Board to Pursue ‘Right to Farm’ Ordinance

Saying that agriculture must remain a top priority, Ventura County supervisors agreed Tuesday to pursue a “right to farm” ordinance that would help growers avoid disputes with residential neighbors and give them more say over their own future.

The board voted 4 to 1 to approve Supervisor Judy Mikels’ proposal to establish the farm ordinance, and create a newly configured Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee to review and possibly update existing county and city regulations affecting growers.

“We feel it’s vital to take care of our agricultural industry as an industry,” Mikels said. “We are, after all, an agricultural county.”

Indeed, protecting the county’s $2.4-billion annual agricultural industry has been at the center of a number of recent development fights.

Earlier this month, Santa Paula and Fillmore residents protested the tenfold expansion of the nearby Toland Road Landfill, saying it would hurt surrounding farmers with increased dust and pollution. Despite the arguments, the board approved the project by a 3-2 vote.

“We have reached a point on this board where the county, and the agricultural community in particular, is looking to us to see if we really do have a commitment to agriculture,” said Supervisor Maggie Kildee, who voted against the landfill expansion. “I think it is important now to send a message that agriculture is a top priority.”

*

Supervisor John K. Flynn, who supported the dump expansion, said he saw no conflict with his support of the farm ordinance. Flynn pointed out that the Oxnard-based Bailard Landfill, which is in his district, had not hurt nearby growers.

“I don’t want to rehash Toland, but I would make the comment that agriculture has survived very nicely around Bailard,” he said. “It didn’t impact it at all. And I don’t think that it’s going to do that at Toland.”

Once finalized and approved, the farm ordinance would warn nearby homeowners through their annual tax bills of possible odors and noise problems that they may have to contend with from neighboring farms. It would also require home sellers to notify prospective buyers in the event of a property sale or transfer.

The ordinance would also reorganize the existing Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee. The present 10-member panel would be reduced to five from the agricultural community, to be nominated by county supervisors.

The smaller panel would review all existing county and city ordinances affecting agriculture for possible changes. The committee would also help resolve minor disputes between growers and their neighbors.

*

Earl McPhail, the county’s agricultural commissioner, stressed that the ordinance does not give growers unlimited powers.

“It doesn’t mean we can go out willy-nilly and do whatever we think we want to do any time we want to do it,” he said. “We have laws and regulations that we have to abide by, and we will continue to abide by those. But this will make it easier for the agricultural community to express their concerns.”

Supervisor Susan Lacey was the only board member to vote against the farming rights proposal because it creates a staff position that would cost as much as $53,000 annually. A planning official would be hired to work with the committee and serve as an intermediary with the Board of Supervisors.

“I can’t today vote to create a position when we’re about to go into budget hearings,” Lacey said, noting that the county is facing a $20-million deficit. “That does not make sense to me. I don’t mean to demean the entire [agriculture] industry. But that’s the way that we--these days with less and less money--have to approach everything.”

But Mikels said hiring one additional person was a small price to pay to help preserve the county’s agricultural industry.

“To put it bluntly, if it’s our No. 1 industry, it’s certainly worth putting dollars into it to make sure it is a priority,” she said. “It’s like when you’re in business and your business is slowing down, you don’t cut your marketing plan, you don’t get rid of your advertising.”