Path of Proposed Trail Sets Farmers on Edge

A plan to create Ventura County’s longest recreational trail is pitting transportation officials against area growers, who worry the proposed path through the Santa Clara Valley may mean the loss of hundreds of acres of prime farmland.

Though still in preliminary stages, plans for the 32-mile Santa Clara Branch Line Trail have growers fearful they may be forced to keep portions of the land fallow to provide buffers between them and the county’s legion of bicyclists and walkers.

“Quite frankly, this is one of the greatest threats to agriculture here in the county,” said Rex Laird, executive director of the Ventura County Farm Bureau. “And this is really going to be the bellwether for the future of farming. . . . With SOAR passed, we’re going to see just how far people are willing to go to save agriculture here in the county.”

Growers also maintain that the Ventura County Transportation Commission may not have conducted the necessary research before purchasing the old railroad, which has been idle for most of the last 30 years.

They said the railroad’s century-old rights of way were put together in such a piecemeal manner that the sliver of property is not uniform and may not be large enough for such a trail.

Though agreeing that a number of issues remain to be settled, transportation officials said the proposed trail would meet some of the area’s long-term transportation needs. In addition, they say the property is more than adequate to accommodate such a development and will have only minimal effect on neighboring agriculture.

“I’m not really sure what the farmers are talking about,” said Chris Stevens, a commission official who is working on the project. “What we’ve found is that there aren’t any kinds of conflicts or problems that would stand in the way of the trail.”

In what growers see as the latest collision of urban and agricultural interests, the Santa Clara Branch Line Trail would be the longest recreational thoroughfare in the county. The Ojai River Trail is currently the longest, running more than 20 miles from Ventura through the valley.

Beginning in Montalvo, the new trail would follow the Santa Clara River northeast through Saticoy, Fillmore and Piru to Rancho Camulos.

For the most part, the trail--to be located next to the railroad tracks--would meander through some of the county’s most productive farmland.

Eventually, the trail would connect to Santa Clarita and the sprawling Newhall Ranch project proposed in Los Angeles County and is expected to be used by as many as 300,000 people a year.

Because of the anticipated traffic, growers are concerned they may be forced to provide a 100-foot buffer on either side of the trail to safeguard users from pesticide exposure.

*

Farm Bureau officials estimate that if such a buffer were required, about 700 acres of farmland would be lost at a cost of between $15 million and $17 million, based on current land appraisals.

“That’s my biggest fear,” said Randy Axell, a Santa Paula citrus and avocado grower who farms about 40 acres adjacent to the proposed trail. “I’d be losing about 10% of my land, and that’s something I don’t think I’d be able to take.”

Farmers have also criticized the project because it would leave their crops vulnerable to theft and vandalism.

Additionally, they fear that with so many people using the trail, their liability insurance costs would skyrocket.

Trail proponents and transportation officials are optimistic that a compromise can be found that would satisfy the concerns of growers while permitting the trail.

“I think we can find a middle ground,” said Barry Brenner, co-owner of Cycle Scene in Ventura, who has served on an advisory committee on planning the trail. “We have a golden opportunity to improve the lives of thousands of people and the environment, but a middle ground has to be found . . . I’d like to see a compromise that’s a win-win for everybody involved.”

However, some suggested compromises have already been panned by both farmers and transportation officials.

Some growers had suggested erecting a fence on either side of the trail, but law enforcement authorities criticized the idea because it would cut out avenues of escape for trail users in the event of an attack.

And proposals to close portions of the trail when growers are using pesticides have been labeled by both farmers and transportation officials as unworkable.

Since purchasing the land in 1995 for $8.5 million, the county transportation commission has come under fire for moving too quickly with its plans.

Many growers have complained that the commission failed to check property titles and deed records to determine the exact dimensions of the property it purchased.

“It was ill-conceived and badly put together,” said Supervisor Judy Mikels. “[The commission] should have done its homework and discussed the idea with the public before it even applied for the grant money, much less bought the land . . . Now no one’s really sure of what they’ve got and what they don’t, which seems to me like an awful gamble with the taxpayers’ money.”

*

The Southern Pacific Railroad began building the railway in the late 19th century as a way to quickly move produce from the fields to the market. It wasn’t until after the line was built that the railroad began negotiating with property owners for rights of way.

What the railroad got, growers said, are easements that vary from 100 feet to just the width of the track bed, with some allotments made for the construction of hog fences and cattle corrals.

Because of the size of the parcel, transportation officials said they opted not to review the title records, which saved them an estimated $50,000 and months of research. Instead, they relied on information provided by Southern Pacific that, at the time of the sale, was near financial insolvency.

“I don’t think [the commission] knows what the heck they’ve got,” Laird said. “But they’ve already gone ahead and spent the money, so now they probably feel they have to build it.”

Those involved with the trail’s planning hope a way can be found to allow it to be built.

“It’s a tough situation, and the landowners have legitimate concerns that I think we can work out . . . Maybe they can be compensated,” Brenner said. “But at what point do we stop improving our quality of life for the sake of money?”