Articles & News

October 22, 2008

Lawsuit filed to protect farmland

By Christine Souza, Assistant Editor, California Farm Bureau Federation

Prime Northern California farmland now used to grow alfalfa could instead house 500 prison inmates, if plans proceed to build a "re-entry facility" for convicts awaiting release from prison. But after learning that Yolo County did not provide environmental review or abide by its own general plan, lawyers representing family farmers filed a lawsuit last week to block approval of the prison.

In the suit, filed in Yolo County Superior Court last Thursday, the Yolo County Farm Bureau said county supervisors violated state and local laws when they voted last month to approve construction of the prison on a 15-acre block of farmland near Madison, located west of Woodland, the county seat. "We're not saying they can't do this, we're just saying they have to give this an appropriate public process. The county has the authority to control land use within its borders, but it does not have the authority to make decisions like this without an environmental review and without addressing inconsistencies with the general plan," said Chris Scheuring, managing counsel of the California Farm Bureau Federation Natural Resources and Environmental Division. The California Farm Bureau represents Yolo County Farm Bureau in the case.

The lawsuit says the proposed prison will have a significant environmental impact on farmland, but that Yolo County failed to conduct a required environmental review before approving the prison site. The lawsuit also indicates that the prison plan violates the Yolo County general plan, under which the county pledges to protect agricultural land and discourage urban sprawl.

Yolo County farmer Blake Harlan and many of his farming neighbors say they're unhappy about the decision to build the prison near Madison.

"The Yolo County Board of Supervisors who voted in favor of the Madison site are slamming (the prison) into an area where perhaps resistance is going to be the least by the population of the county," he said.

Yolo County Supervisor and farmer Duane Chamberlain said he agrees that there are many drawbacks to recommending that a prison be built near a small, rural farm town.

"One problem is the proposed site is right out in the middle of farmland. We need to try to get it in an urban area where it should be," Chamberlain said. "I voted for this to start with, because at that time they were talking about putting it by the Yolo County jail (in Woodland), then that fell apart. I've already received letters and phone calls from people in Susanville, Pelican Bay and Corcoran, saying that prisons downgrade small towns."

At the Yolo County Board of Supervisors meeting on Sept. 16, supervisors voted 3-1-1 to recommend the Madison site, with Chamberlain dissenting.

Rancher and peach farmer Fred Manas, who raises cattle near the proposed prison site, said local residents are all "very, very mad."

"Madison is just a small town and this will not be a change for the good," he said. "There are several issues that I see. One is that it is located in an agricultural, good piece of ground that is planted to alfalfa. Plus, there is no water, no sewer and no gas in the area where the re-entry facility is proposed. It will also lead to increased traffic."

There are major flooding and infrastructure problems with the site, Harlan added.

"Madison gets flooded quite often where you have water running down the streets. Two years ago we had a December rain that was too much for the local drainage and the streets were under water," Harlan said.

The lawsuit filed by Yolo County Farm Bureau also indicates that Yolo County violated the farmland-conservation law known as the Williamson Act by failing to notify the state of plans to build a prison within an agricultural preserve.

"The site is Williamson Act ground so, as a matter of contract, that land is committed to agricultural use for the next eight years. To build a prison any sooner than that, which they want to do within a year or two, they are going to have to break that contract," Scheuring said. "The Williamson Act does allow an escape hatch for cancellation of contracts, but it is not easy."

John Gamper, CFBF land use and taxation director, said there are two ways to cancel a Williamson Act contract, either by showing that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the act itself, or that the action will benefit the public interest.

"To cancel because it is in the public interest, there must be the findings that the use of the property outweighs the purpose of the Williamson Act and that there is not other, nearby, non-contracted land available and suitable," Gamper said. "That is where they might run into trouble because obviously there are lots of other sites that would be available. They considered several before they decided on the Madison site."

Traditionally, Yolo County has been very stingy on Williamson Act cancellations, Gamper said, and has only allowed one cancellation in the history of the act, to allow construction of a prune drying facility near Winters.

Yolo County's decision to seek a site for a re-entry prison stems from funds offered to the county under Assembly Bill 900, enacted in 2007, which appropriates $1.3 billion in jail construction funding through state lease-revenue bonds. The county hopes to qualify for $30 million in jail-improvement money by allowing the state to build the re-entry prison in the county.

"If a county has an old, beat-up jail facility that it wants to fix up, and many counties do, they can get a chunk of money for that if they agree to accept one of these new re-entry facilities in their county," Scheuring said. "AB 900 specifically says that these facilities should be sited in urban areas, so this (Yolo County facility) is inappropriately put in the middle of an ag preserve. Like all forward-thinking farmers, we like to see land use planning decisions made with the maximum amount of respect for existing, fertile prime farmland."

Scheuring said that, in a rush to qualify for the state jail-improvement money, Yolo County supervisors "ignored state environmental law, state farmland-conservation law and the county's own general plan."

In response to the county's decision, a grassroots organization of community members called Save Rural Yolo County formed to oppose the construction of the re-entry prison near Madison, or any other rural area of the county. The group said it welcomed the Farm Bureau lawsuit.

Save Rural Yolo County contends that the prison re-entry facility belongs in an urban area, as is the intent of AB 900. But the group's leader says the law makes it too easy for urban areas to refuse to accept a new prison.

"AB 900 is flawed. It is unfair to rural areas because urban areas have the ability to opt out, thereby forcing prison development in unincorporated areas of a county," said Leo Refsland, chair of Save Rural Yolo County. "This is poor regional planning and promotes urban sprawl. This law must be amended. The state of California must do everything it can to place new prisons within urban areas, not in rural areas."

An estimated 24 counties throughout the state have applied for grant funding provided by AB 900 for improvements to existing county prisons if they are able to locate sites for re-entry facilities, Scheuring said.

"We recognize the need for new prisons, but an alfalfa field surrounded by other farmland is just the wrong place for this type of facility," he said. "It's checkerboard development of the worst kind. Yolo County needs to start over and make these decisions in the right way with the proper oversight."

The state Corrections Standards Authority will next meet in Sacramento on Nov. 13, and may consider action regarding the Madison site.

(Christine Souza is a reporter for Ag Alert. She may be contacted at csouza@cfbf.com.)

Permission for use is granted, however, credit must be made to the California Farm Bureau Federation when reprinting this item.