Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Agriculture Committee General Info (1980); Program Report; 1980-12-03DeceRber 3, 1980 Tom Escher San Diego Department of Agriculture , 5555 Over1 and Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 Building 3 I owe you an apology for taking so long in getting back to you. Regarding your request for a recommendation of a consultant to advise you on how to set up your local ag-!and retention program, we would be delighted to advise the agricultural larid owners on how to keep their land in productim using an agricultural land trust. In the course of our conversation, you asked if it would be better for an owner of land in the coastal zone to donate a conservation easenlent to the Coastal Conservancy 3r to a local agency. In general, the Coastal Conservancy does not hold easements. However, they may occasionally receive easements to facilitate a transactfon. In these cases, the Conservancy will seek a -local public agency or a nonprofi -t organization to receive the easement and assunle the attendant management responsibilities. From a farmer's point of view, a local land trust controlled by agrarians may be a more appeal i ng a1 tern6 ti ve. .. For your review I am enclosing informational materia7 on TPt's work with agricultural conlmuni ties. See our annual report and ag-land project brochure. By all means encourage leaders among ag-land owners to contact us for more information on the land trust concept. We will be most happy to assist them. Currently we are assisting a handful of community groups to form locally control led agricultural land trusts. Two such organizations became incorporated in 1930 with our essential help. Several more will be incorporated by the end of next year. Among the many possible approaches to t,he problem of ag-land preservation, this path seems to appeal to agrarians who are suspicious of regulatory measures by government agencies, but want to preserve their way of life. The 'enclosed Pt. Re es Light article describes the Marin Agricultural Land Trust T-YT MALT which we have assisted over the past two years to form. Our assistance there was at the request of the Marin County Farm Bureau.. 82 Second Street San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 395-4014 page two Tom Escher 12/3/80 You may wonder what motivates farming communities to ask for our help. Part of the answer, anyway, is that they want to protect their way of 1 ife. The enclosed article on conservation easements , which appeared recently in American Forests magazine,shows how conveying a conservation easement enabled children to inherit a timberland opera- tion and thereby conti me their 1 ife style. The TPL article , "Develop- ment Rights on Farmland," provides income and estate tax models for ranchers in West Marin County who wanted to apply the conservation easement concept tc their own situation. You will also find some news clippings which illustrate various places in California where a local land trust has been instrumental in the protection of agrarian lands. Many of the approaches to the protection of farmland are summarized in the other two articles which are enclosed. I hope they . will be useful to you. We wish you the best i n your commendable endeavor! Sincerely , fmi/J,+ust Program enclosures .. The .. Trust for Public Land LAND TRUST PROGRAM SERVICES 1. Technical Assistance. This covers a number.of areas ranging from the for- mation of land trusts to specif-ic questions on land acquisition concerns. These are some of the areas in which we have expertise. --board formation and development --incorporation and I.R.S. tax exemption --program planning and grant proposal writing --review of legal documents such as options, sales contracts, "nonprofit land acquisition and negotiating techniques conservation easements 2. Workshops. These are offered to individual land trusts and can be tailored to meet the needs of the board of directors. These are some of the topics we can cover. --Introduction to Land Trusts and Board Members' Role --Presenting the Land Trust --Land Inventory: Identifying Resources to be Protected --Basic Tax Benefit Analysis --Establishing a Conservation Easement. Program: How to Draft, Acquire and Monitor Them --Basic Nonprofit Land Acquisition: Real Property Law and Negotiating Techniques --Setti ng Goals and Priori ties 3. Project \.lo; kshops. These are offered twice a year in San Francisco. They provide 1 and trus-ts with an opportunity to come with .a specific land acqui si - tion project and receive assistance from TPL's professional staff. The Land Trust Program anticipates offering these on a regional basis in the northwest depending on the interest and commitment shown by the land trusts in the area. 4. Memo Service. This is our newest service. Based on technical questions we receive from land trusts, we are developing memos which answer specific tax or legal questions we've been asked. These memos will be mailed to partici- pating land trusts so they can start to develop a notebook of technical infor- mation. We are continually building the capacity of young land trusts by transferring the experience of those a1 ready in operation. Criteria for Services We can most effectively serve groups who want assistance in forming land trusts and negotiating land transactions when they meet the following cri teri a : --located in the western United States --grass 'roots support and broad cormmi ty participation "demonstrated ability to organize local support, to recruit local volunteer services and to raise funds for projects --serious and we1 1-i nforrned approach to local land-use needs and issues 82 Second Street San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 495-4014 I y all measures, the past year has been one of solid achievement for the Trust for Public Land. We finished our seventh year with over 100 land transactions completed in a dozen states and Canada. In that time, we worked with federal, state, and local governments and com- munity organizations to set aside over 30,000 acres of open space for the pub- lic's long-term enjoyment. In the spirit of professionalism and economy in our work, we have adhered to our original policy to buy and deliver open spcxce to the public for less than its full value in the marketplace. In that area, too, we have been successful, transferrhg to public ownership almost $39 million in land at a saving to public land-buying agencies of more than $10 million. We also take pride in the growing effectiveness of local land trusts. In less quantifiable"terms, land trusts are playing an essential role in protecting anci conserving local lands. The training TPL ofliers these grass-roots Organizations in their formative stages, as well as the ongoing assistance, provides them ' the necessary guidance and encouragement for their undertakings. We are particularly heartened to see.the wide-ranging applicability of this land- conservation model - from some of this country's poorest inner-city neighhor- hoods in the South Bronx to dairy farms and ranchlands in the western states of Colorado and California. All of this is realized by a group of committed and able sfaff conducting their business in seven offices cnd in nearly every geographical area of the country. They and the Board of Directors have worked closely together in the last year to adopt TPL's first official affirmative-action plan which is now being implemented in every area of our operations. With all of this, we look to the eighties with keen anticipation. 1; the last decade proved anything, it was that the nonprofit, public-interest sector is our lives and the actions thd set, these improvements in motion. This vital role need not be weakened by economic uncertainties. I am confident that TPL will excel in these belt-tightening times. As one federal official recently wrote to me:' "With the impending budget crunch at the fed- eral level, the role of nonprofit organizations must dramatically increase. In my judgment, TPL has been infused with a spirit of creativiiy which, if coupled er fiscal resources, could fill the impending We have much important work to do. As in the ,. often the necessary link between what is needed to enhance the quality of gaps with some exciting programs." past, we T,yiH do it with the help of a talented and with people who continue to support gifts of time, money, and trust. ce again, I publicly thank each of you. Martin J. Rosen ... "" _. .. . . - - - ~~~ ~~~ v?"- .". .. he use of public land shows no sign of waning. On the contrary, except for remote wilderness areas, the number of people visiting our na- tion's parks is greater than ever before, partic- ularly near urban areas. At a time when this increased demand must be weighed against tightening budgets and rising land prices, the spxial contributions of the Trust for Public Land come into clearer focus. In the past year alone, TPL completed 25 land-acquisition projects in eight states which resulted in the addition oi over 4,400 acres to existing public parks, forests, and wildlife preserves. These transactions increased public access to campgrounds, hiking and horseback-riding trails, picnic areas, historic sites, and-scenic vistas, and pro- tected valuable wildlife habitat. Working with TPL has proved to be an appealing alternative for landowners-both corporations and in- divid uals - who recognize the open-space value of their lands. As a private organization, TPL acts quickly and efficiently to accept gifts of land or to purchase land at less than full market value. TPL offers land- owners importar,t tax and timing benefits, as well as flexible purchasing arrangements, and assumes com- plete responsibility for future negotiations with public agencies. . Providing New Lands for Public Enjo'pment The greatest pressure for public acquisition of rec- reational lands frequentli, occurs within existing na- tional parks and forests. The classic dilemma is that of a private owner deciding to sell a critical piece of land within a public area before government authorization for purchase has been given. This situation existed for an owner of 160 acres of sloping pastureland at the southern end of Arizona's Oak Creek Canyon within the Coconino National For- est. With its year-round stream, red-rock spires, and lush forest, the canyon is one of the most scenic areas in the Southwest, and perennially overcrowded with visitors from California and the Phoenix metropolitan- area who find it more accessible than the Grand Canyon further north. The U.S. Forest Service hoped to create two sub- stantial campgrounds-one at the northern end of the canyon and one at the southern end. This would allow the Forest Service to restrict use of the canyon proper to day-time visits only and lessen the adverse impacts of overnight camping there. By acquiring the 160 acres at the southern end of the canyon, the Forest Service could expand the small, existing campground adjacent to the land and offer campers improved facilities. The owner was unable to wait for government authorization tu purchase the land. He knew of many developers eager to buy the site, but agreed instead to 1 sell to TPL. As an intermediary in the transaction, TPL i 2 - .. vas able to offer the 1r-d to the Forest Service for ;ubstantialfy !ess thaR ,ark& value and prevent de- Jelopment in a heavily used recreation area. In Gnother transaction, TPL purchased Friendship 3i11, a registered historic landmark being considered tor preservation by the federal government. The 21- room mansion, built in 1789, and its surrounding 661 xcres are situated along the scenic shores of the Monongahela Rivzr in southern Pennsylvania- The site's hisloric significance rests largely with its original owner, Albert Gallatin, a Swiss-born American patriot who served during the country's formative years as an elected official, a cabinet member under Presidents Jefferson and Madison, and chief U.S. diplomat at the Treaty of Ghent. The National Park Service will restore the new national historic site for use as an interpretive center on the history of early American times, Bridging Public Interest and Privats Needs One of TPL's primary roles is to act as a bridge between private landowners and governmental agencies in cases where direct negotiations would be difficult. In one notable example in the lower Florida Keys, the chance to work with TPL meant the difference between a development that would have strained the fragile ecosystem of the lower Keys and the preservation of natural habitat needed to ensure the long-term sur- viva! of the endangered Key deer. The owners of the 1,128-acre site had origil;.,alIy planned to construct a 1500-unit residential develop- ment on one of the few remaining developable pcrcels on the lower archipelago. The development, however, threatened to significantly reduce the Key deer's nat- ural habitat. The cwners were unable to agree on terms for a transaction with the U.S. Fisk. and Wild-life Service but had successfully dealt with TPL in previous transactions, and through many discussions remained sensitive to the need to preserve the land for the Key deer. With no let-up predicted in the development of the Keys, the owners were convinced of the overriding public benefit in preserving the land. In 1979, they sold the land to TPL at a price that represented a major donation on their part. Critical habitat for the Key deer was permanently protected when TPL conveyed the land to the Key Deer National Wildlife Refuge in early 1980, increasing the size of the refuge by 25 percent. In a second transaction - this one with a major American corporation -TPL provided the necessary link between corporate ownership and public protec- tion of two magnificent Pacific Coast properties in northern California. to TPL in 1976 when its radio-antennae facilities on the sites were being superseded by more sophisticated technology. The corporation made a generous con- tribution in selling the land to TPL at one-half its appraised value, and in doing so realized significant tax benefits through reduced capital gains and a charitable donation. Corporate personnel were also freed from the maze of procedures involved in federal acquisition. During the threc years between acquisi- tion and conveyance to the Point Reyes Naticnal " 3 RCA Global Communications, Inc. sold the lands i. ' Seashbre, TPL acted as interim stew ; of the land, protecting its natural integrity and cooprating with National Park Service officials to arrange its transfer to public ownership. In times of tight money and rising land values, it be- comes all the more necessary for land consenrationists to stretch funds and devise innovative transactions. TPL achieved both last year when it reached a com- plex land-banking agreement with the state of Califor- nia which allows the state to gradually purchase 441 acres of marshland over two years as funds become available, and during that time to enhance the land for use as wildlife habitat. The marshland lies along the southeastern shore of Suisun Bay, northeast of San Francisco. TPL ac- quired most of the 441 acres through a donation by a private corporation and purchased the remainder of . the land in 1979. i- The California State Lands Commission regarded the site as a potentially valuable addition to its inven- tory of marshlands. Before implementation of environ- mental regulations, many of California's privately owned wetlands had been filled. Once filled, their value as wildlife habitat became largely negligible. Before ayreeing to extinguish the state's ownership interests, the state protects the public-ownership claims in these now developable areas by requiring an ex- change of the state's ownership interests for a specified amount of existing or restorable marshlands. Owners, hcwever, are stymied in their efforts to find scarce, qualifying trcdelands. vate owners can now purchase the amount required by the state from the Suisun land-bank in exchange for clear title to their filled lands. This arrangement expedites state protection of wetlands and ensures their cbntinued use and value as wildlife habitat at the same time that it eliminates the need for private ' owners to search for suitable tradelands. Expanding Horizons In each of its seven years, TPL has sought new oppor- tunities and directions for its land-saving pursuits. Last year, TPL expanded its geographical scope with its first transaction in Hawaii, adding 268 acres to the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park at the southern end of the "Big Island" of Hawaii. The land will act as a buffer between ' a dramatic, oncient site at the parks southern en- trance und encroaching inland development. urging of key local conservationists, TPL opened a new office in September 1979 near Seattle, Washington which will serve as a base for expanding operations in the northwestern states. TPL now has a nationwide land-acquisition program, with offices in Tallahassee, New York City, Cleveland, Seattle, and San Francisco. Y' . . Developing bovcrtive Models With the benefit of TPL's land-bank agreement, pri- To better serve its national constituency and at the TPL protected valu- able habitat in the lower Florida Keys when it conveyed over 1.100 acres to tho Key Deer Wildlife Refuge this yea= -\* Open-Space Projects Co. .,h!ed. April 1979"Marrh 1980' Statelpublic Management AredAcquiring Agency Acres National Arizona Coconino National F0restlU.S. Forest Service 160 California Golden Gate National Recreation Areal National Park Service lot Los Padres National Forest/U.S. Forest Service 453 Point Reyes National SeashoreiNational Park Service 1,049 Sierra National F0restlLT.S. Forest Service 120 Toiyabe National F0restlU.S. Forest Service 27 Florida Crocodile National Wildiife Refugel U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 85 Grwt White Heron National Wildlife Refugel U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 37 Great White Heron National Wlldlife Refugal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 41 National Key Deer RefugelU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1,128 Hawaii Hawaii Volcano3s National ParklNational Park Service 268 Ohio Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Areal National Park Service 20 Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Areal National Park Service 8 Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Areal National Park Service 3 Cuyahoga Valley National &creation Areal National Park Service 15 Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area! National Park Service 62 Oregon Orecon Caves Nutional MonumentiNational Park Service lot Pennsylvania Friendship Hill National Historic Site! National Park Service 661 Texas Sam Houston National F0restlU.S. Forest Service 273 Regional California Sugarloaf State Park/State of California 60 Sugarloaf State ParklState of Caliiornia 50 City California Vacaville City ParklCity of Vacaville . 35 Peralta ParklCity of Oakland Building Nonprofit Organizations California Amargosa Historical TownlAmargosa Opera House, Inc. Inyo County 255 Tot a1 4,810 " .... 'Multlplo transactions wlthln tho same dcslgnoted arcw are 11s1cd separately. f the ground swell of neighborhood activism per- sists in this country, we can expect to hear more and more success stories of communities taking. the lead in addressing local issues. Whether the problem is affordable housing, unemployment, close- to-home recreation, or fresh, healthy food, the long- term solutions will hinge ir? part on local self-reliance. The need for a greater measure of responsibility at the local level has become the philosophical under- pinning of TPL's work with inner-city communities. Through a systematic program of training workshops and technical assistance, TPL promotes local initiatlve in converting vacant property into community-built parks and gardens, and long-term stewardship of those lands for the benefit of the community at large. The steady rise of neighborhood activity has pro- duced a welcome fallout oi new demands for TPL's training skills and accounts for a rapid expansion of the organization's urban activities in the last year. In addition to olfering continued support to community groups in New York, Newark, Miami, San Francisco, and Oakland, cities where TPL initiated programs in previous years, a series of workshops were completed for community groups in Denver and Boston. In the next year, TPL plans to conduct training sessions in eight cities, with activities currently planned for groups in Cleveland, Allanta, Chicago, Louisville, and South Bend, Indiana. Promoting Local Self-Reliance Over a period of four months, members of seven f community groups from Boston's Roxbury and Dor- 1 Chester neighborhoods attended workshops which led j them through the steps of forming neighborhood land trusts, acquiring and reclaiming vacant land for com- I munity projects, and maintaining the sites with :he i help of local residents. I As a direct result of TpL's technical assistance, i participants in these workshops have incorpo- rated five independent land trusts under the laws of the state of Massachusetts. Two land trusts have al- ready acquired surplus government properties, and negotiations are under way to acquire twelve addi- tional sites. Under spmsorship of the U.S. Department of the $ Interior's IIeritage Ccnservation and Recreation Ser- f vice (HCRS), TPL held similar training sessions for 25 119 community activists in the Denver area. This training program came about largely as a result of u booklet r TPL prepared in the previous year for HCRS. Citizens Action Manual: A guide to recycling vacant property z was widely distributed across the country and led to a E follow-up publication by 'TPL called A Citizens Guide 8 to Mairthir~ing Neighborhood Places. The booklet is 6 scheduled !or release by HCRS in late summer 1980. 2 TPL hud also coopercrted indirectly with HCRS in the previous year when the agency awarded a major ,i 6- 1 1 m 9 E Tl ? ~~._ "" "_" " ."""."." .~T"."._.lU. r*U~.,,Y.I'I\'~z" ,~-c'i ,,,_ ",+F31,mPHC , ..... m L. grant of $1 million tc 2 South Bronx Open Space Tcsk Force, a coalition of community groups formed in the summer of 1978 with help from TPL. During 1979-80, the Task Force began to use those funds to finunce the acquisition and development of 15 abandoned sites for community parks and gardens. Under contract to the Task Force, TPL completed training programs for meinbers of the Task Force and neighborhood land hsts, and in addition guided members through haurs of negotiations with city officials and private landowners. By the summer of 1980, residents had reclaimed ten of the fifteen sites, with several communities producing their first horvest of vegetables. In communities where residents have organized around well defined goals, it can take a surprisingly short time to set things in motion. This has been the experience particularly of TPL's New York City Land Project. A local community housing organization in Brooklyn called Los Sures had already secured gov- ernment funding to develop local rehabilitation plans before calling on TPL in the summer of 1979. At that time, Los Sures asked TPL to set up training workshops for residents assigned to look ut the issue of open . space. Great care was taken in choosing 10 persons who would best represent the broad spectrum of inter- ests in the 90-block "Southside" area of Williamsburg. Since its first informal meetings last summer, the group has completed TPL's eight-part training pro- gram and formed the first neighborhood land trust in Williamsburg, called Nuesira Tierra Nueva ("Our New Land"). In a special arrangement between TPL and the New York Foundation, the group was awarded a small land-acquisition grant to purchase its first site this spring. first for a New York City community, this time in East Harlem. In late 1979, a.core group from the Young People's Block Association incorporated as the first land trust in East Harlem. The new group, called the East Harlem Resource Center, was set up to involve local youth in community projects, and has since undertaken to develop a park on a rubble-strewn site at the corner of East 103rd Street and Park Avenue. Having helped truin and organize the land-trust mem- bers, TPL will continue to advise them on fund-raising and land-acquisition techniques. With funds from the New York Foundation, the land trust recently bought its first 10,000-square-foot lot and plans to acquire four adjacent sites before proceeding to build the park. In the spring of 1979, TPL launched the Bay Area Urban Land Project with support from six local foun- dations. Since then, TPL has helped groups in San Francisco develop plans for a tree-planting in China- town, a neighborhood park in the Tenderloin, and a community center in Bernal Heights. TPL is also ap- plying its technical assistance in East Palo Alto to help preserve a 40-ucre farm, and in Daly City, to secure u surplus school site for a recreational park and center. With a grant from the Culifornia Council for the Humanities in Public Policy, TPL presented CI confer- ence in October 1979 on the issue of Church & Land: TPL played an equally vital role in shaping another " 7 ;. . ’ Resodrce and Responsibility. Held ir .In Francisco, the one-day conference brought together environ- mental activists, community organizers, and clergy and laity from various denominations to clarify policy issues regarding the wise stewardship of surplus church-owned property. TPL will follow this effort with two conferences on church-land issues later this year. Training activities in the past year have helped TPL redefine its role in working with inner-city com- munities. That role is now directed toward giving specialized technical assistance to groups that identify their purposes and take ultimute responsibility for their projects. This new policy is clearly reflected in TPL‘s changing affiliation with eight neighborhood land trusts that comprise the Oakland Land Project. Since 1975, TPL has worked hand-in-hand with Oak- land residents to improve 30 vacant lots for parks and gardens. In November 1979, TPL conveyed ownership deeds for these sites to land-tryst members who will now receive technical assistance from TPL on a con- tractual basis. A grant of $100,000 from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation will enable TPL to strengthen and expand its urban field work in the coming year. The goal will be to increase the program‘s efficiency and spread technical land-conservation skills to a wider number of people. will be a series of manuals produced for workshop participants. The manual series, titled Neighborhood Land Control Techniques, will cover the seven work- sho9 topics: community organizing, land inventory, real estate, incorporation procedures, tax benefits, acqcisition of surplus p:lblic land, and community participation for site design, development, and maintenance. Lending Permanency to Local Initiutives If finding an available site is the first hurdle for urban gardeners, then keeping it is the second and tougher one. Of the estimated 20,000 urban gardens in this country, less than four percent are considered perma- nent because gardeners have no long-term control over the land. With funding from an anonymous $50,000 grant, TPL hopes to offset the scarcity of citizen-owned garden plots by establishing a three-year urban agricultural program with the objective of increasing the amount of land set aside to produce food for inner-city communities. workshops for community gardening groups in Cali- fornia and a series of five, two-day workshops in Denver, Philadelphia, Boston, and Hartford. /- An added feature to next year’s training workshops During the program’s first year, TPL will conduct .... Pride in ownership b community-contro!le land trusts is a big factor in the success of TPCs urban projeds. ” 8 -c. Gardenicg is a healthy habit for young and old at many of the Oakland gardens that TPL has co-sponsored with local residents since 1975. Urban Training and TerF-"qal .- Assistance. 1979-80 Missi0.n Hill Land Trust," Fort Hill Land Trust," Southwest Corridor Community Farm Land Trust: Central Roxbury Community Innd Trust.+ We Can Neighborhood "- Land Trust:' Denver Capitol Hill Architecture-Planning Assistance, Capitol Hlll United Neighbors, Curtis Park Block Group, Del Nocte Neighborhood Development Corporation, Elyria Community Improvement Association, Five Points Community Center, Greater Mar Lee Community Organization, Greater Park Hill Communtty, Inc., Highland Neighborhood Housing Services, Jefferson, 'rIighlcnd, Sunnyside Neighborhood Organization, Newsed, Inc.. Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc., Worth Denver Citizens' Committee, Organization for Midtown Neighborhood Improvernent, Osceola Neighbors. Miami Eden Mana* (First land trust incorporated in Dado County), Melrose. Opa Locka Garden, Shell City. New York Bronx . Webster-Giannone Police Athle!ic League. Brooklyn Bergen St. Block Association, Flatbush Development Corporation.+ The Greater Broadway Brooklyn Local Development Corporation: New Sculpture Workshop," Nuestra Tierra Nueva,* Pratt .Area Council, Seeley St. Block Asscciation, Southside United Rousing Development Fund Corporation.* St. Nicholas Neighborhod . Preservation & Rehabilitation Corporation, T&T Vernon Avenue Block Association? Manhattan El Jardin del Pueblo, Fourth Sireet Garden, Loisaida Recycting Center, Ruppert Green,' Sixth Street Community Center. Young People's East Harlem Resource Center." Queens .. MacIntosh Block Association. Alley P0r.d Park. Staten Island Amateur Softbcrll Assocation,' Parkhill Civic Association. - Newark Brunswick Street, New Dawn Day Care Center, North Ward Educational e( Cukural Center, Rutgers Garder,-.lg Program, United Academy. San Francisco Bay Area Daly City Crocker Neighborhood Association. . Economic Opportunity Council, San Mat- County. Oakland Columbia Gardens Neighborhood Improvement Association, Love Center Church, Evergreen Baptist Church, Woodland H:ghland Neighborhood Improvement Association. 65th Ave. Concerned Citizens, 25th Ave. Garden Association, 69-72 Ave. Concerned Citizens, Calvary Baptist Church, Parent-Child Development Center, Inc., Ayala Land Trust, Central East Oakland Land Trust. Elmhurst Land Trust, Fruitvale Land Trust, North Oakland Land Trust, Santa Rita Land Trust, Stonehurst Land Trust, West Cypress Land Trust, Peralta Service Corporation, Single Fanlily Residents. Oakland Housing Authority, City of Oakland, Oakland Unifled School District, Nicol Land Trust. Pescadero A group of concerned citizens. San Francisco ASIAN, Inc., Bernal Heights Community F'oundotlon, Chinutown , Neighborhood Improvement Resource Center, North af Market Planning Coalition. Boston " ' East Palo Alto . . .. IIcorpototcd cis u lntrd ttt~st rn the Inst year. o tkie environmental movement's long-term preoccupation with wilderness and more re- cently urban areas is being added an aware- ness of the threatened lands that lie between. at is largely based on the steady increase in population in the small towns and rural areas of America, posing an imminent loss of open space and recreational lands. For those communities concerned about losing prime open space to inappropriate use, forming land trusts has proved a positive alternative to just standing by. Since its beginning, TPL has offered support and assistance to communities who have formed locally based land trusts. In the last year alone, TPL provided technical assistance to 6 nascent land trusts in the states of Florida, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and California, and continued to advise land trusts set up in previous yeurs with a guiding hand from TPL. That advice takes various forms: workshops in organiza- tional development and land-acquisition techniques, detailed guidelines to determine the wisest organiza- tional tax status, strategies to acquire land, on-site consultation for land-management issues, and reli- able referrals for professional services. In all, TPL responded to over 100 requests for information on land trusts in the last year. Conserving Local Recreational Lands and Open Space This year, several lcnd trusts in northern California completed complex land transactions in their commu- nities, underscoring the vital work of land trusts in conserving local lands and TPCs supporting role in fosteririg strong, independent groups. For each of - these land trusts, TPL's initial technical advice during the organization's formative months was the first stage in ongoing assistance for their land-acquisition and land-management programs. A notable example is that of the Humboldt North Coast Land Trust, formed in 1978 out of local op- position to creation of a state park along a highly erodible stretch of coastline. Later that year, the Cali- fornia legislature passed a landmark bill making $100,000 available for land acquisitions by the local trust. Initially, TPL conducted a workshop for land-trust members on the rudiments of negotiating with land- owners and arranging the terms of land transactions. This was followed by a workshop in 1979 on issues related to land management. Since the land trust's incorporation, TPL has helped members develop a plan which combines land acqui- sitions and conservation easements to ensure man- ageable public access to 280 acres previously intended for the state park. Already, the land trust has acquired 3 parcels totaling 22 acres and two conservation ease- ments, and arranged for appraisals on 20 separate parcels whose owners have indicated a willingness to .. convey easements G e title. The Big Sur and &rip County Lund Trusts also called on TPI, in the past year to help establish the value of easements which were instrumental in ensur- ing the long-term productive use of over 3,500 acres of California ranchlands. Retaining Agricultural Land In the last year, TPL embcrked on a new enterprise, still in its experimental stage. to test the land-trust model in agricultural communities. While continuing to advise those land trusts formed for the purpose of open-space conservation, TPE is selectively working with western farming communities to form land trusts as a way to ease the speculative pressures on produc- tive lands and restrict the land's use to agriculture. TpL's pre!iminary discussions on the feasibility of land trusts for agricultural communities were with Colorado ranchers attending a two-day conference in Denver sponsored by the Island Foundation in May 1979. Since then, TPL has held several meetings in Colorado with ranchers in Pibin County and orcharci- ists in Mesa County to explain how the conveyance of development rights over their land will lower taxes; particularly estate and inheritance iuxes, und thereby improve the prospects for continued family-ownership. TPL has held similar sessions with farmers in west- ern Marin County, north of Son Francisco, where- to many people's surprise over 1,30,000 acres of land are farmed. Based on highly tecbaical financial analyses, TPL was able to show area ranchers how a land trust can offer an alternative to paying burdensome death taxes. 