While I understand the irony, is it really environmentally bad in either context when the regulatory mechanisms (as set-asides) will still be in place for subsequent land development? This of course assumes that the State (or the Feds) will not be co-opted by developers wherein lies the bigger irony. Also, is it a matter of scale in terms of farm ownership and the relative sizes of land held? The ecology of the region as USFWS sees it and of course its regulatory overlap with Depts of Ag are part of the complex policy surface ( which includes risk assessments by all those lawyers (although aren't such vultures unprotected species?)). One hopes that a migratory plan would be considered for the affected species.
Does the Coastal Commission's regulatory behavior also contain similar ironies in terms of who controls coastal properties (and access including off-shore leases)? Ann http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1033039/owners_turn_off_spigot_on_rice_fields_hoping_to_develop/index.html?source=r_science "....Officials at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are aware of the decline in rice growing in the Natomas basin. The agency doesn't interfere in agricultural practices such as crop rotation, said Cay Goude, assistant field supervisor. But she said landowners are mistaken if they think drying up their land now will lessen the habitat set-aside requirements for them later on. She noted that the habitat conservation plan adopted for development in the city of Sacramento's portion of Natomas required a half-acre to be set aside for every acre developed -- regardless of whether the acre being developed was considered valuable habitat. "Taking it out of rice is irrelevant because we've always looked at the entire basin as a whole," Goude said. "Every area within (Natomas) is habitat for one of the listed species." Landowners are clearly not viewing the matter in that light, however, Roberts said. His interpretation was confirmed by private conversations with property owners who said the current advice from lawyers is not to grow rice. "The lawyers are telling them there's just so much money at risk, they don't want to take a chance," Roberts said. ------------------------ Subject: Environmental Ironies From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:55:45 -0700 Wetland rice in dryland California does not make sense, except with the benefits of enormous agricultural subsidies. Now, some farmers are making an environmentally good decision for environmentally bad reasons. First, they want to sell their land to contribute to suburban sprawl. They fear that an endangered species, which finds a good habitat in their rice paddies, might make it difficult to sell their land to developers. Vellinga, Mary Lynne. 2007. "Owners Turn Off Spigot On Rice Fields Hoping To Develop In Natomas." Sacramento Bee (14 August): p. A 1. "Rice fields are drying up in the Natomas basin, and agricultural economics aren't the only reason why. The shift out of rice is part of an effort by landowners north of the Sacramento city limits to avoid harboring endangered garter snakes, which spend much of their lives in water, said a half-dozen people who either own land in the basin or are familiar with the situation. Landowners who hope to one day develop don't want to have their properties viewed as valuable wetland habitat by federal and state wildlife regulators. So they're letting their fields sit fallow or growing crops that require little or no irrigation."
