HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Agriculture Committee General Info (1979); Program Report; 1979-05-30.
,
c- ",
DATE : May 30, 1979
REV1 SED : June 1, 1979
TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager '.
FROM: James C. Hagaxnan, Planning Director A6#
RE : CITY COUNCIL POLICIES ON CALAVERA HILLS WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
The Carlsbad City Council has approved the following new City
policies in their consideration of the Calavera Hills treatment
plant. I have listed the policies in two groupsl the first being
those policies applying to the City generally and the second
being those policies related directly to the proposed Calavera
Hills wastewater treatment plant.
A) City Wide Policies:
. 1.
2,
3.
4.
5.
It is the City Council policy and determination that a satellite treatment facility is aGceptab1e in the north-
east drainage basin of the City.
The City Council. has determined that no wastewater
facility will be considered by this Council unless it is also designed to be used for water reclamation,
The City Council has determined 'that it is necessary to
develop a city wide reclamation policy including the .
principle uses of reclaimed water and has requested City staff to develop a work program for a reclamation policy,
City Council has requested City staff to prepare a work
program for agricultural land preservation for the City,
City Council requested staff to prepare a work progrun
providing €or mitigation of growth inducing aspects
considered in the Mon.tgornery report as follows:
a) Public facilities element and capital improvement
.d
9
program.
b) Mandated General Plan review every three years.
c) Urban land reserve program.
d) Growth monitoring program.
e) Specific Plan for special treatment areas,
f) Work plan which includes a City growth management proqram.
.* -. x%, Fmorandum - Paul y
May 30, 1972 /Revisec June 1, 1979
Page 2 s
B) Determinations directly related to Calavera Hills:
1.
2,
' 3,
4.
5.
6.
7.
City Council indicated a pref-erence for the alternate site 3-B identified in the Montgomery Report,
City Council indicated desire to review pump station sites along with the treatment facilities for environ-
mental considerations.
City Council accepted the percolation beds contained jin
the Montgomery Report and indicated their desire to s-dy and analyze potential recharge areas near Rancho Carlsbact
Mobile Home Park.
City Council determined that additional failsafe iines
beyond the normal back-up systems to be built into the
p1an.t not be included for raw sewage and further deter-
mined it would delay a decision on an effluent failsafe system until an overall Master Plan of satellite treatment
plants has been adopted by the Council.
City Council determined that a l,Z3mgd plant will be built initially at the Lake Calavera Hills site.
City Council determined that the financing for- +&e plant
will be provided by the developer and that the developer
and staff shall enter into negotiations which will,
hopefully, require a minimum of .reimbursement.snd City
involvement in the financial aspects of .the project,.
When staff .and developer complete their negotiations, they
shall return to the City Council'for their approval,
City Council determined that the City will maintain and
operate the plant after completion.
JCH: jd
6/1/7 9
c
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
<.
THE TiIUSl' FOR PUBLIC LAND
- 1ntrc;duction
One of the most pervasive threats
to the filture of family farming in
this country is the escalating va1v.e
of farmlmd. While many farmers md ranchers view their land as the fsm-
ily's nest egg, increasingly there
are those who realize that the land's value, hidden in the total operarion,
can j,eopardize an heir's ability to
inherit the farm intact. The high price 04 land also restricts young,
aspiring farmers and ranchers from szwting their own operation. in any case, with growing frequency family
I farms end ranches are falling into
. the hands ~f ebsentee owners, hobby farmers, and energy and residential
developers. Many experts predict
that in the long run this trend will seriously damage the quality of life
in rural communities and greatly decrease our nation's capacity to
produce fwd.
Land entered the debate ovei- methods to reverse this trend by proposing a
land conservation model for agricul- , tural communities that enjoys wide-
rarlgirig smcess elsewhere in the
cozntry : locai land trusts. In
Colorado, Wyoming and California, TPL has since helped ranchers and farmers
incorporate the nation's first local agricultural land trusts. They have Seen formed to ease the speculative
pressures on productive land and
promote its continued use for agri- culture.
In 1979, the Trust for Public
What Is a Land - Trust?
A land trust is a locally-based, nonprofit corporation governed by a board of residents responsible to
the community at large. Forming a
land trust enables a community to
own or control land rind thus pro- vides- an important non-govern-
mental mechanism to affect local land-use decisions.
The primary activity of an agri-
cultural land trust, as envisioned
by TPL, will be to acquire develop- ment rights over farmland in the form of Conservation easements. This will be accomplished when the
landowner donates or sells the
development rights to the local lnnd trust, thereby lowering his eventual
estate and inheritance taxes. By contributing a portion of the land
value to the land trust, the owner
may ais0 qualify for important income tax benefits. In instbnces
where the farmer has sold the devel-
opment rights, he can invest the money as part of a long-term estate planning program. Should the owner
want to sell the operatim, the reduced land value will make the
land more affordable for new farmers
and ranchers.
Land trusts can also employ other
land-s&ving techniques such as acquisition and lease-back, partial develcpment, and transfer of devel-
opment rights.
Agricultural Land Trusts:
The Nation's ,First Examples
TPL is guiding agricultural cornmu-
nities to assess the feasibility of local land trusts. One is a group of orchardists on the west slope of the
Rockies, near Grand Junction, Color- ado. There they have consistently
opposed subdividing local lands and
installing sewer interceptors that would enable energy-related deveiop-
ment to occur. Concerned by pre-
dictions of growth in their area, I orchardists and other citizens hauG
formed the hlesa County Land Conser-
vancy. The new land trust expects to
complete its first transactions in
1981, when it acquires conservation
easements over productive orchard lands.
Dairy ranchers in west Marin County, pressured by urban sprawl in the San Francisco Bay area, formed
the Marin Agricultural Land Trust in
the summer of 1980. Despite prefer-
ential property tax laws and strict
county zoning regulations, ranchers
continue to see dairies transformed
into 60-acre "ranchettes." Such (
subdivision squeezes out ranching in . the area by pushing land values higher still.
In several presentations to Farm Bureau members and conservationists,
TPL was able to show, based on hypo-
thetical financial analyses, how a
land trust can offer an alternative
to paying burdensome death taxes and provide some assurance of continued
family ownership. The new land trust is currently drafting a model
conservation easement for the are,a's interested ranchers.
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
AGRICULTURE
ELEMENT
BASIC DATA REPORT
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE
MAY 1979
BAS IC DATA REPORT
FOR THE
AGRICULTURE ELEMENT
Author
Lee Vance, Assistant Planner
Contributing taff
Ken Carlson, Associate Planner
Nick Marinovich, Research Analyst II
Jeff Parsons, Planning Alde I
Lana Lacy, Planning Aide I
Text Process in9
Janet Ross, Senior Clerk/Typist
Betty Farnam, Intermediate Clerk/Typist
Technical Support
John Schmitz, Planning Technician II
Patricia Rutledge, Planning Aide I1
Jose Wright, Planning Aide II
Department of Planning and Land Use
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, California 92101
TABLE (bF CONTENTS
PART I .. INTRODUCTION ....... 1 ................ 1
Introduction
........................ 2 Direction
........................ 2 Study Area
......................... 2 Purpose
......................... 2
Assumptions ........................ 4 Resources
....................... 3
PART I I .. PHYSICAL RESOURCES ... 1. ............... 5
Chapter 1 .. Climate
Areaclimates . .
Air Quality . .
Chapter 2 .. Soils .
Chapter 3 .. Water .
Background ...
Availability . .
cost ......
Water Quality .
Use ......
Reuse .....
Summary of Part II .
............... :::::I ............... 12 6 ..... ............... 13 ..... ............... 16 "~ ..................... 23 ..................... 23 .....,.......... ...... 23 ...................... 26 ..... ............... 29 ..................... 30 ..... 7 ............... 31 ..................... 34
PART I I I .. CULTURAL RESOURCES ................... 36
Chapter 1 .. Subregional Areas ................ 37
A . Pendleton-Deluz Subregion .............. 37
B . Fa1 lbrook ...................... 40 C . Bonsall ....................... 43
D . North County Metropol i tan Subregion ......... 46
E . San Diegui to Community Plan ............. 49
F . Pa1a.Pauma ...................... 52 G . Valley Center .................... 54
H . Otay Mesa ...................... 56
1 . Poway ........................ 59
J . Ramona ........................ 61
Summary of Chapter One .................. 69
Chapter 2 .. Fruit and Vegetable Packing Industry ....... 70
Fruit Packing Industry .................. 70
Vegetable Packing Industry ................ 71
Fruit and Vegetable Wholesalers In San Diego County ... 72
K . Rainbow-Lakeside-Valle de Oro and Crest/Dehesa .... 64
i
.
Page
PART IV .. ANALYSIS OF THE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY OF
SAN DIEGO COUNTY .................... 73
Chapter 1 .. Introduction and Summary ............. 74
in San Diego County ............... 77
Chapter 2 .. Copley International and Pacific Consultants
Economic Analysis of Agricultural Viability
Chapter 3 .. University of California Extension Service Summary
Chapter 4 .. An Economic Impact Analysis of Agriculture in
of the Agricultural Economy in San Diego County . . 82
San D iego County ................. 87
Summary and Conclusion ................. 87
Detailed Results of the Economic Impact Runs ....... 88
Methodology ....................... 91
Land Producing Tomatoes ................ 92
A Comparison of Low Density Residential Development On
PART V .. METHODS OF PRESERVING AGRICULTURE ............ 94
Chapter 1 .. Compensatory Programs for Preserving Agriculture . 95
Preferential Property Tax Assessment: The
Williamson Act .................... 95
Transfer of Development Rights .............. 104
Purchase and Lease-Back ................. 106
Methodology ....................... 107
Large-Lot Zoning ..................... 110
Density Zoning ...................... 114
Chapter 2 .. Regulatory Methods for Preserving Agriculture . . 110
PART VI .. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................. 119
Summary and Conclusions ................. 120
- .
FOOTNOTES ............................. 122
.
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Page
Temperature Summary Of San Diego County In
Relation To Areaclirnates ............ 9
Annual Temperature Data Comparison ......... 9
Criteria For Avocado Suitabi 1 ity .......... 18
Criteria For Citrus Suitability .......... 18
Criteria For Truck Crop Suitability ........ 19
Criteria For Tomato Suitability .......... 19
Criteria For Flower Suitability .......... 19
Subregional Soil Table ............... 22
Water Rates .................... 28
Water Quality And Plant Tolerance ......... 29
Water Use By Crop ................. 30
Water Use By Residential Density .......... 31
Subregional Resource Table ............. 38
Return On Investment Of Agricultural Crops In
San Diego County ................ 77
Cost Of Local Water In Agricultural Production ... 78
Agricul ture Revenue Summary. San D iego County -9
Selected Crops (In 1977 Dollars) ........ 80
Land Value Per Production Unit Of Agricultural Land
For Agricultural Uses .. San Diego County .... 81
Trends In Agricultural Sales And Acreage Under
Production ................... 83
Dollar Value Of Output And Employment By
Agricultural Subsector ............. 83
Multiplier Effect By Agricultural Subsector .... 83 20
... Ill
Page
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Percent Of Agricultural Sales To Local Economic
Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Cumulative Economic Impact Of A 1,000 Job Gain In
Wholesale And Retail Services And Non-Durable
Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Cumulative Economic Impact Of A 1,000 Job Loss In
Agricultural Services And Production Employment . 89
Key Economic Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Indirect Employment Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Net Impact Residential Development . . . . . . . . . 92
Cumulative Personal income To The Region Residential
Versus Agricultural Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Property Tax Savings Of Williamson Act (1969-78) - 96
Wi 1 1 i amson Act Contract Lands . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Property Tax Savings Of Williamson Act by Crop
Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Dollar Value Of Crop Categories (1977) . . . . . . . 100
Market Value Agricultural Land . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Ten Fiscal Impacts Of Financing Agricultural Land Via
Acquisition 10 Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Minimum Lot Sizes (Pol icy 1-38) . . . . . . . . . . 11 1
Agricultural Use By Land Use Categories . . . . . . 112
iv
LIST OF MAPS
r'
Map Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Page
July Mean Maximum Temperature ........... 7
January Mean Minimum Temperature .......... 7
Average Seasonal Precipitation ........... 8
San Diego County Areaclimates ........... 10
Good And Fair Agricultural Soils .......... 20
County Water Authority Boundaries ......... 24
Lands Within All Three Criteria (Climate. Soils.
Water) ..................... 35
LANDS IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
Pendleton-Deluz Subregion ............. 39
Fa1 1 brook Communi ty P1 an .............. 41
Bonsall ...................... 44
North County Metropol i tan Subregion ........ 47
San Dieguito Community Plan ............ 50
Pala-Pauma Subregion ................ 53
Valley Center Community Plan ............ 55
Otay Subregion ................... 57
Poway Communi ty Plan ................ 60
Ramona ....................... 62
Rainbow Community Plan ............... 65
Lakes ide Communi ty P1 an .............. 66
Valle de Oro Community Plan ............ 67
Crest-Dehesa .................... 68
V
PART I
INTRODUCTIOW
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
During the past few years concern has been expressed at the National, State
and local levels of government about the retention of agricultural lands for ! agricultural uses. This Basic Data Report for the Proposed Agriculture Element
of the County of San Diego's General Pian wi 11 examine the status of the local
agricultural industry and recommend actions intended to help retain agricul-
..
tural land uses in the County.
STUDY AREA
With some major exceptions the study area encompasses all of San Diego County.
Not included are the fourteen incorporated cities (IS%), State parks (18%),
National parks (15%) or other federal lands (12%). (1) The 40% of the area under
the County's land use jurisdiction contains the vast majority of land in, or
capable of agricultural production.
D I RECTI ON
County staff's original direction to prepare an Agriculture Element is contained
in Policies 2 and 3 of Chapter 6, "Soils", of the Conservation Element. Adopted
for the General Plan which would not only designate "exclusive agricultural
areas,'' but "analyze, improve and promote methods of preserving agriculture."(2)
In June of 1977 the Board of Supervisors approved the Agriculture Element as a
project in the Integrated Planning Office's (IPO) FY 1977-78 work program and
budget. (3) In August of 1977 the Board directed IPO to accelerate the work
on the Agriculture Element.
The Board of Supervisors' concerns about agricultural preservation found parallel
expression at both the State and National level. During fiscal year 1977-78 the
State legislature saw reintroduction of two major bills designed to reinforce the
existing Wi 11 iamson Act. Both SB 193 (ZENOVICH) and AB i900 (CALVO) contained
language stating that the preservation of agricultural lands was of paramount
interest to the welfare and economy of the State, that actions needed to be taken
to "preserve" agricultural lands for agricultural uses and that it was a matter
of public interest to discourage the premature conversion of agricultural lands.
The intent of both bills was to place mandatory restrictions on both density and
use in areas of agricultural production.(4)
- in January, 1976, these policies directed IPO to prepare an Agriculture Element
The passage of Proposition 13 effectively killed both bills in FY 1977-78 primar-
ily because they both contained provisions to subvent local yovernments for lost
property tax with revenues from the State surplus, Whether these or other bills
intended to enforceably restrict agricultural areas will be passed in the future remains to be seen. Also in FY 1977-78, H.R. 5882 (JEFFORDS) was introduced into
the U.S. Congress. That bill seeks to establish a national policy of retaining,
protecting and improving agricultural lands. It is specificall aimed at reducing - the amount of land converted from agricultural to other uses.(5 1
2
ASSUblPT I ONS
When the Board included the addition of an Agriculture Element in the IPO Work
Program it was apparently in response to the widely-held belief that San Dieyo
County's agricultural lands were being significantly diminished by urbanization.
This belief can be broken down into the following component parts:
" That important natural resources are being diminished;
" That the local agricultural economy in the long run is being disrupted;
" That the loss of agricultural land is resulting in higher food prices;
" That our "open space" agricultural vistas are being destroyed; and
" That the historically rural character of certain parts of the County is in
danger of being lost.
In responding to the Board's concerns, staff identified the following six major
assumptions which have guided the effort on the Agriculture Element to date:
1. That the agricultural lands of San Diego County ought to be malntained at
or near their current level. -
2. That agriculture in San Diego is or can be an economically viable enterprise.
This assumption is borne out by the fact that despite increased land, water,
labor and equipment costs and despite large increases in property taxes,
farmers in San Diego have continued to Significantly increase their produc-
tion value each year.
3. That the existing trends of urban development in San Diego County pose a
direct threat to agricultural production in the County.
This assumption is based on the fact that urban development and agriculture
in San Diego County appear to have similar locational criteria and that
urban development has a much higher economic return. When development and
agriculture compete for the same land agriculture is almost certain to lose.
4. That the economic threat to agriculture posed by urban development can be
affected by the County.
The County may reduce the threat of development in agricultural areas by
developing a growth strategy which limits "leapfrog development" and by
restricting the density and uses on agricultural lands. The intended
economic effect of these actions will be to reduce the speculative value
of the agricultural land.
5. That some areas in San Oiego County are better suited for agriculture than
other areas. -
3
Productive agriculture demands three basic physical criteria: soil, and
climatic conditions conducive to the particular needs of a given crop,
and sufficient water. A number of cultural criteria are also important.
6. That, in order to preserve agriculture in San Diego County, it will be
necessary not only to identify those areas having the best chance for
continued production but also to restrict the development of those areas
SO that a viable agricultural economy can be maintained.
A number of recent studies of the Williamson Act have shown that voluntary
efforts to preserve agricultural lands have been, on the whole, unsuccessful
in California and in San Diego County. (6 - a, b, c) If the agricultural
lands of San Diego County are to be preserved, then some system of rnan-
datory restrictions is necessary.
RESOURCES
In order to test assumptions, and to determine which areas of the County might
contain the resources necessary for long range, commercial, production County
staff divided the evaluation of the resources into two parts: Physical Resources
and Cultural Resources. The component parts of each of the two basic types of
resources were selected after reviewing comparable studies of other jurisdictions.
Under the heading of Physical Resources such topics as soils, climate, and water
will be analyzed.
For those planning areas in the County which appear to possess the natural
resources for production the Cultural Resources section will examine such things
as the amount and type of production, increases or decreases in acreage since
1970, the price of water, the cost of land and what impacts the County's current
plans may have on continued production.
P
4
PART I I
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
5
CHAPTER 1
CL I MATE
San Diego County has a mild, equable climate with considerable variation between
the coastal, mountain, and desert areas. In general the coastal area has a very
small temperature range; temperature variations are greater in the mountains, and
greatest in the desert. Rainfall is concentrated in the November to April season,
with infrequent precipitation during the summer. Higher elevations receive the
most moisture, with total amounts diminishing rapidly down the eastern slope of
the mountains. Winds are generally light and variable in direction except for
persistent westerly winds during summer afternoons along the coast. The strongest
winds usually occur during the occasional migrant storms of winter that cross the
area. Humidities remain moderate throughout the year except for quite low values
found in the desert area on summer afternoons. The County generally has abundant
sunshine.
The weather of San Diego County, as in most of southern California, is profoundly
influenced by the Pacific Ocean and its semi-permanent pressure systems that
result in dry summers and wet winters. The moderating influence of the ocean
is primarily felt along the coastal plain and in the coastal valleys. In the
clear air of the mountains, daytime temperatures rise and nighttime temperatures
fall further than corresponding values near the ocean while the range is even
F greater in the desert area to the east.
Winds are generally light, and near the coast they reflect the large scale cir-
culation of the nearby ocean area. Inland, however, local terrain is often the
dominant factor, and wind directions are likely to conform to the direction of
the valleys and ridges. As in most mountainous areas, there is a tendency for
wind to blow up the valleys during the day and down the hills and valleys at
night.
The average annual temperature is in the low 60's on the coastal plain and in
the coastal valleys; drops into the middle 50's at higher elevations in the
mountains; increases to values around 70" in the desert area at the eastern edge
of the County. In January the mean minimum temperature is in the middle 40's
along the immediate coast and in the middle 30's over the desert, but it drops
to below 30" in the mountains. However, daytime temperatures are moderate even
in January, the average maximum temperature for the month ranging through the
50's and low 60's over the County. Extreme lows have dropped to around freezing
along the coast. In the mountain and desert areas extreme minimum readings have
dropped into the teens and, in some locations, slightly belaw zero.
6
July maximum temperatures average in the 70's along the coast, increasing to
around 90" in the mountains, and to more than 100" in the desert area. Extreme
high temperature readings have exceeded 100" at all points within the County
and have exceeded 120" at some desert points. Minimum readings in July normally
drop to around 60" along the coast into the 60's in the desert, and into the
50" in the mountains.
I
i
7
.F-
Temperature data are available from only a few selected locations, and some care
should be used in interpolating these data into other areas. Local topographical
influences are often responsible for marked changes in temperature within short
distances.
Most of the County experiences light rainfall, although some of the central
mountain areas receive more than 30 inches per year. The average seasonal
precipitation figure along the coast is 10 inches or slightly less. The amount
increases with elevation as moist air is lifted over the mountains. Some report-
ing points in the Laguna Mountains measure more than 35 inches per year; the Mount
Palomar area receives 45 inches per year. Totals diminish rapidly with decreasing
elevation on the eastern slopes of the mountains, with some desert stations report-
ing less than five inches per year. .~ ~- 0
.-
-la &ma@ #@##@MI PWlp)tO(lOn (inohd
Annual totals vary over a wide range. One year in 20 will receive less than
five inches along the coast and only 20 to 30 inches in the wettest parts of
the mountain areas. With the same frequency, however, wet years produce in
excess of 20 inches along the coast and more than 10 inches in the desert, with
50 to 70 inches at some mountain stations.
r
8
TABLE 1
J P n A H J
I 62.9 63.3 64.6 66.1 68.1 69.7
I1 66.3 66.7 60.4 70.0 72.7 74.4 66.3 66.0 68.0 70.7 74.2 76.6
I11 66.6 67.5 70.0 73.5 77.3 82.3 63.4 64.3 67.9 72.5 77.1 84.9 63.7 65.1 61.9 72.0 76.3 83.4
N 50.9 60.6 64.0 69.9 74.6 84.6 51.0 52.5 55.3 61.5 67.0 78.3
V 68.8 73.7 76.8 0S.6 91.7 100.6
pan MRxiraum Ppr
Mean ninimum (OF1
I 45.0 46.1 40.2 51.6 54.7 57.8 E XI 41.5 42.3 44.5 48.7 52.2 55.4 40.0 41.9 44.0 48.6 52.6 56.0
111 38.1 40.1 42.5 47.0 50.6 53.9
33.7 36.2 39.4 44.3 40.6 51.8 37.0 38.1 39.4 42.3 46.4 49.5
IV 30.9 32.0 34.0 37.1 40.3 44.0 31.2 31.8 33.9 37.9 41.3 48.5
V 36.5 40.6 44.6 51.4 56.0 62.6
1 54.0 54.7 56.4 58.9 61.4 63.8
11 54.0 54.2 56.3 59.7 63.2 66.0 53.2 54.3 56.2 59.7 62.7 65.2
1x1 52.4 53.8 56.3 60.3 64.0 60.1
50.4 51.6 53.7 57.7 61.4 66.5
fv 44.9 46.2 49.0 53.5 57.5 64.7
Temperature
48.6 50.3 53.7 58.4 63.2 68.4
41.1 42.3 44.6 49.7 54.6 63.4
v 52.7 57.2 60.7 68.5 73.9 81.6
J A S 0 N D
73.3
82.5 79.1
09.8 93.11
91.7
92.4 85.1
106.0
74.6
82.8 80.2
89.0
91.0 Y3.4
05 .o 92 .4
104.3
74.3 71.6 68.9 65.2
82.3 77.2 73.8 69.2 80.5 76.8 74.0 69.1
88.9 81.6 76.0 70.0 91.0 01.5 73.4 61.0 09.1 81.4 73.5 67.0
00.0 70.0 68.5 61.8 00.9 70.0 60.4 54.0
100.8 90.5 77.3 70.4
61.4 62.6 60.2 55.7 49.8 46.6
59.5 60.4 57.9 53.1 46.2 43.2 59.6 60.3 57.6 51.8 44.1 41.4
50.9 58.7 54.7 47.1 39.0 35.2 50.1 58.7 56.5 50.1 42.4 39.5
55.0 55.9 52.1 46.9 41.4 30.0
52.6 51.9 40.4 41.7 35.2 32.0 56.2 55.9 51.1 43.8 36.2 33.1
70.3 69.4 63.6 54.2 42.9 37.4
67.4 68.6 67.3 63.6 59.4 55.9
71.0 71.7 70.2 65.3 60.0 56.2 69.4 70.3 69.1 64.3 59.1' 55.3
74.0 74.2 72.7 65.9 59.2 54.8
76.4 16.1 72.9 64.3 56.2 51.1 73.5 73.9 70.6 64.1 57.3 52.5
70.7 70.4 60.0 57.3 4R.6 43.5 72.4 72.2 68.6 60.2 51.8 47.0
88.2 86.9 82.2 72.4 60.1 53.9
"-
TABLE 2
1 I1 11 I11 I11 I11 IV IV V -
Higherr of Record )*an wxlpm ban Mean Hintmum Lovest of Record
32' DAYS AND NIQI"&
Days between median dater Spring 50% probability data
Fall 507. probability dat4
b.l
I. n 28. DAYS AND DAZFg,
Days between rdlan dates Spring 50% probability data Pall 50% probability Date
pROBAeILlTY OF CCClJw
32'
24' 2 0. 16.
2 n*
107 69 61
29 53
365
#
*
365
#
*
50% 2 3%
"
"
"
115 73
50 62
21
2 /14 3 00
12/11
3 65
#
42%
90%
"
"
"
108 74 62
24 50
335
1/30 #
359
116 #
67X
641
"
"
"
114 78
63
48
17
355
1 I/ 24
3/13
3 14
2/3 12 / 14
loox 9 1%
"
"
"
111 78
46
62
15
261 3/9 11/25
281
2/23 12/1
97% 92X
"
"
"
114
61 77
45 17 .'
2 05 4/19 11/10
274
3/6 12 I5
lOOz
94% 88% 2 5%
"
110
51 75
40 11
138
5/20 lO/jO
2 03
4/20 11/9
104,
100%
lo(* 941
34,
10s 67
54
41
-1
162 5/11 10/20
4/28
158
10/3
I 00% 100%
1 00% 80%
63%
Moan mnxhum. man. and aman mintmum temparaturar are average figurar datermined frar a11 rtationr
within thr I-. All othrr Ciguran arm the mort extreme conditionr which can b. expectad.
121 . 87 70 52
15
2 85 2/21 11 123
308
2 I1 12 /6
100%
8 bX 5?% 14%
"
9
, --
d
0
1.
intensities of precipitation also vary with elevation. The heaviest intensities
are found in the mountains, while the least intensity is recorded in the desert
area. It is estimated that thunderstorms are experienced less than three days
per year on the coast, while some of the mountain areas have thunderstorms on
15 days or more per year.
Along the coast the relative humidity averages from 50 to 70 percent during the
fall and winter months, and from 60 to 80 percent during the summer. Stations
in the desert report 40 to 60 percent humidity during the winter, with noon
readings dropping to 25 percent or lower during the summer. Night readings
in the desert, however, remain near the 50 percent value. Humidities in the
mountains are generally between the values on the coast and those on the desert.
Wind records are limited to those along the coast. These show predominantly
westerly winds, although there are times when north or northeast winds are
significant.
In general wind speeds are light to moderate; San Diego, for example, shows
winds of less than eight miles per hour (mph) 64 percent of the time. Winter
storms chat move inland from the Pacific Ocean are usually responsible for the
strongest winds observed in the area. Extreme readings of 60 to 65 mph occur
in moderately exposed areas about once in 50 years, and readings up to 80 mph
may oc,:ur as often as once in 100 years along the immediate coast.
At intlervals of three or four times per year, usually in the fall or winter,
pressure conditions cause a fairly strong, gusty flow of air from the north or
east. This air is usually quite dry and, at times, may be unseasonably warm.
The circulation is often shallow and hence is responsive to local terrain. One
area may receive 30 mph winds, while a neighboring locality a quarter mile away
can be alGost calm.
-
The coastal area receives some 3,200 hours of sunshine per year or about 70
percent of the possible total. The amount increases inland to around 4,000 hours
in the desert approximately 90 percent of possible. Winter storms are infrequent
within the County, with the result that sunshine percentages are about the same
during the summer as they are during the winter. Along the immediate coast
sunshine percentages actually decrease slightly during the summer due to night-
time and early morning cloudiness typical of most of the California coast.(7)
1 In considering climate from an agricultura
the University of California has developed
plant -- climate relationships in Californ
is the dominant factor affecting plant dis
specific kinds of plants can be grown. So
the other hand, may determine where climat
found. Climate's most important component
perspective, Dr. M. H. Kimball of
a climatic rating system based on
a. His basic premise is that climate
ribution. C1 imate determines where
1 factors and water availability, on
cally suitable plants are actually
in California is temperature (maxi-
mum, minimum, and extremes) which affects the yield and quality of plant
performance. Rainfall deficiencies can be offset by irrigation. The frost
hazard, high temperature extremes, wind presence or absence, moisture reyinle
and all other climate components have a bearing upon the distribution and
seasonal behavior of plants. The presence and performance of insects and
diseases are sinlilarly influenced, as are the we1 I-being of donlestic and wild
an i ma 1 s .
11
From the above it is apparent that climate, either directly or indlrectly, deter-
mines agricultural enterprises, location of urban areas, parks, industries,
recreational activities, and in turn has a great impact upon human health and
welfare.
California has a wide variety of climates due to three main influences:
First is the Pacific Ocean with its stable environment over the water surface,
and the wind patterns which arise from pressure differences in the air mass.
Because pressure differences exist and air mass movement is generally from west
to east, moist air tends to move inland from the ocean. The distance it moves
is determined by the intensity and duration of pressure differences, and by
topography.
Second is the sun as a source of energy. The sun's energy is absorbed and
released slowly by the ocean. Hence the water becomes a stable modifier of
climate. Land masses behave differently, however, in that they warm and cool
quickly.
Latitude reflects two components of sun energy. California extends from approxi-
mately 32.5' to 42O North Latitude - a distance of nearly 700 miles. The effect
of this range is evident in both summer and winter. At the onset of ''official"
summer (June 21) the period of sunshine per day is nearly an hour longer at the
Oregon line than at the border of Mexico. The converse is true during the latter
along the southern border during both summer and winter, hence a warmer or hotter
climate exists.
P part of December. In addition the angle of incidence of sun energy is more direct
- Third is the topography of the land surface. Because of the roughness of the
land and the differential heating and release of heat energy by the land surface,
air masses are differentially heated or cooled. Also land forms tend to channel
air flow, or even impound it, which tends to further create different climates
in different areas.
These features -- the ocean, the sun's energy throughout the broad width of
latitude, the soil surface, and the land masses in various shapes, altitudes,
and orientation with respect to the coastline -- cause a great diversity of
California climates. These diversities can be broadly grouped and defined,
using the ocean, topography, and distance inland as starting criteria. On this
basis five major "areaclimates" have been established for California.
AREACLIMATES
rc
1. MARITIME - The Maritime Areaclimate ln San Diego County occupies a long,
narrow belt along the ocean. Although limited in width in places to a few
hundred yards, it may at times penetrate inland five or six miles. The
cliffs, mesas, and ridges which border the beaches usually rise rather
abruptly to elevations of 400 to 500 feet or higher. This effectively
confines most of the Maritime Areaclimate to a narrow shorelfne strip,
but where canyons or valleys open onto the coastal plain, the Maritime
influence is apparent further inland.
12
2.
3.
4.
5.
COASTAL - The Coastal Areaclimate, 1 ike the Mari time, is continuous I 1-0111
north to south across the County. It 1 ies inland frotll the shoreline stril)
which is dominated exclusively by the Maritime influence, and varies f'ronl
approximately 10 to 30 miles in depth. Direct ocean influence diminishes
with distance inland, and with elevation. Summer fog is a frequent modify-
ing factor. Topographically the Coastal Areaclimate comprises an area of
hills, mesas, and ridges extending from beaches and cliffs on the west to
the seaward slopes of the low elevation mountains on the east.
TRANSITIONAL - The Transitional Areaclimate occupies a series of valleys
partially screened from maritime influences by low mountains to the west,
and limited by the western extension of the Peninsular Range to the east.
These valleys may be coastal in character for part of the day, or for a
week or a month, and then be dominated for similar periods of time by
continental air. This area, designated as the Transitional Areaclimate
in the state-wide system, is referred to locally as the "Coastal Valley"
section of the San Diego County. Topography includes valleys, foothills
and rnountain ranges from 2,500 to 3,000 feet when parallel to in-flowing
marine air.
INTERIOR - Interior Areaclimates are defined as those dominated by conti-
nental air at least 85 percent of the time. The upland area of San Diego
County fits this description. This area, which is continuous north to south,
is characterized by wide diurnal and seasonal temperature fluctuations in
contrast to the other areaclimates, and the air is characteristically warm
and dry in summer. Topographically, it consists of valleys and foothills,
mountain valleys, and the seaward slopes of high mountains.
-
DESERT - A line of high peaks in the Peninsular Range, which creates the
rain shadow to the east, marks the beginning of the Desert Areaclimate.
This desert areaclimate (5) is dominated to a greater extent by continental
air masses than is Interior Areaclimate (I). It is trcated separately due
to its unique and distinctive characteristics, which include: high daytime
summer temperatures with very low humidities; drying and occasional extreme
winds; slight, variable rainfall (generally under five inches a year) which,
from the standpoint of all but specialized plants and animals, is often very
unevenly distributed. (8)
AIR QUALITY
Air pollution is a major environmental problem in San Dieyo County. The San
Diego Air Basin has a high potential for trapping smog because of topography
and climate. In 1976, San Diego County exceeded the federal oxidant standard of
0.08 parts per million on I70 days, on the worst day by 350 percent (0.29 parts
per millicn). Health advisory levels were reached on 11 days. The air quality
problem is a result of topography, climate and the emission of pollutants into
the atmosphere. Frequent low inversions and an abundance of sunlight create a
high potential for the production of photo chemical smog. This problem is peri-
odically intensified by the transport of air pollutants into the County from the
Los Angeles Air Basin. -
Air Pollution Damage: An Unknown
Poor air quality can significantly damage some crops. Kenneth F. Sims, Plant
Pathologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, for the County of San
D i ego, commen ted :
"Pollutants could cause serious damage to the County's 228 million-a-
year agricultural output. Crop damage, shifts to less desirable crops,
and loss of the multimillion-dollar flower industry could be the effect
to the basic agricultural industry should pollution levels rise. Although
crop loss damage estimates and research have been minimal in the County
to date, studies in ten other counties, including Los Angeles, Orange,
and San Bernardino indicate an annual crop loss in excess of $55 million.
These figures do not reflect the additional millions lost as a result of
damage to urban, parkland, and native vegetation."
Result of smog damage elsewhere is evidenced by the fact that many of the 55
new nurseries in San Diego County, a growing business that currently employs
about 2,400 people, moved from Los Angeles and Orange counties because of the
smog. If San Diego's air quality declines significantly, the nursery and many
other agricultural pursuits may have to move or cut back.
Studies in Riverside County demonstrated that smog reduced production as much
as 50% in lemons; the loss of navel oranges was more than 60%. Orange and'lemon
production in 1975 was worth over $25 million in San Diego County. The monetary
impact of smog here is obvious. Since several hundred people are involved in
growing and picking these crops, the impact on employment of changes in produc-
tion, either increased due to cleaner air or reduced because of dirtier air,
could be noticeable.
-
William Simmons, San Diego Air Pollution Control Officer, states that damage
has been seen in flowers and a few other crops, and on trees in the Cleveland
National Forest. "Damage should not be as great here as in Riverside and Los
Angeles because our oxidant levels are lower," but he says it is safe to
assume some damage has a1 ready been done. (9)
Ox i dan t Trends
San Diego County has two oxidant trends -- its own and imports from the South
Coast Air Basin. San Diego's own smog apparently reaches highs of about .20 to
.22 ppm oxidant and exceeds the Federal standard of 0.08 ppm on 47 percent of
the days during the year. Imports come from the South Coast Air Basin only I5
to 25 days a year but create high readings of approximately 0.28 ppm oxidant.
Emissions in San Diego are responsible for about 85 percent of the total pollu-
tion episodes in the County. The number of days in which oxidant standards are
exceeded increase eastward from the coast to the foothi 11s (up to 3,000 feet).
The quantity of oxidant precursors -- RHC and NOx -- emitted into the air basin
is highest in the San Diego metropolitan region. This region, however, experi-
ences the lowest levels of oxidant pollution in the County. The daily sea breeze -
14
transports the primary pollutants emitted along the coast inland. Sunlight
reacts with the primary pollutants in the atmosphere forming secondary pollutants
such as oxidant. The oxidant then impacts areas downwind from the sources. The
measured oxidant level therefore increases inland, so the average daily ambient
air quality deteriorates from the coast inland to the foothills. The Alpine
monitoring station regularly records the highest levels of oxidant in the County.
Future Trends
As the population living in San Diego County increases, air quality in the basin
will proportionately decline unless stringent control measures are taken to limit
the quantity of future emissions. As an Air Quality Maintenance Area, the San
Diego region has formulated a program designed to control emissions and achieve
Federal air quality standards by 1980. The plan -- The Regional Air Quality
Strategy (RAQS) -- was formally accepted by both the CPO Board of Directors and
the County Board of Supervisors in December, 1976. The RAYS is now being refined
into a Regional Air Quality Maintenance Plan.
As part of the work proyram for designing the RAQS, an extensive effort was
undertaken to assess the magnitude of the air quality problem, to protect the
amount of control of future emissions necessary to meet clean air standards,
and to provide data for estimating the effectiveness of proposed control. One
product of this work plan was a projection of "future trends'' in air quality for
the San Diego Air Basin. -
The "Future Trends" projection was based on the EPA approved Rol lback Model which
assumes a 1 inear relationship between reactive hydrocarbon emissions (RHC) and
oxidant formation. The model is simply a tool for scaling the projected regional
concentration of oxidant up or down to reflect similar changes in gross emission
rates. An integral part of the "Future Trends" projections was an inventory of
present day reactive hydrocarbon emissions which catalogued the contribution of
various source categories to total RHC emissions.
Using the 1 inear Rollback Model and the initial RHC emissions inventory, future
oxidant trends in the San Diego Air Basin were projected for the years 1972-2000.
Possible future air quality ranges in the County were projected both with and
without imports from the Los Angeles area. Two sets of variables were incorpor-
ated in this projection: (I) Growth rates in San Diego County; and (2) smog
transport. Projections of air quality were made using three possible growth
trends: existing trends, trends in the Regional Transportation Plan, and energy
shortage trends. Trends were projected for each growth level both with and
without irnports from South Coast Air Basin. The range of air quality with the
contributions from the South Coast Air Basin is probably the best guess of real
future air quality since Los Angeles will continue to be a source area under
certain meteorologic conditions. The most significant result of these projec-
tions shows that even the most favorable forecast of air quality will not meet
Federal standards by the year 2000. In fact, depending upon the activity level
assumptions, somewhere between 1980 and 1985, the downward trend in air pollution
begins to turn upward. (10)
CHAPTER 2
so I LS
Agriculture is one of the major land uses in the unincorporated areas of the
County with between 77,000 and 117,500 acres in production in 1977.(11) ) Approxi-
mately 75 percent of the 335 million dollars made in agriculture in San Diego
last year was made in some form of crop production. (12) A major distinction
between the County's crop and animal production is the relative importance
of soil characteristics for crop production. In addition to certain climatic
and water criteria the specialty crops, which are a mainstay to the County's
agricultural industry, have a range of soil criteria which normally need to
be met.
There are a variety of methods currently used to rate agriculture soils. In
California the two most commonly used systems are the Storie Index Rating System
and the Soi 1 Conservation Service's (S.C.S.) Capability Groups. One of the
reasons for their widespread use is that the State law relating to agricultural
preservation (Williamson Act) uses in its definition of "prime" agricultural
lands elements of both the Storie Index and the Capability Groups. Specifically
the Williamson Act in defining the soils criteria for a "prime" designation
uses a Storie rating of at least 80, on a 100 point scale, and an S.C.S.
Class I or I I rating, out of VI I I classes.(l3)
The Storie Index is a rating system which gives a numerical value indicating
the relative suitability a soil group has for general agricultural practices. In
this rating system four factors are evaluated separately on a percentage basis.
The final rating is arrived at by multiplying the four factors, expressed as
a percentage, times each other. To receive a rating of "prime" (80 or more on a
100 point scale) a given soil unit would have to receive a minimum rating of .95
for a1 1 four factors (.95 x .95 x .95 x .95 = .81). In fact if a given soil unit
is rated perfect for any three factors and less than .80 in the fourth it cannot
receive a "prime" rating (1.00 x 1 .OO x 1.00 x .79 = .79).(141
r-
The first factor evaluates the relative quality of the soil profile. Soils that
permit deep root penetration are rated at 100 percent, soils which for whatever
reason do not permit root penetration are rated at less than 100 percent. The
second factor rates the texture of the surface soi 1. Soi 1s which flll the range
between l'moderately coarse" and "medium texture" receive a rating of 100 percent,
coarser and finer soils are rated at less than 100 percent. The third factor
rates the slope. Nearly level or slightly sloping soils are rated at 100 percent,
anything more are rated less than 100 percent. Finally the fourth, so-called X
factor evaluates any other condition which may affect the soil, such as acidity
or alkal ini ty. (15)
The Soil Conservation Service's Capability Groups are a three tiered rating
system which evaluates the limitations of cultivated soils. In general, the
groups contain mapping units arranged by the kind of limitation they pose to
cultivation. The broadest segment of the Capability Group are the Capability
Classes. The classes, numbered I-VIII, indicate progressively greater limita-
tions and narrower choices for most kinds of agricultural use. To receive a
"prime" rating a given soil unit needs to meet the criteria for either Class I
or Class II.
7
16
Class I soils have "few" limitations, and Class I I soi Is have "moderate" I inli-
tations. Classes I I I and IV have "severe" or "very severe'' 1 imitations which
restrict the choice of plants, require special management practices or both.
Classes V, VI and VI I are rated as having such severe limitations that they are
generally only uses for range, woodland, wildlife habitat or recreation purposes.
Class VI11 lands are those judged to be so limited that they can only be used
for recreation, wildlife habitat, water supply, or aesthetic purposes.(l6)
During the early phases of this report an attempt was made to use the soils
criteria contained in the Williamson Act as a basis for describing those soils
in the County which might best represent a natural resource. An evaluation
of the 251 soil mapping ur;its mapped for the Soil Survey by the United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service revealed that only 13 of
the units met the criteria for a ''prime" designation under the Storie index
(.80). An additional 23 soil mapping units met the S.C.S. "prime" criteria
(Class I or I I). In terms of acreage, a total of 131,329 acres in the County
satisfy one or both of the above "prime" criteria. This means that by using
the Storie Index and the S.C.S. Capability Groups "prime" criteria, only six (6)
percent of the soils in the County can be considered "prime."(17) Moreover
these 131,329 acres are in scattered locations throughout the County. Typically
composed of alluvium, the soils are generally located in valleys, many of which
have already been developed for urban uses. The net effect of this distribution
pattern is that there is considerably less than the 130,000+ acres available
for agricultural production, and that those which are available are scattered
in pockets all over the western half of the County.
In comparing the location of these "prime" soils to the location of existing
production, it was learned that some of the most productive lands in San Dieyo
County are located on soils with ratings well below the prime ratings of Storie
or the S.C.S. For example, a typical soil mapping unit found in the flower fields
around Carlsbad is the unit MIC which has a Storie rating of 54 and an S.C.S.
Class ill. In Paul Ecke's agricultural preserve, located in San Dieguito, a
typical unit is CfC which has a Storie rating of 32 and an S.C.S. Class IV
rating. Further south in the Rancho Otay area, a center for tomato growing
in San Diego, a typical unit is DaD which has a Storie Index of 37 and an S.C.S.
Class Ill rating. Up in Valley Center it is a preferred cultural practice to
grow avocados on steep slopes. A typical soil mapping unit of that area is
Fan2 which has a Storie rating of 48 and an S.C.S. Class IV rating.
It should be noted that both the Storie Index and the S.C.S. Capability Groups
were developed for application in areas most suited for large scale farnlirlg.
These areas, the central valley of California and the plains of the Midwest,
can be characterized by relatively deep soils and a laininlunl of clinlatic diI'C1~r-
entiation. San Diego has the reverse situation. Most crop produclion is s111a1 I
scale, intensive and very specialized. The soils of the County can generally
be characterized by their shallowness, and the County has, as discussed in the
previous chapter, five different climatic zones.
17
TABLE 3
”” CRITERIA FOR AVOCADO SUITABILITY=
Criteria
Depth to impermeable
rock or hardpan *
SUOSO~! permeabiiity
Subsoil or substratum
msterial
Not Rated Fair
-I
Less than 36 inches 36 to 60 inches
Very siow, slow, or
ately rapid, moderately slow
Moderate, moder-
rapid, or very
rapid
Clay B horizon, ite or alluvium hardpan, or hard Decomposed gran-
rock
Good
More than 60
inches
Moderate, moder-
ately rapid, rapid,
or very rapid
Decomposed granite
or alluvium
a Preparrd by the Soil Conservatidn Service and accepnd by the San Diego County
Planning Deparrmenr, 1971.
b Dscomposed granite is not considered impermeable rock. Thus decomposed grsnits
is not considered a depth limitation for avowdos.
TABLE 4
CRITERIA FOR CITRUS SUITABILITY’
Criteria Good Fair Not Rated
Soil rooting depth * More than 36 20 to 36 inches Less than 20 inches
inches - ”
Subsoil permeabi!ity Moderate, moder- Moderately slow Slow, very slow, or
very rapid ately rapid, or
rapid
Slope 0 to 15 percent 15 to 30 percent More than 30 percent
6 Prepared by the Soil Conservat;on Service and accepted by rha San Dlego County
b Dscomposd granite restr;:ts roots of cirrus trees. I Planning Department, 1971.
181
SOIL SURVEY -- PART Ill
18
TAeLE f
CRITERIA FOR TRUCK CROP SUITABILITY#
Not Rated 1 I Fair
1 t'!;!; 111;111 20 irlctlcs 70 to 36 itlctjtls
Ci;~ycy, rocky, cob- Clay loarrr, loalrl,
bly, stony, very
gravelly, or rock
sand, pr gravelly
outcrops
loamy coarse sand
"_
..
Very slow Slow, moderately
slow, moderate,
or very rapid
More than 9
percent
5 to 9 percent
-
- Mort! 111;111 36 itlclws
Fine sardy loam,
very fine smdy
loam, sandy loam,
loamy sand, or
loamy fine sand
Moderately rapid,
or rapid
-
I
t 0 to 5 percent
a Prepared ~y rha Soil Cor:servation Service and arctyted 3f the San Diego County
Planr~rq Deparrment, 1977.
h Clays and cldy loarns art? preferred for celery because wnd 1s undesrrable m mature
heads. Well matlaged ciays arc tarr for srr>wbrrries.
I
- "" - " _______~"""_ "_
TABLE G - ~ . . -. -. . . - " .. _". - . . .. "- I Ci?!TEl!lk FOR TOMATO SUITAl3lilTYJ i
Cri?cr ia
Soil depth
Sur face layer
tcxture
- "
"
Very gravelly, Sandy loam,
rocky, stony, gravelly fine I i loamy sdnd, sand or I sarrdy loam, or 1
"I
0 to i5 percent
TABLE 7
C,RETIR"FOR F~~ER SUITRBILITV .- !
Criteria Good
SO;I depth -."
10 to 20 inches
Surface layer Clay, very gravelly, Loam, clay loam, Sandy lo3m, loamy
tcxture rocky, Or stony or yrwelly sand, smd, coarse
sandy lom1, fine
sandv ioarn, very
fine smdy loam,
loamy fine sand, or
loamy coarse sand
""
L Slope
I 3 Prepcrrd bi' rhe Soil Conservation Servicc. and acceprrd bv rhie Sari 3kgo Csumy " I
Pmnq Depxtmenr, 1971. I
182
0 h,
From the above, it becomes clear that if there is to be a meaningful analysis
of the agricultural potential of soils in San Diego it will be necessary to use
a rating system which takes into account the kinds of production which occur in
the County. Fortunately the Soil Survey developed by the S.C.S. and the San
Diego County Planning Department in June of 1975 contains just such a rating
system in Chapter VI I (Interpretations for Farming and Ranching) of the "Soi 1
Interpretation Manual" (Part I I I of the Soil Survey).
The rating system in the Soil Survey first selected five crops or crop categories
(Avocado, Citrus, Truck Crops, Tomatoes, and Field Flowers) which represent the
majority of lands under cultivation. Then, for each of these crop categories
certain criteria were developed so that each soil mapping unit could be evaluated
as "good", ''fair'1 or "not rated". The "not rated'' evaluatim meaning that the
soil unit did not meet even the "fair" criteria. The tables on the preceediny
page show what specific criteria were used for the ratings. The tables are from
pages 181-182 of the "Soil Interpretation Manual".
Once these criteria were identified they were then applied against the 251 soil
mapping units in the County, and 123 of those satisfied at least the "fair"
rating for at least one crop category. (18) Maps of the County were then pre-
pared for each crop category and a1 1 of the soil mapping units which received
a "good" or "fair" rating were colored in. Finally a set of maps were prepared
showing all those soil mapping units which satisfied either a "good" or "fair"
rating for any of the five principal crops. These maps have been used as the
basis for determining which soils in San Diego County have some degree of
potential for agricultural use.
4
As noted above, previous studies indicated that there was little relationship
between agricultural production and the presence of "prime" soi 1s in San Dieyo
County. There is, however, a very high incidence of agricultural use on soils
rated "good" or "fair" in the Soi 1 Survey. Of the 24 community plan/subreyional
areas, nine (Bonsall, Fallbrook, North County Metropolitan, Otay, Pala-Pauma,
Rainbow, Ramona, San Dieguito, and Valley Center) contain the majority of the
crop production occuring in this County. For these nine areas the average
percentage of production occuring on "good" or Ilfair'I soils is 85 percent with
the range going from a low of 66 percent in Rainbow to a high of 98 percent in
Otay.(l9) The chart on the following page shows the total acreage, acreage
rated good/fair, acreage in production, and production acreage on good/fair
soils for each of the Community Plans and subregional areas.
As in any rating system there are limitations to the kinds of interpretations
that can be made. What the Soil Survey ratings do mean is that other considera-
tions, such as climate and water aside, the soilsof a particular soi 1 unit
exhibit the kinds of mechanical properties that wil 1 a1 low production to occur.
21
TABLE 8
GOOD/FA I R PRODUCTION
TOTAL sot L PRODUCTION ON % ON
PLANN I NG AREA ACREAGE ACREAGE ACREAGE GOOD/FAIR GOOD/FAIR
Alpine
Bonsal 1
Centra 1 Moun ta i ns
Crest/Dehesa
Desert
Fa 11 brook
Jamul/Dulzura
Ju 1 ian
Lakes i de
Moun ta i n Emp i re
North County Metro
North Mountain
0 tay
Pala-Pauma
PendeltonDe Luz
Poway
Ra i n bow
Ramona
San D i egu i to
Santee
South Bay
Sweetwater
Val le de Oro
Valley Center
70,848
19,200
69,120
22,400
35,520
113,280
47, IO4
168,320
57,600
78,720 20,480
27,520
9,920 81,920
63,360
12,352
4,480 6,848
22,400
53,120
33,920
38,960
13,450
10,370
15,680
28,416
22,656
1,696
23,550
126,240
23,040
27,552
4,090 15,136
3,470
32,768
22,180
8,650
3,580
3,770
10,080
42,500
700
7,829
297 38 1
(NOT RATED)
14,803
3,781
1,327
1,017
20,392
13,696
9,205 2,280
1,709 8,440
5,201 210
200
53 76 7
24,104
(NOT RATED)
(NOT RATED)
2 , 592
696 6 , 963 175 36 1
I 2,078
2,761 S
1,001
16,316
13,460
8,135
1,325
1,137 7,968 4,171
22 4
200
43
692
22,514
2,249
9 9% 8 8% ;::
81%
73%
0%
98%
80%
98% 88%
5 8% 86% 66%
94%
80%
93%
100% 81%
90%
93%
During the preparation of the Soil Survey the Comprehensive Planning Organization
(CPO) adopted policies relating to the preservation of agricultural soils. One
policy states that lands to be preserved for agriculture should be selected on
the basis of: the Soil Interpretations for Farming contained in the Soil Survey,
on the overall agricultural productivity of the soil, on the specialty crop
productivity of the soil, on the multiple-use and open space guidelines and on
adopted urban development policies. Another policy states that among the soil
interpretations available in the Soil Survey, the Crop Suitability ratings should
be consulted and that the Crop Suitability ratings supercede both the Capability
Group and Storie Index ratings insofar as the five principal crops (Row Crops,
Tomatoes, Flowers, Citrus, and Avocados) are concerned.
22
CHAPTER 3
WATER
BACKGROUND
The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) is the Southern California wholesaler of
water, supplying the regional wholesalers in San Diego, Riverside, Orange, Los
Angeles and Ventura Counties. Formed by its charter members in 1928, the HWD
was established to supply water for "...municipal and industrial uses and pur-
poses." Although the District has supplied water for agricultural uses at a
reduced rate since its inception, it considers such water to be "surplus" and a
service which can be interrupted by the District at any time.(20)
MWD purchases and stores its supply of Colorado River water at Parker Dam on the
California-Arizona border. The water is subsequently pumped through a network of
pipes and aqueducts to Lakes Skinner and Mathews in Riverside County. From there
the water is pumped south to San Diego through the four pipelines constructed by
the County Water Authority (CWA) since the end of World War I I.
The County Water Authority (CWA) is the regional wholesaler of water. Formed
in 1944, its primary function has been to provide the facilities for transportiny
and storing water purchased from the MWD for its member agencies. The CWA -
currently consists of 22 independent water districts and covers the western
third of the County. The eastern two-thirds of the County have as yet not
joined the CWA primarily because they have sufficient groundwater to meet their
1 imi ted local needs. (21)
In this chapter the importance of water to agriculture will be analyzed in terms
of its availability, cost, quality, use and reuse.
AVAILABILITY
The MWD policy for distributing water is based on the total assessed valuation of
each district. The higher the assessed value, the higher the water entitlement.
The CWA accounts for approximately 13 percent of the assessed value of the MWD,
hence its legal entitlement is 13 percent of the supply, or approximately 71,500
acre feet (AF).(22) In practice, however, the CWA has consistently been able
to import water far in excess of its legal entitlements. In 1974-75, for
example, the CWA received 388,485 AF from MWD, or approxiIuatc1y 35 percent
of the District enti tlcnwnt. (23) There are two basic wasons why the CWA can
acquire so rrluch water. First, the MWD's leyal entitlclllent to Colorado Rivcr
water is 550,000 AF but in 1975-76 the District imported 1,200,000 AF. (24)
The MWD is able to exceed its legal entitlements because other agencies and
states which have rights to the water have not as yet been able to claim their
full share. This situation is expected to change by the mid 1980's principally
as a result of the Central Arizona Project going on line. The second reason
why the CWA is able to exceed its legal entitlement is that the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power, which is entitled to 25 percent of the MWD's
supply, is only claiming six percent of their entitlement. The Department
of Water and Power meets most of its current water needs with water from the
Owens Val ley. (25)
"
23
I
The status of future water supplies for San Diego were recently analyzed by the
County's Regional Growth Management Task Force. (26) Their analysis made five
basic assumptions, then presented a "worst case" and a "best case" scenario.
The assumptions made include the following:
1. Per capita water use wi 11 average 0.209 AF/year.
2. San Diego's 1995 population will be 2,444,588.
3. Agricultural water use will be 108,000 AF/year.
4. There will be no new significant sources of water.
5. The State Water Project will be able to meet its contractual
obligations.
In addition to the above assumptions both scenarios would restrict the MWD to
its legal water entitlements. Under such a restriction the MWD's supply of
Colorado River and State Water Project water would equal:
1376-85 2,092,374 AFIyear 1986-95 2,409,572 AF/year
Worst Case
If the County Water Authority were restricted to its 14 percent entitlement the
annual yield would be:
1976-85 292,932 AF/year 1986-95 337,340 AF/year
Best Case
If the County Water Authority continued to receive 35 percent of the MWD's
entitlement its annual yield would be:
1976-85 732,331 AF/year 1986-95 843,350 AF/yea r
"Under best conditions, the region will experience full growth, and will have a
supply equal to 138 percent of need in 1985 and 136 percent of need in 1995."
Although it is unlikely that agricultural water use would remain constant at
108,000 AF per year in the "worst case" scenario, it is interesting to see what
happens if agricultures share of the available water remains at its historic
average of 26 percent. -.
WORST CASE: FIXED PERCENTAGE OF WATER FOR AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Percentage Reduction
Total Water Supply Water Supply of Agricultural Water
1976 : 425,851 AF 26% = 108,000 AF 1985 : 292,932 AF 26% = 76,162 AF 1995 : 337,340 AF 26% = 87,708 AF
41%
23%
It seems reasonable to assume that if water for agricultural purposes is cut by
a significant percentage that there would be a similar cut in agricultural produc-
tion.
In 1977 the MWD instituted two policy changes which will have an effect on the
availability of water for agricultural purposes in San Diego. First, on July 1,
1980 the minimum acreage standards will be changed so that in order to qualify
for an "agricultural water rebate" (see below) a property Owner wi 11 have to have
a minimum of five acres under cultivation instead of the current minimum standard
of one acre. The second policy change limits the area eligible for the agri-
cultural rebate to the land under the jurisdiction of the CWA and its member
agencies as of August 19, 1976. Any lands subsequently added to the CWA will
not be eligible for the discount. (27) - In summary, water availabi 1 ity through 1995 is 1 ikely to range somewhere between 74 percent-of the present need and 136 percent of the need in 1995. It should be
reemphasized that there may be a problem with the assumption that agricultural
water use will remain constant at around 108,000 AF per year. Historically,
agriculture in San Diego has used approximately 30 percent of the imported water.
If water avai labi 1 i ty trends toward the "worst case" projection this percentage
figure is likely to decrease dramatically because of MWD policies which gives
urban water uses a higher priority than agricultural uses. (28)
COST
In FY 58-59 the MWD charged the CWA $15 AF for Colorado River water. The current
(FY 77-78) MWD charge for Colorado River water is $67 per acre foot, an increase
of 346 percent in 21 years.(29) After adjusting for inflation this rise in
price works out to an annual increase of 7.77 percent. The average, annual,
adjusted rate of inflation for the Consumer Price Index since FY 58-59 has
been 3.85 percent. (30)
The HWD began delivery of State Water Project water to the CWA in June of 1978.
Because the State water does not meet the State's blological standards it requires
treatment prior to being pumped into San Diego.(31) This treatment increases
MWD's selling price by $17 AF, bringing the delivery cost of State Project
water for the CWA to $86 AF. (32)
The MWD has offered a discount price or rebate for agricultural water use for
a number of years. From the MWD's perspective a major reason for the rebate
has been to ensure optimal use of their water delivery systems.(33)
26
The local water districts, using standards developed by ElWD, report to the CWA
detailing the amount of water used for agricultural purposes. The CWA then
reports these figures to the MWD which rebates back to the CWA and the districts
a sum of money based on a rebate figure of $34/acre foot. In FY 58-59 the rebate
was $3 or 18 percent off of the MWD/CWA charge of $17 per acre goot. In FY 77-78
the $34/acre foot rebate amounted to 49 percent off of the MWD/CWA charge of $69
per acre foot. (34)
The MWD has conducted a number of studies dealing with projected water costs.
The initial study completed in 1974, and updated annually since then, made a
number of assumptions in analyzing their projected 1995 rate structures. Three
of their basic assumptions are listed below:
1. Increased energy costs will significantly increase the cost
of all imported water.
2. Everyone within the District's service area benefits either
directly or indirectly from imported water.
3. Whatever the future rates of imported water turn out to be,
they should not be less than the out-of-pocket costs incurred
in delivering the water.(35)
The two variables which will most directly impact the cost of water are the
source of the water and the energy costs of delivery. Other less direct costs
could include the bonding capability of the State Water Project, the level of
indebtedness of the MWD, CWA, and the individual districts as well as any future
federal regulatory impacts.
The MWD generally announces water price increases two years in advance. The
schedules published to date indicate that the current rate of $67/AF for untreated
water wil 1 be increased by $7/AF next year bringing the total to $74/AF. (361
The base water rate is currently anticipated to continue to increase at the
rate of $7/AF per year through 1987. (37) This rate increase is being undertaken
to cover the anticipated rise in the cost of electricity. The contract for
power generation held by the MWD has a current rate of three mills per kilowatt-hour
through 1983. Estimates from the State Department of Water Resources indicate
a rise in costs to as much as 25 mills per kilowatt-hour, a 733 percent increase
in energy costs. (38)
Although the MWD has considered a change in formula, and even the total elimina-
tion of the agricultural water rebate, it appears at this time that the rebate
will continue in its present form.(39) In the "1978 Water Pricing Study" thc
MWD estimated the cost or water for agricultural purposes to be:
1976-77 $ 30
1986-87 $ 80 166% increase
1999-2000 $145 383% increase
190-84 $ 70 133% increase
The County Water Authority adds a surcharge to the MWD's price in order to cover
the Authority's costs of operation and maintenance. The costs of capital projects
are covered by the Sale of General Obligation bonds and tax revenues, which for
the last few years has been set at the rate of 11 cents per $100 of assessed
valuation. (40) The surcharge rate the Authority adds onto the MWD price has
ranged between a low of $1.25/AF to a high of $2.50/AF.(41) Indications are
that an increase to as much as $3/AF may occur in the next few years. (42)
The twenty-two local water districts that receive water from the CWA purchased
it at the rate of $69 per acre foot ($67 MWD + $2 CWA surcharge) in FY 1977-78.
They in turn add on a surcharge to cover the costs of their maintenance and
operation. These costs vary considerably throughout the County ranging from
an additional 62 percent to an additional 398 percent for domestic water. The
range for agricultural water is from a low of an additional 13 percent to a high
of an additional 347 percent.
TABLE 9
$ % %
$ DOMESTIC INCREASE $ INCREASE MWD/CWA RATE OVER BASE AGRICULTURAL OVER BASE
WATER D I STR I CT BASE RATE ACRE FT. RATE RATE/ACRE FT. RATE
fl San Marcos
Vista
Car 1 sbad
Del Mar
De Luz Heights
Escond ido
Fa 1 1 brook
He1 ix
National City/So.
Oceans i de
Olivenhain
0 tay
Pad re
Poway
Ra i n bow
Ramona
R i ncon
San Diego
San Dieguito
Santa Fe
Val ley Center
Yu ima
Ba Y
69
150 131 144
192 135 133 174
135
170
296
257 166
337
126
344 112
169 174 135
152 182
AVERAGE
117 111 60 89 83 20
108 96 39
178 158 128 95 113 63
92 99 43
152 166 140
95 118 71 1 46 136 97
328 157 127
272 179 159 1 40 132 91
388 135 95
82 91 31
398 309 3 47
62 78 13 144 169 144
152 122 76 95 118 71 120 118 71
163 150 117
(same as C i ty of San D i ego)
181 +162% -
28
'
On the average in FY 1976-77 local water districts sold domestic water for
$181/AF, an increase of 162% over the MWD/CWA base rate. Water for agricultural
purposes was sold by the districts for an average of S135/AF, an increase of 95
percent over the base rate.
The ability to forecast the costs of water past the next two or three years is
frought with difficulty. There are literally dozens of events which could affect
the price of water in Southern California. If the base agricultural rate for
water increases from around $30/AF to $70/AF in 1983-84 as forecast by the MWD;
and if the relationship between the districts average selling price and the
MWD/CWA base rate remains constant, the average district selling price of agri-
cultural water in 1983-84 should be around $212 per acre foot, an increase of 57
percent .
WATER QUALITY
The quality of the water used for irrigation has an obvious and important impact
on the qual ity and quantity of agricultural production.
The quality of the water imported into San Diego from the Colorado River is
relatively high in the amount of total disolved solids (TDS) averaging around
760 parts per million. The Colorado River water satisfies the Federal minimum
standard of 1,000 ppm and is within the maximum standards developed for the
principal crops grown in San Diego. Generally speaking, Colorado River water
can be used on most of the crops grown in San Diego with little or no difficulty.
TABLE 10 -
TDS mg/l
-5000- COMMON BERMUDA GRASS TDS
TOLERANCE
PERENNIAL RYE TDS TOLERANCE LIMIT
TRUCK CROP TDS TOLERANCE LIMIT
TOLERANT ORNAMENTAL PLANT AND
CITRUS FRUIT TDS LIMIT
COLORADO RIVER WATER
BLENDED Cnl.ORADO RIVER AND ~~~ ~ ~
STATE PROJECT WATER
CALIFORNIA STATE PROJECT WATER
~~
-3 000-
-2500-
-2000-
- 1 500-
- 1000-
- 540-
TALL FESCUE TDS TOLERANCE LlMl T
PERMISSIBLE. BY STATE FOR
TEMPORARY POTABLE SUPPLY
PERMISSIBLE BY STATE FOR
PERMANENT POTABLE SUPPLY WHERE
E10 OTHER SOURCES ARE AVAILABLE
AVOCADO TDS TOLERANCE LIMIT
RECOMMENDED CRITERIA FOR
POTABLE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
-.
0
29
,P
Avocados, however, are fairly sensitive to salts and the current sodium absorb-
tion ration of Colorado River water is just about as high as most avocado
plantings can tolerate. As discussed on the previous page, the sources for
imported water in San Diego will be changing from a sole reliance on the Colorado
to a blend of Colorado and State Project water. Eventually a 50-50 blend will
be reached which will produce a standard rating of around 540 ppm.. When this
occurs the quality and quantity of the local agricultural produce wi 11 increase,
although at this point no'one appears to know to what degree.
icultural water use varies cons
lity, method of application, so
lower the permeability rate of
water requirements.
,.
iderably depending upon crop type, water
il conditions and climate. Generally speaking
the soil and the milder the climate, the lower
Estimates have been made by the County Farm Advisor showing the annual water
needs, per acre, for individual crops. The figures listed below are averages
based on the use of furrow or sprinkler application techniques and other local
irrigation practices.
TABLE 11
~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~
WATER APPLICATION IN
CROP ACRE FEET/ACRE/YEAR
Strawberries 6
Toma toes 2-4
Other Row Crops 2-4
Citrus 1 -5-3
Avocados 3-4
Nurseries/Greenhouse 3-4 . (43)
The County's Regional Growth Management program recently computed estimates of
water use by residential categories. Approximately three quarters of the water
used for agricultural purposes is used to irrigate avocados and citrus orchards
which on the average have a combined water usage of around 2.8 acre feet/acre/
year. Overall most residential classifications are comparable in their water
usage to most of the agricultural water use. The highest consumer of agricul-
tural water is strawberries (6 AF/acre/year) but this can be discounted since
the average annual planting seldom exceeds 700 acres Countywide.
30
TABLE 12
ACRE-FEET PER YEAR
WATER USE
DU/AC DOMEST I C IRRIGATION TOTAL
43
29 14.5
8
7.3 5.8 4.4 4
2
1
8.10
5.47
2.73
1.50
1.37
1.09
.83 76 .38 .I9
.21
.3 1 .61
1.11
1.28
1.66
2.00
2.10
2.60
2.85
8.3 1
5.78 3.34
2.61
2.65
2.75 2.83
2.86
2.38
3.04
REUSE
The reuse of water for agricultural purposes has been an important part of the
two major water reuse studies conducted locally. The Comprehensive Planning
Organization (CPO) in its "208" study and the joint City-County "San Diego Water
Reuse Study'' looked in considerable detail into the potential for the agricul-
tural applications of recycled water.
In the 208 study, wastewater reclamation and reuse were identified as key elements
of the areawide water quality management plan. This study estimated the potential
market for agricultural uses of reclaimed water at around 322,000 acre feet over
the next eighteen years.(45) This would average out to 17,888 acre feet per
year or about 16 percent of the current agricultural water use.
After identifying the potential market, specific project alternatives were
examined. Out of an initial 118 reclamation alternatives, 46 underwent a
detailed evaluation. On the basis of that evaluation 28 reclamation projects
have been recommended for implementation by 1988. As much as 70 percent of the
91,852 acre feet targeted for reclamation in these projects could be used for
agricultural purposes. (46)
A major s
the stand
agency ha
ticking point in making reclaimed water available for agriculture are
ards developed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This State
IS been fairly rigid in its use of a standard divisor or "one-third rule".
Basically this standard requires that any reclaimed water used for agricultural
purposes may not on a volume basis contain a level of more than one-third of the
dissolved solids contained in the groundwater basin. Typically this would require
reclaimed water to have not more than 300-350 parts per mi 1 lion (ppm) for ayri-
cultural use. This standard appears to be somewhat excessive in that the Colorado
iego contain on the
Board together appear
le approach in attenlpt-
River watcr currently being used to irrigate crops in San D
averayc 700 pp111. CPO and the State Water Resources Control
to have convi nccd the Regional Board to adopt a more flex i b
ing to meet the water quality objectives of the plan. (47)
31
The other major concern regarding the use of reclaimed water for agriculture
is the ultimate cost to the consumer. From the outset of the CPO study it was
apparent that the traditional methods of funding water projects would not be
capable of providing the necessary funds that these kinds of projects would need.
The resultant funding strategy has as its hypothesis the belief that the reclama-
tion of waste water can legitimately be considered an activity with beneficial
borne regionwide impacts, and that the costs of financing such projects should be
by the largest possible segment of the population. From this a two-pronged
strategy of subsidization resulted. First the CPO or other appropriate reg
body will secure a grant under the Federal Clean Water Grant program. Such
grant will fund 87.5 percent of the capital costs. It may be possible that
balance of the capital costs will be covered by an additional regional subs
Secondly, partial subsidization of operations and maintenance costs may be
through surcharges on the imported water supply.
The CPO study has projected tentative costs for reclaimed water using three
different funding scenarios:
a. That the capital costs would be unsubsidized.
i ona 1
a
the
idy.
ra i sed
b. That 87.5 percent of the capital costs would be subsidized by a Federal
Clean Water Grant.
c. That all capital costs will be subsidized through a combination of '.
Federal and regional subsidies. (48)
Within each of these three funding scenarios the costs of reclaimed water are
broken down further depending on whether the water is reclaimed to either "design"
or "regulatory" criteria. The design criteria permits a minimum level of treat-
ment prior to application, the regulatory criteria requires that the wastewater
be fully treated before use. The final cost estimates take one more factor into
account. Because of problems relating to market and facilities location, the
final figures on the cost of reclaimed water divides the County into two planning
areas: the Santa Margarita-San Luis Rey Hydrological Units (SM/SL) and the
Western San Diego County Planning Area (WSD) .
Using the above scenarios as a guide, CPO has projected the following tentative
costs for reclaimed water.
I. UNSUBS I D I ZED
Design Criteria
SM/SL: $88-330 per acre foot
WSD: $40-1,252 per acre foot
Reg u latory Criteria
SM/SL: $451-798 per acre foot
WSD: $lO5-l,552 per acre foot
11. SUBSIDIZED
SM/SL “ Des i yn : $ 35-225 per acre foot
Regulatory: $235-520 per acre foot
WSD -- Des i gn : $ 24-537 per acre foot
Regulatory: $ 55-830 per acre foot
Clean Water Grant (87.5 percent plus), Other Regional Subsidy (12.5 percent)
SH/SL ” Des i gn : $ 27-210 per acre foot
Regulatory: $235-520 per acre foot
WSD -- Des i gn : $ 22-830 per acre foot
Regulatory: $ 42-1,072 per acre foot(49)
The joint City-County Water Reuse Study has as its primary function the implemen-
tation of as many of the water reclamation projects identified in the 208 report
as possible. Phase I of that study, completed on August 1, 1978, has analyzed
in detail the costs associated with the implementation of the 20 reclamation
projects scheduled for the next five years.
33
SUMMARY OF PART I I
This section of the Basic Data Report examined the three basic physical resources
needed for agricultural production: climate, soils, and water. Generally
speaking, all three tend to restrict commercial agriculture to the western
two-fifths of the County.
From a climatic standpoint, the climate is a positive production factor in the
maritime and coastal area climates which make up the western one-fifth of the
County. The transitional areaclimate located directly east of the coastal
areaclimate is essentially a neutral production factor. These three area-
climates, which together make up the western two-fifths of the County, contain
the basic climatic resources necessary for long-range commercial production.
The soils resources necessary for commercial agricultural production in San
Diego County are for the most part restricted to the western half of the
County. Although metropolitan San Diego developed on land which does not
satisfy the "good or fair" criteria of the Soil Survey, many other communities
in the County were founded on, .and continue to expand on, "good and fair" agri-
cultural soi 1s. Examples of these communities include Lemon Grove, La Mesa;
El Cajon, Otay, Lakeside, Poway, Ramona, Escondido, the beach communities in
San Dieguito, San Marcos, Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista, Fallbrook, and Valley
Center. Essentially there are two sets of soil criteria needed in San Diego.
Row crop production requires relatively flat land, while orchards can be
located on land with slope characteristics ranging from slightly rolling to
very steep. The undeveloped soil resources of San Diego best suited for long-
range production are for the most part situated in the northwestern quadrant
of the County. The eastern quadrants are deficient in soil quality and
the southwestern quadrant, except for Rancho Otay and Otay Mesa, is either
essentially all urbanized or deficient in quality.
"
The availability of water is the third physical resource. eecause the major
of the County's agriculture depends on imported water and because the M.W.D.
has restricted agricultural water hookups to lands within the C.W.A. boundar
as of August, 1977, commercial agriculture in San Diego is effectively restr
to the western third of the County.
The colored areas on the following map illustrate those areas of the County
within the Maritime, Coastal, or Transitional areaclimate; within the bound-
aries of the County Water Authority; and have soils rated "good or fair"
according to the Soi 1 s Survey.
i ty
i es
i c ted
34
.
PART I I I
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER 1
SUBREG I ONAL AREAS
In Part II, "Physical Resources," the twenty-four subregional areas which make
up the unincorporated part of San Diego County were examined to see which of
them contained the combination of natural resources (soil, climate, and water)
necessary for agricultural production. Of the twenty-four areas, fourteen were
found to contain significant quantities of land meeting the soil, climate, and
water criteria examined in the previous section.
The fourteen planning areas included Pendleton-DeLuz, Fallbrook, Bonsall, North
County Hetropol itan, San Dieguito, Pala-Pauma, Val ley Center, Otay, Poway,
Ramona, Rainbow, Lakeside, Crest-Dehesa, and Valle de Oro. In this section, each
of the above areas will be analyzed. The table on the following page provides
a summary of the information used in the analyses.
A. PENDLETON-DELUZ SUBREGION
Production
The Pendleton-DeLuz Subregional area is located in the extreme northwest corner
within the Cleveland National Forest or military reservations. The area around
DeLuz (14,500 acres) is the only part of the 163,700-acre Subregion which is in
private ownership. About 15 percent (2,280 acres) of the land in private owner-
ship is in agricultural use. This subregional area contains about 2 percent of
the County's agricultural acreage, and the production consists principally of
vegetables, citrus, avocados, and nurseries. Orchards account for about 60
percent of the Subregion's production acreage, while nurseries and row crops
make up the balance. Some additional row crop production takes place at both
San Onofrc and Stuart Mesa on land leased from the Marine Corps. All of the
orchard production is located in the DeLuz area of the Subregion.
,_ of San Diego County. The majority of the area is in public ownership, either
Orchard production has increased by 420 acres (44%) and the "other" crop pro-
duction category has increased by 155 acres (22%) since 1973. Field observations
in the late summer of 1978 indicate that even more orchard acreage has been
recently planted.
Parce 1 S i ze
The 14,500 acres in p
approximately 522 par
of those 522 parcels
lrivate ownership in this subregional area are divided into
,eels, for an average parcel size of 27.8 acres. Ninety-six
(18%) are engaged in some form of crop product ion, and these
agricultural parcels have an average size of 13.3 acres. Except for Otay Mesa, 1 size is smaller for the
1s.
this is the
agricultura
only area examined, where the average parce
1 parcels than for the nonagricultural parce
37
TABLE 13
I PENDELTON-DELUZJ 14.551 J 2.280 I FALLBROOK 1 30609- I EONSALL 17.331 I 7.829
N. COUNTY METRO 69.801 20.392' I
SAN DlEGUlTO 54.842
PALAPAUMA 36.787
5.201
9.205
24.1 04
~ OTAY
~
WWAY
RAMONA
RAINBOW
LAKESIDE
CREST-DEHESA
VALLEY DE OR0 - ' IUCLL:D)ES fkGRlCil~ TL
72.041 8.720 I
I 431
~132 30% CURRENT I (POMWD; I - 25 i S 5,114 5 855 13.222 - 11% id, 11 -
Tg2 g:Lyc 3 132 (POMWD) - 2%
10'aCURRENT 5157 (OMVID) + 16%
+ 16% 58% 29% 0.8 19.4 2157 (OMWD) 59b5:LtiE' , %132(WMWD) -- 2% I
b. 1977 Dep: of Water Resources land use study
C. 1977 Dept of Land Use and Environmwta! Rq
d. 1978 (Somrnerl Field check
dation (LUER) land use information system
Percent- (Increaselbecreaei in ProbcDion 19W 1978: Compiled by I.P.O. Source information in- cluded:
a. 1970 Low altitude color imagery
b. 1973 Low altitude color imagery in wear +ere
percentage of Production Acreage by Land UY Category: Compiled by l.P.O dverlayr snowing ayirulflira! production were plxed sn 130 DI maps
showing land use dtsignationr.
Average Parcel SizelAverage Agricultural Pard Size; lnformatton source APIS. Total number of acres dwided by number of parcels. Text includes Swi
a half acre in size. tional information i.e.. number of parcels less than
by I.P.O. Estimates the percentage of the er.:;re plan
Regicnal Growth Management Designatiom Compiled
area in "Urban: 'Nonurban'. and 'Other'categoria
Agricultunl Water Rate; Compiled by I.P.O. Data coilected from individual districts for FY 7879.
Aswised Market Value; Information reurce MIS.
&de t:np;overnents or personal proper~vi by the Diveded the market value of the land (dxs not in-
plan area Sinm information in the Asssor'S fib numk of ares for each land use caiegory in each
nn a base date of March 1, 1977, and since the in- ilztion raze on !and in San Diego un be as ha .I
q3rkel vaiili. They do, however. reflecl the relative 20 percenr a year. these rates do nor reflect current
irir)c 1: cvar. v-ir compared to another.
1970 imagery not available
4 PENDLETON - DELUZ
SUBREGION
39
Water and Land Costs
The Pendleton-DeLuz Subregional area has water service supplied by two separate
agencies. The military reservations have developed their own water supply system
and do not receive regular supplies from either the C.W.A. or the M.W.D. The
area around DeLuz has water service provided by the DeLuz Heights Municipal Water
District. The agricultural water rate in this district is $158 per acre foot (19781,
which is about 13 percent higher than the County average of $135 per acre foot.
Agricultural land in the DeLuz area costs about 20 percent less per acre than the
County-wide average for agricultural lands. According to the Assessor's Office
the average cost per acre for the DeLuz area is $1,390. Non-irrigated land costs
about $1,100 per acre while irrigated agricultural parcels cost about $2,900 per
acre.
Land Use Designations
The DeLuz area has an "Estate" designation on the Regional Land Use Element Map.
Essentially this means that the area is not within those areas of the County which
will be requiring urban levels of service. The underlying subregional land use
designation for DeLuz is "Multiple Rural Use." This land use designation allows
minimum lot sizes of 4, 8, 20, or 40 acres, depending upon slope and water avail-
ability. Virtually all of the land in DeLuz is in excess of 25 percent slope,
and thus the mimimum parcel sizes will be 8 acres for parcels between 25-50 percent
slope and 20 acres for parcels over 50 percent slope. One hundred percent of the -
production in DeLuz takes place on lands with a "non-urban" land use designation.
Summary
The Pendleton-DeLuz Subregion appears to satisfy all of the physical and cultural
criteria required for long-range commercial production. There has been a 44
percent increase in production acreage over the last eight years, and 15 percent
of the land in private ownership is in production. All of the production occurs
on land with a non-urban land use designation, and the entire area is designated
"estate" i.e., non-urban, in the Growth Management program. The average parcel
size for land in production is 13 acres. Although water costs are 17 percent
above the County average, land costs for irrigated parcels are about 20 percent'
below the County average. Because of the above factors and because of the geo-
graphic location of the area, existing land use designations and controls will
probably be adequate to support the continued long-range, commercial agricultural
land uses in the area.
B. FALLBROOK
Product ion
The Fallbrook Community Plan area is located in the northwest corner of San Diego
County, directly east of the Pendleton-DeLuz Subregional area. There are no
significant federal or state land holdings. About 48 percent (14,903 acres) of
the plan area is engaged in some form of agricultural production. Except for
the northcastern corner, which is vacant land, agricultural production is -
40
I
,- LANDS IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION . . . ..
FALL6ROOK 4 community Plan
41
L
located throughout the plan area. Eighty-two percent of the production acreage
is planted in orchards with the balance in irrigated row crops or nurseries. The
Fallbrook Community Plan area accounts for about 12 percent of the County's agri-
cultural acreage.
I
In 1973 Fallbrook had approximately 10,500 acres in orchards. In I978 the
acreage in orchards had increased 15 percent to 12,254 acres. Actually, the
percentage of newly-planted acreage is considerably higher than these figures
indicate because approximately 1,000 of the 1973 acreage has been taken out of
production.
Parcel Size
The Fallbrook area has approximately 8,000 lots distributed over its 30,809 acres,
yielding an average parcel size of 3.8 acres. Of the 7,985 parcels, 11 percent,
or 939 parcels, is in agricultural production. The average size of the agricultural
parcels is 14.5 acres. Most of the smaller parcels are located in and around the
town center. There are six other locations in the plan area where there are con-
centrations of parcels which have been split down into relatively small urban-type
lots.
Water and Land Costs
The Fallbrook Public Utility District and the Rainbow Municipal Water District
together provide water to the Fallbrook area. The F.P.U.D. agricultural water
rate is $99 per acre foot, which is a 43 percent increase over the district's -
cost. The R.M.W.D. agricultural water rate is $91 per acre foot, which is a 31 percent increase over the district's cost. Fallbrook's and Rainbow's agri-
cultural water rates are 33 percent and 27 percent, respectively, below the County
average for agricultural water.
Agricultural land in the Fa1 lbrook Community Plan area costs about 56 percent more
per acre than the County average for agricultural lands. According to the County
Assessor's records the average cost per acre in Fallbrook is $8,580. Non-irrigated
land costs about $1,840 per acre, and irrigated land costs about $5,680 per acre.
Land Use Designations
The Fallbrook town center, approximately 9 percent
y iven a "current urban'' des ignat ion by the Regiona
relatively high densities in the future. The rest
designation which will permit new lots to be no sm
depending upon slope. The community plan land use
part "Estate Residential'' or "Multiple Rural Use,"
2 or 4 acres and 4. 8, or 20 acres, respectively.
of the Plan area, has been
1 Land Use Element, allowing
a1 ler than two or four acres,
of the plan area has an "estate"
designations are for the most
allowing minimum lot sizes of
Approximately 60 percent of
the plan area has jess than a 25 percent slope,.which is the criteria for the
2 to 4 acre minimum lots.
42
,F
For the balance of the plan area it appears that commerc
appears to be a viable land use in the future because of
ial agr
the fo
icul tural production
1 lowing factors:
" 48% of the area in production,
" 40% increase in orchard acreage since 1970,
" 85% of the area in non-urban land use categories,
" an average agricultural parcel size of 14.5 acres, and
" agricultural water rates about 30 percent lower than County average.
The single most important factor which appears to be working against long range
production is the cost of land. In 1978 the average cost of irrigated land was
56 percent higher than the County average on a per-acre basis. Slgnificantly,
the vast majority of production in Fallbrook is in avocado orchards, which have
the best chance of returning a net capital gain on small parcels.
Because of the above factors, and because of the tremendous amount of lot-splitting
in the Fallbrook area, new land use controls will probably be necessary to help
keep the orchards in Fallbrook engaged in commercial production. These additional
land use controls are examined in some detail in Part V.
r Summa r y
Except for the extremely high cost of land, most of the Fallbrook plan area
appears to meet both the physical and cultural criteria for long-range, com-
mercial production. The town center, as delineated on thhe Regional Land Use
Element map, will probably not be able to continue any significant commercial
production because of the smaller parcel sizes and the pressures of urban devel-
opmen t .
C. BONSALL
P roduc t ion
The Bonsall Community Plan area is located in the northwest quadrant of San
Diego County, directly south of the Fallbrook Community Plan area. WIthin the
17,300 acres which make up the plan area there are no signiflcant federal or
state landholdings. Approximately 7,800 acres (45%) In Bonsall are in some
form of crop production with an estimated 6,400 acres planted with orchards. The
growth of orchard production in North County has been fairly dramatic in this
subregional area where there were only 180 acres planted in 1970. Orchard
production in this area is in large clusters located throughout the plan area.
43
44
Parcel S i ze
The average overall size of the i,745 parcels in Bonsall is 9.9 acres. One hundred
fifty two of, those parcels were, ?t last report, less than half an acre. Of the 1,745 parcels, 498 (28%) are cle ified as being engaged in some form of crop
production. The average parcel 0. the 7,800 acres in production is about 18.6
acres. Except for the San Luis Key Downs development the pattern of parcel size
shows a relatively even distribution throughout the plan area.
Water and Land Costs
The Bonsall Community Plan area has water service provided by the Rainbow Municipal
Water District. The agricultural water rate charged by the R.M.W.D. is $91 per
acre foot which is 32 percent less than the average charged by the local districts.
Land values in Bonsall tend to be slightly above the County average. On the average,
land in Bonsall costs about $4,658 per acre. Non-irrigated land has a market value
of around $2,940 per acre while irrigated land is worth about $4,069 per acre, about
10 percent above the County average.
Land Use Designations
Production in the Bonsall area occurs for the most part on land with non-urban
land use classifications. Virtually the entire plan area has an "Estate" designa-
two and forty acres, depending upon slope and water availability. For the
approximately two-thirds of the plan area which has slopes over 25 percent the
minimum parcel size will be eight acres.
- tion on the Regional Land Use Element map, allowing minimum lot sizes of between
The Bonsall Community Plan area appears to satisfy the physical and cultural criteria
for long-range commercial production because of the following factors:
" 45% of the area in production,
" 3500% increase in orchard acreage since 1970,
" 100% of the area in non-urban planning categories,
" average agricultural parcel size - 18.6 acres,
" agricultural water rate 32% lower than County average, and
" irrigated land costs about 10% above County average.
45
Although lot split activity over the past several years appears to have been
almost as heavy as in Fallbrook, the slope criteria in the tieneral Plan will
keep about 60 percent of the plan area with an eight-acre minimum parcel size.
For the type of production which could, and does occur, in Bonsall the current
minimum lot size is adequate.
D. NORTH COUNTY METROPOLITAN SUBREGION
Production
The North County Metropolitan Subregion is a large subregional area in northwest
San Diego. Because there are five incorporated cities in the subregion, the County's
land use authority is scattered over a wide area. There are no significant Federal
or State landholdings in the plan area. Of the 69,801 acres under the County's
jurisdiction 20,392 (29%) are in some stage of crop production.
The Subregion extends through three areaclimates, covers a variety of geomorphic
provinces, and is within the C.W.A. and therefore can support a wide variety of
crops. Along the coast there is extensive row crop and nursery production.
Further east there are extensive orchards. Since 1970, orchard production
appears to have increased about 35 percent and row crop production about 61
percent. The North County Metropolitan Subregion contains about 18 percent of
the County's production acreage.
-.4
Parcel Size
-1
The unincorporated areas of the Subregion contain about 17,000 parcels, with an
average parcel size of 4.1 acres. Five percent of those parcels (847) are engaged
in agricultural production, and their average size is 15.7 acres. As might be
expected, parcels tend to be smaller the closer they are to urban develop-
ment. Relatively unusual is the fact that much of the production in the coastal
areas continues to survive, and in some cases expand, on small parcels contiguous
to urban centers.
Water and Land Costs
Water service to the unincorporated areas of the Subregion is provided by the
Carlsbad Municipal Water District (C.M.W.D.), Vista Irrigation District (V.I.D.),
San Marcos Municipal Water District (S.M.M.W.D.), and the Rincon del Diablo
Municipal Water District (R.D.M.W.D.). From west to east the water rates are: $96 (C.M.W.D.), $108 (V.I.D.), $108 (S.M.M.W.D.), and $78 (R.D.M.W.D.). As can
be seen, these rates are substantially lower than the County average of $135 per
acre foot.
Land costs in the North County Metropolitan Subregion are the third highest in
the County with an average cost of $5,380 per acre. Non-irrigated land costs
about $1,255 per acre while irrigated agricultural land costs about $4,820 per
acre. The cost of irrigated agricultural land in this subregion is 32 percent
higher than the County average.
46
-- ,
ao a
0 11 '
.?. c .~
2 LANDS IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION'
~ ~~
& NO,RTH COUNTY METROPOLITAN SUBREGION
Land Use Designations
In the Subregion as a whole 16 percent of the production is taking piace on lands
with urban land use designations. The amount of land with urban classifications
is expected to double in this Subregion as a result of the Growth Management
program. Fifty percent of the current production is occurring on lands with non-
urban land use classifications with the balance taking place within the incorpor-
a ted areas.
Summary
It is difficult to summarize the potential of commercial agriculture in an area
as big as the North County Metropolitan Subregion. For this reason this summary
will divide the Subregion into the three following parts:
1. Coastal North County
2. Sheet 1 of Subregional Map (Vista - San Marcos) 3. Sheets 2 and 3 of Subregional Map (Escondido)
1. Coastal North County -- The coastal part of the North County Metropolitan
Subregion possesses the physical criteria for commercial production. Those
cultural factors which would favor long range commercial production include the
following:
" 100% (980 acres) of the land in production outside of the Coastal Commission
jurisdiction and within the unincorporated area of the County has non-urban
land use classifications;
" the amount of land in production has remained relatively stable over the
" agricultural water rate is 28% below County average; and past eight years;
" new LAFCo policies make annexation of agricultural land more difficult.
The cultural factors which would tend to reduce the potential for long-range
commercial production in the coastal area include the following:
" 37% of production acreage within incorporated boundaries,
" extremely high value of Coastal Land,
" County Island Annexation Policies, County Growth Management Policies in
Coastal Area,
" conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses, and
" rapid growth in North County Subregion.
48
Long-range commercial production in the coastal area of the North County Metro-
politan Area could be possible if the various land use authorities in the area
portion of the production acreage within the incorporated area is also within
the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. This may limit their development
potential. In the same manner the effect of the County Island Annexation
policies and the urban land use c'esignations in the area may be reversed in
those areas subject to the Coas-il Commission. The 4,110 acres in production in
the coastal area of the Subregir+r represent a significant resource in an area
still capable of being retained fc r agricultural uses.
- are able to agree on what specific lands are to be preserved. A significant
2. Sheet 1 of Subregional Map (Vista - San Marcos) -- The areas surrounding
Vista - San Marcos possess, for the most part, the physical factors conducive
to commercial agricultural production. Those cultural factors which would tend
to support production include the following:
" 6,400 acres in production (6% of County total),
" 74% of product ion acreage (4,790 acres) in unincorporated area,
" 87% of production acreage in unincorporated area under non-urban land use
desi~nation,
" 30% increase in production acreage since 1973,
" LAFCo Annexation Policies, and - " agricultural water rates approximately 25% below County average.
Those cultural factors which would tend to reduce the opportunities for continued
commercial agricultural production include:
" extremely rapid growth in area, and
" high market value for land.
3. Sheets 2 and 3 of Subregional Map (Escondido) -- The areas surrounding
Escondido possess the physical factors conducive to commercial agricultural
production. Those cultural factors which tend to support continued production
include the following:
..
" high percentage of production in unincorporated area,
" of 8,800 acres ih unincorporated area, 86% (7,537 acres) with
designations, and
" agricultural water rate 42% below County average.
E. SAN DlEGUlTO COMMUNITY PLAN
Production
The San Dieguito Community Plan area is located along the ce
non-urban
".ntral coast of San - Diego County directly south of the North County Metropolitan Subregion and
north of the cities of San Diego and Del Mar. There are no substantial federal
or State ownerships within the plan area.
49
LANDS IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
SARI DIEGUITO
Community Plan
t 50
Of the 54,842 acres in San Dieguito only 9 percent (5,200 acres) is in crop
production. Generally speaking, production in San Dieguito can be broken down
into two distinct categories. Nurseries and field flower production takes
place within two or three miles of the coast, and orchard production is the
dominant crop type in central Sal( Dieguito. Since 1970, orchard acreage has
increased by 13 percent while ro I crop production has virtually disappeared.
