Print   E-mail

Originally, the Agriculture Element (Ag Element) was proposed for inclusion in the Amador County General Plan. However, the proposed Ag Element has encountered strong opposition from ranchers and agriculturalists due to provisions which would, if enacted, harm many of these property owners. Even smaller land owners with animals on their land could be adversely affected.

Citizens concerned about the Ag Element expressed their opinion through letters, including  Concerned Ranchers, Nicole Ryan, and Frank Alviso.

Other concerns over this proposed Ag Element, which have been raised by many property owners, include the following (Page numbers refer to the draft Ag Element):

1. Property values would be at great risk for any people who own (a) land in Amador County classified as “AG” (agricultural) on the General Plan (considered Ag land), or (b) land which is being used for ranching, farming, or timber purposes (considered Ag land), or (c) land bordering any Ag land.
    
2. On Page 3—Goal 1:  “Conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use shall be discouraged.”  This would virtually lock up Ag land perpetually in that use without allowing an owner to get a fair and objective hearing if that owner wanted to change its use.  Many Ag parcels are in the Williamson Act, which means the use cannot be changed for 9-10 years, but the owner can voluntarily cancel the contract, wait 9-10 years, and propose a change in use.  With this drastic language, all Ag lands would be permanently locked into the Ag use, whether or not it makes economic sense!  This would immediately reduce the value of the land.  What if a ranching family wants to subdivide and sell off a portion of their land to pay estate taxes so they can keep the majority of the land in the family?  What if they need to sell a portion to pay medical bills?  A lower land value will mean they would need to sell more land to raise the money they need.
    
3. On Page 4—Policy 2C:  “Amador County shall strongly discourage the extension by…LAFCO…of urban spheres of influence or other non-agricultural development into agricultural lands.”  LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) is the public body which makes all decisions on the annexation of additional land into cities.  If this policy is enacted, the two Supervisors who sit on the five member LAFCO board would virtually be instructed to vote against any city which wanted to annex some ranch land.  Again, this would devalue ranch lands next to existing cities, and could prevent orderly growth of cities.
    
4. On Page 4—Policy 2D:  “Conversion of agricultural lands shall be strongly discouraged.”  Here we have it again!
    
5. On Page 5—Policy 3A:  “Expansion of urban and/or rural residential development and/or urban services into agricultural areas outside of urban limits is to be discouraged.”  How many times does this have to be repeated?  Bottom Line:  Lock up the land without compensating the land owner.  The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”  These proposed policies sure look like an unconstitutional “taking” of property!
    
6. On Page 5—Policy 3C:  “Where lands adjacent to agricultural open space lands are to be developed for non-agricultural use, a buffer zone of a minimum 200 feet shall be established on the non-agricultural land….”  Now someone who borders Ag land loses the right to do anything with a 200 foot strip adjacent to the Ag land.  Another “taking” without compensation!
    
7. On Page 5—Policy 3E:  “Mitigation shall consist of preservation in perpetuity of 1 acre of equal or superior quality agricultural land in Amador County for each acre converted.”  There you are!  If you convert an acre of your Ag land, they’ll require you to lock up one acre forever in Ag.  This cuts your potential use of your property by 50%!
    
8. Over 97% of land in the county is classified “AG”—Less than 3% is “Urban or Built-up Land”.  So why should there be in a panic to lock up the AG land?
    
9. The Grape Growers Association, the Farm Bureau, and many ranchers oppose this land grab.
    
10. If you are also concerned, please let your County Supervisor know you want to keep the County’s hands off your property.

This proposed Ag Element draft includes comments in the right margin, many of which were changes suggested by ranchers and agriculturalists, but which were NOT accepted by GPAC at the August 15, 2006 meeting.

Opposing letters from:

 Concerned Ranchers

 Nicole Ryan

 Frank Alviso