California Environment Essay Research Paper Akey environmental

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

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать