Habitat vs. farmland: Fighting over the fate of the river
Chico Enterprise Record - 7/28/02
By Heather Hacking, staff writer

A passionate battle is taking place over land along the Sacramento River.

Wildlife agencies and a powerful environmental group are trying to restore the edge of the river to a more natural state, to give a little back to nature, remove artificial restraints and let the river meander.

Farmers are trying to preserve their way of life, maintain their farming practices and protect their investments.

One of the warriors is the Sacramento River Reclamation District, which was set up to wield more local control over flood issues.

The district includes 18,000 acres of land along the river in Butte County from Big Chico Creek to the Tehama County line.

The group's attorney is Paul Minasian, a well-respected and tenacious lawyer who specializes in water issues.

Over the past few years, the group has tried to restrain the Nature Conservancy, a national conservation group that frequently buys land that later becomes the property of state and federal wildlife agencies.

Growers are worried that if endangered species move in next door, it could force changes in their farming practices. They worry about increased flooding due to less levee upkeep and changes in vegetation along the river. They worry about loss of local tax revenue and the economic impact of turning farmland into habitat.

The Nature Conservancy has been very successful in receiving CalFed and other grants and is recognized by CalFed as having a long-term plan for the river.

Up until recently, the Nature Conservancy's Northern California branch has been headed by Sam Lawson, who is straightforward about plans to buy land and create a limited river meander.

Over many years, the Nature Conservancy has steadily bought land along what is called the "inner river meander belt." The group frequently stresses the deals are with "willing sellers," many of whom were struggling to make money on land that frequently floods or erodes.

Although some locals are alarmed by the purchases, there hasn't been much they could do. When land is placed in federal and state hands, state and federal rules supersede local control.

That's where the Reclamation District comes in. Minasian and his board have been trying to use the local governmental body to push the Nature Conservancy to address growers' concerns.

The battle has focused on a mile-square peninsula south of Highway 32, flanked on the west and south by the Sacramento River, on the east by Pine Creek.

The state Department of Fish and Game owns the southern tip of the peninsula. The Federal Fish and Wildlife Service owns the central band. The Nature Conservancy has purchased the northern section, adjacent to the highway.

Early in 2001, the Nature Conservancy won approval to use federal Transportation Enhancement Activities funds to reimburse the cost of its purchase.

In return, the group would turn the land over to Fish and Wildlife for inclusion in the Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge.

All the conservancy needed was for the Butte County Association of Governments - the regional transportation planning agency - to add the grant to its plan for use of federal highway funds.

After a presentation from Minasian, BCAG refused. Without the amendment to the local plan, the Nature Conservancy couldn't get the money.

Minasian was preaching to the choir when he laid out the reclamation district's concerns about the purchase's impact on flooding and tax revenue.
The 300 acres Fish and Wildlife already owns on the peninsula had already been replanted with native plants. The reclamation district thought the Pine Creek Orchard had been planted too densely and would block floodwaters, causing them to back up over Highway 32 and onto farm land to the north.

Minasian said the Nature Conservancy agreed the planting scheme it implemented on the federal land turned out to be inappropriate, so it revised its plan and about a third of those plantings are going to be allowed to die off.

Lawson said that had been the plan all along. He said they'd always planned for some of the plantings to die.

"We planted trees with the expectation that a natural pattern would emerge."

Lawson also pointed to computer modeling the conservancy has done to tell them what kind of habitat would reduce flooding on adjacent private lands. That's what prompted the decision to allow grasslands to develop on the Sunset Ranch south of Highway 32. It was found that would best allow water to flow off lands to the north.

Another sore point is maintenance of existing levees.

"The Nature Conservancy and Fish and Wildlife want to allow levees to degrade," Minasian said. "They don't want to maintain levees."

Lawson said it's not as simple as that. He said the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Water Resources are trying to come up with a plan for a "multiple use floodplain."

"There will be compromises," Lawson said. Competing interests of farmers, transportation, development and wildlife will all need to be balanced out, he said.

Another issue the Reclamation District is battling is getting drainage culverts under Highway 32 between Pine Creek and the river.

When the floodwaters come, they back up over Highway 32 and flood farms to the north. The water has no way of draining off the land when the river recedes, Minasian explained.

Pine Creek is plugged up because of lack of maintenance due to the Endangered Species Act and habitat near Scotty's Boat Landing that is owned by government agencies, Minasian asserted.

If the water could flow off this land within five to seven days, these orchards could continue to be profitable, Minasian said.

The Reclamation District board was pushing the Nature Conservancy to agree not to complain about damage from additional water in Pine Creek if the culverts were installed.