1'PL's presentation underlined the need for ranchers to enguge in long-range, sophisticated estate planning, and the usefulness of a local :rind trus: in liquidating part of the estate through bargain sales of conservation easements, which lower estate taxes. As a result of TPL's work over a period of about six months, the Marin ranchers incorporated the nation's first land trust with trustees who are-predominantly ranchers and whose focus is productive lands. - Land Trust Technical Assistance, 1979-80 Big Sur Land Trust Monterey County, California Columbia Gorge Environmental Center 6 Columbia River watershed counties, Washington and Oregon Humboldt North Coast Land Trust Humboldt County, California Land Trust of Santa Cruz County California Marin Agricultural Land Trust Marin County, California Mcm County Land Conservanq Colorado Napa County Land Trust California Roaring Fork Valley Lund Conservancy Pitkin and Garfield Countles, Colorado Voluzia County Land Trust Florida Yakirna River Rcgionul Crecnway Foundation Yakima County, Washinqton - I 11 Combined Balance Sheets 1980 ' 1979 Assets Cash, including project revolving funds of $4,984 and $72,082 (Note C) ' $ 138.694 $ 131,511 Marketable securities (market value of $2,757,850 and $1,917,569) including project revolving funds of $483,750 and $500,340 (Notes B and C) 2,845,819 1,955,409 Notes receivable 508,113 486,250 Accounts recaivable 100,435 139.470 Grants pledged by foundations 43,296 82,500 Deposits on projects 64.499 104,100 Land holdings: Fair market'value of land (NoteEB. D and H) 5,333,113 5,696,426 Cost of Droiect(s) in process (Note J) 1,040,000 - 6,373,113. 5,696,426 Other 75,640 48,088 $10,149,609 $8,643,754 .. .. . . ." Liabilities and Fund Balances. .. Liabilities: .. Notes payable (Note Dl $ 2,027,299 $1,5l1,380 Accounts payable and accrued expenses 246.496 297,261 Grants reia!ed to future periods (Notes B, H and I) 337,343 82,500 2.61 1.138 1,891,141 Fund balances: Restricted: Donor restricted (Note HI 74.04 1 156.498 Endowment fund (Note B) 105,802 - Designated for future operations (Note E) 450,000 . 450,000 Value of land in excess of cost (Note F) 4.062.794 . 3,316,491 General 2,845,834 . .- - 2,829,624 Unrestricted: 7.538.471 6.752.613 $10.149.609 68,643,754 See notes :o combined hnanclal slaternents. .. 1. TheTrust for Public Land and Related Organizations (Nonprofit Corparations! Year Ended March 31 1980 1979 Revenues and Additions to Fund Balances: Land and easements acquired (Note B): Fair market value of land acquired $8,942,864 ~s.286mo Fair market value of easements acauired - 1.281.00(! Less consideration paid (5,169,7701 ~~770,851 Contributions of Land and Easement Values Received 5,773,094 3,796,169 Contributions of cash and securities (Note B): Restricted 365,954 328,863 Unrestricted 45,255 64 1,855 ~~ Endowment 105,802 - ' Gain on disDositi& of land (Note B) 102,300 115,665 Interest and other income 281.426 134,841 Total Revenues and Additions 4,673,831 5,017,393 Expenses and Reductions in Fund Balances: Land conveyed to public agencies and other nonprofit organizations (Note B): . . .. Fair market value of land conveyed 8,733,164 5,182,61(3 Less consideration received (7,462,614) (3,998.67C Contributions of Land Value Made 1.276.550 1,183,94C Fair market value of easements acquired (Note B) - 1,28 1 ,OOC Program services: Public Land Program 933,341 818,llE Urban Innd Program 595.295 394.~~ Land Trusts. trainina and other 59,967 66.91! -. - ~~ 1,58&603 1,279,921 Management and support services 417,084 315,68< Total ExDenses and Reductions 3.282.237 4.060.55: -~ -~~ Increase in fund balances before cumulative effect of changes in accountina DrinciDles ~~~ ~ ~ 1.391.594 956.84 Less cumulative effect on prior years (to March 31, 1979) of changes in accounting principles (Note H) (605,736) - Increase in Fund Balances 785,858 956,841 Fund balances at beginning of year 6,752,613 5,795.77: Fund balances a! end of year, including restricted funds of $179.843 and $156.498 (Note E) $7.538.471 $6.752.61: " See notes to combmed financial statements. i Combissd Statements oi Functional Expanses The Trust for Puth Land and Related Organizations (Nonprofit Corpo:ations) Yeors Ended March 31 Program Sewices Manage- ment and support Public Land Urban Land Land Trust Total Expenses Program Program Program Total sentices 1980 1979 Salaries and benefits $324,053 $329,143 $38,247 $ 691,443 $301,508 s 992.951 $ 677.8:' - Temporary labor and student interns 1.022 16,028 - 17,050 8,580 25.630 35.2: Leaal services 44.107 11,728 372 56,207 8.405 64,612 61.7: Appraisal services 35,603 - - 35,603 - 35.603 31.9 Accounting and tax services 680 - 1 ,GOO 1,680 28,558 30,238 354: Other professional services 9,959 33,505 "_ 3,417 46,881 38,782 85,663 81.4' Travel and meetings 91,462 50,160 6,663 148,285 52,754 201,039 151.5! Telephone * 42.032 30,548 2,415 74,995 16,337 91,332 86.1: Rent and office expenses 13,727 23,643 1,173 38,543 36,830 75,373 65.2: Furniture, fixtures and equipment 1,782 6,055 - 7,837 20,753 28,590 . 18,8! Supplies and postage 19,406 18,803 2.334 40,543 21,777 62,320 473 . . Printing and reproduction 3,980 12,241 .1,988 18,239 34,105 - 52.314 ' 32.7, Insurance 9,401 3.456 500 13,357 6,162 19.519- 16 C Recruiting and relocation 3,780 1,396 974 6,150 6,995 13.i45 io, 1 Books, dues and subscriptions 2,232 2,661 138 5.03 1 7,804 12,835 7.0 Other opera!ing expenses 1,456 5,514 483 7,453 13,422 20,875 24,T Grants and contributions 25 6,539 I 6,564 325 -" 6,889 2-6 Staff deve!opment charges 2,113 16,462 263 18,833 ( 19,263) (425) - - -. Opercrting Costs 606,820 567,882 5C 967 1,234,669 583,634 1.818.sn:{ 1,387.3 Acquisition and conveyance costs 53,577 1,077 - 54,654 - 54,654 96.3 Site development and I. maintehance - 23,746 - 23.746 ' - 23,746 10.9 Interest 125,933 117 - 126,050 - .126,050 11 1.6 Other holding costs net of (rental income) (19,739) 2,473 - (17,266) - (17.266) " Transaction Costs 159,771 27,413 - 187,184 - 187,184 218.E Indirect cost allocations 166,750 - - 166,750 (166,750) - 10.E Total Costs $933,341 $595.295 $59,967 $1,588.603 $417,084 $2.005.687 S1.595.C - - See nctes to cornbmed hnuncla: statements. .. " TheTrust for Pub!ic Lmd and Related Organizations (Nonprofit Corporations) Years Ended March 31.1990 and 1979 Note AlGeneral The Trust for Public Land and related organizations (the Trust) is a charitable, nonprofit corporation which was created to serve the public's need for open space preservation, particularly in metro- politan areas. The Trust's principal objective is to facilitate the transfer of privately held lands to public ownership. Because of potential tax and timing benefits to the private owner, the Trust generally acquires land and easements by gift or at prices below fair market value. The resulting difference between fair market value and the owner's selling price thus becomes a gift to the Trust in the form of land or easement value. Similarly, the Trust generally conveys land and easements to public agencies and other nonprofit organizations for amounts less than fair market value, thereby sharing a portion of the donor's gift while retaining the remaining proceeds as continuing support for its on- gcing activities. For the seven years since inception, the Trust has acquired land and easements with a fair market value (as dis- cussed in Note B) of $45,242,307 for consideration of $23,647,597, resulting in contributions of land and easement value to the Trust of $21,594,710. During the same period, land and easements with a fair market value of $37,210,432 were conveyed to public agencies and other nonprofit organizations for consideration of $26,691,768, resulting in contributions of land and easement value by the Trllst of $10,518,664. Note BlSummary of Accounting Policies Basis of Presentation The combined financial statements include operations of three related organizations, TPL-New York, Inc., TPL-New Jersey, Inc. and the TPL Center. Interorganization accounts and transactiom have been eliminated. Marketable Securities -Marketable securities are carried at cost. Land and Easement Transactions Acquisitions of land and easements by the Trust frequently occur in the form of gifts or as purchases for amounts substantially below fair market value. The Trust records both acquisitions and con- veyances at fair market value as determined under one of the following valuation procedures: JValues are obtained either by the independent appraisal of a professionally quaiified appraiser retained by the Trust or from the apprcised value determined by a public agency where such value appears reasonable. OWhere neither of the foregoing sources is readily available, the Trust uses the full cash value as established by the local county tax assessor or cost if the cash value is minimal. OWhere a current appraisal is available from a professionally qualified independent appraiser retained by a third party, such value may be adopted when the Trust is satisfied that the ap- praisal is reliable and the expense of an additional appraisal is unwarranted. have been determined by the above valuation methods in the following percentages of total value acquired: Fair market values of land and easements acquired by the Trust Land and Easements Acquired During Year Ended March 31 Valuation Method 1980 1979 Appruisals obtaincd by the Trust 6% 5% Values udopted by public agencies 74 49 Local tax assessors - 7 Third party " appraisals 20 32 cost - 7 100% .IO006 -___ "- "." - ~~ ~- In cases where a more definitive valuation becomes avadable. the fair market values of land are revalued. Such revaluations amounted to net incieases of $138,000 in 1980 and$64,000 in 1979. Disposition of Miscellaneous Lands In certain cases where the Trust has received gifts of land. which by nature or location have no perceived park, open space, rec- reational or scenic value and/or which public agencies have indicated no interest in acquiring, the Trust generaliy disposes of such lond on the open market. Easements Easements acquired by the Trust are conservation easements and represent numerous restrictions over the use and development of land not owned by the Trust. These easements general!y provide that the land will be main!ained unimpaired in its current natural. agricultural, scenic or recreational state. Thus, sirxe the benefits of such easements accrue to the public upon acquisition. the !air market value of easements acquired is shown, in the ycar of acquisition, both as an addition to fund balances (to record the donor's gift) and as a reduction in fund balances (to record the value of the public's benefit). Endowment Fund Contributions to the endowment fund cannot be spent currently for program or supporting services because of donor rcstrictions. The endowment fund is to be invested in perpetuity with only the investment income therefrom mailable for current use. Contributions Unrestricted contributions are recorded as incorne in the period received. Res!ricted contributions are record& as revenue when expenditures have been incurred in accordance with donor's restrictions. date of contribution. Reclassifications Certain reclassifications have been made in the 1979 finmcid statements to conform to the classifications used in 1980. Note.C/Project Revolving Funds The Trust maintains certain funds to be used primarily for direct land acquisition. When the related lands are conveyed and ac- quisition costs recovered, the amounts so expended are restored to the revolving funds. Funds so restricted by donors are generally limited to certain geographical areas or types of land. The fund so designated internally by the Trust has been set aside primarily for timely but high risk responses to unusual purchase opportunities of publicly desired open space which would otherwise be lost pending gov- ernmental action. This fund was created by the Trust's retention of that portion of the sale proceeds from certain transactions. which, under current operating policy, would have been passed on as a reduction in price to the acquiring public agency. Contributions of securities are recorded ct market value on the Unutilized balances in these funds were as follows: Year Ended March 31 1980 1979 Dorothy Erskine Open Space Fund $ 24,041 $ 17,075 Constance Anderson Loan Fund 140,000 128.000 Marshland Mitigation Fund - 35,503 Cuyahoga Valley Revolving Fund 27.000 20,000 General Project Revolving Fund (internally designated) 297.693 372.444 $480,734 $573,022 ""__- ! b .. Note DlNotes Payable Notes payable arise principally from the purchase of land holdings and are generally payable to previous owners of the property Notes piable are collateralized by land valued ot $3,547,088. The notes bear interest at rates varying from 6% to 13%% and are payable as follows: Year Ending March 31 Amount 1981 . $1,606,204 1982 392,555 1983 14,270 1984 14,270 $2,027,299 2.' Note E/Unrestricted Fund Designated for Future Operations A major goal of the Trust is to attain operational self-sufficiency through open space projects and related activities. Recognizing the necessity of providing for continuity of operations, the Trust's Board of Directors has adopted a policy of providing for periodic review of the fund balances for the purpose of designating amounts for future operations. Of the fund balances at March 31, 1980 and 1979, $450,000 was so designated. Note F/Fair Market Value of Land in Excess of Cost It is anticipated that a substantial portion of the excess of fair market value over consideration paid for land held will be con- tributed to public agencies and other nonprofit organizations by conveying such land at amounts less than fair market value (Note A). The excess of fair market value aver conslderation paid by ihe Trust is identified separately in fund baiances. Note GlIncome Taxes The Internal Revenue Servire has classified the Trust as a publicly supported, tax-exempt organization under Sections 501(c)(3) and 170(b)(l)(A)(vi) of the Internal Revenue Code. Note H/Changes in Accounting Principles Direct Fosts and related overhead associated with acquiring and holding land are recorded currently as expenses in the statement of operations for the year ended March 31, 1980. In piior years such expenses were recorded as land holdings and charged to expense when the related land projects were abandoned or con- veyed. The new accounting policy was adopted to more properly state land holdings since project costs do not enhance the value of land already recorded at fair market value. This policy has been applied retroactively to land project costs incurred in prior years. The effect of the change in accounting policy in fiscal 1980 was to increase total expenses and reductions and therefore decrease the increases to fund balances by $434,615. For the year ended March 31, 1980, the Trust recorded restricted contributions in excess of related expenditures as grants related to future periods. In prior years, the Trust recorded restricted con- tributions as revenues when received, with the excess of restricted contributions over expenditures recorded ih the restricted fund balance. The Trust adopted the new accounting method to prop- erly xecognize revenue when expenses are incurred for the pur- .pose specifled by the donor. The effect of this change in account- ing policy in fiscal 1980 was to decrease total revenues and additions and therefore decrease the increases to fund balances by $260,511. The adjustments of $605,736 ($466,313 for land project costs an( $139,423 for restricted contributions) to rctroactive!y apply the n-7 accounting principles are included in operations for fiscal 1980. The pro forma increases in fund balances. assuming the new principles had been in effect for fiscal 1060 and 1979 respectively are $1,391,594 and $1,008,631. Note IlGmnts Belated to Future Periods A summary of restricted grant activity follows: Grants " related to future periodis at March 31, 1579 $ 82, Effect of change in accounting policy 139. Restricted contribyltions received 474, Funds expended during the year ucder restricted grants (356.. Grants related to future perids at March 31, 1980 s337. - Note JlCost of Project(s) in Pracess During fiscal 1980 the Trust enrered into a transaction to purchas land valued at $1,900,000 for a consideration of $1,040,000. the major portion of which was borrowed under a nonrecourse notc agreement. The excess of fair market value ovsr cos! on this project has not been currently recorded since certain sigKlifican! aspects of the transaction have not been resolved. .. .. - . Board of Directors The Trust for Public Land San Francisco, California ~ .. We have examined the combined balance sheets of The Trust fo Public Land and related orgcnizations (nonprofit corporations) ( of March 31, 1980 and 1979, and the related combined statement of operations and changes in hmd balances and functional eu- penses for the years then endtd. Our examinations were made in accordance with generally cccepted auditing standarcis and accordingly, included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. In our opinion, the combined financial statements referred to above present fairly the financial position of The Trust for Public Land and related organizations at March 31, 1980 and 1979, anc the results of their operations and changes in their fund balancj for the years then ended, in conformity with generally acceptoc accounting principles consistently applied during the period except for the changes, with which we concur, in the methods of accounting for certain land project costs and revenue from restricted contributions as described in Note H. Certified Public Accountants San Francisco, California May 29, 1980 I souIcss of Support When the Trust for Public Land was founded in 1973, it was anticipated that basic funding for the organization would come from land-transaction revenues. This is accomplished by TPL conveying land to a public agen- cy for less than its market value but for more than TPL's purchase price. TPL then applies this reven1x to future land acquisitions and general operating funds. Over the years, this funding policy has supported an expansion of TPL's land-acquisition activities. In addition, the revenues derived from land transactions have partially funded new technical-assistance pro- grams for inner-city neighborhood groups and rural communities. These services have also received gen- erous support from a number of-foundations, corpora- tions, and individuals. The last two years have seen a careful but signifi- cant growth in TPL's Urban Land Program in response to requests from urban groups throughout the country. We and many others regard the Urban Lagd Program as essential. Therefore, additional outside financial support must be secured if TPL is to continue this sew- ice on a national scale. A measure of the program's reputation and an estimate of its potential is provided by the Charles Stewcrt Mott Foundation in Flint, Michigan. The Mott Foundation has awarded TPL $100,000 fcr the current fiscal year to lay the groundwork for the expansion of the Urban Land Program. More of such support must be found to accomplish the goals of the program's three-year plan. This plan will build the capacity of ,a " .. .. neighborhood groups to acquire und improve vacant land in at least twenty American cities as part of a general effort to revitalize distressed areas in these cities. We are committed to the goals of this program, and to the responsibilities that this implies. The Public Land Program is also experiencing a healthy growth and evolution and is responding to changing trends in the real estate and money mar- kets, as well as to new challenges in the field of land conservation. Interest-rate gyrations, escalatirlg land values, growing pressures for the development of sen- sitive lands, and shrinking public dollars for land acquisitions provide the context as well as the stim- ulus for our.work. In order to continue to successfully respond to the critical need for open space and rec- reational land in the nation, a capital fund for land acquisitions is being created. In the pas!, many of our land purchases were . effected with token down payments for "dollar optioils" and the generous cooperation of a willing seller. To retain our edge in today's competitive markets often requires the ability to put larger cash down payments and to secure medium-term financing at favorable rates. To this end, a revolving fund is being created. We are looking to selected financiai institutions, founda- tions, and individuals to join with us to provide this essential tool to meet tomorrow's challenge. .. P Board of Directors Robed Cahn has a distinguished career as a writer and editor of en- vironmental kues. His book. Foot- prints on the Planet: A Search for an Environmental Ethic. was pub- lished in 1978, and in 1969. he won %e Pulitzer Prize for National Re- . porting while environmental editor at the Christian Science Monitor. He is currently Washington &tor for Audubon magazine. Douglas P. Ferguson has served with the TPL board and executive committee since their formation in 1972, and currently acts as vice- chairman of the board. He also serves as president of both the Headlands Foundation and the Ecu- menical Housing Corporation. Mr. Ferguson practices law in San Francisco as the founder and presi- dent of Ferguson, Hoffman, Henn, Mandel & Heil, Inc. Francis S. Foote, Jr., now retired. formerly worked for International Business Machines, Inc. and co- found4 two Cclifornia businesses, Duro Consolidated. Inc. and Tab Products Company. He is president of the Napa County (California) Land Trust. Tom Hamson is owner and oper- ator of the Devonacrss Ranch in Oregon. Mr. Harrison manages various private investment port- folios, with primary respoonsibility for tax and estate planning. He is executive vice-president and chief executive officer of the Mared Foun- dation. Terese iarlton ("Terry") Hershey (not shown). a resident of Houston, Texas, has been active in local, state, and national environmental organizations for nearly fifteen years. Mrs. Hershey is a vice-presi- dent of the National Recreation and Park Association and a member of the Board of Directors of the National Audubon Society and the Texas Conservation Foundation. She recently fowded Park People, an organization worhng to con- serve open space in the Houston area. Vivian R. lohnson (not shown) is a leading educator in the greater Boston area with special interest in educational issues in the black com- munity. Since 1979, she has been co-coordinator of a collaborative planning study for 27 colleges and universities and the Bmton Public Schools. Prior to that, she was cxec- utivo director of a parent-training prcgranl designed to irnprovo chil- dren's reading sk~lls. From 1970 . to 1972, Ms. Johnson was director of tho Afro-American Studres Resource Center in Boston. Sho is a , member of the Board of Directors of the Museum of Afro-American History in Boston and the Black Christian Education Cen:er of the National Council of Churches. Eugene C. Lee is director of the Institute of Governmental Studies and professor of political science at the University of California, Berks- ley. A former vice-president of the University, Mr. Lee was also first chairman of the Commission on California State Government Orga- nization and Economy and is cur- rently chairman of the Board of Directors of the Californialournal. Richard D. Marshall, a professcr rof business administration at the Graduate School of Business Ad- ministration, Hutgers University in Newark, New Jersey, has previously held senior wsitlons with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Prudential Insurance Company of America. He has been a consultant to the Fduca- tional Testing Service in Princeton, New Jersey, and the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C. Mr. Marshall is a member of the National Asso- ciation of Review Appraisers and the National Association of Certified Mortgage Bankers. Pierre Morr.ell is a psychiatrist practicing in Mill Valley, California. Mr. Momell has been empioyed as assistant professor of psychiatry for the University of California, San Francisco. From 1954 to 1964, Mr. Mornell traveled extensively throughout the world in various capacities, and later returned to India and Africa to work as a . genefal physician. Yvonne Rand wus elected chair- man of TPLs Board of Directors in mid-1979. She is a Zen Buddhist priest and a director and chairman of the board of both the San Fran- cisco Zen Center and SAGE. an or- ganization which promotes hea!th. self-care, and education among the elderly. She is also a member of the boards of the San Francisco Neigh- borhood Foundation and the Fron- tier Arts Institute. Martin J. Rosen has been presi- dent of 7PL since February 1979. Mr. Rosen's long-standing association with TPL dates back to 1972 when nal members of the Board of Direc- he was appointed one of the origi- tors. From 1977 to 1979, he served as chairman of the board. He is a member of the National Committee for Urban Rwreation in Washing- ton. D.C., unci a founding partner of the San Francisco law firm of Silver, Rosen. Fischer & Sfecher. Pierre Mornell and Martin Rosen * .k Robert Cahn. Hlchard Marshall, and Eugene Lee Francis €ooto and 'lorn tixrlson i6 Special Projects Vice-presidents Joel Kuperberg Phillip Wallin Legal Affairs General Counsel Ralph W. Benson Legal Secretary Robert E. Bienstcck Administration Director of Administration Joan McIntosh Editor Betsy Williams-Flores Persc.1neltOffice Manager and Affirmative Action Officer lane Martin Audio-visual Specialist Pamela Springer Operator, Word Processor Don Lindemann Receptionist Vldette McBride Office Assistant Michael Piper Cook Susan Kaplan Public Land Program Director Steve Steinhour Southeastern Regional Manager Carolyn Ruesch Project Managers. National Office Greg Archbuld Harriet Hunt Lisa McGirnsey Larry Stein Project Manager Northeastern Region Art Sokolow Field Represenfafwe. Northeastern Regton Thomas W. OHutt. III Project Coordmaror Elizabeth Spna Off ice of the President President Martin J. Rosen Executive Secretary Arielle Leonard Finance Vice-president and Chief Financial Officer Robert W. McIntyre Controller Beryl H. Martin Bookkeeper Margaret McEvilly Accounting Clerk Remell Jackson Development Director M. Barry Flint Administrative Assistant Anne Rogers Administrative Assistant June Dowd Secretary Katy Trotter Urban Land Program Vice-President Peter R. Stein Director, Eastern Region Mustafa Abdal-Aziz Director, Western Region Manuel A. Gonzales Senior Urban Project Manager Steve Costa Co-Directors New York City Land Project Lisa Cashdan Robert Kornfeld Steve Schwcrtz Project Director -Oak!and Land Project Mitch Hardin Field Representative Newark Land Project George Carfagno Field Representatives Eastern Region -Leslie Ellison Roberto Rodriguez Field Representatives. Buy Area Marsha L. King Michael D. Nolan Resource Cen!er Coordinator Linda Black Assisfant to the Vice-president Gwendolyn G. Warner Administrative Assistant Wendy Gibson Secretary Tara Lebda Receptionist Feticia Crum Land Trust Program Director Jennie Gerard Field Representatives . . John Barnes William Gay .- . Secretary Kirby Ortiz-de"ontel1ano ' Interns Robert Berger Agnes Duncan Elaine Mariolle Sonia Talesnik Soref Yazicicghi . Consultanta John hrnans Jake Kittlo Volunteera Herbert Arnold Put Livcrmoro Sandy Lnwengart Creighton Pect Ralph Shulto -. Grant Toodale .. .. .. . CorpamtionslOrganizations A. D. Corporation Amax Foundation Amboy Road Company Americcrn Baptist Churches Arca Foundation Vincent Astor Foundation Ehyonne Barrel and Drum Co. The Frederick W. Beinecke Fund Boston Natural Areas Fund Boston Urban Gardeners California Council for Chemical Bank Citibank, N.A. Cleveland Foundation Columbia Foundation Cmtra Costa Hills Club Council of New York Law Department of Housing and Dynabyte, Inc. Fund for the City of New York Wallace Alexander Gerbode Grace Foundation George Gund Foundation H2Y Company Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr. Foundation Mat!ie Wattis Harris Foundation Hoffmm-Lu Roche, Inc. Irrtperial Savings & Loan Isiand Foundation J. M. Kaplan Fund, Inc. leisure Properties, Ltd. MBA Resources, Inc. McDonough Tire Co. htenyns Morgan Guaranty Trust Charles Stewart Mott Nationul Endowment for the Arts National Trust for Historic Preservation Newark Redevelopment and Housing Authority New Jersey Bel1 Telephone Co. New York Foundation New York Times Foundation, Inc. of the West Humanities in Public Policy Associates Urban Cevelopment Foundation Company Foundation Northern California Conference of United Church of Christ Iessie Smith Noyes Foundation Partners for Livable Places J. C. Penney Foundation Princeton Nurseries Public Service Electric Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. San Francisco Foundation The Scherman Foundation, Inc. The Florence and John Slide Syncers Southern Oregon Conservancy Sunset Beach, Ltd. Syntex Corporation Touche Ross & Company United Way of Bay Area Victoria Foundation, Inc. We Can Neighborhood Robert C. Wheeler Foundation Individuals John Ahern Helen M. Andrews Kathy Bachman V. P. Baker Maleese Black John Blackwell William W. Bliss Harold Bobroff Louis Brause Luther L. Brooks Gene D. Brown Kingsbury Browne Robert M. Cabot Elizabeth Christy Kenneth & Linda L. Cochran Linda Cohen Geraldine C. Crichton L. 0. Crosby Gregg Dart Nicholas G. Duncan Jack Flanagan June & Francis S. Foote, Jr. Tom Fox Mark Francis Martin Gallent Carol Guyer H, L. & Opal Hamilton Claude & Geraldine Kitchell Hatherly B. Knowles M. B. Lane Judy L. Larsen Bibbi Lee Putnam Livermore and Gas Co. Schumann Foundation Improvement Association Leonard eL Mary Lockert Sherwood C. Martin J. G. McKay, Jr. , Robert McNdty Jane King Metcalf W. Oscar Neuhaus Jeanne Nixon Frank Papuy Owen & Marlee Powell Howard Quirk W. L. Richards Allison Rivard Karl Rodi Frank Rosenberg Robert Schur Elizabeth B. Seiberling Jon E. Shastid John R. Stocks John Stone Amos Taylor Harry A. 8z Madonna Thomas Hatherly B. Todd Judith Toubes John Treganowan .Ludwig Volkert Naomi Weinberg Fred E. Weiss A. I. West J. F. Yoerger '. Dorothy Erskine Open Space Fund D. G. Arter Katheririe Field Caldwell Morgan A. Gunst jAargaret Calder Hayes . . Mary H. Hutchinson Margaret B. MacDonough Ode11 Fund Prudence Goodspeed .Olson Alvin J. & Anna H. Rockwell John H. Sutter In Memory of Richard Goodspeed Barbara Godard Martin I. Rosen Credits DesignlJonson Pedersen HlnricIls & Shakery Photo CreditslDan Budnick, aver; John Marriott. major photography; Karil Daniels, New York si?es; George Kuleck small photo, page 4; T~rn Offutt, smali photo, page 5; Fern Tiger, small photo, page i Bob Grant. page 10. END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT. ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS . r DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ON FARMLAND TAX MODELS Prepared by TPL for Nest Mar-i n Ranchers January 16, 1980 82 Second Street San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 195-4014 INTRODUCTION The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is a national conservation organization which works to provide access to 1 and and nonprofit 1 and acquisition ski1 1s for peopl e in urban and rural areas. One of the three programs at TPL, the Land Trust Program, has started offering technjcal assistance to agricultural communities who want to form local, nonprofit land trusts t.o retain productive agricultural land and guarant.ee the .future of family farming. One of the major causes of the conversion of agricultural land to other uses is the rapidly appreciating value of land. This high value can make it impossible for an heir to pay off estate taxes or for a new-entry rancher to buy the land. A rancher can convey the right to develop the land to a land trust. thereby lowering the value of the land. For the rancher, this provides income tax benefits and, at the time of death, reduces the value of the estate, thereby assisting the heirs to. pay off the taxes. In addition t.o reducing the value, this precludes future non-ag related development and development pressures but allows the ranch to continue operating. The questions are: How can a land trust maximize the benefits for the ranchowner? At the same time, realistically, how can a land trust acquire devel opent rights without having to rai se massf ve amounts of capital ? The scenarios which foll ow ill ustrate what a 7 and trust call offer by working around the existing and often discouraging realities of the tax structure. The development of these scenarios has been a cooperative effort. For over a year we have been meeting with Phyll is Faber, Ralph Grossi , and El 1 en Straus to explore the potential for forming a land trust. At a meeting last spring of ranchers, county officials and environmentalists, it was suggested that the tax impact of doniting or bargain selling the development rights be explored. Out of that, came the idea of the scenarios. The hypothetical numbers were supplied . by Ellen Straus, Ralph Grossi and Bob Parks. These scenarfos are only the beginning. In order to not only retain the agricultural iand in West-Marin, but also guarantee the future econornic viability of farming operations, more extensive financial planning is necessary. Specifi'c family farm circumstances will allow for much more creative solutions than illustrated here. We are encouraged that West-Marin is the ideal community to create an agricultural land trust t.hat. retains ranch land and ranching. We 1 ook forward to working with you. -1 - SCENARIO ONE This scenario deal s wit.h the estate and inheritance tax imp1 ications for Mr. Smith and his son Bob in various situations. The following analyses assinlie that all assets in the estate are part. of a closely held business with Mr. Smith as sole proprietor. Age : 69 Filing Status: filing singly/five exemptions Income Farm jncome (line 58, sched. F) Wages, salaries, etc. .Interest, dividends, etc. $18,000 1,200 800 Other 500 TOTAL $20,500 Deductions Interest payments $ 1,200 . Property tax (under Will iamson contract) 3,000 . Charitable .donations (excl uding 1 and value) 100 Other 300 mm Land 1000 acres owned by Mr. Smith as sole proprietor FMV of development rights @ $775/acre $ 775,000 - Agricultural value @ $425/acre $ 425,000 FMV of fkz simple 8 $1200/acre 9, $1,200,090 Cost bas-i s in 1955 @ $125/acre $ 125,000 Wi 11 i amson Act Contract? Yes Dairy Operation 300 milk cows @ $l,300/head $ 390,000 285 rep1 acement stock @ $900/head 256,500 Quota milk contract: 355 lbs @ $700 248,500 Equipment, etc. 95,000 TOTAL $ 990,000 990,000 Other $ 110,000 110,000 Total Value of Taxable Estate $2,300,000 $2,300,000 -2- KEY ESTATE TAX PROVISIONS APPLYING TO SCENARIO ONE A. Valuation 1. 2. Generally, assets are includable in the gross est.ate at appraised fair market value on the date of death or six months after death. For property that is not sold on an exchange (marketable securitfes) , value is established by an expert appraisal. Alternative Farm Valuation. Farms or #closely held businesses may be valued on the basis of the property's value as a farm or closely held business instead of a Fair Market Valuation that is based on hfghest and. ' best use. Family farms then can be appraised as farmland rather than as subdividable property. Special requirements and 1 imitations include: a. b. C. d. B. Estat.e The election cannot reduce the gross estate by more than $500,000. Fift-y percent or more of the qross estate, with adjustments, must cons; st of this real property-at the date of the decedent's death and must pass to a qualified heir (member of the decedent's farni ly) . At least 25% of the gross estate, with adjustments, must be real property, which was owned and operated by the decedent or a member of his family, in trade or business for five of the last eight years preceeding the decedent's death. If within 15 years after death the qualified property is transferred to non family members, or ceases to be used for farming or close.iy held business purposes, then any tax benefit obtained by the lower valuation will be subject to recapture. Generally the law provides for full recapture during the first 10 years with a phase out of the amount subject to recapt.ure during the last five years. A special lien would be placed on the realty until any tax benefit were recaptured or until the potential 1 iability for recapture has ended. - Tax Calculation 1. Mr. Smith is the sole owner of all assets. His son Bob is the only beneficiary. 2. The tab1 e below shows the taxable estate calculation for each a1 ternative: A B C D Gross Estate (+) $m $m $m $m Cash from Sale DR (+) " " " 356 'Reduction for A1 ternate Value or Conveyance of DR (-) " (500) (775) (775) Interest on Deferred Taxable Estate (-) "" "" *Cash received from bargain sale of development right.s $387,500 is reduced by income taxes, $32,000, that are due on the capital gain income from the sale. -3- 3. The interest on deferred payments is a liability reducing the gross estate. Based on Bahr vs. Commissioner, - 68 WTC 74 (1977) 4. Both CA Inheritance and Federal Estate Taxes are incorporated in this analysis. C. Payment 1. Generally, Estate Tax returns must be ,filed and all taxes due are to be paid within 9 months after the decedent's death. Sec. 6075(a) 2. 5-Year Deferral, 10 Year Installment Paynent. If an interest in a closely held business exceeds 65% of the adjusted gross estate, part or all of the estate tax may be deferred for 5 years with payment in 2-10 installments. a. The maximum amount that can be paid under thi s election is 1 imited to the taxes due on asset.s qualifying as an interest in a closely he1 d busi ness. b. The IRS charges 4% interest on any unpaid balance up to $l,GOO,OOO. The interest rate on any excess is 12%. This rate on the excess is currently revised every 2 years. NOTE: The information and analysis provided- herein cannot be guaranteed or warranted to by TPL as it for illustrative conceptual discussion purposes only. Re1 iance should not therefore be placed on any of this data without further review and advice from professional, independent leg;.? and/or tax counsels. -4- SCENARIO ONE Oution A Mr. Smith leaves the $2,300,000 estate to his son, Bob, who decides to start another business with his inheritance. Since t.he estate does not qualify for the Alternative Farm Valuation or the 15 Year payout election, all estate taxes must be paid within 9 months of Mr. Smith's death. (Figures in 000's) Gross Estate (+) $2,300 Cash from Sale D.R. (t) " Reduction for Alternative Value (-) " Conveyance of D. R. (-) " Interest on Deferral (-) " Paxab? e Estate $2.300 Tax Thereon: Federal $ 758 Cal i forni a I nheri t.ance 300 Total $1,058 - PROS: Bob has money from proceeds of- sale cf property after taxes to start his new busi ness. CONS: Highest taxes due Must be paid in the first year Sale of the land and operaticn inevitable, conversion to a non- agricultural use 1 i kely. -5- SCENARIO OEE Option B Mr. Smith leaves the estate to Bob who pl ans to continue the family business. The estate elects the 15 year payout and qualifies for the A1 ternative Farm Valuation (Figures in 000"s) Gross Estate (+) $2,300 Cash from Sal e D.R. (+) Reduction for Alternative Value (-) (500) " Conveyance of D.R. (-) Interest on Deferral (-) (330) Taxable Estate $1,470 - " Tax Thereon: Federal $ 433 ~ California 1nherjt.ance 255 'to tal $ - 688 - Payabl e: Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 90 73 70 67 64 98 93 88 83 77 47 45 43 41 15 39 Total Payments m PROS: Total payment. is a little less and spread out over 15 years. CONS: The yearly payments are probably too expensive for Bob to meet, particularly if he is depending solely on income from the dairy. -6- SCENARIO ONE Option C Mr. Smith donates the development rights to a qualified land trust. This gift reduces the value of t.he gross estate by $775,000, leaving the rest to Bob. His son plans to continue t3c family business. The estate is appraised at the alternative farm value a.nd h2 elects the 15 year payout. (Figures in 000's) Gross Estate (+) $2,300 Cash from Sale D.R. (+) " Reduction for A1 ternative Value. (-) " Conveyance of D. R. (- ) (775) Interest on Deferral (-) (206) Taxable Estate $1,319 - Tax Thereon: Federal $ 378 Cal f forni a' Inheritance 163 Payable: Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 92 46 44 42 40 69 66 62 59 56 36 35 34 33 15 31 Total Payments $ - i45 - PROS: ' Mr. Smith has assured that the land will not be developed. There is a reduction in the value of the est.ate. The land must remain in agricultural use. CONS: No cash is introduced into the estate to pay off the estate taxes. , SCENARIO ONE Option D - Mr. Smith sells the development. rights for 50% of the appraised fair market value, $387,500, to a qualified land trust who also receives a charitable gift of a like amount in 1980. This reduces the gross estate by the amount of the donation and converts $387,500 into cash. On Mr. Smith's death in 1990, the balance of the estate, the agricul ttiral value of the land and t.he dairy operation, is willed to Bob. The estate is valued as a Farm and taxes due are paid over 15 years. (Figures in 000's) Gross Estate (t) $2,300 Cash from Sale D.R. (+) 3 56 Reduction for Alternative Value (-) " Conveyance of D. R. (-) (775) Interest on Deferral (-) (249) Taxable Estate $1,632 Tax Thereon: Federal $ 495 Cal i forni a Inheritance 207 Total $m - 7 - Payabl e: Year 1 196 2 . 57 3 55 4 53 5 50 6 .7 9 7 76 8 72 9 68 10 64 11 39 12 38 13 36 14 35 15 33 Total Paynents $ 951 - PROS: There is a reduction in the value of the est.ate $356,000 worth of land value is converted to a liquid asset which might be used to meet payment schedule with creative management. The land must remain in agricultural use. CONS: If the $356,000 is invested for ten years before death with a return of lo%, the resul t-ing mount wi l? only cover the first 4-5 years of payment . after taxes. -8- r SCENARIO ONE S UMMAR Y Taxable Estate Tax Thereon: Federal CA Inheritance Total Payable: Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A Estate Not Qualifying for 15 Year Payout for Federal and 10 Year Payout for California -" B Estate Qual ifying for Payout E? ections- Fa mi Val uation .o $2,300 $1,470 - -Eerrr $ 758 $ 433 300 81,1758 255 $688 $1,058 .$ 90 73 70 67 64 98 93 88 77 47 - 45 43 41 39 a3 $m $iJm - - Comparisons (000's) A vs B $40 B vs C $273 A vs C $313 B vs D $67 . A vs D $107 C Donation if Devel opent. Rights With Subsequent Estate Qual i fyi ng for Payout Elections --" $1,319 1_ $ 378 163 $541 " $ 92 46 44 42 40 69 66 62 59 56 36 35 34 33 31 $"m - C vs D $206 D Bargai n Sal e of Development Rights With Subsequent Estate Qual i fyi ng for Payout E 1 ecti ons (000' s) $1,632 - $ 495 207 $702 $ 196 57 55 ' 53 50 79 76 .7 2 68 64 39 38 36 35 33 $"Tx _cI -9- n SCCNAI(1O TlJO Mr. Jones is 60. In this scenario, he is looking at t.he impact of sell ing his property because he has no heirs interested in ranching. In these calculations the sale of the beef operation has been separated out and is not shown. Land 800 acres owned by Mr. Jones in joint tenancy FMV of develoment riqht s (3 $750/acre $600,000 - Agricultural value (3 $350/acre $280,000 FMV of fee simple cd $1,!00/acre $880,000 Cost basis in 1962 I? $250/acre $200,000 Williamson Act contract? Yes -0 each $110,000 50 calves @-$300 each 15,000 Equipment , etc. 25,000 TOTAL $150,0m .~ ."~~ ' Income Tax Information Age : 60 Filing Status: married filing jointly/ 3 exemptions I ncome Farm income (1 ine 58, Sched. F! $12,000 Wages, sa1 aries , etcI 2,000 Interest, dividends, etc. 500 Other 200 TOTAL $14,700 Deductions Interest payments Property tax (under Wi 11 i amson Contract) Chari tab1 e donations (excl uding 1 and) $ 600 2 , 500 2 00 Other 50 0 TOTAL $ 3,800 ASSUMPTIONS 1. 2. 3. Federal Taxes A. 40% LTCG recognized is subject to taxation. B. Charitable contributions are deductible up to a maximum 30% of AGI. Any g-ift remaining after the first. year may be used to offset iccome in the five following years (using the maximum 30% AGI each year). Minimum Tax. Income Averaging and the Add-on Minimum Tax have been considered, but do not apply in this particular case. C. Taxes are calculated using the tax rate schedules or the A1 ternative State Taxes are a1 so iricl uded. The informat.ion and analysis provided herein cannot be guaranteed or warranted to by TPL as it is for illustrative conceptual discussion purposes only. Re1 iance should not therefore be placed on any of t.his data without further review and advice from professional, independent legal and/or tax counsel s. -1 0- . .f:. SCENARIO TWO Option A Mr. $660,000 value on PROS: CONS : N. B. Jones donates the development. rights over his 880 acres making a gift to a qualified land t.rust. and sells t.he renlsining agricultura? the open market. CASH INFLOWS: Sale Proceeds Devel opnent Ri ght s (D. R. ) "- Agricultural. Value (A.V.) $280,000 Total Cash In $280,000- CASH OUTFLOWS: 6 Years Income Tax $ 53,000 AFTER TAX PROCEEDS $22/,0Oo' Lowest taxes due to government Cheapest acquisition method for 1 and trust The after tax proceeds for Mr. Jones are t.he least in this option. The after tax proceeds would improve with an extended sales arrangement which a1 lows Mr. Jones to clah the legal charitable deduction over more years. A sale cf'a specified undivided int.erest this year with options to acquire the remaining int.erest in future years by the land trust- would be one way to achieve this end. -11- ! SCENARIO TWO Option B Mr. Jones gifts half the development r-ight value, $300,000, to a qualified land trust that purchases the other 50% intmest for an equal amount in all cash bargain sal e. CASH INFLOWS: Sale Proceeds Develoment Rishts (D.R.) $300,000 Agricuitural Vilue (A.V.) 280,000 Total 'Cash In -$~580,000 CASH OUTFLOWS: 6 Years Income Tax $138,000 AFTER TAX PROCEEDS $442,000 - PROS: Mr. Jones gets $580,000 cash and $300,000 in deductions to shelter some of that inccme. This option guarantees the fut.ure agricul t.ura1 use and Mr. Jones nets 86% of the proceeds available from a full-value fee-simple sale. CONS: Less after tax proceeds than with fair market value fee sale. N. B. This option would be more beneficial with staged timing of the g-ift. -12- SCENARIO TWO Option C Mr. Jones sell s the fee simple, the agricultural value and development rights on the open market in all cash sale for $880,000. Any financial obligation resulting from breaching The W.il7iamson Act contract are not included in this PROS: CONS : exampl e. CASH INFLOWS: Sale Proceeds Devel opnent Ri sht s (D. R. ) $600,000 Agricuitural Value (A.V.) 280,000 Total Cash In $880,000 CASH OUTFLOWS: 6 Years I ncome Tax $366,000 AFTER TAX PROCEEDS $514 ,OOG - Highest after tax proceeds for Mr. Jones. The probable conversion of the ranch to a non-agricul tural use. .. . ., , -13- SCE NAR IO TW 0 S UMMAR Y A - Donate Dev. Rights/Sal e hg Value CASH INFLOWS: Sale Proceeds Development Rights (DR) " Agricultural Val ue (AV) 280,000 Total Cash In $280, COO CASH OUTFLOWS: 6 Years Income Tax 53,000 After Tax Proceeds $227,000 FMV vs Bargain Sale $ (287,000) " . .. . B Bargain Sal e Dev. Rights/ Sale Ag Value I_ 300,000 280,000 $3mJxE 138,000 $442 .OOO C Fee SimDle FMV Sale 600,000 280,000 $- 366,000 $514,000 -14- END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT. ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS ” 1“. Agricultural Lands Project NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 1980 VO~. 2, No. 2 National Association of Counties Research Foundation, 1735 New York Ave. N.W. Washington. R.C. 20006 ANALYSIS “Right to by Edward Thompson, Jr. The encroachment of residential development into agricultural areas - a leading cause of disappearing farmlands - is also responsible for growth in the number and severity of land use conflicts between farmers and suburbanites. Odors, dust, noise and chemical spray drift ztre normal byproducts of agriculture that are usually offensive to neighboring homeowners and can sometimes pose a threat to public health and safety. More and more homeowners. it seems. are turning to the courts to put an end to what they consider agricultural nuisances. (See, Farming In the Shadow of Suburbia Publications Update p. 3.) continue without its byproducts, a growing number of states have enacted laws that attempt to protect farmers against nuisance lawsuits which can result in financial liability or the suspension of agricultural operations. These state statutes are known as “right to farm” laws. But a close reading of these laws seems to indicate that they do not really offer much protection to farmers, and that amending them to provide real immunity from suit or nuisance liability would raise constitutional problems that could render the laws invalid. Nuisance is a concept dating back to the English common law that was imported to America by the early colonists. The term nuisance describes any actlvity that unreasonably interferes with a per.son’s right to use and enjoy his property. Since all property owners have such a right. determining whether a particular land use Recognizing that agriculture could hardly REGIONAL REPORT Farm” Laws Examined activity constitutes a nuisance requires that competing rights be balanced. For instance, the farmer generally has a right to cultivate his land without interference from neighbors. while neighboring homeowners also have a right to live in peace without excessive agricultural noise. Where the balance is struck depends largely on the particular circumstances in each case. The U. S. Supreme Court has said that a nuisance Is simply “the right thing In the wrong place. like a pig in a parlor Instead of the barnyard.” USDA--IlConservationSe~lces State and local legislatures may act to supercede the common law of nuisance -as they have attempted to do by passing the “right to farm” statutes. In effect, these laws shift the balancingpoint to favor agricultural Iand uses over competing or conflicting residential land uses. But nuisance lawsuits are still decided by the courts on the basis of the facts of the particular case. And the balancing point cannot be shifted too far in one direction with riskfngjudicial invalidation of the statute on constitutional See “FUGRT TO FARM.” page 2 NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL Mountain West Showdown LANDS CONFERENCE SET! by Thomas Billet. NACoRF Intern This is thefirst ora serles of reports by the Agricultural Lands Project on the farmland conversion “hotspots” throughout the nation. Aggregate national stutistics on farmland losses tend to obscure the severity of thisproblem on a local scale. What is at stake in literally hundreds of rural communities is the freedom topractice agriculture without interference from nearby residential development. a stable local agricultural economy. and a traditional way of lve. conversion from the ”top down“ - which is the uiew that many academics in Whington take- makes it appear relatively insign19cunt. perhaps not signlficant cnough to warrant national Viewing theproblem offarrnland attentlon. But when this problem is viewed from the “bottom up”- theperspectiw that most citizens take- the number of mmmunlties in which tt is becoming severe quickly adds up to thepoint where farmland conversion demands some kind of national action to assist localiries with their struggle to reduce its impacts on people. Thisfirst regional report focuses on farmland conversion “hotspots“ in Utah. Colorado. Wyoming, Idaho. Arizona and New Mexico. The dimensions of the problem in Nevada and Montana remain somewhat mysterious. Aglands Exchange Invites you to helpfrll in the blanks by brlnging to our attention any local farmland conversion problems we have ornltted from this report on theMountain U’est. See SHOWDOWN, page 6 The first national conference on agricultural lands, sponsored by the National Assciation of Counties and many otherorganizations, will be held on February 8-10. 1981. in Chicago. tllinois. With something to appeal to everyone who has an interest in this timely issue. the conference will feature the announcement of the long-awaited conclusions of the National Agricultural Lands Study, addresses by prominent agricultural leaders, educational seminars. exhibitsand events related to the future of agriculture and lhe land. The co-sponsors hope Lo attract hundreds of their respective constituents and friends to this once-in-a-decade event that will help chart the future of American agriculture. Ilon’t miss it! Registration information inside! 1 . .“_ ... . . .- - I (_._. . - , .” -.-. ,. ,-_... Continued from page 1 Wight to Farm” grounds. Thus, it will be in the courts that the “right to farm” laws will have to demonstrate their value as a protective measure for agriculture. and their validity in terms of fairness to nonfarmers. The “right to farm” law of North Carolina, enacted in 1979. is typical of the breed of similar statutes passed by the legislaturesof Delaware, Florida, Georgia. Mlssissippi. Tennessee and Washington, and now being considered by Kentucky and Virginia. among other states. An analysis of its provisions will illustrate why the “right to farm” laws are of questionable value as a means of protecting the farmer from nuisance suits that result from land use conflicts that. in turn. stem from the encroachment of residential development into agricultural areas. statement of its purpose: The North Carolina law begins with a It Is thedeclaredpolicyof thestate to conserve and protect and encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural land for theproduction of food and other agricultural products. When nonagricultural land uses extend into agricultural areas, agricultural operations often become the subject of nuisance suits. As a result, agricultural operations aresometimes forced tocease operations. Many others are discouraged from making investments in farm (law) to reduce the loss to the State of its Improuements. It is thepurposeofthis agricultural resources by lintiting the circumstances under which ugricultural operations may be deemed a nuisance. i Thisopening statement draws the appropriate connection between land use conflicts as nuisances and the loss of agricultural land. It thus sets the stage for the statutory language that has an actual effect on how agricultural nuisances are defined: Noagricultural operation or any of its appurtenances shall be or become a nuisance.. . by changed corditions in or about the locality thereof qfter the same has been in operation for more than one year. when such operatlon tms not a nuisanceat the time the operatfon began: provided. that the provisions of this (law; shall not apply tullenevera nuisance results fromthe rwgligent or improper operation ofany such agricultural operation or its appurtenances. This section of the law deflrws the circumstances under which a court. acting on a formal complaint by a ncarby homeowner. may not declare an agricu1tr1r:d land use to be a nuisance and order it tn cease. It does not immunize the farmer from bving sued in the first place. A farmer may still be hauled into court by a neighbor who claims that his operation is creating a nuisance,. ar~d he may thervhy bc forced to take time away from his farm and to pay attorney’s fees in the defcnsc of his case. hrnl” law is unclear on a nunlber of irnportant questions reletrd to the potential 2 kcause. as we shall see. the “right to Whether the “right to farm” laws will make a signijicant difference to the fitture security of agriculture remains to be seen. The author, an attorney. fs the director of the NACoRFAgricultural LandshoJect liability of the farmer, it is likely that many agricultural nuisance suits will be litigated before it does become clear. ifat all. that such suits are worth the trouble of defending, instead of settling out of court. might look like a desirable objective, it is doubtful that this could be legally accomplished. Those neighhring property owners who have legitimate nuisance claims would thereby be denied the opportunity to have their day in court. This could amount to a denial of their constitutional right to due process of law. which requlres the government to “play fair” with all citizens. Once a lawsuit has been filed against the farmer, the court will examine the specific facts of the case to see whether the circumstances warrant declaring the agricultural operation a nuisance. Here is where the language of the “right to farm” statute operates to limit those circumstances. If all the following circumstances are found to exist. the farmer cannot be ruled to be creating a nuisance under the North Carolina law: While keeping farmers out of court entirely The agricultural operation was not creating a nuisance when it began, and changing local conditions alone have given rise to the claim that the operation is a nuisance, The agricultural operation has been in operation for at least one year, and The agricultural operation is not being conducted negligently or improperly. Let’s look at these issues one at a time to see how much protection they actually offer the farmer. and goes to the heart of the matter. Was the agricultural operation creatinga nuisance before the neighbor who now complains about it moved next door and. thus. changed the local conditions under which the farmer is forced tooperate? It none of the farmer’s agricultural neighbors have complained in the past. it’s a safe bet that his operation will not be found to have been a nuisance when it began. Ofcoursc. this provision of the law also prevents a farmer from continuing gmuinely harmful agricultural practices - those that would amount to a common law nuisance -just because some poor sucker has moved next door. The first issue is relatively straightforward Second. there is the issue of whether the agricultural operation has been going on for at least a year. This appears on its face to be simple enough, but the interpretation of this provision of the law is really more complicated. The one-year provision protects the homeowner from nuisances created by new agricultural operations by giving him a year to file a formal complaint or forever hold his peace. It also protects established farmers from new homeowners whocomplain that agricultural operations are creating a nuisance. Or does it? The answer is cloudy because the North Carolina “right to farm” statute does not specifically define an agricultural operation. other than by reference to the commodities it produces. Such operations are not defined in terms of the agricultural practice= king employed. Thus, it is not clear whethera change in the particular practices used by a farmer will transform a year-old operation into an entirely new one that is not protected by the law. designed to prevent unfair surprises on both sides of the fence. let’s consider the following situation: Farmer A has been in operation for over a year, ustng traditional cultivation methods for growing corn. Homeowner B later builds a house on a tract of land he bought from a neighboring farmer. Farmer A then decides to go to **no till” cultivation. dramatically increasing the dose of herbicide applied to his land, so as to reduce his tillage costs and increase his return from the corn crop. Homeowner B is alarmed when drifting chemical spray gets all over the bedsheets hanging on the washtines: he files suit against Farmer A. claiming that the agricultural spraying is interfering with his right as a homeowner to be free of chemical drift. Certainly. if FarmerA had continuedusing traditional cultivation methods, his operation would be protected under the “right to farm” law (assuming no negligence on his part) from a claim that, for example. dust was soiling the neighbor’s wash. But Farmer A has changed his operation to include practices quite unlike those he was using before Homeowner B came around. Has the agricultural operation changed sufficiently to make It, for purposes of the statute. a new operation that is less than one year old? could arise will depend upon a detailed inquiry into the specific. facts of the case. The effect of this legal uncertainty is that the “right to farm” law offers much less protection to the farmer than appears at first glance. Indeed. if nuisances becorne a widespread problem in a given locality where residences are mixed in with the farms. the effect of the “right to farm” law might be to lock established farmers into their current agricultural practices. giving them little freedom - without risk of liability - to modify their operations to meet changing opportunities to increase production or reduce costs. might be resolved in the fartner’s favor by requiring new honleowners to assume the risk that an cstablished farmer might Keeping in mind that the statute is the answer to thisand similar questions that The unccrtainty of the North Carolina law c ~~ ~ substantially change his methods of operation. But this could be too much to ask from a legal standpoint - it could shift that balancing point too far. (Indeed. other "right to farm" statutes expressly reject this approach.) Here's why. The one-year provision of the North Carolina law effectively restores the legal concept of "first in time, first in right" which used to, but no longer necessarily governs nuisance lawsuits. In the simple days gone by. when change came slowly. a person had a right to continue an existlng land use regardless of changing conditions. If you were there first. you had a right to do what you wanted. This concept has fallen into disfavor with the courts because it began to produce some highly unfair results; things change more quickly now and the adoption of high technology in areas such as agriculture has expanded the potential consequences of land use beyond what was even imaginable in the old days. Still, a return to this concept does not require the new homeowner to assume unreasonable risks. because the "right to farm" law serves notice that he must be prepared to put up with agricultural practices that were going on when he moved nearby. Fair enough. But asking the homeowner to assume all risk of injury fromfuture agricultural practices - including some yet to , be developed - would be adopting a new legal principle: "the farmer is lirst in right, even if he is later in time. ' Considering that changing agricultural practices could pose unimaginable risks to the health and safety of neighboring homeowners, there is a serious question whether a "right to farm" law based on this concept could withstand a legal challenge that it violates the "fair play" principle on which the constitutional right of due process of law is grounded. statute is whether the farmer is conducting his agricultural operation in a manner that is neither negligent nor "improper." If so, he is protected by the law, assuming that all other circumstances are found in his favor. Negligence is another common law concept designed to protect people from others' carelessness. The traditional srandard of care that one must live up to is tlelirltd by what a "reasonable" person woultl do under the circumstances. (You can begin to sce just how important circumstances are iu the agricultural nuisance contcxt.) manner that is so careless that cmx his fellow farmers would not tolerate it, tllc chancesare good that he is acting negligclltly. This type of agricultural operation is not protected by the "right to farm" law. nor should it be. (Take note. too. that certain kinds of activities are considered dangerous enough -- chemical spraying is an example - that t hr standard of care required by negligence law is higher, and the chanresof being found negligent are greater.) But it is the issue of what constitutes "improper" conduct under the law that is trickier still. Alt hough some "right to farm" laws define proper conduct in terms of "good agricultural practices" or the standards The third issue raised by the North Carolina If a farmer conducts his opcrat ion in a established by environmental. health and safety regulations. the North Carolina statute is silent on this point. Perhaps the intent of the law was to treat "negligent" and "improper" as essentially the same thing, requiring the same standard of care on the part of the farmer. But if that were the case, the use of one of these terms, rather than both of them. would have sufficed. (The use of the disjunctive term "or" in the operative phrase of the statute suggests that it was not intended to be read as a whole. olz. "negligent and improper.") The formal rules of statutory interpretation compel the conclusion that the North Carolina law creates another exception - improper conduct of agricultural operations - to the "right to farm" protection given to farmers. Given this further exception of undefined scope, it could be entirely possible that in a case where the circumstances (!) literally. demand a decision against the farmer - don't forget that emotions are also part of the judicial decisionmaking process - an agricultural activity might be deemed "improper," and thus unprotectrd by the statute, simply because it is creating a very harmful nuisance. At this point. of course, the original purpose of the law would be completely frustrated. But that is just another way of saying that the intent of the North Carolina statute and its kin is not very clear to begin with. This vagueness could become the basis of an attack on the "right to farm" law asa violation of due process. Finally. the North Carolina statute and others like it. including the agricultural district laws of New York and Virginia. declare that local ordinances. both now and in effect and those that may be enacted. are void if they are inconsistent with the protection offered farmers by the state "right to farm" laws. But because of the loopholes in these laws, as described above, creative legal draftsmanship by county and township commissions might very easily result in local ordinances which are entirely consistent with the "right to farm" laws, but which significantly restrict agricultural operations. An example would be a local ordinance declariilg certain agricultural practices to be "improper." and thus outside the scope of the state law's protection. In conclusion. the most that can be said for the "right to farm" !:ws based on the North Carolina model is that they offerjust a bit more protection to the farmer Iiwn does the common law of nuisance. Whethec th additional increment of protection makes a significant difference to the future security of agriculture remains lo be seen. The worst that can be said about the "right to farm" laws is that. if indeed they are constitutional, they hold out to farmers a false promise of security that cannot be fulfilled. In this sense, they are a poorsubstitute for the one method of protecting agriculture from land use conflicts that offers real hope for its future security - discouraging residential development of agricultural areas in the first place. PUBLICATIONS UPDATE Farming In The Shadow of Suburbia: Case Studies in Agricultural Land Use Conflict is a booklet published by the NACoRF Agricultural Lands Project, intended for distribution by farm and civic organizations and government agencies to their members, employees and constituents. The booklet is the result of a survey of hundreds of American farmers who tell in their own words about the bewildering variety of land use conflicts that have beset them as residential development expands into the countryside. It calls these land use conflicts "an unmistakable signal that local agriculture is in trouble" and suggests ways that farmers and other concerned citizens can help avoid such conflicts. Orders of up to 100 copies are FREE. Additional copies are 5 cents apiece. Ib order write: "Agricultural Conflicts." c/o NACoRF. 