 1.6 million
acres of agricultural related land (valley, foothills, mountains) currently
under contract. "Kern county represents grow, by 2020 population in the
county is expected to double" (Zapata 1). Kern County is important because
it is a key agricultural area in California. Los Angeles and Fresno/San Joaguin
Vallies grow closer each day. The area is a major supplier of oil and
agriculture. The Williamson Act appealed to many farmers, addressing the issue
of raising property taxes, letting them continue to farm. Property taxes were a
major concern to the farmers who were feeling the effects of sprawl, especially
the smaller farmers. Under the Williamson Act, landowners tax savings could
range anywhere from 30-70% depending on what their land is being used for and
what commodities it produces. The Act saves farmers a lot of money, in Kern
County a total of about 15 million a year. Under the agreement the state then
reimburses the counties some of this revenue, about 5 million in Kern County
(Mayer, Williamson 2). All of the agricultural lands in California are eligible
for the Williamson Act. It does not matter if the land is in the path of
development or not. It does not matter what the land is being used for (farming
or grazing). The Act’s objective is to protect agricultural lands on both the
urban fringe and those elsewhere that may be the product of leapfrog
development. The ten-year agreement between the landowners and the state renews
itself each year automatically. Landowners have two options out of the
agreement, cancellation and non-renewal, both of which impose stiff penalties.
The penalties amount to a predetermined percentage of the lands total market
value. The main objective of the Williamson Act is to slow urbanization. The Act
was not created to stop it; it was made to delay the inevitable. The Williamson
Act is both good and bad. It does indeed slow urbanization, but the areas that
need the most attention (urban fringe) are not really impacted. The Act saves
farmers money in the form of property taxes and it does compensate the counties,
but this compensation does not balance what is lost. In Kern County the
difference is 10 million dollars, money the county is simply out of. Another
thing, a ten-year agreement may sound like a long time for the preservation of
land but it is not. "Is ten years to short? It probably is if the goal is
the preservation of farmland" (Mayer, Williamson 2). Some landowners even
find ways to actually benefit from the act. A developmental powerhouse may
receive the tax break for their ten years and when they fulfill their obligation
they develop the land anyway. This of course is not the ideal situation but the
act has done its job, slowing urbanization. There have been attempts to fix this
problem of having it both ways. One such attempt is the recently passed Senate
Bill 1182, nicknamed the Williamson Plus Act. This bill ads more tax breaks, up
to an additional 35% if the landowner agrees to a twenty-year commitment. This
would then also make the land off limits in the future to developers. Some
counties adopted the policy before it was passed. "Is farmland being
converted? Yes," said Kern County planning director Ted James. "Is
farmland an important economic resource for counties? Very definitely"
(Mayer, Fence 1). The Williamson Act does not stop the farmers from selling
their land, because considering ones future usually takes precedent in the end.
The act does enable farmers the ability to keep in business while saving our
agricultural lands. The Williamson Act conserves agricultural space by
addressing the issue with a temporary solution. In dealing with California’s
coastlines a more permanent solution was needed. Combating the pressures of both
the preservation of California’s coastline and the growing environmental
awareness of California was and is still a major challenge. One area that
focussed on this fact was the California Coastal Act. The California Coastal Act
(California Public resources Code Sections 30000 et seq.) was first established
by voters in 1972, and passed by state legislature in 1976 ("Q and A"
1). The main objective of the act is to provide long tern protection for
California’s 1,100-mile coa
(California Coastal Commission) and the local governments (15 coastal and 58
cities) to regulate both the conservation and the development of coastal
resources through planning and regulatory programs ("Permanent" 1).
This act stemmed from a coastal protection program that was passed on a
temporary basis by California voters through initiative in November 1972,
Proposition 20-The Coastal Conservation Initiative ("Who We Are" 1).
The Coastal Acts policies and structure are based on input from the California
Coastal Plan that was called for through Prop.20 and adopted by the Coastal
Commission in 1975. Some of the major policies that influence the acts main
objectives include; 1. The protection, enhancement, and restoration of
environmentally sensitive habitats. 2. The protection of productive agricultural
lands, commercial fisheries, and archeological resources. 3. The establishment,
to the extent possible, or urban-rural boundaries and directing new housing and
other developments into areas with adequate services to avoid wasteful urban
sprawl and urban development ("Permanent" 2). These policies and a few
others must be included into each Local Coast Program ("Q and A" 2).
