Editorial: Some Pt. Reyes ranch workers facing uncertainty as deadline approaches

Rushed and reached in behind-closed-doors negotiations, the ramifications of the buyout of the dairy and cattle ranches that covered much of the Point Reyes National Seashore continue to unfold.

In some cases, they are products of the process that led to the agreements involving the Nature Conservancy, the National Park Service and 12 families who had ranched the acreage for generations.

The agreements met the goals of activists who sought to clear the private ranches – although part of the original plan that created the federal seashore – to remove those private leases and re-wild the parkland. The Nature Conservancy bought out their leases with the park service’s blessing in a deal that was rushed to be wrapped while the Biden administration was still calling the shots.

The agreement bypassed the just-adopted park management plan, the product of years of public discourse.

Issues that are becoming challenges today might have been raised and addressed if the agreement had ever received the public airing it deserved.

The departure of the 12 ranches has West Marin ranchers worried about the future of dairy and cattle ranching and the area’s economy. Loss of those ranches will reduce business for many of the local companies that have provided them goods and services. There is a mid-April deadline for those that have already been shuttered and those in the process.

None of the ranching families have been able to move their operations to other Marin acreage, according to the county.

In 2012, the Obama administration underscored the historic legacy and the economic importance of the ranches, promising them longer leases in an update of the seashore’s master plan. That plan and lease extensions were targeted by debate over the park’s constraints on its elk population and a lawsuit that set the stage for the agreement.

That promise turned out to be a reminder that the lifespan of some of Washington’s promises depends on who is in the White House.

The workers and their families, most of them Latino households and some undocumented, are learning that lesson, as well. They have to move.

Their plight – losing their incomes and their housing –  was not part of the negotiations.

The county has been working on creating temporary housing for many of them, but for some it won’t be available by the deadline.

In addition, Marin taxpayers are footing the bill – $2.5 million.

Perhaps if the county had taken an active public role in the talks and held public meetings long before the deal was sealed, some of these issues could have been raised and addressed.

As the human cost of the pact became obvious, with dozens of lower-income households losing their jobs and housing as a result of the buyouts, the nonprofit stepped up and has offered to pay those households the equivalent of 18 months of fair market rent – between $70,000 and $100,000 per household – to find new housing.

With opportunities to find affordable housing in West Marin hard to come by, many have had to move to Petaluma.

Those who remain are in limbo, struggling to find housing and jobs as the clock ticks toward the buyout deadline.

“There is a lot of uncertainty and people are scared,” said Marin attorney Andrew Giacomini, who is representing those families in a lawsuit challenging the agreement.

Now, as the private ranches move out, the Nature Conservancy, which holds the leases, is accepting applications for other ranches to bring in their livestock to graze about 2,000 acres to reduce the spread of an invasive plant, purple velvet grass.

The sad irony is not lost on observers.

“Ranchers who loved and cared for the land so it would be there for the next generation are to be replaced by ranchers whose sole interest in hauling cattle in to graze is to make a buck,” noted Judy Teichman, a Point Reyes attorney who has criticized the ranch closures.

As the deadline approaches, many more issues will arise and prove that the buyouts are going to be creating even more challenges – human and financial costs – some of which could have been addressed if the public hadn’t intentionally been kept in the dark about the buyout.