173.5 New York Avenue. N.W.. Washington D. C. 20006. Piease enclose payment. 3 ~ END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT. ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS .“ lands Exchange -, Agricultural Lands Project SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1980 Vol. 2 NO. 1 National Association of Counties Research Foundation, 1735 New York Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Farmlandandcoal: The Battle Over For nearly three years, federal regulations governing the reclamation of stripmines have been held up in court, as the U.S. Department of the Interior and the coal industry battle over prime farmland in the Corn Belt. The protracted controversy, stemming from the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, shows just how difficult it can be for a federal agency to protect agricultural land. THE LANDMARK mining legislation enacted by Congress calls for stripmine operators to demonstrate, prior to receiving permission to disturb the land, that they have the “technological capability to restore (prime ‘farmland) within a reasonable time to equiualent or higher levels of yield as non- mined prime farmland in the surrounding Continued on page 8 DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS BANK Public Support for by Carla Pehowski, NACoR Intern Montgomery County, Maryland, on the suburban fringe of Washington, D.C.. has unveiled an imaginative yet practical new tool for farmland preservation. The tool is called a “development rights bank’ and will be used to help implement a county-wide agricultural preservation plan that calls for restrictions on development in rural areas and the transfer of development rights to encourage development in urban zones. Montgomery proposes to designate 74 thousand acres of agricultural land, about one-third of its total land area, as a “rural density transfer zone.” Commercial and industrial uses will be prohibited in this zone and residential use will be limited to one house per 25 acres. This kind of strict rural zoning has often met with public opposition in areas where development pressure is seen by farmers as an opportunity to sell land for extra income. Landowners also like to quote the higher residential or commercial value of their property when they use it for collateral on a loan. Mongomery proposes to address the “equity” issue by assigning development rights to land zoned for agriculture and allowing these entitlements to be sold by farmers on the open market or pledged as loan collateral in much the same way as the land itself. The development rights purchased by developers can be transferred to urban zones. Private Capital entitling them to build at higher densities than otherwise permitted. (See, “TDR.” AglandsExchange. Vol. 1. No. 3.) Development rights will be assigned to farmland at a ratio of one right per five acres, corresponding to the current zoning. When rights are sold by rural landowners, the property to which they were originally attached can no longer be developed for residential use. The sale of rights will be recorded by the county and a restriction will be placed in the deed to the property. The farmer is compensated for the restriction, of course, by the private purchaser of his entitlements. For example. a farmer owning 100 acres of land within the rural density transfer zone will have the right to build four houses and is entitled to 20 development rights to use as he sees fit. There are a number of ways the farmer can use the development rights and his right to build houses. He could sell all of his 20 development rights at the going market price to someone who wishes to build at higher densities in urban areas. Alternatively, he could sell only 10 development rights to a developer (which would restrict residential use of 50 acres of his land), build a house on another 25 acres [which would extinguish 5 of his development rights), and hold the remaining 25 acres or 5 development rights for future use on his uncommitted land. He may decide at some point to pledge these remaining entitlements as collateral on a loan. From a taxpayer’s viewpoint, the use of transferable development rights is preferable to the outright public purchase of development rights because the county does not have to spend millions of dollars. Instead, the market takes care of purchase and sale, keeping government involvement to a minimum. Yet farmers may be reluctant to support farmland preservation plans using transfer of development rights because they . are not sure that there will in fact be a market for the rights as there is for the land itself. And. indeed, the establishment of a successful transferable development rights market has been tricky, as a number of localities have discovered from experience. The key factor seems to be whether there already exists a strong market for developable land in the area, without which there would be little demand for the right to develop in urban areas. Montgomery’s location in the rapidly-growing Washington metropolitan area would appear to make TDR attractive, but the county wants to take no chances. And that is where the innovative “development rights bank” comes in. The bank will perform three basic functions. It will guarantee loans to farmers by private lending institutions that accept development rights as collateral, as in the See MONTGOMERY, page 4 1 Global 2000 Report:Agriculture A report, prepared for President Carter by ecologically stable. and more vulnerable to from the report. the Department of State and the Council on disruption than it is today.” The picture “The world’s population will grow from 4 Environmental Quality on the anticipated painted by the “Global 2000” Report billion in 1975 to 6.35 billion in 2000, an Status of natural resources in the year 2000, indicates that the retention of U.S. farmland increase of more than 50 percent. For every has concluded that 20 years from now, if as a planetary resource base is growing more two persons on the earth in 1975 there will be present trends continue. the world will be important. three in 2000. “more crowded, more polluted, less The following quotations are excerpted “World food production is projected to increase 90 percent over the 30 years from 1970 to 2000. Meanwhile per capita consumption in South Asia, the Middle East. and the developing countries of Africa will - Reiterating Farmland Policy The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). a presidential advisory group, has sent a memorandum to the heads of federal agencies, bringing to their attention the need to evaluate the impact of agency activities on prime farmland. CEQ originally issued a formal farmland memorandum to the agencies in August 1976. That memorandum interpreted the National Environmental Policy Act to require agencies to prepare environmental impact statements on major federal programs and projects that could affect the conversion of farmland. Since the original CEQ memorandum, some federal agencies have made progress in addressing the agricultural land consequences of their activites. The disclosure in environmental impact statements of federal impact on farmland. according to the recent CEQ memorandum, has “indicated that many federal and federally assisted projects have direct and indirect adverse impacts on prime and unique farmland.” studies by the Coucil and the General Accounting Office indicate that federal agencies have not adequately taken into account during the environmental assessment process the impacts of their proposed actions on agricultural land. Furthermore, agency decisions have frequently not reflected the need and 2 But, the CEQ has concluded, “Recent opportunities to protect these lands.” The CEQ called for “substantial improvement” in federal agency analysis of project impacts on agricultural lands, stressing the need for the agencies to follow the CEQ regulations on the preparation of environmental impact statements. The regulations call for the identification and study of alternatives, which could mitigate or avoid farmland conversion. to proposed agency projects. (JEQ also noted that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will provide technical assistance to its sister agencies in studying impacts and alternatives. An agricultural lands task force of the USDA. headed by Howard Tankersley of the Soil Conservation Service, is now in the process of preparing a model for the examination of farmland impacts of agency actions that will be useful to the agencies in carrying out the CEQ memorandum. of a broader effort to change the way that federal agencies conduct their activities, so that the federal government does not continue unwittingly to promote the conversion of prime farmland to non- agricultural uses. It reflects a growing awareness in Washington that prime farmlands are “a limited and valuable resource” that should be conserved “to meet our national needs and the needs of future generations of Americans.” The recent CEQ memorandum is only part Perhaps the most serious environmental development will be an accelerating deteriora- tion and loss of the resources essential for agriculture ... scarcely improve or actually decline below present inadequate levels. Food production will be more vulnerable to disruptions of fossil fuel energy supplies and to weather fluctuations as cultivation expands to more marginal areas. Soil erosion will have removed, on the average, several inches of soil from croplands all over the world. Desertification may have claimed a significant fraction of the world’s rangeland and cropland. Acid rain from increased combustion of fossil fuels (especially coal) threatens damage to lakes. soils and crops. Real prices for food are expected to double. development will be an accelerating deterioration and loss of the resources essential for agriculture. Arable land will increase only 4 percent by 2000. so that most of the increased output of food will have to come from higher yields. Most of the elements that now contribute to high yields-fertilizer, pesticides, power for irrigation, and fuel for machiner-depend heavily on oil and gas. Serious deterioration of agricultural soils will occur worldwide. due to erosion, loss of organic matter, desertification. salinization. alkalinization and waterlogging. “Conclusions: The problems of preserving the carrying capacity of the earth and sustaining the possibility of a decent life for the human beings that inhabit it are enormous and close upon us. Yet there is reason for hope. Projections are based on the assumption that national policies regarding population stabilization, resource conservation and environmental protection will remain essentially unchanged through the end of the century. But. in fact, policies are beginning to change. “Encouraging as these developments are. they are far from adequate to meet the global challenges projected. New and imaginative ideas-and willingness to act on them-are essential.” “Perhaps the most serious environmental Defining the Farmland Problem A highly-respected public policy research group recently held a conference in Washington on the problem of future U.S. food supply as it relates to the continuing loss of agricultural land. The meeting brought together a number of equally esteemed academicians who delivered formal papers, complete with batteries of statistics on such topics as land conversion rates, technological innovation, natural resource degradation, and 50 forth. The scientific method was thus brought to bear on an important public policy issue: Will the U.S. run out of food because of farmland conversion? The conclusion that seemed to emerge was that, even if the present rate of farmland loss continues, the U.S. can satisfy domestic “although perhaps not foreign - demand for foodstuffs at relatively stable prices into the foreseeable future. The assumptions on which this broad conclusion was based, however. tend to undermine our confidence in it. For instance, it was assumed that new agricultural technology will continue to push crop yields higher and higher, diminishing the importance of a shrinking land base. Given the economic and ecological uncertainties that surround farm technology, predicting the rate of its development and application on the ground is at best a speculative exercise. Maybe farm technology will rescue us from the land converion squeeze, and maybe it won’t. But are you willing to bet thefarm on it? determined the conclusion of the meeting participants is perhaps best illustrated by an unguarded remark made by one of them. This fellow assumed, or so we think we heard him say, that the loss of farmland would decline in the coming decades because the issue is now being addressed by policymakers. Therefore, he concluded. there will be no problem with food production. analysis seems to be that, if one assumes that the problem is being taken care of (notwithstanding that it is also being assumed that there is no problem). then there will be nc problem. Got that? If you are troubled by the fuzziness of all these assumptions based on conclusions. and conclusions based on assumptions, join the club. It sounds like a dog chasing its tail. The point of all this is not that disciplined academic analysis of the farmland problem should be abandoned. Nor is it the point of this editorial unfairly to criticize the conference participants, who by and large did a remarkable job in taking on a formidable research effort and who produced some provocative insights. There will be no Golden Fleece awards from this quarter. The point that deserves making, however, is that the current approach to the farmland problem “relying on aggregate national statistics and running them through a set of assumptions-appears to be leading us around in circles. In the rarified statistical air one can reach almost any conclusion, and every conclusion can be disputed by reference to different sets of numbers and assumptions. decision we make about the farmland The extent to which assumptions Boiled down to basics, the logic of this Ultimately, in such an atmosphere, the EDITORIAL problem will rely entirely on faith. Do you or do you not have faith that agricultural technology will come through in the pinch, that the climate will remain benign, that no negative ecological feedback loops will materialize to set back food production, that society can erect institutions to preserve the land base? This nation was built on faith. one might say and thus conclude that, indeed. we should continue to rely on it in the hope that things will work out, that we will have enough farmland and food. but the faith of our forebearers was tempered by keen reliance on their five senses that told them that the bear was in the woods. These pioneers did not select a test plot of forest, sample the faunal population. make assumptions about how hungry a bear could get and. based on their painstaking analysis. decide whether or not to carry a gun on the way to grandma’s house. Like pioneers venturing into unknown territory, we need to rely more on wide open eyes and instinct, and to place our faith in our aim, rather than in the hope that the bear will remain in hibernation. Our senses now tell us quite clearly that farmland conversion is a problem. From every comer of this country, local officials and citizens are expressing concern-some are genuinely alarmed-that their rural communities are being transformed before their very eyes into exurbs, conglomerations of basically urban people who have no innate connection with the land and who, thus, tend to exploit it. They see farmland disappear beneath concrete, local agricultural businesses close shop, the fabric of rural society being rent, a way of life deteriorating. Their taxes are going up to pay for “progress,” or more objectively, a progression from a manageable rural community built on the foundation of agriculture to an urban one that has no roots. And they find themselves engaged in internecine warfare over land use conflicts that arise when too many unsympathetic residents are mixed in with the farming industry. Increasingly. these same local folks are taking up the cause of farmland preservation, encouraged by a basic faith that their aim is true, that the strategies they devise will solve the farmland problem as they themselves perceive it. Their perceptions are not the product of analysis of national trends, but rather of simple observation of what is happening all around them at the community level. These local officials and citizens are doing more than anyone else to preserve farmland because they feel the effects of farmland conversion more immediately and more deeply than anyone else. They do not have to consult aggregate statistics, which tend to obscure some very severe local farmland conversion problems in much the some way that national unemployment figures mask the plight of black, urban teenagers. Viewed from the perspective of these local people-and theirs is the view that counts-Washington institutions have a tendency to define problems like farmland conversion as if they were looking through the wrong end of a telescope fitted with a lens that filters out certain colors of light. The field of vision is too narrow to allow one to see the whole picture, that of many communities struggling in relative isolation to preserve their local agricultural industry and quality of life. The image is greatly reduced in scale from the distance of national statistics. And the whole problem seems to disappear when filtered through rose-colored assumptions. help from Washington and, indeed, some are coming to the conclusion that Washington is the problem. around and take off the colored filter. We should trust our senses as they reveal the farmland problem for what it is-an immediate danger and a serious challenge to local communities in every region of America. There is hard evidence out there that does not depend on assumptions and analyses of gross statistics projected into the future for its credibility. That evidence, plainly visible on a human scale, is what defines the U.S. farmland problems and poses the question-not “Will the nation run out of food?” but will local communities by themselves be able to deal with the multitude of social. economic and environmental conflicts that today beset them as agricultural land disappears? Meanwhile, local folks are getting very little It is about time that we turn that telescope *a* and a reply Bruce Hawley’s point of view in Aglands Exchange (April-May 1980) cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. problem! Of all private citizens or groups of North America stand to lose the most as our independent people, we, the family farmers of top quality foodland disappears. Let me list only a few of the dozens of reasons why. and, thus, less political clout for us, the farm community. The deterioration of farm support businesses is not an exception but the rule. From vets who become small pet oriented, to machinery dealers that cater to estate residential developments. to roads that are unsafe for slow-moving vehicles. to loss of farmer control of local governments, our right and opportunity to farm is being eroded with every acre we sell out of agriculture. We cannot use expensive energy on poor quality land and expect to have profitable enterprises. And less land means higher prices for what remains. I can share Hawley’s concern for private property rights. It isour land. But private rights bring personal responsibility. When we sell our foodland out of agriculture every other farmer is threatened. That is irresponsible. Elbert van Donkersgocd Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario Harriston, Ontario, Canada Foodland loss is the family farmers’ Every farm lost means fewer family farmers Parties Support Agland Retention Both the Republican and Democratic party platforms, hammered out during their respective conventions this summer, contain planks that support the retention of agricultural land. The Republican text states: “We believe that agricultural policy should give emphasis to the stewardship of the nation’s soil and water resources. The permanent loss of productive farmland is a growing problem and we encourage states and local communities to adopt policies that help maintain and protect productive agricultural land as a national asset. The Democratic text is as follows: “For the future. we must move aggressively to address longstanding rural problems and to implement fully the Administration’s small community and rural development policy, with emphasis on ... protecting prime agricultural land as rural population and the rural economy continue to grow.” The Republican platform text recognizes implicitly that farmland retention is a national issue, but the document is silent as to what means, if any, the federal government should employ to assist states and localities in addressing it. farmland retention as a national issue, as can be inferred from its reference to the Carter administration’s rural policy. The means The Democratic platform also views which the administration would use to address the issue have yet to be specified and depend largely on the conclusions and recommendations of the National Agricultural Lands Study. now being conducted by the Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of Agriculture. The very mention of agricultural lands in the party platforms seems to confirm that this issue has, indeed, achieved national prominence. It remains to be seen whether either party will live up to its commitment to the farmland issue by putting forth serious. constructive proposals for federal policy and procedural reform. Stay tuned ... Montgomery county Continued from page 1 example above. In this sense it will will function in much the same way as does the federal farm commodity price support program, which encourages farmers to take certain risks that they otherwise would be ill- advised to assume. Where private loans are unavailable, the county bank will become a primary lender to farmers, again taking development rights as collateral. Finally, as a last resort, the bank will purchase development rights for resale to private land developers. All three functions are calculated to ensure that the transferable development rights have genuine value like the land, and that the financial risk in trading them on the open market is minimized. It is anticipated that the development rights bank, funded at $1 million by the sale of general obligation bonds. will operate for an initial five-year period, during which it is expected that the private market in the entitlements will become well-established. Although $1 million may sound like a lot of money, it is far less than would be required to protect an equivalent amount of farmland if development rights were directly purchased by the county. Montgomery hopes to leverage its funds in the following way: In the loan guarantee program. the development rights bank’s maximum risk exposure, that is. the total value of the loans it guarantees, will be set at 10 times the amount of money it holds in reserve to pay off loans in case of default. If the entire amount of the loans against development rights is backed by the bank. the $1 million could be used to guarantee $10 million in loans. When people gain confidence in the value of development rights as collateral. the bank could end up backing only a fraction of each loan, say 20 percent, enabling the bank to guarantee up to $50 million in credit from private lenders. 4 Thus, the $1 million investment by the county could cover a log of ground and instill a great deal of faith in development rights as a currency or a security. The Montgomery development rights bank will. however, be a lender of last resort, intervening only where private credit is unavailable. because the ultimate goal of the county is to put the private market in development rights on its own two feet. Its role is like that of a midwife, helping to give birth to an idea in its infancy, not that of a parent who takes over and raises it to maturity. Montgomery County hopes that its novel development rights bank will, by assuming whatever initial risk may be involved, inspire the private sector, developers and farmers with the confidence needed to make the transfer of development rights program work through the marketplace and, thereby, preserve farmland without significant public cost. For further information about the Montgomery County plan contact: Melissa. Banack. Community Planning North, Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, 8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20907.301/565-7479. FARMLAND CONSERVANCIES Wave of the Future By Charles E. Little Real estate activity has become a mainstay land preservation technique for both national and local private conservation organizations in recent years. During the 1960’s the Nature Conservancy, with a substantial line of credit guaranteed by the Ford Foundation, began the advance purchase of natural areas for later resale to public agencies such as the National Park Service. Other organizations have used this technique also, including the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, the Trust for Public Land, and many more. What such institutions could provide was an opportunistic and efficient way to acquire needed land for public use quickly and cheaply-two qualities tending to elude public agencies which must move slowly and carefully in the sensitive matter of land acquisition. Non-governmental conservancy techniques might provide a significant capability to preserve farmland in certain areas, most especially if activities are designed to be complementary to governmental programs. conservancies should no doubt draw upon the best parts of predecessor programs and leave aside those aspects not germane. Thus, the conservancy might be a local body with close ties to its constituency like the Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve Board, but draw its authority from a non-local level of government as does the Coastal Conservancy in California (or as envisioned in the Pennsylvania Agricultural Preserve Act]. Its area of operation should be quite specific, and based at least in part upon the quality of the land, as in the British Columbia Agricultural Preserves, but also correlate with political boundaries as do the French SAFERs. Like the SAFERs, too, the conservancy should be able to undertake a wide range of imaginative real estate operations, with the fast-moving opportunistic quality of private land trusts. such as the Lincoln Rural Land Foundation or, prospectively, the Massachusetts Farmland Trust. Like these private organizations and the Rural Land Council, the citizen group on Prince Edward Island. the conservancy should have a civic group ambiance, not a bureaucratic one. In terms of its particular powers, though, the conservancy should part company with the civic-group model. It should possess the power to “preempt” like the SAFERs or at least have the power at one remove, such as the ability of the Coastal, Conservancy to “borrow” eminent domain powers from the California Public Service Board. The conservancy should be well- financed. of course, an attribute difficult to locate in any of the cases examined so far. But like most of them, the bulk of the financing should consist of separate “up front” money to establish a revolving fund, replenished from time to time, to carry out a core program of purchase and resale. The best of all possible farmland conservancy concept begins to lose its ivory tower quality. For the sake of argument, a description of the duties of a conservancy might be summarized this way: A farmland conservancy is a local organization operating within a conservancy district coterminous with county or multi- county lines. The conservancy is empowered by state law to buy and sell land or rights in land for the purpose of maintaining prime, unique, and locally important farmland in firm use; to use its lands to retain or increase the number of farms in appropriately sized family proprietorships; and to undertake its properties (and others as appropriate) needed soil and water conservation improvement projects. The conservancy may acquire land when offered for sale when it believes that the sale will result in a use inimical to farming, farmland, and conservation values in its area. It may resell the land with restrictions on use to an appropriate buyer. If there is a dispute over the price of the land, the price offered shall be based on independent appraisals or determined by a court in a condemnation proceeding. The conservancy has the right to intervene in any sale of land previously designated by the conservancy as prime. unique, or locally important farmland. The conservancy may use a wide variety of real estate transactions to pursue its purposes, including trades of land or righ-ts in land, payment through pensions or annuities, and the like. It may assemble tracts of land for efficient farm use, or subdivide large tracts into smaller units appropriate to family farming or for young farmers. If the conservancy has undertaken extensive conservation projects on land it has acquired, it may stipulate in the deed upon resale that the conservation improvements be maintained, enforceable by right of reverter. In the area of its operations. the conservancy will cooperate with other government authorities, encouraging them to plan, regulate,.tax and otherwise control land use in the agricultural area in such a way as to stabilize and enhance farming as an enterprise and way of life. Farmland Conservancies DEFINZTION Conecrvancy. in its modern definition. refers to an offldal commission or court charged with protecting naturd resources. The Courts ofchnsumncy were established in 1755 to manage the Thames fishery. In the preecnt century the British established the Nature Conservancy to own and manage scientific preclerves. Aprivate. non-profit counterpart wam established in the U.S. with the enme For a concept such as the foregoing, any number of different kinds of institutions might be able to carry out the program-including agencies of local government, agencies of state government, special districts (especially conservation districts), or private organizations with public charters. The Lancaster Agricultural Preserve Board is an example of an agency of general purpose local government. It was created by the county commissioners as, in effect, a committee. This status gives the board access to the powers of the local governments, and vice versa. Though the board does not yet have its sought-after deed restriction authority, if this element is added to the program the work of the board can be coordinated with other authorities held by local government - including zoning, taxing, and eminent domain. There are some who believe that it might be improper for the same government that depresses the value of land through regulation to turn around and buy the land at the reduced price to accomplish the Same general purposes as the regulation. This would be especially improper. some think, if condemnation is used, or even if condemnation is threatened directly or indirectly. This is one of the reasons why the Coastal Commission in California was set up as a separate organization from the Coastal Conservancy. While the Coastal Conservancy does not have the problem of zoning land and acquiring it too, there are other difficulties with it as a model. The main problem is that the Conservancy is unlocal and does not operate within any kind of predetermined area in which farmland values are specifically identified. This should not be interpreted as a criticism of the Conservancy, for its program is comprehensive and not limited to agricultural land. Still. there are, probably, better models for state-level agencies taking on the role of a farmland conservancy - possibly localized state park authorities