Local Coast Programs (LCD’s) are the planning tools that coordinate the efforts
of both the state and the local government. LCP’s are required to identify all
aspects for coastal zones along the waterways. They are also required to include
a land use plan and implementing measure (i.e. zoning). The LCP’s reflect the
imagination of the individual coastal communities as well as the structure of
the Coastal Act and its policies. The coastal Act ensures its objectives are met
or at least addressed with the Coastal Commission reviewing final LCP’s. This
whole process is a major system of checks and balances, neseccary red tape.
Since the act was passed on a permanent basis in 1976, coastal development has
continued, but it has been much more structured. This act has been a complete
success. A great majority of coastal permit applications are approved, but many
include stipulations to bring applications up to code with the regulations of
the act itself. The act has prompted 70% of local coastal governments to have
fully certified LCP’s. ("Q and A" 3). This has also resulted in the
fact that now almost all-coastal permits are issued locally. The act has
achieved what it had proposed to do and so much more. Before the foundation to
the act was established in 1972, the coast was vulnerable to unplanned
development and environmental negligence. Now development is planned much
better, more efficient and promotes themes and ideas in a long-term sense. More
important are the unseen benefits from the act. Unseen achievements include:
wetlands not being filled, coastal views not being lost to new homes, and
coastal agricultural lands not being converted to other unnecessary uses. The
Coastal Act stays important because California coastline is an important issue.
It cannot just be saved; it needs to be constantly watched, protected, and
addressed. After looking at the government’s reaction to both protecting the
states agricultural resources and its coastline, I am pleased with the overall
efforts. I think that in terms of the Williamson Act, there are definitely
changes that need to be made. The Williamson Plus Act, which contains a
twenty-year commitment, is a much better idea in regards to preserving
agricultural lands and resources. I think that the original breaks on property
tax need to be in effect, but something needs to be done to help counties make
up for lost property tax revenue. There also needs to be stricter penalties in
place to keep landowners from straying from their commitments. I feel the most
important factor in the Williamson Plus is the fact that it then makes land off
limits to development in the future. All in all, the original Williamson Act is
a good foundation for the newer, stricter, more balanced version of the act.
This is similar to what the Coastal Act was successful in doing. It was created
and adapted from an earlier temporary initiative. Its policies and structure are
drawn from prop 20’s foundation and its development. The Coastal Act is an
example of what the Williamson Act could eventually be. I think that the
government is trying, but I think that the problem lies in Californians
themselves. The Coastal Act works for the most part because it not only
addresses one of California’s most important features (the coastline) but the
idea behind it is so Californian in thought. The Williamson Act addresses two
very important issues, agriculture and the environment. The Williamson Act also
deals with the California farmer’s dilemma of keeping their farms or selling
them and then crying all the way to the bank. The California Coastal Commission
deals solely with the issue of the environment, a widely accepted policy issue
here in California. I do think that the government is trying, and I think that
these bills/laws are definitely more of a benefit than a hindrance. "I hope
that 25 years from now I’ll be able to say? we worked hard for our
environment? I hope I won’t have to hang my head in shame because we stood by
and did nothing" (Zapata 4). After all, without these acts our Central
Valley could look like a big subdivision, and our coastline could look like the
New Jersey shoreline.
Brown, Flavin, and Hilary French. State of the World. New York: Norton &
Company, 1999. —. "Permanent Responsibilities of the California Coastal
Commission." California Environmental Resource Evaluation System. 15 Nov.
1999
—. "Who We Are." California Environmental Resource Evaluation
System. 15 Nov. 1999. 17 June 1999.
—. "Questions and Answers About the California Coastal Act."
California Environmental Resource Evaluation System. 15 Nov. 1999
Mayer, Steven. "Don’t Fence Me In." The Bakersfield Californian. 1998.
Mayer, Steven. "Williamson Act: Does it really preserve farmland?" The
Bakersfield Californian. 1998.
Nebal, Richard T. Wright. Environmental Science: Seventh Edition. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, 2000. Zapata, Denise. "Life As We Grow It." The
Bakersfield Californian. 1998.