Decision upholds local rules that protect farmland

A court ruling issued last week strengthens farmland protection from development—a decision that a Farm Bureau attorney who participated in the case called a "decisive victory that goes to the heart and soul of what Farm Bureau is all about—protecting our precious farmland for future generations."

The unanimous ruling by the California 5th District Court of Appeal affirmed the legality of a Stanislaus County farmland mitigation program that requires developers of residential subdivisions to permanently preserve farmland equal to acreage for new subdivisions, and to do so on an acre-for-acre basis.

Backers of the program note that it does not remove landowners' development rights, achieving the requirement for permanent farmland protection primarily through voluntary agricultural conservation easements that are granted in perpetuity. Thus, for every acre of farmland lost to residential development in the county, a comparable acre of farmland in the county is protected from development forever.

The case centers on a lawsuit filed by the Building Industry Association of Central California, challenging the legality of the farmland mitigation program. A Stanislaus County Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the builders' association, which prompted Stanislaus County and the California Farm Bureau Federation to file their appeal to the 5th District court.

In the 23-page appellate opinion, Judge Herbert Levy wrote: "Noting that agricultural land is a finite and irreplaceable resource, one of the agricultural element's stated goals is to conserve the county's agricultural lands for agricultural uses. Once it is urbanized, productive agricultural land is permanently lost."

Levy noted that agriculture is Stanislaus County's leading industry.

"Real estate development that requires agricultural land to be converted to residential use has a deleterious impact on this valuable resource. Although the developed farmland is not replaced, an equivalent area of comparable farmland is permanently protected from a similar fate," he wrote.

In reaching their decision, the appeals court judges pointed out that the farmland mitigation program is reasonably related to the county's legitimate goal of conserving farmland to protect its agricultural economy.

"The court of appeal recognized the county's right to protect farmland as part of its well-established authority to regulate land use," said Matthew Zinn, an attorney who represented Stanislaus County in the case, which was titled BIA vs. County of Stanislaus. "This sweeping opinion provides strong support for local governments seeking to protect farmland and the agricultural economy and culture it supports. The ruling will give cities and counties throughout California the confidence they need to ensure that developers mitigate the impact of new development on farmland."

CFBF attorney Chris Scheuring noted that because the decision is a published opinion, it will serve as binding precedent for similar situations in the future.

"I think one of the reasons Farm Bureau exists is precisely this sort of thing—the preservation of farmland resources so that there is a future for farming in California," he said. "The two fundamental things that a farmer has to have to continue his way of life are land and water. If a farmer doesn't have land, he or she cannot do anything."

Wayne Zipser, Stanislaus County Farm Bureau executive manager, said he is both pleased and relieved regarding the reversal by the appeals court. He noted that the case began with a rewrite of the agricultural element of the county general plan.

"This was a simple project in the beginning. Our task in the early stages was merely updating facts and figures on a 108-page document," Zipser recalled. "First, there was the proliferation of ranchettes for home sites. This was the time of the building explosion and landowners were subdividing like crazy. Second, there was the issue of buffers between farms and development. Development was building right up to neighboring farms, and farmers could not do many routine farming practices."

Stanislaus County Farm Bureau President Janine Goubert said the case "could be a precedent-setting decision for agricultural mitigation in California," and that it "clarifies the powers for local government and allows them to use ratio mitigation as another accepted and validated tool in their toolbox."

Scheuring characterized the appeals court ruling as "a clear win" and "an awesome decision."

Zinn noted that conservation and local government organizations filed "friend of the court" briefs to support the county and the Farm Bureau in the case, including the Sierra Club, Planning and Conservation League, the Greenbelt Alliance, the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties and the California Council of Land Trusts.

(Steve Adler is associate editor of Ag Alert. He may be contacted at sadler@cfbf.com.)