.c
Parce 1 Si =e
The average parcel size for the 22,404 parcels in San Dieguito is 2.4 acres. Parcels
engaged in crop production only make up 1.3 percent (311) of the total number of
parcels, but they equal 8.3 percmt of the total acreage. The average size of
parcels involved in crop production is 14.7 acres. The smaller, urban-size parcels
are concentrated in the six urban areas of western San Dieguito.
Water and Land Costs
Water service to San Dieguito is provided by three separate water agencies: the
Santa Fe Irrigation District (S.F.I.D.), the San Dieguito Irrigation District
(S.D. I.D.), and the Olivenhain Municipal Water District (O.M.W.D.). Most of the
crop production takes place in areas under the jurisdiction of the Santa Fe and
San Dieguito Irrigation Districts, where the water rates arc 12 and 9 percent,
respectively, under the County average.
Land costs in San Dieguito are the highest of any of the plan areas studied. The
cost per acre averages around $14,000, although market values close to the coast
cost of $2,700 per acre while irrigated land has an average cost of $8,265 per
acre.
- can be many times higher. Non-irrigated land in San Dieguito has an average
Land Use Des ignat ions
As in the coastal section of the North County Metropolitan Subregion, the coastal
area of San Dieguito has been under a great deal of development pressure. This
pressure +CIS resulted in a complex land use pattern where urban development is
located adjacent to agricultural operations. The field flower and nursery
operations in Encinitas and Leucadia are almost all located in either "Low
Residential" or "Intensive Agriculture" land use categories, which allow densi-
ties of 2.9 dwelling units per acre and 1 dwelling unit per 2 - 4 or 8 acres,
respectively. The row crop and orchard production in Rancho Santa Fe is located
for the most part in the "Medium Estates" category which a1 lows a density of 1
dwelling unit per 2 acres.
Summary
The San Dieguito Community Plan area for the most part possesses all of the physical
criteria needed for commercial agriculture. Those cultural factors which would
tend to favor continued long-range production include the following:
" 5% of County production acreage (significant portion of the commercial
nursery and field flower production); - " 66% of production acreage on non-urban land use categories, only 14% on urban
categories;
" average agricultural parcel size of 14.7 acres;
” agricultural water rates 9-l2% below County average;
” 85% of nursery and field flower production within jurisdiction of Coastal
Commission; and
” County Policy 1-38 - retention of agricultural lands in path of urban
deve 1 opmen t.
Those factors which would tend to reduce the potential for long-range commercial
production in the San Dieguito Community Plan area include the following:
“ high market value of land, 126% above County average;
” rapid growth in coastal areas; and
“ urban-agricultural land use conflicts.
F. PALA-PAUMA
Product ion
The Pala-Pauma subregion is located in northern San Diego County directly east of
the Fallbrook Community Planning Area. Indian Reservations make up approximately
38 percent (28,532 acres) of the subregional area. Of the 75,319 acres in the
plan area, 9,450 (12%) are in production. Production acreage has increased by
around 2,500 acres (27%) since 1970 and currently accounts for 8 percent of the
County total. Citrus and avocado orchards are by far the dominant crop type in
the subregion.
-
Parcel Size
There are 1,825 parcels in the Pala-Pauma subregion on the 46,787 acres in private
ownership. The average parcel size in the subregion is 25.6 acres, while the
average parcel size for the 412 parcels involved in agricultural production is
27.6 acres. The distribution pattern of the lot sizes shows the smaller parcels
concentrated for the most part in the valley bottom.
Water and Land Costs
Pala-Pauma has water service provided by three dffferant water agencies: the
Pauma, Yuima and Mootamai Municipal Water Districts. The Yuima M.W.D. which
provides most of the water for agricultural purposes has an agricultural water
rate of $150 per acre foot which is 11 percent above the County average.
Land costs in Pala-Pauma are on the average significantly lower than the rest
of the areas studied. The average cost of land in Pala-Pauma is $1,205 per acre.
Non-irrigated land costs, on the average, $434 per acre and irrigated agricultural
land has an average market value of $2,269 per acre, which is 37 percent below
the County average.
-.
4% PALA - PAUMA
SUBREGION
53
Land Use Designation -
Of the 9,.450 acres in production only 290 (3%) are on lands with urban designations.
Most of the balance of the plan area has a four acre minimum parcel size, although
the steeper slope areas have minimums of 8, 20, or 40 acres. Growth Management
has placed most of the areas now in production in the "Estate" category, which
again will require a minimum lot size of 4 acres.
Summary
The Pala-Paurna subregion has the physical factors required for long-range commercial
orchard production. The cultural factors conducive to long-range commercial
production in the subregion include the following:
9,200 acres in production,
6% of County production acreage,
27% increase in acreage since 1970,
88% of production acreage on land with non-urban classification,
agricultural land costs are 37% below County average,
average agricultural parcel size is 27.6 acres, and
water costs are only 10 percent above County average.
The Pala-Pauma subregion is gne of the most productive agricultural areas in
San Diego County. Because of the limited accessibility, lack of capital facilities,
the Growth Management designations, and the relatively large parcel sizes the
current land use restrictions in the area appear sufficient to encourage the
retention of commercial agriculture.
G. VALLEY CENTER
P roduct ion
The Valley Center Community Plan area is located in northern San Diego County,
directly south and west of the Pala-Paurna subregion. Eight percent of the 53,120
acres in the plan area are in Indian Reservations. Of the 48,837 acres in private
ownership 49 percent (24,104 acres) is in some stage of crop production. Orchard
acreage has increased 60 percent since 1973 and Valley Center now contains 23
percent of land under cultivation in the County.
Parcel Size
7
The average parcel size in Valley Center is 11.3 acres. The average size of agri-
cultural parcels is 16.7 acres. According to the Assessor's Office six-tenths of
a percent of the parcels in the plan area are less than one-half acre. The d'istribu-
tion pattern of the parcels shows that the smaller parcels tend to cluster among
the three main roads which traverse the plan area. -
54
t
23
..
2G
"
35 t
2111G
- LANDS IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
Water and Land Costs
The Valley Center Municipal Water District (V.C.M.W.D.) is the agency which
provides agricultural water to Valley Center. The district's rate of $1 18 per
acre foot is 12 percent below the County's average agricultural rate.
The cost of land in Valley Center averages about $2,923 per acre. Non-irrigated
land sells for $1,845 while irrigated land has an average market value of $3,104
per acre. The rate for irrigated land in Valley Center is about 14 percent below
the County average.
Land Use Des ignat ions
Of the 24,104 acres in production, only 515 (2%) are in lands with urban designa-
tions. The vast majority of the plan area has the "Medium tstate" or "Rural
Estate" category which allow densities of 2 and 2 - 4 acres, respectively. The
Growth Management program has designated most of Valley Center as ''Estate" or
"Environmentally Constrained,'' except for a Country Town area of approximately
900 acres.
Summa ry-
Valley Center, like much of North County possesses unique physical conditions
which meet the basic criteria for long-range commercial production. Virtually
all of the cultural factors examined tend to support the conclusion that Valley
Center can continue as a major agricultural center in San Diego. These factors -
include the following:
9,205 acres in production,
23% of County production acreage,
49% of plan area in production,
60% increase in orchard acreage s i nce 1973,
98% of production on land with non-urban classification,
average parcel size 16.7 acres,
agricultural water rate 12 percent below County average, and
irrigated agricultural land costs 14 percent below County average.
OTAY MESA
P roduc t ion
The Otay Mesa subregional area is located in the southwestern portion of San Diego
County. Within the 54,295 acres which make up the subregional area 39,112 are in
private ownership. The balance is either owned by the City of San Diego, the Otay
Municipal Water District, or the federal government. Of the land in private owner- -.
ship 13,695 (35%) acres are in some stage of production. In a given year approximatel,
. ..
'I
- LANDS IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 4 OTAY SU6REGloNi a
57 1
4,000 acres will be planted to row crops; tomatoes, celery or peppers are the
typical crops. The land not planted in row crops is either fallow, planted with
some type of field crop, or used for grazing.
-.
Production in the Otay subregion takes place exclusively in the western half
of the subregional area. The principal production areas are Otay Mesa and Rancho
Otay. About half of the County's tomato acreage is located in these two areas.
Production acreage has been relatively stable since 1970. Some acreage has
been deleted on Rancho Otay, and some added to Otay Mesa.
Parcel Size
The average size of the 564 parcels in the Otay Subregion is 69.3 acres. The
average size of the 13,695 acres in production is 45.1 acres. Except for
Pendleton-Deluz this is the only subregion examined where the overall parcel
size is larger than the average agricultural parcel. Rancho Otay, a large
Spanish land grant, skews the average parcel size to the high side, because
it consists of fourteen parcels averaging 379 acres.
Water and Land Costs
Water in the Subregion is supplied solely by the Otay M.W.D. Otay's rate for
agricultural water of $179 per acre foot makes water in the area about a third
more expensive than the County average.
Land costs on the average about $1,135 per acre in the Subregion. Non-irrigated -
land in the Subregion averages about $944 per acre, while irrigated land has an
average market value of $2,352 per acre. Irrigated agricultural land in Otay
costs about 35 percent less than the County average.
Land Use Designations
About 40 percent (5,500 acres) of the Subregion's production takes place on Otay
Mesa where 80 percent (4,400 acres) of the land currently has an urban land use
designation. The other 8,195 acres in production have an "intensive Agriculture"
designation which a1 lows densities of 2, 4, or 8 acres. Most of the land in the
Rancho Otay area would qualify for the 2 or 4 acre minimums. All of the produc-
tion acreage north of Otay Mesa has a Growth Management designation of "Estate"
which also allows densities of 2 and 4 acres. The Mesa however is identified
as a "Special Study Area" in the Growth Management program and future development
will depend upon whether the area is to be included in an "Economic Development
District."
Summa ry
The western half of the Otay Subregional area satisfies the physical criteria for
long range agricultural production. The cultural factors which would tend to keep
the Otay region in production include the following:
13,695 acres in production,
" production acreage relatively remote and compact,
58
r " 35% of Subregion in production,
" accounts for 12% of County production acreage,
" 68% of production acreage has non-urban land use designation,
" average parcel size 45.1 acres,
" 40% of production area has non-urban Growth Management designation, and
" average land cost for irrigated land is 35% below County average.
Those factors which would tend to work against long range commercial production
include the following:
" high water costs 32% above County average,
" urban land use designation of County,
" establishment of "Second Border Crossing,'' and
" establishment of "Economic Development District."
I. POWAY
..c Production
The Poway Community Plan area is located south and east of the San Dieguito Com-
munity Planning area in the foothills of San Diego County. There are no signi-
ficant federal or State landholdings in the plan area. Of the 25,174 acres in
Poway 2,592 (10%) is in some form of crop production. Although a sizeable section
of the production acreage in central Poway has been removed, since I970 there
has been an increase of over 900 acres (55%). Most of the new acreage has been
planted in orchards in the northern and eastern parts of the plan area. Poway
contains about 2 percent of the current County agricultural acreage.
Parcel Size
The average size of the 25,174 parcels in Poway is 2.4 acres. The plan area has
two separate concentrations of urban development, one in the north, and one in
the south, Production now takes place between the two urban areas and to the
north and east. There are 108 parcels devoted to agricultural uses, and they
have an average size of 17.2 acres.
Water and Land Costs
Water in Poway is delivered by the Poway M.W.D. whose rate for agricultural water, $135, is the same as the County's average. The average cost per acre of land in
Poway is $7,687. Non-irrigated land sells for $2,180 per acre, while irrigated
agricultural lands have a market value of $3,296 per acre, about 9 percent below
the County average.
P
59 i
"
LANDS IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
60
,"
Land Use Designation
Approximately 20 percent of the production in Poway tak es place on land with an
urban designation. The other 2,076 acres are fairly evenly divided up between
lands with four non-urban land use designations: "Medium Agricultural Estates"
(2 acre minimum), "Agricultural Preserves" (8 acre minimum), "Intensive Agriculture"
(2, 4, or 8 acre minimum), and "Mountain Development" (4, 8, or 20 acre min'imum). I
Summary
The Poway Community Planning area generally has the physical criteria required
for long range commercial production. Those cultural criteria which tend to
support continued agricultural uses include the following:
" 2,592 acres in production,
" 10% of area in production,
" 2% of County production acreage,
" 55% increase in acreage since 1970,
" average agricultural parcel is 17.2 acres,
IC " agricultural water rate same as County average, and
" irrigated agricultural land is 9% below County average.
J. RAMONA
Production
The Ramona Community Planning area is located in the foothills of Central San
Diego County, directly east of the Poway Community Planning area. Within the
72,000 acres which make up the plan area there are 8,720 acres (12%) engaged
in some form of agricultural production. Orchards (1,285 acres), field crops,
and poultry production (7,155 acres) are the primary agricultural uses. Since
1970 there has been an increase of around 63 percent in production acreage.
Although some acreage around the town center has been taken out of production
several hundred acres of avocado orchards have been planted in the western part
of the plan area, Ramona currently has about 8 percent of the County's produc-
t ion ac reage.
Parcel Size
The average size of the 9,510 parcels in Ramona is 7.5 acres. The average
size of the 313 parcels engaged in agricultural production is 26.9 acres. Only
one of those 313 parcels is one-half acre or smaller in size. According to the
Assessor's Office 63 of those 313 parcels (20%) are engaged in poultry production
which has been a primary agricultural use in the area for several years.
61
IS 1/
19 70
fd i" 29
LANDS IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION -
RAMONA
62 16=0 " '
Water and Land Costs
The Ramona M.W.D. is the sole provider of imported water in the plan area. The
current rate of $309 an acre for.': for agricultural water, which is 128 percent
above the County average, is far and away the highest rate in the County. Appar-
ently the 900 foot difference in elevation in the nine miles between Poway and
Ramona is responsible for the B174 increase in water rates.
The cost of land in Ramona avera'ges $2,394 per acre. Non-
the average for $698 per acre, while irrigated land sells, $1,914 per acre. This rate is approximately 47 percent be
irrigated land sells on
low the County's average.
on the average for
Land Use Des i gnat i ons
Only about 5 percent of the production acreage in Ramona has an urban land use
designation. Almost 7,000 acres of agricultural production now takes place on
land with at least a 2 acre minimum. The Growth Management program slightly
expands the boundaries of the current town center where there is about 300 acres
under cultivation. The balance of the plan area has an "Estate" designation
and because of the topography will probably have a 2 acre minimum lot size.
Summary
The Ramona Community Plan area satisfies the physical criteria for long range
production. The plan area also has a number of cultural factors which suggest
that long range commercial production is possible. These include the following:
e
" 8,720 acres in production,
" 125 of plan area,
" 8% of County acreage,
" 63% increase in production since 1970,
" 93% of production acreage has non-urban land use designation,
" 90% of production acreage has non-urban Growth Management designation,
" average agricultural parcel is 26.9 acres, and
" irrigated agricultural land cost is 47% below County average.
The major factor working against continued agricultural production in Ramona
is the cost of water. Currently the Ramona M.W.D. rate is 128% above the County
average.. The water supply problem in Ramona is acute and may get worse. Recent
plantings of avocado orchards could use close to 100% of the current R.M.W.D.
water supply when they come to maturity. Perhaps the one saving grace is that
typical orchard prodcution water usage is about the same as the permitted resi-
dential development would be on a per acre basis. The question about continued
commercial agricultural uses in Ramona is more clearly an economic question than
a 1 and use problem.
*c
63
K. RAINBOW-LAKESIDE-VALLE DE OR0 AND CREST/DEHESA
Preliminary research into the above four areas revealed that, although they
possessed the physical criteria needed for long range commercial production
there is relatively little in the way of agricultural production occurring now.
All four have less than 2,000 acres each: Rainbow - 1,715, Lakeside - 1,154,
Crest/Dehesa - 431, and Valle de Oro - 907, and all four have experienced a
rapid and substantial loss in production acreage since 1970. Except for Rainbow,
all four areas have experienced a rapid urbanizing trend over the last eight
years. Virtually all of the production areas in Lakeside and Valle de Oro have
been given a "Current Urban" designation by Growth Management and there is little
reason to believe that commercial agriculture can or will continue in these two
areas. Crest-Dehesa, isolated from the other production areas in the County has
experienced a 22 percent loss in acreage over the last eight years and currently
only has 431 acres in production. The Rainbow Community Plan area is somewhat
of an anomaly in that while the area satisfies the physical criteria for orchard
production, has irrigated land values just below the County average, and has 75
percent of the area with non-urban land use designations agricultural acreage has
diminished by about 24 percent since 1970.
64
I
14
-
23
26
35
1
11
_I
14
I
LANDS IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
RAINEOW 4 , Community 65 Plan
" "" .
4s
7
" "
""
19
30
31
"
6
"-
7
I
,*/
- --
- .- . ..
LANDS IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION "
LAKESIDE * Community Plan
66
VALLE DE OR0 e Community 67 Plan
i 18 7-
. _" . ." .
17 16 15 14
0 ' , 19 20 21 22
21
29
32
28
33
"
FEET
MILES
I LANDS IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
A& CREST - DEHEsA
68
,
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER ONE
This chapter analyzed the principal, cultural resources which effect local ,
agricultural production to better understand what areas of the County are most
likely to be able to continue long range production. Based on that analysis
following appear to be the most important conclusions:
There are three major areas of crop production in the County:
1. North County: 75% production acreage
2. Coastal: 6% production acreage 3. Otay: 13% production acreage
Together these three areas equal 94% of the County’s agricultural acreage.
Overall acreage increasing:
1. North County has had tremendous increase in acreage.
2. Coastal area losing some acreage.
3. Otay relatively stable.
Qualitatively land going out of production is better, in that there is a
relatively wide range of crops that can be planted on it. Sixty percent
of the new acreage is planted with avocados and is land unsuited for
virtually anything else.
Only 7 percent of production acreage ,in the three major agricultural areas
have urban designations.
Only 14 percent of production acreage in the three major ayricultural
areas have R.G.M. urban designations.
Average agricultural water rate in the three major agricultural areas is 9.75 percent below County average agricultural rate.
Average irrigated land costs are:
1. 24% below County average in most of North County.
2. 126% above County average in Coastal areas.
3. 14% below County average in Otay.
Average agricultural parcel in these three areas is 20.7 acres.
CHAPTER 2
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PACKING INDUSTRY
Agr i cu
335 mi
lture in San D
llion dollars
iego County had a gross production value of approximately
in 1977. Using the multiplier develaped for the agricultural
industry in the Regional Economic Impacts of Resource Use, by the University of
California, 2.164, the total regional value of the industry was around 725 million
dollars in 1977. A 1 ittle over half of the production value is generated by the
orchard and vegetables sectors.
The objective of this chapter is to provide a brief examination of the packing and
wholesaling industries in the County, especially as they relate to the packing and
wholesaling of fruit and vegetable production. The information in this chapter is
a summary of interviews and research conducted during July, 1978. The chapter is
divided into four parts: the fruit packing industry, the vegetable packing industry,
the fruit and vegetable wholesaling industry, and appendices.
FRU I T PACK1 NG INDUSTRY
The f i rms packing f ru i t in San D iego County range in size from 20 to 80 employees.
They process primarily avocados and limes; two of the ten firms specialize in lemon
and grapefruit packing. The industry is located primarily in the North County area
from Rancho Santa Fe - Escondido area north into Riverside County. The packing plants
are concentrated around Escondido and Fa1 lbrook. Seven avocado packing firms were -
interviewed.. The avocado firms had a production value of over $65,000,000 for 1977,
while the two citrus firms' production was valued at over $8,000,000 accounting for
virtually all 1977 citrus production in San Diego County.
There were four basic types of packing operations among those interviewed: 1) firms
which were their own grower, packer, and shipper; 2) firms which purchased fruit
grown by farmers; 3) firms that contract with farmers; and 4) co-ops. Due to the
year-round growing season and different fruit varieties, the plants remain open all
year.
In the case of avocados, about 95 percent of the raw produce originates from within
San Diego County. The remaining 5 percent comes primarily from Ventura and Santa
Barbara areas, with a small amount from Riverside County. The final product is
packed fruit. The products are shipped worldwide, with primary markets being Japan
(lo%), Europe (5%), Texas (30%), Chicago (30%), East Coast (20%), and about 5% is
sold locally or in Los Angeles.
The citrus packing plants receive 100 percent of their raw produce from San Diego
County. Final products are mostly packed fruit, with a small amount of canned
produce. The products are shipped worldwide with the market broken down as follows: Japan (269;), Europe (l5%), East Coast (primarily Atlanta, Philadelphia, and New
York - 54%), the remaining 7% is sold to San Diego and Los Angeles.
Virtually all products move to market by truck; only one firm still uses any rail
service. Rail service to the North County Area is generally inadequate and new
rail expansion is not expected. Products moving overseas are moved by ship from
Long Beach; 2 percent is shipped by air, primarily to Europe.
"
70
About half of the firms are operating at about 50 percent capacity, while the
rest are near 95 percent capacity. Spokesmen for the firms do not think urban
expansion is, at present, any threat to the industry and several firms are
considering building new plants.
When asked about stimulating growth in the industry, the primary suggestion was
to regulate in some way the individual water districts where great disparities
in prices and arbitrary raising of prices were mentioned.
VEGETABLE PACKING INDUSTRY
The firms packing vegetables in San Diego County range in size from five employees
to over 100 employees. They handle primarily tomatoes, strawberries, cucumbers,
and celery, as well as lesser amounts of squash, cauliflower, beans, cabbage,
lettuce, corn, asparagus, and a few other minor crops. The firms are located
in two major areas: the North County Area, ranging from the coastal strip south
of Carlsbad to around the metropolitan areas extending north of Vista and inland
of Oceanside, and the South County Area from Chula Vista to Otay Mesa. The eleven
firms interviewed had a production value of $63,200,000 for I977 which comprises
about 74 percent of the total County vegetable production. Of these firms, six
are located in the North County Area and account for $47,500,000 (56% of County
total), and 5 are in the South County Area and account for $15,700,000 (18% of
County tota 1 ) .
rc Most of the firms interviewed are large organizations which grow, pack, and ship
their own produce. There are also a few co-ops and firms which contract with and
purchase from growers. Because of the year-round growing season and variety of
produce, the firms remain open all year.
Virtually all produce processed originates in San Diego County. Only one has
minor acreage in Orange County from where it moved several years ago. The final
produce is packed vegetables for wholesale. Nearly 80 percent of the products
are shipped to the midwest and the east coast. The Los Angeles and San Francisco
terminals received 0 - 15 percent of the products, with the remainder being sold
locally in San Diego. Only one firm interviewed ships overseas, through Long
Beach. Almost all produce moves to market by truck.
At present most plants are operating at between 50 to 80 percent of their capacity
with several in the process of expanding. The managers feel they could withstand
no more than 10 - 15 percent reduction in production to maintain their present
operation. Most of the firms interviewed had a pessimistic outlook for the future,
although many are enthusiastic about expanding and welcome any assistance from
the government. A few firms in the North County Area, however, indicated their
agricultural investment is short term.
When asked about stimulating the local economy, most of those interviewed replied
that the lack of facilities in San Diego compared to the large terminal and
facilities in Los Angeles was the primary deterent to selling more products
locally.
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE WHOLESALERS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY
The wholesale produce industry in San Diego is characterized by small firms in
inadequate facilities supplying independent stores, restaurants and small insti-
tutions. Most of the firms are located around 6th and Island in downtown San
Diego. These facilities were built early in the century and have changed little.
Many firms lack even loading docks, and produce is land-loaded onto trucks along
crowded streets. There is no long-term or bulk refrigerating equipment; there-
fore produce must be quickly turned over and storage is not possible. As a
result, most of the large retailers buy and store produce in Los Anyeles and
truck the produce to their stores in San Diego on a daily basis.
Representatives of nine firms were interviewed. These firms comprise about 25
percent of the fruit and vegetable wholesalers in the region and have sales of
about $35,650,000, which is estimated to be 60 percent of the local fruit and
vegetable wholesale total.
These firms purchase their produce from several seasonal markets. Over an entire
year, it is estimated that local producers supply 17 percent of total produce;
Mexican producers about 23 percent of total produce; the Los Angeles market
supplies 13 percent of total produce to the local wholesalers; and the remainder
comes from the western states, ranging from Washington to Colorado to Arizona.
The produce is then sold to local small chain stores, Ma & Pa stores, restaurants,
small institutions, and the military.
Almost all of those interviewed complained about the inadequate facilities. Due
to the congestion, several firms have begun locating elsewhere in the City and
County, beginning a decentralization trend in the industry. Most firms feel
special facilities should be built, either near the present 6th & Island location
or in the centrally located Mira Mesa area. At the very least, they feel the
City should recognize the industry by designating a central market area wherein
growth could be encouraged. Many indicate business opportunities to supply the
expanding San Diego market (estimated 2 million people by 1980) are being lost
to Los Angeles due to general non-recognition by the City of the industry and
its needs.
-
In the South County Area wholesaling of Mexican produce is expanding. Since the
completion of the Baja Highway by the Mexican Government, agriculture alony the
Baja Peninsula has been growing. Several firms have begun handling Mexican pro-
duce, a few exclusively, in the past several years. The firms in this business
have an optimistic outlook as Mexican agriculture becomes progressively more
important to the area and suggest the government review the border regulations
and tariffs in the face of changing conditions. At present, the wholesale busi-
ness from Mexican produce in San Diego County is estimated to be worth $10,000,000
in gross sales. About 15 percent of this is sold locally with the rest shipped to
the midwest and east. Primary crops are tomatoes, brussels sprouts, watermelon,
and broccoli. Although Mexican agriculture is limited, due primarily to water,
it is felt that the expanding urban areas of San Dieyo will cause agriculture
south of the border to become increasingly more important.
72
PART IV
ANALYSIS OF THE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY
OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY
73
CHAPTER 1
I NTRODUCT I ON AND SUWt4ARY
Two economic studies were prepared for the County of San Diego for the purpose
of determining the importance and viability of agriculture in this region. The
first study, prepared by the University of California Extension Service, analyzed
the interrelationships between the agriculture sector and other economic sectors
within and outside the region. The second study, completed by Copley Interna-
tional and Pacific Consultants, analyzed the viability of various crops in San
Diego County. In addition, County staff has utilized the San Diego County
Demographic and Economic Forecasting Model (DEFM) to analyze the local employ-
ment impacts of agriculture workers.
Based upon this analysis, the following is a summary by County staff of the
results of the above mentioned studies:
1.
rc
2.
3.
-
Agriculture, in ternis of dollar value of output, is the fourth largest
sector in San Diego County. Only manufacturing, military, and tourism
sectors rank higher. Agriculture accounts for 1.7 percent of the personal
income, 3.4 percent of County sales, and 2.1 percent of employment in the
Reyion. In summary, the two consultant studies have indicated that agri-
culture indeed is an important industry in the region. In fact, many crops
presently have a positive rate of return on capital investment and given
current trends can be expected to continue to show the relationship in the
future.
In terms of multiplier effect, agriculture contributes substantially to
local economic activity. For every $1.00 agriculture sells, an additional $1.16 is generated indirectly in County sales. This multiplier effect
does vary but is roughly stable among various agricultural subsectors.
On the average, agriculture has a higher multipl ier effect than many other
sectors in the local economy.
The study by Copley International and Pacific Consultants analyzed the
historical trends in revenue and the current cost structure for various
crops. Thc costs analyzed included production costs (i.e., soil prepara-
tion, water, pest control), overhead (i.e., taxes, equipment repair), land
lease costs, depreciation, and harvest costs. The end product of this
analysis was a specification of the current expected revenue and cost for
major crop categories in the region. In order to have a comnon basis of
comparison, these cost and revenue calculations were stated in terms of
production units. Typically this production unit is an acre for field
crops or per animal for poultry, etc. It must be emphasized that the
costs of production do not include debt service costs for land purchases
of an owner-grower.
Given the present revenue and cost structures, one measure of economic
viability was calculated for San Diego's crops. This is the net differ-
ence between revenues and costs as a percent of dollar investment in
machinery, storage facilities, equipment, etc. That is, a gross rate of
return on capital investment was computed.
74
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
-
The following crops at the Countywide level currently show a positive rate
of return on capital investment and are defined in the context of this
study as economically viable: avocadoes, cauliflower, tomatoes, gladiolus,
squash, strawberries, cucumbers, milk, lemons, eggs, and nursery crops.
These crops currently account for about 80 percent of agricultural sales in
San Diego County.
An analysis of the specific revenues and costs for various crops within
planning subregions indicate the following areas were determined to have
economically viable agricultural sectors: North County Metropolitan,
Fallbrook, Bonsall, Valley Center, Otay, San Dieguito, Pendleton-DeLuz,
and Pala-Pauma. The focus of the subregional analysis was the unincor-
porated area of the County only.
While there are crops which have positive rates of return on capital
investment, it must also be recognized that many of the agricultural lands
in San Diego County would be uneconomical to farm given purchase at today's
market prices, resulting debt service requirements that would be incurred,
and the revenue that the crops would generate in the marketplace. However,
it must also be noted that these land values could potentially change
drastically, if zoning limits the extent of alternative land uses.
This phenomenon can clearly be seen in Table 17 in Chapter 2. In this table
the value of agricultural land given risks, revenues, costs, and interest
on capital is calculated (land value, risk adjusted figure). It can be
seen that the value of agricultural land in terms of what it returns on
agricultural production is intuitively less than the land is worth for
alternative uses in many cases. For example, the value calculated per
acre for tomato production is $3700. Clearly, tomato land in North County
could be sold above this if zoned for residential development.
"
There are data which support the contention that speculation is occurring
on agricultural lands in San Diego County. That is, crops are being grown
at a loss in order to realize future capital gains on the sale of the
agricultural land.
Agricultural production in San Diego County is primarily
Avocadoes, tomatoes, and flowers are major export crops.
percentage of milk, eggs, and citrus fruit produced loca
local consumer demand.
export oriented.
However, a high
1 ly satisfies
In addition to the cost of purchasing agricultural land, a very important
factor affecting the future viability of agriculture will be the cost and
availability of water. It is uncertain what the cost of water will be in
the future in San Diego County. This will depend on Colorado River water
negotiations and the price of Northern California water. These future
water costs wi 11 be largely influenced by pumping costs and therefore
energy costs. The consultant reports primarily reviewed the current costs
of water and the amount of water used in producing various crops.
75
Hence, the forecasting of how future water prices would affect the
viability of agriculture in San Diego County was beyond the scope of
this study. Clearly, those crops which use water most intensively are
most likely to be affected by cost rises (Table 15 in Chapter 2 i 1 lus-
trates water use by crop). What will be extremely important in determining
the viability of various crops, given future water costs, is consumer
sensitivity to price increases and thus the grower ability to "pass on" the
increased water costs.
10. A comparison has been made of continuing agricultural production on land
producing tomatoes versus building low density residential development on
the land, The results indicate that the region would receive greater long
ana 1 yzed . - run income by continuing agricultural production in the one case that was
11. A variety of various possible agriculture acreage losses (i.e., 20 percent
reduction in County acreage devoted to the County's five largest crop
categories) indicates that the local economic impact would be fairly sub-
stantial for these conversions to non-agricultural uses. It should be
noted that these "loss scenarios" were analyzed for illustrative purposes
only. Hence, they may or may not represent actual losses in the future.
CHAPTER 2
COPLEY INTERNATIONAL AND PACIFIC CONSULTANTS
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL VIABILITY IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Copley International and Pacific Consultants prepared an analysis of the
viability of various crops in San Diego and the factors affecting their
future in San Diego County. To this end, data was collected and analyzed
on factors such as: the historical trends in costs and revenues associated
with various crops, agricultural marketing strategies, variables influencing
crop productivity, and the unique conditions in San Diego County which deter-
mine the viability of various agricultural crops. Summarized below are the
major results of this study:
1. San Diego County has crops which show a positive rate of return on gross
capital investment and thus, are defined as economically viable in the
context of this study. These crops are: avocadoes, cauliflower, cherry
tomatoes, gladiolus, squash, strawberries, cucumbers, tomatoes, milk
(dairy products), lemons, eggs, and nursery crops. The followiny table
presents the average gross rate of return on capital investnxnt for crops
in San Diego County:
CROP NAME
Avocadoes
Cauliflower
Bedding Plants
Nursery
Cherry Tomatoes
Galdiolus
Squash
Strawberries
Cucumbers
Toma toes
Si lage
Da i ry
Lemons
Eggs L i mes
Green Chop
Foliage Plants
Cow/Ca 1 f
Chicken/Fryers
Ce 1 ery
Navel Oranges
TABLE 14
Return on Investment of Agricultural Crops
In San D iego County
GROSS PERCENTAGE RATE OF
RETURN ON CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Tange 1 os
Carnations
Grapef rui t
Va 1 enc i a Orar
Rabbi ts
Alfalfa Hay
Stocker Catt
f: ( ) indicates a
lges
le
negative rate of return.
32.54
30.11
28.17
28.17
22.53 22 .oo
21.28
20.80
19-33 14.83
10.80
4.25 1.78
1.04 (.3P
(0 49)
(1 -30) (3.34)
(6.33)
(8.12)
(1 1.67) (8.8)
(12.17)
(12.5)
(13.13)
(1 8.9)
(20.8)
(23.91)
77
P
Those crops which are economically viable account lor- 80 pcr-cc-nt 01' tlrc
agricultural sales in San Uieyo County and about 36.5 percent of the
harvested acreage in I977 (this does not include dairy and egg production
whose relative acreage is small).
2. The major advantage to local agriculture is the mild climate of the region,
while topography, soil quality, and water availability provide the major
analysis of the viability of planning subregions in the unincorporated
areas of the County indicate that the following areas are economically
viable with respect to agriculture: North County Metropolitan, Fallbrook,
Bonsall, Val ley Center, Otay, San Dieguito, Pendleton-DeLuz, and Pala-
Pauma. Quite clearly, the planning subregions of North County Metropolitan,
San Dieguito, Bonsall, Fallbrook, and Otay are areas which will increasingly
be suhject to urban development pressures.
' physical constraints to the expansion of agricultural production. An
What this implies is that these planning subregions have crops which are
currently economically viable and thus worth careful consideration for
planning the preservation of cropland.
3. The cost of water for agricultural users is higher in San Diego County than
most counties in California. California State Project water could increase
from $10 an acre foot to $61 an acre foot by the mid-1980's. Likewise
current contract is renegotiated. - Colorado River water costs will increase substantially in 1987 when the
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the consultant studies did not attempt to
forecast future water prices and their effect on the viability of various
crops. This type of effort is difficult due to the uncertainty surround-
ing contract negotiations. The local effect of these water costs increases
will depend on such factors as the cost of water in other areas outside of
San Diego County, the sensitivity of consumers to crop price increases,
the abi 1 i ty to "pass on" cost increases, etc.
Any impact of water costs on various crops will, of course, depend on the
intensity at which crops use water. The table below presents the percentage
of total production costs that water accounts for in selected crop categories:
TABLE I5
Cost Of Local Water In Agricultural Production
Crop Name
Toma toe s
Celery
Caul if lower
Cherry Tomatoes
Cucumbers
Squash
Oranyes F
Percent of Total Production
cost
2.71 4.98
11 .og
2.43
3.99
9.32 14.4
78
4.
5.
6.
7.
TABLE
Crop Name
Grapefruit
Limes
Lemons
Tanger i nes
Strawberries
Avocadoes
Bedding Plants
Foliage Plants
Carnations
Floral Production
I5 (Continued)
Percent of Total Production
12.83
12.83
7.22
13.67
3.02
20.91
.66
6.22
3.58
5.04
An estimate was made of future agricultural trends in San Diego County,
assuming that past trends in the agricultural sector will indicate future
behaltior in the agricultural sector. This analysis showed that in real or
inflation-adjusted dollars, that agricultural sales would increase by 12
percent between 1977 and 1980. The major crops contributing to this increase
are milk, avocadoes, lemons, limes, and grapefruit. Major declines in
real sales were forecast in tomatoes, gladiolus, valencia oranges, and
bedding plants. These projections indicate that, given past trends, that
the fruit crops (primarily avocadoes) wi 11 provide the major increases in
agricultural activity in San Diego County for the next few years. However,
vegetables and nursery/field flowers are likely to experience a decline in
real production values, due to a projected trend in declining acreage under
production. The table on the following page presents this information in
greater detail. It must be emphasized, however, that the forecasting of
agricultural sales is difficult due to the volatility of agricultural
markets. Therefore, these figures represent rough estimates only. The
table does not include all crop categories.
-
I
The major strength in recent years in agricultural production has been the
expansion in the production of avocadoes. Strong consumer demand coupled
with the effective marketing strategies has contributed to this expanding
section of the local agricultural economy.
Vegetable production, which is dominated by tomatoes, is concentrated in
two areas of the County -- North County Metropolitan and Otay Mesa where
about 78 percent of this activity occurs in the County. Vegetable land is
largely leased and vegetable production is highly sensitive to market
conditions independent of the San Diego County Economy.
San Piego County, while at a competitive disadvantage to other Counties
in California with respect to water prices, does enjoy a distinct
advantage in labor availability and costs. This is due, in large part,
to undocumented workers employed in local agriculture.
79
TABLE 16**
Agriculture Revenue Summary
San Diego County -- Selected Crops
(In 1977 Dollars)
Crop by Category
Livestock and Poultry:
Mi lk
Beef Cattle & Cull Dairy Cattle
Chickens (fryers)
Eggs Rabbits
Feed Crops :
Si lage
Green Chop
ti ay
Nursery and Field Flowers:
“71aciiolus
ditrus E Subtropical Fruit Trees
Ornamental Trees and Shrubs
Bedding Plants
Vegetables:
lorna toes
Celery
Cau 1 i flower
Cucumber
Squash
Fruit Crops:
Avocadoes
Grapefruit
Lernrms L i-oe5
Strad!berries
Valencias
liave 1 s
Tanger i nes E Tange 10s
TOTAL REVENUE : -
1980 County 1977 County % I ncrease/
Revenue Project ion Revenue +: Decrease
$ 88,169,535
30,918,175
4,778,314
673,605 51,312,296
487,145
1,058,474
523 , 398
252,486
282,590
20,863,000
1,657,074 4,149,319
11,796,048
3,261,518
60,066,994
50,850,258
3,222,996 1,618,620
2,699,160
1,675,960
131,765,242
89,008,930
2,219,400
8,799,622
1 ,734,250
9,428,900
16,768,000
1 ,749,300
2,056,790
301,924,204
$f33,576,000
24,701,000
5,825,000
704,000
51,408,000
939,000
1,236,000
326,000
262,000
648,000
23,298,000
2,306,000
4,246,000
12,375,000
4,371,000
72,153,000
63,332,000
2,889,000
1,210,000
3,230,000
1,492,000
89,429,500
50,058,000
1 ,556,000 6,364,000
1,640,000
7,721,000
2,293,000
1,967,000
269,692,500
17,830,000
+ 5%
+252
-188 - 48 - 1%
-92%
-17%
+6 1% - 4%
-56%
-12%
-28% - 2% - 5% - 38%
-20%
-20%
+12% +3 4% - 16%
+122
+47%
+78%
+43% +3 8% + 6%
+22% - 37% -31%
+ 5%
+12%
; 2ource: County of San Diego, Department of Weights and Measures,
Agricultural Crop Report, 1977.
;kf:Total Crop Revenue was 335 million for 1977. . .0.
80
8. The vegetable and egg industries are highly integrated in San Diego; that I
is, the grower of crops is likewise the shipperharketer.
9. Nursery crops are primarily grown on the coastal plains of San Diego
County. Nursery farms are typically grower owned.
10. Agricultural parcel size is becoming smaller as agricultural land adjacent
and within urban areas becomes developed. What this table illustrates is
that the value of agricultural land is often less than what it would yield
if sold for non-agricultural uses. For example, tomato land at an agri-
cultural value of $3,700 per acre would sell for above this if sold for
residential development in many areas of the County. That is, this table
presents the theoretical calculated value of agricultural land for agri-
cultural product ion only.
All production units are acres except for bedding plants and nursery plants.
These are stated in terms of 1,000 square feet. The following crops had
a negative rate of return on capital investment and thus had a calculated
agric1,lltural land value of zero: dairy, lemons, eggs, limes, green chop,
foliage plants, cow/calf, chicken/fryers, celery, navel oranges, tangelos,
carnations, grapefruit, valencia oranges, rabbits, alfalfa hay, and stocker
cattle.
TABLE 17
LAND VALUE PER PRODUCTION UNIT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR
AGRICULTURAL USES -- SAN DlEGO COUNTY
Crop Name Value
Avocado
Cauliflower
Bedding Plants
Cherry Tomatoes
Gladiolus
Squash
Strawberries
Cucumbers
Toma toe s
Silage
tiursery
$ 6,000
2,500
12,300
7,500
3,300
2,100
3,400 2,000
3,700 200
12,300
81
CHAPTER 3
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXTENSION SERVICE
SUHHARY OF THE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY
San Diego County is currently among the top twenty counties in the United States
in agricultural production, as measured by personal income allocated to the
region. In terms of dollar value of output, agriculture ranks as the fourth
largest industry in San Diego County. As far as personal income, agriculture
increased its share of regional personal income from 1.1 percent to 1.7 percent
between 1971 and 1976. In summary, agriculture represents a sizable sector in
San Diego County's economy.
This chapter summarizes the interrelationships between this agricultural sector
and other economic sectors in San Diego County, presents recent trends in the
production of various crops, and examines the economic impact of replacing land
under agricultura'l production with residential development. That is, this
chapter will provide a broad overview of the importance of agriculture to San
Diego County. The information is taken from a report prepared by the University
of California Extension Service.
The tables on the following pages summarize the most important information - presented in this report. Briefly described below is the information in these
tab1 es:
TABLE 18 Compares the percentage change in acreage under production and
constant dollar sales for major crop categories in the County.
This period of comparison is an average sales and acreage data
for 1968-1970 and 1974-1976.
TABLE 19 Indicates the dollar value of output and associated employment
for major crop categories in San Diego County for 1975.
TABLE 20 Provides a ranking of the sales "multiplier" effect of various
agricultural subsectors. A sales multiplier of 2.0, for example,
would indicate that for each $1.00 worth of agriculture sales
an additional $1.00 is generated in other sales by local economic
sectors.
I TABLE 21 Presents the percent of sales by agricultural subsector which is
allocated to local firms and households. The difference between
these two numbers represents sales to local firms.
82
TRENDS IN AGRICULTURAL SALES AND ACREAGE
UNDER PRODUCTION
Flowers and Plants
Avocadoes
Field Crops
Lemons, L imes, Grapef rui t
Oranges, Tangerines
Strawberries
Toma toes
Dairy
Poultry and Eggs
Ce 1 ery
COUNTY
ACREAGE CHANGE
N/A
28
-5 63 54 37
25 -6
2 - -35
SALES CHANGE
112
100 68
. * 59 58 48
47 7 -7 - -30
d
23 46
TABLE 19
DOLLAR VALUE OFOUTPUT AND EMPLOYMENT BY
AGRICULTURAL SUBSECTOR
(OUTPUT IN MILLIONS. OF 1977. DOLLARS, EMeLOYMENT
IN NUMBER OF FULL TIME EQUIVALENT JOBS)
OUTPUT EMPLOYMENT
Toma toes
Pou 1 try and Eggs
Potted Plants
Avocadoes
Dai ry
Major Greenhouse
Oranges and Tangerines
Field Flowers
Lemons, Limes, Grapefruit
Strawberries
Cattle
Field Crops
Celery
$57.1 $55.5
$48.0
$42.0
$25.2
$22.0
$21.1 $14.0
$1 1.9
$ 8.5 $ 6.3 $ 4.4
$ 3.6
TAMLt: 20
MULTIPLIER EFFECT BY AGRICULTURAL SUBSECTOR
Lemons, Limes, Grapefruit
Toma toes
Oranges and Tanger I nes
Avocadoes
Potted Plants
Ce I ery
Field Crops
Major Greenhouse
St rawbcrr ies
Beef
Eggs Flowers
Mi Ik
AGRICULTURAL AVERAGE
AVERAGE NON-AGRICULTURE SECTORS 83
305 1
1114
1332
I506
390 699 553
324
482
387
52 143 147
2.4747
2.3479
2.3315 2.291 1
2 2664
2.2561
2.2180
2.2132
2.0137
1.9003
1.8123
1.7265
2 2797
2.164
1 0.990
.
TABLE 21
PERCENT OF AGRICULTURAL SALES TO LOCAL ECONOMIC SECTORS
Mi lk
Potted Plants
Beef
Eggs
Strawberries
Oranges and Tangerines
Lemons, Limes, Grapefruit
Celery
Toma toes
Avoca doe s
Flowers
Greenhouse
AVERAGE
HOUSEHOLDS AND FIRMS
90.2
48.0
45.6
43.0
30.4 28.7
28.7
27.0
24.5
26.0
lQ.0 -65
35.5
HOUSEHOLDS ONLY
83.0
28.7
25.0
28.1
18.2
23.1 23.1
18.2
18.2
23.1
5.7 0
26.0
84
The following is a summary of the information contained in the University of
California Extension Services study:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
An
Each dollar value of agricultural sales in San Diego County generates
an additional $1.16 in local sales via the "multiplier" effect. Agri-
culture yenerates a substantial amount of direct and indirect economic
activity in the region, in fact, higher than most local industries.
Recent information indicates a definite trend towards producing crops
which have a high commodity value per acre, such as tomatoes, avocadoes,
flowers, etc. This is reflective, in part, of the increasing value of
agricultural land and thus the desire to obtain a high rate of return
on this land.
The major reason for agriculture increasing its share of personal income
in the region from 1971-1976 has been the rapid expansion in avocado and,
to a minor degree, flower production.
Thirty-six percent of total sales in the agricultural industry is sold to
local industriles and households. Sales to local households comprise 26
percent of total agricultural sales. Milk, eggs, and potted plants represent
those crops which are predominantly purchased by local consumers, while
avocadoes, flowers, tomatoes, and greenhouse plants are the highest export-
oriented crops. 4
County agricultural sales represent 3.4 percent of total private sector
sales in San Diego County.
Given the high multiplier effect and labor intensivenesss of tomato production,
any decline in this agricultural subsector should be of special concern.
Compared to other economic sectors, agriculture ranks higher in "nwltiplier"
effect than the average non-agricultural industries. However, there are ten
economic sectors (out of the 44 classified in this study) which have hiyher-
multipliers. In other words, agriculture is not a low multiplier sector and
thus, does contribute substantially to local economic activity. -
input-output table was utilized to derive most of the figures cited previously.
An outfall of the construction of an input-output table is that it can be uti 1 ized
to perform economic impact analysis. In order to give an indication of the effects
of reducing the acreage under agricultural production in the San Deigo County area,
four specific land use scenarios were analyzed using this analytic device. Described
below are these scenarios and a summary of their results:
SCENARIO 1. This measured the impact of the effects of constrained growth in the
County via a limiting of agricultural land available for residential development.
This scenario measures an extreme case of growth limitation and is probably not
close to reality. It was assumed that 5,700 jobs in aircraft manufacturing, yeneral
machine, and electrical machine would only be available in the region if 935 acres -
/-
of agricultural land was made available for hows. That is, ~11 1 ut these
potential workers would be inmigrants filling all these jobs and needing homes
in the region. The estimated impact of this was an addition of an annual 362
million dollars in local sales, 113 million dollars in personal income, and a
total job addition of 8,520.
SCENARIO II. This measured the impact on agricultural production of converting
20 to SO percent of the agricultural land in Otay Mesa, San Uieguito, Escondido,
Fa1 lbrook', and Valley Cenier to single family residential use. It was estimated
that a 20 percent loss in agricultural acreage (11,474 acres) would result in an
annual loss of 71.3 million dollars in sales, 27.5 million dollars in income, and
2,517 jobs in the region. A fifty percent reduction was estimated to result in
an annual 178 million dollar sales loss, a 68.9 million dollar loss in income,
and a 6,294 loss in jobs.
SCENARIO Ill. This scenario measured the impact on the County's agricultural
production of converting all existing agricultural acreage in areas designated
for urban development in the County's preliminary Growth Management Plan to
residential use.
The reduction in agricultural acreage would be approximately 11,735 acres
resulting in an annual sales loss of 74.5 million dollars, 29.0 million dollars
in lost income and 2,660 job reduction.
SCENARIO IV. This final scenario measured the impact on agricultural production
of a 20 and 50 percent reduction in acreage devoted to San Diego's five largest
crop categories: tomatoes, avocadoes, field flowers, poultry, and nursery pro-
ducts.
/I
A 20 percent reduction was estimated to result in a 71 million dollar annual loss
in sales, 25.5 million dollar annual loss in income and a 2,329 total job reduction.
A 50 percent reduction was projected to result in a 178 million annual dollar sales
loss, a 63.7 million dollar annual income loss, and a 5,824 job reduction for the
reg ion.
What is important to note about these scenarios is that they represent a range
of possibilities for reduction in agricultural production in San Diego County.
It appears clear that agriculture is an important industry to San Diego County.
The critical factor that will have to be watched in the future is the degree to
which agricultural production losses are offset by net gains in other economic
sectors. As the input-output is static in nature, i.t does not include feedback
relationships inherent in a simultaneous equation econometric model. Therefore,
potential interrelationships between agricultural production and non-agricultural
production are not totally quantified in this one type of economic model.
-
86
CHAPTER IV
AN ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURE IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY
SUMMARY AND COt4CLUSI ONS
The County of San Diego is currently engaged in preparing the Agricultural Element
to the County's General Plan. A multitude of factors must be analyzed in designing
this plan, including the importance of agriculture to the economy of San Diego
County. Most of this economic analysis has been prepared by two consultants, Copley
International and the University of California Extension Service.
However, the County of San Diego currently has for its use a tool which could not
be utilized by these consultants, the Demographic an'd Economic Forecasting Model
(DEFM). Therefore, this chapter wi 11 analyze the relative importance of agriculture
to San Oiego County using the DEFM. While detailed information will be provided,
it should be viewed as a supplement to the consultants' reports.
Based upon the analyses found in the following sections, contained below are the
major conclusions of this analysis:
1. A substantial reduction in agricultural production and service related
employment (1,000 jobs -- assumed for illustrative purposes only) with no
permanent replacement employment (i.e., shift to wholesale and retail
employment) would have a net negative economic impact on the region. It
was estimated that a 1,000 job reduction in agricultural related employment
would result in an additional 979 "indirect" jobs being reduced in the
regicn. Likewise, this was estimated to result in an income loss of $229
million for an eleven year period. This simulated agricultural job reduc-
tion of 1,000 represents about 8.6 percent of the persons currently employed
in agricultural production and services. Assuming that there is a propor-
tional relationship between agricultural sales and employment, an 8.6
percent reduction in agricultural production in the County commensurate
with conversion to "one time" economic impact (specifically, low density
residential construction) would probably have a net negative economic
impact on the region. That is, the conversion of agricultural land to
residential use could result in a net negative economic impact to the
region if the long run "permanent" income of agricultural production is
greater than the "one time" impact of residential construction. This is
1 ikely to be the case for law density residential development.
-
2. An analysis of replacing 80 acres of tomato production with low density
residential development was studied and it was found that greater long
run personal income would accrue to the region if this land remained in
agricultural production. This analysis assumed that 108 houses built on
this land would be a net temporary addition to the County's housing stock
in 1979. In other words, it was assumed that the development would have
occurred elsewhere in the region over the long run. What the results
indicate is that the building of low density residential homes on agri-
cultural land generates "tern orari 1 about $2 mi 11 ion in income to the
region (direct and indirect -"--yII, However, over the long run the region could
effectively lose an annual $303,000 in personal income due to the elimina-
tion of agricultural production. Hence, at the end of about seven years the
residential "one time" gain in the regional income is offset by the loss in
agricultural income.
-
I
87
Once again, what this exanlple indicates is that it is likely that the everltuclI
long run displacement of certain types of high yield agriculture with low
density residential development will result in a net negative economic impact
upon the region. Two critical factors must be considered: 1) the degree to
which such developments would have occurred elsewhere in the region, and 2) as a corollary, the amount of agricultural land which is needed for residential
development in order to accommodate population growth. If overall growth is
constrained by not developing agricultural land, it follows that there might
be negative impacts on jobs and income in the region. Therefore, in terms
of economic criteria, the critical question which must be asked is as follows:
What effect does limiting residential development on agricultural land have
upon the absolute level of growth of jobs and income to the region?
3. When comparing a 1,000 job reduction in agricultural related employment versus
a 1,000 job increase in wholesale and retail services, agriculture has a
higher permanent "mu1 tip1 ier" effect. However, agriculture's loss does not
have as high a multiplier as non-durable manufacturing. This information
backs up the data uncovered in the development of the input-output model
constructed by the University of California Extension Agricultural Service.
While not the highest multiplier industry, agriculture certainly rates
relatively high in multiplier effect locally.
DETAILED RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT RUNS
The tables below summarize the results of the economic impact computer runs.
Table 22 shows the net economic impact of a 1,000 job gain in non-durable
manufacturing and wholesale and retail services beginning in 1985 and continuing
through 1995. Table 23 indicates the net economic loss of a 1,000 job reduction
in agricultural related employment. Table 24 summarizes the employment sectors
which would be affected by such gains/losses. Table 24 presents a synopsis of
key economic indicators -- personal income per employee, average annual civilian
payroll per employee, and the employment multiplier. All payroll and income
figures are in millions of 1977 dollars and include direct and indirect effects.
Employment figures are in actual numbers.
/I
TABLE 22
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL SERVICES DURABLE MANUFACTURING
Personal Income $230.2 $324.3
C ivi 1 ian Payroll $23 1.6 $323.1
Civilian Jobs 1,779 2,076
88
TABLE 23
CUMULATIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF A 1,000 JOB LOSS IN
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES AND PRODUCTION EMPLOYMENT
(1985 -- 1995)
Persona 1 income
Civilian Payroll
Civilian Jobs
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES AND PRODUCTION
-$228.7
-$243.6
-1,979
TABLE 24
KEY ECONOMIC INDICATORS
AGRICULTURAL
WHOLESALE AND NON-DURABLE SERV ICES AND
RETA I L SERV I CES MANUFACTURING PRODUCTION
Average Annual 'Personal $20,900 $29,418 $20,790
Income Per Employee
Average Annual Civilian $2 1 ,054 $29,372 $22,145
Payroll per Employee
Employment Multiplier 1 779 2.076 1.979
Construction
Du rab 1 e Goods
Non-Du rabl e Goods
Transportation,
Commun i cation,
Uti1 ities
Wholesale and
Ec Finance, Insurance,
Services
Local Government
All Other*
TABLE 25
INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS
WHOLESALE AND NON-DURABLE
RETA I L SERV ICES MANU FACTU R I NG
209 (26.8) 268 (24.9) Retai 1 Services
45 ( 5.8) 82 ( 7.6)
Real Estate
190 (24.4) 300 (27.8)
71 88 ( 8.2)
i-Prirrrari ly includes state and federal government employment.
AGR I CULTURAL
SERV I CES AND
PRODUCT I ON
35 ( 3.6)
15 ( 1.5)
60 ( 6.1)
243 (24.8)
98 (10.0)
Based upon the results of these economic impact computer runs the following
observations can be made:
1. The reason agricultural production and service employment shows a higher
multiplier effect than wholesale retail service employment is that the pay-
roll per employee of agricultural services jobs is higher than most employ-
ment categories in wholesale and retail trades. Also, payroll per employee
of agricultural production workers is higher than three of nine SIC codes
defined in wholesale/retail trades.
2. It can be clearly seen that an increase or decrease in all three of these
employment sectors primarily affects the wholesale, retail, and service
trades. This phenomenon is typical in an urbanized economy and is reflec-
tive of the employment emphasis in our local serving econamy. /c
90
3. The displacement of agricultural land with industrial (i.e., non-durable
manufacturing) and commercial activities (wholesale, retai 1, service) is
likely to have a positive economic impact upon the region.
4. The critical factor which must be considered in reviewing the conversion
of agriculture to residential use is the degree to which any capital gains
on the sale of lands generates any net investment within the County. Only
to the degree that there is a shortage of loanable funds will such gains
contribute to local economic activity. That is, capital gains do not.
contribute substantially to any private sector economic activity unless
there is: a) a shortage of funds for local investment and b) adequate
demand and incentives for such reinvestment in the County. In other words,
if the gains on the sale of land are reinvested in the County and add to
economic activity, then this could offset agricultural production losses.
METHODOLOGY
The basic approach taken in this study was to simulate the economic impact of a
1,000-job increase in the following major sectors: non-durable manufacturing,
and wholesale and retail services. Also, a 1,000-job decrease in local agri-
cultural employment was analyzed. Each sector's SIC code classifications were
shifted upward or downward in the DEFM model depending upon the proportion of
1977 employment in that SIC code category to total employment in a major category.
For example, lumber and wood products had a total employment of 1,800 and durable -
manufacturing an employment of 55,100 in 1977. Therefore, the amount of lumber
and wood employment shifted was (1,800 7 55,100) X 1,000 = 33. What these
economic impact runs indicate is the general employment/income impacts of shifts
from jobs from one sector to another in San Diego.
Another economic impact run was utilized to analyze the importance of agriculture
to San Diego County. This case analyzed the economic effects of removing 80 acres
of tomato production in North County to 108 homes being built on this land. The
focus on this analysis is on the specific economic alternative uses of current
agricultural land. The argument may be made that residential development on a
piece of land represents a net transfer of growth from other areas of the County
and thus there would be no net impact upon the region. However, in order to
analyze the impacts of alternative uses of land it is necessary to make this
assumption. This assumption does not change the basic results which are necessary
for the analyses.
In order to simulate these impacts it was necessary to calculate the loss in
personal income to the region from removing 80 acres of tomato production. As
the DEFM model was not designed to analyze this type of question, analyses were
done independently of the model. This loss in personal income was calculated
as fol lows:
1. Tomato sales per acre in 1977: $10,184
2. Personal income to the region for agricultural producers 7 Sales of Agri-
cultural Producers (94,197,000 7 289,756,000) = -325
r
3. Sales per acre ($10,184) X ratio of sales to personal income f.325 x number
of acres (80)]
Annual personal income loss to the region ($264,784)
4. Type 1 income multiplier for agricultural producers: 1.47
5. Type 1 multiplier x personal income loss to the region
= total annual direct and indirect income loss to the region
= 1.147 x 264,784 = $303,707
These personal income figures for agricultural production were then compared for
the "one-shot" increase of residential development calculated by the model. The
results of this are found in the following section.
A COMPARISON OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON LAND PRODUCING TOMATOES
As stated in the methodology section, a comparison was made of economic activity
associated with tomato production on 80 acres of land versus building 108 homes
during one year. Contained below is a summary of a three year economic impact
of this residential conversion, the length of the period for this activity to
fully filter through the economy.
The table below illustrates the net economic impact at the end of each year for a - three year period.
Rea
Rea
Net
TABLE 26
NET IMPACT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
(In 1977 Dollars)
YEAR 1' YEAR 2 YEAR 3
1 Personal Income $732,000 $1,041,000 $177,000
1 Civilian Payroll $788,000 $1,052,000 $ 41,000
Employment Difference 49
In the Region
74 13
As stated above, after Year 3 the economic model indicates that this development
would not contribute to local economic activity. In fact, if this development
represents an "overbuild" in Year 1, =economic activity could decline over
time until the vacancy rates adjust to an overbuilding period. What the esti-
mated structural relationships in the DEFM model are indicating is that unless
there is a commensurate increase in employment opportunities in the region, a
net addition in building activity in any one year in the County will be mirrored
by levels of "underbuilding" in subsequent years. This occurs as the vacancy
rate returns to an equilibrium level. f-
92
The table below illustrates the relative patterns of cumulative personal income
to the region under these two hypothesized land use scenarios.
TABLE 27
CUMULATIVE PERSONAL INCOME TO THE REGION
RESIDENTIAL VERSUS AGRICULTURAL USE
YEAR - RESIDENTIAL
732,000
AGR ICULTURAL
$ 303,707
1 7773,000 $ 607,414
1,995,000 $ 911,121
1,995,000 $1,214,828
7 $2,125,949 -
What this chart once again illustrates is that if low density residential devel-
opment occurs on land which was previously under agricultural production, it is
likely that in the short run residential development represents a short run posi-
tive economic impact. However, in the long run the conversion of high yield
agricultural land to low density residential developments results in a net nega-
tive econbaic impact to the region. This occurs by the seventh year in this case.
93
PART V
METHODS OF PRESERVING AGRICULTURE
94
CHAPTER 1
COMPENSATORY PROGRAMS FOR PRESERVING AGRICULTURE
This chapter includes discussions of several methods of providing compensation
to property owners whose land is restricted to agricultural use. The methods
discussed are as follows:
1. Preferential property tax assessment;
2. Transfer of development rights; and 3. Purchase and lease-back.
Compensatory programs such as these are capable of providing positive incentives
for using land for agricultural purposes. The provision of some form of compen-
sation to owners of land restricted to agricultural use may also be desirable
as a means of mitigating adverse economic effects of governmental regulatory
decisions.
PREFERENTIAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT: THE WILLIAMSON ACT
Introduction - Nationwide, one of the most popular methods of providing compensation to owners
of land restricted to agricultural use is preferential property tax assessment.
Commonly, land so restricted is assessed based not on its market value but on
its value for agricultural uses. According to a 1977 report 42 states have
"use-value" assessment programs for agricultural or other open-space lands.
California's program was enacted in 1965 as the California Land Conservation Act,
or Williamson Act. By 1976, 47 of California's 58 counties participated in the
program, making it one of the most important in the United States.
The Williamson Act permits participating counties in California to enter into
contracts with owners of agricultural or open space land. The contracts restrict
the use of the land and limit its potential for subdivision in exchange for a
reduction in property tax. The contracts run for a period of ten years and are
renewed automatically each year. The amount of the tax redcction is based on
the difference between the agricultural value of the property and
va 1 ue.
i
The County of San Diego has been an active participant in the Will
program since 1369. The following table shows the total dollar va
ia./ed each ,year by those property owners with lands under contract
ts market
amson Act
ue of taxes
95
TABLE 28
TAX YEAR TAX SAVINGS
The goals of
1.
2.
3.
1969-70 $ 204,612
1970-7 1 270,745 197 1-72 425,175
1972-73 727,009 1973-74 1,025,045 1974-75 1,280,753 1975-76 1,443,599 1976-77 1,663,008 1977-78 1,732,376
TOTAL $8,772,322
the Williamson Act are expressed within the Act itself, as follows:
That the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited
supply of agricultural land is necessary to the conserva-
tion of the state's economic resources, and is necessary
not only to the maintenance of the agricultural economy
of the state, but also for the assurance of adequate,
healthful, and nutritious food for future residents
-of this state and nation;
That the discouragement of premature and unnecessary
conversion of agricultural land to urban uses is a
matter of public interest, and will be of benefit to
urban dwellers themselves, in that it will discourage
discontiguous urban development patterns which unneces-
sarily increase the cost of community services to
community residents;
That in a rapidly urbanizing society, agricultural lands
have a definite public value as open space, and the
preservation in agricultural production of such lands,
the use of which may be limited under the provisions
of this chapter, constitutes an important physical,
social, esthetic, and economic asset to existing or
pending urban or metropolitan development (Section
51220, California Government Code).
-
r
These statements make it clear that the State legislature intended that the Act
would be used to further land use planning goals of preserving agricultural land
and containing urban sprawl, while providing open space to be used for agricul-
ture.
Let us examine the relationship between these goals and the actual use of the
Williamson Act program in San Diego County.
First, has it helped cause the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited
supply of agricultural land in the County? The answer to this question depends
on what is meant by "agricultural land." While "agricultural land" is not
defined in the Act," prime agricultural land" is defined as follows:
All land which qualifies for rating as Class I or Class I1
in the Soil Conservation Service land use capability classi-
fications;
Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the
Storie Index Rating.
Land which supports livestock used for the production
capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per
acre as defined by the United States Department of
Agr i cu 1 ture.
Land planted with fruit- or nut-bearing trees, vines,
bushes or crops which have a nonbearing period of less
than five years and which wi 11 normally return during
the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from
the production of unprocessed agricultural plant pro-
duct ion not less than two hundred dol lars ($200) per
acre.
Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed
agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not
less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three
of the previous five years.
According to one source there are 192,300 acres of "prime" land in the County.
Of this acreage, 9.1 percent, or 17,433 acres were under contract during the
1975-76 tax year. More recently, the San Diego County Assessor has reported
that, for the 1978-79 tax year, there are 20,807 acres of prime agricultural
land under contract out of a total of 135,679 acres under contract. Thus, only I5 percent of the land in the County now under contract is prime agricultural
1 and.
97
Second, has the Will iamson Act program in San Dieyo County helped contain urban -
sprawl? To answer this question one must analyze the spatial distribution of
the lands under contract. A map showing the location of all contract lands
reveals that most of the contract lands lie far to the east of the urbanized
areas of San Diego County. The lands under contract lying within or near urban
areas are relatively smaller and discontiguous in comparison to the vast tracts
in the more remote areas. The overall effect of these contracts on the spatial
characteristics of urban growth would appear to be minor.
One reason for the present spatial distribution of lands under contract is the
voluntary nature of the Williamson Act program. The law provides for the County
to establish agricultural preserves for the purpose of identifying which lands
should be eligible for contracts. However, the County has never attempted to
establish agricultural preserves for the purpose of keeping agricultural land
from being urbanized unless the owner desired to sign a Land Conservation
Contract. In general, the County has only established preserves in response
to the expressed desires of landowners to sign contracts. Cxceptions to this
policy have occurred only in the more remote areas of the County. Thus almost
all of the land within agricultural preserves but not under contract is located
far from any urbanizing areas. The agricultural preserves that do exist near
urban areas are generally coterminous with the boundaries of land under contract.
Third, has the Williamson Act program served to foster agricultural production
on agricultural lands? The answer to this question can be approached by analyz-
ing what lands are under contract. This analysis wi 11 show who the beneficiaries
are of the Williamson Act in San Diego County. Once the beneficiaries are known, -
one can attempt to evaluate the extent to which the tax benefits of the Williamson
Act appear to foster actual agricultural production. The following questions
are asked as the basis for this analysis:
1. How many acres of land devoted to particular agricultural activities are
under contract?
2. How much of the total annual tax savings under the County's Williamson Act
program supports each agricultural activity?
3. What is the average percentage of tax savings by agricultural activity?
The answer to the first of these questions is found in the table below, as
reported by the San Diego County Assessor as of March 1, 1978.
TABLE 29
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY ACREAGE % OF TOTAL
Grazing and Dry Farwing 122,217 88.2
Tree Crops 10,127 7.3
I rrigated Crops 2,346 1.7
Flowers 1,108 .8
0 ther ( i nc 1 udes open
space easements) 2,807 2.0
TOTAL 138,605 100.0
98
.
Note that 88.2 percent of the total acreage under contract is classified as land
for grazing or dry farming.
The answers to the second and third questions appear in the next table, which
provides an analysis by agricultural activity of the tax savings enjoyed by
owners of land under contract during the tax year 1977-78. These figures are
based on the County Auditor and Controller's Agricultural Preserve Inventory of
November 22, 1977.
TABLE 30
AVERAGE 2
AGRl CULTURAL TAX SAVING
ACTIVITY TAX SAVING % OF TOTAL TO OWNER
r
Graz i ng $1,083,890 63% 80%
Tree Crops 336,178 19% 42%
Flowers 180,442 10% 61%
Irrigated Crops 46,626 3% 7 4% Dry Farming 39,101 2% 63%
Open Space Easements 21,835 1% 76%
Dairies 19,302 1% 66%
TOTAL $1,727,374
The answers to these three questions clearly show that by far the principal
beneficiaries of the Williamson Act in San Diego County are the owners of grazing
land. Grazing is the most predominant agricultural activity under contract;
owners of grazing land receive 63 percent of the total tax savings in San Diego
County from the Williamson Act program; grazing results in the highest percentage
tax savings of all the agricultural activities.
Thus it appears that, in San Diego County, the Williamson Act program has
provided the strongest incentives for owners of grazing land to sign Land
Conservation Contracts. This relative emphasis of the program on grazing would
make more sense if livestock made up an important segment of this County's ayri-
cultural production. However, as shown in the table below, out of a gross value
of $335 million in agricultural sales in 1977, only $5.8 million was derived
from cattle and calves. These figures are reported in the 1977 Agricultural
Crop Report prepared by the County Department of Agriculture.
99
TABLE 31
CROP
PERCENT OF
DOLLAR VALUE TOTAL VALUE
Toma toes
Eggs Avocados
Milk
Valencia Oranges
Strawberries
Lemons
Carnations (Standard)
Cattle and Calves
$63,332,000
51,408,000
24,701,000
7,721,000
6,634,000
5,824,000
50,058,000
17,830,000
5,854,000
18.9%
15.3 14.9
7.4 5.5
2.3
2.0
1.7 1.7
Cattle and calves were the ninth most valuable agricultural conmodity in 1977,
comprising only 1.7 percent of the value of all agricultural comnlodities.
Signi,ficant also is the fact that the signing of a Land Conservation Contract
in no way obligates the owner to use any of his land for agricultural purposes.
The owner may enjoy his tax break without producing an agricultural commodity.
The contract provides disincentives and restrictions on nonagricultural uses,
rather than positive incentives for agricultural use.
The discussions above lead to the conclusion that, in San Diego County, the
Williamson Act program does not appear to have been encouraging owners of land
suitable for the production of the County's most important agricultural commodi-
ties to sign Land Conservation Contracts. One might yet, however, conclude that
the program has, in accordance with the third goal of the Williamson Act itself,
fostered the agricultural use of open space land by discouraging nonagricultural
use of grazing land. However, one could hardly argue that this has been the
most efficient or productive use of the County's investment in the Williamson
Act program.
Effect of Proposition 13 on the Williamson Act Program
It must also be noted that the Williamson Act program, like many others, will be
significantly affected by Proposition 13, the Jarvis-Gann property tax initiative.
As the discussion below demonstrates, the property tax savings incentive for
signing or renewing a Willianlson Act contract will be greatly reduced by Proposi-
tion 13. In some cases, the tax savings formerly attributable to the Wil liamson
Act contract may now be exceeded by the savings attributable to Proposition 13
even if no contract is signed.
100
c
This discussion will compare various examples to show the difference made by the
passage of Proposition I3 on the tax savings resulting froti1 signing a Williatl~son
Act contract. Each example below is computed on a per acre basis for a typical
mature avocado orchard in Valley Center. Estimates of market values, restricted
or agricultural .values, and tax rates were received from personnel from the
County Assessor's Off ice.
Market Value (typical) $7,500 $1 5,000
Restricted Value (typical) $6,000 $ 6,000
How taxes were computed before Proposition 13 -- Had Proposition 13 not passed, 1978 property taxes would have been computed by multiplying the tax rate times
the assessed value of the property. In Examples 1 and 2 a typical tax rate
for Valley Center was selected equal to $.lo28 per dollar of assessed value.
In Example 1 the assessed value is equal to one-quarter of the "restricted" or
agricultural use value of the land under Williamson Act contract.
Example 1 -- 1978 tax per acre on land not under contract had Proposition 13 not
passed : -
r Tax = (Tax Rate) (Assessed Value) =
= (Tax Rate) (Market Value) = 4
Example 2 -- I978 tax per acre on land under contract had Proposition 13 not
passed : -
Tax = (Tax Rate) (Restricted Assessed Value) =
= (Tax Rate) (Restricted Value) = -4
= (. 1028) ($6 000) = $1 54.20/acre 4
How taxes are computed under Proposition 13 -- Under Proposition 13, property
taxes shall be levied at no more than one percent of the full 1975 property
value, adjusted annually by a two percent 'inflation rate, as shown below:
1978 property tax = .01 (1975 full value) (l.U2I3
F where .01 is the one percent tax rate and (1 .02)3 represents three years of inflation at a rate of two percent.
101
If ownership of the property has changed since 1375, the tax shall be no more
than one percent of its full value at the time of sale, adjusted annually by the
two percent inflation rate.
Example 3 -- 1978 tax on land not under contract but according to Proposition 13: -
Tax = (.01) (1975 Market Value) (2% inflation for 3 years)
= (.01) ($7,500) (l.O2l3 = $79.59/acre .
How taxes are computed under Proposition 13 for property under Williamson Act
contract -- Property under Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act)
contract will be taxed based on its 1975 agricultural or "restricted" value,
adjusted by the two percent inflation rate, as shown below:
. 1978 property tax = .01 (1975 restricted value) (1.02) 3
For property now under contract but not under contract in 1975, the tax is
computed based on the restricted value at the time of sale, adjusted for infla-
t ion.
Example 4 -- 1978 tax on land under contract according to Proposition 13:
Tax = (-01) (1975 Restricted Value) (2% inflation for 3 years) =
= (-01) ($6,000) (l.02)3 = $63.67/acre
Summary of Examples -- 1978 tax per acre avocado land, if :
1. No Proposition 13 and no contract - $385.50
2. No Proposition 13 but under contract - $154.20 3. Proposition 13 but no contract - $79.59 4. Proposition 13 and under contract - $63.67
The most important effect on the Williamson Act program will be the apparent
reduction in incentive for property-owners to enter into new contracts. The
incentive will be reduced because the dollar value of tax savings resulting
from the contract will be greatly reduced. The effect of Proposition 13 on, for
example, acreage planted in avocados but not under contract would be to reduce
taxes by as much as 80 percent. This savings is based on the approximately 60
percent reduction in tax rate coupled with the fact that 1975 property value may
be only 50 percent of 1978 property value.
Signiny a contract now should still result in a tax savings to the property
owner. However, the dollar amount of that tax savings may seen1 insiynificant
relative to that amount saved solely because of Proposition 13.
4
Another possible effect of Proposition 13 may be increased numbers of property
Owners with lands now under contract deciding not to renew their contracts.
When property owners decide not to renew, each year for ten years they pay an -.
102
increasing percentage of what would have been their taxes had their land not
been under contract. Under Proposition 13, these yearly payments will be based
on the full 1975 value, adjusted for inflation by only two percent per year.
These payments will be considerably less than they would have been without
Proposition 13 because the tax rate has been reduced by approximately 60 percent
and the two percent inflation rate is far below the actual inflation rate for
property value.
A further possible effect of Proposition 13 on the Williamson Act proyram may be
to increase the number of petitions for outright cancellation of contracts. The
Board of Supervisors may cancel a contract at the owner's request and impose a
cash penalty equal to 12-1/2 - 25 percent of the "full cash value of the land
as though it were free of contractual restriction" (Section 51283, Government
Code; see a 1 so Board of Supervisors Pol icy 1-30). Before Propos i t ion I3 was
passed, this "full cash value" meant market value. Now it means 1975 market
value adjusted at only a two percent inflation rate. Since market value has
been increasing at a much higher rate than two percent, as each year goes by
the maximum dollar value of the cancellation penalty becomes less and less an
effective disincentive to petition the Board of Supervisors for a contract
cancellation. Already since the passage of Proposition 13, one property owner
has successfully petitioned the Board of Supervisors for a cancellation.
Conclusion
The following conclusions can be made from the above discussion: F-
1. In the last nine years, the Williamson Act has provided tax savings of over $8.7 million to owners of contract lands.
2. Only 15 percent of the land under contract meets the definitions of Prime
agricultural land.
3. Contract lands are most likely to be located far from urban areas and
suitable only for grazing, a relatively unimportant segment of our agricul-
tura 1 economy.
4. The passage of Proposition 13 significantly reduces the incentive for
entering into or continuing a Land Conservation Contract.
Thus, it seems that the Williamson Act program in San Diego County has been of
limited public value relative to the goals of the Act itself. The program has
not been especially effective as a means of effecting the Act's land use planniny
goals of preserving agricultural land or containing urban sprawl. The open
space preserved through the program has, by and large, not been land suitable
for highly productive agricultural use or subject to the pressures of urban
growth. In the future, the program will probably be even less successful
because the limitations on the property tax reduce the incentives to partici-
pate in the program. It is likely that the program now provides highest
incentives for owners of land unsuitable for any use at all to enter into
or continue contracts which provide them with an 80 percent tax reduction.
1 03
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT R I GHTS
Another method of providing compensation to owners of land restricted to agri-
cultural use is a proposed system known as "transfer of development rights,'' or
TDR. The Frinciple on which TDR is based is that land ownership may be considered
to consist of the title to various rights. One of the normal rights of ownership
is the right to develop or improve property. Under TDR, this right is separated
from the other rights of ownership and may be purchased by others. Under one type
of development rights transfer, a governmental agency would purchase development
rights of land the agency desired not to be developed. This kind of program is
often called PDR, "purchase of development rights." Except for this case, TDR
involves the establishment of a market for development rights to be sold by owners
of land planned - not to be developed to Owners of land planned for development.
Thus, governmental actions to restrict the development of certain lands would not
necessarily have their usual effect of lowering the value of the owner's invest-
ments in those lands. A portion of those investments would consist of the devel-
opment rights, the sale of which would provide compensation to the owners of lands
restricted from development.
In order to set up a TDR program for the purpose of restricting certain lands to
agricultural use, the governmental jurisdiction managing the program would designate
sites for agricultural preservation and for development and would issue certificates
of development rights. Each owner would receive certificates based on some equit-
able principle of distribution. One system would be to issue certificates corres- -
ponding to the maximum number of dwelling units each Owner might have been permitted
prior to the adoption of the plan to be implemented by the TDR proposal. Then
owners of developable land would be required to purchase development rights from
the Owners of undevelopable land in order to develop their land at more than a
minimum intensity.
According to David L. Peterson, fiscal and economic consultant to the Regional
Growth Ma~agement project, transfer of development rights has both advantages
and disadvantages as a technique of plan implementation, as listed below:
Advantages
1. Consistent with established constitutional princ
2. More politically acceptable than public acquisit
without compensation.
iples.
ion or stringent zoning
3. Minor expenditure of public funds.
4. A1 leviates "windfalls" and "wipeouts"; promotes equity.
5. Flexibility; can protect any resource from market forces.
Disadvantages
1. Too new and complex.
2. Will not work without proper economic conditions.
1 04
3-
4.
5.
6.
7.
E.
9.
He
Would take years to study and implement.
May not work unless adopted regionally.
Requires significant political committment to be credible to would-be
participants.
Ends may be more efficiently accomplished through less complex mechanisms.
May conflict with existing zoning and plans.
Involves administrative and bookkeeping problems.
Involves questions of property taxation of development rights.
concludes his discussion of TDR as follows:
TDR is a complex implementation technique which would not be easily under-
stood by the general public, the development industry, and local decision-
makers. TDR would require a significant administrative structure with
associated costs. TDR shares, with density bonuses, the problem that it is
relatively easy to identify areas from which to take rights, but it is more
difficult to identify areas to which rights would be transferred. Further,
such transfers could reduce the effectiveness of existing Community Plans
as well as create problems in capital facilities and service delivery
planning.
. . .[E]xtensive use of the technique seems premature at this time. It
would seem wiser to let others experiment, and to hold general use of TDR
in reserve for possible future application.
The Arroyo Group, consultant for the City of Riverside, California, recently
prepared a document entitled "TDR: An Evaluation of the Potential for Utilizing
the Transfer of Development Rights as a Means for Implementation of the Arlington
Heights Plan and Growth Management Program." This report proposes that TDR be
used in the Arlington Heights area for the following reasons:
1. To ensure greater equity for property owners by eliminating or minimizing
windfalls and wipeouts, and
2. As a means of acquiring or preserving public open spaces and environmental
resources.
This consultant's proposal includes draft enabling legislation and a city
ordinance. Enabling legislation may be necessary for a number of reasons,
as listed below:
1. So that developnlent rights can be considered estates in real property which
can be transfered, recorded, and insured;
F
2. So that land will be assessed for tax purposes based on the density and
type of use permitted after development rights transfer;
3. To permit local agencies to require the recordation of TDR certificates
to evidence the existence and transfer of development rights.
PURCHASE At4D LEASE-BACK
The unincorporated area of San Diego County has approximately 113,000 acres of
land in agricultural production. The bulk of this land lies in four areas:
Fallbrook (14,003 - 13%), North County Metro and San Dieguito (25,593 - 23%),
Valley Center (24,104 - 21%), and Otay (13,695 - 12%). Clearly, many of the
lands in these areas will be subject to future urban development pressure and
thus any attempt to preserve this agricultural land via purchase and lease-back,
etc., would be quite costly. This paper will examine the financing methods and
costs of preserving agricultural lands. Based upon post Proposition 13 revenue
constraints and the methods available, the following is a summary of the feasi-
bility of preserving agricultural land via its acquisition.
0 Essentially, given the revenue constraints at the Federal, State, and
local level and the market price of agricultural land in San Diego
County, it is highly impractical to attempt to preserve agricultural
land in this County primarily via acquisition.
0 An estimate was made of the cost of purchasing agricultural land. The
price tag of such a purchase could well exceed 600 mil lion dollars at
today's market prices. Obviously, such an ambitious effort is beyond
the scope of government. The point, however, is that =attempt to
purchase agricultural land in San Diego County would involve a massive
sum of money. As a corollary, this acquisition would entail foregoing
other services and revenue (property taxes) by local governments.
0 The number and flexibility of financial mechanisms available to the
County of San Diego to purchase agricultural land is very limited.
There are no funds currently existing at the Federal and State level
avai lable for direct purchase. At the local level, it appears that
the purchase of agricultural land by a nonprofit corporation, leasing
this land to the County, and in turn having the County sublease to
the grower-tenant is the most practical method at this point in time.
It is likely that under such a scheme that the County of San Diego
would have to subsidize lease payments; the amount depending on which
agricultural land was purchased. That is, the market value of existing
agricultural land. and associated debt service costs are likely to be
less than market rates. Any deficiency between revenues and costs are
likely to be funded in the capital irnprovenlent budget.
1 06
0 The issuance of general ob1 igation and revenue bonds by The County
of San Diego appears infeasible. General obligation bonds have been
virtually eliminated as a result of Proposition 13. According to a
financial consultant to the County (Terry Comerford, Blythe, Eastrnan,
and Dillion), issuance of revenue bonds directly by County of San Diego
is questionnable due to potential lease revenue being insufficient to
cover debt services. Likewise a joint powers agreement is not viable,
as these interjurisdictional contracts are designed for building or
improvement oriented activities. A development fee for an "open space
agricultural" fund is probably not legal'. This is due to the fact that
fees must be directly tied to benefits to the development. Finally, a
special assessment district approach (i.e., City of San Diego's open
space requisition bonds) would be difficult in the era of post Proposi-
tion 13 revenue constraints and, according to this municipal financial
consultant, subject to legal challenges.
0 In summary, the large quantity of agricultural acreage coupled with the
high market price of this land and the revenue constraints in the post
Proposition 13 era make it virtually impossible to preserve agricultural
land via its acquisition. At best, it appears that the use of a private
nonprofit corporation approach may be feasible as a minor supplement to
other more ambitious methods (density zoning, etc.).
METHODOLOGY
7
Explained below is the method for calculating the market value of agricultural
land in San Diego County. Admittedly, it is somewhat crude. However, to derive
a "true" value of agricultural land in San Diego County would involve a farm by
farm appraisal; a quite costly effort. The attempt in this study is to provide
a rough value of agricultural land at today's market prices. This value, in
many cases, is likely to be above what the land is worth for purely agricultural
production. In other words, much of the agricultural land in San Dieyo County
is valued for nonagricultural uses.
This price of agricultural land by planning Subregion was computed via two
steps. Step one was to "inflate" the most recent information on land infla-
tion by the most current acreage market value data from the Assessor's property
information system. The only information which could be discovered on the
inflation rate of land was the average increase in the price of existing single
family homes in I978 by those of 1977. This assumes, naturally, that land
value is the sole cause for home price increases from 1977 to 1978. While
not entirely true, it is a good "ballpark" estimate. Between 1978 and 1977
the average price of an existing single family home in San Diego County
increased by 31% (May 1978, Chamber of Commerce Economic Bulletin).
This 31% inflation rate was applied to the Assessor's estimate of average
market value per acre for all land in a planning subregion in 1977. Clearly,
this implies that land would be purchased at highest and best use value. In
summary, acreage in production figures were multiplied by I977 Assessor's market
value and in turn inflated at 31%. The following table summarizes this calcula-
tion: -
I
TABLE 32
MARKET VALUE AGRICULTURAL LAND
-_
PLANNING AREA
Pendleton-DeLuz
Fa 11 brook
Bonsa 1 1
North County Metro
San D iegu i to
Pala Pauma
Valley Center
0 tay
P owa y
Ramona
Ra i n bow
Lakes i de
ACREAGE IN PRODUCT I ON
2280
14803
7829
20392
520 1
9205
241 04
13695
2592
8720
1715 1154
CURRENT MARKET VALUE
(In Millions)
$ 4.1
166.4 47.8
124.5
95.6 14.5
92.2
20.4
26.1
27.3 6.0
7.7
TOTAL 11 1690 632.6
Obviously, not all of the land in these areas would be even considered for
preservation due to small lot sizes, etc. The point, however, is that such
an effort would be quite costly.
As can be seen, the total estimated market value of this agricultural land is
in the neighborhood of 663 million dollars. This amounts to an average market
value per acre of $5,664.
As mentioned earlier, possibly revenue bonds could be issued by a private
nonprofit corporation to purchase part of this agricultural land. In today's
market such revenue bonds are issued typically for 25 years at 7 percent
interest. Related to this approach, the table below illustrates the impact
on County government of the following scenarios:
O The purchase of 10 million dollars worth of agricultural land in 1979
at an overall average purchase price of $5,664 per acre (the computed
average). This amounts to the purchase of 1,766 acres of agricultural
acres in production; or 1.6 percent of the total acres in the County.
It is assumed that the bonds are issued at 7 percent for 25 years. This
amounts to an annual debt service of $858,100.
O Lease rates begin at an annual $150 per acre and are escalated at 10%
per year.
The financing "scheme" is one in which a nonprofit corporation leases to
the County of San Diego and in turn the County subleases to the grower-
tenant. Any difference between debt service cost and lease reYenue is
financed via the capital improvement budget. The term deficit refers to
this capital fund figure.
108
YEAR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOTAL
-
-
TABLE 33
TEN FISCAL IMPACTS OF FINANCING AGRICULTURAL
LAND VIA ACQUISITION 10 YEARS (IN ACTUAL NOMINAL DOLLARS)
DEBT SERVICE COST
$ 858, lOOh
858,100
858,100
858,100
858, I 00
858,100
858,100
585,100
858,100
858,100
$ 8,581,000
LEASE REVENUE
$ 264,900
291,390
321,412
353,200
388,520
427,372
469,756
515,672
568,652
625,164
$4,226,038
DEFICIT
$ 593,200
566,710
536,688
504,900
469,580
430,728
388,344
342,428
289,448
232,936
$4,354,962
The implication of the data and analysis in this section leads to the following
conclusions:
1.
2.
3.
.-
Even under what appears to be the most feasible financial alternative,
the private nonprofit corporation approach, the County of San Diego
could end up "subsidizing" agricultural production.
Bearing in mind that the table in this section amounts to less than
a modest 2 percent purchase of agricultural lands in production, an even
more ambitious approach would naturally incur substantial costs to County
.JfJ'mrnfrlent arid would 1 ikely cause the elinlination of potential Capital
improvermnt projects. In addition, the County would be el inlinating SOUI-C~S
of property tax revenue.
There are, however, two apparent advantages to such an approach. First
of all, if the agricultural land is thought of as open space, then the
County's nonprofit corporation could gain functional open space and,
unlike most open space, receive revenue from it. Secondly, a substantial
profit could pass to the County if future proceeds from the sale of the
agricultural land reverted to the County.
CHAPTER 2
REGULATORY METHODS FOR PRESERVING AGRICULTURE
LARGE-LOT ZONING
Large-lot zoning is probably the most common technique used in this country for
the preservation of open space. Wherever land is not proposed for urban uses,
that land is likely to be subject to large-lot zoning. This technique operates
by directly affecting the process of dividing land. When land subject to large-
lot zoning is subdivided, new lots can be made no smaller than some minimum size.
How large this minimum standard must be for it to be considered "large-lot zoning"
depends on the circumstances. In some situations, a 10,000 square foot lot size
requirement may be considered "large." In another case, 600 acres may be the
size of the large lots required.
The theory behind the use of large-lot zoning is that the private land subject
to it will be more likely to remain as open space if it is not divided into
small lots. Where the desired open space use is agriculture, then larye-lot
zoning is often imposed in the hope that either the land will not be subdivided
at all or that new lots will be large enough for agricultural use. Theoretically,
the imposition of large-lot zoning will, prevent the speculative value of land
from rising so much above its agricultural value that agriculture can no longer
be considered a permanent economic use.
-
Large-lot zoning is now the principal technique used in San Dieyo County to
preserve land for agricultural use. It is now imposed by three different means --
by The Zoning Ordinance, by the General Plan, and by Williamson Act Contract.
In the past, The County Zoning Ordinance contained four types of large-lot zones -- estate zones, agricultural zones, temporary zones, and the limited control
zone. These zones provided for minimum lot sizes ranging from one-half acre to
twenty acres. The newly adopted County Zoning Ordinance provides for the applica-
tion of any minimum lot size standard desired. This may be accomplished by apply-
ing the desired lot size designation at the time zoning is adopted or revised on a
particular property. For example, under the old Zoning Ordinance the agricultural
zones of the County provided a choice of only five different minimum lot sizes --
1/2, 1, 2, 4, or 8 acres. Under the new Zoning Ordinance, the County has available
the legal machinery needed to expand the range of possible minimum lot sizes from
these few to any size desired. What this means is that the County need no longer
create and adopt new zones in order to impose new and different lot size require-
ments. The County General Plan, since 1975, has included minimum lot size
standards over and above those required by The Zoning Ordinance. Land not planned
for urban use may be subject to minimum lot sizes ranging from one to forty acres
depending on slope, access, water availability, and other criteria. Land designated,
for example, as "Intensive Agriculture" may have minimum lot size standards of
2, 4, or 8 acres depending on certain criteria.
110
The table on the following page shows the acres of land in agricultural use for
each land use planning category of the County General Plan. Note that the three
categories with the most acreage -- Rural Residential, Agricultural Estates -
Medium, and Intensive Agriculture -- all permit lots as small as two acres.
Together these three categories contain 52.5 percent of the land in the County
in agricultural production.
Other figures of note are that more than 11 percent of the land in agricultural
use is now planned for urban use; almost 28 pe'rcent is planned in categories
that permit lots as small as one acre; and almost 69 percent is planned in
categories permitting lots as small as two acres.
The significance of this analysis lies in the possible loss of agricultural
production that may result from the implementation of the County General Plan.
If the General Plan is implemented in a way such that land in the County is
divided into the minimum-sized lots permitted in each land use category, then
many areas now in agricultural use will be divided into lots of two acres or
smaller. Dividing land into lots this small may result in reduced agricultural
production. Owners of small lots may choose to take all or part of their land
out of production in order to substitute residential uses or simply because not
enough money can be made to make farming worthwhile.
TABLE 34
P Board of Supervisors' Policy 1-38, "Agricultural Preserves,'' also contains minimum
lot size standards for land under Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contract.
These minimums depend on the agricultural activity and have ranged from 8 to 600
acres. The largest minimum lot size standard now imposed by Policy 1-38 is 80
acres, as shown in the table below.
Grazing
Dry Farming
Cattle Breeding
Horse Breed i ng
Pou 1 try
Dairies
Tree Crops
Truck Crops
Flowers (Field)
Flowers (Hothouse)
80 acres
40 acres
40 acres
40 acres
IO acres
20 acres
10 acres
10 acres
10 acres
10 acres
Large-lot zoning has a number of important advantages over other methods of agri-
cultural preservation. The most important of these is that it is a regulatory
technique based solely on the police power of the state. Thus, it requires no
direct expenditures by government other than the costs of administering the program.
Aside from being inexpensive, the technique is easy to understand, relatively easy
to administer, legally sound, and politically acceptable. Its legality and
acceptability are, however, subject to the limitation that the standards imposed
are reasonable. /I
111
I
TABLE 35
MAX I MUM
PERM I TTED ACRES OF LAND IN
LAND USE CATEGORY DENSITY AGRICULTURAL USE % OF TOTAL
Urban Categories
Very Low Residential
Medium Low Residential
Low Residential
Low Medium Residential
Medium Residential
High Medium Residential
Medium High Residential
High Residential
Office Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Heavy Industrial
Nonurban Categories
Rural Residential
Agricultural Estates - Low
Agricultural Estates - Med.