could be looked to for guidance. Conceivably, there could be a state-level farmland conservancy operated on a farm district basis with local operations in each cooperating district. This would effectively separate the program from general purpose local government, but perhaps be a bit more bureaucratic than necessary. Special districts are a traditional means to provide for special programs. School Districts are the most prevalent case in point, but in many areas, special districts provide most services, and farmland conservancy activities need not be an exception. It is entirely conceivable that state enabling legislation could be enacted which would provide sufficient statutory authority for a local conservancy district to be established. drawing funds and its general powers from the state level of government. In this connection, there is already in existence a INSTITUTIONAL POSSIBILITIES name. The Coastal Conservancy of special district program associated with California UW~ the word in a clensc agricultural land is represented in virtually a11 adapting conservancy techniques is to gomewhat clwr to the earlier meaning, farm areas of the US. The reference is of evaluate them in the context of possible M do some *.conmcrvancy districts” course to the Soil and Water Conservation institutions charged with carrvinrr out a established in rural areas of the U.S. Districts, set up under a model state enabling Another way to assess the potential for program. This way, the farml&d- Conservancies Court Rules on Highway Through Farmland A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Highway Administration broke the law when it failed to discuss in an environmental impact statement alternatives to a highway proposed for construction through agricultural land. The decision is a victory for agricultural landowners and conservationists seeking to protect farmland from roads constructed with federal funds. The owners of Grazing Fields Farm in Massachusetts sued the federal agency and the state department of public works when the highway engineers rejected the farmers’ proposal that the road could be built along a different route to avoid cultivated land. They claimed that the decision of the agencies would have been different if their proposal, backed by independent engineering studies, had been included in the environmental impact statement prepared for top agency decisionmakers. By excluding the alternative proposal, the agency had shielded both the public and its own management from cogent arguments and information in support of relocating the highway away from the farmland. The alternative proposal was buried in the voluminous administrative file on the project and, thus, was not given serious consideration. Reversing the trial court, which had said inclusion of the alternative proposal in the case file was sufficient, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston agreed with the owners of Grazing Fields and ordered the case returned to the lower court. The basis for its decision was the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which requires federal agencies fully to disclose the predicted environmental impacts of their projects, as well as practical alternatives by which those impacts could be avoided, so that agency decisionmaking takes place in the light of public scrutiny and is thus likely to be more responsive to concerns about resources such as farmland. The appellate court deferred to the lower court, however, on the question of whether 6 construction of the highway should be stopped pending the ultimate outcome of the case. Thus, while the decision may be unlikely to prevent the carving up of Grazing Fields Farm. it means that future federal highway projects will have to be planned with a greater attention to farmland preservation. Aglands Exchange. for further information. See Publications Update, this issue of PUBLICATIONS UPDATE Report and Recommendations on Organic Farming, US. Department of Agriculture, July 1980 (94 pages) is a study of organic agriculture as currently practiced in the U.S. and abroad. It covers the technical aspects as well as attitudes and policies. Disappearing Farmlands: A Citizens Guide to Agricultural Land Preservation, Second Edition, NACoRF Agricultural Lands Project, August 1980 (18 pages) is available for distribution by individuals, public officials and organizations. Up to 10 copies free, 10 cents apiece for additional booklets. Order from “Farmland Guide,” NACoRF, 1735 New York Ave.. N.W., Washington, DE. 20006. Please enclose payment. “Land Use: A Moral Dilemma” is a 35- minute color film on farmland preservation. narrated by Eddie Albert, produced by the Shawnee Resource Conservation and Development Area. Excellent photography and text. Contact: Shawnee RC&DA, 1305 Yale Avenue, Box 127-A, Marion, Illinois 62959. Freeway Impact on Agricultural Areas, Robert H. Schmidt, Jr., in Natural Resources Journal. Vol. 20, No. 3, July 1980, University of New Mexico School of Law, Albuquerque 87131 (15pages). Continued from page 5 state enabling act sent to state government in 1937 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Conservation Districts duly established under suitable state law are eligible for soil and water conservation grants and technical assistance from the US. Department of Agriculture and other agencies. The standard state law provides a procedure, including a local petition and referendum, for the organization of soil conservation districts as governmental subdivisions of the state, but governed by a local board of supervisors. A state-level committee administers the procedures establishing the districts. and provides administrative assistance and coordination of programs. What is significant in terms of Conservation Districts is that some of them might be able to undertake most farmland conservancy techniques as they have been described with little if any change in their charters. There are nearly 3,000 Conservation Districts with a total of 17,000 people serving as district officials. Some 775 districts-or 41 percent of those responding to a 1979 survey-have already expressed concern about the loss of agricultural land to urban development. In some areas, Conservation Districts have led the way in urging local farmland protection ordinances. In others, they are not so effective. Lastly, it is possible that private organizations might have a direct as well as complementary role in conservancy-type activities. It is possible that state government could charter existing private organizations-such as land trusts in New England towns-to undertake expanded programs for landsaving and be empowered to use, or “borrow.” authorities necessary to carry out such programs. Without the authority to preempt land sales or to protect against profiteering by private landsellers, however, private groups would be limited to a kind of “augmenting” role, such as that described for the Massachussetts Farmlands Trust. *The author is the president of the American land Forum. This article was excerpted from apaper entitled “Middleground Approaches to the Preservation of Farmland, ” commissioned by the National Agricultural Lands Study and reproduced with permission. Copies of the complete article may be obtained by writingALF, 1025 VermontAvenue, N. W., Washington, D.C. 20005. Coming Events! October 17, Salina, Kansas -Prime Agricultural Lands Symposium, sponsored by the Salina Chapter of the Soil Conservation Society of America, Kansas Association of County Planners, and others. Registration fee $15. Contact: Fred Trump at (913) 825-9535. If your organization is sponsoring an event or conference dealing with farmland, supply us with details and we will try to publicize it for you. h JOHN DEERE: FmaKA Policy The John Deere Company of East Moline, Ill., has expressed its support for the USDA Farmers Home Administration’s (FmHA] prime agricultural lands preservation policy. In a letter to FmHA Ill. state director. Jon W. Linfield. Deere vice president W. F. Jeffers wrote that the farm equipment manufacturer will “assist in every way possible to support this policy.” Jeffers was responding to an earlier expression of concern by Linfield that Deere dealers had applied to FmHA for loan guarantees to hefp finance the construction of equipment dealerships located on prime farmland. In one case, FmHA turned down the application of a dealership in Breese, 111.. on the grounds that its location outside of town not only directly consumed farmland. but also could lead to further conversion of prime land. That dealer had already begun construction, making it impossible for FmHA to do anything to protect the land involved. This incident apparently propted Linfield to ask the John Deere Company to discourage similar situations in the future. Linfield wrote, “Often there is conflict between the space needs of the rural business and the increasing need to retain prime and other important agricultural lands in agricultural production. FmHA is moving from the area of philosophical acceptance to the more difficult stage of making credit decisions which support thcretention of agricultural land. “The FmHA Resource Management Policy.” Linfield continued, “undertakes to recognize the space needs of rural business and community facilties. Appropriate planning and exploring alternatives early in the project development can help avoid disappointment later in case FmHA guarantee support is needed. Even in situations where credit is not a question or problem, 1 suggest that you and your company could do a great service to your dealers and the public by assisting them in exploring viable alternatives in situations where expansion or relocation are in order.” the FmHA’s advice. Jeffers stated that the FmHA policy was “very informative and will be very valuable in our attempt to emphasize dealership locations in the future. We have The John Deere Company promised to heed ~ ~__ suggested to our dealers that dealership sites should be established if at all possible in industrial development areas within our small agricultural communities, if they have such a program, or locations that have been put on the market for sale near the community, rather than to build on open prime agricultural land.” farmland has sometimes been a problem. “Many dealers.” he said, “come back to us stating that the only land that is affordable and perhaps available is prime agricultural land.” The Deere officer later explained in an interview with the NACoR Agricultural Lands Project that the company has worked with its dealers to find appropriate alternative sites, telling them that the lower cost of buying prime farmland rather than industrially- zoned land does not reflect its true cost to the business. “Prime farmland,” Jeffers noted, “is at a very definite premium [for agriculture) and getting more so all the time.” Expressing his concern for local agricultural communities, Jeffers also pointed out, “Small towns need all the help they can get. When businesses go outside of town. oftentimes the people who trade with them never make it into town anymore.” That, said Jeffers, leads to the decay of economic activity in general and can be demoralizing to the entire rural community. Jeffers acknowledged that protecting prime 7 c Continued from page 1 area under equivalent levels of management.” The law also requires operators to adhere to performance standards which, at a minimum, ! nclude segregation of the A and B soil horizons from other overburden, and the proper replacement of the topsoil once mining is completed. In short, the objective of the statute is to ensure that prime farmland will not be permanently removed from food production by stripmining. Recognizing that it was changing the rules under which stripminers operated, Congress softened the statute with a “grandfather clause” which basically exempts on-going operations from the reclamation requirements. Actually, the terms of the grandfather clause are more complicated-and that is what the controversy is all about. The fundamental question is to what farmlands does the reclamation requirement of the law apply? The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) of the Department of the Interior argues that the grandfather clause should be rather narrowly interpreted, so that only those stripmines in operation prior to enactment of the statute should be exempt from reclamation requirements. OSM would also include under the grandfather exemption mining operations that are simply the logical extension of existing mines. The coal industry, on the other hand, citing the particular methods of mining used in the Corn Belt, wants a broader interpretation that wodd allow cx!sting operations to be greatly expanded, even to new areas not contiguous to older mines, without triggering the requirement that they reclaim the farmland thus disturbed. National Association of Counties Research Foundation 1735 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Eleven major coal companies and industry trade associations have locked horns with the OSM and six environmental groups in litigation that has spanned three years, produced enough legal papers to fill an abandoned stripmine, and generated enough heat to warm the city of Washington for a decade. The court battle has encompassed many issues other than the reclamation of prime farmland-stripmining has had other serious environmental impacts-and shows no sign of a definitive resolution in the near future. IN MAY of this year, however, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled that the OSM interpretation of the prime farmland grandfather clause was too narrow, and ordered the agency to go back to the drawing board to draft new regulations. The vigor with which the coal industry and OSM have fought over such an apparently trivial legal technicality as a grandfather clause reveals that the stakes are high and that the issue is not so unimportant. What seems to be at stake is the fate of literally millions of acres of prime farmland in the Corn Belt. some of America’s most productive agricultural land. and the profitability of mining coal from that land. Reclamation, if indeed it can restore agricultural productivity to “equivalent or higher levels of yield,” as called for in the law. places a financial burden on the stripminers that in the past has been deemed by the industry to be prohibitive. If we must restore the land afterword, the industry seems to be saying, we cannot afford to mine the coal. The rising price of all energy sources. including coal. may alter the picture by providing a sufficient return to the miners to belie their argument of economic hardship. Sources within the OSM. citing scientific studies and demonstration projects, say that prime farmland can be reclaimed after stripmining to produce crop yields approaching 90 percent of their orginal productivity. And, these sources say, this can be done at reasonable economic cost. But restoring yields depends largely on proper management, that is. how well the stripminers adhere to established performance standards for reclamation. Only time, it seems, will tell whether productivity can be 100 percent restored as soil microorganisms re-establish themselves and regenerative powers of nature reassert themselves. MEANWHILE, THE legal battle-and the devastation of farmland-go on. In an affadavit filed in court, OSM Director Walter Heine predicted that fnlndfana alone 1800 acres of prime farmland will be newly stripmined. without reclamation requirements, within the next year. By mid- 1982, he said, an additional 2500 acres will be consumed, while the nation waits to see if present reclamation technology will ever be applied to restore the capacity of the farmland to produce food. NONPROFIT US. POSTAGE PAID Washington, D.C. 20006 Permit No. 41968 Y END OF REPORT ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS /4 -7 AgZands Exchange Agricultural Laxids Project JULY-AUGUST 1980 Vol. 1 NO. 5 National Association of Counties Research Foundation, 1735 New York Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 OPEN SPACE AND FARMLAND Supreme Court OKs Zoning at a higher density, the Agins filed suit in the money-the potential damage awards-in state court alleging the ordinance had so which lawyers could share with their reduced the value of their property as to landowner clients on a contingent fee basis. On June 10. the US. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the power of local governments to employ zoning to preserve open space, promote orderly community growth and by implication to protect agricultural land. The court ruled in Agins v. Tiburon. No. 79-602. that the zoning ordinance adopted by the city of Tiburon. California, to protect open space was not an unconstitutional "taking" of private property requiring payment ofjust compensation to landowners. In so doing, the court refused to decide the potentially more volatile question of whether a municipality may be held financially liable for overly-restrictive zoning. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Agins purchased a tract of land overlooking San Francisco Bay and planned to develop it for residential use. The city of Tiburon subsequently adopted a zoning ordinance, as required by California state law, to provide for orderly development, the protection of the environment and open space. The ordinance restricted the Agins' property to limited residential use, allowing them to build at a density of one unit per acre, depending upon design and environmental impact. Without seeking permission to build constitute a "taking." plaintiffs sought money damages of $2 million from the city, rather than the traditional remedy of ajudicial declaration that the ordinance could not be applied to their property if it would thereby be excessively devalued. The California Supreme Court rejected their claim, setting the State for a confrontation before the US. Supreme Court. .. . The unusual feature of the case was that the WHEN THE HIGH court decided in March of this year to hear the appeal, conservationists and government officials became alarmed at the prospect that the decision would be reversed. imposing financial liability on local government for zoning excesses. Such liability could have ' halted all planning and zoning activities by forcing officials to guess at the fiscal impact of their land use regulations. It also may have stirred up additional zoning litigation by making available for the first time a pot of Regional Committees Forming The Agricultural Lands Project is looking for interested people to serve on regional farmland protection committees. The committees are being formed to help promote broad public awareness of the farmland issue and to serve as a means by which concerned citizens and public officials can better communicate with each other about the particular agricultural problems in their part of the nation. The committees will also help the project address those specific problems that are of concern to them. It is our hope that the committees will be self-supporting and self-starting to the extent that the members will establish their own agendas for discussion and action. will determine how and when to meet. and will rely on volunteered time and funding to carry out their objectives. The committees can expect assistance from the Agricultural Lands Project in the form of publication of newsletters, help in distribution of publications and other materials, and the use ofthe name of the "Agricultural Lands Project." Committees are being formed within each of the farm production regions of the United States. (See map) If you wish to volunteer. please contact Beverly J. Leyva, c/o Agricultural Lands Project. As soon as a sufficient number of people within your region do so, we will supply you with additional details. ~ FARM PRODUCTION REGIONS / I Southeast I Southern Deita Plains States Although the Supreme CouFt did not rule on the question of financial liability, thus perpetuating some uncertainty, it did reaffirm the principle that zoning is a legitimate means of controlling growth within a community. Significantly for the cause of farmland preservation, the court pointed to the production of food and fiber. the enjoyment of scenic beauty and the use of natural resources-the purpose of the California statute under which the city of Tiburon enacted its ordinance-as specific See "Open Space", page 2 S. Dakota County Questions Power Project The responsiveness of the federal bureaucracy to local government concerns about farmland is at issue in a growing controversy over the proposed construction of a high-voltage electric transmission line through a dozen or more counties in North and South Dakota. Pending before the Economic Regulatory Administration of the US. Department of Energy is an application by the Nebraska Public Power District to build a series of massive towers and string a 500 kilovolt power line that would stretch 400 miles from the Canadian border to Nebraska, traversing thousands of acres of prime northern plains farmland. At least one county in the proposed right of way, Kingsbury County, South Dakota, questions the need for the project and has demanded proof that the power line will not threaten the puol~c health or devalue productive land. TEE MANDAN power project is so named because it would connect the electric utilities in Manitoba, Canada, with those in Nebraska by running the transmission line through the Dakotas, thereby enabling the utilities to share electricity. Manitoba Hydro is building additional generating capacity to supply its peak winter demand and, thus, will have extra power to sell during the summer months. Nebraska Public Power, on the other hand, claims that it can save its customers money in the form of lower rates by purchasing Canadian hydro-electricity to satisfy its own peak summer demand. The utilities have a lot at stake in the $500 million project. A lot is at stake. too, for the farmers and See MANDAN, Page 2 1 ‘‘Open Space’’ “DAN Project to be Probed Continued from page 1 landowners of Kingsbury County and other jurisdictions through which the power line would be routed. The concernsof the county officials are threefold: They fear that the electromagnetic field created around the high-tension line may cause health problems for nearby residents, as has been alleged to occur with similar power lines. They also want to ensure that the specific design and location of the project will not unduly interrupt normal farming operations. This could be accomplished by stringing the line on single-pole towers that run along land section lines. between fields rather than through them. Finally, they want a guarantee that condemnation of the right of way for the line will not deplete the county tax base or fail to compensate landowners fairly. Adequate compensation would prevent financial hardship to farmers that could jeopardize the continuation of agricultural production. The Department of Energy has agreed to prepare an environmental impact statement on the MANDAN project and has held a series of meetings in the affected region to solicit public input to the process of addressing and hopefully mitigating its consequences on the land and people of North and South Dakota. In response to a request by Kingsbury County Commissioner Joyce Hodges, the Agricultural Lands Project has contacted the DOE about the agricultural impacts of the transmission line and has brought the matter to the attention fo the US. Department of Agriculture and the Council on Environmental Quality. Continued from page 1 goals that may be advanced by zoning. In upholding the Tiburon zoning ordinance, the court was impressed by the reasonableness of the law in permitting some measure of financial return to the landowner. The ordinance allowed the Agins to build up to five houses on their tract of land, .contingent upon the environmental impact. “At this juncture,” the court noted, “the Agins are free to pursue their reasonable investment expectations by submitting a development plan to local officials. Thus, it cannot be said that the impact of general land use regulations has denied them the justice and fairness guaranteed the Fifth Amendment.” The lesson of the Agins case seems to be that zoning is a valid means of protecting agricultural land and open space. provided that it is flexible in allowing some development to occur. As we go topress, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of another case. San Diego Gas ana Electric Co. v. City if San Mego, No. 79-678, which raises substantially the same issues as Agins. Argument is ZikeZy to be heard in October. Correction An error in the editorial by Bruce Hawley (Aglands Exchange. Vol. 1, No. 4) attributed to him the statement that “In the past 10 years. the area of land in farming has doubled.” The correct figure should be “ 100 years” according to Mr. Hawley. PRESERVING FARM LAND Starting at the County Level by James Barnett Director, Natural Resources Department Indiana Farm Bureau, Inc. Reprlnted wlth perrnlsslonfrorn the Hoosier Farmer. April. 1980. “Land use planning can best be accomplished at the county level of government.” so states 1980 Indiana Farm Bureau policy. Richard Johnson, executive director of the St. Joseph County Area Plan Commission. recently said: “I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the St. Joseph County Farm Bureau has done just that. Members of our local Farm Bureau played a lead role in our county’s recently adopted agricultural zoning programs.” Planning officials in St. Joseph County became concerned that the county land use plan adopted 20 years ago was tremendously overzoned for urban type development. County officials were becoming increasingly concerned about the financial impact of providing services to outlying areas of the county. There was also an increasing awareness that agricultural land was a very important resource to the county. 2 Added to this was the usual conflicts between normal farming operations and rural non-farm residents such as livestock operations, dusty field operations, all night field work and increased trafk on narrow rural roads. The new zoning ordinance, approved in March 1979 by the St. Joseph County Council, created a new intensive agricultural district with the following provisions: 200 square miles of what could be called a residential estate-agricultural district were rezoned to a new intensive agricultural districts: 20 acres; defined and listed as a permitted activity within the agricultural district: Certain services required by the agricultural community, such as a veterinary clinic. are allowed as a permitted used; Confined feeding operations are allowed as a permitted use within agricultural districts within one mile of the urban areas: The new agricultural district was, in part, based upon the Agricultural Advisory 100 square miles of urban zoned land and The minimum lost size was increased to An agricultural home occupation was Committee’s definition of prime agricultural soils; and Urban uses previously allowed, either as a permitted or a special exception, are not allowed. The new ordinance took about two years from doing the initial work to getting the ordinances adopted according to Planning Director Johnson. He noted that much of the foundation for their acceptance was laid by an Agricultural Advisory Committee. The group was made up not only of plan commission members, but also members and personnel from the St. Joseph County Farm Bureau and the local Soil and Water Conservation District. The advisory committee met with numerous groups throughout St. Joseph County during the development of the ordinance. Johnson credits the residents of the county in getting the idea off the ground in the first place. Johnson also urges others contemplating formulation of agricultural districts to deal directly with the group most affected, the farmers. “It would be totally foolish to attempt anything if you weren’t working with the agricultural community,” he emphasized. Everywhere you go these days, you hear the constant litany, “We don’t want the government, especially thefederal government, involved in any land use.” Amen, brother. But what exactly is “land use?” What is it about this innocent phrase that so stirs the emotions of otherwise rational people? There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about the term “land use” that must be cleared up before any constructive debate of the topic can take place. Not long ago. we visited the U.S. Department of Agriculture and came away with a new appreciation of the widely-held view that ”land use” is an anathema. One USDA official was talking about strip cropping. the planting of shelter belts and crop rotation as “land use” practices designed to conserve soil. When he again used the term “land use” to describe what we had always thought were properly called land management practices. the picture became pretty clear. No wonder farmers were upset about “land use.” You‘d be angry too, if you were told that Big Brother was going to step in and tell you what to plant and where to plant it. Confusion of “land use” with land management-which should be the sole responsibility of the landowner-may help explain the roots of the popular distaste for land use. Once the proper distinction is made. some constructive land use initiatives, such as that undertaken by the St. Joseph County Farm Bureau, are possible. In that Indiana county, “land use” evolved out of the concern of local farmers that non-agricultural uses of land threatened their continued ability to use the land for crop production. The result was an effort, in effect, to separate incompatible uses of land so that both agriculture and other industrial and residential uses could go on without constituting mutual nuisances. The likelihood that thoughtful planning may help keep property taxes down is an additional dividend of this kind of “land use.” But “land use” can be something quite different than a deliberate, conscientious effort by local citizens and officials to shape the future of their community. It can, and often is, wholly accidental, the cumulative product of many random public and private decisions-or the failure to make decisions. The fact of the matter is that Big Brother, and many 01 his smaller cousins. are already deeply involved in this other kind of “land use.” whether they acknowledge it or not. Every federal highway that cuts through fields and spawns development around its interchanges is “land use.” Every federal dam that drowns productive bottomland and attracts recreational housing to its shoreline is “land use.” Electric transmission lines and strip mines sanctioned by federal agencies are ”land use.” Government grants and subsidies for housing and industrial development are “land use,” as are federal tax policies that burden the farmer and make land speculation attractive. And the same is true. in all fairness. of the thousands of state and local government actions that affect the use of land in addressing othe social and economic issues. In short, this country has had a national “land use” policy for years. But the policy is a defacto one-it is not intentional, it is not very rational and, indeed, it is not recognized as such. Our national land use policy, carried out daily by the federal estabishment, helps to transform the landscape and social fabric of local communities against the wishes of their inhabitants, strangles farmers until they are EDITORIAL DeFacto Land Use forced to sell their land. and contributes in hundreds of ways every day to the further erosion of this nation’s agricultural capacity. It’s enough to make anyone mad. But what can be done about the current momentum of federal “land use?” Perhaps that is best answered by trying to restate the consensus of opinion about what should not be done. What we do not need is the establishment ofa bureacratic monolith to administer a sweeping national land use directive that would prohibit everyone from making their own decisions about the use of land. The task at hand is not to insinuate the federal government further into “land use,” but rather to get the federal government out of the business of encouraging unwise uses of land-in particular, the conversion of scarce agricultural land. -. What this entails is a careful review of the myriad federal programs and policies that constitute “land use”-the National Agricultural Lands Study is now conducting such a review-and changes within the federal agencies that will ensure that the impacts of their actions on farmland and agricultural enterprise are systematically considered before any irreversable decisions are made. To an extent, these changes are also taking place, for instance in the Farmers Home Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. However, changes made in Washington will not be enough. For in every case of “land use” there is a “user” and a “usee”-and the latter is always a local community that has the most to gain or lose by the transaction. Along with federal reform must come a concerted effort by local citizens and officials to seize the initiative in making land use choices, to take control of their own destinies. A Maryland farmer, speaking to his local planning commission, put it this way: “Carroll County will be making a decision whether it acts or does not act to deal with the land use issue.” His advice, which was heeded by the planning commission in recommending a local farmland preservation program, goes right to the heart of the matter of our de facto national land use policy, Unless local communities take action to protect their agricultural land users, Big Brother is going to continue to make them the usees. Disappearing Farmlands Second Edition in Press! An expanded Second Edition of Disappearing Farmlands is now going to press. It contains a new section describing the impacts of tarmland conversion on the farmer. and an updated selection ot state and county tarmland retention programs. Demand for Disappearing Farmlands has been high. Order your copies of the Second Edition right away! Orders for up to 10 copies are free. Ten cents per booklet for orders up to BOO copies. Write: “Farmland Guide,” c/o NACoR. 