|
|
|
LandWatch Versus Common Ground on Ag Land Conversion |
|
|
March 18, 2000 Carol Kurtz, Executive Director
[Sent By FAX: 831-771-1575] RE: Agricultural Land Conversion Dear Carol: I am writing to follow up on your suggestion that we meet to "discuss agricultural land conversion figures, and jointly to agree on what the accurate figure is." I am always willing to meet with anyone about any issue related to the future growth and development of Monterey County, so let me know a good time and I'll come by your office to go over the figures with you. As I told you at the Smart Growth Forum, however, I don't believe that there is actually any difference between LandWatch and Common Ground over what the facts are--just a difference about what "interpretation" to place on the facts, and about whether the statements of your representatives at the Smart Growth Forum were in fact accurate, in view of the facts. Pete Maturino probably just misspoke--or rather misread his prepared statement--in claiming a loss of only "seven" acres of agricultural land, but Sharan Lanini said something along the lines of, "only 271 acres of agricultural land had been lost" (presumably since 1984). This statement is based on a specific "interpretation" of the facts, and is not a "fact" itself, and I believe is simply not true, stated in the way she stated it. Incidentally, while I am probably not quoting your representatives on an exact word for word basis, I think am accurately quoting what they said. We could check the tapes if you disagree. In terms of the "facts," about which I think we agree, your report says, at page 41, that "one report shows that 3,065 acres of agricultural land (including grazing) were lost from 1984 to 1996. It was also reported that acreage of land at risk of conversion to urban lands from new projects is 2,781 acres." The report you cite is LandWatch's "State of Monterey County, 1999," and I notice that you don't dispute the figures. Our report uses figures from the State Department of Conservation, which is specifically charged to follow agricultural land conversion. As you probably know, the Department of Conservation maintains a mapped record of land use changes affecting agricultural land, and the figures we cite, and that you quote from us, originate from the State Department of Conservation. As I say, I do not believe that Common Ground really disputes the figures published by the Department of Conservation, as included in our report. In fact, your report affirmatively indicates that you also rely on these figures. Our "State of Monterey County, 1999" report notes, at page 30, that during the 1984 to 1996 period "over 4,650 acres of grazing lands were converted to irrigated crops. Of that land, 85% was committed to the production of grapes." The source of those figures is an April 1999 letter from the Monterey County Planning and Building Department to the Department of Conservation. You have somewhat different figures, but the general idea is the same. During the same time that 3,065 acres of agricultural land were converted to urban uses, other lands--not used for agriculture up to that point--were brought into agricultural production. Again, LandWatch does not disagree with Common Ground about that. These are "facts." What we don't agree with is the apparent "interpretation" you place on the facts, and we specifically disagree any effort to turn your "interpretation" of the facts into a "fact" itself. That is what is wrong with the statement made by Sharan Lanini at the Smart Growth Forum, that "only 271 acres of agricultural land have been lost." The statement is simply not true. If the statement were made in the way you make it in your report, it would be a fair and accurate statement, because your report does note that the 271-acre figure is not a real number, but the number arrived at when you match agricultural lands lost against new lands brought into production. To quote your report specifically, at page 42, you say that: "For 1984 to 1996, the net change in real irrigated acreage was a loss of only 271 acres." This is an accurate statement, because it indicates that you are doing a mathematical exercise, and reveals that you think that what counts is the "net" figure you calculate. We disagree with this interpretation of the facts, but at least the statement in the report is accurate. A statement that "we have only lost 271 acres of agricultural land" is not accurate, and it's not a statement of fact. To discuss your "interpretation" of the facts briefly, I read your report as saying that there is "no problem" with the loss of agricultural land in the Salinas Valley, because while it's a fact that we're paving over and losing flat, alluvial soils that have been called "prime" by every government agency that has ever studied the matter, other soils, "hillside" and "rangeland" soils, are now being turned into vineyards, and this means that everything is just fine. That really seems to be your claim. We simply, and respectfully, disagree. Assuming that the conversion of hillside and rangeland soils to vineyards is an unalloyed good, this good does not compensate for the loss of the prime, alluvial soils of the Valley floor. It's like saying that while we've been losing lots of diamonds and rubies, a number of cultured pearls have been coming into our possession, and so we don't have to worry about jewelry. These lands are not comparable, and the agricultural industry that is based in Monterey County would not be able to continue in existence if all the soils it currently uses were "traded in" for hillside and rangeland soils. Everyone knows that, and I think your organization undermines its own credibility by trying to say that the soils are equivalent in value. If you'd like to discuss this matter further, I am at your disposal. Very truly yours, cc: Smart Growth Forum Steering Committee; the Herald; The Californian |
Home | About LandWatch | Issues & Actions | LandWatch News
Citzen Resources | Membership | Publications | Calendar
Archives | Search | Links | Contact Us
Site Design and Management by Jeffrey Reynolds
all materials ©1999 Landwatch