Agricultural Estates - Rural
Agricultural Preserves
Intensive Agriculture
Mountain Development
Multiple Rural Use
National Forest
Other Categories
Floodplain
Open Space
Public, Semipublic
Greenbelt
Special Planning Area
TOTALS
Urban
Nonu r ban
Other
GRAND TOTAL
1 du/ac
2 du/ac
2.9 du/ac 4.3 du/ac 7.3 du/ac
10.9 du/ac 14.5 du/ac
29 du/ac - - - -
1 du/1,2,4 ac
1 du/4 ac
1 du/2 ac
1 du/2-4 ac
1 du/8 ac
1 du/2,4,8 ac
1 du/4,8,20 ac
1 du/4,8 ac
1 du/4,8,20 ac
1 du/4-8 ac
1 du/8 ac - -
(various)
1-25 du/ac
1 du/l-20 ac
(various)
-
1,2 12
2,748
1,04 1
467 7,364 39 153
72 8
15 80
207
18,982
1,173
22,286
5,564
13,327
20,104
7,703
6,370 68 1
3,552
428
628
265
2,278
13,412
96,190 7,151
116,753
1.03
2.35
0.89
0.39
6.30
0.03
0. I3
0.06
0.07
0.01
0.06
0.17
16.25
1 .oo
19.08 4.76
11.41
17.21
6.59 5.45
0.58
-
3.04
0.36
0.53
0.22
1.95
11.48
82.38
6.12
112
c
There are also a number of important disadvantages to the use of larye-lot
zoning as,a means of preserving agricultural land. Probably the most important
of these are the problems of establishing large enough minimum lot size standards
and then maintaining them over time. Another disadvantage is that large-lot
standards are difficult politically to impose when their effect will be to lower
the value of private investments in land. Even when such standards are imposed,
the rationale for their imposition may often be based on their temporary nature.
For example, in this County, a minimum lot size standard of twenty acres was
applied by Zoning Ordinance only when that ordinance was explicitly intended to
be temporary. In addition, the imposition of large-lot zoning may have serious
unintended economic effects when the land is owned by the same party who farms
it. In some cases, the owner-farmer is able to continue his agriculfural acti-
vities because of the rising value of his land investment. More stringent
minimum lot size standards may lower this value, making it more difficult for
the owner to obtain mortgage money that he may need to finance his agricultural
pursuits. The ability to sell off small portions of the property may also
provide the owner with an important source of capital he may need for continuing
agricultural production.
A further disadvantage of using large-lot zoning as a means of preserving agri-
culture is that the mere threat of its imposition, whether real or imagined,
may influence owners of agricultural land not to continue ayricultural uses.
There is some evidence that this built-in disincentive for agriculture may - already be functioning in San Diego County. Landowners in at least one area
have apparently stopped leasing their land for agricultural use because they
fear that the evidence of such use will be a factor in the County's decisions
to impose more stringent land use controls. Owners who would normally gain from
the temporary agricultural use of their property have become willing to forgo
that gain. This effect of the threat of large-lot zoning seems to have the most
impact on our vegetable crops and field flowers. However, more permanent agri-
cultural uses, such as orchards and greenhouses, may also have already been
affected in this way.
It should be noted that the present minimum lot size criteria for the "Intensive
Agriculture" land use category of the County General Plan provides incentives
for using land for agriculture. If land has been planted for the previous year
in certain crops, and some other criteria are met, then the land may be considered
for 2 rather than 4-acre lots. This offer of a smaller minimum lot size may
serve as a counter-balance to the disincentive to agricultural use discussed
a hove.
"Poi n t s Sys tem" Zon i ne
Tulare County in California has established a comprehensive program of large-lot
zoning where any requests for smaller lot zoning are evaluated by a detailed
rating system. The purpose of this rating system is to provide explicit guide-
lines for decision-makers to use in considering making exceptions to the overall
policy of preserving agriculture by means of large-lot zoning. Thus, Tulare
County's large-lot zoning program includes criteria for flexibility. Where land
smaller lot zoning may be granted. ,- is less suitable for long-term agriculture, then, if certain criteria are met,
The Tulare County rating system works as follows. If land zoned for large lots
is not within an agricultural preserve (Will iamson Act) and is sui table for an
individual waste disposal system, then points are awarded based on to what
extent the property meets thirteen different criteria. In all, thirty points
may be awarded for such features as soil classification, parcel size, land use,
proximity to certain uses, water availability, fire protection, road access,
historical or archaeological value, wildlife habitats, unique natural features,
and floodplains. The more points awarded, the more suitable the land is for
agriculture. A low score, however, would provide the basis for deciding to
rezone the property to permit smaller lot sizes.
The most valuable feature of the Tulare County program is the explication of
the factors to be considered in the decision-making process. Too often land use
planning decisions are made on an arbitrary, inconsistent, or unclear basis.
Getting a policy adopted which contains in great detail the criteria for decision-
making would be a great step toward improving the credibility of the land use
planning process. Explicit criteria, if adhered to, make planning regulations
seem more objective and fair to the affected landowners.
Another interesting feature of the Tulare County large-lot zoning program is
the inverse relationship between suitability for agriculture and permitted
minimum lot size. Ten-, 20-, 40-, and 80-acre minimum lot sizes are imposed
for agricultural preservation. The most productive land is zoned for 10-acre
minimums, the least, for 80-acre minimums. The rationale for this inverse
relationship is that more land is needed to run a profitable agricultural
enterprise on less productive land.
There are some apparent, but possibly minor, drawbacks to the Tulare County
"points" system. First, it would probably be difficult to prepare a compre-
hensive rating system for San Diego County's agricultural lands that could work
throughout the County. Our County seems much more diverse in character than
does Tulare and, therefore, might require an even more complicated'rating system
for it to be expected to work rationally. Second, any complicated rating system
requires a certain amount of administrative effort to make it work. A system
complex enough to be justifiable might be too complicated to administer effi-
ciently.
DENSITY ZONING
Density zoning is a commonly-used alternative to standard large-lot zoning. The
"quarter/quarter'' and "s1 iding scale'' techniques discussed below, are forms of
density zoning. With density zoning, the regulations determine how many lots
may be created out of a particular parcel. The emphasis is on the number of
lots, not on their size. For example, a density zone of one lot per 10 acres,
when applied to a 100 acre site, would result in 10 lots. For the purpose of
preserving agriculture, it might be best if nine of these lots were 1-acre
homesites, and the remaining 91-acre lot were kept in agricultural use. Under
standard large-lot zoning, as used in this County, the 100-acre lot would
be divided into ten, 10-acre lots. Where a particular agricultural enterprise
on the 100-acre site requires more land than 10 acres to be profitable, it
is likely that the division into I0-acre lots will result in a significant
loss in production. Thus standard large-lot zoning may cause the subdivision
of agricultural land into lots not large enough for continued agricultural
production.
114
The following diagram shows thc difference in the ultilnatt' lot pat terns that may
result from the subdivision of a 100-acre parcel into ten lots under standard
large-lot zoning and under density zoning.
The desirability of density zoning as an agricultural preservation technique is
limited by the possibility that the creation of small lots, however few, for
residential purposes will result in land use conflicts. Living next to a farm
may seem idyllic to some, but pesticides, fertilizer, smudge pots, noisy machinery,
flies, and noisy or smelly farm animals may prove to be unanticipated drawbacks.
Complaints from rural residents may be an important factor in the farmer's
decision to consider nonagricultural use of his land. Such complaints may
include threatened legal action or result in investigations by County authorities.
In addition, the encouragement of a land use pattern of non-farm residences
as school bus transportation.
1 scattered throughout rural areas may result in a high public cost for such services
Dens i ty Zoning wi th Open Space Easements
Density zoning has been used in this County in some specialized situations:
The most common of these has been in the granting of special use permits for
Planned Residential Developments (PRD's). PRD's are condominium subdivisions,
where small building lots are sold individually and one or more large lots are
for all of them to own and enjoy. Condominium ownership arrangements have also
been used in standard subdivisions to provide for the ownership of open space
lots. Often these open space lots are created to protect very steep land from
being developed. The open space lot is protected from resubdivision by an open
space easement granted to the County by the original subdivider. Such an ease-
ment, in effect, transfers the right to develop the property to the County.
The owners of the residential lots then jointly own the open space lot.
rc sold in common to the residents to provide open space and recreational areas
Condominium ownership of an open space lot does not seem appropriate or necessary
when such a lot is suitable for agricultural use. Even with a restrictive open
space easement on the property, it could be retained by the original owner for
continued agricultural use, or sold for this purpose.
One problem this County has faced with open space lots has been the failure of
owners to make mortgage payments or pay property taxes. Foreclosure can result
in loss of the open space easement restrictions. Therefore any program to retain
large lots in agricultural use by means of open space easements must be devised
with this possible pitfall in mind.
Another probleln to be solved regarding density zoning is how to encourage sub-
dividers to use it. If the Owner has the choice, he may prefer the nwre standard
approach of subdividing land into large lots of equal size, In order to assure
the retention of a large lot reserved for agricultural purposes, it may be
necessary to make this approach mandatory. Otherwise other inducements may
have to be offered, such as a density bonus or eventual expiration of the open
year or longer periods.) c space easement. (State law allows open space easements to be yranted for 20
Large-Lot Zoning
Original
1 OO- Ac re
Parce 1
IO New
1 O-Acre
Lots
Original
100-Acre
Pa rce 1
Density Zoning
New 9 1 -Acre
Lot
9 New One-Acre Lots
116
-
Quarter/Quarter Zoning
Quarter/quarter zoning is a special kind of density zoning technique used in
some counties in Minnesota. This technique permits a certain number of small
lots to be located within each quarter of a quarter of a section of land. A
quarter/quarter section is one-sixteenth of a section, or approximately forty
acres. If any quarter/quarter section had already been divided into a number
of lots equal to or greater than the number permitted, then no new lots would
be a1 lowed within it.
Quarter/quarter toning was proposed as a more flexible alternative to the standard
large-lot zoning technique. Its purpose is to preserve agricultural land by
keeping most of it in very large lots. In theory, the one or more small lots I
permitted in each quarter/quarter section will not interfere materially with the
long-term agricultural use of the property. The ability to sell off a limited
number of small lots provides the owner with some income-earning potential over
and above the agricultural value of his land. Another advantaye of the technique
is its ease of administration by the land use control jurisdiction. All that is
needed for administration is accurate legal lot information for all the land
surveyed i n to sect ions.
While quarter/quarter zoning offers a solution to some of the problems of standard
large-lot zoning, its applicability to San Diego County may be limited because of
the following factors:
1. Not all of the County's agricultural land is surveyed into sections. The
/c-
technique could not be used within the California ranchos.
2. Much of the County's agricultural land is already divided into parcels smaller
than 40 acres. Quarter/quarter zoning does not work well unless the land is
still in large tracts of 40 acres or, better yet, multiples of 40 acres.
S1 iding Scale Zoning
Another type of density zoning is the use of a "sliding scale'' for the determina-
tion of minimum lot size.
mitted in accordance with
proposed for subdivision.
density.
The following table shows
Maryland.
Wiih this technique, the subdivision of land is per-
The larger the original parcel, the lower the permitted
a flexible standard based on the site of the parcel
Area of Lot of Record
at the Time of the Effective
Date of this Ordinance
how the sliding scale is used in Baltimore County,
Less than 3 acres
At least 3 but not more than 10
More than 10 but not more than 20
*- More than 20 but not more than 100
More than 100
Maxi nltm Number of
Lots Permitted
1
2
3 4 5 lots plus one additional lot
for each 25 acres in excess of
100 acres of the total tract area
117
Thus, in Baltimore County, the sl
one dwelling unit per acre to one
on the size of the original lot.
The theory behind "s1 idins scale"
iding scale would allow densities ranging from
dwelling unit per twenty-five acres, depending
zoning for agricultural preservation is that
smaller lots are less 1 ikely to be important segments of the agricultural base
of the area. This technique is designed to keep larger tracts in agricultural
use while smaller parcels would be permitted to be divided for residential
estates. The proponents of the "sliding scale" technique would also argue that
large landholdings are more likely to be profitably engaged in agriculture; there-
fore, owners of such land are less likely to need to subdivide their land to
profit by their investments.
"Sliding scale" zoning has a number of important advantages. First, it would
appear to be an effective way of minimizing the subdivision of large landholdings
and thereby preserving land for agricultural use. Second, it provides for a great
deal of flexibility. Different "s1 iding scales" could be used in different areas
to suit local conditions. As in quarter/quarter zoning, the landowner could be
relied upon to decide on the size and location of the permitted new lots. Third,
the technique would theoretically work in areas where quarter/quarter zoning would
not be appropriate. Its use is not restricted to areas surveyed into sections
where all lots are of any particular size. Fourth, it is not difficult to
administer. The density permitted on any lot is determined by the size of that lot
at the time specified in the ordinance implementing the sliding scale technique. "
However,,the "sliding scale" technique also has some important drawbacks. It is
not clear whether such an approach would be legal here in California. On the face
of it, it seems to violate commonly held notions of equity. One might argue that
Owners of larger tracts were being arbitrarily discriminated against. Even if
such a legal challenge were not effective, it might be difficult to retain in the
long run the necessary political support for such a program. Another drawback is
that new owners of land that has already been subdivided in accordance with the
"sliding scale" may not be properly informed about the development potential of
their property prior to their purchase of it. It may be difficult for them to
accept that their property cannot be resubdivided when some adjacent smaller
property can be divided.
118
.
PART VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
.SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The six assumptions in Part I, "Introduction," were found to be generally
accurate. The concern over the "loss" of agricultural lands is somewhat
misplaced since the total amount of land in production has increased at least
26 percent since 1970. It is important to note, however, that the lands which
are being taken out of production are, generally speaking, the best agricultural
lands remaining in the County while the lands being brought into production are
often unusable for anything but the planting of avocados. Our consultants'
reports (summarized in Part IV) indicate that many of San Diego's crops are
annually increasing their revenues. In fact, as an industry, the agricultural
sector saw an increase in revenue of 46 percent (adjusted for inflation) since
1970. Urban and estate development has put pressures on agricultural operations
throughout the urban fringe areas of the County. The areas directly east of
metropolitan San Diego, which were in the past major production centers, have
all but ceased agricultural activities. Similar pressures are now being brought
to bear on the North County and Otay areas, which contain the majority of today's
agricultural cropland. To a very real extent, the County through its land
use powers can measurably affect the pressures being brought to bear on agri-
cultural lands.
In Part II, "Physical Resources,'' four basic points were made. First, over 90
coastal, and transitional areaclimates which include most of the western half
of the County. Second, 86 percent of the production acreage in the County takes
place on soi 1s rated "good or fair" by the Soils Survey. By and large, these
soils are also all located in the western half of the County. Third, over 90
percent of the production value and acreage in the County occurs within the
boundaries of the County Water Authority (CWA) which is wholly located in the
western third of the County. As the availability of imported water is absolutely
necessary for almost all commercial agriculture, and because the Metropolitan
Water District has adopted a policy restricting the availability of water for
agricultural purposes to areas within the CWA boundary of August, 1976, com-
mercial agriculture in San Diego has been effectively restricted to the western
third of the County. Fourth, of the 24 community and subregional planning areas
in the County, only 14 (Pendleton-DeLuz, Fallbrook, Bonsall, North County Metro,
San Dieguito, Pala-Pauma, Valley Center, Otay, Poway, Ramona, Rainbow, Lakeside,
Crest-Dehesa, and Valle de Oro) contain appreciable quantities of land with the
water, soil, and climatic resources necessary for production.
- percent of both the value and acreage of production occurs in the maritime,
While these 14 areas possess the basic resources for potential agricultural
productiorl, only the first ten listed above contain a significant, percentage
of the land in the County actually used for agriculture. These ten areas
together comprise 81 percent of the approximately 116,000 acres of unincor-
porated County land currently in production. Eighty percent of the land in
production in these ten areas has non-urban land use designations (i.e., the
minimum parcel size is 2 acres or larger), and the average overall parcel size
is 16.4 acres, with the average agricultural parcel slightly larger at 21.0
stage of agricultural production. The first eight of these ten areas were
judged by our consultants to possess the resources necessary for economically
viable agricultural operations.
- acres. On the average, 26.4 percent of the land in these 10 areas is in some
120
I
While the issue of preserving agricultural land is conlplex and fraught wi tll
a number of practical difficulties, it seems clear that the County should
actively seek to protect and preserve its agricultural lands. There are many
compelling reasons for the County to become more actively involved in this.
issue.
First, it appears certain that San Diego will continue to be subject to rapid
growth pressures through the next sevyral years. The growth strategies of
the Regional Growth Management program appear to be able to accommodate most
of the projected population growth in existing urban areas with some major
exceptions. These exceptions include some important agricultural lands in
the coastal areas of North County and San Dieguito, the area between Vista and
5an Marcos, and possibly Otay Mesa.
Second, in add i t ion to the problems of exiand ing urban areas, there is the
possibility of non-urban development causing higher densities in rural
agricultural areas. The reduction of parcel sizes from the County-wide
average of just over 20 acres for agricultural parcels down toward the
often-permitted 2-acre size would have a significant negative impact on the
local agricultural industry. What is particularly insidious about this kind
of development is that, once it has begun, there are increasing pressures
for other surrounding parcels to be divided into smaller ones.
Third, the County's efforts in agricultural preservation have, to date, been
unclear, incohesive and unfocused. Although the County's land use regulations
have affected agricultural uses for many years, there has never been a compre-
hensive effort by the County to'ensure that these regulations worked toward
the retention of agricultural uses. Thus, today we have "Intensive Agriculture"
General Plan designations that may or may not designate areas where there are
the resources necessary for production and may or may not show where agricultural
uses are presently occurring. Similarly, the County has for years been partici-
pating in the Williamson Act agriculture preservation program without focusing
the program's benefits on our most productive cropland. Over 80 percent of
the lands benefiting from the program are located in the eastern part of the
County without the climate, soils or water necessary for significant commercial '
product ion.
In the development of an Agriculture Element, the County will need to examine
in some detail the compensatory and regulatory preservation techniques which
are available. Any serious effort to preserve the agricultural lands in the
County will best be served by an agriculture plan which offers a variety of
preservation techniques. At this point in time only the "purchase and lease-
back" technique appears to be beyond the capabi 1 ity of the County. The ecnonlic
and fiscal impacts of the other techniques however will have to be further
examined before any judgment can be made on their applicability.
To summarize, a significant portion of the County's agricultural lands are
certain to face both direct and indirect pressures to convert to other uses.
The current preservation programs of the County seem incapable of dealing
with this problem. An Agriculture Element could effectively help the County
retain agricultural land uses by:
121
c
,-
1. Ensuring that the existing plans and policies are clear, coherent, and
supportive of the local industry;
2. Introducing new concepts in agricultural preservation; and
3. Guiding development, both urban and non-urban, away from areas which have
the best chanch for commercial, long-range production.
1 22
FOOTNOTES
1.
2.
3*
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
la.
13.
20.
21.
Pg. 4, San Diego: An Introduction to the Region, Pryde.
Pg. X-58, Conservation Element, San Diego County General Plan.
HR 5882.
a. Differential Assessment As Land Use Policy, AIP Journal, 11-75, Gustafson.
b. California Landowners Adoption of A Use Value Assessment Program, LAND
c. California's Use Value Assessment Program, 1977, Gustafson.
Pp. 1-12, Climates of San Diego County: Agricultural Relationships, 1970,
University of California.
ECONOMICS, 8/77, Carmen.
Pp. 13-20, IBID.
Agriculture: San Diego County. Border Area Development Study, Southwest
Border States Regional Action Commission, E.D.A. Grant #99-06-09588.
Unpublished Report, Integrated Planning Office.
Various estimates: see D.W.R., Assessor, Department of Agriculture, Integrated
Planning Office Estimates.
pg. 3,
S 5120
Pg. 16
IBID.
1977 Crop Report, Department of Agriculture, San Diego County.
1 (C) Government Code.
1, Soils Survey, San Diego County Planning Department, 1377.
Pg. 162, IBID.
Integrated Planning Office Study.
Pg. 18, "Agriculture," February, 1978, also "INFO" Py. 1, October, 1977, M.W.D.
3lst Annual Report, San Diego County Water Authority.
123
22. Pg. 19, IBID.
23. Pg. 50, IBID. ,F
24. Pg. 2, "INFO."
25. Pg. 9, Draft, "Regional Growth Management, Environmental lmapct Report,"
March, 1978.
26. Pp. 226-228, "Preliminary Regional Growth Management Plan,'' County of
San Diego, also "Draft Environmental Impact Report."
27. M.W.D. Code, 301.9 and 312.2.4.
28. Table 10, 3lst Annual Report, County Water Authority.
29. Pg. 22, gist Annual Report, C.W.A.
30. Integrated Planning Office.
31. Pg. 26, 31st Annual Report, C.W.A.
32. Pg. 22, IBID.
33. Pg. 18, "Agriculture," February, 1378, Miner.
.9"
34. Pg. 22, IBID.
35. Pp. 165-188, Water Pricing Study, Volume II, M.W.D., 1374.
36. Pg. 22, 31st Annual Report, C.W.A.
37. IBID.
38. Pp. 2-3, Water Pricing Study - 1377, M.W.D., March 1977.
39. Pg. 2, Letter (October 20, 1978), Griffi th (Metropol itan Water District) to
Zucker (Integrated Planning Off ice).
40. Pg. 60, 31 st Annual Report, C.W.A.
41. Pg. 22, IBID.
42. Conversation with Linden Burzell.
43. Farm Advisorls Office, Menlo, June, 1977.
44. P. 26, Table VII, "Regional Growth Management, Environmental Impact Report."
45. Pg. 2-11-13, Areawide Water Quality Management Plan, Part II, March, 1978.
46. Pg. 62, Areawide Water Quality Management Plan, Summary, June, 1978.
47. Pg. 67, IBID.
48. Pp. 2.V.2 -- 2.V.3, Areawide Water Quality Management Plan, Part I I, March, 1978.
49. Pp. 2.V.II -- 2.V.21, IBID.
124
END OF REPORT
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
" -
.)..
PRIME FARMLAND: INVENTORY,
URBANIZATION IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES
A section of the final environmental impact statement (EIS) on the .Modesto uasteuater
facilities improvements. Approved by EPA
RegionaZ Administrator NovemSer .1'6, 1979.
Prepared Under Contract to:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105 .
Principal Authors: ..
Grue.n Gruen + Associates
Socioeconomic and Land Use Consultailts
564 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
and
Houshang Esmaili & Associates
Civil and Agricultural Engineers
2718 Telegraph Avenue Berkeley, CA 94705
Assisted bv:
Jones & Stokes Associates
Prime Contractor
'2321 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
and
City of Modesto Planning and Community Development Department
801 Eleventh Street
Modesto, CA 95354.
4
FORWARD
This report is a portion of the environmental impact statement (EIS)
on the Modesto Wastewater Facilities Plan prepared for the U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency,.Region IX. ConsuItants contributing to the prime
farmland chapter of the EIS were:
- Jones L Stokes Associates, Prime Contractor
. Gruen. Gruen + Associates, Socioeconomics and Land Use
- Houshang Esmaili & Associates, Agronomy and Soils Science
This chapter of the EIS serves several purposes. It establishes an
overall perspective on the supply of prime farmland in the nation, in
California and in Stanislaus County. Trends in land use change in these
areas - particularly loss of prime farmland to urbanization - are explored.
A detailed forecast of the possible effects of Modesto's wastewater facil-
ities expansion on prime agricultural land resources in the area is
presented.
The major contribution of this stuhy to the understanding of prime
farmland impacts and issues is its discussion of.mitigation measures. The
consultants conducted a program of research which identified active and
potential agricultural land retention programs throughout the United
States. These programs were classified according to the'manner in which
they address farmland retention objectives (for example, by affecting
the amount of urban development) and each one is analyzed in terms of the
theory underlying it, the implementing agency, how it is applied and its
actual or likely effectiveness.
The chapter concludes with an in-depth examination of .the specific
agricultural land retention measures implemented by the City of Modesto
and Stanislaus County, and presents a quantitative evaluation of their
effectiveness. It also sets forth the additional measures Modesto has
proposed to take in response to the prime agricultural land impacts of ~
future community growth, and presents an estimate of how these measures
will further increase Modesto's effectiveness in preserving the agricultural I
land resources of central Stanislaus County. I
I
The report represents the most extensive discussion of agricultural
land retention programs currently available. Both the exhaustive explora-
tion of the mitigation measures inventory (some 50 measures are discussed)
and the detailed discussion of Modesto's programs are intended to provide
the basis for action by other communities - in California and elsewhere -
in strengthening local government commitment to ana effectiveness in con-
serving prime farmland. In addition, supportive measures by federal and
state agencies are identified.
A summary of the mitigation measure evaluation is presented in matrix
form an page 86.
.'
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 5 - 'URBANIZATION OF PRIME FARMLAND Introduction
Perspective on the Significance of Prime Farmland
Prime Farmland in the United States .
The Character of the Prime Farmland
Estimates of the Amount of Prime Farmland
Trends in Agricultural Land Conversion
Rural Land Use Changes, 1967 to 1975
Cropland Acreage Change,' 1967 to 1975
Prime Farmland Conversion, 1967 to 1975
Economic Pressures on Agricultural
The Importance of Prime Farmlands Preser-
Resource
Landowners
vation
The Environmental Case for Preserving
Farmlands
Watershed Protection
Insulation of Environmentally Sensi-
Provision of Wildli.fe Habitat
Removal of Air Pollutants
. tive Areas' from Incompatable Uses
The Case for Preserving Prime Lands as
Reserve Capacity for Food and Fiber
Production
Uncertainty About Future Increases
Future Domesiic Needs for U. S. Food .
Demand f.or Agricultural Exports '
in Crop Yields
. and Fiber Products
Prime Farmland Preservation: A Growing National Concern
Prime Farmland in California Agriculture in California's Economy
The Prime Farmland Inventory Potential Prime Farmland
Trends in Agricultural Land Conversion Future Prospects for California Agriculture
Impediments to Reclamation of Additional
Projections of Future Agricultural Land Lands ,
Use
Recognition of Prime Farmlands Preservation
as a State Policy Prime Farmlands in Stanislaus County
Agriculture in the Stanislaus County 'Economy
Trends in Agricultural Land Conversion
Future Prospects for Agriculture in Stani-
slaus County
2
3 3
3
6
6
6
7
7 7
7
7
8
10
11
12
13 13
13 13 14
15
.15
16
16
16
16
19
20
i
-. -
Table of Contents, continued
Recognition of Prime Farmlands Preservation
as a County Issue
Summary and Conclusions Future Conversion of Agricultural Land to Urban Use
in the City of Modesto ~ The-Effects 'of Federal Actions on Prime Land
Forecasting the Urbanization of Prime Farmland
Impacts of Prime Agricultural Land Conversion Economic Impacts of Agricultural Land
Fiscal Impacts of Agricultural Land Conversion Social Impacts of Agricultural Land Conversion
Resources
Conversion
Mitigation of Agricultural Land Conversion
Introduction.
Adverse Impact on Prime Agricultural Land
Urban Expansion in Agricultural Areas
No EPA Funding if Prime Agricultural
Identifying and Implementing Mitigation
Requires Mitigation
Land Impacts are not Mitigated
Measures
Land Conversion
Strategies for Mitigating Prime Agricultural
Determining Whether Prime Agricultural
Concepts of Mitigating Agricultural Land
..
Land Loss is a Mitigatable Impact
Conversion
Directing Urban Development vs. En-
hancing Agriculture's Survival Potential
.Regulations vs. Incentives'
. Purpose'of the Mitigation Measures
I nve.n tory
Inventory is.Exhaustive Inventory is Evaluative
Measures Discussed Vary in Net
Inventory Does Not Consider Economic
Effectiveness.
costs Organization of the Inventory
Mitigation Measures Inventory
Affect the Amount pf Urban Development Rationale
Measures to Limit the Amount of Urban
Development Limit the Amount of Land' Zoned for Urban
Limit the Number of Building Permits Issued
Limit Industrial Growth Generators
Development
Affect the Dens'ity of Development
Rationale Measures to Affect the Density of Development
'Low Minimum Lot Sizes in Urban Areas
. ii
20
20 22
22
23
2 7.
27
31
32
33
33
33
33
33
33
34
34
35
35
35
36
36
36
36
33
37
38
38
33
38
39
40
41
41
41
41
313
Table of Contents, continued
High Minimum Lot Sizes in Rural Areas
Maximum Lot .Sizes in Urban Areas
Minimum Neighborhood Densities in Urban
Areas
, Infill Development in Urban Areas
Cluster Development in Urban Areas Cluster Development in Rural Areas Affect the Location of Urban Development
Rationale
Measures to Control the Location of Urban
Growth On or Toward Non-prime Lands Prohibition of Subdivisions on Unin-
Local Eligibility for Federal 'and State
Eligibility for Community Development/
Development
corporated Lands
Housing Programs
Redevelopment Aid and Intergovernmental
Assistance
New Towns or Satellite Towns
Urban Strategy
Measures for Maintaining Existing Agricul-
tural Locations
General Plans .
Federal Review of General Plan Elements
AGricultural Reserves State Regulation of Agricultural Land
Federal Designation of Exclusive Agricul- '
Condemnation or Transfer of Development
Compensable Regulation Outright Purchase of Agricultural Land ' Purchase of Remainder Interest Limit the Availability of Urban Infrastructure
tural Districts
Rights
Rationale
Measures to Limit the Availability of Urban Infrastructure .
Establish an Urban Service Area for
Establish an Urban Expansion Area for
EPA Clean Water Grants Restrict State and Federal Highway Aid 'Federal Regional Councii Coordination
Short-term Growth
Long-term Growth
Promote Agricultural Uses
Rationale
Measures to Promote Agricultural Uses
Bring New Agricultural Lands into
Put Purchased Agricultural Land to Agri-.
Growth of Cooperatives
New Merchandising Techniques
Production
cultural Use
iii . ..
42
42
43
44
45
46
46
46
47
47
4%
49
50
50
51
52
52
53
54
55
57
57
59
60
61
62
62
62
.6 2
63
63
64
65
66
66
66
66
67
68
68
.-
'I ..
- -
Table of Contents, continued
Intermediate Technology for Agricultural
National Prime Agricultural Land Policy
Assure-Adequacy of Future Water Supplies Use Tax Policy to Protect or Encourage Agricul-
Production
tural Activity
Rationale
Measures to Make Tax Policy Encourage Agri-.
cultural Activity/Discourage Urban Use of
' Prime Land
Differential Assessments for Property Tax
Deferred Taxation of Agricultural Lands
Apply Value Capture Technique to Lands
Finance Agriculture with Capita-1 from
Alter Tax Rules for Industrial Investments
Restructure Formula for Distributing
Purposes
Bene'fiting from Public Investment
Non-agricultural Sources
Sales Tax Revenue
Needed Studies
Rationale
Studies Needed for Additiona1,Consideration
of Mitigation Measures ..
tural Land Preservation
Agricultural Land Retention
Performance Standard for'Urban Growth in Prime
Cost/Benefit Analysis of Prime Agricul-
Comparative Inter-city Analysis of Prime
Land Areas Rationale
Measures to Implement Performance Standards
" . . . ..~ Establish Threshold Standards of. Per-
formance Relating to Density and Infill.
formance Standard
Establish a Conversion Coefficient Per-
Conclusions
Modesto's Agricultural Land Conversion Mitigation
Program
.. Modesto's Historical Performance
Past Agricultural Land Absorption in Modesto Modesto's Performance Compared to Other
Cities'in California's Principal Agricul- tural Areas Evolution of Modesto's Mitigation Package Mitigation a Grantee Responsibility
Agricultural Land Retention Was Modesto
Policy Before the Current Project Was.
Proposed Mitigation via Land Development Regulation
Zoning
Reducing the Minim- Lot Size
. iv
69
70
71
72
72
73
73
75
75
76
77
77
78
78
78
79
80
81
a1
82
82
a3
84
87
87
87
88
90
90
90
91
91 91
Table of Contents, continued
Interpret the R-1 Zone as a Density Zone Establish a .Maximum Lot Size
Duplexes on Corner Lots in New Sub-
Use of P-D Zoning to Achieve Higher
. Subdivision Controls .
divisions
Densities
Building Code
Review Multi-family Construction Standards
Mitigation via Land Development Policy and
Planning Urban Growth Policy Review
.Monitoring Overall Urban Density
Establishing Urban Density Objectives
Encourage Infill Development
Infrastructure Extension Policies
Service Area Definitions Trunk Sewer Extension Priorities
Prototype Neighborhood Concept Allow for a Mix.of Densities in Future
Target Neighborhood Densities Monitoring the Density of New Development
Mitigation Via Intergovernmental Cooperation
Development
Urbanization Requires Annexation
Rural Development Controls Minimum Lot Size in Agricultural Areas
Rural Residential Development Limited to
Limit Nonresidential Development in .
Non-prime Areas
Unincorporated Areas ,.
Implementation of the Williamson Act Limiting Parcel Division in Rural Areas
Agricultural Element of County General Pian
Implementation and Effectiveness of Mitigation
Adequacy of Mitigation Measures National Impact of Comparable Actions by Other
Measures
Cities ..
92
93
93
93
94
94
94
94
94
9 4:
94
95
95
95
96
98
98
98
98
9 9-
99
99
99
99
99
100
'100
130
106
106
V
' Table
Number
5-1
5-2
5-3 ..
5 -,4
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
5- 9
5-10
5-11
c
LIST OF TABLES
Title
Land Utilization, United States, Selected
Years 1910-1974
Projeoted Uses. of Land in the' Contiguous 48 States in 1980 and 2000 (with 1949 and.
1969 Historic Data)
U.S. Cropland Needs in the Year 2000 Under Five Alternative Development Scenarios
California Prime Farmland Inventory'
Existing (1972)- and Projected Aggregated
Water Supply and Demand and Acreage Under
Irrigation ..
Present and Potential Prime Farmland County,
State and Nation
Future Urban Land Absorption in EIS Socio-
economic Study Area and in City of Modesto,
1979-2000 ..
Modesto Urban Land Needs and Agricultural
Land Conversion Estimates' Under the EIS '
Forecast and Two Alternative Growth Scenarios, 1979-2000
Estimated Economic Impacts of Modesto Agri- cultural Land Conversion: Point Estimates
for 1990, 2000 and Iinpact Year
Prime Agricultural Land.Mitigation Matrix
Comparative Density Statist.ics: fifteen^
Largest Central Valley and Delta Cities
- .- 5-12;. ':'Comparative Infill Data: Fifteen Largest
' Central Valley and Delta Cities
5-13 Mitigation of the Adverse Effects of the . .L) ,. Modesto Wastewa.ter Facilities Expansion on
Prime Agricultural Land: New Measures
Accepted by Modesto City Council
5- 14 Growth Accommodated by Priority Sewer
Trunk Extensions
5-15 Modesto's Agricultural Land Mitigation . Program: Impact Summary and Timetable for Implementation
. vi
.
Page
4
11
.ll
1 4-
18
22
25
26
29
86
89
89
92
96
102
LIST OF TABLES, continued
.- E
Table
Number Title Page
5-16. Prime Agricuitural Acreage Retained Under 105 Modesto's Mitigation Program
LIST OF FIGURES
.Figure
Number
5-1 Land Use ConVersions, 1967 to 1975 in the United States ..
5-2 Farm Output and U.S. Population
5-3 Crop Production per Acre and Cropland Used
for Crops
5-4 Historica1,Conditions and Projected Irrigated
5 -.5 Prime and Nqn-prime Soils in the Modesto Area
Land Area Requirements in California
BIBLIOGRAPIIY
and
PARTICIPATING STAFF
These sections will be published
in the version printed by the Government Printing Office.
5
9
9
17
28
.'
vii
ERRATA
Po 24 First paragraph.: comprehensive land use surveys (1971. and 1978)
p. 26 Table 5-8, seventh row, seventh column: substitute
820 for 880
p. 29 Table 5-9: Change title to read:
ESTIMATED ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MODEST0 AGRI-
CULTURAL LAND- CONVERSION: POINT ESTIMATES
FOR YEAR OF CAPACITY USE AND 2000
p. 33 First paragraph: The Modesto wastewater facilities
expansion would accommodate the conversion of an esti- mated 2,720 to 3,620 acres of prime agricultural land
to urban use .. . .
p. 106 First paragraph, third line: for mitigatec?.
substitute unmitigated
.
. viii
Chapter 5
URBANIZATION OF PRIME FARMLAND
Introduction
A major issue addressed by this EIS is the projected
conversion of prime agricultural land or urban uses which will be made possible by the proposed expansion of the Modesto.wastewater facilities. The EIS is. required to consider this issue pursuant to the directive of the U. S.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) stating that ."highly productive farmlands" are among those "important historic cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage" which it is federal policy to preserve:
..
"Efforts should be made to assure that such farmlands are not irreversibly converted
to other uses unless other national interests override the importance of preservation or
otherwise outweigh the environmental benefits
. derived from their protection" (CEQ, 1976).
Regulations of the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA, 1975) implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 require preparation of an EIS when imple-
mentation of a facilities plan may result in changes that
would "adversely affect significant amounts of prime agri-
cultural land or agricultural operations on this land".
The implementation of th-e Modesto wastewater fac'ilities
plan will allow conversion of prime agricultural lands in Modesto and the surrounding area.to urban uses. This chapter
addresses the significance of that impact by evaluating the
importance of prime farmlands from the national, state and
local perspectives. -To this end, an overview is presented
of the amount and character of prime farmland in the United
States, in California and in Stanislaus County. Variations
in the level of crop acreage and crop yield are discussed
briefly and"data are presented on the conversion of farm- land to nonagricultural uses.
The c.hapter ,concludes with an estimate of the projected conversion to urban use of prime farmland in and around
Modesto. It then presents an inventory of agricultural land
retention measures and a discussion of their application
both in theory and in practice. Finally, the measures Modesto has adopted or plans to adopt to mitigate the con-
version of prime agricultural land associated with the wastewater facilities expansion project are presented.
'- 1 -
~.
, Perspective on the Significance of.Prime Farmland
Prime Farmland in the United States
The Char.acter of the Prime Farmland Resource. Prime
farmland is land suitable for'farming.or silviculture possessing attributes established by the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) of the United States Department of Agricul-
ture (USDA) : "Soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water manage-
ment, according to acceptable farming methods" (Lee, 1978).
Prime farmland - or, more technical-ly, prime agricul-
.tural land - may be found in rural or in urban settings;
it may be used for crops, for pasture or for other agri-
cultural purposes; it may not even be farmed at a-given
point in time but may instead be in forest use or encum-
bered by buildings, roads or water impoundments. Basically, it includes all those lands - whatever their current uses -
which have soil, climate and water availability character-
istics that permit the production of "relatively more food
with less erosion and with lower demand for fertilizer,
energy and other resourcesn than nonprime land (CEQ, 1977).
In this EIS, the SCS definition presented above is the
..
applicable definition wherever the term "prime farmland"
and "prime agriculturai land" are used except where data
from sources using diFferent definitions are presented; in those cases, definitional differences are identified.
It should be noted that prime farmland is Aot .the same *
. as farmland, because some farmland is not prime; neither is it the same as rural land, because. not all rurai land meets the criteria of prime agricultural land (in fact,
very little does). The term cropland includes land devoted to the cultivation of field crops, row crops, orchards
and vineyards. While not all cropland is prime farmland, much of it is, because crop production depends much more
-on soil, climate and water availability conditions than does . the production. of other kinds of agricultural products (such
as 1ive.stock-and poultry). For this reason, a reduction in
the amount of cropland is sometimes interpreted as indicating
a decline in the amount .of prime farmland available for pro-
duction.
Estimates of the Amount of Prime Farmland. In 1975 the
SCS inventoried 384 million acres of prime farmland in the
U, S. Of this total, 250 million acres were in cropland, 77 million acres were in pasture and range, 43 million acres
'- 2 - .'
h
were in forest land, and 14 million acres were in miscel- laneous other uses. (Dideriksen, 1977). The 1975 inventory
updates an earlier (1967) inventory of SCS, which had ad- dressed the question of how much potential cropland existed in the U. S. - land not in crop production, but with high or medium potential for crop cultivation. The 1967 inven-
tory counted 266 million acres of potential cropland, but the 1974 inventory reduced this estimate to 111 million
acres, of which only 15 million acres can readily be brought
into cultivation. Constraints that preclude bringing the remaining 96 million acres of high/medium potential crop-
land into cultivation include dense forest cover, seasonal
high water tables and high erosion factors (Dideriksen,
-1977,). It should be noted that the potential cropland
figures encompass both prime and nonprime lands which can
be converted to cropland. The prime land component of these figures is already accounted for in the total national
supply of 384 million acres of prime farmland.
The current national supply of prime farmland in crop
. , production is therefore about 250 million acres; another 15 million acres of prime agricultural land could be brought
into immediate crop production without constraints and
another 9 million with minimal constraints-. The remaining 87 million acres of prime and nonprime land with a high or medium potential for conversion to cropland represents
a longer run reserve of cropland resources.
Trends in Agricultural Land Conversion. National land use patterns have remained fairly stable in the decades
since 1910, as Table 5-1 shows. As in 1950, cropland in
1974 still comprised approximately 1/5 of the total land
u.se in the country.
. RuraZ Land Use Changes, 1967 to 1975. Land use changes .'between 1967 and 1975 are presented in Figure 5-1. Total
cropland and total pasture and rangeland both declined;
forest land increased. The small circle at the lower left
of Figure 5-1 represents land which had been in'rural use
in 1967, but which by 1975 had either been inundated (for
reservoirs) or converted to urban use. A. total of 24 million
acres had passed out of the rural land supply into urban or water use in the 8-year period.
Cropland Acreage Change, 1967 to 1975.. Approximately
78 million out of 431 million acres of cropland' (defined in the 1975 survey as land in tillage rotation, orchards,
and land formerly in such uses) were converted to noncrop-
land uses during. the 1967-75 period. Most of the converted
cropland acreage was put to less intensive agricultural use
-3-
..
”
Table 5-1 .
Major Land Uses. . .
(millions of acres)
Cropland Used for Crops’
Idle Cropland
Cropland Used Only for
Pasture
Grassland Pasture
Forest Land4
Special Uses’
Other Land
. Total Land Area6 .
NT = not tabulated.
’Preliminary.
1910 1-920‘ 1930 1940 1950 1959 1969. 1974’
330 368 382 368 377 359 333 363
20
”-,- __
23 34 31 31 32 33 51
84 78 . 67 68 69 66 88 84
693 652 652 650 631 633 604 598
600 602 601 608 601 728 723 7 18
NT NT NT NT NT 147 174 184
19 4 3 05 291 297
1,904 1,904 1,904 1,904 1,904 2,271 2,264 2,264
174 170 ’ 171 179 ””””
’Cropland harvested, crop failure, and cultivated summer’ fallow. .
4Excludes reserved forest land in parks and other special uses. Includes forested
3 Grassland and other nonforest pasture and range..
grazing land.
’Includes urban and transportation areas, Federal and State areas used primarily
* fix recreation and wildlife purposes, military areas, farmsteads, farm roads and
lanes, and misc. other uses.
except for the major increase in 1959 when data for Alaska ahd Hawaii were added.
6Remeasurement ard increases in reservoirs account for changes in total land area
. Source’: USDA , -19 77 . . ..
-4-
I
m
I
FIGURE 5-1 .
,LAND' USE CONVERSIONS, 1967 TO 1975
IN THE UNITED STATES
' (MILL IONS OF ACRES)
-LEGEND-
44- ACRES CHANGED TO ANOTHER LAND USE
# IDLE LAND, RURAL RESIDENCE,ETC.
BUILT UP SINCE 1967-24 1967-57
1975-70
REDRAWN FROM1 DIDERIKSEN, 1977
..
(pasture and range). Much of this change is attributed
primarily to low soil fertility, erosion'and the existence
of terrain unsuitable.for e€ficient use of agricultural
machinery. 'On the other hand, 49 million acres of non- cropland were converted into cropland during the same
phriod, most of that addition coming out of the pasture and
rangeland category.
There was a net loss of cropland to urban and water . uses between 1967 and 1975 amounting to more than 5 mil- lion acres. Conversion of actively farmed cropland to nonagricultural uses was estimated to have taken place at
the rate of 700,000 acres pel; year (Congressional Research Service [CRS], 1978)-.
-. : ' Prime FarmZand Conversion, 1967 to 1975. Of the over
5 million acres of cropland converted to urban and water
- uses between 1967 and 1975, about 83 percent (4.5 million
acres) was classified as prime farmland by SCS. Other
irreversible conversion of prime farmland involved 2.9
million acres withdrawn from pasture and range, forests and other uses. T.otal conversion of prime. land to urban and water uses was 7.4 million acres over the 8-year period,
or slightly less than a million acres a year.
- -.
Economic Pressures.on AgricuZt.uraZ Landowners. Rising prices for agricultural land can pose economic problems to
farm owners because higher land values are generally reflected
agricultural areas at the urban-rural fringe'the pressure' on the farmland owner may be particularly strong, as. land
buyers' interest is in the land's future development poten- tial rather than its agricultural use value. The farmer. can often sell his land for far more than he could afford
to pay for it to keep it in farming use.
.in higher property taxes, an out-of-pocket expense. In
This gap between the economic value of farmland in agri- cultural use vs. potential urban use can'cause diminishing
productivity and premature idling of cropland near urban
areas. Anticipating a sale, the farmer discontinues invest-
' ment in improvements and reduces-maintenance costs. The
.farmer who decides not to.sel1 may face continually rising
costs at the edge of urban expansion approaches. He be- comes increasingly adversely affected, not only by rising .. property taxes, but by other incidental impacts of urban development such as road congestion, air pollution and
possibly limits on certain kinds of agricultural operations. Often, the farmer eventually chooses to sell the property and relocate (Snyder, 1976) .
.The Importance of Prime Farmlands Preservation. The
conversion of prime agricultural lana to urban use is, for all practical purposes, irreversible. The conversion of
-6-
c -.
..
L prime lands to urban uses reduces the range of environ-
mental benefits derived from the land, and represents a
potential reduction in the n.ation's food,and fiber pro.- duction capahilities. .
. The EnvironmentaZ Case for Preserving Farmlands.
Given good farm management and soil conservation prac- . tices, a number of environmental benefits are inherent
in the use of land for agricultural purposes. Some of
the more readily identifiable benefits (EPA, 1978a) in-
cluding the following:
Watershed Protection. Open lands, such as farms,
.help maintain local wa.ter supplies by absorbing precipi- tation and transferring it to the groundwater system;
protect the hydrologic integrity of watersheds through the control of storm water runoff and sediment damage; protect aquifer recharge areas; and provide buffers for
water supply and other natural areas.
Insulation of EnvironmentaZZy Sensitive Areas from
IncompatibZe Uses. Agricultural uses can provide both a
buffer and an economically viable land us.e for areas sub-
ject to environmental hazard conditions (i.e., flood-
prone areas, subsidence areas, wildfire hazard areas,
etc.). Ecologically sensitive areas can also be buffered
by farmlands, although agricultural activities may them- selves pose a threat to some of these areas.
.. Provision of 'WiZdZife Habitat. Agricultural areas
. often contain important elements of wildlife habitat. ,In the eastern U. S., these habitat elements often involve remnants of original habitat types which have been largely.
replaced by cultivated areas. In the more arid western
U. S,, stock ponds and irrigation systems can provide ' important water sources'for wildlife. Fallow areas,
orchards and unharvested grain crops.are also important to wildlife in many areas. But in a historical perspective,
agriculture has been the major source of habitat destruc-
tion, both in this country and elsewhere in the world.
Modern farming practices provide very little wildlife
habitat in areas of intensive cultivation (National
Academy of Sciences, 19'70).
Removal of Air PoZZutants. Agricultural activities
'(cultivation, pesticide use, agricultural burning, etc.) contribute a variety of gaseous and particulate pollutants
to the atmosphere. But uptake, absorption, and physical
impaction on vegetation are major removal mechanisms for
many air pollutants. Pafticulates, sulfur dioxide, nitro- gen dioxide and ozone are all subject to. significant removal rates when polluted air comes in contact with vegetation. Carbon monoxide and nitric oxide, on the
other hand, are not removed by contact with vegetation.
4 Depending on pollutant concentration, the'process of
pollutant removal by vegetation may lead to reduced plant
growth or death of plant tissues (Hill, 1971; Bennett
and Hill, 1973).
The. Case for Preserving Prime Lands as Reserve Capacity
for Food and Fiber Production, Each increment of this highly productive or potentially productive land which is
urbanized diminishes our future agricultural resource base.
' The annual losses, accumulated over decades, can make a
-size.able dent in the total supply, and this is happening .; at a time when at least some observers suggest that our
future food and fiber needs, domestic and export, may well
.exceed the production levels which a constant or declining agricultural land base can support. Future yields, future domestic agriculture needs, future export demands and the
ability of American agriculture to weather inflation, land
uncertainties the future holds. . speculation and other economic pressures are some of the
Uncertainty About Future Increases in Crop YieZds. "Yield" is the amount of agricultural 0utpu.t which can be obtained from a given unit of land. Yields from U. S.
' agriculture have risen steadily over.time, more rapidly
than domestic population growth as Figure 5-2 shows for
the period since 1950.
Technological advances have contributed to an increase
in yicilds of about 60 percent and in total output by
160 percent from 1949 to 1975 (Figures 5-2 and.5-3).
These incrtases took place during a period when the acreage of cropland used for crops decreased by.some
20 million acres (5 percent). A major source of this
increased agricultural capacity has been the development and adoption of new techniques in.the production and pro- cessing of food and fiber, such as 2ynthetic fertilizers
and hybrid plants.
._ There is considerable doubt that historical produc- tivity gains can continue indefinitely into the future. '
Constraints on the adoption of new technology such as restrictions on the.use of pesticides, higher energy and
-energy-related input costs, as well as the necessity for
.cultivation of less productive lands due to the loss of
better lands to urban-and other uses, may restrict future yield increases (Skolds and Penn, 1977) . In balancing
the environmental and economic costs against the impjlemen- tation of new technologies, it is expected that yields will increase, but at a slower rate than that experienced
in the past two decades. I'n view of diminishing rates of
increases in yields, the supply of land itself-reemerges
as the most. important' variable in estimating potential future agricultural output.
.. . 31
-8-
FIGURE 5-2
FARM OUTPUT & U. S. POPULATION
1950' 1955 I960 1965 , I970 1975' 1980
YEAR * PRELIMINARY
NOTE: INDEX OF FARM OUTPUT IS CALCULATED BI rHE CONSTANT
PRICE- WEIGHT METHOD AND INCLUDES ALL SO STATES.
COMPILED 'FROM COTNER, 1975 € FDA, 1977
FIGURE 5-3
CR3P PRODWGTiON PER. ACRE -&
CROPLAND USED FOR CROPS
180
I60
I40
120
100
80 1 1 I I I 1
I977 19 50 1955 1960. I965 I970 * 1975
YEAR
* FORECAST
COWPILED FROM COTNER, 1975 e USDA, 1,077
I
. ..
, Future Domestic Needs for U. S. Food md Fiber Products. There is considerable disagreement among various forecasts
of future cropland needs in the U. S. This can be illustrated by comparing the conclusions of two recent studies.
The existing cropland base is in the range of 400 million
acres (Table 5-1 shows 384 million acres in 1969 and 383 million acres in 1974; both of these figures include culti-
vated and idle cropland). The Economic Research Service (ERS) of the USDA (Snyder, 1976) finds that cropland needs for
the year 2000 will be far below that level (Table 5-2).
Cropland used .for crops is projected to be about 298 million
acres in the year 2000 for a net decrease of 35 million .
acres (about 10 percent) from the 1969 level (USDA', 1974).
.A strikingly different estimate of future cropland
needs has been made by the Worldwatch Institute (WWI). The WWI study (Eckholm, 1976) sets forth estimates of the need for harvested cropland under five scenarios which re-
flect alternative assumptions regarding U. s. population growth, economic growth and technology (Table 5-3). In all of the WWI Scenarios projected harvested cropland needs are much higher than the comparable values in the ERS study.
The Worldwatch scenario most demanding of cropland -
the scenario assuming high population growth, high economic ,
growth and low application,of technology - would require a
total of 471 million acres of cropland in the year 2000, which is only 7 million-acres below the nation's long-term cropland capacity of 478 million acres (Lee, 1975). At
the rate 02 increase in cropland-requirements implied by
.the Worldwatch second scenario, all of the high potential
cropland in the U. S. would be required for production by
the year 2007. All of our prime agricultural land, in. other
words, would be in use, and there would obviously be cause for concern as to the nation's ab'ility to meet' any additional
food and fiber needs. -
The divergent conclusions of-thes,e two studies illus-
trate the uncertainties in the future of U. S. agriculture. Assumptions .about some of these uncertainties .- .domestid population, economic growth and technology - have been made
- explicit in Worldwatch's scenarios. .ERS has not made its .
' assumptions>.as explicit, but has assumed that technological - innovation will continue to increase production and that export demand will not significantly alter.
In view of such uncertainties, accurate estimation of future agricultural land needs is not possible. What is
clear is that, under certain circumstances not wholly im- plausible, our supply of prime agricultural lands could be
..
- 10 -
. .- -
.
Table 5-2
PROJECTED USES OF LAND IN THE-CONTIGUOUS 48 STATES IN 1980 AND 2000
(,WITH 1949 AND 1969 HISTORIC DATA)
Land Use 1949 19 69 . 1980 2000 .
(millions of acres)
Total cropland 387 333 320 29 8
Cropland harvested 35 2 286 292 2 72
Forest and woodland 601 603 591 578
Pasture, range, and other agricultural land 768 767 771 782
Urban and related 42 60 66 81
106 ' 134 149 158 ~ Other special uses and miscellaneous' uses
Total land area 1,904* 1,897* 1,897 1,897
* Change due to remeasurement
NOTE: Figures are for the contiguous 48 states; only the 1949 figures correspond.
to those in Table 5-1 (for 1950) because the data in Table 5-1 include
A1ask.a and Hawaii from 1959 on.
Source : Snyder, 1976
Table- 5-3
U. S. CROPLAND NEEDS IN THE YEAR 2000
UNDER FIVE ALTERNATIVE 'DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
Actual Year 2000 Scenario 1970 1 2 3 4 5 " - - - - -
Assumptions Population (millions) 204 321 321 321 266 266
Economic growth "- High High ' Low High Low
Technology . . High High Low Low High . Low
Outcome Harvested cropland 344 391 438 436 359 390 (million acres)
I. . .
Cropland not harvested2 96 31 33 32 51 32
Total cropland 440 422 471 468 410 422
'Includes pasture in cropland.
21ncludes about 30 million acres required for failure and sur!uner fallow, the
remainder being unused.
. SOURCE: Eckholm, 1976
.. - 11 -
e fully in use early in the 21st century; a backup supply of
agricultural lands will exist, to be sure,.but of lesser
qua.lity, involving. higher production costs, lower yields
and rapidly rising'domestic food prices. Loss of prime
lands to urbanization poses a problem-because such losses
are irreversible and because the supply is finite. The cumulative effects of the alienation of these resources
from agriculture may well pose a serious future problem .
for the nation.
.. Demand for Agricultural Exports. Thus far, the dis-
cussion of agricultura(1 land requirements has focused on
domestic food requirements; export levels have 'been assumed relatively stable. Significant increases in export demand 'would accelerate the. events described in Worldwatch's
second scenario and would increase the cropland need
estimated in both the studies cited. "Because the ERS estimate was published prior to the recent dramatic in- creases in U. s. agricultural exports, it probably does
-not' fully reflect the potential- future worldwide demand .. . .
for U. S. agricultural- products.
Recent experience - the 1974 world food shortage, for example - shows the relationship between export demand and
shortages raising international prices for agricultural commodities, the.federa1 government released almost all
of the farmland retained under supply management programs
(Cotner, 1975). But food prices nevertheJess rose sharply;
between 1972 and 1974, food prices rose over 30 percent while prices of all items (including,food) rose less than
20 percent. With rising food prices, consumers.have been forced to spend an ever increasing percentage of their in- come on food. Policies designed to preserve the productive land base would help insulate domestic consumers from price
increases due to increased export demand.
. U. S. domestic food prices and production levels. With.
-A growing farm export market has had a favorable effect on the nation's balance of trade. Acreage harvested for
agridultural export increased from 69 million acres in
1967 to 100 million acres, or 30 percent of the total
acreage. harvested, in 1975 (USDA, 1977). I-n 1977 the .country suffered a $27 billion trade deficit, but. agricul-
ture had a 'net surplus of $10.6 billion (CRS, 1978) . As ..
inflation and a growing trade deficit.erode the dollar's
,buying power, measures taken to preserve croplands will
help ensure agriculture's ability to offset the increasing
costs of imports.
.a ..,.. .
Prime Farmland Preservation: A Growing National Con-
cern. The issue of farmland depletion and particularly the irreversible conversion of prirhe farmland to nonagri-
cultural use has prompted federal legislation designed to protect our agricultural land resources. Legislation pro-
posed.in the 95th Congress included the Agricultural Land
I
I
i
I
' Retention Act (H.R. 11122) and similar Senate Bills, S. 1616
and S. 2757 (CRS, 1978) . Essentially these bills would have provided funding' to..study agricultural land conversion and
to make recommendations for possible modifications in fed- eral land use policies to prevent the depletion of the
nation's prime farmland. None of these bills was acted
upon by the 95th Congress.
Prime Farmland in California
* Agriculture in California's Economy. California's wide
variety of quality soilsr unique climatic conditions and
abundant irrigation water permit the commercial' cultivation
.of over 200 crops. The state produces 25 percent of all
table-food and 40 percent of.all fresh vegetables and fruit
consumed in the nation (Reed, 1977). Agriculture is one
of California's major industries: an estimated $8.6 bil- lion in cash receipts at .the farm level generated approxi-
mately $45 billion or 24 percent of the state's aggregate
output of $190 billion in 1975 (California Legislature,
1977a). Agricultural land use amounts .to 36.l million acres of the state's 100.1 million acres in 1975; howevec,
most.of the cash return from crops was derived from produc- tion on the 3.7 million acres of irrigated land in the
1974) .. - state (California Department of Water Resources [DWR], , .
The Prime Farmland Inventory. California developed
and applied a definition of prime farmland prior to the
more recent definition developed by SCS for the national . land inventory (see discussion earlier in this chapter of
. the SCS definition, p. 90). The California definition is
spelled out in the California Land Conservation Act of 1965,
and is referred to in this chapter.as the "CLCA" definition.
It is more inclusive than the SCS definition because it
includes lands which return a gross revenue of $200 per
acre, irrespective of their soil'quality,
Table 5-4 sets forth estimates.of the amount of prime
agricultural land in California under both CLCA and SCS
definitions. The more restrictive SCS definition results
in an inventory of 9 million acres, 3.6 million acres less .than the CLCA definition (Singer and Reganold, 1978).
Potential Prime Farmland. Potential prime farmland,
. is defined as that land which has the capacity to be made .prime (according to the CLCA definition) through normal
agricultural. investment and practices (California Office
' of Planning and Research [OPR], 1974). OPR estimates that there are 8 million acres of potential prime land in the
state. In contrast, SCS estimates only 4 million acres,
based on the acreage of presently.hon.irrigated Class I
and Class I1 soils. Most of these lands are located in
the Mojave Desert and the Owens Vall'ey; the remainder are scattered in small parcels in coastal valleys. Only a
- - 13 -
' small fraction of this acreage is found in' the major agri-
cultural areas of the state.
Table. 5-4
CALIFORNIA PRIME FAR~AND INVENTORY
Potential
Prime Prime Farmland Farmland Total
i
Qffice of Planning and
Research (CLCA' classification) 12.6 . 7.98 20i58
.soil Conservation Service
(LIM~ classification) . 9.0 4.003 13.003
"CLCA definition includes all lands meeting at least one of the following
-criteria: (1) Class I and Class I1 soils as defined by SCS; (2) land
'that returned an annual gross value of not less than $200 per acre; (3)
land qualifying for a rating of 80 to 100 in the Storie Index of Soil
Classification; (4) land that supports livestock with an annual carry-
ing capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre, as defined
by the USDA; (5) land planted in fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines,
bushes or crops that have a nonbearing period of .less than 5 years, and
that will normally return $200 per acre per year (Hanson and Schwartz,
1976) .
2U: S. Soil Conservation Service, 1977. '
3~ontingent upon water availability.
Source: Singer and Reganold, 1978
Trends in Agricultural Land Conversion. Past changes in
California's agricultural land.use are well known in both
technical and popular literature. The Santa Clara.Valley was a prime orchard area prior to 1950, yet from 1940 to 1970
over 40,000 acres of prime orchard land was taken out o'f
production as population increased from 310,000 in 1950 to over 1 million in 1970 (Holloway, 1977). Since 1970, this
trend has accelerated as approximately 24,000 acres of
prime orchard land have: been .lost (Santa. C1ar.a County Depart- - ment of Agriculture, 1977).
. ., .. San Diego County's unique Mediterranean climate and , , fertile soils have made'this area a leading producer of
California specialty crops. But between 1950 and 1966, population pressure had forced the conversion of over
63,000 acres of prime farmland to urban .uses (San Diego County, 1968) and the area has lost its former leadership position in citrus and nut production.
Generally, agricultural activities formerly located in
the urban coastal counties have shifted.to the San Joaquin
Valley, where vast acreages have been brought into intensive
.
1 I
-1
-J I
Y
FJ
n
- 14 -
L
,-
. . ,. -.
cultivation through implementation of major irrigation pra-
jects. It is estimated that about 55,000 acres per year of
land are being reclaimed for intensive crop production
(OPR., 1974). ..
However, prime agricultural land' is also being absorbed
by continuing urban expansion at the rate af 20,000 to 25,000 acres per year (DWR, 1974): Projections by OPR indicate
that urbanization of prime farmland during the 1974-85 per- .iod will average 50,000 acres per year, and 80,000 acres
:per year if potential prime land is also included. In view 65 the fact that DWR estimates of past prime farmland losses were about 25,000 acres per year, the OPR estimates of future
.losses show a considerable acceleration of this trend.
Future Prospects for California Agriculture.
Impediments to Reczarnation of AdditionaZ Lands. The
major impediment to the upgrading of.potentia1 prime land
to prime land status is the lack of irrigation water supplies
and a decrease in the amount of new water supplies available
for agricultural use. Currently there is a gap between the
supply of water and the demand, which agriculture is compen-
sating for via groundwater overdrafting. New water projects would be needed to upgrade.potentia1 prime land to prime, -
and current prospects for construction of such projects
are not favorable.
Less valuable agricultural lands - "marginal" lands -
might also be brought into production if the long-term need
. warranted and if water were available. However,.higher costs 'of production are incurred because these reclaimed marginal lands are less productive and require greater use of ferti-
lizers, longer transport distances, and have lower yields over which to spread costs. Greater capital costs on these
lands result from the need for more extensive water delivery
systems, land and soil improvements and other fixed costs.
High capital costs required for development of new crop-
lands in California are illustrated by experience in the
Westlands development project in Fresno County, where sub- sidies approaching $2.5 billion in the next 40 years may be
needed to bring only 600,000 acres into production (Cali- fornia Legislature, 1977b). The primary reason for the
decrease in return for new farmland is that the optimum conversion sites for agriculture purposes have been-used
up, and the crop yields on marginal lands are not adequate to pay back the high construction costs of the needed
water supply.projects. These factors indicate that the small reserve of prime agriculture land and the low economic viability of. new water projects reduces the feasibility of replacing lost prime land with lower quality marginal lands.
..
- 15 -
Projections of Future AgricuZturaZ Land Use. Projections by the,DWR in 1974 of future.water demands and the ability to meet these demands in the years 1990 and 2020 are summa-
rized in Figure 5-4 and Table 5-5. High demand scenarios for irrigated land based on agricultural growth are repre- sented by Alternatives I and 11, and future agricultural
water needs for these respective alternatives will exceed
projected water supplies. If, however, either of the lower
demand levels represented by Alternatives' I11 and IV is'
.realized, projected water' supplies will be sufficient for qgricultural use.
>::.*, : . In all four scenarios total water demand would exceed
dependable water supplies. The deficit would have to be made
'up by groundwater overdrafts, providing that such a degree of
overdraft is technically. and economically feasible.
' The outcomes of the four scenarios could'be significantly different from DWR's projections if urbanization expands at
a faster rate or if new water supply facilities lag behind urban development more than expected. In fact, construction
of a number of the water projects on which the DWR supply
forecasts are based has been postponed, suspended or can- celled. The forecast of dependable water'supplies may con-
. sequently be too high.
.- . . .~ ". . . . . . .
Recognition of Prime,Farmlands Preservation as a State Policy. Because of the uncertainties mentioned above, the
Legislature has taken actions directed toward preserving California'a prime farmland. Several bills have been intro-
-duced to'create an Agricultural .Resources Council at the
..state level to oversee the establishment of agriculture preserves. These bills would also require detailed mapping
.'* of existing prime lands and development of local land use
plans aimed at protection and preservation of these lands
.(California Legislature., 1977a). However, no 'agricultural preservation bill has yet been enacted into law.
-.,Prime - Farmlands in Stanislaus County
. ~ ... . ,
._ .. ,. . , .. . 4'. Agriculture in 'thk' Stanislaus County Economy. With a .. .
.*- combination .of fertile alluvial soils, sufficient water - .I supplies, long growing season and favorable climate, Stani- .
slaus County ranks sixth'among California counties in the
value of agricultural production (Stanislaus County, 1977).
As the most important local industry, agriculture directly or indirectiy supports over 75 percent of the county's
.economic activity (Stanislaus Area Association of Govern-
ments [SAAG], 1972). Approximately 78 percent, or 754,400 acres, of the county's total area of 967,000 acres are
currently in agricultural uses (Stanislaus County, 1977) including about 308,400 acres in cropland.. About 300,000 acres in Stanislaus County are prime'agricultural lands
(SCS definition), including an urban land area of approxi-
mately 22,500 acres. A map of prime soils in eastern
Stanislaus County'is enclosed in the map pocket at,the back
of this report. ..
- 16. -
3
1
FIGURE 5-4
HISTORICAL. CONDITIONS & PROJECTED
IRRIGATED LAND AR.EA
REQUIREMENTS IN CALIFORNIA
.ir. .. -.i
I I I I
0
.j -”
4
/-- II
m
Tp
”-
”0.
1930 ’ 1940 1950 1960 I970 1980 I990 2000 2010 2020
YE ARS .
SOURCE: ‘DWR, 1974
1.
-,
i , Table 5-5 ..
EXISTING (1972) AND PROJECTED AGGREGATED WATER SUPPLY n
AND DEMAND AND ACREAGE UNDER IRRIGATION I
Total Water Supplies . 30,700 3-0 36,400 -1
Alt'ernative Futures:
I. Water demand (1,000 acre-feet) 1 total 37,400 46,200 55,300' I
agricultural 31,700 37,900 41,900
all other uses 5,700 8,300 13,400 1
Acreage under irrigation (1,000 ac) 8,780 10,200 11,360 i
1972 19.90 2020
I
..
- 11. Water demand (1,000 acre-feet)
total 37,400 44,400 50,800
agricultural 31,700- 36,400 39,000 i all other uses 5,700 8,000 11,800
Acreage under irrigation (1,000 ac) 8,780 9,740 10,520
1 rf I 111. Water demand (1,000 acre-feet)
total 37., 400 42,400 47,000 3 agricultural 31,700 34,600 36,100 1 all other uses .. 5', 700 7,800 10,900
Acreage under irrigation (1,000 ac) 8,780 9,380 9,850 1
total 37,400 41,100 42,900
agricultural 31,700 34,000 34,600 f
all other uses 5,700 7,100 8;300 i
IV. Water demand (1,000 acre-feet). c
Acreage under irrigation (1,000 ac) 8,780 '9,190 '9,360
Source: DWR, 1974 ..
. . " " . .. . . . . . . . . . "
Agricultural production in Stanislaus County for. the
years 1968-76 has been characterized by the consistent leader-
ship of livestock and poultry products in production value. Furthermore, California's comparative advantage in the pro- duction of specialty crops is particularly evident in data i for the county: SAAG data (1976) show that Stanislaus is the
state leader in the production of apricots, dry beans, boy-
senberries, honeydew melons, green peas, red clover seed and chickens. ..
Agricultural production requires inputs from many other
' industries and in turn provides inputs for transport, pro- cessing and marketing industries. The economic process by which agricultural production results in the generat'ion of income and employment in other industries is called the
multiplier effect. Bas'ed on a multiplier of 2.2 (Goldman
-18-. ..
P
' and Strong, 1977) * the 1974 value of agricultural produc-
tion of $500 million contributed a total $1.1 billion to
Stanislaus County's economy.. ..
Trends in Agricultural Land Conversion. Trends in
agricultural land use become apparent upon examination of the changes in county land use over the past 20 years. Agri-
cultural acreage declined from 882,446 acres in 1958 to
754,391 acres in 1977, a net decrease of 128,055 acres.
This has been largely due to a change in status of rural
lands from productive agricultural use as crop or range-
land to .an idle or other unproductive status. At the same time, the county experienced an outward movement of
,orchards and vineyards. In many areas., orchards and vine- yards have been planted on lands used formerly for field
crops., pasture or range. i.
Some of the best agricultural lands in Stanislaus
County are being irretrievably converted to urban and in- dustrial uses. SUG (1976) estimates that the Modesto-
Ceres urban area occupied about 20,000 acres of mostly
prime farmland (SCS definition) ih 1976, having absorbed
about 500 acres of p'rime farmland annually between 1950 and 1975. Although not all of the areas zoned for urban uses
in 1975 had actually been converted to those uses, their
ihclusion within the boundaries of the urbanized area and the associated municipal obligation to provide them with
urban services virtually assures their eventual conversion.
. . The expansion of Stanislaus C.mnty's urban areas has .
. displaced high value fruit and nut acreage and has had a
' detrimental effect on the countywide yield levels. for '
these crops. Although annual yields in the principal
vegetable and field crop categories have increased sig- nificantly since 1960, yields in fruit and nut crops show
a general decline during this period. In part, the decline may be attributable to the fact that. fruit and nut yields from young orchards are significantly lower during their
first few years, before the trees reach full maturity.
reflect the fact that many of the new orchards are on
nonprime soils, and therefore yields are likely to be per-
manently depressed, illustrating the price pai'd when best
quality orchard and vineyard acreage is lost to urbaniza-
tion.
* However, declines in fruit and nut yields probably also
. ..
..
*SAAG, 1976 suggests a multiplier of 4. The Goldman and Strong data,
gathered in 1974 but not publ'ished until 1977, show multipliers for
agricultural commodities ranging from 1.5631 (milk production) to
2.3433 (onions); therefore, the use of the SAAG multiplier appears
inappropriate. The multiplier of 2.2 used here is a weighted average
combining the percentage distribution of local agricultural-lands
(row crop, field crop. and pasture lands) by crop type (judgmental
estimate by Armen V. Sarquis, County Director, U. S. Cooperative
Extension). - - 19 -
- - . .. -.
, Prime farmland depletion is exacerbated, when leap-
frogging or checker board urban development is allowed to
take place. Under these conditions farm profitability
is jeopardized both by increased taxes, as speculation
raises land values, and hy cur'tailment of agricultural 'practices such .as fertilizer application and pest control to prevent the 'risk of hazards and nuisance to neighbor- hood *residents. The cost of expanded city services to
these developed areas (sewer, police, fire and educational-
facilities) may also have to be shared by the farmer. This scenario of urban growth and discontiguous develop-
ment induces the farmer to intensi'fy farm practices to
increase revenues,' to bear the cost of+..relocating, or
t,o abandon farm operations altogether.
Future Prospects for Agriculture in Stanislaus
County. Projections of future prime farmland urbaniza-
tion in Stanislaus County have been made by the state,
and 20,800 acres are estimated to be subject to conver-
sion between 1974 and 1985 (OPR, 1974). City of Modesto urban growth is forecast in this EIS to require 6,440 acres by the year 2000, resulting in the conversion of
approximately 5,320 acres of prime.agricultura1 land.
Urban growth elsewhere in Stanislaus would also result
in agricultural land conversion. ..
. There are about 24,800 acres in Stanislaus County
with the potential for 'upgrading to prime (CLCA defini-
tion) through normal zp-icultural investment and manage- ment practice (OPR, 1974). The amount of potential prime
land under the SCS definition has net been estimated but
would be lower, because SCS definition is more restrictive. '
There are no idle existing prime farmlands, as defined .
by SCS, in Stanislaus County that could be used for' re-
placement of lands lost to urbanization.
Recognition of Prime Farmlands Preservation as a
County- Issue. Stanislaus County has actively pursued a
course of planning directed toward inhibiting the parceli-
zation of rural lands and, their absorption by leapfrogging
urban development since the"ear1y 1970!s.- More recently,
the County Planning Department has initiated background
studies for an agriculture element of the Stanislaus County General Plan.. The Stanislaus Area Association
of Governments has prepared an agriculture data report
(SAAG, 1976) as part of the Stanislaus Area Environmental Resources Management Element.
Summary and Conclusions
On the national, state and county levels, the con-
tinuing reduction in the available supply of prime farm-
land has aroused growing concern about future U. s. food and fiber production.
- 20 -
-1
1
3
-1.
I -l
'I _.
. On the national level, an irreversible. loss of
approximately 1 million acres per year has been exper-
ienced in recent times. Should this trend continue, the
ability of the nation's agriculture to meet growing de-. mand - the world's popuXation.is expected to increase by over 50 percent to 6 billion by the year 2000 (United
Nations, 1973) - may be in doubt. None of the future
scenarios of the Worldwatch Institute presented earlier .
in this chapter anticipate a need for less than 410
million acres of total cropland (10 million acres more
than the current base) to meet domestic and export needs
in the year 2000.
With rising world demand for U. S. food products
and increasing cropland losses, policy makers have be-
come acutely aware of the nonrenewable nature of.agri-
cultural land. This awareness has produced a drive to-
ward federal legislation, exemplified in the Agricultural Land Retention Act, to prevent the unnecessary and irre- versible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. Because of the considerable uncertainty over the future
supply of productive cropland, future yields.and future demand for agricultural products, 'there is a .need to
consider the costs and benefits of measure.s designed to
preserve the prime agricultural land resources of the
nation against continuing losses.
At the state level, prime farmlands of the highest
quality are currently being lost at. a rate of 25,000 to
55,000 acres per year. If this trend continues, up to
1,'2 million acres of prime land cotld possibly be absorbed
. 'by urban and other types of development during the re-,
mainder of this century. The uncertainties associated
with potential shortages in future water supplies and
the high cost of converting currently nonprime lands to irrigated cropland make unlikely at present the prospect
of compensating for this prime land loss by reclamation of available reserve lands (OPR: 8 million acres; SCS:
4 million acres; most reclaimable Class I and I1 lands are in desert areas or scattered through coastal valleys).
In Stanislaus County, there is a finite prime farm- land base of about 277,500 acres (SCS definition). Ur- banization of agricultural land in the Modesto-Ceres area has averaged about 500 acres annually over the last 20
years. No idle prime agricultural land (SCS definition)
is available in the county to replace prime'acreage.
Table 5-6 summarizes the present and potential supply
of prime farmland in the county, state and nation.
- 21 - .
-i -.
Table 5-6
PRESENT AND POTENTIAL PRIME FARMLAND
COUNTY, STATE .AND NATION
Stanislaus
county California ,
United
States
Total prime farmland (acres) 277 , 500 9 , 000,000 384,000,0001
Prime farmland in cropland use 277,500 9,000,000 250,000,000
Land with immediate potential
for upgrading to prime crop- O2 undetermined3 15,000,000
land status
'Land with long-run potential
for upgrading to cropland a undetermined 4 , 000,000 96 , 000, 0005
status
5.
'This value includes all prime land resources in the county regardless of
their present use.
2There is currently no idle farmland in Stanislaus County which meets the
SCS definition of prime.
3Upgrading of nonprime lands to prime statns is contingent upon the con-
struction of new water projects and irrigation water delivery systems,
which'may be feasible on a long-run basis but not on a short-run basis.
4Soils in groups 2-4 as identified -in Appendix C could be reclaimed for
orchards and vineyards but .they lack the 'broad.er versatility of lands
on the valley floor.
5Both prime and nonprime lands with potential for conversion to cropland
are included in this category.
Source: Dideriksen,. 1977; Singer and Reganold, 1978;
Houshang Esmaili Associates.
Whichever geographical area-we'consider, the overall picture is similar: the prime agricultural land base is
finite and the portion currently in production is diminish-
ing. While lesser lands are available which. could be cul-
tivated, impediments in terms of soil quality, water avail- - ability and access to public capital such as roads contribute
to the cost associated with utilizing such- lands. For these
reasons, preservation of prime agricultural lands has been
advanced as a public objective.
Future Conversion of Agricultural Land to
Urban Use in the City of Modesto.
The Effects of Federal Actions on Prime Land Resources '
Modesto shares with many other American cities the
prospect of continued community growth anto agricultural lands. 'Past growth already has absorbea nearly 20,000
" 22 -
8 acres of farmland represented graphically on the map of
the area's urbanization trends in the pocket at the back
of this report. By 1950, the 'Modesto area (including
Ceres, Salida*and Empire) occupied about 5,900 acres of
what had been virtually all prime farmland. Another 4,200
acres were urbanized between 1950 and 1969, and an addi- tional 7,800 acres by 1975.
Growth patterns, and the factors which encourage growth, are not all local in origin. Among federal actions in the past which have played a part in Modesto's
growth are highway funding (rapid movement of goods up
and down the Central Yalley on State Route 99 having -spurred food processors to serve western locations from
Valley sites) and sewer funding. The Economic Develop-
ment Administration, an agency of the U. S. Department of Commerce, provided 50% of the funding for planning and
construction of Modesto's major sewer interceptor facili-
ties in 1968-69. Federal government employment in the Mo-
desto study area has increased dramatically. in recent years, more than doubling between 1970 and 1975.
One of the purposes of this EIS was"to determine
the extent to which the specific federal action currently contemplated - the funding of Modesto's wastewater facili-
ties expansion - would contribute to the com.unity's con-
tinued growth onto agricultural lands; and what the im- pacts of agricultural land conversion would be. The con-
'clusions were expected to provide guidance to.EPA, Mo-
desto and other potential grantee communities as to the types and scale of impacts to.be expected from such EPA actions. The impacts disclosed by the analysis would, in
turn, provide a yardstick against.which the adequacy of '
mitigation measures could be evaluated.
Forecasting the Urbanization of Prime Farmland
The conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses
is a function of three factors: the amount of growth,
the density of growth and the spatial distribution of
growth. Each of these factors is, in principle, predict- able, although the availability of the kinds.of data needed to undertake a prediction varies among communities.
Modesto together with Stanislaus County offers a recent
history of strong local planning and of local data collection
on land use patterns which greatly facilitated the analysis of urbanization trends. The city has had an urban growth
policy since 1974; mandated annual reviews of this. policy
patterns and issues; City Council review and discussion;
and an'opportunity for participation and debate by the
I I. involve technical reports -by city staff on growth trends,
!
II
"-
- 23 -
'v \
i
, general public. The reports prepared in connection with
these policy reviews provide a wealth of information on
community development patterns.. These reports are supple-
' mented by comprehensive land use surveys (1976 and 1978) and by special studies conducted by city staff. But al- thocgh Modesto's recent land development history .is un-
usually well documented, most large cities (in excess of
25',000) in California's major agricultural areas appear to have basic land use and density statistics which would
be applicable to comparable analyses. 1
The methodology applied in the case of 'Modesto in-
volved preparation of a full forecast of population and
.employment to the year.2000, these forecasts in turn
serving as the basis for a forecast of land absorption by urban uses. The area delineated for forecas-ting pur-
poses was larger than the City of Modesto - it had to be
large enough to encompass all of the lands on which
Modesto's current economic base is accommodated plus additional lands to be needed by residential and economic
growth through the forecast period. Thus, the first out-
put of the forecast .(which is presented in detail in
Appendices A and B of the Draft EIS) was.a land use fore- cast for the Modesto socioeconomic study area. This fore-
cast then served as the basis for the estimation of future
land use change in the City of Modesto.2 Table' 5-7 pre- sents estimates of future urban land absorption in the
socioeconomic study area and the City of Modesto to the
year 2000.
'Gruen Gruen + Associates surveyed the 15 largest Central Valley and
Delta Cities. Current basic density statistics can be calculated for
a1.l 15 given existing data; residential density for 12. Vacant land
estimates can be calculated for 13 and vacant residential land for 11.
,2While the overall forecast covered an area more extensive than the city,
a city forecast was also needed both because the city is the focus of
the project and because the City of Modesto is the agency directly
responsible for both impacts and mitigation measures. The translation
of impacts from the larger study area to the smaller city involved a
number of interpretations'and assumptions as discussed in Appendix A
of the 'Draft EIS (pp. A-55 to A-56). Among factors affecting city (as
distinguished from study area) growth, the mokt important is probably
annexation decisions.
.- 24 - .
e.
L .. _.
Table 5-7
I
FUTURE URBAN LAND ABSORPTION IN' EIS
SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY AREA-AND IN CITY OF MODEST0
. 1979-2000
Socio-
economic
Study Area
1990 -
Total Popula-
tion' 171,720
New Population' 21,300
Added Dwelling
Units2 14,710
Land Absorption
(gross acres) :
Residential 3,040
Commercial 180
Industrial 325
Park/Public 325
Total 3,870
2000
202 , 670
52,250
28 , 090
5 800
440
800.
795
7,835
4
City of .Modesto
At Project Capacity
Initial Planned
Construction Future
. Capacity Const. Cap.
1990 2000' (1984) (1995)
129,100 162,300 112,750 145,000
20,900 48,100 10,100 25,950 6.
9,530 22 , 060 3,360.. 15 530
1,970 4 , 560
180 410 .I
320 740
320 . 7 30
2,790 6,440
695
90
155
15 5
1,095
3,210
305
555
545
4 , 615
'Limitations on the accuracy of city population forecasts are discussed in
Appendix A of the Draft EIS , pp. A-55 and A-56. The same limitations apply
to the land absorption forecasts.
" 'Between January 1, 1979 and project capacity 'year.
3Average residential density used in the forecast is 4.84 dwelling units
per gross acre. This is slightly lower #an the current density of 5.1
units per gross acre (6.8 units/net acre) reflecting (I) slowly rising real
income and (2) the historical relationship between income levels and the
mix of single- and multi-family units in the Modesto housing supply. . ~ ., .. .
Source: Gruen Gruen + Associates
The EIS forecast is presented in Table 5-7 as a point
estimate. That estimate lies within a range, the extremes
of which vary with alternative employment assumptions.* The
EIS forecast being somewhat lower than prior growth projections
*The lower end of the range represents the attainment of an unemployment rate - of 6% by the year 2000 and a.decline from 1.1 to :.OS in the number of
employed local. residents per locally-employed local resident; the higher
end represents a 10% unemployment rate and an increase in the ratio just
described from 1.1 to 1.2. These assumptions are discussed in Appendix A
of the Draft EIS, p. A-51..
-25"
c
-. . ,- :
prepared for Modesto and the county, an alternative (higher)
future population figure* is provided for comparative pur-
poses, permitting an evaluation of the implications of
greater growth than the EIS analysis forecast. Both of the'future growth estimates are translated into land ab- sorption estimates (Table 5-7 represents the EIS forecast,
but not the alternative) and these land absorption estimates
are in turn translated into estimates of the conversion of
prime agricultural land to urban use between 1979 and 2000
(the Draft EIS contained similar estimates for 1976-2000).
Table 5-8 presents three series of estimates of agri-
cultural land conversion which reflect different magnitudes
. of growth and different densities of future residential de-
. velopment. Estimates are presented for the years in which .initial and planned future construction project capacities
are .reached and for the year 2000. The latter 'are provided
only for background and do not signify estimated impacts of the project.
Table 5-8
MODESTO URBAN LAND NEEDS AND AGRICULTURAL
AND TWO ALTERNATIVE GROWTH SCENARIOS, 1979-2000 LAND CONVERSION ESTIMATES UNDER THE EIS FORECAST
(Low population,
Scenario 1
high density)
- 1984' 1995' Urban laand Needs "-
Total Population 112,750 145,000 162,300
New Population 10,100 35,950 . 48.100
Added Dwelling Units 3,360 15,530 22,060
Residential Density' 7 du/gross acre
Land Absorption
(gross acres) 880 3,625 5,030
Agricultural Land Conversion
, lnfill Development 880 3,625 4,000
On Ag Land (75%) 660 2,720 3,000 On Other Undeveloped
Land (25%) 2 20 905 1,000
Othcr Development _, 0 0 1.030
On Ag Land (95%) Ii8 0
On Other Undeveloped 50 Land (5%)
Total Agricultural
Land Converted to 660 2,720 3,980
Urban Use
EIS Forecast Scenarib 2
low density) low density)
(Low population, (High population,
1984' 1995' E __ 1983' 1992' E
112,750 145,000 162,300 113,450 148.000 176,650
10.100 35,950 48,100 11,300 40,050 62,450
3,360 15,530 22,060 ' 3,630 16,670 27,480
4.84 du/gross acre 4.84 du/gross acre
1,095 4,615 6,440 1,090 4,650 7,560
c 1,095 4,000 4,000 1.090 4.000 4,000
820 3,000 3.000 880 3,000 3,000
275 1,000 1,000 210 1,000 1,000
0 615 2,440 0 650 3,560
585 2,320 .. ' , 620 ' 3,380
30 120 30 180
830 . 3,585 5,320 820 3,620 6.380
'The year io which planned future construction project capacity would be reached. 'The year in which initial construction project capacity would he reached.
'The low density estimate is explained in note 2 to Table 5-7. The higher denslty wuld represent a movement
by Modesto toward more dense residential development in the.future. which is Current city policy.
Source: Gruen Gruen t Associates
..
*The basis of the alternative figure is an estimate by the California
Department of Finance (DOF) of future Stanislaus County population given
a 2.1 fertility rate and.an annual net inmigration of 150,000 persons
to California. This E-150 county projection was adapted to the socio-
economic study area and to the city by Grucn .Gruen + Associates a's
described in Appendix A of the Draft EIS, pp. A-55 and A-.56. - 26 -
The urban land absorption estimates' presented in Table
5-8 will not necessarily result in a one-for-one conversion
of agricultural land. How much agricultural land will be
converted will depend on the location of urban development: will'it take place on prime agricultural land or on lands less valuable from an agricultural use perspective?
This question of spatial distribution 'is the third -
major determinant of agricultural land loss. In Modesto, the question is somewhat easier to answer than it might be
in other communities. That is because nearly 100 percent
of the land surrounding Modesto is categorized as prime
agricultural land (see Figure 5-5).
However, land within 'the area that the city has com-
mitted to short-term development (the current sewer service
area, or CSSA), unless it is still in active agyicultural
production, was not considered prime ag land in this analysis. Of the land the city has committed to long- term development (the ultimate sewer'service area, or USSA),
95 percent was assumed to be prime agricultural land. The agricultural land conversion estimates in Table 5-8 there-
fore show urban development as taking place either at infill
sites (within the CSSA) where 75 percent of the urban de- ve1,opment would result in ag land conversion, or at other
sites (in the USSA) where the proportion would be 95 percent.
Impacts of Prime Agricultural Land Conversion
There -ire a number of possible consequences of agri-
cultural land conversion which would vary in importance
depending upon the context. Changes may take place in
local microclimate, in groundwater recharge, in runoff, in air quality and in a variety of other areas typically
classed as "environmental". In the specific case of Modesto, however., the most important effects-of agricultural land conversion were felt to be economic, fiscal and social,
and each of these areas was considered in the analysis.
Economic'1mpacts:of Agricultural Land Conversion. The
economic impact of agricultural land conversion is measured .in terms of reduced. incomes and jobs .in the agriculture -sector, and the indirect effect of those reductions on the
-rest of the local economy. The magnitude of impact depends
on the number of current jobs and the amount of income
associated with the acres predicted to be converted, which is a function principally of the type of agricultural use involved.
Table 5-9 presents a rough estimate of the effect of
forecast agricultural land conversion on,the local economy.
This.estimate is based on the average value per acre of crop production in the immediate Modesto area, which was about $965 in 1977.
..
. .-
- 27 -
-- . . ..
I.
.. Table 5-9
' ESTIMATED ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MODESTO AGRI~ULTURAL LAND
CONVERSION: POINT ESTIMATES FOR 1990, 2000' AND IMPACT YEAR
(all estimates except acreage in thousands)
Scenario 1 EIS Forecast Scenario 2
. (Low population, (Low population, (High population, high density) low density) low density)
1984' 199S2. " 2000 . 1984' 1995' 2000 1983' 19922 . 2000
Acreage Converted 600 2,720 3,980 820 3,585 5,320 820 3,620 6,380 .
Value of Displaced
Crop.Production $640 $2,620 $3,840 '$790 $3,460 $5,130 $790 $3,490 $6,160
($965/acre3)
Indirect Income
Loss (Multiplier $770 $3,140 $4,610 $950 $4,150 $6,160 $950 $4,190 $7,390
= 2.2'+) ..
Total Annual
LOSS $5,760 $8,450 $1,740 $7,610 $11,290 $1,740 $7,680 $13,550
'The point in time at which initial construction capacity would be reached.
'2Tne point in time at which planned future construction project. capacity would be reached.
.3This estimate is a weighted average combining the percentage distribution of agricul-
tural lands by crop type (judgmental estimate by Armen.V. Sarquis, County Director,
U. C. Cooperative Extension) and the average value of production per acre in each kind
of agricultural use in 1977 (Stanislaus County, 1978): peaches, 25 percent ($1,700);
grapes, 20 percent ($786); walnuts, 15 percent ($1,202); field crcqx, 15 percent ($321);
almonds, 10 percent ($1,166); pasture,-10 percent ($95); rice, 5 percent ($540); over-
all average per acre,.$965.
4University of Californin Cooperative Extension data collected in 1974 and published
in 1977 show multipliers €or agricultural commodities in Stanislaus County ranging from
1.5631 (milk production) to 2.3433 (onions). The multiplier of 2.2 used here is a
weighted average combining multipliers for the commodities indicated in the preceding
note. Indirect effects are calculated by multiplying 1.2 times direct effects. -
Source: Gruen Gruen + Associates
Along with the income los's, the area would experience
a reduction in agricultural employment. For the EIS study
area as a whole, that. reduction has been forecast as 1,000 jobs between 1975 and 2000' (2;800 agricultural jobs in 1975; 1,800 agricultural jobs in the year .2000). The
higher density development scenario (Scenario 1) would
help preserve these jobs; the reduction would be cut from
about 1,000 to about 750. Scenario 2 would increase ur-
banization's toll on agricultural employment: upwards of
1,450 agricultural jobs migh.t be lost. These job losses
in the agricultural sector would induce job losses in other sectors as well as via the multiplier effect. In all,
economic impacts of the conversion of agricultural land associates with the project could range from $8.4 million
- 29 -
,- ,
, ".
to $10.9 million per year by the time ultimate capacity
' of the planned future construction is absorbed (the EIS
forecast is $11.2 million) and from $11.8.million to $17.8 million by the year 2000 ($15..5 million .is the EIS fore-
cast).
The job loss described would not show up in economic
statistics as an overall decline in area employment. The conversion of agricultural land to urban use would have .
short-term economic impacts resulting from construction
: .of the housing, commercial or industrial structures which
.{: impacts in terms of expanding the number of permanent
- positions in the growing sectors-of the economy. However,
. whether specific indhiduals whose agricultural employ- ment opportunities are reduced by agricultural land con-
version will find suitable employment in other 'economic
sectors is not known.
.- 'would replace agriculture. It would also have long term
6.
Conversion of the agricultural land closest to Modesto is unlikely to halt the area's economic expansion. Even the food processing industry, which is the major
industry most closely linked to local agricultural pro-
duction, is not strongly dependent on Stanislaus County
crop and livestock production. While about two-thirds
-of the manufacturing employment in Stanislaus County is
in the canned, cured and frozen foods and food processing
industries (Califo?nia Employment Development Department,
1976), these industries are not dependent on local agri- ..culture alone. .In fact, only about 10 percent of total
payments and purchases of these industries in Stanislaus.
County went to agriculture within the county in 1974,
while 39 percent went to purchases outside of the county
and payments. to governments outside the county (Lee, 1975). These relationships indicate that Stanislaus County is an element of a larger regional economy, so that the interdependence of local industry and local agriculture
is not as great as might be supposed. ..
