|
Habitat Impacts
Habitat conservation is not a benign land use. It can have
serious, unexpected consequences for owners of private property. Farm Bureau
continues to talk about its worries that habitat conservation, such as the
multiple species habitat conservation plans in western Riverside County and
in the Coachella Valley, will harm property owners.
These impacts become a serious and long-term worry in habitat
plans -- like the western county's MSHCP that anticipates acquiring and
assembling habitat over 75 years. A long-term plan like this produces intermittent,
piece-meal conversions of private parcels to government-owned habitat or to
dedicated habitat. No individual property owner can know for certain when or
if adjacent land owners might sell or dedicate for habitat.
The conversion of neighboring properties to habitat can trigger
restrictions on agricultural uses, on potential future uses of property, and on
the property's value. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has previously demonstrated
that it views agricultural uses of property as incompatible with habitat conservation,
both on-site and on neighboring properties.
Among the hazards to owners of private property are:
Restrictions on commodity production:
As one example, it has been suggested the "mountainous" land use designations,
where steep slopes mandate no more than one dwelling unit per ten acres, could serve
as habitat conservation. However, an owner of a sloped property still might choose to plant
avocados or run cattle or horses on the land or find some other productive agricultural
use. It's clear to Farm Bureau that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
will not accept such activities on designated habitat. Farm Bureau anticipates
that local habitat plans could seek to restrict or prohibit such ag
uses on private property as a way of achieving conservation goals without
buying the land.
Restrictions on pest control:
The use and method of application of agricultural chemicals, specifically pesticides
but possibly fertilizers or any other materials, could face restrictions when adjacent
to habitat. The USFWS has already asked for controls on pesticide use on private
properties adjacent to habitat, demanding a setback or buffer area where chemicals
can't be used and demanding that aerial application be prohibited. These demands
can impose added cost or lost income on the owner of the private property.
Restrictions on future use:
Future land use on a private property can be constrained when the adjacent land
becomes habitat. For instance, water discharge (ordinary runoff) from private land
development into a habitat will trigger federal Clean Water Act provisions and add
delays and costs to the land use. Increasing federal regulation can bring new
restrictions at any time.
Loss of value: Assessed value of private property depends on surrounding
land uses and the anticipation of potential future use of the assessed
property. When a property is adjacent to -- or partly or entirely surrounded
by -- habitat, its future potential is severely limited. Property values
are depressed by the conversion of adjacent land to habitat. This is
a real and direct harm to the asset value and creditworthiness of the
owner of the private property.
Force conversion of agriculture:
Restrictions on raw land that prohibit development will speed conversion of
agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses. Raw land that hasn't been cleared
or leveled is a prime target for habitat conservation. Land that has been actively
farmed may be a lower priority for conservation or even, as in the Coachella Valley
Habitat Conservation Plan, excluded from conservation goals. The restriction
on unused land combined with availability of unrestricted agricultural property
will encourage conversion of that ag property. Habitat planning will force
future demand for economic growth onto productive agricultural land.
As agricultural acreage and production diminish, the volume of agriculture
will shrink. It will lose the critical mass that supports an agricultural
infrastructure of labor, processing, equipment and supplies. Excessive
habitat demands are far more likely to spell the end of agriculture
than is economic and urban growth.
|
