EUREKA -- The Board of Supervisors went ahead with a bevy of changes to the county’s Williamson Act program even after a heated meeting brought dozens of ranchers, farmers and other stakeholders into the Supervisor’s chambers Tuesday afternoon to voice concerns.

The reforms come on the back of an overhaul made in 2002 to help the county comply with state law. Some ranchers and real estate professionals claim the new changes -- along with some of those made in 2002 -- will make the program too difficult for landowners to stomach.

The changes adopted Tuesday were actually meant to help ease the burden of those 2002 reforms, said 4th District Supervisor Bonnie Neely, which many complained were too stringent.

As the hearing began, the county unveiled changes to the proposals to ease concerns about county interference in real estate transactions. The county will require only a disclosure statement for buyers so that they are aware of the Williamson Act contract requirements.

Initially, the proposals called for an administrative review.

”I really appreciate that we’re backing away from this over-regulation,” said Neely.

But the county will still require property owners outside the family of the original Williamson Act contractee to sign new agreements, to clear up confusion, staffers said.

The wording in older contracts makes it seem like the contract is binding both on the rancher and the county. The contractee is said to be bound by the state and county regulations of the time.

The county -- because of a legal opinion set down by the Department of Conservation -- maintains that a Williamson Act contract is not technically a contract. Since the Williamson Act contract is renewed automatically each year, so are the terms, the county and state argue.

Many of those present Tuesday doubted that was the case, and that’s one of the issues to be decided in the long-standing Tooby Ranch case.

”It’s an agreement, it’s a program, it’s a whole bunch of stuff, but it’s not an ordinary contract,” said board Chairman Roger Rodoni.

Others disagreed, such as David Blackwell -- an attorney representing Bob McKee in the Tooby Ranch case.

”Mr. Rodoni, with all due respect, a contract is a contract,” he said.

The board also decided to go ahead with a requirement that any future changes be noticed to stakeholders by certified letter, and that the letter contain the text of the amendments.

Probably the biggest issue of contention was the 600-acre minimum parcel size that some say was adopted in 2002.

County staff maintains that the change went into effect between 1978 and 1988. Kirk Girard, Community Development Services director, provided documentation at the meeting to prove the point, but it is unclear if the county over the years has been consistent in its enforcement of that provision.

Several attendees at the meeting said contracts from after that period of time clearly state 160-acres as the minimum parcel size.

Alex Moore said 600-acre minimums preclude those with ranches of less than 1,200 acres from selling property. That eliminates a measure of insurance and survivability, he said.

The board did not close the door on future changes to the 600-acre minimum, but gave not hint that such reform was definitely in the works, either.

The mood in the room warmed considerably when Sterling McWhorter, president of the Humboldt Cattlemen’s Association, came to the podium. He said the changes before the board weren’t fatal by themselves, but that the 600-acre minimum issue needed to be revisited.

”I realize it’s not on your agenda, but it’s on our agenda,” he said.

The average tax savings is around 10 percent for property under the Williamson Act, but ranchers don’t do it for the money, McWhorter said.

They do it because they want to preserve agricultural land, he said.

The program, around since 1965, allows landowners to enjoy tax breaks for ensuring that their land will not be developed as long as their land remains tied up in a Williamson Act contract. According to the state Department of Conservation, the act saves landowners between 20 percent and 75 percent of their tax liability each year.

More than half of the state’s 30 million acres of farm and ranch land are protected under that act.

Tina Christensen from the Humboldt Association of Realtors said county staff means well but may ruin the program.

”We believe staff’s intent is good -- to keep the Williamson Act healthy in Humboldt County -- but we believe the result is counterproductive, making the program so restrictive that its future in Humboldt County is threatened.”