1796 New York Avenue, N.W.. Washington. D.C. 20006. 3 P- A GROWING PARTNE;RSHIP Counties and Conservation Districts sb by Neil Sampson oil and water conservation districts have een part of the American scene for some 40 years now. but the issuesdhat they are prepared to deal with have seldom been so much in the public eye. All over America. people are concerned about the seemingly endless conversion of good agricultural land to houses, roads, airports. industries and other uses. Similarly, concerns over excessive soil erosion and water pollution have been receiving growing attention. As the public becomes more aware, and concerned, about these issues, they turn to local leaders for answers. Those answers are. all too often, not easy to find. County officials all over America have discovered that soil and water conservation districts are available to assist witn many natural resource-related problems facing the county. These districts. established as special purpose units of government in all 50 states. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. are normally charged under state law with establishing and carrying out a program to develop and conserve the natural resources of their district. In a majority of the districts, their boundaries are the same as those of the counties. District officials are elected in most cases at special elections, although there are a growing number of states where they are elected on the general ballot. and a few states where a portion of the district board is still appointed by a state entity. farmland protection, an issue that is difficult Our major new concern today is for Which is the Nuisance: Farm or Suburb? Both agricultural operations and suburban developments can be considered nuisances-in a legal sense as well as a practical one-when they occupy a relationship to each other that is literally too close for comfort. That seems to be the consensus of a growing number of farmers and suburbanites alike who complain that the proximity ofone land use to the other results in nothing but problems. Farmer A is frustrated because his fences are always being cut. his machinery is frequently vandalized and he can no longer spray insecticides because of the outcry of his “neighbors” in the new subdivision next door. Housewife B has complained to the local police a number of times about the hazard that slow-moving farm equipment poses on the narrow roads in her community. Homeowner C has had his lawn torn up several times this year by roaming cattle, and has threatened Farmer D that he will go to court unless the stock watering pond is fenced. Farmer E has simply given up because of suburban teenagers riding motorcycles through his corn and people helping themselves to his orchard crop (the same people, he thinks. who got up a petition about manure odors and tractor noise before dawn). He has sold the farm and moved away. Developer F, seeing his chance, bought the place and is putting up houses next door to Farmer G. Potential Homeowner H. who is thinking of buying one of the houses. has not yet discovered what living in the country is really all about-Farmer G. you see. keeps hogs. And so it goes . , . These are typical of the problems that we have been hearing about from farmers and country suburbanites. But we at the Agricultural Lands Project want to do more than listen. We want to help. We want to document the pattern of farm-suburban land use conflicts in an effort to help find a solution to the mutual problems that can be created. We need the help of all those who read Aglands Exchange. Will you take a minute to drop us a line or give us a call? Let us know about the particular problems that have arisen in your area because farms and suburbs are too close for comfort. or because 4 - farmer and suburbanite just don’t understand each other. Your privacy will be guaranteed. Call or wnte: Edward Thompson, Jr., c/o NACoRF. 1735 New York Avenue N.W. Washington. D.C. 20006 (202) 783-5 113. Growing Interest in Agtand Preservation Interest among state and local officials in preserving farmland has been growing by leaps and bounds during the past year, according to Robert J. Gray. director of the Administration’s National Agricultural Lands Study (NALS). A group of consultants commissioned by the NALS to survey state and local farmland retention programs has uncovered, to the great suprise of many experts, nearly 200 county initiatives designed expressly to protect agricultural land. Although these local programs include the purchase and transfer of development rights, tax incentives and agricultural districting. the nverwhelming n?ajority of such programs rely on agricultural zoning. The relative popularity of zoning was also a surprising finding, in light of the conventional wisdom that this method of land preservation is difficult to sell to local political constituents. Coughlin of the Region Science Research Institute in Philadelphia. John C. Keene. Esq.. of the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania, William Toner, a planning consultant and professor at Governors State University in Illinois, and J. Dixon Esseks. professor at Northern Illinois University. Their survey and analysis of selected farmland preservation programs will lead to the publication of a reference guidebook for use by state and local officials. If you wish to receive the guidebook, and have not received this issue of Aglands Exchange in the mail, write the Agricultural Lands Project to ask that you be placed on our mailing list. The NALS consultants include Robert E. to handle for several reasons. First. it is all tied up with our view of development and “progress”. Many of us are from areas. or represent constituencies, that feel strongly about the need for economic development. The idea that some development is not really economically beneficial, and that the jobs or values created may be of short-term value while the losses being inflicted on the agricultural industry in the county are significant and permanent. is hard to understand. and doubly hard to explain to the electorate. Another problem lies in demonstrating the need to protect farmland at the local level. How much farmland coversion does it take to become a problem? How would the efforts taken in the county contribute to the solution of a nationally-recognized problem? We say that the nation is losing 3 million acres ot farmland every year through conversion to non-farm uses. I have estimated that the loss from soil erosion adds up to the equivalent of still another 3 million acre-per-year loss in productivity. All told, that forecasts a serious national problem, and one that is not to many years away. But what can you do in your county to help stop those trends? You don’t face million-acre conversions: you face proposals to build a 40- acre subdivision here-a 20-acre one there. It is easy to make the case that saving 40 acres of farmland won’t really matter-not when the nation has 400 million acres of cropland that are producing all the crops we need, at least this year. But we all know that somehow, this nation must halt the unnecessary loss of millions of acres of productive land. And we must stop that loss 40 acres at a time. The farmland conversion issue is a land use issue. and land use issues are always trouble- some. But more than land use is involved. The agricultural industry is also involved. and it doesn’t do much good to save land if you can‘t help save farmers who can farm it successfully. And there are few things a county can do to help solve some of the difficult policy issues affecting agriculture. Most of those are regional. if not national. issues. So there are several reasons why county officials might back away from the farmland protection issue. But there are equally good reasons why the county must become involved. and those reasons are moving county officials into new program efforts all over America. A griculture has been. and still is. a major portion of the local economy in many counties. In rural areas, farmers make up a major political constituency. In urban or urbanizing areas. there may still be a strong bias toward keeping the rural, agricultural character of parts of the county. Buckshot urbanization of farming areas may be doing more than crowding out agriculture-it may be building you an urbanized growth pattern that is almost impossible lo serve with normal public services. Costs may be skyrocketing-or everything from police and fire protection to school buses and garbage collection. New homes seldom, if ever. pay taxes equivalent to the cost of the service load they create, and See PARTNERSHIP, page 7 How Can a Farmer Survive Without any Land. 9 - During the past 20 years, an ominous trend in land ownership patterns has helped decimate the farnilv farmer. particularly black farmers in the South. Over 70 percent of the 1.8 million small farms left in the US. are the South, according to the Emergency Land Fund, an Atlanta-based organization which is working to keep black farmers in business. Between 1966 and 1970 alone. over 28.000 black farmers quit tilling the soil. throwing 2.5 million acres up for sale to large farming operations or agribusinesses. And the losses are accelerating. especially in the South. A 1978 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicates the true severity of the problem. Between 1969 and 1974, blacks in Alabama lost 297.621 acres, 46.7 percent of their land. In Georgia. they lost 44.9 percent. In North Carolina, where blacks now own more acres than in any state except Mississippi. blacks lost 181,306 acres during this period. 32.4 percent of what they owned in 1969. Blacks across the South are currently losing 9,OOO acres per week, according to Joe Brooks. director of the Emergency Land Fund. At this rate. blacks will be landless by 1985. Traditionally, small farmers, particularly blacks. have had only one substantial economic resource-the land. After the Civil .War. huge portions of the South were deeded to freed slaves. As late as 1950, blacks still owned 12.5 million acres. But land speculators. among others, are threatening to destroy this primary resource. Isolated rural areas have become bonanzas for sunbelt developers of industry and resorts. Investors are gobbling up the rural fringes of towns and cities, many located in farming areas. "It's hard for a lot of people to belive what is by Frank Adams, and Don Saunders Excerpted from N.C. Insight. Spring, 1980 (Published by North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research) going on," declared Cranston S. Costen, a farmer in Gates County. North Carolina, discussng the agricultural and financial systems on which he depends. "The system is set up to take "clr land." The evidence he offers suggests such a conclusion. Farmers like Costen can't buy more land. and renting is nearly impossible. Because their equipment is old, it's costly to maintain and suffers frequent "down" time. By their own admission. they keep poor records. a critical area for modern farming. Despite partitlon sales and tax foreclosures. small farmers are still working the family tract. But having the acreage to plant is only the first step. They must also find the capital to finance each year's crop. Remaining dependent year after year on lending institutions can be as difficult as holding onto land. Knowing the value of land, conventional leaders-banks. finance companies, pre-fab housing developers and others-will often demand mortgages on quantities of land far exceeding the value of the money borrowed. Large amounts of land can be lost through a foreclosure sale. even on a small loan for routine agricultural expenses or home repairs. In many cases, small farmers have either learned to avoid conventional lenders or have been forced to depend on government loans. The primary federal agency on which small farmers depend is the Farmers Home Administration. Deal-era Farm Security Administration, which was designed to assist rural Americans survive the Depression, into the Farmers Home Administration. Today the FmHA is still the most likely source of financing for small farmers. It is authorized by Congress to loan money for construction and improvement of In 1946, Congress transformed the New housing in rural areas and for conventional farm-related expenses. But the FmHA has moved away from the New Deal vision of helping the small farmer. Instead of being a resource for people with limited capital who can't get conventional financing, the agency has become a resource for higher-income people who could probably obtain money on the conventional market, as it functioned prior to recent interest rate jumps. The excalating interest rates of 1980 have exacerbated this problem, limiting the numbers of people of any income who can get loans. For those who do qualify for FmHA assistance. many programs seem inaccessible or unavailable. FmHA regulations currently require that money for new construction or for purchase or rehabilitation of existing housing be loaned only to owners of unemcumbered property. In the case of heirs' property, the land is typically lived on and worked by only a few of the heirs having interest. These people pay all the taxes, insurance, and maintenance costs but can not obtain financing from FmHA for improvements because they do not have a clear title. Their huge tracts of valuable land can not be used for collateral. Shifting patterns of land ownership threaten the lifeline of black and white small farmers. Independence and human dignity, values traditionally nurtured by a closeness with one's land, are being undermined. Several organizations-the National Association of Landowners, the Emergency Land Fund, the Rural Advancement Fund, the Southern Cooperative Development Fund, and the Federation of Southern Co-ops-are working to reverse the land-loss patterns in the South and to provide support systems to small farmers. scattered nonfarm development that might interfere with modern farming techniques, and the desires of older farmers who were more cognizant of the retirement insurance that the sale of lots for residential purposes could provide. Allowing the sale of six lots for residential purposes protects the retiring farmer’s investment while the additional restrictions set on the amount and type of land alloted to each dwelling address the younger farmer’s concern that large blocks of land be protected for efficient operation of modern machinery. The flexibility provided by the relaxation of lot size restriction ensures that no land will be restricted unless the Farmland York Co., Pa, restriction serves the purpose of preserving land for cultivation. Peachbottom Township’s ordinance is similar to that of North Hopewell. but differs in its use of a “sliding scale” for determining permitted residential density, and in its stricter regulations governing the siting of a dwelling. The sliding scale allots one dwelling for a tract of zero to seven acres, two dwellings for a tract ranging from 7-30 acres, mningtn by Carla PehowBki, NACoR Intern A plan to preserve farmland can be simple, yet effective, as satisfied officials in York County, Pennsylvania, will testify. When this predominantly rural county experienced a spurt of suburban growth in the early 1970’s. several of its municipalities turned to the York County Planning Commission for assistance. Although each township and borough was authorized to control its own land development, municipal officials needed help in formulating specific goals and ordinances for controlling the suburban development that threatened to engulf an established and treasured way of rural life. The commission, after investigating a variety of techniques for preserving farmland including purchase and transfer of development rights, recommended that municipalities simply concentrate their efforts on zoning to limit the number of new single-family dwellings and the amount and type of land alloted to each dwelling. richest farming areas in the county, was the first to implement these recommendations in June of 1974. In the township’s “rural agricultural” zone, comprising approximately 85 percent of the township’s land area, the zoning distance limits the number of new single-family homes to six dwellings per existing tract. The size of the tract is irrelevant in determining the number of permitted dwellings. The ordinance further establishes a maximum lot size of one and one-half acres to minimize the amount of land taken out of production. However. physical characteristics such as underlying rock structure, the shape of existing lot boundaries wet soils or steep slopes sometimes make construction of a home impossibile on a lot as small as one and one-half acres. In such a case, or where the land is defined as “low quality,” the ordinance makes an exception. Land that has been classified by the York County Soil Survey as land of low productivity (Classes 111-VII) is considered “low quality.” The purpose of the relaxation of the lot size restrictions for construction on low quality land is to avoid imposing a constraint that would leave land unusable by either the farmer or by a homebuilder. North Hopewell’s ordinance represents and compromise between the desires of younger farmers. who wanted to eliminated all 6 North Hopewell Township, one of the and one-additional dwelling for each 50 acre increment above 30 acres. Because this approach tailors the number of permitted dwellings, and thus the number of lots a farmer may sell, to the size of the tract, rather than allowing the same number of dwellings regardless of the size of the tract, each farmer may profit according to the extent of his landholdings. Peachbottom subdivision regulations further impose a maximum lot size of one acre and specify that homes may be built only on soil of low productivity (Classes 111-VII). Where location on low quality soil is not possible, a home may be located on soil of a higher quality, but is subject to the requirements that it be located on the least productive land on the tract and that it present minimal interference with agricultural production. In contrast, North Hopewell permits construction on any class of soil. A relaxation of the maximum lot restriction similar to that of North Hopewell is provided in cases where physical characteristics make home construction impossible on a one acre lot. A final distinction worthy of note between the Peachbottom and North Hopewell ordinances is that, whereas Peachbottom has classified dwellings in its agricultural zone as a conditional use and reserves the right to refuse permission for the use. approval of home construction on Norrh Hopewell is automatic if it qualifies under the ordinance. The North Hopewell and Peachbottom ordinances are typical of the ordinances adopted by eleven other York County municipalities upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Although no hard data are available on the success of the techniques, local officials are convinced that the techniques have been responsible for slowing the rate of farmland conversion in their communities. The effectiveness of York County’s program for farmland preservation appears to lie in its simplicity. This simplicity is derived in great part from the objective criteria for decision making-soil and topographical characteristics-that are incorporated into the zoning ordinances. The objective criteria contribute to ease of administration and even-handedness in dealing with landowners. The program is legally sound because the application of objective criteria greatly reduces the possibility that decisions may be declared arbitrary and, thus, invalid by a court. Further, the ordinance is no more nor less restrictive than it must be to accomplish its goal. The restrictions are both directed and confined by their purpose of preserving agriculturally productive land. because specific guidelines for decision making are supplied. This is an important consideration because the majority of municipalities in York County do not have full-time planning staff to administer a complex program such as the transfer of development rights. A single map is used to plot and record the alloted dwellings. As the allotments are used, the map is simply revised to reflect the remaining allotments. The York County farmland preservation program apparently enjoys the support of the local farming community because of its flexibility, and of county real estate developers because it allots plenty of land in each municipality for urban useage. County officials are satisfied that the program has resulted in less land speculation and premature subdivision, but they candidly admit that, like any zoning mechanism, the farmland ordinances are subject to being changed. Director of Planning Reed J. Dunn summed up the situation in his county: “We have bought time for local agriculture. But now we need to find new ways to improve the economics of farming so as to ensure its long- term well being.” For additional information, contact: Reed J. Dunn. Director of Planning. York County. 1 18 Pleasant Acres Road. York, Pennsylvania The program is also simple to administer 17402(717] 757-2647. i Partnership Key to Conservation Continued from pae 4 your previous residents end up needing to subsidize the new costs created. If much of the historic tax base has been made up of agricultural land and improvements, farmers are catching it from two ways in this process. I am going to suggest to you today that the farmland issue is important, and is going to get more important in the years ahead. It won’t go away, it will get worse. I would also like to suggest that you may want to look at ways to get as much help and support in the community as possible before you set out to try and deal with the problem. One ally you may find very helpful is the local soil and water conservation district. Conservation districts have broadened and expanded their activities greatly in the past decade, largely as a result of cooperative work with counties and cities. In that process. the working relationships have been developed in many areas to the point that new and innovative approaches to a problem like farmland protection are eitherjust around the corner. or are already underway. In the last decade, 20 states enacted special legislation for the control of erosion and sediment. A few of these state laws address agricultural land, but most focus on construction sites and urbanizing areas. In general, these laws require counties and cities to develop control programs with guidelines. standards and criteria for the control of soil erosion and prevention of sediment release from construction sites. Most of the programs require an erosion and sediment control plan to be prepared by the developer and approved by the conservation district prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. These programs bring together the permitting and enforcement authorities of the counties with the technical expertise and on- site assistance capabilities of the conservation district. In a similar fashion, districts are cooperating with counties in storm water management programs that require zoning. subdivision, building code and other ordinances to be coordinated with a watershed storm water management plan. The benefits to counties are apparent. A study of one watershed in Montgomery County, Maryland, showed that when the county-district erosion and sediment control program was fully operational. sediment delivery from the study watershed to the Anacostia River was reduced from 60 to 80 percent. Counties and their planning agencies have also utilized the conservation districts and the technical assistance of the Soil Conservation Service to map soils, identify problem areas. and provide interpretive maps for many types of county planning. Often these types of planning led to additional cooperative activities. One of the most successful has been the Resource Conservation and Development Program of the USDA. Under this program. 190 multi-county regions have banded together to work on problems of community and resource development. Today. these areas cover over 800 million acres in 1.286 counties. County governments are, along with conservation districts. among the sponsoring agencies in most projects. CONSERVATION “Somehow, this nation must halt the unnecessary loss of millions of acres of productive land. And we must stop that loss 40 acres at a time.’’ C ounty officials have been very acti. e in the management of these projects in many areas. and have been instrumental in the success of the program. The value of the RC&D program has led to a backlog of applications to USDA for inclusion. As of this spring, there were 54 projects, involving 339 counties, awaiting USDA approval. As of this time, there is consideration in the Carter Administration for using RC&D in a more direct way to assist in implementing the Administration’s Rural and Small Community Development Policy. We think this is an excellent idea, and would hope that counties will support that effort. In addition, Sen. George McCovern and Congressman Ed Jenkins have each introduced bills in the Congress to strengthen the program and make it even more valuable as a rural development effort. We do not anticipate consideration of these bills until the next Congress. but would encourage county officials to keep track of their progress and help see them enacted in 1981. Counties are supporting the basic soil conservation programs of districts more and more each year, and this has increased the cooperative opportunities open to both organizations. In Wisconsin, Iowa and Nebraska, several counties are providing funds to support conservation cost-sharing programs. where conservation districts can then help farmers install needed conservation measures. In some cases this money is coming from local tax revenues, while in others it is part of the federal revenue sharing money received by the county. County and local funding of conservation district programs reached almost $90 million in 1979, up from less than $10 million in 1957. and over double the contribution in 1973. This indicates, better than any other thing, the fact that counties are beginning to see themselves as an active participant in the whole effort to keep America’s agricultural land strong. Both soil conservation and agricultural land retention programs are part of this effort. And, I would suggest. they probablv will be handled best if they are handled as similar problems, with similar approaches. By that, I mean that keeping farmland from being randomly and unnecessarily converted to urban uses is more than just a zoning problem. It is a problem that must involve the farmer as well as the land. The land is his retirement nest egg. as well as his source of current income. He can’t ignore the value that has built up in his land, and he has the right to expect to be able to sell it when he no longer wishes to farm. But counties and conservation districts, working together. can make an impact on this problem. Several options are open, and local innovation can create others. One idea is to have the farmer enter into a long-term agreement with the conservation district and the county. Under this agreement, the farmer would agree to keep his land in agriculture and maintain an adequate soil and water conservation system on the land for a period of years, probably in the range of 10-25. The conservation district would help design a suitable soil and water conservation system for the land. and would check the land each year to ascertain that the agreement was being maintained, or update it as needed. The county, in turn, could provide financial inducements such as reduced property taxes to the farmer for the life of the agreement. Payback and penalty provisions would protect the public investment, and help prevent abuse of the program. 0 ther kinds of programs being discussed would involve the county and the conservation district, or a private land trust, in the business of acquiring and holding the “development rights” or, to use a more common term, “conservation easements” on farmland. In this scheme, patterned after successful programs in Canada and France. the local units would set up a Farmland Preservation Board that would be able to purchase and re-sell farms when farmers wished to sell, but lacked a farm buyer. The local Board would have the right to meet any valid price offer received by the farmer, buy the farm, hold a conservation easement, and re-sell the farm at the lower price that would result from the loss of development value. A program such as this has been designed in Lancaster County. Pennsylvania, so there should be some experience with the idea over the next few years. The combination of land loss and demand increase is moving inexorably toward the day when America’s productive capacity will be exceeded, and policymakers at the national level will fall all over one another rushing to save whatever is left of the greatest body of prime farmland on the face of the earth. Until that time, however, there is much that can and should be done. The task is much easier now, and much more open to local innovation and testing. Farmland protection is a job that must be done on the land, with local people. Counties and conservation districts are the natural team to see that is done. NatfOMI Association of Conaeruation Districts. E& The writer & the Executbe Vice Pr&nt of the te*t~arpeechdeliveredattheNationalAssociationof Counties ISBOAnnual Conference in Lor Vegas, Nevada. 7 Publications Update Farmland. Food and the Future, 1979, Schnepf. M.. ed.,Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa. A collection of technical papers and essays on a broad range of topics related to farmland retention by a group of recognized experts. (2 14 pages) CreatiueLand Development: Bridge to the Future, 1979, Lemire. R.. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. Robert Lemire, planner and investment counsellor, outlines a practical approach to open space preservation that entails financing its purchase by developing part of the tract of land to be protected. He draws on his actual experience in Lincoln, Massachusetts, an urban fringe suburb of Boston. Although there is some doubt that his approach to land preservation can be applied in areas where intensive agriculture is practiced-because of the potential conflicts posed by adjacent residential development and farm operations-Mr. Lemire's book is purposeful and essential reading for anyone interested in novel solutions to the problem of disappearing farmlands and open space. (170 pages) Midwestern Vernacular, 1980, Herbert, J. and E. Allen. Kane County Urban Development Department. Geneva, Illinois. This delightful sampler of rural architecture underscores the notion that historic preservation goes hand in hand with farmland retention. It is profusely illustrated with photographs and superb pen-and-ink drawings by Ivan Alten. the county planning director. (160 pages) To obtain a copy write the Kane County Development Department, 7 19 Batavia Avenue. Geneva, Illinois 60134. Contributors and Correspondents Needed In an effort to speed up the collection of information and the publication of news items, features, editorials. reviews and other articles in Aglands Exchange. the Agricultural Lands Project is looking for contributors and volunteer correspondents. If you have something to contribute. or wish to join our staff of volunteer correspondents. Kindly send your article, or simply a letter indicating your intentions to us c/o NACoRF 1735 New York Avenue N.W. Washington. D.C. 20006. National Association 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 REPORT ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS n I I -1 Exchange Agricultural Lands Project April-May 1980 Vol 1. No. 4 National Association of Counties Research Foundation. 