FWA Carries Landowner Voice

As our readership is well aware, the Family Water Alliance has been an active participant in the Sacramento River Conservation Area Forum (SRCAF), working to protect the interests of private property right owners, the agricultural industry, and the rural communities of Northern California. Over the past few months, some interesting developments have taken place, some we applaud, others raise concerns.

Let’s start with the positive. The SRCAF Board unanimously voted to adopt policy actions 1 and 2 of the Good Neighbor Policy. The Good Neighbor Policy, an effort initiated by FWA to protect farming interests within the conservation area, is still currently a work in progress. In its present draft form, it has six policy actions (only the first two have been voted on by the SRCAF Board) that have been identified to attempt to minimize and mitigate for any harm or loss that may result from activities occurring with the SRCA.

Policy Action 1 recommends that all landowners within the Conservation Area be considerate of, and communicate with all neighbors that may potentially be affected by land use changes or practices. Policy Action 2 recommends that a number of items be incorporated into all habitat restoration proposals and project plans prior to beginning any physical changes to the property to help avoid negative impacts; including: a) communication with neighbors and plans to avoid negative impacts; b) adherence to local processes for land use changes; c) designation of local contacts; d) baseline studies; e) infrastructure to manage access and prevent trespass on private property; and, (f,g) incorporation of buffer zones, barriers, and fences to minimize negative impacts to adjacent private property.

Policy Action 3 thru 6 are still a work in progress and have yet to be adopted. These policies focus on "incidental take" of listed species under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, the establishment of a mitigation bank, the formation of a grievance committee, and the creation of a Good Neighbor Fund to compensate landowners who suffer damage as a result of habitat restoration. The enactment of these policy actions is essential to the welfare of agriculture in our rural counties.

Family Water Alliance has pushed hard for these protections for agricultural landowners, and will continue to educate the public and advocate for these needed protections for private property owners. While we applaud the passing of the first two policy actions, it is clearly not enough. The SRCA needs to assure that these safeguards are implemented into all habitat project plans that go forward within the Conservation Area. Further, the SRCA must promptly pursue enactment of the remaining policy actions to assure minimizing and mitigating any and all negative impacts to agriculture lands.

Now, for the news that concerns us. The Sacramento River Conservation Area Forum (SRCAF) recently hired a professional Organizational Development Consultant, Mark Smiley, to work with the group to create a strategic plan and help further its goals. While it is agreed that the SRCAF is in great need of improved structure, the direction this strategic planning process appears to be taking should raise the eyebrows of agriculture.

To begin, the selection of Mr. Smiley by the SRCAF as a consultant suited to address the problems experienced by this group certainly raises questions. A brief review of Mr. Smiley’s website illustrates his allegiance to the environmental perspective. His client list and professional associations include the likes of groups such as Gathering Waters Conservancy, Wild Olympic Salmon, TreePeople, Oregon Natural Resources Council, River Network, and Yakima Greenway Foundation. All of these groups clearly focus on an agenda that promotes environmental conservation; this news should serve as a red flag to the agricultural industry. To a region whose prime industry is agriculture, where land acquisitions and environmental regulation are threatening our economic viability, this selection does not sit favorably.

Moreover, the early feedback coming from Mr. Smiley illustrates his allegiance to a green agenda and his lack of consideration for the welfare of agriculture. His initial focus group sessions included various representatives. It was shocking to find out that four of these five focus groups included a representative of The Nature Conservancy, an international environmental group. No such universal representation was offered to any local group. It begs the question, who is steering the ship, and in which direction?

Further, in a memorandum delivered to the SRCAF Board of Directors, Mr. Smiley stated that "the board member selection is not based on a firm commitment and support to the mission of the organization" - environmental restoration, suggesting that the make up of the Board [landowner representatives and local supervisors] has created an "organization that is dominated by the perspectives of landowner concerns and with limited environmental perspective." It appears that Mr. Smiley fails to understand the dynamics of the SRCAF, and some of the promises it has made to the local communities that are being saddled with the negative impacts associated with increased acquisition and conversion of agricultural land.

Also, Mr. Smiley announced that he was creating a report to the Board regarding his findings and suggestions. He stated that the general public would be entitled to view a summary of the report, but the report itself was only for the Board. This does not have the feel of a cooperative and open process that one would usually equate to a forum. The SRCAF is a private non-profit corporation. However, its Board is made up of elected County Supervisors, appointed landowner representatives, and representatives from state and federal agencies. As such, the idea of concealing information from its participants (including the FWA, environmental groups, and individual landowners) who have invested significant amounts of time and resources into this effort is downright offensive.

Family Water Alliance continues to participate in and monitor the progress of the SRCAF. FWA advocated for and applauds the decision of the SRCAF Board to: (1) send a letter to CALFED to attempt to formalize a cooperative effort in working towards formulating tangible, workable solutions to address landowner assurances; (2) for passing the first portions of the Good Neighbor Policy; and (3) in its attempts to create a strategic plan that lays out policy, procedure, and guidelines for the direction of the organization. These are steps in the right direction. Family Water Alliance is committed to working to assure that this process proceeds with the health, welfare and sustainability of agriculture and rural communities in mind.#