A controversial bill that would allow California counties to cancel Williamson Act contracts on behalf of tribal governments hit a roadblock during an April 15 committee hearing in Sacramento.
Established in 1965, the Williamson Act protects California’s ag land by giving landowners property tax breaks in exchange for agreeing to keep the land agriculturally zoned for 10 years. Senate Bill 170, introduced by Sen. Dean Florez (D-Fresno), would add a clause stating the development of tribal cultural centers, infrastructure, and housing outweighs the objectives originally outlined in the law.
After several hours of heated discussion, the State Senate’s Local Government Committee announced it wouldn’t push the bill forward.
Numerous tribal governments—including the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians—support SB170. Chumash leaders have stated publicly that as sovereign nations, tribes should be granted the same powers as local government entities, including the ability to cancel Williamson Act contracts.
During an April 7 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, tribal spokesman Sam Cohen said the reservation is currently at capacity. To accommodate growth, the tribe wants to build a cultural center, as well as additional infrastructure and housing on its 135-acre reservation in the Santa Ynez Valley. But the only nearby land available for development is farm or open range land under the jurisdiction of the Williamson Act.
Through the tribal fee-to-trust process, a federally recognized tribe can buy new property and then apply to the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs to absorb the land into its trust, according to a summary of SB170. Federal officials, however, are usually reluctant to accept land into trust if there are encumbrances on the property’s title, such as a Williamson Act contract.
A tribe can also purchase agriculturally zoned land and then wait for the Williamson Act contract to expire.
At its April 7 meeting, the Board of Supervisors decided those options would have to suffice for the Chumash, when it voted 4-1 (with 1st District Supervisor Salud Carbajal dissenting) to issue a formal stance opposing SB170.
“I’m so extremely concerned about protecting agriculture and open space in this county, and the Williamson Act is the most valuable tool we have to do that,” said Supervisor Doreen Farr, who represents the 3rd District where the reservation is located.
“I voted against [SB170] for the same reasons I voted against the La Purisima Golf Course,” Farr explained. “When you change zoning to allow that level of infrastructure, the tendency is to want to continue developing it.”
Ultimately, the Senate’s Local Government Committee sided with the Board of Supervisors, based on the perception that the bill would jeopardize the state’s ag land.
The decision came as welcome news to many individuals and organizations opposed to the act, including the California Farm Bureau, the California State Association of Counties, the Sierra Club, and a handful of Santa Ynez Valley residents, many of whom fear the bill would allow tribes to develop and manage land without being held accountable to the public.
But rather than accept defeat, the bill’s supporters are going back to the legal drawing board with these issues in mind.
In an interview with the Sun, Sen. Florez’s chief of staff Bill Alvarez said the bill “needs more work.”
“We got a sense talking to staff that the commitee wouldn’t pass it along,” he said.
To date, only one tribe has been granted a cancellation of its contract because the tribe agreed to keep almost all of its other open space and ag land under the jurisdiction of the Williamson Act. Alvarez said SB170’s authors might take that case into greater consideration when reworking the bill. However, Alvarez said it’s uncertain when Florez plans to resubmit the bill to committee.
“It comes down to an issue about process,” he said. “People aren’t going to stop the tribe from expanding by not supporting the bill.
“The question is, are we going to look at tribes like governments, like domestic sovereigns?” he asked. “Are we going to look at them like governments with responsibilities for their people and their land?”
Contact Staff Writer Amy Asman at aasman@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Apr 23-30, 2009.