Pressures for urban growth throughout California's' Central Valley may have begun to result in declining agri-,
cultural production such that in the long run (i.e., beyond
related industries and services in the Modesto area may
no longer thrive. Such a change would be analogous to the
. decline in agriculture-related industry in Los Angeles in
the middle third of the twentieth century and the more
recent decline of agriculture-related industry in the Santa Clara Valley. But, in neither Los Angeles nor San Jose has agriculture-related industry disappeared; the
lag is very long. The analysis undertaken for this EIS
does not forecast-the demise of the food processing industry
.in Modesto during the '25-year period ending in 2000. If
.the year 2000) food processing and other agriculture-
.' - 30 L
-
~ ~ "_ ~ ~~-~ ~
, the preservation of a strong agricultural'base and associated
industries is to be accomplished in the long run, then reduc-
tion in the amount of agriculturally-productive lands must
be minimized. However, this study has not identified a.
of agriculture. in the San Joaquin Valley is irretrievably
lost.
, "threshold of no return"'beyond which the long term viability
Fiscal Impacts of Agricultural Land Conversion. Agri-
cultural land is widely believed to be a fiscal asset to
local government: . it is thought to generate an excess of public revenues (primarily property taxes) over costs (public service requirements). This belief has frequently been
supported by studies which compare the costs and revenues
associated with a particular agricultural acreage to those
resulting from resident-ial development which takes place
on that acreage. One such study in the Modesto area (Uni- versity of California, Davis, 1973) found that agricultural
land use was more "profitable" to local public agencies
than the same acreage of residential and neighborhood com-
mercial use.
The conclusions of such studies are gene.rally limited to the specific parcels of land being studied; the off-site implications of agricultural vs. residential uses are often ignored. For example, in considering the fiscal impact of
agriculture one should. consider the co-sts of servicing the employees, owners and their dependents associated with agri-
culture and the land their residences occupy, less the
rever?ues they contribute, in addition to the costs and revenues associated with the agrimltural land itself.
The same principle holds when assessing the fiscal'impact
of residential land use. Residential development is generally
associated with industrial and commercial (and agricultural)
employment and land use;.therefore, the costs and revenues associated with these activities should be included in the I i proper proportions along with the cos.ts and costs and revenues I
directly associated with residential development. (The
Goldman and Strong analysis cited previously includes some commercial land use associated with residential development,
but not in proportion to actual urban nonresidential land use in the Modesto area. )
The development of an individual land use, whatever the use involved, does not take place in a vacuum. Just as
new industrial development implies added housing elsewhere
in a community for those who will be employed at the new plant, so the construction of residences in one part of an economic subregion implies that new industrial and commercial
land uses are being developed elsewhere in the area.
- 31 -
, In a specific local area - a rural school district,
for example - urban development in the form of residences housing school-age children.may well be a fiscal burden
compared to the orchards t-hey replace, when seen from the
narrow local perspective. If the impact of new develop-
ment were viewed regionally, what we would rn0s.t likely
see is that one public agency is getting the highly- .
concentrated costs of new development, while the benefits
(sale tax revenues, for example) are going elsewhere.
Each new development in a Modesto rural school district
' illuminates again the problems created when the costs and revenues of development are un.equally distributed
among jurisdictions. However, this problem is an arti-
fact of local government finance: it does not "prove" that ' agriculture is always a more fiscally-benefici-a1 use than
housing. There is no standard answer to that. question;
each case would have to be considered for itself. The only generalization possible in this post-Proposition 13
period is that neither agriculture nor urban land use
generates as much property tax revenue as it used to. -
Social Impacts of Agricultural Land Conversion.
One of the effects of asricultural 1and.conversion in
and around Modesto is the continued diminution in the
number of small family farms. .Average farm size in .the
.Sari Joaquin Valley has risen steadily in receilt years, and larger farms are generally agreed to be more efficient
economically. Thus, as small farms are eliminated, they
are unlikely to be replaced. Many of the impediments to
*the establishment of small farms have been identified in a a recent California study (California Employment Develop-
ment Department, 1977).
Loss of rural values and the rural lifestyle are.
accompanied, as cities like Modesto grow onto agricultural
land, by changes in the character of the urban community. Opportunities to participate in civic affairs may be re- duced as city size increases. There may 'be an increasing
sense of imper.sonality, and even a decreasing confidence
in personal secu-rity as LaLcity growsr While growth may
also.-bring new opportunities -'culturai as well as economic the changes may not be attractive to everyone. Many of these implications of' growth were discussed in one of the
Modesto Alternative Futures Symposia (January 16, 1978).
- 32 .-
Mitigation of Agricultural Land Conversion
Introduction
The Modes.to wastewater facilities expansion would
accpmmodate the conversion of an estimated 3,945. to
5,290 acres of prime agricultural land to urban use if
no additional measures are taken to mitigate such con-
version. Mitigation of prime agricultural land conver-
sion is the subject of the remainder of this chapter.
Adverse Impact on Prime Agricultural Land Requires
Mitigation. Loss of prime agricultural land to urban uses
is a frequently-observed indirect impact of public facili-
'ties investments in agricultural areas. It is EPA'S
intention to minimize the impact of its programs in re- ducing the mount of prime agricultural land. 'The policy
of the agency is to protect, through the administration
and implementation of its programs and regulations, the nation's environmentally-significant agricultural land
from irreversible conversion to uses which result in its
loss as an environmental or essential food production resource. ..
Urban Expansion in AgricuZturaZ Areas. For many reasons, cities have tended to be established in agri- cultural regions. As urban areas have grown, they have expanded onto lands formerly in agricultural production.
Because Modesto is surrounded by agricultural land, the
city's expansion would result in cjditional loss of prime . agricultural lands to industrial, public, commercial and especially residential development. Other cities.in
agricultural areas may be less hemmed in by high-quality or unique agricultural lands, and may, correspondingly, have greater flexibility in direct.ing growth so as to .
minimize agricultural land impacts.
No EPA Funding if Prime Agricultura 2 Land Impacts
Are Not Mitigated. EPA's funding of facilities providing
Modesto with additional wastewater treatment capacity
would .allow growth to occur, and that growth would take
place largely on prime agricultural land. EPA requires
that-no funding be awarded for projects which would enable
''new habitations or other establishments" to be located on prime agricultural lands unless mitigated to the maxi- mum extent possible.
Identifving and ImpZementing Mitigation Measures.
To implement its prime agricultural land policy, EPA re-
views municipal waste treatment grant applications to search for methods of mitigating the effects of agency- assisted activities on significant agricultural lands.
EPA may propose types of local mitigation measures which
could be taken, and the Draft EIS presented an inventory of possible measures for consideration.
- 33 -
. The responsibility for selecting a mitigation program
rests with the grantee. In this case, the City of Modesto proposed a package of mitigation measures to EPA (to be
presented in the last section of this chapter) which the city believes represents the maximum effort currently
fehsible to respect prime agricultural land retention ob-
jectives while permitting the orderly growth of the com-
muni ty .
Local implementation measures, in Modesto or elsewhere, :should be locally enforceable, with little or no ongoing
-partic.ipation by EPA. But local measures'need to be sup-
plemented by actions at the state and federal levels as
.well. It is importaqt to recognize that agricultural
land conservation is a regional and national problem; local agencies, even with the best intentions and the
most sound planning approaches, cannot unilat&"rally effect farmland retention. State and federal agencies need to develop their awareness of the agricultural land conver-
sion phenomenon and work, both separately and together,
,,to develop positive strategies for dealing.with it. Some nonlocal measures which might be taken on the state and
federal levels are described in this section .. of the EIS.
Strategies for Mitigating Prime Agricultural Land Conversion. Mitigation .is the alleviation of .a condition
which has exceeded a threshold of tolerability.
Determining Whether Prime AgricuZturaZ Land Loss is
a MitigatcbZe Irnoact. The threshold of tolerability of .
adverse impacts may be established at different levels
'by different observers. In .the case of the air.pollutant sulfur dioxide, for example, the federal government and
the State of California have established different standards.
Those standards effectively represent thresholds at which
the two governments respectively consider that the impact of air pollution has become so adverse (severe) as to
necessitate reduction (mitigation). The amount of sulfur dioxide in an air basin could potentially be reduced enough
to comply with federal standards - thereby achieving 100% mitigation - while eliminating only part of the pollution required to comply with state standards.
Some impacts may, either by their nature or with reference to a standard, be non-mitigatable. The elimina-
tion of a wildlife species, for cxamp1e;is a non-mitigatable
impact: it cannot be reduced, ameliorated or neutralized
except by preventing the impact. Or, to look again' at air pollution from sulfur dioxide, if the clean air standard were set such that the pollutant-free quality of a particular
- 34 .-
-.
basin must be maintained, then the discharge of any sulfur
dioxide into that basin would constitute a- non-mitigatable
adverse impact.
The documented loss of prime agricultural land and
the'irreversibility of that loss has stimulated the federal government to require mitigation of future losses where
federal funds are involved. Neither EPA nor the Departme-nt of Agriculture (USDA) has at present determined that agri-
cultural l.and conversion is a nan-mitigatable impact (al-
though in a crisis situation both government and popular
thinking would probably support that view)'. Instead, the federal government's current approach is to acknowledge
that there are alternative ways of completing a project and .
that those alternatives may have different effects on the environment. r.
With regard to the direct impacts of a wastewater treatment facility, a key question might be whether the
site chosen is on prime agricultural land or would adversely
affect agricultural operations on nearby lands. With regard to indirect impacts, a key question would be whether
the grantee municipality can demonstrate.,that it is taking
all possible measures to reduce the conversion of agricul- tural land resulting from the growth accompodated by a wastewater treatment- facility expansion.
Concepts of Mitigating Agricultural Land Conversion.
Mitigation measur,es responding to agricultural land conver- sion may be classified according Lo two major.criteria:
Directing Urban Development vs. Enhancing Agricuzture 's Survival PotentiaZ. The latter type of measure would make
agricultural uses economically more competitive with urban
ones, thereby assisting farmland owners in resisting pressures for conversion. The former type of measure would reduce the ability of urban uses. to demand conversion/absorption of
prime agricultural land.
Regulations us. Incentives. Regulations either direct that an action occur or prohibit' it from occurring, subject to penalties. Incentives, in contrast, offer rewards for specified.-types of behavior or actions, but do not impose penalties for noncompliance. The reservation of a resource
for the encouraged use is one kind of incentive.
In general, mitigation measures are either urban- or agriculture-oriented and are either regulations or incentives.
Most of the measures inventoried in this chapter are directed
toward guiding urban'expansion; those designed to enhance
agriculture's resistance to conversion constitute about
- 35 -
..
1
one-fourth of measures discussed. About half a.f the measures
presented are regulatory in approach, while the other half are incentives. The matrix of. mitigation. measures (Table 5-10,
p. 86) classifies all the measures discussed according to
approach.
Purpose of the Mitigation Measures Invenkorg. The miti- gation measures inventory presented in this EIS is intended to be a comprehensive compilation of approaches to agricul-
tural...land retention at all levels of government. An exten-
sive literature review and interviews with .agricultural land experts in government, research and the-private sector sup- ,
plied most of the measures on the list; additional measures
were suggested by the EIS consulting team and EPA staff.
Inventory is Exhaustive. An effort was made to include
in the inventory all the classes of mitigation measures known to exist or to have been proposed, regardless of their poli-
tical feasibility, likely effectiveness or cost.
Inventory is EvaZuative. Each type of measure is dis-
cussed in terms of its likely effectiveness in addressing
'agricultural land retention objectives. I,deally, such a
discussion would be able to draw upon sound research into
the effects of specific measures in the contexts in which
they have been implemented-, providing 'longitudinal and/or cross-sectional comparisons leading to valid conclusions
concerning the degree to which agricultural land retention
is attributable specifically to a given regulation, policy
or' other measure. Unfortunately, research of this kind on '
. . farmland preservation has been practically nonex:stent;. even
programs for which the most vigorous claims of success have
been asserted-generally have not been subjected to a thorough- going impact analysis. For this reason, the effectiveness
evaluations presented here are based primarily on the analytical perspective of land economics rather than on
field research.
.
Measures Discussed Vary in Net Effectiveness. The direct
' effect of a mitigation measure may be to preserve land in
agricultural use in a given area. However, that benefit may
be offset if the regulation or policy which produces it also
locations. Presumably, the governing objective is total
agricultural land retention. If it were found that the effect
of Modesto's mitigation measures was to shift development
to other prime agricultural lands in Stanislaus County,, the
net effectiveness of such measures would be doubtful. Where
such a shift - locally described as "spillover" - transfers
development from a more restrictive (e.g., higher density
requirements) to a less restrictive development environment,
the outcome may well be less desirable than what would have
'results in a displacement of development pressures to other
- 36 -
resulted if the measure causing the shift had not been imple-
mented. In .general, the more extreme a unilateral munici-
pal measure, the more likely'that spillover development will re-
sult. Those mitigation measures which appear strongest may have a poor net effectiveness if implemented in only one citi; their effectiveness would be greatly increased if imple-
mented on a regional basis.
Inventory Does Not Consider Economic Costs. Mitigation
of prime agricultural land conversion is not a cost-free
policy. Incentive measures may be readily.seen to have costs
associated with them; for example, if the farmland owner .pays lower taxes, other taxpayers will have to pay more.
Regulatory measures a130 have cost effects. For-example,
.if a city limits the supply of buildable land by zoning most
undeveloped land for agriculture, the price of'remaining
land will rise sharply and be reflected in higher housinq
prices. In general, the costs involved are direct monetary costs: higher taxes and higher prices for housing and other
land-related goods.
It has been pointed out that the effectiveness of many
of the measures inventoried has not been'adequately field-
tested. The same observation can be made about the costs of
agricultural land retention measures: the magnitude and incidence of costs imposed and benefits conferred have rarely
been estimated. The preparation of a full cost/benefit
analysis of agricultural land retention and of alternative
implementation measures is one of the recommendations of .
decisionmaking relating to farmland at all levels of govern-
men t.
.. this EIS. Such an analysis would be a helpful guide to
.. The inventory does not address the question of economic
costs. The reader should keep in mind the fact that agri-
cultural land retention would impose costs, and the benefits
of any given measure would have to be evaluated in relation-
ship to the specific costs associated with it.
Organization of the Inventory. Mitigati,on measures have
been grouped into eight major categories. Each of the groups
of. measures is presented in-the same format: .the rationale of the whole class of measures is first described, and then
each individual measure is discussed separately.
Each discussion is organized under 'four headings: theory , which describes the basis for proposing a given approach;
impzementing agency, which may be local, state or federal
government or some combination; application, which describes the specific means of implementation; and effectiveness, which discusses how and the extent to which the measure would affect the net amount of farmland retained. '. Table 5-10 (p. 96)
" 37 -.
- -
.. , ..
provides a summary and indicates the page numbers on which
each of the measures is discussed. The mit.igation measures
are numbered within each major category to facilitate refer- ence to them.
Mitiaation Measures Inventorv *
. Each subsection below addresses a family of mitigation
measures; lettered headings indicate the major thrust of
the measures in that family.
A. 'Affect. the Amount of Urban Development
Rationale. Development of prime agricultural lands into urban uses is a major cause of diminution of the prime agri- cultural land resource. Limiting the amount of urban develop- ment permitted would limit agricultural land losses.
1. Limit the Amount of Land Zoned for Urban DeveZopment.
1 Theory 1
Land becomes a potential location for urban development
county or city in which it is located. That entitlement - the authorization to be de.veloped into a specified use - is generally contained in the zoning ordinance, and
the zoning cateqory to which the land is assigned iden-
tifies the types of uses which may be developed on it. Land not zoned for urban uses must obtain such zoning
prior to development.
. when it receives an entitlement for urban use from the
[ ImpZementing Agency 1 -.
Local general purpose government.
Limit the amount of land classified in zoning categories
which permit urban uses (such as residential,-commercial, industrial). Assign the remaining land to zoning cate-
gories which permit only agricultural or open space uses.
Many observers of ,rural land use change believe that
rural residential development is one of the greatest
threats to agricultural land resources. Zoning provisions
limiting urban uses to urban areas can. be very effective
in addressing this problem. In Stanislaus County, the county's commitment to maintaining exclusive agricultural zoning on unincorporated lands has virtually halted rural
- 30 -
. .. .. . . .. .. ..
.,
I_ subdivision activity. Developers wishing to subdivide
rural land near Modesto must annex to Modesto and comply
with the city's development regulations, which limit available locations for urban uses.
,
It is possible that-strict observance of agricultural
zoning in.one jurisdiction will displace rural residential
.development to less strict neighboring jurisdictions.
To avoid this kind of spillover, adjacent counties should
coordinate their rural residential development policies. Counties can also make provisions for rural residential
development in non-agricultural areas.
From the cities' perspective, it is important that urban zoning allow sufficient land for development to prevent
significant displacement to nearby communities or to
rural areas. Urba'n zoning which falls short of the
effective dernand for land for urban development will
cause displacement, which would be counter-productive
lands in ..other areas.
..
-. ,
-if the displaced uses are located on prime agricultural
2. Limit the Number of Building Permits Issued.
-1
-More than the proper zoning is required to entitle urban development. The jurisdiction in which the land is loca-
allows construction on the property in question (and
without which no construction is allowed).
* ted has the power. to issue a'building permit, which
I Imp Zementing AqeneyA
Local general purpose government.
1 Application 1
Issue only a limited number of building permits per year.
To limit the amount of development, the number of permits
issued would have to be lower than the number requested. Permits need not be issued on a ,first-come, first-served
basis; rather, the city could review all development
proposed within a spec.ified time period according to a
given set of criteria and award permits to those which best satisfy the criteria.
['Effectiveness ]
This measure operates by controlling directly the amount
of development. Its direct effects in retaining agricul- tural land can be very strong, depending on the location and size of sites for which building permits are issued.
Many cities have implemented this approach in order to
limit the pace of.population growth. Petaluma, California was one of the first cities to implement a plan for limiting the number o,f building permits issued each year.
. The so-called Petaluma Plan limits the number of new
- 39 -
dwellings in developments of, more than €our units to
500 per year. The permits are not issued on a first- come, first-served basis: rather, the proposed develop-
ments are reviewed by the city for design and other quality-related criteria, and the developments gaining
the most-points are awarded the permits. The discretionary
authority of the city to select the development plans
with greatest merit could be used to encourage develop- ments which least interf.ere with agricultural land use. .
Building permit limitations are effective in encouraging
.' the quality or characteristics of development desired in proportion to the degree that development demand ex-
ceeds the permit quota. To the same degree, however,
they also encourage spillover by shifting development
pressures to less restrictive locations.
3. Limit Industria2 Growth Generators. .r
pzZGj-1
The major generator of urban growth is expansion of the
employment base. Those who come.to fill new jobs seek
housing and other urban uses near their.'jobs. If in- dustrial growth were limited, then other urban growth
would be abated.
I Implementing AgeEcp 1
Lodal general purpose government.
I AvpZication 1
For arehs with zoning, reassign land currently zoned for industrial use to other land use categories, thereby
limiting potential sites for new industries.. . Other
approaches include:
, (a) restructuring the schedufe of business' license
fees - e. g. , charge according to' the number of employees - to penalize industries which employ many workers or
' , .. (b) use city payro1,l. taxes to discourage industries with
many employees from; choosing local sites. - ..
I Effectiveness j
*.. Discouraging employment growth as a means of inhibiting
urban population growth is an indirect approach to re- ducing the amount' of prime agricultural land ultimately
converted. Effectiveness therefore depends on a chain
of events; farmland retention would not be achieved if
new industrial development continued on currently- underutilized parcels or if business and payroll taxes were not high enough to neutralize the other advantages of a local site;'if industries located on nearby,
i !
'/ !
!
I.
4 . ,. . -.
unrestricted sites and their employees chose to live
in local residences: or if the fewer'resulting local employees, finding less competition and consequent
. lower prices for homesites, occupied more land per
household than they' would have in the absence of
deterrents to local growth.
B. Affect the Density of Development
Rationale. The amount of land absorbed by urban de-
velopment depends not only on the amount of growth to be
-accomplished but also on the density of the development.
If the density at which urban development takes place .were increased, the amount of agricultural land lost would
be 'reduced.
"A
There are three major density situations affecting farmland,-two urban and one rural. One kind of low-density
urban development pattern is continuous large lots: be- cause each. lot occupies so much space, few lots can fit in a given area. The compensation for this type of low density development is to allow or mandate higher densities.
*.
A second kind of low density urban development occurs
where smaller-sized or average-sized lots are scattered through a large area. The existing development extends over
much land without actually occupying some of it; the un-
occupied portions, however, may become unfit for agricul- tural use because they are surr.ounded by urban uses. The
remedy for this type of low density development is infilling
. , the vacant parcels. ..
Finally, rural areas often are subject to inefficient
residential development patterns. The remedy for that
'situation is a change in approach-to regulating the loca-
tion and density of rural development.
Measures to Affect the Density of Development.
1. Low Minimum Lot Sizes in Urban Areas.
Zoning controls not only the use which may be established
on a.given parcel of land but also the physical character- istics of that use. Among the physical characteristics commonly governed by zoning are size of lot;-height,
bulk and placement of buildings; and number of parking
spaces. These characteristics can be regulated in ways
that will-increase urban densities.
LrnpZementinq Agency
Local general purpose government. 1 AppZication
Reduce the minimum lot size allowed in residential zones.
- 41 -
Reduction of lot sizes allows developers to fit more
dwelling units in a given amount of area or, conversely, to accommodate a given number of dwelling units in a
smaller area. Be,cause smaller lots are only allowed
and not mandated, however, ef.fectiveness depends on the public's willingness to accept .smaller lots.
2. High Minimum Lot Sizes in Rural Areas. . [-J
Just as harmful to agricultural uses of prime lands as
their replacement by urban uses is the parcelization of rural lands. Parcelization - the division of larger
rural parcels into plots which are too small to be
farmed economically - is encouraged.when large-lot
rural homesites are feasible alternativ*es to in-town
residential sites. Scattered rural residential de-
velopment may absorb or render unsuitable for agri- culture more land per housing unit than concentrated
urban development.
f Implementing Aqeney 1
Local general purpose government with jurisdiction over rural lands. ..
[ Application 1
Establish minimum lot sizes in rural areas which are
too large to be affordable for single-family homes. L EffectzGness 1
Where minimum lot. sizes are large enough., they will make the-price of a-single-family house and lot sig-
nificantly higher than that asked for the most desirable
homes in the existing ur5an area, which will discourage rural parcelization for residential use. For maximum
effectiveness, large minimum lots must be required in
all prime land areas near enough to the employment base
for feasible commuting. .. . ..
3. Maximum Lot Sizes in Urban Areas.
- ,
.. Zoning regulations typically specify minimum lot sizes
but'rarely establish maximum lot sizes. Establishment
of a maximum lot size would help prevent very low den-
sity development.
1 Implementing Aqencq I
mcai general purpose government.
- 42 -
. .-
,
Specify in the zoning ordinance maximum allowable lot
sizes 'in urban areas in addition to minimum sizes,
setting the maximum at a level which will allow for
size variations demanded by market forces as well as
those necessitated by'subdivision design features such
as cul-de-sacs, curves and corner lots.
I'Effectiueness \
By establishing and enforcing a maximum land area for
individual lots smaller than what would otherwise be
built, the zoning ordinance would limit the amount of
' land which could be occupied by any individual resi-
dence and thus will increase overall urban density.
.Consumers seeking large lots may, however, purchase ranchettes or 10-acre parcels in rural areas in out-
lying- jurisdictions or larger Lots - potentially on
prime.land - in neighboring urban areas; these spill-
over effects would reduce the effectiveness of this
measure.
4. Minimum Neighborhood Densities in Urban Areas. -1
Increases in urban residential densities can be achieved
not.only on a lot-by-lot basis but also on a larger area - for instance, a neighborhood - basis. The 1atter.approach would allow for variation in individual
housing arrangements while still achieving -an overall
increase in density.
[ Implementing Aaencg f - Local general purpose government. .
AppZication ]
Use the zoning ordinance, the general plan or neighbor-
hood prototype plans to specify minimum. densities.for each neighborhood. Allow .the, minimums to' be achieved
through a combination of lot sizes and single-family/ multiple-family confi.gurations; The zoning districts.
should be defined as density districts, so that the
owner.of a double lot developed for a single unit per-
manently retains the right to develop a second unit on the site,. The same principle applies to higher-density
districts which may initially be developed at lower- than-permitted densities.
[ Effectiveness J
;.
Neighborhoods' would be composed of a number of residential developments, and homogeneity of. housing type could be maintained within individual developments if desired,
while varying among developments within a given
neighborhood .to both meet density. objectives and offer
- 43 -
sufficient variety in the housing st0c.k to satisfy
differing consumer needs and preferences. A minimum neighborhood density helps assure that overall city
.density objectives will be considered as each resi- dential development project comes up for approval.
This approach is most effective €or newly-developing areas rather than existing neighborhoods, where infill strategies are more suitable.
5. InfiZZ DeveZovment in Urban Areas.
pGziJ _, :. .. . .
Discontinuous small lot 'development leaves vacant land
amid the pockets of development. It may be remedied
underutilized sites in already-developed areas.
. by directing new development to available vacant or
[ Implementing Agency 1 *.
Local -general purpose government .... .
[ AppZication 1
Identify potential sites for infill development, and
encourage infill through:
(a) restrictions, such'as refusing to zone additional
other lands for urban use or refusing to provide urban services (such as sewers, water, police and
fire protection) to new areas; or
(b) incentives, such as allowing high densities or
waiving development fees.
] Ef-fectiveness ]
Parcels in an urban are'a which remain vacant while the land around them develops often have'been bypassed
for a reason, which may be physical (topography, soil
conditions, water table level, flood plain), social (ownership dispute or encumbrance, "hobby" use) or
institutional (zoned use is infeasible at that loca-
' tion.)'.: Whatever the obstacle to development, -it 2s
.- 'not.removed by limitations on development at other .
sites.
- :* If infill development is promoted via restrictions on
other building.sites and previous obstacles to develop- ment are overcome, housing costs (prices and rents) in the infill area are likely to be significantly
higher than prices have been when development sites
were unlimited. The reason for the increase is that owners of infill sites will have been awarded a monopoly position: because they hold !he only potential
- 44 - ..
development sites, they will charge whatever they think the market will bear for the use of those sites. Their
' incentive to sell or develop in the short term may be
reduced, because the longer they hold the sites the more they hope to be able to charge for them. This
dynamic may provide an incentive for developers to
seek sites in other communities, outside the residen-
tial area, thus counteracting the benefits of infill.
An incentive approach is likely to be more effective
because it is less likely to cause spillover.
6. Cluster DeueZopment in Urban Areas.
The conventional style of single-family residential
each lot and allots each house its private yard, uses
more.'land per unit than does clustered housing. In
the latter, side yards are eliminated and private yards are reduced and replaced by community open space.
' development, which produces one detached house on
1 Implementing Agemy 1
Local general purpose government.
1 Application 1
Amend the zoning ordinance to allow clustered arrange- men.ts of single-f.amily dwelling units. Such an amend-
ment would have to eliminate the types of lot size
requlrements designed for 'detached single-family devel-
opment and substitute requirements which allow common
walls or smaller side yards and shared recreation/
outdoor relaxation areas and facilities.
Clustered housing is often-allowed in Planned Develop-.
ment (PD) or Planned Unit Development (PUD) zones, some of which also provide for planning agency review
of site plans and architectural designs to assure that
development will be v-isually satisfying and will assure
privacy to each unit.
Cluster housing developments are generally subject to
much.closer scrutiny by local planning agencies than are traditional single-family detached projects. Cluster developments have generally appealed primarily
to specific market segments (usually singles-or couples
without children). Whether cluster developments built with less city review would also be acceptable and whether cluster developments in general will satisfy
the needs of'families with children is' not known. The ,
effectiveness of clustered urban development patterns in preserving 'farmland is strictly a function of its
higher density.
..
?' . : . -45-
- -
..
I,
7. Cluster Development in RuraZ Areas.
-1
Development that occurs in rural areas, when a farm
owner sells part of the'f.arm, can disrupt the agricul- tural use of the land sold. 1n.areas where the mini- mum lot size is 10 acres, for example, the owner of
homesites must divide the 40 acres into three parcels:
one 20-acre parcel and two 10-acre parcels. If it
were possible to cluster the desired development, the
' 40 acres wishing to build two houses or sell two
. - disruption of the farm use would be much reduced.
I ImpZementing Agency 1 ..
Local general purpose government with jurisdiction over rural land.
AppZication 1 ."
Adopt a zoning provision for agricultural areas which
provides that residential development on prime land
be clustered on smaller parcels than permitted under
conventional rural zoning. For example, the afore- mentioned farmer could divide his property into two one-acre lots.(.for two houses) and one ,38-acre parcel
. (the remainder); such an arrangement.would leave
most of the original ownership and use intact.
I Effeckiveness 1 -
The major problcm with land divisions is that when
the smaller parcels are transferred to different
, . owners the likelihood that the original agricultural use will be continued is reduced. Cluster develop-
ment allows for the maintenance of larger,'single.-
ownership parcels which a're more'amenable to continued
agricultural use, even when sold.
Rural cluster development mus't be closely regulated,
however, to assure that more lots than were originally
allowed are not split off from the original major
parcel. Ln -the example above, this regulation would
: ,.,' ,' be used to make sure that no more than three one-acre
parcels were split off from the 40-acre parcel.
C... Affect the Location of Urban Development
"- Rationale. The goal of this series of mitigation measures is to protect prime agricultural lands by consider- ing the suitability of land for agricultural purposes as the principal criterion in determining where urban develop-
ment will be permitted. The two focuses of affecting de-
velopment location - (l).restricting new locations on prime
land for urban development and strictly limiting urban
. - 46 -
..
, development on prime land and
cultural uses on prime land - (2) protecting existing agri- will be discussed separately.
Measures-to Control the Location of Urban Development.
1. Growth On or Toward Non-prime Lands.
[TGZj-l
To minimize or eliminate the absorption of prime lands
by urban uses, locations which are not on prime land
should be identified and development should be directed
to those locations. If there are no non-prime soils
adjoining the urban area but there are some in the
vicinity, development should be allowed on the lands 'most directly between the urbanized area and the closest
non-prime land. **
[ Implementing Agene2 1
Local general purpose government.
I Application I
. As new lands are required for urban development, grant
entitlement (the right to develop) 'to those lands which are either (I) non-prime or (2) most directly between
the existing urban area. and the nearest substantial
area of non-prime soil.
The City of,Visalia, California and Tulare County,
California (in which Visaliz is located). have both
adopted programs which encourage growth on or toward'
non-prime lands by applying ranking systems for .agri- cultural/potential agricultural lands. The'se systems
effectively broaden the defining criteria for prime.
land to include factors other than soil characte,ristics and then direct growth toward the newly-defined non-
prime lands.
For example, under the Tulare County Rural Valley Lands Plan, points are awarded to designated parcels based
on soil capability (as defined by USDA); size; current or potential agricultural use; if currently in agri-
cultural use, the sizes of surrounding -parcels; uses
of adjacent parcels; nearby uses which are considered
incompatible with urban uses; level of the groundwater table; proximate agricultural preserves; distance from the nearest fire station; access to a paved road;
historical, archaeological or unique characteristics;
location in a flood plain; and availability of water.
The categories-ar'e weighted to yield a maximum assign-
ment of 30 points. Parcels assigned 17 or more points are automatically.retained in agriculture and those
assigned 11 or less are Considered for nonagricultural
- 47 -
- -
. ..
d,
uses; parcels awarded 12 to 16 points are evaluated
further based on additional criteria. . Thus, the Tulare system extends the definition of non-prime to consider
the availability of urban infrastructure, the use of adjacent lands and the existence of unique or
.cultura.lly-valued features in addition to the charac-
teristics of the soil.
The Visalia system is similar to but not as complex a's
that adopted by Tulare County. Lands are assigned to one of four categories depending on their USDA soil
' classifications and availability.of water for irriga-
"tion. One class of lands is ass.med to have no cur-
rent or immediate potential for agriculture; the other
three are assumed to ,have agricultural use or potential,
but exclusions from them may be made based on examina-
tion of water supply and ownership. .. 1 Effectiveness 1
Because this measure involves the designation of
specific lands on which development may occur, the
potential of monopoly pricing for developable land
is a possibility. To the extent that,landowners, recognizing the lack of competition in land sales,
raise their prices, they may prompt developers to
seek other sites in nearby but less-regulated juris-
dictions. If a community has no non-prime lands nearby, this measure would nearly e'liminate growth. Displacement effects (spillover) might result.
2. Pr 2hibition of Subdivisions on Unincopporated Lands.
. mJ
Most.,of the land surrounding many communities located
in agricultural areas is prime agricultural land. One
way to limit the prime land locations available to new
incorporated areas and limit lot splits.
' urban development is to prohibit subdivisions in un-
I Implementing Aaency I
Local general purpos-e- government with jurisdiction . '. .
over rural land.
[ Application 1
Prohibit subdivisions in rural areas and prohibit divisio'n of existing parcels.
!.Effectiveness I
The price of large-sized parcels currently used for agriculture is 1ikely.to deter households from pur-
chasing 'them. for exclusively residential use; consc- quently, this measure greatly reduces the' possibility
- 48 -
of additional urban-oriented residential development
in rural areas. It may be circumvented, however, if
there are rural areas within commuting distance of
the.loca1 employment base which do not have similar
restrictions. The measure would be most effective if implemented on a regional (multi-county) basis.
3. Local EZigibility' for Federal and State Housing'
Programs. ... ._ ._ .. ..
It is the existence of federal and state housing pro-
grams such as Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
. mortgage insurance, Veterans' Administration (VA) and California Veterans' Administration (Cal-Vet) mortgage
guarantees, Farmers' Home Administration ..(FmHA) guar-
antees and subsidies and government-related mortgage
purchase (secondary market) operations which have
made homeownership a reality for most households who
own single family homes. Without those programs, the purchase of a house would be beyond the reach of most
families. If those programs were eliminated or their use restricted, effective demand would decrease. The
decrease in effective demand would, .in turn, slow down
the amount of residential construction. Therefore,
if these programs were unavailable to purchasers of new homes built on prime agricultural lands, builders
would be much less likely to select prime land sites
for housing development. -
Implementing Agency 1
Federal and state governments (various program-
administering agencies). I AppZication ] -
Make homes built on prime agricultural lands ineligible
for participation in federal programs - such as those
administered by FHA, VA and FmHA - or their state-
sponsored equivalents, or in secondary mortgage mar- ket operations (FNMA, GNMA, FHLMC).
[ Effectiveness .. The indirect penalties imposed by this measure depend
for .effectiveness on the continued reliance of housing
consumers on the types of programs named above. To
the extent that private mortgage insurance opportuni-
ties displace FHA or that down payments are large enough (20%) to obviate the necessity of mortgage insurance, it will not discourage the location of
homes on prtme land. A prohibition on secondary
. mortgage market participation would likely be a . .
! ..
, - 49 -
,
stronger deterrent, as lending institcitions rely on
those operations to maintain their supplies of loan-
able funds and keep their lending costs down.
.4. Eliqibility for Commun<ty DeveZopment/RedeveZopment
Aid and Intergovernmental' Assistance.. [mJ
Cities depend on assistance from the state and federal
governments for a large portion of community develop- . ment and redevelopment funds. These funds are used to
or recondition urban uses, including especially residential and commercial development. If those funds were awarded on the condition that they not be used for any projects located 'on prime agricultural lands, that
tential locations for publicly-funded development.
'condition would serve to eliminate those lands as po-
I Implementing Agency 1
Federai and state governments (grant-awarding agencies).
I Application 1
Establish as a condition of federal grant awards that
no projects funded with those gr.ants be located on
prime agricultural lands.
I Effectiveness 1
This measure would be effective in eliminating new
federally-assisted or state-assisted development on
prime agricultural land. However, such projects
probably constitute only a very small portion of total
development.
5. New Towns or Satellite Towns. . . ..
pzzqq
If the majority of the land ar;>und one or more exist- ing communities is prime, new development should take the..form of a completely new community on nearby non-
prime lands. . This comp-letely new community would . .,,
accommo'date a'il new development - industrial, commer-
cial and residential - which would have occurred in and around, .the existing city in 'the absence of efforts to protect prime agricultural lands. I Implementing Ageney 'I
State or federal government.
1 Application 1
The non-local agency would allocate funds to build
urban infrastructure capable of attracting and support-
ing a-11 types of urban development '(residential,
commercial, industrial and public .facilities) in
locations on non-prime iands. A public information
-. 50 -
program to alert households and firms of the develop-
ment of the new town and locational incentives may be
. necessary 'to.attract development. I Effectiveness ]
A new town must attract a balanced mix of urban uses
if it is to be a true-urban community rather than
another bedroom suburb whose residents commute long'
distances to existing employment 'centers (thereby
contributing to such other environmental problems as
air pollution and excessive energy consumption). Industriai locations with access to road and rail
transportation reasonably close to major existing
trade routes as well as an ample labor supply are .essential in drawing industries to the new town.
Success of this measure depends, therefore, on the willingness of employers and households t6 locate in
established, to limit its urban spread to non-prime
success has been limited.
.. the new town and th.e ability of the new.town, once
' lands. New towns are very expensive to develop, and
6. Urban -Strategg.
California's Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
has developed an Urban Strategy which coqtains three
major policies for state policy relating to urban
areas: (1) the maintenance of existing urban areas:
(2) infill of vacant urban land; and (3) urbar, growth
onto contiguous land when expansion is necessary.
The implementation of the urban strategy would thus
focus new urban development in existing urban loca- tions and minimize its spread onto prime agricultural
lands. The Urban Strategy ais0 advocates non-contiguous
land.
. urban growth if all contiguous lands are prime farm-
I Implementing A~~~CZJ 1'
State government: legislature, governor and depart- ments responsible for administering various programs. I AppZication 1
Implementation of the Urban Strategy must be accomplishe'd through the adoption of legislat-ion which would put.its
policies into effect. Such legislation'might include
requiring cities asking for state financial aid to
meet the standards indicated above by requiring them to adopt five-year capital improvements programs (CIP's) and. requiring review of the CIP's by local planning
departments; requiring CZP's for all service districts
providing growth-inducing services:, requiring Local Agency Formation Commissions' (LAFCO's) regulatory
.. .. - 51 -
..
I,
actions to be consistent with their designated spheres of influence: requiring cities and counties to desig-
nate urban service areas; and requiring the assessment of regiona.1 needs for major metropolitan areas in the
state. It would also require that the state's own
public works projects conform to the Urban Strategy. " I Effectiveness 1
The legislative requirements outlined above would limit
the urbanization of prime lands only if they were
designed with that specific purpose in mind. It may
be observed that some communities already have local
policies and development- regulations consistent with
the three key urban policies, but that their location
within a prime land area nevertheless results in the conversion of prime agricultural lands if and when they
. grow.
.- .
.. r.
Measures for Maintaining Existinq Agricultural Locations. 6.
Potential measures for maintaining agricultural land at
existing locations all involve regulation of those loca- tions. The types of regulations fall into two groups:
regulation without compensation and regulation with compen-
.sation. Both types are discussed below.
7. General PZans
-1
In addition to zoning ordinances, many parts of' the '
country allow or mandate the adoption of general, or
comprehensive, plans to govern land. use. General plans
are less specific than zoning ordinances,'setting guide- lines €or land use patterns, transportation/circulation
routes and.'other aspects of the urban environment.. The
distinction between general plans and zoning may best be . explained by an example: the land use element of the general plan may designate that an area be devoted to
commercial uses; the zoning. ordi-nance would specify which specific types of commercial uses (dry cleaning store, shopping center, automobile dealership, office building) and whae ..minimum lot size, bui.lding setback' requirements ,
height limit, parking and loading provisions and other
physical characteristics will be permitted. . In many
ways, zoqing is considered a means of implementing the general plan..
. General plans may (and in some cases must) be organized
into elements, each of which addresses a different topic.
Elements dealing with agriculture, open space and conser-
vation or natural resources (or some combination of these) could be developed to govern the use of prime
agricultural'land resources.
- 52 -
-1
3
3
13
..
, 1 ImpZementing Agency 1
. Local general purpose government with jurisdiction
over agricultural land.
1 AppZication 1
Adopt an agricu1ture;open space, conservation or
natural resources element of the general plan. In-.
cluded in the element would be identification of
prime and other valuable agricultural lands and establishment of goals and policies to control
their use. These goals 'and policies would be
directed toward protecting and preserving' the identified lands. Lands could not be removed .from the protection of.the element except by the
general plan amendment process.
California law now requires"that zoning be consistent
general plan more power to direct.everyday land use
decisions, and means that changes in allowable land.
use must be reviewed twice - for a general plan
' with the general plan. This requirement gives the
. amendment and then for a zone change : before they. can be implemented. . ..
The consistency requirement strengthens- the effective-. ness of the general plan. Historically, such plans have often been shelved and urban or rural development
allowed to proceed without regard to their standards. However, the most ambitious general plan can be no
stronger than the local commitment to its .goals and policies.
A local general plan-is highly susceptible to local
political pressure. Because of.this susceptibility
it is not clear whether an element of the local gen- eral plan setting forth agricultural land policy wo'uld be effective in maintaining the.existing agri-
cultural locations. Farmers who wanted to sell and developers wh'o wanted to buy could organize an effective pressure system to -get the general plan changed. Review of proposed changes by'other govern-
ment agencies, however, could serve to discourage
non-essential general plan amendments.
Implementing Agency 1
EPA, USDA or other interested federal agency. Con-
tingent on local adoption of B general plan element
addressing agricultural land retention.
- 53 -
[ Application I ..
Any proposed change in a general plan.element which
controls use. of agricultural lands would be subject to review by EPA and/or the U. S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA). EPA could relate NPDES permit
' issuance to the jurisdiction's record in conforming to EPA's recommendations or to its record in main-
taining agricultural lands. (See p. 84 for a descrip-
tion of the NPDES system.)
1 Effectiveness 1
Strong, if the federal .agencies can assume approval,
incentive or reward powers such as influence over
role - limited to review and comment on agricultural
elements - would help assure that local agencies take
national interests into account when making decisions
relating to prime agricultural land.
. NPDES permit issuance. Even a more modest federal
..
9. AqricuZturaZ Reserves. .
-1 .
One reason that maintenance of existing agricultural
locations is difficult is that urban 'and public uses
intrude on them, either directly or proximately. Ad-
jacent residents complai'n about crop-dusting activity,
air pollution from nearby autos affects the health
of plants and animals, and public roads and other im-
provements occupy -former farmland. In addition, the
proximity of urban uses raises farm land values (in
antic:pation of future urbanization) , thereby making agricultural use less profitable with respect to the
value of the investment. Protection of farmlands from
urban intrusion would help to maintain existing agricul-
tural locations.
f ImpZementing Agene9 J -
State government.
1 AppZication 1 .. ,. .. ,
Adopt a state law, similar to the New York..law, author-
~. izing the creation of agricultural reserves. The New York law provides for the creation of a reserve at the.
initiative of a group'of landowners who have at least
the designated minimum amount of land. If the reserve
is granted by the state, the landowners gain a number of protections: limited liability for assessments by
special d.istricts, protection from public agencies' baking of district lands (e.g., for roads) , eligibility
of most lands within. the district for agricultural
value assessment and minimal state/local interference
in farming activities. The New Yoxk agricultural re- serves.are initially approved for eight years; they -are
reviewed and .may. be modified or terminated at that time.
. ..
1 Effectiveness I
Unknown; dependent on willingness of agricultural
landowners to commit to the minimum period (in New
York, eight years) of agricultural use. Could be
only a short-term measure if landowners are not will- ing to renew the districts. Could be strengthened by
the state's requiring that all prime land areas of a designated minimum size become agricultural reserves. The measure offers the advantage of assuring that a
critical mass of agriculkural activity4s maintained,
rather than just scattered farms.
10. State Regulation of Agricultural Land
-1 .. Regulation of agricultural lands is argued to be most effective when imposed at the state level because it
is then removed from local political pressures.
I Implementing Agency I
State government: legislature, governor and admin-
. istering agency. 1 AppZicahion 1
Adopt state legislation which prohibits. urban d.evelop- ment on identified prime agricultural lands. The
legislation should contain criteria and procedures
for identifying prime lands, specify which lands' (if
any) are exempt from regulation. and control uses on the remaining land.
Some states (in addition to New York) have already adopted or are studying measures to limit urban de- velopment on agricultural lands.* Oregon has a state
level Land Conservation and. Development Commission
(LCDC), which has the power to establish land use guidelines to which local governments must conform.
LCDC has established agricultural land retention as
a .statewide goal, and the commission calls on local
governments to place agricultural lands in exclusive farm use zones. Land placed in such zones is taxed at farm use value .(rather than fair market value) and accepted farming practices on it may not be interfered
with. In addition, non-farming uses within the zones
are restricted and proposed subdivision of 'parcels into
less than ten acres is subject to review by the locql
government to test its consistency with the state's
agriculture policy.
*This discussion draws heavily on Fletcher, 1978.
- 55 -
- .-
.L
<,
Wisconsin has adopted what is apparently a more volun-
tary approach. Until September 1982, qualifying farm-
ers may sign contracts with the state'in which they
agree not to develop their land; in return, their land
is assessed at agricultural use value. After September
1982, urban counties must have zoning ordinances in effect with a category for exclusive agricultural use in order for farmers to be eligible for the reduced
assessments; rural counties may have either exclusive
agricultural zoning or a farmland preservation plan.
Counties are not required to have such zoning ordinances or plans, but farmland. owners in counties which do not
meet the requirements of .the program wilL.not be eli-
gible to receive the benefits described after 1982.
Three bills which would'have established state regula-
tory control over the use of prime agricultural land
were introduced into California state legislature in the 1977-78 session. The three, two of which were
later consolidated, contained different.definitions
of prime agricultural land and proposed different regu- latory structures. What they had 'in common, though,
was a prog-ram which included (1) the identi5ication' of
prime agricultural lands according to the criteria
presented, (2) a procedure for exempting certain prime lands from regulation, (3) a state role in assuring that agricultural land identification and preservation
programs - whether developed by the sta'te or by local.
entities - would be consistent with the objectives of the bill, and (4) the restriction of prime agricultural lands to agricultural uses. The identifi'ed effects
of these bills would have been to remove certain prime agricultural lands from the potential urban land supply
and to alleviate some local political pressure related
to that removal by establishing state review/appeal
authority over the. original location actions. None of the bills was passed by the legislature. 1 Effectiueness 1 .
Unknown;-depends not only on-.the.characteristics of
the plans which are developed, but also on how well
their provisions are enforced. The exemption of prime
agricultural lands needed for short-term community
growth could'vitiate the effectiveness of the preser-
vation program over time. Inclusion of non-prime lands among agricultural land subject to protection
does not relate to the objective of retaining prime
lands.
- 56 -
The Coastal Zone. Management Act. establishes a precedent
purpose of protecting scarce land resources'. The fed-
eral government could also become involved in protect-
ing prime agricultural land from urbanization by enact-
in.g new legislation similar to the state legislation
described above. I ImpZementing Aqenev 1
. for federal involvement in land use planning for the
U. S. government: congress, president and administering
agencies (presumably USDA and/or EPA) .
1 AppZication 1 *.
Enact a law providing for federal protection/regulation
of prime agricultural land. The law would designate a
responsible agency (presumably USDA or EPA) to carry
out its provisions. These provisions would, like the
state legislation, include the establishment of criteria
and procedures' for identifying prime farmlands, specifi- cation of which lands would be exempt from regulation
and methods for protecting/regulating the remaining
prime lands. I Effectiveness 1
Unknown; dependent on exceptions to regulation and
effectiveness of enforcement.
62. Condemnation or Transfer of DeveZovment Rights.
1 Pheopy ]
The entitlement (right to develop) conferred by zoning.
on a specific parcel of land is a powerful economic
force, because the use permitted determines the value
of the land. For example, land zone,d for apartments is more valuable than land zoned for single family
homes because apartments potentially produce more in-
-come for the land owner. Similarly, land zoned for
virtually any urban use is more valuable than land
zoned for agricultural use because the potential re-
tuns from urban uses are greater.
The viability of agricultural use is.tied in part to the zoning on the land, because the land value is one
factor in determining economic viability. Simply put,
if the land has a high value - which could result from
urban zoning - then the low financial returns from agricultural use would not justify maintaining the use
at that location. ,If, however,.the land has low value - e-g., there is no use other than agriculture to which
it.may be put - then the economic return frpm agri-
cultural use .is a higher proportion of the lqd value ana may justify maintaining agricultural use.
- 57 -
The zoning ordinance, which allots entitlement to
designated locations, is not necessarily effective in maintaining land in agricultural use, because it
.may be changed at any time. A potentially more effective measure is.one which establishes conditions
under which the entitlement for a specific location
may be sold or transferred to another property. This
concept, known as transfer of development rights,
would both (1) provide that the landowner be compen-
sated for the foregone value of whatever urban use would ultimately have been allowed and (2) remove
all potential for future urban development on the
land by withdrawing the entitlement to develop it.
.Development rights pertaining to a given parcel of
land can be either transferred or condemned. Trans-
fer of development rights includes all mecLanisms
for removing the development right from one property
and assigning it to another. Condemnation of de- velopment rights involves their acquisition by the
government rather than by a private party. The con-
demned development rights may later be'resold to
another private landowner or may simply be retired by the governmental agency which'purchases them rather
than being assigned to another parcel of land. Con-
demnation also implies a mandatory .action rather than
a voluntary one; it would therefore be a stronger measure.
j ImpZementiqg Agency 1
State government and local general purpose government. 1 Application 1
Enact a law establishing the rules for transfer or
condemnation of development, Gights, including (1)
eligibility for participation,'(2) method of deter-
mining the value of development rights at various locations and (3) administration of the system.
Admi.nistration would most likely involve both the .
state and local government. Compensation- for the
condemned development rights would be provided by
the state while the local jurisd.iction would have
to'be involved,in allocation of transferred rights.
Some states have already begun to examine the feasi- bility of development rights purchase programs for
retention'of agricultural land. Maryland has enacted
a law which combines the agricultural district and
development.rights transfer approaches. Under that law, landowners may petition the state to form agri- cultural districts; if the districts are approved,
the owners agree to continue farming for five years
-L 58 -
in return for protection of the farm .uses. The law
also provides that a farmer may sell .an easement on
land within .an established district to the state
Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation. With sale of the easement, the farmer gives up the right
' to subdivide the land for development purposes other than for dwellings of the owner.and family members. Easements are intended to be permanent but may be
repurchased after 25 years by the landowner. (No
money has yet been made available to the Foundation
for the purchase of easements.)
New Jersey has undertaken a two-year demonstration program (approved in 1976) involving the purchase of
development rights in Burlington County, in the southwestern part of'.the state. Eligible farmers
' interested in selling their development rights sub- mitted non-binding bids to the state; the'state, in
' turn, had the properties appraised to determine the difference between the farm'value and the fair market
value of the land (that difference is the amount the
state would pay for the development right). As of April 1978 the state had identified t,he lands whose
development rights it was interested in buying but
had not decided to proceed with-the purchase al-
though funds were available. Response to the pro-
gram, though, indicated a high level of farmer in-
terest, suggesting that such a program would in fact
- be effective.
Massachusetts has also funded a pilot program for
the purchase of development rights. Because the
program is so new, however - funding was appro-
priated in 1978 - not much information about the program is yet available.
a I Effectiueness ] -
For condemnation, effectiveness is strong because
future development options are eliminated on pro-
perties whose development rights have been con-
demned. For transfers,' effectiveness is .unknown;
it depends on the presence of a market to induce
owners to sell or trade the development rights.
13. CompensabZe Regulation.
1-1
One reason agricultural landowners are so resistant to use restrictions on their land is precisely be- cause those restricti.ons lower the potential sales
price of the land by limiting the uses to which it
may be put. 1s that price decrease.could be offset,
- 59 -. . .-
they would be less resistant to regulation which
. mandates use restrictions.
I ImpZementing AgencG 1
State government: legislature, governor and admin-
istering agency.
* I AppZication 1
Enact legislation providing for compensation to agri-
cultural landowners whose lands are restricted to
agricultural use. This compensation would be awarded at the time of sale 'of the land (which is the only time the actual value loss would be realized) and
would be equivalent to the difference between the actual sales price and fhe price which could have been obtained if the use were not restrictc-d. I Effectiveness 1
-. Strong if coupled with a strong prime agricultural
land identification program.
14. Outright Pu22chase of ApriculturaZ Land..
pEKJ
All the other measures to preserve prime agricultural land discussed in this section depend upon - and some
mandate - cooperation of agricultural landowners and
complicated administrative procedures. For many of them, it would take years to complete the background studies needed for implementation. A much simpler,
though obviously costly, alternative is for the state
to purchase the land outright.
1 Implementing Agency 1
State government: .legislature, governor and admin- istering agency.
AppZication 1 ..
Enact legislation allocating state funds for purchase
of' identified prime "agricultural lands. The legisla- tion would have to contain provisions for identifying
the lands to be covered. The legislation could pro-
vide either for purchase as funds become available
.the property is put up for sale.
... . '
.-
'"' (condemnation) or the right of first refusal when
Generally, this measure would be implemented by state
government; local governments typically lack the fiscal resources required to implement an acquisition program. One exception is the City of Boulder, Colo-
rado, which has embarked on a.land acquisition program
- 60 -
as part of a growth management measure, with the pur-
chased land to provide a greenbelt around the city.
A 1% sales tax was originally (1967) used to provide
.funds for municipal land purchases. At an election
in November 19'71, voters approved a measure to accel- erate the acquisition program by using the proceeds
of revenue bonds, with the sales tax money earmarked to retire the bonds.
I Effectiveness ]
Outright purchase gives the public agency complete
control of the use of the land.
15. Purchase of Remainder Interest.
It may be argued that there is no immediate crisis
in the availability of prime agricultural land.
President Carter's statement that the 'farmland set- aside program would be "highly likely" to' be con- .tinued in 1979 as part of the ongoing price support
system for some farm products (especially feed grains,
such as corn) would appear to lend'weight to this .
argument. However, irre'spective of the situation
. now, there may evolve a scarcity of prime agricul-
tural land as-the world's population grows (from 4 .
billion in 1977 to .6.7 billion in 2000) and more and more prime land is absorbed by other,uses. .
Therefore, a reasonable approach to insuring that
existing agricultural locations will be available
when they are needed, sometime in the future, is to reserve the future right to them now.
State or federal government.
[ Application 1
.. Enact legislation to allocate
a remainder interest in prime
-i
funds for purchase of
agricultural land.
Purchase of remainder interest by the government means -that the government pays now to take over the
ownership of the land at some specified time in the
future (say, 40 years from now). The future price
is discounted to present value, representing 'a sig- nificant price- savings over the outright purchase
option. The seller (current owner) retains the
right to use the land as he pleases (consistent
with local regulations) until the specified date at which ownership changes. At that date, the new
owner (the state) assumes ownership and control over
the land and whatever land uses are in existence;
the state ultimately returns the land to agricultural
use.
The legislation would have to describe means for iden-
tifying prime agricultural land and for administering
both the purchase program and, in the future, the land.
- 61 -
I Effectiveness I
Depends-upon the Scale .of the program. For lands
upon which development takes place between the time the remainder interest is acquired by the public
and the time title is transferred, effectiveness also
depends on the technical feasibility of restoring the
land to its original prime character.
-b. Limit the Availability of Urban Infrastructure
Ratisnale. Zoning for urban use, which grants the
entitlement for develppment on a given property, is a
necessary but not a sufficient condition for urbanization.
An industrial establishment could not, for exa*mple, be 'built in the middle of a cornfield: there would be no
roads leading to it, no sewer or water service, no elec-
tricity or telephone; fire and police protection would
probably be inadequate for an industrial plant. These
kinds of services, both physical and social, are collective-
ly known as urban infrastructure'. Because ,they are re-
quired for urban development, limiting i,nfrastructure availability is one way of controlling urban expansion.
Measures to Limit the Availabi1,ity of Urban Infra-
structure.
3. Establish an Urban Service Area for Short-term .Growth.
[Theory]
A city may delineate the geographic area within which
urban infrastructure will be, provided. That area would
encompass existing urban development plus a vacant land supply sufficient to accommodate short-term growth. Urban growth would be. channeled to loca-
tions within the urban service area because urban
infrastructure would not be available outside the
'tiguous development.
-. area. ' This policy would encourage infill and con-
I Implementing Agene2 1.
Local general purpose government and special purpose
districts.
1 AppZication I
Establish service areas for major urban capital facil- ities (particularly sewers and water supply lines); refuse to extend these services beyond the defined service areas.
- 62 -
L 1 Effectiveness 1
Highly effective .in encouraging infill and contiguous
development, increasing the efficiency of urban land
use. Not a long-term agricultural land retention measure because the service area can be expanded over
time in response to growth pressures. If the short- term supply of buildable land in the urban service 'area
is too limited, spillover development may result.
2. EstabZish an Urban Expansion Area for Long-term
Growth.
-1
A city may delineate the geographic area within which
' it expects to accommodate its long-term growth. Lands lying outside that perimeter would not be subject to urbanization, even in the long run. Thus, those
lands would not experience land value appreciation
in anticipation of eventual urbanization, and land speculation would therefore be reduced. Under these
circumstances., agriculture would be better able to
survive. .. 1 Implementinp Aqency 1
Local general purpose government and special purpose
districts. Policy coordination with the local agency
..
. formation commission would be necessary.
* I Application ]
A typical method is the delineation of a.long-run
(20+ years) water supply or sewer service area.'
1 Effectiveness 1
Can be effective in reducing land value appreciation
attributable to anticipation of urban development in
the area lying outside the defined growth area. An
excespively large long-term growth area (encompassing
more land than would be needed for 20 to 25 years of
,growth) prematurely corninits agricultural lands to
development.
3, BPA CZetrn Water Grants.
EPA i-s one of the major providers of funds for new
infrastructure through its Clean Water Construction
Grants program which provides funds to cities for ex-
pansion and/or upgrading of their wastewater treatment
facilities. Refusal to grant funds in prime agricul-
urban infraskructure, in the form of sewage treatment
~ tural areas would severely restrict the provision of
- 63 -
, ,.
capacity, and consequently.limit future growth. More
stringent EPA requirements for project sizing, siting
and phasing in prime land areas could also help re-
duce agricultural land conversion.
ImpZementing Agency 1
EPA.
[Application 1
(a) Adopt as a mandatory condition of the Clean Water
7. . -.:Construction Grant program that no grants be made to
:. communiti'es located on prime agricultural land or to communities whose future growth is likely to occupy
prime agricultural land; or
. (b) for grantees in prime agricultural land areas,
establish shorter staging periods for faciJity construc-
tion and require careful planning with regard to the
-- amount of reserve capacity in major units of the wastewater system (such as interceptors); or
(c) specify land development controls to be adopted by grantees in prime agricultural land. areas to assure
that absorption of agricultural land resources by
urban uses is minimized.. I Effectiveness 1
EPA requires mitigation of adverse impacts on (in-
cluding urbanization of) prime agricultural lands, but does not ,prohibit the award of grants to communi-
ties iocated in prime agricultural areas.. No special
set of regulations with regard to general issues of
sizing and staging or to land development regulations has been developed for application specifically to
prime land areas.
The effectiveness of such meas'ures depends first on
EPA's ability to attach them to grants and to enforce
such stipulations once made. It also depends on the
extent .to which local agencies can .fund their own .
projects, which they would attempt to do .if EPA's conditions are. too stringent. Local funding would
relieve grantee agencies from any EPA-mandated obli-
gation to protect prime farmland reso'urces.
4. Restrict State and Federa2 fliqhway Aid. -1
- . ..
1
The construction of roads through prime agricultural
lands affects the agricultural use of those lands in several ways: (1) it uses up land which.could be
4
..
"
-
.. - 1 . >I
farmed; (2) it often divides farms 'into inefficiently-
sized or -shaped parcels; (3) it raises land values,
making the agricultural.uses less profitable in rela- tion to the value of -the inputs;. and (4) it poten-
tially "opens upIi the land to urban or suburban de- -
velopment by both.prouiding access and increasing
land value beyond that supportable by agriculture.
Much of the road construction which occurs in agri- ' cultural areas is funded with state gas tax money or .
federal h-ighway aid. If restrictions wGre placed on
these funds, to discourage or prohibit their use in
aqricultural areas, they would cease to provide infra-
Unknown; depends on whether the existing road system
has already.effectively opened up agricultural lands
for urban development and whether local jurisdictions.
are able to tap alternative'sources of funds for road
construction and maintenance. (Alternative. soulfces
of funds would increase property taxes, bond issues,
special assessments and user fees .such as tolls ...) .... --
5. Federal Regionnl Council Coordination.
1-1 ~ .. '
..
j.
A Federal Regional Counci-l -(FRC) has been established _. in each .region of the .United States whose rnenbers are drawn from the federal agency offices in that' region.
The function of ,the FRC is to coordinate the policies
and actions of federal agencies in that region. Be-
cause- this g-roup has -a unique .overview of ail federal
~ governmental activities, it is in a good position to
monitor those activities with respect to their impli-
cations for prime agricultural lands.
". -. - -
[ Implementing Agency 1
+- Federal government.
'. - 65 - . ...... .- .. .
&
a.
. , ,/
1 App Zication 1
Adopt a policy to discourage or discontinue federal
agency actions which would adversely affect the con- tinued agricultural use of prime farmlands. Adverse
effects may be anticipated particularly when a federal action would provide new infrastructure usable for - urban development. I Effectiveness 1
-Depends on the direction given to the Federal Regional
.- Councils by the administration and on the direction
' givenbto participating agencies by the.ir heads.
E. Promote Aaricultural Uses
Rationale. Thusfar, the discussion of agricultural
land retention measures has focused on ways of discouraging
urban expansion onto agricultural lands. Another approach to farmland protection recognizes that agricultural uses
are difficult to maintain because of competition for re- sources and because of problems with their own economic viability. The measures discussed below suggest actions which could be taken to strengthen the competitive position
of agriculture with respect to resources and to help it gain
a better economic return.
' Measures to Promote Agricultural Uses.
I. Brinc New AgrieuZturaZ Lax& ilzto Production.
The most vital agricultural resource, and the one for
which agriculture uses seem least able to compete, is
the land itself. One way to offset the loss of agri-
cultural. land to urban uses is to require those con- verting existing prime land to urban use to "replace"
it by bringing new agricultural land into production.
[ IrnpZementinp Agene3 .. ..
.X , State government. .
.. : ..
I AppZieation f -.
.. .. @
Enact'legislation establishing a state-administered,
il' . developer-financed reclamation program for 'agricultural
lands. This proqram would involve (1) identification of lands to be reclaimed, (2) condemnation of those . .. .- '
lands, (3) purchase of the lands at their present
values and (4) development of a reclamation plan. Purchase and reclamation as well as administration of the program would be funded by mandatory developer
contributions assessed on a per acre (of developed
land) basis when new developments a.re undertaken on prime agricultural land. The effect of this program .and funding ar,rangement would be to provide a "bank" of land reclaimable for agricultural use, with'new
- 66 -
. ..
d,
acreages put into use as existing agricultural lands are removed to urban use. .
A state-administered program offers considerable ad-
vantages over a similar approach administered at the 'county level, among which may be mentioned lower initial' land cost, assurance of provision of a critical
mass of new agricultural land, more efficient soil
reclamation practices and uniform state-wide regula- '
tions and procedures. ..
:[-Effectiveness
Strong. Proper implementation and administration would
assure replacement of lost prime lands on a one-for-one
basis. It is not clear, however, (1) whether reclaimed
soils would have the same versatility and resilience
'as prime soils or (2) how large the supply of reclaim- able soils really is. *.
2. Put Purchased Agricultural Land to Agricultural Use.
ITheorT] .
One of the mitigation measures suggested above was the
outright purchase of prime agricultural lands by the
state. These lands could continue to be used for agri-
culture after their purchase under a variety of arrange-
ments.
I ImpZernentinG Agene3
State- government. I Application 1
(a) The state agency- with jurisdiction over. the pur-
chased land could lease it back to bona fide farmers
at lower-than-market rents. This type of program wculd
both reduce the effective COSY of lands to' the state (because it would make them income-producing properties
rather than idle open space) and reduce the expense of
farming, thereby making it more profitable.
(b) The state could use' the purchased prime' agricultural
land for such purposes as training farmers or conducting
agricultural experiments and demonstration projects.
1 Effectiveness I
A leaseback program would be effective in making land
available to'those wishing to farm it and in generating
income to offset the costs of a public land purchase program. The effectiveness of alternative uses, such
as measure (b) described above, in promoting agriculture
is unknown.
.. - 1
.. L . , 4,
3. Growth of Cooperatives. pGzJ '
Uncertainty regarding the availability and size of mar-
kets is one factor reducing the economic viability of
.agricultural enterprises. Commercial canneries are
less.and less frequently willing to make advance commit-
ments to growers relating to the'amount of produce they will buy in any given year. Because farmers compete,
with each other for sales, all run the risk of over-
planting the crops they perceive to be in demand and
, being stuck with surplus crops. Further, because of
canning expense and uncertainties regarding future demand for canned goods, canneries are often not will-
ing to pay the prices required to make agriculture a
competitive land use: Farmers would be in a better .economic position - and therefore better able to con-
tinue to farm - if they could eliminate the- private
.cannery's intermediate role in food production.
The private cannery could be replaced by growers' co-
operatives. operation of cooperatives would help make agriculture more viable by (1) enabling the coop to
assign (or agree to) established amounts of specific
crops, thereby reducing or eliminating the risk of
overplanting, and (2) distribute' net profits directly to members rather than having to pay an outside inter- mediary (the private canner).
I ImpZementing Agency j
Federal to state government.
.[ Application I
Provide financial and technical assistance'to groups
of farmers to encourage the growth of cooperatives. Technical assistance would i.nclude education related
to business organization, economics - and operation.
I Effectiveness 1
Private canneries are currently only marginally profit-
able operations; the distribution of their profits .to
farmers. would not be likely greatly to alter the farmers'
economic position. However, certainty of a market for production would be of.considerable assistance to
growers who have flexibility in determining their' mix
of crops. Coops have been established in a number of product lines.
4. New Merchandising Techniques.
-.
1-1
Canning is a low-profit operation. Canned fruits and
veget-ables represent a declining share of the processed
.- 68 -
, food.market. The development of an alternative pack-
aging form which would find acceptability in more pro-
fitable markets would allow processors to make more money on their output and pass some of the accompanying
.benefits - a portion of that profit and/or reliable de-
mand .commitments - on to the producers. These benefits would act in the same manner as cooperatives to reduce uncertainty and to make agriculture more viable.
1 Implementing Ageney ]
State or federal government; both have agricultural
research programs.
/.Application I
Provide economic support, technical assistance and re-
.search efforts to assist in the development of new pro-
cessing and merchandising methods for agricultural pro- -ducts. An example of the kind of useful results such
efforts can yield is provided by a 1979 announcement of
a new canning process developed by University of Califor-
nia, Davis, researchers, which permits canning with a
higher fruit-to-fluid ratio and a marked improvement
in. f 1 avor .
1 Effectiveness I
Unknown; depends upon consumers' reactions to new pro-
cessing and packaging methods. It is questionable, too, whether consumers are likely to be willing to pay
enough more for food products, even with new methods,
to support prices at a level which would make agriculture
a significantly more viable endeavor.
5. Intermediate TeehnoZogg for Agricultural' Production.
pGEj-j
Efficiency of farm production in the United States has
inc'reased greatly over the yeark as new and better machinery has been developed to assist farmers in all
phases of production. This machinery has generally
been designed for large farms.
Agriculture in many areas of the county is characterized
by small farms. ' A problem of operating a small farm at '
a profit is the relative lack of technology (such as
machinery) suitable to small farms. This void could
be filled by the 'development of farm machinery designed for small farms; such machinery would reduce lab-or costs
and improve productivity .
1 Implementing Agency
Federal or state government.
- 69 -
Provide economic and technical support'for the develop- ment of machinery designed for and affordable by small
farms.
Some .observers (for example, California Employment
Development Department, 1977) have noted a systematic
bias in university and cooperative extension research* and service programs toward the interests and needs of
large farms, and have advocated a re-orientation of '; these programs to provide more effective assistance to smaller and/or family-operated farms.
1. Effectiveness 1
Unknown.
6. NationaZ Prime AgriculturaZ Land PoZicy,. 1-1
One ongoing problem in the attempt to preserve prime
agriculfural land is that preservation does not have
an identifiable constituency. Farmers,, who have his-
torically counted on being able to sell portions of
their land when money was scarce .or they wanted to retire, have generally opposed regulation of their
lands. Conservation groups, lacking adequate resources . to. address all issues, have focused.on the more visible
ones. One result of this lack of a constituency, though, is that legislators and executive government
officers have .had no motivation to take actions to halt
the conversion of prime lands to urban uses.
~ The situation could change if an interested 'federal agency were to implement a Prime Agricultural Land
Policy designed to stem conversion. The adoption of
. such a policy would help to .crystallize the agricul- tural land retention issue and hake it explicit to
legislators, their constituents and the federal and state agencies which administer programs which affect
or potentially affect prime. agricultural land. . ._ .
A Prime Agricul.tura1 Land Policy which focuses on reten-
"'+ tion of those lands wouXd presumably have to be based '
.. on a finding that the benefits of retention outweigh
its costs. A study which would be required to assess costs and benefits of retention is discussed subsequently.
[ Implementing Agency J
One or more federal agencies with interest in agricul- tural land. The Department of Agriculture (USDA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and.the Council
on Environmentai Quality (CEQ) all have such interests.
.' - 70 -
,. . L
4, . ..
Adopt a Prime Agricultural Land Policy which recognizes
.the importance of preserving prime agricultural lands
and identifies actions which if taken, will aid in pre- serving such lands. These actions could include:
(a) The assumption by.a federal agency of the role o'f advocate for prime lands. This role would be carried
out in the Federal Regional Council and other interagency
and intergovernmental arenas;
(b) Expansion of environmental reviews to include state
and local documents as well as federal EIS's;
(d) Consideration of the effects on prime farmlands of
all funded programs and activities, accompanied by
efforts to minimize those effects in all cases; and
(e) Mounting of a program to enhance public awareness
of the costs and benefits of preser.ving prime agricul- tural land.
Effectiveness I
Agricultural land policies have been articulated by
three federal agencies with an interest in agricultural
and land resource issues: USDA in 1976 and.1978; CEQ
in 1976 and EPA in 1978. These policies generally cover
a wide variety of productive-lands - including range
and forest lands - not.al1 of which are prime or poten- tially prime farmlands. Mechanisms for policy imple-
mentation are in evolution. The effectiveness of the
policies depends on the strength of the implementing
actions and the degree to which'compliance standards are
adhered. to and enforced. Effectiveness of 'a prime agricultural land policy may also be difficult to dis- tinguish from the effect on prime land retention of
discontinuing other policies which have adverse effects on prime lands.
7. Assure Adequacy of Future Water SuppZies. -
One resource constraint which is predicted to affect agriculture in upcoming years is the supply of water.
As urban population grows and the water supply remains
'the same, states relying on water supply projects for
j. .- 71 -
. , . ',,
d,
irrigation water can expect to have access to less and
less of the total amount of.water. With a shrinking
supply, agriculture will become more expensive and less
economically viable.
[ Implementing Agency I
State.and federal governments. 1 AppZication 1
To assist in retaining agriculture's current viability
wherever production depends on irrigation, programs are
These programs would include conservation, reclamation
tion programs would include (1) developing new, more
efficient methods of i.rrigation, (2) ceasing to irrigate pasture lands and other non-prime lands, (3) developing crop strains which require less water than qurrently- grown strains and (4) growing less water-consumptive
crops. Reclamation programs might include treatment of wastewater to a quality at which it could be reused for
domestic and/or agricultural purposes. Provision of new
water supplies might include (1) the allocation of rights
to new groundwater supplies to agricultural users, (2) the allocation of water from new state or federal water
projects to agriculture and (3) the reprogramming for
construction of state water projects previously planned but now set aside because of other undesirable impacts,
primarily environmental and economic. ..
; needed to assure agriculture's future water supply.
. - and development of new supplies. Examples of conserva-
I Effectiveness I
Unknown. In general, constant or increased availability
of water could be expected to maintain but not enhance the current viability 'of agriculture. Where 'irrigation is being newly-applied in certain areas (as is currently
the case in the Corn Belt states), assuring a reliable
long-run water supply would improve agriculture's stay-
._ ing' power. -
- F.-Use Tax Policy to Protect or Encourage Agricultural
Activity ... .
"Rationale. Tax.policy can be used to alter the feas-
ibility of investment in any. given activity through the
application of credits, deductions or penalties for such
investment. . For example, the federal government encourages
long-term investments by taxing the profits on them as
capital gains rather than ordinary income and encourages
investment in o.i1 resources through the oil depletion
allowance. California encourages investments in solar energy equipment by allowing a substantial percentage of
- 72 - .
its costs to be taken as a credit against .tax liability.
Property tax rules encourage homeownership by allowing owner-
occupants a deduction from the assessed valuation of their
homes when the tax is computed. These types of incentives could be used to encourage agricultural uses and/or dis-
courage urban uses on prime agricultural lands.
Measures to Make Tax Policy Encourage Agricultural '
Activity/Discourage Urban Use of Prime Land.
. One of the cost factors in agricultural production is
property taxation. One reason that property taxes 'have historically been problematic for farmers is that
their properties have been assessed accordi'ng to the '"highest and best use" - that is, the use which would allow the greatest return - rather than the actual agri-
cultural use. Because the highest and best use in areas
where urban growth pressures exist is of ten urban, taxes
have been high enough to be the "straw;that breaks the
farmers' backs". There have been documented cases of
farmers who found it more profitable to pull out their
orchards than produce fruit because the revenues from
the crop would not exceed their costs when trees were
assessed as improvements and the land assessed at highest and best use value. I Implementing Agency I
State government.
AppZication 1
Generally, it is the responsibility of state govern-
ment to establish assessment 'standards and'practices, which are then implemented at the local level. Changes
in assessed value to market value rates or distinctions
among types of land uses with regard to valuation
methods would have to be authorized by legislation. .
Among possible approaches are the following:
(a) Assess farm properties at their agricultural use
value instead of highest and best use value.
(b) Assess farm properties at a lower percentage of
full market value than applies to non-farm properties.
Variations of these approaches have been implemented in several states. In general, the tax break offered
to farmland owne.rs is tied to a commitment. on the
property owner 's part to maintain the agricultural
use, generally by .placing it, under' contract, in a
farmland preserve.
-. 73 -
..
-
. ), . A
<,
California's Williamson Act (the California Land Con- servation Act, 1965) permits, but does not require,
counties to establish procedures under .which farmland
may be assessed at agricultural use value. These
procedures call for the signing of a contract between
the county and the landowner; in return for the lower
assessment, the owner. agrees not to develop the land during the 10-year period of the contract. If the
land is developed, the contract is considered broken .
and the taxes which would have been assessed had the
contract never been signed become due.
The State of California provides a property tax reim-
bursement to local governments whose revenues are ad- versely affected as a result of the Williamson Act.
However, state reimbursement is estimated to cover only
about half of the tax loss. The local cost of this
kind of differential assessment program ,has,-prevented some of California'a major agricultural counties
(e.g., Merced) from implementing the measure. This
problem- is likely to be encounter.ed in agricultural
areas where the property tax is the principal source
of locai revenue.
. I Effectiveness 1
Slight. Experience with.Williamson Act, contracts
has not proven that they are an effective method of
preserving agricultural land. One reason is that
the contracts are voluntary; because not all owners choose to enter into them, they do not prevent
scatteration of urban development throughout rural
areas ("buckshot", "leapfrogging" or "checkerboard" development patterns). Another reason is that the
urban price of the land, when sold, will more than
cover any tax penalties which may be assessed.
Finally, Proposition 13, by reducing all property
tax rates in California, has' greatly reduced the in- centive for farmers to enter Williamson Act contracts by providing equivalent or better tax relief with'
no accompanying restrictions on land use.
-.. The Wi1l.iamson Act also applies to a wide variety of
.. lands, including non-prime agricultural land and in-
... cluding nonagricultxal .uses (such as resource uses
like forests). Differential taxation systems, if
they are to work -as a prime agricultural land reten-
tion measure, would hwe to be confined in their
'application to lands meeting the definition of prime. Such systems would also be most cost-effective if
limited to areas actually facing significant develop-
ment pressures. Final.ly, penalties for breaking contracts would have to be high enough to.function as a deterrent to urban conversion. .A differential taxation' system with these features would have to offer
irresistable incentives in order to attract farmland owners to participate on a voluntary basis.
- 74 -
I
-1
:I
'1 1.
L_ "I
I]
F] i
!J
1 If lower taxes, such as may be provided under differen-
tial assessment measures (Measure F-1, preceding), are favorable to farmers, then no taxes at all would
' be even better. If payment of property taxes on
agricultural lands were completely deferred until
the lands were sold, then I(1) the farmers' cash flow situations would be improved as long as the
land was held and (2) the prospect of paying accumu-,
lated taxes upon sale could act to deter farmers
from selling their lands.
Implementing Ageney I
State of California.
'[ Application ] -
,.Enact legislation which provides that property taxes
on agricultural land be deferred until the.property
is sold. The legislation would have to allow for state reimbursement.of foregone revenues- by counties, with the accumulated deferred tax payments to be re-
paid later to the state.
Unknown. Depends on whether (1) economic viability
would be enhanced enough to encourage farmers to con-
tinue agricultural, use; (2) the prospect of paying
accumulated taxes would discourage sales; and (3)
the propensity of landowners to circumvent sales while allowing urban development of their lands
(e.g., through leasehold arrangements). There may
be situations in which the value of the agricultural
land, when sold, is not high enough to pay the de- ferred taxes, which would mean a net loss in property tax revenues to the state.
3. AppZy VaZue Capture 'Technique to Lands Benefiting from PubZic Investment.
..
When public funds are expended 'to construct a public facility, one common result is an increase in the
value of abutting lands, which is often called a
"windfall". In the case of wastewater facilities,
the construction of a new interceptor or collection
system opens the land to urban development, thereby .
generally increasing the price a buyer is willing to
pay for it. The return to the public treasury of part
or all of the windfall gain resulting from a public investment is what is involved in a value capture
policy.
[ ImpZenrenting Ageney J
State government: enabling lekislation would be re-
quired in most states to permit implementation by local agencies.
- 75 -
[ Application 1 I .. .-
Because of res "ictions placed on the sai. of land
which passes into public ownership via condemnation,
capture technique. Some of those which have been
implemented include: (1) purchase by a public agency
' of more land th.an the proposed public improvement will
require; the agency later declares the .land surplus
and sells it at a profit (capturing the windfall); (2) establishment of special benefit assessment districts around the public improvement to tax away part of the windfall; and (3) direct participation of the public '
agency in land development (such as transit agency
development near a transit stop or port agency develop-
lating to wastewater. facilities came to light in a
literature search on this subject.
, it can be difficult to establish a legally-viable value
' ment at a p,ort site). No cases of value capture re-
I Effectiveness 1
- Legal and administrative problems may be difficult to
overcome. Even if they can be overcome, the effect of the measure would not necessarily benefit agricul-
, ture. Its direct effects would fall on all landowners adjacent to the new facility, who are as likely 'to be farmers as speculators. The taxing away,of their
windfall gain does not necessarily encourage a con-.
tinuation of the land in agricultural use, and may
discourage agriculture if the farmland owner is fi-
nancing farming operations in part by borrowing aga'inst
his equity in the land, because the taxing away of appreciation in value reduces his borrowing power. .. .
4. Finance Agriculture with Capital from Non-
agricultural Sources pzZJ
Federal income tax rules could..be revised to favor
. investment in agriculture. For example, giving non- -; agricultural corporations a tax break - in the form
-. of a credit or a deduction - for investment in agri- cultural land and operations would give them an in- centive not only to invest in agriculture but also to
.,retain agricultural lands in agricultural .use (rather
than allowing them to be converted to urban use).
1 Implementing Agency 1
%Federal government.
1 Application I
'Alter federal income tax rules .to provide corporate
income tax credits to corporations which invest in
agricu1,tural lands and/or operations. '1 Effectiveness ]
Unknown. Depends on corporations' needs for tax
shelters and the acceptability o.f agricultural invest- ment to their directors and shareholders. A possible
adverse side effect of this measure is the potential
deterioration o.f farmland quality. Agricultural land owned by non-agricultural corporations would be likely - 76 -
to be operated by"professiona1 farm' operators. If
these non-owner operators do not observe the same
careful cultural practices as owner operators are
presumed to observe, land quality could deteriorate
more rapidly than it would otherwise.
5. Alter Tax Rules for Industrial Investment.
pZZFiT1
Federal income tax rules are currently structured to
encourage private investment in the.development and
maintenance of industrial activities. When these activities are located on prime agricultural land,
the tax structure has acted to encourage'conversion of that land. Alteration of the tax rules to penalize
. investors in industries which locate on prime agri-
cultural land could act to discourage the selection of such sites in favor of sites in already urbanized
.:>- - areas or on non-prime soils.
[ Implementing Agerzey 1
Federal government. Also state governments which
impose income taxes on corporations.
1 Application 1
Alter tax rules to penalize industries which establish
new facilities on prime agricultural land. Penalties could be assessed as a tax surcharge or in some other.
form.
1 Effectiveness 1
Depends on the magnitude of the penalty.
6. Restruc2ure FormuZa for Distributing SaZes Tax
Revenue. -
[TLzJ
Local governments often try to attract commercial de- velopment in order 'to increase local revenues from
the sales tax. If such revenues were subject to a redistribution on some basis other than the point of
sale of the taxable goods, cities surrounded by agri-
cultural land would not be driven to'seek commercial
deve.lopment.
[ Implementing Agency 1
State government. I Application 1
Establish a formula for distributing sales tax revenue
that is unrelated to the amount of commercial use in h
- 77 -
I
I " ..
d. , ..
a jurisdiction. Alternative bases for distribution
might be number of residents, number of households
with below poverty level incomes or density of urban
uses.
I Effectiveness 1 ' . Unknown. This is a very indirect method of promoting
agricultural land development. It operates.via a
disincentive to retail development. Most of the di-, rect competition for agricultural land resources comes
. from residential development.
G. Needed Studies
Rationale. The choice .and/or assignment of the miti-
gation measures for pa'rticular situations would benefit from broader knowledge of existing conditions in- the areas
affected and the potential trade-offs involved'in mitiga-
tion. The need for further study has been explicitly men-
tioned in the discussions of several of the measures..pre-
sented; it has been implicitly suggested wherever the
direct effect of a mitigation measure would be offset by undesirable indirect effects, such as spillover development.
The results of further studies would include both increasing
our' knowledge with regard to prime agricultural land and its benefits and a- more complete framework for analyzing and projecting the implications of measures actually imple-
mented.
Studies Needed for Additional'Consideration of Mitigation
, Measures.
1. .Cost/Benefit Analysis of Prime AqricuZturaZ Land
Preservation.
1-1 ..
The adoption of a national prime agricultural land policy proposed above (Measure E-6) was predicated on
a finding that the benefits or'prime agricultural land
retention outweigh the costs of retention.
The-preceding discussion of mitigation measures makes
it abundantly clear that prime agricultural land pre-
costs of implementing the measures described have not been presented, they have been estimated in some
cases and are fairly readily ascertainable in most
others. Much less information is available on the
benefit side of the calculation, both with regard to quantification of benefits (the first prerequisite of
benefit estimation). and with regard to the assignment
. servation would ndt be a- cost-free policy. While
.
- 78 -
of probabilities to future levels of need for prime
agricultural land (the second prerequisite of benefit estimation). Therefore, in order to .examine a complete
picture of both costs a.nd benefits,, an in-depth study
of prime agricultural land preservation and its effects
would be helpful.. I Implementing Agency ]
Federal government.
AppZication 1
-1 Structure and fund an in-depth study of the costs and
benefits of preserving prime agricultural land. The cost analysis portion of the study would include
consideration of.not only the adverse side effects
identified in the foregoing discussions but also in- direct costs, such as higher prices for 1Snd and housing, mentioned in the introduction to the mitigation
measures portion of this chapter.
The benefit of preserving prime agricultural land can
be described from an economic perspective as the dif-
ference between what consumers pay for.food and fiber . products with and without the preservation. Benefits
are difficult to quantify for a number of reasons.
Increases in yields are possible (overseas as well as
in the Uni.ted States.): continued increases' in yields
would reduce the effective benefit of a preservation policy. If food shortages develop - and prices rise
in response to shortages in supply - currently idle
lands might be brought into cultivation (thereby re-
ducing the apparent benefit of a preservation policy),
but the timing of future .shortages is difficult to
forecast, and prices are likely to be influenced by . government action. The benefits of preservation could
be estimated in terms of replacement cost: the level
of investment required to develop a new prime agri- cultural land resource. Replacement is currently being impeded in part by reluctance to undertake new
water projects, which is in part due to the recognition
of their environmental costs.
Food and fiber supply and price are not the only
factors to be considered in benefit estimation. There
are environmental benefits as well which require con-
sideration in a cost/benefit analysis. These benefits
mental resources; aesthetic, scenic and cultural. re-
source protection; and air quality amelioration among
others. All these factors would have to be estimated in order to arrive at a quantification of the benefits
of a prime agricultural land preservation policy.
' include protection of watersheds and other environ-
- 79 -
The second prerequisite of benefit analysis is the
assignment of probabilities to future .levels of need
for prime agricultural lands. Probability coefficients
would have to be determined reflecting the likeli-
hood that shortages of food and fiber might arise
' from. a .failure to preserve our agricultural land.
Development of reasonable probability coefficients
faces many of the same problems as the estimation
of benefits. However,.a prime agricultural land
preservation policy is difficult to defend without
a benefit calculation, particularly when those
aware of its costs.
' affected .by such a policy are likely to be well
Effectiveness I
, Very effective for identifying the trade-offs in-
herent in an agricultural lands preservation policy
and serving as a basis for either pursuing"or re-
jecting such a policy, depending on its findings.
2. Comvarative Inter-city AnaZysis of Prime Agri-
cuZturaZ LaMd Retention.
Modesto is one of many cities throughout the United
States surrounded by prime agricultural land. These
cities share the predicament of inevitably converting
prime agricultural lands to urban use whenever any new development is. undertaken.
Develcping a program for mitigating prime.agricultura1 land conversion would be facilitated if a comprehensive
comparative evaluation of the performance of these
cities with regard to agricultural land absorption were available. Historic performance in prime agri-
cultural land retention may bell vary widely even
among cities in similar contexts. The cities which
have been more successful in retaining prime agricul- tural land provide a standard of performance for those
less successful.
I Implementing? Agency I
I .. .. -. .
Federal governinent.
. -. ,. . Application
Structure and fund studies to develop a data base re-
levant to the development of prime agricultural land retention- performance standards for American cities
and counties.
Relevant data items would include but not be limited
to (1) overall .density, (2) inf,ill opportunities within -the urbanized area, (3) proportion of prime
- 80 - .' -.
agricultural land in the surrounding area, and (4) optimal minimum conversion coefficient (that is,
the best performance that could reasonably be re-
quired in minimizing the acreage converted per
amount of population added).
The emphasis on quantitative measures of performance is vital to an accurate evaluation of the effective-
ness of prime agricultural land retention programs. While a great many such programs have been imple-
mented, very few have be.en analyzed for effective-
ness using accepted land economics research tech- niques. The success claimed by many of them re-
lates more to political and administrative issues "(interesting elective bodies in the issue and per- suading them to act) than to performance i,n the
field. Relevant questions are, (1) have the pro-
grams made a measurable difference in the rate or
. amount of agricultural land loss due to urbaniza-
tion? and (2) what local circumstances - organiza-
tional, economic, resource-related - have been impli-
cated in a program's success?
Context is h5ghly relevant to such an .analysis of .
local farmland retention programs. "Success" in.
a rural county not experiencing -any development pressures is unremarkable and irrelevank. On the 'r.
other hand, conversion of thousands of acres at
the perimeter of a rapidly-growing city does not.
necessarily indicate failure. In fact, it could meet the criterion of success iy conversion is markedZy
Zess than it wouZd have been in the absence of the
specific local programs being evaluated.
Would provide the basis for. the .development of per-
formance standards for cities and counties in pro- tecting prime agricultural land resources.
H. Performance Standard for Urban Growth in Prime Land
Areas.
Rationale'. The mitigation measures described above
all focus either on regulating some aspect of urbanization
or agricultural use of land or on altering the relative
costs and benefits of urban versus agricultural .land uses.
An alternative approach, known as a performance standard,
focuses instead on the effects a land use or a pattern of
land development would have on its environment. This
approach is very 'flexible and may be adapted to apply to
local governments in many different types of situations.
- 81 -
6
.I
a, . ..
.. . I.
A well known application of the performance standard concept is that which assigns zoning based on the effects
of a proposed land use in a specific setting, establishing
the level of effect that is considered acceptable (may .
' not be exceeded if the use is. to be approved).
* With regard to prime agricultural land retention, the performance standard would test the land utilization effi:
ciency of a city by establishing a minimum collective den-
sity of new development on prime agricultural land over
time, thereby ensuring that prime agricultural land not
be developed in a wasteful manner. A suita.ble indicator
of land utilization efficiency is the coefficient of
conversion: the amount of prime agricultural land con- 'verted to urban use per unit.of population growth. The
coefficient of conversion calculated for any individual
city would vary depending on the time frame investigated;
it is a dynamic measure which reflects historic as well as current conditions and practice.
The conversion coefficient performance standard may
be supplemented by static measures such as gross urban
density, gross residential density, availability of infill
opportunities, etc., all of which are observations tied to a single point in time. Minimum density levels and maximum feasible utilization of infill si.tes might be established
as threshold requirements.prior to application of a con-
version coefficient 2erformance standard.
Measures to Implement Performance ." Standards.
1. Establish ThreshoZd Standards of Performance
ReZating to Dens$t.y and InfiZZ;
The prime land conversion coefficient applies to .
future development on prime agricultural land:
application of a conversion coefficient performance
standard does not address the problem of existing inefficiencies in development patterns. When over- all urban densities are low and significant infill
opportunities exist, cities could take steps to ensure that future development be guided in a manner that will utilize infill sites ar_d increase overall.
densities before activating the conversion criterion.
1 ImpZementing Agency 1
Individual cities at their option or as mandated.as
a condition of EPA or other federal grants. I AppZication 1
Most cities' general plans advocate infill and efficient land utilization patterns, and many cities
- 82 -
I
3
3
'' I.
(including Modesto) are implementing .bbth regulatory
and incentive measures to encourage increased density and infill. 'Cond-itions on state grants (see Measure
C-6, California's Urban Strategy) and on federal
.grants encouraging or mandating such measures could
provide. an effective . incentive. .For example, EPA
could require that a grantee agency, as part of the
Step 1 Clear Water Grant, develop a program of compliance with infill'and density standards. If (or when) a compliance program acceptable to EPA . were adopted, EPA would proceed with Step 2 grant
processing. Cities could develop compliance programs to suit local conditions. 1 Effectiveness I
,Standards of performance with regard to density and
utilization of infill sites would be helpfu-l in im- proving the efficiency of a city's existing land use
pattern. Cities could be required to make such im- provements as a condition of state.and/or federal fund-
ing pro.grams. Because the developability of infill sites varies widely within and among cammunities, and because the opportunities for development also vary, the
success of this policy will vary.widely. It is likely
to be most successful in fast-growth areas.
2.. BstabZish a Conversion Cos-fficient Performance
- Standard.
["GGJ '
The requirement that a city minimize agricultural land
conversion resulting from growth will neces.s.itate the
development of a methodology to evaluate its perfor-
mance. A possible measure is the index of historic conversion per unit of growth-. The research arm of
the U. S. Department of Agriculfure has used the co-
efficient-of-conversion measure in comparative studies
of land use change on a county basis (see, for example, Dynamics of Land Use Change in Fast Growth Areus,
Economic Research Service, USDA, 1976). This measur'e could easily be adapted to use in performance evalua- tion.
1 Implementing Aqencq
Local, state or federal government. I AppZication I
The agency conducting the performance evaluation
compiles data from at least two points in time dis-
closing the level of growth (for example, the popula-
tion increase) and the change in agricultural land (acres- o.f agricultural land developed into urban uses
over that time period). A coefficient of conversion can then be calculated for the purpose of (1) compari-
son with other jurisdictions or (2) establishing a . _-
- 83 -
.
performance standard for the future in the same
monitoring sys,tem should be set up so that compliance with the standard can be tested.
. jurisdiction. -Once the standard is established, a
An EPA grantee can be mandated to maintain or improve
its historic performance in converting prime agricul-. tural land to urban use. Monitoring could be tied
to issuance of wastewater discharge permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). These permits are granted by Regional Water
Quality Control Boards (RWQCB's) but their.issuance is
-I " .
*'- \%
- subject to review and monitoring by EPA. In fact, . this joint federal-state role suggests that respon-
sibility for monitoring'grantee compliance could be
shared between the two agencies or delegated to the
RWQCB .
