CALIFORNIA LEGISLATORS JOIN FORCES TO ENCOURAGE RESTORATION OF FUNDING TO THE WILLIAMSON ACT PROGRAM

A bipartisan group consisting of nearly three dozen California legislators have initiated efforts to restore funding to the Williamson Act Program. Created in 1965, the Williamson Act authorizes county governments to enter into ten-year agreements with landowners who agree to restrict their land use to agricultural activities. Any land enrolled in the Williamson Act Program is assessed based on its production value in agriculture rather than its market value associated with development, resulting in a significant tax break for program participants. To offset the reduced property tax revenue, the Act provides funding to County governments, known as subvention payments.

Since its introduction, the program received roughly $30 to $40 million in funding each fiscal year. During the 2009-2010 budget year, however, funding for the program was cut to $1,000 for each city or county. Many counties were unable to make up for the deficit in funding on their own, resulting in across the board denials of any new applications for enrollment in the program. Currently, 15.5 million acres in 52 counties are enrolled in the Williamson Act Program, down from approximately 16.5 million acres in 2010. The governor’s proposed budget for 2014-15 maintains the $1,000 subvention payment level.

At an Assembly budget subcommittee hearing held on March 25, 2014, California Farm Bureau Federation President Paul Wenger testified that the Williamson Act is a critical factor in ensuring that farmland stays in production by protecting farmers from facing reassessment at new and higher development values. Assemblymember Susan Talamantes Eggman, D-Stockton, testified that California is the leading agriculture production state in the nation, and that it is imperative that State policies reflect a willingness to invest in the industry. The state Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office criticize the program, contending that the program is not effective, that pressure from development on agriculture cannot be confirmed, and that the program lacks sufficient incentives to ensure that landowners remain under contract. Supporters of funding restoration argue that the program must be funded to meet the goal of the Act.

Nearly three dozen members of the Legislature have signed a letter of support for restoring the program’s funding. Other supporters include the Western United Dairymen, the Nature Conservancy, the California Building Industry Association, and the California State Association of Counties.