San Mateo Agricultural Summit at the EXPO Center

28 February 2003 Keynote Presentation

Hello, my name is Steve Oku. I own and operate greenhouses that grow roses, lilies, alstroemeria, gerbera daisies, snapdragons, tulips and other flowers in Pescadero.

I guess I was asked to speak because I’ve been vocal as to the damage to agriculture inflicted by so-called conservation agencies. Groups such as the California Coastal Conservancy, the Peninsula Open Space Trust, and the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District have lost all credibility in my eyes, when they say they will help agriculture.

Let me bring to light the recent loss of 30 acres of prime agricultural land because of what the California Coastal Conservancy called “an agricultural restoration project.” This project was initiated by their purchasing 22 acres from one of the local farmers about ten years ago.

This family and the Oku family shared in a water system built in the 1920’s that pumped water from the Waddell Creek to the historic Steele Ranch and dairy. In the first half of the century, the Ano Nuevo area was much more intensively farmed than it is today.

Prior to the purchase, the California Coastal Conservancy approached me, stating that they wanted to buy our neighbor’s land. They wanted to protect it from development, indicating that the piece was five separate parcels. They wanted to combine the parcels into one piece, thinking that this would be good for agriculture.

I told them that I thought they were wrong; that the future of agriculture in San Mateo County is for small capital intensive farms, farms growing niche crops like mushrooms, greenhouse vegetables, herbs, berries, flowers and perhaps sprouts used in salads. These crops do not need big parcels of land, but they do need dependable water, labor, and proximity to the market.

At any rate, they feared “development” and asked me for my support. During that meeting, I informed them that if they bought the land, we would then be partners in a water system, a system that would be costly to maintain and present potential conflicts with environmental groups because of our use water. I wanted their promise to do two things: the first was assurance that they would build off-stream storage so we could pump in the winter and not have to tax the stream in the summer. I explained that it would be difficult and expensive, but farmers have been doing it for years.

I then explained that the system was old and had to be maintained; I asked for assurances that they would be true to their word and be committed to maintaining the system. I explained that since the costs to the system were based on use, it would be impossible for us to maintain the system ourselves if they decided not to irrigate their fields, that if we did not use the water we would lose the water right.

They assured me that all my concerns would be addressed to my satisfaction, that this was after all an “agricultural restoration project”!!!

The few years that followed were dry years and Fish and Game made us flow all the water through a flume with two nails pounded into the wood about an inch apart. The pump would be set to have the water flow between the nails to allow the bypass as required by Fish and Game. The problems were that as the day warmed up the trees along the creek began to use water and the flow of the creek diminished enough to bring the water level below the bottom nail. Fish and Game cited the Coastal Conservancy’s lessor, and not wanting to be further embarrassed, they decided to shut down the water system.

Can you imagine how I felt when I got word they were closing down the water system and giving up the water rights!! I was in shock!! I contacted them to remind them that we owned 20% of the system. I was then told that they were not going to allow our 86 acres to use the system either!

I asked why they were doing this and was told that because they were a conservation agency they could not be accused of doing anything to harm fish. That the stated goals of their plan was to protect agriculture and do 5 other things protective of the environment. That 5 out of six is not bad!!!

I was livid!!! I contacted an attorney and after meeting felt comfortable that we had plenty of grounds to file suit.

After a lot of legal expense, I was finally told, because they were a semi-government agency, I could not sue for punitive damages. I could only sue for actual damages--in other words, loss of income. Since we rented the land for a paltry sum, the loss of rents was quite small.

But what were the real damages? Help me out here: We were leasing the land to a Mexican man that reminded me a lot of my grandfather. They were both immigrants that wanted to better their life, both deciding to grow flowers because it didn’t take a lot of money to start. Both willing to wake up at 1 in the morning to bring their flowers to the San Francisco flower market where the flowers are sold between 2 and 9 in the morning.

After that, to return to the farm and then work the land till dark. We rented the land to him for about $3000/year. Suing for the loss of $3000/yr will not even cover the lawyer’s fees!! But what about Mr. Garcia? He lost his home and his business!!! And, you know what? Like my grandfather who came to this country in 1890, he was being successful, like my grandfather he was proud of what he had done. Because of his farm, he was raising kids that could see the fruits of honest labor. He was starting a “family farm” and living an American dream. So you tell me---WHAT WERE THE DAMAGES?

The Coastal Conservancy, when they talked with me 10 years ago, no doubt was sincere in wanting to help agriculture. I’m sure that the other conservation groups represented here wish us no harm. But will they have the commitment to stand up for agriculture? As of today, I don’t think so.

The realization must sink in that agriculture, as we know it in San Mateo County, is now hanging on by finger nails!! Over-regulation, ever-escalating cost, and prices kept low because of cheap foreign imports are difficult to deal with! That, along with our foreign competition using chemicals that are not available to us and paying their labor just a few dollars per day, are making the life of a farmer, nurseryman, or rancher extremely stressful.

In this environment, we cannot afford—no, it will kill us—having neighbors, let alone landlords, that will support open space, fish and wild life, and horse and hiking trails over the needs of agriculture.

The attitude that 5 out of 6 ain’t bad killed off over 300 of the best agricultural lands in the county. But what about 5.6 out of 6? In other words, what about when these agencies lease back to farmers but do so only with pages of restrictions as to what he can do and cannot do.

The local coastal plan has a main goal: “TO PRESERVE AND FOSTER AGRICULTURE”!! It does not say, “5 out of 6 ain’t bad”!!

So what can be done? How can we revitalize agriculture, and how can we better serve the environment, its fish and water fowl?

Off-stream storage is still the answer and it can be done with your help! San Mateo County needs off-stream storage! At the turn of the century, farmers had off-stream storage! They also employed flash board dams in the creeks. The environment was better off then. The fish populations were healthy! Migrating ducks could find ponds and flash board dams to land in. Because of the flash board dams, there was always water in the creeks—and this was a time when much more acreage was farmed on the coast.

So what’s happened? The Dam Safety Act forced an extreme downsizing of the small dam that provided water for most of the Cascade Ranch. Other ponds have silted up; I know our reservoir, which collects runoff from the hills, has silted up tremendously. I’m afraid of the process and cost of getting the permits to dredge it back to the original capacity.

Fifteen years ago, $50,000 would build a pond that would hold 49 acre feet of water or 16,000,000 gallons. Today, largely because of the environmental movement, it now costs $500,000 and 3 years before you break ground! $500,000 to get the permits and the studies necessary to get the permits!! How many ponds have the deep pockets of the Coastal Conservancy, POST, and Trust for Public Lands built on the 1000’s of acres they have acquired? As far as I know, ZERO!!! Why is that?

You know, I’m upset with the Coastal Conservancy for losing the water rights and system that was in place for close to 100 years. But I will acknowledge that they did try in the beginning to build off-stream storage. They just found themselves in an impenetrable maze of regulations.

Ponds that create habitat for the San Francisco garter snake and the red-legged frog, fish, water fowl, and farmers cannot be built because of the regulations that many of you in this room have drafted. Don’t you realize what you’ve done is counter-productive and will destroy what you are trying to protect?

Make it easy to build off-stream storage. Encourage it, and subsidize it. Take another look at flash board dams. I think they will help the environment. They will provide safe haven for young steelhead and salmon in the summer. The boards are taken away after the first rains and the fish can safely get to the ocean.