Point Reyes Cattle Ranchers Urge Republicans to Leave Environmental Deal Alone

A congressional probe into the historic settlement between ranchers and environmentalists at the Point Reyes National Seashore is uniting the unexpected allies over a clear message: Leave the deal alone.

House Republicans who launched the investigation this month had accused the Nature Conservancy of “muzzling” ranchers and expressed concerns over a lack of transparency and the environmental and legal consequences of the deal. A dozen ranchers agreed in January to lease buyouts by the Nature Conservancy, setting up the end of most ranching in the longtime North Bay agricultural region.

Though Republicans alleged that many leaseholders were unhappy with the buyout terms, ranchers have called the deal their “only viable path forward,” one that promised compensation and an end to years of environmental litigation.

“We are sincerely thankful for the resources that the Nature Conservancy brought to bear to resolve what for us was an untenable situation,” seven of the departing ranch owners, who are members of the Point Reyes Seashore Ranchers Association, wrote last week in a joint letter to Rep. Bruce Westerman, the chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources and one of the Republicans who initiated the probe.

The investigation was started without the knowledge of the top-ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Jared Huffman, who represents West Marin and previously told KQED that the move could “blow up” the historic land deal.

The deal, which the ranchers’ statement called “an opportunity and a lifeline,” sent shockwaves through West Marin, where family-run operations say they have spearheaded sustainable farming practices since shortly after the Gold Rush and where many low-income workers rely on ranches’ affordable housing.

It promised to halt an ongoing lawsuit by three environmental groups in 2022 as they sparred with ranchers over land use, alleging that the ranchers dump large amounts of pollutants and greenhouse gases, causing ecological damage and harming the tule elk population that grazes there. It would also bar future similar litigation as the ranches finish out their existing property leases, some of which are set to last nearly 20 more years.

However, preventing future lawsuits hinges on the ranchers meeting the settlement’s terms for ceasing operations, according to a letter that environmental groups Advocates for the West, the Resource Renewal Institute, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Western Watersheds Project sent Thursday in response to a document request from the House committee.

The ranchers say that there isn’t any turning back on the deal and that the investigation only threatens to upend their protection from litigation and their payouts from the Nature Conservancy.

“One ranch has already closed down,” according to the letter from the members of the Point Reyes Seashore Ranchers Association. “Another ranch has purchased property elsewhere. Many of the families are currently cleaning out their ranch buildings and surroundings and removing possessions.”

An attorney writing on behalf of three additional dairies sent a second letter to the Committee on Natural Resources last week, requesting that it allow the settlement to move forward without requiring their confidential mediation documents to be revealed.

“My clients are asking that their decisions be respected and that they be allowed to fulfill their

legal obligations under the agreements to close down their ranches in an orderly and appropriate manner and complete the transaction within the agreed timeline,” it reads.

Meanwhile, the environmental groups targeted by the congressional investigation handed over more than 3,500 pages of documents related to the deal but said their mediation documents would not be released, citing attorney-client privilege and work product.

While they amplified the ranchers’ request to allow the settlement to continue, the environmental groups didn’t echo the ranchers’ other plea to Congress: to strengthen legal protections for ranchers on public lands elsewhere.

The dairies called for additional protections against “predatory litigation” by environmental activists, which they said has made it impossible for them to remain in Marin and the wider Bay Area.

The dairies said they “urge our elected officials to examine how and why a state like California, where dairy, made up almost entirely of family farms, has been strangled by hostile regulations, activism, and litigation instead of being protected.”

Two lawsuits fighting the settlement deal have already been filed on behalf of ranching families and tenants who have long resided there.

Bill and Nicolette Niman, who operate one of the two ranches that isn’t party to the settlement, sued the National Park Service, alleging that its move to bar agricultural operations on most of the 28,000-acre seashore fails to account for Congress’ goal to preserve the area’s “ranching and agricultural heritage.”

They believe the land should continue to be available to future generations of ranchers, even after those who have signed onto the settlement leave.

The other remaining ranch owner, David Evans, joined the Nimans’ suit, and in his own letter to the House committee, he urged it to provide protections from “green groups,” according to reporting by the Press Democrat.

“Congress, when it authorized the seashore and created the seashore, granted the park service and the Secretary of the Interior the authority — should the initial ranchers decide to leave, as most have now done — to lease that land to a new generation of ranchers,” said Peter Prows, the attorney representing the Nimans. “That alternative of leasing it to others is something that the park service hasn’t considered in violation of the law, and it’s really unfortunate.”