Contra Costa Co. Dept. of Conservation & Development

A Contra Costa development abuts farmland

When Patrick Congdon was a boy, southeast San Jose was still a rural paradise for kids. “I used to go over a fence into a prune orchard, through a walnut orchard, then I’d cross Coyote Creek and go through a cherry orchard,’’ recalled Congdon, 52. “We built forts out of packing boxes.”

Today, much of the farmland of his childhood has been swallowed up. “Now, I know technology has brought us some great things, but to have the city where I grew up go from being a worldwide producer of crops to the home of Silicon Valley doesn’t resonate with me at all.’’

Congdon, now the general manager of the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, is among many farmers, ranchers and open space advocates who worry that California’s fiscal crisis will put thousands of acres of ranch and farmland at risk. In his proposed 2010-2011 budget, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has virtually eliminated a program that reimburses counties for tax breaks to farmers and ranchers who work their land. Last year, he took the same approach.

The budget line for “open space subventions,’’ as the program is called, is just $1,000 a sum left there as a placeholder in case the funding later was restored. A coalition of growers, environmentalists, ranchers, cities and counties is lobbying aggressively in Sacramento to raise that amount to $38 million.

The governor’s action “isn’t any statement on policy,’’ said H.D. Palmer of the state finance department. “We have to close a multi billion-dollar deficit, and this is one of any number of programs for which we don’t have money.’’ 

The issue might seem minor when the state has a $19 billion deficit. But farmers, ranchers, environmentalists, government officials and land use experts, say this is a budget battle with major consequences for one of the world’s richest food-producing regions.

The tax breaks were created by the Williamson Act 45 years ago to protect agriculture and grazing land from urban sprawl. Under the act, local governments enter into 10-year contracts with landowners who promise to keep their land undeveloped in return for property tax breaks. Bay Area counties’ subventions average $445,000.

“In the early 60’s we thought we’d be forced out of the Livermore Valley because our land was being taxed at the same high rate as the developments next to us,’’ said Phil Wente, whose family’s vineyard covers 2,500 acres in Alameda County. “Then in 1965, the Williamson Act came in and gave us tax relief, and we stayed.’’

“There is great apprehension among farmers and ranchers about the loss of the Williamson Act program and what that would do to their property taxes,’’ said John Gamper, the California Farm Bureau Federation’s land use director.

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

Sprawl sits cheek-and-jowl with vineyards in Sonoma

Today about half of California’s farmland – 16.6 million acres – is under Williamson Act contracts, which cover many billions of dollars in crops and scores of commodities from wine grapes to walnuts.

Imperial County voted to end its Williamson Act contracts following the governor’s veto last year of all but $1,000 for subventions, and the risk that other counties will follow suit is real. Ronnie Leimgruber, a third-generation farmer there with 2,500 acres of hay and other crops, said that Imperial “just happened to do it before other counties are going to do it because they can’t afford to do the program without getting reimbursed.

“Our board of supervisors was just reacting to what the state was shoving down its throat.” Without his Williamson Act contract, he’ll pay as much as $40,000 more a year in property taxes.

Land trusts and open space districts have protected some crop and grazing land, but losses continue. Between 1984, when the state began tracking agriculture-grazing lands, through 2008, the eight counties around San Francisco have lost almost 45,000 acres of irrigated cropland and 164,000 acres of grazing land. By 2008, about 367,000 acres of irrigated farmland and 2 million acres of grazing land remained. Sonoma lost the most, followed by Solano, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, Alameda, Marin, Napa and San Mateo.

Though the act is generally popular, it has critics on both sides. The Legislative Analyst’s Office says that the state has no way of knowing if the land receiving property tax breaks is actually under threat of development. Meanwhile, Sacramento State University public policy professor Robert Wassmer thinks the act doesn’t adequately protect vulnerable farmland adjacent to cities and what’s needed is more funding for farmers tempted to sell to developers.

Still, the successes of the Williamson Act are undeniable, says Gamper. “Without this act, California would have had more leap-frog development and more urban sprawl,’’ he said. “Without its protections, you are still subject, in many places, to the whim of local politicians. There’s a saying, they could meet on any Tuesday, adopt pro-development zoning, and Katie bar the door.’’

See a map of the region's farmland lost to development and acreage protected under the Williamson Act.