San Joaquin County Supervisors Oppose Bird Refuge Expansion

By Alex Breitler
Record Staff Writer
August 31, 2011 12:00 AM
STOCKTON – County leaders on Tuesday condemned the concept of a national wildlife refuge in San Joaquin County, even before one has been formally proposed.

After hearing from farmers with a truckload of worries, the Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to oppose the expansion of the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge from Stanislaus County in the south to an area roughly west of Manteca.  The concept, announced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in May, is for the federal government to buy land from willing sellers, then slowly re-establish the junglelike riparian forest that once buffered streams across the Central Valley.  That forest would provide habitat for birds and critters, reconnecting south Valley refuges with the Delta to form a kind of “migratory bird freeway.”

But the term “willing sellers” is met with skepticism in San Joaquin County, where farmers feel continually under siege by various state or federal agencies planning to build a peripheral canal around the Delta or convert thousands of acres of farmland to wetland habitat.  “I’ve watched what has happened when government agencies say, ‘We’re only interested in land from willing sellers,’ ” said Supervisor Leroy Ornellas, a dairyman.  “Pretty soon Fish and Wildlife would be the only buyer. That’s what happens. Property owners get strangled, for lack of a better term. … The private sector tends not to go to those lands because they know a government agency covets that land.”

Kim Forrest, project leader for Fish and Wildlife, said after the meeting that she was disappointed.  The agency hasn’t even written its plan, and already the county formally opposes it.  When the plan does come out, it may contain one option that would exclude San Joaquin County from the expansion, she said.  “It’s kind of too bad,” Forrest said. “(The vote) was premature. I hate to see the county make a decision based on opinions that, to me, are groundless.”

Among the landowners’ concerns:

Dumping: Would new public lands encourage people to dump garbage on properties adjacent to farmers’ fields?

Fires and floods: If not properly maintained, could a refuge forest be a fire hazard? And will the government properly maintain river levees to prevent floods?

The peripheral canal: While that project is separate from the wildlife refuge, establishing a refuge could help facilitate a canal, since both projects rely to some degree on the restoration of habitat in the Delta, said attorney John Herrick with the South Delta Water Agency.

Tax revenue: Critics say a refuge could decrease the amount of money paid by private landowners to help fund basic services such as law enforcement and fire protection.

Endangered species: The existing river refuge west of Modesto is home to rare brush rabbits and wood rats. Farmers don’t want endangered species hopping or crawling onto their properties, where the law might then restrict what farmers can do. Forrest said, however, that the rabbits and wood rats stay in heavily wooded areas.

“Let’s be clear: Fish and Wildlife is not a friend of production farming. Period,” said Gary Barton, whose family has farmed in San Joaquin County for almost a century.

“Certainly in times like this, when farming is one of the few bright spots on the economic landscape in this county, one of the last things this board would want to do is move forward with a project that would impose additional burdens.”

Not all were opposed.  Jeremy Terhune, coordinator of advocacy group Friends of the Lower Calaveras River, told supervisors that his group is “very excited” about the refuge.  “These birds were here thousands of years before anybody else was in this Valley, and 95 percent of the habitat in this Valley has been decimated,” Terhune said. “We need to work together with our federal agencies and come up with solutions.”  Terhune said a refuge could provide new opportunities for Stockton-area children who rarely get outdoors.

Steve Mayo of the San Joaquin Council of Governments, which works to preserve habitat on farmland across the county, suggested supervisors wait until they have a proposal in hand before rendering judgment.  They declined to do so.  The supervisors also went against the suggestion of County Counsel David Wooten, who said that the “best practice” would be to place the matter back on the agenda for a meeting next month.  Tuesday’s agenda, after all, merely contained a recommendation that the board accept the report from Fish and Wildlife.  Nevertheless, the board decided to take a position opposing the refuge itself. Supervisor Larry Ruhstaller cast the lone dissenting vote.

Contact reporter Alex Breitler at (209) 546-8295 or abreitler@recordnet.com. Visit his blog at recordnet.com/breitlerblog.