. NPDES appears to be the logical vehicle for a moni-
toring program because the permits may be issued for varying lengths of time. This monitoring approach
wculd suggest that cities applying for permit renewais
.would have'to demonstrate that they were meeting the performance standard established for prime agricul--
tural land conversion,
If the city were not meeting the standarc?, it wo'uld
have to propose a program to make up lost ground -
for example, through infill programs'or density increases - during the subsequent permit period. EPA would have the option of shortening the new permit period so that compliance could be Yeviewed
after a shorter inter-Val.
Effectiveness 1
.. . Can be very effective in setking a limit to the
*-- degree to which population growth results in prime
" :' . agricultural'land conversion. Effectiveness depends
--.- on the conversion coefficient established as' the ._. . 'standard and. on the local ..gove.rnment'.s. commitment
"
. ..
" ..j to observe the standard.
If the:,standard is imposed as a grant condition, - iieither the standard itself nor the monitoring system
should be so onerous as to cause potential grantees
to forego EPA funding; if cities self-fund their wastewater facilities, EPA's opportunity to encourage
prime agricultural land retention is lost.
..
Conclusions
Cities surrounded by prime agricultural land have an obligation to conserve that resource. and use it with maximum
efficiency in view of the fact that its supply is limited. ..
- 84 - ..
Among other things, that means that priority should be
given to developing non-prime lands first; that infill (even of prime lands) should take precedence over fringe
development on prime lands; that density levels should be
relatively high compared to cities in non-prime land areas;
and that cities on prime land should be able to measure and
monitor the impact of their .growth on prime agricultural
lands over time.
The comprehensive inventory of mitigation measures
di'scussed critically in this chapter are presented in.
summary form in Table 5-10. For each measure, the matrix
identifies (1) the level(s) of government responsible for
.implementation, (2) whether it would be implemented as a
. regulation or an incentive (or, in a few cases, either or
both), (3) in what time frame it is considered implernent-
able-, (4) whether the approach is direct or indrrect and
(5) the likely effectiveness of the measure when a judg-
. ment can be made based on information available now.
The reader should note that the assignment of a time
' frame for implementation assumes that a measure is feasible
and considers both the time it would take to adopt the
measure and the time needed to make it operational once it
. is adopted. If a measure's effectiveness is indicated to be uncertain, that generally means (1). contextual factors will have a great influence on effectiveness or (2) the
specific features of a type of measure would determine its degree of effectiveness.
- 85 -
. -.. i
I
.. TabJ,e 5-10
PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND MITIGATION MATFUX
1
li
.-. I/
- 86 -
I
_. ..
,. - +. . . d',..
Modes to ' s Agricultural Land Conversion Mitigation Program
The evolution of this environment& impact statement
included a review by EPA and the City of Modesto of the
city's past performance in d.eveloping and implementing policies affecting agricultural lands, which provided a
useful background to the consideration-of further actions the city might take. This chapter summarizes the back- . ground briefly, and then sets forth a description of the
specific pro-gram the City of Modesto has committed itself to pursue in mitigation of the impacts on prime.agricu1- t.ural land resources posed by the expansion of the waste- waterTtreatment plant. ._ .
- -" Past -Agricultural Zand- Absorption in- Modesto.. The -
' very rapid growth of the 1970 Is- - approximately 5 percent "
_. ..
" .
per year "was the subject of community .$iscussion in Modesto before-EPA's zssistance in wastewater funding
was. sought. Concerns about the effects of growth 'spu-rred
the city to monitor its expansion quantitatively which the
city has done by tabulating and publishing data on land use change and by preparing'a growth report annually for city
government and public review.
-
.
City data suggest that n2w development in the 1970's
has had less impact on prime agricultural' land than earlier
development had. This conclusion is .based on the calculation of the coefficient of agricultural land conversion from land
use survey data tabulated and published by the city in 1971
(reflecting conditions in 1970) and 1978 (reflectin2 con- ditions as of January 1, 1977.).
The 1970 population of the area covered by the 1976
land use survey was 95.,370. The developed area occupied by this population and associat,ed urban land uses.including
roadways was 14,415 acres, the vast. majority of which would have. been prime land prior to its development. Since
Modesto was first settled, then, about 0.15. acres of ag-
,riculturally-valuable land has been developed for'each
person added to the urban population. . - . _.
: . .. I
- . . "" .
During the period between the two land use surveys
.c'ited, the population of the 1976 survey area rose by 24,430
- 87 -
"
.- L .
' . a',,.
4 to 119,800. At the same time, agricultural.land acreage in
the land use survey area declined by about 3,000 acres. The
coefficient of conversion during this period was therefore
0.12 acres per person. This represents a reduction of about
20 percent in the earlier rate.of agricultural land conver-
. sion per unit of population growth. .
-However, that improvement would not suffice if (1) per- formance remained poor in an absolute sense, or (2) further measures could be taken to mitigate the impacts of growth
on agricultural land resources. The next section views Modesto's performance as compared, to that of other cities. TKen the program Modesto has developed to further reduce
the agricultural land impacts of growth is described.
Modesto's Performance Compared to Other Citi.es in
California's Principal Agricultural Areas. Little compara-
tive inforKation on urban land use patterns is generally
available, and less information on land use change at the
urban periphery. In order to develop some comparative
measures of performance on urban land use patterns from
which sensitivity to agricultural land retention objectives
could be inferred, Gruen Gruen + Associates Sought informa-
tion from the 15 largest cities in the valley.and delta areas of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers on density
and land use patterns. This group of 15 cities includes all
those in California's most important agricultural area with
1978 populations in excess.of 25,000.
Three measures were used: gross urban density, gross residential density and availability of infill opportunities.
Each of these constitutes an indirect.measure of the
. efficiency of local land use patterns. The higher the . density and the more contiguous-the develcpment, the less impact growth has had on agricultural lands. Table 5-11
summarizes the comparative density statistics and Table 5-12
summarizes the comparative infill data.
The statistics presented in Tables 5-11 and 5-12 show a wide variatiol! among cities in California's agricultural
areas with regard to existing land- use patterns. An over-
* all ranking representing all .three measures is not possible
due to inconsistencies among the measures (which suggest underlying differences among cities in definitions and tabu-
lation methods). However, the data are'sufficiently complete -
to show that Modesto has generally a respectable record, while such cities. as Fairfield and Vacaville. (both in Solano
County) generally rank toward the bottom, and Davis and Wood-
land (both in Yo10 County) rank near the top. From the' fact
that Modesto is not top ranked, it can be inferred that some margin of improvement remains attainable.
- 88 - .'
Table 5-11
COMPARATIVE DENSITY STATISTICS: FIFTEEN LARGEST CENTRAL VALLEY AND.DELTA CITIES
Land -ea. Acres
Developed Total
Persons p-r Acre
’ hsiden- Population Total. Residential Acres Rank tial Acres
Sacramento
Fresno
Stockton
Bakersfield
Modesto
Visalia
fairfield
Vacaville
Redding
Davis
Lodi
Herced
Clovis
Woodland
Chico
261,500
195,800
127,300
94,500
86,100
41,050
54,400
40,050
35,650
36,050
32.930
30,150
32,800
25,250
26,950
60,282
25.966
37,427
36,143
15,255
32,256
13,056
11,962
18.112
4,288
5,082
4,922
7.542
8,040
4,217
18,000
N.A.
7,008
4,268
7,007
8,843
3,600
N.A.
3,338
3,750
2;ezo
5,436
N.k.
2,230
1,230
4.34
5.20
9
6
4 .go 7
6.19 4
2.38 13
1.69 15
3.14 10
2.21 14
3.01 12
8.31 1
6.48 2
4.35 8
6.13 5
6.39 3
3.14 11
14.5 4
N.A. -
18.2 3
13.5 5
19.2 2
6.2 11
11.4 8
N.A. -
10.8 9
12.6 6
8.& 10
C,O 12 N.A. -
12.1 7
20.5 1
Totals/
Averages N.A. = -not available.
1,119,480 284,550 67,750 3.93 12.6
Source: Po2ulation estizates (1976) from California Department of
Finance, Population kesearzk. Unit, Re-port 7e E-1 (&nded) ;
acreage estimates from individdal cities.
Table 5-12
COMPAXATIVE INFILL DATA: FIFTEEN
LARGEST CENTRAL VhLLEY AND DELTA CI.TIE.5
Vacant Developed Vacant Cm-
Total Devaiopable 0 Residen’dal ResiBential P pcsite Acres Acres Vacant Acres, Gross Acres Yacmt -%?k
Sacra*ento
Fresno
Stockton
Modesto
Bakersfield
Fairfield
Visalia
Vacaville
kedding
Lodi Davis
Nerced Clovis
Woodland
Chico
Total
60,2EE
37,427
24.972
15,255
34,143
32,256
12,480
17,920
11,962
4,308
5,083
7,542
4,922
4.216
8,040
280,814
14,500
7,056
3.983
2,265
16,865
11,209
1,200
9,000
6,862
1,040
463
N.k.
N.A.
925
1,350
”
11
24
28 . 15
49
35
10
50
57
24
9
N.A.
N.h.
22
17
”
18,900
N.A.
7,008
7,007
4,488
8,843
3,600
B.k.
3,338
2,820
-3,750
5,436
N.A.
2,230
1,230
”
N.h.
N.A.
3,767
1,831
11,117
5.670
600
N.k.
2.765
525
491
74
N.A.
270
807
”
N.A. 8
N.A. .
35
3
10
22 . 6 71
39
14
14
11
4
N.A. 12
45 13
16 I
2 1
8 2
11 5
40 9
I.A. -
”
Base Averaging 268,350 76,718 ” 49,750 27,937 ”
\ 2
Average ” ” is 77.687 36 -.. .
N.A. = not available
NOTE: Composite rankings are based on the sum of the percentage columns. Where
data &re not available (N.A.) for either one indicator or the other, the
available datum was doubled for the composite ranking. Tne rankings
should be regarded as highly approximate due to dlfferences anwng cities “ in the. reliability of data provlded.
..
Sources: Cities listed
. , .. '. 3
Evolution of Modesto's'Mitigation Package a,
Mitigation a Grantee Resaonsibility.. In evaluating
applications for grants, EPA is required to take into con-
sideration both the .potential environmental impacts of the action supported by agency funds and the extent to which
adverse impacts will be.mitigated. The responsibility
for selecting and implementing measures to reduce adverse
impacts of the wastewater facility project described in Chapter 3 of this report rests with the City of Modesto
as grantee agency. EPA's role is to determine whether
the measures proposed by the grantee represent the maximum
,feasible mitigation.
1
3
3
3
. *.
Agricultural Land Retention Was Modesto Policy Before
the Current Project Was Proposed. Modesto's location in 3
the heart of a prime aqricultural land belt, its past
history as an agricu1t;ral service and markkting center,
and the continuing importance of the food prodgssing in- dustry in the city are some of the reasons why local senti-
ment tends- to favor city policies that reduce the effects
of growth on prime agricultural lands.
Modesto has had in effect for several'years (or longer) planning and development policies that recognize agricul-
tural land retention as a city objective. Among these may
be mentioned the Urbarr Area General Plan, 'the Urbon Growth
PuZicy and the Stanislaus. County Generql PZan (to which
the City of Modesto lent its support). The Zevelopment
process Modesto already has in effect applies to each newly-developing area the "neighborhood zoning and Zevelop-
ment protctype" which sets forth, in advance of considera-
tion of specific development proposals, an overall neighbor- hood development program; including general locations of uses, scales of nonresidential uses and residential densities.
Furthermore, the city has already implemented, "planned development" (P-D) zoning in a mznner which encourages
.infill. in existing neighborhoods. - . .,,,
These measures have been reinforced by a number of other city actions .and.programs. In 1975 Modesto began.an :annual public review of its*Urabah Growth PoZicy, which
-involves a yearly staff report, coordinated city review
of growth trends and poli.cy, and opportunity for public in-' put. The city also organized, in the winter of 1977-78, the Modesto Alternative Futures Symposium, a series of
eight public meetings, each focusing on an aspect of the
city's management, development policy or resources. The
.meetings were .well-attended and were locally televised. Finally, the passage of Measure A (March 1979) requires
an advisory vote by the electorate prior to a City Council
decision on a trunk sewer extension.
-90" 0.
I -
The fact that all of these policies 'and planning tools
are already in place helps explain why Modesto's land development pattern has improved in efficiency (via infill
development and maintenance of contiguity in urban expan-
sion) and .has increased.in density during the 1970's. In the absence of these measures, the impacts of growth on
agricultural land absorption in recent years would have I
been considerably greater; and the forecast of the project's
impacts on agricultural land absorption would be as much as 20 percent higher than the figures presented in
Table 5-8 (p'. 26).
EPA accepts these existing measures as partial mitiga-
tion of the adverse impact of community growth onto prime agricultural lands. It is the agency's view, however,
that additional steps can be taken to reduce G'urther the
effects of Modesto's growth on prime agricultural lands, and the city has responded by proposing a series of addi- tional measures, which are presented in the next section.
Modes'to's package of mitigation measures builds on the city's past-accomplishments and on extensive discussions
and communications with EPA. The outcome of the city's
deliberations wzs a commitment by the Modesto City Council
(July 19, 1979) to pursue.the measures listed in Table 5-13. '
In addition EPA has been assured by Modesto staff that
measures already in effect will be continued. Both the
new measures listed in Table 5-13 and key existing measures are incl-uded in the package described below, which is
organized in three major sections: measures involving the
regulation of land development; measures encomp.assing city
policy and advance planking; and measures relating to inter-
governmental coordination. This division may be useful to
other cities devising programs to protect agricultural land resources. -
Mitigation via Land Development Regulation
Zoning
Reducinc the .Minimum Lot Size. A reduction in the
minimum lot size in single-family zoning districts has the objective of reducing the amount of agricultural land
absorbed by new single-family development. Modesto's re-
ducing the minimum lot size from 6,000 to 5,000 square feet
can reduce acreage requirements of single-family develop-
ments by as much as 16 percent. Other advantages include potential savings in the land costs associated with a new
single-family house and an increase in the potential for
infill development when implemented in combination with the
next measure.
- 91 -
Table 5-13
MITIGATION OF THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF
THE MODESTO WASTEWATER FACILITIES EXPANSION ON PRIME
.. AGRICULTURAL LAND: NEW KEASURES
ACCEPTED BY MODESTO CITY COUNCIL
E, Amend the Urban Grawth'PoZicy to contain a policy
- within the city.
statement that all residential growth should be
. .m Amend the Urban Growth PoZicy to contain a goal
*. . of increasing the residential density of the city
from 6.6 units per net acre (currently) to 7.0
'units per net acre by 1985. ..
0 Revise the General Plan to make the Santa Fe Railroad
(rather than Bent Road) the eastern boundary of the urban
reserve between Yosemite Boulevard and Dry Creek.
m Expand and clarify the priority list for trunk
sewer extensions.
Amend the zoning ordinance to make the R-1 Zone a density zone.
; a Amend the zoning ordinance to reduce the minimum
lot size in the R-1 and R-2 Zones from 6,000 to
5,000 square feet.
m Amend the zoning ordinance to specify a maximum
lot size in the R-1 Zone.
Source: Unanimous vote of Nodesto City Council,
July 19, 1979. ..
-? Int.erpre't .'the E-.I Zone as a Density Zon'e. Modesto's
zoning ordinance has treated the R-1 Zone as composed of
'. individual parcels, each of which carries entitlement .
-. for onei!single-family structure, irrespective of the
.\ size of ,the parcel. That means that even a parcel more
than twice as large as the minimum lot size can accommo-
date only one housing unit. Modesto's amendment of the zoning ordinance to interpret the R-1 zone as a-density zone wc:uld mean that parcels twice as big as the minimum
lot size .would be entitled to two (or more) housing units as long as other zoning- requirements (such as for yards and access) are 'met.
' This measure, when combined with the reduction in
minimum lot size, increases infill opp,ortunities in developed areas of the city. Under the minimum lot
size of 6,000 square feet, a single-family parcel would .have to be at least 12,000 square feet in size to ac- commoda'te a second unit. Under a minimum lot size of
5,000 square feet, a second unit could be Acconmodated
on a single-family lot.of only 10,000 square feet.
Establish a Maximum Lot Size. A maximum lot size
puts a ceiling on the amount of Land that car! be en-
cumbered by any one housing unit, thereby helping to
reduce the amount of agricultural land comrerted to low density residential development. Of 1,850 sub-
division lots recorded in Modesto in 1977, 145 (7.8 'percent) contained over 10,000 square feet. The Modesto
City Council committed itself to the maximrtm lot size
'concept, directing staff to indicate what the maximum
would be. With less than 8 percent of all subdivision lots in the 10,OOOt- category, a 10,000 square foot
limit appears acceptable.
Subdivision Controls
Duplexes on Corner Lots in flew Subdivisions. A measure implemented by. Modesto in 1978 allcws an in- crease in R-1 subdivision densities'by permitting
duplexes on corner lots. The overall increzse in the
number of units in a single-family subdivision resulting
from this measure could be as high as 18 percent (be- cause about 18 percent of all lots are corner. lots).
Duplexes are subject .to special orientation..and access
requirements.
Use of P-D Zoning to Achieve Higher DerLsities.
. Modesto has implemented a P-D (Planned Deveiopment) over-
lay zone in order to (1) permit increased single-family density while (2) ensuring quality design, particularly
with regard to privacy considerations. The P-D zoning
has proven effect.ive in increasing residenti-a1 densities
substantially over the minimum R-1 lot sizes: P-D den-
sities can reach up to 10 units per net acre,'while R-1 .
sites accommodate (at the old minimum. lot size of
6,000 square feet) only about 7% units per net acre. This measure 'therefore can achieve a density increase of
as much as 37 percent. Like other measures encouraging
, higher density, the effect of this measure is to reduce the amount of agricultural land absorbed by residential
development.
- 93 -
..
1
I Building Code
P
". . I i I, I
Review MuZ.ti-fam2Zy Construction 'Standards. The
neighborhood prototype zoning (to be discussed further
below) provides an opportunity for construction of multi-family units in R-3 districts, but Modesto's
experience has been that, at certain times and in cer- tain parts of the city, the buildout in R-3 zones has, been at lower densities than the maximum (28 units/acre) permitted under the zoning ordinance.. In connection
with the EIS, Modesto staff agreed to review construc- .tion standards for multi-family residential structures to ensure that the standards are not so onerous as' to
discourage R-3 density development. ..
Mitiqation via Land Development Policy and Planning
4,
Urban Growth Policy Review. Modesto first developed its Urban Growth PoZicy in 1974, and has 'conducted an
existing and new mitigation measures which fit under
thehumbrella of this city activity are the following.:
' annual review of that policy from 1975 on. Among
Monitoring OveraZZ Urban Density. Modesto's overall urban density is monitored as one element of
the annual growth review. In 1978, net residential
density was 6.6 dwelling units per acre..
Establishing Urban Density Objectives. One of
Modesto's new mitigation measures is.to increase the
residential density of the city from 6.6 units/net acre to 7.0 units/net acre by 1985.
- Encourage InfiZZ DeueZopment. It is Modesto city
policy to encourage infill development. Some examples
. of city actions in furtherance of this policy include
.- city annexation of enclaves and joint city/county action to upgrade services in the former county islands to
city standards, thereby reducing the impediments to
development of infill sites in those areas; and the decision to site any new subsidized housing outside
-;.. of .the west and south portions of the city, so as to . .reduce or avoid overconcentration of such units (a
. . - high concentration of subsidized .units generally reduces
the feasibility of market-rate housing in the same . .
.' neighborhood because it affects .the image of the ne.igh-
borhood) .
.. In another move to encourage infill, the 1979urban
growth policy. review revised city policy so as to per- mit small residential annexations of sewered areas
in unincorporated South Modesto.. (Previously, such annexation was only considered if the area annexed
3
R
-1 )r
3
-1 L
94 -
. .. &
.. .. .Y
3 was of sufficient size to support a branch fire station.)
Over 500 acres of potentially developable land exists
in this area. Since the policy change, one subdivision
map (23.5 acres) has been filed.
Infill 'policies described thus far covers sites .
th'at are generally surrounded by development. Other
sites lie at the fringe of Modesto's existing urban
area, but within the short-term urban service area (described below). Development at these locations is
.encouraged by city policy requiring development to take
place within city limits (first measure in Table 5-13) and within the current sewer service area.
Infrastructure Extension Policies
Service Area Definitions. Modesto has de'lineated
urbanservice areas, both short- (current sewer service
area, or CSSA) and long-run (ultimate sewer service
area, or USSA). This distinction makes clear which
lands the city is committed to provide with urban ser-
vices in the short-run, and it a.lso nakes clear which lands lie outside the city's long-run service area.
The third mitigation measure in Table 5-13 - the change
in the urban reserve boundary from Bent Road to the Santa
Fe Railroad - in effect leaves the area betwn,en those
roads out of the city's ultimate urban service area,
thereby helping to ensure the long-run commitment of that land (comprising about 1,045'acres of prime farmland)
. to agricultural use.
Trunk Sewer Eztexsion Priorities. Establishment, of trunk sewer extension priorities offers an excellent
approach to assuring that the direction of future urban '
growth will respect agricultural land retention ob- . jectives. In 1978, the Modesto City Council adopted
an initial set of priorities for sewer trunk extensions.
This list has been reconsidered and' elaborated upon as
a result of the environmental review of the wastewater
, project. The priority list [with further descriptions
in brackets] is as follows:
1. Yosemite Trunk, Lincoln to Claus
2. Yosemite Trunk, Claus to Santa Fe Railroad
[The Yosemite Trunk extension will serve
a portion of eastern Modesto which the city considers an infill area. The ab-
sence from the.priority list of any ex- tension of this trunk beyond the Santa Fe
Railroad reflec,ts Modesto's decision not
to provide sewer service to agricultural
areas lying t'o the east of Empire within. at least the next two decades.]
3.
4.
5.
6.
7,
8.
The
Sonoma Trunk, Floyd to Sylvan
Lakewood Trunk, Briggsmore to Floyd
Lakewood Trunk, Floyd to Sylvan
Sonoma Trunk, Sylvan to Claribel
Lakewood Trunk, Sylvan to Claribel
1
3
.[These five extensions,'will permit substantial
urbanization of the northeast portion of Modesto.
This area comprises that portion of Modesto's '
ultimate sewer service area which lies primarily on non-prime soils.. J 1
Further extensions of the North Trunks.and/or further development of the West Trunk
[The areas served/potentially served by these trunks contain extensive agricultural acreages,
much of which remains in fairly large holdings.]
3
3
first seven trunk extensions on.the priority 7
list will accommodate all forecast development through &.I
the year 2000 and a significant.amount of growth into the
next century. Table'5-14 lists the neighborhoods served
by the trunk extensions and their population capacities.
-
3
The selection of priorities reflects a number of im-
.portant considerations in addition to agricultural land
. ' impacts of urban development. But the city also maintains
that this list, by permitting'infill on the east, by en-
couraging growth toward non-prime lands on the northeast, .
and by deferring to the long run action on trunk sewers 3
serving the areas of Modesto that are presently most committed to agriculture, represents the city's intention to use infrastructure extension decisions in a manner that
will help retain agricultural lands.
PZan :implements planning on a neighborhood basis through 3i 1
prototype applies to an area of about three-quarters of a
'square mile divided into a grid of 40-acre cells by collector
i3
..
Prototype Neighborhood Concept. Modesto's Genera2
use of the "prototype ,zoning and development plan". The .,
streets. The prototype provides for residential uses (with higher density zoning along the arterial streets at the perimeter of the grid) and for public facility,
and commercial support uses. There are roughly 480 acres
in each new neighborhood available for development.
GROWTH ACCC
Prior-
Trunk 'Extension i ty
Yosemite, Lincoln to
Claus 1
Yosenite, Claus to Santa Fe
Railroad 2
Sonoma, Floyd to
Sylvan 3
Lakewood, Briqgsmore
$0 Floyti 4
Lakewood, Floyd to Sylvan ' (betw. Lincoln & Claus) Sa
J (betw. Claus & Santa Fe
I Railroad) 5%
u)
TOTAL BY YEAR 2000 .' 5b 2
. Sonoma, Sylvan to Claretina 6a
Claretina to Claribe'l 6b
Claretina 7a
Claretina to Claribel 7b
Lakewood, Sylvan to
GRAND TOTAL -
Table 5-14
iIODATED BY PRIORITY SEWER TRUNK EXTENSIONS
Neighbor- Percent' of Prime
hood Gross Agriculturial
Served Acres Land
Ycsemi te 7 28
Empire West 788
Roselle 489
Merle 491
Claus . 477
Merle East First 80%
234
3,207 .
Merle East Remaining 20%
58
blab 1 e 490
Oakdale 49 2
Santa Fe 457
Plainview . 457 - 5,267
100%
100
75 .
60
10
10 .
70%
10
25
25 .
0
0
48x2
Potential Net Populat'ion
Residential Potentially Acres , Accommodated
437 10,925
473 11 825
29 3
295
7,325
7,375
286 2,150
140 3,500
2,924 48,100
35 875
29 4 7 I 350
295 7,375
I.
F' 274 6,850
274 6 850
3,096 -
Cumulative
Total
10 I 925
22,750
30,075
i.
37,450' ::,
. .. c.
44 600
48 , 100'
48,100
48,975
56,325
63 , 700
70,550
77 , 400
I
77,400
'New population by year 2000 as given in Table 5-7.
2.Weighted average of preceding percentages in column.
Source: Gross acreages of neighborhoods from City of Modesto (Osner, pers. corn.) ; percent of prime agricultural land.
estimated approximately by referring to prime and nbnpri.me soils map in Draft EIS; potential net residential acres
estimated by GG+A as 60 percent of total gross acres based on review of neighborhood prototype; population capacity
based on 25 persons/net residential acre from City of Modesto ektimates (Osner, pers. corn.) for two other recent
neighborhoods.
t L" -""L ~
I Anow for a Mix of Densities in Future DeveZopment. The neighborhood pratotype assumes that newlydeveloping areas will contain mix- of densities. Of th total resi-
dential development-in an "average" new neighborhood, 48
percent is earmarked for R-2 or R-3 development, with maximum densities of 14.5 and 28.0 units per acre, re-
spectively. In addition to the provision for higher
density zones, the entire R-1 zone in the prototype carries
a P-D overlay, so that actual' densities can be considerably
that route.
' higher than standard R-1 zoning if the subdividers choose
. If developed to the maximum permitted, overall den- . sities under the prototype would be 9 units/gross acre - as compared with 4.8 units/gross acre, the density figure
(reflecting historic preferences .in Modesto) used in the land absorption forecast of this EIS. The .neighborhood prototype approach both permits and facilitates higher
densities than Modesto's historic pattern. ..
Target Neighborhood Densities. The prototype allows hisher densities, but does not mandate them. A*-developer
wh6 is proposing a subdivision in an R-2 or R-3 zone
can propose R-1 densities, and, in the past, the city has approved many subdivisions with densities well below
the maximum permitted. In order to help assure that oppor-
tunities for higher densities are.not foregone in this
manner, Modesto staff will, for all future neighborhoods, establish a density goal based on both the prototype and
the land ownership pattern in newly developing areas.
Monitoring the Density of New Development. ' Modesto
will monitor the density levels of new neighborhoods as they develop as part of the annual review of the Urban
Gr?owth PoZicy. This monitoring will help to guide de-
velopment approvals in a manner consistent with the city's *
' objective of increasing overall density to 7.0 units per net acre by 1985.
Mitigation Via Intergovernmental Cooperation.
A number of .the important actions taken in the Modesto
area to help reduce agriculture's loss of land to urban uses
have resulted from actions. by .Stanislaus County and its agencies, such as the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO), typically with support of or in partnership with .
the City of Modesto. Such joint efforts offer a valuable model to other localities, recognizing, that prptection of agricultural lands requires coordination and coopera-
tion among all local agencies with land planning respon-
sibilities. .Because these measures are not implementable
directly by the City of Modesto, they are presented only
briefly here. ..
- 98 -
c
0
. ,.
. ..
Limiting Parcel Division in Rural Areas. Stanislaus
County permits lot splits in agricultural. zoning districts
only upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that the
proposed split will serve an agricultural purpose. The
county's 1979 rezoning to agriculture of substantial acreages around Modesto, Oakdale and Riverbank formerly
classified as rural residential increases the impact of
this measure.
Agricultural Element of County General Plan. Stani-
slaus County established an agricultural study group in ,1978 to review agricultural land issues and make recom-
mendations to the Board of Supervisors on such matters as minimum lot size in agricultural zoning districts and the
preparation of an agricultural element of the general plan. Modesto has offered staff support in the development of a
county agricultural element. .,
Implementation and Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures
As noted earlier, mitigation measures are effective only when they reduce the adverse impact of a project
below what it would have been in the absence of any measures.
There is little doubt that Modesto's mitigation pro-
gram as outlined in this chapter will reduce the urban
demand for agricultural lands. The reduction will be
accomplished by a mix of complementary and overlapping
strategies which (1) encourage infill, thereby increasing
densities of currently developed areas; (2) increase the density CF newly-developing areas; and (3) reduce .urban pressures on agricultural lands both generally (by reducing
the amount of agricultural land needed to accommodate a
given level of urban growth). and in specific fringe areas of the city.
a
Quantifying the impacts of these measures is a diffi- cult task for many reasons. Because certain measures over- lap, the advantages of one preclude the advantages of the
overlapping measure. For example, where P-D zoning is .
used in place of R-1 zoning', measures available to increase . density in R-1 districts are foregone in favor of the den-
sity increases permitted by P-D. Because of such overlapping,
the density gains estimated for various measures are not
additive.
Another complication in estimating the impacts of
mitigation measures is the fact that developers will con-
tinue to enjoy some flexibility within Modesto's planning
and development controls with regard to housing type and
density. This flexibility.is desirable because it helps to assure that Modesto housing will.be able to satisfy most consumer preferences, thereby minimizing spillover
i
" - 100 - . . -
I development to other areas. But it also means that the
actual land absorption of new development 'cannot be pre- dicted with a high degree of accuracy - an order-of-
magnitude estimate is the best measure of impact possible.
Finally, in some cases not enough information is
available to estimate impacts quantitatively. For example,
the number of oversize R-1 lots is not known. In other cases, assumptions as to how certain measures will be
implemented r,emain to be verified. For example, a
maximum lot size of 10,000 square feet has been assumed, .but the final determination has not yet been made by the
city.
Table 5-15 provides a summary of the main elements
of .the city's mitigation program, including estimates of
the potential impact of individual measures wherever esti- mates were. possible, and the status of implementation.
The immediate effect of the new mitigation package
will probably lie in the vicinity of a five percent de-
crease in agricultural land absorption below what it would
have been in 1985 without the new maasures. This estimate is based on Modesto's commitment to achieve an increase in overall city residential density of six percent between 1979 '
and 1'985. The various measures set forth in Table 5-15 appear to offer sufficient opportunity for increased resi-
dential density to make that six percent improvement realistic and probay-,ly somewhat conservative. On the other hand, the density gains in residential land use are unlikely to be matched by compara.ble gains in other use,s. - industrial,
commercial, and public - which are less amenable to density reduction.
*
The five percent reduction applies to the period end-
ing in 1985. Beyond that year, assuming the same measures are in effect, an additional five percent reduction during
the 1985 to 1990 period appears to be a reasonable expecta-
tion. Beyond that point, the reduction is assumed to '
stabilize as most vacant infill sites will have been de-
veloped, and further infill could be accomplished only .
through redevelopment. On a rough basis,. over the period .'
of time during which the full wastewater project attains capacity, 'a reducti-on of 10 percent in agricultural land absorption is a defensible estimate of the overall impact' of the mitigation package developed by Modesto in response
to the Draft EIS. This impact buil-ds upon and extends
the 20 percent reduction,in agricultural land absorption
that prior 'measures in the 1970's have already accomplished.
1
-1
-..a I
7
:i .i
..
.. - 101 -
Table 5-15 .
' MODESTO I s. AGRICULTURAL LAND MITIGATION PROGRAM:
IMPACT SUMMARY AND TIMETABLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION. ..
Implementation Status:
Measures of Land Needed of Land Needed :' 0 Under Consideration
New (July 1979) .I Effect on Amount EEfect on Location a Adopted .
B Amend Urbm Growth Pol- Negligible. icy to contain a policy
statement that all resi-
dential growth should
be within the city.
Enforces continguity, reduc- 9 Considered and approved
ing pressure for agricultural by Modesto City Council,
land conversion. August 7, 1979.
8 Amend Urban Growth Pol- An increase from 6.6 to None. 0 Considered. and approv~d icy to contain a goal 7.0 du/net acre reduces by Modesto City Coun; 1,
of increasing city resi- land requirements by about August 7, 1979.
dential density to 7.0 6 percefit.
units/net acre by 1985.
r.
1. , I Revise Genera1 Plan to None. .Preserves appr0xirnati1.y 1,045 o Amendment and EIR tb be
0 urban reserve area on
. ..
reduce extent of the
the east. road for at lea+ the next anticipated April 1.980;
c" acres of prime agricultural prepared by February 138C
lands east of the'Santa Fe Rail- Planning Commission actic .w
1.' two decades . Council action, May 1900.
E Expand and clarify ' Negligible. Channels growth toward and on 0 Considered and approved
. priority list for nos-prime soils; allows for de- by Modesto City Council,
trunk sewer exten- velopment of 1,018 acres by year August .7, 1979.
sions. 2000 on non-prime soils that
might otherwise fiave absorbed 1
prime' soils.
Amend Zoning Ordinance Permits additional.develop-- Encourages infill; reduces UT- 0 Amendment has been draft to make the R-1 Zone mcnt on oversize lots in ban demand for agricultural Planning Commission acti a density zone. previously-developed R-1 lands. anticipated January 1980.
Council action, Fcbrua.ry Zones. 1
' 1980.
." Table 5-3.5, continlmd
i '.
..
~
Implementat New (July 197.9) kffec.t on mount . ' Effect on Location 0 Adopted Measures . of Land Needed of Land Needed 0 Under Con
8 Amend Zoning Ordinance Change from 6,000 to 5,000 Reduces urban demand for, agri- . Amendment k
to reduce the minimum square feet allows a maximum cultural land,s. Planning Cc
lot size in R-1 and R-2 ' reduction in land requirements anticipatel
Zones to 5,000 square of 16 percent. Council act
feet. 1980.
Amend Zoning Ordinance
to add a maximum lot
size to the R-1 Zone.
Other Recent,
(1978-79) Keasures
Duplexes on corner lots
in new subdivisions.
il Permit small annexa- .
I tions in South Modesto;
W reduce concentration of
c.' 0 annex county enclaves;
subsidized housing. I
Maximum lot size of 10,000
square feet could reduce
single-family subdivision land
requirements by 5 percent. 2
If fully realized, would re-
duce by 18 percent the land
requirements of'new single-
family subdivisions.
None.
Reduces urban demand for agri- 0 Same.
cultural lands.
1 Reduces urban demand for agri- 0 In eftect.
cultural lands. .. ...
1. : .
%.
Encourages infill; reduces ur- 0 In e.ffect.
ban demand for agricultural
lands.
. ..
Major Prior (1977 and
Earlier) Measures
P-D Zoning If fully'realized, could re- Encourages infill (especially @In effect.
duce land that would otherwise by higher-density single-family
be absorbed by R-1 development, structures) and reduces land re-
by 37 percent:' quirements of new subdivisions. I
B Neighborhood prototype At 75 percent buildout,, allows Reduces urban demand for agri- .In effect..
for 38 percent higher density cultural lands.
than 1976 levels. 4
'Impact cannot be quantified because the number of oversize lots is not known.
2Estimate based on 1977 subdivision data, assuming that lots in excess of 10,000 square feet average 15,OOC
'Maximum R-1 density is 7s units/acre compared to 10 units/acre under P-D zoning, resulting in a potential
feet in area.
37 percent in land absorption.
At a buildout of 75 percent of maximum allowable density, the prototype yields 6.825 units/gross acre comp
1976 city average of 4.95.
4
Source: Modesto Planning and Community Development Department and
Gruen Gruen + Associates.
F
.. " A , , ,,'.
* In addition to gains in agricultural retention result-
ing from revisions in residential development regulations, gains will also be realized via infrastructure extension
policies which give.weight to soils type in determining the
priority areas for urban expansion. Approximately 960 acres of non-prime soils will be developed by 2000 (and 1,700
thereafter); these lands will be developed in lieu of con-
verting prime agricultural iand to urban use.
In Table 5-16 are summarized the agricultural land re-
tention results of complementary Modesto policies concerning
urban development and infrastrvcture extension. The table presents total urban land needs, residential land needs, and prime agricultural land conversion under three conditions: '
unmitigated (i-e., a return to pre-1970 development patterns), partially mitigated (reflecting the programs put: in effect by
Modesto and Stanislaus County prior to the publjcation of
the Draft EIS) and mitigated via new land development regula- tions proposed as a response to the Draft EIS.
These first three sets of estimates indicate that most
urban land needs would be met via agricultural land,conver-
sion in the absence of the infrastructure extension priorities
recently established. The mitigation measures of greatest
immediate importance are those relating to land development regulations. However, the infrastructure extension priority
system begins to emerge as extremely i-mportant.once the Sonoma
and Lakewood trunks are extended beyond Floyd into the north-
east area which contains the major areas of non-prime land
in Modesto's ultimate sewer service area.. Once the Lakewood
trunk is extended beyond Floyd (priority 5 as listed in Table
growth will drop from about 87 percent (of major residential
land needs) to about 12 percent.
'5-14), the prime agricultural land *sorbed by residential
This retention effect would be achieved sooner but for the Yosemite trunk extension; the area served by that facility
is totally prime. However, there are other compelling reasons to proceed with the Yosemite extension, which will permit development of one of Modesto's largest infill 'areas. The area to be developed once the Yosemite trunk is extended is
currently encompassed by development on three sides. Further- more, this area, of the potential residential expansion areas .available,.is closest to major employment centers both down- town and in the Beard industrial tract. From the perspective of overall efficiency in the land llse'pattern, including'con-
'sideration of commute distances and related air quality
.impacts, the Yosemite extension can legitimately be given
' cultural. land. priority even though it will serve development on prime agri-
..
..
- 104 -
.- ':Table 5-16
PRIME AGRICULTURAL ACREAGE RETAINED
1984
Project)
UNDER MODESTO'S MITIGATION PROGRAM
Urban Land Needs
Unmitigated
Partly Mitigated (Existing Condition) *
With New Land Development Regulations3
Residential Land Needs
Unmitigated'
Partly Mitigated (Existing Condition)
With New Land Development Regulations4
Prime Agricultural Land Conversion
Unmitigated'
Partly Mitigated (Existing Condition)
With New Land Development Regulations'
Prime Agricultural Land Retained via Total
Mitigation Program:
1995
(capacity (Capacity of Initial of Full
1,370
1,095
1,065 '
870
695
665
1,025
820 .
790
..
Retention via New Land Development Regulations' . 235
Retention via New Infrastructure Extension
Totai Acres Retained 235
6 0 Priori ties
Acres of Prime Agricultural Land Retained as
Percent of Frime Agricultural Land Conversion 23%
in Unmitigated Condition
Project)
5,770
4,615
4,295
4 010
3,210
*- 2,890
4,480
3,585
3,275
1,205
55
1,260
28%'
2000
8 050
6,440
5,980
5 , 700
4 I 560
4,100
6,650
5 I 320
4,860
1,790
1,020
2,810
42%
'As discussed in the text, measures adopted in the 1970's have reduced agricultural
land absorption by about 20 percent from what it would otherwise have'been. Thus,
acreage estimates for the unmitigated condition are those figures wnich, reduced
by 20 percent, yield the estimate given for the'partially mitigated condition.
2The EIS forecast, as presented in Table 5-7, p. 25.
3'Total acres required in partly mitigated condition (preceding row) minus change
in residential acres required between partially mitigated condition and condition
with new land development regulations.
4Residential land requirements under partial mitigation (preceding row) have been
reduced by 1 percent for each elapsed year to 1990. That is, in 1981, required
residential acres under new regulations are 1 percent less than under partial
mitigatic:n; in 1982, 2 percent less, and so forth. After 1990, a 10 percent re-
duction is maintained.
'The EIS forecast, as presented in Table 5-8, p. 26.
'Deducts difference in residential land needs from agricultural land conversion in
I 'Agricultural land absorption in the unmitigated cpndition minus agricultural land
the partly mitigated condition. .
absorption under new development regulations.
'Calcu1,ated from data presented in Table 5-14, p. 97.
Source: Gruen Gruen + Associates ..
- 105 -
.. . .. ... ,
,
Programs like Modesto's - including both the mitigation
measures adopted prior to the Draft EIS and those developed
subsequently - can reduce this conversion. For example,
a 40 percent .reduction in conversion.of agricultural land
* to prban use would retain 5,600,000 acres of that land in
agriculture. While the actual number of acres retained from one jurisdiction to another may seem insignificant viewed- in isolation, the cumulative effects are substantial, argu-
ing that no community with prime. agricultural land resources should ignore agricultural land retention issues in its plan- ning, development and infrastructure extension decisions.
.' .
..
END OF REPORT
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
..
I
.*- L'
..
. ..
CHAPTER 1
COMPENSATORY PROGRAMS FOR PRESERVING AGRICULTLRE
I !
I I
..
1. Preferential property tax assessment;
2. -Transfer of development rights; 3. Purchase and lease-back; sand 4. Other methods.
Compensatory prnc~rarns such as these are capable of providing positive incentives
for using land 'for agricultural purposes. The provision of some Form of ccnpen-
sation to owners of land restricted to agricultural use may also be desirable
as a m'eans of mitigating adverse economic effects of governmental regulatory
decisions.
PREFERENTIAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT: THE WILLIAMSON ACT
, Introduction
Naticnxide, one of the mst popuiar methods of providing compe,nsation I to cwners
of land restricted to agricultural use is preferential propertly tax assessment.
Comnly, land so restricted is assessed based not on its marqet value but on
its value for agricultural uses. According to a 1977 report 412 states have
tluse-value'' assesment programs for asricultural or other opes;-space lands.
California's program was enacted in 1965 as the California La;r,d Conservation Act,
or Williavson Act. By 1976, 47 OF California's 58 counties pa'rticipated in the
program, mkinc. it one of the most important in the United Sta'tes.
The Williamson Act permits participating counties in Cal'iforni!a to enter into
contracts with owners of agricultural or open space land. The. contracts restrict
the use of the land and limit its potential for subdivision in exchange fcr a
reduction in property tax. The contracts run for a pzriad of ten years and are
renewsd aucomarically each year. The amount of the tax reduction is based an
the difference between the asricultural value of the property and its mzrkct
value.
" -i
I
The Co~inty of San Diego has been an active partiripant in the Uilliamson Act
program since 1969. The following table shows the total dollar value of taxes
saved each year by those property owners with lands under contract.
. ..
.- .. .
'I .. .. . ..
-. .
TAX YEAR TAX SAVINGS
1969-70 1970-7 1. 1571 -72
1972-73 1973-74 - 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78
TOTAL
$ 204,612
270,745 425,175 727 ,ea9 1,025,045 1,280,753 1,443,599 1,663,008
1,732,376.
$8,772,322
The goals of the Williamson Act are expressed within the Act itself, as Pollows:
I. That the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited
1
I
i
supply of pri:ne agricultural land is necessary to the
conservation of the state's economic resources, and is
necessary rvat only to the niaintenance of the agricuitural
economy of the state, but also for the assurance of
adequate, healthful, and nutri tioirs food for future I f '. residents of this state and nation;
I I 2. That the discouragement of premature and unnecessary
conversion of prime agricultural land to' urban uses is
a matter of public interest, and will be of benefit to
urban dwellers themselves, in that it will discourage
discontiguous urban development patterns which unneces-
sarily increase the cost of community services to
community residents;
i I
3. That in a rapidly urbsnizing society, agricultural lands
I . have a definite public value as open space, and the I preservation in agricultural production of such lands,
the use of which may be limited under the provisicns - of this chapter, constitutes an important physical,
social, esthetic, and economic zsset to existing or
. pending urban or mstropolitan development (Section
I i 1
i .- 51220, California Government Code):
.. I I
i I . ..
-.
These staternents make it clear that the State legislature intended that the Act
would.be used to further land use planning goals of preserving agricultural land
and containing urban sprawl, while providing open space to be used for agricul-
ture.
Let us examine the relationship between these goals and thc actual use of the
Williamson Act program in San Diego County.
First, has it helped cause the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited
supply of prime agricultural land in the County? The answer to this questicn
depecds on what is meant by "prime agriculturzl ,land." Such land is defined ir!
the Act as follows:
(1) All land which qualifies for rating as Class I or Class
II in the Soil Conservation Service land use capability
classifications;
..
(2) Land which qual ifies for rating 80 through 100 in the
Storie Index Rating.
(3) Land which supports livestock used for the prduction
capacity equivslept to at least one animal unit per
Agriculture.
. acre as defined by the United Ststes Department of
(4) Land planted with fruit- 3r nut-bearing trees, vines,
bushes or crops which have a nonbearing period of less
than five..years and which will normally return during
.the commercial bearing period on an annual. hasis from
. the production of unprocessed agricultural plant pro-
duction not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per
acre. ..
(5) Land which ha5 returned from the production of unprocessed
agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not
less thsn two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three
1 of the previous five years.
According to one source there are 192,300 acres of "prime" land in the County.
Of this acreage, 3.1 percent, or 17,433 acres were under contract during the 1975-76 tax year. More recently, the San Diego County Assessor has reported
that, for the !978-79 tax year, there are 20,807 acres of prime agricultural
land under contract out of a total of 135,679 acres under contract. Thus, only 15 percent of the land in the County now under contract is prime agriculturai land. .
.. '
.. .'
I.
..
Second, has the Willfawon Act program in San Diego Cc--.iy helped contain urban
Sprawl? To answer th: :;wT;tion onc must analyze the ,)atiaI distribution of
the lands under contract. A map showing the location of all corltrac:t lands
reveals that most of the contract lands lie far to th? east of the urbanized
areas of San Diego County. The lands under contract lying within or near urban
areas are relatively smaller- and discontigtious in comparison to the vast tracts
in the more remote areas. The overall effect of these contracts on the spatial
characteristics of urban growth would appear to be minor.
One reason for the present spatial distribution of lands under contract is the
voluntary nature of the Williamson Act program. The law provides for the County
to establish agricultural preserves for the purpose of idbntifying which lands
should be eligible for contracts. However, the County has never attempted to
estab1 ish ayricul tural preserves for the purpose ,of keeping agricul tur-a1 !and
from being urbanized unless the owner desired to sign a Land Conservation
Contract. In general, the County has only established preserves in response
to the expressed desires of landowners to sign contracts. Exceptions to this
policy have occurred only in the more remote areas of the County. Thus almost
all of the land within agricultural preserves but not under contract is located
far from any urbanizing areas. The agricultural preserves that do exist near
urban areas are generally coterminous with the boundaries of land under contract.
Third, has the Williamson Act program served to foster ayricul tural production
on agricultural lands? The answer to this question can be approached by analyz-
ing what lands are under contract. This analysis wi 11 shotr wh,o the beneficiaries
are of the Vi lliamson Act in San Diego County. Once the beneficiaries are known,
one can attempt to evaluate the extent to which the tax benefits of the Wi 11 ianlson
Act appear to foster actual agricultural production. The following questions
are asked as the basis for this analysis:
1. How many acres of land devoted to particular agricultural activities is
..
under contract?
2, How much OF the total annual tax savicgs under the County's Vi 11 iamson Act
program supports each agricultural activity? ..
'3. What is the average percentage of tax savings by agricultural activity?
The answer to the first of these questions is found in the table helaw, as
reported by the San Diego County Assessor as of 14arch 1, 1978.
AGRI CULTURAL ACT I V 1 TY ACREAGE ' % OF TOTAL
- Grazing and Dry Farming 122,217 88.2 .. Trec Crops 10,127 7.3 I rr i ga ted Crops .2,346 1.7
. . Flo~ers 1,1013 .a
space easenients) 2,807 - 2.0
TOTAL 138,605 100.0
.Other (includes open
"-L-
. . ..
Note that 88.2 percent of the total acreage under contract is classified as land
for grazinc; or dry farming.
AVERAGE Q
AGRl CULTURAL TAX SAVI NG
ACT I V ITY TAX SAV I tlG % Of: TOTAL TO OWNE!?
Grazing $1,O83,890 63% 80%
Tree Crops 336 178 '1 9% 42%
Flowers 180,442 10% 61%
I rr i ga ted Crops 45 , 625 3% 74%
Dry Farming 39,101 2% 63%
Open Space Easements 21,835 .. 1% 75%
Dairies . 19,302 18 66%
_I
TOTAL $1,727,374
The answers to'these three questions c?early show that by far the principal
beneficiaries of the Will iarnson Act in San Diego County are the owners of grazing
land. Grazing is the most predonlinant agricultural activity under contract;
owners of grazing land receive 63 percent of the total t'ax savings in San Ciego
County from the Williamson Act program; graziag results in thz highnst percentage
tax savings of all the agricultural activities.
Thus it appears that, in San Diego County, the Williamson Act program has
provided the strongest incentives for owners of grazing land to sign Land
Conservation Contracts. This relative emphasis of the program on grazing wou!d
make more sense if livestock made up an important segment of this County's ayri-
Cultural production. iiowever, as shown in the tGbie beiow, cclt of a gross value
of $335 million in agricultural sales in 1977, only $5.8 million was derived
from cattle and calves. These fisures are reported in the 1377 Agricultural
Crop Report prepared by the County Department of Ayricu! ture.
..
. '. .-
.. ." . ..
PERCENT OF CROP DOLLAR VALUE . TOTAL VALUE
Tomatoes
Eggs Avocados
Milk
Valencia Oranges
Strawberries
Lemons
Carnations (Standard)
Cattle and Calves
$63,332,000 5lY408,0G0
50,958,000
24,701 .,OOO
7,721,000
6,634,000
5,654,000 ,
5,824,000
17,830,000
18.9%
15.3 14.9
7.4 5.5
2.3
2.0
1.7 1.7
Cattle and calves were the ninth most valuable agricultural comnodity in 1977,
comprising only 1.7 percent of the value of all agricultural commodities.
Significant also is the fact that the signing of a Land Conservation Contr'sct
in'no w;iy obligates the owner to use any OF his land for agricultural purpcses.
The owner may enjoy his. tax break without producicg an agricultural conmdity.
The contract provides disincentives and restrictions on nonagricultural uses,
rather than positive incentives for agricultural use.
The discuisions above lead to the conclusion that, in San Diego County, the
Wi 11 ianson Act progrm does not appear to have been encouraging wners of la~d
suitable for the prodcction of the County's mst important agric.ultura1 cmanodi-
ties to sign Land Conservation Contracts. One might yet, however, conclude that
the progran has, in accordance with the third goal of the Williamson Act itself,
fostered the agricultural use of open space land by discouraging nonagricultural
use of grazing land. However, one could hardly argue that this has been the
most efficient or productive use of the County's investnent in the Kiliiamson
Act program.
Effect of Proposition 13 on the Williamson Act Program
It must also be noted that the Wi 11 iarnson Act program, 1 ike many others, wi I? be .
sigrlificantly affected by Proposition 13, the Jarvis-Gann property tax initiative.
As the discussion bzlow derconstrates, the property tax savings incentive for
signing or renewing a Wil 1 iamson Act contract wi 11 be greaily reduced 5y Proposi-
tion 13. In scme cases, the tax savings formerly attributable to the Williamson
Act contract may now be exceeded by the savings attributable to Proposition 13
even if no contract is signed.
-1 I
_. . ..
.. ..
This discussion wi 11 compare various examples to show the difference made by the
passage of Proposition 13 on the tax savings resulting from signing a Cli 11 ianlson
Act contract. Each example below is computed on a per acre basis for a typic31
mature avocado orchard in Valley Center. Estimates of market values, restricted
County Assessor's Off ice.
. or agricultural values, and tax rates were received from personnel from the
K II 1975 1978 -
rtarket Vilue (typical) $7,500 $15,000
Restricted Value (typical) $G,ooo $ 6,000
- tiow taxes were computed before Prooosition 13 -- Had Proposition 13 not passed, I9";ri;rty taxes would have been conlputed by multiplying the tax rate times
the assessed value of the property. In Examples 1 and 2 a typical tax rate
for Valley Center was selected equal to $.IO28 per dollar of assessed value.
In Example 1 the assessed value is equal to one-quarter of the "restricted" or
agricuittiral use value ~f the land under Wi 11 ianson Act contract.
"
Example 1 -- 1978 tax per acre on land not under contract had,Proposition 13 not
passed : - "
Tax = (Tax Rate) (Assessed Value) =
(Tax Rate) (Market Value) = "-7
= (.1028) ($15,000) = $385.50/aere
_71_1
Example 2 -- 1978 tax per acre on land under contract had Proposition 13 not
. passed: "
Tax = (Tax Rate) (Restricted Assessed Value) = - (Tax Rate) (Restricted Value) = 4
= (,1028) ($6 030) = $154.20/acre " ..
-.
How taxes are computed under Propos i t ion 13 -- Under Propos i tion 13, property
taxes shgi 1 be levied at no more than one percen; of the full 1975 property
value, adjusted annually by a two percent inflaticn rate, as shown below:
1978 property tax = -01 (1975 full value) (1.~)~
where .01 is' the one percent tax rate and (1.~)~ rcpresents three years of
.- inflation at a rate of two percent.
.. : . ..
If ownership of the property has changcd since 1975,
than one percent 01'. its full v;.lue at the time of sa
two percent inflation rate.
Example 3 -- 1978 tax on land - not under contract but
Tax (.01) (1975 t?arket Value) (2% inflat
the tax shall be no more
e, adjusted annually by the
according to Proposition 13:
on for 3 years)
How taxes are computed under Proposition 13 for property mdcr Cli lliamson Act
contract -- Property mder \.li 1 Tianson Act (Caiifornia Land Conservatiom
contract wi 11 be taxed based on its 1975 ayricul tural or "restricted" value,
adjusted by the two percent inflation rate, as shown below:
1978 property tax = .Ol (1975 restricted value) (1-02) 3
For property now ur?der contract but not under contract in 1975, the tax is
computed based on the restricted value at the time of sale, adjusted for infla-
tion.
Summary of Examples -- 1378 tax per. acre avocado land, if:
1. No Proposition 13 and no contract - $385.SO 2. No Proposition 13 but under contract - $154.20 3. Proposition 13 but no contract - $79.59 4. Proposi tion 13 and undcr contract - $63.67
The most important effect on the Williamson Act program will be the apparent
reduction in incentive for property-owners to enter into new contracts. The
incentive will be reduced because the dollar value of tax savings resulting
from the contract will be greatly reduced. The effect of Proposition 13 on, for
example, acreage planted in avocados' but not ur;der contract would be to reduce
taxes by as much as 80 percen:. This savings Is based on the approximately 60
percent reduction in tax rate coc!pled with the fact that 1975 prcper-ty value may
be only 50 percent of 1978 property value.
Signing a contract now should s.ti 11 result in a tax savings to the property
owner. HGwever, the dollar amount of that tax savings may seem.insiynificant
relative.to that amount saved solely'because of Proposition 13.
Another possible effect of Proposition I3 may be increased numbers of property
owners with lands now under contract deciding not td renew their contracts.
When property owners decide not to renew, each yecir for ten years they pay an
increasing percentage of what would have been their taxes had their land not
on the full 1975 value, adjusted for inflation by only two percent per year.
These paynlents will b:l considerably less than they would have been without
Proposition 13 because the tax rate has been reduced by approxima:ely '60 percent
and the two percent inflation rate is far belo:?l the actual inflatior. rate for
property value.
! been under contract.' Undcr- Proposition 13, these yearly paynlents will be based
A further possible effect of Prdpositicn 13 on the Williamson Act program rnsy he
to increase the number of petitions for outright cancellation of contt-arts. The
Board of Supervisors may cancel a contract at the owner's request and impose a
cash penalty equal to 12-1/2 - 25 pe.rcent of tne "full cash value of the land
as though it were free of contractual restriction" (Section 51283, Government
Code; see also Board of Supcrvisors Policy 1-38), Before Proposition 13 was
passed, this "full cash value" meant market value. Now it means 1975 market
value adjusted at only a two percent inflation rate. Since market value has
been increasing at a much higher rate than two percent, as each year goes by
the maxinwm dollar value of the czncellation penalty becomes less and less an
effective disincentive to petition the Board of Supervisors for a contract
cancellation. Already since the passage of Proposition 13, one property owner-
has successfully petitioned the Board of Supervisors for a cancellation.
Conclusion "
The following conclusions can be made from the above discussion:
1.. In the last nine years, the Williamson Act has provided tax savings of over $8.7 million to owners of contract lands.
..
2. Only !5 percent of the land under contract rwets the definitions of prim
agricu? tural land.
3. Contract lacds are most likely to be lccated far from urSan areas and
suitable only for grazing, a relatively unimportant segrreni of our agricul-
tu ra I economy.
4. The passage of Proposition 13 significantly reduces the incentive for
entering into or continuing a Land Conservation Contract.
Thus, it seems that the Williamson P.ct program in San Diego County has been of
linlited public vaiue relative to the qoals of tile Act itself. The program has
not been espscially effective as a means of effecting the Act's land use planning
goals of preserving prime agricultural land or containins urban sprawl. The
open space preserved through the program has, by and large, not been land
suitable for highly productive agricultural use or subject to the pressures of
urban growth. In the future, the program will probably be even less successful
because the limitations on the property tax reduce the incentives to participate in the program. It is likely that the progr-am no:.r provides highest incentives for owRet-5 of land unsuitab!e for any use at all to enter into or continue
contracts which provide them with zn 80 percent tax reduction.
.*
h
*- ..
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPHEIIT RI CtITS
Another method of providing compensation to owners of land restricted to agri-
cultural use is a proposed system known as "transfer of development rights," or
TDR. The principle on which TDR is based is that 1and.ownership nay bc considered
to consist of the title to various rights. One of the norma1 rights of ownership
is the right to develop or improve property. Under TDR, this right Is separated from the other rights of ownership and nay be ptJr-chased by others. Under one type
of development rights transfer, a governmental agency would purchase developmnt
rights of land the agency.desircd not to he developd. This kind of program Is
often called PDR, "purchase of development rights." Except for this case, TDR
involves the estaslishment of a market for developm~nt rights to be sold by owners
of land planned "- not to be developed to owners of land planned for developnent.
Thus, governmental actions to restrict the development of certain lands WGUI~ not
necessarily have their usual effect of lowering th:: value of the owner's invest-
ments in those lands. c1 portion of those investments would consist of the devel-
opment rights, the sale of which would provide compensation to the owners of lands
restricted from development.
in order to set up a TDR prcgrarn for the purposc of restricting certain Iznds to
agricultural ~se, the governmental jurisdiction nlaaacjing the proyram would designate
sites for agricultural preservation and for development and would issue certificates
of development rights. Each owner would receive certificates based on some eqult-
able principle of distribution. One system would be to issue certificates zarres-
ponding to the lnaxirilun nunder of dxell ing units each obmer nlight have been permitted
prior to the adoption of tqe plan to be implemented by the TO?, proposal. 'Then
mrners of developable Iar?d/mtild be req5ircd to pt:rchsse developccnt rights from
the omers of undevclopabl4 land in order to develop their land at mare than a
rnInirr,um intensity. I
According to Cavid I-. Peteeson, fiscal and c-zonornic consultant to the Regional
Growth kmgenent project, :transfer of developwnt rights has both advan:s?es
and disadvantages as a technique of plan implcnierltaticn, as listed below:
Advantaqes 1.
I
.+
"
_. 1. Consistent with established constitutional principles.
2. More politically acceptable than public acquisition or stringent zoning
wl thout compensa t i on .)
3. Hinor expenditure of public funds.
4. Alleviates ''windfa1 Is" and "wipeouts"; prcmotes equity.
5. Fleiibili ty; can protect any resource from market forces.
"
Disadvantages
I. Too new and complex.
2. Will not work without proper economic conditions.
-. *
.. '
i
I
i I. I
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
k'ould take years to study and implement.
May not work unless adopted regionally.
Requires significant political conmittment to be credible to would-be
participants.
Ends may be more efficiently accomplished throcsh less complex mechanisms.
May conflict with existing zoning and plans.
Involves administrative and bookkeeping problems.
Involves questions of property taxation of development rights.
He concludes his discussion of TDR as follows:
TDR is a complex implenlentation technique which would not be easily under-
stood by the general public, the development industry, and local decision-
makers. TDR would require a significant administrative structure with
assciciated costs. TDR shares, with density bonuses, the problem that it is
-relatively easy to identify areas from which to take rights, but it is rwre
d'ifficult to identify areas to which rights wouId be transferred. FL!rther,
such transfers coula reduce the effectiveness of existing Community Pians
as well as create problems in capital facilities and service delivery
planning. . . .[E]xtensive use of the technique seems premature at this time. ! would seem wiser to let others experiment, and to hold general use of
in reserve for possible future application.
.The Arroyo Group, consultant for the City of Riverside, California, recent
t
TDR
1
prepared a docuinent entitled "TDR: An Evaluation of the Potential for Uti1
the Transfer of Development Rights 2s a ;jeans for Implementation of the Arl
Heights Plan and Growth Managment Program." This report proposes that TDR
used in the Arlington Heights area for the following reasons:
Y i z i n 3
i ng tor)
be
1.' To ensure greater equity far property owners by eliminating or minimizing
windfalls and wipeouts, and
2. As a means of acquiring or preserving public open spaces and envfronmentai
resources. .
This consultant's propGsal includes draft enab1in.g legislation and a city
ordinance. Enabling legislation may,be necessary for a number of reasons,
as listed bcloLr: I
1. So that.development rights can be cotlsiderred estates in real property which
can be transfered, recorded, and insured;
2. So that land will be assessed for tax purposes based on the density and
type of use permitted after development rights transfer;
3. To permit local agencies to require the recordation of TDR certificates
to evidence the existence and transfer of development rights.
.
..
.. ..
".
..
..
.
. . ..
CEAPTER 2
LAND USE REGULAT I Otis
!-
I
LARGE-LOT ZONING
Large-lot zoning is probably the-most common technique used in this country for
the preservation of open space. Wherever land is not proposed for urban uses,
that land is likely to be subject to large-lot zoning. This technique operates
by directly affecting the process of dividing land. When land subject to large-
lot zoning is subdivided, new lots can be made no smaller than some minimum size.
How large this rnininlcm standard must be for it to be considered "large-lot zoniny"
depends on the circumstances. In some situations, a 10,000 square foot lot size
requirement may be considered "large." in another case, 600 acres may be the
size of the large lots required.
The theory behind the use of large-lot zoning ir that the private land subject
to it will be more likely to remain as open space if it is not divided ipto
small lots. \/here the dzsired open space use is agriculture, then large-lot
zoning is often imposed in the hope that either the land wi 11 not be subdivided
at all or that new lots will be large enough for agriculcural use. fheorctically,
the imposition of large-lot zoning will prevent the speculative value of land
from rising so much above its agricultural value that agriculture can no lozger
be considered a permanent economic use.
Large-lot zonir?g is now the principal technique used in San Diego County to
preserve land for agricultural use. It is now imposed by three differer:: means --
by The Zoninc( Orciinaitc.e, by the General Plan, and by Williamson Act Contract.
In the past, The County Zoning Ordinance contained four types of large-lot zones -- estate zones. asricultural zones, temporary zones, and the limited con%rol
zone. These zones provided for minimum lot sizes ranging from ooe-half scre to
twenty acres. The newly adopted Cclunty Zoning Ordinance'provides for the zFpiica-
tion of any minimum lot size standard desired. This may be accomplished by apply-
ing the desired lot size designation at the time racing Is adopted 01- revised 3r-1 a
particular property. For exampls, under !.he old Zoning (jrdinance the agricultural
zones of thc County provided a choice ot unly five different minimum lot sizes --
1/2, 1, 2, 4, or 8 acres. Under the new Zoning Ordinance, the County has av.?i!able
the legal machinery needed to expand the range of possible mininlunr lot sizes from
these few to any size desired. What this means is that the County need no iongzr
create and adopt new zones in order to impose new and different lot size reqc;i rz-
ments. The County General Plan, since 1375, h2s included minimunl lot size
standards over and above those required by The Zonir;g Ordinance. Land Rot planned
for urban use may be subject to minimum lot sizes ranging from one to f0rt.y acres
depending on slope, JCC~SS, water availability, and other criteria. Land designated,
for example, as "Intensive Agriclrlture" may have minimum lot size standards of
2, 4,.or E! acres depending on certain critcria,
I. . ..
The table on the following page shows the acres of land in agricultural use for
each land use planning category of the County Gerlcral Plan. Note that the three
categories with the most acreage -- Rural Residential, Agricultural Estates -
Medium, and Intensive Agriculture -- all permit lots as small as two acres.
Together these three categories contain 52.5 percent of the land in the County
in agricultural production.
Other figures of note are that mpre than 11 percent of the land in agricultural
use is now planned for urban use; almost 28 percent is planned in categories
that permit lots as small as one acre; and almost 69 percent is planned in
categories permitting lots as small as two acres.
The significance of this analysis lies in the possibie ioss of agricultural
production that nay result from the inpiementation of the County General Plan. If the General Plan is implemented in a way such that land in the County is
divided into the mininum-sized lots perma'tted in each land use category, then
many areas nevi in agricultural use will be divided into lots of two acres ar .
smaller. Dividing land into lots this small may result in reduced agricultural
production. Owners of small lots may chocse to take a1 1 or part of their land
out of production in order to substitute residential uses or simply because not
enocgh none:, can be made to make farming worthwhi le.
60ard of Supervisors' Pol icy l-_?G, "Agricultural Preserves," also contains minimum
lqt size standards for land mder Land Conservation (Wi!lianson Act) Contract.
These minimums depend on the agricultural activity and have ranged from 8 to bC0
a res. The larscst minimum lot size standard now ir?posed by Policy l-3e is 80
a$res, as zhowr; in the taSli: belcw. c
Graz i ng
Dry Fa rm i ng
Cattle Sreeaing
Horse Rreed i ng
Poul try
Dairies
Tree Crops
Truck Crops
Flowers (Field)
Flowers (tlothouse)
.. GO acres
40 acres
40 acres
.: .-. 40 acres
10 acres
20 acres
10 acres
10 acres
10 acres
10 acres
.. - .
Large-lot zoning has a number of important advantages over cther methods of agri-
cultural preservation. The most important of these is that it is a regulatory
technique based solely on the police pGwer of the state. Thus, it requires n3
direct expenditures by qovernrnent other than the costs of administering the program.
Aside from being inexpens ive, the technique is easy to understand, relatively easy
to adnini,ster, legally sound, and politically acceptable. Its legality and
acceptabi 1 i ty are, however, subject to the liinitation that the standards imposed
are reasonable.
MAX I MUM
PERMITTED ACRES OF L4ND IN
LANP USE CATEGORY DENS i TY AGRICULTURAL USE .% OF TOTAL -
Urban Categories
Very Low Res i dent i a 1
Medium Low Residential
Low Res i dent i a 1
LOW Medium Residential
Medium Residential
High Medium Residential
Medium High Residential
High Residential
Office Commercial
Nei ghborhood Comne rc i a 1
General Comaercial
Heavy Industrial
Idonurban Categories
hral Residential
Agricultursl Estates - Lon
Agricultural Estates - Ned.
Agricultural Ebtates - Rural
Agricul?ural Preserves
Intensive Agritul ture
Moun ta i n Geve 1 c.pinen t
Multiple Rural: usc
National Foresfr
I
Other Categories!
Floodplain j
Open Space
Pub1 ic, Semipubl ic
Greenbel t
Special Planning Area
TOTALS
Urbar:
Nvnurban
Other
GRAND TOTAL
1 du/ac
2 du/ac
2.9 du/ac 4.3 du/ac 7.3 du/ac
10.9 du/ac 14.5 du/ac
29 ddac -
1 du/1,2,4 ac
1 tiu/4 ac
1 du/2 ac 1 Ju/2-4 ac
1 du/8 ac
1 du/2,4 $8 ac 1 du/4,8,?0 ac
1 du/4,8 ac 1 du/4,8,29 ac
1 du/4-8 ac
1 du/8 ac
L. -
(various)
1-29 du/ac
1 ddl-20 ac
(various j
I
18,982
1,173 22,286
5,564 13,327 20,104
7,703
6,370 681
116,753
1.03
0.89 2- 35
0.39 6.30
0.G3
0.13
0.06
0.07
0.01
0.06
0.17
16.25 1 .oo
19.08 4.75 11.41
17.21
6.59 5-45 0.58
3.04
0.36
0.53 0.22
1.95
11.48 82.38
6.12
There arc also a nuinber of important disadvantages to the use of large-lot
zoning as a means of preserving agricult:,lral land. Probably the most important
of these are tt-z problems of estahlishiRg large enough mininlum lot size stancl'ards
and then maintaining them over time. Another disadvantage is that large-lot
standards arc difficult politically to impose when their effect will be to lower
the value of private investmznts in land. Even when such standards are imposed,
the rational2 for their imposition may often be based on their temporary nature.
For example, in this County, a minimum lot si7e standard of twenty acres is
applied by Zoning Ordinance only when that ordinance was explicitly intended to
be temporary. In additicn, the imposition of large-lot zoning nay have serious
unintended economic effects when ttx land is owned by the samc party who fzrms
it. In some cases, the owner-farmer is able to continue his agricultural acti-
vities because of the rising value cf his lsnd investment. More stringent
minimum lot size standards may lower this value, making it more difficult for
the owner to obtsin r.lortoaGe money that he may need to finance his a9ricultural
provide thc owner with an important source of capital he may need for continuing
agricultural production. I -.
. pursuits, The abil ity to sell off small' portions of thc property may also
A further disadvantage of using large-lot zoning as a means of preserving agri-
cu1t:lt'e is that the mere threat of its imposition, whether real or imayir!ed,
may inflirence owners of agricultural land not to continue agricultural uses.
There is sme evidence that this built-in disincentive for ayricul tvre my
already be functioning in San Diego County. Landowners in at least one area
have apparently stopped leasing their land for agricultural use because they . fear that the evidence oq such use will be a factor in the County's decisions
the tcnporary agricultural use of their property have become willing to forgo
that gain. This effect of the threat of large-lot zoning seems to have the most
impact on our vecytable crops and field flowers. However, more permanent agri-
cciitursl uses, such as orchards and greenhouses, may also have a1 ready been
affected in this way.
It should be noted that the present minimum lot sire criteria for the "Intensive
Agricu!ture" land use category of the County General Plan provides incentives
,For tisiny land fcr agriculture. If land.has been planted for the previms year
in certain crops, and some other criteria are met, then the land ray be considered
for 2 rather than 4-acre lots. This offer of a smaller minimum loc size may
serve as a counter-balance to the disincentive to agricultural use discussed
a bave
"Poir:ts System" Zonina
Tulare County in California has established a corqrehensive program of large-lot
zorting w$ere any requests for smaller lot zoning are evaluated by a detailed
rating system. The purpase of this rating system is ro provide ex.plicit guide-
lines for decision-makers to cse in considering mking exceprions tc the overall
policy of preserving agriculture by means of laroe-lot zoning. Thus, tiulare
Cwnty's large-lot zcning pro:Jrrarr! includes criteria for ilexibil icy. Where iand
is lcss suitable for long-term agriculttlre, then, if certain criteria are met,
smaller lot zoning may be granted.
i to impose more stringent land use controls. Owners who would norna?iy gain fron?
._ ..
c - .
0- 4
c
i '. . ..
- A
The Tulare County rat; system w6t-ks a5 follows. if ,d zoned for large lots
fs not within an agricultural preserve {Williamson Act) and is sui table for an
individual waste disposal system, ihen points are awarded based on to what
extent the property meets thirteen different criteria. In all, thirty points
may be awarded for such features as soil classification, parcel size, land use,
proximity to certain uses, water availability, fire protection, road access,
historical or archaeological value, wildlife habitats,,unique natural features,
and floodplains. The more points awarded, the more suitable the land is for
agriculture. A low score, however, would provide the basis for deciding to
rezone the property to permit smaller lot sizes.
The most valuable feature of the Tu'lare County program is the explication of
the factors to be considered in the decision-making process. Too often land use
planning decisions are made on an arbitrary, inconsistent, or unclear basis.
Getting a policy adopted which contains in great detail the criteria for decision-
making would be a yreat step toward improving the credibility of the lacd use
planning process. Explicit criteria, if adhered to, make planning regulations
seem more objective an3 fair to the affected iandwmcrs.
Another intcresting Feature of the Tulare County large-lot zoning prcqr-am is
the inverse relationship between sui tabi 1 ity for agriculture and permi tted
minimum lot size. Ten-, 20-, 40-, and 80-acre mirtinun lot sizes are imposed
for agricultural preservation. The most productive !and is zoned for 10-acre
minimums, the !east, for 80-acre minimums. The rationale for this inverse
relationship is that more land is needed to run a profitable agricultural
enterprise on less productive land.
There are some apparent, but possibly minor, drawbacks to the Tulare- County
"points" system. First, it would probably be d'ifficult to prepare a contpre-
he!,sive rating system for San Diecjo County's agriczltural lands that cbuid work
throughout the County. Our County seem much mare diverse in character thzn
does Tulare and, therefore, might require an even more corcplicsted rating systeln
for it to be expected to work rationally. Second, any coinpl icated rating system
requires a certain amount of administrative effort to m;lke. it work. A system
complex enough to be justifiable miyht,be too complicated to administer cffi-
ciently.
..
DENS I TY ZON 1 NG
Density zoning is a commonly-used alternative to standard large-lot zonic2. The
"quarter/qQarter" and "sliding scale" techniques discussed below, are forms of
density zoning. With decsity zoning, the regulations determin.e hc~w n!any lots
may be created out of a particular parcel. The emphasis is on the nu!nber of.
lots, not on their size. For example, 2 density zone of one lot per IO acres,
when applied to a 100 acre site, would result in 10 lots. For the purpose of
prsscrving agriculture, it might be best iF 9 of these lots were I-acre hornesites,
acd the remaining 91-acre lot were kept in agricultural ube. Under standard
large-lot zoning, as used in this County, the 100-acre lot wmld be divided into
10, IO-acre lots. Where a particular agricultural enterprise on the 100-acre
site requires more land than 10 acres to be profitable, it is likely that the
division into lo-acre lots will result ir! a significant loss in production. Thus standard large-lot zorliilg may cause the subdivision of agricultural land .-' - into lots not large enough for continued agricultural prcduction.
- I.L.
..
a
The following diagram shows the difference in the ultimate lot patter125 that may result frc:n the subdivision of a 100-acre parcel into 10 lots under standard
large-lot zoning arrd under dens i ty zoning.
The desirability of density zoning as an agricultural preservation technique is
limited by the possibility that the creation of small lots, however few, for
residential purposes will result in land use conflicts. Living next to a farm
may seen idyllic to some, but pesticides, fertilizer, smudge pots, noisy machinery,
flies, and noisy or smelly farm animals may prove to be unanticipated dra9backs.
Complairlts from rural residents may be an important factor in the farmer's
decision to consider nonagricultural use of his land. Such complaints may
include threatened legal action or result in investigations by County authorities.
In addition, the encouragement of a land use pattern of non-farm residences
scattered thrcvghout rural areas may result in a nigh pub1 ic cost fer such services
as school tus transportation.
Density Zoning kfith Open Space Easements
Dcnsity zoning has been uscd in this County in sone specialized situations.
The most ccnnon of these has been in the grantins of special use perr:;its for
Planned Residcntial Developments (FED's). PRD's are condominium subdivisions,
where smal 1 building lots are sold individually and one or njore large lots are
sold in cornxon to the residents to provide open space and recreational areas
for al! of thm to own snd enjoy. Condoninium ownership arrangements have also
been used in standard subdivisions to provide for the ownership of open space
lots. Often these open space lots are created to protect very steep land from
being developed. The open space lot is protected from resubdivision by ar! (?pen
space eascxnt granted to th? Cotinty by the original subdivider. Such an ease-
ment, in effect, transfers the right to develop the property to the County.
The OWilerS of the residential lots then jointiy own the open space lot.
Condominium ownership of an o?en space lot does not seem appropriate or necessary
when such a lot is suitable for agricaf tural use. Even with a restrictive <)Fen
space easement on the property, it could be retained by the. criginal o\nii;er icr
continued agricultural use, or sold for this purpose.
Oae problem this County has faced with open space lots has been the failure of
Owners to make mortgage pdyments OI- pay property taxes. Foreclcsure can result
in loss of the open space easement restrictions. Therefore any program to retain
large lots in agricultural use by means of open space easements IT US^ be devised
with this possible pitfall in mind.
Another problem to be solved regarding dznsity zoning is how to encourage sub-
dividers. to use it. If the owncr has the choice, he may prefer the more standard
approach of subdividing land into large lots of equal size. In order to assure
the retentior: of a large lot reserved for a5ricultural purposes, it nay be
necessary to make chis approach mandatory. Cltherwise other inducements nay
have to be offered, such as a dens i :y bonus or eventual expi ration of the open
space easement. (State law allows oper! space easements tr, be granted for 20 .. year or lonyer periods.) .
. "
r4
Large-Lot Zoning
Original
I OO-Ac re
Pa rce 1
Original'
1 OO-Acre Parce 1
I
Density Zoning -
New 91-Acre
Lot
I
5 New Onc-Acre Lots
I
.. * . .. I
Quarter/Quarter Zoning
Quar-ter/quarter zoning is a special kind of density zoning technique used in
some counties in Minnesota. This technique permits a certain number of small
lots to be located within each quarter of a quarter of a section of land. A
quarter/qvarter section is one-sixteenth of a section, or approximately forty
acres. If any quarter/qusrter section had already been divided into a number
of lots equal to or greater than the number permitted, then no new lots Lvou1d
be allowed within it.
Quarter/quarter zoning was proposed as a more flexible a1 ternative to the standard
large-lot zoning technique. Its purpose is to preserve agricultural land by
keeping rnost of it in very large lots. In theory, the one or more small lots
permitted in each quarterjquarter section will not interfere materialiy with :he
.long-term agricultural use of the property. The ability to sell off a limited
number OF small lots provides the owner with some income-earning potential over
and above the agricultural value of his ?and. Another advantase of the technique
is its ease of adwinistration by the land use control jurisdiction. Ai! that is
needed for administration is accurate legal lot infornlation for all the land
surveyed into sections.
While quarter/quarter zoning offers a solution to some of the problems of standard
large-lot zcining, its applicability to San Dieso Cosnty my be limited because of
the fol lowing factors:
1. Not all of the County's agricultural land is surveyed into sections. The
. tech ique could ngt be used within the Cai i forni a ranchos.
2. Much of th& County's agricultural land is already divided into parcels' smaller
than 40 acres. Quarter/quarter zoning does ROC work well unless tile land is
still in large tracts of 40 acres or, tzetter yet, multiples of 40 acres.
Sliding Scale Zonina
Another type of density zoning is the use of a "sliding scale" for the deternina- ticn of minimum lot size. With this technique, the subdivision of land is per-
mitted in acccrdance with a ielxible standard -based on the size of the parcel
proposed for subdivision. T!le larger the original parcel, the lower the pertxittcd
dens i ty.
The folloNjny tabie shows how the sliding scale is used in Baltimore Ccuaty,
Mary 1 and.
Area of Lot of Record -x .
at the Time of the Effective *- Waxirnurn Number of
Date of this Ordinance . Lots Permitted -
Less than 3 acres 1
At least 3 but not more than 10 2
More than 10 'but. not more than 23 3
/+ore than 20 but not more than 100 4 .. * Hore than 100 5 lots plus one additional lot
Pot each 25 acres in excess of
100 acres of the total tract area
r.- 4
,** -Thus, in Baltimore Cot ', the sliding scale would all densities ranging from
one dwelling unit per acre to one dwelling unit per twenty-five acres, depending
on the size of the original lot.
The theory behind "sliding scale" zoning for agricultural preservation is that
smalier lots are less likely to be important segments of the agricultural base
of the area. This technique is designed to keep larger tracts in agriculturzl
use while snm1 ler parcels would be permitted to be divided for residential
estates. The proponents of thc-llsliding scale" technique would also argue that
large landholdings arc more likely to be profitably engaged in agriculture; there-
fore, owncrs of such land are less 1 ikely to need to subdivide ttlei r land to
profit by their investnients.
"Sliding scale" zoning has a number of important advantages. First, it would
appear to be an effective way of minimizing the subdivision of large landholdings
and thereby preserving land for agricultural use. Seccnd, it provides for a great
deal of flexibility. Different "sliding scales" could be used in different areas
to suit local conditions. As in quarter/quarter zoning, the landowner could be
relied upor: to decide on the size and location of the-permitted rtew lots. Third,
the technique wt~ld theoretically work in areas where quarter/quarter zonirlg r.rouId
not bc appropriate. Its use is not restricted to areas surveyed into sections
whete all lots are of any particular size. Fourth, it is not difficult to
administer. The density perrni tted on any lot is determined by the size of that lot
at the tine specified in the ordinance impleslenting the sliding scalc technique.
..
However, the "sliding scale" techr,ique also has some important drawbacks. It is
not clear whether such an approach would be legal here in California. On the face
of it, it seems to violate conmanly held notions of equity. hc might argue that '
owners of larger tracts were. being arbitrarily discriminated against. Even if
such si legal chalienge were not effective, it mic$t be difficult to retain in the
long run the wcesssry poliTicZ! r-::;rport for such a Frogran. Another drawback is
that new owners of land that has al ready been subcl ivi ded in sccordsnce wi th the
"sliding scale'' may not. be properly infcrncd about the development potentisl of
their prcperty prior to their purchase of it. It my be diif icui t For them to
accept that their property cannot be resubdivided when some adjacent snla",er
property can be divided.
i-
'\
c .(. .
. ,-
CHAPTER 3
FURCHASE AND LEASE-BACK
The unincorporated area of SGn Diego County has approximately 1!3,000
acres of land in agricultural production. The bulk of this land lies
in four areas: Fallbrook (14,003-13%), North County Metro and San
Dieguito;': (25,593-23%), Valley Center (24,104-21%), and Otay (13,695-12z).
Clearly, many of the lands in these areas wi 11 be subject to future
urban development pressure and thus any attempt to preserve this
agricult.ura1 land via purchase and leaseback, etc. would be quite
. costly. This paper will examine the financing nlethods and costs of
preserving agricultural lands. Based upori post Proucsition 13 r2venue
constraints and the methods available, the foilcwing is a summary of the
feasibility of preserving agricultural land via its acqtiisition.
. Essentially, given the revenue constraints at the Federal!
State, and local level and the market price of agricultural
land in San Diego County, it is highly impractical to
attempt to preserve agricultural land in this County
primarily via acquisition.
. An estimate was made of the cost of purchasing ag1:icul-
tural landi The price tag of such a purchase could well
exceed 6@0jmillion dollars at today's market prices.
Obviously,;such an ambitiou; effort-is beyond the scope
of governmint. The point, however, is that any attempt
to purchase agricultural land in Sar. Diego County would
involve s +assive sum of money. As a corollary, this
acquisition would entail foregoiq other services and -.
revenue (property taxes) by local governments.
. The nurnber;snd flexibility of financial mechanisms
"
I \
available to the County of San Diego to purchase agri-
culturai land is very 1 inlited. There are no funds
currently existing at the Federal and Statelevel available
for direct purchase. At the local level, it appears
that the purchase of agricultural land by a nonprofit
corporation, lcasing this land to the County, and in turn
having the County sublease to the grower-tenant is the
most practical method st: this point ir~ time. It Is
likely that under such a scheme that the County of San
Diego would have to subsidize lease payments; the amoullt
depending on which agricultural land war, purchased.
That is, the market value of existing-agricultural land
. and associated debt service costs are likely to be less
than market rates. Any deficiency between revenues and
costs are likely to be funded in the capital improvement
* Jncludes some. incorpcratzd areas.
1.
. .-
budget .
. The issuance of general obligation and revenue borlds by
The County of Ssn Diego appears infeasible. General
obligation bonds have been virtually eliminated as a
result of Proposition 13. According to a financial
consul tan t to the County::, issuance of revenue bonds
directly by County of San Diego is questionable due
to potential lease revenue being insufficient to cover
debt services.. Likewise a joint powers agreement is
not viable, as these intrajurisdictional contracts are
designed for building or' improvement oriented activities.
A development fee for an "open space agricultural" fund
is probably not legal. This is due to the fact that
fees must be directly tied to benefits to the
develcpment. Finally, a special asszssment district
approach (i.e., City of San Diego's open space
requisition bonds) would be difficu!t in the era of
post Proposition 13 revenue constraints and according
to this municipal financial consultant subject to
legal challenge;.
. In summary, the large quantity of agricultural screage
coupled with the high market price of this land ana
the revenue constraints in the post Propositicn 13 era
make it virtuaily impossible to preserve agricultural
land via its acquisition. At best,'it appears that
the use of a private nonprofit corForation approach
may be feasible 3s a mi nor supple~i~ent to other more
ambitious methods (density zoning, etc.).
* Terry Comerford, Blythe, Eastman, and Di 11 ion.
I- . >. -
METHODOLOGY
Explained below is the method for calculating the market value of
agricultural land in San Diego Councy. Admittedly, it is somewhat
crude. However, to derive a "true" value of agric.ultura1 land in
San Diego County would involve a farm by farm appraisal; a quite
costly effort. The attempt in this study is to provide a rough value
of agricultural land at today's market prices. This value, in many
cases, is likely to be above what the land is worth for purely
- agricultural production. In other words, much' of the agricultural
land in San Diego County is valued for nonagricultural uses.
This price of agricultural land by planning subregion was ccrmputed
via two steps. Step one was to "inflate'' the most recent information
on !and inflation by the most current acreage market value data from
the Assessor's property information system. The only information
which could be discovered on the inflation rate of land was the
average increase in the price of existing single fanlily homes in 1978
by those of 1977. This assumes, naturally, that land value is the
sole cause for home price increases from 1977 to 1978. While not
.entirely true, it is a good "ballpark" estimate. Between 1978 and ,1977 the average price of an existing single family home in San Diego
County increased by 31%;:.
This 31% inflGtion rate was applied to the Assessor's estimate of
average market value pzr- acre for all land in a planning subregion in 1977. Cleariy, this"imp1ies that iand would be purchased at highest
and best use valse.. In summary, acreage in production figures were
multiplied by 1977 Assessor's market value and in turn inflated at 31%. The tai-le below summarizc:~ this calculation:
TABLE I
MARKET VALUE AGRl CULTIJRAL LAND
PLANN I NG AREA ACREAGE IN PRODUCT I ON -
Pendleton-De Luz 22 80
Fa1 lbrook 14803
Bonsal 1 7829
North County Metro 2@392
San D iegu i to 520 1
Pala Fauma 92 05
Valley Center 241 04
* May 1978, Chamber of Commerce Economic Bulletin.
CURRENT MARKET VALUE
(In Mi 11 ions] -
$ 4.1
166.4 47.8
124.5
95.6
- 14.5
32.2
.. -. 4 .. .-
P..
TABLE I (Cont'd)
MARKET VALUE AGRICULTURAL LAND
PLANN 1 NG AREA ACREAGE ! N PRODUCT I ON -
Otay
Poway
Ramon a
Ra i nbow
Lakes i de
TOTAL :
13695 2592 8720
1715 1154
11 1690
CURRENT MARKET VALUE
(In Mi IFonsj
$ 20.4
26.1
27.3 6.0
7.7
$632.6
Obviously, not all of the land in these areas would be even considered
for preservation due to small lot sizes, etc. The point, hwever, is
that such an effort would be quite costly.
As can be seen, the total estimated market value of this agricultural
land is in the neighborhood of 633 million dollars. This amounts tu
an average market value per acre of $5,664.
As mentioned earlicr, possibly revenue bonds couirj he issued by a private
nonprofit corporation to purchase part of this agrIcul tura! land. In
today's market such revenue bonds are issued typical?y for tweoty five
years at 78 interest. Related to this approach, the table below
"-
*1 ~llustrates +he impact on County government of the following scenarios:
. The purchase of 10 million dollars worth of agricultural
land in 1979 at an overall average purchase price of $5,664 per r'cre (the colilputed average). This amounts to
the purchase of 1766 acres of agricultural acres in
production; or 1.6 percent of the total acres in the County.
. It is assumed that the bonds are issued at 7% for twenty
five yezrs. This amounts to an annual debt service of
$558,100.
. Lease rates begin at an annual $150 per acre and are
escalated at 10% per year.
. The financing "scheme" is one in which a nonprof i i . corporation leases to the County of San Diego and in turn
the County sab!eases to the yrowcr-tenant. Any difference
between debt service cost and lease revenue is financed
via the capital iRprovemest budget. The term deficit
refers .to this capital fund figure.
.* c .- h7
1.
.,
TABLE I I
TEN FISCAL IMPACTS OF FINANCING AGRICULTURAL
LAND VIA ACQUlSlTlGN IO YEARS (IN ACTUAL NOMINAL DOLLARS)
- YEAR DEBT SERVICE COST LEASE REVENUE DEFICIT
1 $ 858,100 $ 264,900 $ 593,200
2 858 , 100 251,390 566,710
3 858 , 100 321,412 536,688
4 858 , 100 353,200 504,900
858 , 100
858 , 100
858,100
'8 858,100 515,672 342 , 423
9 858 , 100 568., 652 283,448
- *IO 858 , 100 625,164 - 232,935 .. _L
TOTAL $8 , 58 1 ,000 $4,226,038 $4,354,962
The implication of the data and analysis in this sectjon leads to the
following conclusions:
1. Even under what appears to be the most feasible financial alternative,
the private nonproFit corporation approach, the County of San Diego
could end up "subsidizing" agricultural production.
2. Bearing in mind that the table in this section amounts to less than
a modest 2% purchase of agricultural lands in production, an even
more ambitious approach would naturally incur substantial costs to
County government and would likely cause the elimination of potential
capital improvement projects. In addition, the County would be
eliminating sources of property tax revenue.
3. There is, however, two apparent advantages to such an approach.
. First of all, if the agricultural land is thought of as open space,
then the County's nonprofit corporation could gain functional open
space and unl i ke most open space receive revenue f rorn i t. Secondly,
a substantial profit could pass to the County if future proceeds
from the sale of the agricultural land reverted to the County.
END OF REPORT
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
Exchange
AgricrrltrvalLandsRqject Vd. 1. No. 1 Octobor 1979
Natid Auocirtioa of Counties Reaeueh Foundation. 1731 New York An. N.W. Waahingtoo. D.C. 20008
Building a Community of Interests
AglandsErcnpnqe. the Agricultural Lands with the publication of this first edition of
Pi~]ect ofthe National Association of Counties Research Foundation launches an ambitious
effort to cultivate a broader public awareness of. and to rally support for. the need to conserve farmland in the Unites States.
for the disappearance of farmland prompted the State of Maryland to adopt the first legislation aimed at consenring its agricultural land base. Since 1956. many government ofllcials. institutions and citizens have wrestled with the question of how to slow down the conversion of farmland to non- agricultural uscs. now taking place at the rate of about 3 million acres a year. But it will take the intemted and active tnvolvement of many more people. lf we arc to succeed in solving this very difficult problem. AU of us have a stake in the preservation of farmland-whether it stems from our concern for world hunger. our desire to maintain environmental quality. our responsibility for the emcient management of government or our need to make a living in the agricultural marketplase. Each of us brings to the farmland conservation issue a different perspective. but we are united by a common concern for an irreplaceable natural resource that sus~na all of our interests.
We are a growing "community of tnterests" and must seek to define a consensus on how to address the issue of farmland conservation.
It has been over two decades since concern
Study of Farmland
Conversion Begins
The U.S. Department of Agrtculture and the Council on Environmental Quailty have agreed to cooperate in a major study of farmland conversion. The purposes of this National Agricultural Lands Study are to determine the nature. rate. extent and causes
of the loss of American farmland to non-agricultural uses: to evaluate the economic. environmental and social consequences of this 1- and to recommend administrative and legislative actions. if found necessary. to reduce the loss suffered by the nation as a result. The shady. headed by Robert J. Gray. former Administrative Assistant to Rep. James Jeffords (Vt.). is to be completed and submitted to the President by January 1981. Further information about the National Agricultural Lands Study may be obtained by
' writing Mr. Gray. Councfl on Environmental wity. Room 3020. ~ew Executrve om= Building. Washington. D.C. 20006.
how to expand public understanding. and how to reformulate public policies so as to protect our mutual interest in the agricultural land base. The exchange of Ideas will be vital to this undertaking. Through this newsletter. the Agricultural Lands Project hopes to provlde a medium for the exchange of your ideas about farmland conservation. We intend to include regular features on state and local approaches to farmland conservation. the impacts of government programs and policies on agricultural lands and enterprises. reviews of significant technical and popular publications, editorials
and announcements of coming events. We want to accommodate differing vtewpoints and to enable you to let others know what you or your organization are doing to help conserve farmland. Above all. we want to provide creative thought and to stimulate the kind of communication-among an ever- expanding community of interested ofilcials and citizens-that wUl produce cooperative action to conserve Amedcan farmland. Help us out. won't you? Thanks. and best wishes.
