Another look at Conaway Ranch

By HOWARD R. PLANK
Daily Democrat
 07/21/2005

I had a discussion at Starbucks Coffee Shop in Woodland on July 8 with
Supervisor Mariko Yamada. On Sunday, July 10, I read her Op-ed in the Davis
Enterprise titled "Straight talk about Conaway" co-authored with Helen
Thomson.

In my Friday discussion with Supervisor Yamada I had said I was from Colusa
County but was born and raised in Woodland and grew up on the Conaway Ranch
where my family had farmed from 1935 through 1957. Also, I had been an
appraiser in several eminent domain suits in Colusa County involving takings
for the Tehama Colusa Canal by the Bureau of Reclamation.

I expressed my opposition to what the Yolo County Supervisors were
attempting to do to the Conaway Ranch and that a jury trial to set the price
could result in a generous award and a serious setback to the County. I was
flabbergasted as to her unbending attitude and sharp response. In departing
her comment was "See you in Court."

In 1935 Conaway was owned by the Birch Oil Company and Dan Conners was the
manager. Later, Dad and I farmed on the Conaway until management was taken
over by Heidrick Brothers in 1956.

As for "Whom do I trust with the future of the Conaway Ranch?" It certainly
is not the supervisors and the Joint Powers Authority.

The 15-year track record of the owners and management of the Conaway Ranch
is exemplary as to agricultural practices and wildlife management. This has
been recorded in numerous publications and in reports from legitimate
organizations in print and on the Internet. All of the Bypass lands have
flowage rights owned by the State with limits of no levees or structures
over 3 feet in height. The two sections north of the railroad are the
settling basin for Cache Creek prior to overflow entering the Bypass and
impossible to develop. A very significant portion of the ranch is in a flood
zone plus the Williamson Act covers much of the ranch.

>From my vantage point the county supervisors are executing a plain old "land
grab," not for the protection of the assets, but to try to squeeze some type
of financial leverage in the hope of fattening the county treasury down the
line. Unfortunately, they have no money, and an ultimate cost to the county
in legal fees, court fees, appraisal fees, a jury awarded price which might
exceed $100 million plus interest for the three to five years of litigation
could be very expensive.

The authors stated that "On short notice" the property was put up for bid.
Bear in mind that the owners were in bankruptcy and terms of their
bankruptcy were overseen by the courts with the need for a quick sale.

Contrary to the inference that Steve Gidaro is only a "land speculator," he
was a previous owner in 1990 and for the past 15 years has overseen the
wildlife habitat activities on the ranch which are considered a model by
university and wildlife experts throughout the nation.

Not addressed anywhere is the price paid for the ranch. The key to any
appraisal of real estate as to fair market value is "The highest price
estimated in terms of money which the property will bring when the property
is exposed for sale in the open market by a willing seller, allowing time to
find a willing buyer, neither the buyer or seller acting under compulsion,
both having full knowledge of all the uses and purposes to which the
property is adapted and for which it is capable of being used."

I see the generosity with the Rumsey tribe in sharing their planning and
good fortune. In this respect I differ from some in the community. I do not
think there was any quid pro quo regarding the golf course issue, as I am
sure the tribe could have gone ahead and bypassed county approvals. Their
feelings no doubt extend to the Conaway Ranch. I am sure the tribe has a
long history of activities on this land in decades past. However, they are
not a part of the eminent domain lawsuit and have only offered to assist in
funding if the supervisors prevail in this case.

Court proceedings, as noted are set for Aug. 23. What is not being touted is
how important this "right to take" court hearing is. Make no mistake, a
favorable judgment will throw the present owners off the ranch immediately.
Legally, the county might even terminate all management, employees, tenants
(after harvest of current crops) and the hunters. The county will have full
control.

One of the mysteries about this is the reluctance of certain prominent
framers to take a stand on this land grab by supervisors. On the other hand,
if you were one of the 20 farmer/tenants now on the Conaway Ranch, would you
take the chance of getting on the wrong side of these supervisors?

Concerned citizens need to attend informational meetings, talk to their
neighbors and write letters including newspapers, county organizations and
the supervisors. Do not expect responses from the supervisors, as they are
laying low and hiding behind "litigation secrecy" and hoping to skate by
until after the Aug. 23 court hearing. Organizations such as the Farm Bureau
and the Taxpayers Association should immediately seek to become witnesses in
the upcoming court hearing with an arsenal of solid facts for the court.

The past eminent domain litigation for Pioneer School, the tentative eminent
domain action by Esparto schools, this Conaway issue and the trend
nationwide against property ownership rights capped by the recent Supreme
Court decision bodes ominously for our future.

- Howard R. Plank is a Williams resident and the Plank family owns property
in Yolo County.