Sonoma County Farm Bureau
Affiliated with the California Farm Bureau Federation and the American Farm Bureau Federation

January 28, 1997

Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
Chairman Jim Harberson and Members
575 Administration Drive
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

RE: Trails in Agricultural Areas

Dear Chairman Harberson and Members of the Board:

The Sonoma County Farm Bureau is very concerned about and is opposed to the establishment of trails in agricultural areas and the expenditure of any funds of the Sonoma County Ag Preservation and Open Space District for this purpose. Population in the County has increased the demand for recreational space, thus putting pressure on agricultural lands to supply the pubIic's need or wants for recreational access. This Board has, in the past, stood behind the agricultural community through the adoption of its 1989 General Plan which oriented growth to urban areas, adopted an Agricultural Resources Element and withdrew from the draft General Plan various trails which would have cut through agricultural areas.

It has recently come to our attention that due to renewed efforts by trail advocates, there has been an increasing attempt to erode policies previously established by this Board relating to trails in agricultural areas. Offers of dedication which have been made in connection with open space acquisitions may also be inadvertently eroding Board policies by providhig the foundation for future trails in areas without adequate consideration regarding the necessity or desirability of such offers or their prospective impact on agriculture.

In order to ensure the long term viability of agriculture in Sonoma County, we believe that public access, the expenditure of Open Space District funds, and the offer of dedication or dedication of trails through the County planning process or Open Space District should not be allowed in agriculturally designated areas unless the specific trails are mapped in the County's Open Space Element. The placement of trails in resource areas can also be as significant as placing them in agricultural areas. To the extent that such resource areas have agricultural potential, offers of public trails on the land will discourage its use for future agricultural purposes because farmers will generally be unwilling to purchase and develop the land for agricultural uses given the conflicts associated with public use. Additionally, many resource lands are adjacent to agicultural areas and give rise to the same kinds of problems associated with the placement of trails directly within an agricultural area. Trails are an incompatible use in and adjacent to agricultural areas.

We recognize and support the need for sound programs of outdoor recreational development, as long as they are in the proper areas. It is our desire to cooperate with the Board of Supervisors and the Open Space District to develop guidelines and set policy in the establishment of trails. It is also our desire to see that agricultural interests are adequately protected. To this end we recommend:

1. That representatives from agriculture be included on commissions and committees concerned with planning recreational programs in a number sufficient to adequately represent the agricultural community.

2. That representatives of th:e County Parks Department and Open Space District be given direction to affirmatively and regularly contact the Farm Bureau when any activity is proposed that may have an impact on agriculture.

3. That the County assume the responsibility for public recreation in the unincorporated areas, including planning, development, liability and control.

4. That private enterprise be afforded every opportunity to develop and operate recreational facilities when and where feasible and when compatible with the public interest and agriculture.

5. That until there is further study and comprehensive, conscious direction, the expenditure of Open Space funds and offers of dedication of public access trails should be avoided in areas not specifically depicted in the Open Space Element.

We also urge your support of legislation which would:

1. Provide that there be no duty of care by the landowner or operator to trespassers.

2. Place a reasonable limit on tile amount of liability to guests resulting from damages caused by ordinary hazards such as falling rocks, tree limbs and irregular terrain.

3. Encourage the Department of Fish and Game to license ranchers in the growing and harvesting of game as a business.

4. Prevent implied dedication of property rights resulting from the use of property by persons not so specifically authorized.

We very much appreciate the support that the Board of Supervisors has given the farm community in the past in connection with the development and implementation of public policies. We recognize that the Board owes a duty to all citizens of Sonoma County but firmly believe it is critically important to continue to cooperate with the farm community. This cooperation has, to date, enabled agriculture to continue viably. This has, in turn, maintained the character and quality of life in Sonoma County and the vast areas of open space which we now enjoy.

Again, we are opposed to the offer or development of public recreational trails where they are incompatible with adjacent agricultural uses. We would like to work with you and the Open Space District to resolve these concerns to protect the long term viability of agriculture in Sonoma County.

Sincerely,
Rich Mounts
Richard Mounts
President