. Edward Thompma Jr. Editor
Advisors Set Direction for
NACoFAgriccultural Project
The Advisory Committe of the NACoRF Agricultural Lands Project held Its initial meeting on September 5 and 6. in Suffolk County. Long Island. New York. site ofthe
first county farmland preservation program in the nation. The members of the committee. formed to give direction to the project staff. participated in three lively discussion sessions and toured local farmlands that have been prmrved largely through the effortsof County Executive John V.N. Klein.
meeting by outllntng the prospects for national farmland preservation legislation that he introduced earlier this year. and which is now pendlng before the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. The legislation would provide funds to counties to demonstrate innovative techniques to preserve fannland and would guarantee that federal agency programs are conducted in a manner consistent with local farmland conservation policies. In explaining the need to conserve our farmland, Rep. Jeffords noted that. in order to help feed itself and an expanding global population. the United States "will have to produce as much food in the next twenty years. as has been grown throughout the world since the beglnning of time." Addressing the central question. "Where are we today on farmland conservation?." the committee generally agreed that. while the loss of thre million acm of farmland each year to non-agricultural wes is a significant national problem. the effects of this trend are today being felt mast strongly at the local community level. As the farms disappear. local agrtcuitural busincsses move away or
U.S. Rep. James JefTo& (VtJ kepoted the
close up. the ccst of providing public semices to wtdely scattered settlement increases. environmental problems become more widespread. open space and the quality of life diminish. and communities are often forced to rely on distant markets for foods once supplied by local farmers.
Hfflenbrand opened the discussion of the Agricultural Lands Project by stressing its goal of building a national "community of interests" or coalition in support of farmland conservation. The pro]ect staffwlsha to serve. and to involve in its action agenda. people and institutions that represent all of the various affinity groups that bring to the issue of farmland conservation their own perspectives. The committee members emphasized the need to Lnvolve farmers. in particular. because they often have the mat to
Sea COMMITTEE. page 2
NACo Executive Director &mard
Suffolk Caunty: Newsbriefs A Farmland Pioneer
From its western boundary. an imaginary line running through the suburbs forty-five minutes from midtown Manhattan. Suffolk County stretches over eighty miles to the easternmost tip of Long Island and is surrounded on three sides by salt water. Its
Committee Holds
Initial Meeting
Conttnued from page X lose as development encroaches into agricultural areas and suburban homeowners start complaining that routine farming operations have become a “nuisance.“ As an introduction to a discuseion of various ways that local government can
by the Suffolk County staff on the history and preserve farmland. the committee was briefed
accomplishments of that county’s pioneering conservation program. The Suffolk program. begun in 1972. relies on the selective purchase of development rights to farmland. after assessments are made and askingprice
bids are voluntarily submitted by landowners. The key to the success of the Suffolk program. said County Executive Klein. was the early participation and interest of the local ag&dtural community and. partlcularly. of John Talmage. whose family has farmed in the county for a century. County officials who took pa-t in the Advisory Committee sessions inciuded: John V.N. Klein. County Executive. Suffolk County, New York. and NACo Director: John Spellman. County Executive. King County. Washington. and NACo Second Vice- Presidenr: Ruth Keeton. County Council Chairperson. Howard County. Maryland. NACo Director and Vice Chairman. NACo Land Use and Growth Management Steering Committee: Lester A. Anderson. Commissioner. Blue Earth County. Minnesota. and NACo Director: and Hugh N. Ford. Planning Dlrector. JefTerson Parish. Louisiana. and President. Natlonal Association of County Planning Directors (NACPD1.
who partlcipated were: Thomas Barlow. Natural Resources Defense Council. Washington, D.C.; Damn Briggs. Office of Environmental Quality. U.S. Department of Agriculture (representing Norman A. Berg. Administrator. U.S. Soil Cowervation Service): Robert J. Gray. Executive Dtrector. National Agricultural Lands Study (Council on Environmental Quality and US. Department of Agriculture): Davtd Lambert. The National Grange. Washington. D.C.; William King. Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture (representing Lieutenant Governor Thomas P. O’Neill 111):
Dr. Phillip Raup. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. University of Minnesota: Don Reeves. Friends Committee on National Legislation. Washington. D.C.. and Chainnan. Agricultural Policy Committee. Inter-religious Task Force on U.S. Food Policy: and John Talmage. farmer and agricultural businessman. Suffolk County.
New York.
Other members of the Advisory Committee
gently rolling hills and sandy loam are the offspring fo the Ice Age. when an advancing glacier scraped the soil from primeval New
shelf. England and deposited it on the continental
European settlement of the county was begun over three centurw ago by pioneer familia attracted to the rich agricultural lands in what is now the county scat of Riverhead near the eastern fork of Long Island. Suffolk remained predominantly rural for a long time thereafter. its economy sustained by agriculture. including the famous Long Island duckling Industry. Fish from the surrounding waters and summer midents of its south shore barrier beaches ais0 contributed theirshare to the well-being of the county. But following World War II things began to change. Rising affluence and the population explcaion conspired to push the sprawling suburbs of New York Clty eastward into the countryside. swallowing Nassau County and encroaching into neighboring Suffolk. By
had trlpled to 600 thousand. and during the 1960. the pre-war population of the county
following fifteen years Suffolk experienced a growth rate five time the national average. reaching 1.3 million permanent residents by 1975.
and industry into the county produced vast The expansion of suburban development
economic benefits and greatly enlarged the tax base. But it also brought problems. not the least of which-it dawned on county officials
foundation ofSuffo1k.s native Industry. its
and local farmers-was the erosion of the
rich agricultural land. The 120 thousand acres of county farmland that existed in 195 3 had by 1972 been reduced to half that amount. chipped away piece by piece while
continued to rank first in New York State in nobocly was paying attention. Still. Suffolk
gross agricultural des. with 570 million generated annuaily. It was not too late to tp to preserve agriculture in the county. County Executive John V.N. Klein recognized the mixed blessings of Suffolks phenomenal growth and understood that preservation of the county’s remaining agricultural land would benefit not only the farm population. but also hissuburban constituents who desired open space. In the spring of 1972, he appointed an Agricultural Advisory Committee whose membership was broadly representative of the farm community in the county. The formation of this committee proved to be a turning point in the history of Suffolk farmland. The committee was charged with the responsibility of identifying the problems that most seriously threatened the agricultural industry in the county, and wtth the task of proposing appropriate solutions. It addressed a variety of issues relevant to the retention of farmland and the viability of agriculture as an enterprise. including County Executive Klein‘s proposal to preserve farmland through the purchase of development rights. Two years after it had first convened. after hours of open debate and deliberation. the committee reported to the Suffolk County Leglslature the outline of a carefully conceived plan of farmland conservation. based on the Klein
proposal. Continued on page 3
Fumlmd. Protection Act
Parallel legislative measures to help conserve American farmland are making
Agfands Exchange gas to press. H.R. 235 1 is
their way through Congress as this issue of
sponsored by Reps. James Jeffords (Vt.) and Richard Nolan (Minn.). S. 795 is sponsored by Sens. Warren Magnuson (Wash.). Pavick Leahy (Vt.) and John Heinz (Pa.). Both bills address the farmland question in three ways: they provide that federal agency programs and actions must be carried out in a manner consistent with local farmland conservation policies: they direct that a study of farmland loss be undertaken: and they authorize “seed money” for state and local governments to demonstrate innovattve farmland conservation approaches.
may be obtained from the congressional dnces of the principal sponsors or from Robert C. Weaver. Associate Director. National Association of Counties. 1735 New York Avenue N. W.. Washington. D.C. 20006.
Further information about this legislation
2021785-9577,
AM fot IdOrmrtiOnl
The Agricultural Lands Project is conducttng a continuing survey of state. county and other local programs aimed at the preservation of farmland. The purpose of the survey is twofold: ( 1) to compile a collectlon of literature describing these programs that will be made available to those who request it. and 12) to help in the analysis of the programs. leir accomplishments and shortcomings. - td their adaptability to the geographic. xonomic and political conditions in other jurtsdictions. We ask those of you who are familiarwith state. county or other local farmland conservation programs to send information describing them (statutes. ordinances. plans and other supporting documentation) to us. c/o Agricultural Lands Project. NACoRF. 1735 New York Avenue. N.W.. Washington. D.C. 20006.
Coming Events
October 14-17 - B8itfmora. Myland - American Planning Association (MA) Annual
Sunday. October 14 will deal wlth Conference. Two sessions on
federal programs -&at influence farmland w and the Maryland state farmland conservation efiort. Information and registration: John
Chcago. IIlinois 60637.312/947-2560. Waxman. MA. 1313 East 60th Street.
November 12-14 - Pullm8n. Washington - Conference on ”Farmland Preservation: The State of the Art.” sponsored by the Washington State University Cooperative Extension and the WSU Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture. Information and registration: Frederick Steiner. Conference Chairman. WSU Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture. Johnson Hall. WSU. Pullman Washington 99164.509i335-2192.
2
Development Rights Key in County
Continued from page 2
program is conceptually simple, but its implementation has required political sophistication and conscientious administration. Its basic approach is to use county funds. derived from the sale of general
of carefully selected parcels of farmland the revenue bonds. to purchase from the owners
right to use the land for purposes other than agriculture. These "development rights" become the property of the county. msferable only by referendum. A Select Committee on the Acquisition of Farmland (many of whose members were on the original Agricultural Advisory Committee) is responsible for the choice of farmland tracts. based on a set of flexible criteria: soil suitability. present land usage. development pressure. the price of the land. and the contiguity of parcels. Relatively large tracts of farmland. situated close to each other so as to form agricultural "cores." have been selected in each of the towns within the county. The price of the development rights is determined on the basis of bids submitted by landowners. and accepted or rejected by the county in an open. formal process. Generally speaking. these bids reflect the difference between the value of the land for development and its value for agricultural use. But the county makes its own appraisai and negotiates with successful bidders on the final price. Nonetheless. the amount received by the landowner represents by far the greater proportion of his total equity in the land.
and they do so voluntarily. without fear of condemnation-retain title to the land. the right to possession. the nght to sell their remaining interest and. of course. the right to continue using the land for agricultural purposes. They are also compensated for their relinquished rights and their property tax assessment is reduced. This combination
The Su&Tolk County farmland preservation
Owners who sell their development rights-
provides the owner with additional working capital-used by some farmers to acquire more land. the development rights to which may in turn be sold -and lowers his operating expenses. making his enterprise more financially secure. Moreover. the dedication of his land to agricultural purposes qualifies the
protection from most "nuisance" complaints farmer under New York State law for
droughty conditions cause dust to be raised
from nearby subdivisions. for example. when
during cultivation. To date. Suffolk County has purchased the
During May and June 1979. the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACDI conducted a swey of the opinions of 2.924
country. When asked. "ThinMng back over local conservation district officials around the
years ahead. how would you rate the the past five years. and looking about five
agrtcultural land conversion problem in your district?." lopercent ofthe 1.901 respondents categorized the problem as "very serious." 31 percent said "serious." 47 percent said "slight." and 12 percent said "no problem."
problem ad serious or very serious. 34 percent called the actions of federal agencies a significant or major cause of farmland conversion. When asked which federal agenda were involved. most respondents mentioned the Farmers Home
Of the disVict officials who listed their
Administration. Federal Highway Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Hfghways were listed as the leading cause of agricultural land conversion. with rural housing and rural sewer and water projects also mentioned frequently.
conclusions. For more information. write: Neil Sampson. Executive Director. NACD. 1025 Vermont Avenue N.W.. Washington. D.C. 20005.
NACD will soon publish its survey data and
"While the farmer holds title to the land. actually, it belongs to all the people because civilization itself rests upon the soil." Thomrs Jefferson
development rights to over 3.200 acres at a total cost of roughly S 10 million. 5 percent of which went for appraisals and administration over a five-year period. That's about S3.000 per acre for some of the richest farmland on Long Island. in the shadow of the megalopolis. John Klein and other county officials think they got a bargain. So. apparently. do the local farmers. who have offered to sell the rights to another 13.000 acres. The Suffolk County Legislature has authorized an additional S 1 1 milllon bond iswe to expand the program.
first county effort of its lund-cannot be
dollars. It seems to have had an encouraging measured simply in terms of acres and
effect on the county's agricultural community. which no longer feels quite as insecure about disappearing suppliers and neighbors who do not appreciate the practical
John Talmage. whose farm has been owned realities and risks of farming. To some. like
and worked by his family for a century. it has demonstrated that county government cams about its native industry and is willing to help ensure its survival. The approach to farmland conservat!on taken by Suffolk County was tailored to its particular geographic. economic and political context. Other counties will want to examine their own situations to determine which techniques will work best for them. There are. however. two fundamental lessons to be drawn from the Suffolk expericnce that apply to all counties. First is the desirability of a strong commitment to a farmland conservation program by the county executive. as in the case of John Klein. whose personal dedication and own mind were
But the SUCCCYI of the Suffolk program-the
largely responsible for thesuccess of the Suffolk program. Second. but hardly less important. is the indfspensabillty of involvtng farmers. and the agrtcultural community as a whole. at the earliest possible stage in the process by which such programs are conceived. adopted and implemented. Farmers have more to gain. or to lose. than any other constituency group from an attempt to preserve farmland and bolster agricultural industry. The county officials and farmers of Suffolk County were pioneers. whose mutual respect and cooperation have proved that it is never too late-or too eariy-to preserve the agricultural hefitage and economy of a community.
For more information about the Suffok program. contact John V.N. Klein. County Executive: Laure Nolan. Intergovernmental Representative. or Diane Anderson. Administrative Aide at the following addrese:
suffouc County Executive omces Veterans Memorlal Highway Hauppauge. New York 11787 5 16/979-2956
Publications Update -
CEALLENGE
and the agricultural 'establishment.' brcn "Never has the consemation community.
caught so thoroughly out of position as it has
on the agricultural land issue. After decades of agricultural surpluses which exist to this very day. it is perhaps understandable that policy leaders would for a time either misconstrue or ignore both the statistics and on-the-ground evidence that pertain to the loss of agricultural land to urban development. But sooner or later. conservationists and agriculturists will have to face up to the fact that they have an issue in common." - Chuler E. Little American Land Forom
Report. Sprlng 1979. from which the foregoing was excerpted. may be obtained by
Copies of the Arnertcan Land Fom
writing the ALF at 1025 Vermont Avenue N.W.. Room 1105. Washington. D.C. 20005. The cost is S6 per copy. S3 each for orders of
10 or more (64 pages).
Preserving t&e Economic Ban
"Fanning is often a critical element in the local economy. Since farming is almost always an exporter of goods and an importer of income. the returns to the community are substantial. Yet the effects of the agricultural land base extend throughout the community Farming supports a varlety of other businesses. such as grocery. drug and
migrant workers. hired hands. food hardware stores and other retail enterprises.
processing plants and the like. But it is a symbiotic relationship -the farms need the support businesses and the support busincsaes need the farms. If the farms disappear. the support businesses will also
disappear. Thus. by preserving the farms.
and character of their local agricultural communitiesare also protecting the quality
economic base."
- Willl.m Toner. Saving Fannr cmd Farmland. A Community Guidk American Society of PI- Offici& (nor the Americur Phmhg boociation). Report No. 333 (1978).
Brochure Anilrble
The NACoRF Agricultural Lands Project
has published a brochure that outlines the objectives and services of the project. and contains a discussion of the dimensions of the
from the Agricultural Lands Project. farmland loss problem. Copies are available
NACoRF. 1735 New York Avenue N.W.. Washington. D.C. 20006.
National Aseociation of Counties Research Foundation
1735 New York Avenue. N.W. Washington. D.C. 20006
NONPROFIT
US. POSTAGE
PAID Washington. D.C. 20006
Permit No. 41968
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
" " - ~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~
Exchange
Agricultural Lands Project December 1979 Vol. 1 No. 2
National Aeaociation of Counties Research Foundation, 1735 New York Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006
House Panel
By a vote of 26- 13. the House Agriculture Committee on November 8 approved the Agricultural Land Protection Act. H.R. 255 1, with the recommendation that it be enacted
by Congress. Sponsored by Rep. James M. Jeffords (R-Vt.), the bill provides $60 million over a four-year period to be distributed to states and local governments for the purpose of testing new approaches to farmland preservation. It further authorizes a comprehensive study of state and local farmland preservation programs. including those developed under the demonstration grants provision, so that additional states and local governments will benefit from the test results. The bill received strong bipartisan support
from Rep. Richard Nolan-ID-Minn.) and was shepherded through the committee by Chairman Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.). A move by Rep. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) to strike the grant provision from H.R. 2551
failed by a wide margin, but the committee did remove from the original bill a section that would have required federal agencies to notify state and local governments of pending federal actions that could result in farmland conversion.
In a press conference following the
King County Votes
Farmland Bonds
In the November general election. the voters of King County (Seattle). Washington. overwhelmingly approved, by a 63 percent margin, a referendum authorizing a $50 million bond issue to be used for farmland preservation. Sponsored by King County Executive John Spellman, the measure. known as Proposition 3 on the ballot. enables the county to purchase development rights to selected prime agricultural land that
otherwise would be converted to nonagricultural uses. Development rights. as the term implies, consists of the right to use property for purposes other than agriculture. The King County farmland preservation program is patterned after that pioneered by Suffolk County, New York. (See Aglands Exchange. October 1979.) During the past several decades, King County experienced the loss of about half its farmland to development. Spellman and other civic and government leaders became concerned about the potential loss of farm income and jobs. as well as the disappearance of open space. The farmland bond issue was
first put on the ballot in November 1978, when it failed by only one-fifth of 1 percent to see LAND, page 3
Votes Farmland Measure
committee action, Rep. Jeffords said, "The legislation is modest by most traditional measures: it calls for the expenditure of a very small amount of federal money, and it doesn't give the federal government any new controls over our our lives. By addressing the (farmland preservation) issue now. we can afford to proceed modestly. In the long run. this bill represents one of the most significant issues facing the 96th Congress." The Committee Report on H.R. 2551 emphasized that the bill is specifically designed to safeguard the traditional rights and responsibilities of states and local governments with respect ot making land use
decisions, containing language to prevent federal restrictions on land and infringement of state and local powers. The philosophy of the bill is to expand the number of different techniques that state and local governments may use to preserve farmland, so that the chances are improved that at least one new approach will be applicable to any given locality. Floor action on H.R. 2551 is expected within the coming months. A companion bill,
S. 795, sponsored by Sen. Warren G. Magnuson (D-Wash.), is pending before the Senate Agriculture Committee. (See voting list on page 3.)
Wisconsin Curbs Agland Loss
Two years after its inception, the statewide farmland preservation program in Wisconsin is showing impressive signs of success in curtailing the disappearance of agricultural land. Inspired by the preservation efforts of Columbia and Walworth counties, the Wisconsin program combines exclusive agricultural zoning established and administered at the county level, with state income tax credits for farmers who meet eligibility requirements. This approach to halting farmland loss is an outstanding example of the effectiveness of a creative partnership between state and county governments.
Wisconsin has experienced over three decades of rapid economic and population growth. Many of the houses, businesses and industries built to accommodate this growth
have been located willy-nilly in the open countryside, creating "urban sprawl" and causing problems for the agricultural community.
One of the leading dairy states in the nation.
Professor Richard Barrows of the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Wisconsin described these problems: "The spread of development into
rural areas causes tax increases and land use conflicts. ... Farm property taxes increase because assessments increase rapidly.
reflecting the higher market value of the land; tax levies increase because of the need to provide more (and different) public services to the new residences and businesses. There may be problems of trespass and crop damage from nonfarm residents. Idle lands held by speculators may be a source of spreading noxious weeds. Farmers may be subjected to social and sometimes legal pressures to change certain farm operations such as manure spreading, night plowing or feedlot location. The size of farm operations may be restricted by the inability to buy or rent land in the developing area. Finally, as more and
more farmers move out of the area, businesses such as creameries and feed mills See COUNTYISTATE, page 3
A
The Use of ‘God’s Gift to People’
A Quaker Farmer’s Response to Pope John Paul I1
by Don Reeves *
During his recent visit to the United States. Pope John Paul I1 chose his appearance in Iowa to address issues of land use. stressing both that which God has given and that which man must do.
“The-land is God’s gift ... given by a loving Creator as a means of sustaining the life which he had created. But the land is not
only God’s gift; it is also man’s responsibility. Man, himself created from the dust of the earth, was made its master. In order to bring forth fruit, the land would depend upon the genius and skillfulness. the sweat and the toil of the people to whom God would entrust it. Thus, the food which would sustain life on earth is willed by God to be both that “which earth has given and human hands have made.”
John Paul I1 suggested three appropriate responses from farmers and other rural people.
In the first place: Gratitude. Recall the
words of Jesus-words of gratitude to His heavenly father, “Father. Lord of heaven
and earth, to you I offer praise.”Let this be your attitude as well.
All of us, of whatever faith or none, who would make judgments about the use of land ought to be humbled regularly. We may receive life from the earth, we may nurture life or destroy it, but we are unable to create it.
Secondly, the land must be conserved with care since it is intended to be fruitful for generation upon generation. ... You are stewards of some of the most important resources God has given to the world. Therefore, conserve the land well, SO that your children’s children and generations after them will inherit an even richer land than was entrusted to you.
The principle of stewardship as care for the quality of farmland is wideljrunderstood and accepted. Unfortunately, our practice of soil and water conservation often falls quite short of our understanding. Further, our choices in the use of land are an aspect of stewardship. As careful stewards, we will choose to preserve our agricultural land, being more cautious about diverting farmland to other uses, and exercising greater care to prevent permanent despoiling of land. In both these regards, stewardship as making land productive is often confused with making the use of land profitable. History, as well as divinity, will probably
Agriculture Developing Policies
tomeserve me Farmland
by Norman A. Berg Administrator, Soil Conservation Service The United States is a big country of well over two billion acres, but only 15 percent of this land can scientifically be described as prime farmland. “Prime farmland” is defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDAI as land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for
producing food, feed, fiber, forage and oil seed crops with the least expenditure of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides and other production costs. It is also the land least subject to erosion and, therfore, capable of sustaining production for future generations.
Use of Prime Farmland, 1977
(millions) Use Acres Percent
Cropland 23 1 67
Forest 42 12
Pasture 39 11
Range 23 7
Other * 11 3
*Does not include urban and other built-
up areas.
Source: SCS Natural Reoource Inrentorleo (1977)
2
Prime farmland is a vital but limited natural resource. Most of it lies in a broad belt reaching from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. The Corn Belt region has 20 percent of the total, followed by the Northern and Southern Plains with 19 and 18 percent respectively. Of the 115 million acres of prime farmland not now in cropland (Table], USDA estimated that only 54 million (45 percent)
could be shifted into crop production. Between 1967 and 1977, over one-third of the
29 million rural acres converted to urban and water uses was prime farmland. (SCS. 1977). Consistent with the rights and responsibilities of private landowners, and the primary role of state and local governments in making and implementing land use policy, the USDA aduocates the retentfon of prime farmland whenever proposed conversions are: caused or encouraged by actions or programs of a federal agency, licensed or required approval by a federal agency. or are inconsistent with state and local government plans. The Secretary of Agriculture has asked each division within the USDA to change its policies and procedures whenever necessary to make them consistent with the above policy. Each division reported to the Secretary on its program on Dec. 7, 1979.
USDA welcomes your suggestions as to how its programs and policies can be modified to accomplish the retention of prime farmland.
judge harshly land use decisions made solely on the basis of short-term private gain, and those public policies which permit or encourage such practices.
In the third place. I want to speak about generosity. ... Recall the time when Jesus saw the hungry crowd gathered on the hillside. What was His response? ... “Give them something to eat yourselves.” Did He
not intend those same words for us today. for us who live at the closing of the 20th century. for us who have the means available to feed
the hungry of the world.?
Although 1979 grain production in the United States set a new record. both US. and world grain supplies are expected to decline in the coming year. In spite of our large exports and modest food donations abroad. some five hundred million people are chronically undernourished. Yet we continue to convert land to urban and industrial purposes, “using up” two to three times as much land per capita as most other nations.
“development.” we should at least proceed very cautiously in permitting prime farmland to be taken.
turned his remarks toward the human impact:
rfwe really need that much land for
At the end of his address, John Paul I1
Above all. bring your families (to the altar) and dedicate them anew to Christ, so that they may continue to be the working, living and loving community where nature
is revered, where human burdens are shared and where the Lord is praised in gratitude.
Sustainable, productive uses of land are probably inseparable from stable, viable communities. “Community sustainability” surely includes at least two elements: relatively widespread ownership of each community’s resources especially land, and widespread participation in making community decision.
and a challenge to all of use: to help set policies which guide the most fruitful use of community resources, especially our farmland, in ways to meet human need, on sustainable basis.
Pope John Paul’s comments offer both hope
*Don and Barbara Reeves are the senior partners in a two-family livestock and grain farm at Central City, Nebraska. Don has spent most of the past three years in Washington. D.C., working on farm and food issues with the Friends Committee on National Legislation. He also serves as chair of the Agriculture Policy Work Group of the Inter- religious Task Force on US. Food Policy. and
is a member of the Agricultural Lands Project Advisory Committee.
Statelcounty Partnership USuccess
Continued from page 1 may be forced out of business. Gradually. the
area changes from a rural farm environment and lifestyle to one dominated by the interests and lifestyle of exurban commuters.” Adopted in 1977, the Wisconsin Farmland Preservation Act is designed to protect farmers by giving the responsibility for such protection to local citizens and their elected officials. Its approach is to provide incentives
for both farmers and county governments to take the matter of farmland preservation into their own hands, using the tools of planning and zoning.
THE PRINCIPLE incentive for farmers is a state tax credit of up to $4.200 annually. As farm income increases, the amount of the tax credit for which he may qualify decreases. so that the credit serves as a kind of “insurance policy” against crop failure and other factors that might otherwise economically cripple farm families. Unlike the property tax breaks offered farmers by some states in an effort to preserve agricultural land, the Wisconsin state income tax credit does not diminish local tax revenues, making it attractive to counties. Until 1982-the end of Phase I, and the beginning of Phase I1 of the Wisconsin
program-farmers may qualify for the state income tax credit in two ways. (They may also qualify for protection from special tax
assessments levied to fund public services
demanded by suburbanites, as an additional incentive.) First, farmers may qualify by signing a contract with the state, agreeing to forego development of their farmland for purposes other than agriculture: these contracts expire in 1982. Second, farmers are automatically eligible for the tax credit if their county adopts an agricultural zoning ordinance that meets the criteria under the Farmland Preservation Act. Once Phase II of the Wisconsin program begins in 1982. the eligibility of farmers for the state income tax credit will come to depend solely on whether their county takes action to preserve farmland. In rural counties, local government may adopt either a
farmland preservation plan setting forth goals and policies, or a zoning ordinance which creates an exclusive agricultural zone
wherein the best soils cannot be developed for nonagricultural purposes. Counties that are more urbanized, with
a population of 75,000 or more, are required to adopt an exclusive agricultural zoning
ordinance if their farm constituents are to qualify for continued tax credits. In either case. counties are given rather broad discretion in their choice of the type of
ordinance which will best suit their needs and realize their farmland preservation objectives. Adoption of county farmland preservation plans and ordinances is not compelled by the
Land Preservation Bonds Are Passed
Continued from page 1 get the 60 percent approval required by law. A second effort to pass the referendum failed in this year’s primary election because, although it received 77 percent of the vote, the turnout was insufficient. Convinced that there was substantial support for farmland preservation, Spellman persuaded the King County Council to put the proposition on the ballot again in the general election, when it finally passed. “The approval of Proposition 3 is a landmark in agricultural land preservation in the United
“This demonstration of public support.” he continued, “underscores the importance of preserving our remaining agricultural lands. It should have a profound impact on pending federal legislation that would assist other counties in achieving this goal.” Along with the agricultural land preservation measure, the King County electorate also approved a number of Proposition 13-type tax limitations. Political observers in the county noted that this result casts the success of the $50 million bond issue in an even more favorable light-proving
States,” said Spellman. “It marks the first that the voters are willing to spend tax dollars
time the electorate has voted to reach into for farmland preservation even in a time of
its own pocketbook to preserve farmland.” economic caution.
HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE VOTE ON H.R. 259 1
AYES Democrats
Foley (Wash.) Jones (N.C.)
Jones (Tenn.) Mathis (Ga.) Brown (Calif.) Richmond (N.Y.) Nolan (Minn.) Weaver (Ore.) Baldus (Wis.)
Harkin (Iowa) Bedell (Iowa) English (Okla.) Skelton (Mo.) Glickman (Kan.) Akaka (Hawaii) Whitley (N.C.) Coelho (Calif.) Daschle (S.D.)
Republicans
Wampler (Va.) Heckler (Mass.) Sebelius (Kan.) Jeffords (Vt.) Findley (111.) Coleman (Mo.) Madigan (Ill.) Thomas (Calif.)
NAYS Democrats
Bowen (Miss.) Hance (Texas) Fithian (Ind.) Anthony (Ark.) Panetta (Calif.) Stenholm (Texas) Huckaby (La.)
Republicans
Symms (Idaho) Hagedorn (Minn.)
Kelly (Fla.) Marlenee (Mont.)
Grassley (Iowa) Hopkins (Ky.)
Not Voting
de la Garza (D-Texas) Rose (D-N.C.) Johnson (R-Colo.)
state statute. But unless county government acts by 1982, farmers may no longer qualify for the state income tax credit simply by signing a contract with the state and, indeed, must pay back all or part of the credits they have received. If county government does act, the amount of tax credit for which farmers may qualify doubles. This provision of the Wisonsin law gives county officials a powerful incentive to preserve local farmland-namely,
the continued political support of their farm constituents.
But Wisconsin does not thus encourage counties to preserve farmland and then simply ignore them. To assist local government in what is not only a political but also a highly technical task-involving soil mapping, selecting farmland for preservation and drafting ordinances-the state provides funds to counties for farmland preservation planning. To date, $800.000 has been distributed among Wisconsin’s counties for
this purpose, with another $310,000 earmarked for assistance through the end of 1979. Financial assistance for county planning has also proved to be an incentive for counties to act.
What about those signs of success? As of June 30.1979. approximately 9,400 farmers
have become eligible for state income tax credits, either through contracts or because their counties have adopted agricultural zoning ordinances. More than 1.9 million acres of Wisconsin farmland have thereby been protected from sprawl development.
with a total of $4.1 million in income tax breaks through the program. That breaks down to an average credit of $ 1,112 to approximately 3.057 participating farmers. Forty-seven of Wisconsin’s counties (65 percent) have either completed or are now preparing farmland preservation plans and ordinances. Asa result of this positive action by local government, 14.9 million acres of agricultural land will eventually be preserved.
counties with farmland preservation stands in sharp contrast to that of many other states. Within a relatively short period of time, and with the expenditure of a modest sum of money. Wisconsin has given farmers a reason to stay on the land, encouraging them to participate in its farmland preservation program at a rate many times greater than in other states. Wisconsin officials are guardedly optimistic about the success of their program. PamelaG. Wiley, assistant director of the program, says. “What we’re counting on and what we’re seeing is an educational process.” The program. she says, is encouraging farmers to stick together to resist development pressure.
J. Gray. executive director of the National Agricultural Lands Study, has called the Wisconsin partnership effort. combining state tax credits with local agricultural zoning. “perhaps the most effective” program in the nation. For additional information contact: James
A. Johnson, Director, Farmland Preservation Unit, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, 801 West Badger Road, P.O. Box 89 1 1, Madison. WiS..
The state has credited its qualified farmers
The experience of Wisconsin and its
Others are even more enthusiastic. Robert
6081266- 172 1. 3
Feds Need Farmland Criteria “Although the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act, an August 1976 statement by the Council on Environmental Quality. and (the USDA) current land use policy all call for federal agencies to consider prime farmland in planning and approving projects. GAO’s review of environmental impact statements and other environmental review documents for 25 projects of five federal agencies indicated that preserving prime and other farmland was given little consideration or low priority and was usually outweighed by other interests ... No uniform criteria exist to help federal agencies evaluate the impact of losing prime and other farmland and to balance this loss against other national interests.” ”Preserving America’s Farmland A Goal the Federal Government Should Support, US. General Accounting Office Report to
Congress, September 20,1979 (Order No. CED-79-109). Available from the GAO, Washington, D.C. 20548 (72 pages)
Effects of Rural Population Growth “The large-scale social and economic
transition from an overwhelmingly agrarian nation 200 years ago to a megalopolitan superpower in the 20th century has
constituted the thematic thrust of [US,] migration and population distribution. \But] a new prospect for population redistribution began to emerge In the early 19709 ...
nonmetropolitan areas were. for perhaps the first time in our history, growing faster than metropolitan areas. “Many nonmetropolitan counties are where their big city cousins were at the end of World War 11: on the point of vast and irreversible
change.” -Growth and Change in Rue1 America.
G.B. Fuguitt. P.R. Voss and J.C. Doherty
[ 1979). Available from the Urban Land Institute. 1200 18th Street N.W.. Washington. D.C. 20036. Price $13. (101
pages)
Brochure Available The NACoRF Agricultural Lands Project has published a brochure that outlines the objectives and services of the project, and contains a discussion of the dimensions of the farmland loss problem. Copies are available from the Agricultural Lands Project, NACoRF, 1735 New York Avenue N.W..
Washington, D.C. 20006.
National Assodation of Counties
Research Foundation
1735 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington. D.C. 20006
NONPROFIT
US. POSTAGE
PAID
Washington, D.C. 20006
Permit No. 41968
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
me 15 DEPARTMENT .OF AGRICULTURE
.
B. Agricultural Preaenration District E8tablishmnt- kdw. (1) Referrad vf Petition.
(a) Upon rureipt of u petition to establish an agricul-
td pmssrwtion district, the lnccrl gowrning body ahull mer the petition and accompanying materiala to both the cwricdturd pmw~tian adviamy bawd and to the county pfanning and mnh My. (6) Withie 80 doyt uf the nfird of Q petitinn, the wricultural mmwvation adviaoy bwrd shall inbrrn the
county aoudmh body whether the hnd in the ptvymmd dhhicc mOd8 thr qudificotinru eatdlirhrd by the Fnun&- twn under Crc. kbw, and whether ihe a&- board rue ommcnl establishment of tht district. tc) Within 80 days of the mfirrul of a ptticion. the
county planning and zoning body shall infbrm the ld gmwning body whether rrstablishmcnt of the district is
comptibis with aM;ing and approuid county plans. pro- gram. and owdi count-y policy. and whether the planniw a4d mniw body recommends ustabiiohment of the &strict. In the gmar of rsuisw, the local ptcrnnrng andzoning body dhU conaider compatibility of datri& establishment with State and lml plaw and progrw.
' (9) If either the crgricultwal pmmrvation advisorj, bard or thr planning and zoning body rrcornmcndr tap- prwal, the county governing body shall hold a public haw ing on :ha pctitien. Adequate notice ofthe hearing #hall be given Lo df iandownrrs in the pmposed dish:, to landown- em at$axntto the prvpnsed district, QI fw 01 fhible, and
(0 the Foundation. If neither body recommends approval of the petition, the bl perning body shall dercy the petition and not& the bndowner or iandtnunera and the Founda- tion, stating the mons for the cknaal. (S) Approud of Petition. (a) Within 120 days alter the recsipt of the ptition, tht county governing body shall rendw'tt derision on whether the petition rho8 be rrrcommended to thr Founda- tion fbr appmml. (SI If the county governing bwly &ides k, morn- mend approwt,of the petition, thu body shall 80 notify the Foundation and firwad to the Foundation the won and all accomponylng materials, including thr mommendo- tiona of the advisoy bvard and coun~y planning and wning body, and u compmitt pmperty boundary map of the pro- pod district.
(c) If the gowrning body nmmmnda &nM ofthe petition, it shall w inform the Foundation ond the pr- t2ioner or ptitionern, rtating thc rrplon8 fi thir dmicrl.
(4) The Foundation may appnm Q prtitiirn for the ea- aoblithrnent of an a@cuitud prcse&tion dirtrict only if: (al The land within the propcvcd district mcctd the
prrcrllfyitq eritcria utaWhed under #6, &hw;
. (&I Approwl of the petition han &en mmmended by the county gcrwrning body: and (c) Ertabliahmnt of the diotrict ir approved by a tnqjorit-y of the Foundation Board ,of Trustee8 &-large, the Suemtnry, and by the State Tnosunr. (6) The Founddon shall render it8 deciaion an a peti- tion to ntablhh agricultd pnestrwtion distriet within
60 daw of the rcnript of the petition, and shalt inform the
county gorrorning body and tk petitioner or petitionern of itn decision.
.-
Lau
-3-
Id 1 he county goucming body or the Foundation
may reuiew the me of fund within the diskict; Ib) The Foundation may approue alteration or abolishment of the district, if the Jbllowing occur: (i) The use of land within the district har ao
crhcznged a to cawe land within the diatriet to fail to mett
the qwlifiationn under W; (iil The Pounhtwn kaa asstaxed the potential im- pucta ofultemtiun on nmainiw lands in the &strict; (iiU The afterntion or abolition of the district haa beat noommed.d by the county governing body a&r re-
view by the agricultural preservation advisory kcrd and corn@ planning and zoning body, and a pubik hsorrng hcu
bn held; cmd (iv) The alteration or abolition ir appmwd a
majority of the Foundation Board of Trustee# at-large,~by the Secretary, and by the State Trcaaurer.
G. Continuation of Districts. Agricultud dirtrick #hall continue in efit indefinitely unless &rm&patcd in accord with my of the procrrdum pmvidrd in $E, abou6.
.QI Eorenmb. A. Applicution to Sell Davelopmrni Righta h!asemcnt. An owner of agricultural land located within an agricdtuml
'preservation district established under thew regulations may offir. by written application, to sell to &he Foundation
an tawmetat on the cntin mntigww acreage of tht agricd- turd land less 1 acre per exirting dwelling lncated on the 8ubject property. An application to sell may bt submintd at uny iima taper agricultud preservation district ertabtuh- mant. B. 'Rsquinmenta fbr Applicatwn to SeU. fl) To k conridered by the Foundation, an upplhtion
la) Be nniwd by the Board of Trvtecs not later than July 31 of tiu fiscal par in which the applicatiorr io to be consibred; fbl lndude an usking price jbr which the wner is willing to ad1 an Corrment and:
(C) Include a complete de$cription of the subject land (if M changea in drrrcriptbn haw oqtrred ab the eatu& lishmnt of the district, the same submitted description will met thls nqcuremmt). .
61 scu aha(1:
1. Atucgt
Proparty Dncrlwlcm APvrrlmI (tf ciw tn rppucarim)
C. Basis fw Offer to Sell. The basis for estimating the fair market and agricultural use values for an offer to sell an easement may be the landowner's es- timate of value or a land appraisal by the land- owner.
D. Notice to Landowner of Receipt and Suficiency of Application to Sell. Within 30 &ys afker the receipt of an application, the Foundation shall notify the landowner of the receipt and sufficiency of the application. If the original application is insufficient, the Foundation shall specifi the reason for insuffiiency and the Foundation shall grant an additional 30 days for the landowner to remedy the insuficiency. If the application is made sufficient wcthin 30
days of the notifmation by the Foundation, the application shall be considered as if it had originally &en submitted in a timely and suficient manner. E. Approval or Disapproval of Application by County Gowrning Body. Within 30 days afrer the receipt of an ap plicatwn to sell, the Founriation shall notify the governing
body of the county containing the subject land that an ap plication to sell has been receited. Within 90 days of the
notification, the county gouerning body shall advise tk Foundation as to local approval or disapproval of the appli- cation. In deciding whether to approve the application, thil county governing body shall receiue the mcommendation of the county agricultural preservation advisory board. In makin# LLS recommendation, the county agricultural preser- uatwn advisory hoard shall take into consideration criteria and Ytundards adopted by the Foundcrtion under current local regulations. local patterns of land dewlopment, and any locatly established priorities for the presematwn of ag- ricultural land. The county agricultural preservation advi- sory board shall provide a public hearing concerning any applicution to sell if a hearing is requested by a majority of the county agricultural preseruation advisory board, or by a majority of the county governing body, or by the applicant. The Board of Trustees of the Founbtion may not approve an applicatwn to sell which has not been approved by the governing body of the county cuntaining the subject land. F. Value of' Easement. (I) The maximum value of any easement to be pur- chased shall be the asking price, or the difference between the fair market value of the land and the agricultural value of the land, whichecer is lower. (2) The maximum value of an eusement is determined
at the tin= of receipt by the Foundation of an application to sell from the kandoccner. The marimurn value shall be de- termined by the Foundation based on one or mom apprais- als by the State appraisers. und on appruiscls, if any. by tke landowner. Appraisals upplicable to an application to sell shall be received by the Foundation within 60 days of the application. (3) If the landowner and Foundation do not agree on the value of the easement as determined by a State ap- praisal, either the landowner or the Foundation may re-
quest that the matter be referred to the county board of re- view as established under Artirle 81. 11248, Annotated Code
of Maryland, for arbitration as to the value of the ea~etnent. The value determined b.y that arbitmtion shall be binding upn the otuncr and the Foundation in a purchase of the rcrvemant made afrer the arbitration, for n period of 2 years. unless the lan&wner and the Foundation agree upon a less-
er due or the iartdowner appeals the results of the arbi- tration to the cirruit court ofthe county in which the land is located. The lurtdowner may refuse any ofrer to buy.
(4) The fair market value of the land is the price as of the valuation date for the highest and best use ofthe prop- erty which a vendor, willing but not obligated to sell, would mept for the property, and which a purchaser, willing but not obligated to buy. would pay for the property if the prop-
erty was not subject to any restriction imposed under those regulntions. (5) The agricultuml, value of land is the price as ofthe valuation date which a wnrlor. willing but not obligated to sell, would accept fbr the property, and which a purchaser, willing but not obligated to buy, would pay for the property as a firrm unit. to be used for agricultural purposes.'
G. Determination by Foundation of Applications to be Approved. In determining which applications to approue fbr the purchase of the easements ofled. the Foundation shall:
(1) Appmue only those applications in which the sub- ject Land meets the qualihing criteria of Regulation .OK!,
&w, on lands which a.re currently within an agricultural preservation district.
h
(21 ,~pprotw ap$ications for the sale'ijeasements 6n
and in any one county under general allotted purchases in hxending order with respect to the proportion obtained by fiuding the fair market value less the agricultural value. '
!~sY- tb asking price by the fair market value less 'the ag- rkubural value. If proportions obtained am equai, the fd-
!owing land characteristics ahdl u&ct priority of acguisi-
tiom: highest pra[uctiue capability, greatest urban pres-
sum, and largest parcel.
(3) Approve only those appZicationa which how rc' ceiued approval ofthe applicable 14 gtmerning body. H. Tender of Offer to Buy Afier Approval ofdpplication. Upon approval of a majority ofthe Board members at-large, and upn the mmmendation of the Sta& TWurer and the secretcuy, an application b sell ahall be approved, and
an offer to buy which contains the specifi terms of the pur- chase aha0 be ten- to the landowner. An fir to buy nay specify terms, contingencies, and conditions not eontuined in the original application.
. I. Time of Tender: Acceptance or Rejection.
, .(l) With respect to allotted pwchases, the Foundbtwn shall tender any offer t9 buy containing the specific terms of
the purrhose an or before January 31 of the fiml yew in which the pudase is to be made. (2) 'With mpect to additionai offers to buy tendered, tlte Foundatwn..may mt tender these ofem earlier than 'April I or ia#r than May 29 of the fiscal year in which the purchase is to be made. (3) A landowner has 30 days mm the date of any offer to buy in which to accept or mject the offer.
./ (I! At the time of settlement of the purchase of, an easement, the landowner and the foundntion may agree
upon and establish a schedule of payment suck that the landowner may receive consideration for tire easement in a lump sum. or in installments over a period of up to 10 years fmm the date of settlement: (2) If a schedule of installments is agreed upon, the Comptrolier shall retain in the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Fund an amount of tnnney sufficient to pay the lrnduwner according to the schedule. (3) The hdowner shail receive annuniiy interest on any unpaid hrrlance remaining afier the date of settiement. This interest shall he at the same rate as any interest-wrned on the finds retained pursuant to W(2), abduZ Cess 'Ib of 1
percent.
J. Schedule of Payment.
K. Notice of Rejection of Application: Reapplication.
(1) On or before June 30, the Foundation shall noti& every iandowner whose application had been rejected dur-
ing that fiscal year. The Foundation shali specify the reasons for that rejection.
(2) A (andowner whose application has been qjected fir a reason other then insuBient Foundation funds my not re-apply to sell an easement on the same land on the same term until 2 years afler.the dare ofthe original appli- ciation. L. Use of land OR Which Easement Purchaaed. (I) Provisions to be Included in Easement and County Reguiatwns. Agricultural land preservation easementsmay
be purchased for land In agricultural u80 which wets the qualifying criteria established under Regulation .&X if th easement and county nrgulatwns governing the use of the hnd inciude the following provisions:
(a) Any agriclrlturol use of ?ad is pemirtrd; (bl Operation of machinery wd in form production or the processing of agricuitural prod~c~q is perntitttd.
(c) Normal ugricultural opemtions ptrtkmed in QC- cordance with good husbandry practices, whkh do not cause bodily injury or directly endcrnger hunicrn kdh, am permitted, including sale of firm prodwt~ produced on the firm where the sales are made. (2) Dwellings. The wsement shall provide that sub- division fir residential and cornme& purposes is permitted. ~oweucr, upon written applicution to the Foun- dation. amveyance of1 acre or less for the owner who origi- nally sold an easement to the Foundation and f6r each of his children for the purpose of construction of one dwelling house intended for his or their we shall be permitted one time only for that owner and each child, and doas not constitute a residential subdivision for commrrcial pur- pses. The owner also may construct housing for tenants filly engaged in owration ofthe firm, but this construction
may not exceed one knant house per 100 acms. (3) Public Not to Be Granted Right of Access DT of Use. Purchase of an easement by the Foundation docs not granf the public any right of uccess or right of use ofthe subjecb
PrnPPtY . (4) Other Restrictions. qthr deed mtrictioru shall be substantially in @card wctk those provided in thr
sample deea form, Repulatron .OIN. M. Termination ojEasoment.
* (1) Intent. Eaements purchased shall be held by th Foundation for as long os profituble brming is feasible 0; the land under easerncnt, and an easement may be tenni
nated only in the manner specified in this stctwn. (21 Request for Review. The landowner may reque:
that the easement be reuiewed for possible termination of th easement, at any lime riper 25 years fmm the date of puq chase of the easement. (3) Inquiry and Decision. (a) Upon a request for nview of an easement fi termination, an inquiry shall be conducted by the Found tbn to determine the feaqibility of pmfitubk farming on ti subject land. (b) The inquiry shalt be concluded and a decisi~ reached by the Foundation within 180 days *er the requt
for termination. curd shall inch& on-rite inspection of t, subject land, a pubiic hearing conducted by the Founddl within the county cwrtaining the subject land afler adrqur public notice, and a report documenting tho findings oft Foundatian. (4) Appro& by County Gouerning Body. An easemg may be terminated only with the upprovat of &he gowrni
body of the county containing the subject land. in drcidi whether to appmw the request far termination, the mu9 gouerning body shall receive the recommendation of i county agricuttwul preservation advisvry board. The dr
swn of the coturty governing body shall be ma& aflm public heuring required in SMt3). above. The county g erning body shall notify the Foundition of it.$ &cis: within 30 daya aAer the concluaion of the hearing roq~& in OAd13). abuw.
(51 Approval by Foundation, Secretary, and St Treasurer. Upontheaflrmatiue uoteofa majorityofthcFor dation members at-large, and upon the approval of the E
retar?, and the State Treasurer, the request for terminat shall he approved, and the landowner shall be notified.
-\
(2) Maximum Amount to be Expended for Allotted Purchases.
(a) Beginning with fiscai year 1979, and in each fis-
cal year after, the Foundation shall determine the mtuimurn amount which my be expended for allotted pur- chases of easements on land located within each c0unt.y. (b) The maximum amount which may be expended for allotted purchase8 of easements in any county in any fis- cal year shall be: ti) An amount. to be used for general allotted pur- chases. equal to 1/23 of 112 ofthe total amount to be alioted plw any amount of transferred local open space funds des- ignated by the local gouerning body for general purchases.
(id An amount, to be used for matching allotted purchases, which shall be computed for each eligible county by dividing ‘h of the total amount to be allotted equally among those counties having an approued local matching program. The maximum amount auaihble /?om the Found-
ation for the Foundation’s share in matching allotted pur-
chases may not exceed $1 million in any county in any fiscal
year. (iii) Matching allotted purchas& may not be ap- prod for land located in any county which has not secured appmual Fom the Foundation for a local matching program of agricultural land preseivation in accord with Regulation
.06. (3) Money Remaining at End of Fiscal Year. Money remaining in the Fund at the end of a fiscal year may not revert to the general funds of the State, but shall remain in the Maryland Agricultural Land Preseruation Fund to be used for the purposes specified in this subtitk. it is the intent that, to the extent feasible, the Foundation use the fill amount of money amilable for the purchase of easements in any fiscal year so as to minimize the amount of money re- maining in the Fund at the end of any fiscal year.
(4) Additional Offers to Buy. (a) If the Foundation receives acceptances of offirs to buy in insufficient numbers to expend the total iZm.OURt to be allotted for allotted purchases, the Foundation, to the extent fewible, shall tender additional offers to buy in sufficient numbers to expend the total amount to be allotted. (6) Additional offers to buy shall be tendered: (i) To landowners who have applied to sell ease-
ments on land which was otherwise acceptable, but who had not received an offer to buy solely bemuse of limitations on the amount of money to be spent for allotted purchases. (ii) To applicanb on a statewide basis in decreas- ing order with respect to the proportion obtained by divid- ing the fair market value less the agricultural value less the asking price by the fair market value less the agricuitural value. if proportions obtained are equal, the following land characteristics shall affect priority of acquisitions: highest productive capability, greatest urban pressure, and largest parcef. (iii) Only a@er the ezpiration of the period ailawed
for acceptance of offers to buy under allotted general and matching purchases. E. Local Funds.
(1) Transfer of Local Subdiuision’s Program Open- Space Funds. If authorized by law, a portion of a local sub-
division’s allocation of program open space funds is trans- ferred to the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Fund pursuant to the prouisions of Natural Resources Arti-
cle, 85-903, the Foundation may use these transferred fun only for purchases of easements on land located within tj boundaries of the subdivision which requested the tmnsfe
of funds. These transferred open-space funds shall be ova: able in addition to any funds which would otherwise be c lotted under this subtitle for purchases of easements in t! county which requested the transfer of funds, and, at ti discretion of the local gowerning body, the transfer ope: space funds may be used far general purchases or applie as the local contribution in matching purchases.
(2) Other Local Funds. Other local funds may 6 transferred to the Maryland Agricultural Land Preseruc
tion Fund.
.06 Local Matching Progranu of Agricultural Land Prea
A. The Foundation may approve a local matching prc gram of ngricultural land preservation, provided that: (‘1) The county agrees to make payments up to I specified and Foundation-approved aggregate amount to th. Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Fund to equal c least 40 percent of the value of an easement acquired by th. Foundation as a result of a matching allotted purchas, made during the ensutng fiscal year; (2) The county shows evidence that the local matchin) program for the acquisition of easemnts for purposes of ag ricultural hod preservation will not result in preservatio:
of land which does not meet the qualifying criteria as estd lished in these regulations; and
(31 The county request for approoal of a local matchin; program is submitted to the Foundation, together with an: necessary agreements, not later than 90 days before the be ginning of the fiscal year for which approval is bein$, sought. The required committmant of funds not later thai 90 days betare the fiscal year may 6e adjusted and resub mitted to the Foundntmn nt any time before the beginnrng c.. the fiscal year in accord with the amount formally commct. ted through county budget adoption.
3. Approval of a local matching program by the Foundo tion is valid only during the fiscal year following the fiscc year of the request for approoal by the county. C. Local matching programs shall be approved upon th afirmativc vote of a majority of the Board members a:
large. and upon approval of the Secretary and the Stat. Treasurer. D. Local matching programs submitted k, the Found tion for consideration shall include:
11) An inventory of productive agricultuml land in the county baped upon the qualifying criteria of these regula- tions; (21 County agricultural land prt-servution goah; 13) Anniysis of alternntive local means of preserving pmductiw agricultural land; (4) Anulysis of the relationship between the Count3 Comprehensive Plan and agricultural land preservatior goals and program; and (51 Selected approaches to preserving productive ag- ricultural Land.
E. Matchin.q allotted funds shall be available erclusiwi:
for the acqursttion of easements. The Foundation may no1 approve matching allotted purchases of easements for land located in any county which has not secured approval fmm the Foundntion for a local matching program of agrieuf. tural land preservation.
eraation.
-9-
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
1 Disappearing Fmlands
A Citizen’s Guide to Agricultural Land Preservation
DisappearingFamdands
A Citizen's Guide to Agricuhzral Land Preservation
!'
\r National Association of Counties Research Foundation I Bernard F. Hillenbrand, Executive Director
Robert C. Weaver, Associate Director
Edward Thompson, Jr., Director, Agricultural Lands Project December 1979
Disappearing
Farmlands
Clearly, there is a dramatic change taking place in
U.S. agriculture-the ground is literally being
excavated out from under it.
i
Every day 12 square miles of American farmland are
converted to nonagricultural uses.zo That's three million acres a
year. Over the past decade or so, the loss of farmland amounts
to about 30 million acres-an area the size of Vermont, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
Jersey and Delaware combined, And this loss has touched every
corner of America: New England has witnessed the
disappearance of half her native farmland, the Mid-Atlantic
States have lost 22 percent of theirs, and even the vast Midwest
has suffered the loss of 9 percent of its cropland.'
According to the US. General Accounting Office and the Soil
Conservation Service, only 35 million acres of the potential
cropland remaining in the United States could easily be put into
production without expensive treatment to correct its soil,
water and slope deficiencies." But this assumes that
landowners would be willing to grow crops where there are
now pastures and woodlots. At the present rate of farmland
conversion, our cropland "frontier" could be closed within
another decade.
Clearly, there is a dramatic change taking place in U.S.
agriculture-the ground is literally being excavated out from
under it. But nobody seems to be starving. In fact, we read all
the time about bumper crops and agricultural surpluses. Why
should we be concerned about the loss of farmland?
disappearing farmland is halted, it will one day deeply touch :> /-
of our lives and those of our children. As Secretary of
Agriculture Bob Begland put it, "Our land and water resources
are being whipsawed between the demands for greater food
and fiber production and the demands from commerce and a
mass society for space and water for suburbs, roads and other development^."'^
Indeed, the effects of farmland conversion are already being
felt in a variety of ways in local communities throughout
America. As individuals and as a nation, we cannot afford to
allow much more of our farmland to disappear-slowly, bit by
irreplaceable bit-before it begins to affect our pocketbooks, the
quality of our lives and, perhaps, even our national security.
The answer is, simply, that unless the steady trend of
1
1
h
Agricultural Productivity
and Farmland
How much longer can we continue to depend
upon technology-the development of which has
relied on cheap energy-and the always unpredictable
weather, to keep agricultural production high while
farmland disappears?
Up until about a century ago, agricultural production was
more or less limited by the amount of land under cultivation.
Clear more acreage, plant more crops, feed more people. Then
came the industrial revolution and, in the years following World
War 11, the so-called "Green Revolution," which enabled the
nation's farmers to grow progressively more food by
substituting machines and energy for land. The tractor replaced
the horse and, later, chemical fertilizer (made from petroleum)
replaced the manure.
occurred during the 1930s when drought and poor husbandry
caused the ruin of 100 million acres of farmland, but generally
the trend has been a steady increase in the per acre yield of
American agriculture.6 Indeed, increasingly sophisticated
technology, not to mention a period of benign weather, allowed
us to double crop yields in the two decades after 1950.'l This
helps to explain why, despite the dramatic losses of agricultural
land, our food production capability has up until now remained
practically undiminished.
But how much longer can we continue to depend upon
technology-the development of which has relied on cheap
energy-and the weather, always unpredictable, to keep
agricultural production high while farmland disappears? Is
there, in fact, any substitute for good agricultural land, about 17
percent of which lies close to our expanding urban centers and
is under the heaviest development pressure?'
There have been some productivity setbacks, such as
Energy
After decades of advancement, agricultural technology now
appears to be running up against economic and ecologic
limitations. Foremost among these is the availability and cost of
energy-according to one calculation, it now takes nine units of
fossil fuel energy to produce each unit of food energy that
comes from American farmland.3 The extraordinary
dependence of modern agriculture on energy is not surprising,
considering that farm machinery runs on diesel fuel, fertilizers
are made from natural gas feedstocks, pesticides and other
chemicals come from petroleum, natural gas is also used to dry
enormous quantities of grain, and electricity is used to run the
pumps for irrigation.
With the dependence of agriculture on energy, what are . '
implications of an energy shortage for agricultural productivity?
The use of fertilizer provides a good illustration: A study at the
University of Illinois concluded that the amount of corn that can
be grown on 100 acres, using 120 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer
per acre, would require up to 300 acres to produce without
fertilizer. '
shortage of natural gas feedstocks or because of prices that are
out of reach, would limit productivity and make it essential that
more acreage be put into production. That is, ifthe farmland
acreage is still available. Multiply this example by the many
other ways in which agriculture uses fossil fuel energy, and you
begin to see why scarce and increasingly costly enera supplies
limit our ability to maintain agricultural productivity by relying
on energy-consuming technology to make up for the continuing
loss of farmland.
A cutback in the use of fertilizer, either because of an absolute
Soil and Water
But there are other significant limitations on agricultural
productivity that place a premium on the preservation of our
remaining farmland. Our soil and water resources, both vital to
agriculture, are being depleted and degraded. Since 1935, about
100 million acres of farmland have been idled because of soil
erosion.15 The annual loss of soil from U.S. cropland has been
conservatively estimated to average about five tons per acre?
Thus, in addition to the three million acres of farmland we lose
3
I1
I
i
i
I,
each year to nonagricultural uses, the equivalent of another
three million acres is washed into our rivers.” An Iowa
agricultural specialist put it more dramatically: “Farmers here
are losing two bushels of soil for each bushel of corn they
Agricultural productivity also depends quite heavily on
irrigation, particularly in the semi-arid western states. A federal
study showed that in the early 1970s about 12.percent of all
harvested cropiand was irrigated, and that the production from
this land represented 27 percent of the value of all U.S. crop
prod~ction.’~ In some areas the percentage is much higher: 90
percent of the value of crops from California depends on
ation, over 80 percent of the crop values in Colorado, Texas
Florida, and almost 50 percent of the value of crops from
Nebra~ka.’~
urban areas and energy development poses a threat to the
viability of irrigated agriculture in the West. Depletion of
groundwater resources in the high plains, stretching from
Texas to Nebraska, and in the San Joaquin Valley of California is
reaching critical level^.'^ And the misapplication of irrigation
technology on some western croplands is causing the buildup of
salinity in the soil, which may eventually destroy productivity.8
Competition for limited quantities of water from growing
Climate
Finally, there is the weather. Nobody pays more attention to
the weather than the farmer, for the obvious reason that crop
production depends, for better or worse, on its changing
moods. Experts who study long-term weather trends believe
the world climate is now emerging from a relatively mild
od that dates back to the turn of the century, and is
returning to a “normal” pattern of greater ~npredictability.~ The
drought that gripped the West during 1974, and reduced crop
production, is thought to be symptomatic of this trend. There is
evidence too that the climate is cooling off, warning of a further
drop in agricultural productivity: According to the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, the temperature of
the Northern Hemisphere has cooled about three degrees since
1945.’
With the cost of energy skyrocketing, the depletion of soil
and water resources (caused in part by the side effects of
technology), and maybe even the climate turning against us,
4
long before anything resembling it would occur, the shortage of
fwd-caused ultimately by a shortage of farmland-would
begin to squeeze consumers’ pocketbooks. An increase in food
prices, dictated by supply and demand, would force low-income
people to eliminate basic nutrients from their diets and cause
the middle class to cut back on certain foods. Shortages of
specialty crops like oranges, caused by the conversion of citrus
groves to subdivisions, just as they are now caused by frost
damage, would make these commonplace foods luxury items. If
all of this sounds familiar, consider the fact that every time you
there is a serious question whether American agriculture can
continue to “replace” farmland losses through technology. The
evidence is mounting that it cannot: Per acre’yields from U.S.
croplands peaked in 1972 and have since then fluctuated rather
widely at lower level^.^'^^
To be sure, new technology is being developed all the time,
but it has been estimated that the lead time between the
development of agricultural technology in the laboratory and its
widespread application on the ground averages about 15 years.
And new technology is expensive, since much of it relies on
energy. Will new, productivity-stimulating technology-that is
affordable-be ready in time to avert a crisis? A crisis caused by
the steady, unrelenting disappearance of our most basic natural
resource, agricultural land.
The National and Global
Farmland Losses
Implications of -{ ’
From a diplomatic viewpoint, American
agricultural exports contribute to the international
reputation of this nation, perhaps even more than its
military strength.
What are the possible consequences of the continuing
disappearance of American agricultural land? Or, to put it
another way, what are the reasons, in the face of limits on
agricultural productivity, why we should preserve farmland?
It is self-evident that the strength and security of the United
States would be jeopardized if it were unable to feed its own 1
people. Mass starvation in America appears highly unlikely, but
I
go through the checkout line at the supermarket on a weekly
shopping trip, another 60 thousand acres of American farmland
has disappearedz’
But we should not be concerned only about our domestic food
supplies, for the United States can truthfully be said to be the
breadbasket of the world. From a broader, global perspective
the continued ability of America to produce sufficient quantities
of basic foodstuffs is an economic, diplomatic and humanitarian
imperative.
The value of American agricultural exports in 1978 reached
$27 billion, and this sum made about 20 percent, or one fifth of
all U.S. exports.” The income we receive from agricultural
exports is an important counterweight to help balance the
payments America makes to foreign countries for imported oil.
Some experts believe that, as our mineral resources are depleted
and our older industrial plants become antiquated, agricultural
exports will play an even larger role in maintaining the future
economic stability of the United state^.^
From a diplomatic viewpoint, American agricultural exports
contribute to the international reputation of this nation, perhaps
even more than its military strength. There are both practical
and humanitarian dimensions to this proposition. The practical
importance of U.S. agriculture is that food helps cement
international friendships and reduces tension among nations.
For example, the Soviet Union has in the past relied on the
United States for a sizable proportion of its grain and may in the
future become more dependent, along with our neighbors in
Canada, upon American agricultural exports if the cooling of the
global climate reduces grain production in the more northern
latitudes3
Of course, none of us would wish for such a prospect,
because we regard food as more than an international
bargaining chip-it is vital to human survival. America’s ability
to produce food for export is the single most important weapon
in the war against world hunger. The population of the globe is
now over four billion people, a great percentage of whom
inhabit developing nations. By .the year 2000, experts predict,
we will add another three billion mouths to feed, most of whom,
again, will be born in the countries least able to feed
themselves.’* Ultimately, preserving its rich bounty of
agricultural land is one of the most significant humanitarian
gestures that America can make.
4 I CEREAL YIELD PER HECTARE. U.S. I
v) z hh h
7 IS e
The Effects of Farmland Loss
At the Community Level
There is no question whatsoever that farmland
loss is having a powerful effect, right now, on the
economy, social fabric and quality of life in local
communities all over the country.
The national and global questions raised by the continuing
loss of American farmland are serious. Although, barring an’
unforeseen climatic or pestilential disaster, it may take time f 3
its most severe consequences to be felt. Some people may argue
that the disappearance of 12 square miles of farmland a day
does not yet constitute a crisis of national importance, but there
is no question whatsoever that it is having a powerful effect,
right now, on the economy, social fabric and quality of life in
local communities all over the c0unt1-y.~ Let’s look at a “typical”
community to see what is happening as farmland is converted to
nonagricultural uses.
The leading cause of farmland loss is unplanned suburban
development, sometimes called “leapfrog” or “scattershot”
development because it often skips over land close to town and
sprawls out over the countryside in a random pattern. Such
5
development not only takes farmland directly out of production,
but also tends to create conditions- that make it unpleasant for
farmers and homeowners alike and, consequently, leads to
friction between them. The odor of manure may offend
homeowners, the noise from a tractor working before dawn
may bother them, and blowing dust and agricultural chemicals
may cause them more serious problems. On the other hand,
dogs may chase livestock, teenage children may trample crops
or vandalize fences and farm equipment, and suburban
m A
LOSS OF PRIME FARMLAND BY REGION (1987.19751, Thousands 01 Acres Source: N. Sampson, Development on Prima Farmland, Envlron. Comment, Jan. 1978
wners themselves may be led to complain to the
rities about the "nuisance" that nearly farms are c:rt?ating.
While the situation is unpleasant for both, it is the farmers who
generally lose out, or simply give up, to the growing numbers of
suburbanites. More agricultural land is thus allowed to lie fallow
or is sold for additional de~elopment.~
But the chain of consequences does not stop there. As more
and more farms succumb to development, fewer suppliers of
farm implements, seed, fertilizer and other agricultural
necessities can stay in business due to the decreased demand for
their products and services. The agricultural businesses close up
or move away, forcing the remaining farmers to travel greater
distances and to pay more for supplies. Jobs and income are lost
when the businesses go; their contribution to the local economy
0
is often appreciated only after it is too late. And the whole fabric
of rurd life starts to unraveI.13
Farmers and supporting industries are obviously the most
profoundly affected by this whole turn of events-which is
being repeated all over the United States-but the rest of the
community also shares the consequences. Open spaces that add
immeasurably to the quality of life of a community gradually
disappear. Natural resources and environmental amenities are
often sacrificed. Those who once enjoyed locally grown
produce are forced to rely on farflung markets and to pay
higher prices. And, perhaps most importantly, the cost of
providing community servces may increase dramatically.
As development spreads out, sewers, water lines, roads and
school bus routes must cover greater distances than if
development were more concentrated. The cost of these
extensions is, of course, met with tax dollars paid by local
residents.'So everyone pays for "scattershot" development on
agricultural lands.
Federal Impacts on Farmland
The vast programs and sweeping policies of the federal
government exert a powerful influence on the use of
agricultural land. Useful but single-minded public works and
facilities often take farmland directly out of production. For
example, about 21 million acres of land in the United States are
now covered by highways, including one million acres of mostly
rural land that was paved over during the construction of the
federal interstate highway system.'
such as the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of
Reclamation, have drowned 10 million acres, much of it rich
bottomland, and continue to do so at a rate of 300 thousand
acres a year.' Airports, which come under the authority of the
Federal Aviation Administration, take another 35 thousand
acres of farmland annually.' While many of these federally
sponsored or supported projects may be justified, they are often
too large or poorly located and consume more farmland than
necessary.
Then there are activities that are regulated by, and to some
extent subsidized by, the federal government. Sewage treatment
plants funded and regulated by the Environmental Protection
Reservoirs and other impoundments, built by federal agencies
Age hi
sen
enc
syst
leac
ultir
and
EI
hP can
watc
the.
20 b
don
Ener
coal-
witl-
of a
Tb
activ
in in
capit
Spec' are t,
conv
on
Prom farm!
the ir
patte
desig
Sirnil,
farm
may hdm
Pli(
pOliC
colla1
rural
for A
Agency are often a key stimulus to sprawl development. EPA
limitations on the amount of sewer capacity that can be added to
serve growth in already built up areas may unintentionally
encourage scattershot development in rural areas using septic
systems. If the intensive use of septic systems in the countryside
leads to water pollution, sewage treatment facilities may
" ultimately be financed by the Farmers Home Administration
and further encourage the loss of farmland.18
Energy development and generation is one of the most
important activities regulated by the federal government that
can consume agricultural land, if the regulators are not
watchful. It is estimated that four million acres of rural land in
the United States have already been stripmined, and that almost
20 billion tons of strippahle coal-a source of energy that federal
policy favors-underlies 2.5 million acres of farmland in Illinois
Electrical generating plants, regulated by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, also take farmland; a single
coal-fired 2800 MW power plant proposed in Kansas would,
with its cooling lake and ash disposal areas, cover 13,500 acres
of agricultural land.'
These kinds of federally sponsored, funded and regulated
activities and projects generally affect specific tracts of farmland
in individual local communities. But there are other federal
policies that may affect farmland everywhere. An example is the
capital gains taxation of land sales, which makes land
speculation a more attractive enterprise than investments that
are taxed at a higher rate. Speculation, in turn, can stimulate the
conversion of farmland to de~elopment.~,~
On the other hand, there are federal policies that hold
promise as tools to help prevent unnecessary conversion of
farmland. The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized
the impact that sewer financing and regulations have on
patterns of land development and has adopted a formal policy
designed to protect significant farmlands from this impact."
Similarly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture now has a
farmland preservation policy and reviews federal projects that
may result in the loss of agricultural land.I6 And the Carter
Administration's urban policy, which seeks to promote
compact urban growth and revitalize the cities, could have the
mllateral effect of reducing the pressure for development of
rural farmlands." Because of these federal efforts, there is hope
for American farmland and all that depends on it.
f
..
8’ Searching for Solutions: 1
State and Local Approaches to Farmland Preservation
Some local governments and states are helping to
solve community problems caused by the loss of
farmland by adopting measures to combat it.
While the federal government influences agricultural land,
what happens at the local level is also very important. Sprawl
development, of the kind that unnecessarily and prematurely
converts farmland to nonagricultural uses, is generally the
result of increasing pressure for urban growth and, often, the
inability of local government to control it. The federal and state
governments sometimes contribute to the problem as well
through programs that unwittingly promote scattershot
development and projects that directly take farmland out of
production.
Pressure for growth takes the form of population expansion
and, consequently, an increased demand for new housing.
Developers who attempt to meet this demand often bid up the
market price of farmland to where selling the land becomes
more attractive to farmers than growing crops, particularly if
the farmer is aging or his operation isn’t very profitable. Once
development gains a foothold in the countryside, nearby \ farmers may neglect to invest in necessary improvements and
otherwise enter a “holding pattern,” waiting for the day when 1 they too will be made an offer that they can’t refuse. An
uncertain future puts additional pressure on agriculture to give
way to sub~rbanization.~
As all of this is taking place, the response of the community at
large may contribute to the problem. Planner William Toner
described what he calls a “series of self-fulfilling prophecies” that
often confront local government: “First you project substantial
growth in an agricultural area, then you build roads and water
and sewer lines to accommodate the growth, then you switch
the zoning from agricultural to residential, and, presto! subsidies
in place, population fo~ows.~~’~
To avoid this turn of events, communities can get out ahead of
the problem by planning for the logical management of growth.
But growth management is a complex task that demands
sophisticated technical groundwork, adequate financial
resources and, perhaps above all, an understanding of the
process and the stakes involved by the general public.
Particularly in rural areas, communities often do not have the
money to hire planning technicians, and the people who li
there, having never experienced leapfrog development an
consequences, may be unaware of just how quickly suburban
sprawl can get out of hand.
Some local governments and states are, however, helping to
solve community problems caused by the loss of farmland by
adopting measures to combat it. The growing number of local
farmland preservation programs is starting to offer hope that
enough agricultural land can be retained to avert a national
crisis. But this hope is tempered by the fact that the farmland
problems in your community can be solved only if you and your
neighbors take action to keep the hope alive. The following
experiences with state and local farmland preservation
measures serve as examples of how the job can be done.
9
4
y 10
Tulare County, California
Tulare County, located in south central California, is the third
largest agricultural producer in the nation, with farm products
contributing about $700 million annually to the local economy.
Its land and climate are ideal for growing specialty crops that
cannot easily be produced elsewhere. During the period from
1964 through 1969, Tulare County experienced the loss of 66
thousand acres of its farmland, mostly to suburban "ranchettes"
and small lot development scattered through the co~ntryside.'~
establishes different minimum lot sizes, ranging from 20 to 80
acres, designed to protect agricultural operations that require
different size farms to be profitable. Development is
concentrated in those parts of the county, generally adjacent to
its existing municipalities, where agricultural districts have not
been established by the county under California state law.
The Tulare program uses a system of suitabili?y points to
determine where residential development is appropriate. For
example, if a building site has superior agricultural soils, it
qualifies for four points; if the building lot is too large and would
take more farmland out of production than necessary, another
four points can be added; if the surrounding lands are used for
productive agriculture, three points may be tacked on; or if the
building site is far from public services such as county roads and
fire stations, add another point or two. In all, Tulare evaluates
development on the hasis of 15 categories, each of which carries
suitability points. If a proposed development accumulates too
Tulare has adopted an agricultural zoning program that
many points, it is disappro~ed.'"~~
advantage of providing detailed criteria-the suitability
points-for determining when the character of an area has
substantially changed from agricultural to residential, so as to
allow what is in effect a change in zoning. The Tulare zoning
program is based on a comprehensive plan that includes an
agricultural lands component, and thus far seems to have been
successful, since its adoption in 1975, in encouraging
development close to existing urban centers, while preventing
the premature subdivision and conversion of its large expanse
of prime farmland.
This system is flexible like traditional zoning, but it has the
i.:$ Black Hawk County, Iowa
Black Hawk County is situated right in the heart of the great
American Corn Belt and surrounds the city of Waterloo which
takes up about 10 percent of its total area. Almost 60 percent of
the soils in Black Hawk are classified by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture as Classes I and 11, the best that exist for growing
crops. In contrast, only about 20 percent of the land nationwide
falls into soil Classes I and 11. But in the early 1970s local officials
in Black Hawk realized that the excellent soils in the county
were growing television antennas instead of corn, and in 1973
adopted an innovative zoning program that is rooted in the soil
itse~.'~,'~
The Black Hawk program is based on a detailed method of
rating soils according to their agricultural productivity. The
system is geared to the U.S. Department of Agriculture "cor?
suitability rating," and dedicates to exclusive agricultural us -$
those soils with a CSR of 70 and above, soils that produce
roughly 115 bushels or more of corn per acre. In those areas
where the soil is less productive-about 30 percent of the total
area of the county-development is guided toward buildable
soils that are suitable for septic systems. In agricultural areas
that are not zoned exclusively for this purpose, development
can take place on lots that are a minimum of three acres in size,
if 75 percent of the lot consists of buildable soils.
The Black Hawk program is adapted to its own unique
circumstances, but like its Tulare counterpart it seems to be
working to preserve the best agricultural lands and to
concentrate development around the perimeter of its principal
11
!
municipality. Both the technical groundwork that went into its
development, and the flexibility of its administration, contribute
to its success as a possible model for farmland preservation in
areas of large-scale agriculture.
State of Wisconsin
Nearly all the states have adopted some kind of measure to try
to preserve farmland. Most of these take the shape of special
property tax breaks for farmers who keep their land in
production, but this approach has been criticized as simply a
‘ng action” that encourages land speculation and is not
v ly effective at preserving farmland.Ig The Wisconsin
farmland preservation program, however, stands out along with
a handful of others as a notably successful effort.
iiP
The Wisconsin program, adopted in 1977, gives farmers the
benefit of a state income tax credit (and protection from special
tax assessments for municipal services). The credit varies with
farm income-it increases up to $4,200 annually, as income
decreases-and serves as an “insurance policy” against crop
failure or other factors that otherwise could financially cripple
farm families. Unlike the property tax break used by some other
states, the Wisconsin income tax credit does not cut into local
revenues.28
To qualify for the income tax credit, the farmer and his local
community must take a number of actions. Until 1982, the end
irst phase of the Wisconsin program, a farmer may
for the credit if he either contracts with the state to keep
his land in agricultural use, or his land is zoned exclusively for
agriculture by local government. After 1982, counties must
either adopt exclusive agricultural zoning programs or, in the
case of predominantly rural counties with less than 75,000
inhabitants, prepare farmland preservation plans as a less
stringent alternative to zoning.
Unless counties take these steps-the state helps them by
providing technical assistance-farmers cannot qualify for the
tax credit simply by signing contracts to hold their land off the
development market. If a contract between the farmer and state
expires, and is not renewed either because of personal
preference or the failure of local government to act, the
12
accumulated income tax credits must be repaid completely or in
part.28
Our description of the Wisconsin program has been simplified
for the sake of brevity, but the fact remains that its two-phased
approach has stimulated county interest in farmland
preservation. In effect, the program attempts to harness the
political support of farmers by giving them an incentive, namely
the continuation of the tax credit, to encourage local
government to adopt agricultural zoning or farmland
preservation plans.
During the first year of the Wisconsin program, farmws
became eligible for income tax credits at a rate much greater
than their entry into similar programs in other states. This
seems to demonstrate that a program that requires the active
cooperation of farmers, local government and the state itself
holds great promise as a means to preserve farmland on a
statewide basis.
Suffolk County, New York
Suffolk County is a prototype urbanizing area in the shadow
of the eastern megalopolis, taking up the far end of Long Island.
Its population has increased six-fold since World War 11, and
during this period it lost over half of its original 120,000 acres of
farmland to development. Still, gross agriculture sales in Suffolk
total about $70 million per year, ranking the county first in New
York State.25
In 1972, Suffolk County embarked on a program of
purchasing the development rights to farmland. A “development
right,” as the term implies, is simply the legal right to use
farmland for nonagricultural purposes such as residential
development. The county pays farmers, who voluntarily offer
their development rights, the difference between the assessed
value of their acreage for development and its value for
agriculture, a price that has averaged about $3,000 per acre in
Suffolk. By selling development rights, farmers retain
ownership of the land itself and can continue farming on a more
solid financial foundation, not only because they receive a cash
payment, but also because their property tax assessment is
reduced.
The county selects parcels for purchase very carefully, trying
to secure an agricultural core in each key area of its jurisdiction.
Soil suitability, present land usage and development pressure
also enter into the equation used to select farmlands from
among those whose owners submit bids for purchase. To date,
Suffolk has acquired the development rights to 3,200 acres of its
best agricultural land, and has plans to double this figure.
Funding for the purchase of development rights has come from
general revenue bonds sold by the county.
The Suffolk program-the first of its kind in any LJ.S.
county-is a relatively conservative approach to farmland
preservation that can get expensive where it is necessary to
protect large areas of agricultural land. But, despite the expense
involved, the purchase of development rights is attractive to
farmers and can help obtain their cooperation and support for
other multifaceted approaches to farmland preservation. I(,
Suffolk County, it seems to have had an encouraging effect on
the entire agricultural community, because it has demonstrated
that local government cares about its native industry and wants
to help ensure its survival.
9
Howard County, Maryland
Located midway between the metropolitan areas of Baltimore
and Washington, D.C., Howard County has experienced the
same pressures for growth as has Suffolk, losing roughly half of
its farmland since 1950. The existence of the planned "new
town" of Columbia in the center of the county has somewhat
mitigated the effects of sprawl development in Howard, but
intensive subdivision activity continues.
Howard, too, has adopted a local program of purchasing,
development rights to farmland, funded presently out of re 9
estate transfer taxes. But what distinguishes this county is its
diligent pursuit of farmland preservation, using all its available
policy tools, and its close cooperation with the State of
Maryland, which has a deve1opmc:nt rights purchase program
inspired by Howard County officials.
The county is actively encouraging the formation of
agricultural districts under Maryland law, which qualifies
farmers for sale of their development rights. The agricultural
districts, once established, will become a formally constituted
element of the county's comprehensive plan, now undergoing a
major revision to achieve this goal. Cooperation with the state in
what amounts to a joint development rights purchase program
13
gives Howard great flexibility and a broader financial basis for
ensuring this permanent protection of its farmland.26
Other State and Local
Farmland Initiatives
Other jurisdictions have adopted farmland preservation
approaches that are variations on the themes adopted by these
local governments. Some of the more interesting are:
The Blue Earth County, Minnesota zoning ordinance that
calls for one dwelling unit per "quarter-quarter section" or 40
ao, but allows additional dwellings as a bonus if they are
concentrated rather than widely ~eparated.'~' 22
zoning program that creates several exclusive agricultural
districts and thus treats farming as a preferred use-like other
industries in their respective zones-rather than simply as
something that may occur until development is ready to take
The Walworth County, Wisconsin comprehensive plan and
The initiation in Chester County, Pennsylvania of an
Agricultural Preservation Council that will take an active role in
promoting agriculture much like the county development
council promotes other business and indu~try.'~
The agricultural district program in New York State, and
statewide purchase of development rights programs in
Massachusetts, New Jersey, and most recently, New Hampshire.
Conclusion: Where Do We Go
From Here?
These are but a few of the growing number of farmland
preservation approaches that are being taken by states and
counties throughout the United States. Citizens and public
officials may have new ideas that are suited to the geographic,
economic and political situation in your community.
Considering the consequences for your locality and possibly the
nation itself, it is well worth trying to preserve farmland no
matter what the local circumstances may be. The experiences of
Ware, Black Hawk, Wisconsin, Suffolk, Howard and other
pioneers offer lessons to other communities that wish to
preserve farmland:
The early participation and cooperation of the
agricultural community is essential to the success of
any local farmland preservation program.
The agricultural community-including not only farmers, but
also county agricultural extension agents, representatives of
farm organizations and agricultural businessmen-has the most
to gain or lose from any local attempt to preserve farmland. The
political support of agriculturalists for local ordinances, plans or
bond issues is usually critical to the adoption of these measures
for farmland preservation.
Moreover, as land use specialist William Toner puts it,
“Planners know how to plan, but farmers know how to farm.”
Their experience on the ground puts farmers in a better
position than any other group of citizens to provide common
sense approaches to the related problems of preserving
farmland and farming itself. Many communities have, as the
first step in putting together a program of farmland
preservation, established official agricultural advisory
committees to document the agricultural problems in their
locality and to propose solutions to farmland loss.22r26
Careful technical analysis of the local farmland
situation, including surveys of soil types and land
usage, is the basis for a reasoned choice about how
much and which kinds of farmland should be
preserved by a community.
Very few state or local programs have set for themselves the
illusory goal of protecting all their agricultural lands. The choice
of which lands to preserve as a priority thus becomes an
important question. Good technical information about the value
and productivity of local farmland, and the uses to which it is
being put, is the cornerstone of a responsible farmland
preservation program.
federal government agencies, notably the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, whose Soil Conservation Service provides
indispensable help with soil surveys. Some communities have, as
part of their technical analysis, reviewed the statistics that
demonstrate the economic contribution that agriculture makes
to their locality; the publication of this kind of information has
helped gain public acceptance for their farmland preservation
Technical assistance is sometimes available from a number of
programs.
1 Local farmland preservation works best when t.
the tools available to government are used in a
coordinated way, so that policies do not work at cross
purposes.
Any one approach to farmland preservation is not likely to be
effective, if other government programs or policies are
inconsistent with it. For example, agricultural zoning can be
undercut, if the local capital improvement plan calls for the
extension of water and sewer lines into prime farming areas, or
if property taxes are not restructured so as to prevent the
premature sale of farmland for development.
Similarly, agricultural districmg and the purchase of
development rights can help preserve farmland, but may not
succeed in preserving farming itself, if state or local policies do
not support agriculture as an ongoing enterprise. And state and
local initiatives themselves may be rendered ineffective if federal
actions are not consistent with them. A coordinated farmlar
preservation strategy that meshes all the policy tools of
government is the approach that is most likely to succeed.
Communities that provide for a flexible balance
between the preservation of farmland and the
development of housing and industry are most likely
to succeed.
Farmland preservation is a sophisticated process that seeks to
meet community residential and industrial development goals
by directing such development onto lands where it is most
appropriate, thus saving the most valuable farmlands and
sustaining native agricultural industry. Communities cannot
afford to ignore the “other side of the coin” in trying to preserve
1s
farmland. Generally speaking, at least at the initial stages of
farmland conversion within a community, it is not the extent of
development so much as the improper type of development-
sprawling “leapfrog” or “scattershot” development-that
undermines local agriculture.
Of course, there are places where so much farmland has been
taken out of production that a community cannot afford to lose
much more before agricultural support businesses have to close
shop. But, in most communities, there is room for both
development and agriculture, and the success of farmland
preservation depends on finding an appropriate mix that
will neither stifle reasonable development nor contribute to the
ruin of the local agricultural economy. CI .. ..I The prospect of America running out of fardand is,
perhaps, even more alarming than that of running out of
energy. Just imagine what it would be like to stand for hours in
a food line and then to pay higher prices for groceries than we
do for gasoline. Our national energy problems have arisen, in
part, because we were not foresighted enough to see them
coming we did not conserve resources wisely, and now we
cannot seem to produce enough to go around. But, unless we
preserve agricultural land, there will be no way to “produce”
more of it. In the words of Robert J. Gray, executive director of
the National Agricultural Lands Study, “As a nation, we must
come to the realization that prime farmland is no longer a
surplus resource, if, indeed, it ever was.”zo
With the recognition that America no longer has any
farmland to waste must come a dedicated willingness on the
f government to do something about it. As we have seen,
Qa few state and local governments have taken the lead to
come up with promising approaches to farmland preservation
at the community level. But there is a need to devise new
methods and techniques for preventing the loss of farmland:
new variations on local zoning authority, innovative
combinations of techniques such as transfer of development
rights to farmland, along with ways of getting more out of the
local farmland preservation dollar, and original approaches to
the cooperation of states and counties in joint farmland
preservation programs. The more approaches to preservation
that are available, the greater will be the likelihood that al least
one of them will be adaptable to the circumstances of your
community.
16
To support local communities in their efforts to preserve
farmland, the federal establishment must take a hard look at its
programs and policies that can and do frustrate local
preservation initiatives. The existing procedures specified by the
National Environmental Policy Act and the A-95 review (through
which local governments are notified of proposed federal
projects) do not, as a matter of fact, guarantee that the impact of
federal activities on farmland are adequately considered prior to
their implementation or that these activities are compatible with
local farmland preservation programs. Federal policies should
be reexamined to determine how they can be changed to
accommodate the goal of protecting our agricultural land base,
and, most importantly, a fail-safe process should be established
to ensure consultation with state and local governments
whenever a proposed federal action might affect farmland.
concern. In a nation where government derives its support
from the will of the people, there is no substitute for citizen
participation and private initiative when it comes to solving
problems, whether they affect only the local community or the
nation as a whole. Our elected and appointed government
officials need our encouragement and support for conscientious
farmland preservation measures, the positive benefits of which
we all will share.
Finally, we all must make farmland preservation our personal
References and Sources
of Additional Information
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Agricultural Retention: An Emerging Issue, by Dallas Miner,
in Environmental Comment, Urban Land Institute
(Washington: May, 1975)
Background Paper: Conserving the Nation’s Farmland, by Jon
Clark, Northeast-Midwest Institute (Washington: 1979)
The Casefor Retaining Agricultural Land, by Charles E. Little,
Papers from a November 8,1977 Workshop, Library of
Congress (Washington: 1977) b
Growth and Change In Rural America, by Glenn V. Fuguitt,
Paul R. Voss and J.C. Doherty, Urban Land Institute
(Washington: 1979)
Land and Food: The Preservation of U.S. Farmland, by
Charles E. Little, American Land Forum (Washington: 1979)
Land Use, Reprinted from the Fifth Annual Report on the
Council on Environmental Quality (Washington: 1979)
Land Use Policy and Agriculture: A State and Local Perspective,
by Melvin A. Cotner, USDA Economic Research Service
(Washington: 1977)
The Loss of Agricultural Land, by Roger Blobaum, Report to
the Citizens Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality
(Washington: 1974) a
Preservation @Prime Agricultural Land, in Environmental -
Comment, Urban Land Institute (Washington: January, 1978)
Preserving America’s Farmland: A Goal the
Federal Government Should Support, US. General
Accounting Office, Report to Congress (Washington: 1979)
President’s 1978 National Urban Policy Report, US.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
(Washington: 1978)
Protecting Farmland: The Ethical Dimension, by R. Neil
Sampson, National Association of Conservation Districts
(Washington: 1978) 17
13 Saving Farms and Farmland: A Community Guide, by William
Toner, American Society of Planning Officials (Chicago: 1978)
: 14 Saving the Garden: The Preservation of Farmland and Other
Environmentalfy Valuable Land, by Robert E. Coughlin,
National Science Foundation (Washington: 19771 I
,' 15 State Agriculture Land Issues, by Leonard U. Wilson,
Council of State Governments (1979)
16 Statement on Land Use Policy, Secretary's Memorandum
No. 1827-Revised, U.S. Department of Agriculture
(October 30,1978)
j 17 , $icy on Agricultural Lands, U.S. Environmental Protection 1 . &jgency (September 8,1978)
4 i
18 Testimony of Gerald E. Fisher, Supervisor, Albemarle
County, Va., before the House Agriculture Committee,
May 17,1979 i !
19 Untaxing Open Space: An Evaluation of the Eredveness of
Dgferential Assessment of Farm and Open Space, by John C.
Keene, Esq. U.S. Government Printing Office
(Washington: 1976)
20 Where Have the Farmlands Gone?, by Shirley F. Fields,
National Agricultural Lands Study, Council on
Environmental Quality (Washington: 1979) e
21 The Woridwide Loss of Cropland, by Lester R. Brown,
orldwatch Institute (Washington: 1978)
Materials on Specific Preservation Programs
22 Agricultural Land Preservation in Blue Earth County, Minnesota,
by the Citizens Advisory Committee on Agricultural Land
Preservation (Mankato, Minnesota: 1976)
23 Agriculture Preservation: A Strategy.for Chester Count-v,
Chester County Planning Commission (1979)
24 Agricultural Zoning in Black Hawk County, by Janice M.
Clark, Zoning Administrator (Waterloo, Iowa: 1978)
25 Preserving Farmland on Long Island, by John V.N. Klein,
Suffolk County Executive, in Environmental Comment,
Urban Land Institute (Washington: January, 1978)
26 Report 1976, by the Work Force for the Preservation of
Howard County Farmland (Ellicott City, Maryland: 1976)
27 Rural Valley Lands Pian, Tulare County Planning
Commission (1975)
28 Wisconsin's Farmland Preservation Program, by Richard
Barrows, University of Wisconsin-Extension (Madison: 1978)
This booklet was written and produced by the Agricultural Lands Project
of the National Association of Counties Research Foundation. The project
exists to educate the public about the loss of farmland in the United States
and to assist public officials and others in developing programs for farmland
preservation. To obtain additional copies of this booklet, or to receive a copy
of a brochure describing the services offered by the Agricultural Lands
Project, write to: National Association of Counties Research Foundation, 173.5
New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006.
permission from the Agricultural Lands Project of NACoRF.
Any part of this booklet may be reproduced or quoted without seeking
18 s
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
GRAZING .
I I1
DRY LAND GRAIN PRODUCING AREAS
A*!-&!+
t
1. H I
!
i
I
j
t
VEGETABLE CROP GROWING AREAS r
t
STRAWBERRY GROWING LOCATIONS
1
I I
I I I !
i I
. . .. .. CI
1.U 8
. ..
GREENHOUSE PRODUCTION OF FLORAL & FOLIAGE CROPS
P
4
n
0
'CITRUS PRODUCING AREAS
EGG PACKING LOCATIONS
1.41 I
-1
BEANS, DRY EDIBLE LIFlAS
c
,
I
'I *
2
-m=
NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE 14
1 011. STATE POLICY. The Legislature has declared that it is to: ain a high-quality environment now and all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the State.
(b) Take all action necessary to provide the people of this State with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise. (c) Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man's activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal corn-
rY * $#
n and nature can exist in productive harmony to fulfill the social and economic requirements of present and future generations.
(f) Require governmental agencies at all levels to develop stand- ards and procedures necessary to protect environmental quality.
(g) Require governmental agencies at all levels to consider qualitative factors as well as economic and technical factors and long-term benefits and costs, in addition to short-term benefits
and costs and to consider alternatives to proposed actions affecting the environment. c
l5Oll.5. ADDITIONAL POLICIES. The courts of this State have found the foming policies to be implicit in CEQA: (a) The EIR requirement is the heart of CEQA. (County of Inyo v. Yorty, 32 Cal. App. 3d 795.)
(b) The EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected. (County of Inyo v. Yorty, 32 Cal. App. 3d 795.) (c) The EIR is to .inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the environmental Impact of a proposed project. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 C. 3d 68.)
(d) The EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has in fact analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action. (People ex rel. Depart- ment of Public Works v. Bosio, 47 Cal. App. 3d 495.) (e) The EIR process will enable the public to determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials thus allowing for appropriate action come election day should a majority of the voters disagree. (People v. County of Kern, 39 Cal. App. 3d 830. )
afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. (Friends of Mammoth Y. Board of Supervisors, 8 C. 3d 247.)