1735 New York Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 CHESTER COUNTY, PA. Agricultural Development Council Shapes Up For many years. local industrial development councils-associations of businessmen and public officials that promote industrial enterprise-have played a central role in the growth and development of communities across the nation. They have ; promoted new business, watched out for commercial interests and enjoyed great success in doing so. Sometimes. they have been so successful that new businesses. and the houses and apartments built to accommodate their growing numbers of employees. have begun to crowd out what was the native industry of the community: agriculture. Faced with such formidable competition, agricultural enterprise has generally been at a disadvantage. Quite simply, there has not existed a counterbalancing force capable of watching out for the interests of the farmer, his suppliers and customers. But this scenario is about to change in Chester County, Pennsylvania. There, where the rich croplands and pastures have been painted by Andrew Wyeth and fought over in the revolutionary war Battle of Brandywine. the county commissioners have approved in principle the formation of an agricultural development council. It is an idea whose time has come and could turn out to be an important milestone in the progress toward protecting farmland and the economic activity that depends on it. Agriculture in Chester County, situated between the Pennsylvania Dutch country and the Philadelphia suburbs, is a $100 million yearly enterprise. A wide variety of crops are grown there, ranging from corn and other major grains to tobacco and mushrooms. Not only is the produce diversified, but so is farm ownership, with the average size of a farm being 125 acres. Forty-six percent of the land in Chester County is used for agriculture. notwithstanding rapid urban expansion over the past few decades. The business of agriculture is definitely worth protecting and promoting. Like other counties. Chester welcomes new commercial development and has an industrial development authority that provides low-interest loans, helps find suitable sites for business and otherwise assists nonagricultural industry. And the county also has a comprehensive plan and zoning to guide new development into appropriate areas. But recently county officials have begun to recognize lhat planning and zoning, while certainly worthwhile, are defensive measures that do not address the question of strengthening the agricultural economy, thus enabling it better to compete with other industry for good land. They wanted to supplement such controls with a more aggressive, positive approach to the protection of agriculture. Thus was born the idea of an agricultural development council to parallel the county‘s industrial authority. As conceived by its official sponsors, the Chester County Agricultural Development Council will be comprised of community leaders in the fields of agriculture. agribusiness, banking. real estate and law. It will be an official institution with a full-time staff. Its functions will be, purely and simply. to promote agriculture as an enterprise and to help solve the problems that confront agribusinessmen. Specifically, the council will oversee and manage a number of helpful programs: Purchase interests in land under the Pennsylvania open space program, soliciting the funds necessary for this approach to protecting the agricultural land base: in the major urban centers of the county. Organize and promote farmers’ markets providing additional retail outlets for locally grown produce: Provide low-interest loans to farmers by leveraging public funds against privately borrowed money in much the same way as the county’s industrial development authority now does for nonagricultural business: Establish a farm apprenticeship program to encourage young people to go into agriculture as a career. and serve as a broker of farmland to match prospective farmers with property on the market: Conduct an educational program in cooperation with the USDA extension service to inform the public about the importance of agriculture in the county. Chester County has applied to the Farmers Home Administration of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for a rural development See AGRICULTURAL, PAGE 2 Nearly one-fifth of all the fresh market vegetables produced in this country are grown in Florida. During the peak of the mid- winter harvest season. the Sunshine State is the only source of fresh produce in the continental United States. Dade County alone accounts for over $185 million in annual sales of tomatoes, beans. squash, sweet corn and other vegetables. Not to mention $24 million in yearly production of subtropical fruits and $8 million worth of seed corn that serves as a backup supply when crop failure up north results in a shortfall of this vital commodity. But agriculture in Dade County, where luxury hotels have replaced the citrus groves on Miami Beach and sprawling suburbs now abut the open fields, is in trouble. According to the Dade County Agricultural Coalition. an organization of farmers and agribusinessmen. the county has lost over one-third-53.000 acres-of its farmland within the last 15 years of phenomenal urban growth. Much of the remaining land, which sells for $15,000 an acre, is owned by absentee landlords who. the farmers fear. are simply holding the land until it is ripe for development. There is a substantial danger that the vegetable producing land in south Florida may disappear entirely in a decade or two. Homestead, Florida, and an active member of the Dade farm coalition, expresses the frustration of local farmers when he says. “We were here first!” Campbell notes that spreading suburbanization not only directly takes land, but also interferes with crop spraying-which is a must in the moist subtropical climate-and has resulted in an increased incidence of farm equipment vandalism and crop pilferage. And his bitterness is undisguised when he relates how the importation of Mexican vegetables threatens his sector of American agriculture and makes the nation more dependent on foreign produce “just as it has become with oil.” agriculturalists are nonetheless encouraged by the action that the county has taken in adopting a land use master plan which makes See SAVING, page 2 Jack Campbell. a tomato packer from Campbell and his fellow Dade Agriculturak Council Forming Continued from page 1 planning grant that will provide funds for a staff for the council. The county commissioners are expected formally to establish the council in the near future. Assuming that things go according to plan, the future of agriculture in the county should be looking better and better. And an agricultural future is something Saving the Winter Vegetabte Supply Continued from page 1 it more difficult to rezone property from agricultural to residential use. By participating in zoning hearings. the agricultural coalition-together with groups of urban dwellers who do not want to see “U- Pick’ vegetables and fruits disappear-has made significant progress in preventing scattershot development of small parcels of land in the midst of farmland. Now. says Campbell. only the large developments pose a significant threat. To protect agriculture from the rising tide of suburbanization. Campbell would like to see the county declare an agricultural district wherein farming is the preferred use of land. Dade County Commissioner Harvey Ruvin is one local official who apparently agrees that more must $e done to preserve local farming. “Land is a fhite commodity.” he says, “and food is a staple. like housing.” To achieve a balance between the two, Kuvin is “very much in favor of drawing the line on urban sprawl.” Adds Jack Campbell. ”Unless the situation changes in south Florida. you may someday go into a restaurant and order a S 10 steak and pay S 15 for your salad.” that Chester County officials look forward to with great expectations. According to Earl M. Baker. chairman of the county commissioners, “We want to be in a position to produce food because it will become increasingly important. not only from a local standpoint, but also from the standpoint of the national security.” Baker is convinced that, as U.S. agricultural products become even more crucial to the nation’s balance of trade and an instrument of international goodwill in the 21st century, Chester County-and communities like it all over America-will play as vital a role in preserving the preeminent status of the United States as this community did during the 18th century when the Republic was born. thus assured unless it can find a way to halt the conversion of 3.000 acres of its farmland every year to nonagricultural uses. The combination of appropriate growth management policies and an official body that aggressively promotes agriculture as an enterprise. helping it to compete with other businesses for land and capital. promises to improve the chances that the county will succeed in its ambitions. For additional information about the Chester County Agricultural Development Council, contact: George W. Fasic. Director, Chester County Planning Commission. 518 North Wing Court House, West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380.2151431-6285. But the future of Chester County will not be “In simplest terms. agriculture is an effort by man to moue beyond the limits set by nature. *’ “Lester R. Brown and Gail W. Finsterbusch Publications Update “The direction of agriculture seems reasonably predictable: The agricultural influence on rural communities will decrease further and rural America will become more and more like urban America. ... DO we as a society want this outcome?” Structure Issues ofAmerican Agriculture. US. Department of Agriculture. Economics. Statistics and Cooperative Service. Agricultural Economic Report No. 438 (November 1979) 305 pages. The Only Essential Industry. a full-color motion picture produced by KWSU-TV. written by Fritz Steiner and William R. Wagner, documents the efforts of the people of Whitman County. Washington, to protect their farmland. Other community farmland programs are featured. 16 mm (40 minutes). Order by phone or mail from: Marketing Division, Instructional Media Services, Washington State University. Pullman, Washington 99164, 5091335-7301, Purchase $375: rental $37.50. “The expansion of agriculture too far beyond natural constraints becomes self- defeating. resulting in soil erosion. soil deterioration. and, of course, decreased yields. Yet the world’s population of four billion is expected to reach more than six billion by the year 2000, and this could well represents a staggering strain on the earth’s ecosystem and the food it can supply. Furthermore, even a doubling of food production in the next three decades would only maintain the world’s population at present dietary levels.” “Environmental Awakening. by Rice Ode11 (1980). The Conservation Foundation. 1717 Massachusetts Avenue N.W.. Washington. D.C. 20036. POINT OF VIEW Farmland Loss: A Problem for the Farmer? by Bruce Hawley American Farm Bureau Federation It seems that everyone has suddenly become concerned about the loss of farmland. Right behind identification of the “problem” ~ comes a flurry of proposed solutions. The question remains-are farmland losses a problem for the farmer? The short answer to the question is “no.” For farmers who choose to stay on the land. national farmland losses pose no problem. The exception involves areas where the number of remaining farms is too small to maintain the needed support services. including farm supply. machinery and marketing systems. out of farming. the location of existing problems moves. The sometimes difficult interface between farming activities and the nonfarm public is shifted to a new farmer. But that interface has existed and always will. It’s not a new problem that has resulted from the loss of farmland. There are many reasons why a farmer may sell his land. but there are only two reasons for a farmer to sell his land out of Of course. when individual farms are sold farming-because he wants to or because he has to. “Has to” inrludes eminent domain actions and unrealistic regulations that functionally preclude farming. Only governments can require farmland conversion to nonfarm uses. Most farmland protection programs are aimed at discouraging or preventing the voluntary sale of farmland for nonfarm uses. These programs use a variety of financial incentives ranging from property tax shields to payments for long-term commitments. Each state and county Farm Bureau establishes its own policy on state and local farmland protection programs-and, in most cases. haye been supportive of programs that protect the property rights of landowners. owners and their neighbors, land use planning can be an effective tool for directing orderly growth and encouraging farmland preservation. Equally important to the definition of what land use plans should be is an understanding of what they should not be. They should not be mechanisms to confiscate property rights. prevent growth. enhance If supported by the affected property public control of access to farmland or to regulate an individual’s disposition of private property. Bear in mind also, that state or local plans cannot protect farms from government actions that mandate farmland conversion to nonfarm uses. purposes of housing for the rural poor, sewage treatment facilities, highway expansion. wildlife habitat. endangered species protection or other social purposes is by far the most serious threat to farmland. When the government moves in. local planning efforts and private property rights are ignored. In the past 10 years, the area of land in farming has doubled. None of us is wise enough to decide today how much farmland is appropriate for tomorrow. Recent loss of farmland from voluntary sale by farmers does not threaten the farmers who choose to continue farming. Those sales do not jeopardize the production of food and fiber. In short, they don’t threaten anyone. Government-forced loss of farmland for Aglands Exchange invites editorials and replies from responsible officials, organizations and citizens. Preserving Maryland Farmland In many ways the State of Maryland is a microcosm of the United States as a whole. It borders the ocean. has a great inland waterway and mountains. and most of its citizens live in urban areas. Much of the Free State is devoted to agriculture: truck vegetables on the Eastern Shore, tobacco along the southern Chesapeake, feed grains and dairy products throughout the Piedmont and some fruit up in the northern tier of counties. Maryland is like the United States in another way. too-its agriculture is threatened by the relentless loss of farmland. During the last couple of decades, nearly 40 percent of the state’s farmland, a total of 1 .ti million acres. has disappeared beneath urban development. What the future holds for agriculture in Maryland will depend upon the effectiveness of state and county efforts to stem the conversion of farmland. Concern over the loss of farmland in this country originated in Maryland in 1956. when the state became the first in the nation to enact a farmland preservation law. The statute attempted to keep farmland in production by taxing it on the basis of its value if developed. Like other state statutes agricultural value, rather than its potential that have since been modeled after it. the Maryland law has not worked very well, as Editorial Maryland County Farmland Programs Frederick Baltimore I Harford Agricullural Zoning Transler of Development Rights Source: Maryland Agricullural Land Preservation, Foundation, 1979 Annual Report. farmland statistics demonstrate. Over two decades later, Maryland decided to take another approach. In 1979, the state Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (ALPF), a public agency created by a new statute. began to gear up to purchase development rights to farmland. Farmers who own 100 or more contiguous acres, outside their county’s 10-year water and sewer service area. may form agricultural districts for their own protection and then offer to sell the state 25-year easements restricting development of their land. County Agricultural Preservation Advisory Boards establish local priorities for state acquisition of easements and recommend to county government the formation of districts. During the first six months of the new ‘53’ May Make the Difference As if you hadn’t noticed. it’s time again for the American democratic process to do its thing. In an election year, the issues are sharpened for voters and office-seekers alike. as we decide the future course of the Republic and its political subdivisions. What better time to raise the issue of farmland preservation? The Agricultural Lands Project is. of course. a nonpartisan effort that holds no brief for any candidate for public office. But we cannot resist offering an observation for the benefit of all those who are seeking election or reelection this year. The observation is simply, the number ‘53.’ A recent Harris poll, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. found that 53 percent of the American people regard the disappearance of farmland as a “very serious” problem. That may not quite compare with the 80 percent who told the pollsters that the cost of energy was serious, but it does say something about the awareness of the voters when it comes to the loss of farmland in this country. Frankly. 53 percent seems a bit high, you say. With news of grain surpluses and an undiminished supply of produce at the supermarkets, it’s hard to believe that better than a majority of Americans really think farmland is in trouble. People just don’t pay that much attention to statistics. like those that show we’re losing 12 square miles of farmland a day. If that’s what you think. you may be selling your constituents short. As they drive to the supermarket they pass the deserted farms along the road, with their for sale signs and billboards announcing new subdivisions. They remember the farmers’market. where the produce was always fresh, that used to stand where there are now fast food emporiums. And they sense that something is amiss. There are more and more people moving in, and more and more places where they can buy food. but there is always less and less farmland on which to grow it. Never mind that taxes went up when water and sewer lines had to be extended to the new development outside of town. It’s just that. if this kind of thing is happening in communities all over the country-and it is- then where is the food going to come from? So. when they’re asked whether the loss of farmland is a problem. they don’t have to consult statistics. Common sense tells a majority of Americans that the answer is “yes.“ It may be a different story in your community, of course. But that statistic ‘53’ is hard to ignore-it’s more than you need to be elected in a democracy where common sense generally prevails. program. 25 agricultural districts have been formed in five counties, and 17 offers of easements have been received by the ALPF. The offers cover about 2.800 acres. and asking prices per acre range from $400 to $5.200. Although the purchase program has gotten off to a promising start. the ever- present question of the adequacy of state funding looms large. According to Samuel C. Linton Jr.. chairman of the ALPF Board of Trustees. the program cannot be effectively implemented without some $10 to $15 million in annual appropriations. The soundness of Maryland’s financial condition under Governor Harry Hughes offers hope that the state can afford to invest in the future of its agriculture. Another hopeful sign for agriculture in the “Land of Pleasant Living,” as the state is also known. is the breadth and diversity of farmland preservation efforts at the county level. Six Maryland counties have adopted some form of agricultural zoning. two arc experimenting with the transfer of development rights and one, Howard County. even has a local development rights purchase program to supplement that of the state. Communication among concerned county officials seems to be excellent. because they all realize that the preservation of land in one country may increase development pressure in neighboring counties. The executive director of the state ALPF. Alan R. Musselman. has also played a key role in stimulating cooperation among the counties. While it is still too early to tell whether the State of Maryland and its counties will ultimately succeed in preserving their agriculture, the degree of imagination and initiative shown by its officials offers a lesson to those who see farmland disappearing in their own backyards: Recognize the seriousness of the problem, bring the issue to public attention and try everything in your power to do something about it. The stakes are high. As Grove Miller, president of the Maryland Farm Bureau, puts it. *‘ More than any other basic industry, agriculture depends on land. If our best agricultural land is used unwiselv. everv farmer and every consumer will be iffected.** For additional information about farmland preservation in Maryland and its counties. write: Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation. Parole Plaza Office Building. Annapolis. Maryland 21401. 3 h h VOLUNTEERS NEEDE~. Coming Events Speakers Bureau Developed * June 13-14. Washington. D.C. -Conference on “Rural Preservation: Protecting our Farms and Villages.” The NACoRF Agricultural Lands Project is pleased to announce the establishment of a speakers referral bureau. We have compiled a list of agricultural experts, officials and leaders-numbering only a couple of dozen at present-who have agreed to accept requests for public speaking engagements. Their expertise ranges arross the board. from the dimensions of the agricultural land problem to ways in whish the conversion of farmland can be halted. They can help you educate vour constituents, your organization and ;our colleagues about the need for action to halt the loss of farmland. In many rases. they can provide valuable “how to” information for community action. If you need an accomplished speaker to address your county council. citizens group or agricultural organizations about the farmland issue, call or write Edward Thompson Jr., c/o the Agricultural Lands Project, NACoRF. 1735 New York Avenue N.W.. Washington. D.C. 20006.2021783- 51 13. If you would like to become one of our speakers and to receive referrals from the Agricultural Lands Project. send your resume or a letter outlining your professional or civic experience to us at the above address. sponsoredYjointly by the NatioGl Association of Conservation Districts and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Registration is limited to 500 participants at a fee of $55 per person. For information and registration. write NACD. 1025 Vermont Avenue N.W.. Washington, D.C. 20006. * June 28-July 3, Las Vegas, Nevada- National Association of Counties Annual Conference. featuring concurrent session on “Land Stewardship: Key to Agricultural Productivity” and an exhibit on farmland preservation. Registration: NACo Conference Registration Center. 1735 New York Avenue N.W.. Washington. D.C. 20006. 704147 1-6 180. Directory of National Orraieatioas Active in Farmland Preservation Agricultural Lands Project National Association of Counties Research Foundation 1735 New York Avenue N.W. Washington. D.C. 20006 Contact: Edward Thompson Jr.. 2021783-5 1 13 Project Director American Land Forum 1025 Vermont Avenue N.W. Washington. D.C. 20005 Contact: Chuck Little. President Conference on Alternative State and Local Public Policies 2600 Florida Avenue N.W. Washington. D.C. 20009 Contact: Cynthia Guyer Conservation Foundation 1717 MassachusettsAvenueN.W. Washington. D.C. 20036 Contact: Robert Healy, Senior Associate 2021347-4516 2021387-6030 2021797-4300 National Association of Counties Research Foundation 1735 New York Avenue. N.W. Washington. D.C. 20006 Leagueofwomenvoters of the United States 1730MStreet N.W. Washington. D.C. 200035 Contact: Lloyd Leonard 2021296-1770 National Association of Conservation 1025 Vermont Avenue, N.W.. Suite 1105 Washington. D.C. 20005 Contact: Neil Sampson, Executive Vice- Districts 2021347-5995 President National Association of State 1616 H Street N.W.. Suite 710 Washington, D.C. 20006 Contact: J.B. Grant, Executivesecretary National Conference of State 444 North Capitol Street N.W. Washington. D.C. ZOO01 Contact: Robert Davies. StaffDirector for Departments of Agriculture Legislatures 2021624-5392 Rural Developmenl National Family Farm Coalition 918FStreet N.W. Washington. D.C. 20004 Contact: Catherine Lerza National Farmers Union 1012 14thStreet N.W. Washington. D.C. 20005 Contact: Woodrow Wilson The National Grange 1616HStreet N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Contact: David Lambert, Director of 2021638-4254 2021628-9774 Regulatory Affairs Natural Resources Defense Council 1725 Eye Street N.W.. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 Contact: Tom Barlow, Senior Staff Rural America 1346Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Contact: Peggy Borgers 2021223-82 10 2021659-2800 NONPROFIT U.S. POSTAGE PAID Washington, D.C. 20006 Permit No. 41968 8 END OF REPORT ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS L c - -2 .I 4- Exchange AjpictrltrualLaadsPrqject FebruarylMarch 1980 Vol. 1 No. 3 National Auociation of Counties Re8euch Found8tion. 1735 New York Ave. N.W. Washington. D.C. 20006 Farmland Bill Plowed under in House By a vote of 2 10 to 177. the House of Representativeson February 7 defeated the Agricultural Land Protection Act. H.R. 255 1. sponsored by Rep. James M. Jeffords (R-Vt.). thus eliminating the possibility oithe adoption oia national farmland policy this year. This 'marks the second unsuccessful attempt by congressional proponents of farmland preservation to pass such a measure since 1977. A similar bill failed to get the approval of the House Agriculture Committee during the 95th Congress. The political maneuvering that had characterized the progress0iH.R. 2551 through the Agriculture Committee this session continued as the bill moved to the House floor for a final vote. Opponents of the legislation. clarming that it was premature or that It represented the first step toward federal land use planning. first attacked the rule that enabled the bill to be considered by the full House and succeeded in turning what is usually a routine parliamentary vote into a preliminary test of the substance of the measure. The 301 to 94 vote in favor of the rule was closer than had been expected. During lloor debate. the House passed by voice vote an amendment oifered bv Rep. Leon E. Panetta ID-Calif.). restorrng a provrsron calling ior consistency of federal agency actions with state and local farmland policies. that had earlier been stricken by the Agriculture Committee. This provision was demanded bv some House members such as Rep. Charles E. Grassley (R-lowal as necessary to hold the federal'government accountable for itsmany programs that contnbure to farmland losses. But the Panetta amendmentawas apparently too strong to satisfy some congressmen whose concern was that the measure could disrupt the construction of federal projects. while not strong enough to ensure the support oi members who believed that the federal government is the primary cause of farmland conversion. A key feature of the billwas eliminated when the House agreed 227-163 to delete S60 million in federal matching grants to states and local governments Tor the purpose of demonstrating new. more effective merhods of farmland protection. The motron to strike the funds was also offered by Rep. Grassley. who claimed that it was premature to authonte federal assistance while the National Agricultural Landsstudy. an Administration effort IO evaluate state and local farmland programs. was still pending. Proponents oi the bill such as Rep. Thomas S. Foley ID-Wash.). Agriculture Committee chairman. argued that this move was an example of false economy in light of the seriousness of the problem. With the addition of the controversial federal consistency provwon and the deletion of demonstration grants. H.R. 255 1 apparently lost manv original supporters. including a number of co-sponsors oi the bill. Continued on page 4 Famers Home Administration Shows Way Federal agencies often contribute to farmland loss by unwittingly encouraging or sanctioning inappropriate rural development. Now. one agency of the federal govenment. the USDA Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). is taking steps to remedy this problem. Farmers Home Administration makes grants and loans in rural areas for housing. water and Sewer projects. community facilities and businesses. The agency has been criticized as one of the leading perpetrators of farmland conversion within Exchange. October 1979.1 But FmHA has the iederal establishment. [See .Wands recognized the role that its largesse plavs in stimulating unnecessary development of farmland andseems to be altering its course. Illinois oifices of FmHA. which have adopted Leading the way are the Michigan and straightforward. conscientious farmland protection policres. implementing a memorandum of the Secretary of Agriculture on farmland retention. The Illinois policy is illustratrve: "FmHA 1~111 make no loans. guarantees or grants which would result in other productive agricultural lands." the unnecessary loss of prime farmlands and The emphasis of these new FmHA policies is on the consistency of federally supported rural development with local growth management plans. Their intent is to reinforce the desires of counties for well. planned development that is contiguous to existing settlement. compact and serviceable at reasonable cost to the taxpayer. Thus. the farmland protection policies include procedures designed to carry out the FmHA consultation with local government and the evaluation of alternatives. including the appropriateness of the scale and location of proposed development assisted by the agency. Of course. the Mlchigan and Illinois FmHA policies tend 10 shift the burden of decision- making onto local government. in the sense that now the buck clearly stops with county officials when it comes time to protect farmland. But if the federal agency policies put additional pressure on county officials In some cases. they also provide impetus to the creation of more effective local programs for farmland retention. And Chat is precisely what the new policies are about- encouraging local government to take the matter of protecting farmland into its own hands. encouragement about the FmHA policies deserves mention. Right now. they are limited to Michigan and Illinois. the only states in which agency officials have taken the USDA Secretary's memorandum and actively translated it into affirmatlve measures to protect farmland. The creativity and foresight of Michigan and Illinois FmHA officials should be an example for the entire agency. If each state office oiFmHA-not to mention the USDA as a whole. and other federal agencles such as the Economic Development Administration and HUD- were to adopr similar mechanisms. tailored to local conditions and in cooperation with county olficlals. the cause offarmland presenatlon would advance dramatically. A note of caution and further 1 h 4 -.. NACoRF Farmland Committee Holds Second Meeting The Advisory Commitee ol the NACoRF Agricultural Lands Project held its second meetlng on February 1-2 at "Belmont." a Howard County. Maryland. The committee SmithsonIan Institution conlerence center in was invited to meet In Howard County. one ol the natlon's pioneers In larmland preservatlon. by County Executive J. Hugh Nichols who. along wlth the Howard County Councll and Maryland State Sen. James Clark ID-Howard). attended a welcoming reception that featured a presentation on the successful Wisconsin state farmland program by Pamela C. Wiley. assistant director of that program. and Sen. Michele Radosevlch. the author of Wisconsin's landmark farmland legislation. (See Aglands Exchange. December 1979) The committee heard a report on the' progress 01 the Agricultural Lands Project by project director Edward Thompson Jr.. a staff member of the National Associatlon 01 discussed ways in which the project could Countles Research Foundation. and expand its outreach to involve more farmers and agricultural businessmen in the process , of crafting successful farmland protection programs. A luncheon address by Norman A. Berg. administrator ol the US. Soil Conservation Service. put the current farmland protection effort in perspective by noting striking similarities wlth the concerns expressed by agricultural officials a generation ago. on "Innovatwe Approaches to Farmland Preservation." an effort by the committee and invited experts to identify promlsing new state and local strategies for protecting agricultural land. Several recent reports have concluded that exlsting farmland protectlon methods-such as zoning. agricultural districtfng. preferentlal tax assessment. and the transfer and purchase of development rights-have been less than effective. except in a few notable cases. The bralnstorming session by the committee wasan inltial attempt by the .-\gncultural Lands Project to false new policv ideas and stimulate furrher investigation into more effective approaches. The project will issue a report on innovative approaches later this year. The conclave was highlighted bv a session During the course oi the get-together. Norman Berg, SCS admini8trator: Gerald Fisher, supervisor. Albemarle County. Va.: and Bill Thomas, planning director, Syracuse-Onondaga County. N.Y.. discuss farmland retention. 