Editorial

The California Farm Bureau has sued the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, alleging they overstepped their authority when they let a local farmer out of a conservation contract so a 90-acre parcel could be developed as a solar power project.

At issue are regulations governing the Williamson Act, a state farmland conservation program that gives landowners property tax breaks in exchange for keeping their land in agriculture for the 10-year life of the contract.

The rules governing the act provide a mechanism for landowners to terminate their contracts. They must petition the county governing body, giving notice that the contract will not be renewed when it expires. In turn, the governing body must make a series of findings before giving approval. For example, the cancellation must be in the public interest, the alternative use must be consistent with the city or county's general plan and outweigh the public's interest in preserving farmland, and not lead to adjoining land being removed from agriculture. The landowner must show that there is not land nearby not enrolled in the program suitable for the proposed development.

A host of solar projects have either been proposed or are already in the works in the Central Valley. The Farm Bureau is seeking clarity to the rules as termination requests come at a fast pace. We agree with the goal, but not the approach.

We find ourselves conflicted on the fine points of the case.

We appreciate and support the Farm Bureau's desire to preserve farmland, prime or otherwise, exclusively for agricultural uses. We also agree that these matters should be handled carefully and consistently.

Parties to a contract should be able by mutual consent to alter that contract's terms. The law provides for that, but the conditions seem subjective.

Our natural inclination is to err on the side of landowners, who would seem uniquely situated to determine the highest and best use of their property. We are uncomfortable with asking a court to in effect socialize a benefit of ownership while privatizing the expense, regulatory obligations and the costs of lost opportunities.

The Farm Bureau notes that the state Department of Conservation, the county's land advisory committee and the supervisors' own staff said the circumstances didn't meet the law's standard for termination. That doesn't really matter. The law clearly gives the supervisors the sole authority to make the determination, but little guidance as to how to gauge the competing interests.

The rules should be more clear and less subjective. The best, though not the most expedient solution, would be to seek a legislative rather than a legal remedy.

We agree it would be unfortunate if an ill-considered decision by a local board of supervisors set a bad precedent for future Williamson Act contract terminations. We think there could be greater harm from an ill-considered judicial precedent.