Editorial: Habitat permits needn't be obstacle
Chico Enterprise Record - 1/13/03

As the conversion of land along the Sacramento River from farming to habitat continues, Butte and Glenn counties are both pursuing measures that would require a use permit to make such a change.

Both counties are saying the permits would be a way to get a grip on a process that proceeded quietly for years, unnoticed by most until a dramatic amount of land had been purchased for the state and federal government.

But the agencies pursuing the conversions maintain the permit process is an overreaction, intended more to stop the process than get it under control.

It may be that is the objective of some of those involved, and that would be a shame. The idea of a contiguous band of wild along the river is attractive, provided the public is engaged in the decision-making process, has access to most of the land, and secondary impacts of the change are addressed.

To their credit, the agencies pursuing this dream finally have made a lot of progress toward involving the public. And, a plan being prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the land it holds is likely to open up most of its 12,000 acres, the biggest block of off-limits land.

But those sticky secondary impacts remain. The one of most concern to those drawing up the permit ordinances - the counties - is the loss of tax dollars. When land moves from private ownership to government ownership the state and federal governments are supposed to pay fees equal to the property taxes local governments lose.

That hasn't happened. The feds have been the worst. Regularly, Congress has tossed out the federal government's rules and paid only a portion of what is owed. On average it has paid about 70 percent of what's due.

The resource agencies and private groups like the Nature Conservancy, which has been serving as a purchasing agent in this process, say that's not their fault, but the claim rings a little hollow. These groups are able to ring millions of dollars from the bureaucracy for land purchases, but then claim they can't secure the lesser amount it would take to make the counties whole?

The counties respond in the only way they can, with new land use regulations.

If the permits were truly intended to just get a grip on what's happening, they'd probably be a good idea. The conversion of farmland to habitat is probably a one-way road. Land that is changed that way likely will never be changed back. It's probably a good idea to address that publicly at the time the change is made.

If the tax impacts were addressed, if a small part of the money used for buying land was diverted to paying the taxes on the land already owned, obtaining the permits would become routine. If not, they could well evolve into a means to block the changes.

A lot of progress has been made since the conversion process caught the public eye, but there are still changes to be made before it can proceed smoothly and painlessly. There's still work to be done.

Chico Enterprise Record - Copyright Policy