2 Robert Hedy. Canserration Foundation economist: Don Reeves. Nebraska farmer who works €or the Friends Committee on National Legislation: John Talmage. farmer. Suf- folk County. N.Y.. and Dave Lambert. National Grange, listen to discussion. interviews with committee members and broadcast tapes wlll be featured as part ofa guests were taped lor the purpose of publicity campalgn bv the Agricultural Lands producing radio spots and talk programs on Project. designed to educate the public more farmland preservation. Th&e public service broadly about the issue. SlrteFannZandLossesRanked farmland taking place? The Agricultural Where is the most serious decline of Lands Project wanted to know the answer to this question. So we used USDA Crop Reporting Board statistics for the period of 1975 through 1979 to come up with an approximate ranking of states according to the seriousness of farmland loss. Our analysis reprtsents a preliminary attempt to put the disappearance of farmland in a nationwide perspective. Here's the story on the "top ten" states: only 400.000 acres during the period studied placed it near the very bottom of the total acreage ranking. experienced an 8.2 percent decline in its farmland. the highest proportion in the nation. ranking it sixteenth overall. This dimension of the problem would have been ignored had we relied exclusively on .total acreage lost to rank the states. The relative welght given the percentage decline ranking was. admittedly. not entirely scientific. But. inasmuch as our ultimate For example, Connecticut. where the loss of Rank State Percent Decline in Farmland Acres Lost 1 2 3 5 5 6 4 - a 9 10 Callforma Mlchtgan Mlsslsslppl Pennsytvama New YOrk Texas Virglnla Colorado Alabama Wlsconsln South Carolma -5 9 -7 9 -6.5 2.000.000 900.000 1 000.000 700.000 700.000 ' 300.000 6oo.coo 900.000 500 000 dOO.OOO 300.000 Our method of analysis was. first. to rank the states according to both percentage decline and total acres lost. based on the USDA statistics. Thus. California. for example. ranked seventh in percentage decline and first in total acres lost. while Mississippi ranked sixth in percentage decline and third in total acres lost. and so forth. States with equal percentage decline or equal acreage lost were glven the same rankings. We next divided by three the percentage decline rank of each state. thus recognlzing that the proportion of farmland lost in a state was Important. but not as Important as the total acreage lost. The percentage decline ranking wasconsidered in the first place because even a small loss of farmland could present serious problems in the smaller states. ranking does not purport to be the "final analysis." it will suffice. Finally. we added together che welghted percentage decline ranking and the total acreage lost ranking for each state. The state wlth the lowest sum was then ranked first overall. and so forth. that it glves us an idea of where various Cacton. not identified bv the data base. contrtbute to the most rapld decline oi farmland. It may thus provtde an additional clue as to whlch laccors-resldenrtal development. federal projects. ConversLon to forestland. climatlc changes and the agricultural land base. What the ranking does like-pose che most serlous threat to our not show is the seriousness of farmland loss at the local community level. where the econornlc consequences of agricultural decline are now being felt most severely. What does our ranklng prove? We believe Editorials Rural Development Dilemma The Carter administration recently announced with great fanfare its new Small Communlty and Rural Development Policy for "managing the profound demographic and economic changes that are taking place in rural America." This policy and its accompanying action agenda aggregate and coordinate many existing rural development initiatives and add a few new twists on the traditional rural development theme. What makes the policy notable is not what it contains that is new. but what it does not recognize as an old dilemma. somewhat of a contradiction in terms. Quite simply. can a community remain rural in char'acter-geographically. socially and economically-if there arc forces at work determined to develop it into a carbon copy of a city or suburb? More to the point of the future of farmland. can agriculture as an enterprise-the mainstay of rural society and its economy-survive the influx of exurban business and industry. housing for new employees. water and sewer extensions. improved transportation networks and the competition for land and offlcial support that they engender? questions are unclear. but the evldence that conventional rural development can work at cross-purposes with farmland retention IS all around us. No matter where you turn. there are rural communities in the process of being transformed into urban ones. This kind of change breeds impermanence and uncertainty for agriculture. Farm operators neglect to make improvements, they cannot expand because of the cost or unavailability of good land. their operations become economically marginal and. ultimately. they give in to urban pressure and sell to developers. thus reaping their last bittersweet cash crop. Nowhere is the domino theory so vivldly apparent as in the case of collapsing iarms. What begins as well-intentioned rural development is consummated by unintentional exurban sprawl. Rural development thus reveals itself to be not only a response to "profound demographic and economic changes." but also a cause of them. There is no question that the rural poor and elderly are In desperate need of social services chat heretofore have been made available only to their urban counterp;ins. And few people would argue with the notion of rescuing economically depressed rural communities by giving them a transfusion of capital. But The dilemma is that "rural development" is The answers to these fundamental development-for-development's-sake. which can be detected as a strong undercurrent of traditional rural development policy. is a differept matter. The tide of this kind of development can sweep away all that IS distinctly and vitally rural about a community. its way of life and-most - importantly-its way of making a living. Both the Administrati& and local officialdom must come to grlps with the real phenomenon of rural development. or face the failure of their good intentions. An expliclt program of farmland retention is a good place to start. The.Cart'er policy carefully notes chat USDA. EPA and CEQ have adopted procedures by whic? federal rural development assistance proposals will be screened, and their im.plications for the retention of farmland considered. But this positive step seems almost to be an afterthought. Local communities facad with demands for rural development should themselves take care to evaluate carefully the potential risks of growth. to manage its pace accordlngly and to guide it in directions where it will least impinge upon prime agricultural lands. They could use technical and financial assistance to undertake such foresighted planning endeavors. And they must have it &foreso much farmland is consumed by exurban uses than the agricultural segment of their economy begins to wither. accordance wtth local wishes, is only a beginning. Indeed. it may simply be an exercise in treating symptoms. not in curing the disease. Rural development policy must pay closer attention to the kind of development that it is promoting. The most important question that can be asked is whether the enterprise being encouraged is economically linked to agricultural employees alike a direct srake In the health of production. thus giving management and the local agricultural economy. opportunities will expand and the community will grow. but its citizens will remain united in a common economic venture-the feeding of America and the world-that depends upon the retention of farmland. The centrifugal forces that too often characterize localities being transformced from rural to urban. and the economic and political schizophrenia that can result. may thereby be avoided. And the chances will improve that rural development will help to strengthen the one thing that is deflnitlvely rural-agriculture itself. However. affirmatlve farmland retention. In If this kind of linkage is made, job "Bum down your cities and leave our farms ... and your cities will spring up again as if by magic: but destroy .our fanns and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country." -William Jennings Bryan "The best way to save farmland? Farm it!" "Christopher LaCroir Vermont agricultarali.st The Limits to Farmland Growth by Tom Barlor, Senior Staff, Natural Resources Defense Councfl From the days of the earliest colonies the horizon for development of new agricultural - lands has seemed limitless. First came the clearing of the forests for cropland. then the draining of millions of acres of wetlands. then the irrigating of vast stretches of arid desert. And so we have not been concerned about the loss of farmland to nonagricultural uses-suburban sprawl. highways. alrports. shopping centers-a loss that in recent decades has cost the nation about three million acres of prime agricultural land each year. The equation has worked thus: Squeezed off land? Then open up "new" land. The prospect of more land to be put to the till still shimmers in acreage figures published by the Department of Agriculture. The USDA tells us that we have 126 million acres not now being cultivated that have a "high" to "medium" potential for cropping-suitable physicalcharacteristics for cultivation and reasonable cost of conversion on the basis of current commodity price indices. This acreage is a little more than one quarter of the land now being tilled. So why worry? But wait. There is some very misleading double counting going on here. Virtually all of these 126 million acres are in forests or range and pasture. Forestry professionals tell us that the demand for wood products will double in the next fifty years. and will rise 70 percent by the end of this century. And the demand for red meat produced on the range is certainly not going to slacken as the nation's population continues to increase. In short. other Sectors of the economy are looking to the same land that cultivators are looking at for the production they need. The potential for opening new farmland may just not be there. There are a further 65 milllon acres rated as "conversion unlikely" or "low potential." They may be tillable but only after the expenditure of large amounts of private investment along with major infusions of taxpayer dollars in the form of federal assistance. These expenditures. however. may just not be available for more than marginal additions to cropland totals. In the age of inflation and escalating costs of technology. the per acre price of conversion is mushrooming. while priorities for expenditures of tax dollars are mounting in other areas. The future reads thus: Unless we devise ways to curb the three million acre a year loss of farmland to nonfarm uses. the costs of food can increase steadily with each passing decade as the nation's farm acreage base steadily shrinks. 3 TDR Offers a Pr~dsing Tool for 1 One of the most interesting local community growth Into areas where the cost according to desired densities. that creates a approaches to protecting farmland is the to the taxpayer of providing public services is market for the development ri4hts. An concept of the transfer of development rights lower. while protecting farmland and the ' illustration will show how it works. or TDR. The Idea has been around for nearly a businesses that depend upon it. Farmer A owns 150 acres of prime decade. but because the implementation of But TDR does not spring up in acommunity agricultural land which lie wlthin a TDR requires technical sophistication and of its own accord. Rather. it is the product of "sending" area zoned for five-acre mtnimum public understanding of relatively complex careful comprehensive planning and zoning development. He could thus subdivide his procedures. its use by local governments has that identifies "sending" and "receiving" land into a maximum of30 lots and therefore met with mixed results. Nonetheless. TDR areas for development rights. It is the is given 30 development rights. Developer B appears to be such a sensible policy tool that designation of these areas, and the owns a 20.acre parcel of land next to town in a it should hold great promise for the future. as assignment of the rights themselves "receiving" area. There the zonlng permits local officials and their constituents become more familiar with its basic framework. The whole idea behind TDR is that development rights-the right to use land for purposes other than agriculture-can be severed from farmland and transferred to another parcel of land. adjacent to town. where residential development is more suitable. In this way. the farmer who transfers his development rights for Compensation can remain on his land and continue to grow crops. while the developer who pays for the rights may build more houses than he otherwise could on the piece of property he owns. thus recouping the cost of the, development rights. for development rights and thereby channels the construction of houses on two-acre In effect. TDR establishes a private market mtnimum lots. but allows development on half-acre lots Ythe developer purchases additional development rights. Thus. Developer B could build 10 houses on hts land under existing zoning or he could buy 30 development rights lrom Farmer A at the going market pnce. apply those rights to his own land and build a total 0140 hotpes. The end result is that Farmer A receives iatr value for giving up the right to use his land for nonagricultural purposes (although he Still owns and works the land and can pass clear title to his sons or another farmer): Developer B can bulld more houses and make a greater and both old and new restdents olthe profit. by investtng In development nghts: communlty not only enJoy the benelits ofthe surrounding counrryside. but also are likely to pay lower taxes than thev would have ii development had been scattered around Instead of concentrated close [o exwring public servtces. be so ideai a solution to a number 01 problems'? Firs[. ir should be obvlous that TDR will work only in communities [hat are growtng. where there is a stlmulus 10 new residentiai development. Without such growth there w~ll be no market lor de\reiopmenr riyhts. Second. the number of development rlghts created in the "sending" area must correspond with the number of nghts that can be realistically applied in the 'receiving" area. The :Ilustration IS overly simplisric but demonstrates the point. Finally. planntng and zontng must be . accompanled by a program otpublic educarion. so that larmers and developers dike ~vtll have kith In development rlqhts ds :he 'currency ' by whlcn development porentlal can be transferred lrom one plece 01 ;ana to dnorher. The last 01 these obstacles may be the most difficult ro overcome because 11 depends more upon polttlcal credibility rhan on wchntcal expertise. The concept oiseverable and rranslerable rlqhts IO develop property IS not CVhat are the drawbacks to what appears to 'yucic! GLI~ yourxun. Pa! Herr came :frr buhwi)s >raw,np CY <ore- : 36s '*e New -?I<*, Itaca;"e ^c Continued on next page 4 P ,- Farmland Protection one that is within the everyday experience of most people and thus there may be a tendency to distrust the unfamiliar. Moreover. the ultimate value and marketability of the development rights IS a functlon of supply and demand. The supply must be limited by adherence to the zoning formula established in the community. and the demand must be assured by continued community growth. People will have falth in the development rights market only to the extent that they are convinced that supply and demand will result in fair value for development rights. But it is possible for the drawbacks of TDR to be overcome. Indeed a growing number of communities have adopted thls method of protecting both agricultural land and open space. while enabling growth to continue. Once the concept of TDR has been mastered. it shows itself to be a creative mechanlsm by which government can harness the market system without hobbling it. It can encourage iree enterprise in the land development industry and keep farmland in productlon without spending public funds. For more information about TDR. you may wlsh to consult A Trans-fer ojDeuelopmenr Rights Sampler by P.J. Pizor. G.H. Nieswand and J.A. Swanson. Experiment Station Circular No. 61 2. available irom the Cooperatwe Extension Service. Cook College. Rutgers University. P.O. Box 23 1.. New Brunswick. N.J. 089(?3. ' Fear of Federal Regs Defeats -Bill Continued from page 1 Nonetheless. a switch of only 17 votes on the final roll call would have been sufficient to pass the bill. Perhaps the critical factor in the final tally was the fear by House mtmbers that. as Rep. Steven D. Svmms (R-Idaho) put it. "No matter what is said on the House floor this vote is gomg to be consldered a vote for federal land use planning." This challenge was promoted by the American Farm Bureau Federalion. notwithstanding that the legislation contained expliclt safeguards against federal regulation of land. infringement of private propeny rights and abridgement of state and local government authorities. In attempting to put this fear to rest. Rep. Jeffords noted. "This bill does not do anything to establish national land use planning. I am adamantly opposed to national lano use planning and would not support the bill if that were what the bill would do." In a strongly worded statement released after the final vote. Rep. Jeffords said that he was "very disturbed by the action or the House. which is more concerned with election politics than genuine national needs." Jeffords and other proponents of the legislation were nonetheless heartened by the fact that the Agriculturdl Land Protection Act had made substantially greater legislative progress during this session of Congress than it did several years ago. "Every year." said Jeifords. "another three million acres of our farmland is lost. Sooner or later. Congress will have to recognize the seriousness of the problem and take a stand in the nalional interest." i United Nations Sets Strategy to Save .Cropland "Human beings. in their quest for economic development and enjoyment of the riches of nature. must come to terms with the reality of resource limrtation and the carrying capacity of ecosystems. and must take account of the needs of future generations." This is the message of the World Conservation Strategy. launched on March 5 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The strategy is intended to stimulate a more focused approach to living resource conservation as the basis for sustainable worldwide development. Although the strategy includes attention to endangered species. tropical rain forests. desertification. coastal and marine envlronmenLsand genetlr diversity. its principal thrust in North America is the preservation ofcropland. According to the UNEP. only about 11 percent of the world's land area offers no serious limitation to agriculture. The rest suffers irom drought. mineral deficiencies or toxicity. shallow soils. excess water or permafrost. In contrast. the percentage of arable land in North America is twice as large. at 22 percent. even constdering the considrrable extent ofnontillabie land in northern Canadaand Alaska. Cornblne these flgures with our favorable climate. and I! ~ comes as no surprise that the United States Continued on page 6 Sources and Resources Disappeartng Farmlands: A Citizen's Guide to Agricultural Land Preservation is the latest publication of the Agricultural Lands Project. Written for the average citizen. this attractive 20-page. full-color cover booklet is intended for the use of local officials and citizen organizations in educating their constituents and members about the need to preserve farmland. Single copies are free and will be distributed to recipients of AgIands Exchange and others who request them. Orders for 10 or more copies. up to a maxlrnum of 500. will be subject to a charge ot ten cenrs per bookler In cover par1 oi rhe cost olprlntlng and shlpplng Send requests and ordvrs rn "Farmland Guide." National Assoclatlon ol'Counurs Resrarrh. I735 Nriv ?.ark Avrnue S LS . Washlnqton. D.C. 20006. Farmland Preseruation Survey IS a new monthly newsletter. combining reportmg and in-depth analysis of current developments. published by the Farmland Preservation Institute. Inc. Stanley D. Schiff is the editor and publlsher. The subscnptlon prlce for 12 montly issues is $60. with cancellation and refund permitted at any time. Order from FPS at P.O. Box 30307. Washington. D.C. 20014. For lnformatlon call 3011530-4644. 5 Virginians Seek State eland Action The agrarian way of life praised by Thomas Jefferson IS under selge in the rolling Piedmont country of hls natlve Commonwealth ol.Virglnla. According to the Virglnia Department oi Agriculture and Consumer Services. the Old Dominlon IS losing 100.000 acres of Its farmland annually. Hardest hit. irom all appearances. are the counties that parallel the Blue Ridge from the suburbs of Washington. D.C. toour third President's ancestral home In Charlottesville. County olficlals in \,'Irglnla are growing restless at th~r inabllity to preserve more aqricultural lands uithout better cooperation from the state legislature. Despite the encouraglng fact that almost 70.000acres of farmland have been protected. at least temporarily. under the Virglnia Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act. local government feels frustrated by a lack of home rule powers and in particular the authority to protect agricultural land. The state courts have narrowly interpreted existing state enabling lepsiation to deny countles this authority. "The present laws in \'irginla." notes Gerald E. Flsher. chairman of the Albemarle County Board of Supervlsors and president of the \'irginia Association of Counties. "encourage development In all areas of the state. bur they do not permit Counties to try to preserve specific areas such as agricultural lands. while saieguarding prlvate property rights." Fisher and his fellow county officials have urged the Virginia General Assembly to enact clear and specific enabling legislation that would allow local governments to adopt farmland preservation measures. Another problem faced by Virginla countles. expecially those that are rural in character. IS a lack of the financial and kind of sophisticated planning that forms the technical resources needed to undertake the basis of any conscientious farmland preservation program. "Our best intentions IC Clark County cannot be realized." confesses G. Robert Lee. county administrator. "because without assistance I don't have the time to put together a plan and seek the opinions of county residents." State financial and technical assistance. says Lee. who also serves as the part-time planner for this important milk-producing county. would be a caralysr for more effective locai farmland preservation in the commonwe 11th. State funding for local farmland preservation planning in Wisconsin has been a key factor in the success of that dairy state's program. (See. Aglands Exchange. December 1979) Virginia county officlals would also like to see changes in the state Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act. under which farmers may defer propertv taxes if they agree to refrain from developing their land for a specific period of time. The problem is that the Interest penalty. which must be repaid if agricultural land withm a drstnct IS prematurely developed. is far below commercial lending rates. Says Albemarle's Fisher. "In effect. land speculators can receive taxpaver-subsidized development loans as things now stand. The intent of the act IS legltlmate. but it needs some flne tuning to avold thts problem." 6 PROMISING FIRST STEP There IS reason to believe that Virginia state officials are beginning to realize that counties in the Old Dommion are serious about preserving their farmland. Just before Chrtstmas. the Virginla Agricultural Opportunities Commission, a 20-member panel created by the state legislature in 1978. came down with recommendatrons that could prove to be a turning point for farmland preservation in the state. The commission urged the General Assembly to establish an agricultural land preservation subcommlttee that would play a key role in enacting special application enabling legislation. giving individual Virginia counties the authority they need tocarry uut pilot farmland preservarron programs at local option. This special apphcarion legislation would be "a saie and responsible first step" toward effectlve farmland preservatlon by Virginia counties. according to Chaplin Barnes of the Piedmont Environmental Council. "There 1s just a tremendous ~nterest In protecting agrlcultural land at the county level in the commonwealth. Loudoun. Fauquier. Clarke. Rappahannock. Culpeper. Albemarle ... all down the line." notes Barnes. "local officlals want to go beyond agricultural distrlcting and try new approaches." His Sentiments are echoed by Supervisor Fisher. who adds. "Unless we preserve this land for future generations of Virginlans. we will be judged to have been shortsighted." Worldwide Conservation Program Emphasizes Prime U.S. Cropland Continued from page 5 plays such a central role in producing food for the world. Nor is it surprising that the UN IS concerned about cropland losses in this count?. The preservation of prrme agricultural lands is a "priority requirement" for the maintenance of global life-support svstems. according to the UNEP. "In view of the scarcity of hrph quality arable land and the rising demand for food and other agricultural produrts. land that is most suitable for crops should be reserved /by member nations/ for agriculture. This will [also] reduce the pressure on ecologlcallv fragile lands which tend to degrade rapidly if explolted beyond thelr productive capacit~es." The L'NEP also calls for proper soil and water consenatlon. the return ofcrop residuesand livestock wastes to the land as fertilizer and soil conditloners. and the careful use of agrlcultural chemicals as a supplement to good soil management. Additional information about the UN World Conservatton Strategy and what it means for cropland in the United States may be obtamed by writing: Noel J. Brown. Cnlted Sations Environment Programme. Unlted Nations. Netr York. X.1- 10017 c * Rooted in the Soil The BZack Hawk County Experience Ever since the fertile pralrie sod was first broken. agriculture has flourished in Black Hawk County. Iowa. Ninety percent of its 570 square miles of level terraln are devoted to-the production of corn. soybeans and other gralns. A sizable percentage of business and Industry ~n the county seat of Waterloo also revolves around agriculture. Farmlng is the lifeblood of thls Corn Belt county. and thus it comes as no surprise to learn that Black Hawk was one of the first local jurisdictlons to accept the challenge of preserving its prime agricultural land in the lace of growlng urban pressures. It has done so In a fashion that is rooted in the deep. rlch soil Itself. Urban sprawl invaded Black Hawk County in much the same way as it has in other communities. Small bedroom subdivislons. count? estates and ranchettes and strlp development along major highways began to spread into the countryside during the 1950s. taking acres of farmland out of production. By 197 1. county officials realized that thelr zonlng ordlnance-permittms residentlal development anywhere in the county on three-acre lots. with half-acre lots in residentially zoned areas-was not dolng much to discourage farmland conversion. slmply to guide It onto the least productive agricultural soils. Working with the USDA dlstrict soil conservationlst. the County Planning and Zoning Commission. staff provided by the Iowa Northland Reglonal Council of Governments and concerned citizens. the Black Hawk Board of Supervisors developed a new zoning ordinance that is based on the preservation of prlme agncultural land as its pnmary pol~cy objective. SOIL SURVEY AND CLASSIFICATION Hawk employed the officlal L'SDA soil survey for the county. Thls document-Iikc those available for many other areas 01 the United States-contains maps of soil types and miormation on soil characreristtcs. ywld predictions. eroslon factors and the sultabllity of various soils for specific klnds of uses such as residential development and septic The county did not wish to stop growth but To define its prime agricultural land. Black svstems. It IS remarkably detailed. the work 01 many months by agricultural professionals. also included an index of the relative productivity of soils. known as the Corn Suitability Rating (CSR). On a scale of 5 to 100. the CSR identifies whwh soils have the best physrcal and chemical characteristics for produclng corn and other crops. Black Hawk officials decided that It made good sense to use the CSR information as the basis for its new agricultural zonmg policy. AGRICULTURAL ZONING M'ith all of its soils rated according to the CSR. the county still ked the fundamental question of which sojls to preserve in agricultural use. To allow for reasonable residential and industrial growth. while protecting its native agricultural economy. Black Hawk decided as a matter of policy to tn to preserve all soils wifh a CSR of 70 and above. soils that yeldat least 115 bushels of corn per acre with proper management. county will remain in agricu!:ure and 3 1 percent will be available for appropriate development. [Black Hawk is now considering a revlslon of its policy to preserve soils with a CSR of 60 and above. which would preserve 78 percent of Its land and still allow current rates of development to be maintained.) The Black Hawk zoning ordinance incorporates the CSR policy as a key feature: In its A-I agricultural zone. the county permits development of one house per farm (defined as a tract of 35 acres or morel. provided that It is on "buildable soils" with a CSR of 70 or below. The criteria for "buildable soils" also include suitability for septic systems. foundatlons and dramage. thus helping to protect the environment of the county. RESULTS The evidence thus far available indicates that the Black Hawk farmland preservat~on program is workmg. Relatively little land has been rezoned from agricultural to development use. mostly in hardship cases. The rate of residential development within the unincorporared area of the county has The soil survey for Black Hawk Count! As a result of thls decision. 69 percent of the remained steady. but this development is now takmg place on the soils least sulted for agriculture. Prime agncultural land IS bemg protected. enthuslastlc about their method of basing farmlana presenation on the productivlty of [he soil. "M'r'vr preserved the ground that IS most important agrlculturally." said Sonla Johannsen. chajrman of the Board of Supervisors. "but still give people an opportunity to live in the rountry. Ir is an excellent compromise," Supervisor Johannsen gives a great deal of the credit for the success of the Black Hawk program to the farming community. "They saw thelr livelihood being encroached upon." she noted. "and were willing togIve upa little freedom for greater security." The method of using soil classification to define and zone prime agricultural land has also proved to be an advantage for local elected officials. Accordtng to Black Hawk Supervisor Lvnn Cutler. "it removes much of the subjectivity from zoning and makes it easier to make intelligent decisrons. '' Black Hawk's farmland preservation program is attracting the attention of other counties because of its thoughtful. direct approach that is based upon the soil itself. Soil classification as a policy tool has the farmland remalns. but IS flexible enough to be potential to work just about everywhere that modified to suit regions where crops other than corn predominate. and where a different mix of agriculture and development IS desired by county officials and their constituents. Black Hawk County officials are For More Information: Sonia A. Johannmen. Chairman Board of Superoimors Black Hawk County Court House. Room 201 Waterloo. Iowa 60703 Larry C. Lumen Zoning Administrator Black Hawk County 319/291-2416 3191235-0311 [Photo courtesy of Waterloo Ilowaj Comer 1 7 + C" " Publications Update "Few states have approached agriculture from a comprehensive state policy perspective. In general. states have been responsive to farmers' demands for tax relief: some have moved positively to curb farmland conversion ... These have generally been fragmented initiatives." State Agricultural Land Issues. 1979. Leonard U. Wilson. Council of State Governments. P.O. Box 11910. Iron Works Ptke. Lexington. Ky. 40578. (75 pages) Single copies available wlthout charge. "Vanous agricultufal serwce delivery organizations need to be much more sensitive to I the needs of the small farmer) than they have been in the past. This does not mean emphasis on small farms to the exclusion of the needs of large-scale operations ... Cost- effective measures to increase agricultural output on small units must not be overlooked." Small Farms: A Review of Characterfstics. Constraints and Policy Implications. 1979. James E. Home. Southern Rural Development Center. P.O. Box 5446. Misstsstppl State. Miss. 39762. (35 pages). Farmland T~Relief'Alternatives: Use Rebates. 1979. Richard W. Dunfor:. Value Assessment us. Circuit-Breaker Washington State University. College of Agriculture Research Center. Pullman. Wash. 99 164 ( 10 pages) Plannmg che Lifes and .\.lanagemenr qf Land 11979). edited by M.T. Beatty. G.W. Perersen and.L.D. Swlndale. Is one 01 the most significant land use retthvnces published in recent memorv. Published by the .\mencan Soclety ol' Aqronomq. the'l.0M-page hardcover hook contains papers bv 69 esperts III the I'ield of land management and planninq. coverlng topics as diverse as cropland and urban develppment. 01 particular interest to those lnvolved in tarrnland preservatlon are chapters on sod lnlormatlon svsternsand the delineatlon of prlme agricultural lands. But contrlbutlons on watershed management. utility plannmg and the protectlon ofecoloqically Important areas such as wetlands are also highly relevant to the exercise otcomprehensive rommunlty plannlnq and the balancing 01 yrowrh.wlth sound land husbandry. Although It isa technical publicat~on. designed prlmarllv tor planners. the book is written In such a wav as to be understandable to the layman. It is sure to become recommended reading tor local elected otficrals. cltlzens and planners alike. .Available bv writinq: Amerlcan Society of Agronomy. 677 S. Srgoe Road. Madison. Wis. 5371 1. National Association of Counties Research Foundation 1735 New York Avenue. N.W. Washington. D.C. 20006 NONPROFIT US. POSTAGE P4ID Washington. D.C. 20006 Permlt No. 41968 8