(f) CEQA was intended to be interpreted in such manner as to
1501 1.6. AddiXianat secXiar. to be added.
** Ptrapased Novembeh 12, 1976 amendmenth atttached.
h
TITLE 14 NATURAL RESOURCES
l5 c
are essentially the same in terms of environmental impact. Further, the Lead Agency may use an earlier EIR prepared in con- nection with an earlier project to apply to a later project, if the circumstances of the projects are essentially the same. Lead Agencies may elect to write EIRs in advance for entire programs or regulations, in order to be prepared for project applications to come. Whenever an agency chooses to utilize any of these alternatives, however, it must find that the environmental effects of the projects are similar enough to warrant the same treatment in an EIR and that the EIR will adequately cover the impacts of any single project. If these tests are not met, an agency should supplement the EIR it prepares for a program to apply it to an individual project.
15068.5. USE OF A GENXRAL PLAN EIR WITH SUBSF,QUENT PROJECTS. e EIR on a general plan may be used as the foundation document r EIRs subsequently prepared for specific projects within the ographic area covered by the general plan. The subsequent EIRs
y reference and summarize material in the EIR on the general an for the description of the general environmental setting and much of the description of the environmental impacts a8 applies the specific project. Detailed information in the EIR on the ecific project may be limited to a description of the project, e specific environmental setting and those impacts which are t adequately described for the specific project in the EIR on c e general plan. khen a subsequent EIR refers to an EIR on the neral plan for part of its description of the environment and e environmental impacts, copies of the EIR on the general plan all be made available to the public in a number of locations in community and to any clearinghouses which will assist in lic review of the EIR. The purpose of this section is not to trict analysis of environmental issues but is to avoid the cessity for repeating detail from a General Plan EIR.
15069. MULTIPLE AND PHASED PROJECTS. Where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking comprises a project with significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency must prepare a single EIR for the ultimate project. Where an individual project is a necessary precedent for action on a larger project, or commits the Lead Agency to a larger project, with significant environmental effect, an EIR must address itself to the scope of the Larger project. Where one project is one of several similar projects of a public agency, but is not deemed a part of a larger undertaking or a larger project, the agency may prepare one EIR for all projects, or one for each project, but shall in either case comment upon the cumulative effect.
15069.5. STAGED EXR. (a) Where a large capital project will require a number of discretionary approvals from governmental agencies and one of the c approvals will occur more than two years before construction will
Pages 16 and 17 are missing.
NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE 14
analysis of its own laws, and each public agency should make such determination either as a part of its implementing regulations or on a.case-by-case basis. (P.R.C. 21080(b)). (b) In the absense of any discretionary provision contained in the relevant local ordinance, it shall. be presumed that the following actions are ministerial: I I$/ Issuance of building permits. Issuance of business licenses. Approval of final subdivision maps. Approval of individual utility service connections and disconnections.
or ordinances, provide an identification or itemization of its projects and actions which are deemed ministerial under the appli- cable laws and ordinances. (d) Where a project involves an approval that contains elements of both a ministerial action and a discretionary action, the project will be deemed to be discretionary and will be subject to the requirements of CEQA.
(c) Each public agency should, in its implementing regulations
15074. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION. (a) When a public agency determines that a project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA because it is an emergency project, a ministerial project or categorically exempt, and the public agency approves or determines to carry out the project, it may f"lr_le a notice of exemption. Such a notice shall include:
A brief description of the project. A finding that the project is exempt, including a
(3) A Brief statement of reasons to support the findings.
citation to the State Guidelines section under which its found to be exempt.
(b) Whenever a public agency approves an applicant's project, it or the applicant may file a notice of exemption. The notice of exemption filed by an applicant shall contain the information required in Subdivision (a) above, together with a certified document issued by the public agency stating that it has found the project to be exempt. This may be a certified copy of an existing document or record of the public agency. (c) If the public agency is a state agency, the notice of exemption will be filed with the Secretary for Resources. A form for this notice is provided in Appendix E. Copies of all such notices shall be posted on a weekly basis at the Resources Building Information Desk, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA. Each such list will remain posted for 30 days.
(d) If the public agency is a local agency, the notice of exemption will be filed with the county clerk of the county or counties in which the project will be located. Copies of all such notices will be available for public inspection and a list of such notices shall be posted on a weekly basis in the
TITUE 14 NATURAL RESOURCES
office of the county clerk. Each such list shall remain posted for a period of 30 days.
15075. USE OF REGISTERED PROFESSIONALS IN PREPARING EIRS. (a> A number of statutes provide that certain professional services can be provided to the public only by individuals who have been registered by a registration board established under California law. Such statutory restrictions apply to a number of professions including but not limited to engineering, land surveying, forestry, geology, and geophysics.
Lead Agency should establish requirements or conditions on
or enhance the environment. State statutes may provide that only registered professionals can prepare technical studies which will
be used in or which will control the detailed design, construction, or operation of the proposed project and which will be prepared in support of an EIR.
. project design, construction, or operation in order to protect,
Articles 7. Evaluating Projects
15080. INITIAL STUDY.
. (a) If a pro.-ject is subject to the requirements of CEQA and not bxempted- by- these guidelines, the Lead Agency shall conduct an initial study to determine if the project may have a signifi- cant effect on the environment unless the Lead Agency can
. determine that the project will clearly have a significant effect.
h -a7 -
20 NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE 14
If any aspects of the project, either individually or cumu- latively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial, then an EIR must be prepared. All phases 'of project planning, implementation, and operation must be ,considered in the initial study of the project. To meet the requirements of this section, the Lead Agency may use an initial study prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. ur oses. The purposes of an initial study are to: Identify environmental impacts. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a (b)
project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is written.
significant environmental effects.
design of a project.
finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
(3) Focus an EIR, if one is required, on potentially
(4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the
(5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the
(6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs. (c) Contents. An initial study shall contain in brief form: 8" A description of the project. An identification of the environmental setting. An identification of environmental effects by use of c a checklist, matrix, or other method.
ef'fects identified, if any.
with existilig zoning and plans.
participated in the initial study.
(4) A discussion of ways to mitigate the significant
(5) An examination of whether the project is compatible
(6) The name of the person or persons who prepared or
(1) The initial study shall be used to provide a written (d) Uses.
determination of whe'ther a Negative Declaration or an EIR shall be prepared for a project. (2) Where a project is revised in response to an initial study so that potential adverse effects are mitigated to a point where no significant environmental effects' would occur, a Negative Declaration shall be prepared instead of an EIR. If the project would still result in one or more significant effects on the environment after mitigation measures are added to the project,
an EIR shall be prepared. (3) The EIR shall emphasize study of the impacts deter- mined to be significant and can omit further examination of those impacts found to be clearly insignificant in the initial study. (e) SubrrAssion of Data. If the project is to be carried out by a prxvate person or private organization, the Lead Agency may require such person or organization to submit data and inf0.r- mation which will enable the Lead Agency to prepare the initial study.
TITLE 14 NATURAL RESOURCES 21
(f) Format. Sample forms for an applicant's project descrip- tion and a review form for use by the Lead Agency are contained in Appendices H and I. When used together, these forms would meet the requirements for an initial study, These forms are only suggested, and public agencies are free to devise their own format for an initial study.
15081. DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. (a) The determination of whether a project may have a signi- ficant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, An iron clad deflni- tion of significant effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. For b example, an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area. There may be a dif- ference of opinion on whether a particular effect should be considered adverse or beneficial, but where there is, or anticipated to be, a substantial body of opinion that considers or will consider the effect to be adverse, the Lead Agency should prepare an EIR to explore the environmental effects involved .
of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider both primary or direct and secondary or indirect consequences. Primary con- sequences are immediately related to the project (the construc- tion of a new treatment plant may facilitate population growth in a particular area), while secondary consequences are related more to primary consequences than to the project itself (an impact upon the resource base, including land, air, water, and enery use of the area b question may result from the population growth). (c) Some examples of consequences which may be deemed to be a significant effect on the environment are contained in Appendix G.
be found to have a significant effect on the environment if:
(b) In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect c
15082. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A project shall
The project has the potential to degrade the quality of vironment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a r endangered plant or animal or eliminate important es of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
mental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environ- The project has the potential to achieve short-term
goals The project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in c
22 NATURAL RESOURCES
(
TITLE 14
the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incre- mental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future Dro.iects.
15083. NEGATIVE DECLARATION. (a) General. A Negative Declaration shall be prepared for a project which could potentially have a significant effect on the environment, but which the Lead Agency finds on the basis of an initial study will not have a significant effect on the environment.
the Lead Agency shall consult with all responsible agencies pursuant to Section 15066.
(b) Consultation. Before completing a Negative Declaration,
(c) Contents. A Negative Declaration shall include:
Ombrief description of the project; including a
(2) The location of the project and the name of the
(3) A finding that the project will not have a
(4) An attached copy of the initial study documenting
(5) Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project
commonly used name for the project if any.
project proponent.
significant effect on the. environment
reasons to support the finding. '
to avoid potentially significant effects.
(d) NotLce. ~
-((Notice of the preparation on a Negative Declaration shall be provided to the public within a reasonable period of time prior to final adoption by the public agency of the Negative
. Declaration. Notice shall be given to all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice and shall also be given by at least one of the following procedures:
Sectfon 6061 of the Government Code, by the public agency in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project.
off site in the area.where the project is to be located.
to the project.
Subsect ioli (1) s?dil not preclude a public agency from providing additional notice by other means if such agency so desires, nor shall the requirements of this section preclude a public agency from providing the public notice required herein at the same time and in the same manner as public notice otherwise required
(A) Publication, no fewer times than required by
(€3) Posting of notice by the public agency on and
(C) Direct mailing to owners of property contiguous
(2) The alternatives for providing notice specified in
(., - by law for such project.
TITLE 14 , NATURAL RESOURCES 23
(e) Public Review. The Negative Declaration shall be made available to the public with sufficient time before the project is approved to provide an opportunity for members of the public to respond to the finding. Special requirements for review of Negative Declarations review are contained in Sections 15161.5, 15162, and 15164. (f) Notice of Determination. (1) After making a decision to carry out or.approve a project for which a Negative Declaration has been prepared, the Lead Agency shall file a Notice of Detennination with a copy of
the Negative Declaration attached. (2) The Notice of Determination shall include:
(A) The decision of the agency to approve or disapprove the project. (B) The determination of the agency whether the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
(C) A statement that no EIR has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. (3) If the Lead Agency is a state agency, the Notice of Determination shall be filed with the Secretary for Resources. (4) If the Lead Agency is a local agency, the Notice of Determination shall be filed with the county clerk of the county or counties in which the project will be located. If the project requires discretionary approvals from a state agency, the Notice of Detemination also shall be filed with the Secretary for c Rcsources. .
Secretary for Resources or the County Clerk starts a 30 day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA. (P.R.C. 21167(b)).
(5) The filing of the Notice of Determination with the
15084, DECISION TO PREPARE AN EIR. (a) If the Lead Agency finds after an initial study that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Leady Agency must prepare or cause to be prepared an Environmental Impact Rep0 rt (b) An EIR should be prepared whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (c) An EIR should be prepared when there is serious public controversy concerning the environmental effect of a project. Controversy not related to an environmental issue does not require the preparation of an EIR.
15085, EIR PROCESS. The following steps shall be followed
(a) General. . When an agency decides that an EIR will be after ,i;he had Agency decides to prepare an EIR.
required for a project, it shall follow the procedures contained in this section.
formatiLn'specified in Section 15141, 15142, and 15143 of these
(b) Early Consultation. 1 Before completing a draft EIR consisting of the in- c.
.I
c
..
i-
!.
"
AREACLIMATES
I MARITIME
x COASTAL
TRANSITIOWL
INTERIOR
9 DESISRT
MAP I
AREACLIMATES
I MAQITIME
zr .COASTAL
DS TRANSITIONAL
INTERIOR
Y DESCRT
!
M Y
rp ("
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
RENSTElN
,tlr Teil eines grosseren Systems ist, kann
mmen Relationen zwischen den einzel-
cs somit fur eine bestimmte Kategorie
+eitsn-Test gibt, konnen wir dennoch
liiquanz dieser Theorien priifen.
hsst werden als Systeme partiell inter- , innerhalb eines sich Indernden Rah-
h zuverlksig sein; wichtig kt, dass sie
citsfrernden Hypothesen basieren. Diese
Bczichungen bestimmter Problemkreise
oKh, dass sie wenigstens soweit zusam-
irtd, Diagnosen bestimmter Probleme zu
nahmen formulieren konnen. Wir durfen
1 gultig sind, doch konnen sie immerhin
riiber Auskunft geben kcnnen, in welcher
lt.
SV.\If.
bptitude B permettre des pronostics semble
sont souvent dtpoumes de cette qualite.
e derive pas du fait, que la science nous
rxpkrience. Sptcialement pour les theories , ce test est inapplicable. Pour cette raison,
ger une theorie comme correcte ou incor-
t' le phenomtne, qu'une thtorie essaie d'ex-
ci systtme, il est impossible de determiner
Bien qu'il n'existe pas un seul test compe-
hiories, nous pouvons quand-mtme juger
c d'un nombre de considerations.
vcnt &re considertes comme des systtmes
:t.s operant dans un environnement chan-
~ croyables; il est important, qu'elles soient
hypothbes non vCrifiables. Ces relations
couvrir des relations specifiques dans des
I mZme temps esptrer qu'elles soient lite
I. ttre capables de poser des diagnostics sur
.der des mesures correctives. Nous ne ~OU-
ne portke universelle, mais qu'elles operent
per frequemment la direction de la cor-
*. -. . - ' .. . ... . . . . .. .
THE TYRANNY OF SMALL DECISIONS:
MARKET FAILURES, IMPERFECTIONS,
AND THE LIMITS OF ECONOMICS*
The perennial problem of the appropriate role ofgovernment in eco-
nomic life has been subjected to increasingly intense consideration
by American economists in recent years, as part ofthe active political
controversy over the proper balance of resource allocation between
'private wants and public needs". In particular, strenuous efforts
havc bcen made on the one hand to identify and analyze defects in
tlw rcsource allocation effected by an unregulated market, such as
might be rcmedied by government intervention; and, on the other,
to clrvisc economic criteria for allocating resources, alternatively, via
~c~t.rrrlrIIcnt spendingz. The present essay falls in the former cate-
Rwy: it defines and analyzes a particular inherent characteristic of
thc markct, not to my knowledge hitherto identified as such, that is
capable under certain circumstances ofproducing a defective or pos-
ublp objectionable allocational result.
23
.
ALFRED E. KAHN
The short- and long-run determinations by business men are gov-
erned by decisions of customers involving a corresponding range in
size and time-perspective-to buy a single candy bar, a camping trip,
an automobile, a house, or to enter a rental contract of short or long
duration. Still, the 'size' or importance of the individual choices by
customers is typically less than of those made by the business man,
so that each of the latter's decisions reflects a prospective adding up
of the consequences of a large number of customer actions taking
place over a period of time.
A critical task in appraising the allocative efficiency of such an
economy, then, is to determine whether and under what conditions
the total effect of these small decisions will be optimal. The 'tyranny
of small decisions' suggests that it may not be, mereb because the
decisive determinations are individually too 'small', in the sensc
above indicated. It suggests that if one hundred consumers choosc
option x, and this causes the market to make decision X (where X
equals 100 x), it is not necessarily true that those same consumers
would have voted for that outcome if that large decision had ever
been presented for their explicit consideration. If this is true, the con-
sumer can be victimized by the narrowness of the contexts in which he exercises
his sovereignty.
Now, welfare economists have long ago exposed various reasons
why indeed these individual decisions may not add up to a collectivc
micro-economic optimum. These reasons fall essentially into two
categories: (a) market imperfections and (b) market failures. The
significance of imperfections of competition is obvious: if even the
individual choices are short of optimal, because, Iet us say, of con-
sumer ignorance or monopoly, there is no reason to expect their total
to be optimal. As for (b), it is by now commonplace that even per-
fectly competitive markets may fail to achieve Pareto-optimal results
in the presence of such phenomena as externalities (economies or
diseconomies, unpaid social costs, privately inappropriable social
benefits) or internally increasing returns (when a price equated to
marginal cost, as the Pareto optimum would require, will not be
adequately remunerative to a private entrepreneur)s. In addition,
economists have long recognized the possibility of objections to con-
3. See, c.g., BATOR, 'The Anatomy of Market Failure', Quurterb Journal .f
Economics, LXXII (August 1958), pp.351-79.
24
sumcr st
possil
with the PARETO
dtcmcd
The
thii list
wmctir
the def
that it
of thost in whic
I>?;cd i
catrgo
conscq
capab'
But
dccisic
It see1
morc
sccnrs
hki I
posit
dccisi
Of CiT
Of COR
> E. KAHN
kinations by business men are gov-
involving a corresponding range in
y a single candy bar, a camping trip,
;er a rental contract of short or long
Irtance of the individual choices by
If those made by the business man,
ms reflects a prospective adding up
number of customer actions taking
the allocative efficiency of such an
whether and under what conditions
isions will be optimal. The 'tyranny
t it may not be, merely because the
lividually too 'small', in the sense
tt if one hundred consumers choosc
mket to make decision X (where X
ily true that those same consumers
ome if that large decision had ever
consideration. If this is true, the con-
Cuness of the contexts in which he exercises
Je long ago exposed various reasons
isions may not add up to a collective
:se reasons fall essentially into tv.0
ztions and (b) market failures. The
competition is obvious: if even the
optimal, because, let us say, of con-
here is no reason to expect their total
,)I now commonplace that even per-
'41 to achieve Pareto-optimal results
ma as externalities (economies or
ts, privately inappropriable social
; returns (when a price equated to
)timum would require, will not be
rivate entrepreneur)s. In addition,
.I the possibility of objections to con-
:ny of Market Failure', Quarterly Journal of
I. 35 1-79.
THE TYRANNY OF SMALL DECISIONS
lunrer sovereignty itself, on 'non-economic' grounds. This category
dpossible objections to the functioning of the market, in contrast
with thc first two, questions or rejects the value judgments underlying PARETO'S definition of optimality, and raises considerations generally
dccnlcd to lie outside the particular competence of economics.
The 'tyranny ofsmall decisions' does not add a fourth category to
this list. As the ensuing discussion will show, its manifestations fall
lometimes in one, sometimes in another of the familiar three; and
the defect of, or possible basis for objection to, the private market
that it identifies can in principle be conceived of in one or another
of those familiar terms. Thus Part 11, below, will consider situations
in which it may cause authentic market failure. The problems ana-
ipcd in Parts 111-Y will prove to involve mixtures of all three
Categorics: sometimes the real culprit proves to be an imperfection
of colllpetition; sometimes what seem to be involved are dynamic
COtlSrquences of the market that welfare economics is simply in-
ca@h of appraising.
But in all instances, I believe, the 'smallness' of the governing
dtciJions is in one way or another an additional explanatory element.
It WCms in some instances to illuminate the problem better than the
familiar market failures or imperfections; and it sometimes
*cnu to have the virtue of more clearly suggesting the necessity of
bking at the process in broader terms than does the market, and
pclssibly substituting a 'large' for a piecemeal accumulation of 'small'
dehions, if the results of the market are to be intelligently appraised
Ot Cffcctively improved.
If. The phenomenon as an instance of market failure
Ih cwnt that first suggested the phenomenon to this writer was the
dhppcarance ofpassenger railroad service from Ithaca, a small and
c*mPGdvely isolated (since that time even more SO!) community
in upstate New York. It may be assumed the service was withdrawn
~PUC over a long enough period of time the individual decisions
bavCllcrs made, for each of their projected trips into and Out of ?&GI and the other cities served, did not provide the railroads
total revenue to cover incremental costs (defined over the
-C Wiod). Considering the comparative comforts and speeds of
25
I
.
ALFRED E. KAHN
competing media, those individual decisions were by no means ir-
rational: the railroad was slow and uncomfortable.
What reason, then, was there to question the aggregate effect of
those individual choices-withdrawal of the service? The fact is thc
railroad provided the one reliable means of getting into and out of
Ithaca in all kinds of weather; and this insufficiently-exerted option,
this inadequately-used alternative was something I for one would
have been willing to pay something to have kept alive. This way of
looking at the result suggests a simple, though unfortunately subjcc-
tive and hence not necessarily practical, test of whether the rail-
road's closing was economically correct: let each traveller or po-
tential traveller have asked himself4 how much he would have been
willing to pledge regularly over some time period, say annually, by
purchase of prepaid tickets, to keep rail passenger service in Ithaca.
. So long as the amount he would have declared (to himself) would
have exceeded what he actually paid in that period-and my own
introspective experiment shows it would-then to that extent thc
disappearance of passenger service from Ithaca was an incident of
market failure.
The cause of the failure was the discrepancy between the time
perspective of the choices I was given an opportunity to make-
deciding, each time I planned to travel, whether or not to go by
train-and the relevant decision of the railroad, which was a long-
run, virtually all-or-nothing and once-for-all decision, to retain or
abandon passenger service. When each traveller or potential traveller
chose between the local airline, his own automobile, and the rail-
road, his individual choice had an only negligible effect on the con-
tinued availability of the latter; it would therefore have been ir-
rational for him to consider this possible implication of his decisiorl.
4. If instead he had been asked by someone else--say the raiIroad company-
he might not have answered honestly. This is because the mere availability of rail-
road service to a community is what PAUL A. SAMUELSON has termed a public
good : so long as the railroad remains, it costs nothing additional to keep it available
for B as well as A; and as long as it is available to A, it is automatically available
also to B. This is the kind of situation in which each person approached to con-
tribute to its continued availability is under systematic temptation to understate
the intensity of his demand, in hope that the pledges of others will suffice to
preserve the option for him anyhow. 'The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure',
Review of Economics andStatirtics, XXXVI (November 1954), pp.388-9.
26
i .
IN
ssions were by no means ir-
omfortable.
:,tion the aggregate effect of r the service? The fact is the
1s of getting into and out of
nsufficiently-exerted option,
something I for one would
have kept alive. This way of
hough unfortunately subjec-
al, test of whether the rail-
ct: let each traveller or po-
#W much he would have been
ime period, say annually, by
I passenger service in Ithaca.
declared (to himself) would
in that period-and my own
uld-then to that extent the
jrn Ithaca was an incident of
Liscrepancy between the time
n an opportunity to make-
<vel, whether or not to go by
.\e railroad, which was a long-
e-for-all decision, to retain or
traveller or potential traveller
>wn automobile, and the rail-
,ly negligible effect on the con-
Nould therefore have been ir-
Sle implication of his decision.
: else-say the railroad company-
because the mere availadiliy of rail-
A. SAMIJEL~~N has termed a public
othing additional to keep it available
,le to A, it is automatically available
:lich each person approached to con-
r systematic temptation to understate
the pledges of others will suffice to
Pure Theory of Public Expenditure',
November 1954), pp.388-9.
THE TYRANNY OF SMALL DECISIONS
'rlIr ract remains that each selection ofx overy constitutes also a vote
Tor eliminating the possibility thereafter of choosing y; if enough
pplc Vote for x, each time necessan'ly on the msumption thaty will continue,
f may in fact disappear. And its disappearance may constitute a
pnllinc &privation, that customers might willingly have paid some-
thing to avoid. The only choice the market offered us travellers to
influcncc the longer-run decision of the railroad was thus shorter in
iu timc pcrspcctive, and the sum-total of our individual purchases
of railroad tickets necessarily added up to a smaller amount, than
our actual combined interest in the continued availability of rail service.
\Vc wtc victims of the tyranny of small decisions.
' But if most of the travellers who felt a sense ofloss at the railroad's
dcrnisc had in fact patronized it, though infrequently, when it was
still available, could not the railroad company have tested their
tvduntion of its continuation in service by charging them higher
Tkcs than it did on those few occasions? It might have tried, and to
Some extcnt succeeded: apart from administrative and regulatory Inconveniences, railroads could for example charge higher passenger
on rainy days, when the airplanes are grounded, or in the
wjntcr, and in this fashion appropriate a share of the consumers'
lu~hs dcrivcd from their continued availability for just such emer-
tpcid. But such a policy could not escape the basic difficuIty. At
tXl1 such time, the individual traveller would still be deciding
whrthcr or not to pay the higher price on the basis of the costs, pains
Wd hncfit, facing him in thatparticular instance. The higher fare might
Caw him simpIy to postpone his trip. He would still have no oppor-
tunity to express or convey to the railroad-and, on the contrary,
%Quid still have an incentive to conceal-his full appraisal of the
''pl~c to him of having the service available at all times. As ha already been suggested, this instance of the tyranny of small
ckcijiOns can be conceived in more familiar terms. As has frequently
kn noted, when some of the economic effects of individual trans-
&tiom do not enter into the calculations of the transacting parties,
effect of individual optimizing decisions may fall short of a
fotlectivc optimum. The essential flaw is precisely the one empha- ' Oa Of the difficulties, see BURTON A. WEISBROD, 'Collective-Con- awion swica of Individual Consumption Goods', Quarfcrly JOUT~ of h- urLt, WvIII (August 1964), pp.475-6.
.
ALFRED E. KAHN
sized here : the individual transaction is 'too small' if it has external,
unconsidered effects. Conversely, if, as in the present instance, thc
larger result, representing a summation of smaller decisions, is not
optimal, it must mean that the component transactions involved ex-
ternal economies or diseconomies.
The specific externality involved here has been very clearly iden-
tified by BURTON A. WEISBROD~. WEISBROD'S argument concerns thr
possible failure of the market to provide services part of the demand
for which is the desire of potential customers to keep open the pos-
sibility or option of enjoying them, when (a) the option is not (or not
always) in fact exercised, (b) revenues from actual purchasers are
or become insufficient to cover the costs of continued operation, and
(c) 'expansion or recommencement of production at the time [in the I
future] when occasional purchasers wish to make a purchase ... [is]
difficult or impossible". As WEISBROD points out, provision of the
option to non-users is a costless (external) byproduct of supplying
actual users; underallocation of resources to this endeavor occurs
only when condition (b) prevails. So the external benefit in our ex-
ample is the mere availability of the service to non-users, the con-
tinued ability to satisfy as-yet unexerted 'option demand', as he
terms its.
The concept of externalities is however in some situations inade-
quately descriptive of what we have in mind here. Thus, it has not
until WEISBROD (to my knowledge) suggested to economists the tend-
ency of the market to underrate option demand. While MILTON
FRIEDMAN recognizes that because of their great 'neighborhood ef-
fects' city parks would be supplied in inadequate quantities by the
private market alone, he rejects this case for governmental initiative
in the provision of national parks. Surely, he reasons, the only people
benefitted by the latter are those who actually travel to them : distant,
6. Op. d., pp. 471-7.
7. Ibid., p. 474.
8. The simplest case of the WEISBROD phenomenon is where the option demand
is not exercised at all during the period over which revenues must cover cost if
service is to be continued. But, as he recognizes (op.cif., p.476) and our foregoing
discussion demonstrates, the problem may arise also if the option demand
merely exercised infrequently-insufficiently for the revenues from usem on the
one hand to cover costs, on the other hand fully to reflect consumers' aggregate
evaluation of the continued availability of the service.
28
i
:N
too small’ if it has external,
n the present instance, thc
of smaller decisions, is not
nt transactions involved ex-
has been very clearly iden-
~D’S argument concerns thr
services part of the demand
:mers to keep open the pos-
(a) the option is not (or not
from actual purchasers are
of continued operation, and
+eduction at the time [in the
to make a purchase ... [is]
,)oints out, provision of the
131) byproduct of supplying
ces to this endeavor occurs
e external benefit in our ex-
mice to non-users, the con-
ted ‘option demand’, as he
xr in some situations inade-
mind here. Thus, it has not
ested to economists the tend-
on demand. While MILTON
heir great ‘neighborhood ef-
nadequate quantities by the
e for governmental initiative
y, he reasons, the only peoplc
l ally travel to them: distant,
1mon is where the option demand
rhich revenues must cover cost if
(op.cit., p.476) and our foregoing
rise also if the option demand 3
for the revenues from users on the
.Jly to reflect consumers’ aggregate
2 service.
. .. _. ~ ’ _” .. . , .. . . “. ~~.
i‘. . . . .. I i.%.
$-j ‘ “. THE TYRANNY OF SMALL DECISIONS
UnsrCrl parks can generate no external benefits. Why not then leave k to the market to ascertain by a system of user charges to what
(xtcnt the users or potential users are willing to pay the opportunity cats ofproviding these servicesD? The point is, however, that there
arc other, economically interested parties who would not be con-
srrjtrd in this determination-the people who may never travel to OIC parks yet for whatever reason derive satisfaction from their availa-
bility, and who would feel a loss if they were to disappear. The
wilderness is a particularly apt example, because it most clearly
mnrrts the irreversibility requirement, (c), above: once ‘production’
has ccnscd it cannot ever be resumed!
,Sa in our railroad example: externalities are usually understood
fo rcfcr to the effects of a transaction on other parties, or on the
transactors in other roles. In the present situation it is in large
mrxurc the interests of the same parties, railroad passengers as such,
that arc inadequately considered. The offenders are also the un-
kitring-ar, if witting, none the less helpless--victims. One might
orcotlnc still maintain that the potential rail passenger on a wintry
might when planes are grounded is in economic terms a different
Pmfl than the one who decides to take the plane on a sunny June
day. Thc effect of the latter’s decision on his own welfare in the former
6tWion is an authentic externality. But it has a special character.
\vhcrcas it would never pay the individual that imposes external
on othcrs to alter his course of conduct unless compelled or b&dl’ to do so, it would pay travellers and commuters to take into
’ WCOUnt, and be influenced in their travel choices by, the ‘external’
tacct-on thcrnselves-of their combined actions, if only the market
ga’c them the opportunity.
III. Invention as the mofher of necessity
% Philosopher Moms R. COHEN, I have been told, used to chal- kqc his Classes with something like the following question: ‘Sup- -, WentY-fivc years ago, some being from outer space had made
‘,*X+>* L? thii ’ Proposition: “I know how to make a means of transportation
29
& d" -
.
." "_ - ." " ". ~
. .- .. A L X" .. . . .
ALFRED E. KAHN c
that could in effect put 200 horses at the disposal of each of you. It
would permit you to travel about, alone or in small groups, at 60 to
80 miles an hour. I offer you this knowledge; the price is 40,000 lives
per year.'' Would we have accepted?' If there is a possibility WL'
might have refused the offer, thus presented-a 'big' decision-then
our having reached the same result gradually, unwittingly, by a
series ofindividual purchases could represent a product ofthe tyranny
of small decisions. It may be instructive to sift out the various pos-
sible reasons why, or criteria according to which, the market may
not have produced optimal results in this historical process.
First, who are the 'we' in this experiment? The way in which the
question is posed would seem to require some sort of collective de-
termination, ending in a simple 'yes' or 'no' response, rather than-
as the market does it-x yeses andy nos, perhaps at the cost of an
equivalent proportion of 40,000 lives. If one feels 'we' as a collec-
tivity-rather than as a simple aggregation of separate individuals-
would have been better off had we had the opportunity to make the
('big') decision, politically, on an all-or-none basis, one may, of
course, be simply rejecting the standards of welfare economics. This
view, while defensible, is one about which the economist has com-
paratively little to say.
But perhaps the implication is, instead, that individual ConsumeS
may have made the wrong decisions, in the sense that at least some
of them would have decided otherwise had they known the risks.
Then we have a simple case of market imperfection-inadequate
knowledge. This interpretation would be valid, of course; only if the
risks (and other costs) were costs to the motorist alone. To the extent
that the decision of X to buy a car increases the risks of injury Or
lung cancer to Y, whether or not Y buys a car, we have an external
cost and genuine market failure, though of a familiar kind, and not
particularly reflective of the tyranny of small decisions*'.
The spread of the automobile takes on the peculiar quality of the
phenomenon expounded here if, as well may be the case, there is
some threshold level oftraffic density or air pollution below which there
are no such risks, or beyond which these external costs mount di5-
proportionately with subsequent individual purchases. It then takes
11. Except in the special sense, already suggested, that any decision from con-
sideration of which external costs are excluded is ipso facto too 'small'.
30
. KAHN
at the disposal of each of you. It
done or in small groups, at 60 to
owledge; the price is 40,000 lives
ed?' If there is a possibility wc
$resented-a 'big' decision-then
Ilt gradually, unwittingly, by a
mepresent a product ofthe tyranny
ictive to sift out the various pos-
t-ding to which, the market may
in this historical process.
periment? The way in which thc
:quire some sort of collective de-
s' or 'no' response, rather than-
I y nos, perhaps at the cost of an
'ves. If one feels 'we' as a collec-
rcgation of separate individuals-
had the opportunity to make the
I all-or-none basis, one may, of
idards of welfare economics. This
it which the economist has corn-
nstead, that individual consumen
tis, in the sense that at least some
5rwise had they known the risks.
iiarket imperfection-inadequate
iuld be valid, of course, only if the
I the motorist alone. To the extent
nr increases the risks of injury Or
ybuys a car, we have an external
sough of a familiar kind, and not
iy of small decisions".
kes on the peculiar quality of thC
s well may be the case, there 3
)r air pollution below which thefl
h these external costs mount dis-
ndividual purchases. It then take
ily suggested, that any decision from con*
cluded is ipso fucfo too 'small'.
9 4: 2. . THE TYRANNY OF SMALL DECISIONS
8 cumulation of small, i. lividually riskless or comparatively riskless
&itions to the autom le population to develop a major external
mi. Any possible conse,.ient market failure would still be the result d the externality, however: if the interests of all affected parties,
ptptrators and potential victims together, were to be consulted in
tach consccutive small decision, the sharply mounting social costs of
CCqwcutive automobile purchases would be adequately reflected in
tbt price, and no market failure need occur.
Oiic moves beyond the familiar externalities, however, when one
tt~t~ tfic cumulative effects of individual purchase decisions on the
Wructurc of consumer wants themselves. PIGOU long ago identified en\.). an external cost of consumption, and saw that it was a pos- dbk source of market failure. r may want a car merely because x ant1 .( have purchased one; and 5 may then want a newer model
huse B has one. But such externalities are not confined to envy, h 'Jrrnonst ration effect', or vicarious or altruistic pleasure12. rmay
have a car because more and more of his friends are enabled b thc cars they have purchased to live on the outskirts of town, and bC to be able to continue visiting his friends; or because
p@cV stores have moved to shopping centers; or he may feel im- Plkd to move to the suburbs himself because now the schools are
ktkt than in town. Invention, VEBLEN noted, is the mother of
wwit).. And the process is gradual and cumulative: it takes the
"coy3Qg ofnlore than one friend or one grocery store to require the
woncd r to move too and fall victim to the garage-man and the
*mhr who charges portal-to-portal; and 2"s move adds its small
patr 40 the pressure on W. So what we have is a situation in which kria of apparently free, individually welfare-maximizing purchase
dcritioma made in the context of a given way of life and given
'lffQti% has such a cumulative effect on those parameters that
'Ulrbtyucnt choices can no longer be made in the same atmosphere
mkrruy a well as figuratively: the very atmosphere in town is pol- ktd can). In a real sense the decision is less free than it was.
* * invCntion has bred a need; and to the cumulative process of
' 42% 9% +- needs and then satisfying them one can not apply the
C
31
.
-i
.
!
I
i
"
I
ALFRED E. KAHN t traditional welfare-maximization criteria constructed on the basis ri
the assumption that that economy serves best that best satisfies wvnr~!l
that are given and unchanging-or, if changing, that change untl~l
influences exogenous to the economic system that satisfies them's. I!
would seem we have two distinct phenomena here: one, markr:
failure, within the criteria ofwelfare economics; and second, a chansr
in tastes that welfare economics is incapable of adjudging14.
The process of converting inventions into necessities by changittx
the parameters of individual choice consists in part in the setting ir.
motion of a gradual but cumulative and irreversible (or reversiblr
only at great threshold cost) destruction of alternatives. The rise of .
the automobile gradually undermined the profitability of the pas- - senger (and commuter) railroads, making it progressively more difli-
cult for the latter to attract either capital or enterprising managrn
The comfort and convenience of rail service therefore deteriorntd.
both absolutely and relative to emerging alternatives. This in tur:!
made it progressively more rational to prefer the latter, and thcsr
choices in turn gave another twist to the screw. (This process is f.ir
13. See JOHN MAURICE CLARK, Economic Znstitutions and Human Wevare (Nc*
York, Knopf, 1957), Chapters 2-3, and pp. 113-14; also his Competition US *
Dynamic Process (Washington, Brookings, 1961), pp. 38-9; and MOSES ABR.*~(~
VITZ, 'The Welfare Interpretation of Secular Trends in National Income and
Prcduct', in 77~ Allocalion .f Economu Resources (Stanford, Stanford Unived?
Press, 1959), pp. 13-21.
extent the other. WEISBROD has suggested to me the desirability of distinguishin5
'the aggregate effects of a large number of independent decisions in a static sefl
from the final effects of a series of decisions taken through time', his point bcivl
that the clearest case of market failure 'would be one in which time was irrelev3n'
and yet the simultaneous and independent decisions ofa large number ofdecision'
makers produced consequences which they, as a group, would vote (with dolhfi'
to undo'. The processes described in Part ZZ meet this test: though as a matter
historical fact they may work themselves out over time, they are not dynamic in
the economic sense; they do not require changes in taste or technology or sed
decisions for them to produce their poor result.
The present instance is obviously more complicated. It involves change in
taste, in wants, and information. The fact remains that to some extent the than@
in T's 'wants' were the external consequences of Z's actions; to that extent, para.
doxically, though a change in tastes is involved, the phenomenon is authenticall!'
static.
14. I am not able to discern to what extent precisely it is the one, to what .
32
1 i 1
.. ".*
B~S into necessities by changing
onsists in part in the setting in
and irreversible (or reversiblt
Eon of alternatives. The rise of
d the profitability of the pas-
iing it progressively more difi-
lital or enterprising managers.
service therefore deteriorated,
:ing alternatives. This in turn
.O prefer the latter, and thcsc
the screw. (This process is far
htilutionr and Human Weware (Ne\,*
1.113-14; also his Competition as a
I), pp. 38-9; and MOSES ABRAMO-
r Trends in National Income and
'res (Stanford, Stanford University
:nt precisely it is the one, to what
IC' .'le desirability of distinguishing
e; xdent decisions in a static sense
!+ i through time', his point beins
xt' one.in which time was irrelevant
ions of a large number ofdecision-
group, would vote (with dollan)
t this test: though as a matter of
er time, they are not dynamic in
:S in taste or technology or serial
:Iplicated. It involves changes in
11s that to some extent the change
f Z's actions; to that extent, para- , the phenomenon is authentically
~.. .
.
?
I
c
b...””
ALFRED E. KAHN
IV. Skimming the cream and the destruction of associated services
In the transportation field particularly, the argument is often ma&
for restrictions on competition, and particularly on entry, that other.
wise aggressive competitors would ‘skim the cream’ of the traffic, and
in so doing make it impossible for the established, common carricn
to continue the less lucrative services-conducting regularly schcd.
uled operations in bad seasons as well as good, on thin as well as rid
routesl’. A similar case is often made for resale price maintenancc:
that unrestricted price competition on popular, fast-moving brands
(best-selling books, whiskies, toothpastes or appliances) would drivr
out of business the small, conveniently situated, low-volume retailer,
the merchandiser who offers service, the diversified book store’*, th
neighborhood pharmacist, all of whom, it is alleged, survive in pnrl
because of the protected margins on the former items’O.
These arguments find an important part of their support in tht
fact ofconsumer ignorance and the threat ofdestructive competition.
familiar market imperfections, and to this extent do not concern w
17. See e.g., D.PHIL.IP LOCKLIN, Economics of Transfirtation, 5th ed. (Home
wood, Irwin, 1960), pp. 702, 820-21 ; DANIEL MARX, Jr., Zntemtionaf Shipp+4
Carfels: A Study of ZndmtrialSelf-Regulation by Shipping Conferences (Princeton, PrhCe
ton University Press, 1953), pp.4, 56-7, 187-98.
18. ‘Christmas shoppers wishing to buy J. D. Salinger’s best-seller “Franny and
hey” may now buy it for 84 on Fifth Avenue ... and for 162.79 at most big
department stores and discount houses. The literary price war in New York h*
reached its zenith ... Besides bringing bigger bargains for shoppers ... the corn
petition has [hurt] merchants who sell mostly books and cannot fall back 0”
revenue from television sets or vacuum cleaners. In fact, such long-establish4
bookstores as Brentano’s, Inc., fear for their existence, according to a spkw
man ... “We supply knowledge, stock and book atmosphere”, Theodore Wilcrl’
of the Eighth Street Bookshop, said, although he admitted the shop had suffed
some loss of revenue on best-sellers this year. An editor of Publishers’ Weekly Who
has made the rounds of discount houses said the other day: “YOU can go in and
browse, but you won’t find anything you don’t know about ... Last week I heard
one lady ask, “Is this book O.K. for a 9-year-old?” And the clerk answed.
“Look, lady, all I know is the list price is $3.50 and our price is 8 1.98”’ ”k Nts
rork Times, December 1, 1961, pp.31, 58.
fcnancc Re-examined (London, Macmillan, 1960), pp. 51-2, 66-76, for a cogent
statement.
19. See P. W. S. ANDREWS and FRANK A.FRIDAY, Fair Trade, Resale Price
34
f
.......... I- .....
”_ “” _. ...
-. -_
€I N
3n of associated service$
the argument is often madt 1
icularly on entry, that other. 1
the cream' of the traffic, and
stablished, common carrier1
conducting regularly schrd.
good, on thin as well as rich
)r resale price maintenancc:
popular, fast-moving bran&
s or appliances) would driw
ituated, low-volume retailer,
: diversified book store's, thc
, it is alleged, survive in part
e former items's.
part of their support in tht
kt ofdestructive competition.
his extent do not concern UJ
~ 3z=-;-. ., .~ I.. :- 'i THE TYRANNY OF SMALL DECISIONS
j&m, But they also implicitly or explicitly invoke the principle we
hen expounding, If unrestricted competition prevailed, it
mki bc irrational for each consumer to choose where to make each
irldividual purchases on any basis except price and convenience, rwJ, whcrc these considerations so dictated, to buy his toothpaste
4d hhiskcy at the supermarket, his best sellers at a discount by mail, fi xppliances from the discount house, to travel on a non-scheduled
&nc if it offered bargain rates during the peak season. His indi-
%kh~~l, amdl decision to do otherwise would not in itself make a
J)Chifir\nt contribution to keeping the corner drug, book or Iiquor atrc in business, or the off-peak flights on the schedule. And yet the kh! tkt of these individual decisions might be to kill off not only * ft.jrctcd alternative but the auxiliary services it alone provides- IwrU that buyers might, if given the explicit opportunity, have
kR Willing to pay something to keep alive. IltC problem can be illuminated, though not resolved, by the
WJrbniics orintegration. The drugstore, scheduled airline and mari-
&C dlipping conference member are integrated firms, purveying a
*uitrY ofproducts or services. There are only two possible effects of
hption on the ability of these firms to compete with inter-
Or price competitors who confine themselves to skimming the
. , .~
.I
.Ctsrmat':
35
.
. .... .
ALFRED E. KAHN
It may give them an advantage-in which event, it woLI, rbz unit costs un,
&uld go up, , sib1
?
seem' they can make no for protection. The telephone compn, ~~~-~imc rate. , for needs no artificial barriers against the entry ofspecialist firms seekir, '
to take away its apparently more lucrative day-time, long-distan, :
telephone business, in order to ensure its continued provision I,
night-time service. Its rates for the former would have to be evr: 1
higher than they are were it not also in a position, with the SXI e'
equipment, to supply off-peak, night-time service at rates in excc
of incremental costs. Indeed, in such a situation it is in a sense in!
possible to say which part of the business is the 'cream', which p3r
the 'skimmed milk', because the bulk of the costs are common. !C
competitor could survive on the cream alone, unless the incumbrr,
company is inefficient, or charging extortionate rates, or using I! '
outmoded technology-no one of which reasons constitutes a soci2'
justification for limitations on entry.
(2) The integration may not confer an advantage in the lucratilr
part of the business sufficient to offset the advantages potential
trants may enjoy (perhaps because of their enterprise, abilities, vd
ume ofoperations, or their particular kind ofintegration22), in whk!
event, it would appear, they still deserve no protection. Suppose, fof
example, some firm outside the Bell System found a new way I@
transmit long-distance telephone messages using the rays of the sun-
i.e., during the day time only-at total unit costs less than currd
day-time rates. Would the incumbent company then deserve protW
tion against the undermining of those high rates on the ground that
otherwise night telephone service would disappear? The correct 3p
swer is that no class ofcustomers should be required to pay more than
the total cost of serving it alone23. Whether by competition or b!
regulation24 the day-time rates should be brought down at least lo
fore practiced, these interlopers enter (according to the advocates of pde
~hpwtantpa~tofth ' 'k"br~ rb~ appmpri:
tiongrn) or operate as specialists, handling only best sellers, or fat-movi# La rot XKpan'
proprietary drugs. f :; 2). Uh or mu
22. See note 21, immediately preceding. f' i, c*r;th, tnpr2rCtion!
23. HARRY GUNNISON BROWN, Principles of Commerce (New York, Macmilbf!, ' d-; Acwb, WC
1916), Part 111, pp. 172-3. p .;+ *Ttu*?9ckcd boo
24. Competition may of course be a wasteful means of bringing about the ,.,jht-cll\g
economically proper result. If so, this would be because of market irnperfectionJ/ ;
causing excessive entry of new capital, destructive competition, and so on--O''
because of market failure, strictly defined. Thus, central to DANIEL MARX'S SW
*,:ark oc)rcr rcn4ccl
,: CU ~dvantngn am '-. ?I. %u: Kf aotc
36
hH N t e-in which event, it would
Lion. The telephone company .'
ntry of specialist firms seeking
ative day-time, long-distance
.e its continued provision of
mner would have to be evcn
in a position, with the samc
time service at rates in excess
a situation it is in a sense im-
less is the 'cream', which part
of the costs are common. No
n alone, unless the incumbent
xtortionate rates, or using an
ich reasons constitutes a social
~ an advantage in the lucrati\*r
:t the advantages potential cn-
f their enterprise, abilities, VOI-
kind of inteption"), in which
'rve no protection. Suppose, far
;1 System found a new way to
:sages using the rays of the sun-
3tal unit costs less than current
ct company then deserve protec-
x high rates on the ground that
3uld disappear? The correct an-
.11d be required to pay more than
Whether by competition or by
.!Id be brought down at least tC
:ording to the advocates of protfl
Ig only best sellers, or fast-mox*i*c
; ofCommerce (New York, Macmilla**
I
wasteful means of bringing about *
Id be because of market imperfections" '
estructive competition, and so on-d
1. Thus, central to DANIEL MARX'S
THE TYRANNY OF SMALL DECISIONS
&C total unit costs under the new technology. If this requires higher
nlght-time rates for the joint service to continue, then night rates
&auld go up, possibly to the point where this business covers the
bulk of the common costs. The advantages of integration may then nil1 &'ice to keep the old, established telephone company in busi-
BCU, perhaps retaining its monopoly-this would be our case (1).
they may no longer suffice-our case (2)-in which event night
(tkphonic communication is no longer economically feasibIe, and
huld disappcar*S.
. Thc policy issues here under consideration would seem to involve
OR (2) rather than case (1) situations. It is evidently possible with-
Out competitive handicap to sell whiskey and not delivery service,
@Othp;ute and not the filling of prescriptions, New York to Miami
and not New York to Ithaca flights, appliances and not quick re-
Wintr. The cream and the skimmed milk are separable; that is why
wweyon of both ask to be protected in the former part of their
hbncss, In these circumstances, it would seem, competition ought
t~ bc allowed to drive the prices of the separable services down, and
Wt UJ their respective long-run marginal costs2'. Otherwise, pur- c~~fo of cream are being forced to subsidize devotees of skimmed atilk.
.. .
-.
.
ALFRED E. KAHN
phone service later regret-that is, experience a sense of loss thr t
would willingly have paid something to avoid-the disappearat.,.'
of night service that results from these individually rational, snr.:.
decisions? To this consideration it would seem a sufficient respow ?
in most cases, that the market will ordinarily give customers thc 0;.
portunity to keep the skimmed milk flowing. The price will have I
rise to a truer reflection ofits opportunity cost, and if enough pntro::
are willing to pay the price it will flow; if they are mt, it ought not8
If prices are not correctly adjusted, we have market imperfcctio:.
not market failure.
In what circumstances, then, may such an outcome reflect 30.
thentic market failure? As WEISBROD suggests, two conditions haw . to be met: (a) it must be infeasible to charge the required price Ls
the separate service, and (b) resumption of service, once suspendrd
must be difficult (;.e., costly) or impo~sible~~. But these conditioa
are rarely absolute; different markets will satisfy them in varyin!
degrees. Whether, then, we may have market failure because of thl
tyranny of small decisions in bookstores as well as railroads, drug
stores or local service airlines as well as national parks, is a questic
of fact to be confronted in each situation separately.
As for condition (a), for example, it is impossible for public parb
to levy charges on patrons who never actually visit them. This is thr
extreme case. But even when the option is sometimes exercised, it
by preservation of the alternative. We have aIready suggested ~h!
this might be so for passenger railroads. Similarly, it may be in-
feasible for the well-stocked bookstore to charge for the privilege d
28. It should perhaps be reemphasized that the kind of market failure COW
sidered in this essay is not the only possible kind. There may be external benefio
even ifsales revenues prove insufficient.
sideration in another situation of possible market breakdown, destructive
petition. One of the main circumstances in which unrestricted price rivalry m3!'
be undesirable is in the presence of temporary excess capacity, where a tendenq
for price to be driven to out-of-pocket costs of some producers (and below th@
of others) may cause the dismantling or inadequate maintenance of productisT
capacity and going organizations that will in time be needed, and can at such
times be reconstituted only at markedly higher cost.
38
i
I.
i' may be infeasible to collect the entire consumer's surplus generat4
~ 1
I flowing from a continued provision of service that may justify its continuatic"
, 29. Op. cit., p. 476. The reader will recognize the relevance of the second cop
11
~
I
i
KAHN
experience a sense of loss thcy
lg to avoid-the disappearance
.ese individually rational, small
rould seem a sufficient response,
rdinarily give customers the op
flowing. The price will have to
unity cost, and if enough patrons
IW; if they are not, it ought not28. , we have market imperfection,
ay such an outcome reflect au-
ID suggests, two conditions haw
to charge the required price for
ption of service, once suspended,
npos~ible~~. But these conditions
rets will satisfy them in varying
tve market failure because of the
;tares as well as railroads, drug.
I1 as national parks, is a question
lation separately.
:, it is impossible for public park
er actually visit them. This is the
Iption is sometimes exercised, it
ire consumer's surplus generated
We have already suggested why
lroads. Similarly, it may be in-
we to charge for the privilege Of
d that the kind of market failure con-
e kind. There may be external benefin
Nice that may justify its continuati&
gnize the relevance of the second con.
: market breakdown, destructive cow
n which unrestricted price rivalry ma!
rary excess capacity, where a tendene'
ts of some producers (and below thd
nadequate maintenance of productib'
11 in time be needed, and can at sd'
igher cost.
t,fc,\\.singJO. On the other hand, it is difficult to see why druggists can
not charge to the filling of prescriptions as much of the common costs
at competition in toothpastes and patent medicines requires; why
liquor stores cannot charge separately for delivery; and why feeder
airlines cannot charge the travellers and communities they serve the
full costs of that service.
Finally, even if competitive skimming of the cream did in fact
cause the disappearance ofdesired associated services, we would have
n case for government intervention only if condition (b) were met as
Wll. It is very questionable that most of the cases discussed in this
Wtion meet this test nearly as well as those analyzed in Part 11, above.
f%t wilderncss, once despoiled, can never be a wilderness again.The
Ching down of a neighborhood drug and liquor store, diversified
book stores, even feeder airline service on thin routes, on the other
hand, probably do not represent such 'large' decisions that they can-
Rot bc reversed in the future, should demand warrant it. For these
Cam, then, the social costs of restricted competition probably out-
weigh the costs of eventually rectifying market failure, when and if
ncccWry. Whatever case can be made for fair trade, for maritime
hipping conferences and for restricted entry into airline transport
mwt therefore be based on the imperfections of unregulated com-
Flition, rather than, importantly, on the tyranny ofsmall decisions.
39
.. .
- . ,. -.
ALFRED E. KAHN 1 1 product quality, so that each can register a free and tolerably WII.
informed monetary appraisal of quality differentials and changu '
Product inflation could by this test be said to have occurred only i! '
quality competition had operated in such a way as to eliminate or '.
to fail to develop lower quality-price combinations that consumtn
would willingly have purchased (or continued to purchase) in quan. :
tities sufficient to cover the cost ofproviding them. The question from ':
the standpoint of this essay would then be : may there be something
in the process ofday-by-day or year-by-year choosing among quality
price combinations, each chcjire typically involving rather modes!
differences-i.e. a 'small' decision-such that while consumers makc
the proper (from their standpoint) individual short-term choices, ir.
* so doing they pay an aggregate cost over time that they would hat<
I deemed excessive had they ever been given the opportunity to mnkr
decisions is eventually to produce a range of choice from which dv
sired and economically feasible lower price-quality combination,
have either disappeared or have failed to appear? The answer (('
these questions may be yes; product inflation could therefore bc 3
manifestation of the tyranny of small decisions. But, the subsequent
discussion will attempt to show, it is not principally an evidence of
market failure: the principal culprit seems to be imperfections
competition.
There are two aspects of product inflation that may indeed cSt
doubt on the optimality of the competitive market outcome; havinS
already been discussed, they need detain us but briefly. One is thc
tendency quality variations have ofgenerating external diseconomie
ofconsumption-envy. The other is their contribution to the proc6
of want creation : the mere appearance of new models inculcates in
consumers dissatisfaction with the ones they have. These two effecu
can involve households in a self-defeating spiral of model changm
each at one and the same time creating dissatisfaction and (temp
rarily) removing it, at a cost that buyers might well deem excesi\*C
piece-meal, family-by-family, year-to-year basis32. This is not to sa!'
11 such an over-all assessment? Or such that the total effect of thcs
I
I if the question were ever put to them on something other than
32. There might also be an element of market imperfection here, with con;
sumers short-sightedly failing to practice the kind of 'anticipatory retardation
that FELLNER points out would be rational for producers in deciding whether @ .
40
E. KAHN
register a free and tolerably wcll.
quality differentials and changcs.
st be said to have occurred only if
1 in such a way as to eliminate or
mice combinations that consumen
or continued to purchase) in qunn-
providing them. The question from
1 then be: may there be something
x-by-year choosing among quality
typically involving rather modest
,"such that while consumers makr
i) individual short-term choices, in
xt over time that they-would haw
teen given the opportunity to makr
such that the total effect of thcsc
: a range of choice from which dr-
lower price-quality combinatiorlc
failed to appear? The answer
luct inflation could therefore be J
nall decisions. But, the subsequcnf
it is not principally an evidence Of
lprit seems to be imperfections @f
uct inflation that may indeed ~351
mpetitive market outcome; havinF
d detain us but briefly. One is tht
afgenerating external diseconomifi
c is their contribution to the procr*
lrance of new models inculcates in
e ones they have. These two effeca
lefeating spiral of model changfi
eating dissatisfaction and (temp
buyers might well deem exced\"
them on something other than '
c.a,c can bc sure consumers would necessarily have had it any other
CAY, whether in automobiles, refrigerators, women's dresses or books.
thcy would undoubtedly appraise many of the quality changes
uncquivocal and unidirectionally improvements, and willingly pf thcit cost, even if offered the choice over a much longer period
.. ;dtimc'. Second, they might derive sufficient pleasure from the
: FCU itsclf of buying, discarding and buying again, and willingly ' p). Its costs (consider, for example, the changing 'models' of books).
:. But, apart from the two foregoing considerations, it is ineffective
Wqxtition that must be blamed for product inflation. The difficulty b Rot that consumers, ofered the relevant short-term alternatives, make
ur( dopt the latest in a series of cost-reducing innovations. 'The Influence of
hbt Structure on Technological Progress', QunrterZy Journni ofEconomics, Lxv
(I%l), m reproduced in American Economic Association, Readings in Industrial
@&ekation and Public Policy (Homewood, Irwin, 1958), pp.287-8.
33. !kc Ihe interesting attempt by Zvr GRILICHES to measure to what extent
0'' in automobile models have in fact mct this test, by taking as the measure
Cwicrc qudity improvement Over time the (cross-sectional) price differentials
~fli;\tnpointsoftirne between models embodying comparable quality differences.
Rice Indexes for Automobiles: An Econometric Analysis of Quality -, in 7hs Price Statutics of the Federal Government (National Bureau of Em-
&*k Rwarch, Number 73, General Series, 1961), pp. 173-96, and 'Notes on ?k Alt*cut'cmcnt of Price and Quality Change', in National Bureau of Economic
'5Yuth Conference On Research in Income and Wealth, Models of Income
h*-iQn, studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 28 (Princeton, Princeton University ,$I-~)D pp.381-404. It should be clear, however, that this ingenious calcu-
41
9
.
.. _. ...
j
ALFRED E. KAHN
rational choices setting in motion a course of development that pro.
duces a less-than-optimal end result, for which they would not votc
ifgiven the opportunity: that would be market failure. It is that an '
inadequately competitive market often fails to present them in the
first place with the proper small choices. They are often not offered
a choice between unchanged and changed models at a price differ-
ential fully reflecting the cost-saving made possible by sticking to thc
former. The recognition among oligopolists that competition probing
the price elasticity of industry demand tends to be self-defeating,
whereas 'quality' competition :hat moves that curve to the right is
mutually beneficial, tends to make the choice rather between a new
model of seller A and a unchanged model of seller B at the same Price.
The consumer is thus deceived about the social cost of satisfying his
taste for variety and change, and hence votes to satisfy that taste morc
often than he would in a market characterized by more effectivr
price competition.
It is concentrated oligopoly with high barriers to entry that makrs
the leading American automobile manufacturers comparatively un-
interested in aggressively developing and promoting economy"of
initial purchase, operation and repair-durability, or safety34. An-
other market imperfection reinforcing this tendency, also mentioned
34. For a particularly incisive and convincing exposition and explanation of
the systematic, consciously parallel tendency of automobile manufacturers pm
gressively to incorporate embellishments on a non-optional basis, at progressivrh
rising (and concealed) costs, see the statement of RUBY TURNER MORRIS, U.S.
Senate, Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly, Committee on the Judiciae".
Administered Prices, Hearings, Part 6, 85th Cong. 2nd Sess., 1958, pp.245570. *
also ROBERT F. LANZILLOTI~, 'The Automobile Industry', in WALTER ADA*
(Ed.), 77u Structure of Amnicon Industry, 3rd ed. (New York, Macmillan, 1961)t
pp. 342-5; PAUL W. GARNEY, 'How Safe Are the New Cars?' Harper's Magazifl.
CCXIV (February 1957), pp.38-43. Also JOHN A. MENGE, who supplies a per-
suasive explanation of why style competition and frequent model changes recom-
mend themselves to the major producers, and accentuate the industry's concen-
tration. 'Style Change Costs as a Market Weapon', Quarferb Joml of Economb-
LXXVI (November 1962), pp.632-47. The contributions of American Motoe
and the Volkswagen in at least temporarily checking product inflation do not Of
course disprove but instead support the <=LARK and MENCE analysis: it would
the smaller companies that might find it in their interest to emphasize price.
durability, stability of style and economy, with the major producers introducing
their so-called compact cars only defensively and with a lag.
42
-.
LAFIN
mrse of development that pro-
for which they would not vote
be market failure. It is that an
en fails to present them in the
ces. They are often not offercd
mged models at a price differ-
nade possible by sticking to thr
?olists that competition probing
.md tends to be self-defeating,
aoves that curve to the right is
le choice rather between a new
lode1 of seller B at the same price.
t the social cost of satisfying his
:e votes to satisfy that taste more
' aracterized by more effectivc
tigh barriers to entry that makes
anufacturers comparatively un-
g and promoting economy4f
&--durability, or safety34. An-
tg this t ndency, also mentioncd
vincing exposition and explanation of
ICY of automobile manufacturers p*
I a non-optional basis, at progresiveh
nent of RUBY TURNER MORRIS, U.S.
onopoly, Committee on the Judiciar)'.
ong. 2nd Sess., 1958, pp.245570.
nobile Industry', in WALTER ADA*
1 ed. (New York, Macmillan, 1961)-
\re the New Cars?' Harpct's Maguifl-
OHN A. MENGE, who supplies a pr-
and frequent model changes recorn
Id accentuate the industry's concen'
eapon', Quart& Journal ofEconomirJ*
le contributions of American Motof'
y checking product inflation do not d
ARK and MENGE analysis: it would be
in their interest to emphasize price*
with the major producers introducing
:ly and with a lag.
.. J. r 1
THE TYRANNY OF SMALL DECISIONS
t~ CLARK, is the difficulty consumers have in appraising, hence their
&wnru in shifting their patronage in response to, claims along these &lm''.
. . Similarly, it is oligopoly plus the limitations on entry and dis-
Ccwlrdgcnrcnt of price competition in passenger air transport, do-
ctmlic and international, that have caused competition to take
,~~nw"notably emphasizing newer and faster equipment, frequency
A:: .fmt cwts upward toward price rather than price down toward cost-
. ,'", t.:mabcr ., i instance of product inflation36, Or, to take a homelier but
' plbly more irritating example, it is significant that when the
.> hlrod~cc trading stamps, it stated it did not expect to have to raise
bccause it anticipated the increased volume resulting 'without
CmWpnding increases in fixed costs' would absorb the added
Cat*''. It is not clear whether the company rejected the alternative
.-
1 ..,&xhcduling, I' inflight entertainment and luxurious meals-that ad-
r-
,*';A ..: .. & P company at last succumbed to the competitive pressure to
43
9
.
i
.,.* .- d_"yLs""-.-
this significant incident in our national reversion to barter was eithrr ,
of the first two, then this further spread of trading stamps was x. '
instance of product inflation attributable to market imperfection. :
In each of these instances, the consumer may have been offcrrd
an excessively small range of choice, unreflective of all the consc- '
quences of this or that decision-to phone the airline with the nlart
or the fewer flights scheduled, to patronize the grocery offering trad-
ing stamps or the one that did not, in both cases with no apparcnf
price differential between the rival suppliers. Naturally, in each
t
instance he chose the former, in numbers sufficient to force compcti.
tors to 'improve' their service in the same way, at mounting costs dl
around9*. To consider the latter example alone, it remains an intcp
esting question how shoppers would now respond if they were given
a once-and-for-all choice for or against trading stamps, in ternLC
clearly setting forth how much groceries and gasoline would cost with
and without them. Whether through market imperfection or markt
failure, we may here again have been victims of the tyranny of small
decisions.
VI. Conclusion
It is an inherent characteristic ofa consumer-sovereign, market econ-
omy that big changes occur as an accretion of moderate-sized steps,
38. There is a clear analogy here to the case of competitive and self-defeating
advertising. It pays each individual company to advertise, whether aggressivcb
or defensively; and the expectation of a favorable customer response and thC
presence of either excess capacity or economies of scale may permit the advertkd
product to be offered at the same price as the unadvertised one. Yet the net e&<'
of such a cycle of competitive moves and responses may be nothing more than
higher costs for all. If consumers are never presented with a clear-cut choice bc-
tween advertised and unadvertised brands at prices reflecting their respecti\*
costs, or are deterred by ignorance from choosing the cheaper, unadvertised brand
we have a case of product inflation attributable to market imperfection. SO, Of
course, even if A & P's anticipation of higher sales and hence no-higher total
unit costs were justified-and in fact it was not, universally; some A & P sto@
i
did in fact raise prices when they introduced stamps (Waf1 Street Journal, SCV
tember 17,1963)-that anticipation would not have been correct for the indusW ,
as a whole. !
44
t
i
. .. .
:AHN f. r, because it felt (a) such a com-
xceptible to customers, or (b) ,
.itors, or (c) consumers really ~
luctions. But if the reason for '
I reversion to barter was either '
ead of trading stamps was an
lble to market imperfection. '
sumer may have been offercd
unreflective of all the consc-
'lone the airline with the mort
jnize the grocery offering tmd-
I both cases with no apparcnt
suppliers. Naturally, in each
Iers sufficient to force compcti-
ime way, at mounting costs all
lple alone, it remains an intcr-
low respond if they were givcn
P
inst trading stamps, in ternu
es and gasoline would cost with
market imperfection or marker
victims of the tyranny of small
don
sumer-sovereign, market econ-
retion of moderate-sized steps,
ase of competitive and self-defeatin!:
~y to advertise, whether aggressivrl!'
vorable customer response and thr
J of scale may permit the adverthd
madvertised one. Yet the net efl.c'
,mnses may be nothing more thfl
esented with a clear-cut choice
it prices reflecting their respectitf
mg the cheaper, unadvertised brad
zble to market imperfection. So, 0'
ler sales and hence no-higher tom'
not, universally; some A & P sto@
cd stamps (Wall Street Journal, SW
lot have been correct for the inddp'
THE TYRANNY OF SMALL DECISIONS
ihch of thcm the consequence of 'small' purchase decisions-small ,-'b firir individual size, time perspective, and in relation to their
-~1( cornbincd, ultimate effect. Because change takes place in this
&&ion, it sometimes produces results that conflict with the very
vafr~rs thc market economy is supposed to serve. In some instances,
&is wtns to be because certain kinds of economically significant
%4e~ nrwr gct taken in the ballot box of the market place. In others, dkhich economists have long been aware, because the individual
Ulwctions have consequences extending beyond the transacting
pia thcmsclves, so that the sum-total of economic costs and bene-
&%$ do not get calculated by the market. In others, not because of
k'ttrrrnt dckcts of the market system itself but because of imperfec-
tk@ Ofcompetition. All have these characteristics in common: that
%fgC' changcs are effected by a cumulation of 'small' decisions; that
~~'~l~~l~~n ncvcr get an opportunity to vote with their dollars on the kfV clr.rngcs as such; and if they were given the opportunity, they
@k,r&llt 1101 approve what they have wrought.
". ,
ALFRED E. KAHN
SUMMARY
.
ALFRED E. KAHN
be an uneconomic spiral of product quality changes over time so-called 'prodw:
inflation'. Finally, the cumulation of individual choices may have the u1tinu:t '
effect of changing consumer preference function themselves, in which event it il '
not possible for welfare economics to judge the optimality of market performanc, i
These possible defects of the market may be conceived in the more familu! 'I
terms-as attributable to externalities, market imperfections or the defectc d
consumer sovereignty itself. Emphasis on the contribution influence of th
smallness of the controlling decisions has the virtue of suggesting the possibl,
necessity of substituting a 'large' for a piecemeal accumulation of small decisior I ,
if the results are to be intelligently appraised or improved. i
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Allokation und Reallokation der Resourcen werden in der Marktwirtschaft ad
der Grundlage der aufsummierten individuellen Markttransaktionen vorgc.
nommen. Bei der Untersuchung, ob eine solche Wirtschaft auch effizient arbeitrt.
ist es vor allem schwierig, genau zu bestimmen, wann und unter welchen Bc*
dingungen dieses Aufsummieren zu optimalen Ergebnissen fiihrt. Der Pusscn!
geringe Umfang und die begrenzte Reichweite der einzelnen Transaktion kans
nach Ansicht des Autors in dem Sinne Fehlallokationen hervorrufen, dass dir
Konsumenten - konnten sie explizit dafiir oder dagegen stimmen - mit den Fd-
gerungen aus ihren aufsummierten individuellen Transaktionen nicht einvrr.
standen wzren.
Unter Umstlnden kann der geringe Umfang der relevanten Entscheidungcn
sogar zu einem richtiggehenden Versagen des Marktes fiihren, etwa dann, wenn
der Wunsch der Konsumenten nicht bewertet wird, eine bestimmte Diem*.
lcistung - trotz augenblicklich zur Deckung der Beschaffungskosten nicht aw
reichender Nachfrage - auch in Zukunft angeboten zu erhalten. Es ist auch dent.
bar, dass eine <<irrationale>> Nachfrage entsteht, sobald nlmlich der gerin%
Umfang der einzelnen Transaktion die Beschaffung von ausreichenden Mark[-
informationen nicht gerechtfertigt erscheinen lkst. In andem FPllen werdca
durch monopolistische Erscheinungen die effektiven Kosten konkurrierendc'
Giiter nicht mehr richtig wiedergegeben, was die Wahlmoglichkeiten der K11lfC'
venerrt; im Extremfall kann daraus sogar eine qualitative aProduktinflation*
entstehen. Schliesslich ist es auch denkbar, dass sich durch die Aggregierung dcr
individuellen PrSerenzen die Prserenzfunktionen der Konsumenten gndern:
es ist dann nicht mehr mbglich zu beurteilen, ob der Markt im Sinne der Welfs
Economics optimal funktioniert.
Diese potentiellen MSngel des Marktmechanismus konnen zwar den
kannten Erscheinungen, wie aterne Elemente und Unvollkommenheiten de
Marktes, sowie den Nachteilen der Konsumentensouverinitiit selbst zugeschrle
ben werden. Sobald man jedoch auch die durch den geringen Umfang dcr
kontrollierenden Entscheidungen entstehenden Effekte beriicksichtigt, ergib'
46
. .,
j :
THE
le so-called ‘product
y have the ultimate
, in which event it is
narket performance.
in the more familiar
or the defects of
on influence of the
;gating the possible
.on of small decisions
Marktwirtschaft auf
Iransaktionen vorge-
uch effizient arbeitet,
d unter welchen Be-
n fuhrt. Der lusserst
en Trarlsaktion kann
hervorrufen, dass die
men - mit den Fol-
ctionen nicht einver-
nten Entscheidungen
:en, etwa dann, wenn
le bestimmte Dienst-
mgskosten nicht aus-
lten. Es ist auch denk-
nlmlich der geringe
iusreichenden Markt-
ndern Flllen werden
ten konkurrierender
“chkeiten der Kiiufer
: nProduktinflation>>
lie Aggregierung der
msumenten Hndern;
m Sinne der Welfare
6nnen zwar den be-
ollkommenheiten des
litst selbst zugeschrie-
geringen Umfang der
beriicksichtigt, ergibt
. ..
THE TYRANNY OF SMALL DECISIONS
sich - will man rationale Ergebnisse erhalten - die Notwendigkeit, unter Um-
stznden die Schritt-fur-Schritt-Aufiummierung der einzelnen Transaktionen
durch ein umfassenderes Nachfrageaggregat zu ersetzen.
RbSUMfi
Une tconomie du marcht fait ses allocations et reallocations des resources sur la
base d’une addition de <<votes>>, que les consommateurs font sur le marcht.
L’examen de l’efficacitt d’une telle tconomie est alors une t%che difficile, car il
faut dtterminer quand et sous quelles conditions, ce procb d’addition produit
des rtsultats optima. c<L’ttroitesse>> des transactions individuelles dtcisives et leur
dimension, ttendue et perspective temporelle limittes peuvent, selon l’auteur,
amener des allocations mal orienttes dans le sens, que les consommateurs pour-
raient dtsapprouver les rbultats, s’ils avaient la possibilitt de voter explicitement
pour ou contre.
Sous certaines circonstances, l’ttroitesse des dtcisions importantes peut en-
trainer une vrai dtfaillance du marcht. Cela peut &tre le cas, lorsque le dtsir des
consommateurs pour un service sptcial - qui pour le moment n’est pas demandt
et ne couvre donc pas les coQts de procuration, mais que les consommateurs dt-
sirent utiliser dans le futur - n’est pas considtrt. Sous d’autres circonstances,
1’6troitesse des transactions individuelles peut encourager une demande irration-
nellc du consommateur, car les transactions sont trop petites pour justifier l’ac-
quisition de bonnes informations sur le marcht. Dans d’autres cas, des tltments
monopolisateurs empechent les consommateurs d’avoir une notion correcte des
prk cffectifs de marchandises concurrentes. Ceci peut mener au cas extreme B une
*inflation du produit,, qualitative. Finalement, l’accumulation des prtftrences
hdividuelles peut entrainer un changement des fonctions de prtftrence des con-
Mmateurs; dans ce cas, il est impossible de juger si le marcht fonctionne de
favn optimum dans le sens des Welfare Economics.
Ccs dtfauts potentiels du marcht peuvent deriver d’tltments exttrieurs et des
hprfections du marcht ou des dtfauts de la souverainett des consommateurs. si l’on veut tgalement considtrer les effets produits par l’ttroitesse des decisions
de contrble, il est necessaire de substituer l’addition piEce B piece de petites dtci-
par une ((macrod6cision)> si l’on veut obtenir des rtsultats rationnels.
47
. i. P- YY 3
In February of 1975, a State Court of Appeal decision was announced in the case. of Elizabeth Burger v. County of Mendocino, 45 Cal. App. 3rd 322 (1975), in an imp- casmiz with environmental impact reports. The decision was expected to deal with the issue of whether there is a duty for public agencies to prevent environ- mental damage. The Court,however, decided the case on a more limited' basis dealing with the need for a reviewable record and sufficiency of evidence to support the decision of a local govern- ' mental agency. The Supreme Court declimd to review the case, so the Court of Appeals decision is final, The Resources.Agency bel.ieved that- the case is of sufficient importance to people wko deal with environmental impact reports, that a brief report on the decision would be in order in the EIR Monitor.
FACTS OF THE CASE ..
The case arose when a developer proposed to build an 80 unit motel five miles south of Fort Bragg on the ocean side of Route One near the Pygmy Forest Ecological Staircase. Mendocino County had approved
. . a lot split and issued two building-permits authorizing;.'the developer
,_
.. /
'. ,. .. .. . . ..
. to proceed with the motel. The lot split was approved before the Friends of Mammoth decision was announced, End the building permlts . . were issEd shortly after the Court decision. iu'o E13 'm.6 been pre- pared. On September 29;1972, Elizabeth Burger, an adjacent property owner, filed suit to stop the motel. The trial court granted a temporary injunction and. directed that an environmental 3,mpact report
presented to the Court. The draft EIR was completed and sent to the County Planning Commission on Rovember 7, 1972. On December ll., 1972,
.the EIR was completed by the County Plannfng Commission and'sent to - the Board of Supervisors. The EIR: / c>.
' $.
.be prepared, be acted upon by the appropriate agencies and then be,
1. Noted that the Project would have a significant adverse
2. Urged that the additional studies be conducted on Geology
impact on the environment. ..
and ground water problems.
.. 3. Recommended that the Board approve one of. the alternatives shown in the EIR which would reduce -the size of the catel, rearrange structures and have a less adverse impact,
. 4, Declared that the Project as P~OpOser! was the worst of " -
ali .the alternatives.
.. Some of the comments attached to the XU3 psinted out additi.ona3.'
tank and leech field for the motel would be inadequate to- handle the load and would result in water pollution in adjacent areas. ..
After a public hearing on the EIR, the Board of Supervisors adopted resolutions finding that. the EIR-was sufficient and that '
the general welfare and public interest would be best served by - approval of the motel pro,ject as originally proposed. Three days later, Burger again went to court. to stop the motel construction i
-f
*and to reverse .the County decision.
. At this stage, Burger raised two main .issues for reversing the County's decision. .The first claim was that the County's finding
that the EIR was sufficient was erroneous because the EIR.contained
. nothing about the impact of the Project on water quality. The - second argument was that the County's finding that the original proposal would be in the best public interest was not supported by the evidence because the EIR showed that there would be a signicant adverse impact from the original proposal, that the original pro-
.. posal was the least satisfactory of several listed in the EIR, and
... that approval of one or more alternatives to the original plan
-. . .would substantially mitigate the adverse impact on the environment.
..
The Attorney General and the Sierra Club joined the case as friends ' . of the Court. The Attorney General's brief supported Burger and raised for the first time in this case the "Footnote 8 issue". This issue involves the interpretation of Footnote-8 in the Friends of ,Hammoth Decision which stated that 'if an EIR shows a
, less damzing but still feasible alternativs to the Project, the. decision makers should choose that alternative instead of approving
Club brief raised the Footnote 8 issue along with many other issues.
San Francisco and the appellate decision was finally announced on February 14, 1975. 0
I. the Project as proposed. 8 C. 3rd 21C7 at 263 (1972). The Sierra
.. Tne case was argued before the District Court of Appeals in .
.. . _.
._ I
. .' . .. .. . . DECISION .. .~ ..
/
In deciding the case, the Court did not discuss Footnote 8. Instead, the Court phrased the issue as whether the resolution of the Supervisors confirming the building permit is adequate and is sup- ported by the evidence before the Board.
,.
I. the Board of Supervisors and was critical. of the Board procedj.ngs .. ' and conclusions in number of ways. -The relevant language from the .
I. decision is as follows:
, . . ..- - . .. .. .. "Al&ou&k: the resolution recites that the Board "has made a full consideration" of the EIR, it nowhere refers in any way to 'the adverse environmen.ta1 effects clearly pointed out. by that report. It nowhere suggests that such adverse e.fJ'ccts
-. . ..
... I .......... ... , .- . .. .,
.
1 4.
..
.:(
in fact are nonexistent, nor does .it.point, even in
the motel..
The legislative intent was "that environmental considerations play a significant role in governmental decision-making (citation) and that such an intent was not to be effectuated by vague or illusory assurances by state and local entit;-es
* that the effect of 2. project on the environment had bee3 'taken into considerat.ionf" (Friends of Mbmnoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal. 3d 247- This guideline seems. particularmppropriate where a Board of Supervisors overrides the adverse recommendation of an EIR, buttressed
by like objections from the County Planning Department. We do not, of course, suggest that "findings".must be made 'with the formality attached to that term in Judicial pro- ceedings, but here there is no hint, however remote, Gf any reason for rejecting the adverse recommendations. Judicial review, specifically provided for, cannot be had in such a void. .....
..Moreover, there is no .evidence to meet the mass of engineering and other data supporting the EIR.' Counsel for. ' the developer did state to.the Board that the alternative principally recommended by the EIR and the Planning Depart- ment was hot feasible economically, and one witness assumed the same, although- disclaiming any experience or expertise in that field. There is no esthate of incone or expendi- tures and thus no evidence that reduction of the motel Trom 60 to 64 units, or relocation of some units, would make the Project unprofitable.
-generality, to overriding economic or social values of. .-
-c 4
-
. .- .. .. .... .-. .. ..
0 ..
*. .. ._ . .. .
AHALYSIS ' .. ..
.. .-
' The Burger case is interesting because it is one of the first cases
, .- dealmith a public agency's actions after an EIR has been com- pleted, The Burger case underscores the mpor.2ance of responding to'the rnattcrmained in an EIR. It shows, as does People v, County of Kern, that the courts will not countenance a-c agency lgnorlng an EIR.
-
"
._.
'The Eurger decision reflects a cautious approach by the Court.
&&y. k gxwant enwiromwmtal damge an#. .chose ins&ead h:::d,ecU&
m:~$4E%EGid -art TqipaP*#n$$y: -.GO .m,@lr€@ :a. JEk @#4&?@-,
We case on the more narrw issue of mfficiency of evSdm.aB. The Court used reasoning developed in other cases to decide this case,. The only new departure in Burger is the clear implication that the Court will- examine the declsxon of" a public agellcy on a project invo2.vi.ng arl EIR to determine Wether the agency actually weighed
the evidence before it and whether there was factual information
"r;
, to support its conclusion. .
I
The me.ior polnts in this case are as follows:
... .... .. .. ..
I.
c
4.
t
..
i:d .&flamW~t%~am~ ccmtat-ned in the EX,& and in the comments on the EIR. Discussing this concern,
the Court seems to focus on the need to have some solid evidence in the record that would support
the conclusion of the County. .The Court did not say that it would be satisfied if there was merely sone evidence in the.record to support the conclusion or whether the evidence supporting the Countyls deci- sion would have to out-weigh the other evidence before the Board of Supervisors. The important point here, is that the Court appears to be follow- ing the Topanga decision in which the Supreme Court stated that it would no longer presume that there was evidence in the record to support the findings of a public agency. Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angelesz c. 3d .. 3?5'6Tg.=e Cou-nTuested that findings had become a hollow formality and announced that .it. would require that there be evidence in the ' %W .a .record to support the.findings, . . -.. .
Burger seems to apply the rational of Topanga to rec'lons involving EIRs. This suggests that although the Court may not second guess local governmental agencies in their decisions on EIRs, it will reqaire that there be evidence in the
. record -to support the decision of the public agency. The Court may not exercise its own judgment on the evidence, but the Court will require that the local . agency actually have evidence to support a decision.
..
. 'C
>.'..
..
Following this reasoning, a. simple statement of .overriding considerations would not satisfy the 'Court, There woulcj have to be factual evidence rn in the record to support the r'easoning in the
-. '.
. . statement, .. . ..
CONCLUSIONS
The short opinion in this case does not reveal which one'of these concerns was most Important to the Court. The decision does show, .however, that the Court will insist that governmental agencies have evidence to su port their conclusions. It appears to the Resources
.. . >
~~~~~~~~~.'~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ $S ..*a ewxy 4
ecisian wauld.'e,e! to USE .p1 # t of. memt#&Qi of comments oz9 ,an....EIR identify adver # aeuld .be eqxicted from the ProJcdtd The recorc' would have to contain evidence to back up the conclu- .
considerations fs discussed in Section 15088 or the Guidelines and also in an article in the EIR Monitor dated January II', 1974.
- sions in the statement. Use of the statement of cwerridiw
.C
,. .*
.. J pfY3
(1
The 'opinion in the case of Burger v. County of Mendxino is by no rneans clear, The Resources Agency will-welcome comments on the decision and on this article-discussing:the decision. If wc believe that any comnents we receive would be valuable to the subscribers to the Monitor, we will publish them in subscqaegt issues,
.. ,
.). ...
.. ._
..
. I ..
..
..
.i .. ..
'i
.. ...
..
..
m-
..
... >p*
...
. 4"
." c
J
THE “NEW” COMPETITION FOR LAND AND
SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC POLICY*
s. v. CIRIACY-WANTRUP~
I
CHANGES IN THE COMPETITION FOR LAND
One of the central problems for public land policy is economic
change. Of particular interest at the present juncture are changes
in the competition for land that are related to urbanization and
industrialization.
In the West, demands for land by urban-industrial developrncnt
and by irrigated agriculture must be regarded for economic analysis as “rival” or “competitive” demands.’ The level alluvial valleys and
plains are the only-and usually scarce-location for irrigated
agriculture. Agriculture has created and supported high land values relative to the surrounding areas not suited for irrigation becausc
of topography and soils. Still, in terms of private economics, under
the existing ground rules set by public land policy, these same valleys and plains are the most desirable location for subdivisions-es-
pecially those consisting of assembly-line dwellings-and for in- dustry, transportation, and communication. In net value product
per acre, these are “higher” land uses than irrigated agriculture-
except greenhouses and certain horticultural enterprises. Thus, at thc
margin of urban-industrial development, irrigated agriculture is
quickly priced out of the land market.
Since World War 11, only a small part of the rapid urban and
industrial expansion in California has taken place on the five least
productive land classes, which are not suited for irrigation.2 Most
of the expansion has taken place on the three best land classes, which
c
Giannini Foundation Paper No. 255. An earlier version of this paper was Prc-
sented under the title, “Toward a California Land Policy for the 1980’s” at the Goa-
ference on Man in California: 1980’9, Sacramento, January 27-28, 1964.
?Professor of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Economist in the ExPeri-
ment Station and on the Giannini Foundation, University of California, Berkeley-
1. Because of the occasion for which this paper was first prepared, the focus ;’
on California. But the problems dealt with are acute-or soon will be-in most other
western states.
2. Based on the eight land capability classes employed by the U.S. Soil Conservr-
tian Service.
AND
.ICY"
; economic
re changes
cation and
.velopment
ic analysis
ialleys and
irrigated
and values
3n because
ics, under
me valleys
Islons-es-
Id for in-
ce product
.iculture-
'hus, at the
iculture is
urban and
: five least
on.2 Most
ses, which
..
:r was pre-
at the Con-
the Experi- lerkeley. :he focus is most other
'1 Conserva-
mseR, 19641 NEW COMPETITION FOR LAND 253
8rC suited for irrigation, and especially on Class I-the prime ir-
rigable land. On this land, the leapfrogging of subdivisions has
rendered far more land unusable for irrigated agriculture than is
actually used for urban development. A good illustration is the Santa Clara Valley, just south of San
Francisco Bay. Until recently, this valley was famous for its pro-
duction of high-quality fruits and vegetables. It is estimated that if
urban expansion since 1947 were placed in one continuous parcel,
that parcel would consist of twenty-six square miles. In actuality,
there exists not a single square mile in a 200-square mile valley that
has not been invaded by at least one subdivision? Irrigated agricul-
ture has largely been replaced. The impact on the organization of
water management has recently been investigated.'
Most irrigated coastal valleys and plains between San Francisco
and San Diego are in a state of development similar to that of the
Santa Clara Valley. The Central Valley, backbone of California's
irrigated agriculture, is in the initial stages of urbanization, es-
pecially around Marysville, Sacramento, Fresno, and Bakersfield.
Even the irrigated desert valleys, such as the Antelope and the
Coachella, have become susceptible to urbanization because of the
rapid growth and improvement of air conditioning.
Freeways and airports are increasingly important competitors
for irrigated land-both directly in terms of their own land require-
Fents and as factors encouraging the leapfrogging of urban and
Industrial development. Freeways and airports have a strong pre-
ference for level topography. In California, such level land exists as
alluvial valleys and plains. Efforts which have been made by agricul-
tural interests to locate the main freeways in the Central Valley
outside the prime irrigable land have not been successful.
Irrigated land is significant for the economy of California be-
Cause of the high productivity per acre possible through irrigation
as compared with other types of agriculture. The net value product
Pcr acre of irrigated land is about four times that of cultivated non-
irrigated land and about twenty times that of rangeland.5 Through
feed production, and in several other ways, irrigated agriculture
3. Wood k Heller, California Going, Going . . . Our State's Struggle to ::?main &autiful and PrGductive (1962).
4. S. Smith, The Public District in Integrating Ground and Surface Water Lfanagernent: A Case Study in Santa Clara County (University of California, Gian- aini Foundation Research Report No. 252, 1962).
5. Ciriacy-Wantrup, Mujor Economics Forces Affecting Agriculture with Portic- .'m Refrrrncc to Culiforniu, 18 Hilgardia 1 (Giannini Foundation Paper No. 121, 19-w).
.
.. . .-
25+ K.-ITUK/lL RESOURCES JOliRSdL [VOI.. 4
contributes to the productivity of nonirrigated land. Irrigated land
is the foundation for California's highly developed processing in-
dustries.
In addition to increasing the competition for land between ir-
rigated agriculture on one side and subdivisions, freeways, and air-
ports on the other, urbanization and industrialization have brought
about a great increase in the demands for land for various types of
outdoor recreation. Potentially, this demand for land has com-
plementary, as well as competitive, relations to the demand for land
by agriculture, forestry, and grazing.* Under present land policies,
competitive relations predominate.
One implication for land policy of these changes in the competi-
tion for land relates to the needed type of land-use planning. &n-
ning for urban development can no longer be seuarated from plan;
pine for agriculture, forestry, water, and ot-al resources.
There is little contact and no co-ordination, either academically or
administratively, between urban and natural-resources planning. A
new breed of planner needs to be added who is not merely con-
cerned with the internal problems of metropolitan regions but also is fully cognizant of the problems of the nonurban hinterland. By
the same token, those concerned with natural-resources planning
must first consider the land hunger of the megalopolis. This new
breed of planner is already emerging. They may come from various
backgrounds in the applied natural sciences, such as landscape
design, engineering, architecture, and geography, but their com-
mon denominator is a thorough understanding of the tools of the
social sciences-especially economics and law.
Another implication for land policy which follows from the in-
creasing competition for land by urban and industrial uses is the
irreversibility of the results. Previously, when competition for land
meant merely that one agricultural use replaced another, or that
agriculture replaced grazing, or that grasslands replaced forest
and chapparal, these results were not necessarily irreversible. Before
the large-scale use of concrete in subdivisions, freeways, and air-
ports, the landscape was not irreversibly changed even by settle-
ments and roads.
Irreversibility in the results of the "new" comDetition for land
6. Ciriacy-Wantrup, Multiple Use as a Concept for Water and Range Policy, in
Water and Range Resources and Economic Development of the West 1 (Report No. 9,
Conference Proceedings of the Committee on the Economics of Water Resources De-
velopment and the Committee on the Economics of Range Use and Development of the
Western Agricultural Economics Research Council, 1961).
MOBER. 1
raises sc
the pub1 irrigate(
losses ir
land? If
industri;
would b
the pub1 of land
to ansu
framew
Let I
policy.
betweet
urban z
and gr:
this sta operate
land m
ways :
Lanc
determ
the prif
and th
of lanc!
the "ir
forces
other c tools.''
land n
dinanc
decisio
domail
APa
.”
CVOL. 4
Irrigated land
processing in-
?d between ir-
:ways, and air-
1 have brought
arious types of
land has com-
mand for land
t land policies,
n tt*e competi- 11.. irlg. Plan-
ted from plan-
Ira1 resources.
:ademically or
‘s planning. A
It merely con-
gions but also
linterland. By
lrces planning
)lis. This new
5 from various
as landscape
ut their com-
c tools of the
from the in-
a1 uses is the
ition for land
ither, or that
placed forest
rsible. Before
’ays, and air-
.cn by settle-
on for land
lnge Policy, in
(Report No. 9, Resources De- eloprnent of the
, ”” __ . . . . .
~BER, 196-13 NEW COdIPETlTlON FOR LAND
raises some interesting and significant questions fo
255
.and policy: Do
the public and the private interests coincide in the replacement of
irrigated agriculture by urban-industrial development? Are social
losses involved in the irreversible urbanization of prime irrigable
land? If a decision were made by public land policy to divert urban-
industrial development away from the prime irrigable land, what
would be the costs? What about the allocation of such costs among
the public and the private sectors of the economy? Are there tools of land policy to bring about and guide such diversion? An attempt
to answer these questions requires a careful examination of the
framework, the objectives, and the tools of land policy.
I1
THE FRAMEWORK OF LAND POLICY
Let us start with the framework, the basic assumptions of land
policy. Control of California’s 100 million acres is divided equally
between private and public land managers.’ However, nearly all
urban and agricultural uses and use of the most productive forest
and grassland lie within the private sector. We may assume that
this state of affairs will continue. It follows that land policy must
operate to a large extent through influencing the decisions of private
land managers. Such influence can be accomplished in two major
ways :
Land policy can operate through the economic forces which
determine private decision makinp. Such forces are, for example,
the price system, credit, taxation, highway and water development,
and the institutions governing the ownership, selling, and leasing of land. Purposeful modification of these forces will be called here
the “indirect tools” of land policy. At present, these economic
forces are too often obstacles rather than tools of land policy.
Apart from these “indirect tools,” the policy maker has available
other devices which, as a shorthand expression, we will call “direct
tools.” These do not operate through the profit motive of private
land managers, as do the-indirect tools, but through laws, or-
dinances, and regulations which constralfi or directly compel private
decisions. Zoning, easements, pest-control regulations, and eminent-
ZEKproceedings are examples. Administration of public lands
“l.“.-
acres; private ownership50 million acres.
’1. Federal governrnent-47 million acres; state and local governments-3 million
,,." "- _. .-.
256 NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL [VOL. 4
in federal, state, or county ownership can also be regarded as a
direct tool of land policy.
Frequently, when land policy is discussed, attention is focused on
the direct tools and especially on the fee-simple acquisition and the
administration of public land. Such a narrow point of view amounts
to an abdication of land policy because it neglects the most impor-
tant sector of land-use decisions and the most important set of policy
tools. On the other hand, the significance of indirect tools requires
that the motivation and behavior of private land managers be
thoroughly understood. This is why familiarity with the social
sciences was suggested above as a prerequisite in the training of the
modern land-use planner.
111
THE OBJECTIVES OF LAND POLICY
Let us turn now to the objectives of land policy. The general ob-
jectives of all public policies are usually expressed as maximizing of
some value or quantity such as national income, social net benefit,
or public interest. As a first aDDroximation. we may say
basic obiective of California land Dolicv is to
bution of all land uses to the social welf-
The apparent simplicity of such a formulation, however, hides
significant complexities. In order to maximize a quantity-the con-
tribution to social welfare-it must be expressed in measurable and
comparable units.
