Included in the sweeping $12.5 billion proposed state budget cuts for the state is a $10 million appropriation for the California Land Conservation Act, known as the Williamson Act. Already reduced last year from $37.6 million, farmland and open space advocates are fighting to protect the remaining funding. 


The act allows agricultural landowners to enter into contracts in which they agree to keep their land in agriculture, and in return pay reduced property taxes based partly on income. Without the Williamson Act, County Supervisor Lou Calcagno says farmers “are not going to be able to stay in farming.”


About one third of California’s privately owned land and more than half of its agricultural land are enrolled in Williamson contracts. In Monterey County, these 20-year contracts protect nearly 800,000 acres of mostly ranchland, with a collective market value of $1.5 billion. 


The county loses about $1 million annually in property tax revenue as a result of Williamson valuations. The state historically provided payments to backfill this loss, but after the 2009 cuts, Monterey County received just $28.13 last year, compared to the $1,005,648 the state would have paid under its old formula. 


Leading the charge to protect the Williamson Act is the California Farm Bureau Federation, which has found strong allies among environmental advocates, including Salinas-based LandWatch Monterey County. 


Butch Lindley, who owns about 3,500 acres of ranchland and vineyards in the county, most of which are under Williamson contracts, says for an industry with low margins and many uncertainties, “It’s a balancing act, and Williamson is just one more piece of the puzzle that lets farmers farm.” 


John Gamper, Director of Taxation and Land Use for CFBF, says, “It makes fiscal sense to keep Williamson contracts in place.” He cites the constitutionally mandated homeowner’s property tax exemption, which cost the state nearly a half billion dollars last year. If just one percent of land enrolled in Williamson contracts were converted to single-family homes, the property tax exemption alone would add $56 million to that tab, Gamper calculates. “It’s penny wise and pound foolish to do away with the Williamson Act,” he says. “We believe the program’s benefits far outweigh its costs.”


At a special election in June, California voters will decide whether to extend tax increases for five years to mitigate cuts. 


Gamper says there is more than dollars at stake. “There is a pending food crisis in the world. For California to say we don’t need to protect our ag land anymore is insane, not only for California’s, but for our nation’s food security.”