In my experience as a member of the Point Reyes National Seashore and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Citizens Advisory Commission, I hold a different position from that outlined by Ken Bouley in his Sept. 1 letter in the Light. Mr. Bouley argued that Congress intended to eliminate the seashore’s ranches, quoting from the park’s administrative history that Congress “assumed that once the government purchased the land, it would eventually be allowed to return to its natural state.” The key word is “eventually.”
When the park was taking form, Marin ranches were charged property taxes based on the “highest and best use” of the land. Those high taxes drove many ranches bankrupt and led to plans for subdivisions. Legislators and the National Park Service expected Point Reyes ranchers to similarly go bankrupt, and so assumed the land would “eventually” return to its natural state quite soon. Thus it seemed easy to offer ranchers the added incentive of being able to continue ranching.
But the fate of Marin agriculture changed dramatically when subdivision zoning was shelved, creating an unexpected outcome of the park’s incentive.
When the park service purchases private property, it reduces its cost by 10 percent for every 10-year reservation of use offered to the seller. After the reservation expires, the former owner must vacate. By the 1970s it was clear that many park ranch reservations would expire with the ranches still operating. Instead of letting the reservations expire and ending ranching, Congress honored the incentivizing deal. A 1978 law gave the park new authority to honor that deal by offering leases to ranches with expiring reservations at fair market rent provided that ranching not permanently impair the park.
Mr. Bouley would have you believe that Congress foisted an impossibility on the park because the 1978 law conflicted with a prior law that prioritized natural resources over other uses. But prioritizing natural resources does not mean eliminating other uses. If it did, then the park should eliminate trails, parking lots, visitor centers and visitors themselves. Instead, the 1978 law is evidence of Congress honoring its prior incentivizing deal.
Another piece of evidence of Congress’s intent to allow ranching to continue is found in the park’s Wilderness Act, which excluded all ranchlands. The act would have broken that deal had it required ranching end at the expiration of ranch permits in wilderness areas. The Wilderness Act’s non-renewal of operating permits was also key in the Drakes Estero controversy. The state Department of Fish and Wildlife assumed that its mariculture authorizations in the estero overrode the Wilderness Act, and thus there was no need to explicitly exclude the estero from wilderness. Instead, the estero was included as “potential” wilderness if mariculture operations were to cease.
As it turned out, when the mariculture permit neared the end of its term, the state determined that its authorizations did not override the Wilderness Act. Before the oyster farm was sold, the park gave written notice to the proposed new operator that the permit had only a few years left and that the Wilderness Act precluded any extension. That was the two-part wilderness deal: Congress honored the incentivizing deal by keeping ranches that were outside wilderness areas, but once the state’s authorization in the estero ended, the estero would become wilderness (which it did).
Mr. Bouley also cites the park’s administrative history as saying “ranches and dairies were not elements that the NPS…or legislators sought to protect.” But “not protect” does not mean “eliminate.” At Drakes Estero, mariculture supporters pushed a similarly incorrect but opposite claim that the park was formed to protect agriculture. Between these two false extremes of protecting versus eliminating is Congress’s intent to allow ranching to continue.
Mr. Bouley claims that “Congress’s intent is immaterial.” It is not. Congress’s intent to allow ranching to continue should be abundantly clear. Unfortunately, that clarity is obscured when seen through the narrow lens of being either for or against agriculture. The Drakes Estero wilderness deal required the mariculture permit to expire, and the incentivizing deal allowed ranch permits to continue. This has been mischaracterized as a change of heart on agriculture. Instead, it is honoring deals, despite unexpected outcomes.
Many ranches and dairies in California have reduced their environmental impacts beyond the minimum standards. Seashore ranches and dairies can do the same with monitoring, completion timetables and enforcement actions if water quality fails to improve. But calls for ranches to be environmentally perfect—when agriculture, by definition, alters natural conditions—are simply disguised eviction calls. The risk is that those calls could trigger a Congressional blowback with a ham-handed law that dishonors the deal by cementing in ranches with below-market rents and environmental exceptions.
If Point Reyes ranches cannot meet water quality standards, they should be closed. And closed ranches should be restored to natural conditions, as Congress intended. If the ranches step up, they should be allowed to continue. With appropriate action by the park, Congress’s incentivizing deal is one environmentalists should be able to live with—and one that ranchers should live up to.
Gordon Bennett was a Marin representative on the former Golden Gate National Recreation Area-Point Reyes National Seashore Citizens Advisory Commission from 2000 to 2002, when it was disbanded. He lives in Inverness Park.