For some of the social benefits associated with land use, values
are established in monetary terms in the marketplace. But the system of market prices has several basic defects which make prices un-
reliable as indicators of social welfare. These defects are not simple;
they are difficult to remedy and cannot be discussed here:*
Frequently, market prices are difficult to obtain. For example,
how can one measure the contribution to social welfare of outdoor
recreation and compare it with that of types of housing or systems
of communication?
The public interest in one area may conflict with that in another.
For example, the maximum income from all land uses may not be
obtainable with the income distribution and size of farms which may
..
-~ 8. The implications for resource policy are discussed in Ciriacy-Wantrup, Phi- losophy und ~6jerlives of Watershed Poky, in Economics of Watershed Planning l
(Tolley & Riggs ed. 1960); Ciriacy-Waotrup, Conservution and Resource Progrum-
ming. 37 Land Economics 10s (1961).
-DER, 19643
be desirabl
usually mas
straints. Bu
The pro1
policy objec
Such reseal
rocial bene
sources del
developmer
reational 01
Apart fr
meazureme
terns of la]
tions over 1
land policy
with the 19
This bri
relation to
certain tha
change in (
added to t
tives of lar
difficulties
There i
formulatic
game theo
and of rn;
objectives
quantitatil
definite qt
benefits in As a spec
present pc
future 10s
of policy.' as for the
9. For
10. See tc
11. Cirir
Wuter, in ?
12. Fol
Resource Cc
13. Id. a
. . .. . . " . . .
[VOL. 4
:egarded as a
is focused on
sition and the
view amounts
e most impor-
It set of policy
tools requires
managers be
ith the social
raining of the
he general ob-
maximizing of 1.1 net benefit,
say that the
ize the contri- -.
owever, hides
tity-the con-
2asurable and
;Id use, values
But the system
Ike prices un-
re not simple:
.ere.*
For example,
re of outdoor
ng or systems
1.t in another.
may not be
IS which may
r-Wantrup, Phi-
shed Planning 1
fourre Program-
-" -*.
~~BER, 19641 NEW COlZIPETlTION FOR LAND 257
be desirable, To deal with this problem, a policy objective is
usually maximized under institutional, tecnological, and other con-
straints. But this device has conceptual and operational weaknes~es.~
The problem of quantitative definition and measurement of a
policy objective is an area where more research is badly needed.
Such research should ascertain to what extent various forms of
social benefit-cost analysis, which have been applied to water-re-
sources development, can also help in problems related to urban
development. The planning of communication systems and of rec-
reational opportunities are prime examples.
Apart from the difficulties inherent in quantitative definition and
measurement of the social contribution by various alternative pat-
terns of land use, there is the issue of the extent of such contribu-
tions over time. We are concerned here not with the contribution of
land policy to social welfare in the present or the next decade but
with the 1980's and beyond.
This brings immediately to mind the problem of irreversibility in
relation to projections of future social needs.'O The latter are so un-
certain that only the directions of change and possibly the rates of
change in ordinal terms can be projected." In view of this difficulty,
added to the ones just mentioned, one may suggest that the objec-
tives of land policy should be reformulated in a way that takes these
difficulties explicitly into account.
There is no need to go into the technical aspects of such a re-
formulation, which lie in the field of uncertainty economics and
game theory.l* Suffice it to say that the objectives of land Dolicv-
snd of many other public policies-can often be compared to the
objectives of an insurance policv against serious losses that resist'
" " "
" . . . .. . . . . . . .
-,
. " ".-
258 NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL [VOL. 4
IV
AN ILLUSTRATION : THE CONSERVATION OF
CALIFORNIA'S PRIME IRRIGABLE LAND
An illustration may help to clarify this reformulation of the objcc-
tives of land policy. The land-policy problem with which this paper
is mainly concerned is the irreversible loss of prime irrigable land
when agricultural use is replaced by subdivisions, industries, free-
ways, and airports. Some questions were already raised" regarding
whether and in what way the conservation of prime irrigable land
for agricultural uses should be regarded as an objective of land
policy. The answers are by no means self-evident.
At the outset, one needs to make assumptions with respect to
future water supply. It is very difficult to make meaningful state-
ments about California land policy without considering, at the same
time, water policy. Let us consider two alternative assumptions re-
garding future water supply.
First, we may assume that, in view of limited water SUDD~V. agri- cultural use of water will have to be curtailed in favor of urban
and industrial useg It has long been recognized that the marginal
value product of water in these latter uses is higher than in irriga-
tion uses. Under this assumption, the gradual encroachment of urban
development on irrigated agriculture can be regarded as a self-regu-
lating adjustment to water scarcity. Average per-acre water require-
ments of irrigated crops and of subdivisions are not great!;. differ-
ent. This adjustment is also painless to individual irrigatiort enter- 3 prises. In fact, they generally will make a capital gain in the adjust- $ ment process. The gain per acre will tend to increase as use of the remaining irrigable land is intensified. In conclusion, under our first
assumption, land policy must be concerned not so much with the
conservation as with orderly transformation of irrigable land into
urban and industrial useg.
Alternatively, we may assume that future wu e
sufficient for urban-industrial development atzd for
of agriculture on the mime irrivable land. This assumption is in accord with the projections of future water supply by the California
Department of Water Resources. There is some doubt whether
such projections can be based solely on the transfer of northern
California water to the south-even if such transfer is regarded as
14 See text at 253-55, rupra.
~BER, 19641
desirable and
especially the desalinization
popularity of
may accept he
supply- Acceptance
existing projc
future water-
ment of some
because of thc irrigable land
issue cannot k Under our
celerating di:
avoidable sot
affect the eco
indirect socia A valid quar
a saturation
reached, WOK
formulation (
in the order '
with that of
against them
possible lossc
The insur
necessitated
alluvial plail
otherwise in
rounded by
these lands ;
head for flc,
portant 11 off s
poorer" sit
tive estimatc
questionable
balance, the
future.
15. The pro
and the effects the amount of \
IVOL. 4
.i OF
0
on of the objec-
.hich this paper
: irrigable land
ndustries, free-
;ed“ regarding
! irrigable land jective of land
vith respect to
aningful state-
lg, at the same ssumptions re-
*r supply, agri- i 1 avor of urban ;
: the marginal
than in irriga-
ment of urban ’
as a self-regu- I
water require-
greatly differ- i
igation enter-
in the adjust-
as use of the
nder our first
luch with the
!ble land into i
upply will be ,
maintenance ,
.rnption is in
P California !
bt whether Jf northern !’
regarded as i I !
~BEK, 196+] NEW COJfPETITION FOR LAND 259
desirable and politically fea~ible.’~ But in view of other sources-
especially the Columbia River-and technological developments in
desalinization and reuse of water, and in view of the increasing
popularity of a “public utility concept” of water development, we
may accept here this alternative assumption regarding future water
Acceptance of this assumption does not imply acceptance of some
existing projections regarding the timing in the construction of
future water-supply systems. On strictly economic grounds, defer-
ment of some features of these systems may well be desirable. But
because of the irreversibility already stressed, conservation of prime irrigable land is a present issue for land policy. A decision on this
issue cannot be deferred.
Under our second assumption, a continuing or, more likely, ac-
celerating disappearance of prime irrigable land will lead to an
avoidable social loss-or benefit foregone-which would seriously
affect the economy of the state. The loss consists of the direct and
indirect social net value product of California’s irrigation economy. A valid quantitative estimate of this loss, decade by decade, until
P saturation point of urbanization and industrialization has been
reached, would be rather difficult. But, in accordance with our re-
formulation of the objectives of land policy, we are mainly interested in the order of magnitude of maximum possible losses as compared with that of the “insurance premium” that must be paid to guard
against them. There can be little doubt in this case that the maximum
possible losses are high.
The insurance premium consists of the higher construction costs
necessitated if urban-industrial development is diverted from the
alluvial plains to the benches, to the foothills, and to rocky and
otherwise inferior soils. Irrigated valleys in California are sur-
rounded by ample land of this type. Higher construction costs on
these lands may be partly or fully offset by savings in social over-
head for flood control, drainage, and sewage disposal. Other im-
portant offsets are the greater amenities made possible by the
poorer” sites for many aspects of urban life. Here also a quantita-
tive estimate of costs and offsets over several decades would be of
questionable validity. There is, however, some evidence that, in
balance, the costs are not too high and are likely to decrease in the
future.
15. The problematic aspects concern the California “Area of Origin” legislation and the effects on fishery resources. Adequate solution of these problems will reduce
the amount of water available for transfer.
ruPPlY-
lt
260 NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL. pot. 4
In California, some of the better housing developments on the
benches and in the foothills have proved quite profitable for sub-
dividers. Admittedly, the alluvial valleys will remain the most profit-
able land for the dismal sprawl of cheap, assembly-line, individual
dwellings. But in other parts of the country, p.rivate enterprise has
successfully provided attractive low-cost housmg of a land-saving
type. In a special case which the author had occasion to study recently,
conservation of prime irrigable land is the deliberate result of pri-
vate decision making. Land-use planning on the 90,000-acre Irvine
Ranch in southern California involves conservation of a contiguous
large tract of prime irrigable land for agriculture. On the same
ranch, urban development is intensified on the benches, the foothills,
and the inferior soils. Such planning appears profitable from the
private viewpoint. But most private enterprises in land management
are not large enough to plan “as if” they, were a public body.
Planning for urban development on the Irvine Ranch includes
industrial parks. These parks of light, technologically highly de-
veloped industries are located on the benches and foothills not suited
for irrigation. If present trends continue, future industrial develop-
ment in California will emphasize this same type of industry. Its
location outside of the prime irrigable land presents no difficulties
and many advantages.
Equipment and techniques to move earth cheaply and on a Iarge
scale are rapidly developing. Sometimes this technological develop-
ment has not resulted in conservation-for example, when scenic
values are destroyed in highway construction. But through lowering
the costs of diverting subdivisions and freeways away from the
prime irrigable land, conservation benefits will accrue from this de-
velopment-as has already occurred through lowering the costs
of terracing and leveling, both of which are important aids in soil
conservation.
In conclusion, under our second assumption, one may suggest
that the insurance premium to be paid is of such an order of magni-
tude as compared with that of benefits that it can well be considered
a rational present and continuous social investment.
In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be well to add that the
reasoning presented here does not necessarily favor conservation of
agricultural or wildland islands within metropolitan regions. This
is a problem of “green belts’’ and other types of “lungs” as an
integral part of urban development. It is an entirely different ob-
:,
!
:4 ‘
_” . -
OCTOBER, 19641
jective of lar
of economic
are concerne
of prime irr
tions of the
tinuing urba
land resour1
hand, is scar If a land
arises : “W
premium?”
struction co
tenant? Wt
have to for
lic particip:
Which pub
what prop(
petent peo]
To a la1
type of to1
urban and
tion next tc
Within
to conside
which hav
to take u
present p
direct to(
praised w
tion of la]
A. Taxat
Many
use taxat
transforr
Wantrup, 1 16. See
- ”” ,.
-.
"1 -._ . -.." "-
[VOL. 4
~lents on the
able for sub-
le most profit-
'ne, individual
enterprise has
a land-saving
;tudy recently,
result of pri-
30-acre Irvine I
f a contiguous
On the same
, the foothills,
tble from the i I management
ic body.
:anch includes
Ily highly de-
lills not suited
;trial develop-
' industry. Its
no difficulties
nd on a large
gical develop- , when scenic
)ugh lowering
;ay from the
from this de-
ing the costs It aids in soil
may suggest
der of magni-
be considered
add that the
servation of
sgions. This
ungs" as an
different ob-
OcrnseR, 19641 NEW COdiPETITION FOR LAND 261
jcctive of land policy, which should be supported by a different kind of economic reasoning and carried out by a different set of tools. We
are concerned here with the conservation of large contiguous blocks
of prime irrigable land as one of the permanent economic founda-
tions of the state. Such conservation need not interfere with con-
tinuing urbanization and industrialization; California has abundant
land resources for these uses. Prime irrigable land, on the other
hand, is scarce. If a Iand-policy decision along these lines is made, the question
arises: "Which sector of the economy should pay the insurance
premium?" To what extent, for example, should increases in con-
struction costs be allocated to the subdivider, the homeowner, or the
tenant? What about equity to the owner of irrigable land who may
Ewe to forego a private capital gain? Is there justification for pub-
lic participation in bearing the burden of the insurance premium?
Which public should be involved-federal, state, or local-and in
what proportions? These are questions to which research by com-
petent people should be directed inlmediately.
To a large extent, the answer to these questions depends on the
type of tool employed by land policy to influence the location of
urban and industrial development. Therefore, let us turn our atten-
tion next to the tools of land policy.
V
THE TOOLS OF LAND POLICY
Within the space limits of a single paper, it is clearly impossible
to consider thoroughly all tools of land policy or even merely those
which have been mentioned as examples.'* I should like, therefore,
to take up two tools which appear especially significant for the
present purpose. Taxation, one of the most important of the in-
direct tools, and easements, a promising direct tool, will be ap-
praised with respect to their helpfulness for influencing the alloca-
tion of land between agricultural and urban-industrial uses.
A. Taxation in Cotnbination with Zoning
Many attempts have been made in California and elsewhere to
use taxation as a tool to prevent, to slow down, and to direct the
transformation of agricultural land into subdivisions. The general
16. See text at 255-56, JU~~U. For a more comprehensive discussion, see Ciriacy-
wantrup, Resource Conservation: Economics and Policies, at chs. 7-15 (2d ed. 1963).
262 NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL [VOL. I
procedure is to set up special tax districts in connection with zoning
ordinances. More recently, deferment of taxes on agricultural prop-
erties for a certain number of years, under certain conditions, has
been proposed without relation to zoning.” This proposal was
defeated at the polls.
The best-known example in California for the taxation-zoning
approach is Santa Clara County, comprising the valley of the same
name. Santa Clara County was the first county in California that
adopted a master plan (1934). Zoning ordinances with the objec-
tive of maintaining green belts were enacted in 195.3 and 1955 on
the basis of the then existing state enabling laws. In 1955, the state
enacted the more specific “Green Belt Exclusion Law”ls and in 1957
the closely related “Agricultural Assessment Law.”1e
The main objective of these measures of land policy in the Santa
Clara Valley was not the conservation of prime irrigable land but
an orderly transition from agricultural to urban land use. Still,
several conclusions can be drawn from this experience with respect
to the taxation-zoning approach to the conservation of prime irri-
gable land.
First, constitutional Drovisions make rt &&& to assess at a
lower level those amicultural DroDerties which are most affected
In California, the
general constitutional provisions requiring uniformity in taxation
are applied in the laws through the “no reasonable probability”
limitation. This limitation provides that land in order to qualify for
lower assessment mst have no reasonable probability of changing
from agricultural to urban use. Some states-Connecticut, Florida,
Maryland, and New Jersey-have recently tried to remedy this
situation by statute or constitutional amendment. Similar proposals
have been discussed in California. It is difficult, however, to define
permanent, bona fide agricultural use in such a way that lower
assessment does not merely reduce the carrying charges for land
speculators.
Second, zoninp does not prevent eventual urbanization becrause
farmers themselves usuallv favor a repeal of z-
when expected capital gains from urbanization become attractive,
fn other words, zoning has proved a politically unstable protection
of agricultural use in the path of urban expansion. While zoning
..
” to Ilrhanrxatlnn. ..
i.
i
.-
17. Proposition 4 on the California state ballot of November 6, 1962.
18. Cal. Gov’t Code 5 35009. 19. CaI. Gov’t Code 5 402.5.
~EIER, 19641
ordinances a
districts are
Third, th
rcvcral othe
ture in the r
incentive to
In surface ir
system. Thi
tion, and ro
the use of il
pass, and vi
sufficient co
is an obsta This obstac
pect that 5
objectives.
In concl
Santa Clar
is the cons
B. Social C
Urbatliz~t
It is s(
strengther
and public
Social ovc
that with:
zoning 01
of local g
private e
sive to tl
be regarc
in urbani
The q
on the st
ization F
Proposa of south
tion of n
Therc
the pro.
.. .
IVOL. 4
:ith zoning
Lural prop- iitions, has
posaI was
ion-zoning
f the same
ornia that the objec- 1 1955 on , the state
Id in 1957
the Santa
* land but
use. Still,
th respect
prime irri-
SeSS at a
t affected
arnia, the
taxation
>bability"
dify for
changing
Florida,
ledy this
xoposafs
to define
at lower
for land
because
dinances [active.
tection
zoning
~EER, 19641 NEW COMPETITION FOR LAND 263
ordinances are in effect, they encourage leapfrogging if the zoning
districts are discontinuous.
Third, the burden of property taxes is only one factor among
sevcral others which make it difficult to continue irrigated agricul-
ture in the rural-urban fringe. Impending urbanization reduces the
e to invest in proper maintenance of irrigation sv-.
ce irrigation, each individual enterprise is a part of a larger,
xstern. This system is disrupted bv leapfroggin?, urban scatters- tion, and roads. An urban neighborhood Duts serious limitations on
the use of insecticides and fertilizers. Crops suffer from smog, tres-
pass, and vandalism, Tax relief, therefore, is a necessary but not a
sufficient condition for continuity of agriculture. Taxation at present is an obstacle to the objectives of land policy we are discussing.
This obstacle should be removed, but it would be an illusion to ex-
pect that such removal by itself would bring about the desired
objectives.
In conclusion, the experience with taxation and zoning in the
Santa Clara Valley is not encouraging if the land-policy objective
is the conservation of prime irrigable land for agricultural uses.
In urbw. "
The auestion mav be raised of whether this situation holds also
"" ,...
I
i
’1
264 NATURAL RESOURCES JOURLVAI. [VOL. 4
pitious conditions, is strategic for economic development. Many
illustrations for this could be cited. But for a highly developed
region with strong metropolitan areas and important urban nuclei
outside of these areas, development of water-supply systems must
be regarded economically and politically as a dependent rather than
independent variable in urbanization. Furthermore, for the ob-
jectives of land policy we are discussing, it is meanindess to suncest
that urbanization could be controlled through the water supply; as
Shown elsewhere, the water supply available through displacement of agriculture is one of the major economic attractions for the ur-
banization of prime irrigable land.20
C. Eascntetzts
Let us turn, therefore, to another tool of land policy which pro-
vides tax relief, which is politically more stable than zoning, and to
which constitutional and other limitacions apply in different ways
than to taxation. This tool is the acquisition of public easements over
private land.
Use of easements in connection with communication systems, air-
ports, and public utilities is well established. Easements for open
space, parks, and highways are common.21 Some states, especially
Wisconsin, have pioneered with recreational easements for hunting
and fishing.22 Conservation easements are mentioned in the litera-
ture in connection with open-space easements.= But, so far as I am
aware, such easements have not been used for the conservation of
large blocks of prime irrigable land. Such easements may be acquired
by the state or by local governments under state enabling laws.
For the purpose under discussion, the planning and guidance of
acquisition are best undertaken on the state level.
Conservation easements may be acquired through voluntary sale
20. Ciriacy-Wantrup, Projections of Water Requircmrnts in the Economics of
Water Policy, 43 J. of Farm Economics 197 (1961).
21. In California, the “Open Space Act“ of 1959 [Cal. Gav’t Code $$69SO-S4]
authorized cities and counties to acquire land outright or the development right or
easements to provide open-space areas. Such areas are defined as:
any space characterized by (1) great natural scenic beauty or (2) whose exist-
ing openness, natural condition, or present state of use, if sustained, would enhance the present or potential value of abutting or surrounding develop-
ment, or would maintain or enhance the conservation of natural or scenic resource$.
22. Jordahl, Conservation and Scenic Earemrnts: .4n Exprrirncr Rrsumr, 39 Land
23. Whyte, Securing Open Space for Urban America: Conservation Easements 45
Economics 313 (1963).
(Urban Land Institute, Technical Bulletin No. 36, 19S9).
~OFIER, 19
or throu:
challenge
making
interest r
3 public i
tion of p
It is SI
of the fe
the publi
tion of
permane
belts) 01
latter ca:
and sim]
crease ir
public. I
continue
In our c
quire ea:
For tt
be purct
purchase
higher ti
Conse
problem
affected
be no lo
ally be
inducern
Volur
value pl
is the rr
real cha
professi
rights tl
lems, hc
must be
I
I
APPr
1
24. Fa
Spaces Ti
1960). i .
Many
reloped
n nuclei
ns must
Ler than
the ob
suggest
xement the ur-
.,ply; 3s
ich pro-
. and to
It ways
its over
ms, air-
)r open
, ecially
hunting
: litcra-
1s I am
tion of
cquired
1 laws.
.nce of
ry sale -
Irnirs of
6950-541
right or
ist-
'y-
9 Land
ents 45
.l IC
mEER. 19&] NEW COMPETITION FOR LAND 265
or through eminent domain. In California, voluntary sale is open to
challenge because the constitution prohibits the legislature from
making gifts of public funds.*' In both cases, therefore, a public
interest must be shown to exist. It is the argument of this paper that
a public interest exists if the purpose of land policy is the conserva-
tion of prime irripable land for agricultural uses. It is sometimes suggested by urban .planners th.at the-acquisitFon of the fee-simple right is less complicated, of greater advantage to
the public later on, and not much more expensive than the acquisi-
tion of easements. This is quite true if the acquisition concerns
permanent open space without much private development (green
belts) or space to be developed later under public control. In the
latter case, the fee-simple acquisition would assure effective control
and simplify the problem of compensation. Furthermore, the in-
crease in land value due to the development would accrue to the
public. In the present case, however, important private uses will
continue. High land values are created and supported by these uses.
In our case, therefore, it is more economical for the public to ac-
quire easement rather than fee-simple rights.
For the objective of land policy under discussion, easements must be Purchased in perpetuity. Experience tends to indicate that the
purchase price per acre of a perpetual easement is not significantly
higher than that for a twenty-year easement.
Conservation easements would go a long way to solve the tax
probleq for individual irrigation enterprises when land values are
affected by potential urbanization. Since development rights would
be no longer vested in the private owner, he could not constitution- $1~ be assessed for them. This, in itself, will constitute a strong
Inducement toward voluntary sale of conservation easements.
tary sale would, of course, be influenced by the economic
vaeced on the development rights which are given UP. This
is the most crucial problem of conservation easements. It poses a
real challenge to economics as an academic discipline, to the legal
Profession, and to the practical administrator.
Appraisal of individual strands of the bundle of private property
rights that relate to an acre of land is not uncommon. Special prob-
lems, however, are created by the fact that conservation easements
must be acquired simultaneously for large blocks of irrigable land.
24. For a more detailed discussion of these problems, see PreJeroufion of Ottn SPaces Through Scenic Eurrments in Green Belf Zoning, 12 Stan. L Rev. 638 (1959-
1960).
I
i.
t;
i, ;
-1
”
266 NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL [VOL. 4
Should allowance be made for different dates at which individual
parcels would have become ripe for urban development? Should
geographical factors, such as distance to existing urban centers, be
taken into account in combination with market transactions as bench-
marks? In what way should other basic factors-climate, soils,
and groundwater supply-be taken into account in valuation? What
legal, political, and administrative safeguards should be built into
the procedures of appraising and taking conservation easements?
Should such safeguards be developed in analogy to those already
existing in the procedures used to establish special public districts
with the powers of taxation and eminent domain? Research by the
social sciences is badly needed to answer these questions.
Such research would also benefit the use of other types of ease-
ments. Recreational easements are an example. It would be rather
wasteful if California should neglect the contribution private lands
could make in satisfying the increase in the demand for outdoor
recreation that can be expected during the coming decades. Such
contribution will not be forthcoming without reimbursement to the
private land manager. The purchase or lease of recreational ease- ments by the state is one of several alternative approaches to this
problem. The state could recover these costs through fees charged
for recreational uses. California has been backward in this area of
land policy as compared with other states such as Wisconsin.
CONCLUSION
In the West, a “new” competition for land is becoming of far-
reaching social significance. This is the competition for prime ir-
rigable land between agriculture on one side and subdivisions, in-
dustries, freeways, and airports on the other. At the margin of
urban-industrial development, irrigated agriculture is quickly priced
out of the land market by these “higher” land uses. This change
in land use is irreversible. In California, the replacement of irrigated
agricuIture has progressed farthest and raises some acute and in-
teresting problems for public land policy.
If the general objectives of land policy as formulated in these
pages are accepted, and if the more optimistic of two alternative
assumptions regarding future water supply discussed here is ful-
filled, conservation of large contiguous blocks of prime irrigablc land for agriculture appears in the long-run public interest. The
social costs for diverting urban-industrial developmcnt to land
classes not suited for irrigation are of such an order of magnitude
_.’- - - c
W~ER, 19
as compa by the co
these coc for avoic
ing wate
irrigable dustrial
Sever
effective
prime iI
era1 ser urbaniz:
ness in 1
been us1
But tht
and the
policy s
serving
ture.
CVOL. 4
!ich individual
rnent ? Should
an centers, be
<,ions as bench-
climate, soils,
uation? What
be built into
n easements?
those already
ublic districts
search by the
ypes of ease-
dd be rather
private lands
for outdoor
ecades. Such
’ment to the
tional ease-
ches to this
fees charged
this area of
:onsin.
>.
ning of far- x prime ir-
livisions, in-
margin of
lickly priced
rhis change of irrigated
ute and in-
d in these
lternative
re is ful-
irrigable
rest. The
. to land xagnitude
1
OCTOBER, 19641 NEW COMPETITION FOR LAND 267
as compared with that of maximum possible social losses threatened by the continuation and probable acceleration of present trends that
these costs can be regarded as a rational present social investment
for avoiding such losses in the future. Under our assumption regard- ing water supply, conservation of large contiguous blocks of prime
irrigable land for agriculture does not interfere with urban-in-
dustrial development.
Several tools of land policy are appraised with respect to “ir
effectiveness in diverting urban-industrial development from :he
prime irrigable land. The usual taxation-zoning approach has sev-
eral serious shortcomings for this purpose. Likewise, controlling
urbanization through social overhead appears of doubtful effective-
ness in the present case. Thus far, conservation easements have not
been used for the particular objective of land policy discussed here.
But the economic-legal characteristics of conservation easements
and the experience with them in realizing other objectives of public
policy suggest that they may be well suited for the objective of con-
serving large contiguous blocks of prime irrigable land for agricul-
ture.
Environmental Quality
As the human population grows and as technology develops, pollution and other
deleterious changes in environmental quality have increasingly severe effects on economic
activities, including food production, aside from the general quality of life. The chief
areas of concern about environmental quality associated with food production include:
-- Effects on the environment of potentially polluting materials from agriculture,
such as crop-protection chemicals, fertilizers, and solid wastes.
-- Effects on agriculture of environmental degradation caused by population growth and
industrialization, such as effects of urbanization on farmland, and crop damage
from urban-generated air pollution.
-- The effects on agricultural production of necessary environmental monitoring,
management, and regulation.
Agricultural Xesidues and Wastes
Technologically advanced intensive food production--whether in developed or developing
countries--generates wastes and residues in amounts and concentrations that threaten
environmental quality. These may be either unwanted by-products of agricultural activities
or substances which have served their intended purposes.
Pesticide residues. In recent years, crop-protection chemicals have become far more-
numerous and diverse and have been used in far larger amounts. Many are highly toxic to
man and other animals. Some persist in the environment and accumulate in food chains.
Specific environmental side-effects from the use of pesticides--particularly insecticides--
include possible residues in foods, poisoning of agricultural workers, killing of nontarget
organisms, and residues in soil and water. There also is danger of decreasing the effec-
tiveness of pest control, through destruction of beneficial organisms and the development
of resistance in target species.
Fertilizer residues. Environmental questions are raised by the rapidly expanding use
of chemical fertilizers in the U.S. and other developed nations, as well as the trend toward
more fertilizer use, particularly nitrogen, in developing countries. Nitrates in excess
of those used by the crop can appear in drainage water from some croplands, and may enter
groundwater supplies. Food production and harvest of forest products in the U.S. in 1970
resulted in a biological turnover of nitrogen--soil to plant and return to soil--of about
40 million metric tons. Of this, about 20% was introduced into the cycle as manufactured
fertilizer nitrogen.
Animal and crop wastes. Large-scale intensive production units for beef and poultry
have created waste disposal problems on a new scale. Large amounts of manure concentrated
on a small area are problems both because of their bulk and because of their content of
nitrogen, salts, and organic matter. If the trend to intensification of animal production
continues, it will involve increasingly complex waste disposal and pollution problems.
Solid wastes from crops and food processing are an environmental problem primarily
in relation to cities and other population concentrations. Most of these wastes are highly
" I '-
degradable, so they can be recycled rapidly by biological action or burning. However, the
disposal process may create problems of smoke, odors, water pollution, and pests.
Environmental Effects on Agriculture
Agriculture's resource base of land, water, and air may be threatened by environmental
degradation, particularly in heavily-populated and industrialized areas.
Water. Metropolitan areas must dispose of large volumes of liquid and solid wastes.
Most constituents of typical municipal effluents are either harmless to crop production
or actually beneficial. Hence, there is a promising possibility of recycling vast amounts
of urban wastes through farmland. The chief problems are transport and distribution of
the effluents, and removal or management of pollutants such as heavy metals and viruses.
- Air. In regions where man-caused air pollution is substantial, food production suffers.
California may be the world's leading example. Oxidants are responsible for most air-
pollution crop damage in California today. If the energy shortage leads to more use of
sulfur-containing fuels, sulfur dioxide also could become a serious threat. Oxidants
have been shown to significantly reduce yields of cotton, citrus, and grapes. Their effect
on individual crops of leafy vegetables has at times been disastrous.
- Land. In addition to the worldwide problem of availability of arable land, there
is a specific problem of urban effects on farmland. California also provides a dramatic -
example of this environmental constraint on food production. Agricultural operations are
hindered not only by actual loss of land to urbanization but by urban-generated higher tax
rates and by competing land uses such as power plants. The problem is made worse--at least
in the western U.S.--by traditional patterns of lavish use of land for residential,
industrial, and commercial development.
- ,.
Effects of Environmental Management
Food production, as well as other sectors of the economy, may be constrained by public
policy to protect environmental quality. In California, restrictions on agricultural
production have resulted from controls on land use, solid waste disposal, use of crop-
protection chemicals, air quality, and water quality. It seems likely U.S. and California
agriculture will operate within an increasingly complex framework of policies and procedures
designed to achieve two goals simultaneously--protect the environment and increase food
production.
Energy
Energy, like land and water, is an underlying resource crucial to worldwide food
production. The energy shortages and price increases of 1973-74 have emphasized the per-
vasive impact of this resource on all nations and all economic sectors, including the food
production-processing-marketing system.
35
ing impact on energy supplies after 1980, and by 1990 should account for 22% of total U.S.
energy consumption. Beyond 1990, new conversion technologies, including breeder reactors,
will be more important in nuclear power generation than natural reserves of uranium and
thorium ores.
Presently unconventional sources of power--solar, wind, geothermal--also may well pro-
vide small but significant percentages of the total energy in 2000. It is estimated that
3% of California's energy requirements will be met with geothermal power by 1985.
Energy use in agriculture is as intensive in many other industrialized nations as
in the U.S. In fact, per hectare use of fertilizer--which requires large amounts of
energy in its manufacture--is higher in Japan and many European countries than in the U.S.
However, the substitution of mechanical power for human labor has advanced farther in the
U.S. than anywhere else (Figure 11).
Fie. 11 REPLACEMENT OF FARM LABOR BY INANIMATE ENER
1120-1970 '- 1920
0 1940 \ 0 1945
0 1947
0 1950 \
I I I I
0.5 10 1.5 2
ENERGY INPUT TO FOOD SYSTEM ( 1015 kcal)
The developing nations have much smaller inputs of mechanical and chemical energy
into agriculture. One result is, paradoxically, more apparent efficiency in total energy
use when outputs of food energy are compared with inputs of mechanical and chemical energy.
Relatively primitive food-production systems yield about 16 calories of digestible energy
for each calorie of energy from humans, animals, and fossil fuels. On the other hand,
U.S. farmers produce only about a single calorie of food energy for one calorie input
of fossil-fuel-based energy. Further, when the entire U.S. food system is considered,
the ratio is 6 or 7 calories of fuel energy expended for each calorie of food energy
produced.
38
In the U.S. food-production system, the three largest energy-consuming sectors are
meat animals (39%), poultry and eggs (20%), and dairy products (20%). However, these
products are relatively efficient in converting energy to protein.
In most primitive countries, the yield of digestible energy per hectare is small. Under
these circumstances, fossil fuels dramatically increase crop output per hectare, even though
there may be a great change in the ratio of food t'nerzy produced to fuel energy consumed.
An additional amount of energy applied to agriculture will provide an increase in human
productivity and food output that is greater in a developing country than in a developed one.
As industrial growth takes place in a developing country, however, agriculture's share of
total economic activity declines, and competition for energy resources increases. For that
reason, mechanical energy in agriculture is confined at first to the items with the highest
potential payoff--fertilizer, tillage, water pumping, and transport.
Energy shortages and higher energy prices will probably be more harmful to countries
in intermediate stages of development than to either industrialized nations or those with
subsistence agriculture. A critical area of concern is energy to manufacture fertilizer,
particularly nitrogen.
Because many developing nations have surplus labor--manifested in unemployment and
poverty--labor-displacing technology may be a social disservice. A desirable alternative
would be the development of tools and technologies that still use large labor inputs, whi
crop production per hectare is increased by methods such as machinery for heavy tillage.
le -
Effects on Food Production Costs
Even if agriculture receives sufficient energy to produce, process, and market crops
(through government allocation or through market forces), increased costs of energy must
be reflected in higher food prices.
Higher energy costs will affect some crops more than others. For example, 78% of all
natural gas required for California field crops in 1972 was used by sugar beets, mostly at
the processing stage. Obviously, increases in natural gas prices will have a larger impact
on sugar beets than on processed food products with relatively lower energy requirements.
, Human, Economic, and Institutional Forces
In general, developed countries have certain institutional and economic patterns
influencing the supply and consumption of food, and developing countries have others. There
also are important differences within the groups. For instance, Japan has many -small farms
39
WORLDWIllE IMPLICATIONS !
Based on this analysis, a response is now in order to the question posed in the
introduction--whether current food shortages are a result of temporary or permanent
phenomena.
There are both short-run and long-run aspects of the world food situation as projected
to 1985 and beyond. Population growth rates in excess of food production increases,
expected to continue for at least to 1985, will compound food supply problems in several
regions. Thus, the distribution of world food supplies will remain a more serious problem
than total world crop and animal production. Short-run market surpluses--i.e., actual
supplies in excess of effective demand--are likely to recur in those countries capable of
producing food in excess of their consumption requirements. Given the limited purchasing
power of many consumers in less developed nations, the world food dilemma will continue:
malnutrition and starvation in some areas, while food surpluses accumulate in other regions.
The world's food shortages will continue to be centered in the developing regions of
Asia, Africa, and Latin America, but in a broader sense the food problem is worldwide.
Effects of human suffering and unrest in the developing regions inevitably will be felt
elsewhere. In addition, potential solutions to the world's food problem have their
origins in industrialized nations, or at least will require their cooperation.
The food situation beyond 1985 is more uncertain. While no attempt was made in this -
study to assess food balances after 1985, certain key issues bear emphasis. World popu-
lation is projected to increase by another 1-2 billion people from 1985 to 2000. At the
upper population variant this means feeding about :.wice as many people in 2000 as existed
in 1968. At the lower variant the world population in 2000 would still be 50 percent
larger than it is today.
The amount and quality of the world's undeveloped arable land creates further un-
certainty for food production beyond 1985. For obvious reasons the best and easiest land
was developed first. It will be increasingly difficult to mobilize the necessary human,
institutional, and economic resources rapidly enough to keep pace with food demand in
countries where the need will continue to be most critical.
Technology and research requirements for the 1985-2000 period present even greater
challenges. Much of the yield-increasing technology assumed in our projections for the
1970-85 period is currently available for adoption or is in the advanced stages of de-
velopment. But meeting food production needs during the last 15 years of the 20th cen-
tury will depend upon accelerated adoption of known methods, development of new technology,
and, indeed, some real "breakthroughs". Planning, basic and adaptive research, and the
development of effective vehicles for international cooperation are imperative if food
production technology is to be available when and where needed. Improved methods for timely
monitoring of world food production and utilization will also be required for effective
planning.
A final word of caution for the 1985-2000 period relates to those parameters over
50
which man has the least control, making him most vulnerable to the unexpected. The
more intensive the food system becomes, the more vulnerable it is to adverse dynamics
from physical and biological factors. Possibilities of genetic failures, diseases, global
weather disturbances and sudden crucial input shortages make the world food system more
precarious. It behooves both developed and developing countries to allow for a margin of
safety through technological development and food reserves.
Developing Countries
Although the developing regions are mostly in the tropics where potentials exist
for high levels of food production, their food requirements are expanding faster than
their agricultural production. These nations expanded food production as rapidly as the
developed world from 1950 to 1.970, but their food demand has grown even faster--at
3.5% yearly, compared with 2.5% in the industrialized nations. Most of that difference
is the result of higher population growth rates. Almost 85% of all births occur in the less
developed countries; their share of total world population is projected to increase from
75% in 1970 to 80% by 2000.
The only potential long-term solution to food problems in the developing countries is
a reduction in population growth. Current rates widen the gap between rich and poor nations,
tax the limited food-producing resources of the developing nations, increase the likeli-
hood of malnutrition and/or famine in these countries by 2000, and contribute to problems
of environmental quality. Policies and programs to reduce population growth in developing
countries must be vigorously pursued by the governments of these countries and by the
United Nations and other international organizations, with assistance from the developed
world.
If population growth patterns continue, it will probably be necessary for developed
countries to continue food aid and technical assistance programs to reduce nutritional
and other socioeconomic problems in the developing world. Since population control
policies, even if vigorously pursued, will require some years to reduce population
growth rates, increased food production is the only immediate approach. However, even
with recent improvements in agricultural productivity--mainly resulting from application
of research by the international agricultural institutes--food production will be an in-
creasingly serious problem in developing countries through 1985 and beyond. Indeed,
limited evidence suggests that agricultural production growth rates have slowed in many
developing countries during the past three years.
Because of its dense population, low crop yields, limited undeveloped land and water,
and limited capital resources, Asia will be particularly hard-pressed to meet the food
needs of a rapidly growing populace. A strategy of rapidly increasing crop yields must
be followed in Asia because other options, such as development of new land, are limited.
In Latin America and Africa, two approachesto increased food production are feasible:
yield-increasing technology and new land development. Most emphasis should go to increas-
ing yields on large production areas because returns probably would be greater per unit
51
of investment. At the same time, the obstacles to developing millions of hectares of
arable, productive land in these two continents should be attacked. When new land settle-
ment schemes are planned and implemented, research should accompany the development. Some
of the poor returns from past irrigation and land development projects were caused by
inadequate knowledge and application of yield-improving technology to cultural conditions
in the area.
In all developing regions of the world, the human condltions in agricultural areas
must be enhanced. Programs to overcome poverty and large income disparities must be developed.
Land reform as well as improved credit and marketing facilities will be needed. Applied
research and extension, major contributors to increased agricultural productivity in develop-
ed nations,also should be supported.
New technology to increase production, if patterned after developed countries, is capital-
intensive and labor-saving. This approach is not directly applicable in densely populated
countries that depend on subsistence agriculture. The kinds of technology developed should
be specific to local economic and social structures, and be designed to maintain a high
level of employment within the agricultural sector. Newly introduced technology also
should use inputs that can be obtained or produced locally as far as possible.
The projected widening gap between worldwide food production and demand suggests that
developed nations will supply large quantities of agricultural commodities to less
developed regions. by 1985. Whether these transfers take the form of commercial trade
or food aid will depend upon the purchasing ability of developing countries. Thus,
economic growth in all sectors of developing economies is a prerequisite of vigorous
international food trade.
Developed Countries
The world's developed countries are not expected to encounter major problems in
meeting their own food consumption requirements during the next decade. Economic demand
will exceed adequate nutritional requirements by a significant margin, though distributional
problems will remain within each country, including the U.S. Population growth rates appear
to be declining. In fact, the total population of several developed nations is expected to
stabilize by the year 2000.
The highly-industrialized countries of Western Europe and Japan, with their populations
nearly stabilized, should be able to produce or purchase their food requirements, which will
continue to shift toward higher-value products (meat, fruits, and vegetables) as incomes
rise. North America and Oceania will produce large quantities of food commodities, particu-
larly cereals, for export as long as international market prices provide production incen-
tives.
In fact, projected 1985 cereal production above the domestic demand of North America
and Oceania would be sufficient to cover projected deficits in Asia, Africa, and Latin
America. Even so, food production must increase in these deficit areas as a long-run
solution to their problems, because they will proosbly not be able to generate sufficient
foreign exchange balances to continually purcllase sucil large quantities of food.
52
i
Expected large increases in the demand for animal products, in both developed and
developing nations, will continue to exert pressure on production resources for livestock
and the feed grains, oilseeds and forages they require.
A recent U.N. study projects food demand to grow at a 1.6% annual rate in the developed
world through 1985, compared with 3.71 in the centrally planned countries of Eastern Europe
and the USSR. Those differences are consistent with the projections made by this report.
Trade Policies
These vast differences in outlook for human food supply between the developed and the
developing regions emphasize the crucial role of the industrialized nations. In several
areas, their decisions and their policies will have profound effects on the future world
food supply.
As the major participants in agricultural trade, the developed countries lead in the
formulation of world trade policies. Current trade negotiations pit the protectionist
policies of the EEC against the more market-oriented current U.S. trade policy.
Increased protectionism would inhibit world food production efficiency and could adversely
affect many developing countries.
The industrialized nations comprise the principal markets for agricultural commodities
exported by the developing world. Trade in these commodities (coffee, cocoa, rubber, -
bananas, etc.) ericourages economic development for those countries with a comparative advan-
tage in their production. Bilateral or multilateral trade agreements may be necessary to
ensure developing countries continued access to food commodity markets in the developed
economies.
Reserve Stocks
The developed nations also are in a position to assume leadership roles in formulation
Of world food reserve policies. This issue is particularly urgent as a result of recent
worldwide developments. From 1950 through 1970, large surplus grain stocks were held by
the major exporting nations, including the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Arhentina.
However, unfavorable weather conditions in the USSR, Asia, Australia and Argentina
reduced grain production by 41 from 1971 to 1972; and at the same time world grain demand
increased by 6% as a result of population growth and rising consumption of grain and grain-
fed livestock. These events seriously depleted world grair~ stocks, and have
renewed interest in the need for adequate managed world food reserves.
Two important objectives should be considered in a reserve stocks policy: 1) mainten-
ance of emergency reserves against the threat of famine in developing countries; and 2)
management of stocks to mitigate undesirable swings in world cereal prices and trade volumes.
Cost and control of a food reserve program should be shared equitably by all developed
countries. This issue is particularly important to the U.S. as the principal world pro-
ducer and exporter of grain.
53
Aid Programs
Aid in the form of food is a desirable short-run method of dealing with catastrophic
crop failures. In the longer run it should be used only to supplement a developing nation's
food needs as it moves toward self-sufficiency through domestic production and commercial
imports. Concessional food sales or gifts must be carefully managed to prevent discouraging
aomestic prcduction.
An alternative type of aid is commercial overseas development of agricultural
production enterprises on a basis that provides mutual benefit to the developed and the
developing country. The success of several such arrangements now underway still is to be
determined. Risks are involved on both sides. The overseas investor risks nationalization
or expropriation; and the developing country risks exploitation. International agreements
should be drawn up to minimize these risks.
Developed countries also are investing large sums of public money in agricultural
development in food-deficit countries. Recent efforts to coordinate the planning of these
activities on an international basis are commendable. These international development
efforts--particularly the research components--are essential and should be expanded.
Agricultural development projects arranged directly between the developing country
and commercial agencies in developed countries are increasing. Some of these projects
involve complete development from the building of dams and irrigation systems on through
to assisting in-the organization of research and educational programs to insure successful
management.
The net flow of financial resources from developed to developing countries was
estimated at $19.5 billion in 1972. This is a responsibility and opportunity which all
developed countries should continue to share.
Animals vs. Plants
Much has been written about another dimension of the world food problem--the relative
productivity of plants and animals per unit of arable land. By almost any calculation,
it can be shown that plants will yield more protein and energy per unit area than any form
of animal production. While dairy cattle may be more than four times as efficient as
beef cattle in supplying protein, they still produce much less per unit of land than the
starchy grains. Compared to legumes, cattle appear even less efficient.
However, these comparisons tend to mask several important points:
Amino acids, which are the sole digestive product of proteins, are in better
balance in animal products than plant foods such as soybeans.
Sucn crops as soybeans and potatoes are restricted by climatic limitations to the
areas where they are now grown; whereas various forms of livestock are adaptable
to almost all the climatic zones.
Perhaps most significant of all, livestock are adapted to utilize vast areas where
high-yielding crops cannot be grown, and do so with very little attention or
economic input.
54
It would be naive to conclude that the world's tight food supply problem could be
solved by affluent nations foregoing consumption of grain-fed animal products. However,
this possibility does illustrate a "safety-valve" in case of calamitous situations.
Such a development probably would not come about as a charitable gesture but as a
result of grain prices being bid up during a period of severe shortage. In fact, recent
trends indicate that the severe worldwide inflationary forces of the past year or two
actually have had a dampening effect on meat consumption.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA
The future of California agriculture is tied inextricably to U.S. and world conditions.
Technological change, new irrigation developments, and shifts in location of agricultural
production within the state have thus far permitted California to retain its traditional
share of U.S. markets despite growing competition within the state for land and water
resources.
This section considers future development patterns of the agricultural sector of the
California economy, as it attempts to adjust to resource use pressures within the state
and to changes in both foreign and domestic demand for its products. Agricultural tech-
nology has accounted for steady increases in crop yields in California in the past and, on
the basis of known technology not yet fully adopted, yield increases for another decade
seem assured. Beyond this period, projections reflect the assumption that there are many
potential yield-increasing technologies which will be developed over time. More efficient
use of known technology is also expected as agricultural management becomes better informed
and more scientific. However, one should be aware of uncertainties involved in such
assumptions.
Projected Acreage and Available Land.
The planned rate of irrigation development in California is sufficiently rapid, even
in view of expected losses of agricultural land to urbanization, to provide the levels of
irrigated acreage required to meet California's projected output of food and fiber. The
irrigated acreage requirement--allowing for irrigated pasture and double-cropping--is
8.86 million acres in 1985. Extrapolating from Department of Water Resources estimates
gives a net area of irrigated land available of 9.1 million acres. This would appear more
than adequate to meet CaliLornia's projected food and fiber production.
Trade
Rice and high-value specialty crops--including fresh and processed fruits, vegetables
and nuts--comprise most of California food exports. Cotton is also an important state export
commodity. Because specialty crop consumption is,closely correlated with per capita income,
55
most shipments of these specialty products go to other developed countries. Thus, economic
growth rates and trade policies, especially in Europe and Japan, are important determinants
of future export demand for these California crops.
If the food gap between "have" and "have not" countries widens, export demand for
California rice--in commercial trade and as food aid--may also increase. World cotton
demand is expected to remain strong, given relative price changes for natural and synthetic
fibers .
California agriculture also will be affected by the impact of export demand on all
farm product prices. California, as well as the U.S., consumer prices will be influenced
by food imports and exports. The state also will have a stake in national policy decisions
on current trade negotiations, food reserves, and food aid.
Environmental Quality
Direct impacts on California agriculture have resulted from environnlental quality
controls on land use, solid waste disposal, use of crop protection chemicals, air quality,
and water quality. These are enforced through state regulatory agencies--such as Water
Resources Control Board, Air Resources Board, and Solid iJaste !Ianager,1ent Board--
and various local or regional agencies. It seems likely that in the future, agriculture
will operate within an increasingly complex framework of policies and procedures designed
to simultaneously achieve two central goals: protection of the environment and increased
output of food.
Crop and Livestock Projections
The crop and livestock outlook for California in 1985 relies largely on projections
of trends in such key parameters as population, income, yields per acre, feed efficiency
rates, per capita consumption, and market shares.
The following numerical estimates of projected California output should not be
regarded as unconditional forecasts. Rather, they are projections of California output
and acreage which would be required to meet future food and fiber requirements under a
specific set of assumptions--which are made explicit in Chapters I11 and IV of the Supple-
men t .
Acreage trends. From 1968-72 to 1985, the acreage of field crops is projected to
increase about 6%; vegetables, melons, and strawberries as a group about 11%; and tree
fruits, nuts, and grape acreage by almost 10%. In terms of harvested acres of these crops,
the 1985 projection is about 690,000 acres above the 1968-72 average acreage, with increases
roughly of 389,000 acres of field crops, 85,000 acres of vegetables, melons, and strawberries,
and i64,UOO acres of tree fruits, nuts, and grapes (see Table). This projected composi-
tion would indicate continuation of the trend toward higher-value specialty crops in Cali-
fornia. Although increases are noted for grain acreage (barley, wheat, grain sorghum,
corn, and oats), California is now and will continue to be a substantial importer of small
grains.
Vegetables. Processing tomatoes are by far the most important single vegetable
crop occupying more than 25% of the state vegetable crop acreage. Primarily because
56
Table
Summary of California Harvested Acreages of Field Crops, Vegetables, Tree Fruits, Nuts, and Grapes:
Projections to 1985 Compared With 1968-72 Averages and 1970 to 1972 Annual Acreages
Harvested acreages/ X change
1968-72 1968-72
average 1970 1971 1972 1985 average
Crop actual actual actual actual projected to 1985
Field crops
Rice
Other grains
Sugar beets
Cot ton
Dry beans
Potatoes
Safflower
Alfalfa seed
Alfalfa hay
Other field crops
Subtotal
Vegetables
Tomatoes (all)
Dark green & deep yellow
Other vegetables
Melons
Strawberries
Subtotal- b/
Fruits & nuts
Citrus fruits
Subtropical
Deciduous
Tree nuts
Grapes
Subtotal
Total
""""""
362,800
2,221,200
310,440
730,480
179,400
84,080
211,800
92,800
1,168,200
661,573
6,022,773
205,520
78,480
345,920
79,610
8,320
768,198
292,302
82,235
375,551
414,203
495,590
1,659,881
8,400,504
""""""_
331,000
2,363,000
320,500
662,400
174,000
87,500
201,000
104,000
1,152,000
670,800
6,066,200
177,000
74,700
341,500
80,800
8,500
732,200
293,220
82,150
383,280
401,990
475,050
1,635,690
8,384,390
-acres------
331,000
2,241,000
346,500
741,600
148,000
82,600
242,000
91,000
1,210,000
685,900
6,119,600
192,800
80,700
336,900
73,900
8,300
741,370
298,795
88,750
358,373
433,557
500,473
1,679,948
8,492,148
.-""""""
331,000
2,003,000
326,000
860,400
157,000
67,200
235,000
70,000
1,198,000
689,000
5,936,600
208,900
87,200
352,800
75,000
7,800
785,300
303,276
89,450
351,099
474,509
547,927
1,766,261
8,434,561
"""""
356,890
2,432,529
329,175
851,007
179,450
83,431
211,800
92,800
1,213,463
661,573
6,412,118
231,931
87,523
388,309
88,622
6,719
853,452
299,718
95,057
315,441
632,691
481,000
1,823,907
9,089,477
percent
-1.63
9.51
6.04
16.50
0.03
-0.77
0.00
0.00
3.87
0.00
6-. 4 6
11.30
11.52
12.25
11.32
-19.24
11.10
2.54
15.59
-16.01
52.75
-2.94
9.88
8.20
57
tomato harvesting has been successfully mechanized, California's share of the U.S. production
has risen since the early 1960's and is projected to stabilize at about 85%. Sharp increases
in tomato yields are projected. Thus, the increase in demand is projected to be met with
about 25,000 additional acres above 1968-72 levels. Fresh tomato acreage will increase
only slightly.
Citrus fruits. U.S. citrus production increased by almost 50% between 1961-65 and
1968-72. California's average share of U.S. orange production has been about 20% in
recent years. This share has been declining due to urbanization in Southern California and
increased competition from Florida-based processed oranges. Plantings in the San Joaquin
Valley have increased significantly in recent years. That region now accounts for over
60% of the state's citrus acreage.
Most of this is young bearing acreage, which should reach maximum productivity in the
next ten years. Therefore, California's market share for oranges is projected to increase
slightly to about 22% by 1985. Total acreage is projected to increase only slightly,
to about 225,000 acres. Bearing acreage, however, is projected to increase from about
170,000 acres to 212,000 acres.
For total lemon acreage, a small increase is projected from about 54,000 to 58,000
acres. A significant increase in bearing acreage is projected, from about 39,000 to 49,000
acres. California grapefruit total acreage is projected to remain almost constant, with
bearing acreage increasing about 2,000 acres due mainly to a larger national market share.
Subtropical fruits. California accounts for over 90% of U.S. subtropical fruit
production. Total acreage of this group is projected to increase from about 82,000 acres
to 95,000 acres from 1968-72 to 1985.
Fig acreage is projected to remain about constant. Dates show a decline in acreage,
with yield increases resulting in production increases. Olive and avocado acreages both
show increases. Substantial plantings of olives have occurred in the San Joaquin Valley,
with nonbearing acreage currently almost 50% of the total acreage. New high-yielding
plantings in the San Joaquin Valley should contribute to increased production of olives
in the near future.
Deciduous fruits. In terms of acreage, peaches (mainly clingstones) and prunes are
the major deciduous crops. For total deciduous fruits, bearing and total acreage are
projected to decline 38,000 and 60,000 acres, respectively, from 1968-72 to 1985. Such
significant decreases reflect declining per capita consumption of apricots, plums, and
prunes.
Acreages of deciduous fruits continue to shift out,of the Central Coast areas into the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys due to urbanization pressures. Deciduous fruit acreage
in Southern California now accounts for only about 1% of the total state acreage.
Tree nuts. The percentage of nonbearing acreage of almonds and walnuts continues to
exceed historical averages, but has decreased recently from the high average achieved in
the mid- and late-1960's. Production has more than tripled in the last ten years, and
exports have increased about fourfold since 1968. These factors, together with favorable
prices, have led to optimism for the almond industry. The key to future prices and industry
I -
growth clearly lies in the rather uncertain export market and the ability to increase
domestic per capita consumption at favorable prices. California production is projected
to increase significantly for both nut crops, especially almonds. Bearing and total
acreage are both projected to increase about 220,000 acres from 1968-72 to 1985.
Grapes. California produces about 90% of the U.S. grape crop. All three types--
raisin, wine and table grapes--are produced in California. Total grape acreage is projected
to decrease slightly from about 495,000 to 432,000in 1985, with bearing acreage holding
constant at about 450,000 acres. Increased yields will about offset increased per capita
consumption requirements. However, there will be a substantial change in varietal classes
from raisin and table to wine varieties.
Livestock Projections
Projections of California production of milk and eggs can be reasonably tied to popu-
lation growth and per capita consumption within California. Although some dairy products
are shipped between states and while California has exported a significant percentage of
its egg production, the high cost of transporting bulky perishable items such as fluid
milk and fresh eggs suggests that major interstate shipment is unlikely.
A suitable projection basis is less evident for meat products. California presently
imports about 47% of the beef, 98% of the pork, and 70% of the broiler meats consumed in
the state and is a major exporter of turkeys. Therefore, projections of beef cattle, sheep,
hogs, broiler and turkey production are based on national trends modified by judgment con-
cerning new developments.
Dairy cattle numbers are projected to decline from 759,000 in the 1968-72 base period
to 733,000 in 1985, a 3.4% decrease. Projected decreases in per capita consumption of
milk and increased production pzr cow account for tlie projecteti reauction in cow numbers.
The U.S. consumption per capita of beef and veal is projected to increase from 117
pounds (carcass weight) per capita in 1968-72 to 144 pounds in 1985. Prospective Califor-
nia consumption per capita is higher by about 16 pounds. This projection may be high,
considering recent declines in per capita consumption. Cattle feedlot marketings in Cali-
fornia are projected to increase from a level of 2 million head in 1968-72 to 2.3 million
head in 1985. However, this depends on the tenuous assumption that California feedlots
can remain competitive with large, efficient lots now being developed in the southwestern
states and the Great Plains where feed grain and feeder cattle prices are lower.
In the poultry industry, layers for egg production are projected to decrease slightly
from about 39 million annually in 1968-72 to 37 million in 1985. Broiler numbers are pro-
jected to increase from 81 million annually to 123 million. Turkey numbers are projected
to increase sharply from 16 million birds annually to 22 million.
Given these grain and livestock projections, it appears that California Will remain
a major deficit area in feed grains.
California and The World Food Problem
California, as an important producer of many crops, will play a significant role among
the developed regions of the world in confronting and, it is hoped, helping to solve the
59
food problems of the future.
There are important implications to be drawn regarding policies and programs in this
state.
First, the present trend of diverting prime agricultural land to nonagricultural
purposes must be analyzed and considered in a broad context of land use planning. Use
of our best land for industrial, residential, and other purposes and relegation of
agriculture to less productive land may not serve the long-range public interests.
Second, water, the life-blood of much of the state's agriculture, should be looked
on as a finite resource to be managed more efficiently not only by agriculture
but for all uses. Recycling both by agriculture and industry should be more diligently
pursued not only because of limits to availability but because of energy costs in getting
water to the site of use.
Third, increasing energy use in agriculture should be viewed with greater concern
at all levels. Procedures should be devised to preserve and extend the availability of
fossil fuels for those vital purposes for which no feasible alternative now exists. Al-
ternative nitrogen sources should also be explored.
Fourth, although commodity or crop opportunities in California are very extensive, produc-
tion costs (labor, land, taxes, etc.) have climbed rapidly and are higher than many competing
areas. Double-cropping, now only done on a limited scale, offers one possibility, not .
available to many areas, of overcoming some of these competitive disadvantages.
Fifth, the State of California should continue to maintain a strong, far-ranging
and forward-looking agricultural research program, firmly rooted in agriculture and the
rural environment in the broadest sense. The research should be recommitted to problem-
solving activities, including the kinds of basic research that can remove barriers con-
straining future food production and rural development.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
Population
Research on population control has expanded greatly during the past decade. Although
good progress has been made, acceptable methods applicable to rural areas of many developing
countries still are not available. Further research on technological, psychological, cultural,
and political aspects of birth control should be pursued vigorously. It should aim specifi-
cally to solve problems of countries with dense and rapidly growing populations whose food
problems are acute and health care facilities are limited.
c
I
*-. !
J
I'm no farmer; my closest connections to food growing these days are my. trips to
the supermarket. But I work for the County of San Diego as an environmentalist,
and I was the Project Manager for the preparation of the Environmental Impact
Report for the Regional Growth Management Plan adopted last year by the County.
In preparing that report, I had to examine the state of the County's agriculture
and try to determine the impacts of public policy on farming.
The results of this investigation were disturbing. A are tvorkinz
to hasten the decline of the County's agriculture, and
express concern, there appears to be no immediately available, realistic, and
workable policy that can effectively help the situation.
"-
And yet the County's agriculture is not only a valuable resource, it has gained
national recognition both for its uniquely high productivity and for the urbanization
pressures which imperil its very existence. I can offer no solution' to this
dilenm, but thc following article may at least serve to acquaint the readers of
San Die20 County Farm Eureau Agriculture with some details of the problem. It may
not yet be too late for popular action to influence official policy; but the
problem is deep and perplexing, and information is essential.
Most of the following article is taken from the report referred to above. It was
prepared with the help of the County Department of Agriculture and the County
Farm Advisor's Office.
- 1- -
Any significant population growth in San Diego County will have an adverse impact
on the County's agriculture, and the survival of most of the agriculture
under existing trends is problematic. This is because agriculture and urbanization
conflict in two primary areas:
1. Competition for land, since both productive farming and population growth are
largely restricted to areas where imported water is available, and since
agricultural uses are traditionally considered "lower" uses; and
2. Competition for imported water, in which agriculture will be unable'to meet
swift and drastic price increases, and in which water deliveries may be
restricted or denied by lQarst di5+ribUfl;79 yencfe'.
--- .
These impacts will exert pressures on agriculture which will intensify with population
growth. To preserve agriculture-in the face of such mounting pressures, a strong
commitment and vigorous political action will be required.
One of the declared goals of the Regional Growth Management Plan is to "encourage
continuance and expansion of agricultural (land) use in the unincorporated area".
The Plan recommends that completion of an Agricultural Element of the County General
Plan be expedited. Until an Agricultural Element is adopted, areas designated as
Agricultural Preserves on the County General Plan should not be subdivided. The
Agricultural Element is currently being prepared by tne Integrated Planning Office.
Completion of the Element is crucial because many of the County' agricultural lands
are now and will continue to be under development pressure. This is especially
true in the coastal areas, and Otay Mesa.
\
Otay Mesa and the adjacent areas contain approximately half the County's most
productive fresh vegetable acreage, with most of the remainder in the Carlsbad
area and also under heavy pressure for urbanization. If existing trends are
allowed to continue unchecked, Otay Mesa agriculture is doomed. Already much
- 2-
.-
of the land is zoned R-1 and is leased or rented to farmers by large landholders.
Studies are currently underway that could result in the formation of an Economic
Development District; these studies will determine the development future of Otay
Mesa. The Mesa could develop in two basic directions:
1. It could be totally industrialized or urbanized. In this case the agricultural
industry would no longer exist there; or
es+abic'shwn+ 2. It could mix compatible industry with a strong agriculturak
If agriculture is to survive on the coast, it must be -besp'lfe
intensive residential uses. An agricultural industry can,
however, be compatible with other light-industries. The future of Otay Mesa, and
of coastal dependent agriculture in general, is an unresolved. question, and a ?rea+
deal depends QY\ reachin3 a -~uccessFo\ soldion.
Farming operations in the County's other prime vegetable growing area, near
Wherever farming operations are conducted within city limits, the problem is compounded.
Incorporated cities are, by their very nature, oriented more toward coping with urban
matters than rural ones. In practice, this tends to hasten the conversion of farm-
lands to urban use.
rl Even dere there is a desire to preserve farmlands, the t0obJ.s presently used by
local government are inadequate. For the most part, preservation is
dependent on two methods: '
\c
1. Restrictive zoning; and
2. Designated agricultural preserves.
-5-
Zoning is subject to change as rising land values and taxes result in pressure
to make changes in permitted land uses. Even if the grower owns the land this is
often true; and in San Diego County, where so much productive acreage is leased,
landowners are particularly susceptible to development pressure. If strong
safeguards for agriculture are desired, zoning is neither permanent nor binding
enough to be relied on.
c
Designation of agricultural preserves, as presently practiced, has three major
drawbacks :
1.
2.
3.
Most of the-productive agricultural lands in the imported water areas, such as
those near Otay, Carlsbad, and Fallhrgok, are not under Williamson Act Contract;
Landowners in areas where development seems likely are reluctant to enter into
long-term agreements such as Williamson Act contracts, since this precludes
profitable sale or conversion to other use; and
Preservation contracts may have minimum acreage provisions, whereas the high
productivity in the County can make relatively small parcels profitable for
growing.
Agricultural areas are often the ones most favored for development, since less
grading is required, drainage is good, and rudimentary services such as water lines
and roads already exist. Furthermore, farming operations are usually regarded as
transferable to other areas.; but in San Diego County, the areas under greatest
threat from urban expansion are dependent on a very strictly defined coastal cli’ate
zone. This same climate zone is already heavily urbanized, and little room for agri-
cultural expansion or transfer is left.
-
-4-
Some thought is now being given to another method of preservation, the transfer of
development rights from farmland to other parcels. The owner would then waive
the right to -the original property to any other use. It's a method which
has been used with some success in other parts of the country, but has yet to
reach official status in the County.
Unless a comprehensive, binding, and long-term method of land use restriction
can be accomplished, the County's most productive vegetable-growing areas are
likely to succumb to development pressures. Even if such a restriction :can be
imposed, however, County farming is still likely to suffer from competition for
available water with residential and industrial users. "-
The County's semi-arid climate and lack of extensive natural groundwater reservoirs
make irrigation largely dependent on imported water. Imported water is expensive;
its price has been steadily increasing, and even steeper increases are forecast
as energy costs increase. Furthermore, the parent agency for the importation of
water into Southern California, the Metropolitan Water District (EWD), is not
sympathetic to the use of water for agriculture. The feeling of ElWD is that the
District was established, as its founding act states, to provide water for "municipal
and domestic uses and purposes". Water has been provided for agriculture, to be
sure, but blWD's attitude is that this was Ilsurplusl' water, supplied as a convenience
and not as an obligation. A rebate has been applied to agricultural water, but this
is because the water is c as an encouragement to
farming. The feeling at mmed up in the following statement:
With respect to the District, there is probably little that can be done \
other than recognize the problem, and ensure that drastic changes are not
made in rates for water sold for agricultural purposes which would have the
effect of triggering the abandonment of agriculture prior to the time that
other economic forces lead to a more orderly transition to other uses of the
land. (MWD, 1974 Water Pricing Study.)
-5-
Actually, the attitude at MWD may be even less sympathetic than this quotation suggests.
An official at MWD recently told San Diego County Farm Bureau
farming will simply be priced out of existence in the district's service areas.
MWD supplies - all imported water entering San Diego County. It is a public corporation
and none of its officials are elected by the public. Its response to public
opinion is likely to be somewhat limited, despite the power itswoly gives it. m0n
to a certain extent, agriculture may be able to bear higher water prices, although =L.
the dwill beh in higher food prices. But an increase of several \tncreaSe reFlee+d/
times the present price, while it might-be an annoyance to the homeowner, would
be difficult for the grower to bear since water prices consitute an already large
proportion of his operating expenses.
Therefore, the important factors for the farmer in the 'competition for water are
these:
1. MWD may impose restrictions on water for agriculture, or interrupt agricultural
deliveries under increased demand in other areas; and
2. Farming is less likely to bear swift and drastic water price increases than
competing uses.
Even if prices could be met, an expanding population in Southern California means
a greater demand on imported water supplies. It appears that MWD will consider
agricultural uses undesirable as the demand for other uses increases. Further,
the problem is not simply confined to San Diego County, Growth anywhere in the
service boundaries of the MWD, for example in Orange or Riverside Counties, could
adversely affect local growers. The problem, therefore, may be beyond the reach
of local policies, no matter how effective or bene'ficial.
- 6-
It is possible, but by no mea)ms certain, that deliveries of Northern California - water
will be adequate for all MWD customers until 1995. Even so, agriculture may well be
priced out of the water market by that time. The competition for water can affect
those growing operations, such as avocado and citrus orchards, which are not under
immediate development pressure or which have ample room for expansion.
In such competition, plant growers are almost always assigned lower priority than
residential and industrial uses.
The impacts of growth on agricultural activities, while generally conforming to the
conditions stated above, may vary accorcling to particular crops. It is convenient
to divide the County's most prominent production into the following four main
groups in order to consider impacts:
Fresh Market Produce
The County's production is centered in two coastal areas near Carlsbad in the
North and Otay in the south. Unless protected by government intervention,
rising land values will act to make these lands too highly taxed for agricultural
use and exert irresistible pressure for urban development. Rising water prices may
increase production costs to such an extent that the advantage of climate will be
negated, and competition from Mexico and greenhouse operations in other areas will
take over the market. Major consequences in the County in such an event will be:
1. Irrevocable loss of the land for future farming enterprises, once the land is
co v erted to industrial or residential uses;
2. An increase in the cost of fresh vegetables in local markets;
3. In the case of fresh market tomatoes, a loss up to one-sixth of the entire
production of the United States, and a lesser but significant loss in a number
of other crops;
-7- w es
4. Loss of dependent suppo ting industries and businesyand
5. Loss of open space.
Even if present growing areas are exempted from development, rising water prices
may force
cannot be
resources
abandonment of irrigated farming. Distribution agencies such as MWD
expected to subsidize farming, and it will probably be w P 11 beyond the
of local government agencies to provide relief.
Citrus and Avocados
Here the greatest problem is water. Undeveloped lands suitable for groves are
s~ll abundant, but orchards will have to compete with the human population for
imported water. The operative conditions are much the same as those affecting
v
A"
fresh market produce. In the case of avocados, the result would be curtailment
of the production of up to one-third the crop of the entire United States.
Nursery, Ornamentals, and Cut Flowers
Greenhouse operations will be affected by increased water prices; field crops may,
in addition, be affected by land development pressures. These corps are probably
more likely to withstand increased water prices than other plant growing endeavors,
but here, too, greatly increased prices may overcome the competitive advantage of
climate. Again, the result would be the loss of productive land as well as the
economic benefits of the production.
Milk and Eggs
Dairies are presently declining in the County and population pressures will hasten
their demise. Egg production may be the single major farming enterprise which can
survive a large population increase. This is becuse egg ranches need adequate but
not massive quantities of water, and so may not need imported water.
can be raised in areas not immediately threatened by urbanization. But any adverse
- 8-
change in the delicate market-feed-transportation equation could make egg ranching
unprofitable.
Agriculture in San Diego County has shown remarkable resilience and tenacity in
the face of spreading urbanization. However, some of the County's most productive
lands are now under great pressure to yield to urban land-hunger. As land values,
water prices, and energy costs continue to rise, vegetable operations in Otay and the
coastal areas of North County may not be able to continue product'ion without government
intervention.
The plight of San Diego County agriculture has drawn national attention. In a 1974 "" .
National Academy of Sciences study of "Productive Agriculture and 3 Quality Environ-
ment", the recommendations for land use policies stated that:
Special emphasis should be given to the eneuragement of methods for
controlling undesirable development in rural areas that should, instead,
be preserved for their natural beauty, cultural significance or high inherent
food productivity. (Emphasis added.)
The report recognized that in arid or semi-arid regions, the competition for water
and energy would militate against efforts to preserve agriculture, but considered
such efforts desirable where 'Iunique production capabilities" exist. Finally, the
academy recommended the funding of "prototype areas" for the study and evaluation
9 of methods of preserving agriculture. Only six ares in the United States were
specifically named as desirable locations for such studies: among them was San
Diego County.
I would suggest that if this needs to be published in two parts, that the break
be made after the second paragraph on p. 4 of this copy. We could use the
following conclusion and intro:
... residential and industrial users.
Next week the second part of this article will explore some of the implications
of the competition‘wwater, and the likely effects of continued urbanization $6 r
pressure on important segments of the County’s farming. I
###
”-
Last month San Diego County Farm Bureau~Jgriculture began an examination of the
xmpxxx impacts of urbanization on the County’s agric ture .kdiscussion “A*/
d centered on the competition for land between urban and farm enterprises.
This month we will begin by examining the implications of competition for avail-
able imported water.
The County‘s semi-arid climate. .-
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
February 16, 1977 . DATE
TO: Nancy A. Lucast, Coastal Zone Planner .
San Diego Coast Regional Commission c
FROM:. ' Robert J. Buckner, Deputy Agricultural Commissioner .
San Diego County Department of Agriculture, blts. & Meas.
File No. F-5031 and Coastal ,Related Agriculture Subject: Re: "Playmor North .
The proposed project site is located within the 'Maritime Areaclimate Zone
of San Diego County.* - This climate zone is uniquely capable of producing certain
economically important plants and plant products which are dependent upon the
mild influence of the coastal climate in order to be grown and marketed at times.
of year (or at a lesser production cost) when those same crops cannot be grown
and marketed from elsewhere.. This "off-season" production is an important
source of agricultural products for nationwide marketing and consumption, and.
is a major contributor to the regional economy.
Lands within the Maritime and Coastal. Areaclimates capable of producing
coastal "dependent crops constitute .a unique and finite natural resource that
continues to be consumed by urbanization and attending developments, including
investment and speculation for uses other than agriculture.
..
,. Examples of coastal crops dependent upon this limited resource include:
cut fiotlers, greenhouse groprn cut flowers and indoor decorative plants, and such
vegetables as tomatoes, snap beans, cabbage, cauliflower, celery, cucumbers,
bell peppers, leaf lettuce, stra\.rberries and squash. *-
b
4 *
*See map in ''Climates of San Diego County, Agricultural Relationships" University of California .Extension Service and the San Diego County Farm Advisor,
Victor Brown, Director.
* -.
"
-2-
gOff-season" vegetable crops are mostly grown in the Maritlme Areaclimate,
x but they can also be produced in some areas of the Coastal Areaclimate Zone.
._
On the other hand, greenhouse production of plants and plant products is confined
nearly 100%. to the Maritime Areacl imate Zone.
This particular Encinitas site is fully capable of growing many of the
coastal dependent vegetable or floral crops, But, no doubt normal open field
cultural and harvest operations and practices would provoke complaints from
people in the surrounding urban developed area. Therefore, one of the best
agricultural uses for the site Lvould be the production of greenhouse qrown
plants or plant products.
Just because a site is well suited for agricultural use, does not assure
it wi'll be so used; conversely, it can pretty well be assured it will never
be used in the future for agriculture if committed to an urban'use now, It
climate. It is not marginal in capabilities ....q uite the opposite is true for
a greenhouse operation, The expenditures of fuel energy to control greenhouse .-
conditions (cooling and heating) would be minimal as compared to locations even
.. c -.
just a bit further inland,
"
The soil, even though not classified as "prime", is capable of growing 1.
under the Mi 11 iamson Act becomes mute and irrelevant.
- - . It is a simple matter for land investors/developers not to farm or lease
out their land to growers in order to keep it from producing $ZOO/acre-for ..
.
L. 4
:r fa -3-
*+-X
three of the previous five years. By-so doing, the land cannot be classified
as "prime" on the basis of dollar returns/acre as set forth in the Idilliamson
Act. Hence it will be argued by some that the land has "no agricultural value"
because it is "not prime" even though it is adjacent, .in this case, to an -
ongoing successful greenhouse operation of no small size.
\ *. .
The gross value of coastal related/dependent crops compared to countywide
production is shown below. The estimated countywide grqss value of plants and
1
!
plant products is 188 million dollars. Gross values of livestock and livestock.
products amount to an additional 89.9 mi1lion.doilars.
X of Countywide Value of Estimated Value Plants ahd Plant Products
Greenhouse products* $ 23.5 million. 12.5%
Field grown floral products** 18.6 million
Subtotal Floracul ture
Vegetables***
Strawberries****
$ 42I1 million
67.6 million
5.8 million
Total Coastal Depzndent Crops $1 15.5 million
10%
22.5%\ -
35;5% --
3%
61 X
.. .. .
*Predominately produced in the Maritime Areaclimate Zone \vi th rather minor production in the Coastal Areaclimate Zone. . .
**Predominately produced in the Maritime Areaclimate Zone; hardly ever east of the Coastal Areacl-inate Zone. - - 7 ._ . .. . ..
*** Vegetables are grown in both the Hari time and Coastal Areaclimate Zones.
****Most of the strawberries, although coastal dependent ire grown in-the coastal *
I
influenced areas of Vista and Fallbrook; a new large scale operation is
currently being devel oped in the Ti juana River Valley.
c
" I : -.. , 1
1 '. .. -,r - 4"
It is evident then, that coastal and near coastal lands account for 61%
8. of the gross value of plants and plant products produced in San Diego County,
Citrus and avocado fruits are erroneously visualized as beinq the "major"
plant products of this County; coastal dependent vegetable, floral and qreenhouse
industries exceed the citrus and avocado industries by over 40 million dollars.
The greenhouse industry alone is over 40% of the .subtropical fruit industry. -
Io terms of regional economics, greenhouse operations generate a base value
of about 23.-5 million dollars each year. This is "new" money and is the gross
value of the commodity prepared for market. It includes growing, harvesting,
packing, selling and other costs and represents the generated cash flow going
directly into the economy, It does not include a multiplier factor which
theoretically enhances the economic effectiveness of each dollar generated. If
a conservative factor of 3 were applied to coastal greenhouse operations i't
would result in an economic benefit of some 70+ million dollars .... this is
4
not a one shot deal, but is repeated year after year, It is reported that
gross returns per acre of greenhouse operations range from perhaps 'as low or
lower than.$30,000 for some types of operations to as high as $250,000 for
other kinds depending upon intensity of use and turnover of plants, Some
operations may require only a few workers per acre while others may require up
to 20 or 25, again depending upon intensity and turnover of plants; the h1ghe.r
the plant turnover the greater the labor needs.
Unfortunately there is no inventory of lands which show how many acres of
land suitabje for coastal dependent agriculture. have been lost to: urbanization,,
sold to non-agricuTtural interests, or otherwise taken out of production for
related reasons. However, the enclosed graph shows the guild up of harvested .
acreage over the last 25 years to a peak of 15,600 acres in 1961- -. . and . the " steady
decline since- to about 9,050 acres. The graph does not explain why. this happened,
only that-it-did, Indications are that it will continue' to decline, assuming the
same forces prevail in the future as in the past- .. ___~~- ~~~~~~ ~
The estimates of acreages and values contained herein or in the attached
graph were obtained from annual Crop Reports published by the San Diego County
*.
Department of Agriculture, Kenneth KO Little, Jr., Agricultural Commissioner.
Some estimates, not yet published are taken from data for use in the 1976
-Crop Report.
Enclosed are two public information papers on floraculture prepared by
Seward To Bessemer, Farm Advisor in the San Diego Office of the University of
California Extension Service.
-.
.: ..
-.
I'
ORN. - GENFRAL
CF-Zg9-300-6/76
Seward T. Besemer
Farm Advisor
Cooperative Extausion Service
'Clniversity of California
Eldg. 4, 5555 Overland Avenue
San Diego, California 92123
I Floricultur~l - Crops Produced ic "" San I33
Ssn Diego County quite possibly produces the greatest variety of floral products of any
similar geographic area in the world. Produced in the area are all the major greenhouse
and field-grown flowers such as carnatiocs, chrysanthemums, roses, gladioli and potted
phqts. Also, there is commercial produetion of unusual items such as proteas, .GeraIdton
Waxflower, leptospernurn, 2nd Caspia.
The fcllowing list includes only items which are primarily used for indoor decoration,
rather than landscaping. Only generic groups ?.re listed. There are many more species,
items. .-
Acreage figures 'are estimates only. No accurate survey figures hzve been develo2ed for
individual floral -crops.
I
i varieties, and cultivars which would expand the total items produced to possibly 1, OGO
TOTk L GREENHOUSE' ABEA IN 1975 - 430 t?CRES
TOTAL FIELD FLOWERS IN 1975 - 2500 ACRES
Cut Flowers in Greenhouses
Carnations
Chrysanthemums
Roses
Orchids
Snapdragons -.
6. Stephznotis
120 Acres
90 Acres
30 Acres
.8 Acres
1 Acre "-
Potted Plants in Greenhouses
Foliage plants 75 A.cres
(Leading groups Ere Aglaonema, Aralia, 1! sparzgw Ferns, kuracaria,
Brassaia, Cacti, Chlorophytum, Cissus, Coleus, Croton, Dieffenbachia,
Dracaeria, Ferns, Ficus, Fittonia, Hoya, Hypoestes, Iiedera, Maranta,
Falms, Fellionia, Peperomia, Fhilodendron, Pilea, Plectranthus, Pothod, i. ._ - '
Saaseveria, Saxifraga, Succulents, Syngonium, Tohiea, Vitis.)
Flowering pot plants 60 Acres
(Leading groups are Aechmea, P: eschynanthus, A hana, Aphelandra, I! zalea;
Begonia, Calathea, Calceolaria, Cinneraria, Chrysanthemum, Cyclamen,
Dipladenia, Episcia, Euphorbia, Fuchsia, G!oxiuia, Hydrangea, Impatieng,
Kalanchoe, Lily, Felargonium, Orchids, Saiutpaulia. ) . .- -
Other Greenhouse Crcns 46 Acres
Stock plants and propagation, and some European cucumbers.
-
2500 P cres '8 .' : Field FIoral Crops ..
Cut FIow&rs "" Cut Flowers
Acacia
Agapanthus
Anemone
krtichoke (Om. )
&stars (3 types)
Banksia
Fells of Ireland . .
..
"Bird of Feradise
CPIendula
Calla
Candy Tuft
Cardooa (Artichoke)
Caspia
Chrysanthem-urn
Cockscomb
Cornflower
Daffodil
. :
..+
*Daides Cktyks) .- ' . ..- .- . -, . " ? Dahlia ' '
Delphinium
Freesia .-
Gerbzra. __
..
Cut Foliagz
i? sparagus Ferns (4) Hezthor
Hyacinth
Iris
Eucnlyptus ..
. Euonymus
Larkspur .
Leptospermum
Leucospermum
Leuczdendron
Myrtle
.*
Fittosporum
Fussy Willow .. Lilac
Marigold
Nerine
Smilax
Flower Bulbs and
Feouy . Stock Plznts
Poinsettia
FOPPY
A nemone
Freesias
Protea Gereniurns
Queen ktm'a Lace Gladiolu 6
Ranunculus '3
*Statices (3 types)
Ixia
Crnathogalum ..
Oxalis
', -
Stock
Strawflower . .- RanuncuIus
Sparaxis Sweet Fea
I- .. Sweet William
Tulip
Waxflower- -
*GladioIus
*Gypsophila
:-- . Yarrow
Zinnia a
*The leading vblume 'crops.
-2
.y . - - -.- - . IMPORTANCE OF THE FLORAL INDUSTRY TO $AN DIEGO COUNTY>:: -.*:)? e:: f
- .,. . ; ;,-. ; ,," 1 ",, <<,.\jS s:; 1.. ..- -a,.. ..,. '1. . , - . " _.. . -. 1 J;, :.-:+::- ." , . ,.",-. 2'. c.:. : ?;. ..' e'. - i. :.-<;!:,3. * ** ;;.-? 4.7;:
. C,*r ,?..:
The ornamentals industry ranked second in annual dollar volume of production for major
agricultural commodities.prbduced in San Diego County for 1973. .. -::: ._ .... il .. , -. . ,& b.; 13" J
According to the San Ciego County Department of Agriculture Crop Report, the total .value
of the cou.ntyvs agriculture for 1973 was $219,342,100, the highest in history. Agriculture
is San Diego County's fourth major industry, after military, manufacturing, and tourism.
The production of nursery prod-ucts-and commerciaf flowers es valued at $37,283,000 for
1973. Thls is about 15 times the reported value for nursery and flower products in 1949.
The County Department of Agriculture separates.the 1973 value of nursery and flower
crops so that flowers have a value of $20,619,000 compared with ntirsery products at
$16,664,000. If the value of .cactus and succulents, bulbs, and a portion of herbaceous
perennials was' accepted as.entering the florist-type trade, the flora1 iixlustry would have
a current annual production value of about $22,000,000. This would pIace the floral indus-
try in fourth rank, behind eggs, tomatoes and avocados, for the major agricultural com-
modities in the county.
.. -. .. f. ._. -
">A L *.
............ -.- . - ........... .-!-;,->L.".,. . "-., -:,a z,;;r.; .. ... ... ... .. - *.:a -. " .._ __. ". . .- . - _. .- -. ........ " . ...... ........ .::.
L. , :.,. . -. . q. .: .. - - ". .
... ..... I". - ...... -b- ......... ._ . . ...... .. ............. *:. ..... ..... , ,. ~ . L.,, ::.- .- - . . ,. .._ -. r . .-. -2 :; . . . .' . .......... .. .. ,
.- ....... .............. .... ... ......... .... ... . " . ....... ..... . . ": . ......... .. . * I. I( c , . .>-! ::_7. ,i :,P." -:- :. .- . ._.:__ :.. ' ..I . -. - .-
Froduction of floral products in San Diego County had a subtle beginning. Early production
consisted of small field units in the north coastal area. Most of the merchandise was
marketed.through the &s Angeles flower m&&;-: .>;' : i . %.$ ..,;A : ... ;-. ..... ......... ;-.:- .. .-.-'** .. -. . .. ... .... . ...... . ,_ -. .? _, ,- 8 .... "" >. ;..7 - ..* : ,j . .:;= >..:'......-?.. 2. 2' ........ ..' :. .. -_ ,- .; .,, .? ." - ....... ._. ........ - .
Until about 1960,. gladiolus was the, major cut flower crop.'in .the county;.-producing an
annual value of over one million dollars. Prior to 1950, there was a group of perhaps 40
to 50 small gladiolus growers producing a total of about 400 acres of ffowers per year.
Today, there 'are only two- growers who produce over 800 acres of gladiolus each year,
with a value of $2,025,000. . i r,.- '.. : .-.
Greenhouse production in San Diego County started Witli'one commercial cgrnation grower
at Encinitas in 1949. In 1960, the carnation acreage was 35 acres and had surpassed
gladiolus as' the number one flower crop.. For 1967, the.Agricultura1 Crop Report listed
132 acres of greenhoube.carnations, generating an income of $6,727,000.7 .-. . ' . . ..
Greenhouse chrysanthemums began to be :produced in.the mid-1950's. By 1967, the pro-
duction of cut pompon and standard chrysahhemums amounted to 52 acres, with a vque of
$2,988, OOC), making it the number two flower crop.. In 1973, the value of chrysanthemums
is estimated to be. about equal to'carnations. - . -. . _I_. .. :.-..-. .? .
....... ..... .- ' ........... ...... ..... .. -. ." .. .: ... .. - . ~. :. - . ... ._ .. .- _. - ._ .. _. ._ .;. -.- -. _, ; . 3- ..
.. .. _I -. ,. 7. .. ..... .'; . - . .- ~.'C . .. .... . " ~ .... .. ..
..
. 4.
L. .. ,"' f$: ..... *,. ... ._ . -2- .r. :, A -
.: - .:. ;. . .... .......... .. .,.\ -,
Until 1965, there was ody one greenhouse rose operation in the county. This was started
in the mid-1930's in Spring Valley. In 1955, roses were produced at Encinitas by two
other growers. Today there are nine rose growers producing 25 actes of flowers.
The comme'rcial production of greenhouse orchids in the county is also increasing. There
are many small units Which together produce at Ieast six acres of commercial orchid
blooms,
Potted chrysanthemums; other potted flowering crops,.. such aa poinsettias and EasteE
lilies; potted foliage plants; and poinsettia and chrysanthemum cuttings are other crops
produced in greenhouses;-: Libout 100. acres is the estimated area in the county for these
" . . . .;* ., . : .. ._ ?
.. ......... ~ ". .
" ' : _._._ . ..... _: - . . ..
.' . . .... :t' ,a~r .. 12: ?-+-.: . ';. ;,rf...;..:u;* <;.-!:..>:> fa--". ;- ........ z . " g.r:-* -4". ..)::;;'.??.< . *%-, ""' ..* .? ~ .. ;.! ;.:.c:. ~
-
.I
" . -.
ite& ; . "~ +. .. .:.-.$ g ;.; ic :"!,<if <,:;f ,'. .......... ,: ' . , ",.". ... - A F1 - .... -i ,. ...-.-: , .- .. -,>; ?Ti..:: *:*.: .:-:, : '; - "
.............. ..--.:. -.-? .>>...:;;;:":: . . -!-":>i: .. v ~ ..: '.;3;:.<. c-,.:::::.2.:;? ::.-:;.- ..J:-,;;--:; ... r--:;:*:...* .. 4.:. ; . e.. -: 8
.... . , ._ ... :.:Importance of the Floral Kndustrg .. -;.;-; .. ....
_. . -. . ;". ;- ..... ..
.i__ - . . " ........ i -y: . .:. I ...- ..i..
The production of floral crops is probably the most intensified type of agricultural pro-
duction.-" This high degree of htensification requires enormous capitalization per unit. TO
set-u@'one acre of a controlIed-environment plastic greenhouse facility to produce roses,
carnations, chrysanthemums or orchids, requires $60,000 to $loo., 000 for land, structure,
and:dquipmen€.:' Planting stock is an additional cost. ranging from $5,000 to $15, OWper
acre: Labor represents 25' to 60 percent of the total production costs .of greenhouse and
.,:: .,r:;- '.::;: !,, t" .
.1 ..... .... 7 :>-. .... .. .................. .;; "' : ........ . ...... ... . >.-:.x .,,, f. ..,. ~ -jJ &.:-.- .:. .. - : .: - .- ,i-t. ... .... " .... ,-A*
< .. - ..
field flora1 crops.. .. -: - .... r,': .. ; :- -. ... i.: .. . ......... .. .. ...... ..... -y. ::::- .'; L, ,?, .... .. .... ..J. .. * .IT\ ..
" ....... .I.- . . : ~ .. I . - -.-l."
The total investment in land, structures, and equipment for the floral industry in San
Diego County is presently estimated . - ........ to be'in. - 7 excess- .... of $~O,O@O,OOO. The estimated in-
vestment for 350 acres of land .and equipped greenhouses .is $28,000,000 and for 2,500
acres of capital equfpment for field floral'crops, -$2,000, 0@0..?+,-~:!~-.:.. I- 1 SF; '-:: ..-< i i-;*. .a- : .
The annual operating costs of the above total acreage is estimated to be over $18,000,000,
A Iabor force of about 2,000 workers accounts for over $10,000,000 of this annual cost of
operating. Plats, water, fuel, chemicals; taxes, etc. make up the remaining production
. costs. . 3: : .. -; .. :.". ... -4 ... :I,.' ........... .......
..... . ..:+ 1;. ..... -i '": .. ::,. :.; ? " ....... ................. !.,*:-,.. .
It is' estimated that 3SO greenhouse acres produce more annual income. (wholesale value)
than 2,500 acres of field floral crops. Greenhouse income is about $17,000,000 and field
prpduction over $5,000,000. The total annual wholesale value of San Diego. County floral
products.is,'therefoe, at least~$22,000,000. "..::. I- .> - .._ . -*.:.- : . .. .. ..... *i< I * .- . 1.. 6) .. !'e;- ! ,. 2.. _.
.. i : ~.C, 1:;. ... . -. .!? __ . ... ....... ,'; :.
Shipments of floral production frorn.'San Diego County for 1973 amounted to- nearly
20,000,000 pounds,- or about- 10,000 tons.- Over -90 .percent of these: products - are sold--
outside the comty, and are shipped to all parts of the United States and Canada.
....... -_ .... :... \:-I: .. . . .. .... , ." .-. . a. . 7 - - ?:,. ,"..:-.., .* <,y,.. ;.--:=-.y; "..;*.., :- ..-;.-.- : 7 2'. ... 1_1 - - .. .... ........ I .!-. .C'? r:. ..IS. :- .... .- ..
. .... .. - . -, 4 5' c-i .......... -4 .. .- . .,;
~ ._
.. .. -.. I .- .. ................. .I; _. .. . ,.
.- .: 1..
.. -. . * .. .... . L. . - . ._ _..> .. . r ... ,. .... ..... <Y , '.; : . ,. " -..
... .. :. I . . : ... . '. . a. .. . I .. ;:. , 7 . .. .. ,. . -
"'The production of floral products in San Mego County :is.a dly~mic in*stry.\vMch rapidly
gained -its identity $%!ithii5; the last 15 years. Production area has .been expanding at
average rate of 10 percent per year. A stable rate of expansion is expected to continue for
8
.. "" .
-3-
several years as long as certain economic factors remain favorable. Increasing taxation,
. untenabIe zoning and building restrictions, and other factors could seriously curtail the
industry's development.
I The market for floral products is strong. Due to modern refrigerated trucks and'&
. transportation, the San Diego floral industry has the capability of selling its products to
customers anywhere in the world. Location in the coastal areas of the county, containing
some of the f€nest cIimate in the world, enables the industry to produce at the highest
potential rate at relatively lower costs than other competitive areas. The narrow coastal
strip, only one to two miles wide, from Solana Beach to Oceanside, is characterized with .
a high percentage of winter sunlight, mild wintdrs and cool summers, natural ventilation
from the ocean, and sandy loam acid soiL
The floral industry is not dependent upon government contracts or subsidies. It is a basic
industry utilizing the 10ca.l natural resources of climate, soil, water, and labor. The very
existence of the industry depends on these local resources. Dr. Harry Kohl, member of
the Environmental Horticulture Gepartment at the University of California at Davis, has
stated that the flower business represents "one of the last of the free private enterprises
largely unregulated by government. '1
, The floral industry does not rely on a local market. Its market is presently the whole ,. United States and some foreign countries. Over 90 percent of the products are sold out-
side the county. This brings in "newtT or ttoutsidett money to the local economy. Most of
this new money is reinvested in new production units, and payments to the local labor
force.
The floral industry expends more capital and produces more revenue per acre of land than
other agricultural commodities. It is probable that intensified greenhouse production .
(which is virtually a factory) generates more econornlc income per space unit than many
types of non-agricultural manufacturing. . The floral industry is clean, attractive, and
blends wellwith all types of land development. Acres of blooming p-ts are an enticement
to tourists to visit the area. There are over 200 species and varieties of floral items
produced by San Diego growers for the .commercial trade.
The floral industry of San Diego has a future-providing that county officials and the public
recognize the potential and make it possible for the industry to grow and thrive.
+. *******,*
Cooperaiive Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, U. S. Department
of Agriculture, University of California and County of San Diego cooperating
The University of California's Agricultural Extknsion Programs are available
to all, without regard to race, color, or 'national origh I
fd