Reports on the need for farmlands preservation in the urbanizing Central Valley have become nearly as commonplace as tract homes in Fresno. But when a high-powered group of valley farmers released their own report last month, the reactions indicated that this one might carry more weight than the rest. The California Building Industry Association, sensing the potential loss of a sometime ally in the valley's land-use wars, condemned the report as "alarmist rhetoric". And the head of a environmental coalition seeking to get land-use issues on the next governor's agenda said the report indicated an opportunity 'to get ag support on our side. The significance of the report from the Central Valley Agricultural Task Force was not only what was in it -- calls for farmer-friendly water policies, taxes to pay for the purchase of agricultural easements, coordinated planning policies among valley counties, and the like -- but who issued it: a coalition of farm groups that represent most of the valley's 40,000 farmers. The report marked the first time the industry formally acknowledged the spread of urban development as a serious economic threat. It did so with the kind of strong rhetoric heretofore embraced mainly by environmentalists. "We find that the country's most productive food factory is jeopardy, said Jack Pandol, a Bakersfield grape-grower and former undersecretary at the California Environmental Protection Agency, who chaired the task force. "Acre by acre, it is being paved over by sprawling, poor, wasteful patterns of urban growth and development ....We need to recognize that as a nation and as a state that we have a problem we can no longer afford to overlook." The task force was formed in response to growth rates in the Central Valley that in many places are outpacing coastal counties in Southern California and the Bay Area. Pandol and co-chair Mike Chrisman, a Tulare County rancher and former deputy secretary of the state Resources Agency, secured the endorsement of nearly every major trade group in the state, including the California Farm Bureau Federation. Pandol called the 10-point plan a starting point for the development of more ag-sensitive planning policies in the valley and said task force members plan to meet with Republican Dan Lungren and Democrat Gray Davis in an attempt to make the issue part of the debate in the fall campaign for governor. "It bodes well for what we on the environmental side are hoping -- that next year, with a new governor, we are going to turn some attention to growth-related problems," said Gary Patton, general counsel for the Planning and Conservation League. "It is a very encouraging sign that Central Valley ag interests are now understanding that they need to cooperate with others to save farmland." Patton chairs the California Futures Network, a coalition of environmental and other groups that hopes to present a set of farmland-protection policies early next year to the new governor and legislature. For all its rhetoric about the need for policies that promote concentrated urban development, the report falls well short of calling for mandates such as rigid urban-limit lines or the creation of regional planning authorities to implement those goals. The task force's reliance on voluntary implementation measures, said Patton, shows that the agriculture industry is not yet willing to let go of its historic distrust of government regulation.' From the other side, the report was criticized by Robert Rivinius, chief executive of the California Building Industry Association, as a self-interested plan to protect an industry whose statewide production grew 60% in volume and 369% in value since 1967. Rivinius was particularly critical of the report's suggestion that fees be levied on new development to pay for the purchase of agricultural easements. He called it a tax designed to protect big agriculture that would lead to economic devastation in the valley, where unemployment rates are the highest in the state. The report acknowledges that the farming industry remains divided on land-use policy. Indeed, it notes in its introduction, The agricultural community often plays both sides of the issue, wanting protection from the problems associated with farming next to urban areas while also encouraging growth into productive agricultural areas by making land readily available for development (i.e., selling ... when the price is right). Whatever its shortcomings -- criticisms from both sides tend to characterize the report's prescriptions as all-take, but no-give from farmers -- the mere acknowledgment that policies to preserve farmland are in farmers' best interests represents a historic breakthrough, said Eric Vink, California field director for the American Farmland Trust.' "When I think back to where the agriculture industry was three years ago," said Vink, "this is a whole new universe." The task force's recommendations included the following: o Habitat: When requiring developers to mitigate the loss of habitat to development, cities should direct the mitigation to areas other than farmlands. o Buffers: When urban development occurs at the outskirts of a city, the party responsible for making the change in land use should be required to provide a buffer between the new urban edge and adjacent farmland. o Williamson Act: A companion program should be established with contracts of 20 to 30 years, rather than 10; the report also recommends unspecified "greater incentives" for farmlands conservation. o Taxes: The state should provide income tax credits equal to the value of the easement when a farmer donates an agricultural conservation easement; land under agricultural easements should be exempt from federal estate taxes and subject to reduced capital gains taxes when sold. o Fees: When farmland is converted to urban uses, a land conversion assessment should be levied on developers, with the revenue to be placed in a fund for the purchase of agricultural conservation easements. o Local government financing: ERAF property tax funds should be returned to local government; revenue-sharing agreements should be entered into among cities and counties to reduce competition for sales-tax generators. o CEQA: EIRs should be required to address "the long-term cumulative social impact" of taking farmland out of production. o Density: The Cortese-Knox Act should be amended to require LAFCOs to allow annexations only if cities have attained a specificied average residential density within city limits. Copies of the report can be ordered from the California Farm Bureau Federation at (916) 561-5677. Contacts: Jack Pandol, (805) 397-2150. Mike Chrisman, (209) 685-3213.