Lawson said Fish and Wildlife has agreed to this request, but is waiting for funding.

The property tax issue is also important to small rural counties. When agricultural land is converted to public habitat, the state and federal agencies that acquire the land are supposed to make a "payment in lieu of tax."

But they only pay about two-thirds of what they should.

The Reclamation District has been trying to press the Nature Conservancy to fork over the tax payment if the state and local agencies don't follow through.

For example, on the land purchase along the south side of Highway 32, the agency asked the Nature Conservancy to set up a fund that would pay for tax losses over time. Minasian said invested in an interest-bearing account, it would cost the Nature Conservancy about $200 an acre.

Lawson said that's a red herring. He said the Reclamation District should direct its efforts toward legislators to pay the taxes.

Lawson agrees counties should receive tax payments when land changes from private to public hands. But he can only ask that this be done, he can't require it, he said.

Minasian contends the Nature Conservancy shields wildlife agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game from having to go through more vigorous environmental impact reports when land is converted to habitat.

But Lawson said no landowners ever complained about the habitat restoration affecting adjacent land.

"They talk about their fear but they don't talk about the reality," Lawson said. "If there actually was damage, we would do everything in our power to address it."

Lawson contends the Reclamation District hasn't embraced a new era of compromise.

He said Minasian is still clinging to the old style of water lawyering. He said Minasian represented Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District many years ago when the district was resisting the need to install fish screens. Resisting that change almost shut the water district down and since then the district has hired a different law firm, Lawson said.

He said landowners and the Nature Conservancy could build a win-win partnership if they worked together.

"He would rather fight and lose than not fight and win," Lawson said.

Lawson argues the Nature Conservancy has been straightforward and has tried to address landowner concerns.

"Everything we had any control over, we've addressed," Lawson said. "Basically, (Minasian) has said 'that's not good enough. You have to address concerns over which you have no control.' "

Lawson was back before BCAG in May, again seeking the change in the transportation plan that would free up the highway funds to reimburse the Nature Conservancy for the purchase of the Highway 32 land.

BCAG members told Lawson they thought as soon as the land changed hands, Fish and Wildlife wouldn't live up to the conservancy's pledges to try to work with local government and the neighbors.

They shot him down again.

What farmers fear about restoration

Roy Roney is a landowner near the Sacramento River and a member of the Sacramento River Reclamation District board. He shares the views of the group's attorney, Paul Minasian, that conflicts arise when wildlife habitat is placed next to farmland.

"There are so many differences in land use that the conflicts are almost impossible to satisfy," he said.

Farmers have been living with the river for decades. Over time they learned to work with the river, Roney said.

"And now the Nature Conservancy and the Sacramento River Conservation Area want to allow the meander of the river. It kind of strikes at the opposite of what we've been doing for 100 years."

Roney said he believes some restoration projects have been done without proper planning.

"Sure, they've done some hydrological studies," Roney said, "and Sam Lawson (of the Nature Conservancy) will point to those. The problem is that they took those at water levels that were not consistent with the ones we've experienced.

"Computers can project, that's all fine and good, but when it comes down to the hands-on and you're out there like I was in a boat rowing around, all those models and projections that they make go right out the window."

He said what the Nature Conservancy calls dense habitat, farmers call "jungle."

The habitat becomes impenetrable, Roney said.

"I've lived here all my life and my dad has and my granddad did and my great-great-grandfather homesteaded some of this property," Roney said.

"We've not just been stewards of the property. We've lived with it and have been able to get along with it. With the government as a neighbor, it's going to be very hard to continue the livelihood we've enjoyed these past 140 years."

Roney said the Reclamation District is being diligent to protect the livelihood of growers.

"They know we're here and if we were not organized and we were just a sole entity, there is no way we would even bring any of these concerns to the table," Roney said.

"What we have been able to do is to get their attention and at least have them know there is somebody, some entity watching over their shoulders."

People who farm are seeing "some of the most beautiful Columbian loam will never be in production again," Roney said. "It's just contrary to what some of us have devoted our lives to and it's very hard to see that transformation take place.

"When the Nature Conservancy came in, they did not tell us that they were purchasing the property. They just did it. They didn't advise us. They had no concern at all what they were doing to the neighbors.

"It wasn't until just recently in their more-or-less mission statement that they want to be a good neighbor.

"That's kind of like saying, 'I'll build what I want, do what I want to do. Then I'll come over and say I've done that, now I want to be a good neighbor.'

"They're kind of closing the barn door after the cows are out. It's a little late to shake your neighbor's hand once you've tried to put him out of business."

Chico Enterprise Record - Copyright Policy