Committee pauses workshop vote on water-rights item after packet-posting concern; farmers's submissions draw sharp criticism of MidPen/Post
Loading...
Summary
The Agriculture Advisory Committee resumed a workshop summary on preserving agriculture on the San Mateo County coast and discussed item K (water rights and land). Members and attendees criticized MidPen and Post for policies they said limit water access and prioritize nonlocal tenants. The committee deferred voting on item K after noting the slides were not posted in the county packet 72 hours before the meeting, which raised Brown Act concerns.
The Agriculture Advisory Committee continued a special-workshop summary exploring measures to preserve agriculture on the San Mateo County coast and considered a workshop-derived proposal (item K) asking MidPen and Post to meet separately with the AAC to explain tenant-selection and water-rights decisions.
The workshop summary recapped crop-report declines and attendees' concerns about access to water, rising costs, and regulatory burdens. The chair read a summary of workshop attendee feedback that said some land managers and non-profits "have turned their backs on agriculture," citing reduced access to water for irrigation and leasing decisions that allegedly prioritize out-of-county tenants.
"They've turned their backs on agriculture," the chair read from the workshop summary, attributing the statement to meeting attendees who spoke at the April workshop.
Members debated how to proceed with the recommendation. Some members supported inviting MidPen and Post to separate meetings to explain policies and solicit the AAC's input; others cautioned that framing the request as accusatory could make the meeting adversarial and urged a fact-finding approach.
Public commenters also voiced strong concerns at the meeting about perceived land-management decisions and water access; one attendee described heated exchanges and urged the committee to take a stand to protect coastal agriculture.
Before the committee could move to a vote on item K, online participants and one member raised a procedural problem: the workshop slides and background materials had not been posted in the county's full packet 72 hours in advance on the county website. Committee members said this omission would violate the Brown Act if the committee attempted to take a vote.
"It would be against the Brown Act for us to vote on it," the chair said, noting that the absence of the materials from the posted packet prevented a lawful vote. Members agreed the item should be reconsidered once the packet and slides are posted; a motion to table the item was discussed and then retracted amid procedural confusion. The meeting adjourned.
Next steps: Committee staff will request the county post the full workshop materials and clarify the agenda text for the next meeting; members suggested inviting MidPen and Post to separate informational sessions once materials are publicly posted and committee members have time to review them.
